ONE HUNDRED FIFTY

NEW TESTAMENT WORD STUDIES

THAT COULD CHANGE YOUR LIFE

Previously published
2009-2012
by

Ruth P Martin

at
pioneernt.wordpress.com
You may feel free to make personal copies
of this work

No portion may be reproduced

for sale, or
for the profit of any individual or group
without specific written permission
from the author or her heirs.

Copyright 2011, 2012, Ruth P. Martin

 Table of Contents
The Problem with Words.............................................................................................................................................................1
Helps for Word Study..................................................................................................................................................................2
Word Study #1 Faith/faithfulness..........................................................................................................................................4
Word Study #2 Doubt vs. Unfaithfulness.................................................................................................................................6
Word Study #3 Justice and Righteousness the same word!..................................................................................................8
Word Study #4 Jesus is Lord Our Pledge of Allegiance....................................................................................................9
Word Study #5 Salvation: past? present? future?................................................................................................................10
Word Study #6 RepentDoes Not Mean Grovel!..............................................................................................................12
Word Study #7: Forgiveness of sins: Welcome, or weapon?.................................................................................................14
Word Study #8 Fellowship.....................................................................................................................................................16
Word Study #9 Judgment Commanded, or Forbidden?..............................................................................................17
Word Study #10 THE Judgment.......................................................................................................................................19
Word Study #11 Testing / Trial / Temptation -- Don't Blame God!....................................................................................21
Word Study #12 -- God's Will................................................................................................................................................23
Word Study #13 To be Perfect............................................................................................................................................25
Word Study #14 -- Humility..................................................................................................................................................27
Word Study #15 --The Image of God....................................................................................................................................29
Word Study #16 Fear not!...................................................................................................................................................31
Word Study # 17 I AM........................................................................................................................................................33
Word Study #18 Witness........................................................................................................................................................35
Word Study #19 The Kingdom (Part 1)................................................................................................................................37
Word Study #20 The Kingdom, Part 2...................................................................................................................................39
Word Study #21 The Kingdom, part 3...................................................................................................................................41
Word Study #22 My Friends.........................................................................................................................................43
Word Study #23 Why DID Jesus come?................................................................................................................................45
Word Study #24 In the Name of Jesus................................................................................................................................47
Word Study #25 Gifts.........................................................................................................................................................49
Word Study #26 Truth.........................................................................................................................................................51
Word Study #27 Hear / Listen / Obey....................................................................................................................................53
Word Study #28 Life: eternal and otherwise..........................................................................................................................55
Word Study #29 To Know..................................................................................................................................................57
Word Study #30 Forgetting and Remembering...................................................................................................................59
Word Study #31 Power...........................................................................................................................................................61
Word Study #32-- Holy..........................................................................................................................................................63
Word Study #33 Worthy/Unworthy........................................................................................................................................65
Word Study #34 The Cross.....................................................................................................................................................67
Word Study #35 The Resurrection.........................................................................................................................................69
Word Study #36 Hope............................................................................................................................................................71
Word Study #37 The Law part 1 in the Gospels.............................................................................................................73
Word Study #38 The Law (Part 2 Acts and Epistles)..........................................................................................................75
Word Study #39 Works.......................................................................................................................................................77
Word Study #40 Service/Ministry..........................................................................................................................................79
Word Study #41 Apostles......................................................................................................................................................81
Word Study #42 Elders, Overseers, Shepherds......................................................................................................................83
Word Study #43 Evangelists.................................................................................................................................................85
Word Study #44 Preachers, Priests........................................................................................................................................87
Word Study #45 Prophets.......................................................................................................................................................89
Word Study #46 Teachers.......................................................................................................................................................91
Word Study #47 Teaching, Doctrine......................................................................................................................................93
Word Study #48 Ordain .........................................................................................................................................................95
Word Study #49 The Church..................................................................................................................................................97
Word Study #50 Worship.......................................................................................................................................................99
Word Study #51-- Disciples...................................................................................................................................................101
Word Study #52 Spirit part 1............................................................................................................................................103
Word Study #53 Spirit, Part 2..............................................................................................................................................105
Word Study #54 Your/Our Calling.......................................................................................................................................107
Word Study #55 Following Instructions..............................................................................................................................109
Word Study #56 The Chosen................................................................................................................................................111
Word Study #57 Mystery......................................................................................................................................................113
Word Study #58 Abide / Remain / Continue........................................................................................................................115
Word Study #59 Mercy........................................................................................................................................................117
Word Study #60 Grace.........................................................................................................................................................119
Word Study #61 Redeem, Redemption ..............................................................................................................................121
Word Study #62 The Nations..............................................................................................................................................123
Word Study #63 Patience.....................................................................................................................................................125
Word Study #64 Bearing Fruit............................................................................................................................................127
Word Study #65 Clean, Prune, Purify..................................................................................................................................129
Word Study #66 The Word...................................................................................................................................................131
Word Study #67 The Gospel................................................................................................................................................133
Word Study #68 Confess and Deny.....................................................................................................................................135
Word Study #69 Reconcile, Reconciliation..........................................................................................................................137
Word Study #70 Peace.........................................................................................................................................................139
Word Study #71 Pleasure / Pleasing.....................................................................................................................................141
Word Study #72 Riches........................................................................................................................................................143
Word Study #73 Honor.........................................................................................................................................................145
Word Study #74 Glory.........................................................................................................................................................147
Word Study #75 Light..........................................................................................................................................................149
Word Study #76 Sacrament..............................................................................................................................................151
Word Study #77-- Rest............................................................................................................................................................152
Word Study #78 Meek is not Weak...............................................................................................................................154
Word Study #79 Inheritance / Covenant Part I, the vocabulary.......................................................................................156
Word Study #80 Inheritance Part II, New Testament references......................................................................................158
Word Study #81 The Temple................................................................................................................................................160
Word Study #82 Dwell / Dwelling.......................................................................................................................................162
Word Study #83 The Promise...............................................................................................................................................164
Word Study #84 The Body...................................................................................................................................................166
Word Study #85 The Flesh Incarnation.............................................................................................................................168
Word Study #86 The World..............................................................................................................................................170
Word Study #87 Love --Debunking the 'Love' Myth.......................................................................................................172
Word Study #88 Obedience /Obey.......................................................................................................................................174
Word Study #89 Bless, Blessed, Blessing............................................................................................................................176
Word Study #90 Praise.........................................................................................................................................................178
Word Study #91 Pray, Prayer...............................................................................................................................................180
Word Study #92 Giving Thanks...........................................................................................................................................182
Word Study #93 Rejoice!.....................................................................................................................................................184
Word Study #94 Persecution, Tribulation............................................................................................................................186
Word Study #95 Suffering, Sacrifice....................................................................................................................................188
Word Study #96 The Mind...................................................................................................................................................190
Word Study #97 Transfigured, Transformed, Changed........................................................................................................192
Word Study #98 Gain, Profit, Reward................................................................................................................................194
Word Study #99 Labor, Payment, Recompense, Wages.......................................................................................................196
Word Study #100 Servants, Workers, Citizens, Children, Sons...........................................................................................198
Word Study #101 Follow Me!..........................................................................................................................................200
Word Study#102 The Way....................................................................................................................................................202
Word Study #103 Free, Freedom.........................................................................................................................................204
Word Study #104 Building / On Building Churches........................................................................................................206
Word Study #105 To Plant (Church planting), To Grow (Church growth)...................................................................208
Word Study #106 Compassion.............................................................................................................................................210
Word Study #107 Assurance................................................................................................................................................212
Word Study #108 Full, Fullness, Fulfillment.......................................................................................................................214
Word Study #109 Tradition, Ordinance...............................................................................................................................216
Word Study #110 The Sabbath (Part 1)...............................................................................................................................218
Word Study #111 Joy............................................................................................................................................................220
Word Study #112 Keys.........................................................................................................................................................222
Word Study #113 Miracles...................................................................................................................................................224
Word Study #114 Vineyards, Vines, and Fig Trees..............................................................................................................226
Word Study #115 Conversation........................................................................................................................................228
Word Study #116 Admonish, Admonition, Exhort, Exhortation..........................................................................................230
Word Study #117 War, Warfare, Fighting............................................................................................................................232
Word Study #118 Heaven.....................................................................................................................................................234
Word Study #119 Heaven: It's NOT about after you die!.................................................................................................236
Word Study #120 Convert, Conversion...............................................................................................................................238
Word Study #121 Convict, Conviction................................................................................................................................240
Word Study #122 Surrender.............................................................................................................................................242
Word Study #123 Victory.....................................................................................................................................................243
Word Study #124 Wait, Waiting...........................................................................................................................................245
Word Study #125 Watch!..................................................................................................................................................247
Word Study #126 Are you Ready?...................................................................................................................................249
Word Study #127 Tear, Divide, Split, Break, Open.............................................................................................................251
Word Study #128 Guilt and Shame......................................................................................................................................253
Word Study #129 Hidden things, Secrets, Darkness............................................................................................................255
Word Study #130 Wisdom, Wise..........................................................................................................................................257
Word Study #131 Treasure...................................................................................................................................................259
Word Study #133 Accepting and Receiving .......................................................................................................................261
Word Study #134 What's New?............................................................................................................................................263
Word Study #135 Creation...................................................................................................................................................265
Word Study #136 Submit, Subject.......................................................................................................................................267
Word Study #137 Mourn, Mourning....................................................................................................................................269
Word Study #138 Comfort...................................................................................................................................................271
Word Study #139 Quiet, Silence..........................................................................................................................................273
Word Study #140 Angels, Messengers.................................................................................................................................275
Word Study #141 The Sin Question.................................................................................................................................277
Word Study #142 You, You-all, or Each of You?.................................................................................................................279
Word Study #143 Possessions..............................................................................................................................................281
Word Study #144 The Poor..............................................................................................................................................283
Word Study #145 Of Neighbors and Enemies....................................................................................................................285
Word Study #146 The Sabbath Part 2...............................................................................................................................287
Word Study #147 The Land, the Earth.................................................................................................................................289
Word Study #148 The Scripture...........................................................................................................................................291
Word Study #149 Citizenship...............................................................................................................................................293
Word Study #150 Incarnation: Part 2...................................................................................................................................296
Topic Index..............................................................................................................................................................................298
 The Problem with Words
I mentioned in other essays that in my translation work, I have studiously avoided what I referred to as Christian
passwords. These are words so frequently quoted that it is assumed that everybody knows what they mean: usually a
standardized, sanitized definition that rattles no doctrinal cages. This is not helpful in finding out what the writer wrote, or
what the reader heard, in the beginning.
Words are funny things. Essential for communication, they can nevertheless confuse as much as they clarify. Words
encompass far more than their lexical meanings (a term used by linguists to refer to dictionary definitions). Connotations,
implications, shades of meaning vary widely, depending upon the perspectives of a speaker/writer and the hearer/reader,
which may or may not be similar.
Our understanding of words is heavily dependent on context. If I use the word drive, for example, how do you know
whether I am referring to : operating a car collecting funds playing golf or baseball a very hard rain intense
ambition basic physical needs a gadget on my computer or a host of other things? (English is particularly bad at
this.) Only the context can give you a clue.
When one moves between languages, the situation becomes even more complicated. There is seldom a one-to-one
correspondence between two words, in any two languages. If one tries to translate literally, how is he to choose among all
these meanings?
Cultural convention, likewise, affects the flavor of what is understood by certain words. This varies over time. (In the
1950s, for example, the heyday of the McCarthy persecutions, red was no longer a color! It was a dangerous accusation!)
Also, any currently spoken language is constantly changing. Consider as an example that is not theologically loaded, that
in Elizabethan (KJV, Shakespeare) English, quick meant alive, not fast, sudden, or rapid. The quick and the dead
meant the living and the dead, not, as some would have it, the two categories of pedestrians in city traffic!
All of these considerations and others come into play when one turns to the study of Scripture. Over the years, many
definitions or understandings have become codified into doctrines, which in turn have become weapons in the battle for
orthodoxy. Subsequent translation works, and assorted Bible dictionaries and chain references, have then incorporated
these standardized understandings, without reference to the freight carried in the words chosen by the original writers.
(Please see the essay, The Task of a Translator, posted previously). Many proofs are derived entirely from English texts,
without regard for departures from the source documents. Accurate understanding depends upon trying to hear what was
communicated to the first readers.
So must we all learn Greek? Ideally, yes. It is a fascinating, enlightening study that can enormously enhance ones
appreciation for the graciousness of the Lords invitation to us, to become a part of his Kingdom! But even without direct
access to the Greek language, a student of Scripture can uncover a vast quantity of treasure by careful use of the tools of
Word Study.
The basic principle behind this study method is simple linguistics: one learns best to understand the meaning of a word by
observing the context in which it is used. Thats how you learned to talk! When your toddler is learning to talk, you dont
hand him a dictionary! You point, and demonstrate show and tell! This is also the best way to learn another language.
So give it a try! I can almost guarantee surprises and delight. And who knows you just might get hooked! There are
worse addictions!

1
 Helps for Word Study
The discipline of Word Study is based upon the linguistic principle of context. Responsibly used, the New Testament is
itself its own best commentary, as the usage of a word provides the most accurate clues to its intent. It is also helpful if you
can explore the historical and contemporary uses of the vocabulary, but that can wait. For responsible word study, the tools
you need are few:
1. at least 2 or 3 different New Testament translations the more the better. NOT paraphrases. A paraphrase is not a helpful
study tool, as it invariably departs from a literal rendering of the text. One of these should be the KJV, to facilitate the use of
the concordance.
2. Youngs Analytical Concordance. First compiled in the 19th century, Youngs work has resources not available elsewhere.
Entries are sorted by the original word used in the text, and in the back, a separate section identifies alternate translations for
most words.
3. A notebook
4. A few brothers/sisters to compare notes with. This is IMPORTANT, as you will discover things that you will find it hard
to accept unless they are confirmed by the study of others whose faithfulness you trust.
5. Leave your other commentaries, dictionaries, etc. on the shelf, until AFTER you have completed your own study.
LESSON 1.
There are many places where one English word represents the same Greek word throughout the text. These are the easiest.
Even here, looking at the context is very constructive. Write down what you understand the word to mean before you begin,
and compare with your conclusions. Consider the audience being addressed; the subject under discussion; whether the focus
is past, present, or future. Ask questions!
It is important to look up every reference. Use multiple translations. Often the greatest insight comes from the references
that dont seem to fit.
Read the surrounding material. What does the word seem to mean here?
You are right now looking at New Testament references only, for language reasons. If you want to include OT uses, you will
need a copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, and a concordance to that work, since the correspondence
between Greek and Hebrew words is outside the scope of this study.
After you have looked up every reference to your target word, try to formulate a definition that would fit in every
instance. Can you think of a synonym, or a phrase, that describes it?
If your target word appears with more than one Greek word in the listing, you need to proceed to Lesson 2.
LESSON 2
There are many places where the same English word has been used to translate two or more Greek words. This results in the
confusion of separate concepts as if they were one. The Greek language, for the most part, is much more precise than
English. If a different word is used, A DIFFERENT CONCEPT IS INTENDED!!! Accurate understanding requires that
these differences be identified and communicated. The approach of Youngs Concordance is very helpful here. References
are separated according to the original word, which enables the student to distinguish which passages are truly talking about
the same idea, and which are not connected, even if the same English word has been used.
For example, the English word gift is used to translate no less than NINE different Greek words! It is NOT a single
concept! The different words have implications including such ideas as:
the identity and relationship of the giver and receiver
the nature and purpose of the gift
the intentions of the parties involved,
and other considerations. The carefully chosen vocabulary of the writers must be honored, by any responsible translator or
teacher!
Ask yourself, what is the difference between these terms? Why was one chosen over another? What errors result from
assuming that all are alike?
LESSON 3
Yet another complication occurs when a single Greek word has been translated by multiple English words. This usually
happens when the translators theological presuppositions are challenged by the text. Righteousness and justice, for
example, are translations of the SAME WORD! Dikaiosune and its related verbal and adjectival forms, are LEGAL, not

2
philosophical or religious words. However, it appears that translators/theologians preferred a theological flavor which
of course can be kept pretty theoretical rather than practical! to the more overtly obvious concept of justice. Sadly, it is
not rare for folks to prefer theoretical speculation to practical instructions! That was one of the big problems the
establishment had with Jesus!
To discover these situations, the answers are in the back of the book, in the section titled Index-Lexicon to the NT. You
need to copy down the original word (Young has helpfully transliterated them for you in both sections), and look it up in the
back, where he has listed all the other ways that the KJV translators rendered it. Then return to the main concordance
listings, and track down each of the alternates.
Realize that THESE ARE ALL THE SAME WORD consequently, the same concept! Your conclusion must include ALL
the references. You need to come up with a single word, phrase, or concept that would fit in ANY of those contexts! Be
careful that you confine your search to groups of references that appear under the SAME ORIGINAL WORD.
For example, look at the word, AGGELOS. The transliterated form, angel, has been used when the powers-that-be thought
that the reference was to a supernatural being. Where they assumed the creature to be human, they wrote messenger. But
THE WORD IS THE SAME! This indicates that the focus is not upon who or what is carrying a message, but simply upon
the FUNCTION being performed. Yet a huge mythology has grown up around speculation about many sorts of angelic
creatures when the very same word is used of quite ordinary humans. God can use natural or supernatural messengers,
as he pleases! Even you and me!
This is also true of many other words referring to functions served by many individuals in the NT church. They were not
titles or offices at all (Jesus had forbidden that!) but simply assignments to do a needed task. Titles were assigned
much later, as a hierarchy developed.
Well, folks, this is just to get you started. In the next weeks, I hope to post a few specific studies to whet your appetite. I will
augment them with some further linguistic research. One of my favorite resources is the Oxford Greek Lexicon
(Liddell/Scott) which lists literary word usage through many centuries, and provides fascinating insight. But basically, with
these few simple tools, you can find a huge amount of wonderful stuff.
These methods, along with reference to several Greek lexicons and grammars, listed in the appendix to the Translation
Notes, were used in the preparation of the following Word Studies.

3
Word Study #1 Faith/faithfulness

As we begin this series of word-studies, let me remind you of the perspective from which all this work is undertaken. My
serious study of the New Testament was motivated by having been invited to come and see a supremely attractive way of
life, introduced, advocated, and empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ. The invitation to participate in the Kingdom that he
described and demonstrated was irresistible and the more I learned, the more I wanted to be a part of it. My search has
been two-fold: (1) for instructions in experiencing that Life, and (2) for folks with whom to share it.
Consequently, I have resonated with the intensely practical tone of the New Testament. I see the Lord Jesus and his
followers outlining and modeling the way people were originally created (and are presently being re-created) to relate and
interact. Neither they nor I place any value on high-flown speculation or complicated theories. The demonstration project
in which (Ephesians 3:10) whatever rulers and powers may exist in heaven or on earth, are enabled to see the wisdom and
love of God, is not an intricately argued philosophical or theological system, but the manifestation among us of his gracious
gift of Resurrection Life!
Therefore, a good place to start seems to be with the concept of faith/faithfulness, since ones understanding of pistis
and its related words will color his perspective on virtually everything else. Understanding the meaning of this concept must
include the noun, verb, and adjectival forms: pistis, pisteuo, pistos.
First, look up faith in Youngs concordance. Scan quickly down the column of references, and notice that not one makes
any reference to an intellectual assent to a list of statements or propositions about the nature, history, or purposes of God.
Historically and linguistically, pistis has nothing theoretical about it at all. The classical writers used it to describe trust or
trustworthiness, loyalty, confidence and honesty. It was also a term used in politics, of a treaty, an exchange of assurances,
of political protection or safety granted in exchange for submission. In economics, it referred to good credit, a guarantee,
pledge, or security deposit!
This fits well with the definition provided in Hebrews 11:1, which speaks of substance and evidence, both courtroom
terms. If a case lacks substance it is thrown out of court. Evidence is confined to information actually seen or
experienced by a witness, or it is not accepted.
The writer then turns to a list of individuals, in each case citing the demonstration of their faithfulness to the call of God.
Abraham, for example, did not deliver a sermon about the nature of God he simply followed instructions. God said Go
and he went, without having the slightest idea of where he was going (Heb.11:8). Proceeding down the list, notice that the
pattern of following instructions is common to all.
Not a word is said about what they thought or believed about what was going on. They simply followed orders.
Careful note is taken that it did not all turn out ok for everyone. Commendable faithfulness does not guarantee ones
safety or prosperity!
Another interesting cluster of references centers around the many healings that took place during Jesus ministry. Notice that
it was often not the patient, but the person who brought someone to Jesus whose pistis is commended: the friends who
lowered a paralyzed man through the roof, Jairus who sought help for his daughter, the centurion who advocated for his
servant/child, among others. And when the disciples failed to heal the boy while Jesus was on the Mount of Transfiguration,
it was their pistis, not the childs or his fathers, that was critiqued. In Johns account of the man at the pool (chapter 5),
the healed man did not even know who had restored him, nor did the blind beggar at the temple gate (chapter 9). And in no
case was anyone urged to believe a healing had taken place in the absence of empirical evidence. On the occasions when
Jesus did make the usually quoted statement Your faith(fulness) has saved/rescued you, it is after some action by the
person that demonstrated his/her commitment to/trust in Jesus.
The verb form, pisteuo, usually translated believe, historically was used in the sense of trusting or relying on someone.
Where an object of that trust is expressed, it is usually the person of Jesus, or something he had done. Out of 233
occurrences, the reference is to a future event only 4 times, and to some fact about 5-10 times (depending on how you
classify them.) Those facts include (1)Jesus resurrection, (2) his I AM statements, (3)something he had said. In no case is
there a detailed list.
Clearly, there had already been efforts to reduce faithfulness to such a list by the time James wrote his letter. It is still just as
true, as he notes in 2:19, that if one wants a list (a creed), the devil himself could acknowledge everything on anyones
list as true. It is ones commitment to the person of Jesus that sets his people apart and strangely, that appears on no
lists.

4
An additional clue to the active nature of both the noun and verb forms is found in the grammatical structure. Frequently,
translations render the object of faith or believing as in Christ. This phrase is one of Pauls favorites, but he uses it to
describe the context, the very atmosphere, in which our resurrection life exists. The choice to use, or not to use, a
preposition is of the utmost importance in understanding. In can be expressed by two different prepositions: en, and eis.
En may only be used with the dative case, which implies a static situation: the location or environment in which something
takes place. This is used when speaking of the condition of those who have been called out of their former life into a new
one. Eis, on the other hand, is used only with the accusative case, which is much more active, more dynamic. And it is eis
that is used with pisteuo it implies motion, direction, or purpose. I have usually rendered it become faithful toward, or
something similar, to convey the active sense of the case.
There is yet another construction that has been erroneously translated in Christ, which uses no preposition at all. That is
where the text employs a genitive case most commonly indicating possession, but also frequently the source of the
object. Here, adherence to the text requires of and not in for accuracy. Thus, Gal.2:20, Eph.3:12, and others are pointing
to our dependence on his faithfulness (Jesus!), not our own.
The adjectival form, pistos, has suffered less abuse, being frequently translated faithful. Other historical uses included
such ideas as genuine, loyal, credible.
It is for these reasons that I have usually chosen to render pistis as faithfulness or loyalty, and pisteuo as to be or to
become faithful or to trust.
It should be noted also that with the more active understanding of the words, as in James 1, the age-old Reformation
argument about faith vs. works simply disappears. As James points out very well, behavior is the only way that faith
can be demonstrated. These are two sides of the same coin, not conflicting principles.
May we all constantly increase in faithfulness, by means of the perfect faithfulness of the Lord Jesus!

5
Word Study #2 Doubt vs. Unfaithfulness
The usual way to communicate the opposite of a word, in the Greek language, is to add an a as a negative prefix: hence,
pistos, faithful (see last weeks post), becomes apistos, unfaithful. Unfortunately, when people begin to label each
other and each others ideas, it is not that simple. Due to changes in the English language over the course of time, the
concept of doubt has crept in to confuse the situation, and grossly distorted the picture. Many people assume that doubt
indicates a perverse, deliberate refusal to believe, (read, accept the required dogma), making it essentially synonymous
with unbelief. This has no basis in the original language.
If you will look for doubt in Youngs concordance, you will see that the term has been used to translate four different
Greek words, which are themselves quite distinct from one another. Interestingly, not one of these describes a situation
where a person has taken a deliberate stand against faithfulness. Mostly, the individuals are puzzled, and trying to make
sense out of a confusing event. Uncertainty, for which no one is scolded, is much more in evidence than the outright
rejection of a message. We must be just as careful not to confuse these ideas.
The first of the terms that has been translated doubt is aporeomai. Historically, it conveyed a sense of utter bewilderment,
of being at a loss to understand something. In the New Testament, it appears only four times: in John 13, when the disciples
were trying to figure out who the betrayer would be; in Acts 25:20, when Festus confesses to Herod that he has no clue what
charge to write, upon remanding Paul to Rome; in Galatians 4:20 of Pauls uncertainty as to the continued faithfulness of
those brethren; and II Corinthians 4:8 when he speaks of his own confusion. Baffled might convey the thought in more
modern language.
Diakrino, by far the most common of the four, referred historically to discussion or debate, to discernment or evaluation.
Here again, there is no negative connotation. It is used of Peter trying to figure out his vision, prior to visiting Cornelius
(Acts 10:20 and 11:12); of the discernment required in dealing with the issue of meat offered to idols (Romans 14:23); and
the restriction of discussions requiring discernment to mature believers (Romans 14:1). Jesus uses it in the statements about
moving mountains (Matt.21 and Mark 11), indicating that these are not playthings for discussion. Perhaps one of the
most significant is James 1:6 where the request for wisdom is plainly intended to be used for instructions for action, and
not just ammunition for debate or argument. The flavor, consistently, is discernment, in an effort to be faithful.
Diaporeo is more similar to aporeomai, but is considerably stronger. It refers to a matter for agitated discussion. It describes
the confusion of the crowd at Pentecost, (Acts 2), trying to understand what is happening; and also the confusion among the
temple authorities when (Acts 5) the apostles were not found in prison where they had been locked up so carefully. It refers
to Herods confusion, when he finally decided that Jesus must be a resurrected or reincarnated John the Baptist, and the
bewildered reaction of the women at the empty tomb (Lk.24:4). It is used together with aporeomai in II Corinthians 4:8, as
the more severe of the two terms.
Distazo is used only twice in the New Testament. Jesus uses it to Peter in Matt.14:31, when the latter floundered in his
attempt to walk on the water. This has frequently been read as a rebuke, but rightly understood in the historical context of
the word, hesitation, uncertainty, it sounds more like a critique than a criticism: You almost made it! Uncertainty
definitely fits the other use, the resurrection scene where some were uncertain.
The important point is that none of these indicates a refusal of faithfulness.
Quite apart from all of these is apistia (noun), and its related apisteo (verb) and apistos (adjective) forms. Look at the very
different flavor of the historical uses: (v) to disbelieve, distrust, suspect; (n) faithlessness, treachery, unbelief, disobedience;
(a) untrustworthy, incredible, suspicious, disobedient, disloyal, faithless.
The verb form appears in the New Testament seven times, the noun twelve, and the adjective ten.
It refers to outright rejection of Jesus and his message (the home-folks at Nazareth, or the present state of Jewish
opponents); the ancient Hebrews who did not enter the Promised Land; Pauls description of his own days as a persecutor.
Sometimes it is related to ignorance: as in Pauls former case, or that of an unbelieving spouse (I Corinthians 7). Jesus
connected it to outright disobedience in the case of the slave-overseer who abused his subordinates. Paul frequently uses the
two terms in close association.
In almost every instance, it constitutes a deliberate rejection of Gods ways, by the deliberate choice of disobedience.
The remedy is in a joint effort among the brotherhood (Hebrews 3:12-14.) It requires mutual support and daily coaching
to hang on and to avoid the deception which would lead to unfaithfulness.
So what of poor Thomas, who has been made a scapegoat through many generations as the doubter? Which of these

6
words do you think applied to him? And in what way? Was Jesus scolding him for not being gullible, and immediately
accepting the word of what seemed to him to be delusional reports? I dont believe he was. To get the whole story, we need
to look back at the account of Thomas at the time of Lazarus death. I submit that Thomas was the most faithful of them all,
on this occasion. Everyone had tried to dissuade Jesus from returning to Judea, knowing that it was suicide to do so. But he
was adamant, so Thomas spoke up Lets all go along we might as well die with him. Thats faithfulness! and Jesus had
not forgotten that scene. After the resurrection, he knew what Thomas needed in order to believe and provided it. Jesus
admonition was in the present tense: Dont become unfaithful, but faithful!
Perhaps only together can we rightly discern between necessary caution and unfaithful refusal. Maybe thats yet another
reason why our gracious Lord has given us to each other!

7
Word Study #3 Justice and Righteousness the same word!
This one is a challenge, and one that requires the use of historical lexicons, rather than just the concordance. Most people
who use only English translations assume that these are two very different ideas. However, they are actually translations of
the same word! The choice by the translators is completely arbitrary, and has created serious misunderstandings among
people who are sincerely concerned with faithfulness. Listing of classical uses of dikaios, (the adjective form), begins with
Homer, who is thought to have composed his famous epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey around the tenth century BC. The first
appearance of dikaios refers to well-ordered, civilized behavior; being observant of ones duty to both gods and men. Later,
it referred to equality, fairness, and impartiality; to legal precision; to doing or receiving what is right and just. (This was the
original English meaning of righteous, as well.) It referred to the mutual obligations in contracts.
The noun form, dikaiosune, was also a legal term: the business of a judge in a courtroom. It referred to legally claimed
rights or demands; to the vindication of the innocent and the sentence passed upon the guilty.
The verb form, dikaioo, could refer either to the demanding or maintaining of ones rights, or to being set right, to be
caused to act properly, or to be treated justly. Therefore, whether vindication or punishment was in view, would depend
upon the perspective or the behavior of the individual concerned. And the resultant behavior would depend upon the
justice of the situation and the judge!
None of these ideas is foreign to the Old Testament prophets, who frequently called for justice among Gods people. Neither
is it foreign to the New Testament writers. How the simple concept of justice morphed into the much more elusive,
theological construct of righteousness is unclear. Im inclined to guess that it happened contemporaneously with the
transformation of the Law, (which was designed to promote/create a just and fair society,) into an increasingly complex
system of ceremonial and ecclesiastical minutiae that required constant professional analysis, refinement and interpretation!
When people in positions of leadership begin to acquire power over their fellows be that power physical, political, or
theological justice among the general populace is one of the early casualties. The stern requirement of righteousness ,
defined (and therefore understood) exclusively by those in power, then became a useful tool in retaining and increasing their
dominion.
Turning to the concordance, (the back of the book this time see the introduction to Word Study), it is interesting that the
adjective dikaios is translated just 33 times, right 5 times, and righteous 41 times. The context will provide you with
some clues to the reasons why different words were chosen. But remember, the original word did not change. The
changes were an artifact of the ideas of the translators, not the first writers.
The verb form was rendered justify almost exclusively a word which today is understood far more theoretically than
the more accurate to make just or to do justice would allow. For the noun form, most translators do not touch the idea of
justice at all, moving exclusively to the term righteousness. This can only have been a theological decision, as there is
no linguistic reason for the departure. Read an assortment of these references, substituting justice for righteousness,
remembering that it is the same original word in each instance. How would that affect your understanding of any of these
passages?
I suggest that the biggest difference would be the substitution of the concept of transformation for the sleight-of-hand idea
to which many of us have become accustomed. You know the drill the statement that God doesnt see us as we are, but
sees instead the moral perfection of Jesus. Could the originators and the perpetrators of that line really think that the
Creator of the universe is so easily deceived? Or would choose to be? If one understands the active nature of the verb
dikaioo, it becomes clear that there is no deception or pretense involved. Dikaioo implies a transformation in the lives of
those who come to Christ a new creation that endows people with the true justice that the Lord Jesus embodies.
A proper linguistic understanding of dikaios, dikaioo, and dikaiosune eliminates another favorite debate of folks who
enjoy focusing on theoretical theology rather than the practical principles of faithful living: the endless argument over
whether righteousness is imparted (instantly created) or imputed (attributed or assumed) both without regard to
any empirical evidence to an individual who makes a profession of faith (see Word Study #1 for this one). Neither of
these words appears in the New Testament nor do most of the terms that refer to theoretical speculation. More to the
point of the transformation of life described by all the New Testament writers, would be the recognition that the justice of
God, created and exemplified by the Lord Jesus, is carefully implanted in those who are his. It is all a gracious gift, to be
sure: but one that, like everything else about such a wonderful new life, needs to be watered, nurtured, and cultivated, in
order to grow to reflect with integrity the perfect justice of our Lord, the Giver of Life.

8
Word Study #4 Jesus is Lord Our Pledge of Allegiance
Acknowledging Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior, for first century followers, was a far cry from the creedal recitation
that it has become in subsequent generations. It was a powerful declaration of allegiance to Jesus new Kingdom one that
could, and frequently did, cost the life of the person involved! These were titles that the Roman emperors, drunk with
power, had reserved for themselves, as symbols of their self-proclaimed deity! The two words in combination appear less
than a dozen times in the New Testament, but used individually, they carry the same freight.
Kurios Lord in first century usage, could be as non-threatening as the polite form of address, sir or mister. It
could refer to the master of a household, the head of a family, or any person with authority over another. It was common in
both masculine and feminine forms, as the respectful way to address any person of social standing, beyond their mid-teens.
It could also, of course, refer to the master of slaves or servants, over whom he had absolute power even that of life or
death. He offered protection and care, but at the price of absolute and unquestioning obedience.
Throughout history, it also referred to government officials, guardians or trustees, or to those who held sovereign power
over a city or state. By the first century BC, it also referred to the deified rulers of nations or empires. Caesar is Lord was
the commonly required oath of allegiance in the Roman Empire.
This casts a glaring light on Pauls statement in I Corinthians 12:3, that No one can say, Jesus is Lord except by the Holy
Spirit. A person on trial for his life could only escape the death sentence by replacing that confession with Caesar is Lord;
Jesus is cursed, and burning incense at the imperial temple. A choice had to be made, which kingdom one would serve.
Soter, savior, likewise started out as a relatively low-key term. (Its related words will be considered in another posting.)
Savior, deliverer, or rescuer might designate anyone who protected another from disease, death, or other disaster. It,
too, however, as early as the writings of Homer, began to be applied, first to Zeus, and then to other gods, who were
honored with temple sacrifices after a military victory or perilous sea journey, by those who had returned safely. Nearly
every harbor town had a shrine available for such a purpose.
In both the LXX and the New Testament, God is called savior, in acknowledging the deliverance of his people.
Consequently, it was not a stretch for the emperors to adopt that title as well. Jesus hinted at that practice when he noted that
The kings of the nations who flaunt their authority, are called benefactors (Luke 25:22). Eventually, only the
emperor dared lay claim to that title.
It is interesting that the later New Testament epistles Timothy, Titus, and II Peter are the setting for most of the uses of
the combined terms Lord and Savior. These were written at a time when persecution had become extremely intense, and
lives were on the line daily: the ultimate test of loyalty to the King of Kings lay in that statement.
When will folks who weekly repeat declarations that Jesus is Lord and Savior while displaying in their places of
worship the symbols of Caesar (their earthly nation)! dare to consider the far-reaching implications of making a
faithful and fate-ful choice? Who is your King?

9
Word Study #5 Salvation: past? present? future?
The time was many years ago, when we were still sufficiently inexperienced at the discipline of Word Study that we
expected it to be able to answer most, if not all, of our questions. (It cant.)
We were leading a group in the study of Philippians, and stopped short at Philippians 1:19, where Paul comments, (KJV)
For I know that this will turn out for my salvation
Whoa! Wait a minute! one student exclaimed. Wasnt Paul already saved? Well, we all thought so, having at that time
subscribed to the definition that equated the term with ones initial commitment to Christ. But then, what was Paul
saying? The curious among us needed to find out.
Out came the concordances, grammars, and lexicons. Out did NOT come total clarity with which to clobber any and all
dissent. What does the text SAY?
Lets start with the historical uses of the words. The compilers of the Oxford lexicon list for the verb form, sozo:
to save from death, keep alive, preserve
to escape destruction
to be healed, to recover from sickness
to save or recover an opportunity
to observe or maintain laws or customs
to keep in mind, to remember
to bring one safely to a place
to rescue from captivity or danger
and for the noun form, soteria (or soterion):
deliverance or preservation
a way or means of safety
safe return, or keeping safe
security, or a guarantee of safety
bodily health, well-being
an offering in thanks for deliverance
a physicians fee!
Both are frustratingly broad, very like the widely trumpeted teachings about the Hebrew shalom. All, strangely, have the
flavor of practical, tangible experience: there is historically no hint of any reference to ones eternal destiny, although that
may be deduced from a few (by no means all) of the New Testament references.
This appears to be one of the cases where the New Testament writers took a commonly used and understood word, and
poured into it additional meaning that did not originally exist. Please note that they did not abrogate the original intent; it
still referred to physical healings, rescue from storms and shipwrecks, deliverance from enemies and persecutors. But a
new dimension was added, when any of these included or resulted from ones relatedness to Jesus.
The tenses of verbs used add considerable light to the subject. The vast majority of active voice references occur in purpose
constructions, and are cast in the aorist tense, whether subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive forms are used. (Please see the
appendix to the Translation Notes for further explanation.) They speak of the Lords intentions, his purpose, in coming to
rescue his people from their wanderings, or, as he put it, to save mens lives, not to destroy them (Lk.9:56 and parallels).
Jesus himself uses it in reference to many of his healings.
Nearly an equal number of uses are in the passive voice, focusing on the receiver, rather than the doer, of the action. Among
these, the predominant tenses are present (continuous action) and future. People will be or are in the process of being
saved or rescued, except for a few purpose constructions that retain the aorist (implying, I think, the completion of the
process.)
When attention shifts to the noun form, soteria, the accompanying verbs shift markedly to the present and future, except for
two very interesting exceptions: Jesus comment (Lk.19:9) upon Zacchaeus announcement of his change of purpose and
intention, that Soteria has happened on that day, and the song of praise in Rev.12:10, that it has arrived when the
Accuser has finally been cast down. All the rest refer clearly to a work in progress, especially when Paul urges the
Philippian brethren (2:12) to keep on working at it, or reminds those in Rome (13:11) that it is now nearer than at the
beginning of their/our faithfulness.

10
With the linguistic prevalence of references to rescue or deliverance, it is also interesting to compare what folks are urged to
be saved from with common understandings. Very seldom are the NT writers specific about that (except in the case of
healings), unlike their modern counterparts, who would not even consider it to be a question. (Everyone needs to be saved
from hell, right? Just sign up for this guaranteed fire-insurance policy!) As a matter of fact, that warning does not appear
even once in the New Testament! Neither does Where will you be if you die tonight? New Testament salvation is about
living, not dying! In fact, the word only occurs one single time paired with aionion, the word usually translated eternal
(which needs its own study.) This would lead one to believe that at least it is not the primary emphasis.
In Zachariahs prophecy when John the Baptist was born, he spoke of deliverance from our enemies, and from all who hate
us, (Lk.1:71), and in 74-75 the privilege to worship him (God) in purity and justice without fear! Only secondarily does
he refer to the taking away of their hamartia which has mistakenly been associated with paraptoma (deliberate
transgressions) under the label of sins. This also requires its own study, but hamartia basically refers to failure to attain a
goal or standard. Zachariah focuses wholly on the gracious mercy of God.
In Peters evangelistic sermon at Pentecost, he urged his listeners to (Ac.2:40) be rescued (saved) from this crooked
generation! He also notes the result: (41) those who responded were added to the brotherhood (see also Ac.2:42-47.)
Paul does mention in Rom.5:9 being saved from wrath, but he does not specify whether that wrath is Gods, or simply
the constant state of those who ignore him.
James refers to saving from death the life (psuche is another good study) of a person who is headed in the wrong
direction.
SO back to the question that started all of this: Wasnt Paul already saved? Are we? Is anyone?
What does the text SAY?
Jesus has already protected and rescued us many times, from many perils (some of our own making, some not.) He has
healed and restored many of us, both physically and in terms of broken relationships. He has already (Col.1:13) delivered
us from the power of darkness, and transported us into his Kingdom (the word used here is not sozo, but a much stronger
errusato).
Still, there is much that is yet to be realized, if we consider all those future tenses, as well as the present progressives, and
the beautiful goals he has outlined for the life of his people. There had to be a beginning, of course: but, in the vernacular
of centuries later, We aint seen nothin yet!
So, Brother, are you saved?
Well, WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY???

11
Word Study #6 RepentDoes Not Mean Grovel!
Nearly thirty years had passed since all the wonderful events recorded in the introductions to Matthews and Lukes
accounts of the ministry of Jesus. After so long, did even the participants begin to wonder if it had all been just a beautiful
dream? That can happen so easily, when hope is long deferred. Did anyone remember the prophecies, the promises, the
wonder of those days?
Then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, a strange figure appeared at the edge of the Judaean desert, reminiscent of the
prophets many centuries before, both in his rather scruffy appearance, his odd behavior, and his compelling, unequivocating
message.
Metanoeite! he thundered. The promised Kingdom has arrived! English expositors have rendered that command,
Repent!, and subsequently distorted it into a demand for repetitive, coerced assent to the sentence of guilt that they have
concocted against their target audience. Oddly, neither Jesus, nor John, nor any of the later messengers, associated that call,
either with violations of any list of forbidden thought or behavior, or with any convoluted connection to Adam and Eve in
the garden. The word they chose was much more vital than either. Interestingly, it appears only 34 times in the entire New
Testament, but the idea is pervasive.
Metanoeite, a present imperative form, never carried any implication of Im so sorry I was naughty I must be a terrible
person! or oops! I was caught!. Metanoeite indicates a total and radical change of ones mind / orientation / behavior /
purpose and results in a complete transformation of life. It represents a shift of focus from ones former, self-centered
concerns to a singular focus on the ways and goals of the Kingdom. Such a transformation takes a while thus the use of
the present tenses. Remember that the present tense, especially in the imperative mood, indicates a sustained, not punctiliar
action. But that the results are expected to be seen in ones behavior was well understood. This is obvious in the question
posed by Johns listeners: What shall we do? Look at the description of his interviews in Luke 3:10-14.
People in the crowd are expected to share food and clothing with those who lack either.
Tax collectors are to quit cheating!
Soldiers are forbidden to do violence to anyone!
Not a word is said about what they were supposed to believe!
And although the word appears very rarely in Pauls writings, (as a verb only once, and as a noun four times), the
understanding and expectation clearly persisted in the early church, as evidenced by the exhortations to the churches of
Revelation. The folks at Ephesus are urged (Rv.2:5) to return to the loving behavior they had exhibited at the beginning;
those at Pergamon (2:16) and Thyatira (2:22) to turn from the idol-worship they had come to tolerate; those in Sardis (3:3)
to return to the way of life they had adopted at their conversion; and in Laodicea (3:19) to quit bragging about their financial
prosperity and return to their dependence on the Lords provision. These expectations echo Jesus own statements, when he
compared the responses of various groups to his message, with comparable historical situations see Matthew 11:20-21
and 12:41, and parallels in Luke 10 and 11, and also Lk.13:3-5. It is behavior lifestyle if you prefer that is addressed
in every situation: and metanoeite requires an all-encompassing change.
The noun form, metanoia, occurs only 24 times, and presents similar expectations. Both John (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) and Jesus
(Mt.9:13, Mk.2:17, Lk.5:22) insisted upon observable evidence of ones having made a change, as do Peter and Paul in
sermons and epistles. Consistently, metanoia refers either to a persons initial ceding of his life to the Lords control, or to a
major course-correction by a person or group that had (either deliberately or inadvertently) turned away. In either case,
again, a drastic change of direction is in view.
A new Kingdom was being inaugurated one with markedly different norms of behavior and citizenship from the
prevailing culture of the first, and every subsequent century! I have dealt with some of these counter-cultural issues in
greater detail in an earlier volume, Citizens of the Kingdom, 1993.
The call, metanoeite constituted, in essence, an invitation to citizenship in Jesus Kingdom, which he was creating for the
purpose of demonstrating the original intentions, and the transforming power, of God. The whole of the New Testament is
intended as a users manual for Kingdom living!
Perhaps the most significant reference, in light of present day teaching and practice, is found in Hebrews 6:1. Metanoia
traditionally translated repentance (I have chosen to use a changed life) heads the list of foundational things
that, the writer urges, once established, need to be laid aside in order to move on to maturity! Not abrogated; not denied;

12
definitely assumed, but nevertheless laid aside, no longer the primary focus. Why then are committed followers of the Lord
Jesus constantly berated and in liturgical circles, continually expected to repeat profuse apologies and pleas for
forgiveness (another needed study) about an assortment of supposed deliberate offenses against God none of which
could possibly be a part of a life that had truly changed direction! The same writer does have some very sobering things to
say about turning ones back on the gracious gift of life (Heb.6:4-7), but quickly adds (v.9) that such behavior is not
assumed among the faithful!
I submit that continually groveling in ones supposed sinfulness constitutes a denial of the life-changing grace of God!
True, at the point of initial commitment, we have not instantly reached maturity. We have been born into a new life, which
needs to grow and develop. We may even stumble, or fall flat on our faces, like children learning to walk. But we are
expected to be headed in the direction our Lord has indicated, urging and helping one another along the way (Heb.3:12-14.)
Repentance and forgiveness are NOT the sum total of the gospel message, as is implied when an accredited official
needs to pronounce the audience forgiven at every meeting, and to state that this news represents the gospel that they
are to believe. That is only the beginning of the message. Jesus invitation is to participation in the work of his Kingdom
to life the way he created it to be lived in company with all the others he has called.
Metanoeite! Continually engage in the process of changing life to conform to his pattern! With the Spirit of the Lord
enabling the Body of Christ, it can be done!
Metanoeite!! Reject the Accuser, recognizing that it is he who insists that you are not worthy. Turn to the Redeemer,
instead, who has said that you ARE (Col.1:12)!
Metanoeite!! Stop groveling at the gate! Stand up on your feet, and with thanksgiving, join the triumphal procession of the
King!

13
Word Study #7: Forgiveness of sins: Welcome, or weapon?
John the Baptist appeared in the desert of Judaea, announcing, Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the 'sin' (failures,
faults, shortcomings, offenses) of the world! From that time, Jesus proceeded to welcome all who chose to follow him, as
members of his family, citizens of his Kingdom, participants in a community of folks who were in the process of being
redeemed, transformed, re-created as members of the Body of Christ!

Ironically, high on the list of topics co-opted by the creators of creed and dogma as weapons or ammunition for laying
heavy and unwarranted guilt-trips on those people is the concept of forgiveness of sins. Their signal success at distorting
the message of Jesus in this regard (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not mine to judge) is due to a serious
misunderstanding of both words. Each represents an instance of multiple Greek words (and therefore very different ideas)
having been lumped together and expressed by one single word in most English translations.

There are three different words which have been rendered forgive by most translators: apoluo (translated forgive only
twice, out of 69 appearances in the New Testament), which most frequently signifies simple departure from a place, or
sending away; charizomai (translated forgive in 11 of 23 occurrences), more often used of the gracious gifts of God for
the needs and service of his people; and aphiemi (47 out of 144 occurrences), for which the most common translation is
simply leave. It is interesting to note that none of these includes any implication of forget, with which it is so
frequently paired in modern rhetoric. Although the gracious generosity inherent in charizomai is an important component
of a correct understanding of forgiveness, and noted in Eph.4:32 and Col.3:13 as the model for our treatment of one another,
I choose here to focus on the more usual term, aphiemi, because it has been so grossly misunderstood.

Etymologically, aphiemi is made up of a prefix, apo, away from, and the verb, hiemi, to send away, to discharge, to set
free, to release, to dismiss, to acquit of a charge, to put away or divorce, to get rid of, to leave, to cancel. Adding a prefix
to such a word tends to strengthen it in the direction of the prefix (away from), indicating a sense of removal. Notice,
ignore is NOT on that list of definitions. Nobody is saying, Oh, thats ok, it doesnt matter. It DOES matter: it matters
so much that the situation in question needs to be removed taken away disposed-of. (please see posting #6.)
Aphiemi does not describe a clever lawyer getting his client off the hook without penalty for his crimes. It is the error that
is removed. But what is that error that is being removed? The misunderstanding is even greater when it comes to the
concept of sin. This English word also is used for three different Greek words: hamartia (175 times), hamartema (only 4
times), and paraptoma (23 times). To complicate the situation, theology and dogma have added the baggage contained in
three more words, none of which are ever translated that way!

Hamartia, by far the most common, very seldom carries the indication of a deliberate offense. The lexicons include: to
miss a target, to fail of ones purpose, to be deprived of something needful, to fail or neglect an assigned task, to err or to do
wrong, to be mistaken. These are primarily the errors of immaturity or ignorance. This is the word that appears most
frequently with aphiemi. (Interestingly, the second most common is not an offense at all, but debt. ) Hamartia is also the
word associated with Jesus dispute with the Pharisees over his authority to forgive (remember, that word means to
remove, dismiss, or get rid of) sins. (Matthew 9:6, Mk.2:7,10, and Lk.5:21-24.) Note two things: (1) Jesus is speaking in
the present tense he HAS authority, and (2) Jesus does not dispute the statement that only God can do that. It is
precisely because he is God Incarnate that he has that authority! Jesus makes no mention of his death as being associated
with his right to forgive.

Stephen (Ac.7:60) prays that his executioners be forgiven for their hamartia acknowledging, as did Jesus on the cross,
Peter in Ac.3:17, and Paul on several occasions, that they were acting in ignorance. Peters question regarding forgiving his
brother uses hamartia (Mt:18:21), but Jesus parable in reply shifts the focus to one of debt. This incident has often been
viewed as parallel to the teaching in Luke 17:3-4, which was initiated by Jesus, but makes no mention of Peter. The Luke
account is dealing with a very different scenario, although it also uses hamartia. Here, Jesus is referring to straightening
out a brother who has taken a wrong turn, and the command to forgive is prefaced by a conditional clause indicated by the
use of the particle ean with a subjunctive verb. IF he repents (see Word Study #6) changes his direction he is to be
forgiven. Acknowledging that this may take several tries does not remove the condition: it is embedded in the structure of
the sentence. It describes a situation similar to the restoration (II Cor.2:7-10) of the person who was disciplined in I Cor.5.
Paraptoma, on the other hand, carries more of the freight of a deliberate offense. Alternate translations include fall (2x),
fault(2x), offense(7x), sin(3x), and trespass(9x). Lexicons add a false step, a blunder, defeat, transgression, trespass.
The references are about evenly divided between offenses against people and against God, but are generally deliberate in

14
both cases. It appears frequently in Romans 4, 5, and 11 regarding Israels refusal of Jesus; and in Ephesians and Colossians
regarding the excesses of pagan life before conversion. In Eph.2:1, Paul refers to both of the words together, making clear
that they comprise two different classes of offenses.

Entirely missing from any of these concepts are situations where one has deliberately chosen to do or to yield to the
control of what is overtly evil. Kakia (11 times): evil, malice, maliciousness, wickedness; kakos (35 times) ugly,
base, craven, worthless, evil, pernicious, abusive, foul; and poneros (23 times) : evil, harm, wicked, wickedness, the Evil
One; occur far less frequently. They have in no case been translated sin, and with a single exception, never appear in
connection with aphiemi or any of the other forgiveness terms. The exception is found in Ac.8:22, the interview between
Peter and Simon the magician in Samaria who tried to buy the ability to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit. Peter does not
sound really confident that forgiveness will be extended in this situation. His analysis is stern; Simon has showed
himself to be quite alien to the spirit of true discipleship. Please note that this indictment is completely unique to this one
situation. There is no parallel anywhere in the New Testament, unless it be the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5), where
there is not even any suggestion of the possibility of redemption. An accusation of having deliberately chosen evil is the
most serious of charges. Reducing it to a routine recitation is irresponsible in the extreme.

Loyal disciples of Jesus find themselves at many different levels of maturity, understanding, and conformity to the Lords
ways. John, in his first letter, assumes that as we mature, we will continue to discover things that need to be taken away
from our experience, assuring his readers that the Lord is ready and willing to take care of that if they will cooperate.
However, requiring committed disciples repeatedly to confess guilt for offenses that they have neither committed nor even
considered, in order to be pronounced forgiven by someone in a hierarchical structure (which the Lord Jesus categorically
forbade see Mt.23:1-12), is a gross distortion even a denial of his gracious provision for the people he has
redeemed for himself and called to populate his Kingdom!

Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the failures, faults, shortcomings, stumblings, and offenses of the world!
This is part of his program to re-create his people in his own image, and directly connected to the call to Repent/change
direction. His authority and power to accomplish this monumental task reside in his very BEING the King of Kings and
Lord of Lords because in him, all the fullness of deity has its bodily, permanent residence (Col.2:9)!
Glory to him forever!

15
Word Study #8 Fellowship
My friends invitation to an event at her church was kind and gracious. Its just a fellowship meeting, she explained,
Coffee, some board-games, conversation . Now, I like coffee. Conversation is pleasant. I can even occasionally enjoy
a board-game with the grandkids. But is this fellowship? JUST a fellowship meeting? Has the contemporary church
forgotten, or has it deliberately rejected, the length and breadth and height and depth of that beautiful word, reducing it to
softball games and hot dogs?
Fellowship is the most common translation (12 times) of koinonia, which in other contexts has been rendered
communication (2 x), communion (4 x), contribution (1 x), and distribution (1 x). Historically, it was quite a versatile
word, used of joint business ventures, charitable contributions, the routine associations of human society, and even
marriage! The verb form could refer to almost any sort of a co-operative effort even crime! while the adjective refers to
things held in common by corporations, willingness to share among members of a group, and partaking of either the
suffering or the good fortune of ones fellows.
In the New Testament, the usage is also varied: these related words can refer to something as mundane as James and Johns
partnership in their fathers fishing business (Lk.5:10), or as amazingly ultimate as Peters description of believers actually
participating in the glory of the Lord Jesus at his coming (I Peter 5:1)! The word only appears twice in the Gospels the
previously mentioned passage in Luke, and Mt.23:30, where Jesus warns his opponents of sharing (koinonon) in the
deeds of those who had stoned the prophets.
Interestingly, the word seems to have acquired broader and deeper meaning in the church after Pentecost. Might a new slant
on koinonia be connected to the power Jesus promised when he instructed the baffled disciples to wait around for the
coming of the Holy Spirit? The New Testament usage certainly changes after that momentous occasion.
Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 provide detailed descriptions of the fellowship (koinonia) of the early believers. They couldnt
get enough of being together! (But I dont think they were playing board-games.) They eagerly soaked-up the apostles
teaching, shared their meals and possessions , and prayed together. Incidentally, please note that there is no hint, in that
description, of coerced communalism: the new brethren were just looking out for each others welfare, as they shared their
whole lives. That concern also spilled out beyond their immediate associates, as well, in many practical ways:
When they learned of the famine in Judea, the scattered congregations spontaneously started a relief-effort for the brethren
who were affected (Rom.15:26, II Cor.8:4, 9:13)
They shared willingly in each others sufferings for their faithfulness, as well as in the suffering of the Lord Jesus for them
(Phil.3:10, Heb.10:33, II Cor.1:7, I Pet.4:13)
Various individuals and groups contributed support, not only to Pauls efforts (the whole epistle to Philippi is a thank-you
note), but to those of other teachers (Gal.6:6), and also to the needs of the wider brotherhood (Rom.12:13).
Paul speaks of fellowship (koinonia) as related to the approval other apostles gave to his work (Gal.2:9), the sharing of
the mystery of the inclusion of Gentiles in the plan of God (Eph.3:9), and also to individual people who had shared his
labors in various places. He refers to sharing (koinonia) , personally and as a group, in the very sufferings of Jesus Christ
(Phil.3:10), as does Peter in his first letter (4:13). Johns first letter is the most extensive direct treatment of fellowship .
Created when folks learn of the Gospel and respond, koinonia is nurtured by honesty, love, mutual confession and
forgiveness in the brotherhood. Both Paul and John also warn against sharing (still using koinonia) in the evil of others:
both in idol worship situations, and relating to those of their own number who would turn them away from Jesus
frequently for financial gain.
Koinonia is also used only once, in I Cor.10:16 of the celebration that has come to be labeled communion. I have
treated this subject in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom. This is the same word that has been used of all the sharing
of life, teaching, resources, joys, and sufferings already detailed. Pauls choice of the word koinonia makes abundantly
clear that the purpose of the observation is the celebration of the depth of the mutual participation of the members of the
Body NOT some privatistic, esoteric appropriation of an undefined spiritual benefit. Luke records in Acts 2
(previously cited) that they broke bread from house to house with JOY. Nothing is said about solemn ceremony officiated
by a representative of a hierarchy (which, as noted before, Jesus had flatly forbidden.) As in every other reference to
koinonia, the mutuality of the entire brotherhood is paramount.
So yes, dear people! May all our meetings be fellowship meetings! May we live and breathe the koinonia described
so vividly by the New Testament writers! Building each other up in love, may we continue to grow together into the
measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ! (Eph.4:13). For Our fellowship / sharing / participation / koinonia is
with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. Were writing these things to you all in order that our mutual joy may be
made complete! (I John1:3-4).

16
 Word Study #9 Judgment Commanded, or Forbidden?
(I am going to divide the consideration of krino into two postings, since the two major aspects of the word (excluding
simple courtroom scenes) are both seriously misunderstood.)

Do not pass judgment, so that you all will not be judged. (Matthew 7:1)
Dont keep judging according to appearances, but judge just judgment (evaluate things fairly). (John 7:24)

These apparently contradictory statements by Jesus use derivatives of the same word, in each instance: the very same word
(krino, krisis) that also refers to Gods final sorting-out at the end of the ages. (This latter usage will be dealt with in the
next post.) Translating krino is one of those places where a translator must work with extreme caution, and uncommon
flexibility, because, frustrating as it is, the Greek words are no more precise than the English.

Historical records show the verb, krino, rendered as to separate or distinguish, to divide, to pick out, to choose the best, to
decide disputes or questions, to contend, to compete in games, to evaluate, to esteem, to decide in favor of, to bring to trial,
to pass sentence.
The noun, krisis, and occasionally krima, is rendered decision, choice, selection, verdict, interpretation (as of dreams), a
trial of skill or strength, a dispute, an event or issue to be decided, the turning point of a disease, a legal decision.
There is no necessary negative connotation in any of these. Common, non-theological English uses the word judge in
many of the same ways. Contests, legal decisions, debates or disputes, evaluation of persons or situations all require
judgment. Please note, consequently, that in neither Greek nor English does the word judge automatically imply
condemnation or even disapproval. It may, in fact, indicate the direct opposite!

The concepts in question are clarified when a form of krino appears with a prefix:
ana (again, or up) creates anakrino, to examine closely, to interrogate, to inquire into
dia (through, or toward) creates diakrino,to distinguish, to separate, to decide, to argue
epi (upon, over) creates epikrino, to pass sentence, to assent
kata (down, against) creates katakrino, to condemn
sun (together) creates sungkrino, to compare.

Unfortunately, these compound forms are used comparatively rarely. Most of the time, we are left to figure out the sense of
krino from its context.
Taken in their context, for example, the two quotations with which we began are not contradictory at all. Consult the rest of
the paragraph in the Matthew 7 reference. The prohibition is directed at self-appointed perfection police, who enjoy nit-
picking at others without regard to their own need for correction. This is unacceptable. However, the give and take of
mutual admonition is essential for healthy growth. Witness Pauls instructions in I Cor. 5 and 6, and notice that he is
concerned (5:12) with the relationships of those within the brotherhood. This is reinforced in I Cor. 11:31-32: If we would
be evaluating ourselves, we would not be judged. When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, so that we
will not be condemned (katakrino) with the world. This kind of judgment is an act of compassion and protection, not
condemnation!

Such an understanding highlights a significant difference between the New Testament and the contemporary church. The
original idea, in the message of both Jesus himself and all the apostles, began with metanoeite (see Word Study #6), a call
to change ones entire orientation of life. Sadly, that no longer seems to be the standard assumption. We have correctly
perceived that the invitation to the new community/kingdom of Jesus followers is open to all. But when the entry points,
repentance (W.S.#6) and forgiveness (W.S.#7), are robbed of their true content, and it is no longer assumed that there
will be either a radical change of life or the removal of offending behaviors, and that invitation is reduced to an insipid
verbal assent to a prescribed list of beliefs or doctrines, the life-giving aspect of judgment disappears as well.

Look for a moment at a few of the places where judgment is advocated even commanded in the church! Notice that in
the John 7 passage already quoted, the verbs are plural not individual. This is a job for the brotherhood as a whole, as are
all the other such admonitions. That is an important safeguard, to assure that any judgment will be just, and not
capricious. In I Cor.6, Paul goes into considerable detail about the need for disputes in the brotherhood to be settled
internally by Christian standards, and not by those of the outside world. In I Cor.14:9, the whole congregation is to
evaluate carefully any messages delivered to the group. Jude (22) calls for discerning where mercy is called for. Even

17
what appears to be an individual responsibility assuring that one does not cause another to stumble or fall (Rom.14:13)
is addressed in the plural. And Peter calls for judgment to begin in the household of God. It is the task of the group to
clean up our act! Discernment/judgment is essential, if a person or group is to act responsibly as representative of the
Kingdom in an alien world. This is at least one of the reasons why discernment is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to
the Body (I Cor.12:10).

At the same time, clearly, judgment needs to be exercised with caution. In many of his epistles, Paul reminds his readers
that the mandate for discernment/judgment is not a license to dictate all the minutiae of life, or to catalog and rank the sins
of the world. Jesus intends to take those away! Discernment is needed in order to draw lines only where they matter. The
Kingdom is not a new Law. Its citizens are urged to be considerate, rather than picky, about such things as food and drink,
customs and celebrations (Col.2:16 f), and the details of peoples former lives (Rom.2). James warns against economic
discrimination (2:1-7), and obsessing about technicalities of law (ch.4). Romans 14 is a beautiful treatise on helping one
another to find ways of faithfulness. Dont forget that a changed life is assumed! But in that context, compassion, not
coercion, is the hallmark of faithful judgment, remembering that (14:8) The person who is a slave to Christ is
pleasing to God!

Rightly understood, judgment/discernment serves as an extremely useful tool, as aspiring followers of Jesus seek to learn
his ways. It is exercised, by common consent, within the brotherhood, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in a mutual
effort toward faithfulness. We have not been sent to reform the world. It is our joyful privilege to demonstrate an
alternative to its ways, and to invite all who will, to transfer their allegiance from the world to the Kingdom of the Lord
Jesus!

18
Word Study #10 THE Judgment
Please remember that a word study must confine itself to passages where the actual word is used. There are other
references that may or may not bear upon the subject under consideration. It is important to distinguish, for example,
between simple cause and effect, and the judgment of God. Actions do have consequences: it may be simply a result of
the way the world works do not confuse consequences with overt judgments.

Only in threatening theological rhetoric is talk about the final judgment used in an attempt to bludgeon members of an
audience into accepting a list of statements about the nature and purposes of God. There is not a single example in the New
Testament record of anything similar being primary or even present! in the evangelistic message.
While classical uses of krino do include the sense of a legal, judicial verdict, there is no sense of divine retribution, and
certainly none of eternal duration. Although that idea does occur rarely in the New Testament, implicit references to
judgment are found only in 7 of the 68 uses of aionion (eternal or everlasting), while all the rest refer to life and all
sorts of blessedness. A related word, krimatos, is only found with one of those seven Heb.6:2, where it appears on the
list of foundational things that need to be laid aside in order to move on to maturity (see W.S. #6).

In point of fact, the vast majority of references to the judgment of God are addressed to the faithful, for their
encouragement and comfort! Romans 2:16, Gal.5:10, I Pet.2:23 and 4:5, and Rev.6:10, 11:18, 16:5-6, 17:1, 18:8, and 19:2
all speak of the eventual vindication of the faithful and the destruction of their persecutors.
Another large group of references, Rom.2:16, I Pet.1:17, II Pet.2:1, and Rev. 16:7 and 19:11, emphasize that the judgment
of God is consummately fair, and therefore greatly to be desired by folks who have suffered unjust treatment. Heb.4:13
does not use the word, but characterizes a situation where the faithful have nothing to fear: Theres no created thing
concealed from him: everything is naked and exposed to his eyes, with respect to whom the Word (evaluates) us. John
5:22-30 and much of chapter 8 explain that Jesus himself will judge honestly. Here is a judge that cannot be bought!
Of course, judgment that is absolutely just and fair can seem like a threat, to anyone who is trying to hide, or get away with
something. But for all who have struggled to live faithfully, in a world that does not acknowledge its true King, it presents
the joyful prospect of deliverance. I treasure our last conversation with a dear, elderly brother, who, after a lifetime of
service to his church, was the victim of vicious false accusations, and had been repudiated by many. He had stood kindly by
us, years earlier, when we had been the victims of false gossip. Brother John had been able to retain his radiant love and
trust in the Lords mercy, and told us: We can all hold on to this: the Lord knows the truth, and he is the one that is our
final judge. That was a joyful statement of trust not of fear.

On the rare occasions when mention of judgment is directed to the uncommitted Mt.12:41-42 and parallels, Lk.10:14,
Acts 13:46, 17:31, and 24:25, notice that it is usually to people often religious leaders who have already deliberately
placed themselves in opposition to Jesus not to those who are unaware of his ways.

Attention should be given, of course, to the two unique occurrences of solemn warnings directed to people within the
brotherhood. The letter to the Hebrews highlights the danger of deliberately ignoring or violating ones commitment to
faithfulness (10:24-31), while urging readers to keep after each other, encouraging one another to hang in there in
faithfulness, lest any turn and become opponents. James also (2:12-13) echoes Jesus own warning (previously cited) in
Mt.7:2, that one will be judged with the same degree of mercy that he has extended to his brethren. Both admonitions are
intended to motivate caution, not terror.

Finally, it may be instructive to revisit a few of the passages that are frequently (mistakenly) used in an effort to frighten
listeners into submission with lurid descriptions of torment.
Look at the sheep and goats judgment scene in Matthew 25. Notice the charge brought against the unfaithful. Jesus
says nothing about what either group believed, or to what creed or doctrine they subscribed (or failed to subscribe). He
passes judgment on their behavior their neglect of the needs around them.
The same charge appears in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus. Actually, that gentleman probably believed all the
right things. He probably even ascribed his wealth to the blessing of God! It is his treatment of the beggar that is the
focus of his condemnation.
And among those who love to quote the Revelation to strike terror to the hearts of their audience, I have not heard anyone
refer Rev.18, the account of the fall of Babylon, to the present economic distress (v.11-19). Im afraid more who claim the
label Christian are weeping with the merchants who got rich off of her luxurious excesses (v.15) note that there are
few real necessities listed in the account of the collapse than are heeding the voice from heaven (v.20), Celebrate over

19
her, heaven, and Gods people, and apostles and prophets! God has passed judgment on her for you!

There is a way in which it still all boils down to a case of discernment (see W.S.#9) of choosing sides. Pauls testimony in
I Cor.4:3-5 is a classic example of the confidence that a committed disciple can rightfully derive from the prospect of Gods
judgment. It matters little to me, he observes, that I should be examined (judged) by you all, or by any human tribunal. I
dont even keep examining myself! For I am not aware of anything (that is a problem) for myself; but thats not how I have
been made just: the one who examines (judges) us is the Lord. So dont pass judgment on anything before the time until
the Lord comes. He will illuminate the things hidden by darkness and reveal the plans of (peoples) hearts. And then praise
will be given to each one, from God.
If we are not hiding anything in darkness, then there is no cause for panic!
I Jn.3:19-20 seems to anticipate the problem of people being (wrongly) made to feel guilty, reminding us that even if our
hearts scold us, God is greater than our hearts and eminently able to override any criticism.

Our confidence is in the mercy of God, which we have received in Jesus Christ!
Give thanks to the only One we can count on to be consistently merciful and fair!
As in so many other situations, there is only one necessary question:
Whose side are we on? To whom do we belong?

20
Word Study #11 Testing / Trial / Temptation -- Don't Blame
God!
How many times have you heard or said -- God is/was testing me/you, God won't give you more than you can
handle!, or God has put me/you through a heavy trial!, or something similar? The culturally expected response is usually
respectful sympathy, and a few piety points to the credit of the speaker. Why does it so seldom occur to anyone to reply,
as the apostle James did (1:13-14), But God doesn't DO that! ?

There are four different words that have been translated trial -- each only once in the entire New Testament. Dokime (also
rendered experience, experiment, or proof), is classically defined to test or assay, to approve or sanction, to examine and
admit to a class , in Paul's second letter to Corinth (8:2); dokimion (the means by which a test is made) in I Peter 1:7; peira
(trial, attempt, experience) in Heb.11:36; and purosis (burning, cooking, or destruction by fire) in I Peter 4:12 and Rev.18.
None of these are represented to be caused or sent by God, although several times he is said to have used them, or turned
them to the benefit of the affected individual. Sometimes, with other translations, those same words merely refer to human
investigations.

The more common word, peirazo (v.), peirasmos (n), is classically defined as attempt, test the quality (as the assay of metal
or ore), to be experienced, to examine, and to seek to seduce or tempt. Remember, this is the same word: the only
distinction is the context.
In the New Testament, the import leans heavily toward the latter meaning, though not by any means exclusively. It may
refer simply to people trying to do something (Ac.16:17, and 9:26); to a person's credentials for a task (Rev.2:2 and
elsewhere); to self-examination (II Cor.13:5); and to people's attempts to put God to a test (Ac.5:9, 15:10, Heb.3:9). Only
once does it refer to a physical malady Gal.4:1-4 to which Paul applies the label a messenger of Satan -- hardly a
justification for the common practice of referring to every illness, inconvenience, or incapacity as a trial from God!
The vast majority of New Testament references, however, are to Jesus vs. Satan himself, or the Pharisees and/or Sadducees
who opposed him. Another large segment refers to the persecutions endured by the faithful because of their fidelity to Jesus
and his Kingdom. The relationship to persecution is not accidental. Refer to W.S.#4, where I have noted that persecution
could frequently be avoided by a statement that repudiated one's loyalty to Jesus, and acknowledged Caesar is Lord
instead. The temptation was NOT to indulge in some activity on a list of no-no's, but to desert or betray one's
Kingdom citizenship. In both cases, whether the translation is temptation, trial, or test, the perpetrators are either
Satan himself (12 x), or people/institutions that have deliberately set themselves in opposition to Jesus (about 15 x) --
certainly not God!
There is one reference (Jn.6:6) where in the crowd-feeding incident, Jesus essentially gives the disciples a pop quiz: He
said this, testing him (Philip), for he knew what he was about to do, and several where the source of the test/trial is not
specified (James 11-12, I Peter 1:6-8).
The use of peirasmos in the Lord's Prayer, interpreted by some as a request for God to refrain from what they see as his
practice of testing people, when seen in the context of the other half of that request, phrased in classic parallelism, but
rescue us from the Evil One, reveals exactly the opposite (and more accurate) understanding: that it is the Evil One who
causes problems with temptation.
Peirazo appears in admonitions to test the qualifications of people who claim to speak with authority (Rv.2:2), although a
form of dokimazo (dealt with in the discussion of discernment, W.S.#9) is more common in those contexts.

Do you notice anything apparently missing here? In all of these references, we have encountered none attributing them to
God's will or any deliberate infliction of these trials or temptations by him upon his people! Search the Scriptures,
folks. It's not there. In no instance is there any hint of any of these situations having been instigated by God! In fact,
James clearly declares that allegation to be a fallacy: (1:13-14)
No one must say, when he's being tested, I'm being tested by God. For God is not tested by evil, and he tests no one. But
each one is tested by his own desires, drawn out and enticed. Remember, the choice of whether to use the word tested or
tempted is entirely that of the translator. The word is the same. It is, as James makes clear in the next sentence, a very
serious matter, and one intimately connected to a person's own desires, and having a very serious effect on his life.
Epithumias-- longings, yearnings -- (from thumoo, with an intensifying prefix) -- is a very strong word. These intense
desires are the artifacts of one's chosen life-direction, which is expected to have been altered by metanoia (w.s.#6) a
process which, as we have seen, is not necessarily instantly completed. James places the responsibility exactly where it
belongs: on the focus of our attention and ambition. In a similar warning, Paul advised Timothy (I Tim.6:9) of the danger

21
of being distracted by competing loyalties in that case, riches.

The remedy is equally clear. Jesus himself has been there, done that. Heb.2:18 tells us, In that he himself has suffered
temptation/testing, he can help those who are being tempted/tested. Or, as a later writer has put it, He made himself like
us, so that he could make us like himself! By having experienced severe temptation/testing and triumphed over it, Jesus
was enabled to extend his own success to his people!
Paul's reassurance in I Cor.10:13 is essentially the same. Notice carefully that this passage also attributes to God not the
source of the testing, but rather the way out! These two passages need to be held together, like the two lenses of a
binocular, to obtain a proper perspective. And as always, only the Lord Jesus can hold everything together as needed. He
has had a lot of practice, as Peter reminds us (II Pet.2:4-9) and has also promised to rescue his people (Rv.3:10) from the
greater testing on the horizon to enable their/our endurance. He has been tested in everything, just like us but he didn't
flunk! (Heb.4:15)

So where do we come out? It is appropriate neither to apply the label trial/testing/temptation to every major or minor
annoyance of life (although one's response to those certainly does prove -- demonstrate where his loyalties lie!), nor to
ascribe all our troubles to the will of God (another needed word study!) Only when tests/temptations are recognized in
their true light attempts to turn us aside from whole-hearted devotion to the Lord and his Kingdom and their source is
rightly identified persons or institutions that have set themselves in opposition to that Kingdom, and that malevolent
power whose cause they serve can the battle lines be accurately drawn.
(I Peter 4:12-16) observes, Don't be surprised/shocked when trials/testings come that is to be expected, if one is faithful
to the Kingdom of a King that the world does not acknowledge. Just make sure, he notes, that the sufferings imposed
from the outside are not deserved.
And don't blame God!!! He does not attack his own Kingdom or its citizens. Jesus gave his life in their/our defense!

THY KINGDOM COME!!!!!!

22
Word Study #12 -- God's Will
This subject, which has borne the weight of complex theological arguments for centuries, is far too broad and deep to be
contained in a post of reasonable length. I do not intend to try to settle all the hypothetical questions in which self-styled
experts delight. An honest encounter with the New Testament will almost always come up with more questions than
answers, and this one is no exception.
One can delve into the various derivatives of thelo (classically ethelo)(v.), thelema (n), and boulomai (v.), boule (n), or
boulema (n) none of which make the classical distinctions in which theoreticians delight i.e., permissive will, eternal
will, ultimate will,, sovereign will, and so on down the list of doctrinal hobbyhorses.
Thelema and its related words are classically defined simply as: to be willing, to consent, to delight in, to ordain or decree,
to be naturally disposed toward a person, idea, or thing.
Boulomai, the stronger word, is listed as the wishes of the gods (in Homer), one's choice or preference, to want to do
something, desire, prefer, purpose, intend that something be done.
Please note that none of these carry any implication of direct causation. Both word groups legitimately contain
sufficient latitude that people with an axe to grind can manipulate them with amazing dexterity. I choose not to join that
fray, but rather to call your attention to the handful of places where the statement is plainly phrased: This is the will of
God ... or, The will of God is .... Whatever direction people choose to push (or twist?) the more ambiguous statements,
these few are unmistakably clear: and consequently, must inform / govern any conclusion that requires or permits
interpretation. Any interpretation that directly contradicts what is plainly stated, must be recognized as being in error.

I am deliberately listing these with only minimal comment: they speak for themselves:
Mt.18:14 Jesus speaking -- It is NOT the will of my/your Father in heaven that one of these little ones be destroyed/lost.
(note: mikroi may refer to actual children, or to newly recruited disciples.)
Jn.6:39 Jesus speaking -- This is the will of the one that sent me: that I may not lose anyone of all that he has given me,
but that I may raise him up in the last day.
Jn.6:40 still Jesus This is the will of him that sent me, that every one who sees the Son and is faithful to him may have
eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.
I Thess.4:3 -- This is the will of God -- the faithful being set-apart / sanctified / made holy for him exhibiting
exemplary moral and ethical behavior.
I Thess.5:18 -- This is the will of God in Christ Jesus -- that his people should give thanks continually, IN (not for)
everything.
I Peter 2:15 -- This is God's will: that by doing good, you should silence the ignorance of those who make spurious
accusations.
Mt.8:3 Jesus, again -- I will his intention to heal the leper.
Mt.9:13 Jesus, quoting Hosea 6:6 -- I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.
I Tim.2:4 (God), who will have [wants] all people to be saved/rescued, and come to understanding of the truth.

These are completely unequivocal.

Another block of references indicate that God's will is something that his people are expected to DO.
Mt.7:21 Jesus speaking: Not everyone who says to me Lord, Lord! will come into the kingdom of heaven, but he that
keeps on doing the will of my Father in heaven.
Mt. 12:50 (and parallel, Mk.3:35) Jesus speaking -- Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, this one is my
brother, and sister, and mother.
Jn.4:34 Jesus in Samaria -- My food is that I continually may do the will of the one that sent me, and that I may complete
his work.
Jn.6:38 Jesus again -- I have come down from heaven, not to do what I want, but to do the will of the one that sent me.
Eph.6:6 -- as Christ's slaves, doing God's will with your whole self.
Heb.10:7,9 quoting Jesus, I come to do your will.
Heb.10:36 -- You all have need of endurance, in order that when/since you have done God's will, you may obtain the
promise.
Heb.13:21 -- He will establish you all, in everything good, for doing his will.
I Jn.2:17 -- The world is passing away, and so are its passions; but the person who keeps on doing God's will remains
forever.

Of course, to do God's will, one must know what that will is. And this is the key. God's will is not a subject for

23
debates, but a pattern for the life of his people! Actually, the whole New Testament is the instruction manual for that
project: the demonstration by the people he has called and assembled -- of God's mercy and gracious provision for his
creation. The instruction manual is provided for a very simple purpose:
Jn.7:17 -- If anyone wants to DO his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God. Might it possibly be a
corollary, that a person who does not purpose to do his will can not know? (There is a similar flavor in James' advice
about asking for wisdom-- 1:5).
Paul described it to the Ephesian brethren (1:9-10), God let us in on the mystery of his will he set it all out in him (Christ)
his plan for the consummation of all time that absolutely everything be summed up under the headship of Christ things
in heaven and things on earth! and later reiterated, (5:17) So don't be unwise, but keep working to understand what the
will of the Lord is!
He prayed for the Colossians (1:9-10), asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge of his will .... so that
you may behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order to please him fully!
He gave the Roman readers a classic description of what should be integral to metanoia (W.S.#6) in 12:2 -- Do not
continue to pattern yourselves by this age, but be continuously, completely changed by the renewal of your mind, so that
you all will recognize what God's will is what is good, and pleasing, and complete.
If that doesn't send us scurrying back to the textbook (the New Testament), I don't know what will.

To be sure, incidents of specific individual guidance are occasionally mentioned, as are callings to a particular task. These
must not be ignored, but tested and confirmed in the Body. We are called to enable one another's assignments.
Please note also that the designation God's will is never applied, in any New Testament text, to any form of disaster,
disease, or disobedience! Such things will happen in the world we live in and will affect the lives of the faithful as well as
the unfaithful. But in no instance are they represented as caused by the will of God! God's will is that we respond/ react
to whatever life brings, in faithfulness.
In I Pet.4:19, for example, according to God's will, grammatically, could link either to suffering or to entrust
themselves. Contextually, (see vv.12-16), the latter choice seems more consistent with the rest of the passage. This is one
of many reasons why one should be extremely wary of quoted verses removed from their original context. Isolated
verses are so easily twisted to win an argument or prove a point!

I believe that it is the will of God that his people quit wrangling over how that will applies to other people, and get
about the business of incarnating the answer to Paul's prayer asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge
of his will ....in order to please him fully!
Amen, Lord! THY WILL BE DONE!!!!

24
Word Study #13 To be Perfect
The English word perfect carries many different ideas. To illustrate: When parents enfold a newborn child in their first
group hug, gingerly unwrap the precious bundle to marvel at the tiny fingers and toes, and exclaim He/she's perfect! --
nobody argues. When the school child proudly brings home aperfect paper he is praised. Later, with considerably less
delight, they may refer to their teenager as a perfect storm! -- and later still, he may land the perfect job, for which he is
perfectly qualified,and find the perfect match with whom to start the whole process all over again. In each case,a
different idea is in view.
Ironically, it is the sense of the perfect (without error) schoolwork the only concept that is not represented among the
Greek words used in the New Testament -- upon which people have become fixated when pontificating about the Christian
life. Too often, it then becomes a weapon of theological warfare, ignoring the fact that none of the seven different words
that traditional versions have rendered perfect carries any implication of being totally free of error!

Akribos (from akriboo) refers to accurate information, careful investigation, thorough understanding. Luke uses it to
describe his own research (1:3), Priscilla and Aquila correcting the errors in the teaching of Apollos (Ac.18:26), and legal
investigations (Ac.23:15, 23:20, and 24:22) by government officials.

Artios -- suitable, a perfect example of its kind, full-grown, mature -- is used only once in the New Testament (II
Tim.3:17), of the maturity Paul sets before Timothy as a goal.

Epiteleo -- to pay in full, to discharge one's duty, to complete, finish, or accomplish a task -- is translated perfect only
twice (II Cor.7:1, and Gal 3:3). In other contexts, the translations are more in accord with its definitions, especially those
referring to the completing of a task (Rom.15:28, II Cor.8: 6 and 8, and Phil.1:6).

Katartizo -- to adjust, put in order, restore, mend, furnish, equip, prepare, involves the process of teaching an important
component of maturity. It is even used classically of the setting of a broken or disjointed limb! Jesus uses it of a disciple
becoming like his teacher (Lk.6:40); Paul includes it in his instructions for the growth of the Body in Corinth (I Cor.1:10,
II Cor.13:11) and his intention to add to his teaching inThessalonica (I Thess. 3:10). God himself is doing the teaching in
Heb.13:21 and I Pet.5:10: on-the-job training of the very best kind!

By far the most common among the references are two related words:
teleios (adj.) -- complete, entire, whole; fully constituted, valid; full-grown, married; accomplished, trained, qualified;
absolute or final; serious or dangerous (of illness); and unblemished (as of an animal for sacrifice.) and
teleioo (v.) -- to make perfect, complete, or accomplish; to execute or make valid a legal document; to be successful; to
reach maturity (fruit, animals, or people); to be fulfilled or brought to consummation (a prophecy or promise).
I have tentatively sorted the passages where these latter words appear into three groups on the strength of these definitions
(definitely open to challenge!): those that refer to a task or purpose being finished or accomplished; those that refer to
maturity; and those that indicate completeness, validity, or fulfillment.

Jesus, for example, referred to finishing the particular healing work in which he was involved, when he was warned to
leave town because of Herod's plotting (Lk.13:32). In Phil.3:12, Paul speaks of God's work in him not being yet finished.
James 1:4 refers to wisdom finishing its work in shaping God's people, and Hebrews 9:11 to the better tabernacle than
the elaborate tent in the desert. In most of these, the word complete would work equally well.

Frequently, complete is contrasted with partial or in progress, and refers to a goal that is still before us James 2:22
refers to faithfulness being made complete by action; I Jn.4:17 to love being made complete, Heb.11:40 to the
faithful folks of the past being made complete only together with the followers of Jesus. In his prayer (Jn.17:23) Jesus
asks that his disciples be made completein unity with each other, with himself, and with the Father. And of course there is
the most familiar statement in I Cor.13:10, that when all is complete, the partial will be no longer needed.

The greater portion of the references refer to maturity. Paul frequently admonished his readers to grow up -- a constant,
lifetime assignment for us all. Clearly that is the sense of Jesus' statement in Mt.5:48, in the context of his teaching that the
attitudes and behavior of his disciples are expected to be patterned after the Father, rather than the local culture, as a child
learns to mimic his adult role models. Paul, in Eph.4:13, Phil.3:15, and Col.1:28 and 4:12, incorporates the same idea of

25
working/growing toward maturity, and John (I Jn.4:18) highlights the results of that maturing process: fear being replaced
by total confidence in the love of God.
Heb.2:10 and 5:9 suggest that maturity may have been a process even for Jesus himself, as our forerunner. This may also
include the sense of establishing his qualifications for the work of conforming us to his own image. Please note, to think of
Jesus maturing is not to suggest that he was ever less than the earthly manifestation of our holy God. But also remember,
he did deign to be born and reared as a person. I refuse to enter the argument as to whether he ever had a normal childhood
spat with his brothers. To insist that he could not, however, is to miss the meaning of teleios altogether, as well as to deny
his total identification with our human condition. I do think this indicates that in our quest for the maturity to which we are
called, we need not categorize immaturity as sinful or wrong or evil. It's simply what a dear friend used to call a No
Parking zone.

Note also that maturity is never represented as an instantaneous achievement. Mature looks different at age 10 or 20 or
50 or 70, physically, socially, and spiritually. Jesus and the faithful of historic times are the only ones for whom it is
spoken of as an accomplished fact.
For the rest of us, Nobody's perfect must describe a goal, not an excuse: a motivation, not a lame apology. It is our
privilege to declare with brother Paul :
Not that I've already arrived, or already have been made complete (teleios) but I'm striving intensely to take possession
(of that for which) I was taken-possession-of by Christ Jesus (Phil.3:12), and later (v.15) Anyone who is mature, (teleios)
must have this mind-set.
Keep on keeping on!

26
Word Study #14 -- Humility
It's certainly true that we/you're not perfect -- but we/you're not scum, either!
It must cause real distress for our gracious Lord, having chosen, called and redeemed a people to populate and
demonstrate his Kingdom, when he sees those people, instead of rejoicing in that calling and buckling down to work at it,
preferring to wallow in lamentations about their self-diagnosed unworthiness, and proclaim themselves to be wretches
and worms, instead of Kingdom citizens personally selected by the King of Kings!
It's all over our hymnody: such a worm as I, guilty, vile, and helpless we, false and full of sin I am, saved a wretch
like me ... and so on and on.
But it's NOT in the New Testament! And as such, it is dishonoring to the Lord who has called us! Paul admonished the
Colossian brethren (1:12) rather, to Joyfully keep giving thanks to the Father, who qualified you all for a share in the
inheritance of his people! Do you really intend to call brother Paul a liar? Or when Jesus himself says of the faithful,
(Rev.3:4) They will walk with me in white, because they are worthy, is he mistaken?
I don't think so.
Some call it humility; I humbly submit that a better word would be falsehood!

Tapeinos (adj.), tapeinoo(v.), and tapeinophrosune(n.), the words usually translated humility or to humble, are indeed
commended as attitudes and behavior becoming for the people of God. But the actual meaning of the words is poles apart
from their usual demeaning English connotations.

Tapeinos was originally a geographical word, used of low-lying land, or low water in a river or pond. Astronomically, it
referred to stars near the horizon; and physically, to people of short stature. From there, its usage morphed into ideas of
powerlessness, poverty, weakness, or a lack of prestige. In a moral sense, it could have either good or bad connotations
probably depending upon the perspective of the speaker.

Tapeinoo, the verb form, indicates a decrease in size or influence, fasting or abstinence of any kind, as well as humiliation
or abasement.

Tapeinophrosune with the addition of a suffix taken from the verb phroneo (to have understanding, to be wise or prudent,
to be sane, to know by experience, to purpose or direct one's attention, to be in possession of one's senses) directed the
implication to a person's deliberate attitude of mind.

The New Testament frequently contrasts humbled with exalted. In Mary's song, for example (Lk.1:51-53) she refers to
the putting down of the mighty with the exaltation of the lowly. Jesus uses a similar comparison (Mt.18:4 and 23:12,
and parallels in Lk.18:14 and 14:11) of humbling oneself -- tapeinoo -- leading to exaltation -- hupsoo.
This appears to be what has led some folks to conclude that they are being asked to adopt a stance of groveling, self-
deprecating worthlessness, and (proudly!) to label it humility! They fail to notice that tapeinoo is used of Jesus himself
(Phil.2:8), and Jesus never pretended to think he was worthless! Paul's point is that Jesus deliberately chose to forgo the
privileged position that was rightfully his. He focused on Jesus' absolute obedience to the Father's will: simply the direct
opposite of self-promotion.
A similar healthier tone is seen in the Isaiah prophecy quoted by John the Baptist (Lk.3:5). The scene is one of road
construction, where hilltops are scraped off (tapeinoo) and valleys filled (hupsoo) to create a level super-highway for the
arrival of the King! This was a common practice in antiquity. It is leveling that is called-for --- not degradation!

Although he did not use the word, a similar attitude is evident in Jesus' instructions to his disciples in Mt.20:25: You all
know that the rulers of the nations (Gentiles) dominate them, and their great ones wield oppressive power over them; but it
shall not be that way among you all! and in Mt.23:12, You are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one Teacher, and you
are all brothers. And don't call any one on earth Father, for your one Father is in heaven. And do not be called Leaders,
because your one Leader is Christ. Jesus himself is the only superior, among his people: he has expressly forbidden
human hierarchy! How sad, that these instructions are so universally ignored!

James, in his instructions about the rich and poor in the church (chapter 2) becomes quite specific in denouncing status and
favoritism in the brotherhood. Paul went to great lengths in his letter to Colossae (chapter 2) to point out the false
humility of various pagan practices, which had been touted as representing some sort of superior spirituality (does that
sound contemporary?!). He makes the point that such exercises are only a form of showing-off, and have no value for

27
Kingdom living.

In his farewell to the elders from Ephesus (Ac.20:13-35) Paul listed the characteristics of his service among them, which he
described as humility -- his faithful teaching, his self-support, and his honesty before them all. Lowliness
(tapeinophrosune), an assumption of completely level standing, is listed along with gentleness, patience and forbearance, as
needful for healthy relationships in the Body (Eph.4:2).

I like the motto I copied from a friend's desk:

Humility is not thinking less of yourself,
it is thinking of yourself less!
Deliberate focus upon Kingdom affairs and interests rather than our own self-interest obedience modeled after the Lord
Jesus -- the absence of posturing and pretentious behavior are worth a lot more in the service of our King, than abject
servitude and songs about wretches and worms!
The observation may be coarse and ungrammatical, but it is nevertheless gloriously true:
God don't make no junk!
We are created and called to be servants even children! -- of the King, citizens of the Kingdom in which there is only one
superior the King himself and the citizens serve him, and one another, in the true humility of mutual respect, honor,
and love.

28
Word Study #15 --The Image of God
The word eikon, image, is one where the Greek and English concepts are unusually parallel. Historically, it referred to a
likeness, picture, or statue; one's reflection in a mirror; a personal description; a representation or imaginary form; a pattern,
archetype, similitude or comparison.

The whole idea of the image of God, of course, derives from the Genesis account of the creation. Interestingly, this event
is never mentioned in the context of image in the New Testament, where Jesus is the only person to whom the term
image of God is applied (II Cor.4:4 and Col.1:15), and his people are being re-created in his image (Rom.8:29, I
Cor.15:49, II Cor.3:18, Col.3:10). Nevertheless, the creation account includes significant elements that deserve our
attention.

When Scripture speaks of the creation of Man, the word used is anthropos, a generic term which refers to the species, not
to gender. The term includes both aner (man) and gune (woman). It might better be translated people except that it
occurs also in the singular. Sometimes person works, but not always. On Creation Morning, when the Creator spoke
everything into existence, he is quoted (in the Septuagint LXX -- the third century BC translation of the Hebrew
Scriptures into Greek) in Gen.1:26, Let us make man according to our image.... Man uses the singular form of
anthropos, therefore referring to the species (the next phrases refer to them). The plurals us and our with which God
refers to himself have often been considered the earliest hint of the concept of the Trinity, although some have treated it as
the royal 'we' referring to the English custom which is unlikely. That practice arose many centuries later.

It is not my intention here to get into a technical discussion of the Trinity. That is a game for folks who need complicated
theories to enhance their egos! I simply call your attention to the fact that the initial intent was for Man (the species) to
function with the unity and mutuality seen in interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: varied in function and
activity, but perfectly one in purpose and devotion. This idea is developed in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom,
chapter 2. Sadly, anthropos, the species, chose not to cooperate.

The point of what God has been trying to do throughout all the ages since Creation, is to reveal himself to, in, and through
his people. The same theme appears in Jesus' final recorded prayer for his disciples, in John 17: that they may be one ... so
that the world may know ...
Please note that none of this is directed to or about individuals. No one person, however faithful, is capable of reflecting
fully the image of the Triune God! We are not big enough, wise enough, nor yet sufficiently conformed to his image.
Only by functioning as one, as our Sovereign prayed, can we begin to become what he intends, and bear his image.

Outside of Genesis, virtually all of the rest of the Old Testament occurrences of eikon, as well as those in Revelation, refer
to idols and idolatry. Having totally missed or rejected the calling to reflect the image of their Creator, people created
images of their own design, incorporating characteristics (power, ferocity, fecundity, etc.) which they hoped thereby to
acquire. In Romans 1, Paul describes the tragic downward spiral that resulted. Jesus, too, described efforts to turn people
back to their created purpose, having sent a long stream of messengers and prophets (see Mt.23:34 and parallels), until
finally he came in person, to walk among men and create a demonstration project of his intentions.

The encounter between Jesus and his challengers (the only Synoptic use of eikon--Mt.22:20, Mk.12:16, Lk.20:24) over the
payment of the Roman taxes (actually, tribute-money the fee imposed by a conqueror upon vassal states, symbolic of their
submission) is instructive. It combines several concepts of image. In ancient empires, as in modern times, coinage was
designed bearing the image of a ruler who (more overtly in those days) frequently insisted upon being worshiped as a
divinity. It is partly for this reason that money-changers were required in the temple courts: money bearing an idolatrous
image could not be used in a holy place. The religious potentates who accosted Jesus on that occasion should not have
had such a thing as a Roman coin in their possession! It was unclean! Note that Jesus did not have one. This is further,
seldom-noticed evidence of his opponents' duplicity.
The Lord's question is probing and perceptive: Whose image is this? The ensuing conversation reveals the cultural
convention that the image is also a sign of ownership. It belongs to Caesar, and to his system. Let him have it. But don't
stop there! Let God also be given what belongs to him what bears his image ourselves, and our very life. Is it too much
of a stretch, then, to suggest that his people, the bearers of his image, are in fact the coinage of the Kingdom, intended to
be used for the King's purposes?

29
The image of God refers not only to our provenance and ownership, but also to our destiny! Please notice: all of these
assurances and admonitions are addressed in the plural. We will arrive together, or not at all.
Romans 8:29: Those whom the Lord has called, are intended (or, if you prefer, destined) to become conformed to the
image of the Lord Jesus who is himself (II Cor.4:4) the image of God. Paul repeats this designation in the letter to
Colossae (1:15) he (Jesus) is the image of the unseen God!
Earlier, he had explained to the folks at Corinth (I Cor.15:47-49), The first person was from the dust of the earth; the
second person was from heaven. Dust people are like the dust-person; and heavenly people are like the one from heaven.
Just as we bore the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.

This is the transformation that begins when people enlist in the Kingdom, and continues until its consummation. The one
who initiated a good work among you all, will keep working on it until it's complete at the Day of Christ Jesus. (Phil.1:6).
It requires our cooperation Paul frequently speaks of putting off the old ways and putting on the new, as one changes
one's clothing. Typical of the shifting responsibility is the passage in Col.3:10: Put on the new person, he directs an
aorist (single, snapshot action) middle (verb voice in which the subject both acts and is affected by the action) form --
which is continually being renewed -- a present (continuous) passive (the subject is acted upon by an external force or
person) participle -- in understanding, after the image of the one who created it. The choice of direction is ours; the
heavy lifting is in the capable hands of our Lord and King.
And we all, with faces that have been uncovered, reflecting the Lord's radiance, are being transformed (another present
passive) into his image.

Amen, Lord! Let it be so!

30
Word Study #16 Fear not!
Of all the imperatives in the New Testament, it may well be that this one stands in the sharpest contrast to the voices that
constantly bombard our consciousness. Economic, political, medical, social, and yes, even religious spokesmen, of every
persuasion, assault their already apprehensive audiences with the same message: Be afraid; be very afraid!
Jesus, in contrast, as well as virtually all of the supernatural participants in his recorded history, consistently greet
worried or startled people with a reassuring, Fear not! Dont be afraid!
How have these encouraging words become so universally ignored among those who claim to represent him?
Indeed, the students in my husbands class at a Christian high school, some years ago, overwhelmingly gave fear of the
consequences as the primary reason for their commitment to the Lord! and a fellow teacher at the same school who called
himself an evangelist questioned the validity of my own conversion when I said that I had never been afraid of meeting
God! This is not only tragic it is a shameful misrepresentation of the one who commissioned us to spread his good
news!

Even before the beginning the heavenly messengers greetings to Zachariah, to Mary, and to Joseph, were the same:
Dont be afraid! Zachariahs prophecy at the time of Johns birth referred to the joyous prospect of serving God without
fear(Lk.1:70), safe from the harassment of enemies; and the announcement of Jesus birth to the frightened shepherds
began with Dont be afraid! I am bringing you good news!
Jesus ministry was frequently punctuated with the same phrase: admonishing his followers not to fear their
persecutors (Mt.10:26,28, and Lk,12:4,7); reminding them of their great value in Gods sight (Mt.10:31, Lk.12:7);
reassuring Jairus about his daughter (Mk.5:36, Lk.8:50); promising the gift of participation in his Kingdom (Lk.12:32); and
in his final bequest to the disciples before his death, the legacy of his peace (Jn.14:27).
One outstanding event appears in Mt.14:25, Mk.6:48-50, and Jn.6:19-21. The scene is a ferocious storm on the Sea
of Galilee. The disciples are terrified at the sight of Jesus walking toward them across the waves. His greeting combines
two of his trademark statements: Dont be afraid I AM! (The next post will explore the latter part in greater detail.
Here, I will simply remind you that I AM was Gods Burning Bush statement, a clear reminder of who Jesus is.) It is only
after they recognized him and received him into the boat, that the storm was stilled.
Luke chose to highlight a different encounter on the lake (5:4-10), one that contemporary evangelists would do
well to emulate. Overwhelmed by the huge catch of fish (quite an extravagant thank you for the use of your boat!), Peter
reacted in the way many preachers expect (or demand) of their hearers: Leave me, Lord! Im a no-good sinner! But far
from pouncing on that confession and flogging him with it, (notice: that was Peters diagnosis, not the Lords!), Jesus
replied in a way more in keeping with his character: Dont be afraid! (Dont worry about it!) I have a job for you! What
a gracious welcome!

Matthew records the same phrase addressed to the frightened disciples on the occasion of the Transfiguration.
Matthew (28:5) and Mark (16:6) quote the messengers address to the women at the tomb after the Resurrection, and
Matthew also has Jesus himself repeating the same thing.
Twice in the Acts narrative, in Corinth (Ac.18:9-10) Jesus appearance to Paul, and just before the shipwreck
(27:24) a messenger of God delivered the same message, Dont be afraid! seems to have been almost like an
authentication that a message was indeed from the Lord. That is how John seems to have recognized that his visitor in
Rv.1:17 was Jesus himself. (It was combined with I AM there, as well.)

Even in contexts where fear is a very normal reaction to the perceived peril of a situation, (e.g., the storm at sea, etc.) Jesus
consistently seeks to allay, not to induce, their fears. There is only one context in which he does not do so: the situations
where the religious rulers, scribes and Pharisees, Herod, and even Pilate, are represented as fearing either Jesus himself, or
the crowds who followed him, as they pursued their nefarious plans.

