biblicalthought.com

By now, the definition of Stratiotology should be basically understood. The full relevance of this doctrine however has yet to be fully explored. As we learned previously, it can have a very negative effect if one does not distinguish between the literal and the figurative. In this study, I intend to demonstrate a very positive effect that Stratiotology can have if applied properly, and of course, by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit Himself! In the spiritual battle against the world, the flesh and the devil, the Christian mindset should be that of a soldier. Sadly, many Evangelical churches today are promoting the opposite mindset, possibly by indirect means, but nonetheless promoting it indeed. This has led to an epidemic breakout of Malakosis. Stratiotology is the vaccination.

WHAT IS MALAKOSIS?

Malakosis is a contagious disease that many Christians catch whenever they are exposed to teachings, generally of humanistic origin, that masquerade as biblical doctrine, or if they are without sound biblical teaching for any extended period of time. It primarily affects male Christians more severely once it manifests itself with physical symptoms that are scripturally forbidden. It does, however, affect both male and female Christians with debilitating spiritual symptoms. Malakosis is triggered by either a very low Stratiotological view or a total Astratiotes (when the Christian as soldier mindset is absent). The feminization of the Christian’s attitude in the battle against the world, the flesh and the devil is among the more noticeable symptoms. Other symptoms include a complete void of spiritual toughness and masculinity when displaying their Christian walk to the world. Acquiring a preference for emotional ballad-style love songs sung to God in place of valiant and triumphal hymns is common among Malakosotics, but becomes dangerous when the interest in the theological content of the song becomes less than primary. Their ability to discern Biblical Truth is severely wounded and weakened by the disease, and many delusions take root in the mind of the Malakosotic (i.e. God is ALL love, hyper-erosism etc.). Typically, the infection takes place in a large church that is concerned more with having and keeping a large number in attendance than the faithful exposition of Holy Scripture on a regular basis. To summarize, Malakosis is a general feminization and softening in attitude towards biblical Christianity and the spiritual battles that all genuine Christians must and do face.

ETYMOLOGY

The name of this infectious disease comes from the Greek word malakos that is used in the New Testament three times. Provided below, is the Strong’s number so that you may do your own independent word study with a Bible concordance or Bible software of your choice. I prefer Bible Works 6, and have copied and pasted the following results of my own investigation.

<3120> malako,j (malakos)
Meaning: soft, effeminate
Origin: a prim. word
Usage: effeminate(1), soft(3).

Notes:
1 I.e., effeminate by perversion

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

Matthew 11:7-10 And as these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? “But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ palaces. “But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet. “This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’

EXEGETICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL STUDY PART 1

Matthew 11:7-10 And as these were going away, Jesus began to speak to the multitudes about John, “What did you go out into the wilderness to look at? A reed shaken by the wind? “But what did you go out to see? A man dressed in soft clothing? Behold, those who wear soft clothing are in kings’ palaces. “But why did you go out? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and one who is more than a prophet. “This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’

Beginning with the two uses in Matthew 11, malakos is translated as soft. The context is a historical account of a public discourse given by Jesus to what is described as “the multitudes”, which is also translated as “the crowds” referring to the general public.

The following rhythm frames the usage of our word’s context:

A) 2 sets of rhetorical questions and 2 sarcastic answers.
B) 1 declarative statement.
C) 2 more rhetorical questions
D) 1 affirmative answer
E) 2 declarative statements.
F) The frame ends with a quotation from Scripture (Mal 3:1, Isa 40:3).

It is in the 2nd of the first set of rhetorical questions (A) and the first declarative statement (B) that the use of malakos appears. Here (A&B) it is used while contrasting the ruggedness of the wilderness. The sarcasm that Jesus uses (reed shaken by the wind?) is further evident by his use of “a man dressed in soft clothing”, which he follows up in his first declarative statement by saying “those who wear soft clothes are in kings’ palaces”, i.e. not in the wilderness. The sarcasm and mockery that Jesus uses, rids the crowd of any and all excuses, captures their full attention and sets the stage for Jesus’ announcement of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.

Conclusion: The contrastive utilization of malakos in the context strongly implies the antonym adjectives: hard, rough, tough, rugged, sturdy etc.

