Probably not allowed

My pastor and I read a small section today. He wondered if the "sitting" of the leaders meant anything.....

I guess like a sit in. he ended up saying I guess not....I am now having that run through my mind.....I guess doing a search on that verb used would limit an overall search. Would there be another way to search something like that. Is there anywhere in scripture that has the feeling of a sit in or "picketing" How might I search this....

This post is not meant to be inflamatory. I don't want discourse on the possible sections given as examples. I just wonder more about what my pastor asked.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Luigi Sam

Hi,

My pastor and I read a small section today.

do you mean a bible passage?

if so, what passage, and version did you use?

thanks.

Rosie Perera

He wondered if the "sitting" of the leaders meant anything.....

The traditional seated posture of the leaders indicated their teaching authority. Here's an excerpt from TDNT (vol 3, p. 443):

"Most depictions of the schools of antiquity show the teachers sitting. Jesus almost always sits to teach (Mt. 5:1; 13:1f.; 15:29; 24:3; 26:55; Mk. 4:1; 9:35; 13:3; Lk. 5:3; Jn. 6:3; 8:2). We see from Mt. 23:2; Mk. 2:6; Lk. 5;17 that in so doing He follows Rabbinic custom, though with no desire to emphasise any particular dignity."

And from the Dictionary of Bible Themes:

Sitting as a sign of authority

Human authority Ex 11:5 See also 1Ki 1:13; 3:6; 2Ki 10:30; Zec 6:13; Mk 10:37

Divine authority Ps 29:10 See also 1Ki 22:19; Ps 47:8; 80:1; Isa 6:1; Mt 26:64; Lk 20:42; Heb 1:3; 10:12; 12:2; Rev 3:21; 4:10; 7:10

EDIT:

Not sure the concept of picketing existed back then, but I did find one example in the Bible of passive resistance (I suppose you could call it a "sit-in") by searching for that phrase in my entire library: Acts 16:37 "But Paul said to the officers: 'They beat us publicly without a trial, even though we are Roman citizens, and threw us into prison. And now do they want to get rid of us quietly? No! Let them come themselves and escort us out.'” (Ryrie's Basic Theology is what alerted me to that being passive resistance).

BTW, when you ask a question you shouldn't surround it with comments like "Probably not allowed" or "This post is not meant to be inflammatory." If you were OK with posting anyway in spite of any interior doubts, then those disclaimers were unnecessary and would only tend to alert the trolls that there was some meat to be had (then watch out for the feeding frenzy) or would let everyone else know you were having your doubts about posting, which might otherwise have gone unnoticed. You generally have interesting questions and contributions on the forums and you are not someone who tends to start inflammatory threads, so don't worry about it and don't draw attention to it if you think you might be nearing the risky zone. Just use your own judgment and don't post if you think it's too controversial. Blessings. *smile* (As Milford would say)

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465195#Comment_465195

Rosie

I understand what you mean.....It does seem to invite trolls if I phrase things like I have. You are correct in the nature of my posts. I feel so overwhelmed by the software and look to people like you and a few others that seem to get things to work for you

Your post has given me lots of fantastic information. I am greatly indebted to you yet again.

I feel like I need to clarify my questions because 9 out of 10 times I am feeling like they invite denominational contraversy when i am not looking for that type of response. Like you say I should just not worry about it and ask my questions realizing that my goals match with the forums goals.

Again thank you.

Luigi Sam

ahh the sitting of Jesus.

yep I remember now.

Just as a tip: it is good to give the reference.

regarding:

"picketing"

to add to Rosies:

in Acts Chapter 4:

" But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the Council, they conferred among themselues,

¹⁶
Saying,
What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath
bene done by them, is manifest to all them that dwell in Hierusalem, and
we cannot denie it.

¹⁷
But
that it spread no farther among the people, let vs straitly threaten
them, that they speake henceforth to no man in this Name.

¹⁸
And they called them, and commanded them, not to speake at all, nor teach in the Name of Iesus.

¹⁹
But
Peter and Iohn answered, and said vnto them, Whether it be right in the
sight of God, to hearken vnto you more then vnto God, iudge ye.