We cannot, of course, neglect the handful of passages that refer to the fear of God. Unfortunately, ever since
Aeschylus (5th century BC), the same word, phobeomai, has also been used to refer to the reverence or respect due to a
deity, a government official, or even the master of a slave. This sense of the word also appears in Philo (1st century) and
Plutarch (2nd.century AD), as well as the Septuagint. (cf. Bauers lexicon see appendix.) The context usually makes clear
the intent: some examples appear in Lk.1:50, 18:2-4, and 23:40; Acts 10 (referring to Cornelius); several sermons, and
some of the epistles. Those who fear [reverence] God was a frequent reference to godly Gentiles. It is a gross distortion
to represent these as advocating that one should be afraid of God!

31
The noun forms of fear deal primarily with either respect or the normal human reaction to peril, with a couple of major
exceptions. In Romans 8:15, Paul reminds his readers, You all didnt receive a spirit of slavery, (that would take you) into
fear, but you received a spirit of being made (adopted as) sons! , and in the same vein, Hebrews 2:14-15 affirms that
through his death, Jesus once and for all destroyed the one who had the power of death, and rescued those who by fear of
death, had been held in slavery all their lives.

As an old man, John sums up the faithful followers point of view at the end of his beautiful treatise on the love of God (I
John 4:18-19): Fear doesnt exist in love; but a mature love throws out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The
one who is afraid has not been made mature in love. We keep on loving because he loved us first. At whatever level of
maturity we find ourselves, this is the goal.

Faithful representation of the Lord Jesus will always seek to alleviate, never to instill fear. This poor world has more than
enough fear already. An accurate presentation of the Gospel is the same today as it was to the terrified shepherds on the
hillside so long ago: Dont be afraid! I am bringing you Good News!

It is a message our world desperately needs! Proclaim it faithfully!

32
Word Study # 17 I AM
To understand the impact of Jesus use of I AM (ego eimi), you will need a bit of linguistics and a bit of history. Many
languages, including Greek (but not English), conjugate all of their verbs: that is, the subject, I, you, he, etc. is inherent
in the form of the verb, and does not require an expressed pronoun as a subject. In ordinary speech, I am is adequately
expressed by the verb, eimi, standing alone. A pronominal subject would be only for deliberate emphasis.
Historically, due to the account of Moses encounter with God at the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), I AM (with the
pronoun) became traditionally recognized as the name of the Deity. Somewhere along the line I recently heard the
suggestion that it may have been in order to avoid breaking the third commandment people were forbidden to pronounce
the sacred name at all. Consequently, the use of the first person pronoun was forbidden to ordinary people. The verb
stands alone in the vast majority of Biblical references, even after the translation of the Old Testament into the Greek
Septuagint, though it does appear, rarely, where strong emphasis is needed.

In light of the identification with God implied by the phrase, it is no surprise that the Gospel of John contains the greatest
number of incidents where Jesus deliberately used that forbidden phrase. Johns entire prologue is a paean of praise clearly
identifying the Lord Jesus with the eternal God.
The first occurrence of I AM (I have used capital letters where the pronoun is included), and probably the earliest
chronologically, is in Jesus conversation with the woman at Jacobs well in Samaria (Jn.4:26), where he matter-of-factly
declares his identity as the promised Anointed One. She obviously got the message, as did the townspeople she recruited!
Four times, Jesus uses it in combination with his other trademark, Dont be afraid! in the storm at sea
(Mt.14:26, Mk.6:50, Jn.6:20), and when he identifies himself to John (Rev.1:17). To his frightened followers, the
recognition (or reminder) of who Jesus is, becomes a great comfort, as it was in his Resurrection appearance (Lk.24:39).

For his opponents, on the other hand, it only incites or increases their anger and determination to get rid of him (see
the discourses in Jn.6:41-51 and 8:21-29). Sometimes these conversations are interpreted to imply that the hearers were
confused, but here I must beg to differ. Both interviews are peppered with I AM statements (6:41, 6:48, 8:23 twice, 8:24,
8:28, 8:57). They knew exactly what he was saying: they simply chose not to accept it. This is clear from the conclusion at
the end of John 8 (58-59), as they threaten to stone him.
The same is true of the trial scenes in Mk.14:62 and Lk.22:70. Jesus I AM statement is the capstone of their
case against him and he and they both know it. Although the phrase does not appear in Jn.5:18, it is clear that the point
has been made: The Jews were seeking to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but was saying that his
own Father was God, thus equating himself with God! See also Jn.10:30-33: The Father and I are one! Again, the Jews
picked up stones to stone him and when asked why, they replied, Were not stoning you about any good deeds, but for
blasphemy, because you, being human, make yourself out to be God!! And indeed that would have been heresy, had it not
been absolutely true!
The use of I AM as an identifier is also clear in Jesus warning to his disciples in Mk.13:6 and Lk.21:8, against
falling for impostors who would come pretending to his position. (World-ending is an ancient profession!)
Perhaps the most vivid of the scenes with his opponents is Jesus encounter with the posse that came to arrest him
(Jn.18:5, 7, 8). He calmly greets them, and inquires what they want; and at his simple ego eimi-- I AM, they backed
off and fell to the ground! Please note:
the Lord of Glory could not have been captured without his own permission!

The other major block of references where Jesus I AM statements are quoted, contain a predicate nominative.
These too are instructive.
Jn.6:35 I AM the Bread of Life. Bread has been spoken of as the most basic sustenance. It was Gods provision
for the ancient Hebrews in the desert, and now again in the first-century wilderness.
Jn.8:12 I AM the Light of the world. The first element of creation, light has always been associated with Gods
presence and his ways.
Jn.10:7, 9 I AM the Door. The door to a sheepfold provided both access and protection. A responsible shepherd
was said to sleep across the doorway, to protect his flock from predators.
Jn.10:11, 14 I AM the good shepherd. Old Testament prophets had berated the official shepherds for abusing
the flock for their own gain. Ezekiel described Gods determination to take over the job, and Jesus proclaims himself to be
the final fulfillment of that promise.
Jn.14:6 I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Each of these is worth a separate study.

33
 Way, hodos, may refer to a road, a journey, a direction, or a manner of life
Truth athleia, indicates the opposite of falsehood; reality; or an actual event.
Life (zoe), is one of three words translated this way; the only one that may (but need not) have an
everlasting or eternal dimension. It may indicate simply being alive, but may also refer to ones livelihood, or
subsistence, or even be a term of endearment.
Jn.11:25 I AM the Resurrection and the Life. Martha had relegated resurrection to the future consummation, but
Jesus does not. He goes on to explain that it is his very presence that confers Life (zoe).
Jn.15 I AM the Vine. Prophets (Isaiah 3, 5, and Jeremiah 12) had applied the vineyard figure to the people of
Israel. Jesus parables also had critiqued their management (Mt.21, Mk12, Lk.20), and warned of the corrective action of
God. His teaching here explains the work of the true caretaker, as well as redefining the Vine (himself).

The I AM statements in Revelation are all focused on Jesus all-encompassing constancy: Alpha and Omega, the
beginning and the end, the first and the last (1:17, 21:6, 22:13), in varying combinations. An interesting slant is found in
22:16, where Jesus refers to himself as the root and offspring of David. Genealogy buffs know that a mere person is one
or the other not both.
But it is the continuous, present tense that characterizes the Lord Jesus. This is also clearly revealed in the statement
itself: I AM is a simple present tense. This is also seen in Jesus own quoting of the original Burning Bush statement in
Mt.22:31 and Mk.12:26-27.
In a very real sense, both past and future are irrelevant, and consequently no cause for inordinate concern, to people who
are joined to the only One qualified to use that simple yet profound declaration I AM.

34
Word Study #18 Witness
Few and fortunate are the faithful followers of Jesus who have not, at some point, been subjected to a
massive guilt-trip by an enthusiastic, self-styled preacher-evangelist, roundly scolding them for the inadequacy of their
witnessing. This peremptory judgment is usually followed by an offer of reprieve, in exchange for submitting to lessons
on effective witnessing. The perpetrator of the guilt-trip then proceeds to outline a series of propositions (complete with
chapter-and-verse proof-texts) which are to be carefully committed to memory, and retrieved on cue to demolish the
defenses of a hapless target, thus fulfilling ones supposed duty to obey the Great Commission. I am quite certain that
what the Lord had in mind when giving that assignment was quite different from this (only slightly) more civilized version
of collecting scalps! The only thing sadder than this abuse of the clear admonition of Scripture, is its deleterious effect on
both the gullible student and his (not-so-unsuspecting) victim.

Lets get one thing straight: Jesus did tell his disciples (Lk.24:48), You all are witnesses of these things (the fulfillment of
ancient prophecies by means of his resurrection), and later (Ac.1:8) You all will be my witnesses. Both of these
statements are cast, not in the imperative (command) mood, but in the indicative: a simple statement of fact. A person
who has observed or participated in any event is, by definition, a witness.
Witness and testimony, both translations of martus (the person) and its related words, martureo and marturomai
(verbs), marturia, and marturion (nouns referring to the content of the testimony), are, first of all, legal, judicial,
courtroom words. In antiquity, as in the first century, and still today, it is incumbent upon a witness that he report, as
accurately as he is able, what he has personally experienced or observed no more and no less. He does not volunteer
information, but simply answers questions. Mere hearsay evidence is peremptorily thrown out of court!

In his first letter, John outlines this principle ably and succinctly (1:3) Its what we have seen and heard, that we are
reporting to you! Luke, who did not have the privilege of first-hand experience, says (1:2) that in his account, he relied
upon the original eyewitnesses for his information. He does not call himself a witness, but a researcher-organizer of the
testimony of others. Paul, on the other hand, repeatedly refers to his own experience, in both oral and written testimony.

There are New Testament accounts of purported witnesses whose testimony was pre-programmed by others: the false
witnesses enlisted by the ecclesiastical authorities to testify at Jesus trial (Mt.26:59-60; Mk.14:55-58); the false report
concocted by those same authorities to deny his resurrection (Mt.28:11-15); and the men brought in for the lynching of
Stephen (Ac.6:11-15). Which sort of company do you prefer to keep?

More commendable uses of martureo and its derivatives in the New Testament fall loosely into three groups: simple
evidence of a fact, or of a persons reputation; verification of Jesus identity; and reports of his resurrection. Notable among
the first group are: the requirement that two or three witnesses must agree for their testimony to be accepted (Mt.18:16, II
Cor.13:1, Heb.10:28); Jesus instructions to people to give evidence of his having healed them (Mt.8:4, Lk.5:14, and
Mk.1:44); and the integrity (or lack thereof) of individuals or groups (I Thess.2:10, Tit.1:13, Mk.6:11, and Lk.9:5). This
idea may also figure in Jesus word to his followers regarding their own prospect of being hauled into court (Mk.13:9,
Lk.21:13). Even with their lives on the line, they are told not to plan out their testimony in advance. By the Holy
Spirit, he promises to guide it as needed.
Jesus frequently offered evidence for his claims regarding his relationship with the Father: Jn.5:31-37, 8:12-18, and
10:25, and 37-38. Everything he did was intended to serve as that evidence/ witness. This is reminiscent of the
admonition attributed to Francis of Assisi, Preach the Gospel at all times; use words only when necessary. In Jn.15:26-27,
both the promised Holy Spirit and the disciples themselves are entrusted with the same responsibility to give that evidence:
because you all are with me from the beginning. (Are lessons in witnessing a substitute for having spent time with
Jesus?) And Jesus himself reminded Nicodemus (Jn.3:11) that his own testimony dealt with what he knew and had
experienced.
The overwhelming majority of NT references to bearing witness (for anyone other than Jesus himself) concern the
glorious news of his Resurrection! This was the reason Peter gave for needing to choose as a replacement for Judas
someone who (1) had been with Jesus, and (2)could testify that he is alive! (Ac.1:22). Clearly, this was the central burden
of the New Testament sermons (Ac.2:24,32; 3:15, 5:32, 10:39,41; 13:31). It was the message that Festus found so
confusing (Ac.25:19), and against which the ecclesiastical authorities campaigned so vigorously: Jesus is alive!!!

Still today, this is the source and the content of what we as his people have to offer to all who are still living in darkness,

35
pain, or fear. Everything elsehealings (Ac.3:11-15), changed lives (19-20), the consummated Kingdom (20-21) is
secondary to the fact that Jesus is alive and active among his people! As during his earthly ministry, it is his observable
activity among us that serves as testimony (evidence) that the message is true! In the face of dire threats from the temple
hierarchy, Peter and John (Ac.4:20) replied, We cannot keep from speaking of what we have seen and heard! Neither can
we.

Faithful witness to our living Lord has nothing whatsoever to do with memorized answers to questions that nobody is
asking. It has everything to do with our allowing him to create among us a fellowship (see Post #8) where his Life can be
seen! Genuine witness is simply giving first-hand reports of that Life when folks see it, and ask.

You all ARE my witnesses! (Lk.24:48).

36
Word Study #19 The Kingdom (Part 1)
I have chosen to divide this study into two parts: one a generalized overview of Gospel references, and another of more
detailed examination of a few points.
One outstanding contributing factor to the difference between an observable, practical view of Christianity and the
theoretical pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye version is the understanding that a group promulgates of the Kingdom of God.
Specifically, do they speak of it primarily in the present or the future tense?

Both of these occur in the gospel accounts, and elsewhere in the New Testament, but the Biblical balance is skewed heavily
in the direction of the Kingdom as a present reality. Notice the prevalence of Jesus statements and his instructions to his
disciples to echo them: The Kingdom of God is (present tense) among you, or, The Kingdom of God has arrived
eggiken (perfect tense: a past event whose effect continues in the present and perhaps beyond). A few examples are in
Lk.17:20-21; Mt.4:17; Mk.1:15; Mt.10:7; Lk.10:9-11.
Even more vivid, although frequently missed by English translators, is Jesus response to the hierarchy-types who accused
him of a connection with the devil in his casting out of evil spirits, If I am doing this by the finger [power] of God, then the
Kingdom of God has gotten ahead of you! (Mt.12:28 and Lk.11:20) Ephthasen is the aorist form of phthano, a rarely used
word that speaks of one competitor in a race outrunning or overtaking another. The tense here, in both references, is aorist:
something that has already happened!

Jesus put it even more plainly in Lk.16:16 and Mt.11:12: The law and the prophets were (in effect until) John (the
Baptizer). Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed! (present tense). The King has arrived! The Kingdom
exists wherever the authority of the King is recognized!

In his inaugural address (Lk.4:18-21), Jesus set forth the principles upon which his Kingdom would operate:
It would be good news to the poor, who had been despised and marginalized by a society that equated riches with
Gods approval.
He declared that he had been sent to announce (keruxai) release to the captives (explained at least partly in
Hebrews 2:15). A kerux was a herald: the cultural equivalent of a news anchor a public messenger of what was
presently going on.
He would give sight to the blind (both physically and spiritually) one of the most frequent manifestations of his
power to heal.
He would set at liberty people who had been crushed by oppression (tethrausmenous). This is the only NT use of
thrauno, which denotes an utterly helpless and hopeless condition. Tradition has interpreted this, and the earlier reference to
captives, in a political sense: but Jesus did not. Neither did he postpone any of it to some sort of idyllic future. He rather
affirmed, Today this scripture has been fulfilled (perfect tense) in your hearing!

His subsequent teaching and activity were simply a practical demonstration of his announced purpose: proclaiming
(keruxai again) the Lords accepted time. (Eniauton refers to any defined period of time.)
Interestingly, when messengers come from John the Baptist asking about his identity (Mt.11:5, Lk.7:21), Jesus lists those
same elements, with a few additions, as evidence that he is indeed the one who was to come.

This same orientation is present in the majority of Jesus parables about the Kingdom. Of eleven that he specifically says
describe the Kingdom, 4 are clearly descriptions of present conditions and 6 contain both present and future elements. Only
one the sheep and goats scene in Mt.25 focuses on the future, and even that relies on the evidence of the present
behavior of those judged. (I have not counted parallels as separate events.) It is helpful to look at these in detail, but that is
beyond the scope of this post. We will consider some outstanding elements of these in Part 2.)

Jesus also found it necessary on several occasions to correct prevalent misconceptions about the Kingdom, some of which
still persist, uncorrected, among his followers. The scribes, to whom he responded with one of his banquet parables, clearly
had bye-and-bye in mind when they piously remarked (Lk.14:15), whoever eats bread in the Kingdom of God is greatly
privileged [blessed]. Jesus story points out that those invited do not all respond to the gracious invitation (16-24). Even
more bluntly, he replies to a group fixated on a future kingdom (Lk.17:20-21), The Kingdom of God is not coming with
meticulous observations. Neither will they say Look, here! or There! For look: the Kingdom of God is already among
you all!

37
To those who expected that a final political consummation was imminent (Lk.19:11-24), Jesus gave a reminder that
faithfulness (or lack of it) before the end governed the eventual outcome.
Even after the resurrection, the disciples were still asking, Lord, is this the time you will re-establish the kingdom of
Israel? (Ac.1:6). Jesus reply communicates that their question is missing the point completely: he speaks instead of the
gift of the Holy Spirit, who will empower the growth of his Kingdom among them.

During his time with them, Jesus had admonished his followers (Mt.6:33) to keep seeking for the Kingdom of God. This
is a present imperative. And like most of his instructions, it is addressed in the plural it is a mutual, group effort, not a
lonely, individual quest. He encouraged one scribe, who had responded thoughtfully in a discussion, You are not far from
the Kingdom of God (Mk.12:34).
He told his disciples that they were privileged to have the mysteries of the Kingdom of God revealed to them, when he
explained the meaning of parables (Mt.13:11, Lk.8:10), and urged them to dispose of anything that would hinder their
participation in the Kingdom (Mk.9:47 and parallels).
There are similar indications in various epistles, of the contemporary nature of the calling to faithfulness. More of those
later.

However, there are definitely aspects of the Kingdom that are not yet realized. Jesus also spoke (Mt.25 and elsewhere) of
when the Son of Man comes in his glory and the Fathers, and several times of the Kingdom as an inheritance to be
anticipated. Someone has characterized this apparent ambiguity as living between the already and the not-yet. Faithful
followers must maintain this healthy tension.
We will consider a few specifics in more detail in the next study.

38
Word Study #20 The Kingdom, Part 2
One critical element necessary for the understanding of Jesus references to the Kingdom is found in the passage commonly
labeled the Lords Prayer.
Although it is reasonable to question whether Jesus ever intended it to become a memorized, rote recitation (I dont think he
did), by its grammatical structure, the prayer sheds an interesting light on the concept of the Kingdom. Parallelism of
structure is a frequently used tool in many cultures, both ancient and modern, for illustrating or emphasizing interlocking
relationships.

Three phrases here are identical in form:

hagiostheto to onoma sou
eltheto he basileia sou
genetheto to thelema sou
The first element the verb in each phrase is a third-person aorist passive imperative. There exists no such form in
English, and consequently all attempts to translate it fall far short. In English, we assume the subject of an imperative verb
to be the second-person you the individual being addressed. A third person imperative requires a stated subject in
this case, the noun name (onoma), kingdom (basileia), and will (thelema). But then there is a problem, how to
represent the verb. Some have rendered it may or let this happen but that is far too weak, carrying a wishful-thinking
flavor (for which Greek would have used the optative, rather than the imperative mood), or a request that the hearer allow
it to happen (which would require a hortatory subjunctive). An imperative is much stronger than either of these. Whether a
second or a third person, it is a command, not a suggestion or a wish. I have usually chosen to use must (which would
usually be expressed with dei + an infinitive). That is still not right, but I think it is closer. Suggestions are most welcome!

The parallel structure, in any case, denotes a kind of connection, not quite an equation, but close, between the three
elements, all of which are included in the summation, as in heaven, so also on earth. One could even say, then, that these
are the basic ingredients of the Kingdom: it exists and flourishes wherever/whenever Gods name is recognized as holy
(belonging uniquely and absolutely to him), and presently doing his will is the deliberate choice of his people. In one sense,
the coming of the Kingdom may be defined by the preceding and following statements. This is already the case in heaven
and his people are called to model it as well as to pray for it, on earth: in effect, to incarnate the Kingdom.

Important aspects of the Kingdom are further illuminated in many of Jesus parables. One must be careful not to read too
much into these stories. Parables are usually designed to make one primary point. Jesus purpose is not served by (as a dear
teacher/brother/friend once put it) counting and analyzing the hairs on the tail of the Samaritans donkey!
Nevertheless, a few observations and questions may be helpful not as definitive doctrine, but as aids to understanding
the impact of the stories on the original listeners. We will examine only the parables that overtly include some version of
the phrase, The Kingdom of God (or heaven) is likeOthers may also have bearing: these definitely do.

1. The wheat and weeds in the field (Mt.13:24-30). The workers are worried about the weeds, but the Master, conceding
that they were planted by an enemy, chooses not to endanger his growing crop by allowing over-zealous weeding. How
much good grain has been destroyed by workers more eager to pull weeds than to cultivate the crop? (Marks version
4:26 speaks only of the growth of the crop.)
2. The mustard seed (Mt.13:31-32, Mk.4:30-32, Lk.13:18-19). It not only grows amazingly, but provides shelter for
creatures!
3. The yeast (Mt.13:33, Lk.13:20-21) also grows not just to get bigger or make more yeast, but to make bread basic
sustenance for people!
4. The treasure in the field (Mt.13:44). Notice the delight of the man: he does not think he is making a sacrifice!
5. The pearl (Mt.13:45-46), also, is deemed of ultimate value by the merchant well worth whatever it costs.
6. The fish-net (Mt.13:47-50). A grand mixture of varieties, useful and not, will be sorted later. Compare this with the
weeds (#1). These two combine present and future ideas, whereas #2-5 are strictly present.
7. Three vineyard parables. The two in Mt.21:28-32 and 33-41, while the Kingdom is mentioned only once (31), are
sternly critical of the present unfaithfulness of the people entrusted with the care of the vineyard (long considered a symbol
of the people of God), whereas the earlier one (20:1-15), describing the hiring of workers throughout the day, critiques the
selfishness of even faithful workers who assumed that their seniority would confer higher status/salary.
8. The wedding banquet (Mt.22:1-13) highlights not only the rudeness of the first folks invited to the party and the

39
consequent random inclusion of outsiders, but a man who is improperly dressed. It has been suggested that festive robes
were customarily provided by the host. Had this man perhaps refused the gift, thinking his own good enough?
9. The ten virgins with oil lamps (Mt.25:1-13) also combines present and future. The girls are waiting for the arrival of the
wedding party, but the focus is on having made (or not!) adequate preparations. (Why is there no criticism for not
sharing?)
10. Similarly, the talents (Mt.25:14-30) and the minas (Lk.19:11-27) deal with an interim period. Only Lukes version
mentions the Kingdom, or the overt hostility of some of the subjects. Matthew has the servants responsibilities scaled
according to their abilities (v.15), whereas Luke has them commissioned equally. Those who acted faithfully are equally
commended in Matthew, but Luke records a variation. Both, however, exclude the slacker.
11. The sheep and goats (Mt.25:31-46) is the only one of the Kingdom parables to be quite specifically focused on the
future, when the Son of Man comes in his glory. It is seldom pointed out that this judgment is explicitly said to be of the
ethnoi nations or Gentiles (same word), or that the criteria by which they are divided have nothing whatever to do
with anything that either group believed (pisteuo, in any of its forms is nowhere to be found in the account), but rather
concerns their behavior. Of interest, also, is the exercise of comparing the criteria Jesus lists here, with his inaugural
address in Lk.4 (see part 1). I do not believe the similarity is accidental. Might these folks, although unwittingly, have
actually been participating in Kingdom work? I suggest that it behooves us to be slow to pontificate about who may or may
not be included.

I have deliberately refrained from compiling these observations into a neat pattern of conclusions. I dont believe Jesus
intention was to provide us with doctrinal weapons with which to clobber one another. I believe he sought to engage our
hearts, minds, and energies in the work of his Kingdom.
I hope these questions can contribute to that effort.

40
Word Study #21 The Kingdom, part 3
Some folks have associated Jesus statement that some of those present would see the Kingdom come in power (Mt.16:28,
Mk.9:1, Lk.9:27) with the immediately following experience of the Transfiguration. Others chalk it up to a supposed
misunderstanding (?!?) of the time lapse before the Second Coming. I am more inclined to go with those who relate it
to Pentecost, and the powerful activity of the Holy Spirit in the early church.

Surprisingly, there are only 27 uses of the word kingdom in Acts and the epistles. Describing the period between Jesus
resurrection and the ascension, Luke notes (Ac.1:3) that the Kingdom of God was the content of the graduate course
that Jesus conducted for his disciples during that time. Even so, they still had the wrong idea (1:6), clinging to the notion
that a political coup for the nation was in store. Jesus reply (1:7-8) is one that much of his church has yet to grasp. He
bluntly asserts that any such concerns are none of our business! The Kingdom of which he has been speaking will be
established as the power of the Holy Spirit enables his people to spread out through all the known world as his witnesses
(see W.S.#18) to his reign!

It took a while, but eventually the faithful disciples began to understand. The Kingdom of God, along with the news of
his definitive defeat of death, became the core of their message. In Ac.8:12, we learn that in Samaria, Philip was preaching
about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Early on, the realization became vivid, that the message was not
a glory-trip, nor one of personal aggrandizement. Paul, in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Ac.14:22), after himself having
been stoned, beaten, and run out of town, is found strengthening the morale of the disciples, encouraging them to remain
faithful, and (warning them) that it is necessary for us to enter the Kingdom of God through many hassles! See also
Ac.19:8, 20:25, 28:23 and 28:31.

With all its ubiquity, however, it is hard to find a concise definition of the Kingdom, beyond the certainty that the King is
in charge! There is a sense in which every description of the New Testament church is actually an account of the Kingdom
in action. Here again, I would refer you to Citizens of the Kingdom for fuller exploration. Paul asserts (Col.1:13) He
(God) has rescued us from the power [authority] of darkness and transported us into the Kingdom of the Son of his Love!
Everything else grows out of that triumphant truth! His redeemed, rescued people are expected to live out the present
reality of that rescue! Both rescued and transported are aorist tenses: they have already happened!

Gal.5:19-24, I Cor.6:9-11, and Eph.4:17-5:20 all detail before and after descriptions of the life of rescued people. Note
especially the BUT in I Cor.6:11! A radical change of lifestyle was expected of Kingdom citizens, not just a slightly
sanitized substitute for the sordid situation of their surrounding society.
Paul admonishes the young Thessalonian church (I Thess.2:12)you all should live in a manner worthy of God, who is
calling you into his own Kingdom and glory!
Notice, however, that nobody is instituting a new legalism. Everybody knew that hadnt worked. Paul reminded the
Roman brotherhood (Rom.14:17), The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy
Spirit!
Neither does it require complex doctrinal reasonings and formulas, as he reminded the folks in Corinth (I Cor.4:20), The
Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power! the present-tense experience of the power of the Holy Spirit!
As committed disciples interact, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by their faithful life to the
Resurrection of their King, onlookers can begin to glimpse the beauty of his Kingdom.

Of course, we all recognize that our best, most earnest efforts, our most careful faithfulness, still falls far short of the
promised Kingdom. But not to worry! After all, one of the reasons Jesus said he came in the first place was to take away
our shortcomings! (See W.S. #7). Thats one of his specialties!

Although they comprise only a small minority among the references to the Kingdom, there are also passages that speak of a
future dimension a consummated Kingdom far beyond anything we can imagine, let alone experience, in this present
world.
As an old man, imprisoned for his faithfulness, and possibly soon to face execution, Paul reminded Timothy (II Tim.4:1) of
the much-anticipated prospect of the appearance and kingly reign of Jesus, at which time he will judge [sort out] (see
W.S.#9 and 10) the living and the dead, and (v.18) of the rescue and vindication that he expects at that time.
Peter also encourages his readers (IIPet.1:11) to remain faithful as they await entrance into the eternal Kingdom of Jesus.

41
The writer to the Hebrews (12:28), while using a perfect tense (we have received), nevertheless offers the assurance that
when everything else is shaken apart, this Kingdom will stand.
During the Revelation, John was privileged to glimpse the time when the kingdoms of this world have become the
Kingdom of our God, and of his Christ (Anointed One) (Rev.11:15), and he literally runs out of words in his effort to
describe that glory.

Clearly, there is more in store for those who choose ways of faithfulness. The future is not irrelevant, but holds
indescribable promise.
BUT, until then, we already have a King to honor and obey, and fellow-citizens of his Kingdom with whom to learn to
reflect his glorious graciousness.
Lets start practicing now and put some shoe-leather under the earnest prayer of our hearts,
Thy Kingdom come! Thy will be done ON EARTH as surely as it is in heaven!

42
Word Study #22 My Friends

I owe this study to my 12 year old grandson, Thomas, who asked me, Grandma, did you ever work on friend? I hadnt
didnt really think there was much to investigate, but his comment, Some people say theyre your friends, but they
really arent, got my attention. Jesus had that problem, too. Who hasnt? So I started to dig, and no surprise saw
some very intriguing patterns emerging.

Two words are traditionally translated friend in the New Testament, and two more have been added by modern translators,
completely muddying the communication.
Hetairos is used only four times, and only in Matthews gospel. Classically, the word referred primarily to political
partisans, business or religious associates, or casual companions. Matthew uses it of childrens playmates (11:16), in the
landowners reply to his disgruntled workers (20:13), in the hosts response to the improperly clad man at his feast (22:12),
and Jesus addressing Judas in the betrayal scene (26:50). None carry any personal level of involvement or affection, and
certainly no mutuality.

Philos, used 29 times, covers a broader spectrum, although a greater degree of personal involvement is usually implied.
(Not always: it is used in Lk.23:12 of Pilate and Herod, in their shared frustration at the case against Jesus.) Jesus uses it in
parables, often paired with neighbors or family members (Lk.15:6,9; 21:16; 14:10; Ac.10:24), or referring to a cordial
relationship (Mt.11:19, Lk.7:34, Lk.7:6; 11:5,6,8; 15:29; Jn.3:29; Ac.19:31; 27:3). Two instances seem to fit better with the
flavor of hetairos Lk.12:4 and Jn.19:12 but there, philos was the writers choice.
There seems to be a change of the depth of meaning in Johns gospel, where Jesus speaks of Lazarus (11:11) as our friend
and John notes (11:5) that Jesus loved (egapa) that whole family. And in his farewell word to the disciples (15:13-15),
promoting them from the status of servants to friends for whom he is prepared to lay down his life, an even deeper
relationship is indicated.

The most interesting and, I think, significant observation is that both hetairos and philos almost entirely disappear from the
text after Pentecost! The faithful, after that time, consistently refer to one another as adelphoi brethren! Please note that,
although the preponderance of uses are masculine in form, this does NOT indicate the preferential treatment of males. It is
simply the generic form of the word all words have gender (not necessarily related to fact) in many languages. (For
example, in Greek, hand is feminine, and leg is masculine, regardless of the gender of its possessor.) The point is,
identification with the Kingdom/family of the Lord Jesus has introduced an entirely new level of relationship to his people.
Brother still does refer to physical family relationships, as it did in the Gospels, but from the time (Ac.9:17) when Ananias
addressed the newly-enlightened Saul as Brother, it is the term of choice among fellow-disciples.
This usage is not unique to the Christian community: it was used classically of religious associates, or even military
companions, and Peter (Ac.2:29), Paul (Ac.22:1), and Stephen (Ac.7:2) all used it in addressing their unbelieving (even
hostile) Jewish audiences. However, the vast majority of the 346 New Testament references are to committed fellow-
disciples.
Jesus had used it that way (Mt.28:10, Mk.3:33-34, Jn.20:17). Especially notable is his statement in Mt.23:8, flatly
forbidding any hierarchical structure among his followers (which many still ignore, at their peril). Even John, an
acknowledged apostle and elder, learned that lesson so well that he refers to himself in the introduction to his Revelation
(1:9), as your brother, and companion in the hassles, and the Kingdom, and endurance (that is) in Jesus. Brother is the
highest and only title legitimately applied to any follower of Jesus. As members of Jesus own family (Mt.12:49,
Mk.3:34, Lk.8:21), we belong to one another in unique and wonderful ways. So-called contemporary translations do us a
great disservice in reducing that God-given bond to the casual status of friends.

To top it off, the revisionists manage also to throw agapetos (watered-down to dear friends) into the mix. Agapetos is the
participial/noun/adjectival form of the much-preached verb agapao, which seems to grow in its glow with every fresh-
hatched theologian who gloms onto it. I will only say here that the word itself is far less sanctified than is usually
proclaimed. If you need a fr instance, how about Jesus disparaging comment (Lk.6:32) Even sinners [losers] also love
(agaposin) those who love (agapontas) them? That doesnt sound much like godly love to me!
Liddell/Scott lists regard with great affection or fondness; hold in high esteem; used of affection between children and
parents, or God and man, or husband and wife. Theologizing aside, a genuine depth of relationship is definitely in view. If

43
you have a problem with the slightly archaic beloved, dear people or loved ones is more to the point than simply
friends. And when it is paired with adelphoi dear (or even dearest) brethren is accurate. Reducing both of these to
mere politician-speak (my friends) seriously cheapens the vocabulary.

This is a classic example of the poverty of language and understanding created by translators who are either bound to an
agenda, or who have not troubled themselves to treat the original vocabulary with the precision and integrity it deserves.
Here are four words, with four distinctly different meanings, merged in to one term so vague as to communicate virtually
nothing. Lowest common denominators simply do not work!

As casual associates progress through deepening friendship to Christian brotherhood, and thence to the precious gift of the
mutuality of love learned in the Kingdom of our Elder Brother, we are privileged to grow together into his very image no
longer servants, but friends, and beloved brethren, whom Jesus has designated as members of his own family!
There IS a difference!

44
Word Study #23 Why DID Jesus come?
You have all heard some version of these tear-jerking lines:
Jesus was ONLY born in order to die!
If I/you had been the ONLY sinner on earth, Jesus would have come and died for me/you!
YOUR sinfulness sent Jesus to the cross!
Impassioned speakers have used these declarations for years, maybe centuries, to create enormous guilt-trips, and the
indictment is meekly accepted by thousands.
The only trouble is, JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Increasingly annoyed by the self-centeredness inherent in that focus, which seems so contradictory to the God-ward and
out-ward focus of all of Jesus words and actions, I decided to comb carefully through the Gospel accounts to discover what
HE presented as the purpose of his coming. Seems like it should be a no-brainer to consider Jesus himself as the best
authority on such a subject.
Now, before you get all up-in-the-air about inspiration, please understand that I am not denying the inspiration of the
writers of either the Gospels or the Epistles. However, I do maintain that their explanations must be understood in the light
of what Jesus himself has said. So lets take a look at his own words.
Purpose, in the Greek language, may be expressed grammatically in three ways: with the particle hina and a subjunctive
verb (usually translated in order that); with a simple infinitive (translated to); or with the use of the preposition eis, or
the phrase eis touto (translated for this reason, or this is why). A fourth, more ambiguous form uses the particle dei, it
is necessary which may, but need not have a purpose implication. It is usually more of a forecast than a statement of
purpose. Here is a simple list of references where Jesus is quoted as using one of these constructions.

Infinitives:
Mt.5:17 to fulfill the law and the prophets (which he then proceeds to correct)
Mt.9:13 to call not the just, but those who have failed
Mt.10:34 to throw fire on the earth (separation, based on relation to him)
Mk.2:17 parallel to Mt.9:13
Lk.12:49-53 parallel to Mt.10:34
Mt.20:28 not to be waited on, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (a ransom secures release from captivity, and is
the only even oblique reference to his death)
Lk.4:18-19 to announce good news to the poor, to be a herald of healing to the blind and release to captives, to send out in
freedom those that are broken
Lk.19:10 to seek and to rescue those who are lost/destroyed.
hina:
Lk.22:29-30 The Father gave him a Kingdom so that he could pass it on to the disciples
Jn.3:15 both the conditional (believing/being faithful) and the subjunctive (may have)are in the present tense not
future.
Jn.3:16 same combination of present tenses
Jn.3:17 so that the world may (also present) be rescued/ saved
Note that if these referred to a single event, the tense would be aorist, and the result future. Neither is the case.
Jn.6:38 I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but to do the will of him that sent me. (used 3x in 38-
40)
Jn.10:10 I have come that they may have life (present tense) and have it abundantly.
Jn.12:46 I have come, a light, into the world, so that everyone who is (present tense) faithful to me may not remain in
darkness.
Jn.12:47 not to judge the world but to rescue it
Jn.17:2 to give eternal life (Present tense), which he then proceeds to define as intimate acquaintance with the Father and
with himself, to those who were given to him.
Jn.17:13 that they may have my joy complete among themselves.
eis:
Mk.1:38 -- Thats why I came out (to preach in other communities)
Jn.9:39 for discernment (eis krima)
Jn.18:37 (before Pilate) eis touto Thats why I was born and came into the world, to bear witness to the truth.
dia touto: Jn.12:27: This is why I came to this hour Jesus does not explain this statement, but virtually everybody else

45
does!
dei: Remember, this indicates a forecast, not necessarily a purpose:
Mt.16:21 to suffer abuse from the hierarchy, die, and be raised
Mk.9:31-32 -- parallel
Lk.22:37, 24:26, 24:44 will deal with these later
Jn.3:14 to be raised up or exalted
Jn.10:16 to round-up the other sheep who will listen.

Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to private, individualistic forgiveness of sins. See W.S.#7. Jesus certainly
did make that offer on occasion (Mt.9:2-6, parallels in Mark and Luke, and Lk.7:47), but when challenged, the objection
had nothing whatever to do with his death, but rather with his right/authority to forgive because of his identity with God!

Where, then, did this distorted limitation of Jesus purpose come from? His comments in Lk.22:37 and 24:44 may be
helpful. Jesus explains on both occasions, everything that is written about me must be fulfilled. Many times, he had
found it necessary to correct misperceptions of what the anointed one would be or do. Religious authorities had
concocted elaborate but mistaken ideas of a political emancipator, and other glorious (to them) job descriptions for the
awaited messiah. Is Jesus perhaps cautioning his people to sort carefully which of the oft-quoted prescriptions of the Law
and the Prophets really are about him? Perhaps we need to look at these again, and instead of trying to cram Jesus into
the traditions of an ancient sacrificial system, turn our energies rather to participating in the Kingdom that HE SAID he
came to inaugurate! Not everything written is necessarily about him.
Notice also the accounts (Mt.27:11, Mk.14:61 and 15:9, Lk.23:5 and 13-22, Jn.19:6-16) of Jesus trial. The charge against
him was his Kingship and Sonship there was no religious element at all.

Jesus has come in the Fathers name as his representative (Jn.5:43), as the Light that can enable us no longer to walk in
darkness (Jn.12:46). He has come to rescue the world (12:47). He has fulfilled the (legitimate) promises of ancient
writings (Mk.5:17), and ransomed his people from whatever captivity they suffer. He has come that his sheep may know
abundant life (Jn 10:10), and to bestow eternal life which he has defined as intimate acquaintance with both himself and
the Father (Jn.17:2), upon those who trustingly follow him in faithfulness. He has covered all the bases provided for
every need. My son Dan has an excellent summary in his blog post Enough with salvation already! which I commend to
your attention.-- nail to the door.wordpress.com

The crucial question here is the same as in so many other places and situations, and the only one that matters, in the last
analysis:
WHO IS YOUR KING?

46
Word Study #24 In the Name of Jesus
The word name (to onoma) appears in the New Testament text more than 200 times, with several different implications,
many of which are poorly understood largely for cultural reasons. More than 50 of those are merely identifying
individuals as our western culture would expect. A few are simply counting used as a synonym for people, and 15-
20, especially in the Revelation, refer to evil entities of some sort, or identification with them. But that leaves us with the
vast majority primarily those referring to the name of God, of the Father, of Jesus, or of the Lord which are not so easily
sorted by dwellers in 21st century western culture. The implications of these must be gleaned from the context, which
means that any conclusions we may draw are merely conjecture, and open to challenge.

Classically, to onoma referred either to a specific person, to ones fame or reputation, to someones financial account or
credit, to ones ancestors, or to a political or business attachment to some source of authority. (Liddell/Scott). The Arndt and
Gingerich translation of Bauers lexicon (see appendix) contains a few more anthropological notes: The belief in the
efficacy of a name is extremely old.This (N.T.) period of literature sees in the name something real: a piece of the very
nature of the personality whom it designates, that partakes of his qualities and his powers. It may refer to attributes,
ownership, or loyalty. The use of a name without the attendant loyalty is seen as hypocrisy or deceit. In a similar manner,
millennia earlier, people had been warned against taking the Lords name in vain i.e., outside the realm of honor and
obedience to him.
A name is often assumed to convey the power of the one named, for good or ill. To believe in the name of someone is to
certify that he is genuine. To call on the name of someone human or divine was an attempt to access his power or
intervention.

The Gospels are replete with references to Jesus having come in his Fathers name as his representative (Mt.21:9 and
parallels, Jn.5:43). His deeds of power and compassion are offered as witness to the truth of that claim (Jn.10:25).
Consequently, when he sends out disciples in his name, or when anyone claims to represent him, similar evidence is
reasonably to be expected (Mk.16:17, Lk.10:17, Lk.24:7). Nevertheless, it is also clear that in the name of Jesus is NOT
legitimately to be used as a pious version of abracadabra! False claims of his name are roundly condemned, as is obvious
in his categorical rejection of those who claimed a non-existent relationship to him in Mt.7:22, and similarly referenced in
Mt.24:5, Mk.13:6, Lk21:8 and 21:8 and 17, and illustrated most dramatically in Ac.19:13-16. This sort of situation does
require careful discernment, however: see Mk.9:38 and Jesus response in 9:39.

Calling on the name of Jesus (Ac.2:21, 4:12, 9:21, 15:17; Rom.10:13, I Cor.1:2, II Tim.2:19), like
trusting/believing/becoming faithful to (see W.S. #1) his name (Jn.1:12, 2:23, 3:13-17) seems to carry a strong flavor of
commitment to him and his cause, and a consequent expectation of obedience. That commitment was assumed to be
evidenced by being baptized in the name of the Lord (Ac.2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16), regarding which Bauers lexicon
notes: Through baptism eis to onoma [literally into the name] of someone, the one who is so baptized becomes the
possession of, and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears: he is thenceforth under the control of that
one wholly dedicated to him.

Associating/acting in someones name was also assumed to access his power or intervention, as is evident in the various
accounts of healings, both when disciples were sent out as Jesus representatives during and after his earthly ministry, and as
the gathered group of committed followers took on their responsibility as the Body of Christ, ministering discipline (I
Cor.5:4, II Thess.3:6) as well as healings (Ac.3:6, 4:7, 4:30, 16:18; James 5:14).
A huge amount of rhetoric has been expounded, (loosely) based upon Jesus encouraging his disciples to make requests in
his name. In the context of this more accurate understanding of the use of the concept of name, it should be abundantly
clear that he was NOT offering anyone a blank check! Instead of a license to append in the name of Jesus like an
incantation to every prayer or admonition, his statement must be viewed as a caution: Be certain that the entreaty is
motivated by, and is completely in harmony with the totality of his being his personality his Kingly position and the
work of his Kingdom before attaching the name of Jesus to anything!

Contrary to many modern assumptions is the observation that there are more references to abuse/persecution for the sake
of his name (at least 17), than there are to glorious successes (a few in Revelation, but not before that!)
Consistently, those who associate themselves with the name of Jesus are reminded of their responsibility to take care to
bring no reproach upon that name/reputation! (I Cor.1:10, Col.3:17, II Thess.1:12, I Tim.6:1)

47
It is in his name that praise and thanksgiving are to be offered to God (Eph.5:20 and many other places), and that the unity
of the brotherhood is to be maintained (I Cor.1:10).

And it gets even better! The name given to Jesus after his triumph over death implies the awarding of a well-deserved
title above all names (Phil.2:9) above every conceivable rank or power (Eph.1:21) higher than the name of any
angels/messengers (Heb.1:4). The day will come when that truth is universally acknowledged (Phil.2:10) and every
knee shall bow in submission to the name of Jesus! May God and his people speed that day!

But meanwhile, all who do acknowledge Jesus name have a clear assignment: to represent their Sovereign faithfully. Paul
expressed this concern to the brethren in Thessalonica (II Thess.1:12): Thats what we always keep praying for you all: that
our God may make you worthy of the calling, and may fulfill (your) every good intention and faithful deed in (his)
miraculous power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified among you all, and you in him. The instructions are
simple: (Col.3:17) And everything whatever you do, in word or deed, (do) everything in the name of the Lord Jesus
-- as his representatives by his power and for his honor!

Amen

48
Word Study #25 Gifts
In a well-intentioned, but misguided effort to boost the involvement of congregational members long reduced to mere
spectator roles, countless institutional churches have jumped on the bandwagon of Gift Discovery campaigns. A closer
examination of their queries of What are you good at?, or, worse, What are you passionate about?, reveals that what
they really mean is, Which already-highly-defined slot in our corporate structure are you willing and able to occupy? an
exercise that has absolutely no connection to the New Testament concept of the gifts of God.

The English word gift has been chosen as the translation for no fewer than nine different words in the Greek text. These
can be loosely grouped into three categories:
1. cosmic gifts dorea, dorema, dosis, classically representing a bounty from a king or other superior, a legacy, or a
privilege granted
2. material gifts doron, anathema, doma, classically applied to fees, bribes, votive offerings, or simple presents of any
kind
3. spiritual enablements charisma, charis, merismos, reference to graciousness, usually of a god.
None of these refers to learned skills or innate talents. Skills and talents are certainly also given by God, and should
definitely be used in his service, but they are not gifts in the New Testament sense of the word.

We will examine the most frequently used word in each of these categories, in an effort to sort out the diverse implications
of the terms. Please try to remember, these are not simply different ways of saying gift. They are different words, and not
one single concept. It may be helpful to consider, in each case,
1. Who is the giver?
2. Who is the recipient?
3. What, exactly, is the gift, or for what purpose is it given?

Dorea is exclusively applied to the overwhelming gift of God to mankind: his life (Heb.6:4), his Son (Jn.4:10), his Holy
Spirit (most of the rest.) Deliverance from death (Rom.5:15), and the privilege to participate in Gods own justice (5:17) are
also included. No person is capable of giving these: see Ac.8:20, where Simon the magician is harshly judged for
presuming that he could purchase the power to do so. Dorea is frequently paired with charis in which case it is translated
gracious gift or gift of grace. It may enable human generosity (II Cor.9:15) or service (Eph.3:17), but the source is
clearly in God, and the result is the gracious inclusion of people in his glorious life.

Doron, on the other hand, except for one anomaly in Eph.2:8, is the province of mortals. It speaks of people giving presents
to other people (Mt.2:11, Rev.11:10), and of people making offerings, usually at the temple (Mt.5:23-24, 8:14, 15:5, 23:18-
19, Lk.21:1, and Heb.5:1, 8:3, 8:4, and 9:9). In both cases, the gifts are material things, or money. The recipients, too, are
human: either individuals, or the temple hierarchy.

While both of the words above occur in the Old Testament (LXX), charisma does not. It is a strictly New Testament word,
that appears only after Pentecost! More specific than dorea, it nevertheless consistently comes from God (mostly the Holy
Spirit), although on occasion it was mediated by a person or group (II Cor.1:11, I Tim.4:14, II Tim.1:6). Paul is careful to
avoid taking credit for charisma (Rom.1:11-12), where he is quick to clarify his desire that I may share with you all some
spiritual gift for your strengthening by adding to be mutually encouraged among you all by means of one anothers
faithfulness.

The vast majority of charisma references relate to the formation and function of committed disciples as the Body of Christ
(see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 7). Rom.12:6 is the first specific reference to gifts in the Body, but 12:3-8
elaborates on the subject, as does the rest of the chapter. Here we meet the concept that spiritual gifts are intended to be
the equipment needed for the mutuality that is essential to a faithful Body. I Cor.1:7 affirms that they assure the full
provision for faithful activity, and I Cor.12:4-31 is the most complete treatise on the subject. Diversity of empowerment and
function is emphasized. Service is the goal (5 and 6). The manifestation of the Spirit is given, by means of each one, for
everyones benefit (v.7). These dative cases, traditionally interpreted as indirect objects (to each one), given the
contextual emphasis on mutuality, are much more likely to intend datives of agency or means (see the section on this
passage in Translation Notes, and Uses of Cases in the Appendix). The Holy Spirit is the giver, the recipient is either the
body of believers or a person in need; the individual is the agent or means by which the necessary enablement (gift) is
delivered a sort of a postal service.

49
I Peter 4:10 (actually, also v.11) echoes the same concern: Just as each one of you has received a spiritual gift, serve each
other with it, as good trustees of the many-faceted grace of God.
Notice again, that none of these gifts is a learned ability or natural talent, but the supernatural provision of God for the
need at hand.
In no case are gifts represented as diplomas for having achieved a certain level of saintliness, or titles of honor (which
Jesus had forbidden).
In no case are they the possession of any individual and certainly not a permanent possession. They seem to be distributed
almost at random, as needed (I Cor.12:11), and a perusal of the Acts account indicates that different folks may be called
upon for different tasks at different times. The Spirit seems to use whoever is available!

The gifts of God are many and varied, but their purpose is one: to create (by means of dorea) and then to empower and
manage (by distribution of charismata) a people who, together, can function as the Body of Christ in the world, continuing
the work of Jesus.
The responsibility and the privilege are enormous. But so is the provision.
May we respond in faithfulness!

50
Word Study #26 Truth
Truth aletheia is one of the words which, although already richly diverse in its classical usage, took on a whole new
dimension in the New Testament. Jesus use of the term in one of his I AM statements Jn.14:6 -- is as unique in
literature as he himself is unique among people. So as we pursue Pilates (probably cynical) question, What is truth?
(Jn.18:38), it must be with the realization that, ever since Jesus walked the earth, truth is no longer only a what?, but a
who?, and ones answer to that question determines the entire direction of his life.

The classical writers parallel many modern understandings of truth:

-- honesty; the opposite of lying, falsehood, or pretense
-- genuine, as opposed to artificial; correct, as opposed to mistaken
-- frankness or candidness in persons, as opposed to hypocrisy
--reality, as opposed to mere imitation, or, as in Plato, the form rather than a shadow
These are reflected in some of the New Testament uses of truth as well: in the idea of being without deception
(Mt.22:16, Mk.12:14, Jn.4:23-24, Jn.8:40-46), or specifically not lying or pretending (Lk.4:25, 22:59, Mk.5:33, 12:32,
Jn16:7, Rom.9:1, II Cor.7:14, 12:6, Phil.1:18,) among others.

But in the New Testament, as Bauers lexicon notes, Truth has a strongly practical side, which expresses itself in
[behavior]. Truth is something you DO, not a theoretical statement of intellectual conclusions. John, in particular, writes
of obeying the truth or walking in the truth (Jn.3:31, I Jn.1:6, II Jn 4, III Jn.3-4), as do Paul (Rom.2:8, II Cor.3:8,
Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7), James (5:19), and Peter (I Pet.1:22). This list can be expanded even more when one keeps in mind that
pisteuo, traditionally translated believe, actually means be/become faithful to (see Word Study #1).

When the New Testament writers speak of becoming faithful to the truth,(traditional versions say believing) (I
Thess.2:13, I Tim.4:3, II Tim.3:7), or knowing (Col.1:6) the truth (Paul uses epiginosko here a strongly experiential
form of knowing(as does the writer to the Hebrews in 10:26)they are not referring to any sort of intellectual assent to a
list of propositions, but to a chosen way of life!
I Jn.3:18 is especially interesting in this regard, as he admonishes his readers, Dear children, lets dont love in theory
[word] or in talk, but in action and truth!

Also of interest are the instances where truth is paired with a noun in the genitive case. Remember that although the most
common use of the genitive is to indicate possession, it may also refer to a source (coming from) or the content (made
of, consisting of). Paul speaks of the truth of Christ (II Cor.11:10) or of God (Rom.1:25, 3:7), very likely an
indication of source, and of the Gospel (Gal.2:5) most likely content. Turning the cases around, John refers to the spirit
of truth (Jn.15:26, 16:3, I Jn.4:6), and Paul to the word of truth (IICor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15) , more likely
to be a possessive genitive. These come into sharper focus in the light of Jesus statements:
--I AM the truth (Jn.14:6)
-- Thy word is truth (Jn.17:17) (Remember that John had introduced Jesus himself as the Word Jn.1:1)
-- and Johns reminder, The spirit is truth (I Jn.5:6).
These three are the only references that seem to make any effort to actually define the term.

Truth is also presented as an active force in human affairs:

--Jesus statement, You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free (Jn.8:32)
--Jesus prayer, Set them apart [make them holy] by [in] the truth (Jn.17:17
--James 1:18, where it is represented to be the agent of our birth into the family of God.

None of this should be seen as an attempt to minimize the understanding of truth as the absolute honesty and
transparency, in both life and speech, expected of all Gods people. That is basic to all the citations here.

Warnings about opposition to the truth, or refusal to be obedient to it/him, (Rom.1:18, 1:25, 2:8; Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7; II
Thess.2:10, 2:12;; I Tim.6:5, II Tim.2:18, 3:8, 4:4, Tit.1:14, I Jn.1:6, 1:8,2:4) are in no case concerned about the intricate
details debated during centuries of theological speculation by hierarchical councils of various descriptions. They are
concerned with the behavior of those claiming to represent the Lord Jesus.

The same One who explained to Pilate that the purpose of his coming was to bear witness to the Truth (Jn.18:37), had

51
earlier proclaimed himself to be the very personification of Truth! (14:6). What clearer synopsis, or identification, could
there be, than Everyone who is from [or, belongs to] the truth, listens to [obeys] my voice (18:37)? The Way, the Truth,
and the Life, are all about the Lord Jesus!

They all simply refer us back to the same question invoked in several of our earlier studies:
Whos calling the shots?
Who is in charge?
Who is your King?

52
Word Study #27 Hear / Listen / Obey
Is there a parent walking the earth, who hasnt confronted squabbling kids with an annoyed DID YOU HEAR ME?!! The
question is not one of auditory acuity, although the sullen teenagers I heard you! may try to confine it to that assumption.
We deeply value a companion who really listens. And yet, when weve tried multiple times without success, to get
Johnny or Susie to pick up their belongings, LISTEN! does not demand merely attention, but obedience.

All of these and more are encompassed in the use of the word akouo. They always were. Although akouo is the source
from which our English word, acoustics (which concerns primarily the transmission of sound waves) is derived, the
classical writers also used it in a much wider variety of situations. The primary uses listed in the Oxford lexicon are:
-- to hear: a sound, a message, or a reputation
--to pay attention, to respond to being called or summoned
-- to hear and understand; to be the pupil of a teacher
Traditional English translators, for the most part, took no account of this breadth, using understand only once, and noted
the expectation of response or obedience not at all, in the 415 uses of akouo in the New Testament, although 6 times they
did substitute hearken where there was unmistakable pay attention flavor.

Although some clues can be found in the tenses of any imperative uses i.e., an aorist could lean toward sit up and take
notice and a present toward keep on listening, one must tread carefully here, since there is no definitive lexical or
grammatical way to determine without question which aspect of the word was intended. In examining the context in which
the word appears, however, we must bear in mind that Hear! or Listen! refers to much more than simply bouncing
sound waves onto eardrums.

The word listen actually does not occur at all in traditional translations. Obey is only used when akouo appears with
the prefix hup- (hupakouo), in which case it is the only appropriate choice. However, obedience is certainly implied in a
number of Jesus statements, as evidenced by the other verbs that are paired with akouo:
-- Mt.7:24-26 hear and do
-- Mt.15:10 hear and understand
-- Lk.11:28 hear and keep
-- Jn.5:24 hear and believe / become faithful
-- Jn.5:25 hear and live
-- Jn.10 hear and follow
His explanations of the Parable of the Sower/Seed (Mt.13:19-23 and parallels) focuses on peoples response to what they
hear, as do his instructions to the disciples when they were sent out (Mt.10:14 and parallels).
Diakouo appears once (Ac.23:35) in the context of a court trial, in a usage similar to the more common diakrino (see W.S.
#9), the implication being a careful examination.
Eisakouo (5 uses) has more of an implication of listening to a prayer (Zachariah and Cornelius), as does epakouo. Please
see the list of prepositions often used as prefixes in the Appendix to Translation Notes, for the meanings they can contribute.
In the Synoptic Gospels, slightly more than half of the occurrences of akouo refer simply to being made aware of
information. The balance shifts in John, especially when he is quoting Jesus. Most of the Epistles speak mainly of hearing
and listening or responding to information. There are, however, several notable exceptions.
In addition to the prefixed form, eisakouo, the unaltered form is also used of prayer that is heard /answered (Jn.9:27,
Jn.11:41-42, and I Jn 5:14-15.)
The use of akouo in admonitions to heed the word of the prophets (Lk.16:29,31; Mt.13:13-15 and parallels) certainly
implies obedience.

The flavor of teaching/learning shows up in Marks comment that Jesus spoke to his disciples as they were able to hear
(absorb?) it. In his discourse in Jn.15:15 Jesus tells the disciples Everything I heard from my Father, I made known to
you, and later, speaking of the Holy Spirits ministry to them (Jn.16:13), He will not speak on his own, but whatever he
hears, he will say.

That people who gathered to hear Jesus teaching probably could have been sorted into several categories, is evident in his
frequent repetition of The one who has ears to hear, had better listen / pay attention! (This is often cast as a third person
imperative: please see that form explained in the Appendix.) A similar intent may exist in the voice out of the cloud
quoted in all the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts (Mt.17:3, Mk.9:7, Lk.9:35), Listen to him! Coming as it does right

53
after Peters grandiose offer to build a memorial, it could even be read as Shut up and pay attention!

Jesus may also be intending such a nuanced understanding of akouo when he warns, Take heed how (pos) you hear!
(Lk.8:18, KJV). Since it immediately follows the parable of the Sower, the response to what one hears is clearly in view.
The parallel in Mk.4:24 (also KJV), Take heed what (ti) you hear (neither manuscript cites any textual variants) seems
more likely to be calling for discernment as to what is worthy of ones attention. Both are legitimate concerns.

So this is one of those word studies that does NOT end up with neat categories or explanations. Its value is rather to make
us aware of greater breadth of meaning than we may assume in casual reading, and hopefully to encourage us to be selective
in our hearing / listening, but to recognize also a call for response.

May we do so in faithfulness!

54
Word Study #28 Life: eternal and otherwise
*Note: The following treatise is only a brief summary of this matter. A closer examination of the component parts may
come later: especially if some of you all join in the study effort!

For probably as long as they have had the intellectual and linguistic capacity to do so, people have wondered and
speculated about life: and their philosophical, religious, and even physiological conclusions have differed greatly.
This is an instance where the same English word has been applied to three distinctly different Greek terms, resulting in the
blurring, if not the complete loss, of important elements of understanding. Especially interesting in this regard is the sharp
departure from classical usages that we see in the New Testament.

Bios (source of the English biology), in classical writings, referred to ones mode or manner of life, his livelihood, or
merely his physical existence. The term was used of animals, as well as people. Some writers used it of the real world as
opposed to mere philosophical speculation. It appears only 10 times in the New Testament, translated 5 times as life and
5 as living.

Zoe (source of zoology) is even less common in the classics. Homer used it of physical existence; others referred to ones
substance or property, or even a term of endearment, my Life!! It may also refer to ones chosen way of life. This is the
term that dominates in the New Testament there are 133 occurrences.

Psuche (source of psychology), although a favorite of the 5th and 6th century BC philosophers, used by Homer denoting
ghosts, or departed spirits, and as an entity that leaves the body if a person faints, more frequently referred to someones
personality, or conscious self. At times it was used simply to count individuals. Some philosophers used it of ones moral
or intellectual self. Early physicians used it as the source of life and consciousness. It was the Stoics and Epicureans who
divided the concept of psuche (soul) from soma (body). For Plato, it was the immaterial principle of movement and
life. Hippocrates referred it to the emotions. Please note: these all date prior to the third century BC: they are NOT
Christian ideas! There are 103 uses of psuche in the New Testament, with widely varying translations, the most common
of which are life and soul.

Interesting cultural observations can be made on the basis of words that are commonly used together: in this case,
specifically, the combination with aion (n.) and aionios (adj.), which are usually translated with some form of eternal.
Although aion was also used of a lifetime, age, or generation, or any clearly defined epoch, Epicurus often preferred the
concept of perpetuity. For other uses of aion, see #86.

The only classical incidence of aionios noted in Liddell/Scott as being used with bios was in reference to Egyptian
monarchs. This fits well with the ancient Egyptian cultural practice of carefully preserving bodies and organs, and
providing them with artifacts, wealth, food, pets, and even servants for their welfare in the afterlife. It was the physical life
that they expected to be continued or replicated. No pairing of bios and aionios occurs anywhere in New Testament
writings.

Pindarus, Plato, Epicurus, Homer, and many other Greek writers/philosophers wrote of the psuche a disembodied entity
that existed in a shadowy realm after death, occasionally interacting with the living; but their primary use of eternal (or,
more frequently, immortal) referred almost exclusively to gods and heroes. This pairing, also, never occurs in the New
Testament, even in the places where traditional translators rendered psuche as soul, the 3rd to5th century BC pagan term.

In all the New Testament writings, only zoe is used in conjunction with any form of aion a combination that never
occurred in the classical writings. The consistency of this choice indicates with unusual clarity that a very different concept
is in view. Zoe appears with aion or aionion 43 times, and the idea of something quite beyond ordinary existence is present
in at least that many more of the uses. Might this not be a deliberate, overt rejection of the pagan concept of disembodied
souls, in favor of Jesus statements, I AM the life (Jn.14:6), I have come that they might have life (Jn.10:10)? All
of these employ a form of zoe, as do Jn.8:12, The one who is following me shall have the light of life, and Jn.11:25, I
AM the resurrection and the life. Many years later, as an elderly man, John put it very simply: (I Jn.5:11-12) God gave us
eternal life! This life is in his Son. The person who has [holds on to] the Son has life; the one who doesnt have [hold on
to] the Son, doesnt have the life! Here too, zoe is used throughout.

55
So where did all the rhetoric about eternal souls come from? Not from the New Testament! Psuche and aionion are
never used together there. The English words do not appear together, even in traditional translations that arbitrarily use
soul instead of life in about half of the appearances. To be fair, we must note that there are four places (yes, only four
in the entire New Testament) where the traditional translators refer to saving souls: Heb.10:39, Jas.1:21 and 5:20, I
Pet.1:9. Please refer to W.S. #5 for a discussion of the concept of save. I can only conclude that those translators were
more heavily influenced by the Golden Age of Greek philosophy than by the message of Jesus, who had offered his
followers the privilege to enter into life (zoe)! And Jesus spoke of life (zoe) with or without the addition of aionion
(eternal) primarily in the present tense!

He spoke of laying down his psuche for his sheep, maintaining that he had the authority both to lay it down and to reclaim
it (Jn.10:15-17). Yet it was his spirit (pneuma) that he committed to his Father from the cross (Lk.23:46), and Stephen
offered the same commitment to Jesus himself at the time of his own death. I could not find any references to the spirit of
God or the spirit of a person outside of the LXX (Septuagint) or the New Testament. The deliberate choice of pneuma
classically more generally used of wind, or simple respiration instead of psuche may have been a further gesture of
rejection of the pagan implications of psuche. Indeed, the writer to the Hebrews notes the difficulty of distinguishing
between the two (4:12), and relegates that task to the Word of God! If only his people today had the grace to do likewise!

The focus of the New Testament is clearly upon zoe which is represented as originating in (invented by?) the Lord Jesus
himself (Jn.1:21). Fully half of the references in the Gospels are specifically paired with a form of aion/aionion, and many
of the rest definitely imply a higher order of living.
Even more significant is the fact that most of these occur with present tense verbs. Even statements like Jesus telling his
opponents (Jn.5:40), You dont want to come to me in order that you may have life, does not use a future tense, as is often
assumed by those who use only English, but a present subjunctive form, which is required in this kind of a statement of
purpose or intent. The same structure occurs in the much-quoted Jn.3:16, and also in Johns statement of the evangelistic
purpose of his gospel (20:31). These are all talking about the present, not the future!
Yes, there are a handful of references to in the world to come, such as Mk10:30 and its parallel in Lk.18:30, but these are
the exception. Additionally, they express a continuation of what has already begun, not something that only begins in the
future.
More common is Pauls expression in I Tim.4:8, a promise of life both now and in the future. Both Gospels and Epistles
are concerned with the quality, not just the duration, of life.

I will close this brief summary with a few of the passages where eternal life is succinctly defined all using zoe:
Jn.6:63 (Jesus speaking) The messages I have spoken to you all are spirit, and they are life!
Jn.11:25 (Jesus) I AM the resurrection and the life!
Jn.14:6 (Jesus) I AM the way, the truth, and the life!
Jn.10:28 (Jesus, of his sheep) I am giving them eternal life, and they will never be destroyed!
Jn.12:50 (Jesus, of his Father) His command IS eternal life!
Jn.17:3 (Jesus) This is eternal life, that they may be acquainted with you, the only true [real, genuine] God, and Jesus
Christ, whom you sent.
Col.3:4 Christ, who is our life
II Cor.4:10 In order that Jesus life may be revealed in our mortal flesh [human nature]
I Jn 5:20 We have our very existence in the True One, in his Son, Jesus Christ!
HE IS THE TRUE [GENUINE] GOD, AND ETERNAL LIFE!!

THANKS BE TO GOD!!!

56
Word Study #29 To Know
What do you intend, when you say that you know someone/something? You know who they are? You are close associates
or friends? You are able to perform a task? You are acquainted with certain facts? You can quote something from memory?
You can recognize an artifact or idea, speak a language, or understand a culture? The English language incorporates all of
these meanings and more some of which may be contradictory -- into a single word, to know.

The New Testament writers, in contrast, employ eight different words, all of which traditional translators have rendered
simply as know. Is it any wonder that confusion can result? An evil spirit screams at Jesus, I know you! (Lk.4:34), yet
later, the ultimate blessing of eternal life is attributed to knowing him (Jn.17:3)! The reader of the average English text
has no clue that these are different words. Unfortunately, they dont all sort out quite that easily, but we can clear up some
of the fog with careful attention to vocabulary. In this study, correct understanding of the differences between the original
words will probably not materially change ones understanding of most passages, as much as it will enhance our
appreciation for the message.

The most commonly used of all of these words is oida. It is the perfect tense form of the verb horao, to see, and occurs at
least 285 times in the New Testament. Classical uses of oida are obviously connected to the concept of seeing. They
include looking at or paying attention to something, mental sight or discernment, to behold or observe an object or event,
or to be acquainted with a fact. This is not foreign to us: Oh, I see! is equivalent to I get it! I understand. In the New
Testament, it is concerned primarily with information, which may or may not influence ones life. I know (oida) may be
an expression of confidence or expectation, as in Eph.1:18, but it need not. It may concern awareness of someones
reputation (Rom.16:15, I Thess.1:5), or of an event or idea (like all 13 occurrences in Acts).

Ginosko, the second most frequent NT usage, (196 uses), usually presupposes more personal involvement with the person,
event, or principle that is known. Classically, it included recognition, discernment, or opinion that results from personal
experience or observation. The word was also used of the marital relationship. Frequently, the NT writers used it to refer to
the simple identification of individuals (Lk.24:35), of recognition or understanding of events or people (Mt.24:43), or of
finding out (Jn.12:9) information.

The difference between oida and ginosko is most easily seen in passages where both are used. For example, look at Jesus
upper room conversation with Peter in Jn.13:7. To Peters protest at the apparent impropriety of a master washing the feet
of disciples, Jesus replies, You dont know (ouk oidas) what Im doing now, but you will understand/know (gnose) later.
And Peter did learn the lesson by experience quite well, as evidenced by his later instructions to the brotherhood (I
Pet.4:10), As each one has received a spiritual gift, serve each other with it. You may also want to follow the interplay
between oida and ginosko in John 7 and 8 or John 13 and 14, which is easily done by using Youngs concordance (see Word
Study instructions), for further understanding of the different implications of the two words.

Epiginosko (the prefix epi is an intensifier) appears only 30 times translated know, 5 as acknowledge, and 3 as
perceive. Classical definitions include to witness or observe, to recognize, to find out or discover, to become acquainted,
or to decide or adjudicate. Many of the NT references are focused on recognition or identification (Mk.6:33 and parallels,
Ac3:10, 9:30, 12:14, 19:34; Lk.24:16 and 31), or reassurance (Lk.1:4, II Cor13.5, Col.1:6, I Tim4:3). Peters warning takes
on an even more serious tone, when he uses epiginosko (the stronger term) both times in II Pet.2:21: It would be better for
them never to have become acquainted with the way of justice, than having known it, to turn back .

Other words are less frequent, and less loaded:

Epistamai, classically to know how to do something, to understand a matter, to know as a fact, in Homer, to know for
certain, or in Aristotle referring to scientific facts, in the NT usage refers primarily to information, primarily about an
individuals past history (Ac.20:18).
Proginosko (source of English prognosis), to know or perceive beforehand, usually without being told, occurs only five
times, and it must be remembered that it refers to knowing, not causation, despite the distortion by some translators. (II
Pet.3:17 and I Pet.1:2 use the same word.)
Sunoida, used only four times, refers to shared knowledge (the prefix sun- is the preposition with).
Diaginosko (source of English diagnosis) appears only once, in a legal investigation (Ac.24:22).
Agnoeo (source of English agnostic) the a is a negative prefix is used four times as not knowing (Ac13:7, and
Rom.2:4, 6:3, and 7:1), and 10 times as to be ignorant. Please note that this ignorance does not presuppose hostility

57
simply not knowing.

It is the frequently used ginosko, oida, and epiginosko that need more attention than they commonly receive. Notice,
please, that none are inferior to others in any way; they are simply different. Notice also that none of these contain any
admonitions regarding intricate details of dogma or argument. And Jesus bluntly informed his curious disciples (Ac.1:7)
that it is not for you to know (ginosko) a roadmap of the future!

Although oida usually refers to knowing or figuring out facts, Paul clearly expects it to inform ones way of life. In
Gal.4:16 he points out that when they did not know God, they followed lesser leaders, and in Eph.1:18, knowing ones
calling is supposed to motivate a godly life. Phil.4:12, often (mis)quoted, expresses the apostles confidence that in the
power of God, he knows how to deal with any situation. It is not an expression of infallibility or omnipotence on his part
-- or ours!
Ginosko more commonly represents knowledge acquired by personal experience or relationship. It predominates heavily in
Jesus prayer (Jn17). When Jesus is explaining the meaning of parables, or someone is referring to Gods understanding of a
persons situation, ginosko is usually (though not always) the choice.
It is clear that something more than passing acquaintance is intended in Pauls prayer for the Ephesian brethren (Eph.3:19)
that they may know (gnonai) the love of Christ, which vastly exceeds knowledge (gnoseos)! (The verb is wonderful! It
is a form from which our hyperbole is derived!) A similar flavor occurs throughout Johns first letter. He is speaking of a
very intimate involvement between Jesus and his people.
Epiginosko is usually reserved for very close acquaintance between people, or a thorough understanding of information.
All three are important ingredients or enablers of faithfulness, which, in the final analysis, is intended to be the goal of all
our pursuit of knowledge: that we may experience the full measure of the maturity/completeness that our King intends
for us.

May we continue to grow in that knowledge!

58
Word Study #30 Forgetting and Remembering
Have you felt obligated to accept the burden of guilt perpetrated by those who insist, You have not really 'forgiven' a
person who has wronged you unless you have 'forgotten' the incident?
Have efforts to forget life-altering events or betrayals nearly reduced you to despair?
Did it ever occur to you to investigate whether the much-quoted admonition to forgive and forget ever appeared in the
New Testament at all?
Take heart, my wounded brothers and sisters who are serious about faithfulness: it isn't there!
And neither is the corresponding allegation, intended to shame you by example, that God has forgotten all of your
offenses. Forgiven, certainly. Forgotten well, hymns and sermons to the contrary, the subject is not even discussed in the
New Testament writings.

There are only eleven appearances of the English word forget in the entire New Testament; and these combine three
different Greek words, one of which, in I Pet. 1:9, the only time that lambano is translated that way, (a word that usually
means take, receive, accept, attain, or, rarely, take away) and is therefore a bit suspect. The others, epilanthanomai and
eklanthano are quite similar in classical usage, with the latter being perhaps a bit more emphatic.
Of the other occurrences, nine refer to people forgetting all but one in a negative sense: Mt.16:5 and Mk.8:14 record the
disciples' failure to pack lunch before their trip; James 1:24 and 25 admonish the man who looks in a mirror and forgets
what he saw; and the writer to the Hebrews asks reprovingly, (12:5) Have you forgotten (God's instructions)? The same
writer reminds readers not to forget to do good, to share, and to extend hospitality (13:2 and 16).
The only positive mention of forgetting is in Phil.3:13, where Paul speaks of forgetting his pedigreed past in order to
devote all his energy to seeking greater maturity in Christ.
Twice, the reference is to God, and is one of encouragement: Lk.12:6 quotes Jesus as declaring that not even sparrows are
forgotten by him, and again in Hebrews 6:10, God is not unjust, to forget your work, and the love you all demonstrated
for his name, and the way you've looked after his people.

That's it, folks. That's ALL the New Testament says about forgetting!
Even in the Old Testament, where the LXX usually uses epilanthanomai to translate the Hebrew shakach, forgetting is
warned against Don't forget what God has done! not advocated; and when it is said of God, it refers to his judgment,
not his mercy. Check it for yourself in Young's Concordance.

OK, let's give the guilt-trippers the benefit of all possible doubt, and consider that maybe we have to look at remembering
in order to justify their scolding. This includes five Greek words, all quite similar, all related etymologically. They are
anamimnesko (used only once), mimneskomai (the middle voice see appendix to Notes also used only once), mnaomai
(15 times), mnemoneuo (19 times), and hupomimnesko (3 times). All of their classical definitions are very similar.
All but two of the references (out of a total of 40) are simply to people remembering or being reminded of past events,
messages, or behaviors.
The two referring to God, Heb.8:12 and Heb.10:17, are both instances of the same quotation the writer takes from the
prophecy of Jeremiah. Recognizing the utter failure of the law to produce the life that God designed and desired for his
people, the writer combines several of Jeremiah's messages about the promised New Covenant: (8:10-12) This is the
covenant that I will establish....when I give my laws into their understanding, I will write them on their hearts ...They will
all know about me, from the least to the greatest of them. I will be merciful about their injustices, and I will no longer
remember [keep score of] their shortcomings [failures]. Please notice the conclusion, (Heb.8:13): In saying 'new', he has
made the first one old; and what has become old and been superseded is near to disappearing!

It is possible, that with some intricate verbal gymnastics, people could turn that quotation into support for their
proclamations about God forgetting, but in doing so, they ignore the whole message of Hebrews 7 through 10, which is
to` highlight the inadequacy, the utter failure of the old covenant, and its sharp contrast with the New, as established by
Jesus! In fact, I would even suggest that it is the failure of the Law that may even be the failure (translation of hamartia
see W.S.#7) that is in view in the prophecy! However, even if you give the guilt-preachers enough editorial license to
ignore the context, there is still nothing that commands or even suggests that forgetting is advocated, much less
demanded, of faithful people! Our instructions, repeatedly, are Do not forget! Remember!

Clearly, (again see W.S. #7), we indeed are instructed expected to forgive [release] our abusers, as Jesus himself
demonstrated. But this has nothing whatever to do with the unrealistic requirement of forgetting.

59
One brother put it this way: To forgive is not to forget, but to refuse to be bound or limited by evil. There are wrongs in
this life that cannot be set right. They have passed into history, and their consequences, although they can certainly be
redeemed, cannot disappear. But in deliberately forsaking vengeance and resentment, both the injured party and the
offender can be set free, although the course of both lives may have been permanently, irretrievably and unforgettably
altered. Yet, in those wonderful instances when, by the grace of God, reconciliation becomes possible, how much poorer
would everyone concerned be, if all were forgotten? Remember and give thanks!

We are instructed to remember, throughout the Gospels, especially John, what Jesus said, did, and taught. In the Epistles,
we are told to remember the poor (Gal.2:10), and those imprisoned for their faithfulness (Heb.13:3); to remember our
former alienation from God and his ways in order to appreciate (and imitate) his graciousness (Eph.2:11); and the
faithfulness of our brethren and teachers many times. Even those who have faltered in their faithfulness are admonished to
remember the devotion of their first love (Rv.2:5, 3:3) for the Lord and for each other.

Remembering is a much more fruitful focus for our attention.

60
Word Study #31 Power
Since, as we have seen in many of these studies, the principle message of the New Testament concerns the revelation, the
establishment, and an invitation to participative citizenship in the Kingdom of God, it should come as no surprise that the
concept of power is a frequent subject of discussion. Also not surprisingly, even a cursory English survey of the uses of
power reveals a wide variety of ideas, due in large part to the fact that this single English word has been used to represent
four different Greek words which, despite some overlap, have quite distinct meanings.

Dunamis, the word most frequently used (117 times), is the only one that refers to miraculous deeds, by Jesus or his
followers (22 times specifically, and many more by implication). Interestingly, that usage appears to be almost unique to
Biblical writings. Classically, the word was used for a person's ability to do a task, or to any natural capacity. Aristotle
used it of the elementary forces, such as heat or cold; Galen, of the basic characteristics of substances, of medicines, or
formulas; Plato of the meaning of a word; Archimedes of mathematical powers and roots; Heliodorus of magical
substances or objects; and Herodotus of forces deployed for war. (Liddell/Scott) Not until the Septuagint (LXX) and New
Testament writings is it applied to the activity of divine beings or miraculous works. Perhaps this is why it often appears in
a phrase the power of God, the power of the Spirit, the power of the Lord, the power of Christ (at least 43 times):
to emphasize whose capability is in view.
Malevolent powers are also mentioned Lk.10:19, Ac.8:10, Rom.8:38, I Thes.2:9) as well as simple abilities of
individuals Mt.25:15, Ac.3:12, Ac.6:8, II Cor.8:3,4 but the overwhelming majority of references are to a manifestation
of the power of God, either directly (by Jesus), or through one or more of his people.
It is also interesting to note some of the words closely associated with dunamis:
Jesus challenging his accusers that they know neither the Scriptures nor the power of God (Mt.22:29)
Lk.5:17 The power of the Lord was present to heal
Peter and John's declaration that our own power or holiness was not the source of the healing (Ac.3:12)
I Cor.2:4: demonstrations of the Spirit and power
I Cor.4:20 The kingdom of God is not in words but in power
Rom.1:4 Jesus declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection
The power of his resurrection II Cor.13:4, Phil.3:10, and many others.

Exousia, the second most frequently used among the power words (103 times), is quite distinctly different. Without
exception, it refers to delegated authority. It is often paired with dunamis. When Jesus commissioned his disciples for
their mission (Mt.10:1, Mk.3:15 and 6:7, Lk.9:1), he gave them both dunamis and exousia the ability necessary for their
assignment, and the authority to use it. On the other hand, his reference to the power of the Holy Spirit to be conferred at
Pentecost used only dunamis (Ac.1:8), as did the subsequent discussion with the temple hierarchy, who questioned their
display of dunamis with, Where did THAT come from?(4:7). Maybe they had given up on the authority question by
that time. His opponents among the scribes and Pharisees had not challenged Jesus' ability to act as he did: that was
obvious. They questioned his right (authority exousia) to do so (Mt.21:23-27, Mk.11:28-33, Lk.20:2-8).
Political power, natural or supernatural, is universally represented by exousia, in conformity with classical usage (Lk.23:27,
many times in Eph. and Col.) L/S lists office, magistracy, consulate, and to exercise authority over a political entity, as
well as the abuse of that authority; but also notes exousia as simply permission to act. The Roman centurion who
approached Jesus on behalf of his child [servant] understood this (Mt.8:9), noting that his own authority was delegated, and
he himself also assigned responsibilities to inferiors. The same idea appears in several parables (Mk.13:34, Lk.19:17), and
in Paul's accounts of his former assignment from the Jewish authorities (Ac.9:14, and 26:10, 12). In every case, exousia is
assigned by a superior to a lesser person.
Jesus' conversation with Pilate (Jn.19:10,11) is an interesting case in point. When Pilate boasted of his authority (exousia)
either to crucify or set Jesus free, Jesus' answer is often touted by deterministic theologians as proof that God intended
all this to happen. However, the use of exousia in both Pilate's question and Jesus' answer may indicate simply that both
men clearly understood the meaning of the word: authority can only be conferred by a higher authority, (whether divine or
political is not specified), upon a petty politician! Pilate is much less powerful than he thinks he is! Jesus has essentially
called his bluff-- and he knows it.
In Romans 13, Paul maintains that no legitimate authority (exousia) exists, except that which is properly regulated under
God!

Ischus (9 times) and kratos (11 times) are somewhat harder to separate, as both, classically, referred primarily to bodily

61
strength. Kratos was also used as an attribute of the power of the gods in Homer (which may highlight the difference in the
perception of divinity between the classical civilizations and the Biblical community which would be an interesting
cultural study!). It also referred to political sovereignty in the LXX, and to the possession of territory in Herodotus.
Pythagoras used it as a name for the number ten.
Ischus , also primarily referring to physical strength, tended more toward the idea of brute force (Aeschylus), and was used
by Plato and Idumeus of a powerful kingdom, and militarily, of a main body of troops (neither of which violates the concept
of brute force!)
The words are similarly difficult to distinguish in the New Testament, often appearing paired with dunamis or exousia, as if
the writer is trying to be sure that all the bases are covered! In Eph.6:10, three of the words are included: Be strengthened
(dunamis) in the Lord, by the force (kratos) of his strength (ischus) (traditionally, Be strong in the Lord and in the power
of his might.) In Rev.5:12 and 7:2, ischus is paired with dunamis, and in Jude 26, kratos is paired with exousia.
Peter's urging the brethren to serve (minister) with the strength (ischus) supplied by God would lead one to conclude
that the diakonia (serving) in view is more practical than theoretical. A similar flavor comes through in the admonition
(Mk.12:30, 33; Lk.10:27) that love for God is to consume one's heart, soul (see W.S.#28), mind, and strength (ischus), all
physical attributes.
Kratos in the NT often seems focused primarily on God/Jesus' eventual triumph (I Pet.5:11, 4:11; Rv.1:6; Eph.1:19;
Col.1:11, I Tim.6:16; Rv.5:13) which is already being realized as a consequence of his having (Heb.2:14) already destroyed
the one who had PAST TENSE!! the power (kratos) of death and set his captives free!

All of these power words and more are piled together in Paul's enthusiastic prayer recorded in Eph.1:17-23: that all of
us, his people, may be supernaturally enlightened and enabled to know ...the exceeding greatness of his (Jesus') power
(dunamis) that is available for us . the energy (energian) of God's powerful (kratos) strength (ischus) was demonstrated
definitively when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his own right, in heaven, far above every ruler (arche) and
authority (exousia) and power (dunamis) and title of nobility (kuriotetos)...!!!

To him be all honor and glory and praise!

62
Word Study #32-- Holy
Holy is another term that has been the subject of much (un-holy) conflict, finger-pointing, and general misunderstanding.
I am under no illusion of ability mine or anyone else's to straighten it all out; but perhaps a careful examination of the
vocabulary can shed a little light.

Hagios is a word that can be used either as a noun or an adjective; and sometimes the translator must make a call,since the
Greek grammar allows an adjective or a participle to be used as a noun when it represents a person, idea, thing, or situation
which carries the characteristics described by the adjective: e.g., the faithful may refer to the person who is faithful, and
similarly with other descriptive designations.
In classical writings, hagios referred to anyone or anything devoted to the gods, whether in service or in sacrifice. There
was an occasional corollary of purity of intention or behavior, but that idea, in pagan worship, bore little resemblance to a
Christian understanding of purity.
Hagizo, the verb form in ancient texts, referred to making something or someone sacred by a burnt offering. The later
form, hagiazo, appearing only in the LXX and NT literature according to Liddell-Scott, retained the connotation of total
devotion to God. Notice that in both cases, it is an active verb, denoting an overt act of setting apart for divine use or
service.
Hagiasmos, only later theologically colored (and distorted) by its traditional translation sanctification, linguistically, is
simply the derivative noun applied to the effect of that setting apart.

Anything more elaborate than that of which there is no short supply in theology and tradition is neither linguistically nor
grammatically derived, and certainly does not appear in the New Testament text. Far from being the province of a few
singularly exalted individuals, these words describe the life that is reasonably to be expected of anyone who is committed to
the Lord who is set-apart from the surrounding culture, wholly devoted to him.

Interestingly, hagios (the adjective), although applied in the Old Testament (LXX), as it was in pagan usage, to places,
objects, garments, official assignments, and ceremonies, in the New Testament except for a few historical references (as
throughout the letter to the Hebrews, when highlighting the failure and inadequacy of the old system), is almost exclusively
applied to people. We read of holy brethren (I Thes.5:27, Heb.3:1), the Holy One (Mk.1:4, Lk.4:34, Ac.3:14, I Jn2:20,
Rv.3:7), holy messengers (Lk.9:26, Ac.10:22, Rv.14:10), holy prophets (Lk.1:70, Ac.3:21, Eph.3:5, II Pet.1:21), holy
children (I Cor.7:14), Holy Father (of which there is only one God himself!-- Jn.17:11), holy apostles (Eph.3:5).
Please notice that in referring to the holy temple (I Cor.3:17 and Eph.2:21), Paul hastens to add which you all are!. This
reference, along with those to the holy nation and holy priesthood (I Pet.2:5-9) now belongs to the faithful brotherhood!

Other mentions of a holy living sacrifice, (Rom.12:1), your holy calling (II Tim.1:8), the holy commandment (II
Pet.2:21), and the first-fruits, roots, and branches (Rom.11:16) are all unmistakably connected to the lives of the faithful.

This is even more universally the case when hagios is treated as a noun, and has been traditionally rendered saints. Most
of Paul's letters are addressed to the hagiois (the saints), clearly referring to the entire congregation of the faithful in
each locale. He usually includes greetings both to and from the saints at both ends of the correspondence. Some
translators, bound, I suppose, by the marble-statue-on-a-pedestal image, have rendered kletois hagiois called to be
saints/holy but there is neither infinitive nor purpose construction in the text. The calling, at least in this text, is not a
goal or a mandate: it is a simple statement of fact. The person who accepts the calling to follow the Lord Jesus, is
henceforth designated as a saint/holy person the possession of his Lord, set apart for his sovereign purpose.
Please note, however, that this understanding does not by any means abrogate the constant necessity to grow into greater
maturity in that position, nor does it imply any sort of magical instant perfection. We encounter elsewhere, for example,
admonitions that the saints ought to be able to mediate each other's disputes (I Cor.6:1-2); the need for prodding to
assemble the relief offering for the poor saints(Rom.15:26), and countless (often corrective saints can also be
scolded!) instructions to devote ourselves to mutual love and service. The point is, the designation saints or holy
brethren is not reserved for a few rare, unusually devoted or powerful individuals. It is not an achievement, but simply a
label a way of referring to citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus.

This is further reinforced when one notices that every occurrence of the noun form, in any of the New Testament writings,
is plural. Saints are not lonely hermits obsessed with keeping away from the dirty world. Neither are they super-
heroes, swooping in to display magical powers. They are simply members of a devoted brotherhood, helping one another to

63
learn to live lives of service whether messy or glorious controlled and empowered by their King.

Probably the best example of what Jesus had in mind for those who are set apart for his purposes (the lexical meaning of
the verb form hagiazo, traditionally rendered sanctified), is found in his prayer recorded in Jn.17, especially verses 15-19,
where the verb appears three times:
I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not from (do not
belong to ) the world, just as I am not from (do not belong to) the world. Set them apart [Make them holy] by the truth:
your word is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for their sake, I am setting
myself apart, in order that they also may be truly set apart.

All of Jesus' people are set apart/made holy, in order to be able faithfully to represent him in the world!
May we do so, together, with devotion and joy!

64
Word Study #33 Worthy/Unworthy
I suspect that people who are accustomed to liturgical confessions in which they are obliged to refer to themselves as
unworthy sinners will be amazed to discover that the term unworthy (anaxios) appears only four times in the entire
New Testament! It is a tragic reality that both hymnody and theological pronouncements, under the guise of appropriate
humility (see W.S.#14), have bamboozled unsuspecting believers into continually wallowing in their imagined
unworthiness instead of rejoicing and growing in the gracious provision of our Lord, who has (Col.1:12) qualified us
(KJV made us meet) to share in the inheritance of his people, in the light!

Who is really unworthy? In Ac.13:46, Paul and Barnabas, as they left the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, warned the
authorities that in rejecting the message of Jesus, they had judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life. Later, Paul
wrote to the folks in Corinth (I Cor.6:2), amazed that they considered themselves unworthy to settle their own disputes,
but rather used civil courts; and later warned them (11:27,29) to evaluate their worthiness to share in the observance of
communion, in which admonition he listed (1) divisions, centered upon people and their ideas, (2)lack of concern for the
poor members of the group, and (3) failure to discern the Body (see Chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom)and their
relatedness to it, as disqualifying a person from participation.
That's ALL, folks. Those are the only references.

Nevertheless, a great deal is said about worthiness, and it is true that some references indicate its perceived lack: we
should also examine those. The concept is expressed in two families of words: axios (adj.)/axioo(verb)/axios(adv.), and
hikanos (adj.)/hikanoo(verb). In classical usage, they are somewhat similar.
Axios may refer to a price or monetary value, as well as to a person's character. It often carries the idea of being deserving
of reward or honor, or even retribution.
Hikanos, occasionally translated worthy (5 x out of 38), more frequently expresses ideas of competence or sufficiency (of
quantity or ability), or appropriateness.
Axios was also used in a courtroom setting, where Pilate (Lk.23:15), Lysias (Ac.23:29) and Paul (Ac.25:11) all declare that
nothing deserving of death has been proven.
Jesus spoke of workers deserving their wages (Mt.10:10, Lk.10:17), and Jewish elders told Jesus that a centurion
deserved his attention (Lk.7:4), although the man himself maintained that he did not (7:7) and elsewhere (Mt.8:8 and
Lk.7:6), hikanos is chosen in that same situation.
Axios also describes persons of similar status, as in John the Baptist's oft-quoted statement about his not being worthy to
untie Jesus' sandals. This may be what has triggered the humility competition in many churches, but John was simply
making the point that he, personally, did not have the status of the promised Messiah. Some versions of that quote also use
hikanos. In the parable of the prodigal, the son who had wasted his inheritance rightly admitted his unworthiness, but
note that the father did not leave him there.

Deserving, of course, works both ways. Heb.10:29 warns that disregarding Jesus deserves greater severity than
disregarding Moses, having already established (3:3) that Jesus deserves the greater glory. And Jesus himself warns
prospective disciples that to be worthy of him requires that one give him absolute priority over all other affections
(Mt.10:37).
The rest of that statement (Mt.10:38) has been grossly abused. The phrase, taking up one's cross has become so
ubiquitous, that practically any unavoidable difficulty, aggravation, or inconvenience is likely to be piously labeled, just the
cross I have to bear.
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT STATEMENT FOR THE BLASPHEMY THAT IT IS!!!
The cross, for Jesus, was NOT an unavoidable inconvenience! Neither was it a case of submission to illness, natural
disaster, or insurmountable evil! Jesus was speaking sober truth when he said he could have called upon all the hosts of
heaven to rescue him! He CHOSE not to do so, in order to ransom the people of his Kingdom from the domain of death and
fear (Heb.2:14-15), by his triumph over both! Cross-bearing entails voluntarily suffering completely undeserved and
avoidable injustice for the sake of the Kingdom of Jesus! (This topic definitely deserves its own separate study, but
it is integral to this one, since Jesus includes cross-bearing as a criterion of worthiness for his followers.) Ac.5:41,
where the verb form occurs with an intensifying prefix, is an early example of disciples making this connection. See also II
Thes.1:5. The writer to the Hebrews notes (11:38) that the world was not worthy of the disciples whom it persecuted and
killed.

65
If worthiness was really entirely out of reach, we would hardly have so many admonitions to behave in a manner worthy
of the Lord (Col.1:10), worthy of his calling (Eph.4:1), or worthy of God's calling into his Kingdom (I Thes.2:12).
Some of the characteristics listed as part of that worthiness are (Col.)bearing fruit, and growing in acquaintance with
Jesus; (Eph.) avoiding status-tripping, and displaying generosity, gentleness, and mutual care and concern.
John the Baptist had also admonished his listeners to bear fruit worthy of [appropriate for]a changed life (Mt.3:8). Perhaps
the difference is clarified by the use of both words together, in Col.1:10 and 12. As noted above, in v.10, Paul instructs his
readers to live worthily (axios), and then reminds them (v.12) that the Father has enabled (hikanoo) them to do so.

It might be prudent for us to take a lesson from the three uses of axios in Revelation 5. We are told, in answer to the
question in v.2, Who is worthy (axios) to open the book?, that no one in heaven or on earth, or below the earth was able
to do so. But in v.9, the Lamb is acclaimed as worthy to take the book and to open its seals. We are not told the content
of the book although many folks have undertaken to pontificate about it only that the opening of its seals results in
horrific judgments upon the earth, and finally in everyone around the throne breaking out in praises to the Lamb (v.12).
The lesson? That the province of God's people is NOT to pass and certainly not to exact judgments upon the world or
each other!-- but to occupy ourselves with exuberant praises to the Lamb, who is worthy (axios) to receive power and
riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing!!!

It would be most appropriate (ikanos) for the people of God to leave behind their programmed protestations of unworthiness
(anaxios), and concentrate their attention upon worthily (axios) representing their Lord and King in his world! The Lord
has made you/us worthy to be citizens of his Kingdom, a part of his very own Body! Let's quit contradicting his Word, and
get on with the business of living its truth!

66
Word Study #34 The Cross
As we approach this topic, please remember that it is in no way intended to diminish or disparage the enormous impact
upon the human family of Jesus' act, in allowing himself to be tortured and put to death by people who had rejected the
invitation to enlist in his Kingdom. He came to his own (world, people), and his own refused to welcome him (Jn.1:11)
summarizes incalculable suffering.
I do, however, intend to put that event into a more Biblical perspective, by calling your attention to the overwhelmingly
greater attention paid by the New Testament writers to the glorious truth and power of his Resurrection! By becoming
narrowly fixated only upon the cross, (nearly, if not altogether, to the point of idolatry), well-meaning writers and speakers
have badly skewed the Biblical message.

It was very difficult to find historical information about crosses or crucifixion. The early classical historians and
writers, Herodotus and Thucydydes in the 5th century BC, and Homer at least a century earlier, used stauros to refer to any
kind of stakes or pilings driven into the ground as a foundation for a building, as fencing, or as fortifications. Not until
Polybius in the second century BC, and Didorus Siculus in the first, does Liddell/Scott mention any use of a cross as an
instrument of execution. In the first two centuries AD, of course, it is common in Plutarch, Josephus, and Lucian, among
others. I found one suggestion that the Roman Empire may have copied the practice from Carthage, in North Africa; but
apparently that particular form of brutality came on the scene comparatively late in ancient history, and was inflicted
primarily upon the lowest classes of criminals.
Most writers of history tend to concentrate on gruesome descriptions of the process (which was indeed horrible), and leap
from there into complex doctrinal dissertations that have no New Testament basis. They frequently try to relate it to the Old
Testament sacrificial system and its law conveniently ignoring the fact that in that system, the prescribed form of
execution was stoning. I do not intend to argue the fine points in which such writers/speakers delight. I would only ask, as
many times before, What did Jesus say? Can one claim to be proclaiming Jesus, without consulting him?

Of the 28 occurrences of stauros in the New Testament, eleven are simply describing the circumstances of Jesus' death. The
only other references in the Gospels are the parallel passages in Mt.10:38 and 16:24, Mk.8:34 and 10:21, and Lk.9:23 and
14:21. These are considered in the previous post (#33). The verb form, stauroo, to crucify, is a bit more frequent, with 46
New Testament uses, of which 25 are in accounts of Jesus' trial and death, and 4 in accounts of his resurrection! Only in
Mt.20:19 and 26:2 is Jesus himself quoted, and in both instances, he is giving a simple forewarning to the disciples of what
is about to happen. In no case does Jesus himself make any statement about either the causes or the implications of
that event.
Peter's two sermons, recorded in Ac.2:36 and 4:10 the only uses of stauroo in that earliest history of the church vividly
point out to the listeners that although they thought they had disposed of Jesus, HE IS ALIVE!!!, and thereby demonstrated
to be both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One] (chapter 2), and (chapter 4) active among his people!

There is a bit more reference to the cross in the Epistles, but much less than I expected. Paul speaks of the cross eleven
times, and uses the verb form eight times. Some of the accomplishments attributed to the cross, that are seldom
mentioned in modern teaching, include Eph.2:16 the reconciling of Jew and Gentile into one Body, Col.1:20 making
peace by reconciling everything to himself (Jesus), Gal.5:24 those who belong to Jesus have (active voice) crucified the
human nature with its cravings and passions, and its parallel in Rom.6:6 our old person was (passive voice) crucified
together with him so that we may be no longer enslaved to failure. In Gal.6:14, Paul affirms In no way will I brag,
except about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified, as far as I am concerned, and I with
respect to the world.

Paul becomes somewhat more theoretical about the subject in both of his letters to Corinth. Scolding the group for their
divisions, he asks (1:13) Paul wasn't crucified for you, was he?, making the point, in the first two chapters, that no one but
Jesus deserves their loyalty. There, as in Gal.5:11 and Phil.2:8, where this is only one element of Paul's description of Jesus'
obedience, his intention seems to be to highlight the degradation assumed by society at large to be associated with
crucifixion. He notes that the willing acceptance of this dishonor by Jesus should be a strong motivation for eschewing the
elevation of any individuals. Only once does Paul make any connection with charges against us (Col.2:14) something
Jesus himself never mentioned at all yet, tragically, that has become, in the minds of many, the sum total the only focus
of their gospel message! (Please refer to W.S.#7, for a study of forgiveness, and note that Jesus' authority to forgive
was derived from WHO HE WAS/IS God-with-us-- and is not connected in any of the Gospel accounts to his death.)

67
In this regard, it is useful also to include some of Paul's references to Jesus' death, where the cross is not specifically
mentioned, in trying to reconstruct the message. Please refer to the end of chapter 12 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a
summary of these. One is made to wonder, why we hear so little about most of these.
And don't forget that even Paul, whom folks that delight in designing doctrines love to quote (often not very carefully),
qualifies his statement about Jesus' death (I Cor.15:3) with the assertion (v.14), If Christ hasn't been raised, our preaching is
useless!

It will be necessary to save a more detailed examination of the primacy of the resurrection for the next posting. I will only
note here that in contrast to the 28 references to the cross, there are 40 to anastasis, the primary word used for the
resurrection. The verb form, anistemi, occurs 112 times (as opposed to 46 uses of crucify), and that is without taking into
account the other words used in the glorious message that JESUS IS ALIVE and in him, we too shall live!

Stay tuned.

68
Word Study #35 The Resurrection
During his time on earth, Jesus said very little about the implications, or even the fact, of his resurrection, except to assure
his confused followers that it was going to happen (Mt.16:21, 17:23; Lk.9:22, Jn.2:19, Mk.9:31, 10:34). My favorite of the
direct quotes comes later from Rv.1:17-18: Don't be afraid! I AM the first and the last! I 'm the one who is alive! I was
dead, but look! I am alive forever! And I have the keys of death and hades. And yes, I know he did not use any of the
resurrection words in that statement, but the message is certainly, gloriously, there!