EXEGETICAL AND HERMENEUTICAL STUDY PART 2

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

As we look into the second passage to determine the usage of malakos, the first thing we must note is the contextual diversity in which the word may be used. The first usage was in the genre of historic literature. The second passage is in the epistle genre. Unlike the first passage genre, which was an historical account of a public discourse, the second passage is used in the form of an epistle, i.e. a written letter. Epistles are written by the author or by a secretary of the author, to an intended recipient who can be a single individual or an entire group of individuals. An interesting point to take note of is that in the first usage, the author, Matthew, wrote down an account using ancient Koine Greek, transliterating the Aramaic language that Jesus most likely spoke with, when he made the public discourse. The second usage, the epistle, is written by Paul, in the form of a letter, using the ancient Koine Greek language to communicate his message to the Corinthians. This eliminates a lot of the vagueness in interpretation that Matthew’s account may present. See the Greek texts of Mark and Luke’s account of when Jesus quoted Scripture to validate the prophetical fulfillment regarding John the Baptist, and note the absence of malakos. Thus, we would expect for the syntactical meaning in Paul’s usage of malakos to be much less ambiguous.

Another point to make note of is that there is strong internal evidence to support the theological theory that Paul had access to a copy of the Gospel According to Matthew prior to penning his epistle to the Corinthians. If this theory is correct, then it will also be worth noting that Paul would certainly be aware of the malakos usage in Matthew’s account of Jesus’ discourse to the multitudes. He would have also been consciously aware that he used the same adjective to describe the passive male partner in a homosexual act. Without getting into the biological details concerning sexual intercourse between two males, a simple description would be a “giver” and a “taker.” Another example would be a “pitcher” and a “catcher.” Paul uses malakos to describe the “taker / catcher” role. While both partners would be considered homosexual (arsenokoitai) the passive male partner, who functions as the female, is referred to as malakos.

Another viewpoint on this usage of malakos is that it is referring to the morally weak, or the soft in character, soft as in lazy. This position is brought forth in postmodern and Liberal Christian circles while trying to make homosexuality compatible with biblical Christianity. They point out that Paul is not condemning general homosexuality, only homosexual male prostitution like what was found in the pagan temples.

Whichever side of the debate you take on arsenokoitai, or if you have a take of your own, it is virtually undisputed that malakos connotes softness untypical of a man, strengthening many Bible translation committees decision to use “effeminate” as the correct English translation. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1ef•fem•i•nate
Pronunciation: -n&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin effeminatus, from past participle of effeminare to make effeminate, from ex- + femina woman — more at FEMININE
1 : having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
2 : marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement

MALAKOSIS’ INCOMPATIBILITY WITH AUTHENTIC BIBLICAL STRATIOTOLOGY

The Bible is absolutely clear as to what mindset and attitude the Christian is to have or not have during spiritual battle. There are more than enough Stratiotological passages in Scripture to reasonably conclude that all Christians, regardless of race, age, sex and class, are to take on a war-time mindset, without fear, in the spiritual battle against the world, the flesh and the devil. Therefore, to adopt and display the opposite mindset and attitude during spiritual battle would be unbiblical and disobedient to God. Let us take a look at how Stratiotology is compatible with authentic biblical Christianity and how Malakosis prevents the Christian from being biblical.

Rom 7
15 For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16 Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17 So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.
21 So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. 22 For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, 23 but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. 24 Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? 25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

After describing a very personal introspective examination, which is what Christians are commanded to do (Lam 3:40, 2Cor 11:28, 13:5, 2Pet 1:10), Paul, in v.23 writes “but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members”. He provides his solution by stating in v.25b that he’ll serve the law of God with his mind even though he serves the law of sin with his flesh. This one illustration of the mindset that we are to have is explained with the metaphor of war against the mind. Let us pause here to demonstrate the Stratiotological relevance. If this war that Paul says is being waged against his mind was to be astratiotologically handled, meaning without a soldier’s war-time mindset, then his solution in v.25b would instead read: “but since the flesh is so powerful over my mind, I must concede the battle to my flesh. I cannot serve the law of God, only the law of sin will I serve.” Imagine that. If Paul did not fight to serve the law of God with his mind, his only other option would be to serve the law of sin with his members and his mind. He did not go out looking for this war, he says in v.23 that it is another law, an outside evil enemy waging war, in other words, attacking his inner being. The use of antistrateuomai is the exegetical proof that the war is being made against him. The heteros nomos which is translated “another law” also indicates that the attack is being made against him.

The word heteros in other NT passages is used to specifically distinguish one thing from another. In 2 Corinthians 11:4, we read: “For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.” The word “different”, which appears twice, is the same word heteros that Paul uses to say about the law that is waging war against his mind.

The point of all this, of which much more can be said, is to prove that Paul is under attack. Paul was not effeminate in his response to this attack. He withstood the incoming attack and fought through the struggle of the law of sin, rather than surrendering to it. He didn’t allow the law of God to be replaced by the law of sin. His battlefield attitude was Stratiotological as he dealt with this situation with a war-time mindset.

To be continued…