²⁰
For wee cannot but speake the things which we haue seene and heard.

²¹
So
when they had further threatned them, they let them goe, finding
nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men
glorified God for that which was done.

Luigi Sam

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465200#Comment_465200

@ William BinghamRosie Perera

Re: Troll comments:

Just checking: I am fairly sure I didn't have the remotest intention of raising any tolling comments. ( and I think the term troll is still not being used correctly if you are accusing me of trolling.)

Anyway, If you guys would prefer me not to post at all to any of your posts just let me know. ( and I wont post at all, except in exceptional circumstances)

but as I said, just let me know, and I will respect your wishes.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465200#Comment_465200

in Acts Chapter 4:

Yup, that would be an example of civil disobedience, which is another phrase I tried searching for. That brought up other examples: Daniel 3 and Daniel 6; Acts 5:29 (and context).

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465204#Comment_465204

If you guys would prefer me not to post at all to any of your posts just let me know. ( and I wont post at all, except in exceptional circumstances)

but as I said, just let me know, and I will respect your wishes.

Not a problem, Luigi. Your comment was right on topic, and I wasn't referring to you at all. There are some people (and I can't even think of any names in particular) who just love to debate theological things and get people riled up. That's not you, so don't worry.

Matthew C Jones

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465208#Comment_465208

Lot sat in the city gates of Sodom. It is generally understood that particular "sitting" was a form of government office convening.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask what passage and Bible version one is reading from so we can examine the context of the expression.

David Ames

1 Blessed is the man

who walks not in the counsel of the wicked,

nor stands in the way of sinners,

nor sits in the seat of scoffers; ESV

PSA 1:1 warns us not to sit with the wrong people.

We are not even to talk to them [one reading of walking in counsel]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465204#Comment_465204

Just checking: I am fairly sure I didn't have the remotest intention of raising any tolling comments.

Question: Are you taking that statement too personally? Just for the record I called myself a 'troll' the other day. Why? Because I made a statement that lead others to reply in a way that did not involve showing or asking how to use Logos. When WE [I said 'we' as in all of us] ask a leading question WE are acting 'troll' like. Not that WE are trolls but that we are acting like one at that moment in time.

William Gabriel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465219#Comment_465219

Lot sat in the city gates of Sodom. It is generally understood that particular "sitting" was a form of government office convening.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask what passage and Bible version one is reading from so we can examine the context of the expression.

I think Super Tramp is on the right track, though I'm having trouble telling from the context of the OP. If you do a Bible search in Logos for sit, you can see the 200+ uses of 'sit' (I'm quoting ESV here, but all my "top Bibles" have more than 200 results). While there are certainly many normal uses of the word (Lev 15:6, Matt 15:35), I think you'd be surprised how often it refers to ruling. Lot sitting in the city gates seems to be the first biblical reference to sitting.

But here are a few others of note:

Ex 11:5, Ex 18:14: When Moses’ father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people, he said, “What is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone, and all the people stand around you from morning till evening?”

Deut 17:18: And when he sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself in a book a copy of this law, approved by the Levitical priests.

Ps 110:1: The LORD says to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.”

Prov 31:23: Her husband is known in the gates when he sits among the elders of the land.

Matt 23:2-3: The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice.

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465205#Comment_465205

Acts 4 as 'civil' disobedience?? Somebody's not in the right century.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465259#Comment_465259

Acts 4 as 'civil' disobedience?? Somebody's not in the right century.

Well, it made sense to me when I read it. The term is certainly anachronistic, but the disciples in Acts 4 said they were going to keep on disobeying the authorities in order to obey God; that's kind of the definition of what we today call civil disobedience (well, at least the disobeying authorities part, in order to accomplish some perceived higher good, and in this case the higher good was the spread of the gospel).

DMB

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465336#Comment_465336

Oh, I was just referring to the more modern view of 'civil' as being independent of 'religious', which is a fairly recent concept. In the Acts 4 example, two God-fearing groups were arguing with each other, Rome having delegated jewish religious arguments (per Paul's trial anyway).

William

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/465204#Comment_465204