That illustrates the difficulty of working on this subject as a word study. It is a concept that permeates the whole New
Testament, in many different forms. The task is further complicated by the fact that there are only two Greek words
specifically used for the purpose, but traditional translators have used them interchangeably, and rendered them variously as
to rise, to arise, to raise, to be raised, risen, to stand up, to awaken, and many more.
The classical writers aren't much help here, either. Anistemi one of the primary verbs was used of just about any kind of
getting up, whether from sleep or a sick bed (Herodotus), to arise as a champion or to rise from one's seat as a token of
respect (Homer), to produce witnesses, to mount a rebellion, to set up a building or statue, or, rarely until the New
Testament era, to rise from the dead. Egeiro, the other most-used verb, has virtually the same list of meanings. I have been
unable to discern a difference. Egeiro is used more frequently in the New Testament, unless one includes the noun forms.
Anastasis, resurrection, would push the balance the other way.

In addition to prophesying his own situation (Mt.16:21 and parallels), Jesus listed raise the dead among his instructions
when he commissioned his disciples for their journey (Mt.10:8), and also as evidence for his identity in replying to the
messengers from John the Baptist (Mt.11:5 and 11). Accounts of his own activity in that regard include (Lk.7:14) the
raising of the widow's son at Nain, (Lk.8:54) Jairus' daughter, and of course (Jn.11) his friend Lazarus. Recorded incidents
of disciples following those instructions are in Ac.9:36-42 (Peter and Dorcas), and Ac.20:7-12 (Paul and Eutychus)
although Dr. Luke, in this latter account, questions whether the boy was actually dead.

Because the verb forms are so frequently used of other situations getting up and going somewhere I have chosen to
focus primarily upon the noun, anastasis.

The resurrection of Jesus was (and should still be!!!) the primary burden of the gospel message! It was presented as the
ultimate proof of Jesus' identity. Peter cites it early on (Ac.1:22) in his urging that a replacement be found for Judas to
become a witness with us of his (Jesus') resurrection. In his Pentecost sermon (Ac.2:31-36) he declares that the
resurrection reveals Jesus as the source of the Holy Spirit's coming, and provides evidence that God made this Jesus, whom
you all crucified, both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One]! The complaint of the Council, a short time later (Ac.4:2) was
that the apostles were teaching the people, and proclaiming, in Jesus, the resurrection of the dead!, and as the brotherhood
met together (4:33), the apostles gave testimony of the Lord Jesus' resurrection.
Paul attracted curious attention in Athens by preaching about Jesus and the resurrection(Ac.18, 32), and answered his
accusers, before the Sanhedrin (Ac.23:6) and the Roman court (24:15) that the resurrection was the basis for the charges
against him. This totally confused Festus, who explained his dilemma to Agrippa (Ac.25:19), that the Jews had brought no
accusations of evildoing, as he expected, but some argument about their own religion, about a certain Jesus who had been
put to death, whom Paul said was alive!

Why, then, in so-called Christian teaching or doctrine, is the balance so heavily weighted toward Jesus' death, rather
than his resurrection? Because a cross is so much easier to symbolize (read, idolize) than an empty tomb? Because it is
still a symbol of condemnation and blame, and can be used to induce crippling guilt and abject submission? The truly
Scriptural symbol of our faith is the Resurrection life both his and ours!

The Epistles contain two complementary strands of teaching concerning the Resurrection: establishing the certainty of that
fact, as a validation of Jesus' identity, and exploring the results that should consequently be evident in the lives of his
followers.
In Rom.1:4, Paul reiterates that the resurrection shows Jesus to be God's Son. The writer to the Hebrews lists it (6:2) among
the most basic teachings, that form the foundation for everything else, and Peter (I Pet.1:3) represents it as the source of the
living hope with which the faithful are gifted, and later (3:21) the producer of a healthy consciousness of God. Paul
even goes so far as to declare (I Cor.15:17) that if Christ wasn't raised, we might as well forget the whole thing! Of the

69
principles listed in the first paragraph of that chapter, the resurrection is the only one that includes extensive documentation
fully half the paragraph!

Elsewhere, emphasis is strong, upon identification of faithful individuals with the Lord to whom they belong. Peter (I
Pet.3:21-22) and Paul (Rom.6:3-11) both connect the expected transformation of life with the symbolism of baptism the
burial of the former life, and resurrection to the new. A similar theme appears in Col.2:12 buried with him in
baptism, you all were resurrected together, in him.... and its corollary (3:1-3)since you all were resurrected together with
Christ, keep seeking what is above... He goes on in the rest of his letter to outline the characteristics of a resurrection life.
Eph.2:1-10 also contains a vivid before-and-after picture: You all had been dead... whereupon he proceeds to describe the
life of a person who has not been raised with Christ; (v.4) But God made us alive! and then proceeds to describe the
graciousness and kindness thus manifested, and (v.10) its expected results.

Brother Paul summarized the matter even more eloquently (if that is possible), in his letter to Philippi (3:10-11): I want to
know [become intimately acquainted with] him, and the power of [that comes from] his resurrection: and the sharing of
[that comes from] his sufferings, being transformed together by [with] his death, if somehow I may arrive into the
resurrection from the dead.
Please notice: suffering and death are neither denied, nor minimized, nor avoided; but they are bookended with
the Resurrection! Paul's aspiration and ours starts with Jesus' resurrection, and ends with our own!

And that makes an enormous difference.

All praise to the glory of his graciousness

70
Word Study #36 Hope
Years ago, in another state, we lived near a group of devoted followers of the Lord Jesus, whose first language was not
English. When accosted by zealous soul-savers who demanded, Are you saved?, their usual and quite Scriptural
(Titus 1:2, 2:13, 3:7) reply was, I have a good (or blessed) hope! This usually provoked an attack by the questioner:
HOPE??? If you don't KNOW you are saved, you aren't! This was followed by a memorized lecture on the questioner's
carefully canned and footnoted version of the necessary remedy. As a consequence, the two groups, who could have related
as brethren with much mutual benefit, seldom interacted at all, largely because of one misunderstood English word. How
sad!
We have already considered (Word Study #5) the continually progressive nature of salvation, which should, but probably
won't, put to rest such arrogant discourtesy; we need also to look at the lexical meaning of elpis, hope.

Classically, it wasn't complicated at all. Synonyms include expectation, confidence, or one's reason to believe in
something or to expect an event. The uncertainty that accompanies much English usage of hope (I hope it will or
won't rain!) is completely absent from both classical and New Testament usage. Early English translators coped with this
semantic anomaly by translating the verb form, elpizo, as trust (18 times, as opposed to hope only 10 times), but the
Greek word does not mean different things in different contexts. It uniformly conveys confident expectation.

Similarly, simple expectation is apparent in the 16 more ordinary uses of elpizo in the New Testament fully half of the
total. I hope to see you, I hope you know, appear frequently in the epistles; lending with the hope of repayment
(Lk.6:34-45), a farmer planting in hope of a harvest (I Cor.9:10), and Felix hoping that Paul would offer him a bribe
(Ac.24:26) certainly involve expectation. So on what grounds do folks feel justified in changing the meaning of the word
when it refers to less tangible matters?
Peter's admonition (I Pet.1:13) to set your hope[confidence] completely on the grace being brought to you all in the
revelation of Jesus Christ, and Paul's explanation (Rom.8:24-25) of the true import of hope in relation to one's
confidence in Jesus' provision, clearly intend to convey similar assurance. When Paul writes to Timothy (I Tim.4:10) of
hoping in the living God as the motivation for his life of constant perseverance despite the concomitant privations, he is
not describing wishful thinking, but a settled conviction.

When we turn to elpis, the noun form, the reference is almost entirely to one's Christian commitment and expectation, as
opposed to the ordinary affairs of life (which involve only 5 of 53 uses of the word), and the certainty of expectation is, if
anything, even more vivid. Interestingly, the word elpis does not appear at all in any of the Gospels. Might that be because
of the constant, observable presence of the One who is later identified (I Tim.1:1) as Christ Jesus, (who is) our
hope[confidence]? Paul asks, rhetorically, in Rom.8:24-25, Who hopes for what he (already) sees? Perhaps the time
when his people needed hope the most, was after Jesus' physical departure? This seems plausible, when one realizes that
ten of the references, (Ac.2:26, 23:6, 24:15; Col.1:5, 1:27; I Thes.4:13, 5:8; and Tit.1:2, 2:13, 3:7) specifically mention
either the Resurrection (Jesus' or ours) or his Return; and several others could be interpreted that way. As Peter put it, (I
Pet.1:3) According to his (God's) great mercy, he has given us another birth, into a living hope [confidence], by means of
Jesus Christ's resurrection from the dead!

Among the abundant and glorious benefits of Jesus' resurrection is the way it spills over upon all who follow him! It is
this truth that enables all the other hopes of his people, including (Rom.5:2) We revel in the hope [confidence] that
comes from (source genitive) the glory of God!, and (Rom.12:12) Your confidence [hope] is the means (dative) to keep
you all rejoicing! In Gal.5:5, Paul speaks of our hope of justice, that comes out of faithfulness; in Eph.1:18 and 4:4, of
the hope [confidence] of his/our calling; and in Phil.1:20, of his hope [confidence] that he will be found faithful. Also
included are the hope of the gospel (Col.1:23), the hope of glory (Col.1:27), the patience of hope [the endurance
produced by the confident expectation which has its source in the Lord Jesus Christ] , (I Thes.1:3), the blessed hope of
Jesus' return (Tit.2:13), and (Tit.3:7) the hope [expectation] of eternal life! These are just a sampling. Grab a
concordance and check them all! It cannot help but increase your enjoyment hope of the goodness of God!

The five uses of elpis in the letter to the Hebrews deserve particular attention, partly because (please see the introductory
material in Translation Notes) it was probably written to a second generation congregation, who therefore lacked the
privilege of personal memories of the initial arrival of either Jesus himself or ambassadors of his Kingdom. They may
have been somewhat worn down by years of persecution; hence the early admonition (3:6) to hang on to our determination
and [hope] confident expectation firmly until the end. Again in 6:11, the instruction is to demonstrate the same eagerness

71
for complete confidence [full assurance] of hope [expectation] until the end; and 6:18, a reminder to come running to take
hold of the hope that he (Jesus) offered. In 7:18-19, after a rehearsal of the inadequacy and failure of the old system and its
hierarchy, it is summarized, The previous commandment is set aside, because of its weakness and uselessness for the law
didn't make anything [or, anyone] complete but a better hope is introduced, through which/whom we come near to God!
The only place where elpis is not traditionally translated hope is Heb.10:23, where someone substituted faith - an
entirely different word. This is probably one factor which contributed to the erroneous assumption that faith was a
doctrine to be professed, rather that a faithful way of life (see Word Study #1). In the PNT, I offer the alternative, Let's
hang on to our commitment to our hope without hesitation which I consider a more accurate representation of the text
and in harmony with Heb.11:1 much quoted but little understood or heeded: Faithfulness is the basis [foundation] of our
hope [expectation], the proof [legal evidence] of what is unseen.

The object of one's hope is made obvious by his faithfulness and is intended, among other things, to serve as an incentive
(I Jn.3:3) to purity of life, (II Thes.2:16)eternal encouragement, (Gal.5:5) justice, and (Rom.12:12) indescribable joy! Such
a life will provoke curiosity, which is why Peter (I Pet.3:15) urges his readers to be ready to answer questions about that
hope. This admonition is not a hunting license but a mandate to be approachable! (See W.S. #18)

May the God of hope [or, God, the source of hope] fill you with all joy and peace, in faithfulness, so that you may
overflow with hope [confidence] in [by] the power of the Holy Spirit! (Rom.15:13)
AMEN!!!

72
Word Study #37 The Law part 1 in the Gospels
Ever since the first Council of the first century Christian church (Acts 15), faithful followers of Jesus have differed in their
attitudes toward the Law. Some of them point to verses by which they demand adherence to the entire Old Testament
system, and others resist any standard of conduct whatsoever. There is also a broad spectrum in between those positions.
Can we find any coherent pattern in the New Testament? Possibly not; but careful examination can yield helpful principles.

Law nomos was used, classically, both of established civil or religious codes, and the habitual custom of a group.
Aristotle used it of his natural observations, and several centuries earlier, Alcman had applied it to the music used to
accompany recitations of epic texts. (L/S)*
Bauer* notes that early writers applied the term to instructions purportedly received from Zeus, Hermes, or Apollo; and
therefore the word was naturally adopted in the LXX to refer to the principles codified by Moses. Since the law and its
observance are the central point of Jewish piety, the word became synonymous with their religion. Actually, the LXX
mixed nomos with logos and onoma almost at random (L/S)*, but this does not occur in New Testament writings.
Thayer* adds that over time, nomos was expanded to include the prophets, and all of the sacred literature, since the Jews
did not distinguish between civil, moral, and ceremonial requirements.
(*See the Bibliography in Translation Notes for reference to these lexicons.)

Out of 195 occurrences of nomos in the New Testament, only 50 are in the Gospels. Only Luke (2:23,24, 39) adds the
phrase of the Lord, and this appears only in his narrative of Jesus being taken to the temple as a baby. Elsewhere in the
same passage, he refers to the law of Moses (2:22), or simply the law (2:27).
The Pharisees, opposing Jesus, refer to our law (Jn.19:7), as does Nicodemus advocating for his fair treatment (Jn.7:51).
Pilate challenges the mob to deal with Jesus according to your law (Jn.18:31), to which they respond, we have a law....
They also used it as a tool to crush those whom they presumed to dominate (Jn.7:49) This crowd, that's not acquainted with
the law they are cursed!

BUT let's get to our perennial question: WHAT DID JESUS SAY? And the answer is, not very much, but what he did
say was hugely significant. For starters, he never called it the law of God.
Five times (Lk.24:44, Jn.1:45, 7:19, 7:23, 8:5) Jesus refers to the law of Moses, while John himself comments in his
introduction, (1:17) The law was given through Moses, but graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus Christ.
Addressing his opponents, Jesus pointedly refers to your law (Jn.8:17, 10:34); and speaking to the disciples (15:25) he
calls it their law. Elsewhere, he uses no possessive at all, and says simply the law.

As he lays out the constitution of his Kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says plainly (Mt.5:17), Don't conclude
that I came to destroy the law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill [make complete]! He then devotes
a large section of that sermon to correcting prevalent misconceptions about the Law. Similar corrections are recorded
scattered through Mark's and Luke's accounts. Jesus summarizes the true intent of the law (Mt.7:12, 22:36, 22:40, 23:23),
as love toward God and one's neighbor, or turns a questioner to its principles (Lk.10:26, Mt.12:5). The same positive idea
appears in Mt.19:16 and parallels in Mk.10:17 and Lk.18:18, but without the word law.

There are, however, two strong statements that are consistently overlooked by folks who adhere to a flat book
interpretation of Biblical authority (assuming equal force and authority between the Old and New Testaments). Both
Matthew (11:13)and Luke (16:16) record Jesus' announcement of a very basic change of government. The accounts are
worded slightly differently, but the message is clear. The law and the prophets were (in effect) until John (the Baptist).
Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed! Things are different now!

Luke follows that declaration by a partial quote, which Matthew recorded elsewhere in more detail (5:18): Until heaven
and earth are done away with [pass away], one iota or accent mark will not be removed from the law, until it all happens
[is completed]! Matthew connects this with v.17, where Jesus declared his purpose to fulfill the law. (Please see the
discussion of pleroo and teleioo in word study #13.)
Remember that enroute to Jerusalem (Lk.18:31, 22:37) Jesus had told his disciples everything that was about to happen, so
that everything written about the Son of Man will be completed [fulfilled]. Remember also that he had just spent three
years sorting out for them which parts of everything written were actually about him! His list differed sharply from
that of the powerful religious leaders -- and many of the lists currently in vogue today.

73
In John's account of the crucifixion (remember, he is the only one of the gospel writers who says that he was personally
present), he records (19:28) that Jesus knew that everything had been completed... and (19:30) surrendered his life with
the words, It has been completed! a shout of triumph, not a whimper of defeat! This is a perfect tense (see appendix to
the Notes). Luke reserves that conclusion until after the resurrection (24:44) This is what I told you!

As we turn in the next post, to consider the law in the early church (Acts) and the epistles, please remember that with
Jesus' death and resurrection, a monumental transition has occurred.
Everything has been completed! The new Kingdom has been established!

74
Word Study #38 The Law (Part 2 Acts and Epistles)
Throughout the book of Acts, a refrain recurs persistently: Stephen (6:13) and Paul (18:13, 8:15, and 21:28) are both
accused of teaching things contrary to the law. Even Jewish converts (15:5, 21:20), as unaware as many well-meaning
people today that a new Kingdom has been established, argued fiercely that Gentile converts must be forced into a Jewish
mold. Appearing to be devout according to the law (22:12, 21:24, 22:3) was taken as a compliment. The keeping of the
law was not discouraged; neither was the observance of legitimate civil law. Both were respected (religious law 13:15,
24:14, 25:8, 28:23; and civil 19:37-40), and the justice required by both was requested (23:3, 25:11). Nevertheless,
something new was in the air.

Speaking of Jesus' resurrection, Paul's message (13:39) was, In this man (Jesus), everyone who is faithful is made just from
all those things that the Law of Moses couldn't make right!
The rest of the New Testament could be said to consist of elaborating upon that one glorious piece of news: Jesus has done
what no one else could do!

I was surprised to discover that the law is not mentioned at all in Mark's gospel, in Paul's letters to Corinth (II), Colossae,
Philemon, Thessalonica (I and II), Timothy (II), and Titus, either of Peter's letters, those of John and Jude, or the Revelation!

Of course, Paul manages to make up for it in his letter to the Romans (and you thought laws today were complicated??!). In
many cases scattered through Romans, it is unclear whether Paul is referring to civil or religious law. Try reading it both
ways, realizing that nomos can refer to either. Some places, of course, it is clear, when he speaks of Jewish convention. But
perhaps some of this ambiguity is deliberate, since one of the main points (3:19-20) is that no one is able to keep any law
perfectly. Notice, he is not saying that law (civil or religious) causes violations: it rather reveals them.
The remedy (3:22) is the faithfulness OF the Lord Jesus. Please notice the genitive case here (refer to the grammatical
appendix to Translation Notes.) A genitive form indicates primarily possession, and may also designate a source. The
standard translation, faith IN Christ, cannot possibly be correct, as that would require a dative case (or a preposition
with the accusative). It is Jesus' faithfulness upon which we may depend!
Both the death/resurrection figure of baptism (chapter 6) and that of marriage laws (chapter 7) are closing in on the same
concept: a completely new life, as the gracious gift of God, in identification with Jesus' resurrection! (8:3) For what could
not possibly come from the law, in its weakness because of human nature, God (created, by) sending his own Son.

Paul devotes much of his letter to the Galatians to the same theme: the futility of achieving faithfulness by adherence to the
law. He concludes both arguments the same way: (Gal.5:14, Rom.13:8). The fulfillment of the law, is simply to live in love
for one's neighbor an echo of Jesus' own summary (Mt.7:12, Lk.10:26, Mt.22:36).
In the Ephesian letter, another element is added (2:15), He (Jesus) eliminated the law of commands and decrees, in order
that he might create (Jew and Gentile) into one person, thus making peace!
In Philippians, Paul summarily renounces the privilege and prerogatives of his own pedigree with respect to the law
(chapter 3), in favor of identification with Christ.

The clearest treatment of all comes in the letter to the Hebrews, which is almost entirely devoted to the superiority of Jesus
to everyone and everything that has gone before. The futility and failure of the old system is methodically laid bare, and
summarized (7:18-19) the previous commandment [instruction] is set aside, because of its weakness and uselessness for
the law didn't make anything [or, anyone] complete, but a better hope is introduced, through which we come near to God!
Chapter 8 speaks of Jesus mediating a superior covenant, which is established upon superior promises (v.6), and, referring
to the old prophecy of a new covenant (8:13), in saying new, he has made the first old, and what has become old and
been superseded, is near to disappearing!

Heb.10:1: The law had only a shadow of the good things that were coming, not the real thing! That the writer may have
been exposed to Plato's ideas of shadows and forms does not impugn the integrity of the message. It is simply a useful
way of making the point. A shadow is ok, as long as it leads one to the reality (Jesus) that has cast the shadow.
He (Jesus) is taking away the first, in order to establish the second! (10:9)

The writer then concludes the argument (10:19-25) with a confident summary of the complete solution for all the problems
and inadequacies of the old ways: There is no longer a veil between God and his people (please see chapter 8 of Citizens
of the Kingdom), as Jesus has provided for us complete freedom of access (19). He himself is the only priest (mediator)

75
that we need (21).
This provides the grounds for the brotherly admonition:
(22) Let's approach him with a true heart, in abundant confidence [complete faithfulness].
(23) Let's hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation for the one who
made the promise is faithful!
(24) Let's concentrate on prodding each other, with love, and good deeds - no longer the rigid requirements of an
unbending law, but the joyful response of our hearts to the King's glorious invitation to share his own life!
(25) Let's don't neglect getting together but keep on coaching each other, more and more...!

The rest of the letter, recognizing the seriousness of faithfulness, continues in the vein of encouragement to constancy.
Faithfulness is no effortless trip to glory. But The one who made the promise is faithful, and it is his faithfulness upon
which we may depend, from which we may learn, and which, by constant, deliberate exposure, we may absorb!
The law (that comes from) the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, (definitively) set you all free from the law (that comes from)
failure and death! (Rom.8:2)

Thanks be to God!

76
Word Study #39 Works
The long-standing faith vs. works controversy is a vivid example of the compounded error that results from
misunderstood vocabulary and manipulated proof-texts. Any consideration of this subject must include the discussion of
faith/faithfulness in Word Study #1, which you should review before going any farther.

Several different Greek words have been translated by the English work/works. The concept itself is really quite simple:
someone is doing something. Classical uses of ergon include heroic or noble deeds (Homer), one's business or profession,
anything done or made (Xenophon), or action as opposed to mere words or argument. Lesser-used, similar words include
praxis (business or moral action), and pragma (matters or affairs).
The verb form, primarily ergazomai (used 28 x in the NT) usually referring to one's employment, katergazomai (14 x) to
earn, achieve, or conquer, and energeo (7 x) to be active or effective, do not seem to have attracted as much theological
combat. Perhaps they are so obvious that twisting the meaning is more difficult!

Actually, there is very little New Testament basis for all the fuss. Jesus plainly expected of his followers behavior that
would allow people to see your good works and glorify your Father (Mt.5:16) , and he offered his own work as
evidence of his identity (Jn.5:36, 10:25, 10:32-38, 14:10-12). He challenged some half-hearted adherents, Why do you call
me Lord, Lord, and not do what I say? (Lk.6:46)
Work (ergon) frequently refers to a specific assignment, either for Jesus himself (Jn.17:4) or someone else (Ac.13:2,
14:26), or for the tasks assigned to servants (Mk.13:34). It may refer to Jesus' miraculous healings (Mt.11:2, Jn.9:3,4), and
Paul describes the content of his message (Ac.26:20) as preaching a changed life* and turning back to God, practicing
deeds [works] worthy of a changed life*. (*see Word Study #6 on repentance)

When people who ought to know better respond to an admonition like Paul's to Titus (3:8) that those who have become
faithful to God (should) be careful to keep practicing good deeds (traditionally, to maintain good works), with a horrified
accusation of That's works-salvation! as if they were confronting the prince of evil himself, it would be comical if it
weren't so tragic even pathetic.
Although in no case is work represented as the cause of one's identification with Jesus, it is consistently expected to be
the result of that relationship. Please refer to Rom.13:12, I Cor.15:58, Eph.2:9-10, Col.1:10, II Thes.1:11, I Tim.2:10, 5:10,
6:18, and many other similar statements.

God's gift of various service-ministries in the Body of his people (Eph.4:11-12) is clearly explained to be for the purpose of
(pros) equipping God's people (eis) to do the work of service; and even the very creation of that Body is for the purpose
(epi) of the good deeds [works] which God already prepared, so that (hina) we could live [walk] in them (Eph.2:10).
Every one of these is expressed in a purpose construction.

Face it, folks: everyone is continuously doing works of some sort: as we have seen, the word refers to anything that is
done or made! The only question is the choice of the model, or arbiter, of these works. Jesus chose to do the works of
his Father (Jn.5:36), and bluntly pointed out the source (8:39-41) of his opponents' behavior. Committed followers of the
Lord Jesus are continually admonished to display works worthy of their new calling (Ac.26:20, Rom.13:13, and others as
noted above). The reputation of our King is on the line, as we interact as his representatives in his world.

I suspect that one reason for the misunderstanding with which Paul and James are contending in Romans 4 and James 2,
was the prevalent Jewish attitude toward their Law (see the previous 2 postings.) They do not contradict each other! Both
apostles make the point that observance of the minutiae of the Law (the works of the Law) has nothing to do with genuine
faithfulness to the person, Jesus Christ. But both are equally adamant that one's behavior constitutes irrefutable evidence
of to whose Kingdom he belongs.

Don't forget that when Jesus spoke of judgment (see word studies 9 and 10) in Mt.25 and Lk.16, he said not a word about
what the several individuals believed, or to what intricacies of doctrine or dogma they may have subscribed. His focus
was entirely upon their behavior, specifically their treatment of people in need. Their behavior revealed it did not create
or determine their allegiance (or, if you prefer, their spiritual status.The same idea is obvious in the interview with
Zacchaeus (Lk.19:1-10), where Jesus declared, "Today salvation [deliverance] has come to this house" in response to his
declaration of restitution to those he had been cheating. No one asked what Zacchaeus "believed."

77
Likewise, all the similar passages in Revelation 18:6, 20:12, 20:13, 22:12 speak of giving to (each one) according to
his/her/their works/deeds. Paul wrote to Titus of people who claim to know God, but deny him by what they do (1:16).
Jesus begins six of the seven messages to the churches (Rev.2 and 3) with I know your works, and gives them instructions
on how to straighten up.

There is no legitimate distinction or conflict between faith/faithfulness and works/behavior.

A much healthier focus would be patterned after the report of the onlookers at Pentecost (Ac.2:11), who spoke of how the
newly Spirit-baptized brethren were proclaiming the wonderful works of God! That same refrain echoes around his throne
(Rev.15:3) as everyone celebrates his marvelous works and triumphant justice! We have the promise (Heb.13:21/ that he
will establish you all, in everything good, for doing his will! There is only one appropriate response: And everything
whatever you do in word or deed do everything in the name (W.S. #24) of the Lord Jesus, continually giving thanks to
God the Father through him!
That is the work of a lifetime and more!

78
Word Study #40 Service/Ministry
The handling of the verb diakoneo, with its accompanying noun forms, diakonia and diakonos, provides a vivid illustration
of how far the contemporary church has departed from the New Testament pattern, and from the clear instructions of Jesus.
Classically, this family of words referred to any kind of service, the person who performed such service (Thayer
summarizes quite well, to attend to anything that may serve another's interest.), or the care or support thus rendered. It
was actually a very simple idea, even when broadened to include the giving, acceptance, or fulfillment of some specific
assignment.

Jesus employed this concept in speaking of his own purpose, not to be waited-on, but to serve (Mt.20:28), and in
expressing his expectation that his followers should display a similar attitude (Mt.23:11 and parallel in Mk.9:35), giving
them the example (although the word is not used on that occasion) by washing their feet (Jn.13). Please refer to chapter 11
of Citizens of the Kingdom for a fuller exploration of this event.
In parables and narratives, diakoneo is frequently used of preparing and serving a meal (Lk.10:40, 12:37, 17:8; Jn.12:2,
Mt.8:15, and Mk.1:31), or of a more generalized looking-after-needs (Mt.27:55, Mk.15:41, Lk.8:3, Phm.13), and the relief-
offering sent by the Gentile churches to their Judean brethren (Rom.15:25, 15:31; II Cor.9:12, 8:19-20).

Whence, then, came the lofty, nearly-untouchable idea of ministry/ministers as members of an institutional, clerical
hierarchy, quite set-apart from a disenfranchised laity (a word created from laos, people, though with the usually
unspoken demeaning modifier, common or ordinary.) Certainly not from Jesus, who flatly forbade titles or elevated
positions, reminding us that we are all brethren (Mt.23:11-12). See chapter 6 of Citizens of the Kingdom.

I strongly suspect that these varied and distorted translations (which, after all, date only from the 17th century) are the result
of the hierarchical patterns that had developed in the institutional churches of the intervening centuries, for they certainly do
not occur in the text. Of course this is not the only place where it has become a common practice to alter the text to match
one's doctrine, rather than the more faithful reverse process!

Notice the irony that it is the same word which Jesus used of his own purpose to serve, and to urge his followers to offer
each other even the most menial of service, that has been wielded as a weapon to demand superior status and/or authority!
In the first century, the meaning folks heard from the use of diakoneo was simple, selfless service. This was the behavior
expected of every faithful follower. In fact, all of the other, more specialized assignments enumerated in Eph.4:12 are
specifically said to be for the purpose of enabling that service!

Official positions of course were not unknown in the first century: but they were represented by different words:
leitourgia/leitourgos (to serve in public office; to perform public duties for either the state or the gods) notice the
English cognate, liturgy-- and huperetes (an officer or agent of a government of hierarchy; the rendering of military
service, or to serve any entity in a subordinate role: an assistant.) These appear rarely in the New Testament; the former
often referring to the Jewish legal hierarchy or priesthood, the latter when John Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas as an
assistant (perhaps in a sort of apprenticeship).

It is instructive to note the individuals to whom Paul applies the term diakonos. They include Timothy and Erastus
(Ac.19:22), all those traveling with him to carry the relief offering to Judea (II Cor.3:3), Onesiphorus (II Tim.1:18),
Onesimus (Phm.13), Tychicus (Eph.6:21 and Col.4:7), Epaphras (Col.1:17), Stephen's household (I Cor.16:15), Archippus
(Col.4:17), and Phoebe (Rom.16:1). He labels them ALL with the same word he applies to himself!
Interestingly, it is only Phoebe who is described with an additional title: Paul speaks of her as a prostatis which L/S
defines as a presiding officer, guardian, patron, or protector and says that she has filled that position for him and for
many others! We have no clue what that position entailed, or whether it was civil or religious. This is the only use of that
word in the New Testament. It is in addition to the more common role of diakonos, (which is here used with a feminine
article) in the church at Cenchrea. Traditional translators, bound by their definitions of ministers, could not bring
themselves to use the word here, but substituted servant a perfectly good translation, if it were not used as if the
meaning were different.

Only five times (out of 30) is diakonos traditionally translated deacon, and interpreted as if it were an official title. Four
of those are in I Tim.3:8, 10, 12, 13, where qualifications are listed. Nowhere in this passage is there any word indicating an
official position (see above). Look again at the context: Should this not describe any faithful follower of the Lord Jesus?

79
Similar qualifications are applied to both men and women: Note that it is a cultural decision, not a linguistic or semantic
one, to translate gune as wife rather that simply woman (both are correct). Other references that specifically connect
women with diakoneo and its related words are Mk.8:15 (Peter's mother-in-law), Mt.27:55 (the women who supported Jesus
and his disciples in their travels, and Lk.10:40 and Jn.12:2 (Mary and Martha).

Paul also frequently uses diakonia to refer to an assignment that he was given: (1)to carry the news of Jesus' Kingdom
(Ac.12:25, 20:24, 21:19; II Cor.5:18), (2) to deliver the relief offering to Jerusalem (II Cor.4:1), or similar assignments
given to others (Col.4:17 and I Tim.4:6). Perhaps assignment or a task assigned by the Lord would sometimes be a
better translation. Such assignments may vary with the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The recipients of our service may also vary: they may reach as far as the outside world (Ac.21:19, II Cor.5:18), or be
directed specifically toward the brethren (I Pet.4:10-11, I Cor.12:5, Col.1:25), or toward anyone in need (II Cor.8:19-20,
9:12; Mt.25:44, Rom.5:25). Ultimately, it is all service to the Lord Jesus (II Cor.3:3, Col.4:7, I Tim 4:6, 1:12).

There are different kinds of service (diakonion) but the same Lord; and there are differing jobs to do (energematon), but
the same God who does all the work (energon). I Cor.12:5-6

There is no better or more accurate conclusion than I Pet.3:10:

Just as each one has received a spiritual gift [empowerment], SERVE EACH OTHER WITH IT, as good trustees of the
many-faceted grace of God,
determined, with our brother Paul, to complete (our) race, and the assignment (we) received from the Lord Jesus
(Ac.20:24).
This is the essence of diakonia: ministry/service.

80
Word Study #41 Apostles
This will be the first of a series of postings dealing with the various functions, frequently mistakenly labeled offices,
served by different folks at different times in the New Testament church. They were simply jobs that needed to be done, for
which the Lord, by the Holy Spirit, assigned responsibility as he pleased. A good introduction to the subject would be for
you to review chapters 6, 7, and 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom, which deal with a distinctly different approach to
leadership in the New Testament church from the one that is common in the 20-21st century corporate structures that
carry the name of churches.
Notice from the outset, that except when referring to a specific, named individual, every function is plural. Notice also
that different people appear to have served different functions at different times. This should make it clear that IN NO
CASE was any of these viewed as a lifetime position, assignment, title, office, or rank. Remember that Jesus himself had
strictly forbidden that (Mt.23:1-12).
I choose to deal with these functions in alphabetical order, in order to avoid any appearance of hierarchical classification.

We will begin with apostles: generally the first persons from whom a new group would have heard about the Lord Jesus and
his Kingdom.
Apostolos is one of those words that, through the centuries, has acquired a somewhat mystical aura that never existed in its
linguistic etymology. Classically, it referred to anyone sent anywhere for any purpose! This could be the ambassador or
envoy of some royal personage, the commander of a military (usually naval) force, an export license for a business, or a
slave sent on an errand. The verb, apostello, was similarly inclusive: simply, to send. In the New Testament, it was used
of everything from Jesus sending the Holy Spirit, to his promise to return [send back] the donkey he borrowed on Palm
Sunday! (So much for status!)

The synoptic gospels refer to the 12 original disciples as apostles, usually in the context of Jesus' sending them out as his
representatives. Ambassadors or envoys would be a logical choice here, given that the burden of Jesus' message
concerned the Kingdom he had come to establish (See word studies 19, 20, and 21.) This may have been the thought behind
Peter's eagerness (note that this was his own idea, before Pentecost) to replace Judas as a witness to Jesus' resurrection.
The group took this action on their own: Jesus had told them simply to wait for the Holy Spirit. And while they were not
scolded for the choice of Matthias as an apostle, we never hear of him again.

As the church took root and grew, understandably, the experience of the men who had spent those three years walking and
working with Jesus was respected. After all, they had been there, done that. But it was not long before the work and the
authority needed to be shared more widely. Some of the original 12 may have filled multiple roles: we do not know, for
example, if the Philip chosen as a deacon in Ac.6 (see previous post), the apostle of that name (Mt.10:3, Jn.14), and
the evangelist who went first to Samaria and then to Gaza (Ac.8), are the same person, or two, or three. It was not an
uncommon name. Elders (see next post) shared the mediator role with apostles at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15),
and Paul and Barnabas (Ac.13:3), Judas and Silas (Ac.15:27 and 32) are also included with that label in Luke's account. In
various epistles, Paul adds Andronicus and Junia (Rom.16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil.2:25), Titus and other brethren (II
Cor.8:23), and Tychicus (II Tim.4:12). The same word is applied to all, though translators reluctant to use apostle for any
but those traditionally so labeled have changed it to messenger in some cases.

So what makes a person an apostle? Paul speaks of a number of things which he labels signs of an apostle:
endurance, signs and wonders [demonstrations of the power of God] (II Cor.12:12), having seen Jesus, and the conversion
of a brotherhood (I Cor.9:1-2), Jesus' appearance to him despite his former career as a persecutor (I Cor.15:7-9), and his
(Paul's) choice neither to flatter nor dominate them, his self-giving and self-support. He notes in I Cor.9:5-13 that as an
apostle, he had a right to take along a wife on his travels as Peter and the others did, and to expect support, but he
deliberately failed to claim those rights, as evidence that he was not working for his own gain. He had some rather caustic
things to say about false apostles who had no such scruples (II Cor.11:5-13.)

Apostles, one of God's gifts to the church (Eph.4:11), are usually itinerant, but they are not independent or free-lancers!
Notice how Peter (Ac.10), following the explicit instructions of the Spirit in his visit to Cornelius, nevertheless took along
other brethren as witnesses (10:23 and 11:2), and carefully reported back to the others in Jerusalem. Likewise, Paul and
Barnabas (Ac.12:25 and 14:26) and later Paul and Silas (18:22) reported back to the church at Antioch, from which they had
been sent out. Paul writes in Gal.2:7-9 about his own checking out of his message and activity with those who had served

81
as apostles for longer than he.

The work of an apostle is likewise quite varied. It includes evangelizing (the many missionary journeys), strengthening
and encouraging the young congregations (Ac.14:22, 16:40, 18:11, 20:1), correcting errors (Galatians and Corinthians),
teaching (Ac.15:35, 18:11, Timothy and Titus), and moderating/mediating disputes (Ac.15, and much of both Corinthian
letters).
Perhaps the best description of the work of a faithful apostle can be found in Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders
(Ac.20:17-35). He reminds them of his behavior among them: refraining from pulling rank, teaching publicly and in homes,
completing his assignment from the Lord Jesus to bear testimony to the grace of God, urging them to conform their lives to
God's plan, and setting an example of doing honest work in order to care for the weak.
It is hard to read such a statement, and then accept the ideas advanced by those who insist that there is no longer any need
for apostles! There is no such nonsense in the New Testament! Faithful apostolic teaching will continue to be needed until
the Lord comes!

Even Jesus himself is called an apostle (Heb.3:1), and he spoke often of having been sent by the Father with an
assignment to fulfill. This is sprinkled like a refrain throughout the gospel of John. Paul, in most of his letters, describes his
task as having been sent by Jesus, according to the will of God. Others were chosen and sent by the Holy Spirit through
the agency of a gathered congregation.
When was the last time you enjoyed a prayer meeting like the one described in Ac.13:1-3? Dare we assume that the Spirit
has not spoken, just because we have not heard him? Or must we admit that maybe we just weren't listening?
We impoverish ourselves if we refuse to continue that pattern

82
Word Study #42 Elders, Overseers, Shepherds
Let's begin this one by understanding what elders are NOT. Nowhere in the New Testament are elders represented as
members of a rotating, democratically elected committee, demographically varied in proportion to its congregation, and
commissioned to direct the affairs (either temporal or spiritual) of the group, and to hire or fire its leadership. Neither
are they scrubbed and eager young men fulfilling a mission requirement!

Elders presbutes are, most basically, (are you ready for this?) old people!
Elder is a term of respect: the respect accruing from age and experience!
The term was applied to ambassadors, because it was elder, experienced statesmen who served in that capacity. A council
of elders often directed the affairs of a city or state.
The elders in the New Testament church, likewise, had to have been older folks: in letters to both Timothy and Titus (I
Tim.3:4-5 and Titus 1:6), Paul lists among their qualifications, Look how their kids turned out! to see if they were
capable of proper leadership.

In the Gospel narratives, and through Acts 6, elders referred to the ruling council of the Jews, or, more generically, to their
ancestors (the traditions of the elders Mk.7:3). Until this point, and occasionally thereafter, they are represented as
antagonistic to Jesus and his message, and viewed as powerful adversaries.
Beginning in Ac.11:30, however, elders are mentioned in leadership roles in the church. They are always spoken of in the
plural, and share advisory duties with the apostles (Ac.15), but interestingly, not one of them is ever individually named.
Notice also that their duties were not at all dictatorial: the decision reached in Ac.15:22 was made by the apostles and
elders and the whole church, although the resulting letter was authored by the apostles and elders (v.23).
In each city where a new fellowship formed, the founding apostles appointed elders (plural) for them in every church
(Ac.14:23). Although the participle cheirotonesantes was used in the ancient Greek democracies (5th and 6th centuries BC)
of elections by raised hands (the literal meaning of the word), by the first century it was used of any appointment or
assignment. In neither case was a permanent position or title conferred.
Paul uses the same word to refer to his own work(II Cor.5:20) traditionally translated ambassador, as it is in Eph.6:20,
although there is no apparent reason for the change. It is the same word.

The most specific information we have about elders in the New Testament comes from Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus.
Timothy, a young man who seems to have served a kind of apprenticeship with Paul (Ac.16), and later was sent as Paul's
deputy into a number of difficult situations, is reminded that while his youth should not inhibit the contribution he can make
to the brotherhood, (I Tim.4:12), he must be careful to treat local elders both men and women (5:1-2) with deference and
respect even, or perhaps especially, when correction is needed.
It is interesting, and should be instructive, that the qualifications detailed in I Tim.3:1-7 for oversight episkopes (the
English term bishop, used 4 times, doubtless derived from the 16-17th century clerical structure, not from the lexical
meaning of the word) are identical to the qualifications posted to Titus (1:5-10) for the elders presbuterous that he
was to establish in the congregations of Crete. Oversight is mentioned there also in 1:7. Cross-check the two lists. The
order varies, but they match.
This parallel, as well as the use of the same terms in Paul's farewell to the Ephesian elders (Ac.20:17-38), Watch out for
yourselves, and for all the flock in which the Holy Spirit set you as overseers (episkopous, to shepherd (poimainein) the
church of God, indicates clearly that oversightand shepherding are simply two of the tasks entrusted to the elders of a
group. They are not titles, or separate assignments to separate individuals.
L/S lists the lexical definitions of episkopes as: an overseer, guardian, tutor, supervisor, or inspector. It appears only five
times in the entire New Testament, and its derivative terms a total of six. The verb form, episkopeo, in I Pet.5:2, also
addressed to elders, similarly includes an admonition to tend or shepherd the flock (poimanate).

This brings us to another task of the elders: shepherding. Jesus himself of course, is exhibit A of a shepherd, by his
own testimony (Jn.10). In fact, well over half the references are to Jesus (9 out of 16). After his resurrection, Jesus
assigned this task to Peter (Jn.21:6). Peter himself, having learned by sometimes hard experience, described what is
necessary for faithful shepherding (I Pet.5:2-5).
How this pattern of self-giving care, shepherding, on the part of plural elders, morphed into the image of a singular
pastor as an employee, or a corporate CEO, is a tragic puzzle.
L/S defines poimaino, in virtually all references after Homer, as to herd or tend flocks, or, in the case of people, to tend and

83
cherish, guide and govern. Four of the references appear in the Revelation, representing Jesus' continuing care for his
people (2:27, 7:17, 12:15, 19:15). Poimaino's appearance with the Old Testament image of a rod in the hand of the
shepherd, (since we know who the Shepherd is), should convey a sense of security and protection from harm, rather than the
threat with which it is so often associated.
Only once in traditional translations is poimen rendered pastor (the Latin-derived word), and that is in Eph.4:11, which
translators and commentators have mistakenly represented as members of their accustomed organizational hierarchy, and
therefore employed the labels of that system. I consider the listing to be chronological rather than hierarchical, with gifted
persons being supplied by the Holy Spirit to the group as they are needed. Please notice that here also, all the terms are
plural.

They all describe the function of the elders always plural, and of both genders (see I Tim.5:2 and Titus 2:2-5) in each
congregation. Their characteristics and duties include:
Ac.15 mediating conflicts
I Tim.3:2-7 exemplary personal and family life
I Tim.3:7 faithfully represent the church to outsiders
I Tim.4:14 conferring responsibility upon younger members
Titus 1:9 able to teach the Word, and refute opponents
James 5:14 praying for the sick/weak
I Peter 5:1-5 no status-tripping! Set an example; not working for profit.
There is much speculation, and little solid information about the passage in I Timothy 5:9-15 regarding the support of
elderly (over 60) widows. Some think it may have been a sort of an order; but considering the qualifications listed good
deeds, having raised children, welcomed strangers, relieved suffering, washed the saints' feet it may have been simply to
support them, after the death of their husbands, so that they could continue this same sort of service.

Comparing these assorted duties to Paul's description of his own activity (Ac.20:17-38), may lead one to conclude that
elders are simply charged with responsibilities on the local level, similar to those required of apostles in their more itinerant
work:
for the purpose of equipping God's people to do work of service, and to build up the Body of Christ, until we all arrive into
the unity of faithfulness, and of intimate acquaintance with the Son of God: (that is) into mature adulthood into a measure
of the maturity (whose source is) the completeness of Christ! (Eph.4:12-13)
A worthy goal for any of the faithful!

84
 Word Study #43 Evangelists
I strongly suspect that most of you will be as surprised as I was, to discover that the word evangelist euaggelistes
exists only three times in the whole New Testament! It is applied to Philip (Ac.21:8) who is identified as having been one
of the seven (who were also called diakonoi see w.s. #40); it appears on the list of service-gifts to the church mentioned
previously (Eph.4:11-12); and is part of Paul's final admonition to Timothy (II Tim.4:5). This discovery, while startling, in
conjunction with the 51 uses of the verb form euaggelizo, serves to confirm the principle that the New Testament focus, as
we have seen before, is upon function, and not upon the individuals who perform it, or any titles, or positions of status
ascribed to them. So it makes sense that we must look at the activity of these folks, and the content of their message, in
order to understand the concept.

Liddell/Scott has relatively little to say about this family of words. Euaggelistes was used of any bearer of welcome news
or a favorable oracular message. It was often used of a priestess of Hera (Juno). Euaggelios, not used in the NT at all, had a
similar meaning, but was usually used of Zeus or Hermes. Euaggelion the message so borne, and traditionally translated
gospel, also could refer to a reward given to the messenger. The verb, euaggelizo (from the earlier euaggeleo), or the
middle voice form euaggelizomai, referred to the act of delivering the message. It is often translated preach the gospel,
but there are eight other words also rendered to preach, which will be considered later. Here we will only deal with this
one.

In the gospels, Jesus is the only subject of the verb, except in the Luke 2 announcement of his birth, and the Lk.3:18 account
of John the Baptist's introduction of his ministry. The disciples sometimes preach, as do some of the healed individuals,
but other words are used on those occasions. Therefore, since Jesus seems to have invented the idea of preaching the
gospel, he is the logical one to consult about what that entails.
Out of the 17 times that Jesus is said to be preaching the gospel, or making direct reference to it, six are specifically
identified as the gospel of the Kingdom (Lk.4:43, 16:16; Mt.4:23, 9:35, 24:14; and Mk.1:14). Please refer to Word
Studies 19-20-21 for this subject. In three instances, the recipients of the gospel/good news are the poor (Mt.11:5,
Lk.4:18, 7:22). Elsewhere, it is combined with healing (Lk.9:6), teaching (Lk.20:1), changing one's life orientation in favor
of faithfulness to the Kingdom (Mk.1:15) see w.s.#6 , the loss of one's self-centered life or possessions (Mt.8:35, 10:29),
the permanent inclusion of the incident of the extravagant gift of perfume in any future gospel narrative (Mt.26:13,
Mk.14:9), and Jesus' post-resurrection mandate that it be preached to every creature (Mk.16:15) interesting that Mark
says creature instead of person. Does this have implications for other creatures as well?
Most of these incidents may be seen as simply manifestations of Jesus' Kingdom solid evidence for his opening statement,
The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has arrived (Mk.1:15). Note that both of these verbs are perfect
tenses (see appendix to Translation Notes). This is not a prediction, but an announcement!
Modern day evangelists or preachers of the gospel will search in vain for their strident accusations of sinfulness and
guilt, or purported demands for human sacrifice. Jesus never said that, folks! He graciously invited all who would, to
become a part of the Kingdom that he had come to establish.

In Acts and the epistles, the list of people doing the evangelizing broadens considerably. It includes Peter and John
(Ac.5:42), Philip (see discussion in w.s. #41, and add his identifying label in Ac.21:8), Paul (most of his letters, but
especially numerous references in Romans, Galatians Ephesians, and Thessalonians), all those scattered after the
martyrdom of Stephen (Ac.8:4), and many others.
It is worthy of note that while Paul asserts several times (note especially the extensive discussion in I Cor.9) that it is
reasonable to expect that people carrying the Word to places where Christ is not known be supported by other brethren, he
is so deeply concerned that the gospel message be offered without charge, that he considers self-support to be a matter of
integrity.

The more significant question concerns the content of their message, which is easily identifiable by the phrase, the gospel
of ---. By far the most common is the gospel of Jesus, the gospel of Christ, the gospel of Jesus Christ, or of the Lord
Jesus Christ. (I counted 21, but may have missed a few). It is reasonable to assume, especially in light of the accusations
leveled against apostles on several occasions, that this involved a reporting upon Jesus' life, activity, and teaching; at least 3
or 4 times, the phrase Jesus and the resurrection is noted (see the centrality of this event in the gospel message in
w.s.#35). The gospel of God to which Paul refers in I Cor.11:7, Rom.1:1, and I Thes.2:2, 2:8-9, may sound a bit more
generic, but is probably little different, since that notably verbose brother seldom fails to expound on distinctions when he

85
thinks elaboration is required!
The word of the gospel or the word of the Lord (Ac.8:4, 15:7, 15:35) would appear to refer more directly to Jesus'
teachings. The word of truth of the gospel (Col.1:5) stands in sharp contrast to the competing philosophies and
cosmologies that Paul is trying to counteract, as does his reference to the truth of the gospel in Gal.2:5.
Another phrase used multiple times,the gospel of peace (Ac.10:36, Rom.10:15, Ephl2:17, 6:15) usually appears in the
context of the bringing together of Jewish and Gentile believers. Please see chapter 2 of Citizens of the Kingdom on
unity, and chapter 7 for discussion of Eph.2 and its effect on the Body of believers. Ever since the announcement by the
heavenly hosts in Lk.2, it is no gospel which does not include the creation of peace among formerly hostile people who
join the Kingdom.

Paul also makes reference to competitors seeking to impose another gospel (Gal.1:6-9,2:14; I Cor.9:18, 15:12-18; Phil.1,
Col.1:23), as does Peter (I Pet.4:17). Most of these are individuals seeking either to impose legal regulations as a condition
of acceptance (Col.2:16), or, conversely, to revert to pagan licentiousness (Col.2:8, I Pet.4:4).

It is one thing to hear the proclamation of a new Kingdom a completely new way of living and quite another to adopt it
as one's own: to become a citizen of that Kingdom. Jesus spoke of it as a complete re-orientation of life metanoia-- (See
w.s.#6), and urged becoming faithful to (others translate it merely believe) the gospel (See w.s.#1). His later followers
spoke of obeying the gospel (Rom.10:16, II Thess.1:8, 3:14; Heb.4:9, I Pet.4:17).
Paul also wrote of people serving together in the gospel (I Thes.3:2, Phil. 1:7, 1:17, 1:27, 2:22, 4:3.), and sharing in the
hassles occasioned by that service (II Tim.1:8).

The familiar advertising of fire insurance and rhetoric about a free one-way ticket to glory did not come from the New
Testament! The genuine gospel message is far more beautiful, and more far-reaching, than that. Paul hearkens back to the
original good news announced even before Jesus' birth (Mt.1:23), of Emmanuel God with us-- when he characterizes
the mystery of the gospel (Col.1:27) as Christ among [in] you all: your hope [expectation] of glory!
A true evangelist, at his Master's command, extends to every creature (Mk.16:15) the gracious invitation to become a
part of the Body a citizen of the Kingdom of the Lord of Glory!
May that tribe increase!

86
Word Study #44 Preachers, Priests
The word kerux, preacher, like evangelist in W.S.#43, appears in the New Testament only three times! I am convinced
that this constitutes confirming evidence that the New Testament focus is upon the functions that need to be performed in
the brotherhood, and not upon any ranking or titles conferred upon its participants. Paul refers to himself twice as a
preacher I Tim.2:7 and II Tim.2:11 and Peter (II Pet.2:5) calls Noah a preacher of justice. That is all. Consequently,
as before, clues to the job description need to be gleaned from the verb (action) forms of the words.

Liddell/Scott identifies a kerux as a herald, a public messenger, a crier who made proclamations and kept order at
assemblies, an auctioneer, or a messenger between nations at war. This latter description is interesting in a Kingdom
context. Is a preacher a messenger from the Prince of Peace to any who had been at war with his Kingdom?
In their reference to the verb form, kerusso, L/S add, to invite people to become colonists! Both Herodotus and Plutarch
use it that way. This historical reference, along with the New Testament contexts, tends toward a parallel to the evangelistic
task. In no instance is this job described as a hierarchical function within a single congregation. Preachers, like
evangelists andapostles, seem to have been primarily itinerant, proclaiming Jesus to the previously ignorant.

In the gospels, John the Baptist, Jesus, and his disciples are said to be preaching. In the case of Jesus and the disciples,
the word is sometimes combined with teaching (Mt.9:35), healing (Lk.9:2), and casting out demons (Mk.1:38, 3:14).
By far the most common reference is to preaching/announcing the Kingdom (Mt.4:17, 23; Mt.9:35, 10:7, 24:14; Lk.8:1,
9:2). It is primarily John the Baptist, not Jesus, who emphasizes repentance and forgiveness in his preaching (Mt.3:1,
Mk.1:4,7; Lk.3:3). Please see also the previous post (#43), as some of these usages overlap.

The account of the early church in Acts, and Paul's epistles, continues in the vein of an introductory proclamation to people
or groups, and considerably broadens the base of proclaimers. Here, too, the subject matter is expanded to include Jesus'
resurrection (Ac.4:2, 17:3; I Cor.15:11-12 actually the whole chapter). It also parallels the subjects listed in W.S.#43.
Preaching Jesus, or preaching Christ, predominates, as well as preaching the Word. In contrast, again, to modern
emphasis, cross/crucified/crucifixion is mentioned as the subject only once (I Cor.1:18-23). How, then, did that come to
be the only acceptable focus for so many people? Folks who claim to preach Christ need to look again at all the
wonderful things that such preaching includes: Jesus Christ as the Son of God (II Cor.1:19), the message of
faithfulness(Rom.10:8), explaining about the resurrection (Ac.17:3), admonishing and teaching every person, in order
that we may present every person mature in Christ (Col.1:28), and persisting, like brother Paul imprisoned in Rome, in
preaching the Kingdom of God (Ac.28:31)! Inviting people to become colonists (see above) of the Kingdom, seems to
describe the task quite delightfully!
Do not neglect to note the warnings in II Cor.11:4 and much of Galatians, concerning the acceptance or propagation of
another gospel an erroneous or distorted version of the one Paul had proclaimed. The real thing comes (I Cor.2:4) not
in fancy rhetoric and eloquent language, but in the simple demonstration of the power of God!
How carefully do you sift and evaluate what purports to be the preaching of the gospel?

At about this stage of a survey of the job descriptions in the New Testament church, someone frequently protests, But if
pastors and bishops represent just two of the tasks of elders/old people, and preachers are itinerant evangelists, then who's
in charge at home in the local congregation?
The short answer is, NOBODY BUT THE LORD JESUS, through his Holy Spirit, with the elder members providing a
degree of oversight and evaluation of the contributions of all the members!

Some groups, under the mistaken impression that they need official human leadership (to mediate or replace? the Holy
Spirit?) have decided to pick out an individual or several whom they then elevate above the rest and call them
ministers, (see W.S.#40), or priests. Sorry, but that doesn't work in a New Testament church. Hiereus, priest, does
not appear at all in Paul's epistles. In the Gospels and Acts, it refers exclusively to the Jewish officials who uniformly
opposed everything that Jesus did or said, except for one single reference (Ac.6:7) to a few individuals who had come to
faith. The writer to the Hebrews spends considerable time in chapters 7, 8, and 9, reviewing the responsibilities of priests
under the old covenant, and explaining Jesus' superiority, noting that he has removed all need for their intricate ceremonies.
Jesus' position is compared to that of Melchizedek, who had no connection to the Levitical priesthood, but is called a
priest forever.

The discussion in Hebrews also incorporates the word archiereus, high or chief priests,who, in the Gospels and Acts

87
accounts, are also uniformly mentioned as Jesus' opponents. Chapters 2 through 6 proclaim Jesus himself as the ultimate
high priest, and the only mediator who is needed, in contrast to the multiplicity of the ancient hierarchy.

There are only two places where any form of priesthood refers to contemporary followers of Jesus, and none of these
singles out any individual. I Peter 2:5 and 2:9 speak of the entire brotherhood of believers as priests: You yourselves,
also, as living stones, be continually built (into) a spiritual household, into a dedicated priesthood, to bring to God spiritual
sacrifices that will be well-received because of Jesus Christ. and You all are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
set-apart [holy] nation, a people especially reserved for the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one
who called you out of darkness into his amazing light!
Likewise, in the Revelation, (1:6, 5:10, 20:6), referring to the crowds singing praises around the throne, all of God's people
are proclaimed to be his priests.

As Dan noted in his response to W.S.#42, Martin Luther and other reformers had a lot to say about the priesthood of all
believers but somehow, both they and their descendents have neglected to treat that concept as a practical reality.
Indeed, reference to the priesthood of believers has become nothing but a hollow buzz-word, if the privilege and
responsibility to teach the word, proclaim the Kingdom, and organize the observance of its symbols is restricted to a narrow
hierarchy of individuals, as it was before the arrival of our King!
These are tasks assigned to every citizen, for the benefit of every other such citizen, and for the glory of the Lord who has
called us all!
He has made US a kingdom priests to God his Father! Glory and power to him forever!
Amen! (Rev.1:6)
Amen indeed!

88
Word Study #45 Prophets
As we examine the responsibility of prophets, we arrive at a situation that is unique in two different ways. First, the New
Testament provides us with a simple and concise definition of the task: (I Cor.14:3) The one who prophesies [delivers
God's message] is speaking to people: edification, admonition, and encouragement. And secondly, this definition departs
markedly from the classical usages of the word as recorded in L/S: the keepers and spokespeople of an oracle, who speaks
for the god; the highest order of the ancient Egyptian religion; a foreteller of the future; an herbalist or quack doctor!
The only firm parallel between these two is the idea of speaking for (a) God. The foretelling of future events was common
as a part of prophetic messages under the old covenant, but even there foretelling was primarily connected to an
exhortation to return to God's ways, not merely the display of occult predictive powers. In the New Testament, any
reference to the future had either a very practical connection to specific instructions, as when prophets from Jerusalem
came to Antioch and warned of an impending famine, in order that these distant brethren might send relief (Ac.11:27), or a
specific intention to encourage beleaguered disciples to confident faithfulness (Mt.10:18). Sadly, many who claim today to
speak in the Lord's name fit more clearly into the ancient pattern of purported future-telling, than the prescribed New
Testament mandate for edification, admonition, and encouragement. Please note also that Paul's definition makes no
reference to an attempt to frighten one's hearers into compliant submission to the speaker's agenda!

Chronologically, the first prophet we meet in the New Testament is Zachariah (Lk.1:67), when his son John was born. He
simply reported what he had been told about the child and his assignment. The second is elderly Anna, specifically
identified as a prophetess, in the temple after Jesus' birth (Lk.2:36-38). Besides these two, most of the gospel references
are to the Old Testament prophets, relating their messages to Jesus himself, or to John the Baptist. A notable exception is
Caiaphas' cynical statement of Jesus' fate (Jn.11:51), where John offers his opinion that the high priest had no clue of the
implication of his words.

At Pentecost, however, everything changed! The gift of the Holy Spirit's coming is related, by Peter, to the earlier prophecy
of Joel (Ac.2:17-18), that now all God's people may prophesy! Old and young, sons and daughters, share in this gracious
gift, in order better to serve each other and their world. Suddenly, prophets seem to be cropping up all over! Our Lord
now intends to speak to all of us through all of us!
Ac.13:1 mentions prophets and teachers (both plural, please note) in the congregation at Antioch, having a prayer meeting
when Barnabas and Saul were commissioned for their first journey by a perceived word from the Holy Spirit.
Later, in his beautiful description of a coming together for worship, in I Cor.14:26-33, Paul clearly assumes that everyone
is eligible to participate: (v.31: You can ALL prophesy [speak for God], one at a time, so that all may learn and all may be
encouraged.) This is not a free-for-all: in v.29, he gives very careful instructions for the evaluation and orderly control of
participation. But clearly, everyone is expected to be involved.
Some folks are inclined to get bent-out-of-shape (in both directions!) over the following section about women. Please see
chapter 13 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a discussion of this. Here, I will simply remind you that just a few chapters
earlier (I Cor.11:4-5), their participation in the praying and prophesying is assumed.
In I Cor.14:39, Paul closes his treatise on prophecy by urging the whole congregation to seek earnestly for that privilege.
Anyone may prophesy. But not all are called prophets(I Cor.12:29). Although several folks are designated prophets in
addition to those already mentioned Judas and Silas (Ac.15:32), Agabus (Ac.21:10), and the four daughters of Philip
(Ac.21:9), among others, there is no record of anyone being chosen for the job by anyone else. They just emerge. A person
seems to have acquired that label by consistent, trustworthy exercise of the gift.

Prophecy appears on all the lists of gifts of the Holy Spirit (see W.S.#25) Rom.12:6, I Cor.12:10, Eph.4:11, and I Pet.4:10-
11. Clearly, it was expected that both the brotherhood as a whole (Ac.13:1-3) and individuals (I Tim.4:14)would receive
the Lord's instructions through the carefully evaluated exercise of prophetic gifts in the group.
One does not decide, plan, or choose to prophesy. Please notice that in no instance is a prophecy represented as a
carefully prepared study-paper or sermon. God's message [prophecy] didn't come from a person's own desire, but people
spoke from God, as they were borne along by the Holy Spirit (II Pet.1:21). That is not to deprecate the value of study or
sermons: these belong more in the category of teaching see the next posting which is also necessary, and may include
a prophetic word on occasion, but is an entirely different form of contribution. Likewise, preaching (see previous post) is
not prophecy, although it may, on occasion, contain it.
In I Cor.14:6, Paul lists a revelation, knowledge, prophecy [a message from God], and teaching as useful contributions to
the welfare of a brotherhood. All are necessary for healthy growth a balanced diet for the Body of Christ.

89
Prophets and teachers, although occasionally itinerant, are the only functionaries besides the ubiquitous elders, who are
assumed to exist in every congregation.

Claiming to prophesy in Jesus' name is no guarantee of authenticity (Mt.7:2). Jesus, Peter, and John all warned the
faithful to be discerning of false prophets (Mt.7:15, 24:11, 24; Lk.6:26, Ac.13:6, II Pet.2:1, I Jn.4:1, Rev.16:13, 19:20,
20:10). Counterfeits are easily detected by people who are well acquainted with the genuine article. The counsel and
wisdom of experienced elders is extremely valuable in such situations.
It behooves us to heed that wisdom, rather than, as some have done, to conclude out of sheer frustration that the time of
prophecy has passed. True, this gift is not permanent (I Cor.13:9), and it is only partial but it will only be superseded
when we are all directly with the Lord.
Perhaps it is just such a dilemma that Paul had in mind when he wrote (I Th.5:20) Do not scorn prophesying [messages
from God]. A faithful brotherhood must evaluate, not automatically discard, what may be a prophetic word.

Paul's definition with which we began, serves as a valuable measuring tool. Genuine prophecy [messages directly from
God] speaks to people for
edification being built into the Body the Lord intends,
admonition instructions for faithful life and interaction, and
encouragement sometimes translated comfort; I frequently use coaching.
Any message that does not meet these criteria may safely be discarded, with confidence that it is not from God!
But don't forget that Paul admonished the entire group at Corinth (I Cor.14:1) Strive for spiritual things especially that
you all may prophesy [speak for God]!
Hearing our Master's voice, and sharing the insight thus received, as we interact with our brethren, is a large and much
needed part of the Lord's plan for the faithful functioning of his Body in the world.

May we determine to handle it faithfully!

90
Word Study #46 Teachers
In a first-century setting, the word teacher (didaskalos) would have conjured up a very different picture from either the
20th century denizen of chalkboards or the 21st century operator of a computer and smart-boards in front of a class. If
you were of Greek heritage, you thought of Socrates, Plato, and their cohorts, surrounded by eager disciples (mathetes),
deeply engrossed in philosophical dialogues. Your Jewish counterpart would think of a rabbi, inculcating the intricate
details of the Law into his young charges, or arguing its fine points with others of his status. So it was no surprise to either
group when a new Teacher appeared on the scene, with a cadre of disciples. Teacher or Master (the British version of
the same word) was one of the primary respectful titles by which Jesus was often addressed. However, very early on,
people recognized that there was a difference.

Matthew (7:29, Mark (1:22) and Luke (4:32) all note that one thing that amazed the hearers was that Jesus taught with
authority, and not like the scribes who usually needed to buttress their arguments by quoting others of their number. (Does
that sound like any theological teaching you have heard?)
Jesus' teaching was unique in that he undertook to correct the prevalent misunderstandings that were touted as the Law.
In fact, this makes up a large part of his Sermon on the Mount (Mt.5-7), which is bookended by references to his
teaching. Luke, referring to his first account, summarizes it as all that Jesus began to do and to teach (Ac.1:1) as he
begins Volume 2.
It is also notable that Jesus' teaching was often connected with healings (Mt.9:35), casting out demonic powers (Mk.1:27),
and feeding the crowds (Mk.8), further demonstrating his identity.
Jesus' frequent use of parables to make a point was not particularly rare in the culture, but his subject-matter certainly was.
All the synoptic writers describe teaching and preaching [proclaiming] the Kingdom!

Most of these items are also included in his instructions to the disciples whom he sent out as his representatives (Mt.10,
Lk.6:1-6 and 10:17). Their discipleship seems to have served as a kind of apprenticeship, as both Matthew (10:24-25) and
Luke (6:40) record the reminder that a disciple is not above (huper) his teacher, but when fully trained, will be like (hos)
his master, and Matthew adds (23:7) the blunt prohibition against assuming a title of any kind, reminding them You all
have one Teacher, and you are all brethren.

This sets the instructions that have been called The Great Commission (Mt.28:19-20) in an interesting light. Faulty
translation, due to poorly understood grammar, has led to many an unwarranted guilt-trip, as well as serious neglect of our
responsibilities. According to most interpretations, Go and preach [evangelize] (this latter borrowed from a late
manuscript of Mark's version) are treated as if they were continuous imperatives (commands) issued to every believer,
(which, if true, would require a present tense in the imperative), while baptizing and teaching are reserved for the
clergy a word which, incidentally, does not exist in the New Testament. In point of fact, there is only one imperative in
the entire passage matheteusate.-- make disciples. It is a second person plural, aorist imperative: which indicates
definitive action, by all the hearers. Interestingly, the sense of this word changes with the case of its object. (L/S). If the
object is genitive or dative, it refers to being disciples of or to another person. If, as in this case, the object is accusative,
(panta ta ethne), all the nations [Gentiles same word], then it becomes a transitive verb and refers to making the
object to become disciples. It may be that the risen Lord is thereby deliberately opening the door once-and-for-all (aorist) to
all nations! It took the disciples a while to internalize that, but the grammar is unmistakable.
All three of the other verbs are present participles, implying continuous action. They govern dependent clauses, modifying
matheteusate, the main verb. Poreuthentes, is temporal or spatial: as or while you are going [or even wherever you
are going]. Baptizontes (baptizing) and didaskontes (teaching) refer to what the making disciples involves. A how-to,
if you please. Please note that the subject of the sentence has not changed. Matheteusate is second person plural. THE
WHOLE THING IS EVERYBODY'S JOB! Please see chapter 10 of Citizens for more discussion.

This seems to have been well understood in the early church. The teaching job comes after the new disciples are recruited
and baptized. It was a major part of their early gatherings (Ac.2:42 and 4:33), as those who had been there shared the
resurrection message. Paul reassured the congregation at Colossae (3:16) that they are perfectly capable of teaching and
admonishing one another. Jesus had after all, promised that the Holy Spirit would teach and remind his people of all that
he had said and done (Jn.14:26). Timothy (II Tim.2:2) is reminded to find faithful folks to whom he can pass on the
responsibility of teaching. Paul lists teachers (plural)among the gifts to the church in Rom.12:7, I Cor.12:28, and
Eph.4:11, but also assumes that anyone (I Cor.14:26) might have a teaching to contribute.

91
Indeed, the expectation that multiple folks will be involved in teaching is obvious in the scolding by the writer to the
Hebrews (5:12), By this time , you all ought to be teachers, but you have need for someone to teach you again the very
basic principles of God's words!
Both Timothy (I Tim.5:17) and Titus (1:9 and 2:3) are reminded that an elder must be a patient and able teacher, and warned
of those who teach a mistaken, warped, or deliberately distorted version of the message (II Tim.4:3 and Tit.1:11).

Teachers (Ac.13:1) were together with prophets (see previous post) in the prayer-meeting in Antioch when two of their
number were commissioned for itinerant service. I Cor.12:29 implies that (although Paul in chapter 14 directs that anyone
may teach) not all are teachers. Probably the situation is similar to the directions for prophesying. Those who fill that
function responsibly and well, acquire the label but in obedience to Jesus' instructions (Mt.23:7), it is deliberately to be
avoided as a title or status.

So what is the teacher to teach? Jesus said it quite simply in the Commission mentioned already: teaching them to
follow my instructions! We will consider this in more detail in the next post.

92
Word Study #47 Teaching, Doctrine
There are two nouns that have been translated teaching or, more traditionally, doctrine, in the New Testament. Didache,
used 29 times, appears usually to be used of the act of teaching, and didaskalia, used 19 times, of the content of what is
taught, although these are not clearly divided categories. If any of you can come up with a better distinction, I will gladly
add it to this post.
More important than that, however, is the realization that neither word bears any resemblance whatever to the neatly sorted
and proof-texted lists of theological propositions commonly promoted as doctrines, to which individuals are required to
subscribe in order to be considered acceptably orthodox. (Remember James' statement (see w.s. #1) that the devil himself
could readily subscribe to those lists of beliefs.) In 17th century England (Shakespeare and King James were
contemporaries), the word doctrine simply meant teaching. In early American history, it referred to a political
pronouncement (the Monroe Doctrine).

When Jesus warned his followers to beware of the didache (teaching, doctrine) of the scribes and Pharisees (Mt.16:12), it
was their behavior that he had been challenging. More frequently, he critiqued their teaching (didaskontes) as doctrines
(didaskalias) the commandments of people (Mt.15:9, Mk.7:7), which sounds suspiciously like the folks today who
harangue their hearers about their carefully contrived and footnoted statements of doctrine. This may seem to you like a
tired refrain, but I will ask you once again, What did JESUS say? And if you can find any instance of the Lord Jesus
arguing any kind of systematic theology, please let me know.

Jesus' teaching [doctrine] that amazed his hearers was his ability (Mk.1:27 and Lk.4:32) to command the departure of
unclean spirits, (Mk.11:18) to drive the opportunistic merchants out of the temple, and (Mt.22:33) to make the scholarly
scribes and Pharisees look silly!
Jesus advocated one single test of orthodoxy: (Jn.7:16, 17) My teaching is not mine, but (has its source in) the one who
sent me. If anyone wants to do his will, he will know about the teaching [doctrine], whether it comes from God. Folks,
it's all about following instructions!

When Peter and John were arrested for teaching in the Name (see W.S. #24) of Jesus (Ac.3 and 4), they replied simply,
(4:19) If it is just [right] before God to listen to you rather than God, you must judge! and proceeded to continue to teach
as before (5:28-29) the message of Jesus' resurrection, as evidence of his vindication and supremacy! In Athens, Paul's
preaching about Jesus and the resurrection (Ac.17:18-19) precipitated the Areopagus discussion about what new thing
this teaching [doctrine] is. As noted in W.S. #35, Jesus' resurrection is the central theme of the whole New Testament:
both the definitive proof of his identity, and his credential as the rightful Sovereign of his Kingdom!

Remember that the teaching assignment given to his followers in Mt.28:20 was quite specific: those to whom the news
of the Kingdom is carried, are to be taught to follow the King's instructions!
Paul praised the group at Rome (6:17) for turning from the futility of their former lives, to a life of obedience to the
example of the teaching (didache) they had received. He reminded those at Colossae Since you were resurrected with
Christ (3:1), get about the business of incorporating that fact into your lives. Timothy and Titus both received very
explicit instructions for teaching and modeling faithful living.

As was the case with prophecy (W.S.#45), there is also false teaching that must be discerned and corrected. It may involve
(Rom.6:17) those who cause divisions in the brotherhood, (Gal) those who try to reinstitute Jewish legal requirements, or
(Col.2:22) similar ascetic practices from pagan traditions. There is a rather explicit list in I Tim.1:3-11, along with the
reminder (which has never gone out of date), The goal of the commandment is love from a clean heart and a good
understanding, and faithfulness without pretense (1:5). The warning is repeated in 4:1-4. In fact, the whole letter (I Tim)
could be considered a teacher's manual. Clearly, again, it is Jesus' words that are to be taught. Subjects specifically
labeled in the Gospels as his teaching and doctrine include his parables, the Sermon on the Mount, his warnings about the
scribes and Pharisees, and his relationship with the Father.

Unlike prophecy, which, as we have seen (W.S. #45), entails a direct message from God, usually bearing upon a specific
situation, faithful teaching does draw upon the knowledge, experience, and study of the teacher. II Tim.2:15 succinctly
expresses the goal: correctly handling the message of the truth. The Scripture is the primary source and it should be
incumbent upon anyone who presumes to teach, to learn to understand it accurately for it is indeed useful for teaching,
for reproving, for correction, and for education in justice, in order that God's person may be mature, prepared for every good

93
effort. (I Tim.3:16-17). And remember that , unlike moderns who claim that scripture in the first century referred only
to the Old Testament, our brother Peter begs to differ, (II Pet.3:16), including both brother Paul and other writers in that
designation. There were many writings(the literal meaning of graphe or grammata,) circulating in the first century
church, which required as much evaluation and discernment as the prophecy and teaching. (Note that Paul referred to letters
incorrectly attributed to him II Thes.2:2.)
It is also prudent to bear in mind James' warning that we who teach will receive stricter judgment.(3:1).

Nevertheless, when our risen Lord ascended higher than all the heavens, he gave apostles, prophets, evangelists,
shepherds, and teachers to his church: for the purpose of equipping God's people to do work of service [ministry], and to
build up the Body of Christ, until we all arrive into the unity of faithfulness,and of intimate acquaintance with the Son of
God: that is, into mature adulthood into a measure of the maturity whose source is the fulness [completeness] of Christ.
(The purpose is ) that we be no longer babies, agitated and carried around by every wind of teaching [doctrine], deceitfully
manipulated by people who are deliberately trying to mislead us, but as we interact truthfully, in love, we may grow up in
every way into him who is the Head Christ. From him, the whole Body, joined together [harmonized] and knit together,
through the proper functioning of every available ligament , according to the measured working of each individual part,
makes bodily growth for building itself up in love. (Eph.4:12-16)

That's everybody's job, folks! Let's get busy!

94
Word Study #48 Ordain
It would be difficult to find a word that provides a clearer example of how hard official translators will beat the bushes to
try to find (or create) justification for an idea that arose completely apart from the New Testament text, than the English
word ordain. It entered the English language around 1250AD, from the Latin, via French. This, please note, was after
more than a thousand years of evolution which, tragically, had transformed a loving, mutually participatory brotherhood
into a huge, hierarchical institution, in which a comparatively few individuals (ordained clergy * of many ranks) held
frightening power over a laity* who were kept compliant by their enforced ignorance of the New Testament message, due
primarily to their lack of access to it.
*Please note that neither of these terms exists anywhere in the New Testament.
How else can one explain the use of ordain to represent no less that thirteen different Greek words in the text, with no
more than three such representations (in some cases an extremely tiny minority) in the case of any single original word?
And even the English word, according to the Oxford dictionary, expressed multiple meanings: to enact by law or edict, to
decree or to give orders, to destine, to order or command, to appoint to office, as well as to invest with
ministerial/sacerdotal function in a church.
Only in Heb.5:1 and 8:3 is there any hint, in the New Testament, of a sacramental* ceremony, conveying ecclesiastical
responsibilities, privilege, and status and that deals with the commissioning of the Jewish high priests, under the old
system!
* another word that is not found in the New Testament
We will briefly examine each of the Greek words involved, and note their more common uses, as well as their lexical
meanings.

Diatasso, which primarily concerns the giving of instructions, occurs thirteen times in the New Testament. It was
translated ordain only three times: I Cor.7:17 (referring to whether one was called to be married or single); I Cor.9:14
(the provision for itinerant preachers to be supported); and Gal.3:19 (regarding the giving of the Law.) Other uses are as
varied as the lexical meanings listed by Liddell/Scott (L/S): to appoint or assign (Lk.3:13, Ac.20:13, Tit.1:5); to give
orders (Lk.8:55, Ac.18:2, 23:31); to arrange, undertake, or pledge (I Cor.16:1, 11:34), among others.

Kathistemi, a somewhat stronger word, used nineteen times, was also translated ordain only three times: Titus 1:5
regarding the choosing of elders, and the Hebrews references already cited. L/S lists to cause, place, or station (Mt.24:45,
47); to bring to a destination (Ac.17:15), to bring before a judge or magistrate (Lk.12:4), to set a battle array, to
institute laws, to be set as a guard, or occasionally to stand against or oppose (Jas.4:4). Most common is to make (as,
to give someone a job) (Mt.25:21, Ac.7:10, Ac.6:3). Interestingly, the Titus reference contains both diatasso and kathistemi:
Paul is reminding Titus that he was instructed to put in place elders (plural) in every city, to provide the necessary oversight
for each group.

Kataskeuazo, primarily (L/S) to equip or furnish, to build or construct, is used six times (out of 11) as to prepare
Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk1:17 and 7:27 of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus; and Heb.11:7 and I Pet3:20 of Noah
preparing the ark. It is used three times in Heb.3:3 and 4 of building a house; and only once as ordain (probably
referring to instructions), in the preparation of the tabernacle objects.

Krino, used 110 times, usually in reference to judgment (see Word Study #9), either legal or intellectual, is only once
rendered ordain, in reference to the verdict at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac.16:4).

Horizo (8 uses total) twice refers to Jesus as ordained by God to judge the world (Ac.10:42, 17:31). The classical to
divide or separate with a border or boundary, to determine or define would fit just as well, as it does in Lk.22:22, Ac.11:29
17:26, Heb.4:7.

Poieo usually to do or to make, is found in the New Testament 538 times, only one of which was translated ordain
Mk.3:14 referring to Jesus' choice of the 12 disciples. Did someone just decide that a more official sounding word was
needed for that event? The writer apparently did not think so.
The same question could be asked about the single case where ginomai (to be, to become 557 times) has been rendered
ordain the choice of Matthias (Ac.1:22). Both of these choices are clearly editorial, as are many of the other 47 cases
where a variant rendering was chosen only once.

95
Prographo Jude 4 to write beforehand, and proetoimazo Eph.2:10 to prepare beforehand, each used only once in
the entire New Testament, may well have been rendered ordain to convey a sense of destiny, which does not exist
etymologically in either of those words.
Proorizo, on the other hand, to determine beforehand, does carry that flavor. It only appears five times and only once
translated ordain (I Cor.2:7), referring to God's plan for redemption. This subject deserves more attention, which we may
give it at another time.

Tasso, (9 appearances, 2 as ordain), classically referred primarily to orders or instructions military or civil or
appointments to any kind of service. This is seen in Ac.15:2, Mt.28:16, Ac.22:10, 28:23: the change to ordain in
Rom.13:1, again, seems capricious. Ac.13:48 speaks of those ordained for eternal life in traditional versions, conveying a
determinate sense which is absent in the grammatical structure. Whoever became faithful was appointed [enrolled] for
eternal life would more closely approximate the grammar of the sentence.

Tithemi, basically referring to putting or laying something somewhere, whether a person, a vote, a bank deposit, a burial, an
offering, a will . has 75 New Testament uses, only two of which were translated ordain again, rather obviously
because the translators (not the writers) thought a more specific term was needed in Jn.15:16 and I Tim.2:7. They were fine
with using appoint six times, and lay or lay down fourteen times with reference to burial, four times to a sickbed, and
five to laying a foundation.

Cheirotoneo, only used twice, was rendered ordain when applied to elders (Ac.14:23), and choose when applied to the
folks sent to accompany Paul's relief mission (II Cor.8:19). Please see the discussion of elders in W.S.#42. A discrepancy
like this, like those previously mentioned, cannot be other than editorial which is not the task of a translator (please refer
to the essay of that title.).

Conspicuously absent from all of these references is any indication of a ceremony elevating an individual to a lifetime
position of status, with power over the welfare physical or spiritual of his fellows, or the monumental task of standing as
a necessary link or mediator between any person and the grace of God! It's not there, folks!
The Body of Christ is neither a many-headed monster, an efficiently structured corporation, nor a layered pyramid scheme!
It is a living, breathing organism under its one Head , the Lord Jesus himself. All its members loyal citizens of his
Kingdom ordained since before the beginning (Eph.1:4-6) to belong to him share the task of the measured working
of each individual part, building itself up in love, for the praise of his glory!
Thanks be to God!

96
Word Study #49 The Church
Here is another place where the process of word study presents a surprise. In all the Gospels, the word church ekklesia
occurs only three times: once in Matthew's account of Peter's recognition of Jesus' true identity (16:18), and twice in
Jesus' instructions for reconciliation among brethren (Mt.18:17). It is plentiful in the later writings, appearing 112 times, but
to our usual question, What did Jesus say?, we must answer, not much., although I think that many of his references to
his Kingdom (see W.S.#19, 20,21) apply equally to the church.

Ekklesia was not uncommon in classical usage. As early as Homer, it referred to any assembly legally summoned for a
particular purpose: legal, civil, or military. It is even used this way three times in the account of the riot in Ephesus
(Ac.19:32,39,41), of both the angry mob and the legal jurisdiction to which the town clerk referred them. The concept was
taken over into the Latin comitia, from which our ubiquitous committee is derived, and the LXX translators used it of the
Jewish congregation. L/S notes that in the New Testament, it refers to the church as a body of Christians. The word was
not applied to a building until the Codex Justinianus, dated from the 4th to the 6th century AD well after Constantine had
re-structured the church as a civil institution.

But we are concerned with the faithful, New Testament pattern. Very likely, the lack of Gospel references is due to the more
common use of sunago and its related words (note the English cognate, synagogue) which was the usual gathering-place
of the Jewish faithful. If this is the case, then Jesus' deliberate choice to use a different word takes on sharp significance.
When he says I will build my church (Mt.16:18), he is clearly about to do a new thing, as Isaiah had prophesied long
ago (43:18-21). Please notice that Jesus says that HE intends to do the building! Later, (Ac.2:47), Luke notes that as the
group of believers grew, THE LORD added to their number. In recent years, it has become in vogue for individuals
mere people to set out to build or plant churches. With all due respect to these folks, some of whom, I'm sure, are
quite sincere, THAT IS NOT OUR JOB!!! Peter casts it properly in the passive voice (I Pet.2:5), You yourselves, also, as
living stones, be continually built into a spiritual household... We need to be available, as building materials but leave
the building to the Master Builder! He knows what he is doing!

There's plenty of work that is assigned to us. It is through the church that rulers and authorities, whether in heaven or
earth, are to see a demonstration of the many-faceted wisdom of God (Eph.3:10)! For this purpose, Jesus has been
provided to us as head over everything with respect to the church, which is his Body (Eph.1:22, Col.1:18). Paul has
furnished us with an instruction manual (I Cor.12) for learning to function as members of that Body each actively
contributing to the interdependent unit. See a more detailed discussion of this matter in Chapter 7 of Citizens of the
Kingdom Discerning the Body.

The closest we come to a recipe in the New Testament for a gathering of the church is found in I Cor.14:23-25. I have
never seen a group try that, have you? It would be a truly wonderful meeting! Although, admittedly, it would probably be
upsetting to anyone who has a need to be in control. The description in Ac.2:42-47 is similarly attractive, and just as rare.
This is also discussed in Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 7.
Being composed of very human people, of course, the church was not all glorious sweetness and light. Jesus himself
(Mt.18:17) had given instructions for dealing with conflict, with the help of the church. An excellent practical example is
described in the conference at Jerusalem (Ac.15, and Citizens, chapter 8) concerning the inclusion of Gentiles. Paul
emphasizes in I Cor.6:4 that the church, and not civil courts, should be called upon when mediation is needed.

So, what is the work of the church?

The church at Antioch sent out and supported Paul, Barnabas, and Silas (and possibly others) to carry the message into
unreached areas. Other congregations also supported their work (Phil.4:15, II Cor.11:8, 12-13), and a sizable group
cooperated to send relief to needy brethren (II Cor.8).
The church was also charged with the care of widows who had no family which would have been a serious concern in
groups under persecution.
The section of Ac 2:42-47 lists some of their activities.

Most of the church groups seem to have met in people's homes. Ac.2:46 speaks of breaking bread from house to house,
and Paul mentions groups meeting in the homes of Aquila and Priscilla (I Cor.16 and Rom.16), and Titus Justus (Ac.18:7) in
Corinth; Nympha (Col.4:15) and Philemon (Phm.2) in Colossae; Lydia (Ac.16) in Philippi; John Mark's mother in
Jerusalem (Ac.12:12); and probably Gaius (Rom.16) wherever Romans was written from. Occasionally, as in Ephesus

97
(Ac.19:9) at the beginning, a rented hall was used perhaps to accommodate a larger group, or before a host was available.
It was natural, then, for Paul to refer to the church (I Tim.3:15) as the household of God. About half of the references are
plural, which probably indicates more than one congregation in a location. In any event, real estate does not seem to have
been a concern.
Neither is there any reference to the church as a place to go on Sunday to sit and listen to a learned lecture (or less-learned
diatribe) and professionally performed music or other entertainment. There is no prescribed agenda or liturgy.

It is important to note that, except for his instructions to Timothy and Titus, who seem to have been serving as his
deputies, Paul addresses his letters to all God's people [the saints] at . [a location], and not to officials of any kind.
In Phil.1:1, leaders are included in the address, but are not primary. This makes one wonder about the addressing of the
mail in Rev.2 and 3 to the messenger (aggelos)-- traditionally rendered angel (see discussion in chapter 13 of Citizens
of the Kingdom. Might this person have been some sort of corresponding secretary? But even in this case, everyone is
called upon to heed what the Spirit says to the churches.

So what is this New Creation called the church?

I like the suggestion of a student years ago, a combination of a colony of the Kingdom and a support group!
These are people gathered, as in Ac.2:42-47, to celebrate and share the resurrection life of their King.
As in Ac.11:26, to learn his ways, in order to represent him faithfully to those outside,
As in Ac.12:15, for mutual support and prayer in the face of persecution.
They deliberately avoid (Heb.10:25) neglecting to get together, since they need to keep coaching and encouraging one
another,
(I Cor.14:12) each seeking to excel in what will edify the church, as they
(Heb.10:24) concentrate on prodding each other with love and good deeds.
They serve as a demonstration project of the wisdom and glory of God (Eph.3:10)
being built together into a permanent dwelling place for God, in the Spirit.(Eph.2:22).

Quite enough to keep us all busy

98
Word Study #50 Worship
I don't know how many printed cards or form-letters we have received, over the years, from all varieties of churches that
we have visited, bearing some variation of this standard message:
We were delighted to have you worship with us today. We hope you enjoyed the service, and that your needs were met.
Our church offers many exciting programs for all ages. Please do not hesitate to call on us for your pastoral needs. We
hope to see you again.
Such drivel is immediately consigned to the recycle bin: yet another group has vividly demonstrated its total ignorance of
(1)what worship is about, (2) what church is about, and (3)how easy it is to spot phony hospitality. Whether they loudly
thump their Bibles, quoting chapter and verse, or scarcely open the pages at all, does not seem to make a difference.
Although their stated agendas may label themselves liberal [accepting/welcoming] translation: Anything goes,
here!-- or conservative [faithful]-- translation: You gotta do it MY way! , their attitudes are identical.
Jesus, not surprisingly, said it best: (Mt.15:9, Mk.7:7) Your worship of me is empty: you are teaching as 'doctrines' the
commandments of (mere) men.

We may be forgiven for imperfectly understanding the concept of worship. This English word has, after all, been used to
represent no less than a dozen different Greek words none of which, however, makes any reference to sitting in the
audience of a lecture (scholarly or otherwise), a political speech, or a professional concert (classical, country, rock or rap, or
anything in between!) Nor do any of them provide a clue as to what sort of needs are supposedly to be addressed.
Enjoyment, likewise, is totally absent.
Because, to put it most simply, worship is not about you or me and our needs! It is about the object of our devotion!
When the Magi spent weeks, months, or perhaps years making their way across hostile deserts to worship before the King
they had sought, do you think it was to acquire some sort of warm fuzzy feeling? I doubt it. Their tenacity, and
subsequent openness to guidance, reveals rather a deliberate expression of fealty to an acknowledged superior! That
pledge of obedience [allegiance] is also precisely what Satan later asked of Jesus (Mt.4:9-10, Lk.4:7-8), and what Jesus
flatly refused to give, with his unequivocal statement that one's allegiance is due only to God! (See W.S.#4).

Of the multiplicity of words used in the new Testament, the majority only occur once or twice, and are usually traditionally
translated in other ways, as in Lk.14:10 (doxa much more often is rendered glory or honor) or Ac.17:25 (therapeuo is
usually used of healing). Although some overlap exists, it is helpful to look at the lexical meanings of the most common
words.
Latreuo (16x rendered serve, and only 3x worship) classically (L/S) referred to human servitude either as a slave or a
hired worker as well as to serving the gods with prayers and sacrifice. Bauer adds the carrying out of religious duties,
usually of a cultic nature, and Thayer also focuses on the performance of prescribed rites. Not surprisingly, many of the
New Testament occurrences of latreuo are descriptions of the old ways that were left behind by both Jews and Gentile
converts (Ac.7:42, Heb.10:2, Ac.26:7, Rom.1:35, Heb.13:10), although there is also occasional mention of serving
God(Ac.27:33, Rom.1:9, Rev.7:15) in a more enlightened way.
Proskuneo, by far the most common (59x), carries the greatest implication of acknowledging a sovereign by bowing to the
ground, or falling at his feet, although the word was also used in common courtesy as a formal greeting. This word referred
to the gesture of submission required by political conquerors, the refusal of which resulted, not uncommonly, in peremptory
execution. It was, however, also used of supplication, as when someone begged for Jesus' attention (Mt.8:2, 9:18, 18:26;
Mk.5:6). It's going on all the time, in the joyful scenes around the throne (Rv.4:10, 5:14, 7:11, 11:1, 11:16, 14:7, 15:4)
Interestingly, although in pagan culture, physical obeisance was often an effort to avert the wrath of the gods (L/S), in the
N.T. it is a scene of joyful celebration of the triumph of the Lamb! Interestingly, proskuneo is always an active verb-- never
a noun or an adjective.
Various forms of sebo, sebaomai, and sebazomai are sprinkled throughout the narratives, L/S notes that these refer to the
reverential awe that prevents one from doing something disgraceful, and is used to describe religious people like Jewish
proselytes (Ac.18:7, 16:14) who were open to the Christian message, as well as the varied objects of pagan worship (II
Thes.2:4, Ac.17:23). This term became more politicized when the emperor adopted the title Augustus (sebastos) and
demanded to be worshiped as a god (by the burning of incense). Our first century brethren would have surely been shocked
at the ease with which so many today who call themselves Christian remain so ambivalent about the priority of their
Kingdom loyalty!

Jesus' most detailed discussion of worship (proskuneo), interestingly, was with the woman at Jacob's well in Samaria
(Jn.4:20-24). He quickly steered the conversation away from details of place which no longer matters (4:21) to the

99
object and attitude (22-24) which does matter. The Father is seeking (present tense) for those who will worship him in
spirit and truth. God (is) spirit there is no verb: but both nouns are nominative. The latter pneumati and aletheia are
both dative objects of the preposition en.
There is no easy resolution to the arguments between trinitarian and non-trinitarian positions here; but both sides
frequently obscure or ignore the connection to Jesus' own definition of truth (Jn.14:6) see W.S.#26 and that the true
[genuine] worshipers are designated by the same word. Their identification with Jesus, therefore, is most obvious.

One more word that needs attention, although it, too, is only traditionally rendered worship once, (against 3 x
religious/religion): threskia, sometimes classically used of formal cult worship, but succinctly and deliberately re-defined
by James (1:26-27) when he points out quite bluntly that religion which does not extend help to the needy is useless!
and the real thing consists of caring for widows and orphans, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world. This is
presented, not as the cause, but as the inevitable effect/evidence of genuine worship.

A cursory survey like this cannot possibly produce a neat definition of as far-reaching a term as worship. One can,
nevertheless, glean an assortment of elements that must be included in any such definition:
Worship may involve a single individual (Mt.8:2, 9:18) or a group assembled for the purpose (Rv.4:10, 5:14)
The focus is upon the one who is worshiped, not the worshiper. (Jn.4:23, Heb.1:6, Rv.15:4)
Location is irrelevant (Jn.4:21)
It is the appropriate response of gratitude for being included in the Kingdom (Heb.2:28)
No faithful messenger of God will accept any hint of worship personally directed toward him (Rv.19:10)
Enjoyment? Exciting programs? Needs? I don't think so.

The beginning of an understanding of genuine Christian worship might be simply:

--to declare our admiration and absolute allegiance to our King
--and to report for duty in his service.

What observations can you add?

100
 Word Study #51-- Disciples
Are there still disciples?
The plaintive-sounding question grabbed my attention when it appeared on my blog's list of search terms. I wish I could
have located the writer, for I have not infrequently asked the same question. Fellow-disciples can be terribly hard to find!

By definition, a disciple is a student a learner an apprentice to a Master teacher (see W.S. #46). But sadly, most of
the folks that many of us encounter, who claim the Lord Jesus as their Master, seem to feel called-upon to provide neatly
proof-texted answers to every sort of theoretical question, rather than to embark together upon a limitless quest to learn
and emulate the Master's ways.
I must believe there are still disciples but how I wish I knew how to find them! Such creatures are enthusiastically un-
welcomed in so many churches!

The word mathetes, disciple, was common in the Greco-Roman world, ever since the 6th - 4th centuries BC, when it was
applied to the pupils of classical philosophers and rhetoricians, or of those who explored mathematical, scientific, or
astrological studies. Interestingly, it appears only twice in the LXX (Jer.13:21 and 20:11), revealing a vastly different
understanding of faithfulness from the one we discover in the New Testament, where the word appears 269 times. All of
these occur in the gospels and Acts.
It is not uniformly obvious to whom the term refers. There are references to the disciples of John (the Baptist) Mt.9:14,
11:12, 14:12; Jn.1:35, 37 ; the disciples of the Pharisees (Mt.9:14, 22:16); and a group of Pharisees on one occasion
described themselves as disciples of Moses (Jn.9:27-28). And when the reference is to Jesus' disciples, the term is
alternately applied to the twelve, who are also called apostles, to the crowds eager to hear his teaching, and to a few
individuals who were very quiet about their support for fear of the Jews (Jn.19:38).
Although the disciples occasionally seems to have referred to an inner circle, larger than the 12, but smaller than the
crowds, who received more careful explanations and explicit teaching than the general public (Mk.4:34), and on occasion
served as assistants (in all the crowd-feeding scenes), even that seems to have been a somewhat fluid group (Jn.6:66).

Jesus' own teaching about being his disciple appears much more restrictive and deliberate, requiring one's giving that task
priority over all other loyalties (Lk.14:26-27). The parallel passages in Mt.10:37 and Mk.10:29 carry the same flavor,
although they do not use the word disciple.
The goal that Jesus sets for disciples is clear: (Lk.6:40, Mt.10:24) to become like one's Teacher.
Jesus also specifies (Jn.8:31) that it is necessary to continue [live, persist] in my word in order to be a disciple; (Jn.13:35)
to be readily identifiable by outsiders, by the mutual love of disciples; and (Jn.15:8) to be a fruitful branch of his Vine.
Whatever else may be implied here, it certainly includes mutual, continuous effort that results in a reflection of the Lord
Jesus' own life!

As the disciple group expanded Luke records 120 present in the prayer meeting of Ac.1:15 so did the vocabulary, and
the terms disciples, brethren, and the church seem to be used almost interchangeably. I wonder if the shift to
brethren or churches in the epistles may not have been deliberate, in obedience to Jesus' instructions forbidding the
elevation of any individual (Mt.23:10-11) see also chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom. Paul's corrective in I Cor.1:11-13
would make a lot of sense in such a context.
Calling a person a disciple was used in a manner similar to the way some folks today would characterize each other as a
believer except that a much deeper level of commitment was assumed, both to the Lord and to the group. Whether
Ananias of Damascus accepting the frightening assignment of ministering to Saul, the blinded persecutor (Ac.9:10), Dorcas
in Joppa caring in practical ways for the needy in her congregation (Ac.9:36-40), young Timothy in Lystra (Ac.16:1)
recommended by his home congregation to travel and study with Paul, or the thousands whose names we may not know
until we meet around the Throne, we may find in each and each other challenge and encouragement to faithfulness in
our own situations.
The entire group of disciples was involved in mutual care: (Ac.9:19-25) looking after the newly converted Saul in
Damascus, (Ac.11:29) deciding to send famine relief to Judea; and (Ac.19:30) first keeping Paul out of the arena when the
mob demanded his hide, and then being encouraged by him before he left town! The term was applied to whole
congregations in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Ac.14), and specifically included Gentile converts (Ac.15:10). Travelers
were frequently recommended to one group of disciples by another (Ac.18:27, 21:4, 16).
It is instructive or should be to note Paul's discovery of a group in Ephesus (Ac.19:1) who, though imperfectly taught, he
clearly recognized as disciples. They responded warmly to his corrective teaching but notice also that he had not

101
summarily read them out of the kingdom upon first encounter! Would that such graciousness on both sides were more
prevalent today!

Such warmth contrasts sharply with the late 1st/ early 2nd century writing of Ignatius. The earliest writer to advocate
strongly for hierarchical structure in the nascent church (he demanded submission to a single bishop rather than to plural
elders), Ignatius wrote in a condescending-sounding tone in a letter to a Roman congregation (thought to have been
written enroute to his expected martyrdom), As long as a Christian's blood has not been shed, he is only a beginner in
discipleship.
With the advent of the extreme veneration of martyrs, and the dominance of the hierarchy, devoted followers of Jesus were
even that early, denied the designation applied by the Lord Jesus to ALL HIS LOYAL FOLLOWERS/STUDENTS!

I guess it all boils down to the same old question: whose word do you accept?
What did Jesus say?
I choose to cast my lot with my gracious Lord, whose invitation , If you all remain in [continue to live by] my word, you
are truly my disciples (Jn.8:31), has never been rescinded.

Are there still disciples?

Yes, thank God and there always will be, as long as some of us continue to seek for faithfulness.
May we help each other to do so!

102
 Word Study #52 Spirit part 1
A general survey

Arguably the most profound discovery in our years of working on the word spirit can be summed up very simply: There
is no easy, succinct summary!
The classical uses of pneuma are varied. Its earliest appearance in literature, according to Liddell/Scott, is in the ancient
tragic dramas, where it referred to a blast of wind. Later, Thucydides used it of both a breeze, and an influence.
Hippocrates and other physicians used it for the breath of life (at either the beginning or the end), for ordinary respiration,
and even for flatulence! Others referred to any odor, to the breath (grammatically) with which a Greek vowel is
pronounced, an immaterial being (including people who had died), or the rhetorician's declamation of a sentence in a single
breath.
The LXX used it of both the spirit of God and the spirit of a man, and Plato of divine inspiration.
Bauer adds that in non-Biblical literature the reference was to what lives after death in the underworld, or what one gives
up at death. It was considered the source of insight, feelings, and will a part of the human personality separate from
either sarx (flesh) or soma (body). Both Bauer and Thayer then launch into lengthy descriptions of theological disputes, but
these have nothing to do with the etymology of the word, or its usage in the New Testament. They are later interpretations.

The New Testament uses pneuma in three primary ways: the Holy Spirit, the human spirit, and evil or unclean spirits.
There are also a few references (Lk.24:37, 39; Heb.12:23, I Pet.3:19) that could be interpreted in a more ghostly fashion.
Most of the references to evil or unclean spirits are in gospel accounts of Jesus banishing them (at least 29 times), or
entrusting his disciples with the authority to do so, and similar situations in Acts (at least 7), although several epistles also
warn against seducing spirits (I Tim.4:1), deceptive spirits (II Thes.2;2), another spirit (II Cor.11:4), and a spirit of
bondage (Rom.8:15). John (I Jn.4:1-6) gives careful instructions for determining the validity of spiritual claims, which
folks today would still be wise to heed, with regard to all the spirituality talk going around. Any spirit that does not
acknowledge Jesus, is not from God! In the Revelation, reference is also made to spirits connected with the
animal/beast that opposes God. The most important thing to derive from all of these is the proclamation and
demonstration that none of them is capable of standing against the Lord Jesus or his representatives!!!

All too often, people want to sort everything into an influence or activity of either the Holy Spirit or evil spirits, forgetting
that it is often necessary to deal simply with the human spirit (about 40 times in the NT), which may, but need not, be
influenced by either one. It is simply a part of human individuality, and people must choose, many times throughout life, to
what sort of spirit they will subject their own! Paul speaks of serving God with my spirit (Rom.1:9), of being present
with you in spirit (I Cor.5:3), of having his spirit refreshed (II Cor.7:13) by the faithfulness of brethren. He admonishes
his readers to be fervent in spirit (Rom.12:11). In I Cor.2:11, he refers specifically to the spirit of man, and there are
many more such instances. Many refer to people's attitudes, inclinations, or dispositions (I Cor.4:21, I Pet.3:4, Gal.6:1), or
simply to the end of their lives (Mt.27:50, Jn.19:30, Lk.8:55, Ac.7:59).

The KJV translators tried to solve the ambiguity problem by (usually, not always) changing the word to Ghost when it
appeared with hagios (holy). In the instances where pneuma appears with only the definite article (the), the context
usually makes the reference fairly obvious. These provide descriptions, definitions, and demonstrations of the Holy Spirit.
Descriptive designations usually include a genitive case which denotes the source or possession of the spirit. They include:
The Spirit of God (at least 19 times, including Mt.3:16, Rom.8:9,14; I Cor.3:16, 6:11, 7:40, and references to the seven
spirits of God in Rev.1:4, 3:1, and 4:5); the Spirit of Jesus (Phil.1:19); the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8:9); the Spirit of the
Father (Mt.10:20); the Spirit of the Lord (Lk.4:18); and the spirit of the living God (II Cor.3:3). Others reflecting his
activity include the spirit of life (Rom.8:2), the spirit of adoption (Rom.8:15), the spirit of truth (Jn.14 and 16); the
spirit of wisdom (Eph.1:17), and the spirit of promise (Eph.1:13).

Jesus provided several definitions, including Jn.4:24 God is spirit, Jn.6:63 The spirit makes alive, the words that I am
speaking are spirit and life, and the Spirit of truth in Jn.14 and 16. Paul echoes a similar understanding in Rom.8:10,
the Spirit is life. In II Cor.1:22 he explains that the Spirit is a down-payment, or guarantee, of the believer's inheritance,
and states plainly in II Cor.3:7, the Lord is the spirit. These together give clear indications of the intimate connection of
the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, as Peter explained in his Pentecost sermon (Ac.2:33). This is not to provoke
trinitarian arguments for one perspective on that subject, please see chapter 2 of Citizens of the Kingdom. I am not sure
that most such arguments contribute much to faithful living.

103
We glean the best idea of the Spirit's nature and intentions by observing demonstrations of his activity. Although the Holy
Spirit was active in the ancient prophets (see Stephen's sermon in Ac.7),the agent of Jesus' birth (Mt.1 and Lk.1), the sign to
John the Baptist of Jesus' identity (Mt.3:16, Mk.1:10), and Jesus referred to his anointing in his inaugural
address(Lk.4:18), he was not readily available to most people while Jesus was on earth (Jn.7:39). Jesus promised his
coming, and explained the purpose as (Mt.13:11, Lk.12:12) to provide necessary words of testimony when on trial, and
(Jn.14:26) to teach and remind disciples of all that Jesus had said. The over-riding purpose (Jn.16:14) is the glory of Jesus!
After Pentecost, the Holy Spirit really got busy! He (Ac.2:4)-- gave the disciples things to say, (2:17-18) -- enables all
God's people to prophesy, (8:2) -- gave specific instructions to Philip (and even carried him off once 8:35!), (10:11) --
coached Peter's encounter with Cornelius, (11:28 and 21:11) sent messages through Agabus, (16:6,7) changed Paul's
travel plans, (4:8) empowered Peter's speech before the council, and much more.
The epistles explain some of the activity in greater detail. In Rom.8, we learn that in addition to providing evidence that we
belong to Jesus (also II Cor.3:6 and Eph.1:3), he is available to (Rom.8:4-13) empower and regulate the Christian life (v.4
enabling behavior far beyond mere human capability). This is also documented in I Cor.6:11, II Cor.6:6, and Eph.3:16. He
creates unity in the brotherhood (Eph.4:3 and Phil.2:1) even uniting Jew and Gentile, which everybody knew was
impossible (Eph.2:18) and provides gifts (see W.S.#25) for its maintenance and growth. He expects us to work at that
job as well, exercising those gifts (I Cor.12:4-13) for the benefit of all, and teaching one another (Eph.5:18).
It is only by his power that a believer can stand before Caesar or any other gods of nationalism and declare his superior
allegiance to Jesus and his Kingdom (see W.S. #4), even when it may cost him his life (I Cor.12:3).
He fills the hearts of his people with the love of God (Rom.5:5), and reassures us that we belong to him (Rom.9:1), creating
joy in the Holy Spirit (Rom.14:17).
His presence transforms life, gradually removing all traces of the old ways (I Cor.6:11), and recreating it in the image of
Jesus (Gal.5:15-25).
He enables continual prayer (Jude 20), and when we are at a loss to know how to pray, steps in and does it for us!
(Rom.8:26)
He creates, enables, and sustains our life in Christ!
Thanks be to God!

104
Word Study #53 Spirit, Part 2
Correcting some Misunderstandings

Jesus told Nicodemus (Jn.3:8), The spirit [wind] blows where he [it] wishes; you hear his[its] voice [sound], but you don't
know where he [it] comes from and where he [it] is going. So it should come as no surprise that some confusion should
arise about the Spirit's activity. Why else would John, later, as an old man, have deemed it necessary to give such careful
instructions about discerning the provenance of things attributed to the spirit (I Jn.4:1-6)? There is no true spirit from
God that does not acknowledge the Lord Jesus! This is the acid test.

With this in view, we will first consider several aspects of the Spirit's assignment that Jesus himself introduced. In Jn.14:16,
Jesus refers to the Spirit of Truth as a parakletos, which, unfortunately, was traditionally translated comforter, conjuring
up the image of a fuzzy, security-blankie that will make everything ok. This is NOT what Jesus, (who, please
remember, was soon to suffer torture and death), had in mind. See #138 for more detailed treatment)
The verb, parakaleo, from which the term is derived, refers to calling or summoning a friend for support in a trial; to
exhort or encourage; to demand or require; to intercede; as well as to comfort or console. The noun, then, must refer to
anyone so summoned. Parakaleo is worthy of a word-study on its own which exercise I commend to you. After an
exhaustive review of its more than 100 New Testament uses, one student remarked, That sounds like my basketball coach!
He explained that the best coach for any sports team has an excellent knowledge of how the game should be played, and
also knows his players. He trains them carefully, sometimes with a hug, and sometimes with a kick in the pants, whichever
is appropriate for the the occasion! That has been one of my favorite images of the job of the Holy Spirit ever since. The
Christian life is not about how I feel, or where I end up. It's about learning to play faithfully and well, on the winning
team!

The same passage contains the promise (v.17), He is staying beside you, and will be en [in, among] you all. This English
translation, lacking a plural form of the word you, (see the introduction to The Pioneers' New Testament, and W.S.#142),
has led to a very privatistic interpretation of the indwelling Holy Spirit, completely ignoring the fact that in both cases, the
you is plural. The same thing is true of Paul's statement in I Cor.3:16, 17, and even more vividly in I Cor.6:19, where
body is singular, but your is plural. This very likely indicates that the reference is to the composite Body of Christ, as
much if not more than to an individual's physical body. If the individual members of a group are intended, a different form,
hekastos humon (each one of you) is used. Were we properly to appreciate the primacy of the Body of believers, as
described in the New Testament (and chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom), I think we would have fewer problems with
people claiming private revelations and going off on tangents. This is why I prefer the translation among to in when
the object is plural.

John's report of Jesus' discourse, continued in chapter 16, includes two more misused passages. We are frequently told that
the Holy Spirit's job is to convict us of sin. Are you aware that Jesus never said that? Look carefully at v.8. The
world is the object of that sentence. And Jesus goes on to say that it is because they are not faithful to him! Far too many
sincere, but very mistaken people, take upon themselves the job of trying to convict the world which is the Holy Spirit's
responsibility and berate their fellow believers if the Holy Spirit hasn't made them feel sufficiently sinful! (Please see
Word Studies # 6, 7, and 121 for more on this subject.) This part of the Spirit's work does NOT apply to those who are
seeking to follow Jesus!

His work with respect to faithful disciples is outlined in 16:13-15. Here, it is the preposition that is misunderstood. He is to
lead us in (en) all truth(fulness). En has no directional implications. It has a dative (static) object. The directional kind of
in [into] is represented by eis, which requires an accusative object. Jesus is talking to people who are already committed
to him, who are already in the truth (and we have seen that Jesus himself is equated with that truth (W.S.#26). The rest of
the paragraph presents the course syllabus for the Spirit's teaching. Signing up is the beginning, not the end. There is
much for the believer to learn.

Finally, consider the many accounts recorded in Acts of disciples being filled with the Holy Spirit to put to rest once and
for all the arguments about whether this is a single occurrence at conversion, or if it happens with baptism, or at some
subsequent time. The evidence leads to the choice all of the above and more! It should be obvious that at least some of
the group filled at the prayer meeting described in Ac.4:8 had also been present at Pentecost. Had they been missed the
first time? I don't think so. They needed help with another challenge. For the folks in Samaria (Ac.8) it was subsequent to

105
their conversion and baptism. For Cornelius and his group, it was before they had been baptized. In Ephesus, Paul
apparently sensed something missing, and the gift came even later (Ac.19). Peter and Stephen both seem to have receive an
extra booster shot several times when needed.

It is time for God's people to stop trying to program the Holy Spirit to fit their theological or denominational agendas, and
welcome him whenever, wherever, and however he shows up! And the more the better! We've been graciously given
instructions for recognizing him when he comes, and for avoiding the counterfeits that are still rampant in our world.
Jesus has triumphed, but his team still needs coaching, until the final whistle. He has provided a Coach who knows the
game plan very well.
(Did you know the game even has an umpire? The only use of brabeuo (classically, to judge or act as umpire) in the
New Testament, is in Col.3:15: it is the peace of Christ that holds that position among his people!

Our job is to learn from the Coach welcome the rulings of the Umpire and give all our energy to the game!
All glory and honor to King Jesus

106
Word Study #54 Your/Our Calling
Many a faithful follower of Jesus has agonized over the concept of God's calling on his life. This concern is exacerbated
by the common declaration, God has a wonderful plan for your life! which is too frequently followed by threats about the
dire consequences of an individual's failure to find and follow a hypothetical, predetermined outline in precise detail.
Missing one's calling is a pervasive fear among many sincerely devoted disciples. This is another case where a careful
survey of New Testament teaching provides both challenge and comfort.

There are seventeen different Greek words that traditional translators have occasionally rendered call. Seven of these
refer exclusively to naming a person or place, or describing its characteristics. Five are simply summoning a person, or
gathering a group, and one, epikaleo, describes appealing to or calling upon either God or some person in authority. Only
four and these not exclusively are used concerning a call from God.
Kaleo (and its passive form, kaleomai), classically, was quite broad. Liddell/Scott lists to call or summon, to invite to one's
home, to summon to court, to demand or require, or to call by name.
Klesis, the noun form, could be simply one's name or reputation, but also a summons, an invitation, or an invocation. L/S
notes that only in the NT is it used as a religious calling, and in most instances, that is open to interpretation.
Kletos, the participle or adjective, refers to anyone or anything that is invited, welcomed, called, or chosen.
We will confine this study to the minority of references that are specifically designated as relating to God.

One of the most common references is to the Lord's gracious invitation to join his Kingdom. Almost exclusively addressed
in the plural, it nevertheless deals with one's initial conversion. Rom.9:24,25 reminds us that this call extends equally to
Jew and Gentile; and a lengthy section of I Cor.7:15-20, as well as I Cor.1:26, stresses that it reaches across all social
barriers, the effects of which are summarily erased by that supreme commitment. Peter's Pentecost sermon also opens the
promise to you, and your children, and those who are far off, whoever the Lord shall call (Ac.2:39). Rom.1:6 includes
all who belong to Jesus, and I Cor.1:9 speaks of being called into (eis) the community [fellowship] of God's Son.

Other references highlight the expected effects of that calling:

Gal.5:13 We are called into a liberty that excludes both bondage to the Law and the excesses of licentiousness.
Col.3:15 As God's chosen people, we are called in one Body, to peace (this statement follows a detailed description of the
resultant life).
Heb.9:15 By the provision of the New Covenant, which the writer compares to a duly executed will, the called receive a
promised inheritance.
I Pet.3:9 We are called to return blessing for cursing, and I Pet.2:21 to endure patiently whatever suffering results
from deliberately following Jesus' example.
Those who are called simply see things differently (I Cor.1:24): they operate in a different sphere (Eph.4:1), with
different standards. The life of those who are called is one of constant effort toward the goal of conformity to the image
of the Lord Jesus (Phil.3:14), continually urged on to greater faithfulness (II Thess.1:11), taking care to become neither
lazy nor unfruitful in the Kingdom (II Pet. 1:10).

It may surprise you to discover that in only 5 instances are any of the called/calling words applied to a single individual!
Notice, please, that this count does not include Rom.1:1 and 1:7, or I Cor.1:1 and 1:2, where there is no verb in the text.
Translators completely violated the meaning of those phrases when they inserted to be in each case, when the grammar of
the text simply indicates naming called an apostle and called [saints] God's people.
The only places where a call is directed to a single individual are:
Heb.11:8 Abraham was called to go out, and he obeyed.
Ac.13:2 The Holy Spirit instructed the group at Antioch to send Paul and Barnabas out for the job to which I've called
[assigned] them.
Ac.16:10 After being forbidden to go several different places, and experiencing a vision, Paul and his companions
concluded that God had called us to Macedonia.
Gal.1:15 Paul recognizes that it was God's call that halted his career of persecuting the church.
I Tim.6:12 Paul urges his young apprentice to grab hold of the eternal life (see W.S.#28) to which you were called.
So yes: specific, individual calling does happen: but it is by no means the norm. Clearly, there are also other instances of
specific instructions being given to individuals; but they are not labeled calling in the New Testament. We will look at
some of these in the next post.
Please also see W.S. #12, God's will.

107
But meanwhile, be encouraged! Your calling is to live faithfully as a citizen of Jesus' kingdom!
I Pet.2:9 He has called you all out of darkness, into his amazing light!
I Thess.5:24 The one who is calling you is faithful! and will enable us to live faithfully (v.23).
Rom.8:28 We know, then, that for those who keep on loving God, he keeps working everything together for good, for
those who are being called according to his plan.
II Tim.1:9 He delivered us, and called us with a holy calling before time began!

Eph.1:18 (I pray that) the eyes of your hearts may be flooded with light, so that you may know the confident expectation
[hope] (that proceeds from) his calling!
If you are committed to Jesus' Kingdom, and to faithfulness to him as King, you have not missed your calling! We just
need to learn to follow instructions.
And as we saw in the last two posts, we have an excellent teacher for that effort.
Thanks be to God!

108
 Word Study #55 Following Instructions
OK, this is not technically a word study. It is more a topical survey: but it is so closely related to the previous post, that it
deserves our attention. We saw in our study of calling that that designation primarily applies to one's inclusion in the
Kingdom, and his participation in the transformed life to which we are all called, together. There are occasions, however,
when a person is handed a very specific assignment: and this can occur in a number of ways.

Jesus, of course, personally chose twelve of his disciples, and later 70 more, to whom he delegated the responsibility to
preach the Kingdom ahead of his own arrival (Lk.10:1). After Pentecost, his methods were more varied.
Sometimes, as with the early (Ac.3 and 4) accounts of Peter and John, it was simply a case of acting faithfully when an
opportunity arose, on the instructions they had been given years earlier (Lk.9:2, 10:9).

In Ac.6:1-6, the congregation perceived a need, and were instructed to suggest godly individuals to take care of it, who were
then appointed by the apostles. Interestingly, at least two of these quickly outgrew their original assignment, with
Stephen (ch.7) becoming a powerful advocate for the Way, and subsequently being martyred, and Philip (ch.8) becoming
an itinerant evangelist.

Philip's case is interesting. His trip to Samaria may (or may not) have been on his own initiative, but after his successful
mission there (8:26), a messenger instructed him to head for the Gaza road, and (v.29) the Spirit directed him to the
Ethiopian's chariot, and then (39-40) even carried him off after the assignment was completed! Perhaps in order to
receive a specific assignment we need to be busy at the tasks we already perceive!

Ananias, on the other hand, (Ac.9:10-19) is introduced simply as a certain disciple just one of the folks in Damascus.
But the Lord spoke to him directly, in a vision. And although at first he argued about it, his obedience gifted all the rest of
us, down through the centuries, with the ministry of Paul! We never hear of Ananias again. He was just listening when the
Lord needed to recruit someone.

Peter also was busy (Ac.10) when the Lord directed (by means of a messenger) Cornelius to send for him. Knowing that
the assignment would give Peter cultural problems, the Spirit designed an object lesson, as well as explicit directions to
respond to the summons. Wisely, Peter included other brethren as witnesses, who aided in responsibly reporting to
questioners, later.

Barnabas (Ac.11:22-26) was sent by the apostles to Antioch, to check out the gathering there. He had already established a
reputation for gracious faithfulness (4:36, 9:27). He seems to have recruited Saul on his own initiative (v.25).

We are not told how Agabus (Ac.11:28, 21:10) became known as a prophet, but his word was taken seriously by the group
at Antioch, who immediately organized famine relief. Paul later refused his counsel, but his prophecy proved to be correct.

Then of course, there is Saul/Paul. It is important to note that not all of his instructions were as dramatic as his Damascus
Road encounter with Jesus (Ac.9). I don't know why so many folks seem to think that is the one that should be normative.
After he was committed to the Lord, it did not require such drastic measures to get his attention! The congregation at
Damascus (9:24-45) sheltered, accepted, and nurtured Saul, and helped him escape the city. Barnabas enabled his
acceptance by the other apostles (v.27). The Holy Spirit spoke to the prayer meeting in Antioch (Ac.13), to commission
their first journey, and they were sent out by both the group (v.3) and the Spirit (v.4). During the trips, however, the
leading seems to have been more a matter of necessity! When they were run out of one town, they went on to the next!
The account of the second journey is interesting. The second trip was undertaken at Paul's own initiative (Ac.15:36-41),
and the Lord is neither blamed nor credited for the argument with Barnabas that resulted in their separation.
Wouldn't you like to know how they were forbidden by the Holy Spirit to preach in Asia, and how the spirit of Jesus
would not allow their next attempt, to Bithynia? It was only after these frustrations, that Paul saw a vision and his group
concluded that God had called them to Macedonia. Interestingly, we are told that it was simply Paul's annoyance (16:18)
that precipitated the healing of the fortune-teller.
Later, another vision reassured him of the Lord's protection in Corinth.
Honesty requires the conclusion that there are more questions than answers in the latest account. After two years in Ephesus
(19:21), Paul set out in the Spirit to go through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem. Both of those are in the opposite
direction from Jerusalem. He was warned of trouble by many brethren (20:22, 21:4, 21:10), but consistently rejected their

109
counsel. Yet he took the advice (21:18-26) of the elders in Jerusalem, which resulted in his arrest and imprisonment.
Please note that in no case is either of these decisions attributed to God's will! It is presented simply as narrative. Those
who claim to explain it as God's plan, cannot draw any direct evidence from the New Testament. It is clear, however, that
the power of God was entirely adequate to use what may have been mistakes, or even just stubbornness, on the part of his
devoted servant, for his good purposes. This should be an encouragement to us all!

Other disciples did allow themselves to be led by the counsel of brethren. Paul recruited Timothy (Ac.16:3), who was
also highly recommended by his home congregation, as an assistant and apprentice, and Silas, (Ac.15:40) who shared his
second journey.
Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (Ac,14:3) in every new congregation, and urged Titus (Tit.1:5) to do likewise.
From Corinth, where he had met and worked with Aquila and Priscilla, (Ac.18:1-3), Paul took them along to Ephesus,
(18:18), where they in turn corrected the teaching of Apollos, preparing him for more responsible service, to which the
Ephesian brethren subsequently recommended him.

So where does all this come out? The mandate (call), as we saw in #54, is to faithful Kingdom living. During this
process, specific guidance can come in many ways: from the Lord himself, a vision, a messenger (heavenly or otherwise),
brotherly counsel by either congregations or individuals, or simply circumstance and opportunity.
Our job is simply to follow the instructions we already understand, remaining alert to more specific guidance through any of
these sources.
May we do so faithfully!

110
Word Study #56 The Chosen
In the final conflict, with all the forces of evil arrayed against him, The Lamb will conquer them, because (1) he is Lord of
Lords and King of Kings, and (2) those with him are called and chosen and faithful (Rv.17:14).
It is no surprise that the Lord's identity should be the primary cause of his victory: but how incredibly gracious, that his
faithful followers should be not only included, but credited, as well!

A large segment of Christian teaching, sadly, neglects to take into account the order of the words describing those with
him. Its advocates insist that only the chosen are ever called to be his. The overwhelming evidence of the New
Testament, however, as well as the simple vocabulary, yields a very different scenario. Thayer (see Appendix) notes, in his
rather ponderous treatment of kaleo, that only those who have responded to an invitation are considered to be among the
called, or the invited guests. Those who have refused are not included in that terminology. ( See Jesus' parable in
Lk.14:24).
The invitation is exceedingly broad. It is the choice that is crucial, and even after it is made, faithfulness is required.
Mt.22:14 and II Pet.1:10, the only other places where called and chosen are used together, maintain the same order.

The primary words which are translated choose eklego, and chosen eklektos, are really quite straightforward.
Liddell/Scott defines the verb form as to pick or single out, to select or choose, and even on occasion to levy taxes or
tribute, and the noun/participle/adjective as selected, choice, chosen. Even in New Testament usage, they frequently
refer simply to the everyday choices of life, whether of associates (Ac.1:2, Jn.6:70, Ac.6:5) or of prestigious seats (Lk.14:7).
The choice by the KJV translators to change the English word to elect in reference to believers, is a reflection of their
theological presuppositions, not of the text. The word in the text is identical, in both cases.
Paul uses eklektos (Rom.8:33, Col.3:12, II Tim.2:10, Tit.1:1) in a manner almost synonymous with saints or brethren, as
does Peter (I Pet.1:2). It is a label of the identity of those who belong to Jesus, and it is used to urge persistence in
faithfulness. Peter, likewise, uses it first of Jesus himself (I Pet.2:4), then (v.9) to re-define the concept of God's chosen
people, which then also becomes an impetus for faithful living.

In the Gospels, the chosen ones (the faithful) are singled out for both protection (Mt.24:22,31; Mk.13:20,22,27; Lk.18:7)
and responsibility (Jn.15:16-19). Disciples are not chosen to sit around and bask in the glory of their election, but to get
busy about bearing good fruit for the Kingdom, actively loving each other, and enduring any resultant persecution with
patience and faithfulness born of their identification with the Lord Jesus! Jesus himself, of course, is identified as chosen
scornfully by the Jewish leaders (Lk.23:35), and honorably by Peter (I Pet.2:6), and it is in him (Eph.1:4) that we in turn
are chosen. The deliberate extension of this term to Gentile believers (Eph.1:4, Col.3:12-15) is extremely significant, in
view of the prevailing assumption that it applied only to ethnic Jews (appearing in the LXX more than 100 times). Here
again, it is essential to bear in mind that a person's response is the critical factor.

This also sheds much-needed light on the complicated, much-debated schemes that people have concocted concerning
Paul's arguments (actually, explanations) in Romans. Reading chapters 9-11 in the light of understanding the importance
of one's response, reveals, not some sort of divine shell game, but simply the affirmation that regardless of one's ethnicity,
his response to God's call is the critical component of his chosen status. Neither Jew nor Gentile has been categorically
either excluded or included. All Israel has been re-defined as all who embrace Kingdom citizenship. Please notice the
conditional clauses in 11:22 if you keep on staying in his generosity, and 11:23 if they do not keep on in unfaithfulness.
The calling has not changed, nor been rescinded (11:29), but it IS conditional. People's responses can and do change.
I am well aware that folks prone to proof-texting can string together disconnected verses from these chapters to make
elaborate systems (usually to exclude someone), and conflicting claims. But our brother Paul did not write verses to be
rearranged like puzzle pieces. He wrote a letter, and at least to this translator, it is neither complicated nor exclusionary, if
viewed as a whole.

The same principle applies to those who find in-group vs. out-group destiny in Romans 8. Read the whole paragraph (18-
30). Paul's point is to encourage the brethren to remain faithful, in the midst of severe opposition. He reminds them of the
glorious prospect of the consummated Kingdom, of the Spirit's gracious provision and intercession in our weaknesses and
ignorance, and the ultimate power of God to use everything to which life subjects us for eventual good both his and ours!
V.29 is an encouragement, not a threat! These hassles do not catch God unawares: he knew it all along, and is quite capable
of using everything for the benefit of those he predestined NOT, please note, to be saved or lost, but to be
conformed to the image [likeness]of his Son! It it these whom he chose, called, made just, and glorified! All four verbs

111
are cast in aorist tenses (see grammatical information in Translation Notes), denoting action that is already accomplished
in/by the Lord Jesus! Accomplished, in the same, all-too-human people who still need the Spirit's intercession and
instruction, and each other's mutual support! This is the impetus for the paean of praise with which the chapter closes.

Regarding the destiny aspect of choice, as noted in W.S.#48, proorizo, only once associated with choice, appears only 6
times in the entire New Testament, and two of them are in the passage just cited. The others are Eph.1:5 we are
destined for adoption as sons of God, and Eph.1:11 to be a part of God's glorious plan for all his creation! In the
frightened disciples prayer in Ac.4:28, they saw the circumstances of Jesus' death as pre-determined (notice that we are not
told if that was an accurate assessment or not). In I Cor.2:7, Paul again emphasizes God's plan for his people to share his
glory!
This is the sum-total of New Testament references to predestination!

All who have answered the call and enlisted in the Kingdom, are chosen, and destined to be with the King! These are
the called and the chosen!
May we also prove faithful!

112
Word Study #57 Mystery
Mystery is a term that has suffered abuse in two different ways.
There have always been self-styled teachers who dodge the inexplicability and total lack of Biblical basis for their
complex, high-flown doctrines by intoning, with an air of solemn superiority, Oh, that ...that is a part of the mystery of
God! These individuals do not even deserve the respect of refutation.
Throughout the course of Christian history, there have also been numerous cycles during which scholars claim to have
discovered links between Christian faith and the Greek and near-eastern mystery religions. Although it is possible to
find such links in corrupted versions of Christian thought and practice, the New Testament, although the word mystery
does appear there, bears no credible resemblance to any of those observances. In fact, more frequently, it calls for the direct
opposite in both belief and practice.

Many, if not most, of the mystery cults involved some variety of fertility worship, due to their derivation from the
seasonal myths of Demeter and Persephone, Orpheus and Eurydice, or other underworld connections. Their version of
resurrection (loudly touted as a parallel) was merely a temporary return from the abode of the dead, repeated yearly, and
celebrated with orgiastic fertility rites, or equally temporary asceticism. Communication with the deities was achieved with
hallucinogenic substances, strong drink, or, as at Delphi, the noxious vapors of thermal springs.
All of these were very ancient the Dionysian cult is dated by some historians as early as 6000 BC, the Eleusian about 2000
BC, and the Orphic in the 4th century BC. Although the second century AD writer, Justin Martyr, spoke of them as
demonic imitations of the true faith, the actual fact was probably more likely the reverse: the syncretistic corruption of
the New Testament message by the adoption of magical, secretive overtones of the mysteries. I had often wondered how
the simple, symbolic observations instituted by Jesus morphed into a notion of magical, inherently powerful sacraments
(please see chapter 9 of Citizens of the Kingdom). I have to wonder if this transformation was not effected by exactly that
syncretism. It certainly does not appear in the New Testament.

Another major contrast is seen in the lack of conflict between the contemporary civil religion (emperor-worship) of the
Roman Empire, and the mysteries. These were considered supplementary, and did not compete for people's devotion,
whereas commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus (see W.S.#4), which required absolute faithfulness, and refused political
compromise, was often a matter of life or death for its adherents.

According to Liddell/Scott, musterion could refer either to secret knowledge imparted only to initiates, to the paraphernalia
used in ceremonial rites, to medicinal recipes or remedies, or to military secrets! Interestingly, it is this latter category that
was taken over into the Latin sacramentum, although Jerome, in the early 5th century AD, used that substitute seven times
(Eph.1:9, 3:9, 5:32; Col.1:27, I Tim.3:16, Rv.1:20, 17:7) in his Latin Vulgate translation. I could not discern any pattern to
these choices can you?
By that time, of course, to further confuse the situation, the simple symbols of commitment had long been distorted into the
magical notion of sacrament, along with several other ceremonies (see above).

The New Testament does use the word musterion, 26 times. In the New Testament, it is not an esoteric secret inaccessible
to human minds, but always refers to information that has been revealed, although it does require a degree of spiritual
discernment.
The most common (7 x) is the assertion (Rom.11:25, 16:25-26; Eph.3:3-6, Col.1:26-27, 2:2, 4:3) that God's eternal plan for
his people includes both Jewish and Gentile believers. This is typified in the end of Paul's letter to Rome, The mystery that
from all eternity has been kept secret, has now been revealed.....His revealed purpose is that this plan be made known, so
that all the nations [all the gentiles] may come to him in faithful obedience!
The emphasis on the revelation of things formerly hidden appears another 6 x (I Cor.2:1, 2:7; Eph.1:9,3:3 expounded in
vv.9-12 and 6:19), including the establishing of the Lord Jesus as the head over everything, and his intentions that his
glorious grace, power and wisdom be demonstrated to everyone, everywhere, THROUGH HIS CHURCH!

Musterion occurs only once in each of the synoptic gospels parallel passages (Mt.13:11, Mk.4:11, Lk.8:10) when Jesus
is explaining to the inquiring disciples the parable of the Sower/Seed/Soil. He characterizes this explanation as evidence
that the mysteries of the Kingdom of God are being revealed to those who have accepted his call to that Kingdom, not to
curious spectators.
Only 5 times is musterion used in the plural: twice here, and three times in I Cor.4:1, 13:2, 14:2. Might this be implying
reference to multiple bits of information? The other 21 uses in the New Testament are singular, usually referencing God's

113
single, over-arching purpose for creation.
Three of the four references in the Revelation (1:20 and 17:5,7) are simply explanations of symbolism, while the other
(10:7) refers again to God's original purpose. This may parallel Paul's summary statement to Timothy (I Tim.3:16), which
basically reviews Jesus' own history: specifically regarding his true humanity, his vindication attested by his resurrection
(made just ...seen by messengers please remember that messengers may be either human or supernatural the word is
the same), the spread of his message to the gentiles/nations, and his ascension in glory!

Finally, sharing in the mystery, which is now revealed, rather than hidden, confers tremendous responsibility upon its
participants: no longer under dread oaths to preserve secrecy as in the ancient mysteries, but instructed to make it known as
broadly as they can (I Cor.4:1 and 13:2)!
This is also evident in Eph.3:9-12, a portion of which may serve us well as a closing summary. Marveling at the privilege
of his assignment, Paul aims to shed light on what is our responsibility, derived from the mystery .to make known, now,
to the rulers and authorities in heaven, through the church, the many-faceted wisdom of God! This is the plan of the ages,
which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord! And his people are entrusted with its execution!

In short, with an accurate understanding of the word (and the concept) musterion, faithful followers of Jesus will abandon
their obsession with their sacred rituals (borrowed from the ancient mysteries), in favor of their sacred responsibility,
rightly to represent the King and his Kingdom!

Oh, the depth of God's wealth, and wisdom, and knowledge! How (far) beyond reasoning are his judgments, and beyond
comprehension his ways! .
Glory to him forever! Amen! (Rom.11:33, 36)

Amen, indeed!

114
Word Study #58 Abide / Remain / Continue
It is unfortunate that traditional translators have most frequently (59 out of 119 incidents) chosen abide the word least
familiar to speakers of modern English, and therefore the most easily corrupted by unwarranted mystical interpretations
to represent a rather ordinary word like meno. The classical uses of meno include nothing esoteric at all. Liddell/Scott lists
to stay or wait, to endure or remain, to keep or preserve, to abide by an opinion or conviction, among similar ideas. This
single word has been split, by those traditional translators, into multiple variants, including continue (11 x), dwell (15 x),
endure (3 x), remain (17 x), and tarry (9 x), and nearly as many more used only a single time each. NONE of these connote
the abiding image of saints sitting silently in serene bliss, doing absolutely nothing but languishing in the light of their
halos!

Of the total, about a third refer simply to being, living, temporarily waiting, or staying in a particular location, as do nearly
all of the cases where meno appears with a prefix: epimeno, katameno, parameno, prosmeno, and hupomeno. Eighteen
describe a person's condition or circumstances, as in Jn.5:38, 8:35, 12:46; I Cor.7:8, 11, 20, 24, and others; and fourteen
indicate simple survival (Heb.12:7, Mt.11:23, I Cor.15:6). Persistence is advocated in various epistles (II Tim.3:14, I
Jn.2:24, Heb.3:14), as well as repeatedly in John's writings.

John shifts the focus substantially, and departs markedly from these more classical connotations, to give greater attention to
relationships, rather than merely location, duration, or condition. Actually, this departure, almost unique to John's work, is
one very strong piece of evidence for the (disputed) single authorship of all the material attributed to him. He uses a form
of meno at least 58 times, more than any other writer, and only 10 of these fall into the usual categories. Most of the rest
refer to deep and enduring relationships, but they are relationships with very practical implications. They are typified by
Jesus' own unity with the Father (Jn.14:10).

Another outstanding deviation in John's work is his choice of verb tenses. One would ordinarily expect the concept of
remaining to be expressed in the present tense especially if referring to the establishment or endurance of relationship.
In other writings, a temporary condition is usually expressed in the aorist tense, and an on-going state in the present. John,
however, uses an aorist tense five times: the first remain in Jn.15:4, both conditional statements in15:7, the imperative in
15:9, and the conditional clause in I Jn.2:24. I'd really like to ask him why! It is possible that he has in mind a definitive
point of commitment the aorist is used that way in reference to becoming faithful. All the rest of his verbs are present
(continuous) tenses. Usually, the present tense indicates that no terminal point is in view.

Each of the primary admonitions has a very comforting air of reciprocity. Not only does Jesus state confidently I am in the
Father and the Father is in me (Jn.14:10), but he applies the same reciprocity to his followers: (15:4) Remain in me and I
in you; (15:9-10) Follow my instructions and you will remain in my love, just as I have followed my Father's instructions
and remain in his love; (8:31) remain in my word and (I Jn.2:14) The word of God is living in you; (II Jn.2 and 4)
The truth remains in/among us and your children walking in the truth. Although meno is not used there, the same idea
appears in Jesus' prayer (Jn.17:21): he expects his own relationship with the Father to be replicated in ours with him!

There are ample lists of evidence of the development of that relationship Jn.15:5 bearing fruit; 15:8 the glory of God!;
I Jn.2:6 copying Jesus' behavior; 2:10 love for the brethren; 2:17 doing God's will; 3:24 the presence of the Holy
Spirit; 4:12,13,16 maturity in love.
Note especially the juxtaposition of truth and love in II Jn.1 and 2, also echoed in I Pet.1:22. That realization would go a
long way toward bridging doctrinal divides, from both directions! How frequently do you see love as the hallmark of
those who claim to be champions of the truth? Or a passion for the truth among those whose battle-cry is
unconditional love? If these do not go together, then neither is genuine!

There are very explicit conditional statements associated with faithful remaining / continuing. Jn.8:31 IF you remain
in my word, you are truly my disciples. Jn.15:7 IF you remain in me and my teachings remain in you is the
requirement for answered prayer. I Jn.2:24 IF what you have heard remains in you, you are staying with the Son and the
Father. Paul, too, recognized that one is rewarded (I Cor.3:14) IF his work survives the test, and uses a prefixed form,
epimeno, in Rom.11:22,23) to declare that the spiritual status of both Jew and Gentile is DEPENDENT upon their
remaining in faithfulness or unfaithfulness.

Likewise, neither Jesus nor John minced words about negative evidence: Jn.5:38 (Jesus to the Pharisees) You don't have

115
the Word of God among you, because you are not faithful to the one he sent!; I Jn.3:!4 The one who doesn't love,
remains in death!; Jn.3:36 The wrath of God remains on those who are not faithful to his Son (in contrast to v.35,
eternal life is experienced by those who are). Note that all of these are PRESENT, not future, tenses! He is not talking
about destiny here, but about the present state of affairs!

So how does one abide / remain / continue in the Lord Jesus and his word / truth? He has provided not only careful
directions, but the perfect demonstration: his own example of deliberate obedience to the Father's instructions (Jn.15:9), to
the point that he could credit his Father with everything he did (Jn.14:10)!
Everyone who becomes deliberately faithful to him need not live in darkness (Jn.12:46).
The one who keeps saying he's living in relationship with him ought to walk [live, behave] as he did! (I Jn.2:6).
Very simple but not easy.
May we urge and help each other faithfully to abide/continue/remain in him!

116
Word Study #59 Mercy
Mercy is another word that, due to its having been used traditionally to represent four different Greek words, is
very frequently misunderstood. Sometimes mistaken as a synonym for grace which will be treated in a later post it
has typically been co-opted by the compilers of creeds, confessions and liturgies as a component of what I sometimes call
the cockroach syndrome. You are surely familiar with the unfortunate caricature: God sitting sternly up on a cloud,
making black marks in his ledgers, noting the details of every infraction by his creatures, and, in response to their
programmed, groveling pleas for mercy (see W.S. #6), saying grudgingly, Well, I could and maybe should just stomp
you like a cockroach as you try to scurry away and hide, but I won't, because after all, I really AM merciful!
It would be difficult to find anything (short of the abrupt descent of a celestial boot!) more antithetical to the true mercy of
God, as revealed in and by our Lord, Jesus Christ! He ought to sue those guys for libel!

The most common word translated mercy is the noun,eleos (28 x) verb form eleeo (33 x). Classically, it refers to mercy,
compassion, or pity, or, when combined with poieo (to do or to make), the giving of alms. (Liddell/Scott). This character
trait was personified and worshiped at Athens and Epidaurus which, interestingly, was a center of medical treatment.
The other words were used much more rarely: oiktirmos / oiktirmon, sympathetic, compassionate (5x and 3x
respectively), and hilaskomai (2 x) and hileos (1 x). These latter two, which are the only ones used classically of
appeasing angry gods, unfortunately seem to have claimed the primary attention of doctrine-writers. In the New
Testament, they appear only in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.8:13), and in Hebrews in reference to the
duties of the high priest under the old (obsolete) covenant (2:17 and 8:12). These are hardly the best authorities!

Thayer distinguishes between eleos and oiktirmos by noting that the former is a mercy that leads to action to alleviate or
eliminate misery, while the latter offers pity for a hopeless situation but the uses of oiktirmos in Lk.6:36, Phil.2:1, and
Col.3:12 do not fit that analysis. They all imply action.

The most common use of eleeo is in reference to Jesus either being asked to heal someone (5 x in Matthew, 2x in Mark, and
3 x in Luke), or having done so (Mk.5:19, Phil.2:27), or in Elizabeth's celebration of the healing of her sterility (Lk.1:58).
Indeed, Mary, Elizabeth, and Zachariah provide a delightful catalog of evidence of the mercy of God in Lk.1:50-78: (51)
scattering the arrogant, (52) de-throning the powerful, (53) feeding the hungry and dismissing the uncaring wealthy, (54)
keeping his promise, (57-58) enabling Elizabeth to have a child, (67)enabling Zachariah's prophecy, (68) providing
redemption, (71) deliverance from the hatred of enemies, (72) remembering his covenant, (74-75) giving his people the
privilege to worship him without fear see W.S. #16 and the removal of their failures see W.S.#7, and (78) guiding them
into the ways of peace!
Loving generosity might be the best description of that list!

The celebration of God's mercy continues in the epistles: Eph.2:4 God, who is rich in mercy .made us alive together
with Christ! Titus 3:5 the mercy of God rescued us (see W.S. #5) from the futility described in v.3; I Pet.1:3 according
to his mercy, he gave us new birth into hope (#36) by the resurrection of Jesus (#35); I Peter 2:10 You all are
experiencing mercy by having been made God's people!. Heb.4:16 because Jesus understands our humanity, we find
mercy, and grace to help in our time of need!
Mercy is occasionally added (4x) to the more usual greeting of grace and peace, which has sometimes been called a
melding of the standard Hebrew (peace) and Greek greetings. However, the usual Greek greeting, chaire, is not derived
from charis. I wonder if Paul changed it deliberately? We will take a more detailed look at this when we consider grace.

For the faithful, it is essential to note that the mercy of God is not a treasure to be hoarded, nor a pardon to be begged-for,
but a trait to be learned and shared! Very early, Jesus included that expectation in the Beatitudes (Mt.5:7) and parables. The
inquiring lawyer in Lk.10:37 grudgingly recognized that showing mercy was the point of Jesus' story of the Samaritan,
and the parable of the debtors (Mt.18:33) stresses that mercy received must also be passed on. Even more pointedly, Jesus
quoted their own scripture to the nit-picking scribes and Pharisees (Mt.9:13 and 12:7) , that God values mercy above their
showy sacrifices, and (Mt.23:23) also above their meticulous tithing of herbs. Please note that mercy is attached, (not
antithetical) to justice and faithfulness! There is no hint of an Anything goes attitude here.

In the same vein, James warns that failing to show mercy to one's brother places his own situation in jeopardy (2:13-15).
Paul urges the Corinthians (II Cor.4:1) that the mercy they have received is intended to provoke faithful living. In Phil.2:1,
Rom.12:1, and Col.3:12, he uses the less common oiktirmos, but the message is the same: mercy received must result in

117
merciful and faithful behavior.
James (3:17) characterizes godly wisdom as including being full of mercy and good fruit; Jude uses the same word (21
and 22) with more solemn overtones, of the rescue of an errant brother. In I Cor.12:8, Paul lists showing mercy among
the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be exercised in the growth of the brotherhood with cheerfulness [good humor]. No
reluctant toleration here. The idea of loving generosity fits very well.

Paul eloquently summarizes the intent of the gracious gift of God's mercy in Rom.12:1,2:
I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God's compassion [mercy], to present your bodies a living offering, set-
apart, pleasing to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this age, but be
(continuously) completely changed, by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God's will is: what is
good, and pleasing, and complete [perfect].

There is nothing to add but Amen!

118
Word Study #60 Grace
There, but for the grace of God, go I! has become, in some circles, a proudly humble way of calling attention to
another's unfortunate (or otherwise degraded) condition. The obvious but unspoken (and unwarranted) assumption that such
grace is absent in the experience of that other, and the consequent air of condescension, seem totally to escape the
notice of the speaker. This is evidence of a serious misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and expansiveness of the
Wonderful Grace of Jesus so enthusiastically, but narrowly, and, sadly, quite selfishly celebrated in song and sermon.
Are you bothered by the inclusion of selfishly? Count the occurrences of I, me, my in that and other similar songs!
That is diametrically opposed to New Testament attitudes!
A more accurate understanding of grace would move such a speaker to action (mercy! See W.S.#59), rather than to a
piously superior sort of pity!

Grace charis was a very common word, with a long list of classical uses, including outward beauty, grace, or favor;
kindness or good will; thankfulness, or an expression of gratitude; a favor (personal or political) done or returned; a grant
made in legal form; gratification; homage or worship; majesty; something done for the pleasure or sake of someone. Its
mythological personification was worshiped as the wife of the Greek god Hephaestus, and the attendants of Aphrodite (the
Graces). (L/S). Bauer adds gracious care: the action of someone who volunteers to do something to which he is not
bound or obligated; the practical application of good will by gods or men; the condition of a person so favored.
It is probably the lack of obligation idea that has given rise to the popular evangelical phrase unmerited favor, although
no etymological data includes any analysis of whether a favor is deserved or not.

New Testament usage is also quite wide-ranging. Charis can refer to a simple thank you (Lk.7:19, 6:32,33,34) to a person
or a group (II Cor.4:15); to giving thanks for a meal (I Cor.10:30), or profound thanksgiving to God (Rom.6:17, I Tim.1:12,
II Tim.1:3, I Cor.15:57, II Cor.2:14, 8:16, 9:15, Col.3:16).
The aspect of favor or good will appears in Lk.1:30, 2:52; Ac.2:47, 7:10, 7:46, and political maneuvering in Ac.24:27
and 25:9.
Charis can describe that gracious attribute of God seen in his calling of people to himself and his Kingdom, and enabling
their conversion and transformation of life (I Cor.1:4, 15:10; Gal.1:15, I Tim.1:14). This gracehas observable results:
when Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the apostles to check out the new group that had formed there, he saw the grace of
God (Ac.11:23), and welcomed them as true brethren. We aren't told what he saw but he clearly recognized it as a
family trait. Charis was also recognized as the active force in people becoming faithful in Achaia (Ac.18:27), and Paul
urged the newly faithful in Pisidian Antioch (Ac.13:43) to continue (W.S.#58) in it, despite bitter opposition.
In Eph.2:5-7, Paul waxes eloquent about the results of being rescued (W.S.#5) by God's graciousness: being made alive
with Christ, and identified with his resurrection (W.S. #35) and seated together with him, as a demonstration of his gracious
kindness! Notice how quickly the narrative moves away from their former, alienated condition, into the glorious, gracious
provision of God! Why is it now more in vogue to dwell on people's degradation? As one student observed, It doesn't say
that I need to be or pretend to be total scum in order to experience grace!

Somehow, sadly, in subsequent centuries, the balance has tipped strangely, and what was supposed to be the beginning of a
lifelong process of transformation has been placed on hold, until the final consummation! Not so in true New Testament
teaching! The focus here is on the grace that enables Kingdom living! Charis is the fuel that runs the engine of the
transformation of life among those who are faithful! It involves being made just (W.S.#3) (Ac.15:11, Rom.3:24, and
chapters 4 and 5); enabling honest behavior (II Cor.1:12), enabling service, both to the brotherhood and to those outside
(Eph.4:7, Heb.12:28). It includes both generosity, and the means with which to express it (II Cor.9:8 and 14), confidence in
prayer for help (Heb.4:16), and coaching (W.S.53) when needed.
The faithful are admonished to let charis motivate and regulate our speech (Eph.4:29, Col.4:6), and to be careful stewards of
such a gracious gift (I Pet.4:10, Rom.12:6), using each manifestation of God's grace to serve one another.
Both James (4:6) and Peter (I Pet.5:5) paraphrase the statement they had heard from Jesus himself (Lk.14:11) that God
actively opposes (the same word that James uses in the next sentence to tell his readers how to treat the devil!) the arrogant,
but gives grace to the unassuming (humble W.S.#14).

The expectation of faithful living as a response to God's grace (II Cor.6:1, II Pet.3:18, Titus 2:11-15) is carefully and
deliberately distinguished from the establishment or defense of the Law. This was obvious already in Johns prologue
statement (1:17), The law was given through Moses, but grace/graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus
Christ!

119
There are many warnings (Rom.4:4, 4:16, 11:6; Gal.1:6, 5:4; Heb.13:9; Rom.5,6,and 11) against trying to combine the new
life with the old legalism, and also against the opposite problem, interpreting freedom from law as an excuse for
licentiousness (Jude 4), which, he notes, actually amounts to denying the Lord Jesus! Heb.10:29 and 12:15 have a similar
tone.

Luke, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews frequently represent charis as not only supplying the enablement for an
assignment (W.S.#55), but view the very assignment itself as a gift of grace (Ac.14:26, 15:40, 20:24; Rom.1:5, 12:6;
Gal.2:9, Eph.3:2,7,8; 4:7; II Tim.1:9; Heb.2:9, 12:28).
In II Cor.8 and 9, especially 9:8 and 9:13, virtually everything connected with the offering for famine relief is included
under the rubric of grace.
Paul urges Timothy not only to be strong in the grace that has come to him, but to be careful to pass it on (II Tim.2:1,2) to
faithful people who will do likewise. This should be seen as the primary responsibility of every person entrusted/gifted with
a task in the Body! (See Chapters 6-8 of Citizens of the Kingdom). The grace/graciousness that is in Christ Jesus, like the
mercy we studied in the last post (#59), is not a treasure to be hoarded and admired, but a trust to be shared!

The final paragraph in Paul's letter to Titus (2:11-14) provides an excellent summary of the effects and expectations that
accompany the grace of God who is called, in deliberate defiance of the Roman emperor's edict, our Savior / deliverer
(W.S.#4) in v.11. The application of the same title to Jesus, our great God and Saviorin v.13 is not a contradiction, but a
reiteration of that designation.
His grace/graciousness was revealed (aorist tense: already accomplished) to all people (v.11); teaching/educating us
(present participle: continuous action) to deny (aorist participle a definitive act) ungodliness and worldly desires/longings,
in order that (purpose clause) we may live (aorist subjunctive purpose) sensibly and justly in the present age (v.12)while
we are waiting (present participle continuous ) for our blessed expectation/hope, and the appearance of (or from) the glory,
of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (v.13).
He gave himself for us [on our behalf], in order to (purpose) ransom us from all lawlessness, and to cleanse for himself a
prepared people, eager for good deeds [things to do]! (v.14).
In short, his purpose is to establish his Kingdom among us!

Thanks charis be to God, for his indescribable gift! (II Cor.9:15)

120
Word Study #61 Redeem, Redemption
Redeem/redemption appears a total of 25 times in the New Testament narratives. These terms have been used to translate
seven different Greek words, five of which refer almost exclusively to the ransom of slaves or captives (prisoners of war).
Remember that in the prevailing cultures, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, slavery had been the lot of many defeated
populations, all over the then-known world. The concept was painfully familiar. So was the sometimes remote, sometimes
common possibility of a compatriot accumulating sufficient goods to buy one's freedom, or even of earning it for oneself.
Prisoner exchange, likewise, was not unknown. Any of these options would be called apolutrosis ransom, or
redemption.

Apolutrosis, the most common of the words, used 9 x in the New Testament, lutron (2 x), lutrosis (2 x), and antilutron (1 x),
all nouns, and lutroo (3 x), the verb form from which they are derived, uniformly refer, in classical usage, to either the
ransom of a prisoner or slave, or the redemption of a pledge or obligation either the process or the price of such a
transaction.
Agorazo, to purchase, and its prefixed form, exagorazo, both verbs, more frequently refer to ordinary commerce (28 x,
more than the sum of all the redeem words), although they may also be used for the purchase of slaves, either for their
freedom or simply a change of ownership. Twice, exagorazo is used in Paul's admonitions about redeeming the time
(Eph.5:16 and Col.4:5), or making responsible use of it.
In this cultural context, nobody needed an explanation of captivity, either. Four of the five words translated that way are
derived from aichme , spear, and refer to prisoners of war: the nouns aichmalosia and aichmalotos, used once each, and
the verbs aichmaloteuo (2 x) and aichmalotizo (3 x). The other, zogreo used only once, refers to captured animals who
were kept in cages.

Both Matthew (20:28) and Mark (10:45) record Jesus' statement that he intended to give his life as a ransom (lutron) for
many (pollon). Luke refers, in the infancy narrative (2:38) and the despairing lament of the disciples enroute to Emmaus
(24:21) to the expectation that Jesus would redeem Israel, but only quotes Jesus himself once (21:28), Your deliverance
[redemption] is coming near in reference to his final triumph. In fact, Jesus himself does not use the word sacrifice, so
common in modern parlance, even a single time in reference to his own mission, nor do any of the Gospel writers:
redemption / ransom is their chosen term in every instance.

Please note, in the light of this choice of vocabulary, that the primary idea communicated is a change of ownership or
jurisdiction, rather than the get-out-of-jail-free notion that is so commonly preached: and this makes an enormous
difference in the expectations for the consequent life of those who have been redeemed!
Although the verb he chose in Col.1:13 is errusato rescued (W.S.#5), rather than one of the redeem words, probably
the best description of the situation is Paul's triumphant reminder, He has rescued us from the power of darkness, and has
transplanted us into the kingdom of the Son of his love!
The writer to the Hebrews chose apallaxe also to set at liberty in describing the effect of Jesus' having passed through
death and come out the other side, thus having destroyed the one who held the power of death, (Heb.2:14-15), upon those
whose fear of death had held them in lifetime bondage. The idea is the same.

There is an impressive list of oppressors from which our Lord has bought our redemption, in addition to that primal fear.
Exagorazo: Gal.3:13 and 4:5 the curse and bondage of the Law
lutroo: Titus 2:14 all lawlessness, and I Pet.1:18 the empty / futile ways of our ancestors
apolutrosis: Eph.1:7, our transgressions, and Col.1:14 our failures.
Please note that these latter two are taken away (aphesis), not just ignored or overlooked! And please remember that
although this is certainly included as part of the package of redemption, Jesus' right to forgive / take away failures and
transgressions was predicated on who he is / was God in person! (see W.S.#7). Neither he nor his critics related it to his
death.
Even his choice of timing lends evidence to the focus on redemption. As our son Dan pointed out when we were
considering this study, Jesus' death and resurrection happened at Passover the celebration of deliverance from bondage in
Egypt and not on the Day of Atonement, with its focus on sins. How have so many people missed that observation?

Do not forget, also, that redemption is much more than mere escape from negative things and circumstances! The
deliverance described in Col.1:13 is into the Kingdom of the Son of God!
Apolutrosis includes (Rom.3:24) being made just; (Rom.8:24)being adopted (see Translation Notes) as sons of God, and

121
eventual release from the constraints of our bodies; (I Cor.1:30 and Eph.1:14) becoming the set-apart possession of the Lord
Jesus; for which we have already been provided (Eph.1:14 and 4:30) with his seal of ownership, in the person of his Holy
Spirit.
On a practical level, having been bought (agorazo) by our Master, it is reasonable to expect (I Cor.6:30) that we become
eager to reflect honor upon him; (I Cor.7:23) that we refuse to allow ourselves to become enslaved to anyone or anything
else; and (II Pet.2:1) make every effort not to deny or discredit him in any way.

Even if this were all there is, the condition of those so redeemed would be glorious! But there is more! A future also
awaits, as the culmination of Jesus' act of redemption! In Heb.9:15-17, the transaction is cast in the context of a will, under
which the heirs only acquire their inheritance after the death (refer to 2:14) of the testator. The Holy Spirit is described
(Eph.1:14) as the down-payment on that inheritance, until it is complete, and Rom.8:23 also intimates that, despite the
present reality of the Holy Spirit, this is only the beginning!
Those gathered around the throne (Rev.5:9, and 14:3,4) celebrate the redemption of people from every tribe and tongue and
people and nation into the Kingdom of the Lamb.

You may have noticed that there is one question that we have not addressed: To whom was the ransom owed or paid?
This is neither an oversight nor deliberate avoidance. The reason for its lack is simple. Although centuries of
theologians, and preachers of many persuasions, have adamantly proclaimed the accuracy of their logically devised
theories, the New Testament itself does not speak to that issue. Since this is a New Testament study, I will not presume to
do so either.

Our attention can be much more profitably focused upon seeking faithfully to fulfill the purpose of the One who has
redeemed us for himself! He has graciously provided us with very clear instructions for that exercise.
Thanks be to God!

122
 Word Study #62 The Nations
Nations, as we think of them today independent political entities did not exist until relatively modern times. Modern
usage has considered the term nation (a cohesive group, bound together by a common language, culture, and history) to
be synonymous with country or state (a political entity defined by geographical boundaries, laws, and governance)
which, historically, it is not.
Old Testament references to nations and kingdoms, like those in Homer, usually referred to a single city and its
environs, each with its own king (more like a warlord).
In the first century, virtually every nation in Europe, the middle east, and parts of Asia and Africa was dominated by
Rome, as they had been earlier by Greece under Alexander, and earlier still by Persia, under Cyrus. None of these empires
were ever termed nations. They were composed of many conquered nations.
The nation [ethnicity] with which one identified had little to do with political boundaries. The conquerors arranged and
rearranged boundaries for their own convenience (much as they do today) with little regard for cultural, tribal, religious, or
other loyalties. They appointed various levels of petty despots to do the local governing, with varying degrees of autonomy
(and success). In the first century, some of these were Herod, Pilate, Claudius Lysius, Felix, and Festus. (You can fill in
corresponding names for the 20th and 21st centuries!)
Jesus seems to have assumed this sort of structure in the parable (Lk.19:12-27) of the nobleman who traveled abroad to
receive a kingdom and returned. This was probably a political grant from a higher potentate.

Liddell/Scott lists different categories of meanings for ethnos, the most common of the words rendered nation.. (Other
words rarely rendered nation are genea -1x usually generation and genos -2 x kind, kindred, or offspring.) The
earliest, historically, represented any body of people living together; a band of comrades; particular tribes, or even swarms
or flocks of animals! Later, implications of foreign or barbaric were added. In Athens, ethnos was applied to non-
Athenian athletic clubs, and in the LXX, to non-Jews, and more generally, to people of a class or caste beneath one's own,
as well as to trade associations.
Consequently, a modern translation of ethnos as nation would be more accurately considered a cultural artifact of the time
of translation, than a concept present in the original text. The common thread in many of these translations is the concept of
other. It is mostly concerned with what a person is not, dividing us from them, and in from out. Of all the 164
New Testament uses of the word, only ten refer to one's own people. (Usually one's own are called laos, people. Others
are ethnoi Gentiles, or nations). For Jews, the dichotomy was either ioudaioi, Jews, vs. hellen, Greeks; circumcision
vs. uncircumcision, or laos, people, vs. ethnoi, nations or Gentiles.
For Greeks, it was hellen vs. barbaros (barbarians), a term which originally applied to anyone who did not speak Greek, but
after Herodotus (4th century BC), acquired the connotation of brutal or rude, although it continued to be applied, often
in a disparaging way, to any foreigner.
Hellen (Greek) is also used, although less frequently (only 26 times) in the New Testament, usually as a more specific term
of ethnic identity than ethnos, which is arbitrarily rendered nation (64 x) or Gentile (93 x), and applied to anyone who
was not a Jew. Five times it was traditionally translated heathen Ac.4:25, II Cor. 11:26, Gal.1:16, 2:9, 3:8 . This is not
a different word. The choice among the alternatives, nations, Gentiles, and heathen, by traditional translators, is
completely arbitrary. The word in every instance is ethnos.
One outstanding feature of the New Testament appearances of ethnos is the frequency of its being paired with all,
every, or many (31 x), from the charge to Abraham (Rom.14:17,18) to Jesus' instructions to his original disciples
(Mt.28:19, Mk.13:10, Lk.24:47), and the glorious scenes in Rev.5:9, 7:9, 10:11 and many more. This, along with Paul's
more specific descriptions (especially in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians) reveals a massive paradigm shift! Ethnos is
no longer a term of exclusion, but of gracious inclusion into the Kingdom the people (laos) of God!

It took a while for those people to internalize the shift, and the writers are not shy about documenting their struggles. We
don't know whether the confrontation with Peter that Paul describes in Gal.2 was before or after the former's experience
with Cornelius (Ac.10) and/or the conference in Jerusalem (Ac.15), but rough spots are frankly acknowledged. Much of
Paul's correspondence with the group at Corinth involves clashes of backgrounds, as do many of his other letters. This may
even show up in the vocabulary, since frequently, the term hellen is substituted for ethnos in settings that may have
involved Gentile proselytes. Ac.14:1, 16:13, 17:4, 18:4 describe scenes in the synagogues of Iconium, Derbe, Thessalonica,
and Corinth, and the crowd present at Pentecost (Ac.2:8-11) represented many nations. Might the shift in label have
indicated that these folks, while not fully assimilated, were at least no longer considered rank outsiders?

But the objective was much higher than that. Jesus' prayer for his people was that they all be as completely one as he

123
was/is with the Father (Jn.17:21), and that prayer specifically included (v.20) also those who are faithful to me because of
their word! This is the content of God's mystery (W.S.#57) finally revealed to his people (Eph.3:3-9, Col.1:26-27,
Rom.16:25-26). The in group has been re-defined: no longer identified by any ethnic identity, but by faithfulness to
the King of Kings! And while the Law, the Prophets, and the Old Testament histories are full of admonitions to avoid those
of aliennations, the New Testament is filled with celebration of their inclusion!

Despite his earlier hesitation. Brother Peter also finally got on board (I Pet.2:9-10). Writing (1:1) to scattered refugees
(traditionally, strangers) who have been brought together by their adherence to the Lord Jesus, he encourages them to seek
continually for greater faithfulness, reminding them, You all are a chosen generation a royal priesthood a set-apart
[holy] nation (ethnos) especially reserved for the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one who
called you out of darkness into his amazing light! Once, you were not (even) a people (laos), but now you are God's
people(laos)! In v.11, he refers to them as temporary residents and foreigners in the world from which they came!

Paul writes in a similar vein to the brethren in Ephesus (2:11-22) of their transition from being rank outsiders (11 and 12),
through the work of Christ (13-16) in creating one Body out of two people, and describing their present status (17-19) as
fellow citizens with God's people and members of his own household! This is an ongoing process for all concerned (20-
22), as the whole group is built together into a permanent dwelling-place for God!
At least 54 of the 93 places where ethnos is traditionally translated Gentiles refer specifically to their inclusion in the
people of God. In the Kingdom, in and out is completely independent of national origin. It depends entirely upon one's
loyalty to the King, which is expected to transcend indeed, to replace any and all other allegiances (W.S.#4).

In the middle of a section of detailed instructions for the interaction of the widely varied members of that Kingdom in
Colosssae, Paul reminds them (Col.3:11-12) that not only do the former divisions no longer matter, but they have ceased to
exist! They/we are now all God's chosen people (W.S.#56), holy [set-apart for him] and loved! and charged with
representing the grace and power that accomplished such a feat to the rest of the world.
May we learn to prove faithful to that assignment!

124
Word Study #63 Patience
References to patience in the New Testament are primarily representations of three word families, which, while quite
different in flavor, are extremely difficult to separate in any definitive manner. Easy definitions do not hold up under
closer scrutiny. The best we can do is to outline a territory covered by each word-grouping, recognizing that there will be
overlap that escapes our best efforts. Frequently, two or more of these are found in the same sentence, so they are clearly
not synonyms. Translators have almost randomly said patience and longsuffering, endurance and patience,
forbearance and longsuffering, or some similar combination.

Makrothumeo (v.) and makrothumia (n.) are used 11 x and 13 x respectively. Liddell/Scott lists simply to be longsuffering
toward another, to persevere, to bear patiently. Bauer adds to delay and to be even-tempered, upon which Thayer
elaborates to be patient in bearing the offenses of others, to be slow in avenging or punishing. Peter (I Pet.3:20, II Pet.3:9,
3:15) and Paul (Rom.2:4 and 9:22) both ascribe this characteristic to God, but Paul also admonishes the brethren at Ephesus
(4:2), Colosssae (1:11 and 3:12), and Thessalonica (I Thes.5:14) to exhibit the same attitude toward one another. He
appears to be appealing for a generosity of spirit that teaches gently (II Tim.4:2) rather than imposing demands. Usually
(not always) it is demonstrated by someone more mature in the Kingdom toward those less experienced. I have frequently
used generosity or generous-mindedness to render these words, intending them as a description of attitude, not
necessarily with material implications.

Hupomeno (v.) and hupomone (n.), used 17x and 32x respectively, on the other hand, deal primarily with one's response to
being abused. Thayer makes a helpful point in noting that the distinction is best seen where both words are used together, or
in their opposites. Hupomeno / hupomone refer to a temper which does not succumb under suffering, whereas
makrothumia is self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong. Hupomone is the opposite of cowardice or
despondency, and makrothumia is the opposite of wrath or revenge.
Hupomone is the patience usually associated with those under persecution (Lk.21:19, Rom.5:3, 15:4 and 5; II Cor.6:4,
Heb.10:36 and 12:1; and Rv.2:2,3,19; 3:10, 13:10,14:12), as is its verb equivalent (I Pet.2:20, Rom.12:12; Mt.10:22 and
24:13; Mk.13:13, Heb.10:32 and 12:7; I Tim.2:12).
Bauer, Thayer, and Trench all suggest that this describes a faithful response to unavoidable suffering, and consequently
cannot apply to God: but that observation breaks down on the passages in Heb.12:2 and 3, which refer to Jesus, who said
clearly that he could have called upon all the hosts of heaven to deliver him, had he so chosen.
Hupomone appears on many of the lists of virtues toward which the faithful are urged to strive II Tim.3:10, I Tim.6:11,
Rom.15:4,5; Col.1:11.
In order to maintain a distinction, I have usually used endurance for these words.
James complicates the situation by mixing the two concepts almost at random, using makrothumia in 5:7,8 and 5:10, but
hupomone in 5:11 and 1:3,4. Perhaps this is deliberate: your suggestions of any possible pattern or reasoning are welcome!

Finally, we turn to anoche (only used twice) and anechomai (15x). The noun appears only in Romans 2:4 and 3:26,
referring to the amazing kindness [forbearance] of God. The verb is variously rendered as forbear (Eph.4:2 and
Col.3:13), endure (II Thes.1:4, II Tim.4:3), and suffer (Mt.17:17, Mk.9:19, Lk.9:41, I Cor.4:12, II Cor.11:19,20;
Heb.13:22).
L/S notes that anoche classically referred to an armistice or truce, and Trench offers the reminder that a truce is only a
temporary cessation of hostility. The word was also used of forbearance, or bearing with someone in more
contemporary parlance, putting up with difficult people or situations. This was frequently my translation choice. It is
clearly the burden of Jesus' exclamation to his disciples, How long do I have to put up with this?! (Parallel passages noted
above in the synoptics), and Paul's sarcastic statements to the Corinthians about their willingness to accept false teaching (II
Cor.11:1,4,19,20), as well as Gallio's to the Jews (Ac.18:14). These words may parallel the idea of endurance, but don't
seem to fit very well with patience nor do the two uses of stego or the three of hupophero both also rendered endure
or bear.

All three categories seem to refer primarily to attitude, rather than to specifics of behavior. This is quite clear in Paul's
instructions to Timothy (II Tim.4:2), whom he sent as a trouble-shooter to fledgeling congregations on several occasions.
Administer discipline, he tells his young deputy, give rebukes, keep on coaching, with all generosity of mind
(makrothumia) as you teach. Makrothumia does not imply anything goes it is simply the attitude with which
instruction is to be given. Likewise, there is nothing in hupomone to imply that patience under persecution requires one
to adopt door-mat status. The beleaguered folks who received the letter to the Hebrews were reminded (10:36),You all

125
have need of patience [endurance], in order that when [after] you have done God's will, you may obtain the promise.
Don't back down, but persist in faithfulness, willingly enduring whatever fall-out that produces.
And despite the somewhat negative flavor of the passages already quoted, there is no grudging condescension in anechomai.
In Eph.4:2, it is used in combination with makrothumia with a generous attitude, putting up with each other in love. In
Col.3:13, it is paired with charizomai, being gracious toward one another. Although traditionally translated forgive,
charizomai actually has the same stem as charis grace (see W.S.#60).

We are instructed to forbear [put up with] one another's immaturity and peculiarities, and to forgive [be gracious about]
error or offense, but in both cases, patiently to keep on coaching (W.S.#53) the team toward greater faithfulness.
Discernment enabled by the Holy Spirit is often required, properly to identify and respond to the situation with which we
are confronted.
We all have a lot to learn!

126
 Word Study #64 Bearing Fruit
Everybody knows what that means, right? To bear fruit is to reproduce!
At least, that is the proclamation of some enthusiastic folks who feel a need to count conversions, to display them like
scalps on a belt, and to put-down anyone who sports fewer trophies. This is another of many places where the tune
would be mightily modulated by a serious look at the New Testament.

Yes, there are four possible places (Romans 1:13, Phil.1:22 where it could just mean useful, and maybe Jn.4:36 and
Col.1:6), where karpos, the most common word translated fruit might be referring to conversions although probably not
the four-step variety out of 66 appearances of the noun form and 8 of the verb! Not quite an overwhelming percentage!
At least 35 probably 38 of the references are simply agricultural images, many of them in parables. Two refer to
physical birth, and at least 18 to the expected behavior of followers of Jesus.

These harmonize well with the variety seen in classical usage. According to Liddell/Scott, in Homer, karpos referred
exclusively to agricultural produce the fruit of the earth. Herodotus and Plato both spoke of wine as the fruit of the
vine, and later writers used the word of any produce or crops. Xenophon used it of returns or profits on one's work or
investment. When describing the actions of persons, it signified reward, or the fulfillment of an oracle or prophecy. Bauer
adds result, outcome, advantage, gain, or product.

Turning to the best authority of all, we should ask again, What did Jesus say?
He talked a lot about fruit (43 x) and harvests (20 x). Harvest, therizo, therismos, is a similar word, but generally confined
to agricultural or seasonal ideas. Therizo is the only one used of end times.
All the synoptic gospels include the parables of the Sower (Mt.13:3-9 and 19-23, Mk.4:3-9 and 14-20, Luke 8:5-9 and 10-
15) and the vineyard (Mt.21:34-43, Mk.12:1-12, Lk.20:9-16). The focus in the former, according to Jesus' own explanation,
concerns varied responses to the message of the Kingdom, while the latter explores the stewardship of its resources and the
treatment of the King's representatives.
Likewise, in pointing out that the value of a tree is judged by the quality of its produce (Mt.7:16-20, Lk.6:43-44), Jesus
seems to assume that an observer can readily discern the quality of the fruit, and that no further elaboration is required.

He gives the most detailed teaching in Jn.15:1-17. Here, Jesus represents himself as the vine, the source of life and growth
(1,4), and his followers as its branches (2-6). The Father himself does the pruning (katharizo, also rendered cleansing,
which we will save for another post). If you have ever worked with grapevines, you know how technical this job is. One
must recognize which buds are the fruiting ones, and take care not to remove too many, but also ensure that branches do not
compete with one another for sunlight and room to grow! A good harvest requires an expert vintner.
Here, it is Jesus' word (v.3) that governs the pruning. I think this is probably the reason for the slight digression (vv.9-15) in
which he stresses the absolute necessity (5,7,10) of not only remaining (W.S.#58) tightly connected to him, but also of
following instructions (10,12,14,17) (W.S.#55).

It is especially essential (see intro to PNT, and W.S.#142) here to distinguish between singular and plural forms of you.
Most of this is a group assignment! (Branches, after all, are mostly attached to the vine by their attachment to other
branches!) In the PNT text, plurals are identified by either you all or an italicized you. Huge errors occur when plurals
are read as singular address.
There are also two grammatical constructions in this passage, both very easily identified, that are critical to understanding
the message.
A clause indicating purpose is introduced by the particle, hina, in order that a desired result may occur. These are seen in
v.2, pruning is done in order that a branch may produce more fruit;
v.8, God's purpose is that you may bear much fruit, and become my disciples;
v.11, I have said these things in order that my joy may be in/among you all;
v.16, I chose (W.S.#56) you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, in
order that whatever you all ask the Father in my name (W.S.#24), he may give you.
v.17, I am giving you these instructions so that you all may keep on loving each other.

Other clauses are conditional, (regardless of modern rhetoric to the contrary). They are introduced by ei, or ean, both forms
of IF, or, if negative, unless. They occur in:
v.4, unless [if you don't (ean me)] you all remain in [on] me, you cannot bear fruit.

127
v.6 unless someone remains in me, he is thrown out like a branch and is dried up
v.7, IF you all remain in me, and my messages remain in/among you, you all shall ask ...
v.10, IF you all follow my instructions, you will remain in my love ...
v.14, You all are my friends, IF you continue to do as I am instructing you.
Additional conditional statements continue throughout the rest of the discourse.

It remained for faithful followers to elaborate on precise definitions of the fruit that was to be borne. Paul wrote to the
Romans (6:21,22), contrasting the fruit [results] of their lives before and after commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom, and
to the Galatians (5:19-23) and Ephesians (5:8-10) in the same vein. Characteristics of the new life mentioned in these
include (Rom.) a life devoted to God [holiness], (Gal.) love, joy [rejoicing], peace, generosity of mind, kindness, goodness,
faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, (Eph.) goodness, justice, truth, and finding out what is pleasing to the Lord!
Changed lives had already been urged by John the Baptist (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) when he demanded fruit worthy of
repentance (W.S.#6) of his hearers.
Remember that justice is the lexical meaning of the word traditionally translated righteousness (W.S. #3), which
endows its fruit (Phil.1:11, Heb.12:11, Jas.3:18) with a decidedly different flavor!
Twice (Phil.4:17 and Rom.15:28), the sharing of material gifts among brethren are termed fruit.
The letter to the Hebrews closes with a description of the appropriate offering [sacrifice] of praise to God as the fruit of
lips that acknowledge his name (W.S. #24).

Paul's admonition to the Colossian church (1:10) is a succinct summary: behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order
to please him fully, bearing fruit in every good deed, and continually growing in your acquaintance with God!
Quite a contrast to scalp-collecting, bearing this sort of fruit is a worthy goal for us all!

128
Word Study #65 Clean, Prune, Purify
Katharos (adj.) and its related words, kathairo and katharizo (verbs), and katharismos (noun), are as varied in classical
usage as their English counterparts. Although there are many words which, to be properly understood, could be more
accurately rendered by the use of a single, consistent translation (for example, see the discussion of righteousness/justice
in W.S.#3), this is one where such an exercise would be extremely difficult. Some version of the concept of cleanliness,
to be sure, is present in all of its manifestations, but I have not succeeded in finding a term that would fit for every
occurrence.
Kathairo or kathaireo, the older form of the verb, for example, was used of ridding a land of monsters and robbers,
cleansing a wound, sifting or winnowing grain, pruning a tree, or performing religious purification rites (L/S). The later
form, katharizo, added to clear ground of weeds, to cleanse (heal) from leprosy, or medical purgation. The noun,
katharismos, simply described the performance of any of these activities, and the adjective, katharos, the result of the
process.

Perhaps a list of the adjectival uses of katharos, with illustrative New Testament references, would be helpful:
1. simple, physical cleanliness Mt.23:25, Lk.11:39 (parallel passages regarding the washing of dishes), Mt.27:59 (a
clean linen cloth), and similar in Rv.19:8, 19:14, and 15:6; and Heb.10:22 (bodies washed with clean water).
2. without admixture [pure] Mt.5:8, Tim.1:5, 3:9, II Tim.1:3, 2:22, I Pet.1:22, a pure heart; Rv.21:18,21, pure
gold; and Rv.22:1, pure water.
3. without debt, guilt, or liability Ac.18:6, 20:26 Paul's statement that he is no longer responsible for their response to
his message.
4. ritual or ceremonial purity Jn.3:25, Lk.2:22, Jn.2:6, Mk.7:19, Lk.11:41, Mk.1:44, Lk.5:14
5. honest, correct, without blemish, sound, morally pure Jas.4:8, Tit.1:15, as well as parallels to the ceremonial kind
listed above
6. the healing of lepers Mt.8:3, 10:8, 11:5; Mk.1:42, Lk.4:27,7:22, 17:14,17.

Other uses are a bit harder to classify. Jesus, on occasion, deliberately blurred the line between physical cleanliness,
ceremonial purity, and dedicated lives (Jn.13:10 11 and 15:3), as did the Holy Spirit's instructions to Peter (Ac.10:15,
11:19). Especially in the upper room scene, Jesus' intended meaning shifts sharply. And although the discourse on the
Vine / branches is clearly an agricultural reference (see previous post), the implication of removing any hindrance to
fruitfulness is clear. Similar admonitions are also seen in Heb.9:14, Ac.15:9, Titus 2:14, I Jn.1:9.
James 1:7 re-defines religious purity in very practical terms, and in no uncertain language.

This approach is at once more and less stringent than the purification demands of the Law. The advocates of the Law had
compiled a handy check-list for assaying the ceremonial purity that they deemed requisite for proper worship. Jesus
provided no such cut and dried convenience, but instead required and offered the total transformation of the focus of
one's life. Once this transformation is in progress (Lk.11:41, Jn.13:10), the practiced eye of the vine-dresser can readily
make continual corrections to the health, direction, and growth of a branch. Notice that (Jn.15:2) it is the fruitful branches
that receive this attention. Unfruitful ones are simply cut off and discarded. And it is not a condition of their becoming a
part of the Vine, but of continuing in that condition, and of increasing their fruitfulness.

We should also take note of who is responsible for the pruning / cleansing / purification. We have already seen that the
Father is designated as the vintner (Jn.15:1); however, in Eph.5:26, Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus himself cleansing the
church to make it his own. In Jn.15:3, the Word that I have spoken is credited with rendering Jesus' followers clean;
and in II Cor.7:1 and James 4:8, the responsibility is placed squarely upon the shoulders of aspiring disciples themselves.
Looks pretty much like a mutual effort.

Peter (I Pet.1:22) uses a different, less common word, hagnizo (#32), which is more commonly applies to religious purity,
when he declares that his readers have accomplished this, by obeying the truth. It is well to remember that both the
word #66 (Jn.1:14) and the truth (Jn.14:6) (see W.S.#26) are also references to Jesus himself.

It remains for us to consider the discussions in the letter to the Hebrews, the understanding of which has been severely
inhibited by the common practice of proof-texters lifting a few phrases entirely out of their context. For example, the
frequently quoted phrase, (Heb. 1:3), when he (Jesus) had made a cleansing of sins (the word is hamartia, failures or
shortcomings, and not paraptoma, transgressions see W.S.#7) if taken in its context of the statement of God's earlier

129
attempts to make his ways known, which did not work (v.1), looks entirely different, declaring that Jesus' successful
mission (v.2 and 3) was to remedy the shortcomings / failures of the old system! This contrast is the announced purpose
of the entire treatise, and occurs like a refrain throughout.
Likewise, Heb.9:14, in the context of its entire paragraph, also highlights Jesus' superiority over the former priesthood, and
those who quote the end of 9:22 without the pouring-out of blood, deliverance doesn't happen, totally ignore the
beginning of the sentence, According to the law..... V.23, immediately following, continues the emphasis that a better
way was needed and provided! Remember that blood and life are frequently used synonymously. (see Citizens of the
Kingdom, chapter 12.)

Finally, how can anyone be aware of the glorious expression of confidence in Heb.10:19-23, the assurance that our hearts
have been cleansed (perfect tense) (lit., sprinkled) from consciousness of evil, and our bodies have been washed (also
perfect tense) with clean water (perhaps a reference to baptism), and still submit meekly to a requirement that they
confess sinfulness in every worship service, and countless hymns? That simply doesn't compute! The perfect tense
expresses a past action with present consequences!
Paul had earlier written to Titus (1:!5), Everything is clean, for clean people! But for the impure and unfaithful, nothing is
clean: their mind and conscience has been polluted!
For all who belong to Jesus, heart, mind, and conscience have been cleansed!
Accept the joyful admonition in Heb.10:23-24:
Let's hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation! For the One who
made the promise is faithful! Let's concentrate on prodding each other (with) love and good deeds!
And whether in song or liturgy, give heed to the Spirit's word to our brother Peter (Ac.10:15):
What God has cleansed, don't you call unclean!

130
Word Study #66 The Word
There are many instances in the New Testament where confusion has resulted from a single English word having been used
to represent multiple Greek words (see explanation in Helps for Word Study), and it is necessary to separate the disparate
concepts for accurate understanding. This, however, is one of the much less frequent places where nearly synonymous
Greek words have often been artificially divided in order to bolster theological arguments. Careful perusal of a non-
theological lexicon like the historic Oxford work of Liddell and Scott, as well as the actual context of the New Testament
uses of rhema and logos, reveals more similarity than difference. The two words are even used interchangeably on
occasion: compare Mt.26:75 and Mk.14:72, which use rhema, with Lk.22:61, where the description of the same event uses
logos; and the representation as the agent of creation and of its preservation, where II Pet.3:5-7 uses logos, and Heb.11:3
and 13 uses rhema. Any separation of meanings, therefore, must be made with caution and humility, since the sense must
be derived from the context: the difference is not lexical.

It is true, however, that rhema represents considerably less diversity than does logos. Rhema refers simply to anything said
or spoken, the subject of a speech or matter, and grammatically, a phrase as opposed to a single word, or the verb, or
predicate, in a sentence. Logos, on the other hand, may refer to computation or accounting (Mt.18:23 and 25:19,
Lk.16:2, Heb.13:17, I Pet.4:5); to explanation, legal principle, or the statement of a theory or argument (Mt.10:13, 22:46;
Mk.12:13, Ac.22:22, 18:15); inward or overt debate, thinking, reasoning (I Cor.1:17, 2:4, 2:13, 4:20); a continuous
statement or narrative (all the references to preaching the word); a divine utterance (word of God, words of Jesus);
and various other forms of speech, argument, and discussion.
You may notice that none of these definitions make any reference to anything written only to speech.

In the New Testament, therefore, it is more fruitful to explore other questions. One's understanding and attitude, for
example, will vary according to whose word he encounters. This is expressed by the genitive case, which may indicate
possession or source. There are many places where logos refers simply to a statement or conversation of ordinary people
(Mt.12:37, Mt.10:14, Lk.23:9, Ac.15;24, Mt.22:46, and many others.) At least 21 times, something is specifically labeled
the word of God; 23 times the word of the Lord, of Jesus, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of Christ. or, when Jesus himself is
speaking, my word. Even more frequently, (45 x), the choice is simply the word, referencing some aspect of the message
of Jesus, regardless of who was speaking it.

Another use of the same (genitive) form indicates not possession, not source, but the content of the word. Here again,
both logos and rhema are used in this way, joined by of:
the word of eternal life (Jn.6:6) rhema
the word of this life (Ac.5:20, Phil.2:16, I Jn.1:1) rhema
the word of truth (Ac.26:25, II Cor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15, Jas.1:18) rhema
the word of exhortation (Ac.13:15, Heb.13:22) logos
the word of this salvation [rescue, safety] (Ac.13:26) logos
the word of the prophets (Ac.5;15), or of prophecy (II Pet.1:19, Rv.1:3) logos
the word of his grace (Ac.20:32) logos (all the rest on this list, also)
the word of promise (Rom.9:9)
the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge (Rom.12:8)
the word of reconciliation (II Cor.5:19)
the word of faithfulness (I Tim.4:6)
the word of righteousness / justice (Heb.5:13)

A significant deviation in usage from the classical definitions occurs in another large group of references. The word is also,
in the words of Heb.4:12, alive and powerful! It is active: (these all use logos)
to heal (Mt.8:8) and to cast out evil spirits (Mt.8:16)
to demonstrate the power and authority of Jesus (Lk.4:32,26)
to pass judgment (Jn.12:47,48)
to make disciples clean (Jn.15:3 see previous post).
It grew and multiplied (Ac.6:7, 12:24).
It was spread from the forming groups of disciples (I Thes.1:8), and was at work in their formation (2:13), able to build
them up (Ac.20:32) and assure their inheritance.
It makes all foods holy (I Tim.4:5) and provides nourishment for faithful living (4:6).

131
It is the agent of new birth (Jas.1:18, I Pet.1:23), able to save and sustain those lives (Jas.1:21).
It was at work in the creation of all that exists (Heb.11:3), as well as its preservation (1:3).

Both rhema and logos are also used when the context is negative: every idle word (Mt.12:36) and the charges against
Stephen (Ac.6:11,13) use rhema, while speaking against Jesus (Mt.12:32) and those who corrupt the word (II Cor.2:17)
or handle it deceitfully (4:2) use logos. The words of such people can also have power (II Tim.2:17), spreading like
gangrene, and any who ignore or distort the true word are to be avoided (I Tim.6:3 and I Thes.3:14). It was people who
refused to hear the Father's word (Jn.5:38) who failed to acknowledge and trust the Lord Jesus, and those in whom the word
was not welcomed/received (Jn.8:37) who deliberately set out to destroy him.

By contrast, those who hear / listen (W.S.#27) and accept the word (Jn.12:47,48) are the ones who become faithful.
These are admonished to remember, to be mindful of that word (II Pet.3:2, Jude 17), not to be ashamed of it (Mk.8:38), to
keep it (Lk.11:28), and continue in it (Jn.8:34), with the result being the privilege to live in the freedom thereby
engendered. Those who received / welcomed the word (Ac.2:41) were baptized as a testimony to their commitment (see
chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom). They are then urged to encourage one another with these words (I Thes.4:18), to
hold on to faithful words (II Tim.1:13), and to handle the word correctly (II Tim.2:15), taking care that in not be
discredited (Tit.2:5). James (1:22) is even more specific: hearing / listening is not enough: DOING the word is essential.
John the elder agrees (I Jn.3:18) Dear children, let's don't live in theory (logos) or in talk, but in action and truth!

And now, I turn you all over to the Lord, and to his word of grace [his gracious word], that can build you all up, and give
(you) the inheritance among all those who have been made holy!(Ac.20:32)
Everything he says is useful for that!

132
Word Study #67 The Gospel
We have dealt with this group of words before, in the study of evangelists (W.S.#43). However, the primary focus there
was on the people so designated, and their activities. Due to the ubiquity of abuses of the English word, gospel, it may be
useful also to concentrate more specifically upon the message itself.
There is a sense in which every one of these studies is a gospel message, since they are all offered as good news of the
graciousness, power, and provision offered to all of us who choose to identify with the Kingdom of the King of Kings, in
sharp contrast to the bad news so often mistakenly perpetrated under the label of gospel, in efforts to compel
submission.
As we shall see, distortion of God's message and intentions is not a modern problem. Jesus himself had to deal with
establishment-types who resisted his message of welcome and transformation so adamantly that they eventually felt it
necessary to get rid of him, and carefully plotted his demise.

The Good News is that their schemes failed! In the power of his resurrection, He destroyed death, and brought life and
immortality to light through the Gospel (I Tim.1:10)! In the process, Through death, he destroyed the one who had the
power of death, that is, the devil and rescued those who, by fear of death, were held in slavery all their lives
(Heb.2:14,15)! He (God) rescued us from the [power] authority of the darkness, and transported us into the Kingdom of
the Son of his love (Col.1:13)! Folks, This is good news a news-flash that has been transforming people's lives and
relationships for more than 2000 years!

Euaggelion, literally, means a good (or favorable) message. Historically, it was usually used of the report of a military
victory. The word appears a few times in the LXX, as a verb, mostly referring to victories, but also in the prophesies of
Isaiah which are familiar from The Messiah Is.40:10, 52:7, 60:6 and the passage (Is.61:1) that Jesus quoted in
Nazareth (Lk.4:18) as he introduced his Kingdom. It only occurs three times as a noun (I Sam.4:10, 18:22, 25). It also
referred, classically, to a reward given to a messenger who delivered good news, or a sacrifice offered in gratitude.

In the New Testament, Mark opens his account clearly labeling it (1:1) The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Jesus
himself began his ministry with the triumphant announcement (Mk.1:14), The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of
God has arrived! Both verbs are in the perfect tense, which refers to past action with present effects/implications! The
requisite response is cast in the present imperative (indicating progressive, continuous action): Change your ways [re-
orient your lives] (see repent, W.S.#6), and become faithful (W.S.#1) to the gospel [good news]! There is not a word
about assenting to a list of doctrines, or groveling in one's supposed unworthiness or sinfulness. It is a simple,
gracious invitation to become loyal to the King and his Kingdom! (Please see the introduction to Citizens of the Kingdom.)

As his disciples walked together with Jesus, and observed/assisted with his teaching and healing, it became clear that this
was no free ride. Jesus soon began to speak of losing one's life for my sake and the gospel's (Mk.8:35), and the
adoption of a new set of priorities that could involve the leaving of family and property (Mk.10:29), but also the creation of
new relationships that would be even closer along with persecutions (v.30).

Early on, too, Jesus made clear that this gospel is intended to be available to all nations [Gentiles] (Mk.13:10) see also
W.S.#62 an aspect that took his followers a bit longer to assimilate.
One can almost hear the wonder in Peter's voice as he recounted his unprecedented visit to Cornelius. It is helpful to
observe the elements included in his message on that occasion (Ac.10:34-43), which he later characterized as the gospel
(Ac.15:7-8):
v.35 in every nation, one who respects him (God) and does justice is acceptable to him.
v.36 The good news of peace, through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all
v.38 a brief summary of Jesus' earthly activity
v.39 they did away with him
v.40 God raised him!
v.41 We saw him!
v.42 God made him judge of the living and the dead
v.43 he takes away (W.S.#7) the failures of all who are faithful to him!

Paul provides a similar summary definition of the gospel in Rom.1:1-6, adding (v.4) that Jesus was certified as the Son of
God by his resurrection, and

133
(v.5-6) the purpose of all this was to enable all who belong to him to learn faithful obedience.
Its source and goal are faithfulness! (Rom.1:17)
To the folks at Ephesus, he also emphasized the inclusion of Gentiles as fellow heirs, joint members of the Body, and
sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus (Eph.3:6), which he later (6:19) equated with the mystery of God (W.S. #57).
In I Thes.1:5, he reminded them that the gospel that you all have received is not a matter of theoretical debate, but of the
miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, and is expected to result in faithful living. Notice, please, that the rare reference to the
destruction of the opponents of the Gospel (II Thes.1:9) is intended as encouragement to the beleaguered faithful. It is
NOT part of a sermon to threaten prospective converts!

To be sure, the faithful are sternly warned against people who advocate another gospel (II Cor.11:4, Gal.1:6), who
pervert the gospel (Gal.1:7), or refuse to obey the gospel (I Pet.4:17, II Thes.1:8, Rom.10:16), terms which usually
apply to those who tried to impose the strictures of the Jewish law upon Gentile converts, as if it represented some sort of
superior spirituality. But these admonitions are aimed at the faithful, who may be in danger of being deceived by such
teachings, and not at the perpetrators of the error, who are left in the Lord's hands.

There is nothing complicated or obscure about the truth of the gospel (Gal.2:5, 2:14, Col.1:5). It is hidden (II Cor.4:3,4)
only from those who are willfully disobedient. Paul admonished his co-workers in Philippi (1:27) to continue acting like
citizens worthy of the gospel standing firmly in one spirit, with a single identity, working faithfully as a team for the
gospel. That is by far the best insurance against error!
Healthy teaching (I Tim.1:11) is patterned after the good news of the blessed God!
This is the gospel message that we, his followers, are expected to acknowledge, to incarnate, and to share:
The Kingdom has arrived, because the King is alive and active among us!
Come and see!
Learn together to follow his instructions and to live!

134
Word Study #68 Confess and Deny
These are words for which the most common misunderstanding results from the extreme narrowing of their application in
modern English. Today, they are usually used in a legal, or quasi-legal context, and deal with admitting or concealing
criminal or at least unsavory conduct. This, however, comprises only a very minor part of classical and New Testament
uses of the terms.
Homologeo, and its prefixed form, exomologeo, traditionally translated confess, profess, promise, and thank, had a much
broader classical domain. The literal meaning, from homos, the same, and lego , to speak or to say, was to say the
same thing, to agree. It was used mathematically of correspondence or coordination, socially of a promise or agreement to
do something, logically or philosophically of admitting ignorance and of granting or conceding a proposition, and of
common consent or consensus in a group discussion.
Some of these aspects appear in New Testament usage. By far the most frequent at least a dozen times refers to
acknowledging one's identification with Jesus (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8, Jn.9:22, Rom.4:11, 10:9, 10:10, 15:9; Ac.24:14,
Phil.2:11, Heb.4:14, 13:15; I Jn.4:2, 4:15), and his reciprocal acknowledgment of those who do so (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8,
Rv.3:5).

The more frequently preached association with sins occurs only five times, two of which involve John the Baptist and
not Jesus (Mt.3:6, Mk.1:5). It is significant that every one of these, including also Ac.19:18, Jas.5:16, and I Jn.1:19, uses
the term hamartia, (failure, shortcoming, error). Paraptoma (deliberate transgression) is never mentioned at all (see W.S.
#7). James, in particular, links confession within the brotherhood to mutual prayer for one another's strength and healing.
And in Ac.19, it is the result, not the condition, of the conversion of the magic practitioners. Even in these few references,
there is nothing to suggest that one is asked, (much less required) to sift repeatedly through a list of no-no's to find items
to confess, or to apologize for some sort of vague, unknown offenses (just in case you missed one!). It is simply an
acknowledgment that one has not perfectly measured up to the Lord's and our own goal.

Other references raise puzzling questions. Why did the traditional translators choose to depart from the usual rendition,
confess, and choose thank in Mt.11:25 and Lk.10:21 the only time they did so? Did they reject the idea of Jesus
simply agreeing with the Father?

Denial, on the other hand, represents three different words.

Antilego, literally to speak against, to dispute or question, to declare opposition, to contradict, concerns factual disputes
(Ac.28:19, 22; Lk.20:7, Jn.19:12), back-talk(Tit.2:9), or overt contradiction (Ac.13:45, Lk.2:34).
Arneomai, and its prefixed (stronger) form, exarneomai, refers to people: to deny, to disown, to utterly reject, or to refuse
any association. They occur in contrast to homologeo in Mt.10:23 and parallel Lk.12:9, and II Tim.2:12,13; and repeatedly
in the scene with Peter before Jesus' crucifixion (Mt.26, Mk.14, Lk.22, Jn.18). This is the charge leveled against the Jewish
leadership (Ac.3:13,14) and against unfaithful former brethren (I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22,23, Jude
4).
Once, arneomai has nothing whatever to do with faithfulness, Lk.8:45, the not me response to Jesus asking who touched
him in the crowd.
One aspect that does not occur in classical usage appears in I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, Rv.2:13 and 3:8, where one's
profession of faithfulness is evaluated (or negated) by his behavior. Likewise, its usefulness in determining the reliability
of both human and spiritual messengers (II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22) goes beyond classical parameters, although the idea of
self- denial is not entirely unique to the Christian message.

The two concepts are frequently used together, by way of contrast, usually either between acknowledging the truth of a
statement of fact and opposing or rejecting it (Ac.23:8, I Jn.2:22, 4:2), or making similar statements about one's
relationships: not very complicated at all.
The very same word that describes Peter's denial of association with Jesus, and the behavior that negates one's profession
of faith (I Tim.3:5, II Pet.2:1, Tit.1:16), is used in Jesus' admonition to self-denial in all three parallels, and Paul's similar
message in Titus 2:12.
But were the traditional translators unaware that John the Baptist was simply acknowledging, and not contradicting, the
reality of his own status (Jn.1:20) under cross-examination?

Homologeo is not always positive: it is used of Judas' promise to the chief priests to betray Jesus (Lk.22:6), of Jesus'
warning to impostors (Mt.7:23), and Herod's promise to Salome (Mt.14:7)!

135
Likewise, arneomai is not always negative. It may be simple honesty, as in (Heb.11:24) Moses' refusing to be called the son
of Pharaoh's daughter, or the temple authorities' recognizing that they could not deny the miraculous healing of the lame
beggar (Ac.4:16). Paul echoes Jesus' own statement (Mt.10:33) when he reminds Timothy (II Tim.2:12) of that warning,
but quickly adds (v.13) that this does not in any way inhibit or deny Jesus' own faithfulness.
The congregations that Jesus commends, in the messages to Pergamon and Philadelphia, are cited for (Rv.2:13) not
denying his (Jesus') faithfulness, even under brutal persecution, and despite their minimal power, (Rv.3:8) having kept my
word, and not denied my name (see W.S.# 66 and 24).

Used in a manner consistent with the New Testament, both of these terms/concepts are an integral part of faithful living.
Like most abused words, they need simply to be restored to their intended understanding.
A good start would be to revise and re-define the practice of confession and restore it to the joyful acknowledgment of
belonging to the Lord Jesus a celebration, rather than a mournful duty looking forward to the day when Every knee
shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!

136
Word Study #69 Reconcile, Reconciliation
Although the English word, reconcile, has varied implications, all the way from what you do with a bank statement to
to render no longer opposed, to bring to acquiescence, to win over to friendliness, to bring into agreement or harmony, to
settle a quarrel, or to make compatible, when applied to religious matters, it becomes a concept for which common
understanding has been skewed by almost exclusive focus on only one of the ten New Testament appearances of its related
words.
Complicated theological treatises have been created, adding intricate and ominous details to Paul's simple statement, in a
subordinate, conditional clause (Rom.5:10), IF, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of
his Son, and totally ignoring the main clause, much rather, now that we have been reconciled, shall we be kept safe
[saved] in his life! Paul himself says nothing whatever about the rationale, the need, or the process of that reconciliation,
although involved and fanciful technical explanations have become a favorite playground for people who enjoy thundering
judgment at others. For Paul, it is subordinate to his encouraging message of safety!

The very basic linguistic principle of looking at the way words are used is especially helpful in a situation like this, where a
root word, allasso, used six times and exclusively translated, in traditional versions, as change, appears with three
different prefixes, all traditionally translated reconcile. These include apo, away from, usually connoting avoidance or
departure, but also derivation or origin; dia, through, thoroughly , and occasionally causation; and kata, down,
concerning, near, about, or direction toward. These prefixed forms are themselves narrowly used: apokatalasso in
Eph.2:16 and Col.1:20,21; diallasso in Mt.5:24, and katallasso in Rom.5:10 (twice), and II Cor.5:18, 19, 20, as well as I
Cor.7:11, where it simply refers to an estranged marital relationship.
Lexically, there is little difference noted in any of the lexicons, except that Bauer restricts apokatallasso to Christian writers,
and diallasso to disputes between individuals.

The very use of the term reconcile does, of course, require the assumption of a former condition of, if not overt enmity, at
least some sort of alienation or substantial disagreement. Hence the need, whether as a condition of the reconciliation or as
its goal, for acknowledging the situation, in order for it to be remedied (see previous post on homologeo, saying the same
thing), is obvious. Once reconciled, however, (almost always an aorist tense), the relationship of the parties involved is
permanently altered.
Keep in mind that the root word, alasso, change, (seen in isolation in Ac.6:14, Rom.1:23, I Cor.15:51, 52; Gal.4:20, and
Heb.1:12), remains integral to the understanding of all of its forms. These are practical words, not merely records in a
ledger. Change is expected.

When Jesus directed his followers to make things right (diallagethi) with an offended brother before making an offering
(Mt.5:25), he expected observable results: a transformed relationship. (This is the only appearance of any of these terms in
the gospel accounts).
Likewise, the context (Eph.2:13-22) of Paul's use of apokatallasso combines the creation of a new relationship with God in
Christ Jesus with the contemporaneous destruction of barriers between people, who are themselves being re-created into
one Body, fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household (v.19). The same theme is prominent in the
Colossian passage (1:19-22): extending, here, not only to formerly alienated people, but to things on earth and things in the
heavens!
The same situation is described in II Cor.5:17-21, where katallasso appears three times, and the noun form katallage twice.
All creation has been made new! Not only for us (v.18), but for the world (v.19) is the message of reconciliation
offered (v.20). And it is immediately paired with an assignment (see diakonia in W.S. #40): God has made us responsible
for the message of reconciliation! A clear mandate for show and tell!

There is one unrelated word that is once translated make reconciliation (Heb.2:17), and once be merciful (Lk.18:13):
hilaskomai, used only these two times in the entire New Testament. Homer used it of sacrifices in efforts to appease the
gods of Olympus, in his stories of their often capricious manipulation of human affairs. Plato occasionally applied it to
interpersonal conflict. Significantly, even the two New Testament references also seem to assume that more pagan notion of
negotiating a temporary truce with God, in contrast with all the previous passages, where the initiative comes from God's
side, and results in a total, permanent transformation. The Hebrews reference, even though it describes the Lord Jesus, does
so in the context of a parallel with the duties of the Jewish high priest under the old system (which, the writer asserts
repeatedly, did not work!) The publican [tax collector] in Jesus' parable quoted by Luke exhibits a similar attitude, of a
desire to appease a God whose displeasure he feared. He is commended only because of being compared with the Pharisee,

137
whose self-congratulatory attitude was even worse!

Notable in all of these words is the preponderance of aorist tenses, which signify either punctiliar past or decisive, singular
action. The reconciliation offered in the New Testament is an accomplished fact. Only once is the verb in the present
(progressive or continuous) tense: when speaking of what God was in the process of doing, in the person of Christ (II
Cor.5:19). Reconciliation is a done deal, although its message (II Cor.5) still needs to be delivered and received.

We would do well to consider whether this accomplished fact is evident in the message we proclaim, and in the fellowships
that claim to represent its Author.
Reconciliation is one of the primary components in the building (Eph.2:20-22) of God's permanent dwelling place, for
which his people are deliberately being built together
Any purported reconciliation with God that does not include the reconciliation of former human enemies into one
Body, one brotherhood, one Kingdom, is not only patently false, but diabolically fraudulent!

May we build and be built in faithfulness!

138
Word Study #70 Peace
Of all the aphorisms glibly quoted about what Peace is....., I have never heard the one that would best describe its
contribution to the New Testament message: Peace is practical! A faithful person does not stop at wishing someone
peace: he is obligated to DO something about it (Jas.2:16)!
I have chosen to focus this study upon the primary word, eirene, and not the six other less frequently used words also
sometimes translated peace, which refer only to silence or quietness (considered in #139).
Although a plurality of the appearances of eirene in the New Testament are found in simple greetings or leave-takings (33
times), almost as many (27) occur in direct admonitions for the life, corporately or individually, of the faithful brotherhood!

This is a marked departure from the classical uses of the word, in which the cessation of armed conflict by a treaty
predominates. In the New Testament, this aspect is seen overtly only in Lk.14:22, Ac.12:20, Ac.24:2, and perhaps
Rom.3:17 and Rv.6:4, although John the Baptist's admonition to soldiers to do violence to no one (Lk.3:14) certainly
would carry that idea (and have interesting and salutary effects on military activity!), as would Paul's admonition in Romans
12:18 to live peaceably with all people.

Lexicographers uniformly note the LXX usage, and its correspondence to the Hebrew greeting, shalom, wishing safety,
security, health, and general well-being to the person or group addressed. This usage, of course, is seen in most of the
epistles, often in closing as well as greetings, and also in Jesus' dismissal of people he had healed, and in his instructions to
the disciples whom he was sending away to preach. It is interesting that in this latter setting, the greeting of peace is to be
offered quite indiscriminately (Lk.10:5,6). Jesus reassures them that it just won't take if the person or household is not
capable of receiving it. This seems to assume some degree of power in the greeting perhaps a prayer? Or at least a
blessing. In any case, the disciple is not to pass such a judgment prematurely. Later, however, John (II Jn.10) excludes
from those instructions people who are clearly known to have deliberately distorted the message.

Seven times peace is listed as an attribute of God (Rom.15:33, 16:20; I Cor.14:33, II Cor.13:11, Phil.4:9, I Thes.5:23,
Heb.13:20), and three times as a primary component of the Gospel (Rom.10:15, Eph.6:15, Ac.10:36). (see also W.S.#67)
Interestingly, though, the much-touted phrase, peace with God, appears only once (Rom.5:1)! This is yet another instance
where common evangelical focus has been skewed by a generally accepted doctrine that totally lacks New Testament
derivation. The vast majority of New Testament references relate to the peace that the Lord Jesus has created and
required!-- among his people!

Peace / security / well-being was widely anticipated as a characteristic of the Messianic Kingdom (Lk.1:79, 2:14,
19:38,42), and this is probably at least one reason for Jesus' teaching on the subject in his final instructions to the disciples
(Jn.14:27 and 16:33), bequeathing to his followers not just the peace of the common greeting, but my peace, which
holds firm even under the anticipated persecution, rather than enabling them to escape it.
Although Luke mentions in Ac.9:31 that the young church enjoyed a period of peace (traditional translators used rest, but
the word is eirene) from persecution after Saul's conversion, most of the peace is experienced in the midst of or in spite of
the hostility of opponents. It is often focused within the group, between brethren of diverse backgrounds (Mk.9:50, II
Cor.3:11, Eph.2:14-17, 4:3; Col.1:20, 3:15; I Thes.5:13, II Tim.2:22, I Pet.3:11, Jas.3:17).
Peace is represented as the goal toward which the faithful are encouraged to strive (Jn.16:33, Rom.14:19, I Cor.7:15, II
Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14), both among themselves and toward those outside (Rom.12:18, Heb.12:14, Jas.3:8, Ac.10:36).
It is also intended to become characteristic of the personality of a faithful person, being listed among the fruit of the Spirit
(Gal.5:22), and described as a result of fixing one's attention upon the affairs of the Spirit (Rom.8:6). The peace offered to
the faithful is paired with doing good (Rom.2:10), joy (Rom.15:13), the opposite of confusion (I Cor.14:33), love (II
Cor.13:11 and Eph.6:23), the unity of the Spirit (Eph.4:3), God's act of setting his people apart in holiness (I
Thes.5:23),wisdom and justice (Jas.3:17,18), the protection of their / our hearts and minds (Phil.4:7), and the very presence
of God (Phil.4:9)! The result of reconciliation (see last post), in repeated instances, is described as making, or having
made peace among formerly alienated people and groups.

Peace is represented as the creation and the gift of the Lord Jesus, and attributed (also only once) to the giving of his life
(Col.1:20). The Biblical writers go into much less explanatory detail regarding that provision than do most of their
subsequent interpreters! Here, it is stated as a simple fact.
The gift also requires concerted effort on the part of recipients! Note the instructions that follow the promise of peace in
Phil.4:8-9, where the focus is upon deliberately paying attention to things that contribute to peace, and upon continual

139
practice!
Actualization of the gift of peace is not automatic! It requires concerted efforts on behalf of justice (Jas.3:18). Yes, I know
the traditional translators said righteousness but please see W.S.#3. It is the same word, only separated by the
doctrines of folks who prefer to privatize their faith, keeping it sanitized and theoretical, and to avoid the often messy
responsibility of faithfulness (W.S.#1).
The more accurate understanding is available from II Cor.13:11, ...be [live] in peace, and the God of love and peace will be
with you all. The present active imperative, eireneuete, indicates constant effort in that regard. It would be equally valid
to render it keep making peace.
Peace is not a reward to be passively received, or a blissful state in which to luxuriate with no troubles, but an
assignment to be faithfully fulfilled!

Paul states rather bluntly in Rom.2:10 that God's offer of peace, whether to Jew or Gentile, is to all who are doing good,
and urges his readers (Rom.14:19) to earnestly pursue matters of peace, and the things that build each other up. He
elaborates on this theme in Eph.2:14-22. Be careful not to carve this beautiful description of the peace that Jesus has
created into tiny, isolated phrases to prove some obscure point of theology. Allow the whole picture to soak into your
consciousness, and to transform your perception of the brotherhood that the Lord has created for his Kingdom! It is
glorious!

Yes, that sort of a combination of diverse people is bound to make some sparks. But the remedy lies precisely in the peace
that Jesus has created! Peace is not only the atmosphere in which the Kingdom survives and thrives, but the umpire or
referee (Col.3:15) whose skill can sort out any resulting friction! That the rules of the game (Col.3:12-17) often need
mediation should come as no surprise. It is evidence of life and growth not failure!

The intensity of effort required in this regard is evident in the frequency with which we are urged to pursue it (Rom.14:19,
II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14, I Pet.3:11). Dioko is the same word that is used of persecution! Are we that relentless in pursuit of
the characteristics of the Kingdom?
Only the God of peace (I Thes.5:23) can make us fully his but (v.24) he is perfectly capable of doing the job. We are
simply expected to co-operate!

(May) God's peace, which greatly exceeds all understanding, protect (our) hearts and (our) minds, in Christ Jesus
(Phil.4:7)!
May the Lord of Peace himself give you all peace through everything [every situation], in every way! (II Thes.3:16.)

140
Word Study #71 Pleasure / Pleasing
The impetus for this study was one of my favorites among contemporary Scripture-based songs of praise, Thou Art
Worthy! It quotes the traditional translation of Rv.4:11, Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and
were created! I love the concept: all of creation including us! existing solely for the pleasure of its Creator!
I was startled to discover, however, that the translation itself is incorrect. The quoted passage uses none of the words
usually rendered pleasure, but is the only place in the New Testament where thelema, will, is translated that way. A
correct translation would substitute the means or agency understanding of the preposition dia (through) for the
commonly assumed purpose construction. Either of these can be valid on occasion. Please see similar uses of dia in
Heb.2:10, and the translation notes associated there. The result would read, through your will they exist, and were
created.
I still like the song and its message, though!

Even though it doesn't occur where I expected / wanted it, there are nevertheless helpful things to be gained from the study
of the word pleasure. It includes three basic families of words: one, eudokeo, which is usually positive in its
associations; one, aresko, often negative, but occasionally positive, and entirely positive in its prefixed form, euaresteo /
euarestos; and one uniformly negative, hedone; along with two more, spatalao and truphao, which are used only once each,
both describing wanton, irresponsible indulgence in luxury (I Tim.5:6 and Jas.5:5).

Eudokeo usually expresses the perspective of the person or group that is pleased, content, happy, or in agreement with a
situation or decision. It combines the prefix eu- (well, good, or favorable) with the common verb dokeo (to think, to seem,
to have an opinion). It is used in quoting the voice of God's approval of the Lord Jesus on the occasions of his baptism
(Mt.3:17, Mk.1:11, Lk.3:22) and his transfiguration (Mt.17:5 and II Pet.1:17), although it is also used (with a negative) of
God's disapproval of those who complained in the desert (I Cor.10:5) and of the offerings under the old covenant
(Heb.10:6,8,38).
Paul uses it to express his own desire to share with the Thessalonian group not only the Christian message, but his own life
as well (I Thes.2:8), and his wish to depart and be with Christ (II Cor.5:8), as well as II Cor.12:10, where he speaks of
taking pleasure even in his own weakness, because of the opportunity thus provided to experience the power of God. He
applies the same term to the Macedonian and Asian congregations' decision to send famine relief to Judea (Rom.15:26,27),
and also to God's pleasure (I Cor.1:21) to redeem the faithful by his message, (Gal.1:5)to reveal the Lord Jesus to Paul, and
(Col.1:19) that all of God's own completeness should have its permanent residence in the person of Jesus!
Jesus himself spoke of the Father's pleasure (Lk.12:32) in giving his own Kingdom to his worried but faithful followers!
The noun form, eudokia, equates God's pleasure with his will (Eph.1:5,9; Phil.2:13, II Thes.1:11). When the prefix sun-
(with) is added, the resulting word means simple consent or agreement, whether for good (I Cor.7:12,13) or ill (Lk.11:48,
Ac.8:1, 22:20, Rom.1:32).

Aresko, on the other hand, is much more mixed, frequently expressing the perspective of the one trying to please another. It
ranges from Salome pleasing Herod (Mt.14:6, Mk.6:22) and Herod's brutality pleasing the Jews (Ac.12:3) to
admonitions toward pleasing the Lord (I Cor.7:33, I Thes.2:4,4:1; Col.1:10, II Tim.2:4, I Jn.3:22, Jn.8:29). Pleasing
people can be either an effort to bring them to faithfulness (Rom.15:2, I Cor.10:33) or evidence of unfaithfulness
(Rom.15:1, 15:3; Gal.1:10, I Thes.2:4, 2:15).
A similar, slightly related word, arkeo, refers more to contentment arising from sufficiency or satisfaction, especially in the
passive voice, which occurs in half of its New Testament uses (Lk.3:14, I Tim.6:8, Heb.13:5, III Jn.10). This is not nearly
as strong a word as aresko, but carries a similar idea.

There is nothing ambiguous, however, about hedone (English cognate hedonism). Luke (8:14) lists it along with cares
and riches as a deterrent to faithful living; Paul warns Titus (3:3) against serving lusts [unwholesome longings] and
pleasures. Peter describes (II Pet.2:13) markedly unholy behavior. James (4:1,3) pinpoints it as a basic cause of warfare
and strife.

Perhaps the greatest clarity may be seen in yet another word, only used twice in the New Testament: apolausis pleasure,
enjoyment, advantage, benefit. (English cognate, applause!) In I Tim.6:17, Paul reminds his young assistant to focus not
on uncertain riches (see next post), but on God, who richly provides us with everything for our benefit [enjoyment]!
In contrast, the writer to the Hebrews (11:25) commends Moses for refusing to temporarily have [enjoy] the benefit of
copping out (traditionally, to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.) Both the gracious provision of God and the

141
careless denial of his ways are represented by the same word. The difference is one's focus.

Careful attention to focus can enable discernment whether pleasure / enjoyment is a gift to be gratefully received or a trap
to be avoided. Ascetic renunciation of all things deemed pleasurable is as much a denial of the graciousness of God
as is mindless pursuit of pleasure. The pertinent question is, whose pleasure?
Any loving father (heavenly or earthly!) takes pleasure in seeing his children enjoy his good gifts. And that pleasure is
multiplied when the gift is received with wide-eyed wonder and a delighted hug of thanks, and treasured precisely because
it came from the father ! Such pleasure on either side need cause no apprehension regarding faithfulness.
The pleasure which is severely critiqued by James (4:1,3; 5:5) , Paul (I Tim.5:6, Tit.3:3), and Peter (II Pet.2:13), as well as
the Lord Jesus himself (Lk.8:14), is self-centered, self-gratifying, and certainly to be avoided.
But, as always, the remedy is prescribed just as clearly as the problem: seeking the good pleasure (eudokia) of the will of
the loving Father (Eph.1:5, 1:9; II Thes.1:11), who has himself provided the motivation and the ability to do so (Phil.2:13) :
For God is the one who is working among you all, (to enable you) both to desire and to work for his pleasure!
As brother Paul put it, (Rom.5:11), Not only that (speaking of our reconciliation), but we are also thoroughly enjoying
God, because of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Thanks be to God!

142
Word Study #72 Riches
OK, let's begin by getting the primary cop-out out of the way.
If you ate a meal today, slept under adequate shelter last night, and reasonably expect to do so tomorrow, compared to much
of the world, you are rich. So am I: despite having made a fine art out of pinching pennies, I nevertheless have a few to
pinch. I expect most of you do , too: so let's admit it, and focus on the more Biblical question of the faithful use of
whatever resources we have.

Plousios (adj. and adv.), plouteo (v.), ploutizo (v.), and ploutos (n.), speak, classically, of any kind of abundance, plenty, or
wealth, while chrema possessions or money less frequently used (only 7 x), is more narrowly defined.
Under the old covenant, or in classical times, abundant wealth or possessions were viewed as evidence of the blessing of
God (or the gods). Jesus, however, had quite a different interpretation (Lk.6:24, Mt.19:23-24, Mk.10:25, Lk.14:2), and in
his parables, the rich protagonists (Lk.12:16, 16:1, 16:19-22) are not exactly heroes.
But notice, please, that Jesus does not criticize their wealth, per se, but rather their attitude toward it, and their use of their
resources. Zacchaeus (Lk.19:2), Joseph of Arimathea (Mt.27:57), and the women who provided for the needs of the disciple
band out of their own possessions (Lk.8:2,3) are in quite a different category from the young man who turned sadly away
from discipleship (Mt.19:23,24; Mk.10:25, Lk.18:23,25). He had a problem of priorities, not simply prosperity.
The warning recorded in Mk.10:24 concerns, according to some manuscripts, them that trust in riches. While spotty
textual evidence allows the option that this could have been a later editorial comment, Jesus' acceptance of the individuals
mentioned above indicates that it may have been his intention. The parables in Lk.12:13-21 and 16:19-31, likewise, do not
condemn the wealth, but rather its selfish hoarding and use.

None of the words translated riches appear at all in the Acts account, but chrema does, four times: in Ac.4:37, contrasting
Barnabas' generosity with the behavior of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11); Ac.8:18 and 20, recounting Peter's encounter with
Simon the magician; and Ac.24:26 regarding Felix hoping to receive a bribe from Paul.

An entirely different flavor, which appears to have no classical precedent other than the simple concept of abundance, is
present in the epistles. Paul speaks of the riches of the grace of God (Eph.1:7, Tit.3:6), and his generosity (II Cor.8:2),
of God's mercy (Eph.2:4), his glory (Rom.9:23, Eph.3:16, Phil.4:19), and goodness (Rom.2:4). Peter applied the term
riches to the privilege of entrance into the Kingdom (II Pet.1:1).
The faithful are admonished to appreciate (Eph.1:18) the riches of their inheritance in the Lord Jesus, and to become (I
Tim.6:18) rich in good deeds, having been granted (Col.2:2) the riches of full assurance of understanding, and
(Col.1:27) the riches of the glory of the mystery (W.S. #57) of their inclusion in the Kingdom. The term seems to have
been completely redefined in the context of the Kingdom.
Paul warned Timothy not to trust in uncertain riches (I Tim.6:17), and (6:9) pointed out the perils of wanting to be rich,
in harmony with Jesus' own teaching about the deceitfulness of riches (Mt.13:22, Mk.14:19) in inhibiting commitment to
the Kingdom.
James mounted quite a tirade (Jas.5:1-6) against the selfish use of worldly wealth, even assigning responsibility to it for
conflicts and wars (4:1-3) (which sounds sadly contemporary!), and especially condemning it as a criterion for status in a
brotherhood (2:1-7).
Nevertheless, Paul also exults over the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God (Rom.11:33), and James
notes (2:5) that God has granted to those who are poor from the world's perspective to be rich in faithfulness, and heirs of
the Kingdom! Paul holds up Jesus' example of leaving his well-deserved richcondition (II Cor.8:9) in order to elevate
his people to his own riches in order to enable (8:2) their generosity! The often (mis)quoted comment in Phil.4:19, if
seen in its proper context a thank-you note for a generous contribution from a very poor congregation far from the
blank check touted by prosperity cults, is simply reassurance that such generosity will continue to be enabled!

Jesus sorted it out quite plainly in the message to the Laodicean church (Rev.3:17-19) which, sadly, has many modern
clones, who have allowed apparent material prosperity to obscure their spiritual destitution.
Their riches have not exempted the wealthy from the devastation described in Rv.6:15 and 13:16; they find themselves in
the same sinking boat as everyone else.
But perhaps the most contemporarily relevant message is found in the picture of economic collapse in Rev.18.
Notice that the people who are distraught at the fall of Babylon are (v.3) those who got rich from the extravagance of her
luxury! It is those accustomed to that luxury (vv.9-13) and its purveyors who mourn their losses. The cargo listed
includes no necessities except perhaps grain, although at least some ordinary varieties would surely have been locally

143
produced. It is the fruit of your selfish passions . all the delicacies and splendid things (v.14) that are gone.

And where are the people of God the citizens of his Kingdom in all this? For these, the word is (v.20) CELEBRATE
over her, heaven [sky], and God's people [saints], and envoys [apostles] and spokesmen [prophets]! God has passed
judgment on her for you all! [or, God has exacted judgment on her judgment of you all!]
Those committed to Kingdom values have already learned to function quite apart from the permission of the adherents
and the rulers of the commerce of the world (13:15-17), and consequently are untouched by its demise. The mutual care
described among the community of the faithful throughout the New Testament simply continues as usual. Financial
collapse does not cause a true Kingdom brotherhood to moan about its budget! They simply ramp up their already-
functioning mutual aid!

With which group do you identify?

144
Word Study #73 Honor

Honor, a frequent request on the search lists, represents two different families of words. However, we will deal here
with only one: timao / time, because the other, doxazo /doxa, is much more frequently (and probably more correctly)
translated glory (144 x for the noun and 54 x for the verb, against only rendered honor 6 x for the noun and 3 for the
verb). That will require a separate study.

Time, the noun, classically referred primarily to honor or esteem accorded to the gods or to one's superiors, or bestowed by
them as a reward, to the dignity of civic office, an honor, or a compliment. It was also used of the appraised value of an
object or property, or its price; and of either a penalty or compensation awarded in the settlement of a lawsuit.
Timao, the verb, is parallel: to honor, esteem or value, to estimate value or worth, to pay due regard to a person, or legally
to assess a reward or penalty.

Eight times in the New Testament, time simply designates a price: the money involved in Judas' betrayal of Jesus
(Mt.27:6,9); the price of property (Ac.4:34 and 5:2,3); the value of books burned in Ephesus (Ac.19:19); and the price
with which Jesus ransomed his people (I Cor.6:20, 7:23).
Closely related, the idea of value of household utensils (Rom.9:21, I Tim.2:20,21), or of usefulness (Col.2:23) is also fairly
straightforward.

After that, however, when referring to people, the situation becomes somewhat more complicated. Even the instances
where people are instructed simply to render due respect to others (Rom.13:7 government officials, I Tim.6:1-- slaves to
masters, I Pet.3:7 husbands to wives, or I Thess.4:4 one's own inclinations), and where Jesus himself laments the lack of
respect accorded to a prophet by his own countrymen (Jn.4:44, Mt.13:57, Mk.6:4), when it comes to mutual relations within
the Christian brotherhood, Paul emphasizes (Rom.12:10) an extra measure of devotion to be expressed there, and (I
Cor.12:23,24) special care to be taken of those upon whom the rest of the world would place less value. Peter contrasts the
value placed upon Jesus himself (I Pet.2:7) by his opponents (the builders) with the true value seen by the faithful. In
2:17, he expresses an interesting (and appropriate) attitude toward the world's hierarchies: Honor (timesate- aorist
imperative: a decision?) everyone, love (agapate- present imperative) the brotherhood, respect (phobeisate present
imperative) God, honor (timate- present imperative) the king! The king is to be honored just like everyone else not
scorned because the brethren know the emptiness of hierarchy but God, and the brotherhood, are in a special, more
elevated category!

There are times, however, when honor itself clearly includes some practical evidence of respect. Jesus' scolding of the
Pharisees (Mt.15:4-8, Mk.7:6-13) for creating a loophole for failure to support one's parents, Luke's account of the
provisions supplied to Paul's group by the inhabitants of Melita (Ac.28:10), and Paul's instructions to Timothy (I Tim.5:3)
regarding the care of widows, are plain enough to raise the possibility that a similar idea is present in I Tim.5:17 with regard
to faithful elders (remember, however, W.S. #42, that these are old people, not officials!).

Paul speaks approvingly (Rom.2:7) of people seeking glory and honor and immortality by the perseverance born of good
deeds, and assures them that the result will be praise and honor and peace (v.10). The writer to the Hebrews, however,
offers a reminder that even under the old system, the honor of priesthood was not intended to be a result of personal
ambition, but only the appointment of God (Heb.5:4), and also contrasts Jesus' faithfulness with that of Moses, as the
difference between the honor due to a builder and the admiration of the building he has produced (3:13). Nevertheless,
Peter (I Pet.1:7) encourages the expectation on the part of the faithful of commendation and glory and honor when Jesus
comes.

It remains to consider the places where honor becomes an aspect of the praises offered to God himself. Jesus dealt with
this matter very specifically. His own testimony should lay to rest the arguments of those who try to demote the Lord
Jesus to a lower status than whatever nebulous entity it is that they call God. He states unequivocally (Jn.5:23) The
one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him, and (8:49) plainly equates the honor ascribed to
each as one and the same.

Usually, in scenes of praise, honor is combined with other words, including glory and honor (I Tim.1:17, Heb.2:7,9; II

145
Pet.1:17, Rev.4:9,11; 5:12, 21:24, 26), or honor and power (I Tim.6:16, Rv.4:11, 7:12, 19:1). The creatures around the
throne give glory and honor and thanks to the One who is alive forever (Rv.4:9). There are even longer lists, as in the
exuberance of Rv.5:12: The slaughtered Lamb is worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and
honor, and glory, and blessing!

Forget the technicalities of defining the terms!

Far better to simply follow the example of the living creatures, the elders, and every created thing in heaven and on earth
and beneath the earth and on the sea (5:13), ascribing to the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb Blessing and honor
and glory and power falling down before him in worship!
Amen!

146
Word Study #74 Glory
Glory is NOT a railroad terminal! It is not even a place. Centuries of songs (perpetuating the Christian mythology that
equates it with similarly fanciful ideas of heaven) to the contrary, doxa refers to reputation, splendor, magnificence,
brightness, or exaltation but never to geography. The only verse that could even be twisted to support such a notion is I
Tim.3:16, where the traditional translations refer to Jesus having been received up into glory, is a glaring example of the
incorrect translation of the preposition en (in), which describes a state or condition, and requires a dative object, as if it were
eis (into), which does imply destination or purpose, and requires an accusative object. There is not even a variant reading to
that effect in any of the manuscript evidence. Glory, in that case, describes the triumphant circumstances of Jesus'
ascension, not its destination.

Although glory was ascribed to potentates of various kinds the kingdoms of this world (Mt.4:8, Lk.4:6, Rv.21, 24,
26), kings themselves (Mt.6:29, Lk.12:27, Ac.12:23), and even to some people's delight in ungodly behavior (Phil.3:19, I
Thes.2:6, I Pet.1:24), as well as to assorted gods and heroes of antiquity, the vast majority of New Testament references are
to the praise, honor, and worship due to God.
In the LXX, doxa had been used for the bright light that indicated God's presence,either in the pillar of fire in the desert or
in the holy precincts of the tabernacle or temple. This idea is also seen in Paul's description of Moses communicating
with God (II Cor.3:7-10), which serves as a prelude to his explanation that even greater glory is available, in the Lord
Jesus (4:6), to all of his people (3:18)!

Throughout the gospel accounts, the terms the glory of God, the glory of the Father, the glory of the Son, appear in
various combinations. This is because, as Jesus pointed out very explicitly in Jn.12:28, 13:31-32, 14:13, and evidenced
repeatedly in his prayer (Jn.17), they are actually one and the same. There is no such thing as acknowledging the glory
of one without the other (Jn.5:23, 8:50-54).
Paul was granted a similar vision and understanding when he wrote (II Cor.4:6) of the illumination which comes from the
recognition of God's glory in the face of Jesus Christ!
And in the final consummation, the description of the city where the Lord's people continually enjoy his presence
(Rv.21:23), God's glory illuminates it, and the Lamb is its lamp! A lamp is required in order to make light accessible and
useful!

Throughout his earthly ministry, people saw, or acknowledged, or marveled at the glory of God as they observed Jesus'
multitude of healings (Mt.9:8, 15:31; Mk.12:12, Lk.5:25-26, 13:13, 17:15, 17:18, 18:43), his teaching (Lk.4:15), and his
other miracles (Jn.2:11, 11:4,40).
Jesus himself usually spoke of glory in connection with his return (Mt.16:27-28, 24:30, 25;31; Mk.8:38, 10:27, 13:26;
Lk.9:26, 21:27,24:26), although John records a greater emphasis on the recognition of his true identity (1:14, 7:18, 8:50, and
the prayer in Jn.17) than do the synoptic writers. Jesus scolded those (Jn.5:41-44) who sought glory from one another,
rather than from God. Traditional versions use honor here, but the word is doxa.

It is also important to note the manner in which Jesus advocates that his followers contribute to the glory of God. It is
NOT by making a flamboyant announcement before a public performance of some sort, or a preface to a big brag thinly
disguised as a testimony, that this is all for the glory of God! Jesus rather directed his people to live in such a way that
people may see your good deeds [works (W.S.#39), behavior], and glorify your Father (Mt.5:16), noting that the Father
would be glorified by their bearing much fruit (W.S.#64) and becoming not recruiting his disciples (W.S.#51)! He
then set the ultimate example in his own prayer (Jn.17:4), I have glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you
gave me to do!

The surpassing glory of the Lord Jesus himself, whom both Paul (I Cor.2:8) and James (Jas.2:1) call the Lord of Glory,
runs through the epistles like a refrain. It is contrasted with human failings (Rom.3:7) he has none! and is the vehicle
for praise to God (Rom.16:27). Jesus is himself the image (W.S. #15) of God's glory (I Cor.1:7), and the goal of the
transformation he accomplishes in his people (II Cor.3:18). Incredibly, his people are described as a part of the riches of
the glory of his inheritance (Eph.1:18), and the venue of his own glory, for all the world to see, is his church (Eph.3:21)!
The confession (W.S. #68) of his lordship (Phil.2:11) produces glory to the Father, and it is according to his riches
(W.S.#72) in glory by Christ Jesus (Phil.4:19) that God intends to supply all we need in order to serve him. It is to his
eternal glory (I Pet.5:10) that we are called, and his presence among us (Col.1:27) constitutes our hope [expectation] of
glory!

147
Although the primary use of glory in the epistles is simply an expression of praise and honor to God, or a declaration of
his greatness, goodness, and graciousness, it is also considered (Rom.6:4) the operative force in Jesus' resurrection, the
motive (Rom.15:7) for Christian hospitality, and the result of the faithfulness of the brethren who had sent famine relief to
Judea (II Cor.8:19). Indeed, it is intended to be the goal (I Cor.10:31) of everything we do! The admonition to glorify God
in your body (I Cor.6:20) is interesting in this regard: the noun body is singular, but the possessive is plural. This opens
the possibility that the reference could be either one's physical body, or the collective Body of Christ. In either case, it is an
awesome privilege and responsibility to be actually expected to contribute to the limitless glory of God! It is the very
purpose for our existence (Eph.1:12)!

Jesus had prayed (Jn.17:24) that his disciples might behold his glory, and there are at least five instances where people are
reported to have been privileged to see the glory of God : Stephen (Ac.7:55) just before his death; Peter (II Pet.1:17) and
his companions, when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain; John, (1:14)in the introduction to his gospel, of his
acquaintance with Jesus; and in Jesus' gently rebuke to Martha at her brother's tomb (Jn11:40).

Several places in the epistles, that amazing prospect is expanded even to the point of sharing that glory! And it's not just
pie in the sky bye and bye. In Rom.8:30 and I Cor.2:7, we learn that God planned and provided for all this before the
beginning! Most of the references are present tense: Rom.2:7,10 this gracious provision is to be constantly sought by
faithful living, a concept that is repeated in II Thes.2:14, II Pet.1:3, I Pet.5:10. By focusing our attention on the Lord Jesus,
we are continually being transformed (II Cor.3:18) into his likeness and glory, and even the hassles to which we are still
subjected become tools toward that goal (II Cor.4:17). God is presently calling his own into his kingdom and glory (I
Thes. 2:12), and that calling becomes a present source of hope for its future fulfillment (Rom.5:2, Col.3:4, I Pet.4:13-14),
as does the gracious presence of Jesus among us (Col.1:27, Eph.1:18). Paul considers his own trials to contribute as well (II
Tim.2:10).

For the faithful, as always, its all about Jesus! The writer to the Hebrews (2:10) refers to him as the one because of whom
and through whom everything exists, leading many sons into glory that is, his own personal possession, as he is
crowned with glory and honor (2:9). The only appropriate response is to join with the elder, John, (Rev.1:6), in his
acclaim:
He has made us a kingdom, priests to God his father! Glory and power to him forever!
Amen!

148
Word Study #75 Light
Of the six words translated light in the New Testament, two, lampas and luchnos, apply almost exclusively to a physical
lamp or torch, something portable, and hand-kindled. The only exceptions are Mt.6:22 and its parallel Lk.11:34, where
Jesus calls the eye the light/lamp of the body, Jn.5:35 where he refers to John the Baptist as a light, and Rv.21:23 where
the Lamb is the light of the holy city. In each of these references, the more common term, phos, is used in the next breath,
so it is reasonable to assume that the writers simply felt it necessary to differentiate a source for the light they had in
mind.
Three of the words are used only twice each: pheggos, (classically, daylight, moonlight, splendor, luster, or delight) as
ambient light (Lk.11:33), or moonlight (Mt.24:49 and parallel Mk.13:24); phoster (classically, that which gives light, stars,
radiance, or a window) in Phil.2:15 you shine as lights, and Rv.21:11 [light] radiance like a precious stone; and
photismos, (classically, any kind of illumination, frequently metaphorical) in II Cor.4:6 the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God and 4:4, the light of the gospel.
In contrast, the primary word, phos, or in earlier Greek, phaos, used 70 times, could have referred classically to any of
these: L/S lists light of sun or moon, light of a torch, lamp or fire; the light of the eyes; a window; light as a metaphor for
deliverance, happiness, or victory; or illumination of the mind. Bauer adds the bearers of enlightenment, whether
material, human, or supernatural.
The New Testament appearances of phos can be sorted into several categories and you may wish to vary these boundaries.
(Feel free!) Some clearly refer to ordinary illumination daylight, firelight, lamplight (Mt.10:27, Mk.14:54, Lk.8:16, 12:3,
22:56; Jn.11:9, Ac.16:29, II Cor.4:6). Others are specifically contrasted with darkness, which may be understood simply
as a natural state, or in a metaphorical sense of ignorance or evil (Mt.4:16, 6:23; Lk.11:35, Jn.1:5, 3:19-20, 8:12, 11:9;
Ac.26:18, Rom.2:19, II Cor.4:6, 6:14,11:14; Eph.5:8, I Jn.1:5).
As was the case in the LXX, visible light occasionally represents the presence of God or one of his messengers (Mt.17:2,
Ac.9:3, 12:7, 22:6, 9, 11; Ac.26:13, I Tim.6:16, Rv.21:24, 22:25).
The faithful are termed children of light (in contrast to this generation or to darkness) in Lk.16:8, Jn.12:36, Eph.5:8, I
Thes.5:5. They even become a source of light (Mt.5:14,16; Lk.2:32, Ac.13:47, 26:23) to those in ignorance.

Light or one's attitude toward illumination is a clear revealer of people's allegiance, motives, and activity. John
observed that even when light is available, some folks prefer darkness because their deeds were evil (Jn.3:19). Quite
bluntly, he explains (3:20) Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his
deeds be exposed. (21) But the one who is acting in the truth (W.S. #26), comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be
revealed, that they were performed in [for] God! Repeatedly, behavior that is hidden or kept secret is assumed to be evil
(Eph.5:12-13, I Jn.2:9) that is the only reason for hiding!. Darkness has tried (Jn.1:5) to defeat the light and failed
utterly!

Children of light (see above) are to have nothing to do with secrecy and darkness. If only people (especially any
designated as leaders) in churches would recognize that all secrecy is consistently connected with darkness, not the
light of the Lord, how very much pain and damage could be averted!
John reminds his readers (I Jn.2:8) The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining! Because, as he had
written so eloquently in the introduction to his gospel, Light came into the world(1:4-9) in the person of the Lord Jesus!
Later, (8:12, 9:5, 12:35, 36, 46) he quotes statements of Jesus himself, including two of his early I AM statements
(W.S.#17), to corroborate that identification. Although James (1:17) speaks of the Father of Lights, in the rest of the New
Testament, it's all about Jesus!

Followers of Jesus are urged to walk in the light (I Jn. 1:7), trust in the light (Jn.12:36) while it is available (also I Jn.
1:7), to let your light shine (Mt.5:16) in order that observers may give glory (W.S.#74) to God, to speak in the light
(Mt.10:27).
Once you all were darkness, but now (you are) light, in the Lord! Behave as children of light! The harvest of the light (is)
in all goodness and justice and truth. Find out what is pleasing to the Lord, and don't participate with the unfruitful deeds of
darkness: rather, rebuke them. The things they do secretly are shameful even to talk about, but everything is being exposed
[revealed] by the light. Everything revealed IS light! (Eph.5:8-14), is probably one of the best descriptions we have of the
transformation of life that results from a genuine, wholehearted commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus. There are no
exceptions to the complete openness and honesty, and the consequent total avoidance of secrecy or deception, that is
expected of Kingdom citizens. He that loves [keeps loving] his brother, stays in the light (I Jn.2:10).

149
For children of light, to put it bluntly, anything that needs to be said or done in darkness / secrecy probably ought
never to be said or done at all!

Peter offered an appropriate reminder (I Pet.2:9), You all are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a set-apart [holy]
nation, a people especially reserved for [committed to] the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one
who called you out of darkness, into his amazing light!, and Paul (Col.1:12) adds that the Lord not only called us, but
qualified us for a share of the inheritance of his people in the light! that glorious light of the glory of God in the face
of Jesus Christ (II Cor.4:6), which no darkness can defeat (Jn.1:5)!

May we continually encourage and help one another to walk as children of light

150
Word Study #76 Sacrament
I have usually tried to provide studies of words that have appeared in the search lists on my web site. However, this is
one, although it has been requested several times, to which I am unable to respond by examining its New Testament usage.
The reason is quite simple: the word sacrament does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. Neither does the
concept that it represents.

For a discussion of this subject, and a treatment of a few examples of symbolic observances that have sometimes been
incorrectly labeled with the term sacrament, please refer to Part III, Symbols of the Kingdom, and especially chapter 9,
Symbol or Sacrament?, in Citizens of the Kingdom.
That's the best I can do, folks. It's pretty hard to study a word that's not there.

I'm afraid this is an instance that would probably fall into the category of what Jesus termed the traditions of the elders
and he did not have a very high opinion of those, their accompanying pomp and ceremony, or the way they had so often
become tools for the oppression of ordinary folks by a dominant hierarchy (see Mt.15:2-6, and Mk.7:3-13). Paul also
warned of the emptiness of traditions (Gal.1:14 and Col.2:8). Only in II Thess.2:15 and 3:6 did he use tradition
(paradosis anything handed down, transmitted, or bequeathed) in a positive light, and in both of those, he was referring
to the teaching that he himself had given them. This was also the case in I Cor.11:2, where the same word was
(traditionally) rendered ordinance. (Word Study #48 explores the varied uses of the concept of ordain.)

The closest thing to a concept of sacrament in the New Testament, if it is understood as persons benefiting from the
presence of God among them, is Jesus' promise to be present in any gathered group of his followers (Mt.18:20,
Jn.14:23,25), especially when they are actively following his instructions (Mt.28:20). No ceremony or hierarchy is needed,
intended, or even helpful. He had clearly stated, earlier, that no person was to be elevated above the rest (Mt.23:8) You
have one Master, and you are all brethren. The elevation of any individual is an act of direct disobedience to his
instructions!

If we as his people have any sacred task, it is that each one mediate the gracious presence of the Lord Jesus to one
another, as we/they function together as the Body of Christ, serving each other, and the world around us, in his Name
(W.S. #24).

May we do so in faithfulness!

151
Word Study #77-- Rest
For far too long, in Christian circles, the word rest has evoked one of two images, neither of which has any New
Testament derivation. It is presented either as a do-nothing accessory to the artificial faith-works discussion (W.S. #1
and #39), or as an image of lolling around on a cloud enjoying (?!?) one's wings, halo, and harp! Of the 15 different Greek
words that have been translated rest at some point, not a single one carries that imagery.

Two of those words, loipos and epiloipos, refer simply to a remainder or remnant, to leftovers, or to other individuals not
previously mentioned the rest of the people... These are not relevant to the concept at hand.
Seven words appear only once or twice with this translation: eirene (Ac.9:31), usually translated peace (W.S.#70);
hesuchazo (Lk.23:56), to be calm, quiet, or tranquil; kataskenao (Ac.2:26), to settle down in a dwelling; episkenao (II
Cor.12:9),to have one's dwelling; koimesis (Jn.11:13), sleeping; epanapauomai (Lk.10:6, Rom.2:17), to rest in or
upon; and sabbatismos (Heb.4:9), the rest required on the Sabbath. The first three of these occur in other contexts, with
other translations, which are more attuned to their definitions. The others appear nowhere else.

Katapausis, and its verb form, katapauomai, occurring primarily in the Hebrews 3 and 4 discussion comparing God's rest
after finishing his work of creation, the entry of the Jews into Canaan, and the greater rest secured by Jesus, was
classically defined as putting down or deposing from power, a place of calm or rest, to cause to cease or to hinder (as in
Ac.14:18, where Paul and Barnabas had trouble restraining the people of Lystra from sacrificing to them as gods), or to rest
while one is well-off. It appears also in Stephen's sermon (Ac.7:49), highlighting God's rejection of the idea that he could
be contained in or confined to a house.
Anesis, classically applied to the loosening of the strings of an instrument, the relaxation of stress (the opposite of thlipsis,
hassles, tribulations), recreation or relaxation (the opposite of spoude, strenuous effort), or the solution to a problem, is
used only five times in the New Testament: three times translated rest (II Cor.2:13 and 7:5, II Thes.1:7), once as the
liberty granted to Paul by the centurion guarding him (Ac.24:23), and once (II Cor.8:13) reassuring his readers that they
were not being asked to support the laziness of others, but to serve a genuine need by the relief offering.

The most common word, anapausis (n.), with its verb forms, anapauo (active) and anapauomai middle and passive), was
classically the most versatile. It included rest from wandering (Homer), recreation (Plato), cadence (in poetry or
rhetoric), to bring to a close (Hermogenes), to halt or rest troops, or to regain strength (Xenophon), to relieve someone,
or to allow land to lie fallow.
In the New Testament, Jesus used it of a cast-out evil spirit seeking rest (Mt.12:43, Lk.11:24). Rev.14:11 and 4:8 describe
the thoroughly delightful scenes around the throne where no one rests, day or night, from the praises of God / the Lamb!
After their missionary journey, Jesus invites his disciples to rest a while (Mk.6:31), and gently rebukes them Go ahead
and take your rest in the garden (Mt.26:45, Mk.14:41). Paul frequently uses it of refreshment (I Cor.16:18, II
Cor.7:13, Philemon 7,20), and Peter (I Pet.4:14) speaks of the spirit of God's glory resting on his people who are under
duress. The faithful under the altar (Rev.6:11), who impatiently ask, in effect, How long, Lord, till you clean up this
mess??! (Don't we all?!!) are told to rest a little longer, and the Spirit (Rev.14:13) speaks a blessing on those who die in
the Lord, that they can rest from their labors, for their deeds [works] follow after them.

But maybe that doesn't mean, as is frequently assumed, that there is no more work to be done! I have deliberately left for
last, Jesus' gracious words recorded in Mt.11:28-30, to which this study owes its impetus. It began in a conversation with
my brother-in-law (Thanks, Bob!) after we had sat through a less-than-inspiring, feel-good type of sermon. One of the
fragments of poorly-used verses that had been quoted was Mt.11:28, I will give you rest. Following along in my Greek
text, as I usually do, I had been startled to see that rest, in that quote is not a noun, but a future active verb! And there is
no word in that passage that one could properly translate give, nor is there any dative case that could designate a recipient
of a gift. The plural you is in the accusative case, a direct object. Literally, although it sounds awkward to us, he is
saying, I will rest you all.
It had always seemed odd to me that this phrase, oft-quoted as an invitation, was in a paragraph about the yoke with
which Jesus offers us his training. The connection had seemed fuzzy, until our conversation turned to our fascination with
watching neighbors, who farmed with horses, in their field work. This would have been familiar to the rural folks who first
listened to Jesus' message. The meaning is only lost on our mechanized generation!
A young animal is trained for work by being yoked together with a stronger, more experienced one. The teaching
member of the pair needs to be gentle and patient, and to lead without abusing the student. The harness assembly has to
be carefully fitted to the size and strength of each animal, in order to enable them to do very strenuous work without injury.

152
And after a row or two of plowing, the farmer would always rest his team in a shady spot, both to recover from the heavy
work, and to re-charge for the completion of the task!
The Lord Jesus represents himself as both the lead animal in the yoke (v.29), carefully and patiently teaching his disciple,
bearing that part of the load which the new recruit cannot, but gradually enabling him to assume his rightful share; and as
the master, who considerately rests his team, to enable their endurance, and the successful completion of their work.
When the yoke is perfectly fitted, the load, or the task, seems much lighter!

Might that image also inform the blessing in Rev.14? Met' auton is as likely to intend with them as it is after them.
Frankly, I think I find the image of a refreshing rest under the Tree of Life, as a prelude to even more delightful work in
tandem with the Lord of Glory, a far more attractive prospect than sitting around on a cloud!
How about you?

153
Word Study #78 Meek is not Weak
Meek is another word which, despite Jesus' placing a high value upon the trait it describes (Mt.5:5, 11:29), is often used
today rather scornfully or disparagingly, even by people who claim to be his followers. In modern parlance, meek has
come to denote a subservient, doormat-type of individual, easily kicked-around and abused, lacking either the ability or the
backbone to protest or retaliate. Such a characterization could hardly be farther from the actual meaning of praos / praus
(adj.) and praotes / prautes (n.). (The different spellings are artifacts of different Greek dialects, the former in each pair
being Attic and the latter Ionic in origin.)

The words imply an attitude of courtesy (Bauer), gentleness (L/S), or a mild and considerate disposition but not as a result
of weakness! Meekness can only exist where great strength is under strict control! It describes a domesticated animal
that has been carefully trained for its master's purposes, or even the taming of wild beasts!
Such an understanding meshes well with the Mt.11:28-30 passage discussed in W.S.#77. The meekness with which Jesus
describes himself is not the unhappy lot of the subjugated, but the deliberate choice of the almighty God, for the benefit and
the education of his people!

None of these words are ever translated in any other way in the traditional versions. However, the words with which they
are sometimes paired can cast considerable light upon their intended meaning. In the passage noted above, for example,
Jesus characterizes himself as meek and lowly, using the word tapeinos, often rendered humble (W.S.#14), also a
deliberate choice on his part. Paul also juxtaposes those two words in Eph.4:2 and Col.3:12. Similarly, he combines
meekness with gentleness epieikeia classically defined as reasonableness, equity, fairness, virtue, tolerance, or
capability in II Cor.10:1 and Tit.3:2, and with both longsuffering (makrothumia) Col.3:12 and patience
(hupomone) I Tim.6:11. Please refer to W.S. #63 for the distinction between these words. Prautes appears between
faithfulness and self-control on the list of the fruits (produce W.S.#64) of the Spirit in Gal.5:22-23, a very
appropriate association.

Peter holds up the ideal of a meek and quiet spirit (I Pet.3:4), using hesuchia, more commonly translated calm, tranquil,
cautious, or of gentle character. The adjectival form, hesuchios, is also the word chosen to describe the tranquil
characteristic of the life desired by the beleaguered faithful in I Tim.2:2.

Perhaps the most vivid example of meekness as a deliberate choice rather than a helpless default is to be found in Paul's
admonition to people and/or groups involved in administering discipline to erring members (I Cor.4:21, Gal.6:1, II
Tim.2:25). In each case, meekness is to characterize an attempt to correct or restore a person to faithfulness and to the
brotherhood. Please note, in no instance is an error to be ignored, overlooked, or minimized. There is no hint of an
apologetic I might be mistaken, but... The offense is to be confronted plainly, but not arrogantly. The goal is not
exclusion, but restoration.

In a similar vein, James urges his readers to receive the word with meekness (1:21), and to demonstrate their faithfulness
(3:13) by their behavior with meekness both of which could as accurately be rendered without arrogance. This is
also the attitude which Peter advocates (I Pet.3:15) in explaining one's hope (W.S.#36) to challengers -- meta prautetos
kai phobou, with gentleness and respect (see treatment of phobos in W.S.#16). This is not a plan of attack, but a calm
and respectful explanation.

The ultimate paradigm, of course, is the Lord Jesus himself (Mt.21:5), who chose a lowly beast of burden, rather than a
regal steed, for his arrival in Jerusalem. That choice was not only a deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah's prophecy
(Zech.9:9), but also an identification with his own statement (Mt.5:5) of who will inherit the earth! But do not forget that
immediately after this event, he proceeded to clear the cheating profiteers out of the temple! This was NOT a violation of
his meekness. His power was carefully controlled, and not destructive.

For too long, those who presume to teach have acted as if all the gospel references to Jesus knowing what lay ahead for
him, referred only to his impending death. Such an assumption is seriously in error. He was indeed well aware of that
prospect. But please note that in nearly every place that Jesus mentioned his death, he also foretold his resurrection, and
often his subsequent glorification! (W.S.#34 and 35)!
Re-read Jesus' prayer in John17, and notice his supreme confidence in the inheritance into which he was moving! Absolute
security in that expectation is what enabled the meekness with which he lived, taught, and departed.

154
His is the ultimate definition of meekness the gentleness of incredible power, under strict control, deliberately rejecting
both personal aggrandizement and self-defense. Such an attitude can only be inspired by total confidence, in one's identity,
his destiny, and to whom he belongs.
Blessed indeed, are the meek!

155
 Word Study #79 Inheritance / Covenant Part I, the vocabulary
In order correctly to understand the concept of inheritance kleronomeo (v.), kleronomia (n.), and kleronomos (heirs) in
the New Testament, it is necessary to bear in mind that we are here confronted with three different cultures Hebrew,
Greek, and Roman none of which correspond directly to our own, or to each other. An exhaustive treatment of these is
obviously not in the purview of this study: for more detail, I found the Jewish Encyclopedia (online), and Gibbon's classic
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire most helpful. I will recount here only a few salient points.

In all three, as in many other ancient cultures, an heir acquired not only the property, but also the obligations and debts of
the deceased. Accordingly, it was not uncommon for a prospective heir to renounce or abandon his heritage. In Roman law,
there was even a provision for a debt-ridden father to arrange for his son to be legally adopted by another, in which case the
debt died with the father.
Adopted sons shared equal status with natural ones. Since inheritance was patrilineal, adoption involved only the husband.
A wife could have her own property, but it was treated entirely separately.
Only a Roman citizen could execute or receive bequest from a will. If a slave was to be a beneficiary, his freedom had to be
granted first, in the legal document.

In the ancient Hebrew tradition, the obligation of an heir was similar, but the (even more ancient) principle of primogeniture
was also observed, although this convention could be abrogated by the father, as it was in the case of Ishmael and Isaac,
Jacob and Esau, or Ephraim and Manasseh. The firstborn (prototokos) was entitled to a double portionof the estate: it was
divided into one part more than the total number of sons, and the firstborn received two such portions but also double the
responsibility, not only for the debt or other obligations of the father, but also for the welfare and support of the rest of the
family. In the absence of a firstborn son, a servant might be considered the heir (see Gen.15:2,3).
It is significant to note that the Hebrew emphasis on the firstborn was not unique. In fact, it represented a very humane
departure from surrounding cultures, some of which demanded a fertility rite of burning one's firstborn son in sacrifice to
the gods! (Lv.18:21, 20:3,4).

The Greek culture, here as in other areas, was considerably more lenient. All the sons of a family were considered equal,
and entitled to equal portions. Daughters, too, could be included at the discretion of their brothers. In the other groups,
daughters received a dowry, but not an inheritance, except with special dispensation as in Num.27. Please also see the
treatment of sons in the essay, The Task of a Translator.

The English readers' understanding of the situation is further complicated by the occasional alternative use of the word
diatheke. Liddell/Scott defined this word, as does the writer to the Hebrews, as a legal will, which takes effect upon the
death of the testator (Heb.9:15-20). The concept became confused by the consistent use of the term in the LXX to refer to
the several covenants that God had instituted with his people. L/S lists only a single classical use of diatheke as a
covenant, by the dramatist Aristophanes, but notes that it is frequent in LXX. One is made to wonder, then: did the LXX
translators in the third century BC deliberately depart from the primary meaning of the word? Or did their subsequent
interpreters misunderstand? It is true that the concept of blood covenant is not unique to cultures with an Old Testament
heritage; but neither is it the primary translation of diatheke. A legal will has no necessary connection with the killing
of either an animal or a person. It does, however, have no force until the death of the testator is duly certified (Heb.9:16).
Perhaps the traditional translators recognized that problem when they used covenant 20 x for diatheke, and testament 19
x. But using different translations for the same word compounds, rather than solving, misunderstanding. English usage, of
course, still refers to one's last will and testament. And perhaps we would do well to recognize that what we call the Old
Testament or the New Testament (as in Jesus' words in the Last Suppernarratives), represents God's repeated attempts
to communicate his legacy to his intended heirs, and not just another in a long series of failed covenants. That would cast
an interesting light on Stephen's sermon (Ac.7), and the entire letter to the Hebrews, as both detail the many situations in
which the original heirs had chosen to opt out of the responsibility portion of their legacy, while clinging tenaciously to the
property / privilege!

Another word resembling, but not directly connected to the kleronomeo / kleronomia group (which etymologically include
nomos law, or legal), is kleros, classically translated as a part or lot, or anything which is assigned by lot, and later
morphed into a piece of land, farm, or estate; a legacy. The LXX refers to Canaan having been divided by lot; and to
various decisions made or officials appointed by the casting or drawing of lots, a procedure that is not fully explained
(except by the fertile imagination of commentators!). Because of the connection to the inheritance of land, it was

156
occasionally used of one's heritage in other contexts (I Pet.5:3, Ac.1:17, 25); and because of the choice connection, it
became a reference to gambling (the guards casting lots for Jesus' robe (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) or to
the selection of Matthias (Ac.1:17-26), as well as a simple share or portion as in Ac.26:18, Col.1:12, Ac.8:21.

With this background, then, in the next post, we will move on to consider the unique New Testament usages of these
different aspects of inheritance. The vocabulary treated here can help us to distinguish whether a reference is to the
inheritance of a firstborn (prototokos), to lineal, birthright inheritance (kleronomia), to inheritance established by a duly
certified will (diatheke), or simply to one's share (kleros) of some commodity or partnership. It is critical to remember that,
in any case, inheritance involves responsibility, as well as privilege or possession, and that both acceptance and abrogation
of one's inheritance have serious consequences.

157
Word Study #80 Inheritance Part II, New Testament references
As we consider the different aspects of inheritance, you may want to refer to the previous post, which treats the
etymological and cultural considerations in more detail.

The word least frequently used in New Testament writings is prototokos, firstborn, which appears only 9 x. Except for
Heb.11:28, where the writer recounts the Passover experience in Egypt, the word is exclusively applied to the Lord Jesus
himself. It is used twice in the infancy narratives (Mt.1:25, Lk.2:7), relating physically to Mary, but all the rest are clear
statements of Jesus' primacy. Paul acknowledges him as the firstborn among many brothers (Rom.8:29), the one to whom
we are all destined to be conformed; the firstborn of all creation (Col.1:15), the one who created and sustains all the rest;
and the firstborn from the dead (Col.1:18), by his glorious resurrection demonstrating his position to be of the absolute
highest rank. A similar thought accompanies the reference in Heb.1:6 to his introduction to the world by the Father. The
joyful consummation is likewise celebrated in Heb.12:23 and Rev.1:5. Remember (and give thanks!) that the Firstborn,
besides being the deserving recipient of all glory, power and praise, has accepted responsibility for the welfare of all the rest
of the family!

Only a little more frequent is the term kleros, translated 8 x as lot (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) in the scene
at the cross, Ac.1:21 regarding Matthias ( and also 3x in 1:17 and 1:25, where part is used, as it is in Ac.8:21 of Peter's
rebuke to the conniving Simon). Only in I Pet.5:3 is it translated heritage, where the church is called God's heritage.

Diatheke, as noted in the previous post, presents a problem, in being translated half the time as covenant and half as
testament, which Heb.9 explains, is a reference to a legal will. Inheritance by will differs from familial inheritance in that
blood relationship is not required, although (see previous posting) under Roman law, citizenship was required. As citizens
of his Kingdom, and members of his family, of course, Jesus' people qualify on both counts!
Many of the passages where diatheke appears, clearly reference the historic covenants (Lk.1:72, Ac.3:25, 7:8; Rom.9:4,
11:27; Gal.4:24, Eph.2:12, II Cor.3:14, Heb.8:9, 9:4, 9:15; Rev.11:19.)
Four refer to the prescribed legal technicalities required in any covenant or will (Gal.3:15,17; Heb.9:16,17.)
Most significantly, however, the letter to the Hebrews details two elaborations upon Jesus' announcement (Mt.26:28,
Mk.14:24, Lk.22:20), which Paul quoted in I Cor.11:25, of a new covenant / testament / will, explaining the inadequacy
and failure of the old (Heb.8:9, 10; 9:15) also seen in II Cor.3:14 and describing Jesus' establishing of a new
(Heb.9:15) and better (Heb.7:22, 8:6) one, not like the old (Heb.8:9). Identifying Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient
prophecies, stating that God had always intended to remedy the weakness and failure of the former covenants (Heb.8 and
9), the writer details their failings. Unfortunately, many interpreters have used distorted fragments of this passage to
identify the death of Jesus with the ancient ritual sacrifices which are here declared to be an exercise in futility
completely ignoring the fact that it had already been established (Heb.2:14,15) that the real purpose and effect of that event,
because he emerged triumphant on the other side of the grave, was to destroy death itself! The later references (Heb.10:15-
17, 12:24; 13:20) emphasize that triumph, and (10:29) the glorious accomplishment of setting aside the faithful as God's
own possession. We are strictly warned not to depreciate this accomplishment!

More dominant than all of these other words combined are kleronomeo (v),to inherit, kleronomia (n), inheritance, and
kleronomos , heir. Four times in the synoptics, in parable (Mt.21:38, Mk.12:7, Lk.20:14) and personal encounter
(Lk.12:13), the term applies strictly to legal, temporal inheritance, and five times (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13,14; Gal.4:30, Heb.11:8)
to God's promise to Abraham. In Gal.4:1, Paul refers to the legal requirement of majority (age) for inheritance. A formal
declaration by the father was necessary to establish his son as an heir, when he attained legal age. Might this be the
prototype of the voice from heaven recorded at Jesus' baptism and again in the transfiguration accounts?
Jesus' own inheritance, already discussed above as the Firstborn, is also noted in Eph.1:18 as consisting of his people!
and Heb.1:2 and 1:4, as his being heir of everything and his consequent supremacy over all created beings.

All the rest (at least 30 references) refer to the heritage of the Lord's faithful people!
Of special interest is the invitation to those among the nations / Gentiles (Mt.25:34), W.S.#62, to inherit the kingdom
prepared for you all from the foundation of the world! This is an unmistakable reaffirmation that the intention was always
the inclusion of all who would choose faithfulness.
The Kingdom (W.S.#19,20,21) is identified with inheritance in I Cor.15:50, Gal.5:21, Eph.5:5, Jas.2:5, and the promise
in Gal.3:29, Heb.6:12, 6:17, 9:15. The promise is also related in Mt.19:29, and in discussions with several of Jesus'
questioners (Mk.10:17, Lk.8:18,10:25) to eternal life (W.S.#28).

158
 Remember: one does not receive an inheritance after HE dies, but as explained in Heb.9:15-16, after the death of the
person who wrote the will!
Thus Paul writes to the folks at Ephesus in the aorist tense the inheritance has already been conferred (Eph.1:11), and to
the Romans (8:!7) and Galatians (4:7) in the present tense we are heirs!

To be sure, there is more to come Col.3:24 looks forward to the eventual receipt of the reward of the inheritance and I
Pet.1:4 to the bestowal of the inheritance that cannot decay, or be polluted, or fade away, already secured by the Lord
Jesus, but presently kept in heaven.
Paul (Eph.1:14) considers the Holy Spirit's presence and power among us as merely a down-payment or guarantee of all
that awaits the final consummation, when , with Jesus himself, those who remain faithful (Rev.21:7) shall inherit all
things, and (Heb.1:14) also finally inherit salvation! (W.S.#5)

Dear people, NOW we are God's children (tekna): and it hasn't been revealed yet what we will be! But we do know that
when he [it] is revealed, we will be like him for we shall see him as he is! (I Jn.3:2)
Thanks be to God!

159
Word Study #81 The Temple
In much the same way as an understanding of the inheritance of God's people (W.S.#79, 80) has been altered throughout
their long history, their perception of references to the temple of God has varied as well. A bit of history can do a lot to
dispel some rather serious misunderstandings, and careful attention to the New Testament uses of the two words translated
temple adds interesting and challenging light to the subject.

First, the history. We are told (II Sam.7) that God was not at all impressed when David got the bright idea to build him a
house, reminding him that he (God) had the whole universe at his disposal for a dwelling. Even when Solomon was
granted a building permit thought to have been around 957 BC he recognized that it could not contain God in the
sense that a temple was interpreted among surrounding cultures. (More of this below.) That impressive edifice was
eventually destroyed in the Babylonian conquest, during and after which prophetic messages of re-building were
recorded. Subsequent to those prophecies, we have records of at least three such restorations: by Ezra and Nehemiah after
the exile (538 BC); a re-dedication under the Maccabees in 164 BC after the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167
BC; and the temple complex built under Herod the Great in 20 BC, which was in use during Jesus' earthly ministry. So
much for claims of yet unfulfilled prophecy regarding a physical reconstruction of the temple! Been there, done that.

More significant to the followers of Jesus, however, are the vocabulary considerations. There are two words translated
temple in the New Testament. Hieron, occurring primarily in the synoptic gospels and Acts, uniformly refers to a
physical location including all the associated courtyards and buildings, where people gathered, begged, walked, taught,
argued, and even set up commercial enterprises. The same word was also used of pagan temples (in the NT, the temple of
Artemis of Ephesus). Before Homer, hieron was also used to refer to offerings and sacrifices (L/S), or any sacred objects,
rites, or omens. After Homer, used with the definite article, the meaning narrowed to any holy place. The Jewish temple
continued to be one of many gathering places for the faithful, after Pentecost, in addition to their meetings in homes
(Ac.2:46, 5:42).

Naos, on the other hand, referred to the inner precincts of a pagan shrine, where an idol lived. In a Jewish context, it was
the inner court, the holy of holies, where they, too, supposed the presence of God to dwell. It was this orientation that Paul
was challenging in Ac.7:48 and 17:24, as he tried to make his hearers aware of the transcendence of the Lord he proclaimed.
Understanding the word to refer to that portion where only the chosen priest was allowed to enter (Lk.1:9) emphasizes the
audacity of the distraught Judas Iscariot, when he despairingly hurled the silver he had been paid for his treachery into the
naos (Mt.27:5) the sacred inner sanctum!

It was the naos that was separated from the more public parts of the temple area (hieron) by the thick curtain / veil which
was torn in pieces at the time of Jesus' death. The implications of this event are HUGE! The division between God and
man between sacred and secular is forever removed! Jesus has opened the way, once and for all! (Heb.10:20).
Please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a fuller discussion of this event.

A hint of something even more monumental occurs in Jesus' statement (Jn.2:18-21) to his critics, after the temple
cleansing incident. John notes (v.21) that Jesus was really talking about the temple of his body!
This is the concept that Paul picks up, in I Cor.3:16-17, 6:19, and II Cor.6:16. In each case, it is naos (in the singular) that
he chose to use; and in each case, the you, whether as a subject or a possessive, is plural, while body and temple are
uniformly singular.
In the I Cor.3 passage, Paul has been describing the task of building by all participants on the foundation which is
the Lord Jesus himself. He then demands, Don't you all know that you (plural) are God's temple (singular)? , and
employs the plural you twice more in the same thought. Only the warning to be careful not to mess it up reverts to the
singular. One person can indeed do that! but functioning as the Body, or the naos dwelling of the Spirit of God
requires group cooperation! The preposition en usually indicates in when its object is singular, but among when the
object is plural.

The discussion in I Cor.6:15-20 is not quite as clear-cut: somata is plural in v.15, plainly referencing the physical body as
parts of Christ's, which Paul then undertakes to explain. But in v.19, he reverts to the singular body and temple, with
the plural subject and possessive. Likewise, in II Cor.6:16, Paul asserts that WE are the temple (sg.) of the living God!
Only together can we become the Body of Christ, or the Temple of God / the Holy Spirit!
These two phrases are essentially synonymous, according to Jesus! (cf. Jn.2:21)

160
It has usually been assumed that II Thes.2:4 referred to an event similar to Antiochus' statue of Zeus (2nd.c. BC) or
Augustus' image of himself (contemporary to the writing?) in a physical temple but the passages cited above open the
additional possibility that this temple, too, could be the church any or every church that submits to, or is co-opted by
state control?

Temple references in the Revelation, a highly symbolic narrative (necessary in an era of intense persecution), are mixed
perhaps on purpose. The faithful are called pillars (support structure) in the temple of God (Rv.3:12), where they serve
him day and night (7:15). Messengers come and go from the temple (chapters 11,14,15), as do voices (ch.16).
But there is no ambiguity in Rv.21:22, where John describes the consummate City of God: I didn't see a temple in it; for
the Lord God, the all-powerful, and the Lamb, are its temple!
Finally, fully united, the faithful and their Lord the awe-struck apostle runs out of words to describe the glory of the scene.

We can only echo his parting prayer:

Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!

161
Word Study #82 Dwell / Dwelling
Since both Paul and John have pointedly explained that the temple/dwelling of God is no longer if indeed it ever was
(see previous post) in a house made with hands, but in the gathered Body of his people, it is helpful to explore the
concept of dwelling itself. This is neither a simple as it sounds a place to live nor as complicated as the inventors of
doctrine would try to make it, with all their rhetoric about indwelling (a word which does not occur anywhere, even in
traditional translations of the New Testament), abiding (which does W.S. #58), and other contrived theological
intricacies with which they summarily include or, more frequently, exclude those with whose vocabulary and diagrams
they agree or differ.

The concept of dwelling appears in New Testament writings in three families of words: meno, translated that way only
15x out of 120 occurrences; skenoo, 5x; and oikeo,9x: the latter being made more specific and sorted out by the addition of
prefixes, as in egkatoikeo (1x), enoikeo (5x), perioikeo (1x), sunoikeo (1x), and most frequently katoikeo (48x). The vast
majority of the uses of most of these words refer simply to geographical location, where people live or stay.

Enoikeo, however, to dwell or inhabit, to be at home in, has God (II Cor.6:16), the Spirit (Rom.8:11, II Tim.1:14),
the Word of Christ (Col.3:16), or faithfulness (II Tim.1:5) as its subject. This is probably where the indwelling idea
comes from but please note, the reference is not private, but corporate, except in the final example. The elaborate
images constructed from those few references completely fail to take into account that in four of the five, the object of en
is plural: humin (you all), hemin (us), or autois (them). When the object of the preposition en is plural, among is a better
translation than in (as, inside of): implying the corporate Body of Christ, not lonely individuals. The only singular
reference is to the faithfulness of Timothy's grandma.

A similar situation exists for katoikeo, to settle or colonize, to inhabit, to take up residence, the most frequent of the
words, where it is not referring simply to location. Speaking of the Lord Jesus, in Col.1:19 and 2:9, in whom dwells all
the completeness of God, the object of the preposition is singular, in him, as is the subject in II Pet.3:13 where
righteousness / justice is said to dwell in the new heaven and new earth. Since both the object and its possessive
modifier are plural in Eph.3:17, (your hearts), that passage may be read either individually or collectively, but the James
4:5 reference to the Spirit that dwells en hemin, is more likely to intend among us.

Oikeo, without prefix, also speaks primarily of habitation. Paul's lament in Rom.7:17,18 of his personal struggle to obey, is
cast in the first person singular. One should note that this is not the accusatory diatribe that is so frequently hurled at
prospective converts, but the testimony of Paul's own difficulties. Neither is there any indication that Paul or anyone
else expected it to be normative. Instructions to faithful disciples in a non-believing marital relationship are likewise
singular (I Cor.7:12,13). But reference to the Spirit of God Rom.8:9,11 and I Cor.7:12,13 (twice) revert to the plural, en
humin, among you. The verbs are plural as well, although Rom.8:9 also contains a singular component, a warning to
any who might ignore or disparage the Spirit's activity.

As is frequently the case, John uses different vocabulary and has different emphases, from those of the other writers. It is
not clear unless they are simply trying to support an already-established doctrine why traditional translators rendered
meno , usually translated remain, continue, stay, abide as dwell in Jn.6:56, 14:10, 14:17; and even in 1:38 and 39,
where the disciples of John the Baptist are clearly asking about Jesus' current residence. Staywould be more appropriate,
since he was not at home at the time. The same is true of Luke's only two uses of meno, in Ac.28:16,30, describing Paul's
situation in Rome.
Likewise, in John's letters, whether the object of the preposition en is singular (I Jn.3:17,24; 4:15, 16) or plural (I
Jn.4:12,13; II Jn.2), one of those more common translations would make more grammatical sense. Notice that elsewhere, in
the same letter, meno appears 14x, and is translated 11x abide , 2x continue, and 1x remain. Please refer to W.S.#58
for a fuller discussion of meno.
In any case, meno does not imply the settled, permanent residence that often accompanies katoikeo. Geographical
references are temporary; those involving the presence of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are contingent on the response of a
person or group. Note the conditional constructions.

Even more unique is John's use of yet another word, skenoo, literally, to pitch a tent, or make an encampment. This is the
habitation of an army on the move! And look where it appears in John's writing! In Jn.1:14, he is describing The Word
made flesh [human] and dwelling among us! An interesting light on Jesus' campaign to establish his Kingdom!

162
The same word appears again only in the Revelation! In Rv.7:15, John speaks of the huge crowd of the faithful in joyful
worship around the throne, and marvels, The one seated on the throne will pitch his tent with them!
In Rv.12:12, he calls those who are camping out in heaven to exuberant celebration, even as they are included in the scorn
of the beast who opposes God's name and his tent.
And finally (21:3), upon the arrival of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of the Lamb, God's tent is with his people! He will
camp with them, and they will be his people, the God himself will be with them, their God!
Wait a minute! Isn't it all over by then? Most of us thought that by that time, the pilgrim people could finally settle down
in cozy glory! But no we are still camping!
Where are we headed? We are not told. It's not about geography, folks.
The only permanence is the gracious presence of the Lord among his people plural and mostly present tenses (16x), 5x
aorist (already accomplished), and only three in the future tense.

That's why we need so desperately to meet, share, and interact as his people: it is among those who have accepted the
invitation to citizenship in his Kingdom that we are intended to experience, and enjoy, the presence of the King until he
comes and even after that!

Even so, come, Lord Jesus!

163
Word Study #83 The Promise
The concept of promise is closely related to the previous two postings. This is another idea which has been mightily
embellished in accepted teaching, with little regard for what is actually discussed in the New Testament writings.
It involves one single word-family: epaggelia, epaggelomai, and epaggelma, although the English word promise also
traditionally occurs, only once each, as a variant translation for homologeo and exomologeo, both usually rendered
confess (W.S. #68), both describing nefarious behavior , of Herod (Mt.14:7), and Judas (Lk.22:6), as does the use of
epaggelomai in Mk.14:11 of the Jewish council.

Classically, both the noun and verb forms originally referred merely to an announcement or edict: a command (Polybius) ,
or a legal summons (Aeschylus). Only later did they also include an offer or promise, made of one's own free will, or an
expectation, including the purported curative property of a potion or drug (Galen). Consequently, even though most of the
New Testament uses of the words fall into the category of an offer or a promise, this background should be kept in mind,
and should influence our understanding, at least to the extent of serving as a reminder that a promise is not a casual or
trivial thing, and is not to be taken lightly.

One significant grouping of New Testament references is historical:

--God's promise to Abraham
1. of descendants (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13-20, Heb.6:13, 11:11)
2. of the land in which he wandered (Ac.7:5, Heb.11:8-10)
3. of the extension of his blessing to all future faithful (Gal.3:8, 14-18; Gal.4:23,38; Heb.7)
God's promise to the people of Israel at the time of the Exodus (Ac.7:17)
And more generally, to the fathers [ancestors], in which case no specifics of the promise are mentioned, except that its
fulfillment is connected with Jesus' resurrection (Ac.13:32,33; 26:6-8, Rom.9:5, 15:8).
A similar theme, with different words, is found in the study of Inheritance / Covenant (W.S. #79, 80.)

When we turn to the rest of the New Testament, neither geography nor genealogy figure into any mention of the
promise. On at least two occasions, Romans 9 and Galatians 3, Paul takes great pains to redefine the concept of
children / heirs of the promise as intending all who are faithful to Jesus, and no longer necessarily lineal descendants of
Abraham. This theme also appears, in less detail, in Eph.2:12, and throughout the letter to the Hebrews.

Jesus himself is recorded as having used the word promise only once Lk.42:49 when he instructed his disciples to wait
in Jerusalem for my Father's promise, which he then specifically identified as the coming of the Holy Spirit. Luke quotes
that admonition again in Ac.1:1:4.
In his Pentecost sermon, Peter announces that it has been fulfilled (Ac.2:33), in Jesus' (himself, in this case, not his
followers!) having received the promised Holy Spirit from the Father after his resurrection and exaltation, and having
subsequently poured out upon his faithful followers the powers that had just been demonstrated. Peter ends by declaring
(2:39) that the promise is for you all, and for your children, and for all who are far away, whoever the Lord our God will
call!
The only qualifications are (1) a deliberate change in the orientation of one's life (W.S.#6), and (2)submitting to baptism
(Ch.10 of Citizens of the Kingdom), in the name (W.S.#24) of the Lord Jesus, in order that one's failures [shortcomings] be
removed (W.S. #7). He urges them to be rescued (W.S. #5), not from some dreaded future terror, but (v.40) from this
crooked generation!
In Eph.1:13, Paul expands the understanding of the Holy Spirit of promise, explaining that this is the guarantee, or
seal [stamp of ownership], that we have become God's possession. This is also the idea in II Cor.7:1, which refers back to
6:16-18, where God's calling to become a part of his family is described. Please note that in both of these, the promise is
conditioned upon the response of the ones to whom it is offered!

The promise is related, in Ac.13:23, to Jesus' own resurrection, and it is his faithfulness (the form is a simple possessive
genitive) upon which the faithful may depend (Gal.3:22). Eph.3:6 reiterates the breadth of the reach of the promise: that
Gentiles, too, are to be fellow-heirs, and joint members of the Body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus!
Notice, please, that this is cast in the present tense! I wonder if this has always been a problem for the faithful? Paul
needed to remind Timothy (I Tim.4:8) that the promise is for life now and in the future. Please refer to the discussion of
eternal life in W.S.#28. We do injustice to the text if we confine the promise of life (II Tim.1:1, Jas.1:2, II Pet.1:4, I
Jn.2:25) exclusively to either the present or the future. Both are crucial to proper understanding.

164
When Heb.9:15 speaks of an eternal inheritance, remember (W.S.#79,80) that an inheritance is received during one's
lifetime, after the death, not of the recipient, but of his benefactor!

Heb.6:10-12 describes the stubborn endurance necessary for inheriting the promises, and Heb.8:6 points out that the
covenant / will which Jesus mediates [administers] is established upon better promises that was the earlier, now-obsolete
one (v.7).
It is after having done God's will (an aorist tense), that the promise is received (also aorist a done deal!) . James'
reference to inheriting the kingdom (2:5) is very contemporary: he is talking about behavior in the present-day
brotherhood!

A few of the references (II Pet.3:4,9) refer specifically to Jesus' promised return simply that it is going to happen no
details are given. Most details are derived from the fertile imaginations of commentators! Others, like Ac.26:6, Eph.3:6,
Gal.3:14, 22, 29, while not identifying the content of the promise, connect it solidly to Jesus.

There could be no better summary than Paul's, in II Cor.1:20 For whatever God's promises are, the yes is in him
(Jesus)!, and Peter's Through him we've also been given very great and valuable promises, in order that through these, you
all might become sharers of divine nature!

It's all about Jesus, folks!

Thanks be to God!

165
Word Study #84 The Body
There are few single words that have engendered the controversy and misunderstanding that has long surrounded the term
body, and at the same time suffered an equivalent lack of attention to its major New Testament uses. (Another word in
the same category will follow.)
Out of the 145 occurrences of soma in the New Testament, more than half of which refer either to a lifeless corpse (25 x) or
the physical body of an ordinary person (51 x), the greatest abuse has occurred by the co-opting of a single phrase (which
appears only one single time) into a complicated doctrine which then takes on a life of its own. Three examples will
suffice, though I am sure you can find others.

1. At least as early as medieval times, and even in some of the second and third century church fathers, devout people lit
upon Paul's lament in Romans 7 of a persistent problem in his own experience, as if it were an endorsement of the dualism
that had pervaded eastern mysticism for millennia: the assumption that anything connected with the physical body (or any
other material thing) was inherently evil. Although anyone who takes faithfulness seriously is bound to feel that way on
occasion, such an assumption is directly contrary to the majority testimony of Scripture. Such folks have chosen to
ignore totally Paul's surrounding admonitions (Rom.6:6,12; 8:10) regarding the total transformation of mortal life
accomplished by Jesus' resurrection, and substituted all sorts of ascetic practices, which Paul had already summarily
dismissed as worthless (Col.2:23 and elsewhere) for achieving holiness.

2. I Peter 2:24, a portion of a larger series of quotations from Isaiah and other ancient prophets, is the only New Testament
statement directly connecting Jesus' body with sins (hamartia, failures, not paraptoma deliberate transgressions see
W.S.#7). This brief quote has metastasized into a complex doctrine that posits a vindictive, vengeful God who demands
capital punishment for every conceivable infraction or error which notion Jesus himself actively opposed (see John 8). It
is true that skillful manipulators can cherry-pick verses from Romans to prove almost anything they choose, but simple
integrity demands the inclusion of the whole message. These folks choose to ignore the many more numerous statements
(Heb.2:14-15, Rom.5:10-11, 21; Rom.6:4) that the glorious accomplishment of Jesus' death and resurrection was to
destroy both death and people's fear of its perpetrator!

3. The repeated references to the scene at the Last Supper (Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.22:19, I Cor.10:16-17, and 11:24-29),
regarding which centuries of theologians have demonstrated that the political prevarications of the 1990's regarding what
the meaning of 'is' is, are not at all original!
Jesus frequently used the same sentence structure when explaining his parables (the seed is the Word, the harvest is the
end of the age, etc.) that he used when he told his disciples, This is my Body. In each case, this is functions as a
simple synonym for this represents. Time and energy spent arguing the details of some sort of magical transformation of
simple food, or its supposed supernatural power, would be much better devoted to exploring the task of becoming the Body
of which he spoke!

Historically, soma was a very versatile word. In Homer, it referred exclusively to dead bodies, but later, in the 5th century
BC, it was used by Pindarus as the opposite of spirit, and by Plato as the opposite of shadow (seen in Col.2:17) or
soul, as well as an animal body as opposed to a plant although Paul includes plants in I Cor.15 . Lysias uses it as a
compilation of civil rights, or a civic assembly, and Aristotle of a mathematical proof or a three dimensional figure. In the
third century BC, it was first applied to any person, and later primarily of slaves (as in Rev.18:13).

Considerable attention is devoted to the body in the New Testament. Jesus considered it of greater importance than food
and clothing (Mt.6:25), but less than life (psuche) see W.S.#28. It can be destroyed (Mt.10:28), but also redeemed
(Rom.8:23) and transformed (Phil.3:21). It is to be handled with care and appropriate honor (Rom.6:8, I Cor.6), because the
physical body of the faithful person, like all the rest of his life, is for the Lord (I Cor.6:15), and belongs to him. Indeed, it
is to be offered as a living sacrifice to God (Rom.12:1) and a sacrifice, regardless of its content, must be of spotless
purity. Such an offering could not possibly be acceptable if the body were inherently evil!

Most significant of all, if judged by the proportion of attention accorded to it in the New Testament, is the awe-inspiring
concept of the faithful as comprising the very Body of Christ! For a fuller discussion of that subject, please see chapter 7 of
Citizens of the Kingdom. Paul approaches this wonder from three different angles:
the inclusion of the faithful from all backgrounds in a single unit: one body (Rom.12:4,5; Eph.2:16, 4:4; Col.3:15)
without distinction;

166
 the intended function of each member [part] of that Body for the benefit of the whole (I Cor.12:12-27, Rom.12:4-8);
and the mutual responsibility that such unity entails (Eph.1:23, 4:4, 4:12, 4:16; Col.1:8, 1:24, 2:19), symbolized in the
observance of communion W.S. #8, koinonia (I Cor.10:16-17, 11:24-29).

Do not forget that it is in (en) one Body that we are called. Not into that would require the preposition eis, and imply
the initial invitation to participation. It is we who have already accepted the invitation, and are consequently being
incorporated into that one Body, who are then called [given further instructions W.S.#55] , some of which follow in
vv.16,17. The complicated inventions, theories, and requirements concocted by self-appointed teachers and hierarchies of
every description are completely beside the point.
The only thing that matters is v.19 holding on to the Head [Jesus himself]. It's from him that all the Body, supplied
through its joints and ligaments, and knit together, keeps growing with the growth that comes from God!
The task of every member of that Body (please note that every function listed in Eph.4:11 is plural) is for the purpose of
equipping God's people for the job of building up the Body of Christ! (Eph.4:12). The purpose is that we be no longer
babies, agitated and carried around by every wind of teaching, deceitfully manipulated by people who are deliberately trying
to mislead us, but as we interact truthfully in love, we may grow up in every way into him who is the Head Christ. From
him, the whole Body, joined together [harmonized] and knit together by the proper function of every available ligament,
according to the measured working of each individual part, makes bodily growth for building itself up in love. (Eph.4:14-
16).

Amen, Lord! May it be so!

167
Word Study #85 The Flesh Incarnation
The Word became flesh, and lived [camped out] among us! (Jn.1:14)

How can anyone who is aware of what else John has just said about the Word, and to whom it refers, possibly accept the
NIV translators' obsessive use of sinful nature as their preferred translation of sarx, flesh? No, they do not use it in this
reference, of course: this is a classic case of the blatant manipulation of the message by selective translation, which is not
truly translation at all! How can an academically honest translator justify arbitrarily adjusting the text, to support a
preconceived doctrinal conclusion?

Homer, Hippocrates, and many others classically used sarx as a synonym for soma, body (see previous post). Bauer
succinctly defines it as the material that covers the bones of a human or animal, and L/S adds the pulp of a fruit!
Classical, LXX, and New Testament writers all refer to flesh and blood as evidence of genuine humanity. Jesus himself
used it as proof of the reality of his resurrection (Lk.24:39)! A person's provenance according to the flesh is simply his
genealogy. Bauer, L/S, and Trench all note that the reference is to the physical, natural order of things or people, including
their physical abilities, limitations, or illnesses, as well as the seat of their affections. This sometimes includes procreation
(Jn.1:13), but not with any sinful connotations. It is for these reasons that I have deemed human or human nature to
be more accurate translations of sarx. Bauer also notes that the LXX attaches no negative aspect to sarx, although Epicurus
(3rd.century BC) does, considering it inferior to the pneuma (spirit) or psuche / nous (mind).
The characterization of God-ordained marriage as becoming one flesh is a gracious gift, not an accusation. This is even
more obvious in Paul's admonition that such a relationship be carefully and responsibly guarded, both in I Cor.6:16-17
where body and flesh are used interchangeably, and in Eph.5:29-31.

Genealogical references are common in the New Testament Jn.3:6, Rom.1:3, 4:1, 9:3,5,8; 11:14; I Cor.10:18, Gal.4:23,
Eph.2:11, Phil.3:4, Heb.2:14, 12:9 as are references to simple human experience or frailty Mt.26:41 (where Jesus calls
the flesh weak, not evil!), Lk.3:6, Jn.8:15, Ac.2:31, Rom.6:19, I Cor.1:26, 29; 7:28; II Cor.4:11, 5:16, 7:5, 12:7;
Gal.1:16, 4:13; Phil.1:22, Col.2:1,5; Heb.5:7. None of these carry overtly moral connotations.

There are occasions, of course, where the faithful are warned to be careful where they focus their attention. It is one thing
to be aware of one's human nature, and even to accept or acknowledge its limitations or weaknesses, and quite another to
allow one's thoughts and behavior to be ruled by it.
We are instructed to put off(Col.2:11) and here, the majority text does not include either of the sin words, but uses
both sarx and soma in the genitive case, which is the reason for my rendering the phrase putting away the body's human
nature rather than the traditional rendering, the body of sin. We are also warned against (Col.2:23) the gratifying of the
human nature [flesh] and (Eph.2:3) its passions; but we are also encouraged to see that Jesus' own life be revealed in our
mortal flesh (II Cor.4:11), and to govern the life I now live in the flesh by Jesus' own faithfulness (Gal.2:20)!

It is no secret that flesh and spirit are in competition sometimes severely for our attention and our loyalty (Gal.5:13-
19), but we are not helpless pawns in this game. The one who is cultivating his human nature [flesh], from that human
nature will reap decay; but the one who is cultivating the spirit, will reap eternal life from the Spirit (Gal.6:8). Or, as one
student paraphrased it, you don't plant corn and expect to pick beans!

For a broader perspective on the concept of human nature, both its positive and negative potential, please refer to chapter
3 of Citizens of the Kingdom. The human nature and all was a part of the creation that its holy Creator deliberately
pronounced very good! But, also like the rest of creation, it has not always been put to its intended use. Hence the need
for a new creation (II Cor.5:17), which has been richly provided in the Lord Jesus, who not only embodies it, but enables
his people to do likewise!

The New Testament writers take great pains to establish the true humanity of the Lord Jesus. The confession that Jesus
Christ has come in the flesh (I Jn.4:2,3, and II Jn.7) is held to be the acid test of faithfulness! The writer to the Hebrews
repeatedly asserts that this was absolutely necessary in order for Jesus to accomplish our redemption (Heb.2:14, 5:7, 9:14,
10:20). Peter (I Pet.3:18, 4:1,2) echoes that thought, and Paul (Eph.2:15, Col.1:22) adds that this was the only way the Lord
could unite Jewish and Gentile believers. John's whole prologue (Jn.1:1-18), as well as the first paragraph of his first letter,
targets the amazing, almost too-good-to-be-true reality of what has come to be called the Incarnation a word derived
from the Latin equivalent, carnis, of the Greek sarx, and related to the English carnal, which has suffered the same

168
distortions as flesh. Lexically, there is nothing inherently evil in any of these words, which simply refer to ordinary
natural things or situations. Carnally minded (Rom.8:6), does not mean evil-minded, but simply having one's attention
focused on the wrong part of human life. It is applied to ordinary [unredeemed] people (I Cor.1:3-4), weapons (II Cor.10:4),
commands (Heb.7:16), ceremonies (Heb.9:10), and things (Rom.15:27, I Cor.9:11), as opposed to others that are
transformed by being deliberately focused on the Lord.

It is that very ordinariness that makes Jesus' willing identification with our human condition so overwhelming. Paul
marvels at Jesus' willingness to empty himself of all his divine prerogatives (Phil. 2:6-8) for our benefit, and holds that
attitude up as an example for the faithful (2:5). Hebrews 2:9 and 2:14-18 elaborate on the same theme. Jesus is able to
come to our rescue and serve as our example precisely because he himself has been there, done that (Heb.2:10-16), and
emerged triumphant!

The word became flesh, and lived among us! and continues to do so, as he promised, in his living Body! (W.S.#84)
Thanks be to God!

169
Word Study #86 The World
The world has long been a difficult and ambiguous concept for people and groups seeking to be faithful. We are assured
that God so loved it (Jn.3:16), but warned that we aren't supposed to (I Jn.2:15). Jesus wants the Good news of his
Kingdom preached into all the world (Mk.16:15), but promises to show himself (Jn.14:19-22) only to his disciples, and
specifically not to the world. The dilemma Paul describes in I Cor.5:9-13 is a constant challenge for the people of God, of
whom, although they must continue to interact with the world in which they live, a much higher standard of behavior is
expected. How do we sort this out?

For starters, we need to recognize that the English word, world, represents three vastly different Greek words.
Oikoumene, used only 14x, classically referred to any inhabited region. Later, it was narrowed to the Greek world as
opposed to barbarian (non-Greek) territory, and later still, to the Roman Empire. The reference is primarily political
(Lk.2:1, 4:5), cultural (Ac.17:6, 19:27), or geographical (Ac.11:28, 24:5, Rom.10:18, Rev.3:10,6:14), although it is also
noted that the whole world is deceived by Satan (Rev.12:9), judged by the Lord Jesus (Ac.17:31), and subjected (Heb.2:5)
to his sovereignty.

Aion (32x), on the other hand, with its adjectival form aionios (61x), had no classical reference to the world at all. L/S
lists a lifetime; an age or generation; a long, but clearly marked-out space of time; an epoch, and for the adjective,
perpetual, or a title held for one's lifetime. Even Trench, who usually endorses traditional versions, laments the
translation world rather than age because of the resultant failure to distinguish aion from kosmos, which he
characterizes as the difference between measuring time, or space, noting that aion is the only one ever spoken of as
ending! (Eternal???) Thayer notes Plato's and Aristotle's use of aion as life force, and says that the idea of
perpetuity only entered with Hebrew rabbinic influence. Herodotus and others considered that numerous ages (aion)
comprised eternity, for which he used the same term.
A similar thought is seen in New Testament references to this age (Mt.12:32), the age to come (Mk.10:30, Lk.18:30),
and the end of the age (Mt.13:39, 24:3, 28:20). Traditional versions use world for all of these.
This present age carries considerable negative connotation, especially when referring to its children (Lk.16:8, 20:24)
being preoccupied with their own affairs (Mt.13:22, I Tim.4:10), with its being ruled by malevolent powers (I Cor.2:8, II
Cor.4:4, Eph.6:12), and itself characterized as evil (Gal.1:4). The faithful are cautioned not to be patterned after its ways
(Rom.12:2), nor to be overly impressed by its philosophers (I Cor.1:20, 3:18), but to live carefully (Tit.2:12) in order to be
found worthy (Lk.20:35) of the age yet to come.
In view of the preponderance of temporary implications of aion, it is puzzling why the adjectival form has almost
exclusively been translated eternal and popularly understood to mean endless. I rather suspect that the adjective
probably refers more to the quality than the quantity of whatever noun it modifies, but this whole idea should have serious
further study by a faithful brotherhood. It is beyond the scope of this brief summary. At the very least, aion , age, should be
carefully divided from the more general term world. (Please see also #28)

Kosmos, the most frequently used term (187x), also represents the greatest variety of classical usage. L/S lists order, or
good behavior (Aristotle); the natural order of things (Herodotus), or the order of government especially the
constitution of Sparta; the order of the universe (Pythagoras) or the earth as opposed to the heavens or the underworld;
ornament or honor (Homer); or, among various philosophers, any specific region of the universe or its inhabitants. Not
until the New Testament writers did the term acquire the negative connotations of a kingdom of evil, or estrangement from
God.
The context usually reveals whether the use of kosmos intends simply the physical creation and/or its human inhabitants
(Mt.13:15,38; 26:13; Lk.12:20, Jn.1:9, 6:14, 16:28, 21:25; Ac.17:24, Rom.1:8, I Cor.14:10, Eph.1:4, Heb.4:3), people
ignorant of God's ways (Mt.5:14, 26:13; Jn.1:9, 3:19,14:31, 16:8, I Cor.1:20-28, 3:19; Gal.4:3, Eph.2:2,12; I Jn.3:1); overt
antagonism toward Jesus, his people, or his Kingdom (Mt.18:7, Jn.1:10, 3:19, 7:4-7, 12:31, 14:30,15:18-19, 16:11,20,33;
Rom.3:19, I Cor.4:9-13, Col.2:8, Heb.11:7, 38; Jas.4:4, and all of II Peter), or the contrast between the faithful and their
surroundings (Mt.5:14, 16:26,Lk.12:30,Jn.12:25, 14:22,27; all of Jn.17, 18:36-37; I Cor.2:12,5:10, 6:2; I Cor.7:31-34,11:32;
Gal.6:14, Phil.2:15; Heb.11:38; all of James, I Jn.3, 5:19).
Please note that these lists are not exhaustive. Feel free to add to them.

There are many instances describing Jesus' own relation to the kosmos. He is its Creator (Jn.1:10), its Light (Jn.1:9, 8:12,
9:5, 12:46), he takes away its failures [sins] (Jn.1:29) and see W.S.#7, he is its Savior (Jn.4:42, 3:17, 12:46, I
Tim.1:15 ) W.S.#5. He came to give it life (Jn.6:33), and to give his life in its behalf (Jn.6:51) note that these are

170
different grammatical constructions. He was sent by the Father into the world (Jn.10:36, Heb.10:5), in order to speak to the
world from the Father (Jn.8:26), for judgment W.S.#9 & 10 (Jn.9:39); to reconcile W.S.#69 it to himself (II
Cor.5:19). His kingdom is neither derived from nor controlled by the world (Jn.18:36-37), but he has overcome the world
(Jn.16:33). It is all subject to him (I Cor.3:22)!

This lends a very sobering weight to John's summary statement to the faithful in I Jn.4:17: We are just like he is, in the
world! And if we look at descriptions of faithful disciples in relation to the world, the similarity is striking. Mt.5:14: You
all are the light of the world! Mk.16:15: As you all are going into the world, preach the good news! Jn.17:14: The
world hated them, because they are not from [do not belong to] the world, just as I am not from [do not belong to] the
world. I Cor.2:12: We did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God! You can find many more.
At the same time, we must remember that the world is also God's good creation, which, like all of his creation, can be
used rightly or wrongly (see previous post, and chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom. It's wisdom, (I Cor. 1-3) apart from
his, is foolishness, but its goods (I Jn.3:17) are to be used for the welfare of the brotherhood. Although our time of
identification with the world and its ways is represented as negative, and in the past tense (II Cor.1:12 and elsewhere), it is
that very world that Jesus came to reconcile to himself (II Cor.5:19), and which will eventually be fully subject to his
reign (Rev.11:15)! Another place where it is the focus that matters?

Perhaps this constitutes at least a partial resolution to the dilemma regarding John's statements with which we began, of
God's love for the world (Jn.3:16) and his warning against love for the world (I Jn.2:15). The same word agapao is used
in both places (we will deal with that in a later post), but the form in the first is aorist (past, snapshot) tense, and the latter
a present (continuous) tense. I think this is probably significant, but am not sure of the implication. Does anyone have a
suggestion? John's own elaboration in I Jn.4:9,14,17 may offer some assistance. James (4:4) treats a similar idea in terms
of friendship.

It may, however, be on purpose that the concept of the world is so difficult to nail down.
John's we are just like he is in the world may be intended as a perennial challenge to us as his people his functioning
Body to discern together, in every situation, the specifics of that responsibility.
Faithfully representing its (and our) Creator, Owner, and Sovereign, may we walk kindly and confidently through his world.

171
Word Study #87 Love --Debunking the 'Love' Myth
A favorite theme of the crowd who try to flaunt their superior wisdom by thundering authoritatively, THE GREEK
SAYS..... is the canned, neatly-sorted lecture on different words for different kinds of love. The only problem, other than
the fact that this represents nobody's original first-hand study, is that it is flat-out mistaken, as even a minimal perusal of
New Testament usage makes abundantly clear.
Agape, which such speakers effusively characterize as self-giving, Godly, sacrificial love, is the word used (in verb form)
in Lk.6:32-35 and parallels even sinners love those who love them; in Mt.6:24 a slave juggling two masters; and in
Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees (Lk.11:43) loving the highest seats in the synagogues, and (Jn.12:43) the praise of
men rather than God! So let's back off from the artificially created stereotypes, and take a sober look at the background of
the words. Incidentally, only two words, not three, are used in the New Testament.

L/S lists, for agapao, to greet with affection, to show affection (Homer), to caress or pet (Plutarch), to be fond of, to
prize, or to desire (Plato),to be pleased or contented (Homer), to tolerate or put up with (Plato), and to be fond of
doing something (Aristotle). The noun form, agape, which some scholars mistakenly insist never occurs in pagan
writings, according to the same lexicon has the love of husband and wife (Philodemos, 1st Century BC) as its first entry;
and then moves on to (LXX and NT) the love of God for man or man for God, brotherly love, charity, or alms, but notes
that it was also a title for the Egyptian goddess, Isis!

The same reference work lists for the other word, phileo, (the one supposed to mean only friendship), includes to love or
regard with affection; the love of gods for men, or men for children or animals; to welcome or entertain a guest; the love of
man and wife; to be fond of doing something. If these lists look nearly parallel, it just might be because they are! The
noun form, philos, in the new Testament occurs only as friend (W.S. #22). This may be applied casually, but L/S also
quotes Aristotle, A friend is another self!

Both words are used by Jesus in the gospels of the mutual love between Father and Son (agape Jn.17:26, 3;35, 15:9;
phileo Jn.5:20); of Jesus' love for his disciples and others (agape Jn.13:1, 14:21, chapters 15 and 17; phileo Jn
11:3,36); and of Jesus' admonitions regarding his people's love for him (agape Lk.7:47, Jn.8:42, 14:15, 24; 17; phileo
Mt.10:37, Jn.16:27). However, phileo is far less common (only 22 x total) than agape 86 x as love and 27 x as
charity and agapao 135 x.

Instructions regarding the love of one's neighbor (Mt.19:19, 22:33-39, Rom.13:8-10, Jas.2:8), one's enemy (Mt.5:44,
Lk.6:27), and the brethren,or one another (Jn.13:34-35, 15:12, 15:17; Rom.12:9, 13:8; Gal.5:13, Eph.1:15,4:2; Col.1:4,
2:2; I Thes.3:12, 4:9; Heb.10:24, I Pet.1:22,2:17, and most of I Jn.) consistently use a form of agapao.

One rather surprising observation also involving both words is the choice of the tenses of verbs and participles.
References to the love of either the Father or Jesus toward people are almost exclusively in the aorist tense. I'm not sure
what to make of this. In some cases, it is a historical reference, which is understandable; or mentioned as the motivation
for some action, as in because he loved (aorist)...he gave his Son... But I was surprised to discover only four places
where this godly love is expressed in the present (continuous) tense: Jn.16:27, Heb.12:6 and its parallel in Rev.3:19; and
Rev.1:5. I think it is significant that two of those four declare, Those whom I love, I discipline! (Heb.12 and Rev.3)
where both words are present (continuous) tense.

When disciples are instructed to love, however, the forms are almost uniformly present. Is this because such love (again,
both agapao and phileo) requires constant effort and attention? Because it is the consistent response of a permanently
transformed life? Or simply because it is expected to become a character trait, a habitual behavior? Or have you another
suggestion?

Another frequent theme is the appearance of these words in conditional clauses: a grammatical structure introduced by if
(ei, ean), in order that (hina , hos) , or because (dia touto, hoti). In fact, I have found no reference at all to the
popularly-touted phrase unconditional love. I'm sure that its perpetrators mean well: they intend to be welcoming, and
they are correct that Jesus called many folks whose lives were less than exemplary. But they forget that Jesus himself also
says plainly, This is why the Father loves me, because I am laying down my life (Jn.10:17), and (Jn.16:27) The Father
loves you because you have loved me! In the longer discussion in Jn.14:15-24 he repeatedly predicates the promise of his
own and the Father's presence and love upon following my instructions! And in Jn.15:9-17, it depends upon the disciples'

172
replicating his love in their own interaction. Paul (I Cor.2:9, 8:13, II Cor.9:7), James (1:12), and John (I Jn.3 and 4), all
assume that the life Jesus offers must be reciprocated with loving obedience in order to be actualized.

Love in the brotherhood is to be patterned after Jesus' own example (Jn.13:34, 15:12,17; Eph.5:2, I Thes.4:9, I Pet.1:22,
2:17, and all of John's first letter). The same pattern is to be seen in Christian marriage (Eph.5:25-33, Col.3:19). Is the
church's failure to love as Jesus loved partly responsible for the failure of so many homes? The church was intended to
set the example for husbands and wives to follow! Where else can anyone learn another kind of love? It may be easier
(for churches and families) to split than to commit to the hard work of faithful love but it does not follow the New
Testament pattern.

Like so many things we have examined before, perhaps here too we need to check our focus: to replace nit-picking the non-
existent intricacies of the words with careful attention to the object we choose for either agapao or phileo. Is it directed
toward the praise of men (Jn.12:43), the highest seats (Lk.11:43), and other elements of this present world (II
Tim.4:10), or toward the Lord Jesus, his Father, and his Kingdom?

In I Thes.4:9, Paul writes that you yourselves are being taught by God to love each other. Jesus, of course, provided the
ultimate example (Jn.14 and 15), and much later, John (II Jn.6) succinctly defines the kind of love he was talking about.
This is how the Body is created (Eph.3:17), and is intended to grow (Eph.4:15-16; Col.2:2), and function (Gal.5:13 and
Eph.4:2).
May the Lord guide your [our] hearts into the love of God, and the endurance (supplied by) Christ! (II Thes.3:5)
Amen!

173
Word Study #88 Obedience /Obey
(See also word studies 27, 39, and 55 for more on this subject.)

Why do you all keep calling me, 'Lord, Lord,' and you don't do what I say? (Lk.6:46)
If you all love me, you will follow my instructions [keep my commands]. (Jn.14:15)

A perfectly reasonable question, and a perfectly reasonable statement, from the Lord Jesus himself.
Yet rare is the assembly of believers, seduced, as so many are, by the popular unconditional rhetoric, where serious
attention is paid to those words.
You may notice, in the second quote, that I have violated my own rule about not using multiple translations for the same
word. This is deliberate although I do offer the alternative because of the popular application of negative connotations
which associate commands with threats: You'll be in big trouble if you don't .., whereas instructions imply
Wonderful things can happen if you do...or simply, this is how it works.
Entole, classically a command or order, but also an authorization, prescription (medical), recipe, or power of attorney,
may signify either of these understandings. The difference, the interpretation, is entirely dependent upon the relationship
between the people giving or receiving the commands / instructions.

The concept of obedience (v. hupakouo, n. hupakoe) in the New Testament is likewise colored by the relationship. The
gospel writers marvel that the forces of nature (Mt.8:27, Mk.4:41, Lk.8:25), and even evil spirits (Mk.1:27) have no choice
but to obey Jesus' orders. Yet obedience to the gospel on the part of some of the priests (Ac.6:7), and others who chose
loyalty to Jesus' Kingdom (Rom.6:17, 16:19; II Cor.7:15, Phil.2:12, Heb.5:9), is in every case voluntary, and a cause for
celebration, not compulsion! As Paul expressed it quite matter-of-factly, (Rom.6:16), You all are slaves to whomever you
obey, whether for good or ill. Everybody chooses to obey someone or something.

This becomes clear if one lists the words used as objects of hupakouo: servants/slaves to masters (Eph.6:5, Col.3:22), the
desires of the mortal body (Rom.6:12), the teaching you were given (Rom.6:17, Phil.2:12), the gospel (Rom.10:16, I
Thes.1:8), children to parents (Eph.6:1, Col.3:20), Jesus himself (Heb.5:9), Abraham to his calling (Heb.11:8), to the faith /
faithfulness (Rom.1:5), the truth (I Pet.1:22), righteousness / justice (Rom.6:16), and others where the object is not
specified but is clearly intended to be the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom.
Classical uses of hupakouo are to hearken, pay attention, to answer, listen, heed, or regard; to accept an invitation, to
submit, comply, obey; to yield to a remedy (medical), to conform to a theory or principle (in grammar, science, or
philosophy), or to answer as in the task of a doorkeeper. You will note that most of these are more an indication of a
general attitude than any specific details.

This is also the case with the lesser-used term, peitharcheo, to obey a ruler or superior. This has only four uses, of which
there are two referring to God (Ac.5:29 and 5:32), and two to people: (Tit.3:1) magistrates, and Ac.27:21, where Paul is
telling the ship's captain , You should have listened to me!

A related, also less frequent word, peitho, more commonly rendered persuade (21x) or trust (8x), and only 7x obey,
(Ac.5:36, 37; Rom.2:8, Gal.3:1,5:7; Heb.13:17; Jas.3:3), as well as its negative apeitheo which, like the corresponding noun
form apeitheia, is rendered equally disobedience and unbelief, illustrates vividly that those are not two concepts, but
one highlighting the appropriateness of the two statements of Jesus with which we began. One does not believe if he
does not obey!

Interestingly, obey in any of its forms never occurs with commands as its object! Obedience, whether to a person, to
the Lord, or to the principles of his Kingdom (or of another kingdom!), is a much broader concept, referring more to an
orientation of one's life than to any specific behavior. Perhaps the concept of allegiance is more to the point. In fact, even
commands/instructions (entole), in the New Testament, are not provided as a check-list as they had been in the past (and
still are, by some groups!) They are to be kept (tereo), rather than obeyed (hupotasso). Quite a variety of objects occur
with tereo, (classically to watch, guard, or maintain, to test by observation of trial, to keep an engagement). These include
the commandments (of the Law) Mt.19:17, Ac.15:5,24; Jas.2:!0; your own tradition (Mk.7:9), the good wine
(Jn.2:10), my (Jesus') sayings (Jn.8:5,52,55), the Sabbath (Jn.9:16), my (Jesus') commandments
(Jn.14:15,21,23,24,15:10), Thy word (Jn.17:6); the disciples (Jn.17:11,12,15); the unity of the Spirit (Eph.4:3), and
many more.

174
It is instructive that the commandments / instructions that Jesus himself speaks of keeping, primarily in Jn.14 and 15,
uniformly concern the love that he directs and teaches his disciples to have among one another. Period.
Paul gets more specific on occasion, I Cor.14:31, Eph.6:2, Col.4:10. But even he spends more time detailing the failures of
the commandments of the Law (Rom.7:8-13, I Cor.7:19, Eph.2:15, Tit.1:14) as does the writer to the Hebrews (7:5, 16,
18; 9:19) than he does instituting replacements.
Of course the whole New Testament is, from one perspective, a blueprint or instruction manual for the building of the
Kingdom. Many admonitions, in both gospels and epistles, are cast in the imperative mood, and compliance is expected.
Kingdom living is described in detail, but most of its specifics are not labeled commands. Hence, again, the quotation
with which we began.

The prime example of obedience is described in Phil.2:6-8, where Paul notes Jesus' deliberate renunciation of his well-
deserved, privileged position, in favor of meticulous one might even say extreme obedience. This is the attitude (v.5)
that his people are urged to emulate II Cor. 10:5 subjugating every mind [thought] for obedience to [of] Christ [i.e. ,
modeled after his!]

We all have a lot to learn!

175
Word Study #89 Bless, Blessed, Blessing
As is so frequently the case, a study of the concept of blessing bears little resemblance to common assumptions about the
word. In all the 44 New Testament uses of the verb, eulogeo, the 8 uses of the adjective or participle eulogetos, and the 13
uses of the noun form, eulogia, only one, II Cor.9:5, where Paul applies it to the generosity of the relief offering which the
Gentile churches sent to their famine-stricken Judean brethren, makes reference to anything material being given or
received. The other words, makarios (49x), makarizo (2x), and makarismos (3x), have no such reference at all.
So although giving thanks for every good gift (W.S.#25) is certainly appropriate, the common admonition to count (or
brag about) your blessings, if applied to acquisitions, benefits, possessions or prerogatives, might well be questioned.

Classically, eulogeo (etymologically, a combination of the prefix eu- , good or well, and logeo, a form of lego, to speak
or say), usually intended to bless or praise a god, to honor a person, or to call down or bestow blessings on someone
(L/S), and the noun form, eulogia, a eulogy, glory or good repute, or a gift or bounty.
The New Testament, however, tends toward a narrower usage. Frequently, it is paired with pray / prayer
proseuchomai , or even treated as its synonym (I Cor.14:16); or as when Jesus preceded his feeding of a crowd (Mt.14:19,
Mk.6:41,8:7; Lk.9:16) with prayer, and in accounts of the Last Supper (Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.24:30, I Cor.10:16). The
use of aorist participles in those latter accounts makes after he had prayed a more likely rendition than the common idea
of blessing the bread as if it were somehow magically changing its substance or character. People, and God, are blessed
in the New Testament. Inanimate objects are not. Jesus blessed children (Mk.10:16), his disciples (Lk.24:50,51), and
humanity in general (Ac.3:26). Simeon (Lk.2:28), the disciples (Lk.24:53), and faithful people (Jas.3:9) are said to bless
God. The crowds that greeted Jesus in Jerusalem (Mt.21:9, 23:9, Mk.11:9,10; Lk.13:35, 19:38; Jn.12:13) proclaimed Jesus
and his Kingdom blessed. The faithful are admonished to bless their persecutors (Mt.5:44, Lk.6:28, Rom.12:14, I
Cor.4:12, I Pet.3:9), as well as to pray for them (Mt.5:44), and actively to do good to them (Lk.6:27).

Blessing also has to do with the conveying of an inheritance (W.S.#79,80), as in Heb.11:20,21 and 12:17, Gal.3:14, I
Pet.3:9, and most notably, Jesus' gracious invitation to the Gentiles/nations who had behaved in a faithful manner
(Mt.25:34) even without recognizing him, addressing them as blessed by my Father, and offering them the inheritance
prepared for you from the foundation of the world!

The title, eulogetos, the Blessed or the Blessed One, is applied exclusively to God (Mk.14:61, Lk.1:68, Rom.1:25, 9:5;
II Cor.1:3,11:31; Eph.1:3, I Pet.1:3), never to anyone else.
Blessing is on the list of praises ascribed to the Lord Jesus in Rev.5:12,13; 7:12, although all the other uses of eulogia are
specifically from God.

Makarios, on the other hand, is in another category altogether. Classically, it was used primarily of the bliss of the gods,
or of dead heroes, although it was also used in extremely deferential address, as honored sir... It conveyed an especially
close relationship with one's patron gods.
This was the word Jesus chose for the faithful, according to both Matthew's (5:3-11) and Luke's (6:20-22) account of the
beatitudes, in which he enumerated the results of the characteristics he expected of the citizens of his Kingdom. This
deviated as sharply from the extant cultural definitions and expectations as it does from ours today. He also applied it to
Peter's recognition of his identity (Mt.16:1), and the privilege extended to his disciples to see (Mt.13:16, Lk.10:23) what
many generations had longed for. It describes the condition of a servant who is found to be carefully following his master's
instructions (Mt.24:46, Lk.12:37, 38,43); the person who (Mt.11:6, Lk.7:23) does not take offense at Jesus and the things
he is doing; and the one whose hospitality is extended to folks unable to reciprocate (Lk.14:14). Jesus gently corrected the
enthusiast who cried out in the crowd, Blessed is the one who bore you and nursed you (Lk.11:27) by responding, (v.28)
Rather, blessed are those who are listening to the Word of God, and keeping it!

Paul uses blessed of God (I Tim.1:11, 6:15), and of Jesus' return (Tit.2:13); and James (1:12,25) of the person who persists
in working at faithfulness. It is the preferred description of the faithful in the Revelation 1:3, those who read and hear the
message; 14:13, those who die in the Lord; 16:15, who stay alert for the Lord's coming; 19:9, who are invited to the Lamb's
wedding feast; 20:6, who are a part of the first resurrection; 22:7, who keep the sayings of this book; and 22:14, who do as
Jesus commands.

I think, despite the one single instance where Paul calls himself makarios to be presenting his case before Agrippa
(Ac.26:2), it is safe to say that for the most part, people are not and probably can not be the initiators of a condition of

176
makarios / makarismos (blessedness). It is received from the gracious hand of the Lord, as the result of a relationship of
obedient conformity to his directions.
Eulogeo and its associated words, however, are within our prerogative and indeed our responsibility to share and convey
to others, be they brethren, or antagonists, or the Lord himself.
Nineteen of the uses of eulogeo refer to blessing received by people, and ten by God. In fifteen instances, people are
doing the blessing (or instructed to do so); eight time it is God/Jesus. And there are nine references where it could be a
synonym for prayer. We see an interesting slant in Heb.6:7: rather than calling the provision of sun and rain on the fields
blessings, the writer suggests that the land is blessed when that provision is rightly used to bear a fruitful harvest! The
blessing appears not to be the provision, but the reward for its intended use!

Indeed, in the case of either eulogeo or makarios, blessing consists, not of stuff, nor favorably manipulated
circumstances, nor of abilities, power or prestige, but rather of connectedness, through the Lord Jesus, to the Kingdom of
God and its gracious Sovereign.
(Eulogetos) Blessed (be) [praise to] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who blessed (eulogesos) us with every
spiritual blessing (eulogia) in the heavens, in Christ! (Eph.1:3)

May we gratefully receive, and faithfully share, his gracious blessing!

177
Word Study #90 Praise
It was only during work on the previous post, bless (#89), that it became evident that bless and praise have sometimes
been used interchangeably as translations for the same word, and often appear together, especially in the praise scenes in the
Revelation. There is also frequent implicit overlap with the use of glory (W.S.#74) and honor (W.S. #73).
Consequently, the idea of praise to the Lord, throughout the New Testament, is far more ubiquitous than the use of any of
the specific words so translated, which include six nouns and three verbs.
In three of these instances, it is an aberrant translation of a word more commonly rendered differently: praise is used only
once for eulogeo (against 43 x bless) Lk.1:64; once for arete (against 4x virtue) I Pet.2:9; and four times for doxa
(against 144x glory) Jn.9:24, 12:43 (2x), I Pet.4:11.
Twice, it is the only translation of a rarely used word ainesis, which is only seen in Heb.13:15, and ainos in
Mt.21:16,Lk.18:43. This narrows our study conveniently to one noun and three verbs.

The most frequently appearing word is the noun epainos, which even so is only used 11x. It is classically defined as
approval, praise, or commendation, and is applied equally to gods and men. The New Testament uses bear out that
division, with Rom.2:29, 13:3; I Cor.4:5, II Cor.8:18, I Pet.1:7 and 2:14 referring to praise accorded to people, and
Eph.1:6,12,14; Phil.1:11, and possibly 4:8 to the praise of God.

Second is the verb aineo, which makes 9 appearances. This too, classically, spoke of praise or approval, and a
recommendation or advice, as well as a way courteously to decline an invitation. It is a very frequent admonition in the
LXX, describing or urging praises to God, although it is also used disparagingly of praises to pagan gods. Aineo describes
the praises of the heavenly host announcing Jesus' birth (Lk.2:13), the awe-struck shepherds (Lk.2:20), and the jubilant
crowd on Palm Sunday (Lk.19:37), as well as the constant praises offered by the empowered disciples both before
(Lk.24:53) and after Pentecost (Ac.2:47), and the joyful celebration of the healed man in Ac.3:8. Rom.15:11 is quoted from
the LXX, and Rev.19:5 casts a voice from the throne as a holy cheerleader calling both small and great to praises.

Epaineo, the verb form of epainos, common in the LXX, is less so in the New Testament, translated 4x praise, and once
each laud and commend. All but the LXX quote in Rom.15:11 refer to people most of whom (I Cor.11:17,22, and
Lk.16:8) were not behaving very well. Its classical definitions are very parallel to those listed for the noun.

Finally, we have the four appearances of humneo: to sing praises, to celebrate or commemorate in a hymn, to tell over and
over, or 'harp on', repeat, or recite. The classical epics would fall in this category, as would the later efforts of troubadours,
celebrating the triumphs of gods, heroes, and conquerors. However, it is also how Paul and Silas passed the night in their
Philippian jail (Ac.16:25), and how Jesus and his disciples concluded their final Passover together (Mt.26:30, Mk.14:26), in
addition to the LXX quote in Heb.2:12 (from Ps.22:28).

Although the word is used at least 16x in the LXX, Trench notes that the connection with pagans celebrating their gods and
heroes led to some degree of avoidance in both Jewish and early Christian practice. Alexander had been criticized (3rd
century BC) for accepting hymns to himself and his accomplishments instead of deferring to the gods. Among the
church fathers, notably Origen and Jerome, it became a requirement that a hymn be a direct address of praise and
glory to God.
Some historians see in passages like Lk.1:46-55, 68-79; Ac.4:24, 16:25; Eph.5:14, I Tim.3:16, and II Tim.2:11-14 snippets
of what they interpret as an early hymn. Others call them creeds, which is another problem altogether!
Whether or not any specific examples remain for us, music was certainly included in the worship of the New Testament
church. Paul encouraged the churches at Ephesus and Colossae (Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16) to keep teaching and admonishing
each other with psalms (psalmois), hymns (humnois), and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais), singing in the thankfulness
[grace] that's in your hearts, to God.
Psalms are the most ancient, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These were probably some of the ones preserved in
the Old Testament records. The word is derived from the verb, to touch, or to pluck a stringed instrument, with which the
singing was usually accompanied. With hymns, the lyrics were predominant, as they celebrated honor and mighty deeds,
whereas songs could be dirges, joyful songs of praise, or simply a recitation of lyric poetry. Singing is also part of the
agenda Paul described in Corinth (I Cor.14:15), both with [by means of] the Spirit and by means of [using] the
understanding [mind] with either prescribed or Spirit-led language and music. It is the suggestion of James (5:3) for
celebrating one's rejoicing, and one of the vehicles of praise and tribute to the King in his consummated Kingdom (Rev.5:9,
14:3, 15:3).

178
In our day, as throughout the history of the people of God, singing praises may still be either rightly or wrongly focused.
As someone has observed, you can't always tell whether they're singing to/about the Lord or their girl/boyfriend!
In the third century, Augustine, coming out of a culture not all that different from ours, prescribed three requirements for
Christian music:
It must be sung.
It must be praise.
It must be to/about God.
That might still be an appropriate guide!

Songs of praise have habitually accompanied movements of renewal among the Lord's people, both the source and the
expression of great joy.
After all, by his gracious provision, (Eph.1:6), We exist for the praise of his glory!

We might as well start practicing!

Let everything that hath breath, praise the Lord! (Ps.150)

179
Word Study #91 Pray, Prayer
It is important to remember, in undertaking a study of the uses of pray/prayer in the New Testament, that in the
Elizabethan English of the KJV, pray did not necessarily have anything whatever to do with God, but I pray thee was
merely a polite way of saying please. This is seen in fully half of the appearances of deomai, nine of which were
traditionally translated beseech, primarily in Luke and Acts, and erotao, in which 23x the translators used ask (as in, to
ask a question, make a request, or issue an invitation), beseech 14x, desire 6x, and entreat once, with the same sense
in six of the 14 times where it is rendered pray. Consequently, we are dealing here with a concept in which context is
critically important.

The actual lexical definitions of the five verbs and four nouns in this group are not so very different from one another.
Classically, deomai was used by Homer as to be in need or want, by Plato and Herodotus as to beg a thing from a
person, and by Plutarch and Thucydides as to beg a favor. Dei, as a particle, usually intends it is necessary.
Erotao is listed as to ask a question, to beg, or to entreat, to make a request of a person. Euchomai did refer to prayer as
commonly understood, but also as an unrealizable wish, to long for, to vow, or to promise. Parakaleo, to summon
friends for help, to invite, to exhort, to encourage, is dealt with in W.S.#53, The Spirit., and #138, comfort. Only
proseuchomai refers exclusively to the prayer of worship.
Among the nouns, only deesis, entreaty, petition,and proseuche, a prayer, or place of prayer are commonly used.
Enteuxis, conversation, petition, intercession, appears only once (I Tim.4:5), and euche, a prayer, vow, wish, or
aspiration, is rendered once prayer (Jas.5:15), and twice vow (Ac.18:18 and 21:23).
Much more helpful in understanding is to address three questions:
Who is doing the praying?
To whom is it addressed?
What is the subject of the prayer or request?
A few examples can serve to illustrate the value of such observations.
Deomai, as noted above, half the time is simply one person making a request of another: Ac.8:34 the Ethiopian asking
Philip to explain what he was reading; Ac.21:39 Paul requesting the commander to allow him to speak to the crowd;
Lk.5:12 and 9:38 people begging Jesus for healing; or II Cor.5:20 Paul urging his readers to accept his message. When
addressed to God, (Mt.9:38, Lk.22:32, Rom.1:10, Ac.8:22,24; I Thes.3:10), it is usually with a very specific request in mind,
although that is not completely clear in Ac.4:31 or 10:2.

Erotao, similarly, is usually one person making a request or asking a question of another: Lk.5:3 Jesus asking Peter to
launch his boat; Lk.14:18,19 guests begging off from the banquet invitation; Ac.10:48 Cornelius asking Peter to stay a
while; or Ac.23:18 Paul asking the guard to take his nephew to the commander. However, in John's gospel, and only
there, it is used of Jesus' communication with the Father (Jn.14:16, 16:26, 17:9, 15, 20). Might this be a testimony to John's
depth of understanding of the mutuality and equality of their relationship?

Euchomai, except for Jas.5:16 where the flavor is more like the requests represented by deomai, leans more toward the
wish idea, as when (Ac.27:29) the sailors threw out the anchors and wished for daylight.
Likewise, parakaleo, except for Jesus' statement in Mt.26:53, is almost entirely inter-personal: the healed man who asked to
go along with Jesus (Mk.5:18), the Macedonian call to Paul (Ac.16:9), or Paul encouraging the sailors to take food
(Ac.27:34).

Proseuchomai, on the other hand, never represents simply a person-to-person situation. It is always directed to God. Even
more significantly, it seldom concerns a specific prayer-request. It is also the only one that occurs in the imperative
mood. Only three times in the gospels is an object specified: praying for one's persecutors (Mt.5:44, Lk.6:28), Jesus
praying for the children (Mt.9:13), and the admonition to pray that the flight from Jerusalem not be in winter (Mt.24:20,
Mk.13:18). The rest of the praying, whether by Jesus or others, 19x, has no object mentioned. Thirteen times, it refers to
Jesus' final night in the Garden
Curiously, proseuchomai does not appear in the writings of John at all, in either his gospel or his epistles and only twice in
the Revelation. I have never encountered any speculation on a reason for that have you?
Jesus usually seems to have preferred a solitary place for praying (Mt.14:23, Mk.1:35, 6:46; Lk.5:16,6:12, 9:28), although
on several occasions his disciples were present, and asked to be taught (Mt.6:9, Lk.9:18, 11:1,2). Lk.9:18 is particularly
puzzling in this regard: He was praying privately, and his disciples were with him. (The traditional version says he was
alone. Not sure what the dictation theory advocates do with that!)

180
Jesus emphasized that prayer was not the place (if there is one) for showing off one's piety (Mt.6:5,6,7; Mt.23:14, Mk.12:40,
Lk.18:10,11; 20:47); that one must forgive before (or in the process of ) praying (Mk.11:25); and one must pray in
faithfulness (Mk.11:24).

In the early church, prayer preceded the commissioning of people for specific assignments (Ac.1:24, 6:6, 13:3, 14:23) and
was a frequent corporate experience in the group, led, apparently, by both men and women (I Cor.11:4,5). Paul writes of his
prayers on behalf of the churches (Rom.1:9, Eph.1:16, Phil.1:4,1:8; Col.1:3,1:9, 4:12; I Thes.1:2, II Thes.1;11; and also of
his own felt need for their prayers on his own behalf (II Cor.1:11, Phil.1:19, Col.4:3, I Thes.5:25, II Thes.3:1, Phm. 2), as
well as encouraging their prayers for each other (II Cor.9:14, Jas.5:16, Phil.4:6).
Prayers are connected with healings (Ac.9:40, 28:8, Jas.5:14), release from prison (Ac.12:12, 16:23, Phm.22), and the gift
of the Holy Spirit (Ac.2, and 8:15), as well as taking leave of brethren (Ac.20:36, 21:15).

You may notice that this survey has left a large group of occasions some already listed concerning Jesus himself, and
some reporting about others where nothing specific is said about the object of the praying: the Transfiguration accounts
(Lk.9:29 and parallels), Jesus' baptism (Lk.3:21), Saul in Damascus (Ac.9:11), Peter in Joppa (Ac.10:9 and 11:15),
Cornelius at his home (Ac.10:30), Paul in the temple (Ac.22:17), and Paul's admonitions in Rom.12:12, Eph.6:18, I
Thes.5:17, I Tim.2:8, among others.

One student suggested, It sounds like just sort of hanging out with the Lord!
I rather like that. In fact, I think it sums up proseuchomai very well. Perhaps it is often simply making ourselves available,
and waiting for instructions.
After all, (Rom.8:26) We don't even know how we ought to pray but that's ok the Holy Spirit can compensate for our
ignorance, as long as we are hanging out and available.
By means of all prayer and petition, keep on praying at all times in the Spirit, being constantly alert about it (Eph.6:18).
Don't worry about anything, but in everything, by prayer (proseuche) and petition (deesis), with thanksgiving, your
requests must be made known before God. (Phil.4:6)
Proseuchesthe Keep on praying [hanging-out with the Lord!], incessantly! (I Thes.5:17).

181
Word Study #92 Giving Thanks
You may be surprised I certainly was! to discover that Biblically, eucharisteo, giving thanks, is strictly a New
Testament word! It does not occur in the LXX at all, although the idea is frequently present, and occasionally translated
thanks, in eulogeo, bless (W.S. #89), aineo, praise (W.S. #90), and exomologeo, confess (W.S. #68), which are also
included in references to prayer (W.S.#91) and worship (W.S.#50);but this primary word for giving thanks is nowhere
to be found.

In the New Testament, thanks is also sometimes used to translate charis (7x, as opposed to 129x grace), and
homologeo(1x out of 21x), exomologeomai, (2x out of 11x), and anthomologeomai (only a single appearance), which are all
related to confession in the sense of acknowledgment (W.S.#68). Since most of these deviations fit equally well into
the discussions of their primary translations, we will confine this study to eucharisteo (verb), eucharistia (noun), and
eucharistos (adj.).

Classically, all of these referred to any expression of gratitude by anyone, to anyone, for anything or to an agreeable,
grateful nature or personality trait. Occasionally, it was also used of the bestowing of a favor, as well as the obligation
thereby incurred. The word is not rare in classical literature, which makes one wonder about its absence from the LXX, in
view of its frequency in the New Testament. Could that be an artifact of the greater intimacy of the relationship between
God and his people, introduced by Jesus' own example, made possible to his people by his life, death, and resurrection, and
symbolized by the destruction of the temple veil? (See Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 8).

In all but two New Testament instances, the thanks are addressed to God: and these two, while not exemplary, offer
significant insight. The first is in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.18:11). Notice that although ostensibly
(and ostentatiously!) praying, the Pharisee's focus is pros heauton toward himself! as he thanks God for his self-
perceived superiority. Jesus does not compliment that!
The other is when the eloquent lawyer, Tertullus, attempts to ingratiate himself to Governor Felix, when presenting the
Jewish hierarchy's case against Paul (Ac.24:3). In all the rest of both examples and admonitions, the giving of thanks is
addressed to God but not as persuasive flattery for a corrupt governor! Thanks with such an ulterior motive should be
understood as insulting to God!

There are three scenes where Jesus himself is represented as giving thanks: before distributing food to the crowds
(Mt.15:36, Mk.8:16, Jn.6:11,23); as he broke the bread at the Last Supper (Mt.26:27, Mk.14:23, Lk.22:7,19; and quoted by
Paul in I Cor.11:24); and at Lazarus' tomb (Jn.11:41). Only in this last instance does he specify the object of his
thanksgiving, and his statement is instructive: Father, I thank you that you listened to me. I knew that you are always
listening to me, but I said that because of the crowd standing around ... The giving of thanks can be a powerful teaching
tool, as it also was for Paul (Ac.27:35) during the shipwreck.
In his letters, Paul gives thanks to God for the faithfulness of individuals or groups (Phil.1:3, Col.1:3, Phm.4, I Thes.3:9),
for the brethren who came to meet him on the way to Rome (Ac.28:15), for the generosity of the relief offering (II
Cor.9:11), for the gift of praying in tongues (I Cor.14:16), and even that he had not baptized many in Corinth (I Cor.1:14),
which he mentions to defuse the factionalism there.

The object of the giving of thanks is clarified by the use of the prepositions, and the sentence structure, with which it is
accompanied. Both of the common prepositions, peri and huper, are used with genitive case objects. The case of its object
affects the meaning of any preposition. Peri, about, or for, indicates motive, care, or with regard to. Paul often writes
that he is giving thanks peri humon about you all, (his readers), and/or their faithfulness (Rom.1:8. I Cor.1:4, Col.1:3,
I Thes.1:2, 3:9; II Thes.1:3).
Huper, on the other hand, indicates for the sake of, on behalf of, as a representative of. Here it sometimes seems to
include more of our concept of prayer, as it is connected with food (I Cor.10:30), and Paul's anticipated release from prison
(II Cor.1:11), as well as the more general huper humin on your behalf (Eph.1:16), and specific gratitude for the help of
Priscilla and Aquila (Rom.16:4). Paul urges Timothy that both prayers (deesis, proseuchais, enteuxis) and thanksgiving
(eucharistias) be made huper on behalf of all people including rulers and others in authority who probably are not
doing anything of the kind on their own! (I Tim.2:1).

Distinguishing between prepositions and their objects would avoid many major misunderstandings. Some of the common
rhetoric about giving thanks for everything is a case in point.

182
In Eph.5:20, giving thanks huper panton is a part of Paul's description of mutual teaching and celebration in the
brotherhood, with everyone contributing! (5:15-20). Since panton, the genitive plural of pas (all), is identical in its
masculine, feminine, and neuter forms, there is no reason to shift gears and read a neuter everything as the object of
huper, when Paul has been talking about everyone, which would also be a much more logical object of for the sake of, or
on behalf of.
The similarly translated but not at all equivalent admonition in I Thes.5:18, often rendered Give thanks for everything,
contains neither of those prepositions, but simply en in-- which always has a dative (location or atmosphere) object.
The grammatical structure is clear: the reference of this (this is the will of God) is the imperative verb, give thanks,
and not, as some would have it, everything that happens even events that are clearly evil.

Other objects of thanksgiving are identified by a clause introduced by hoti, because (I Thes.2:13, Rev.11:17), or a
participial explanation of something that God has done. This is more frequent in I Cor.15:57, II Cor.2:14, 8:16, 9:15, where
charis is used rather than eucharistia.

Significantly, however, more frequent than any of these, are declarations of or admonitions to thankfulness with no
expressed object Col.3:15-17, 2:7; I Cor.14:17-18, Rev.4:9,7:12. The giving of thanks is an expected part of prayer
(Phil.4:6, Col.4:2, I Tim.2:1), not as an effort to manipulate God, but rather a mind-set that pervades the entire
consciousness of the faithful.
Thankfulness is an ingredient of the recipe for continued growth in Kingdom living (Col.2:7), the antidote for complaints
against other brethren (Col.3:15), and an alternative to unwholesome conversation (Eph.5:4). It is among the praises offered
around the throne of the Lamb (Rev.4:9, 7:12, 11:17)!

And everything whatever you all do in word or deed (do) everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, (continually)
giving thanks to God the Father through him! (Col.3:17)

183
Word Study #93 Rejoice!
Although seldom used today in ordinary conversation, the concept of rejoicing is pervasive in the New Testament
writings. Traditional translators have used the same English word for four different word families, varying primarily in
their intensity, except for one, which does not seem to fit with the others at all.

Agalliao, with its noun form agalliasis, appears a total of sixteen times, frequently translated with the modifiers
exceeding or exceedingly. This is in harmony with the classical definition, to rejoice exceedingly, to glorify, or to
exult. In the LXX, it was often used in connection with a celebration at the inaugural anointing of a king, and in other
classical writings, of paying honor to a god.
In the New Testament, it speaks of the joy of those who have become faithful (Ac.2:46, 16:34), and it is usually connected
with a recognition of the hand of God at work (Lk.1:44, 1:47, 10:21; Jn.5:35, 8:56; Ac.2:26, Heb.1:9), as well as
anticipation of his activity (I Pet.1:6, 8; 4:3; Jude 24, Rev.19:7).

The fifteen total uses of euphraino, and the noun euphrosune, on the other hand, while occasionally connected to God
(Ac.2:28 and 14:7; Rom.15:10, Gal.4:27), are usually used on a more mundane level. Classically, these referred to any sort
of festivities, mirth, or merriment, often including luxurious feasting. This is clearly the situation in two major New
Testament accounts, both parables, where it is used of the rich fool (Lk.12:19) selfishly planning to celebrate his plenty,
and the feasting (and subsequent complaints) at the return of the prodigal son (Lk. 15:23,29, 32). It also appears
describing the partying (Rev.11:10) of the people committed to their dwelling on earth, after the killing of God's faithful
witnesses.
Interestingly, it is also the response advocated, for the faithful, to the fall of Babylon (Rev.18:20)!

The anomaly of the group (7x boast, 4x rejoice, 22x glory) is kauchaomai, with kauchema and kauchesis. In the
classical writings, these words virtually always have negative connotations, referring to loud, boisterous boasting or
bragging, and in the noun form, to pride or superiority. I would be curious to ask Paul why he used it as he did, unless it
was simply to contrast his attitude with that of the more common idea. The negative flavor does appear in the New
Testament (Jas.4:16, Rom.2:17,23, and 3:27, I Cor.15:31), but it is not dominant. Paul makes heavy use of these terms in II
Corinthians: to leverage the response of the group to relief efforts (7:4,14; 9:2), (Don't make me sorry I had bragged about
your generosity); to encourage their obedience to his teaching (10:8,13,15); and (12:1) to illustrate the emptiness of
bragging abut one's spiritual experiences. Occasionally, he uses it of satisfaction at having faithfully executed one's
responsibility (II Cor.1:12, 11:16; I Thes.2:19, Gal.6:4, Phil.2:16), but also to remind his readers that it is inappropriate
(Eph.2:9) to claim personal credit for what the Lord has done.
Nevertheless, Rom.5:2, Phil.1:26, 3:3; Heb.3:6, and Jas.1:9 suggest that kauchaomai is not always out-of-line, which makes
one wonder at the translators' (and the writers') choice of words. Similar questions arise where kauchaomai is translated
glory (see W.S.#74).

By far the most frequently used word is chairo (rejoice42x, be glad14x, joy - as a verb 5x, and 12x as a greeting or
farewell.) Its noun form is chara, joy, 53x. Chairo may represent a sort of median between the exuberance of agalliao
and the more ordinary enjoyment of euphraino. L/S lists to take pleasure in, to express joy, laughter, to be glad to hear
something, or to delight in doing something. Bauer adds that a hoti clause may give the reason for the rejoicing, and a
participle may describe what one is delighted by. He points out that a prepositional phrase with en, as noted in the previous
post, is circumstantial, and not causal. In the imperative or vocative forms, chairo serves as a greeting or farewell.

Chairo and agalliao appear together in Mt.5:12, Lk.1:14, I Pet.4:13, Rev.19:7, intensifying the thought.
Chairo and euphraino are joined in Ac.2:26 and Rev.11:10, leaning toward celebration.
Actually, the term represents quite a spectrum of responses. It can refer to casual curiosity (Lk.23:3) or even connivance in
wrongdoing (Lk.22:5, Mk.14:11). Positive uses range from the simple pleasure of meeting brethren, or receiving good news
(Mt.18:3, Lk.13:7, 15:5; Ac.13:48, Rom.12:15, I Cor.7:30, 13:6, 16:7; II Cor.7:7,9,16; Phil.2:28, II Jn.4, III Jn.3), to
grateful recognition of the grace of God (Jn.8:56, 14:28, 16:20,22; 20:20; Ac.11:23, Rom.16:19, I Pet.4:13).

Chairo is the only one of the four words that consistently applies specifically to life in the Lord, and requires seeing
beyond immediate, often unfavorable circumstances.
Mt.5:12 and Lk.6:23 record Jesus' words regarding the faithful (or blessed W.S.#89) response to persecution. Notice
that in each case, he specifies that the abuse is for the sake of heneka the Son of Man (Lk.) and for my sake

184
(heneken emou) (Mt.). Clearly, this must have been a necessary caveat, since Peter (I Pet.4:13-15) later also found it
prudent to add a blunt warning that readers be sure that the persecution was for faithfulness, and not deserved, for some
less noble reason!
Jesus also offered another guideline for his disciples' rejoicing it should not be because of the powers granted to them for
ministry, but simply because of their inclusion in the Kingdom and its work! A similar theme occurs in Jn.4:36, and Paul
picks up the same idea in Phil.1:18 and Col.1:24-25, where he identifies the price paid for Kingdom service as contributing
to the Lord's own efforts, a statement similar to Peter's noted above.

The faithfulness of fellow disciples (Col.2:8, I Thes.3:4), even when it involves personal cost (Phil.2:17-18), is a cause for
celebration. A generally celebratory, joyful demeanor comes with the territory of becoming truly united in one Body (I
Cor.12:26), in concern for one another. Concern for the welfare of the faithful is probably also the motive behind Jesus'
saying that he was glad he was not there when Lazarus died (Jn.11:15), so that his followers could be fully convinced of
his power / identity. Paul's statement regarding his own weakness in II Cor.13:9 is similar.

As for the rest, my brothers be constantly rejoicing in the Lord! (Phil.3:1)

Keep on rejoicing in the Lord! Again, I'll say, keep on rejoicing! (Phil.4:4)
Always keep rejoicing! (I Thes.5:6)
Continue to love him, whom you have not seen, being faithful toward him and celebrating with indescribable and
glorious joy! (I Pet.1:8)

185
Word Study #94 Persecution, Tribulation
In both of the previous two studies, the concept of giving thanks and/or rejoicing occasionally referred to persecution,
tribulation, suffering, or, as some want to call it, sacrifice, on behalf of Jesus and his Kingdom.
None of these four words appear frequently in the New Testament, but their prevalence in accepted Christian teaching
requires an examination of what really is said in Scripture regarding these subjects.
Contrary to popular assumptions, not one of them is ever presented as having been instigated, caused, or commanded by
God, in the New Testament.

Since they represent somewhat different concepts, we will deal with these words in two separate posts. Persecution and
tribulation are used together four times (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17, Rom.8:35, II Thes.1:4), almost as synonyms, and often
assumed to be a normal consequence of faithful living. Persecution and tribulation are not a matter of choice. Both are
externally imposed. The only choice is how one will respond.
Jesus described persecution / tribulation as one reason for the falling away of many who had initially been enthusiastic
about the Kingdom (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17), and Paul reminded the converts in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch that the violent
opposition they were experiencing was only normal (Ac.14:22).

Classically, dioko had more frequently referred to a chase, as in a war or a hunt, or the eager pursuit of an object, person, or
goal. This latter is seen also in Rom. 14:19, I Cor.14:1, Phil.3:12,14; I Thes.5:15, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14, I Pet.3:11.
It is also used of haste, of the wind driving a ship (Homer), or avid pursuit of an argument (Plato), as well as to drive
away (Herodotus). Not until the New Testament did the idea of pursuit or legal prosecution acquire the flavor of being
abused, driven away, or attacked because of one's faith commitment, but after that, it appears to be the dominant idea.

Jesus gave careful instructions regarding the response of his disciples to persecution: from rejoicing in the confidence of
the confirmation of their Kingdom citizenship (Mt.5:10-12, echoed by Paul in Rom.12:14 and I Cor.4:12), to prayer and
kindness toward the perpetrators (Mt.5:44), and prudent advice that when it gets too hot in one town (Mt.10:23), it's time to
move! He matter-of-factly warned that persecution would come (Lk.21:12, Mt.23:34), explaining that disciples could
expect the same treatment that he himself was encountering (Jn.15:20).

Paul, interestingly, speaks more of his own past record of persecuting the church (Ac.22:4,26:11; I Cor.15:9, Gal.1:13,23;
Phil.3:6) than he does of the persecution he personally endured (Gal..5:11, 6:12; II Cor.12:10, II Tim.3:11). And please
remember: this persecution was not merely social exclusion, financial hardship, or being talked-about. Beatings and
stonings, prison and death were harsh realities, and not uncommon.
We should not neglect II Tim.3:12, which has often been mis-used, leading some to try to provoke opposition, under the
banner of Everyone that wants to live in a godly manner in Christ Jesus will be persecuted. Such people need to be
reminded of Peter's warnings regarding suffering, which will be treated in the next post (I Pet.2:19-23, 3:14-18, and 4:15).

Thlipsis, classically pressure, oppression, affliction (L/S), distress brought on by outside circumstances (Bauer), seems
to focus more on the affected person, than on the particular circumstances of the persecution. Only five times does it clearly
refer to anything but the price of faithfulness: Jesus used it (Jn.16:21) of a woman's labor in childbirth, James referred to
the desperate condition of widows and orphans (1:27), Paul, of final retribution for the unfaithful (Rom.2:9, II Thes.1:6) and
the Corinthians' complaint (II Cor.8:13) of being burdened by the expectation of a relief contribution. Elsewhere, 39
times, the reference is to being hassled sometimes more, sometimes less severely as a direct result of faithfulness to
Jesus' Kingdom. The one probable exception is the description of political turmoil in Mt.24 and Mk.13 (similar account in
Lk.21). A careful reading of these passages reveals that here it is the earlier classical understanding of thlipsis that is
intended, as whole nations and kingdoms are disrupted (Mt.24:6-8 and Mk.13:7-8), providing a context for the following
more specific attacks upon the faithful, and a fertile field for perpetrators of deception. (Remember, when you hear
predictions by self-styled world-enders in times of political unrest, that Jesus himself warned against that very thing in
Mt.24:23-27 and Mk.13:21-23).
Please note also that in no case does thlipsis, translated 17x affliction and 21x tribulation, refer to a single, historical or
future event, but consistently to the conditions under which the faithful need to enter the Kingdom (Ac.14:22), to receive
the Word (I Thes.1:6), to support one another (Phil.4:14) with joyful generosity (II Cor.8:2), to endure patiently
(Rom.12:12), and to encourage one another's faithfulness (II Thes.1:4).

Jesus put it very realistically (Jn.16:33): In the world, you have (present tense, not future) hassles (KJV tribulations).

186
But take courage! I have conquered (perfect tense!) the world! Notice that this statement occurs even before either his
death or his resurrection!
This is why Paul could write (Rom.5:2,3) We revel in the hope [confidence] of the glory of God! Not only this, but we
even appreciate our hassles [tribulations], knowing that hassles produce endurance ...
Read, and soak up, his confident description in II Cor.1:4-7, of both the comfort and the responsibility conferred by the
Lord's presence in the midst of those hassles. Later in the same letter (4:17), amid stress that would probably have crushed
most of us, he can declare, Our temporary, insignificant hassles are producing for us a fantastically overwhelming, eternal
amount of glory! and in 7:4, I'm overflowing with joy, in spite of all our hassles!

Please notice here: in no case does Paul attribute the hassles / tribulations / afflictions to God's will (see W.S.#12), or to
God's causative action!
The Lord knows (Rev.2:9) and limits (v.10) them, and coaches us through them (II Cor.1:4), refusing to allow them to
separate us from his love and care (Rom.8:35). He does not deliberately hassle his own!

Thanks be to God!

187
Word Study #95 Suffering, Sacrifice
For the purpose of this study, a supplement to #94, although the Elizabethan English word suffer was also used as a
synonym for allow (aphiemi, didomi, eao, epitrepo) and endure (anechomai), these will not be considered here. We
will confine ourselves to the references where suffer is used to translate pascho, pathema. These words probably include
the broadest range, scripturally, of any of the four words mentioned in the previous post: but even so, the New Testament
writers do not apply it to mere annoyance or inconvenience, as so many folks are prone to do today.

Classically, the word includes the plight of a victim of any kind of oppression, the experience of any misfortune, the
payment of a legal penalty, any abuse or ill-treatment, but also of well-being, or the receiving of benefits! (L/S). Thayer
indicates that it can be used of any sensate experience, but usually one of evil, illness, or bad fortune. Medically (L/S), it
was used of symptoms or troubles.
Similar diversity is also seen in the New Testament. Pascho is used in the complaint of Pilate's wife about her dream
(Mt.27:19), the plight of the woman who could not be helped by doctors (Mk.5:26), the group of Jews abused by Pilate
(Lk.13:2), the mutual dependence of the human body (I Cor.12:26), and the punishment deserved by a person convicted of a
crime (I Per.4:15).

However, the majority of the 39 New Testament appearances of the verb form and 14 of the noun refer specifically to the
sufferings of either Jesus (24x), or his people (25x) as a direct result of their faithfulness. Jesus spoke repeatedly of his
anticipated suffering of rejection by the elders and priests of the Jewish hierarchy (Mt.16:21, 17:12; Mk.8:31, 9:12; Lk.9:22,
17:25), as well as the specific event of his death (Lk.22:15, 24:26). Notice that Jesus himself, in contrast to popular
emphases, spoke more frequently of suffering in connection with his being rejected by those who should have
welcomed him, than he did of his actual death. It is important to note that fully half of these, in both categories, end with
the declaration of the equal certainty of his resurrection.
Repeatedly, that is the key: for the Lord Jesus himself, and for his people, whatever their circumstances. His resurrection,
and by extension, theirs/ours, is the power that enables endurance. Paul clearly understood this (Rom.8-18), as did Peter (I
Pet.4:13).

In fact, if you will check all of Paul's uses of pascho and pathema I Cor.12:26, II Cor.1:5-7, Gal.34, Phil.1:29, 3:10;
Col.1:24, I Thes.2:14, II Thes.1:12, II Tim.1:12, 3:11 you will see that they all refer either to his own (Paul's)
mistreatment, or that of his readers. Only in Phil.3:10 does he connect it to the sufferings of Jesus. Neither Jesus nor Paul,
on any occasion, makes any connection of these words with forgiveness (W.S. #7) as has been widely taught as
doctrine. Look it up, folks. It's not there, and neither is any hint that suffering was ever sent or caused by God!
(see trials, W.S.#11)

In Ac.9:16, Ananias is told by Jesus that Paul will need to suffer many things on behalf of my name, which Paul then
passes on in Phil.1:29 for his sake; and in II Thes.1:5, he refers that beleaguered group's suffering on behalf of the
Kingdom of God. In each case, the preposition is huper, on behalf of. As we saw in W.S. #94 regarding persecution and
tribulation, suffering also is viewed simply as one of the consequences to be expected, as a part of identification with Jesus
and his Kingdom. (See also W.S.#34, the cross.)

The writer to the Hebrews, in illustrating the shortcomings of the old, obsolete system, is the only one to propose a reason
for the suffering of the Lord Jesus: Heb.2:9-10 so that his death and subsequent glory would destroy (14-15) the power of
death over his people, and to make him mature (teleios) for that assignment; Heb.5:8 it was the way he learned
obedience (for the same purpose); and Heb.9:26 to definitively abolish (the word is athetesis, used of the nullification of
a contract or treaty) the failures [sins] of his people. This latter passage is the only place in the entire New Testament
where that connection is made. So how did it become the only thing so many people include in their distorted version of
gospel teaching? Because a good guilt-trip makes it so easy to manipulate people?
Later, the same writer describes the early sufferings of his readers (10:32, 34) the latter containing the same word with the
together prefix as encouragement for their continued faithfulness. Don't give up now! See vv.32-38.

Peter's first letter, written to refugees scattered across Asia Minor by severe violence against the brotherhood, is almost
entirely devoted to encouraging their faithfulness under duress. Again, resurrection hope predominates. Whether Jesus'
sufferings (1:11, 4:1, 4:13, 5:1) or theirs (2:19-23, 3:14-18, 4:13-19, 5:9-10), it is faithful behavior in spite of suffering
which promises participation in the Kingdom both present and future. Twice (3:17-18 and 4:13-19) he reminds them just

188
make sure that your suffering is not deserved for some less noble reason! Please see W.S. #12 for a discussion of the
references to God's will.

Sacrifice(thuo, thusia), on the other hand, as it is used in the New Testament, is always performed at a person's own
initiative. Classically, the only use of either word was the slaughter of animals for food, or burnt as offerings ot the gods, or
referring to the festivities surrounding those ceremonies. Bauer adds that later, the Rom.12:1 reference was interpreted as
an advocacy of martyrdom, but there is no evidence that such was the original intent.
Sixteen times in the New Testament, the word refers to pagan sacrifices to idols. Paul deals with the dilemma this causes in
I Cor.8. Nineteen times, the reference is to the sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament Law most of them emphasizing
its futility (Heb.5:1, 7:27, 8:3, 9:9, 10:1, 5, 8;11) or to Jesus' statements that sacrifice is not what God wanted (Mt.9:13,
12:7, Mk.12:33, Ac.7:42). In Lk.15:23,27, 30; Jn.10:10, 10:13, thuo is used simply as slaughtering an animal for food. In
Mt.22:4, Mk.14:12, Lk.22:7, the reference is to the killing of the passover lamb, which only once is connected to Jesus (I
Cor.5:7). Remember, in that context, that the Passover was a celebration of deliverance from slavery, and had nothing to
do with sin. That connection is only made in Heb.9:26 and 10:12 where the focus is on the impotence and futility of the
old sacrificial system. Interestingly, Jesus never used the word of himself or of anything he did, although Paul does once
(Eph.5:2).

Sacrifice on the part of God's people is used in a positive sense in the new Testament only five times, but these are
significant. Remember, of all these concepts, sacrifice is the only voluntary one. All imply deliberate action. In Rom.12:1,
Paul urges, present your bodies as a living sacrifice to God, not killing, but living in worship and obedience to him. In
Phil.2:17, Paul speaks of the sacrifice of their worship, and doesn't mind at all if it costs his own life. In Phil 4:18, he
refers to the gift of support that the Philippian church had sent to him in prison as an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God.
Heb.13:15-16 advocates a sacrifice of praise in worship and thanksgiving, with the assurance that this, like doing good
and sharing, is pleasing to God.

In the Biblical concept of sacrifice, there is no hint of the popular notion of giving up some pet vice or pleasure in
order to curry favor before God. The sacrifice pleasing to God is simply the willing offering of oneself to be used as he
sees fit for his Kingdom and for his world
a living offering, set-apart, pleasing to God. This is your logical [reasonable] worship! (Rom.12:1)

Let's be reasonable, folks!

189
Word Study #96 The Mind
When I saw What does the New Testament say about the mind? on the search list, my first thought was Not much! Bad
response! Mind has been used to represent seven different Greek words in the New Testament. None of them are
particularly common. Their classical usage is similar, but not synonymous. Sorting them is challenging.

Three of these words can be rather quickly laid aside, because of their rarity.
Phronema, thought, purpose, aspiration, or, in a negative sense, presumption, arrogance (L/S), appears only in Rom.8:7
and 8:27, referring, in both cases, to the focus of attention, whether on the human nature or on the Spirit.
Ennoia, thinking, reflection, cogitation, or a notion, concept, or idea (L/S), a common word in the Greek philosophers,
likewise appears only twice: I Pet.4:1 and Heb.4:12, both of which tend toward the sense of a deliberately determined
attitude by which one's life is consciously ordered.
Psuche, more commonly translated life or soul, is rendered three times mind: Ac.14:2, Phil.1:27, Heb.12:3. For a
more thorough treatment of this word, please refer to W.S.#28.

This leaves us with four words, which may be a little easier to distinguish, since they appear in more contexts.
Noema, perception, thought, purpose, idea, concept, understanding, mind (L/S), used six times, occurs only in Paul's
writings. In II Cor.3:14, 4:4, and 11:3, the reference is to the blinding of the understanding of those who have refused the
guidance of the Holy Spirit; II Cor.2:11 is more specific about where that blockage comes from (the traditional translation
there is devices. The only positive references are Phil.4:7, promising the protection of their/our minds by the peace of
God, and II Cor.10:5, a reminder of the faithful disciple's responsibility (a present active participle), to subjugate every
mind [thought] into the obedience of Christ (like his). In both positive and negative contexts, noema seems to be quite
definitely subject to an individual's conscious decision.

Gnome, intelligence, means of knowing, thought, judgment, opinion, verdict, intention, consent (L/S), occurs eight times.
This is the word used when Paul states that he has no word from the Lord on a matter, but offers his opinion (I Cor.7:25,
7:40; II Cor.8:10), or defers a decision about Onesimus' future to Philemon's approval (Phm.4). In Rev.17:13 and 17, the
ungodly have also made a deliberate decision to join the enemies of God. Paul's decision regarding his itinerary (Ac.20:3),
and his admonition (I Cor.1:10) to the Corinthian brotherhood to settle their differences, also represent thoughtful
determination.

Dianoia, thought, intention, purpose; notion, idea, intelligence, understanding, intellectual capacity (L/S), is used thirteen
times: once (traditionally) translated imagination (Lk.1:51), three times understanding (Eph.1:18, 4:18, I Jn.5:20), and
nine times mind. The associated words in the parallel passages quoting the admonition to love God are interesting. In
traditional translations, Mt.22:37 includes only heart (kardia), soul (psuche), and mind (dianoia). Mk.12:30 says
heart, soul, mind, and strength (ischus), and Lk.10:27 uses heart, soul, strength and mind. For treatment of psuche see
W.S.#28, and for ischus see W.S.#31. The passage they all are quoting, Dt.6:5, in the LXX uses only dianoia, psuche, and
dunamis, completely omitting any word for heart. The traditional OT translation says heart, soul, and might. The OT
text includes one of the Hebrew words for heart, and makes no mention of mind! This would be an interesting topic for
textual scholars to investigate. However, the presence of dianoia in all three synoptics, probably as a LXX quote, would
certainly indicate that (1) the mind is definitely expected to be fully involved in one's love of God, and (2) it is an entity
completely separate from any of the others mentioned.
Paul's reference to one's dianoia in Eph.2:3, 4:18, and Col.1:21, as well as the Lk.1;51 passage, make it abundantly clear
that the unredeemed mind can be disposed to lead one to opposition to the Kingdom; but the prophecies quoted in
Heb.8:10 and 10:16, as well as Peter (I Pet.1:13, II Pet.3:1), Paul (Eph.1:18), and John (I Jn.5:20), are equally emphatic that
the mind/understanding can and must be enlightened, transformed, and reminded to be consciously pointed in the right
direction.

Nous, the most common of the words, appearing 24 times 17 as mind and 7 as understanding--shows even more
vividly that while the mind certainly controls a person's attitudes, thoughts, and behavior, it is also itself controlled by his
deliberate decision. L/S lists the mind, in the sense of being employed in thinking, perception, feeling, or deciding; to
have one's mind directed toward something; resolve or purpose; reason or intellect; or even (Anaxagoras) the active
principle of the universe! Like dianoia, nous can be either a positive or negative force, as Paul laments in Rom.7:23-35.
This is the only word used of the mind of the Lord (Rom.11:34, I Cor.2:16) or the mind of Christ (also I Cor.2:16),
except for a single occurrence of phronema in Rom.8:27.

190
 Paul warns of the danger of corrupt minds (I Tim.6:5, II Tim.3:8), or their being defiled (Tit.1:15), reprobate
(Rom.1:28), characterized by vanity (Eph.4:17), shaken (II Thes.2:2), or having inflated ideas of one's own importance
(Col.2:18); but he also holds out the option of choosing to have one's life transformed (see next post) by the renewing of
your mind (Rom.12:2), and to be renewed in the spirit of your mind (Eph.4:23), until we have the mind of Christ (I
Cor.2:16)! He urges the Corinthian church, threatened by factions, to be joined together in the same mind (I Cor.1:10).
After his resurrection, Jesus graciously opened the minds [understanding] of his mourning disciples, to understand the
Scriptures, and to realize that he was really alive and in their midst (Lk.24:45). Only then did things begin to make sense
to them. It requires a mind that has wisdom (Rev.17:9) or a person that has understanding (Rev.13:18) to discern the
Lord's hand and that does not start only at the end of history!
But there are times when even a wise and devoted mind is not enough. Paul goes to great length to explain (I Cor.14:14-
19) that while worship, the singing of praises, and prayer may at times need to go beyond the reach of one's
mind/understanding, that does not obviate the need for the mind's involvement. Expressions both with and beyond the
understanding are intended to be supplementary, and not mutually exclusive.

Close attention to many of these references reveals, however, that faithfulness is not a mind trip! The mind/understanding,
while necessary and helpful, is not an end in itself.
Probably the best summary may be found in Rom.12:2: Be (continuously) completely changed, by the renewal of your
mind (nous), so that you all will recognize what God's will is whereupon Paul spends the next couple chapters describing
the practical outcome of that transformation.
When, using a third person imperative of phroneo, Paul writes to the Philippians that they must adopt and internalize the
mind of the Lord Jesus (Phil.2:5), it is in the midst of admonitions to faithful living.
Committing worries and concerns to the Lord, (Phil.4:7), he concludes, God's peace, which greatly exceeds all
understanding (nous), will protect your hearts and minds (noema) in Christ Jesus!

May this confidence spur our hearts and minds to determined faithfulness!

191
Word Study #97 Transfigured, Transformed, Changed
This study is the result of a conversation after church (Thanks, John!), when a brother remarked about people tossing around
words like transfiguration without ever stopping to wonder what they actually mean. A quick check revealed that the
word used by both Matthew and Mark is metamorphoo, whose noun form, transliterated, is recognized by every grade-
school science student as metamorphosis what happens when the caterpillar they have carefully fed with leaves, and
watched as it spun its cocoon, emerges to their wonder and delight as a beautiful butterfly. It's still the same critter but it
has been transformed into its intended, mature destiny.
Back at home with my reference books, I was startled to discover that metamorphoo (L/S to transform, to change) is used
only four times in the entire New Testament: these two references to Jesus on the mountain (Mt.17:2, Mk.9:2), Romans
12:2 speaking of the faithful person's mind (W.S.#96) being transformed to become capable of understanding and following
the Lord's instructions, and II Cor.3:18, of the process of their/our maturing to reflect the Lord's own radiance to be
transformed into his very image God's original intent (Gen.1:26) at Creation!

How very beautifully that all fits together! Especially in the light added by Luke. Only he, who does not use metamorphoo
at all, says anything about the topic of Jesus' conversation with Moses and Elijah: his departure (exodos) yes, the same
word as Exodus-- that was about to be completed (pleroun, from pleroo, to complete or to fulfill). This has been
traditionally interpreted as a reference to Jesus' death: but L/S lists no classical references to death for exodos. Only going
out, or the marching forth of a procession or a military expedition are mentioned. The word occurs only here, in Heb.11:22
(of the historical exodus), and II Pet.1:15, of which the traditional interpretation is also open to question, due to Peter's
subsequent reference to the same event (vv.16-18) as a revelation of Jesus' glory. I take this to be another of many
signposts in the direction of seeing Jesus as focused upon his ultimate defeat not only of death, but of all the forces of evil,
which is/was his own mature destiny, rather than the traditional notions of sacrifice (W.S. #95). He was departing for
the ultimate expedition and conquered gloriously!

Of course, once you start tracking a word, one thing invariably leads to another. The English word transform also
represents another Greek word, metaschematizo, used only five times, which, besides describing a change in a person or
thing (L/S), as in Phil.3:21 - He (Jesus) will transform our body to be like his, also refers both to disguise and deception
(I Cor.11:13,,14,15), and (I Cor.4:6) to a simple analogous illustration.

Change, also, can be for the better or worse. This adds five more Greek words to be considered, most of which seem to
be nearly interchangeable, and none of which really dominate. For example, the statements in Hebrews of the necessity of
change in the priesthood and the law incorporates (Heb.7:12) both metatithemi and metathesis, as does the enigmatic
statement (Heb.4:5 and 12:27) of Enoch's disappearance (traditionally rendered translated, which in modern usage refers
only to language.)
The complaint about Stephen for changing the customs Moses established (Ac.6:14), and the changing like a garment
of heaven and earth (Heb.1:12), both employ allatto, connected to the adjective allos other, which is used of Paul's wish
to change his voice (Gal.4:20, and the glorious change of the faithful to their resurrection bodies (I Cor.15:51), but also,
both separately and in its prefixed form metallatto, of the perversity of those who have rejected the general revelation of
God, and exchanged it for the worship of idols (Rom.1:23,25,26).
Jude (v.4) uses metatithemi for that exchange, and Paul (Gal.1:6) uses it to reprimand the departure of some people from
faithfulness.
A change of location or jurisdiction is expressed by both metatithemi (Ac.7:16) and methistemi (Col.1:13, I Cor.13:2), which
latter also applied simply to the loss of a job (Lk.16:4, Ac.13-22).
It is probably significant that metaballo, easily the most ambiguous term, is used only once (Ac.28:6), of the people of
Melita changing their minds about Paul after he was unharmed by the snakebite.

The changes/transformations advocated in the New Testament go far beyond merely abstractly changing one's mind or
opinion. This is explored in more detail in W.S.#6, dealing with the call to metanoeo (noeo is the verb form of nous #96).
Lexically, metanoeo, metanoia, is also a change of mind but it is one that involves, like most of the mind references in
the previous post, the entire re-orientation of one's life.

One key to that transformation lies in another phrase that appears in several of the references Rom.12:2, Eph.4:23,
Col.3:10: the renewal of your/our minds or understanding. In Titus 3:5, renewal is paired with regeneration, Both
the Ephesians and Colossians passages call for the putting off of one's former life, in favor of the new and very different

192
 life in Christ. The mixed tenses of the imperatives and participles imply both decisive, punctiliar action (aorist), and
continuous (present) effort.
Renewal represents four Greek words, three of which, anakainoo (II Cor.4:16, Col.3:!0), anakainosis (Rom.12:2,
Tit.3:5), and anakainizo (Heb.6:6), are related, and one, ananeomai (Eph.4:23) is used only once. L/S records no other
meanings for any of these. They are quite parallel to the ideas in II Cor.5:17 referring to a new creation and Eph.2:15 and
4:24 to a new man [person].

You may have noticed that all of these references refer to a major alteration in the nature, life, and behavior of individuals
or groups all, that is, except the two instances that initiated this investigation: the use of metamorphoo in the three
disciples' experience with Jesus. Did Jesus himself somehow change there on the mountain? He needed no
transformation to become what God intended, although Heb.2:10, 5:9,7:28 do speak of his maturing (W.S.#13).
I think the key to the discrepancy here may be in Jesus' charge to his awe-struck companions (Mt.17:9), Don't tell anyone
the vision (horama) until after the resurrection. Horama is used 11 times in the New Testament, all but this one in Acts
(9:10, 9:12, 10:3, 10:17, 11:5, 12:9, 16:9, 16:10, 18:9) and all are referring to a supernatural experience imparting
information or instructions not available in any other way. I think Peter must have understood it this way, from his
comment in II Pet.1:16-18. He asserts that they were privileged to be eyewitnesses of his magnificence [glory]. Jesus did
not change. His true identity was supernaturally revealed to them (emprothen auton). And this revelation, whether by vision
or some other means, is the beginning of the transformation of all who choose to follow him.
And we all, with faces that have been uncovered, reflecting the Lord's own radiance, are being transformed
[metamorphosed!] into his image, from glory to glory, according to the pattern of the Lord's spirit.(II Cor.3:18) Every verb
form is in the present tense. It is continuously happening, from the beginning of one's turning to the Lord (v.16).

May we continually delight in and cooperate with! that metamorphosis!

Thanks be to God!

193
Word Study #98 Gain, Profit, Reward
One place where the result of a transformed life (W.S.#97) becomes vividly evident is in one's attitude toward these
concepts. It is common that they are treated as if they were nearly synonymous, but that is seldom the case, although
translators have often confused the different words in their texts. Where you start exerts a great deal of influence upon
where you come out: there is a huge difference between the conclusions drawn by the advocates of pie in the sky bye
and bye, those who prefer their pie now rather than later, and a few of us who aren't convinced that pie has anything to
do with the gospel message at all!

The traditional translation gain, for example, represents eight different Greek words, four of which are used only once or
twice. Porismos (I Tim.6:5,6), prosergazomai (Lk.9:16), and diapragmateuomai Lk.19:15), are all classically used of
simply earning a living. The idea of earning appears also to be why poieo was rendered gain once (Lk.19:18), even
though that word is normally taken to mean to make (102x), or to do (353x). The Luke references are all in Jesus'
parable of the pounds or talents.

Ergasia, used six times, similarly refers to one's business or trade, productive labor, or a company of workmen (L/S)
this last seen in Ac.19:24-25 although it carries a different sense in Lk.12:58, which is Jesus' advice to work at settling a
dispute out of court, and Eph.4:19, which seems to fit better with the appearances of pleonekteo (used five times), dealing
with greed, fraud, or unfair advantage (II Cor.2:11, 7:2, 12:17,18; I Thes.4:6).

The more common kerdos (n.), and kerdaino (v.), combining the idea of financial profit or advantage (Mt.6:26, 25:17,20,22;
Mk.8:36, Lk.9:25, Jas.4:13) with the concept of other sorts of advantage (Phil.1:21, 3:7,8; Mt.18:15, I Cor.9:19-22 , I
Pet.3:1) focusing on either conversions to the Kingdom or progress in Kingdom living, is also used, sometimes with the
prefix aischro- (shameful), to warn against any mercenary motivation for one's Christian service.
Paul is quite blunt in his assessment of such a motivation, in his own example of self-support (II Cor. 7:2, 12:17,18 and
Ac.20:34,35, where he simply describes his activity in Ephesus), and his disparaging of those who choose not to follow that
example (I Tim.3:3,8; 6:5, Tit.1:7,11). Peter (I Pet.5:2) registers a similar opinion.

Profit, on the other hand, also representing eight different words, uses totally different vocabulary, and none of those
words make primary reference to financial concerns, with the possible exception of the use of opheleo in Mt.15:5 and
Mk.7:11, regarding the support of one's parents. The classical use of opheleo and its noun form opheleia, includes primarily
to help, advantage, to render service or benefit or to receive such service, although it also referred to spoils of war (L/S).
The adjective form, ophelimos, adds useful, serviceable, profitable, and is applied to physical exercise (I Tim.4:8),
godliness (same reference), the Scripture (II Tim.3:16), and good deeds (Tit.3:8).
To be useful would probably fit most of its contexts (Mt.16:26, Jn.6:63, Rom.2:25, 3:1; I Cor.13:3, 14:6; Gal.5:2,
Heb.4:2,13:9), and even in the frustration of both the Jewish Council (Jn.12:19) and Pilate (Mt.27:24) at the failure of their
schemes.
Less frequently used, chresimos (II Tim.2:14), euchrestos II Tim. 2:21,4:11; Phm.11), and ophelos (Lk.9:25, Jas.2:14-16)
likewise refer to usefulness, helpfulness, or assistance.
Prokopto, speaking of moral or intellectual progress, or physical growth, may be used in a positive (Lk.2:52, Gal.1:14) or
negative (II Tim.2:16, 3:9, 3:13) direction, as well as simply of the passing of a day (Rom.13:12.).
Sumphero, more frequently bringing together in classical usage, in the New Testament displays primarily its secondary
meanings, to confer a benefit, to be useful, expedient, or fitting, being rendered 7x as expedient (Jn.11:50, 16:7, 18:14; I
Cor.6:12, 10:33, 12:1, 12:7), and 6x as profit or profitable (Mt.5:29,30; Ac.20:20, I Cor.7:35, 10:33; Heb.12:10).

Of course, the biggie for the pie-in-the-sky folks, is the concept of reward, representing two different words:
apodidomi, which refers to any kind of payment or exchange even a bribe! and misthos , where reward is the primary
choice of traditional translators, in spite of the fact that the classical usage (L/S) emphasizes hired service, wages, pay, or
allowance for public service, or a physician's fee more highly than recompense or reward. Both of these terms primarily
spill over into the next post: however, a few observations are relevant here.
1. Material wealth is never mentioned as a reward, either here or hereafter. In fact, the nature of a reward is
not specified at all, in most cases, although public adulation is called a reward in a less than admirable sense in
Mt.6:1-5.
2. Some of the conditions leading to a reward are:
Mt.5:12, Lk.6:23 endurance of persecution for faithfulness to Jesus

194
Mt.5:46, Lk.6:35 loving enemies, doing good to those who hate you
Mt.6:1-5 praying, giving alms, privately rather than ostentatiously
Mk.9:41 offering a cup of water in Jesus' name
I Cor.3:8, 14 faithfully building on Jesus' foundation
I Cor.9:17,18 preaching the gospel without compensation
II Jn.8 maintaining faithfulness
3. Reward is also used of the consequences of unfaithfulness: (Ac.1:18, II Pet.2:!3, Jude 11, Rev.11:18).
Very interestingly, the only mention of specifically monetary reward is the Ac.1:18 reference to the money that Judas
received for his betrayal of Jesus! Is that the company you want to keep?

Just perhaps some of us would profit from an bit of an attitude adjustment!

195
Word Study #99 Labor, Payment, Recompense, Wages
In the former post (#98), we discovered that the New Testament usage of such terms as gain, profit, and reward,
includes very few parallels to today's common economic interpretations of those words. So are we to assume that we are
offered no guidance for life in the real world, and therefore must adopt the financial value system of the culture in which
we find ourselves? Only after subjecting them to careful scrutiny through the lens provided by the transformation (#97) of
life toward the image (#15) of the Lord Jesus.

Labor, for example, representing kopos (n.) and kopiao (v.), may apply simply to hard work, exertion or toil and
trouble, referring both to one's secular employment (Mt.6:28, Lk.5:5, I Cor.3:8, 14; 4:12; II Tim.2:6) and to efforts on
behalf of the Kingdom (Jn.4:38, I Cor.15:10,58; II Cor.6:5, 10:15, 11:23; I Thes.1:3, 3:5; Heb.6:10, Rv.2:2). See also
work (W.S.#39), for references using ergazomai and ergates.
Note that Paul frequently takes great pains to point out that he has been careful to support his Kingdom work by his own
manual labor (Ac.18:3, 20:34, I Cor.4:12, I Thes.2:9, 3:5), although he also commends those who have shared in
contributing to his needs the letter to Philippi is basically a thank-you-note.
Another recurring theme is Paul's assessment of the Christian motivation for work: in order to share with those in need
(Ac.20:35, II Cor.9:11, Eph.4:28), as well as to provide for one's own necessities and to lead exemplary lives in society (I
Thes.4:11). Nevertheless, he accompanies these instructions with a significant caveat: (I Tim.6:8) Let's be content with
having food and clothing, and goes on to warn of the dangers of excessive desires.

Payment and wages, interestingly, are both traditional translations of the same two words. Apodidomi, variously
rendered pay(10x), give (10x), reward (6x), sell(3x), deliver(2x), yield (2x), and repay, restore, perform, and
recompense(1x each), is listed classically as to pay a debt, to render what is due, the yield of a crop, to give an account, to
sell something for its worth, or to give or take a bribe! It is used in both parables and examples of indebtedness
(Mt.18:25,34; Lk.7:42, Mt.5:26, Lk.12:59), as well as being often translated reward (see W.S.#98).

Misthos, on the other hand, also referenced in #98, primarily carries the idea of wages paid to a hired worker in classical
usage. Traditional translators rendered it this way in Jn.4:36, Mt.20:8, Lk.10:7, and Jas.5:4 this last in criticism of
employers who neglect or refuse promptly to pay a just wage although they usually have chosen (often questionably) to
render it reward. They have used the more accurate concept of hiring for the verb form in Mt.20:1,7, rendered the
participle as hired servants in Lk.15:17,19 and Mk.1:20, and correctly applied it to Paul's rented house in Ac.28:30.
If apodidomi intends the payment of a debt, and misthos intends a deserved payment for work, we may need to re-think
the idea of reward, as noted at the end of #98. This is another of many concepts that need to be re-examined and clarified
in the context of a faithfully studying brotherhood.

Another word, opsonion, further complicates the situation. Classically, a salary paid in money, the pay of a policeman or
soldier, an allowance paid to a victorious athlete, a student, or a family member; the wages of labor, it occurs only four
times in the New Testament. Two of these are straightforward: the instruction of John the Baptist to soldiers, Be content
with your pay (Lk.3:14), and Paul's question, Does a soldier serve at his own expense? (I Cor.9:7). The other two are
more problematic. Despite his having repeatedly harped on the theme of his own self-support, (see kopiao above), and
been effusive in his thanks to various churches for their generosity in contributing to his needs. Paul, in his argument in II
Cor.11:8, writes, I robbed other churches, taking wages (opsonion) for ministering to you all! He is referring to the
contribution received from Macedonia (Philippi) (11:9), which he acknowledged in his letter to them (Phil.4:14-19) as a
gracious gift!
Similar ambiguity is seen in the statements, also in II Cor.11, as well as 2:17 and 12:13-15, and warnings about greed on the
part of elders and teachers (I Tim.3:3,8; Tit.1:7,11) juxtaposed with admonitions (Gal..6:6, I Cor.9:1-15) to share in their
support. This may suggest that both avenues of support are acceptable neither exclusively or perhaps allow latitude for
different approaches in different situations. It should be clear, however, that Kingdom work is never represented as a
career or business!
The fourth appearance of opsonion? Romans 6:23. If you can figure that one out, in the context of the other uses of the
word, please add your insight with the comment button! I'm sure Paul intents to contrast wages with gift but that's
as far as I can go!

Finally, there remains the use of recompense six different words, none of them frequent.
Four of them use prefixes altering the understanding of didomi (to give) : antapodoma (Lk.14:12 and Rom.11:9),

196
antapodosis (Col.3:24), apodidomi (Rom.12:17), antapodidomi(Lk.14:14, Rom.11:35, 12:19; II Thes.1:6, Heb.10:30). One
is a prefixed form of misthos antimisthia (Rom.1:27, II Cor.6:13), and one, misthapodosia, combines the two words
(Heb.2:2, 10:35, 11:26). All refer simply to repayment of what is owed or earned (L/S), along a spectrum ranging from a
simple social obligation (Lk.14:12), through reciprocal relationship (II Cor.6:13), all the way to divine vengeance
(Rom.12:19, II Thes.1:6, Heb.10:30). Although the uses of misthapodosia in Hebrews the only New Testament
appearance of the word, were traditionally rendered recompense of reward, there is only that one single word in the text.
Recurring as a refrain throughout, is the expectation of eventual justice, whether positive or negative from the perspective of
the recipient.

So yes, the Kingdom does have an economic policy. It does speak to the ordinary concerns of daily needs, including
responsible labor, just compensation, generosity of sharing, and avoidance of greed.
We will conclude this section with an examination of the people involved in the work of this Kingdom.

197
Word Study #100 Servants, Workers, Citizens, Children, Sons
This is a challenging study to organize, primarily because traditional translators have been extremely inconsistent in their
treatment of the text's original vocabulary. Not only does each of these English terms represent multiple Greek words, but
several of the Greek words have been artificially divided into multiple English concepts. I have chosen to confine this study
primarily to those references in which the words are applied specifically to faithful followers of the Lord Jesus.

Of the nine Greek words traditionally translated servant, four, therapen, oiketes, misthios, and misthatos are never
connected with serving God at all, but refer only to workers, either employed or enslaved, in household or agricultural
service.
Diakonos, people who simply do whatever needs to be done, has been treated in W.S.#40, and often, though not exclusively,
applies to Kingdom service. Please refer to that earlier study.
Pais may refer either to a servant or a minor child, and there is no way to be certain which is intended. We will consider
that among the other words relating to children.
Huperetes denotes more of an official position, rather like a deputy, officer, or assistant. It is used of the men in the high
priest's courtyard with Peter (Mt.26:58, Mk.14:54, 65), of John Mark's serving as an assistant to Paul and Barnabas
(Ac.13:5), an official at the synagogue (Lk.4:20), Jesus' disciples (Jn.18:36, Lk.1:2), and Paul (Ac.26:16, I Cor.4:1), as well
as 11x of government officials.
Doulos is by far the most frequently occurring term (120x). Classically, it always referred to slavery either one born into
bondage, a prisoner of war, or even a child sold by indigent parents. Slaves were wholly-owned possessions of their
masters, although some held positions of great responsibility. It was not uncommon for a faithful slave to be set free, either
by his master's generosity, by earning and purchasing his freedom, or by being redeemed (W.S.#61) by another. Paul
frequently used doulos to describe his own service to Jesus (Rom.1:1, Gal.1:10, Phil.1:1, Tit.1:1), as did James (1:1), Peter
(II Pet.1:1), and Jude (1): service that they had freely chosen.
Insight into the status of slaves is available throughout the gospels for example, in Mt.8:9, a servant does whatever he is
told; Mt.10:24,25 the relationship is likened to that of a student and a teacher; Mt.13:27,28 the servants bring a problem
to the master, and receive instructions for action; and you can find many others. I highly recommend this exercise! Start
with Mt.24:45-50, Mk.13:34, Lk.15:22, and go on from there!
Paul makes an eloquent case in Rom.6:16-20 that a person is a servant/slave to whomever/whatever he chooses to obey, and
urges (I Cor.7:22,23) that a definitive choice be made.
He speaks approvingly of others also as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ Timothy, Epaphras, Tychicus sometimes
preferring the prefixed term, sundoulos fellow-servant/slave.
It is interesting that on two occasions (Rev.19:10 and 22:9), the messenger usually assumed to be a supernatural being
of some sort who delivered the revelation to John, flatly refused John's worship, with the declaration, sundoulos sou
eimi (I am your fellow-servant)! Among faithful servants of the King, there are no superiors none deserving of
greater deference than all the rest except the Sovereign himself!!!
And Jesus himself reminded his followers, shortly before his departure (Jn.15:15), I no longer call you servants, but
friends! (See W.S.#22)

Ergates workers and sunergos fellow-workers frequently parallel doulos and sundoulos. Although conventionally
applied to hired workers rather than slaves, in the Kingdom context they are used synonymously. Paul prefers the prefixed
term here too, applying it to Timothy, Sysygos, Urbane, Priscilla and Aquila, Philemon, Archippus, Mark, Aristarchus,
Demas, and Luke. As in other references to work (W.S.#39 and 99), notice that the work that occupies one's attention
can be positive or negative, and requires committed discernment.

We have noted above that under Roman law, a slave did have the possibility of gaining freedom. If this was granted before
a magistrate and legally registered, he could even attain coveted Roman citizenship (Ac.22:28). Citizenship conferred
considerable privilege. It was also granted to select allied cities (of which Tarsus was one Ac.21:39) and their inhabitants,
and could be inherited by birth, or earned by service to the state, as well as by purchase. A Roman had legal rights
(Ac.16:37-38, 22:25-26, 23:27, 25:16) not available to others.
But the New Testament proclaims a citizenship far beyond that offered by Rome (Please refer to W.S.# 4,19,20,21, 149, and
Citizens of the Kingdom. ) Politeia, politeuma,and politeuo, although variously translated in traditional versions, all refer to
Kingdom citizenship conferred by faithfulness to the King, the Lord Jesus Christ. The scene of transformation described in
Eph.2:12-19 is graphic from alienated foreigners to fellow citizens with the saints [God's people] sumpolites as is a
similar reference in Col.1:13. As ransomed, free citizens, the faithful remain sundouloi to their King! This is explored in

198
greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom.

And that is not all! The faithful are designated not only citizens of the Kingdom, but members of the very family of the
King (Mt.12:48-50).
Of the seven words rendered child/children, only three are applied to Kingdom citizens.
Brephos and nepios refer to babies or very small children. Paidion is a pre-pubescent child of either gender, held up as an
example of unpretentious love (Mt.18:3,4), and used as a term of affection throughout his letters by the elder apostle, John.
Pais, as noted above, may refer either to a child or a young servant, although David (Lk.1:61, Ac.4:25), Israel (Lk.1:54), and
Jesus himself (Lk.2:42, Ac.4:27,30; Ac.3:13,26) are all designated as pais to God, but other people are not. Elsewhere, the
term does not specify whether it refers to a child or a servant, and traditional translators use them randomly.
This leaves teknion, teknon,and huios. Teknion, the diminutive (affectionate) version of teknon, appears only nine times,
seven of them in I John, as the elder lovingly addresses his younger brethren (2:1,12,28; 3:7,18; 4:4, 5:21).
Teknon, which does not specify gender, is used classically of any offspring, human or animal. It may include both sons
huioi and daughters thugater, and need not refer to physical descent. Geographical provenance (Mt.23:37, Lk.13:34, 23:28)
or philosophical or theological affinity may also be understood children of light (Eph.5:8), of wrath(Eph.2:3), of the
devil (I Jn.3:10), or of God (Jn.1:12, 11:52; Phil.2:15, I Jn.3:1,2) all of which employ teknon, despite being translated
sons by some translators in many passages. (You can find these sorted out in Young's Concordance.)
Huios, on the other hand, specifically intends sons. Please refer to the essay, The Task of a Translator for more detail.
Despite Paul's single use of teknon in Rom.8:16,17, it is usually huios that carries the weight of inheritance (W.S.#79,80).
John uses huios only of Jesus, except where he designates the faithful as sons of light in 12:46. Other writers use it
prolifically Mt.5:9, 5:45, 8:12; Lk.6:35, 20:36; Rom.9:26, Gal.3:27, I Thes.5:5 of sons of the Father, the Kingdom, the
Highest, the living God (all mis-translated as children), as well as Rom.8:14,19,29; Gal.4:6,7; Heb.2:10,12:5-8, and
Rev.21:7, where the correct word, sons, was used.
The declaration of the privileged status called sons of God does not exclude faithful females, but confers upon them
equally exalted status! Gal.3:23-4:7 must be read as a unit, not cherry-picked for verses!
Servants certainly! Workers expected to be. Citizens privileged to be! Beloved children indeed! And The whole
creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God! (Rom.8:19)
May our gracious Elder Brother and his faithful people speed the day!

199
Word Study #101 Follow Me!
Having started the publication of Word Studies a couple years ago with a consideration of the word, pistis, usually translated
faith, and its corresponding verb form, pisteuo, usually rendered believe, and discovered in the process that neither of
these words is accurately understood by those English equivalents (please see W.S.#1), it seems appropriate to me to begin
this second series with an examination of the only invitation that Jesus is ever quoted as having issued to prospective
disciples: Follow me! We have not a single record of his having handed anyone a list of doctrines to which he required
them to subscribe; not a word about the desperate condition of mankind, nor about how he proposed to remedy it. Even if
the traditional translation believe is used, on the few occasions when Jesus speaks of believing, the direct object is
simply me (himself), and not this or that about me. His more usual invitation is graciously beautiful in its simplicity:
Come and see! and Follow me!

This study should be viewed in tandem with #55, Following Instructions, which is an important corollary. But that is for
the already committed. Here we will look at following from the perspective of one considering faithfulness (the better
translation of pistis), which intends personal loyalty, as opposed to mere intellectual assent to a body of propositions. Far
too often, that essential element is lost in intricate theological arguments but loyalty to Jesus and his Kingdom is all
that he asked.

Historically, akoloutheo included many of the nuances shared by various English uses of follow: L/S lists to accompany
a person, to be guided by a person or principle; to be consistent with, to be in logical sequence (as in argument or debate); to
be part of someone's retinue or train, to render obedience or conformity to a superior.
Of its 90 New Testament appearances, the vast majority (60+) refer simply to physical accompaniment, whether by curious
crowds or devoted disciples. But Jesus' calls to various disciples and others, (Mt.8:22, 9:9, 19:21, 27, 28; Mk.8:34,10:21;
Lk.5:11, 27, 28; Jn.8:12, 12:26, 13:37), clearly have a much deeper commitment in view. Especially obvious is this sense in
Mt.10:38, 16:24; Mk.8:34, 10:21, where Jesus connects following him with self-denial (#68) and cross-bearing (#34), and
Jn.10:4, 5, 27, where following is cast in the intimate, trusting, protective relationship between sheep and shepherd, and thus
carries considerably more freight.

Those who responded to the call to follow Jesus did accompany him on his travels; they also were deputized to extend
his work. Following became an apprenticeship, for the task of continuing his work after his departure. Jesus' parting
instructions quoted in John 14-16 clearly assume that the torch is being passed to those who have been following.

Akoloutheo frequently appears with prefixes, in which case it is also exclusively rendered follow:
exakoloutheo I Pet.1:16, 2:2, 2:15, referring to a negative sort of conformity
epakoloutheo Mk.16:20, I Tim.5:10, I Pet.5:21, I Tim.5:24, with a much more positive sense of accompaniment or
conformity
katakoloutheo Lk.23:55,Ac.16:17, simply physically following after someone
parakoloutheo Mk.16:17, I Tim.4:6, II Tim.3:10, Lk.1:3, implying attainment, understanding, and companionship
sunakoloutheo Mk.5:37, Lk.23:49, also physical accompaniment.

Interestingly, the gospels do not use either of the other two words also occasionally rendered follow in the epistles, except
for the single appearance of dioko (usually 28x -- translated persecute ) in Lk.17:23 (a very poor translation). There,
Jesus is instructing the faithful to neither join (apelthete) nor persecute (dioxete) thereby implying that they should
simply ignore the world-enders who pretend to have inside information about his return.
Classical uses of dioko included to pursue or chase, as in hunting or warfare; to seek diligently, an object, a goal, or a lover;
to drive or chase away; legally, to prosecute; to pursue an argument; to persecute.

200
The ten occurrences of dioko in the epistles which are traditionally translated follow Rom.9:30,31, 14:19; I Cor.14:1;
Phil.3:12,14; I Thes.5:15; I Tim.6:11; II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14 refer to the determined, deliberate pursuit of some aspect of
faithfulness.

Mimeomai (II Thes.3:7,9; Heb.13:7, III Jn.11), also occurring only in the epistles (English cognate, mimic), refers to
following (copying) exemplary faithfulness.
Classical usage, besides mimicry, included portrayal as an actor, or to use as a model, to emulate.
Perhaps we may safely assume that these latter admonitions to be serious about pursuing various elements of a faithful
life (what is good, justice, faithfulness, love, peace, holiness, spiritual gifts), and to seek to imitate those whose maturity
in faithfulness sets a commendable example are addressed to folks who have already responded to the call to follow.
The epistles, after all, are not evangelistic tracts as they are sometimes represented, but instructions written to existing
brotherhoods, for their life and interaction together.

Interestingly, mimeomai is the only one of the three to have a noun equivalent (mimetes -follower) in the New Testament.
Paul urges his readers to be followers of me, of us, of the churches, of God, and of what is good.
In the gospels, those who respond to the Lord's Follow me are thereafter termed disciples (#51).
Paul elsewhere calls them saints (#32) people unequivocally committed as the exclusive possession of God.
And describing one of the joyful assemblies singing praises around the throne (Rv.14:4), John identifies the participants as
those who follow the Lamb wherever he goes!
This surely incorporates all the fullness of the ideas of following personal loyalty, total commitment, constant presence,
patterning, and obedience.

May we earnestly seek to be numbered among them, and to cultivate the increase of that celebratory throng!

201
Word Study#102 The Way
In the last study, we considered Jesus' primary call to prospective disciples: simply to follow him. Once that choice is
made, however, questions remain, even perhaps especially for folks seriously committed to faithfulness. Following
usually assumes that one is going somewhere. Where are we going? How shall we get there?
In asking this, we are in good company. The early disciples were just as confused as we.

Perhaps the clearest understanding of the use of hodos, the way, among early followers of Jesus can be gained from an
examination of his conversation with Thomas and Philip, recorded in John 14:1-16. Both disciples are thinking in concrete
terms: If we don't know where we are going, how can we get there? indicates that Thomas is focused on a destination (as
are so many today, who can think of no goal but getting into heaven), and Philip is focused on an official introduction
or maybe some sort of high-powered spiritual experience with the Father the really BIG guy. Jesus, recognizing
that both have totally missed the point, gently corrects them. I AM the Way, he explains. It's not about going anywhere,
Tom it's about sticking with me! And Phil, open your eyes and look! Don't you get it? All that I AM, and all I've been
doing, shows you the Father! The critical key to this whole discussion is Jesus' use of I AM (See W.S.#17)

The point he is trying to make, for them and for us, is that he himself is not only the Leader and Guide, but also both the
journey and the goal! And to this end, he makes use of a very ordinary word, in an extraordinary way. Although there are
nine other words also translated way, none used more than twice in the New Testament, they add nothing of significance.
Hodos, used 83 times in the New Testament, is the one that deserves the focus of our attention.

Classically, hodos was used in three primary ways: of place : a road or highway, or the course of a river; of action : a trip,
journey, or sea voyage; and metaphorically: of one's culture, manner of life, intent, method, or system. With prepositions,
it could indicate (with pro) on the way, forward, profitable, or useful, (with kata) along the road, or by the way..., and
with a prefix (parodos) only a single NT use along the way.
20 of the NT uses refer simply to a physical road or pathway, and 15 to a trip somewhere, although some of these may fall
into both of those categories.
The 8 references to preparing the way, although describing the actual road construction that was done in honor of a
conqueror or royal personage (remember that first century Roman road-building rivaled modern highway construction, and
lasted longer. Some of those roads are still in use!), clearly intended more far-reaching preparations, as intimated in
Lk.1:76-78 and later references to the ministry of John the Baptist. The goal is not just a smooth highway, but a prepared
people, ready for the Lord.(Lk.1:17)

Most significant for our purpose are the metaphoric uses of hodos. References to a way of life, or cultural norms, may be
seen in Mt.10:5, Ac.14:16, and Rom.3:16, speaking of the behavior of the nations (W.S.#62), or of unfaithful individuals
(Ac.13:10, Jas.1:8, 5:20; II Pet.2:15, Jude 11), as well as in a more positive sense: the way of peace (Lk.1:79, Rom.3:17),
the way(s) of God (Mt.22:16, Lk.20:21, Ac.18:26, Rom.11:33, Heb.3:10, Rv.15:3), the way of righteousness/justice
W.S.#3 (Mt.21:32, II Pet.2:21), the way of life (Ac.2:28), the way of salvation W.S.#5 (Ac.16:17), the way of
truth W.S. #26 (II Pet.2:2, 2:15).
But even these pale in comparison to the transformation effected by the Lord Jesus.

The crucial statement referenced above in John 14, is preceded by another: You all know the way where I am going.
(v.4). Not only had they been watching and participating in Jesus' way of life and conduct for the past three years, but he
had continually been trying to prepare them for what lay ahead. Although he had warned them repeatedly of the trauma of
his rejection and execution by the very people who should have welcomed him most eagerly,(with none of the modern
theological jargon that accompanies such subjects today), that was not the focus of these final hours.
Rather, (Jn.16), it is the benefit that would accrue presently for faithful disciples as a result of his going to the one who
sent me (16:5), going to the Father (16:9), and the enabling they would consequently receive from the Spirit, to continue
following the Way he had showed them

This, I am convinced, is among the primary reasons why subsequent followers became known as people of the Way. This
designation appears all through the Acts account of the early church-- from the folks Paul pursued to Damascus (Ac.9:2,
22:4, 22:14), to Priscilla and Aquila instructing Apollos (Ac.18:25,26), and even used by their opposition in Corinth

202
(Ac.19:9) and Ephesus (Ac.19:23). These emphasize that the new movement was a way of living, not merely a
philosophy or a new religion as the Areopagos Council assumed (Ac.17:19-32).

The first century Roman Empire was a pluralistic society at least as broad as our own. Gods were plentiful, and
frequently added (for insurance?). They only required an occasional offering to remain beneficent, so nobody minded. The
powers that be didn't really care much what anyone thought or believed, as long as they behaved according to the
emperor's demands which of course included accepting him as a superior part of the pantheon, and offering incense to him
as well. It was transformed lives, subject only to an authority much higher than his, that they could not handle.
And that is an accurate description of the Way.

So really, these two studies are simply two perspectives on the same principle. To follow the Lord Jesus is to continue
along the Way in his company, according to his instructions, and toward the unity with him, with his Father, and with
one another for which he prayed (Jn.17).
His I AM the Way is the only answer to our puzzled queries of where? and how?

May we help each other to follow faithfully in the Way.

203
Word Study #103 Free, Freedom
Despite the protestations of popular hymnody and preaching, Jesus himself never connected the idea of freedom with
either his death or his resurrection. It was the mission announced in his inaugural address (Lk.4:18), and his identity as
the King of Kings, that authorized him to set his people free!
Actually, Jesus referred specifically to being free on only three occasions: a discussion with prospective disciples
(Jn.8:32-36), a conversation with Peter about the tribute-tax (Mt.17:26), and in Mt.10:8, using a different word, instructing
his disciples not to make any charge for the service to which he had commissioned them.
Even Paul, who is so widely (mis-)quoted in various retributionary theories about Jesus' accomplishments, never makes any
such correlations with freedom.
So it is appropriate that we lay aside the baggage of song and story, and investigate, What does the New Testament say
about Jesus' very important provision of freedom to the people of God?

The primary words with which we are concerned are the adjective, eleutheros, free; the verb, eleutheroo, to set free; and
the noun, eleutheria, freedom, liberty.
The noun form, classically, referred to manumission (the formal release of a slave), to political victory, or to thanksgiving
for such liberation.
In addition to those ideas, the verb included the clearing of an entrance or passage, the release of a debtor or prisoner, or
acquittal in court.
The adjective could apply to anyone who was not a slave, to the status of favored cities in the Roman Empire, and to
anything or anyone that was unencumbered, or legally permissible.

Of the 23 New Testament uses of the adjective, 17 are simply in contrast to cultural slavery. In agreement with Jesus'
instructions, Paul does not seem to think that questions of social status matter very much. In I Cor.7:20-22, he simply
advises, Don't let it bother you. But if the opportunity arises to be released, by all means, take it! He repeatedly asserts (I
Cor.12:13, Gal.3:28, Eph.6:8, Col.3:11) that social status must make no difference whatever in the brotherhood, in terms of
either responsibility or privilege.
Of the 11 uses of the noun, four refer to the Jewish law (two in the verb form), and once to one's lower nature (four in the
verb), while three refer to the indulgence of one's human nature. Both of these are also labeled slavery (douleia) or
bondage/imprisonment (desmos). The verb only appears 6x.

It is important to consider, then, from what the Lord's people are set free, how this is accomplished, and to what end, or
for what purpose freedom is granted.
Here, Jesus' discussion in Jn.8:30-36 is normative. Notice that he is speaking (v.30) to the Jews who had become faithful
to (trusted) him., but saying that in order to be his disciples (W.S.#51), they need to continue or remain (meno
W.S.#58) in his word (W.S.#66). This will result in their becoming acquainted (gnosesthe-- W.S.#29) with the truth (#26),
which is then represented as the agent of their being set free (v.32).The substitution of the Son (v.36) as that agent
foreshadows Jesus' statement in Jn.14:6, in which he asserts that he is himself the personification of the Truth.
To their protests that they have never been slaves Come on guys! Have you forgotten Egypt? Or the present
occupation by Rome? he explains that slavery (v.34) also exists where people habitually choose their own ways above
God's instructions.

Paul picks up the same theme in Rom.6:16-22: one must simply decide whom or what he will obey. Freedom from the
law does not mean flaunting all regulation, but rather, subjection to a much higher law, which James calls the perfect law
of freedom! (Jas.1:25, 2:12). Freedom/liberty is not personal autonomy that grants a license to do your own thing
regardless of its effect on anyone else. It is the privilege, by enlisting in Jesus' Kingdom, to learn to do his thing! This is
the true land of the free and home of the brave!

The same idea appears throughout the letter to Galatia, with regard to the Jewish Law. In both cases, the call is to freedom
from oppressive slavery, whether to one's own whims or to a detailed legal system, into what Paul terms (Rom.8:21) the
glorious liberty of the children of God! Or, as he put it in Col.1:13, from the power of darkness, into the Kingdom!
Discipline and discretion do not inhibit, but rather enhance true freedom!

204
It is also significant that people as well as all creation need to be set free from their natural condition whether
(Rom.8:12) simple mortality (decay), natural things (Gal.4:8) (animism?), enslaving power systems (Gal.4:9), or the
flesh (human nature) (Gal.5:13, I Pet.2:16). One's natural inclinations are not acceptable excuses for unacceptable
behavior, but slavery, from which any genuine representation of the Good News offers release and freedom!

How is this deliverance to be accomplished? By continuing to live in my (Jesus') word(Jn.8:31); by acquaintance with
(him who is) the Truth (Jn.8:32); by the Son setting you/us free (Jn.8:36); by the sovereign decree of the king (Gal.5:1);
by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (Rom.8:2); by presenting your/our selves to him for obedience
(Rom.6:18,22); and with the help of the brotherhood into which we are baptized into one Body (I Cor.12:13) the Body
of Christ!

And to what end is all this directed? The glorious liberty of the children of God! (Rom.8:21). This liberty enables
people to become servants/slaves to each other, out of love, (Gal.5:13); as free people, not using freedom as a cover-up
for wrong, but as God's slaves (I Pet.2:16); as Paul testifies, For although I was free from all, I made myself a slave to all,
in order that I may win more (I Cor.9:19) the only genuine evangelism.
Best of all, this freedom does not entail the forcible abuse or subjugation of any person or group; no compulsion, no
destruction of life or livelihood. Everybody wins!
Remember that Where the Lord's spirit is, there is freedom! (II Cor.3:17) may well have been written from jail! By a
man who saw himself as incredibly free!
Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ has set us free! And don't be subjected again to the yoke of slavery!
(Gal.5:1) ANY kind of slavery!

Basically, freedom from all other bondage or obligations enables Kingdom living, after the pattern established by the King.
If the Son will set you free, you will actually be free! (Jn.8:36)
Thanks be to God!

205
Word Study #104 Building / On Building Churches
Some years ago, I tried to comfort and encourage a very earnest young man, who was deeply distressed at having been
sharply criticized by the superiors in the corporate structure of his denomination (a problem addressed in chapter 6 of
Citizens of the Kingdom) for failing to succeed at their stated goal of building churches. Neither he nor those superiors
had ever noticed that Jesus said that was his job (Mt.16:18), or that he had never subsequently delegated it to anyone else.
I don't think that observation helped him much; he had been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated into a corporate model of
church, a model that exalts a few and discourages most, and bears no resemblance whatever to the New Testament church.
Because, of course, to Jesus, the building process had absolutely nothing to do with either impressive-looking real estate,
or the weekly entertainment of an audience of thousands of admirers.

The theme of building does appear, in at least four different aspects, in the New Testament narratives, but with a distinctly
different flavor. Most of these occurrences employ a form of oikodomeo, of which classical uses include to build a house,
to design or fashion something, to construct on a foundation (physically or philosophically), to edify, or to be emboldened.
The other verb, kataskeuazo, to equip or furnish, construct or build, prepare, arrange, establish, appears only ten times,
and refers primarily to physical construction, although that sense is broadened in four references to preparing the way of
the Lord (see #102). All the rest are in Hebrews, and reference the old, obsolete ways.

Out of 24 uses of oikodomeo, 14 refer simply to physical construction, and most of those describe activity under the old
covenant: Noah's ark, the temple, a synagogue, the tombs of the prophets. The rest are in parables (Mt.7:24-26, Lk.6:48,49;
Mt.21:33, Mk.12:1, Lk.12:18) except for the physical location of Nazareth (Lk.4:29). Other than Jesus' then-enigmatic
statements (Mt.26:61, Mk.14:58, Jn.2:20) and reactions to them, in which he was referring to his resurrection, the only
gospel use of oikodomeo in a sense other than physical construction is his word in Mt.16:18, I will build my church.
But after Pentecost, everything changes. The transition is marked by the fulfillment of the event described in Ps.118:22 and
quoted in Mt.21:42, Mk.12:10, Lk,20:17, Ac.4:11, I Pet.2:7, where, in each case, the participial form, builders, is used.
The power of this figure is lost for those who are unacquainted with ancient construction, due to the mistaken use of the
word cornerstone in most translations.
A cornerstone, today, is strictly ornamental. It is usually formally added at the dedication of a building its space and shape
carefully prepared beforehand and left vacant until its ceremonial installation. The scene described in scripture, however, is
that of the construction of the ubiquitous Roman arch. Its keystone, a carefully fashioned, wedge-shaped component at the
very top, holds the whole thing together. Without it, the arch would collapse, and the whole building with it. The message
is, that the (self-appointed) builders were clueless and discarded the most crucial component because of its odd shape,
ignorant that it was, in fact, absolutely essential. Both the phrase the head (kephale) of the corner, and Isaiah's
akrogoniaion, which combines akros high, with goniaion, knee, or corner, make it obvious that the stone in question,
which is identified with the Lord Jesus, is ON TOP, and necessary to the entire structure, not a decorative dedication or
memorial!

With Jesus himself holding everything together, as Paul asserts in Col.1:17, the figure changes completely. The construction
materials, you all, are now living stones (I Pet.2:5, being built into a spiritual house and a dedicated priesthood.
Paul chimes in also with plural you's in every case: Eph.2:20 - you all also are being built on the foundation of apostles
and prophets, Col.2:7 - rooted and built up in him (Jesus), Eph.2:22 - in him, you all are being built together into a
permanent dwelling place for God, in the Spirit. (These latter references use prefixed forms of oikodomeo.) Notice the
passive voice of the verbs. The building materials are being acted upon, they are not the agents of the action.

Of the six uses of the noun form, oikodome, building, three refer to the temple complex, which Jesus expected to be
destroyed not one stone left upon another. Three refer to the new orientation: I Cor.3:9 You all are God's building,
II Cor.5:1 a dwelling made without hands, a home from God, Eph.2:21 the whole building grows into a holy temple
in the Lord! Here we see a transition to active verb forms.

It remains to consider the other lexical domain of oikodomeo and its related words, usually translated edify. This is an
admissible choice, but only if one remembers that it is the same word as the one translated build. Unlike the former

206
group of references, most of these are active. And please remember, they are all from the epistles letters which were
written to groups that are already committed to the Lord, though at varying stages of maturity. The task of building is
intended to be shared by the brotherhood but (I Cor.3:10) Each one must watch out how he builds, and later in the same
letter (ch.14), Paul details both hazards and assets, emphasizing (v.12) seek to excel in what will edify the congregation.
Whether the question involves the use of tongues and prophecy, or any of the other group activities listed in v.26-31, the
mutual goal is that all may learn and all be encouraged (v.31).
The same concern occupies Eph.4:12 God's people are to be equipped, by workers with varied responsibilities, (v.11), to
all be involved in building up the Body of Christ toward maturity (v.13). The goal is enabling the whole Body v.16
for building itself up in love. One's speech (v.29) is to be focused on building what is needed in order to give grace to
the listeners. Similar instructions are found in I Cor.8:1, 10:23; I Thes.5:11, Rom.15:2, II Cor.10:8, 13:10; I Tim.1:4.

Conspicuously absent is any reference to real estate, or to attracting crowds of curious spectators. The direct object of
build is overwhelmingly focused upon the congregation, yourselves, the Body of Christ, and each other!

Building the church is the Lord's job. Mt.16:18, with which we began, is the only place where church is the direct
object of the verb, to build.
Building up each other is our job; as well as being responsible to present ourselves to the Master Builder in order to be
built into the Body through which he can continue to redeem his world.

Building / edifying seems to include any activity that serves to enhance the faithfulness of a Body of disciples.
May we continually build and encourage each other to that end!

207
Word Study #105 To Plant (Church planting), To Grow
(Church growth)

While we are talking about buzz-words, let's look at a couple more church planting and church growth. It is no
surprise that neither of these phrases can be found in the New Testament. However, there are a few references to the verbs,
phuteuo, to plant, as well as speiro, to sow; and auxano, to grow. The words themselves are not at all ambiguous. An
examination of their subjects and objects, however, can be instructive. (One plants cuttings or immature seedlings, but
sows seed.)

Most of the synoptic uses of phuteuo are in parables referring to the planting of a vineyard. Paul uses it in a similar way in I
Cor.9:7. The concept of vineyard is interesting, and could be explored later. For our purpose here, we will merely
observe that the person who did the planting did so in the expectation that the vines would grow to maturity and bear fruit
(in that order!)
Two other occurrences are found in Jesus' matter-of-fact response to the Pharisees' taking offense at his teaching
(Mt.15:13),one (Lk.17:28) to the business as usual going on in Sodom before its destruction, one (Lk.13:6) to the
unfruitful fig tree, and one (Lk.17:6) to Jesus' enigmatic statement about the power of faithfulness. In his letter to Corinth,
Paul uses the figure of planting and watering (I Cor.3:6,7,8) to describe his and Apollos' work among the people there.
He does not specify what he planted.

The references to sowing, on the other hand, both in synoptic accounts (Mt.13:3-19, 13:24-30, 13:31-32; Lk.8:5), and in
John's (Jn.4:36-37), focus understandably on the seeds rather than plants. And Jesus very kindly illuminates the details for
us. In Mt.13:37, The one who sows the seed is the Son of Man, and the good seeds are the sons of the Kingdom (in
contrast to the weeds); and in Mk.4:14, The sower sows the Word, or (Lk.8:11) The seed is the Word of God.

The epistles are less specific. Paul speaks (I Cor.9:11) of his having sowed spiritual things for them; of planting seeds as
an illustration of the difference between one's natural and resurrection body (I Cor.15:36-44); of reaping what one
sows (Gal.6:7-8) in terms of one's chosen manner of life; and with respect (II Cor.9:6-10) to generosity in sharing one's
resources. James concludes a treatise about consistent living (3:18) with a crop of justice [righteousness] is sown in peace,
by those who make peace.

And that, folks, is all that is said about planting!

When anything is planted, of course, it is with the expectation of a harvest. But there are only three specific identifications
of what is planted with respect to the Christian message: the word / word of God, the sons of the Kingdom, and
justice. Paul adds, What you sow is not the body that will be, but you sow a bare seed ...But God gives it a body, as he
wishes! (I Cor.15:37,38).
The church is NOT what is planted! It is profoundly to be hoped that these plantings will result in the formation of
colonies of the Kingdom, but that remains to be seen.

The intermediate step, naturally or supernaturally, is growth. But here too, both physical and spiritual expectation differs
sharply from common rhetoric. You don't pick grapes the first year you plant cuttings, nor harvest wheat immediately after
grain is sown. What is planted must first grow to maturity, before bearing fruit. Creatures, or people, must also be
nurtured to maturity (at least, they should!) before they are expected to reproduce! (Please see W.S.#13 and #64)

Some of the seeds will sprout, and some won't (Mt.13, Mk.4, Lk.8). The same word, auxano, is used of the growth of a
child (Lk.1:80, 2:40), of lilies (Mt.6:28), of seeds (Mt.13:32), of the brotherhood (Eph.2:21), and even of the word of God
(Ac.12:24, 19:20)! Peter (I Pet.2:2) admonishes his readers to grow up!, and in II Pet.3:18, to Grow in grace, and
knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul advocates increase / growth (same word) in the fruits of justice (II
Cor.9:10), your faithfulness (II Cor.10:!5), the knowledge of God (Col.1:10), the increase / growth of God (Col.2:19),
and to grow up into him (Jesus) (Eph.4:15).
The only place in the New Testament where growth refers to an increase in population is Stephen's sermon in Ac.7:17,
where he refers to the Israelites in Egypt.

208
The church is what happens while all this growth is taking place! As Paul reminded the folks at Corinth, You all are
God's farm! (I Cor.3:9). It is the atmosphere in which growth happens. But there is not a single reference to grow with
churchas its subject or its object.

I will conclude with a look at the description of a time when the population of the church did increase dramatically, but
none of the planting or growing words appear. This is the scene described in Ac.2:42-47.

A huge group had joined their fellowship at Pentecost, but nobody seems to have immediately organized a lecture tour for
Peter, whose sermon had precipitated such a large response. Instead of launching a splashy media campaign (yes, there
were media in the first century that was the function of a herald kerux) , the group simply continued (Ac.2:42)
paying eager attention to the apostles' teaching, to sharing, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers. Luke goes on to
describe their sharing of resources, and notes (but does not detail) the experience of wonders and signs. Meeting in the
temple and from house to house (v.46) daily, they were simply praising God, enjoying each other, and being gracious
toward all the people!
Luke's concluding statement is the kicker: And the Lord added those who were being rescued [saved] to their
community, every day!

The church grew simply by BEING the church!

They were not trying to sell a theology or philosophy, or to start a new religion.
There was no need to mount an outreach campaign.
They only needed be become God's demonstration farm, so that folks could see the Kingdom in action.
If people today could see a demonstration of the real thing, that just might happen again.
I would love to be a part of a group of folks willing to try it!

209
Word Study #106 Compassion
Compassion was one of the words that appeared several times on the search lists. This topic was addressed in Word
Studies #59 - mercy, and #60 - grace, and the present study should be viewed as a supplement to those, to which I
would encourage you to refer. There, you may recall, we (tentatively) concluded that mercy generally assumed some sort
of merciful act or behavior, whereas grace appears more as a description of the character trait or motivation that results
in generous action, although there is overlap in their use. Compassion probably falls somewhere between these two,
bearing some of the flavor of each. All have their utmost manifestation in the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus, and all
are expected to be replicated in the lives of his followers.

Splanchnizomai, the primary word translated compassion, seems at first glance a rather odd choice. Its primary classical
use was in reference to the entrails of a sacrificed animal, or the powers of those individuals who were thought to be able to
read future events by examining or consuming them! I suppose that its later reference to all of one's inner organs as the
seat of one's emotions is no more repulsive than the modern English usage of heart or guts in a similar way. That might
seem just as strange to folks unacquainted with our culture.

In the New Testament, splanchnizomai, which appears only a dozen times, is traditionally rendered moved with
compassion 5 times, and have compassion 7 times. It is used only in the synoptic gospels, preceding accounts of Jesus'
healing (Mt.14:14, 20:34; Mk.1:41, 9:22), the raising of a young dead man (Lk.7:13), feeding people (Mt.15:32, Mk.8:2),
and teaching crowds (Mt.9:36, Mk.6:34). It describes the attitude on the part of the protagonist in three parables: the
master's release of a debtor (Mt.18:27), the good Samaritan (Lk.10:33), and the prodigal son (Lk.15:20). Every
occurrence of the word is immediately followed by an act expressing the compassion felt by the individual in question.
A few other words are also translated compassion.
Eleeo, treated in detail in #59, usually translated mercy, was rendered compassion three times: in Mt.18:33 regarding
the debt noted above, Mk.5:19 Jesus' instructions to a healed man to tell the folks at home of God's compassion/mercy
to him, and Jude 22 regarding a disciple's responsibility to rescue an errant fellow-disciple from self-destruction.
Oikteiro, of which the only New Testament use is Rom.9:15, is related to the noun and adjective forms universally
translated mercy (also see #59).
Metriopatheo also used only once (Heb.5:2), refers to Jesus' sympathetic understanding of our plight as a result of having
shared our humanity. In this, it closely parallels
sumpatheo, also used only in Hebrews 4:15 where it also refers to Jesus' being able, in his function as high priest, to
sympathize with our infirmities, and 10:34, where the readers are commended for their sharing in the sufferings of
those imprisoned or otherwise persecuted for their faithfulness.
L/S defines sumpatheo, and its adjective form, sumpathes, as a feeling of sympathy (our English cognate is sympathy).
Its etymological make-up, however, is more specific, combining sum- (a form of the preposition with), and pathe
(suffering,or misfortune). This parallels the Latin com- (also with, or together), and passio, (suffering), which is the
etymological source of compassion.
These seem to lean heavily toward a deeper involvement that simply feeling sorry for someone. They require sharing his
distress to the point of strong motivation toward action to alleviate his suffering.

Only Peter uses the adjective form, sumpatheis and he piles on four other descriptive terms to make sure we get the point.
Addressing attitudes and behavior in the brotherhood (I Pet.3:8), he admonishes his readers: Finally, all of you, be like-
minded (homophrones), sympathetic (sumpatheis), loving the brethren (philadelphoi), compassionate (eusplanchnai),
unassuming (tapeinophrones).
Peter is talking about a deep level of involvement here, far more than a pleasant Sunday morning handshake! Of the
descriptive words he chooses, not only sumpatheis, but also homophrones of the same mind (see #96), philadelphoi
familial love(#12, #87), and tapeinophrones humble-minded (#14), are used only here in the New Testament, although
related words are referenced in the word studies noted. Please refer to these for more detailed discussion, as all are
important, if a colony of the Kingdom is to function as intended.
Only eusplanchnai appears anywhere else. You can easily see its relation to our primary word, splanchnizomai. The prefix,
eu- denotes good or well. L/S says good-hearted. The single other use is in Eph.4:32, where Paul combines it with
chrestoi (kind) and charizomai (gracious -#60, forgiving-#7) in describing interactions in the brotherhood.

210
So perhaps we should characterize sympathy / compassion as grace / mercy with shoe-leather under it. They appear to
coming at the same general idea from slightly different directions: a gracious character trait, of which the Lord Jesus
provides the prime example, that motivates both sharing a deep understanding and concern for another's condition, and
action doing whatever is possible to alleviate his difficulty, disability, or distress.
The aggregate represents an essential element of the brotherhood shared by Kingdom citizens and an assignment
guaranteed to keep us VERY busy!

211
Word Study #107 Assurance
From observing the noise level about the terms Christian assurance and assurance of salvation in some circles, one
would expect to find the New Testament liberally salted with references to this word. Its appearance on the search lists
indicates the likelihood that some folks are looking for ammunition to use in these battles. Well, people, you're not going to
find it in a careful word study.

The English word assurance only appears nine times, in any form, even in traditional translations. Once each, it is a
(mis)translation of pistis (see W.S.#1) Ac.17:31 against 239 renditions as faith, which isn't much better and pistoomai ,
II Tim.3:14, a verb form which has only a single New Testament appearance. Once I Jn.3:19 it is used for peitho
(against 22x persuade, 8x trust, and 7x obey-- W.S.#88) ; once Ac.2:36 for asphalos (against 2x for an arrest!);
and once for sumbibazo Ac.16:10 where it does not parallel any of the four other uses of the word.
Four times it was the choice for plerophoria, the only word for which assurance is the only -- or even the primary
traditional translation: Col.2:2, I Thes.1:15, Heb.6:11, and 10:22, in each of which confidence or conviction would suit
just as well.
Not a single reference contains either a threat that some inadvertent misstep will cause one to lose, or a guarantee that,
having once been sufficiently frightened to raise his hand in a revival, one will be permanently protected from ever
losing his salvation (W.S.#5). Both caution (Heb.3:13-14) and reassurance (I Jn.3:19-21), are present, however.
So since responsible word study simply doesn't have a dog in that fight, and since the concept of assurance, also labeled
certainty, confidence, and being sure, is abundant, I invite you to lay down your weapons, and feast instead on the
veritable banquet of encouragement that the Lord has provided for us. You can find additional studies on this subject in
W.S.#1, pistis, and #36, elpis.

Plerophoria, mentioned above as the only word consistently rendered assurance by traditional translators, is classically
defined as certainty, fullness of assurance, complete satisfaction. In the Colossians passage, Paul connects it to an
accurate understanding of God's mystery, Christ, which is developed as a result of your hearts (being) encouraged and
knit together in love the interaction of a congregation of Kingdom citizens. In I Thessalonians, he adds miraculous
power, and the Holy Spirit as grounds for this firm conviction. His concern is the same as that expressed by Luke in his
introduction, (using the verb form in 1:1, and asphaleian in 1:4), to convey the absolute certainty and veracity of the
message of Jesus.

A similar idea is approached from a different angle by the use of peitho, only once rendered assurance, but 26x connected
to persuasion. These are about evenly divided between attempts to convince someone (Mt.27:20, 28:14, Lk.16:31,
20:6;Ac.13:43, 14:19, 18:4, 19:8,26; 21:14, 26:28, 28:23, Rom.5:11), and expressions of confidence (Ac.26:26, Rom.8:38,
14:14, 15:14; II Cor.2:3, 5:10; Gal.1:10; Phil.1:25, 3:3; II Thes.3:4, I Tim.1:5, 12; Phm.21, Heb.6:9,11:13). The same word
is used in other contexts regarding obedience (#88) and trust (#1).

Asphaleia, asphales, and asphalos, referring about equally to physical security (including arrest Mk.14:44, jail
Ac.16:24, and the sealing of Jesus' tomb Mt.27:64,65,66) and certainty about facts (Ac.2:36, 21:34, 22:30, 25:26;
Phil.3:1), are similarly divided in their classical usage: safety, caution, legal security, steadfastness, soundness, (opp. risk).

Turning to the traditional word sure, we encounter a variety of terms, also.

Bebaios, classically firm, steadfast, steady, durable, guaranteed, confirmed, is used in reference to the promise of God
(Rom.4:16, Heb.2:2, 9:17), the words of prophecy (II Pet.1:19), our hope/expectation of the fulfillment of both (Heb.3:6,
3:14, 6:19), and our own calling (II Pet.1:10) which latter is not automatic, but requires effort/ diligence!

Stereos, firm, solid, solidified, settled, is applied to God's foundation (II Tim.2:19), constancy in faithfulness/loyalty (I
Pet.5:9), and the solid food (Heb.5:12,14) intended for mature disciples.

Both ginosko (Lk.10:11, Jn.6:69) and oida (Rom.2:2, 15:29, Jn.16:30) usually rendered know (W.S.#29) are rarely
rendered be sure.

212
Confidence represents tharrheo, to be of good courage, to be unafraid, to be confident (II Cor.5:6, 5:8, 7:16);
pepoithesis, trust, confidence, boldness (II Cor.1:15, 8:22, 10:2; Eph.3:12, Phil.3:4), hupostasis , origin, foundation,
substructure, confidence, courage, resolution (II Cor.11:17, 9:4, Heb.1:3, 11:1, 3:14), and parrhesia, outspokenness,
freedom of speech, liberality, lavishness, freedom of action, without fear.
A treasured element of citizenship in the Athenian democracy, parrhesia appears in the New Testament with two traditional
translations another case where it is important to remember that confidence and boldness are the same word.
Boldness is not arrogance or self-promotion, but simply the confidence that is born of identification with the Kingdom!
Confidence in the Lord to whom we belong (Ac.28:31, Heb.3:6, 10:35; I Jn.2:28, 3:21, 5:14) is the source of the
boldness with which we may approach both the Lord of Glory himself (Eph.3:12, Phil.1:20, I Tim.3:13, Heb.4:16,10:19; I
Jn.4:17), and others in his name (Ac.4:13,29; 9:29, 14:3, 18:26, 19:8).

Consequently, having followed brother Luke's example and gotten our facts straight, and realized the resources cited by
brother Paul of the power of the Holy Spirit and the support of fellow Kingdom citizens, we may live confidently in
genuine Christian assurance.

Let's approach him (Jesus, our high priest), with a true heart, in abundant confidence, [or, complete faithfulness]
(Heb.10:23)
Let's hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation for the one who
made the promise is faithful! (v.23)

Thanks be to God!

213
Word Study #108 Full, Fullness, Fulfillment
Treatment of plerophoria in the previous post, relating to full assurance, trust, or understanding, leads us to the family
from which that compound word is derived. Although some of the uses of the adjective, pleres full, refer simply to the
capacity of a container (Mt.14:20, 15:37, Mk.6:43, 8:19), or a fully developed (mature) head of grain (Mk.4:28), and most
of the rest describe dominant features of someone's personality, whether positive (Lk.4:1, Jn.1:14, Ac.6:3,5,8; 7:55, 9:36,
11:24) or negative (Ac.13:10, 19:28); and 35 of the 91 appearances of the verb pleroo mention the fulfilling or
accomplishment of prophecy or obedience to the Law, 7 simply the passage of time, 7 the completion of an assignment, and
10 parallel to the uses of the adjective, there remains a considerable contingent that deserves more specific attention.

Classical uses of the words related to pleroo are as varied as the English associations with filling or being full. They
include complete payment (in full), accomplishing / completing an assignment, duty, or task; the fulfilling of prophecy
or purpose, the full phase of the moon, maturity, to gorge or to satiate one's appetite, to consecrate, or even to impregnate!

As is the case with other words, however, New Testament usages also can deviate markedly from classical patterns. For
example, although the many references to fulfilling the law and the prophets would have been readily understandable to
first century audiences, I have been unable to find any classical parallel to Jesus' expressed legacy to his confused and
troubled disciples (Jn.15:11, 16:24) and his prayer to the Father on their behalf (17:13) that his (Jesus') joy might be
fulfilled in / among them. This legacy is referenced later as well (Ac.13:52, Rom.15:13, I Jn.1:4, II Jn.12), and also
evident in interactions in the brotherhood (Phil.2:2, II Tim.1:4). In this regard please see also #92, Rejoice, and look for
joy in a later study.
In this case, Jesus seems concerned that this aspect of his own life and personality his joy be transferred and/or
reproduced in the lives of his disciples, and only so would it be fulfilled [made complete]! Try to get your head around
THAT!

Paul writes of being filled with (Rom.15:14) all knowledge; (II Cor7:4) comfort / encouragement; (10:6) obedience;
(Eph.3:19) the fullness of God; (5:18) the Spirit; (Phil.1:11) the fruits [harvest] of righteousness [justice]; (4:19) the supply
of needs to enable generosity; (Col.1:19) certain knowledge of God's will all of which evidence one's development toward
maturity in Kingdom living. On the surface, all these ideas seem to parallel those treated in #13 teleios, mature,
[perfect] but the reach of pleroo is much farther than that vision of maturity.

The idea of completeness becomes quite central to the understanding of the New Testament uses of these words, and
particularly of the noun form , pleroma, almost exclusively rendered fullness.
Especially in Ephesians and Colossians, Paul has borrowed the vocabulary of incipient Gnosticism to highlight the unique
completeness of Jesus. Please note that he has borrowed the VOCABULARY, NOT the ideology, as some critics would
like to assume. In fact, he has re-defined virtually all of the terms that he uses.
Scholars differ on the dates they ascribe to this Eastern philosophy / mythology. Some see its beginnings in the first century
BC, and others not until the second or third centuries AD. Like any philosophical system, it probably did not emerge full-
blown on the scene in the eastern Mediterranean. We have noted before the syncretistic nature of many cultures there.
Many and varied ideas had arrived, both with ardent proponents and with casual business people, along the trade routes that
intersected in the region, where they merged and diverged in dizzying profusion. The idea was to keep one's bases covered:
a new idea, a new deity, could easily be added to the mix, (just for good measure), as in the Athenian altar to an
unknown god. Across several centuries and cultures, Alexandrian, Persian, Jewish and other adaptations had emerged,
with syncretistic manifestations appropriate to each. What follows is a grossly over-simplified summary.

The Gnostic system had strong intellectual appeal, being based on gnosis knowledge. (#29). Adherents posited a
remote supreme being, designated pleroma much too divine to be able to interact with matter, which was viewed as
evil. The creation and administration of the material universe was delegated to various levels of emanations known as
aeons (yes, the same word as aion, noted in #55). These were thought to have emerged from the pleroma, in a sequence
becoming gradually less divine until some of them eventually could interact with matter. Jesus was assigned a place, by
these philosophers, somewhere among these lesser beings, or sometimes among the arche (called principalities and
powers in the NT), who were thought to supervise earthly affairs. Also in the hierarchy of emanations were sophia
wisdom and gnosis knowledge sometimes personified, sometimes not which were expected, by their skilled
deployment, to rescue the enlightened from the evil bonds of the material universe. All these intermediaries had to be
courted or placated by intricate systems of asceticism and legalism, in order for the requisite wisdom and knowledge to be

214
revealed.
Salvation was defined as liberation from both matter and ignorance.
Faith (pistis) was acceptance of the concomitant dogma.
The soul (psuche) was a disembodied entity (which had been rescued from matter by this esoteric knowledge), rather
than simple human life (#55).
Some of this bears a sobering resemblance to the ideas of people and groups today that focus on escaping from the evil
world instead of following Jesus' example of redeeming it! It is not difficult to see gnostic-inspired teaching as a possible
source of the corruption of pistis (#1), either, and the increasing focus upon debates about fine points of doctrine rather
than Kingdom living.

With this brief background, it is easy to appreciate Paul's strategy in Eph.1:23, 3:19, 4:10,13; and Col.1:11-17 and 2:2-10.
Holding up the Lord Jesus as himself the agent of creation (Col.1:16), as well as the chosen bodily dwelling (Col.2:9) of
all the fullness (pleroma) of deity, the only way everything holds together (Col.1-17), and the repository of ALL the
treasures of wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis) (Col.2:3), Paul neatly disposes of pretty much the entirety of the
Gnostic or proto-gnostic hierarchy. And you all, he concludes, have been made complete (the perfect passive
participle of pleroo) in him who is the head of all arche and authorities. (Col.2:10).
There is no need either to adopt or to refute as evil any or all of the intermediaries invented by proponents of these or
any other complicated systems. You already have all that there is, in your identification with Jesus! This is the Lord
Jesus whom we serve, and who has called us not only to populate his Kingdom, but even to function as members of his very
own Body! The earthly, physical body could not possibly be evil, if Jesus chose to inhabit one! The definitive answer to
the advocates of any sort of syncretism is simply Jesus. Don't bother to waste time and energy defining or discrediting any
system's individual elements. As Creator, Sustainer, and reigning Lord of all that exists, Jesus is clearly superior to it ALL.
His people need no supplements!

In him, all God's completeness [fullness] was pleased to make its permanent residence (Col.1:19) and you all have
been fulfilled [made complete] in him! (Col.2:10)
Thanks be to God!

215
Word Study #109 Tradition, Ordinance
Here are two perfectly good and useful words/ideas whose value has been obscured, if not totally destroyed, by people or
groups who have a doctrinal axe to grind. I treat these words together here partly due to this commonality, but also
because both are also used by traditional translators for the same word, paradosis.
Paradosis, in classical usage, combines two very different strains of meaning, probably due to its derivation from the verb,
paradidomi literally, to give (didomi) with the prefix para- along, beside, toward, but also against. It is used both
positively, as of a bequest or the delivery of a message, and negatively, of betrayal or examination by torture! Both senses
are also represented by the noun, which most frequently refers to the transmission of history, legend, or doctrine, but also to
surrender for legal prosecution.

Paradosis appears only 13 times in the New Testament, 12 of which are rendered tradition and one (I Cor.11:2)
ordinance. There is no obvious reason for the single deviation. Of those usages, eight are in accounts of Jesus'
discussions with Pharisees regarding the traditions of the elders (Mt.15:2-6 and Mk.7:3-13). In both of the instances
referenced, Jesus and his disciples are criticized for failure to observe a requirement of tradition, to which Jesus responds
by pointing out quite bluntly that nit-picking about details of tradition actually amounts to outright violation of the
explicit commands of God (Mt.15:3,6; Mk.7:8,13).

These traditions were initially designed, with the very best of intentions, to guide people into faithfulness to their God. It
was only when the observance of traditions obscured the need for obedience to God's overtly stated directives, that they
lost any positive value. Please note, it's not the tradition itself that Jesus criticizes. Washing one's hands before eating, for
example, is a good idea, simply from a health perspective. But elevating even a good idea to a level that takes precedence
over God's instructions, creates problems. Jesus' frequent conflicts with the religious authorities over Sabbath observance
provide additional insight, which we will examine in a later study.

Paul sings a similar tune in Gal.1:14, regarding his zeal for the Law before he met Jesus, and also regarding the details of
pagan ritual (Col.2:8) formerly observed and still being advocated by some individuals among the Colossian brethren.

Actually, there are only three places where paradosis is used in a positive light: I Cor.11:2 (where it is translated
ordinance), and II Thess.2:15 and 3:6. In each of these, Paul refers to the teaching that he himself has given to each group.
( I used principles in the PNT. I considered that choice more accurate, since the lexical meaning of the word refers to
anything handed down.)
Tradition is not inherently wrong, but it must be constantly judged/ evaluated in the light of the Lord's specific
instructions. It is NOT, as some groups insist, equal in authority to the scriptures themselves. In fact, it was failure to
distinguish the traditions of men (Mt.15:6, Mk.7:13) from the instructions of God, that caused problems for Jesus and his
associates, and has continued to do so through all the centuries since the first!

Ordinance, on the other hand, in addition to the I Cor. reference above, represents seven other Greek words, of which four
diatage (Rom.13:2), ktisis (I Pet.2:13), dogmatizomai (Col.2:20), and diatagma (Heb.11:23) refer exclusively to civil
law or royal decree. One, dogma, refers to both civil and religious law (Lk.2:1, Ac.16:4, 17:7; Eph.2:15); one, dikaioma
(Lk.1:6, Heb.9:1, Heb.9:10) exclusively to the Jewish Law; and only one, paradosis (I Cor.11:2) to the instructions of a
Christian teacher.
The verb, diatasso, which refers to the giving of any sort of instructions (Lk.8:55) Jesus telling the little girl's family to
give her some food, (Lk.3:13) the terms of the license given to tax collectors, (Tit.1:5, I Cor.7:17, 16:1) various instructions
for arranging local leadership in new congregations, and (Ac.18:2) Claudius' decree that expelled all Jews from Rome
certainly does not carry any normative weight with respect to faithfulness!
Nowhere is diatasso applied either to the establishment of a hierarchy (see W.S#48) or to the observance of any ceremony,
as has been advocated by groups who (correctly) reject the concept of sacrament (W.S.#76) but still want to cling to some
of its magic.

In classical usage, all of these words have primarily civil rather than religious connotations.
Diatasso lists to appoint, to distribute, to classify; to make arrangements, to pledge oneself, to set an army in array, to make
testamentary distribution, to bequeath.
Diatage command, ordinance; testamentary disposition, or a medical regimen

216
Diatagma ordinance or edict
Dogmatizo to decree by ordinance, to lay down a judicial opinion
Ktisis (most commonly) creation; founding or settling, creation of authority
Dogma notion, decision, judgment; a public decree or ordinance, opinion or belief
Dikaioma judicial amendment of a wrong; pleadings in a suit, credentials
Only the latter two are used of the Old Testament Law see references above.

So where do we come out?

A tradition (paradosis) has value, IF it involves, enables, or enhances faithfulness to the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom
but ONLY as long as those who observe or adhere to it constantly judge (test) its effect on their obedience to his directives.
Like any symbols (see chapter 9 of Citizens of the Kingdom) traditions can be a valuable teaching tool, as long as they are
not invested with magical powers, used to abuse or exclude other disciples, or otherwise to distort the message of Jesus and
his Kingdom.

Likewise, ordinances which, please bear in mind, both lexically and in New Testament usage, are primarily civil
pronouncements are to be respected, insofar as they are properly ordered and observed UNDER the ultimate authority of
the only true King (I Pet.2:13).

Carefully shared discernment by a faithful brotherhood is essential in determining whether the observance or the violation
of any specific tradition or ordinance best expresses our faithfulness to the King and his Kingdom.
May we help each other to find the Way.

217
Word Study #110 The Sabbath (Part 1)
Few issues generated as much controversy during Jesus' earthly ministry as did the concept of sabbath observance. Please
refer frequently to the previous study of tradition as we consider this as one example among many of a perfectly good and
right principle gone awry under the weight of well-intentioned augmentation by experts to ensure the meticulous
observance of God's command.

The Jewish sources I was able to find base sabbath observance on the joyful celebration of two events: God's having
rested after his work of creation, and decreed similar weekly respite for his people a privilege, in the ancient world,
reserved for the wealthy and the powerful, but now extended to all; and the associated connection with their freedom from
slavery in Egypt, where they also had enjoyed no rest. The former was symbolized by refraining from any activity
deemed creative, or the exercise of any sort of control over one's environment, and the latter by celebratory ceremonies
both of which, as we noted previously, are good and effective teaching tools.

The difficulty arises from efforts, though inspired by the very best of intentions, to enforce the observance of a directive by
carefully (perhaps obsessively?) defining and enumerating specific proscribed activities. The Talmud organized these into
39 categories, each of which was further subdivided, itemized and explained, and all of which were strictly forbidden. The
resulting law could be abrogated only when deemed absolutely necessary to save human life.

Jesus himself, as well as the apostles, habitually attended a synagogue on the sabbath, observing the accepted tradition.
This was also a very practical decision: they went, frequently in order to teach, because that was the time and place where
people gathered! This was clearly the case in Paul's journeys, as well, seeking out synagogues in the Gentile world.
Controversy arose over the details: primarily healing (9x), but also such trivialities as picking a snack (harvesting) in
the grain field. It was here that Jesus chose to take a stand. Cutting through the layers of tradition, he posed the prior and
more basic question: Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do evil [wrong]? To save life, or to kill? (Mk.3:4,
Lk.6:9). His point is, neglecting or refusing to do good that is within one's power, IS to do evil. With Jesus, we move
out of the realm of prohibition, and into the realm of participation: actively doing the bidding of God.
He reminded them that although God rested on the seventh day, he did not retire! My Father is still working, and so am
I! (Jn.5:17) (Please refer also to rest #77)
The authorities had eloquently demonstrated that although they made exceptions for the care of livestock (Mt.12:11,
Lk.13:15-16, 14:5), and for their own ceremonies (Mt.12:5, Jn.7;22), they flatly refused to do so for the welfare of ordinary
people (Lk.13:14, Jn.7:23). Jesus, in contrast, cares for people.

This is the context for his statement (Mk.2:27), The sabbath came to be for the benefit of people, not people for the
sabbath. (This, too, is practical: it has been amply demonstrated in many settings that productivity increases if there is
time off but that is not the point here.)
A day set aside for rest, for worship, for sharing with the people of God, is a beautiful gift, to be enjoyed, and for which to
give thanks! It is the son of man [of God] (who) is Lord of the sabbath (Mt.12:8, Mk.2:28, Lk.6:5) and he is deeply
concerned for the welfare of his people. For those who choose his Kingdom, he is also Lord of every other day in their
lives, as well! But it is entirely appropriate to choose one in which to celebrate!

Interestingly, though, there is not a single instance in the New Testament where any particular day is commanded to be
observed except by the Jewish religious authorities who opposed Jesus! The expanding community after Pentecost is
recorded as meeting together every day (Ac.2:46, 47; 5:42, 6:1, 16:5, 17:10, 17; 19:9) for fellowship, teaching, sharing,
meals, and celebration! The first day of the week is mentioned as a meeting time in Troas (Ac.20:7) and as the time to
collect funds for famine relief (I Cor.16:2), but nowhere else except the resurrection accounts. I like the idea of a
resurrection celebration, but nowhere is it mandated.

Paul expresses a rather casual attitude in Rom.14, as an aside to his discussion of the observance (or not) of dietary
regulations (14:5,13), emphasizing that neither days nor food should be allowed to become an issue in the brotherhood
Someone judges one day beyond another; someone judges every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his
own mind. He who pays attention to a day, does so for the Lord. And he who continues eating, is eating with respect to the
Lord, for he is giving thanks to God. His main concern (v.13) is Then let's no longer keep passing judgment on each

218
other, but rather judge this: that no one place a cause of stumbling or falling away before his brother.
Paul's only specific mention of the word sabbath is in Col.2:16, where he warns against regulations that require special
observances.

The only other New Testament use of sabbath (a different form of the word), occurs in Heb.4:9.We really need to see this
in the whole context of chapters 3 and 4. The writer begins (3:1) with the best solution for any situation: Fix your
attention on Jesus!

The subject under discussion is the failure of those who were delivered from Egypt under Moses' leadership to enter the
rest that God had offered. The diagnosis of the reason is blunt: because of their unfaithfulness / disobedience (3:16-
19).The argument is a bit tough to follow in the beginning of chapter 4, but the admonition is clear: Hang in there!!!
(3:6, 3:13, 3:14, 4:1, 4:3, 4:10, 4:11).
There's still a sabbath remaining for God's people (4:9),and entering that rest depends entirely upon maintaining
identification with the Lord Jesus! (see references above)

We have been provided most graciously with three essential resources / tools for that maintenance work: 3:13 the
coaching of one another in/by the brotherhood
4:12 evaluation and instruction by the Word of God
4:14-16 the merciful intervention of our great high priest, Jesus, the Son of God.

Jesus himself is the promised sabbath rest for his faithful people!
Thanks be to God!

219
Word Study #111 Joy
Having dealt with the verb forms of these words in the study of rejoicing (#93), it may seem a bit redundant to return to
the noun, joy. Several requests, and the prevalence of the concept among the beleaguered brethren of the early church,
however, encouraged me to spend some time with the nouns as well, specifically augmenting the New Testament uses of
agalliasis, euphrosune, and chara with their appearances in the Septuagint, which may aid in distinguishing between the
terms. Especially interesting is the observation that euphrosune, which appears only twice in New Testament writings, is by
far the most frequently used in the LXX more than both of the others combined!

Bauer observes that agalliasis does not appear at all in secular writers, though he finds a few instances of referral to pagan
deities, as well as Messianic contexts in the LXX. The distinctions show up much more clearly in the Septuagint than in the
New Testament, although that impression may be colored by the handicap that my LXX concordance is much less
comprehensive than Young's.
Agalliasis seems to refer primarily to the euphoria of return from exile, of coronations, and of celebratory worship. Chara
also refers to freedom from captivity L/S connects it with good news, or joy at an event but it also includes a strong
sense of the presence of the Lord, especially in the psalms. Euphrosune describes pretty much any sort of a party even the
debauchery of Artaxerxes, and the celebrations of the defeat of Haman (Esther). It also appears in the prophets'
announcements (especially Isaiah and Jeremiah) that the party's over and exile is on the horizon, as well as the
celebrations at both the beginning and the completion of the rebuilding of wall and temple under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Although euphrosune is frequently paired with one of the other words in celebrations of return from exile or defeat of
enemies, it is also disparaged in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as levity or frivolity.

In the New Testament, the situation is markedly different.. We have noted already that euphrosune appears only twice: one
of which, (Ac.2:28)is an Old Testament quotation from Ps.15, and the other (Ac.14:17) is a part of Paul's frantic attempt to
prevent the offering of pagan sacrifice to him and Barnabas, in Lystra.

Agalliasis is used only five times: twice traditionally translated joy (Lk.1:44, Jude 24), and three times gladness
(Lk.1:14 paired with chara, Ac.2:46, Heb.1:9), all of which carry a celebratory air.

Chara, by contrast, appears 56x, (less than 20x in LXX), usually rendered joy, but 3x gladness. It is not clear why the
traditional translators changed their word choice in Mk.4:16, Ac.12:14, and Phil:2:29.
L/S records uses of chara ever since the sixth century BC dramatists Aeschylus and Sophocles. They observe references to
non-specific joy and delight, to the celebratory reaction to good news, and to enjoying an event, a thing, or a companion.
Thayer notes that chara is the opposite of mourning, and suggests that an accompanying dative case identifies the cause and
the genitive case the source of the joy. This can be a difficult call. There are many causes or sources of joy
specifically mentioned, and not all are accompanied with a convenient genitive or dative case. For example:
Mt.2:10 the Magi followed the star with great joy
Mt.13:20, Mk.4:16, Lk.8:13 some people are said to have received the Word with joy
Mt. 13:44 the finder of treasure sells all his belongings with joy to enable the purchase.

Then there is the too-good-to-be-true syndrome, which accompanies the joy of the disciples as the reality of Jesus'
resurrection dawns on them (Mt.28:8, Lk.14:41); and the exuberance of Rhoda upon recognizing that Peter is really at the
door (Ac.12:14) after his miraculous release from prison.

The satisfaction of a job well done, or the faithfulness of one's protegees (Lk.10:17, Ac.20:24, Rom.15:32, II Cor.7:13,
Phil.1:24, 2:2, 4:1; I Thes.2:19,20; Heb.12:2, 13:17; III Jn.4) causes great joy.
I'm sure you can find more.

There is, however, another theme in the New Testament references to joy that is not found elsewhere, and this is
especially significant. It is not at all surprising that all the healing and deliverance that accompanied Philip's preaching in
Samaria (Ac.8:8) should have resulted in great joy in that city, or that the report of many conversions should have brought
great joy to the all the brethren (Ac.15:3) as Paul and his companions made their way to Jerusalem. But when the same

220
reaction is reported among the disciples in Pisidian Antioch (Ac.13:51) after persecutors ran Paul and Barnabas out of town,
one is made to realize that something quite different is going on here.
Might it just possibly be related to the prayer (Jn.17:13) accompanying Jesus' parting conversation with his followers
(Jn.16:20-24), as he bequeathed them his own joy, even on the way to his impending torture and death? Or to the power
that enabled (Lk.24:52) their return to Jerusalem after his Ascension, with great joy, even though they were still mightily
scared of the authorities there? Or to the strength to endure joyfully the confiscation of their possessions (Heb.10:34) and
the testings of which James warned (1:2)?
None of these match well with any of the classical definitions.

And please note that none of these refers to any pie in the sky as a consolation prize!
James continues his admonition (1:3,4) by explaining that faithfulness under duress produces endurance (see #63), which is
an essential component of maturity [completeness] in Kingdom living.
Peter (I Pet.1-3-9) indeed includes the anticipation of Jesus' return in encouraging his readers to continue in faithfulness:
but remember, as he speaks of joy in the inheritance provided by Jesus' resurrection, that one receives an inheritance
while he (the recipient) is living (see #79 and #80), not after his own death!

Bauer notes that the occasional use of chara (at least 10x) with a form of pleroma / pleroo (see #108) probably indicates the
highest or most complete form of joy. Please check out Jn.3:29, 15:11, 16:24, 17:13, Ac,13:52, Rom.15:13, Phil.2:2, II
Tim.1:4, I Jn.1:4, II Jn.12.
This is a joy born and nurtured in and by relationship, with the Lord Jesus and with each other.
This is the joy that Jesus prayed and modeled for his disciples, and that Paul and John both hold forth as the ultimate
gift, in all its fullness[completeness]. Far exceeding the bounds of shallow celebration, or gloating over enemies, it is the
very atmosphere of the Kingdom.

May the God of hope [or, God, the source of hope] fill you all with all joy and peace, in faithfulness, so that you may
overflow with hope [confidence] in [by] the power of the Holy Spirit!
(Rom.15-13)

221
Word Study #112 Keys
Our brother Jim asked a fascinating question at church a couple weeks ago: What are keys for? He went on to observe
that we frequently think of locking doors for protection of ourselves or our property, and seldom of using a key to open a
door. That made me curious: his suggestion that in contrast, the New Testament descriptions of the Kingdom say more
about opening doors than about locking them sounded right so I decided to check. It's not unusual for Jim to be much
more perceptive than most folks but this is over the top! It is beautiful!

Keys kleis interestingly, only occurs six times in the New Testament. Lock never appears at all; to shut (four
different words) about 20 times, and to open (anoigo) more than 70 times!
In fact, the only place where Jesus speaks of keys locking anyone out (Mt.23:13 uses the verb form and Lk.11:52 the noun),
is in criticism of the scribes and Pharisees for their attempts to prevent ordinary folks from entering the Kingdom! (Luke
uses gnoseos knowledge instead of kingdom; this is sometimes, I think spuriously, attributed to Gnostic influence, but
knowledge of the Law was very important to first century Judaism as well.) In the Revelation, one messenger uses a key
(20:1) to confine the dragon in the bottomless pit, but another uses it (9:1) to let locusts out. Jesus himself almost seems
to display the keys of death and hades (1:18) as trophies of his resurrection, and reassures his struggling followers (3:7,8)
that when he opens a door for them, no one can slam it in their faces! Jesus' keys, in harmony with all the rest of his life and
ministry, are all about setting people free!

Digging around farther yielded more nuggets. Many of the references to shut are rather ordinary: a door is shut when the
family retires for the night (Lk.11:7); when the disciples fear a raid by the authorities (Jn.20:19,26); in situations of
imprisonment (Ac.5:23, Lk.3:20, Ac.26:10). A period of drought is described as heaven [the sky] being shut (Lk.4:25,
Rv.11:6). Persistent refusal of the Lord's message shuts up people away from faithfulness (Rom.11:32, Gal.3:22,23).

But how much more numerous and more glorious are all the things that are opened!
The eyes of the blind Mt.9:30, 20:33, Jn.9:10,14,17,21,26,30,33; 10:21; 11:37; and even the eyes of Tabitha [Dorcas]
when she was raised from death!
There are visions of heaven [the sky] being opened at Jesus' baptism (Mt.3:16, Lk.3:21, Jn.1:51,52), to welcome Stephen
as he was stoned (Ac.7:56), to give Peter needed instructions (Ac.10:11), and to show the elderly disciple, John, the
wonders revealed throughout the account of Revelation.
Graves were opened at the time of Jesus' resurrection.
Prison doors yielded to messengers of God (Ac.5:19, 23; 12:10), and to jailed apostles (Ac.16:26,27).
Repeatedly, doors are flung open to let people in (Mt.25:11, Lk.12:36, 13:25; Ac.12:14,16), and to admit the true Shepherd
to the sheepfold (Jn.10:3).

This term is also frequently used figuratively, of opportunities, as the Lord enabled the spreading of his message (I Cor.16:9,
II Cor.2:12, Ac.14:27, Col.4:3), and also of Jesus' gracious promise that the door will be opened to his faithful people who
persist in knocking and seeking his ways (Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10). A prefixed form (dianoigo) is needed to convey the
divine intervention involved (Lk.24:31,32) in order for the eyes of the grieving disciples at Emmaus to be opened to
recognize the risen Lord as he opened the scriptures for them to understand.

Most of these, of course, required/employed no keys. But there is one more situation that does: the much-discussed
binding and loosing conversation in Mt.16:18-19 and its related passage in Mt.18:18. These common words, deo and luo,
are most commonly used of imprisonment and release, of healings, and of legal obligations. Much of the theological
controversy about these two exceptional references, I believe, results from failure to (1) look at both passages together, and
(2)pay careful attention to the grammatical constructions which are carefully (and, I believe, deliberately) parallel. Both the
vocabulary and the grammar are nearly identical. It is true that the ch.16 statement is addressed to Peter personally: the
verbs, and the pronoun, are singular, whereas the one in ch.18 is addressed to the entire brotherhood, since all terms are cast
in the plural. However, the rebuke that Jesus addressed to Peter immediately afterward (v.21-23) should make it abundantly
clear that he had not been thereby elevated to some sort of exalted status or authority. People who see either or both
statements as conferring judicial privilege or prerogative, upon either an individual or the disciple group as a whole, have
failed to notice that both statements employ perfect passive participles. Unfortunately, both passages are traditionally
(incorrectly) read as if they were future active verbs. Correct attention to the actual grammatical structure reveals that the

222
situation described is one of responsibility to discern and communicate accurately the action/decision that has already
taken place in heaven NOT the power to dictate that decision!

Whether the issue is admission to the Kingdom (note: the keys are to the Kingdom, not to heaven) as in chapter 16, or
the forgiveness of an erring brother as in chapter 18, the binding or loosing will be a future tense, that may
sometimes carry the force of an imperative what has already been done (perfect passive) in heaven. This is a very
common use of a participle, called circumstantial, and is frequently translated as a dependent clause. The tense of the
participle represents its time in relation to the primary clause of the sentence. A perfect tense, remember, describes a past
action that continues, at least in effect, into the present, or beyond. The passive voice indicates that the subject is acted
upon; it is not the actor.
Clearly, in neither case is anyone entrusted with a signed, blank check. In both, the person or group is cautioned only to
mediate what has already occurred. This calls for careful discernment, not an executive decision.

Paul was probably following these or similar instructions when he dealt (II Cor.2:1-11) with the restoration of the
person disciplined by the brotherhood in I Cor.5. Notice especially I Cor.5:4 and II Cor.2:10. Although his vocabulary is
different, the idea is the same: incarnating the gift of restoration already provided by the Lord.

So perhaps the whole idea of keys in the Kingdom is somewhat parallel to the training yoke Jesus offered in Mt.11:28-
30 (W.S.#77); or to the parent who, not without trepidation, tosses his car keys to his teenager! They are still Dad's keys!
But part of growing up requires learning to use them responsibly. And that learning involves serious risk.
It is the one who owns the keys (Rev.1:18), who opens doors for his people that no one can shut (3:7), who nevertheless is
willing, himself, to stand at the door and knock (3:20), waiting for it to be thrown open in welcome by disciples willing to
learn.

May we recognize and heed his voice!

223
Word Study #113 Miracles

Do you believe in miracles? has to be one of the silliest questions ever posed by people who presume to pass judgment
on one another's faithfulness or intelligence (or lack of either!) by their replies to simplistic, programmed doctrinal
examinations. Nowhere in the New Testament is anyone asked to profess such a belief (see W.S.#1).
Miracles are the gracious acts of God which are designed to enable ordinary citizens of Earth to perceive his grace, his
power, his love, and his glory, in order that they might choose to become faithful citizens of the Kingdom of his beloved
Son! They are intended to draw attention, not to some spectacular wow factor, but beyond any specific event beyond
the limits of time or space or normal human expectation to the realm of life as its Creator originally intended for it to be
lived.

There are three primary words which are used to speak of such events: dunamis, rendered 8x miracle and 77x power;
semeion, 22x miracle and 51x sign; and teras, consistently rendered wonders, 16x. This last only appears in the
plural, terata, and is always accompanied by at least one of the other two words. Trench speculates that this may be
because teras was so frequently used in pagan contexts of omens and portents, that Christian writers took care that the term
not be interpreted magically. The ancients frequently assumed that unusual appearances in the sky or creatures behaving
strangely were messages from the gods, so this would have been a valid concern.
Trench further suggests, These different words do not so much represent different kinds of miracles, as they do miracles
contemplated from different points of view.

Both dunamis and semeion may refer to healing, to exorcism, to the credentials or identification of Jesus or his
representatives, or simply generically to his activities among people of all descriptions.
As noted in W.S.#31, dunamis generally refers to the power or ability to do something. Lexically, it also described any
natural capacity that could be cultivated, for either good or ill, as well as a manifestation of divine power. I share the lament
expressed by Trench that traditional translators, seemingly at random, chose to use miracles 8x (Mk.9:39, Ac.2:22, 8:13,
19:11; I Cor.12:10,28; Gal.3:5, Heb.2:4), and mighty works 12x (Mt.11:20,21,23; 13:54,58; 14:2; Mk.6:2,5,24; Lk.10:13,
19:37; II Cor.12:12), instead of opting for consistency. Surely they did not consider the deeds of Jesus himself less
miraculous than similar activities which he enabled Philip, Paul, and other brethren to perform!

The same question could/should be raised regarding the traditional treatment of semeion. This, too, had classical uses that
were related to the activity of pagan gods and heroes, as well as to the proof of an argument, an instance or example, or an
indication of the future. In the New Testament, it usually includes the ethical end and purpose of an event, the prime object
of which is to lead observers to something beyond their experience. It must go beyond nature, valuable, not so much for
what is accomplished, but for what it indicates of the grace and power of the doer, or his connection to a higher, spiritual
world (Trench). In order to be a sign, an event must be something that could not have just happened the raising of
Lazarus who had been dead for four days (Jn.11:47), the healing with a simple word of a man lame from birth (Ac.4:16), or
the feeding of a large crowd with a very small amount of food (Jn.6:14).

Please note, that confining the term miracle to occurrences that are clearly beyond nature, IN NO WAY needs to
diminish our appreciation of divine activity in the natural course of life. It is no more necessary or appropriate to label all
of God's creation as miraculous than it is to declare that all the children are above average! Nature also bears testimony
to the power and glory of God (Rom.1:19,20) but it is not all miraculous. Neither are the birth of a child (unless under
unusual circumstances like those of Sarah, Elizabeth, and Mary), gradual (even if astonishing) recovery from illness or
accident, or provision for various needs through normal human channels. All of these can and should be recognized as
gracious gifts of God (see James 1:17). But everything designated a miracle in the New Testament was immediate, and
also immediately and clearly recognized by participants and spectators alike as completely out-of-the-ordinary.

John takes special care to explain how certain ones of Jesus' acts became signs (2:11, 2:23, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14), and even
notes Jesus' complaint (6:26) that for the vast majority, the real intent of the sign was missed completely. (All of these use
semeion.)
The demands of skeptical authorities for a sign from Jesus (Mt.12:38-39, 16:4; Mk.8:11-12, Lk.11:16,29,30; Jn.2:18,
4:48, 6:30) seem to carry more of the pagan, magical flavor, as do the warnings against the performance of impostors and
false prophets (Mt.24:24, Mk.13:22, II Thes.2:9, Jn.4:48, Rv.13:14, 16:14), but genuine demonstrations of the power of God

224
do serve as validation of the message, not only carried by Jesus, but also his delegated representatives (Mk.16:17,20;
Jn.20:30, Ac.2:22,43; 5:12, 14:3, Rom.15:19, II Cor.12:12, Heb.2:4).

That the true import of these can be seriously misunderstood is evident in the episode with Simon the magician in Samaria
(Ac.8), as well as in those who attributed Jesus' acts as empowered by the prince of demons (Mt.9:34, 12:24). Therefore,
it is absolutely essential that true disciples who are assigned and empowered to mediate the touch of the Lord,
acknowledge plainly, as did the early apostles, that God did these things by the hands of various ones of their number
(Ac.2:43, 4:22, 6:8, 14:3, 15:12, 19:11). Here, as so frequently in other situations, careful discernment on the part of the
brotherhood is absolutely essential, to distinguish between genuine signs and dangerous deception (Mt.24, Mk.13, Lk.21).

Conspicuous by its absence is any suggestion of a requirement that anyone believe that a miracle of any kind had
occurred in the absence of evidence. To the contrary, when any reaction on the part of either the beneficiary or the
spectators is mentioned, it is one of amazement at the unexpected graciousness of what they had seen or experienced.
There is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for the practice of blaming the victim that is common among some
flamboyant, self-styled healers. Remember that in the only recorded incident where disciples' attempts at healing had
failed, Jesus attributed the failure to the faith/faithfulness of the disciples, not that of the supplicant father or his son
(Mt.17:14-18 and parallels).

We may much more appropriately join in the prayer of some of our earliest brethren (Ac.4:30) as they faced persecution and
prison: And now, Lord .Reach out with your hand for healings and signs and wonders to happen, through the name of
your holy child [servant] Jesus! His gracious answer enabled their confident propagation of his message (v.31).

Amen, Lord! Let it continually be so!

225
Word Study #114 Vineyards, Vines, and Fig Trees
It has long been assumed, by teachers and preachers of varied theological and philosophical persuasions, that biblical
mentions of vineyards, vines, and fig trees invariably represent the nation of Israel. That this assumption has at least some
factual basis is evidenced in the violent reactions of the hierarchical leadership to Jesus' use of those figures in parables
Mt.21:45, Mk.12:12, Lk.20:19.
However, an extensive search for historical precedent for that connection has yielded very little documentation. If you can
find more, please add them to this collection.

Most of the Septuagint references to any of these words are primarily agricultural. There are at least 11 instances of legal
requirements regarding the husbandry of produce: provisions for the poor, protection for a neighbor's property, stewardship
of the soil.
The enjoyment of one's own vine and fig tree symbolizes prosperity and security describing the Promised Land before
they entered it (6x), the restoration of the people after exile (15x), the bribe offered by the Assyrians (6x), and a non-
specific state of blessedness (6x). The destruction of that idyllic state is prominent in the judgment meted out for the
nation's unfaithfulness (38x). The growth or budding of vines or trees simply indicates the coming of spring at least 8x, and
3x in the New Testament.

In fact, there are only five passages where specific, overt reference is made to the Israelite nation in relation to vines and
trees. Isaiah 5:1-7 recounts the Lord's lament over the failure of his carefully planted and tended vineyard to produce the
hoped-for harvest. His only recourse is to tear it up and start over. Jeremiah 2:20-21 describes similar displeasure, and
12:10 (actually, vv.7-14) lays a considerable portion of the blame upon the individuals entrusted with its care. And Hosea
9:10 and 10:1 describe God's efforts to create a productive vineyard out of plants carefully transplanted from the wild,
meticulously nurtured, but rendered unproductive by the people's failure to renounce their idolatry and selfishness.

The theme is nowhere near as prominent in the new Testament as I expected, either. Mention of vines and figs in the epistles
occur only in James' comment (3:12) regarding a plant bearing only its own kind of fruit, and Paul's reminder that one who
plants expects to eat the harvest (I Cor.9:7). Neither has any national or ethnic tone.

Jesus did pick up these ideas quite vividly in four parables, only one of which appears in all three synoptic gospels:
Mt.21:33-41, Mk.12:1-9, Lk.20:9-16. This is the one which most nearly parallels Isaiah's and Jeremiah's complaints, and
which drew fire from the hierarchy-types, who recognized that he was talking about them the tenant farmers who
conspired to defraud the owner of the vineyard, and subsequently abused and killed his messengers/servants/son. Jesus'
sentence of eviction closely parallels the earlier prophets' warnings of destruction. Only this time, there is no possibility of
return mentioned (Mt.21:41-44, Mk.12:9, Lk.20:16), but a simple, peremptory statement that the vineyard will be given to
others who will produce its fruit.

The unfruitful fig tree in Lk.13:6-8, on the other hand, although it has been barren for three years (the approximate length
of Jesus' earthly ministry), is given one more year v.8 (perhaps the care and fertilization efforts of his people after
Pentecost?) before finally being cut down.
The barren figs along the road (an event, not a parable) recounted in Mt.21:19-21 and Mk.11:13-21, however, have no such
reprieve. That scene always bothered me, as I did not think Jesus would be petulant, as it seems to the casual observer. But
when we lived in California, and had two lovely fig trees in our yard, it made sense. We learned that tiny figs appear on the
branches in the spring before any leaf buds are evident. A tree fully leafed-out, with no fruit (even unripe) visible, would
rightly be seen as worthless. It would never bear.

Likewise, exposure to the needs of an agricultural community, as well as a subsistence economy, provides insight into the
parable of the vineyard workers in Mt.20:1-8. A denarius was a standard wage enough for one day. The earliest-hired
laborers appear to have considered it reasonable. Those not hired in the morning probably spent the day worrying whether
they would feed their families that night. And perhaps the owner, too, was under pressure. Grapes must be harvested when
they are ready, lest they be spoiled by getting over-ripe, or damaged by weather. The master's repeated trips to the
employment center may have been in desperation to complete the harvest at the proper time. This would have made the last
group the most necessary of all! His generosity may have been spurred by his need.

226
And finally, the affair of the two sons (Mt.21:28-32) replays a frequent theme of Jesus' entire ministry that behavior is a
much more significant and reliable indicator of faithfulness than pious talk!

It remains to consider the sharp shift of focus in Jesus' final conversation with his disciples recorded in Jn.15:1-8. That
focus is no longer on the failed figure of a vineyard, or on any political or religious institution, but on the real thing! He
announces, I AM (see W.S.#17) the genuine [real, true] vine (v.1). This is the ultimate demonstration farm, and the
Father is the farmer (georgos, the expert on all the crops, not merely ampelourgos, the vinedresser.)
Cultivating and maintaining vines requires a high level of skill. My husband learned from his own father to recognize
which were fruiting buds, and which would produce only leaves or new branches. A healthy vine needs a balance of all
three, but the pruning must be done before anything starts to grow or to become obvious to the untrained eye. The direction
of growth is selected in the pruning process. Anything diseased or damaged must be eliminated, along with excessive
vegetative growth, or branches that compete for a place in the sun. Although a healthy twig can be planted to clone a
supplementary vine, only those remaining attached to the vine will bear fruit.
The fruit is borne on the branches, but the life that produces it comes through the parent vine.
And please notice, that although branches need and receive individual attention from the vinedresser, all of the words
are plural. It is only together that we/they bear fruit and become disciples (v.8). Please refer also to W.S.#64, Bearing
fruit, and #65, Pruning .

So in a very real sense, the concept of the disciple group as branches of the Vine, which has been identified as the Lord
himself, is an apt supplement to the descriptions of that same group as members of the Body of Christ (#84, and chapter 7
of Citizens of the Kingdom).
Both are vivid examples of the lengths to which the Lord of Glory has been willing to go, in order that his people may enjoy
the privilege of being an integral part of his Kingdom and indeed, of his own Life!
May we be found fruitful and faithful in that privileged position!

227
Word Study #115 Conversation
Requests for a study on conversation sent me beating the bushes for etymological dictionaries!
The English word is used 13 times by traditional translators for the noun anastrophe, as well as once for politeuma and once
for tropos. The verb anastrepho is translated have conversation twice. But in none of these does the implication parallel
our modern use of conversation as sitting around with a cup of coffee and talking about things. This time, our
misunderstanding is a result of the English language, not the Greek.

Like all languages, English has changed both its structure and its vocabulary over the years. In the mid-14 th century,
conversation referred to living together and having dealings with others; one's manner of conducting himself in the
world which is much closer to the Greek words in the text.
In the early 16th century, the domain of conversation added criminal behavior, and in the late 16th century, it included
sexual intercourse. By the late 18th century, it was the legal term for adultery! (I found the most useful source to be an
Etymological Dictionary by Douglas Harper, who lists his own sources as the Oxford English Dictionary, and others by
Klein, and Weekley.)
None of these varied definitions is a part of the modern understanding of conversation, and only the oldest is included in
the lexical information on any of the Greek words so translated in the New Testament.

According to Liddell/Scott, anastrepho, of which only the middle and passive forms were rendered conversation, was
used classically as to dwell, to go about in public, to be engaged in some activity, to conduct oneself, to behave.
Classical uses of the noun form, anastrophe, likewise included one's dwelling or abode, mode of life or behavior, civilized
life, occupation, or concern. Active voice occurrences, in both cases, carry the more literal sense of overthrowing,
reversing, or returning, but they are not relevant to the ''conversation question.
Politeuma, with only a single New Testament appearance, was classically a reference to citizenship, with its duties and
privileges. Please see W.S.#100, as well as the essay on citizenship that follows it, and the small book, Citizens of the
Kingdom which is also available as a free download on this site.
Tropos, usually used in an adverbial phrase, refers to the manner or custom in which anything is done.

Are you seeing any pattern here? This is not the first time that misunderstanding of a word has led well-meaning people to
assume a theoretical rather than a practical focus for their ideas of faithfulness [faith] (W.S.#1). Conversation, like
faithfulness, is used in the New Testament to refer not to talk, but to behavior!

Anastrepho, for example, only translated had our conversation in II Cor.1:12 and Eph.2:3, where Paul is clearly referring
to his/their manner of life before their conversion, is rendered abide in Mt.17:22 regarding Jesus spending time in Galilee;
be used in Heb.10:33 of the mistreatment of believers; behave yourself in I Tim.3:15; live in Heb.13:18 and II
Pet.2:18; and pass in I Pet.1:17 all referring to one's manner of life.

Anastrophe, used 13x, and uniformly translated conversation, is also an obvious reference to one's manner of life or
behavior, whether in the unconverted past (Eph.4:22, I Pet.1:18, II Pet.2:7), the setting of an example of appropriate living
(Gal.1:13, I Tim.4:12, Heb.13:7, Jas.3:13, I Pet.2:12, 3:2), or a goal toward which the faithful are urged to strive (I Pet.1:15,
II Pet.3:11).
Realism also requires a recognition that while holy (W.S.#32) living may result in the conversion of others (I Pet.3:1), it
may also provoke persecution and false accusation (I Pet.3:16). Peter, perhaps even more than most other writers, seems to
assume persecution, simply advising his readers to be certain that abuse is not deserved, for some less noble reason (see
also I Pet.4:14-16).

The single use of politeuma in Phil.3:20 is poorly translated in traditional versions, as the lexical reference to citizenship fits
the context much better. Certainly behavior is also in view. During the process of the transformation of life by the power of
the Lord Jesus, an observable difference is expected. This is part of learning citizenship!

Tropos appears only 6 times in the New Testament, and was rendered conversation only once (Heb.13:5). Elsewhere, it is
rendered manner (Jude 7), means (II Thess.2:3, 3:16), and way (Rom.3:2, Phil.1:18), and clearly refers to something
being done or accomplished.

228
So, what are we to say for conversation? Primarily, that it does not belong in a (later than 14 th century) English translation
of the New Testament at least, not as a rendition of any of the words for which it was used historically.
Certainly one's way of life will be accompanied with conversation about its source, goal, and practice. But as we have
seen before, a life transformed by commitment to Jesus' Kingdom is a demonstration project to be lived, not a theory to be
debated.
I like the quote attributed to Francis of Assissi, Preach the gospel at all times use words only when necessary.
Kingdom living will provoke conversation but does not consist of it.
The Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power (I Cor.4:20) the power of the King's resurrection!
Thanks be to God!

229
Word Study #116 Admonish, Admonition, Exhort, Exhortation
Here is another requested word that is frequently misunderstood as a result of the evolution of the English language. Most
people presently tend to associate it uniformly with giving orders, if not overtly scolding, when that concept, although
present, is only a minimal part of classical usage. Traditional translators have used admonish or admonition to
represent four different Greek words.

Two, noutheteo (v.) and nouthesia / nouthetia (n), are related, and derived from nous, one of the words translated
mind.(W.S.#96). Their classical uses include to give advice, to warn, to put in mind (remind), and only secondarily to
chastise and rebuke. The verb form appears 8x in the New Testament: 4x rendered admonish (Rom.15:14, Col.3:16, I
Thes.5:12, II Thes.3:15) of which three refer to mutual activity among the brotherhood and 4x as warn (Ac.20:31, I
Cor.4:14, Col.1:28, II Thes.5:14). Frequently, both are associated with teaching, and only twice (II Thes.3:15 and I
Thes.5:14) with correction. Note that both of these are addressed to the group, and not to any individual or official. The
noun appears only 3x, twice (I Cor.10:11 and Eph.6:4) regarding instruction and once (Tit.3:10) correction.

Chrematizo, only once rendered admonish (Heb.8:5), regarding God's instructions to Moses, is translated warn (also
with respect to God's instructions) 4x: Mt.2:12 the Magi, Mt.2:22 Joseph, Ac.10:22 Cornelius, and Heb.11:7 Noah.
Specific revelation is referenced in Lk.2:26 (Simeon), and the giving of the law in Heb.12:25, whereas Ac.11:26 and
Rom.7:3 are simply labeling.
In classical writings, chrematizo could also refer to business dealings, negotiations in public assemblies, the administration
of justice, or the instructions received from an oracle. A very versatile word!

Hupodeiknumi, which is also translated warn in Mt.3:7, Lk.3:7, and Lk.12:5, as well as show (as in reveal) in
Lk.6:47, Ac.9:16, 20:35, is never rendered admonish. Please note also that none of these references to warning are
ever in the context of a threat to the hearers. They represent simply the provision of information and instructions for
action. Contemporary speakers who claim to speak for the Lord would do well to remember this!

Paraineo, used only twice in the New Testament, is translated once as admonish (Ac.27:9) and once exhort (Ac.27:22),
both describing Paul's advice to the sailors on the voyage to Rome. These fit well with the classical usage, to recommend
or advise, to propose a course of action.

The alternate translation of paraineo, exhort, is more commonly used to render parakaleo (19x). Please refer to W.S.#53
for additional exploration of this concept. Parakaleo, historically, was used to summon or send for a person, or to
invoke the gods. subsequently, it was used of a summons for a trial, the calling of a witness, or an appeal in court.
Etymologically, it is made up of kaleo, to call or invite, and para, alongside of. Later, it was used of proposals,
demands and requirements, or exhortation, encouragement, and entreaty. Only traditional translators of the Septuagint and
the New Testament ever rendered it comfort. They did so 23x. There is no classical precedent for that choice, which has
led to serious misunderstandings of the Biblical message.
Beseech, used 43x for parakaleo, with its later connotations of abject begging, is rather weak for this word. Exhort,
urge, encourage, or admonish would much more accurately convey the force of the word.

Parakaleo usually (25x in the synoptics) appears in people's appeals to Jesus for healing, where it has traditionally been
rendered beseech/besought, pray, or entreat, and only once refers to the preaching of John the Baptist (Lk.3:18) as
exhortation.
In the usage of parakaleo in Acts, the idea of requests persists, but is almost equally balanced with exhortation, directed
both toward the brethren (11:23, 14:22, 15:32, 16:40, 20:2) and toward groups who were yet to become committed (2:40).
It is not surprising that in the epistles, which were, after all, written for the instruction and encouragement of the brethren in
each locality, parakaleo appears more frequently than in the gospels and Acts combined 61x. Its ubiquity is somewhat
obscured by the traditional translators' shifting among beseech, comfort, desire, and exhort when in every instance, it is
instruction or encouragement that is in view.

As you can easily see, these observations are rather widely scattered. Perhaps the best summary can be gleaned from

230
brother Paul:
I myself have been persuaded about you all, my brothers,.... that you are also able to keep reminding [admonishing]each
other....(Rom.15:14)
Christ's word must continually reside among you , richly, in all wisdom, as you keep teaching and admonishing each
other . (Col.3:13)
and the writer to the Hebrews:
Keep on coaching [exhorting] each other, every day so that not one of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of
failure [sin]... (Heb.3:13).

Admonition and exhortation of and for one another is the best insurance for remaining faithful disciples.
May we continually encourage one another in this direction!

231
Word Study #117 War, Warfare, Fighting

I hope that the folks who were asking for this study did not expect some sort of simplistic answer. Many such answers
have been promoted throughout history, none of which are supported by exhaustive examination of the text. It should raise
questions in the minds of thinking people, that during the first three centuries of the Christian church, military involvement
was grounds for expulsion from the group. That policy was only changed under Constantine the military conqueror.
Biblically, even as early as John the Baptist (Lk.3:14), soldiers asking for guidance were told, Do violence to no one!
(Can you imagine an army operating like that?)

References to these concepts include two primary word-families. The most common includes strateia warfare (2x),
strateuomai to make war (7x), stratiotes soldier (26x), strateuma army (8x), antistrateuomai to make war
against (1x), sustratiotes fellow-soldier (2x), and stratiologeo to enlist or recruit (1x). Although the people
mentioned as soldiers are invariably members of the occupying Roman legions (only one of whom, a subordinate of
Cornelius Ac.10:7 is described as devout), and centurions, commanders of 100 soldiers appear 24x, the warfare,
both strateia (n.) (II Cor.10:4 and I Tim.1:18) and strateuomai (v.) (II Cor.10:3, I Tim.1:18, Jas.4:1, I Pet.2:12), refers
entirely to the spiritual struggle to live in faithfulness or, in the latter two instances, the forces against which that struggle
is engaged.
Paul does use the unwavering, primary loyalty and obedience required of military personnel as an illustration of the absolute
commitment required of Kingdom citizens (II Tim.2:4), and in arguing for the support of persons assigned a particular task
(I Cor.9:7), but he certainly does not endorse signing up for Caesar's legions! His speaking of Epaphroditus (Phil.2:25) and
Archippus (Phm.2) as fellow-soldiers is parallel to calling others co-workers and fellow-servants/slaves.

The most salient reference in this family is II Cor.10:3-4: Although we are living as (ordinary) humans, we are not doing
battle by those standards. The weapons of our battle are not (merely) human, but powerful, by means of God .(v.5)
subjugating every mind [thought] for obedience to Christ. Our warfare is to subjugate our own minds, not other people!

Second in frequency is the use of polemeo (7x) and polemos (16x). These references are divided among ordinary strife
between kingdoms or nations (Mt.24:6, Mk.13:7, Lk.21:9; Lk.14:31, I Cor.14:8), conflict between people (Jas.4:1,2)
which James matter-of-factly attributes to human selfishness , and, predominately in the Revelation, various phases of the
cosmic struggle between good and evil. Please notice that NONE OF THESE WARS ARE INITIATED OR FOUGHT
BY PEOPLE! The perpetrators are: the Beast (Rv.11:7, 13:4,13:7), the Dragon (Rv.12:17), the spirits of demons and
Satan (Rv.16:14, 20:8) who gather kings, but no actual battle is recorded, and a horde of locusts (Rv.9:7-9). When (19:19-
20) the Beast has kings and their armies assembled for battle, they are all destroyed by divine intervention. And when the
Lamb conquers other kings who are allied with the Beast it is NOT because he and his companions are so rough and tough
and mean or armed with superior weaponry, but (17:14) Because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and those with
him are called, and chosen, and faithful! His only weapon is the sword of his mouth (Rv.2:16 and19:21, and see also
Eph.6:17).
Note also that there is only one ever mentioned who passes judgment and makes war in justice (19:11) the rider on the
white horse, whose name (v.13) is the Word of God. (So much for just wars.)

Two other, less frequent terms deserve our notice. Mache / machomai , appearing 4x each, refer entirely to disputes
between individuals. Translations usually tend toward fight or strive, to describe arguments among Jesus' critics
(Jn.6:52), disputes about the Law (Tit.3:9), foolish discussions (II Tim.2:23, 24), and fuss over possessions (Jas.4:1,2).
All of these are to be avoided.

Agonizomai (7x) is otherwise primarily used of athletic contests, or contention in a court of law. Like its English cognate
agony, it conveys the sense of intense effort. Paul's messages, to Timothy regarding fighting a good fight (I Tim.6:12
and II Tim.4:7), and to the Colossians about the urgency of his prayers on their behalf (Col.1:29,4:12) are supplemented by
Jesus' instructions to strive to enter the narrow gate (Lk.13:24), and, strangely, his statement to Pilate of what his disciples
would have done if his Kingdom were of this world. (Jn.18:36). This last was not, as is commonly supposed, a military
statement. Agonizomai is never used of military action. Jesus' people do not even engage in less-widespread violence, even
in his or their own defense.

232
The references to weapons (hopla 6x, and panoplia 3x) are likewise instructive. Panoplia simply adds the prefix pan
all. Only in Jn.18:3, where it describes the armed officers who arrested Jesus, and Jesus' parable in Lk.11:22, does the
word refer to conventional weapons of war, in the new Testament. In Rom.6:13, Paul twice uses the secondary meaning of
tools or instruments, regarding the proper use of one's physical body. Elsewhere, he stresses that the weapons of which
he speaks are a different kind: I Cor.10:4 not carnal [human], Rom.13:12 the armor of light, II Cor.6:7 armor of
justice [righteousness] , and the classic passage in Ephesians 6:11 and 13-17.

Notice that the goal here is not conquest, domination, or even physical self-defense, but merely to stand firm (v.11). Truth
(W.S.#26, justice (#3), the gospel (#67) of peace (#70), faithfulness (#1), and deliverance [salvation] (#5) are all defensive
equipment; the only offensive weapon the sword (see above) is the Word of God.

It should be abundantly clear, therefore, that for citizens of Jesus' Kingdom, although in this life conflict, oppression, and
even apparent defeat appear to be a given, those citizens do not resort to the methods or the weapons of normal warfare.
The outcome of the battle is assured, for those who are called and chosen and faithful, in the ultimate victory of the Lamb
the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords!

Thanks be to God!

233
Word Study #118 Heaven
OK, I might as well admit it at the beginning: I have procrastinated about this study, because I know it will rattle a lot of
cages. Ask the average individual who has an evangelical bent, of whatever flavor, why a person should identify with /
believe in Jesus, and you are likely to hear some variation on the theme, in order to go to heaven when you die. Search
the New Testament, however, and you will fail to find a single reference to that objective. It simply isn't there, folks.
Oh yes, I know that people have concocted elaborate collections of proofs, by combining poorly translated phrases
gleaned from dissected bits of verses completely isolated from their contexts. Most of these owe their success (read,
believability) to the mistaken notion that the Kingdom of God (Matthew calls it the Kingdom of heaven) is entirely a
future phenomenon an idea that we have shown to be in error in studies #19, 20, and 21.
A careful perusal of the word heaven itself results in a very different picture.
Ouranos, ( as well as its related words) is the only Greek word ever translated heaven. It is also rendered sky and air.
These choices were made wholly at translators' discretion: there is no guidance in the grammar or vocabulary to lead one
way or another, except one's perception of the context (birds, for example, fly in the air Mt.6:26). If one wishes to
translate literally, therefore, he must concede that any of these three words is an equally legitimate choice, in every
instance.
Historically, the primary meaning of ouranos, according to Liddell/Scott, was the vault or firmament of heaven/sky, where
the stars and other heavenly bodies are set. It also included the universe, climate, or anything shaped like the vault of
heaven: a roof, ceiling, lid, tent, or pavilion or even the roof of one's mouth, the palate, as well as being considered the
abode of the gods (but not of dead mortals, however illustrious or exemplary their earthly lives may have been.)

Many of these ideas appear in the New Testament. Heaven is a part of creation, along with the earth and the sea
(Mk.13:27, Ac.2:5, 2:19, 4:24; Eph.1:10, 3:15; Col.1:16, 1:23; Rv.5:13, 10:6,14:7, 14:15). With them, it will eventually
pass away (Mt.5:18, 24:35; Mk.13:31, Lk.16:17, 21:33; Rv.20:11).
It is where the stars are (Mt.24:29, Mk13:25, Heb.11:12, Rv.13:10, 9:1); the location of clouds (Mt.24:30, 26:64, Mk.14:62,
Ac.1:11); where rain comes from (Lk.4:25, 17:29; Jas.5:18), and how one can predict the weather (Mt.16:2,3; Lk.12:56). It
provides a metaphor for great distance or extent (from one end of heaven to the other Mt.24:31 and parallels), and every
nation under heaven (Ac.2:5, Eph.3:15).

But the New Testament also expands the reference to include the throne of God (Mt.5:34, Ac.7:49), the dwelling of the
Father (14x in Matthew alone), the place where both Jesus (Jn.3:13,6:38) and the Holy Spirit (I Pet.1:12) came from;
where Jesus presently resides (Mk.16:19, Ac.3:21, 7:55, Heb.9:24, 12:25; I Pet.3:22), and from whence he is expected to
return to earth (I Cor.15:47, Phil.3:20, I Thes.1:10, 4:16; II Thes.1:7).
Heaven is represented as the source of visions (Jn.1:32, Mt.3:16, Mk.1:10, Lk.3:22, Ac.2:2, 9:3, 22:6, 10:11, 11:5-10, II
Cor.2:2, II Pet.1:18, and throughout the Revelation), the source of the assignments of both John the Baptist and Jesus
himself (Mt.21:25, Mk.11:30, Lk.20:4,5), and also of signs, especially regarding the Lord's identity (Mt.6:1, Mk.8:11,
Lk.11:16) and his return (Lk.21:11, Mt.24:30).
It is the abode of some (not all) messengers (see reference to aggelos in Helps for Word Study lesson 3) (Mt.18:10,
22:30; Mk.12:25,13:32; Lk.2:15, 22:43), and also of powers, both benign and malevolent (Mk.13:25, Lk.21:26).
The names of faithful disciples are recorded there (Lk.10:20, Heb.12:23).
Rewards Lk.6:23,(W.S.#98) and treasures (Mt.6:20, 19:21, and parallels) are on deposit there.
Decisions regarding matters on earth (Mt.16:19, 18:18) are represented as being made in heaven.

Interestingly, however, the much quoted parable of the respective fates of the rich man and the beggar (Lk.16:19-31) does
not employ the word ouranos at all, nor do the accounts of any of the individuals raised from death: Lazarus (Jn.11), the
daughter of Jairus (Mk.5:35-43, Lk.8:49-56), the widow's son (Lk.7:11-17), and Tabitha / Dorcas (Ac.9:36-42). None of
these regaled their audiences with tales of visits to heaven or anything of the kind. We will look at the entirely separate
issue of death in the next study.

The epistles, which we have referenced only briefly up to this point, reveal a slightly different perspective. Both Paul
(Eph.4:10) and the writer of Hebrews (7:26) speak of Jesus' exaltation above or higher than the heavens, and Paul
details the obligation of all creatures in heaven and on earth and under the earth to worship at his feet (Phil.2:9).

234
Peter refers to the heavens, although made by the word of God (II Pet.3:5), passing away (3:7, 3:10), being on fire
(3:12), and he looks forward, as does John, repeatedly in the Revelation, to a new heaven and a new earth (3:13), in
which, at last, justice will settle down to live!
Our hope (Col.1:5), our Master (Eph.6:9, Col.4:1), the focus of our behavior (Phil.3:20), our destined dwelling (physical
body?) (II Cor.5:2), our enduring as opposed to confiscated possessions (Heb.10:34), our inheritance (I Pet.1:4), are all
presently in heaven, despite the surprising discovery that nothing is said about anybody but Jesus and the two
witnesses / martyrs from Rev.11:12,13,15 actually going there! (Rom.10:6, Heb.9:24, 4:14).
In fact, Peter (Ac.2:34), Paul (Rom.10:6) and John (3:13) all assert that this is impossible for ordinary mortals!
Although in John's visions recorded in the Revelation, there are numerous scenes of thousands around the throne singing
praises, remember that neither the time, the individuals (except for their faithfulness), nor the geographical (or
cosmological) location is specifically identified.
In the final scene, the New Jerusalem is seen coming down from God out of heaven (Rev.21:2) after the introduction of
the new heaven and new earth.

Stay tuned, and review the studies of the Kingdom (#19,20,21) and Life (#28) in preparation for an examination of the
New Testament approach to the destiny of the faithful.

235
Word Study #119 Heaven: It's NOT about after you die!
Let's get one thing straight from the beginning. Scripture is clear, and Jesus said plainly, that he desired (Jn.17:24), planned
(Jn.6:39-40), and provided (Jn.14:1-4) for his people to share life with him permanently. Paul (I Cor.15) even goes so far
as to say that without the resurrection (#35), we might as well forget the whole thing (v.17-18)! Although he represents the
resurrection of committed disciples to have taken place, symbolically and practically, at their conversion and baptism
(Rom.6:1-9, Col.2:12), and asserts that their / our new life has already begun, he clearly expects something more (I
Thes.4:13-18) when Jesus returns.

Huge amounts of ink have been spilled over when, exactly, that resurrection takes place. None of the references to it make
any mention of heaven, as we have seen. Opposing sides have stockpiled their textual weapons, some to insist that it
is all instantaneous at the moment of physical death (citing the thief on the cross), and others to maintain that those who
have passed on are asleep (a common euphemism for death both in and out of Scripture) until the Lord's return (as
suggested in the I Thes.4 passage). This whole controversy strikes me as rather silly, since, if time shall be no more
(Rv.10:6), the timing couldn't possibly matter or even be discernible!

When Jesus spoke of eternal life (W.S.#28), it was almost always in the present tense, and predicated, as in Jn.3:36, upon
obedience and faithfulness to the Son of God, and not upon subscribing to any list of doctrines. Indeed, the tense is
occasionally even perfect: Jn.5:24 (the faithful person) has passed from death into life! John reiterates that statement
in his first letter (3:14) it must have made an impression on him!
Nevertheless, (physical) death was / is still a fact of life: it was for Jesus himself, and has been for even the most faithful
of his people. Jesus is the only one who said anything about where he was going and his statement was simply, I am
going to the Father (Jn.14:12, 28; 16:28), or to the one who sent me (Jn.16:5). For Paul, (Phil.1:23) to depart and be
with Christ was an attractive prospect. But notice that this is embedded in a much longer discourse about faithful living.

Most of the references to a person having died say no more than that: whether the person was faithful like Simeon,
(Lk.2:28), John the Baptist (Mt.14:10-11 and parallels), Stephen (Ac.7:54-56), Dorcas (Ac.9:36), and James (Ac.12:1) or
unfaithful like both Herods (Mt.2:19, Ac.2:23), Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5), and Judas (Mt.27:5) or innocent, like the
children of Bethlehem (Mt.2:18)-- they just died. Please also refer to the previous post regarding the people who
subsequently were raised. As noted there, there is no instance where they are said to have gone anywhere. The young
man at Nain sat up and talked (Lk.7:15), Lazarus simply walked out of the tomb (Jn.11:44), and Dorcas opened her eyes
and sat up (Ac.9:40). Luke (8:55) says that the little girl's spirit returned, without saying from where. Jesus also
committed his spirit to the Father at his death (Lk.23:45). Matthew (27:50) and Mark (15:36) speak of his having
released his spirit, and John (19:30) says yielded. As he was stoned, Stephen prayed, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.
(Ac.7:59). Please note that the word used in each case is pneuma spirit / breath (W.S.#52) and not the pagan concept
of soul psuche. (Refer to discussion in #28, life).
We have also treated the word aion, aionios in the study on life, and seen that its reference is virtually impossible to pin
down. The easy cop-out, rendering it eternity, eternal, or forever simply does not work in many places. For example, do
you really think Jesus intended to say that he would accompany his disciples (Mt.28:20) to the end of eternity? I don't
think so!
Jesus' responses to people who asked him about eternal life even if the questioner thought they were referring to an
afterlife were exquisitely practical Do this, and you will live / enter into life! is the refrain. Like entering the
Kingdom, (#19,20,21), this happens during one's physical life on earth! And a more accurate (yes, literal) translation
of Jesus' statement in Jn.11:26, in answer to Martha's postponement of resurrection until the last day (v.24), is Everyone
living, who is faithful to me, will not die forever! If he had meant never die, he would have used oudepote, and not eis
ton aiona. Millions of faithful people have died but not forever!

The epistles, concerned as they are with the faithfulness of living brotherhoods, make rather few references to death, except
to say that it is really not a problem. Although Paul, who was probably thoroughly tired of sitting in jail, writes to the
Philippians that he'd really like to depart the be with Christ (1:23), which he calls far preferable, his focus is that Christ
be magnified in my body whether through life or through death (v.21).
In other contexts, deathor dead is used as a description of total alienation from God and his ways (Rom.6,7,8), of
people's condition before their commitment to Jesus' Kingdom (Eph.2:1, 2:5, Col.2:13), of the expected complete

236
abandonment of one's former way of life (Rom.6:11, 8:10, Heb.6:1, 9:14), or as identification with Jesus in his death and
resurrection life (Rom.6:1-13, 8:11, I Cor.15, Eph.5:14).
Since the epistles were frequently written in a context of extreme persecution, however, the reality of the constant threat of
execution is not ignored. Jesus had given fair warning that the time would come when (Jn.16:2) everyone who kills you
will perceive that he is offering service to God! Paul himself (Ac.9:1, 22:4) had shared that perception before he met
Jesus! But in his new life, he expressed a new attitude in II Cor.1:9-10, and II Cor.4:11,12 is buttressed with v.16-18. John
relays Jesus' message in Rv.2:10 to beleaguered brethren,and Paul reassures the Roman church (8:38) that death does not
have the last word.
I really believe the primary lesson here is that it's not about what happens to ME, either before or after physical death. It's
about faithfully representing Jesus and his Kingdom, regardless of the consequences either now or later!

We can say this because there is yet another glorious truth, far too frequently neglected in what passes for Christian
teaching. Paul refers to it in II Tim.1:10 (Jesus) DESTROYED death, bringing to light life and immortality through the
Good News! and I Cor.15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death! So then, if we are living, we are living for the
Lord, and if we die, we are dying for the Lord. Whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord! (Rom.14:8).
The situation is even more vividly described in Heb.2:14,15: through (his) death, (Jesus) once-and-for-all destroyed the
one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and rescued those who, by fear of death, were held in slavery all their
lives! One who does not fear death, cannot be enslaved or otherwise coerced!
He (Jesus) died on behalf of everyone, in order that those who are alive might no longer be living for themselves, but for
the one who died and was raised on their behalf! (II Cor.5:15).
Jesus himself said it most simply: Because I am alive, you also will be alive! (Jn.14:9)
Where? When?Here is one follower of the Lord Jesus who really doesn't care.
In the words of an old hymn, It's heaven to me, wherever I be, if he is there!
And of that, his promise is certain.
Thanks be to God!

237
Word Study #120 Convert, Conversion
Here is another word, requested several times, of which the commonly understood meaning has departed markedly from its
historical usage. It needs to be studied in conjunction with transformation (#97) and repentance (#6). All three of these
share more in common than is usually realized, and all imply deliberate alteration in one's behavior, rather than simple
assent to a set of theoretical propositions or beliefs.

Even in traditional English translations, epistrepho, the primary Greek word, out of 39 New Testament appearances, is
rendered convert or converted only 7x. It is much more commonly (and correctly) translated turn (16x), turn
about, turn again (4x each), return (8x), and come or go again once each.
Likewise, strepho, the same word, but without a prefix, is rendered converted only twice, and some form of turn 16x.
Obviously, the translators thought they were dealing with a different concept in those aberrations: but perhaps that was due
to the theological understanding of their own era taking precedence over etymology. This is not a rare occurrence.

Liddell / Scott lists 14 meanings for epistrepho. Remember, they have compiled the ways that a word has been used
historically. By far the most common, as well as the earliest use, is simply to turn around. This is followed by: to put an
enemy to flight, to return, to turn towards, to turn one's attention toward or pay attention to, to turn or convert from an error
(to correct), to repent (exclusively LXX and NT), to cause to return, to curve or twist (as a path), to be distorted, crooked (of
a tree), or curled (hair), to conduct oneself or behave in a particular way, (and as a participle) earnest or vehement.
The uses of strepho are even more varied, including: to cause to rotate on an axis, to overturn or upset, to plow, to sprain or
dislocate a joint, to twist or torture, to plait (braid), to wrestle, to turn something over in one's mind, to give back, (in
alchemy) the transmutation of metals, to turn to or from an object or person, the revolving or cycling of heavenly bodies, to
turn or change.

Of New Testament usage, likewise, the vast majority, for both words, involves physically turning around or returning: Jesus,
or someone else, turned and said ... or returned to where they had been before. As we consider the passages where this
is not the case, please keep in mind that the idea of physical turning is the primary meaning. This implies, as we saw in
repent, a deliberate change of direction and/or attention.

The most frequent traditional use of convert or be converted for epistrepho (there are only 7) is in quoting the prophecy
of Isaiah (6:9-10) regarding the deliberate choice of the Israelite people not to pay attention to God's instructions: Mt.13:15,
Mk.4:12, Jn.12:40, Ac.28:27. The others are Jesus' instructions to Peter (Lk.22:32) that he should strengthen his brethren
after recovering from his desertion; James urging his readers (5:19-20) to seek the restoration of one who falls into error;
and Peter's admonition to his listeners to repent and be converted (Ac.3:19) to remedy their distress at recognizing their
rejection of Jesus as the Promised One.
The only appearance of the noun form, epistrophe, (Ac.15:3) celebrates the enrollment of Gentiles into the Kingdom.

There are nine instances where turning to God, whether applied to the people of Israel (Lk.1:16,17) or to the Gentiles
(Ac.9:35, 11:21, 14:15, 15:19, 26:20; II Cor.3:16, I Thes.1:9), is mentioned; in each, a change of life / direction is clearly
indicated, not merely an acknowledgment of some theoretical argument. This is also the case in Ac.26:28, turning from
darkness to light.
Turning can also go the wrong direction, as in Gal.4:9 and II Pet.2:21.

The use of strepho (the same verb, but without a prefix), are even more heavily weighted in favor of physically turning
around. The exceptions are Jesus' declaration (Mt.18:2) that Kingdom membership requires being converted to the
attitude of small children; (Ac.7:39) the Israelites' desire to return to Egypt; and (Ac.7:42) God's consequent giving them
up.

In view of this evidence, I am inclined to suggest that other contemporary uses of the term convert may be more accurate
than the usual Christian usage. For example:
an engine may be converted to run on a different kind of fuel

238
a factory may be converted to make a different product
land may be converted to raise a different crop
zoning may be converted to allow different developmental use
I'm sure you could get any number of good illustrations from these and other such modern usages.
They all share the implication of tangible, observable change none are restricted to theoretical constructs or opinions.

As we saw in the studies of faith / faithfulness (#1), repentance (#6), life (#28), transformation (#97), and many others,
conversion is a much more active concept, with more readily observable results, than is commonly supposed.
It might well be characterized as the process of naturalization into Kingdom citizenship, with all the rights, privileges,
and responsibilities thereby incurred.
It is the beginning of the life that the gracious King has designed and prepared for his people.

Thanks be to God!

239
Word Study #121 Convict, Conviction
Many of the words that are favorites of folks whose gospel preaching consists primarily of attempts to put their audience
(read, victims) on a massive guilt-trip, occur rarely, if at all, in the New Testament, and seldom with the connotations
which those preachers trumpet with such insistence. But this has to be one of the most abused words of all. In the
traditional KJV that is so dear to their hearts, the English word convictappears only one single time (Jn.8:9), and
conviction not at all! So much for their need to gloat over having brought people under conviction, to boast of the
strength of one's convictions, or of threatening folks with tender consciences that they must ransack their memories in
order to be convicted of forgotten (or imagined) transgressions. There is no such teaching to be found in the New
Testament anywhere! (If you can find any, please feel free to comment. But be certain that you accurately quote a New
Testament passage!)

The Greek word, elegcho, translated convict only in minor manuscripts of the John 8 passage cited above, where it
describes the scene of the wannabe executioners slinking away at Jesus' rebuke, does occur elsewhere, with other
translations: convince 4x, rebuke5x, reprove 5x, and tell one's fault 1x. Classically, it represents the language of
the courtroom, or of philosophical debate. L/S lists to disgrace, or put to shame; to treat with contempt; to cross-examine
or question; to accuse one of doing wrong; to test or bring to proof; to be convicted (legally) of wrongdoing; to bring
convincing proof; to refute (in a debate); to put right or correct; to decide a dispute; to expose a wrong or betray a
weakness.
The common English understanding of convict more closely parallels the passages where elegcho is rendered convince
Jesus challenges his accusers that they cannot convinct him of failing
God's standard (Jn.8:46); Paul describes an outsider being convinced / convicted (I Cor.14:24) by the prophetic messages
of all the brotherhood to acknowledge that God is surely among you all!; and James makes the point that one dare not
pick and choose only parts of the Law for observation, but that the Law itself passes equal judgment (conviction) on every
transgression (2:9). Only in his letter to Titus (1:9) does Paul use elegcho in the context of debate or instruction.

Although elegcho was rendered rebuke and reprove 5x each, the more common word for those terms in Greek was
epitimao (24x). Trench distinguishes between the two words, taking issue with the use of the word reprove for elegcho,
considering that it fails to take into account the possibility of being brought to one's senses. He holds that epitimao
carries the notion of blaming, with no indication of whether the blame is deserved or not, and no assurance of its having any
effect; whereas he thinks that elegcho describes a confrontation that at least causes a person to see his error, and hopefully
to remedy it. This is more or less consistent with the L/S listing of to assign blame, to censure, or the assessment of a
penalty by a judge, for epitimao, although earlier, the term was also used for honor, or a price (the meaning of the root word,
timao).

Epitimao is used of Jesus rebuking a storm (Mt.8:26, Mk.4:39, Lk.8:24), evil spirits (Mt.17:18, Mk.1:25, 9:25; Lk.4:35,
9:42), and a fever (Lk.4:39), however, and in all of these cases, the effect was both expected and dramatic so that
particular differentiation is probably not valid.
Certainly the use of elegcho in I Tim.5:20, Tit.1:13, 2:15; Heb.12:5, Rv.3:19 (translated rebuke) anticipates a change in
behavior, as it does also in Jn.3:20, 16:8; Eph.5:11 and 13; II Tim.4:2 (translated reprove. Only the confrontation between
Herod and John the Baptist (Lk.3:19) seems to have no expectation of improvement.
The instructions for dealing with a brother's error uses elegcho in Mt.18:15 and epitimao in Lk.17:3.
In II Tim.4:2, both words are used together.
The usage, therefore, seems to suggest that the terms are nearly, if not entirely, synonymous.
Epitimao is the word used of the discussion between Jesus and Peter in Mt.16:22 and Mk.8:32-33, as well as in the incident
of the disciples scolding the crowds for bothering Jesus with their children (Mk.10:13, Mt.19:13, Lk.18:15) and his
correcting (Lk.9:55) their misunderstanding. This was also the demand of the Pharisees who thought Jesus should forbid
the praises of his disciples and the children in the Palm Sunday procession and later in the temple (Lk.19:39), and also
describes the efforts of the crowd who tried to silence the blind men who were calling to Jesus for help (Mt.20:31), as well
as to refer to Jesus' instructions to his disciples (translated charged them) (Mt.3:12, 8:30, 10:48, 12:16; Lk.9:21).

It remains for us to examine the much-quoted passage in John 16:8-11, which is frequently cited as justification for much of

240
the guilt-tripping perpetrated under the guise of evangelism (See #18, 43, and 67). First of all, please note that the
subject of the verb, elegxei (future tense), no matter how you choose to translate it, is parakletos, the coach, the Holy
Spirit. It is his job, not ours!
Please note also that the object of the verb is the world (ton kosmon), not the disciples, nor those who are contemplating
joining them! Indeed, it is in the disciple group, coached and enabled by the Holy Spirit, that the world is intended to see
a demonstration of Kingdom living, and the revelation that the ruler of this world has been defeated!!! (Jn.16:11)
As we have seen, it is perfectly in order for more mature members of the Kingdom to correct the brethren when necessary
please refer to #116, and see earlier references to the epistles to Timothy and Titus in this study, and the familiar Mt.18:15
passage but it is not our job to reform (convict, rebuke, or reprove) the world, or to attempt to force Kingdom behavior
upon those who have no commitment to our King. Kingdom behavior must be enabled by the Holy Spirit there is no other
way!
It is as the outsider experiences the life of the gathered group of disciples (I Cor.14-24-25), prophesying (see #45) and
interacting under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, that he will be convinced / convicted, acknowledging the presence of
God.
May we continually strive to become the welcoming brotherhood where this can happen!

241
Word Study #122 Surrender
This is another word about which we hear far too much!Ubiquitous in hymnody, mystical literature, and groups with a
pietistic orientation, it does not exist in New Testament writings! Find it if you can!
And with good reason: surrender is the last recourse of the conquered those who have lost a war a last-ditch effort to
avoid total destruction! It is uniformly coerced and there is no coercion in genuine Christian teaching! Jesus' invitation
is to deliberate, voluntary enlistment in his Kingdom! His people are called to join the winning team, not to plead for
relief from disaster!

Now, it is certainly true that Jesus also spoke of denying (#68) one's own self-interest, and forsaking possessions and
other attachments (Mt.19:27,29; Mk.1:18, Lk.5:11, 14:23). But please note the tone of the parables with which he
commended such action: Mt.13:44-46.
There is no coerced, mournful resignation or renunciation here!
The finder of the treasure in a field is so excited about his discovery that he hurries to sell everything he has in order to
purchase the field apo tes charas out of his JOY!
Likewise, the merchant, who had been seeking (present tense continuous effort) for fine pearls, upon finally discovering
one of supreme value, deemed it well worth the expenditure of all that he had.
These gentlemen were neither mourning nor boasting of what they had sacrificed (#95) / surrendered. They were
celebrating their great good fortune!
The writer to the Hebrews describes even Jesus' endurance of an ignominious death as being for the joy that was set before
him (Heb.12:2) and that expectation as being fully and gloriously vindicated! Even such a dire situation is represented,
not as surrender, but as ultimate triumph!
So where did all the surrender themes come from? My best guess is that it was an artifact of medieval mysticism, which
arose as a lonely, introspective pursuit, that resulted when devout individuals were crowded out of the increasingly
oppressive and opulent hierarchical institution that had replaced the simple New Testament brotherhood. Lack of a
brotherhood leaves one who wishes to be faithful no alternative but a choice between two equally impossible options: either
to withdraw into individualism, or to forget the whole thing. An extremely painful position.
It was also perhaps enhanced by the elevation to sainthood of spectacular converts like Augustine, who, tired of their
lascivious luxury, surrendered it in favor of its opposite; or others who had actively opposed the Kingdom before signing
on with the King.
The resulting atmosphere, in which you have to be really, really bad or at least say that you are in order to be properly
converted, creates a dilemma which we have witnessed, in which serious young people have protested in confusion, I
want to commit my life to Jesus, but I can't say I ran away from him or fought against him! It isn't true! It is just plain
wrong to put people into such a situation!
If a Kingdom citizen's deepest desire is faithfully to serve the King, what or to whom is he supposed to surrender? I
strongly suspect that this teaching is just another effort to play on the vulnerability of sincere people, to feed their tendency
to focus on self-condemnatory introspection (which, in addition to being contrived, is only self-centeredness in another
costume), and keep them feeling guilty enough to be manipulated!
Lord, deliver us from those who demand surrender, and free us joyfully to seek your Kingdom above all!

242
Word Study #123 Victory
We have seen how folks at one end of the Christian spectrum err in the direction of self-deprecation and obsession with
surrender and sacrifice (see previous post), but folks at the other end depart just as far from the New Testament message
in their insistence upon celebrating having achieved victory in Jesus to the exclusion of any recognition of a need to grow
up, and to become mature, disciplined disciples.

Unlike surrender, nikao, to be victorious, to conquer, to win, to be successful, to prevail (L/S) does at least appear in the
New Testament: twice it is rendered conquer, once get victory, 24x overcome, and 1x prevail. Seventeen of these
occur in the Revelation, ten of which refer to folks who have remained doggedly faithful in the face of severe persecution
(2:7, 2:11, 2:17, 2:26, 3:5, 3:21, 12:11, 15:2, and 21:7). Three refer to the triumph of Jesus himself (3:21, 5:5, 17:14), and
four to the temporary, apparent victory of the forces of evil (6:2 twice , 11:7, and 13:7.
Of the rest of the New Testament, one reference is to Jesus (Jn.16:33) as he reassures his disciples that he has already
overcome the world, and one is in the parable (Lk.11:22) where he speaks of a strong man being overcome by one
stronger than he.
The remaining eight are confined to two epistles. In Rom.3:4, Paul is referring to God's victory in his just judgment, and in
Rom.12:21 he urges his readers not to allow themselves to be overcome by evil, but proactively to overcome evil with
good.
John, in his first letter (2:13-14), addresses the young men of his congregation as those who have been gaining victory a
present perfect tense over the evil one. The perfect tense describes action that began in the past, but continues into the
present, and perhaps beyond. Later (4:4), he reminds them that their victory over the anti-Christian spirits of the world (v.1-
3) is because the Spirit that is in / among you all is greater than what is in the world. The game isn't over yet! And in 5:4-
5, his assertion is that following the Lord's instructions is not burdensome, because those who have been born of God
(enlisted in the Kingdom) are (present tense) in the process of overcoming the world. The victory (nike) that has
conquered (aorist tense) the world, is identified as their / our faithfulness! This is yet another place where the dynamic
understanding of pistis (#1) is absolutely essential.

The noun nike, and its later form, nikos, is used only five times total. In I Jn.5:4, referenced above, and also I
Cor.15:54,55,57, it is celebrating his people's sharing in Jesus' victory over death / the grave (refer also to Heb.2, although
the word is not there), and Mt.12:20, which quotes a messianic prophecy of Isaiah (42:1-4). In every instance, the battle
in which both Jesus and his people have overcome / conquered / been victorious, is the ultimate struggle against the forces
of evil and death. There is no reference whatever to the petty annoyances of life to which some folks love to apply it.
(Perhaps they have never recognized the real enemy?) As in so many of our other studies, the real issue, whether on a
personal or a corporate level, is Who's in charge here? And the reply is clear (Rv.17:14) The Lamb will conquer
them, because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and those with him are called (#54) and chosen (#56) and faithful
(#1)!

There are a few other words that are rarely rendered overcome or prevail.
Peter uses hettaomai (II Pet.2:19-20) in warning his readers that they will become slaves to whomever / whatever they
choose to allow to conquer them (similar to Rom.12:21 using nikao).
Luke employs katakurieuo (Ac.19:16) along with ischuo, to describe the defeat of the impostor-exorcists at the hands of a
man possessed by an evil spirit.
Ischuo also appears in Ac.19:20 of the growth and success of the true message of the Gospel, and in Rv.12:8 of the dragon
and his cohorts. Ischuo is more commonly used as one of the power words (#31), having primary reference to physical
strength.
The prefixed form, katischuo, occurs only twice: emphasizing the inability of the gates of hades/death (Mt.16:18) to
prevail against Jesus' church, and the way the chief priests were able to beat down Pilate's objections (Lk.23:23) to their
lynch-mob.

Perhaps the most fascinating word of all in this group is hupernikao, the prefixed form of nikao. Liddell/Scott records only
three writers to have used it: two of them renowned medical doctors Hippocrates in the 5 th century BC, and Galen in the

243
2nd century AD; and Paul in Rom.8:37.
The preposition huper may refer to something being above, over, or beyond normal expectations; or, if a relationship is
being described, it can mean on behalf of, for the benefit of a person or cause.
As a prefix, it carries the flavor of exceedingly or excessively (English cognate, hyper!)
Medically, an active form of the verb might refer to a patient having conquered or prevailed to recover from his illness;
a passive form might indicate that he succumbed to it. But Paul is not speaking of disease.
He has just listed a host of situations or conditions that might threaten one's confidence or trust in the love of God. The
subject is the all-encompassing completeness of God's provision for every eventuality (not to avoid it, but to get through it),
by the triumph of Jesus' resurrection, even in the face of the most brutal persecution. It is in all these things that we are
gaining an exceptional victory (traditionally, more than conquerors) through the One who loved us.
Slowly and carefully re-read vv.31-38, and let the picture soak into your consciousness.
No shallow boasting or victory over a stubbed toe, an unpleasant associate, or even a bad habit, is here. Rather, we are
being provided with the ammunition required, to exercise the faithfulness described by John (I Jn.5:5), and to participate
joyfully in the triumph of our King!
Thanks be to God!

244
Word Study #124 Wait, Waiting
This has been a surprisingly difficult study. It began, as several recent ones have, from a conversation at church. There is
nothing like an interactive group of the Lord's people to motivate earnest investigation of faithfulness. It is truly a gift of
the Lord's graciousness!
Jim had commented, almost as an aside, that whereas we usually think of ourselves as waiting for the completion of God's
plans, he had been impressed at Peter's assertion that God himself was waiting for his people to get on board with his
program (I Pet.3:20). That sparked speculation about how we might be inhibiting or delaying the fulfillment we seek. Are
we keeping him waiting?
One excellent thing about such discussions is the way they send you back to the Book!
The concept of waiting in the New Testament is represented by no less than eight different Greek words! The lexicons are
only of minimal help, and Trench's work on synonyms does not treat these at all, so we are reduced to etymology and
context to try to distinguish between them.
Three of the words appear only once, so there is no comparison available to us. Two of these are prefixed versions of meno
(#58). Anameno (I Thes.1:10) speaks of waiting for Jesus' return, and perimeno (Ac.1:4) is Jesus' instruction to his disciples
not to leave Jerusalem, but to hang around until they received the Holy Spirit's empowerment for their assignment. The
preposition ana can indicate either up or again, and peri is usually around or in the vicinity of. The third word,
prosedreuo (I Cor.9:13), refers to people either Jewish or pagan who wait to perform ritual duties at an altar.
Three other words are prefixed forms of dechomai (to accept, receive, or welcome) which we will examine in a later post.
It is not translated wait in the New Testament.
Apekdechomai, (to await eagerly, to expect anxiously), is used 7x. Although the people doing the waiting uniformly for
Jesus' return are usually disciples (we 5x) Rom.8:23,25; I Cor.1:7, Gal.5:5, Phil.3:20; and in Heb.9:28 those who are
waiting/looking for him, in Rom.8:19, all creation is eagerly anticipating the revealing of the sons of God that will
accompany that glorious denouement. The use of two prefixes would tend to emphasize the atmosphere of every reference
as one of joyous anticipation.
Ekdechomai, (8x), with only one prefix, is usually a more ordinary form of expectation: the lame man waiting for the
pool to be stirred-up (Jn.5:3), Paul waiting for his companions in Athens (Ac.17:6) or for the arrival of Timothy (I
Cor.16:11); a farmer waiting for the harvest (Jas.5:7), and ordinary politeness at a church dinner (I Cor.11:33). But it is also
used of Abraham's faithfulness to God's call (Heb.11:13), of God's delaying the execution of his judgment (I Pet.3:20), and
of Jesus waiting (Heb.10:13) for the final subjugation of his enemies! These latter two are the only references to waiting
on the part of anyone but ordinary humans, other than the Rom.8:19 passage cited above. I am not sure of the implication
of that observation.
Prosdechomai, occurring 14x, although its only use in Homer was to await or expect, later was more commonly used of
welcome or acceptance, sometimes (not always) into the presence of a superior. New Testament references are weighted
more heavily toward the older usage, including waiting for the Kingdom of God (Mt.15:43, Lk.2:25, 38; 23:51); for Jesus'
return (Tit.2:13, Jude 21); and for a master's arrival (Lk.12:36), but also Jesus' welcome of the wrong kind of people
(Lk.15:2), admonitions to receive / care for traveling disciples (Rom.16:2, Phil.2:29), and the acceptanceof persecuted
status on the part of the faithful (Heb.10:34) and their refusal (11:35) to accept escape.

Prosdokao, also with 14 uses, although occasionally referring to ordinary waiting of people for other people (Lk.1:21,
8:40; Ac.10:24, 27:33) usually leans more toward the idea of expectation (Mt.11:3 and parallel Lk.7:19; Mt.24:50 and
parallel Lk.12:46; Lk.3:15). This is true even on a totally human level (Ac.28:6, 3:5). However, there is an urgency evident
in II Pet.3:12,13,14, regarding the Lord's return, probably due to the severity of the persecution that the readers were facing.

Finally, proskartereo, usually translated (8x) continue (which would really fit better with #58) is only twice rendered
wait Mk.3:9 when Jesus requested the use of a boat, and Ac.10:7 of Cornelius' servant. We will consider the others with
the idea of watch (coming next!)

So where does this leave us?

245
Maybe our focus needs to be less on the specific idea of waiting and more on what we should be doing while we are
waiting! The contexts of the listed references provide a clue: here are a few, and you can check out others.
I Thes.1:10, for example, is preceded by v.9, which speaks of their having turned away from idols to become slaves to the
true and living God.
The discussion in Rom.8:18-30 includes dependence, not only on the Spirit's intercession, but also on cultivating his fruit.
I Cor.1:7 is enclosed in an admonition (4-9) regarding growing into the community designed to prepare us for his coming.
While the disciples were waiting in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit, they spent some of their time
organizing Ac. 1:15-26 (which was NOT a part of the Lord's instructions!) as well as paying constant attention to
prayer (v.14), which was.
Later, Peter, who had earlier led the organization effort, writing to brethren under severe persecution (II Pet.3:12-14),
reassures them that their longed-for deliverance will come and urges them to live faithfully in the peace and justice for
which they are waiting. (He was not laboring under the modern delusion that one needs government legislation or
permission to live faithfully!!!)

Perhaps the most significant of all, although it does not use any of the waiting words, is the announcement of the Lamb's
wedding feast, in Rev.19:7. The waiting, of course, is over by then. But the invitation asserts joyfully, His wife / Bride
has prepared herself! and explains that her radiant garments consist of the just deeds of God's people !(v.8)
None of this should be taken as any kind of disparagement of waiting, or eager anticipation. That is very much in order.
But it just might be that the preparation part is more practical that we tend to think. Maybe we and our Lord and
Bridegroom are both waiting.
May we faithfully wait and prepare and speed the day!

246
Word Study #125 Watch!
Here is another example of a word with multiple meanings and implications which have been distinguished poorly, if at all,
in most English translations. Representing eight different Greek words, whose primary meanings range from guarding a
prisoner through the simple measuring of time and ordinary sleeplessness to sobriety and diligent faithfulness, by the use of
the single English term watch seems careless at best. Utterly irresponsible might be a better analysis.
Most of the words, seldom used, can be sorted rather easily. Koustodia, transliterated from the Latin custodia, a Roman
military assignment, is used in the New Testament only of the guards assigned to Jesus' crucifixion (Mt.27:65,66; 28:11).
Agrupnia, simple lack of sleep, appears only in II Cor.6:5 and 11:27, as Paul describes the trials of his life, although the verb
form, agrupneo, is three times (out of 4) connected with deliberate, careful faithfulness and prayer (Mk.13:33, Lk.21:36,
Eph.6:18), or, in Heb.13:17, serious responsibility for other members of the Body.
Tereo (translated only 2x watch (Mt.27:36,54) vs. 57x keep, in the sense of careful observance and its prefixed
form, paratereo (5x) Mt.3:2, Lk.6:7, 14:1; 20:20; Ac.9:24 refer simply to observation: watching to see what was
going to happen, or, in the latter case, to apprehend Paul.
This leaves three, however, that require more detailed attention.

Phulake, for example, and its related words phulax and phulasso, had quite a variety of classical uses, by far most of which,
at least in the noun form, referred to a prison (35x), or to the guards phulax (KJV keepers) assigned to administer
them (Ac.5:23, 12:6, 19).
But as early as the third century BC writings of Herodotus, phulake was also applied to a period of time, originally a period
of guard duty. In Roman times, the night was divided into four watches. Earlier jurisdictions had used three or five such
segments. This use is seen in Mt.14:25, 24:43; Mk.6:48, Lk.12:38.
Liddell/Scott also lists the idea of guarding with a view to protection, as in the case of the shepherds in Lk.2:8, or the more
common use as a bodyguard. The verb form, phulasso, is never traditionally rendered watch in its 30 New Testament
appearances. It is primarily translated keep (21x), and refers, parallel to the most common use of tereo, to keeping the
law, the word of God, or any people, things, or principles committed to one's trust. It is also used of taking precautions, or
admonitions to beware (Lk.12:25, II Tim.4:15, II Pet.3:17, I Jn.5:21), and of God's protection of his people (II Thes.3:3, II
Tim.1:12,14; Jude 24).

Nepho, originally used only in the present (continual, progressive) tense, is traditionally rendered watch twice, and be
sober three times. Earlier writers used it consistently as the opposite of methuo to be drunk, often as total abstinence.
Later, it referred to self-control of any sort, or being sober and wary. One might paraphrase, take things/life seriously!
The sense can readily be discerned from the words with which it is paired:
I Thes.5:6 Let us watch (gregoreo) and be sober (nepho) (PNT Let's don't be sleeping like the rest, but be alert and
sober.)
I Thes.5:8 Let us, who are of the day, be sober, clothed in a breast plate of faithfulness and love
II Tim.4:5 Be sober in everything .Fulfill your assignment!
I Pet.1:13 Be sober [alert]; set your hope [confidence] completely on the grace being brought to you
I Pet.4:7 Be sensible (sophronesate) and calm [sober] (nepho) for the purpose of prayer
I Pet.5:8 Be careful [sober] (nephate), be watchful (gregoresate)
Do you notice the pairing with forms of gregoreo? This brings us to the last, and most common, of the words traditionally
translated watch.(I Pet.5:8, referenced above.)
Gregoreo is simply defined, lexically, as to be fully awake, but its New Testament usage is much richer than that. It was
traditionally translated be awake I Thes.5:10, whether we wake or sleep, (referring to physical life or death), and be
vigilant (I Pet.5:8, referenced above) once each, and 20x watch.
Of these, four (Mt.26:38, 40; Mk.14:34,37) are from scenes in the Garden where Jesus asks for companionship in his lonely
prayer.
Nine are admonitions to faithful preparation for Jesus' / a master's arrival (Mt.24:42, 25:13; Mk.13:34,35,37; Lk.12:37, I
Thes.5:6, Rv.16:15) more on that in the next study.
Seven are combined with instructions for persistent prayer to buttress one's own faithfulness and avoid being deceived or
turned away (Mt.24:43, Mk.14:38, Lk.12:39, Ac.20:31, I Cor.16:13, Col.4:2, Rv.3:2,3).

247
In each of the latter two groups, the idea is much more heavily skewed toward alertness than simple physical wakefulness.

Interestingly, although the concepts are closely connected, especially in the parables quoted in Mt.24, Mk.13, and Lk.12,
the actual words for waiting and watching do not appear together, except in hymns and sermons! Combining the two
ideas, unfortunately, too often leads to equating them, and therefore to unwarranted passivity in the understanding of both.
While a degree of this is present in many of the waiting passages (see previous post), watching is most decidedly
active, not passive.
Agrupneo, phulasso, nepho, and especially gregoreo, all require deliberate effort, whether in prayer or overt action.
Watching is NOT a spectator sport!
Neither is it a lonely, individualistic pursuit. Notice that every one of the imperatives is plural.
May we learn to wait and watch together in determined faithfulness!

248
Word Study #126 Are you Ready?
From billboards to bumper stickers, novels, movies, songs, and sermons, we are bombarded with the (usually designed to be
threatening) question: Are you ready to meet God? or Jesus is coming: are you ready?
Laying aside for the moment the most egregious error in such a message which is failing (or refusing) to recognize that
the word of the Lord's coming is NOT a threat, but a promise, greatly to be anticipated let us rather consider just what it is
to be ready. Please review studies 124 and 125 as we undertake this one.
Different aspects of readiness for many different occasions are represented in the New Testament by three different
families of words, which, although quite distinct in their implications, are seldom distinguished by English translators.
See if you can suggest alternate words that would convey the differences.
Interestingly, only one of these, hetoimazo, hetoimos, is ever used in connection with the Lord's return, although a second,
kataskeuazo, appears four times regarding John's preparations for Jesus' first appearance.
I have chosen to pass over the four instances where mello, a versatile word used for anything that is about to happen, is
translated ready (Lk.7:2, Ac.20:7, Rv.3:2, 12:4), because there is no idea of preparation involved. The reference is simply
temporal: the more common translations are shall (25x), should (19x), and other indications of the immediate future.
Likewise, prothumia / prothumos was classically used of willingness or eagerness to do something, and in the New
Testament, four times with respect to the relief offering collected by the Gentile churches for the Judean famine (II
Cor.8:11,12; 8:19, 9:2), once (Ac.17:11) of the eagerness with which the Bereans received Paul's message, once of Paul's
desire to preach in Rome (Rom.1:15), and twice as Jesus warns his disciples that although their spirit is [ready] willing
(Mt.26:41, Mk.14:38), their human nature is not. Prothumia speaks of desire and enthusiasm, but lacks practical substance.
Paraskeuazo , appearing only 4x, leans a bit more heavily upon practicality regarding the offering (II Cor.9:2,3), and also
refers to preparations for battle (I Cor.14:8), or simply the preparation of a meal (Ac.10:10). The noun form, paraskeue
(Mt.27:62, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:54, Jn.19:14,31,42) refers exclusively to the Jewish Day of Preparation before the Passover
Sabbath.
Kataskeuazo, referenced earlier, more often used in the sense of building: a house (Heb.3:3,4), the tabernacle (Heb.9:2,6),
or Noah's ark (Heb.11:7, I Pet.3:20), is also used in prophecy, by Gabriel (Lk.1:17) and both John the Baptist and Jesus
quoting Isaiah (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk.7:27). Both words are classically used of producing, preparing, or procuring
something, or making preparations; but both are also used of fraudulent legal manipulations, to influence a court or pack
a jury! I have not detected this aspect in any of the New Testament references, although I am sure that it happened case in
point, Ac.23:12-16, describing one of the plots against Paul (with the use of hetoimos).

The most common, and most versatile, of the words referring to readiness is hetoimos(17x), hetoimazo (29x).
Liddell/Scott notes virtually any kind of preparation, whether for a meal, warfare, or any other event; to have cash-in-hand
for payment of an obligation; the feasibility of a task; a promise made good; or lack of hesitation. New Testament uses
include preparations identical with those in which paraskeuazo is used: preparing the way / people for Jesus' arrival
(Mt.3:3, Mk.1:3, 14:12; Lk.1:17, 3:4), and later, preparing the Passover meal (Mt.26:17,19; Mk.14:15,16; Lk.22;8,12,13),
and the discussion (more frequently using prothumia) of the relief offering (II Cor.9:5).
Commander Lysias' orders to assemble a military escort for Paul (Ac.23:23), and preparation for battles which, please
note, did NOT take place (Rv.9:7, 15; 16:12); Paul's request to Philemon for a guest room (Phm.22), and the women's
preparation of embalming spices (Lk.23:56, 24:1), as well as ordinary preparation of meals or lodging (Lk.9:52, 14:17; 17:8,
Mk.14:15; Mt.22:4), all employ forms of hetoimazo.

The adverb, hetoimos, expresses Paul's acceptance of whatever fate awaits him in Jerusalem (Ac.21:13), as well as his
deliberate travel plans (Ac.21:13), and Peter's assessment of the Lord's readiness to exercise judgment (I Pet.4:5). Earlier,
Peter had used the adjective hetoimos in boasting of his loyalty to Jesus (Lk.22:33). Six times, the reference is to God
himself doing the preparing: Mt.20:23 arranging positions in the final kingdom; Lk.2:31 the working out of the
deliverance planned for all people; I Cor.2:9 the unimaginably glorious inheritance prepared for them that love him;
Heb.11:16 the city, whose builder and maker is God; Rv.12:6 refuge from persecution for the woman (the church?),
and I Pet.1:5 the deliverance [salvation] that is prepared to be revealed in the last time; and twice (Jn.14:2,3) Jesus
speaks of preparing a place for his disciples.
Paul urges both Titus (3:1) and Timothy (II Tim.2:21) that they, and those they teach, be ready / prepared for every good
work, and Peter (I Pet.3:15) advocates constant readiness to respond to questioners who are puzzled by the hope that is
in / among you.

249
Only in a few parables does Jesus connect readiness with his return.
The parable about the feast (Mt.22:1-13 and Lk.14:16-24) uses the ready words only with respect to the preparations
made by the host. It is their rude behavior that excludes the invited guests.
The judgment scene in Mt.25:31-46 refers to the kingdom prepared for those who have acted mercifully, and the fire
prepared (not for people) for the devil and his messengers. Again, people are not charged with making the preparations.

In contrast, the story of the girls awaiting the arrival of the bridegroom (some manuscripts say the bride) places the
responsibility squarely upon the guests. The ones who were welcomed were the ones who had been careful to keep their
lamps working! (A reflection of Mt.5:14-16?)
Most significant of all is Jesus' teaching in Mt.24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48. The Master has been out of town, leaving his
servants to tend to his affairs, and entrusting some with the responsibility to care for the others. Those whom the Master
finds faithfully fulfilling their assigned duties are commended, and rewarded not with starry crowns, but with greater
responsibility! Notice that the one incurring the most severe punishment is the servant in charge, who abused those
entrusted to his care! (Lk.12:45,46 and Mt.24:46-49), and treated his assignment as one of privilege.
Luke adds (47,48) the observation that the Master's expectations (and reaction) are commensurate with the degree to which
the servants were aware of his wishes.

Please note that nothing at all is said about what anyone thought or believed, or to what sort of doctrine, dogma, or
creed he subscribed! (Refer also to W.S.#10).
Jesus does indeed encourage his people to be ready for his coming (Mt.24:44, Lk.12:40,47). It behooves us therefore, to
check with him regarding what that readiness entails!
As long as you are busy following the Master's instructions, YOU ARE READY!
Go out to meet him in unmitigated JOY!

250
Word Study #127 Tear, Divide, Split, Break, Open
This study started at church, too: with the question, Is the word about heaven being 'torn open' in Mark 1:10 the same as
what happened to the temple veil when Jesus died (Mt.27:5, Mk.15:38, Lk.23:45)? A quick check confirmed that it is.
I was surprised to discover that schizo, (L/S to separate or divide, physically or intellectually; to split wood, to have
differing opinions, to shatter, tear, or cut) appears only ten times in the New Testament. Four of these are cited above. Five
times, it is translated rend the three above regarding the temple, and again in the Mt.27 reference speaking of rocks
shattered by the earthquake, and the guards' decision (Jn.19:24) not to tear apart Jesus' robe. Twice, it is rendered divide
Ac.14:4 and 23:7, of divided opinions in the crowds; once make a rent (Lk.5:36) of a new patch on old fabric; once
(Jn.21:11) when the fish-net was not broken; and once open, in the Mt.1:10 with which we began.
The noun, schisma (L/S a tear in a a garment, a division of opinion, plowing, or cloven hoofs) occurs only eight times.
It is translated division 5x Jn.7:43, 9:16, 10:19; I Cor.1:10, 11:18 all referring to divisions of opinion among people;
rent twice Mt.9:16, Mk.2:21 which are parallel to Luke's use of the verb (5:36) above; and schism once I
Cor.12:25 regarding divisions in the Body.
Schizo / schisma seems to share the more drastic end of a spectrum of words describing breaking or dividing, with regnumi
(5 uses) and its prefixed form, diarregnumi (also 5 uses). Both are listed by L/S as burst, break, rend, or shatter, and in
passive form, to be wrecked, broken, torn, or disjointed.
They also refer to the dramatic tearing of clothing (Mt.26:65, Mk.14:63, Ac.14:14), the bursting of wineskins by the
fermentation process (Mk.2:22,Lk.5:37), the destructive activity of evil spirits (Lk.8:29, Mk.9:18, 9:42) or pigs (Mt.7:6), as
well as Luke's account of a broken fish net (Lk.5:6).
The idea of division is usually less dramatic, and much more frequently represented by merizo (14x) or diamerizo (12x).
L/S lists to divide, to distribute,or separate groups of people, objects, ideas, or animals. This may involve simple sharing
of goods and/or responsibilities (Mk.6:41, Lk.12:13, Ac.2:3, II Cor.10:13, Heb.7:2), but also with a more hostile slant, a
house divided against itself (Mt.12:25,26; Mk.3:24,26), or serious divisions in the church (I Cor.1:13).
Aphorizo (L/S to mark off boundaries, to separate species, to determine or define) shares much of this sense (Mt.13:49,
25:32, Lk.6:22,19:9, Rom.1:1, II Cor.6:17, Gal.1:15), or to set apart for office (Ac.13:2), but can also have the sense, also
noted in L/S, of to banish, or set apart for rejection (Gal.2:12).
Dichostasia (L/S dissension, sedition), appearing only 3x (Rom.16:17, I Cor.3:3, Gal.5:20), seems to include only the
negative aspects of division.
I had previously assumed that Mark's use of schizo in his account of Jesus' baptism was just the effusive vocabulary of an
excited young man, which is evident in so much of his writing.
Matthew and Luke say simply that heaven was opened, and John reports the descent of the dove, but does not mention
heaven at all.
Anoigo, the word used in Mt.3:16 and Lk.3:21, is a very ordinary word, used of opening doors (literal and figurative),
prisons, eyes, mouths, treasures, and also of visions (Ac.7:56, 10:11, and frequently in the Revelation). It appears 70 times
in the New Testament, sometimes referring to miracles, but only part of the time.
Looking at all of these word uses, however, leads me to suppose that Mark is really much more insightful that he usually
gets credit for. Maybe more so than all the rest!
Consider: these are Mark's only uses of schizo. Might he not have intended that we make a connection? Might the
heavens have been split open, not so much to let the dove / Spirit out, but to allow people to see IN?
The Gospel accounts vary as to who saw what. The Matthew passage is not conclusive with respect to the reference of
he. Jesus and John have both just been named. The voice saying this is my Son (rather than you are) would give
the impression that it is being addressed to John.
Mark, however, (1:11) quotes You are my Son obviously addressed to Jesus. Luke follows Mark. John does not
connect the vision with the baptism at all, but he bears clear testimony to what he saw, and its correspondence to what God
had told him previously.
No one reports whether the crowd saw or heard anything. With the testimony equally divided, I think it is safe to say that at
least Jesus and John saw and heard what had happened, and possibly others.

Now fast-forward to the scene in the temple at the time of Jesus' death, which must surely have caused enormous
consternation. Remember, that huge, thick curtain was designed to prevent people from seeing or entering the place where

251
God dwelt. (Please refer to Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 8).
But Jesus had spent the last three years trying to show the Father to anyone who was willing to look!(Jn.14:9). His death,
and subsequent destruction of both death, its power, and the one who controlled it (Heb.2:4), also destroyed the last
vestiges of any validity for any pretense of the separation of people from their God! The veil was deliberately destroyed so
that those who had so long been excluded could not only see in, but also enter in to the very presence of the One we
worship!
The writer to the Hebrews also notes that the temple / tabernacle was a representation of the heavenly things
(Heb.9:23,24), but Jesus has transported his people to the real thing!

In both the cases, the dramatic splitting open of the curtain and of heaven itself is not the work of any earthly power. Jesus'
ministry of restoration is gloriously bookended by two displays of the gracious hand of God, crashing through aeons of
separation and tearing them to shreds, in his mighty, amazing gesture of welcome not only to his Son, but to his people!
Thanks be to God!

252
Word Study #128 Guilt and Shame
I am just plain fed-up!
Whether it's the creeds and confessions of liturgical groups, or the praise songs, old hymns, or pious-sounding,
flowery prayers of groups that consider themselves less formal, the ubiquitous requirement to wallow in self-deprecation
about all my guilt and shame is so blatantly opposed, not only to Jesus' teaching, but to his entire life and interaction with
people, that I often feel like walking out! Or at least, carrying a protest sign:
JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!!!
Please show me one single place where he did!
Neither noun --- neither guilt nor shame appears a single time in the entire New Testament, in connection with earnest
followers of Jesus! In fact, guilt, in any context, is completely absent.
This subject has been addressed previously in the postings on repentance (#6), forgiveness of sins (#7), and humility
(#14), but I think we need to look at these two words individually. They are symptoms of a pervasive disease, that is
potentially fatal to the genuine message of Jesus, not to mention the welfare of his people.
The concept of guilt is not totally absent from New Testament writings. Twice, Jesus uses anaitios (L/S guiltless,
without fault or blame), once of himself (Mt.12:7) and once of priests performing their legitimate sabbath duties (Mt.12:5).
There are three words traditionally translated guilty. Hupodikos (L/S a legal term, referring to trial and conviction) is
used only in Rom.3:19, making the point that whether Jew or Gentile, the whole world has ignored God's instructions.
Opheilo (L/S referring primarily to monetary debt, legal obligation, or duty) was only once rendered guilty (Mt.23:18),
regarding one's obligation incurred by oath. Its other translations are ought,must, should 18x, debt 5x, and duty 4x.
Enochos (L/S legal liability or a court sentence), is translated danger 5x (Mt.5:21,22 4 uses and Mk.3:29), 1x
subject (Heb.2:15), and 4x guilty (Mt.26:66 and Mk.14:64 regarding the verdict at Jesus' mock trial; James' indictment
2:10 of people picking and choosing only parts of the law to observe; and I Cor.11:27.) This last is the only one that
could conceivably be applied to believers and it is directed toward those who are doing active damage to the function
of the Body.

It is difficult to sort out the shame / ashamed words.

Aischunomai (5x), epaischuneo (11x), and kataischuneo (12x) (L/S to dishonor, disfigure or tarnish; to disdain, to be
ashamed (and consequently not do something), to be ashamed of having done something; to feel shame, or to cause another
to do so) are exclusively rendered ashamed in the New Testament, except for two instances where for some reason,
confounded was used (I Cor.1:27, I Pet.2:6), and two (I Cor.11:4,5) where dishonor was chosen. The only reference to
a committed person being ashamed is with reference (Rom.6:21) to his former life. But Paul immediately follows that
remark with v.22, But now that you have been set free --- and paints a picture of sharp contrast.
Many references are admonitions to not be ashamed when persecuted or put-down (I Pet.4:6, II Tim.1:8, 12, 16;
Heb.12:12, Phil.1:20); nor of the Gospel itself (Rom.1:16, 9:3, 10:11); of Jesus (Mk.8:38, Lk.9:26), or of each other (II
Cor.7:14, 9:4), and to take care that God / Jesus have no reason to be ashamed of us (Heb.2:11, 11:16).
There are statements that opponents were or ought to be ashamed (Lk.13:17, I Pet.3:16, Tit.2:8), and that brethren who
are in error should be corrected, in order that they may be restored (I Cor.4:14, 6:5, 15:34; II Cor.10:8, II Thes.3;14), but
none implying continuing shame on the part of faithful followers.

The other words are somewhat harder to pin down.

Aischune , the noun form of shame, only appearing 6x, is likewise never applied to the faithful. The one reference to
Jesus, (Heb.12:2), says that he endured the cross, despising the shame (NOT assuming or bearing it!) The verb is
kataphroneo, (L/S to look down upon, to be disdainful of, to think contemptuously of, to disregard, or neglect!) This
looks more to me like triumph and complete superiority than the much-touted submission! Where did the notion of his
bearing or becoming shame come from? Certainly not the New Testament!
Paul (II Cor.4:2, Phil.3:9), Jude (13), and John (Rv.3:18) all speak of the shame of the disobedient, and Luke (14:9)
describes the embarrassment of an egotistical guest. Notice the translation in II Cor.4:2 is dishonesty. That bears further
study. Is requiring people to confess shame without any reason, really urging them to dishonesty?

Entrepomai, used 9x, represents a historical alteration of meaning. L/S lists to command respect, to hesitate or feel
misgivings, to reverence or feel regard for, and only later to feel shame or fear. In Mt.21:37, Mk.12:6,Lk.20:13, and
Heb.12:9, reverence was chosen; in Lk.18:2,4 , regard; and only 3x, I Cor.4:14, II Thes.3:14, Tit.2:8, ashamed. I will

253
welcome your thoughts on how these choices might have been made. They are all valid translations of the word.....
Other words for dishonorable behavior are used more rarely: aschemosune (2x), atimia, atimao (negative forms of timao,
to honor) 8x, entrope (2x), making little or no reference to its effect or perception to the actors. It is interesting that the only
two uses of paradeigmatizo are Mt.1:19 of Joseph's reluctance to embarrass Mary publicly, and Heb.6:6, the charge that
those who turn away, put Jesus himself to public shame. (If you have downloaded the PNT, please add that in brackets to
the end of the verse! I will correct it in the next version.)
So, where does all this leave us?
Very simply: seek to live in such a way that we will have nothing of which to be ashamed, that we will not make the Lord
ashamed of us, and that none of us will cause shame to other brethren.
But scrap the platitudes about guilt and shame!!!'
YOU ARE NOT A WRETCH!!!
YOU ARE NOT A WORM!!!
If you belong to Jesus, YOU ARE NOT FULL OF GUILT AND SHAME!
And it does NOT make you holier, more appreciative, or more faithful, to wallow around confessingor singing songs,
bemoaning some artificial construct of guilt and shame!
And for Jesus' sake (please note that I am using that phrase as Paul did, and not as a profanity!) quit assuming that that
sort of behavior is praising the Lord!!!
Praise him rather for setting you FREE from any and all guilt or shame, to follow him!

254
Word Study #129 Hidden things, Secrets, Darkness
This study is an outgrowth of the former post. When I ran across the only reference for aischune that was not translated
shame, but rather dishonesty (II Cor.4:2), where Paul asserts, we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, I
thought this required attention. I have long advocated for the total avoidance of hidden things or secrecy of any kind in a
Christian brotherhood, so the connection of hidden things with shame or dishonesty seemed quite relevant to these
efforts. Of course, with careful study, one frequently learns that nothing is as simple as he would like it to be. This was no
exception.

Both hidden and secret are traditional translations of the same words, with very few, seldom-appearing exceptions.
Almost all (8 out of 12 words) are some variant of the verb krupto: primarily kruptos (noun, adjective, and adverb forms),
another adverb kruphe, and the prefixed forms apokrupto / apokruphos, perikrupto, and egkrupto. L/S lists roughly the
same usage for all of them: to hide with a notion of protection, to hide oneself, to cover or bury, to conceal or keep secret,
to engage in intrigue, to connive, or in the adjectival forms, hidden, secret, disguised, underhanded, hard to understand,
obscure.

Similar variety is also represented in New Testament usage. There are things and people that are hidden for protection
(Mt.7:24, 13:44; Jn.7:10, 8:59, 12:36,19:38; Col.3:3). Some refer simply to ordinary privacy (Mt.1:18, 24:26, 26:26; I
Pet.3:4). Some things are hidden, waiting for the proper time to be revealed (Mt.11:25, Lk.10:21, Eph.3:9, Col.1:26,
2:3; Mt.13:35, Rom.16:25). Some are rather ambiguous as to whether the hiding is a positive or a negative thing
(Mt.10:26, Mk.4:22, Lk.12:2, 8:17, 8:27, 9:45, 18:34; Mt.5:14, Lk.1:24, Mt.13:33, Lk.13:21). And some are indeed
nefarious, and strictly warned-against (Mt.25:18, 25:25; Rom.2:16, I Cor.4:5, II Cor.4:2, Eph.5:12, Rv.6:15,16).

Another perspective of interest is who is hiding (or trying to hide) what, from whom, and why? Jesus' admonition in
Mt.6:4, 6, 18, for example, is an encouragement to keep one's faithfulness private between the disciple and the Father,
whose seeing in secret is loving affirmation, quite in contrast to the warning expressed by the same word in Rom.2:16
or I Cor.4:5. Whether or not we welcome the time when the secrets of all hearts will be revealed simply depends upon
what is in our hearts!

Also interestingly, there is no overt suggestion that things hidden from the beginning of the world (Eph.3:9, Col.1:26,
Mt.13:35, Rom.16:25) were deliberately concealed by the hand of God: only that they are exclusively and deliberately
revealed (note the context of the above references), by his will and timing, and under his instructions.
The only people from whom the message of the Kingdom is deliberately withheld (II Cor.4:3, Lk.19:42, Mt.11:25,
Lk.10:21) are those who have rejected the call of the King, in whom alone are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge (Col.2:3). It is he, also, in whom the very lives of those who trust him are hidden by the protective hand of
God (Col.3:3), after having already chosen to begin the promised Kingdom life.

Lanthano / lathra (L/S to escape notice, unseen, secretly, privately, imperceptibly, but also treacherously, by stealth)
in the New Testament usually refers to privacy (Jn.11:28, Mt.1:19, 2:7; Ac.16:7), with only the latter two references bearing
any underhanded flavor. The verb form carries a tone of attempted avoidance (Mt.7:24, Lk.8:47), but in a protective sense.
Aphanes (an adverb formed by adding the negative prefix a to the stem of phaneros, translated manifest, referring to
any sort of revelation (Lk.8:17, Mk.4:22, I Cor.3:13, 14:25; Eph.5:13), is only used a single time, in Heb.4:13, and, like the
citations in Mt.6 above, whether it is a threat or a promise depends upon whose side one has chosen to join!
It is in the matter of choosing sides that the concept of darkness is thrown into the mix. All but 4 of the 59 references
use some form of skotia / skotos (L/S darkness, blindness, obscurity, gloom, uncertainty, deceit, ignorance, death).
Occasionally it refers simply to the onset of evening (Jn.6:17, 20:1), the eclipse at the time of Jesus' death (Mt.27:45,
Mk.15:33, Lk.23:44), or the eventual destination of those who actively oppose the Lord, his people, and his ways (II Pet.2:4,
17; Jude 6, 13; Heb.12:18, Mt.8:12, 22:13, 25:30). A few times the implication appears to be privacy (Mt.10:27, Lk.12:13).

But most of the time, it is a description of intellectual or spiritual ignorance, whether as a result of opposing the Lord
(Rom.1:21, 11:10; Eph.4:8, Mt.8:12, 22:13, 25:30, II Pet.2:!7), or simply not having heard of his ways (Mt.4:16, Lk.1:79,
Ac.26:18, Rom.2:19).
Darkness is also represented as the realm of overt evil (Lk.22:15, Jn. 3:19, Eph.5:8, 11,12; 6:!2; I Thes.5:4,5), from which
the faithful are urged to make a definitive break (I Pet.2:9, Col.1:13, Eph.5:11, II Cor.6:14, Rom.13:12, Mt.6:23, Lk.11:35).

255
John seems to draw the battle lines with the greatest clarity, both in his gospel (1:5, 8:12, 12:35,46) and in his first letter (I
Jn.1:5,6; 2;8,9,11). Please refer also to study #75, Light, by way of contrast.
The key to the connection with secrecy lies in Jn.3:19-21: The light has come into the world, and people loved the
darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not
come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But the one who is doing [acting in] the truth, comes to the light, in order that
his deeds may be revealed, that they were performed in [for] God.
Paul harmonizes very well with this tune in the paragraph that contains the reference with which we began: II Cor.4:1-6.

While it may be necessary in hostile environments for faithful brethren to operate quietly with respect to the darkness that
surrounds, and sometimes threatens them (Mt.7:24, Jn.7:10, 8:59, 12:36), within a faithful brotherhood, there is no such
need!
Renouncing the shameful, hidden things (II Cor.4:2), and things hidden in darkness (I Cor.4:5), we may take our places
in complete, trusting mutuality as the Body of our Lord Jesus!
Once, you all were darkness, but now you are light, in the Lord! Behave as children of light!(Eph.5:8)
Amen!

256
Word Study #130 Wisdom, Wise
If you are trying to follow a train of thought here, the departure station was the reference in the previous post, where
Paul asserts that in Jesus (Col.2:3), are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge! We have already dealt with
knowledge (#29), and since the words are often used together, it is reasonable to assume that they are connected, but not
synonymous. (The astute observation of our son's late father-in-law was, Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom is having enough sense not to put one in a fruit salad!)

In exploring wisdom, though, we are faced with another dilemma: two Greek words, sometimes interchangeably and
sometimes identically translated as wise and prudent. Scholars with much higher credentials than mine have tried and
failed to make a neat distinction between sophos and phronimos. L/S leans heavily toward practicality for phronimos, but
also retains that flavor in more than half of the listings for sophos. Trench insists that only sophos has a moral component,
and is used only with respect to God or to good men but that simply is not true (see Rom.1:22, I Cor. 1-3, II Cor.1:12,
Col.2;23, Jas.3:15,17). Bauer's approach is more balanced, including both natural worldly wisdom and that which comes
only from God in the treatment of sophos, and relegating phronimos primarily, although not exclusively, to matters of
judgment or opinion.
Both words, to a degree at least, appear to be subject to one's conscious choice, as well as being a native, gifted, or learned
ability.
Plato and Aristotle used both words: the former for flights of philosophical fantasy as well as carefully reasoned argument,
and the latter of scientific or mathematical understanding!
So perhaps we may also be forgiven for our occasional confusion!
Primarily because of the contexts in which they occur, I usually use words like sensible or reasonable for phronimos,
and reserve wise for sophos, but I would not insist upon either choice.

Words related to phronimos (used 18x), phronesis (2x), phronimoteros (1x), and phronimos (the adverb 1x) appear much
less frequently than sophia (51x) / sophos (21x) / sophizo (2x) / sophoteron (1x). The older term, prudent fits well for
most of the former group, as they refer to people behaving sensibly, from the world's standpoint, in their situations (Lk.16:8
- 2x , Mt. 7:24, 24:45, 25:2-9 4x , Lk.12:42). Please note, that simply using good judgment is nowhere represented
as wrong. Worldly wisdom is only criticized when it is valued above that which comes from God, or contradicts
Kingdom principles, as in the warnings recorded in Rom.11:25, 12:16; I Cor.4:10, II Cor.11:19. Indeed, using one's best
judgment is recommended in Mt.10:16, Lk.1:17, I Cor.10:15, and Eph.1:8.

The uses of sophia / sophos, on the other hand, require some sorting. L/S lists cleverness or skill in a craft or art, skill in
matters of common life, sound judgment, practical wisdom, learning, speculative wisdom, natural philosophy, and notes
that only among the Jews was it considered an attribute of God. This is not really surprising, if one considers the antics
ascribed to the Greek and Roman deities. Both Paul (I Tim.1:17, Rom.16:7) and Jude (25) actually use the phrase, the only
wise God. Might they have had exactly that contrast in mind?

Paul is careful to distinguish, in the first three chapters of I Corinthians, between the wisdom of the world and the
wisdom of God but he uses sophia /sophos for both. James also makes a clear distinction in Jas.3:13-17, offering a
reliable standard by which the real thing may be recognized.
When the Ephesian and Colossian churches were under assault by advocates of mystical Eastern cults which claimed a
superior, esoteric wisdom, Paul reminded them (Eph.1:8, 1:17, 3:10; Col.1:9, 1:28, 2:3, 2:23, 3:16) that disciples have
already been made partakers of the very wisdom of God himself all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge in the
Lord Jesus Christ and consequently have no need of anything beyond that (Col.3:16) Christ's word must continually
reside among you all, richly, in all wisdom, as you keep teaching and admonishing each other!

The wisdom required for that assignment is plainly and overtly recognized as the gift of God. Jesus had promised it for
times of trial (Lk.21:15). It was listed right up there with the Holy Spirit among the qualifications sought for the first
deacons (Ac.6:3), and heavily relied upon by Stephen (Ac.6:10), Paul (Rom.2:6,7; I Pet.3:15), and James (1:5).
A word of wisdom is listed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church in I Cor.12:8, paired with a word of
knowledge the combination being a necessary component of faithful discipleship (#51). Someone has said, knowing
what needs doing, AND what to do about it. Walking in wisdom (Eph.5:15, Col.4:5), likewise, is essential for faithful

257
witness (#18).
Even Jesus himself, as a child, increased in wisdom as he matured (Mt.13:54, Mk.6:2, Lk.2:40,52), but for us ordinary
mortals, it seems primarily to be the result of gracious revelation (Mk.11:25, 23:35; Rom.16:19, Eph.1:8, 1:17, Col.1:9).

A few other words are rarely rendered wise: suniemi (once II Cor.10:!2-- wise and 24x understanding), sunetos
(only used 4x, and invariably rendered prudent Mt.11:25, Lk.10:27, Ac.13:17, I Cor.1:19), and magos (rendered 4x
wise men in Mt.2, and 2x sorcerer in Ac.8 and 13). This latter word is Persian, and referred to astrologer-priests.

By way of contrast, several of the words appear with the negative prefix, a-, and are rendered unwise, foolish, without
understanding: asophos (Eph.5:15), anoetos (Rom.1:14,Gal.3:1,3; I Tim.6:9, Tit.3:3), asunetos (Rom.1:21, 10:19;
Mt.15:16, Rom.1:31), and aphron (Rom.2:20, Eph.5:7, I Pet.2:15). The contexts of most of these give the impression that
the ignorance in each case was a matter of choice, unlike moros, which seems to be a condition that can be remedied.

Perhaps Paul's (Eph.5:17) admonition, be not unwise, but understand what the Lord's will (#12) is, the gracious
invitation of James (1:5) to simply ask when we lack the wisdom for faithful living, and Paul's reminders (Col.3:16 and I
Tim.1:17) of the Word (#66) as the vehicle for communicating and sharing that wisdom, provide the best summary for those
of us who are serious about learning faithfulness.

Oh, the depth of God's wealth and wisdom and knowledge! How (far) beyond searching are his judgments, and beyond
comprehension his ways! For who knew the Lord's mind? Or who became his advisor? Or who gave anything before to
him, that it should be repaid to him? Because everything has its source, existence, and goal in him! Glory to him forever!
(Rom.11:33-36, PNT)

258
Word Study #131 Treasure
This subject needs to be studied in combination with W.S.#72, Riches, which I commend to your attention. The concepts
are parallel, not only in their partial reference to material prosperity, but also in the diversity which both encompass.
The verb, thesaurizo, used 8x in the New Testament, refers (L/S) classically to the collection, preservation, or storage of
anything of value: primarily fruits or grain. The use of a public granary, or reserving resources of any kind for a particular
purpose, is also included, as is the less-noble idea of hoarding.
The noun, thesauros, used 18x, referred to the vaults of a bank, a granary, any receptacle for valuables, a mine, a military
strong-room or magazine, a cavern or subterranean dungeon, an offertory box, or the contents of any of these, as well as to
anything or anyone that was highly valued.
More rarely, the borrowed Persian terms, gaza (Ac.8:27) and gazaphulakion (Mk.12:41, 43; Lk.21:1, Jn.8:20) were used
of a formal national or religious treasury.

Much of the same diversity is seen in the New Testament. The treasures opened when the magi presented their gifts
(Mt.2), for example, were probably articles of their traveling baggage!
Paul urged the Corinthian brethren (I Cor.16:2) to set aside (save up) their promised contribution to the relief offering in a
systematic way.
The treasures of Egypt in the context of Heb.11:26, probably referred to all the perks of royalty that Moses abandoned in
favor of identification with God's people.
In the previous two posts, we noted all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Col.2:3) reserved for the faithful in their
identification with the Lord Jesus.
A similar connection appears in II Cor.4:7, where Paul speaks of the glory of God having been entrusted to us in earthen
vessels, reminding us that the treasure [glory] involved is the Lord's and not ours to brag about.
Interestingly, the treasure words appear more than twice as often in the gospels as they do in the epistles, although many
are in parallel passages. In these, it is as important to note what is NOT said, as to hear what IS said.
For example, consider the story of the wealthy young man who was contemplating discipleship (Mt.19:21, Mk.10:21,
Lk.18:22). Only Luke quotes Jesus as saying sell all you have the others say what you have or your possessions
but all specify, give to the poor. NOT to the temple hierarchy. Not even to Jesus' own ministry. Paul, too, goes to great
pains to emphasize (II Cor.12:14) that he does not ask anyone to support his work, or him personally only to share
with needy brethren. Certainly there is no encouragement or mandate to support the flamboyant lifestyle of the builders
of megachurches or TV shows! Giving TO THE POOR is the vehicle for laying up treasure in heaven, as is Jesus'
concluding invitation, Come, follow me! (W.S.#101).
Jesus weighs in, in a similar vein, in his criticism of the rich fool (Lk.12:21)who accumulates treasure for himself ...,
and in his instructions not to store up for yourselves treasures that are subject to bugs, corrosion, or theft (Mt.6:19,
Lk.12:33,34) obviously material possessions of various kinds.
I suspect that it is selfishness that Jesus is addressing, rather than the specific items of anyone's hoarding.

This is also evident in James' later distillation of that teaching, (Jas.5:1-6), where the abuse of others in one's accumulation
of goods is the principal focus.
Peter (II Pet.3:7) and Paul (Rom.2:5) deal just as sternly with the eventual results of choosing to ignore justice and right in
favor of one's own self-interest. Please note: this is NOT represented as punishment or retribution, but simply the
inevitable result of selfish behavior.
Note also that Jesus did not hesitate to include for yourselves in the alternative, heavenly storing-up, and its effect upon
one's heart.

Jesus also uses the idea of treasure in a context that is clearly not material at all. In Mt.12:33-37 and Lk.6:43-45, he
points out that a person's communication reveals the character of what is stored in his heart, and that any final analysis
will be made on the basis of simple and very obvious evidence.

Matthew also records two teaching incidents that do not appear in any of the other accounts. Both concern the kingdom of
heaven, which is referred to by the other writers as the kingdom of God. Please refer to studies # 19, 20, 21, and 118 for
exploration of these concepts.
After an extended period of teaching about the Kingdom, Jesus remarked to his disciples (Mt.13:52), Every scribe
[teacher?] trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure both new things and old.

259
He had just been explaining to them a collection [treasure?] of parables, and it is reasonable to assume that he expects that
teaching to be remembered and replicated. This assumption would fit as well with Paul's uses of thesauros in II Cor. and
Col. already cited.

Earlier in that same teaching session (Mt.13:44), Jesus had likened the kingdom itself to a treasure, so valuable that its
discoverer deemed it worthy of the exchange of everything that he has a stark contrast to the incident where the wealthy
young man turned away (Mt.19 and parallels). And please note that in neither case is the treasure deferred to some sort
of future existence! I strongly suspect that the excited buyer of that field had already started to dig up his treasure by the
time the ink was dry on his deed!

It is significant that treasure is spoken of as in heaven only three times, out of the 26 New Testament occurrences of
thesaurizo / thesauros. Perhaps if proper attention is paid to what we seek to collect or preserve here on earth, and how we
choose to use it, we need not worry unduly about the rest.
May we help each other faithfully to administer whatever kind of treasure comes under our control, and to value the
Kingdom itself above all!

260
Word Study #133 Accepting and Receiving
I have long been troubled by the pervasiveness of insistence upon (or bragging about) people being coerced into accepting
the Lord. I suppose this notion, which is never mentioned in the New Testament, is enhanced by the familiar pictures of
Jesus standing forlornly outside a closed door, which has neither doorknob nor latch string, as if begging for admission.
What a travesty upon the character of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings! The wonder of wonders is not that a mere
human should be so arrogant as to claim to accept the Lord of Glory, but that the Lord himself, in his incredibly gracious
kindness, should deign to accept such bumbling, stumbling creatures as ourselves, into his Kingdom his family even
his very Body! Acceptance is the gracious welcome proffered by a superior toward an inferior supplicant not the rote
recitation required of a hapless victim who has succumbed to the theological arguments of a well-trained accuser!

Indeed, the word accept appears only six times in the most traditional of translations (KJV), and is used for four different
Greek words, all of which appear many more times with other renderings, but never with our Lord as the direct object!
In Ac.24:3, Tertullus is referring to favors received from the Roman overlords; in II Cor.8:17 and 11:4, Paul refers to his
readers' acceptance of his message; in Lk.20:21 and Gal.2:6, the reference is to God's refusal to play favorites; and in
Heb.11:35 to people who refused to accept deliverance from persecution at the price of unfaithfulness.
The adjective, acceptable, appearing 11 times, and representing five different words, uniformly refers to people or
behavior that God considers acceptable. Likewise, of similar words rendered accepted (7x), five refer to God's
acceptance, one to the failure of a prophet's own people to listen to him (Lk.4:24), and one to Paul's desire that his service
be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, by the brethren in Jerusalem (Rom.15:31). Most notable in this latter group is
the much-neglected discovery announced by Peter as a result of his encounter with Cornelius (Ac.10:34,35) Then Peter
opened his mouth and said, 'In truth, I perceive that God does not play favorites, but in every nation, the one who
respects him and does justice is received [accepted] by him!'
Funny it doesn't say a word about reciting a litany about what an awful, sinful person he is! This must be another place
where the literal crowd managed to hit the delete button and substitute their own formula!

It is certainly true that the verbs in question apodechhomai, dechomai, prosdechomai, and lambano are very common in
both the New Testament and classical writings. In many cases, they seem nearly interchangeable. Apodechomai, used only
once as accept appears five times translated receive; dechomai, 2x as accept, is rendered receive 52x, suffer 1x,
and take 5x. Lambano is rendered 2x accept, 133 x receive, 104 x take, and scattered translations of attain, bring,
call, catch, have, and obtain. Prosdechomai, which we noted in #124 and 125, Wait, and Watch, also includes allow,
look for, receive, take, and wait for.
Their classical uses are also scattered, but one idea they all have in common is receive, in the sense of making someone
welcome. This may apply to anyone, of any social status, be he compatriot or stranger. Jesus used it of the disciples he had
commissioned (Mt.10:14, 40, 41; Mk.6:11, 9:47; Lk.9;5, 48, 10:8), and equated people's reception of them with their
welcome (or not) of him. Dechomai is also frequently used of the welcome accorded the gospel message in various places
(II Cor.8,11; Ac.8:14, 17:11; I Thes.1:6, 2:13) as well as of its bearers (II Cor.7:15, Gal.4:14, Col.4:10). There is nothing
liturgical, spooky, or spiritual about this: it is welcome, pure and simple.
Lambano was occasionally used, classically, of involuntary possessionby a spirit or deity, but the other words were not.
More frequently, lambano is used to emphasize that grace (Jn.1:16), fullness (Jn.1:16), my (Jesus') testimony
(Jn.3:11,32,33; 5;34,41), honor (Jn.5:44), and the Holy Spirit (Jn.7:39, 20:22; Ac.1:8, 2:38, 8:15, 17, 19; 10:47), among
others, are gifts received from the gracious hand of the Lord, and not the achievement of human effort. Indeed, Paul asks
pointedly (I Cor.4:7), What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you brag as if you
didn't? This is in a paragraph sternly critical of status-tripping in the body of believers. Literally everything about a
disciple's life is a gracious gift from the Lord, to be received with thanksgiving and employed for the welfare of the
brotherhood and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other classical uses of the various words should also be kept in mind, and may color some interpretations. For
apodechomai, L/S lists: to accept advice from, to follow as a teacher, to admit to one's presence, to approve or receive
favorably, to be content or satisfied with, to recover or receive back something that was lost or stolen.
For dechomai, they list: to accept as legal tender, to exchange, to understand, to accept apology and forgive, to accept as an
ally, to await the attack of an enemy, to welcome, to accept responsibility for, to approve.
For prosdechomai, to admit to one's presence, to admit an argument, to be capable of, to undertake, to take liability upon

261
oneself
For.lambano, to grasp or seize, to take by violence, to exact punishment, to catch, to find out, to detect, to apprehend with
the mind, to receive hospitably, to receive in marriage, to receive as produce or profit, to receive permission, to purchase.
This is enough of a sample to show that the variety is considerable.
Perhaps the most reliable key to the proper use of accept among those who seek for faithfulness, lies simply in its New
Testament usage. The verb appears only six times, and never refers to requirements placed upon people. Our
appropriate assignment concerns the adjective used 18x three times as often to act and interact in a manner
acceptable to God, and giving honor to the Lord Jesus. Take a cue from brother Paul, who wrote to the Roman brethren
(Rom.1:1,2):
I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God's compassion [mercy], to present your bodies, a living offering,
set-apart, pleasing [acceptable*] to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this
age, but be completely changed,by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God's will is: what is
good, and pleasing [acceptable*] and complete [perfect].
*The word is euarestos, pleasing, pleasant, acceptable, in good taste.

A focus upon becoming acceptable, rather than forcing an artificial and unwarranted acceptance upon others, is much
more likely to bear good fruit for the Kingdom!

262
Word Study #134 What's New?
From the many unexpected and sometimes shocking aspects of his earthly ministry, and the establishment of the New
Covenant announced by the Lord Jesus at his last meal with the disciples before his betrayal, to his triumphant edict from
the Throne quoted in Rev.21:5, Look! I am making everything new!, it had been obvious to anyone who was paying
attention that something quite out-of-the-ordinary was happening whenever Jesus, or sometimes even his followers,
appeared on the scene. This was a realization sometimes greeted with delight, and other times with dismay, depending upon
the stock in the status-quo held by the observers/participants.
What I did not realize until beginning this study, was that the two Greek words in these accounts, which are both translated
new, are not synonymous at all! At first I was skeptical of Trench's assertion that neos, the lesser used of the two only
appearing 11 times is merely a temporal observation, referring to a person or event younger or more recent than the others
to which it is compared, whereas kainos, used 44 times, refers to the quality, kind, or condition of its object. However, the
lexicons all bear out that contrast, with L/S offering fresh, newly made or invented, innovative, without precedent for
kainos, and youthful, young, or recent for neos. Bauer concurs, listing unusual, something not previously present, with
implication that 'old' is obsolete; unknown, remarkable for kainos, and young, new, fresh for neos. Thayer adds
superior to what it succeeds and previously non-existent for kainos.
Examination of the New Testament uses of both words reveals that both are used in Jesus' teaching about patching a
garment and wine in wineskins, but neos describes the wine (newly made), and kainos the skins which had not been
previously used, in all three synoptics.
The new teaching [doctrine] attributed to Jesus (Mk.1:27, or the new ideas discussed in the Areopagos Council (Ac.
17:19-21), both use kainos, as does the new commandment (Jn.13:34, I Jn.2:7-8, II Jn.5) which Jesus initiated. The
related noun, kainotes, appearing only twice (Rom.6:4, 7:6) likewise refers to the total transformation of life expected of
one who chooses to follow Christ.
This meshes well with repeated references to the new creation uniformly kainos that also describes the radically
changed life of the committed (II Cor.5:17, Gal.6:15). Eph.2:15 is especially significant in this regard, representing Jesus as
having deliberately created out of redeemed and reconciled Jew and Gentile, one new (kainos) person. Anthropos , the
generic term for man -- the species -- may be taken as either person or humanity.
All of these carry the expectation of a life never seen before probably never even imagined! and not a temporal
reference. The only place where neos appears in a similar context is Col.3:10 and the new life in view was indeed
temporally new to those folks, although Paul goes on to speak of their being continually renewed (anakainoumenon) a
present passive participle as well.
Perhaps the most significant of all is the uniform (except for a single reference in Heb.12:24) use of kainos in both gospel
and epistle references to the new covenant. In this regard, please also refer to the treatment of covenant in W.S.#79 and
80. We discovered in that study the fallacy of the assumption that a covenant could never be abrogated. It was always a
two-way proposition: If you will do this, then I will ---- A breach by either party consistently renders a covenant of no
effect.
Most relevant here is the matter of fact statement in Heb.8:13: In saying 'new', he has made the first one 'old', and what has
become old and been superseded is near to disappearing! The writer goes on, in chapter 9, to re-cast the term diatheke,
formerly rendered covenant, in the light of a legal will, and to explain that a will only takes effect upon the death of the
testator. It has no necessary connection with the much-touted idea of blood covenants, sacrifices, or capital punishment.
In this way, it becomes patently clear that the new covenant is something entirely apart from the old system, and that
forcing artificial parallels is of no value. Jesus has done something entirely new! (He) also made us capable
administrators of a new covenant [will], (whose source) is not a written (legal document), but the Spirit! For the legal
document kills, but the Spirit makes alive! (II Cor.3:6)
This may be one reason why the Lord Jesus himself, much earlier, had remarked (Mt.13:52), Every scribe trained for the
Kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasures (W.S.#131) both new things and old. Only with
the discernment of the Holy Spirit can his people accurately sort out which new and old things actually belong
together!

A different word altogether, used only once, is employed in Heb.10:20, speaking of the living way he (Jesus) recently made
new for us, through the curtain, giving his people access not only to holy places and things that had been forbidden
under the old way, but even to God himself! Prosphotos refers to recent events: to newly-drawn water, or food that is

263
fresh (not spoiled). Jesus has indeed done a new thing!
Kainos appears more frequently in the Revelation than in any other part of the New Testament. We had a foretaste in Peter's
reference to a new heaven and a new earth (II Pet.3:13), which is repeated in Rv.21:1. But when the Lord's triumph is
complete, the glorious announcement from the Throne is Look! I am making everything new!
New names (identities see #24 ) have been given to the faithful (Rv.3:12).
The folks singing around the throne do so with a new song (Rv.5:9, 14:3) of praise to the glory and worthiness of the
Lamb.
A new Jerusalem the prepared Bride is introduced (Rv.3:12, 21:2)
The new creation is finally realized: and Paul's announcement of hope in II Cor.5:17 has finally come to complete
fulfillment:
So if anyone is in Christ, (he is) a new creation [or, creation is new!] Old things are gone! Look! Something new
kainos innovative, unprecedented, and superior to all that has gone before has happened!

Thanks be to God!

264
Word Study #135 Creation
Having just considered the gift and the challenge of the new creation that results from commitment to Jesus'
Kingdom, it seems appropriate to look at what the New Testament says about creation itself. Not nearly as much as do the
pulpit-pounding advocates of Creationism, who claim to represent the Biblical view!
Ktisis, translated 6x creation and 11x creature and also 1x building (Heb.9:11) and 1x ordinance (I Pet.2:13) for
reasons unknown is not a common topic. Ktisma, also translated creature, appears 4x; ktistes, creator, only once (I
Pet.4:19), although the participial form of ktizo is translated that way in Rom.1:25; and ktizo, the verb to create 12x, and
once more translated as make.
I was surprised to find that historically, none of these words had referred to the origins of the world, the universe, or even of
humans. The historian Herodotus used them to refer to the founding of a city or country, the organizing of a governing
body, or the building of any sort of edifice. The verb form also included the production or invention of any object, or the
perpetration of a noteworthy deed. References to the creation as it is popularly understood are found exclusively in the
LXX and the New Testament.
Both Greek and Roman traditions did include creation stories, but with a different twist. Hesiod, a Greek epic poet,
contemporary with or slightly after Homer (about 700 BC) , describes different ages of man gold, silver, bronze, iron
during which people were becoming progressively more barbaric, and were destroyed and re-created repeatedly by the gods.
Ovid, the Latin poet, in his Metamorphoses, (first century BC/AD), describes a primeval state of chaos, which the gods tried
to organize, with little success. Neither of these writers makes any attempt to start from scratch.
In contrast, the New Testament contains several mentions of the beginning of creation (Mk.10:6, 13:19; II Pet.3:4), and
even presents Jesus himself as the beginning of creation (Rv.3:14), and Paul goes even farther and represents him as the
the very agent and purpose of creation (Eph.3:9. Col.1:16) all things were created by him and for him! A similar
statement in Rv.4:11 affirms, Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they exist, and were created!
Notice, please, that the burden of these declarations has nothing whatever to do with today's prevalent obsessions with
when or how any of this happened. The whole focus is upon who is responsible, and why creation exists. We would
do well to focus our own attention similarly!
Paul goes to great pains in Rom.1 and again in Rom.8 to make the point that in creation, God has provided ample evidence
of his character and purpose; and the descent of people into the depravity and chaos that sounds very similar to the
degradation in the Greek and Roman accounts was the result of people's deliberate choice to ignore that revelation, and not
anything relating to their original condition. Remember that creation and creature are derived from the same word
the choice of one or the other was made by the translators, not the authors. Ktisis refers to any created thing (including
people), as well as to creation as a whole. Consequently, just as the contagion of depravity described in Romans 1 spread to
the whole of creation, the hope revealed in Romans 8 the expectation of deliverance into the glorious New Creation is
contagious as well!
No wonder the whole creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God! (Rom.8:19). It is
these to whom its care is entrusted, and in whom its hopes of fulfilling its original purpose the pleasure of its creator
(Rv.4:11) can at last be realized. What a glorious prospect!
The New Creation has already begun after the image (Col.3:10) of its Creator the image (W.S.#15) that had been so
sadly defaced by the selfishness of its former heirs (Rom.1). Please also see chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom.
The classic description is in II Cor.5:17, Interestingly, in the Greek text, there is no verb in the sentence. Kaine ktisis may,
but need not, be a modifier for the pronoun tis anyone, someone. The statement may with equal validity be taken to
mean that person is a new creature (in the sense of a created being), or to intend that for such a person, creation is new!
Both are grammatically correct, and both are true.
Paul adds the observation in Eph.2:10 that we are created in Christ Jesus for good works [with a purpose for good deeds],
which God also prepared for his people to do . No, this is not the salvation by works which seems to frighten some
folks so badly. It is salvation for the purpose of accomplishing what the Creator (and Savior) intended all along!
(W.S.#39). This is reinforced in Eph.4:24, where Paul asserts that we are created according to God's design, in justice
(W.S.#3) and devotion to the truth (W.S. #26).
James (1:18) calls the Lord's people the first-fruits of his creation the beginning of the harvest for which he started
everything in the first place! We have kept him waiting a long time!

265
Some minor manuscripts of Mark even quote Jesus' commission (Mk.16:15) as instructions to proclaim his gospel (#67)
to every creature every created thing (pase te ktisei)! This may even be a renewal of God's original charge to his people
to tend and care for all that he had created. (Gen.1:28). Paul may have understood it that way (Col.1:23).
It is also significant that, as Paul reminded Timothy (I Tim.4:4), Everything that God created is good!, and is to be
received with thanksgiving (v.3). This despite the equally far-reaching affirmation in Heb.4:13, that no created thing is
hidden from the eyes of God. There is absolutely NO New Testament justification for the common assumption that a person,
or the physical creation, or the physical body, is inherently evil, depraved, or sinful! Everything that God created
is GOOD unless one chooses to use it wrongly, instead of as it was intended.

Finally, we should note Jesus' crowning act of creation Eph.2:15, also noted in Gal.6:15. It is the Lord Jesus himself who
has taken people who represent the most opposite extremes imaginable, in their own thinking, and created the two, in
himself, into one new person, thus making peace.
This is the true miracle of creation!
Thanks be to God!

266
Word Study #136 Submit, Subject
Like a great many of the words for which folks have requested a study, this one probably will not make any of the opposing
camps (either the keep women DOWN or the do your own thing folks) very happy. But by now, you should know
that this blog does not exist to provide you with weapons with which to clobber each other!
Please bear in mind ( and read the introduction to the King James Version if you don't believe it), that the beloved
traditional version was prepared at the behest of, and to reinforce the authority of, an absolute monarch, who was
emphatically declaring his supremacy over the English church, and its departure from the domination of Rome! This just
might have had some bearing upon the choices of subject and submit to translate hupotasso, although they are not at
all the only or even the primary meanings of the word.
The classical uses of hupotasso are quite varied, including (L/S) to place or arrange, to post in the shelter of (for
protection), to draw up behind (as military reinforcement), to subdue or make subject, to be obedient or timid, to underlie or
imply, to be associated with, to follow an idea, a person, or a series of numbers, and to be a minor premise in an argument!
Take your pick! You can make a case for any of these.
Bauer adds, to be attached or appended to a literary document, and notes that any of these may be voluntary or
involuntary when applied to people.
Thayer adds to yield to admonition or advice.
Before examining the varied occurrences of hupotasso, we will do well to consider the other words which were also
translated subject, subdue, submit, and whose definitions are sufficiently specific, that we may safely assume that one of
them would have been chosen, had that been the intention.
Doulagogeo, L/S to enslave, (passive, to be enslaved), or to treat as a slave, is used only once in the New Testament, in I
Cor.9:27, where Paul speaks of forcibly subjecting his physical nature to his own will.
Enochos, L/S legally liable, culpable, or held in bondage, is treated in #128, since one of its more common translations is
guilty. It is only once rendered subject to bondage, in Heb.2:15 the result of the fear of death, on the part of those
who have not yet realized that Jesus has eviscerated that threat.
Katagonizomai, L/S to prevail against, to conquer, to contend against, to win by struggle (and of course a passive form
would convey being the victim of such struggle), also appears only once, in Heb.11:33, where some of the historical heroes
of faithfulness are described as having subdued kingdoms.
Hupeiko, L/S to withdraw, to depart, to retire from office in favor of another, to yield, give way, or concede, likewise
makes only a single appearance, in Heb.13:17, where the readers are admonished to submit to their civil rulers.
Commentators have interpreted hegoumenois as if it referenced church officials (of which there were none in the first
century but many at the time of translation!), but the word is universally used of governmental authorities. The error is
probably attributable to a common misunderstanding of psuchon in the next phrase as souls instead of the more accurate
lives (see W.S.#28).
All of these meanings may be ruled out for the uses of hupotasso, because those words were equally available to the writers,
if that had been their intent.
Likewise, obey/obedience is better used for hupakouo or peitho (see #27, 39, 55, and 88) than for hupotasso.

The primary words suggested by L/S above, such ideas as orderly arrangement, protection, reinforcements, and
association,are probably also primary among New Testament references concerning relationships among people. This is
especially the case in the much (mis-)quoted passage in Eph.5, which begins with v.21, not 22. Be subject [submissive,
subjected] to each other, in the respect that has its source in Christ. (The verb does not even occur in v.22.) Paul then
proceeds to use the care and protection offered by the Lord to his church as the example for family relationships. That
certainly does not suggest a demeaning role for anybody!
Such an overt, detailed context is not repeated in the other, similar passages, (Col.3:18, I Pet.3:1,5), although both are
mitigated with instructions (in Col.) for loving care, or reasoning (in Pet.) advocating a contribution to the conversion of
husbands!, that communicate anything but abject servitude!
Considerably more attention is devoted to the subjection of all creation, whether to futility (Rom.8:20) or to the Lord
Jesus (I Cor.15:27-28, Eph.1:22, Heb.2:5,8; I Pet.3:22).
Admonitions to submit to civil authorities (Rom.13:1-5, Tit.3:1, I Pet.2:13) are of course themselves subject to the

267
example of the apostles, and indeed of Jesus himself, who drew a firm line where official submissionconflicted with their
prior submission to God.
Submission to God is also advocated, in Heb.12:9, I Cor.15:28, Jas.4:7, Rom.10:3.
Although readers are urged to pay attention (and deference) to their elders, both in the church (I Cor.16:16, II Cor.9:13, I
Pet.5:5) notice, please, that Peter repeats Paul's Eph.5 instructions that All of you, be subject to one another and in
the family (I Tim.3:4, Tit.2:5-9, as well as the Eph. and Col. passages already referenced, this is not absolute, as illustrated
in the encounter between Paul and Peter reported in Gal.2:5.
Simple respect and responsibility are also included, as in the instructions for orderly participation in meetings of the
brotherhood (I Cor.14:32.34), and in Jesus' childhood submission to his parents (Lk.2:54).
Even when the Lord gave his disciples unusual powers for a particular assignment, he warned (Lk.10:17,20) that this not be
a cause for boasting or celebration, but reminded them instead to keep their focus on the Kingdom.
And this, in sum, is the optimum solution to all the disputes that arise concerning submission among the Lord's people.
Please notice that in none of these passages is anyone thundering at anyone else, YOU MUST SUBMIT [BE SUBJECT]
TO ME!!!
When Kingdom people, as a cooperative venture, primarily seek the welfare of the Kingdom, each of us will subordinate
our own interests (or status) to those of the brotherhood. In that atmosphere, the specifics can readily and amicably be
worked out.
All honor and authority belongs to our King, and it is he to whom, ultimately, we all owe submission, in love.

268
Word Study #137 Mourn, Mourning
This investigation is the result of a statement which appeared, and was expounded at length, in materials for a study group :
Christ's call for us to mourn together in the face of sin and suffering is a humble declaration of our own
brokenness.
Never having perceived such a call, I asked my usual question: Did Jesus ever say that?, and determined to find out.
The answer is a resounding NO!!!
In fact, the English word mourn appears only ten times in the entire New Testament, and represents three different Greek
words. (Contrast that with the seven words, and more than 70 appearances of rejoice! W.S. #93)
Trench lists four words, only three of which are translated mourn in the NT.
Lupeomai, the most general, refers to any form of pain, grief or sorrow, and is the opposite of chaireo , to rejoice.
Pentheo, a stronger word, (L/S) is primarily a mourning for the dead, often, but not always, as a public event. It is often
joined with klaiein, to cry.
Threneo, often joined with oduresthai, is to bewail or make a dirge over the dead. It may take the form of wailing or
lamentation, or a poetic composition or song.
Koptein, derived from kopto, to cut or smite, referred to the dramatic beating of one's head or breast in sign of grief. At
times, it even involved cutting of one's body.
None of the gospel references to any of these words, or even related concepts, has anything whatever to do with one's
sinfulness. They are uniformly related to death: the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem (Mt.2:18), children playing
funeral (Mt.11:17 and Lk.7:32), Jairus' daughter (Lk.8:52; Jesus' own impending death (Lk.23:27, Jn.16:20), or his
disciples' grief after his burial (Mk.16:10), as well as the Ac.8:2 account of Stephen's death. The only exceptions are the
occasion in Mt.24:30, where the tribes of earth are just plain terrified of the chaos that surrounds them, and Jesus'
response to the question of fasting (Mt.9:15) referring to a wedding party as an example for his disciples celebrating his
presence among them. These are a bit of an anomaly but certainly without any accusations of sinfulness!
Consequently, the twisting of the reference to mourning in the Beatitudes to force any such implication is unwarranted,
and wholly without precedent. Sadness at the loss even temporarily of a loved one is perfectly normal, not wrong or
unfaithful. Even Jesus shared that (Jn.11:33).
There is another extremely crucial component here, which is almost always missed by readers of the English text, due to the
inadequacy of our language (see the introduction to Pioneers New Testament). It is shared with all the rest of the
Beatitudes, and indeed with most (not all) of the Sermon on the Mount: the subject of each statement is plural! The
poor, the mourners, the meek, yes, all the way to the persecuted, are all treated in a group context! Not only these,
but virtually all of even the normal but distressing vicissitudes of life are SO much more bearable when they are shared! In
fact, I would go so far as to suggest that this may be why the blessing begins and ends with belonging to the Kingdom!
This is the ultimate in sharing, and of life as it was intended to be lived!
In addition to the Gospel uses of mourning, there are four references in the epistles, quite different from one another,
although they do deal more specifically with behavior than do those in the gospels.
In I Cor.5:2, Paul scolds that brotherhood for taking pride in their acceptance / tolerance of unacceptable behavior (How
contemporary!) saying, in effect, that they should rather mourn (be ashamed) to have done so.
In II Cor.2:21, he speaks of his own distress at the departure of some of their members from faithfulness, and in II Cor.7:7,
he commends the repentance and reformation of those who realized their error and changed their ways.

In Jas.4:9, we see a bit of a reprise of Lk.6:25. Both Lk.6:24-26 and Jas.4:8-10 are in a context of critiquing the
arrogance of the wealthy and their disregard for the needy around them. These latter two, I suppose, are the only ones that
could be imagined to focus on sinfulness, but both are quite specific, and not a general, undefined condition.
Of the remaining references, all are in the Revelation, and six of the seven occur in Rv.18:7,8,9, and 11. (The other, Rv.1:7,
parallels Mt.24:30). The topic is the final fall of Babylon, the symbol of the economic system that has oppressed the
poor and the faithful alike. The mourners are not those of Mt.5, who are proclaimed blessed or privileged, but

269
rather those who had luxuriated in the excesses that Babylon's merchants had supplied!
Don't waste any sympathy there! The instructions to the faithful are in v.20: Celebrate [rejoice] over her, heaven, God's
people, envoys [apostles], and prophets! God has passed judgment on her FOR YOU! (Perhaps our response to such
collapse reveals to which camp we belong!)
Rather than twisting Jesus' words to condemn his earnest followers, calling them spiritually bankrupt and broken, we
should take and offer encouragement (a better word for parakaleo than comfort stay tuned for that one!) from Jesus'
recognition that mourning and sorrow will be a part of this life. He's been there, done that, and so he knows and
understands.
But he and consequently we know that that mourning is not the last chapter!
Together, we can look forward to his promise:
He will dry every tear from their eyes. Death will no longer exist: neither will grief nor crying nor pain exist any longer.
The former things are gone!
The one sitting on the throne said, :Look! I am making everything new! (Rv.21:4,5)
Until then, give thanks for the blessing that we wait endure yes, and even mourn together.
Thanks be to God!

270
Word Study #138 Comfort
They shall be comforted!
Although Jesus' statement in Mt.5:4 is a clear reference to mourning someone's death (see previous post), his total sharing
of our human condition is indisputable (Heb.2:14-18 and elsewhere).
Nevertheless, it is NOT the Holy Spirit's job description to wrap you in a warm fuzzy blankie, hand you a pacifier, and
bestow a sympathetic pat on your head (spiritual, of course!) every time you stub your toe or get your feelings hurt!
Traditional translators have done us a great disservice by their choice to use comfort / comforter for the richly varied
words, parakaleo (verb), paraklesis (corresponding noun), and parakletos (the person doing it). To be fair, the verb form is
also rendered beseech and exhort although unfortunately with no hint that these represent the same original word.
The persistent notion of the blankie image, reinforced in traditional translations of the Beatitudes and Jesus' final
discourse in Jn.14, as well as several epistles, is neither accurate nor helpful. This, despite the fact that one of the worst
aspects of any devastating loss is the despairing question, What now???. When the future looks like it has disappeared
into a black hole, you don't need a blankie you need a direction! You need to get a life! And that is exactly what is
promised in parakaleo a life!
Even a cursory check of the lexicons reveals a much wider scope for parakaleo, and places the rendition of comfort near
the bottom of the list. The primary intent, according to L/S, is to call for or summon, especially summoning a friend for
support at a trial. This is followed by to invite, to appeal, to exhort or encourage, before (6 th in the sequence) to comfort
or console. To demand or require, to beseech or entreat, and to relent, repent, or regret finish out the list.
I encourage you to try out some of these alternatives in places where you are accustomed to reading comfort,
remembering that any one of them would be an equally valid choice for parakaleo.

It was this exercise, many years ago, that led one student in a word study class to the suggestion quoted in W.S.#53 one
that I still find more attractive than most: the work of an excellent coach, who, being well-versed in the techniques and
requirements of a game, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of his players, is able to encourage each one's optimum
performance for the sake of forming a winning team sometimes with a hug, and sometimes with a kick in the pants! I
think coaching stands a much better chance of bearing Kingdom fruit than does the pacifier and blankie approach!
It would be interesting to know how the traditional translators sorted parakaleo into their chosen categories. Beseech was
chosen 43x. In the gospels (15x), it refers uniformly to requests for healing with the intriguing exception of Mt.8:31,34
and its parallel in Mk.5:10,12, of demons trying to negotiate a lighter sentence from Jesus!
In Paul's epistles (11x), it involves his instructions to various groups. Notice that he appeals to them, he does not give
orders. Five times he makes requests of particular individuals. Only once does he refer to his own prayer (II Cor.12:8),
although 6x the translators chose to render the same word pray (Mt.26:53, Mk.5:17,18; Ac.16:9, 24:4, and 27:34).
In Acts, beseech was primarily used for invitations, as was desire (13:42, 16:15, 8:31, 9:38, 28:14). It was also used in
court cases (25:2, 19:31, 16:39).
In Hebrews (13:19,22) it is a request for prayer, and in I Pet.2:11, an admonition to faithful living.
Comfort and exhort were chosen 23x each although speakers of English would be unlikely to assume that those two
could possibly represent the same idea! One would expect them rather to appear as opposites! But folks, both are
presented to you as translations of parakaleo! The common thread could be a flavor of advocacy maybe. If you can
detect another, please suggest it!
There is another, rarely used word, paramutheomai, that conveys something closer to our standard impression of comfort
it describes the folks who came to console Mary and Martha in the loss of their brother (Jn.11:19,31), and the treatment
of the weak and despairing advocated in I Thes.5:14. L/S offers words like attempt to reassure, assuage, console, soften,
palliate, but also includes encourage or exhort. (You could, however, more readily find a blankie in paramutheomai
than in parakaleo.) It is not a bad thing, it is just not primary or predominant, appearing only 4x in verb form and 2x a
noun, in the entire NT.
The comfort of parakaleo is much more robust. It is encouragement that may even lead to a solution or at least
growth, maturity, or strengthening. Paul's extended description of God's comfort in the first chapter of II Cor., is not a
poor baby type of sympathy, but a dynamic move toward reconciliation, as evidenced in the follow-up in chapter 7.
Clearly, the transgressor referenced in chapter 2 was corrected, not coddled.
Another clue can be gained from the words associated with parakaleo: conveying encouraging information (Eph.6:22,
Col.4:8), extreme stress on the part of the one doing the comforting (Col.2:2), instructions for faithful living (I Thes.2:11

271
 where paramutheomai is also used), strengthening in faithfulness (I Thes.3:2), edifying (I Thes.5:11), and being
established (II Thes.2:17) in good efforts.
It is also significant that this is a mutual task in the brotherhood (I Thes.4:18, I Cor.14:31). Remember: although the New
Testament writings were set down long before the church morphed into a hierarchical institution, English translations
were not! Could that have had some bearing on the choice of exhort when the same word was used of Peter, Paul,
Timothy, or Titus, but rendered comfort in other contexts?
Exhortation (still parakaleo, remember), includes many subjects: Ac.2:40 urging people to join the Kingdom; Ac.14:22
to continue in faithfulness; I Tim.6:2 and 2:15 teaching; Tit.1:9 convincing opponents, 2:6 encouraging responsible
living, and 2:15 even occasional rebuke; and I Pet.5:1 urging elders to take responsibility for younger members.

So what about the promise with which we began, of comfort for people who mourn?In most cases, encouragement
would be a much better word than either exhortation which has acquired negative connotations or comfort which
has grown mushy. Encouragement holds out the possibility of support, or even of a solution! This applies even for the
ultimate problem of death (I Thes.4:18), since Jesus has accomplished its definitive defeat!
Paul demonstrates that there is a difference between comfort and encouragement in I Cor.14:3, where he defines New
Testament prophecy as including
oikodome edification or building up often instruction
paraklesin exhortation, instruction, encouragement
paramuthian comfort, reassurance, consolation
and assigns all three to the responsibility of the entire brotherhood (14:31).
He also uses the latter pair together in I Thes.2;11, where he cites his own example of faithful coaching.
Let's don't neglect getting together but keep on coaching each other, more and more, as you see the Day getting
nearer! (Heb.10:25)
The goal, as always, (v.12), is that the Lord's people be a credit to his Kingdom!

272
Word Study #139 Quiet, Silence
This study was supposed to supplement #136, but the intervening subjects were more pressing. So please review that one as
a prologue to this subject. For words that are so rarely used in the New Testament, these have received an inordinate
amount of attention, primarily among those who want to demand the subordination of others. This study is neither an
offensive nor a defensive weapon. I don't have a dog in that fight. My advocacy, as you should have seen by now, is for the
mutuality of both attitudes and behavior in the Kingdom. As we have seen, the submission called for in the New
Testament is first to Jesus and his Kingdom, and secondly to one another an entirely mutual situation.
We are concerned here primarily with four different words, similarly translated in traditional versions, which have sharply
different connotations. Three of them are used 11x each, and the fourth (and harshest) only 8x. Distinguishing among them
is critically necessary for understanding.
Hesuchazo, with its counterpart, hesuchia, is the most gentle of the terms, and always voluntary. Trench connects it with
prautes great strength under strict control which we have treated in #78, meekness. L/S defines hesuchazo/hesuchia
as at rest, tranquil, calm, as well as being at rest from warfare. Bauer adds abstaining from work on the sabbath.
Thayer contributes minding one's own business, not meddling in the affairs of others. It describes the tranquility of life
deeply desired by the beleaguered, persecuted disciples addressed in I Thes.4:11, II Thes.3:12, I Tim.2:2, and the cessation
of arguments (Ac.22:2, Lk.14:4, Ac.11:18), including, (amusingly) Ac.21:14, where his companions gave up on trying to
change Paul's mind!
Remember these contexts when you encounter hesuchia in Peter's advice to sisters (I Pet.3:4) and when Paul, writing to
Timothy, uses the same word both in admonition to the whole group (I Tim.2:2) and in describing women's participation
(v.11,12). In v.11, it is paired with hupotasso see #136 and in v.12 it is contrasted to authentein a word used only
once, and referring to a violent coup d'etat. This would suggest that it is orderly courtesy, rather than any form of
exclusion, that is in view.
Next along the spectrum is probably sipao L/S to keep silence at the behest of another, to keep a secret, to gesture rather
than speaking. Most of its New Testament uses involve stopping a protest or argument (Mk.3;4), Mark's version (4:39) of
Jesus commanding the wind and sea to be still; or insisting that another calm down (Mt.20:31, Mk.10:48, Lk.18:39). It
is also used of Jesus' refusal to reply to situations that were an obvious trap (Mt.26:63, Mk.14:61), and the disciples' being
too embarrassed to reply (Mk.9:34) to him about their dispute. In contrast, Jesus uses it to encourage Paul in a vision not to
be intimidated into silence (Ac.18:9), and retorts to his critics (Lk.19:40) that if they succeed in silencing the children's
praises, the very rocks will take up the cry. In no instance does sipao require, demand, or request the silence of any
member of a faithful brotherhood. Gabriel's word to Zachariah in Lk.1:20 is simply a statement of fact not at all a curse
as some imagine.

Sigao / sige, on the other hand L/S to whisper, to keep a secret, to be silent (as both a positive quality and as a fault!), to
be mystical or unknown, while used in some parallels with sipao, especially in the gospels (Lk.9:36, 29:26) and Acts
(12:17, 15:12,13; 21:40), appears in several other contexts as well. Paul uses it in Romans 16:25 of the revelation of God's
intention to include the Gentiles having been kept secret (doesn't say by whom) since the world began. John, in Rv.8:1,
marvels that there was silence in heaven for half an hour! in contrast to all the rejoicing that had been going on.
Of particular interest, in view of frequent controversy among some church groups, are the three occurrences of sigao in I
Cor.14. It has been common for a leader to choose one of these as a flag to wave or a cause upon which to take a stand
the choice depending whether he prefers to forbid (1) the use of prayer in tongues (v.28), (2)the exercise of prophetic gifts
on the part of everyone in a congregation (v.30), or (3) the participation of women (v.34), and ignore any of which he
approves. But sigao is not about prohibitions!!! The same word is used in all three situations. Paul's concern is an
orderly meeting, where all may learn, and all be encouraged(v.31), and where an outsider may see the Kingdom in action
(v.25). This requires that each of the mentioned contributions be carefully and considerately controlled, but not summarily
forbidden. This becomes abundantly clear if you read the whole chapter, rather than selected, isolated verses. The
instructions are to facilitate and regulate, not to prevent, participation. Please refer to the treatment of I Cor.14 in the
Translation Notes, for a more detailed discussion.
Finally, less frequently used, and much more abrupt, phimao can be a peremptory demand that someone Shut up!!. L/S
points out that the derivation of the word is the use of a muzzle or any device to keep the mouth of an animal shut! This is
borne out in I Cor.9:9, and I Tim.5:18.
Phimao was Jesus' command in exorcising demons (Mk.1:25, Lk.4:35), and used together with sipao in quieting the storm

273
(Mk.4:39). Matthew conveys a sense of satisfaction (22:12) when Jesus bested the Sadducees at their own game of intricate
arguments (he shut them up!). And Peter (I Pet.2:15) advocates achieving a similar victory over critics by exhibiting
indisputably excellent behavior. Matthew (22:12) also uses it to represent the stunned speechlessness of an intruder upon
being discovered unprepared, at a feast.
So there you have it. Four discrete words: each has its own flavor, and each has its usage confined to a rather narrow
range of situations and relationships. We need to take care not to confuse them, or to assume any coercive tone among
fellow disciples seeking for faithfulness. The mutuality described in both these studies (136 and 139), and the coaching /
encouragement described in #138, can occupy our attention much more productively than can exclusionary efforts. Only
together can we become a credit to the Kingdom.

274
Word Study #140 Angels, Messengers
When it comes to people's overactive imaginations being passed off as Christian teaching, it would be difficult to find a
more blatant example that the purported study of angels.
From the superstitious Pharisees protesting to their Sadducee opponents at Paul's trial (Ac.23:9) But what if a spirit or
angel spoke to him?, through the Renaissance paintings of fearsome, robed apparitions, or later depictions of kindly,
protective, effeminate-looking beings in shining garments and halos, or assorted 13th to 20th century amalgamations of Dante
and Milton with oddly distorted and combined snippets of Old Testament references, or ubiquitous fat pink cherubs, to
modern supernatural speculation and cheap (or expensive) jewelry, one can find some sort of angel to suit nearly any
predilection or decor! Most of these bear little if any resemblance to either accurate semantics or New Testament reality.
Now, please take a deep breath between your shouts of Heresy! Heresy!, and let's ask our perennial question: But what
does the (New Testament) TEXT say? We will not even try to cover it all.

The answer, as usual, starts with the vocabulary. Like many of the nouns we have considered, aggelos probably started life
as the participial form of a verb: in this case, aggelo, to carry or deliver a message, and its derivatives aggelia and
aggelion, both translated message or news. In turn, the aggelos was the carrier of a message any message from
anyone, to anyone. Oddly, the occasional often facetious request , Be an angel and ...(do something) may be closer to the
actual meaning of the word than most of the teaching you have heard! Put most simply, a verb describes action; its
participle or noun counterpart refers either to the doer of that action, or at times, its result. The word says nothing
whatever about the character, pedigree, or DNA of the message-bearer, let alone his/her/its appearance, origin, or ultimate
destiny.
Classically, one of the most common tasks of a messenger/aggelos was to report on the progress of a battle (remember
Marathon?). It was even used of birds or other artifacts of augury! The focus was uniformly on the delivery of necessary
information not the means or agent of that delivery the report, not the reporter.

That this continued to be the case in the first century is obvious in the use of aggelos not only for supernatural apparitions,
although there certainly were such (Mt.1 and 2, Lk.1 and 2, and elsewhere), but also of prophets (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2,
Lk.7:27), the messengers sent by John the Baptist to Jesus (Lk.7:24), the disciples commissioned and sent out by Jesus
(Lk.9:52), and even the spies hidden by Rahab in Jericho (Jas.2:25), who were all clearly human. In such cases, traditional
translators usually fell back on the correct word, messenger, after having used the transliteration, angel in places where
they had decided (although the writers had used the same word) that a message was delivered by some sort of supernatural
being. (Twice, they translated apostolos as messenger, presumably because they were unwilling to confer the title
(their own creation) of apostle upon the individuals involved. (See W.S.#41,and remember that Jesus had forbidden the
use of titles!)
Reference is also made to the agents of Satan as messengers/aggeloi (II Cor.12:7), but NOT, as some insist, to Satan
himself. Jesus also makes a particular point that aggeloi are not omniscient (Mt.24:36).
The folks on the ground at the time were not always as certain about the identifications as were those traditional translators.
Notice Peter's confusion when he was delivered from prison (Ac.12), and the gathered prayer group's response to Rhoda's
announcement of his arrival. They thought she was seeing ghosts! Notice also that Luke's initial resurrection account
(24:4) speaks of two men, although later (v.23), the traveling disciples referred to a vision of angels [messengers].
The confusion of modern readers is probably largely due to their perverse preoccupation with assigning titles and/or job
descriptions to individuals , rather than focusing on the more necessary (and scriptural) concern that a message be
delivered! Again, the status vs. function orientation rears its ugly head. Please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom,
as well as the end of chapter 13.

Notice, please, that the messenger is never the originator or the author of a message: merely its transportation. In fact, it
probably doesn't matter who the messenger is: only that he faithfully delivers the word entrusted to him, or performs his
assigned task. This is the case whether the originator of the message is God (Lk.1 and 2, Ac.10), another person (Lk.7:24,
Jas.2:25), or even Satan (I Cor.12:7, Mt.5:21). The latter, incidentally, is said to have messengers/angels, but never to be
one fallen or otherwise!
The tasks of messengers are greatly varied. An aggelos may be assigned to reap a field (Mt.13:39), to gather the Lord's
people (Mt.24:31, Mk.13:27), to prepare the way for Jesus (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk.7:27), to care for him in the desert
(Mt.4:11, Mk.1:13) or in the garden (Lk.22:43), to precede his arrival at a preaching destination (Lk.7:52), to stir the healing

275
waters in a pool (Jn.5:4), to carry questions to Jesus from his cousin John (Lk.7:24), to deliver the joyous news of his
resurrection (Mt.28:2, Lk.24:23, Jn.20:12), or to accompany his return in glory (Mt.16:27, Mk.8:38, Mt.25:31, Lk.9:26)!
And that is only in the gospels!
I have deliberately chosen not to differentiate between the translations of angel and messenger, because they represent
the same word. To the writers, there was only one idea.
They did not seem to care whether the messenger was natural or supernatural why, then, should we?
Do you think the apostles cared, or asked for some sort of heavenly credential, when the prison doors opened and they were
directed to go back and continue preaching in the temple (Ac.5:19)? Peter (Ac.12) thought he was dreaming, but followed
the messenger who released him the second time. And Stephen's account of Moses' experience (Ac.7:30-38) refers
alternately to the Lord and the messenger/angel of the Lord, while he quotes the voice as self-identifying, I AM the
God of your fathers! Similarly, aggelos and pneuma (see #52 and 53) are interchanged in the encounters between
Cornelius and Peter (Ac.10), Philip and the Ethiopian (Ac.8:26), and the Pharisee/Sadducee argument in Ac.23:8-9. These,
being used interchangeably, are clearly related, but not equated.
The epistles add insight. The first two chapters of Hebrews are quite explicit in repeatedly asserting the superiority of
Jesus over any sort of messenger/aggelos. Indeed, in 1:6, all God's messengers (natural and supernatural?) are
instructed to worship him! and in chapter 2, it is clear that Jesus voluntarily and temporarily assumed a lower position,
only for the purpose of destroying death, and breaking its power. Does it matter, whether the roll-call of the celebrants in
his eventual glory includes different categories of the faithful, or simply synonyms (12:22)? I don't think so!
Both Peter (I Pet.3:22) and Paul (Rom.8:38) also assert Jesus' superiority over messengers; the latter even declaring that
we (his people) shall judge angels/messengers(I Cor.6:3)!
Paul's admonition to the Colossian church (Col.2:15-19, but especially v.18), is extremely relevant today, to folks who are as
inclined as their earlier brethren to become fascinated with all sorts of mythological beings, thinking to enhance their
knowledge or status, and prone to give them more credence than the Lord himself! Paul repeatedly warned both Timothy
and Titus (I Tim.1:4, 4:7; II Tim.4:4, Tit.1:14), to avoid such myths both Jewish and pagan. The healthy growth of the
Body depends upon Jesus alone!
The messengers who are the primary actors in the Revelation, following instructions from voices, the throne, or the
altar, emptying jars, blowing trumpets, and relaying information to John, are most likely supernatural beings; it is not
always clear to John or his readers whether he is hearing from the messengers or from Jesus himself. But here, too, he is
strictly advised that the messenger is not to be worshiped (22:8).
So who / what is an aggelos?
Perhaps the writer to the Hebrews said it best: Aren't they all just officiating spirits, sent to take care of those who are
inheriting God's deliverance? (Heb.1:14)
It seems as if, when the Lord has one of his human servants available, and something needs to be communicated or done, he
sends that available person as a messenger.
But if there is no one handy no problem he also has an ample supply of supernatural servants.
And if his message gets through, or the job is done, it really doesn't matter who does it!
This realization can delightfully enhance our perception of our brothers and sisters, as well as any other aggelos that is sent
our way as well as our own sense of responsibility.
Have you seen or heard from an aggelos lately?
Have you been one?

276
Word Study #141 The Sin Question
Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage!
(Gal.5:1, KJV). There! I did it! A quote from the traditional translation! And what's more, I feel like shouting it at top
volume, every time someone in a church service contemporary, liturgical, or anything in between, starts expounding on
how we all sin, every day, and need to confess stuff that we can't even imagine, let alone remember! If that isn't
bondage, I don't know what is!
This subject has been addressed in chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom, and in word studies # 3, 5, 7, 23, 27, 34, 88, 120,
121, and 128, where you will find more detail on some aspects of the question, but I've been asked to do a stand-alone
treatment of the topic, so here goes.
By now, you all surely know that my first question is What did JESUS say? But before we turn to that, it is necessary to
sort out the vocabulary. The confusion in Christian circles surrounding the idea of sin results from the perverse
decision of translators to use that designation for three nouns, two verbs, and one adjective for which they actually use the
single word sin in the text, and the even more perverse choice of interpreters and doctrine-writers to add to the mix six
more concepts which were never even translated sin, but which they include in their definitions. And that doesn't even
count the completely spurious decision of the NIV translators to render flesh (#85) as sinful nature.
Remember, please, as we have noted before, that English (and most other) translations were made many centuries after
doctrines were codified, and were highly influenced by the positions of their sponsors!
In the exercise of sorting terminology, Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament is more helpful than the classical lexicons,
since classical writers did not express any theological orientation with these words, but simply referred to failed purpose,
errors of various kinds, character faults, or neglected responsibility. Trench has arranged the words in a sort of order of
seriousness, that may contribute to understanding.
Hamartia and hamartema, the most commonly used in the New Testament, are the most benign of the group. Classically,
they referred to missing a mark, or failure to grasp a concept. Homer used it when one of his heroes hurled his spear and
missed. Thucydides used the verb form hamartano of getting lost on a journey, and Aristotle used it of trying for results
beyond one's capability. None of these had any ethical baggage. There may have been a very serious mistake, even one
with dire consequences, but it was an honest mistake or failure. Classical writers used asebeia (ungodliness) or adikia
(injustice) if they intended ethical implications. Strangely, though both of these appear in the New Testament, neither was
ever rendered sin.
Agnoema, ignorance of what one should have known, appears only three times: Lk.23:24, I Tim.1:13, and Heb.9:7.
Hettema, neglecting a duty, failing to render what is owed appears only twice, Rom.11:12 and I Cor.6:7. None of these
four are ever translated sin by anyone except preachers!

Anomia (15x) and paranomia (1x), on the other hand, referred specifically to lawbreaking. These were usually rendered
iniquity or unrighteousness, and consistently involved a deliberate (not inadvertent) offense.
Parakoe, disobedience (see #27 and 88), was also deliberate, and only occurs three times (Rom.5:19, II Cor.10:6,
Heb.2:12).
Parabasis, overstepping a line, appearing only 7x, also referred to lawbreaking, and is usually rendered transgression.
Paraptoma, falling when one should have stood upright, a false step, slip, or blunder; defeat, transgression, trespass, is
rendered in the NT trespass 8x, offense 6x, fall 2x, fault 2x, and sins 4x. It seems usually to have a sense of a
deliberate act, although there is a possibility of a bad choice in Gal.6:1 and Jas.5:16. The reference in James, please note,
is the only place where it is connected with confession to a group, and that is for the purpose of mutual prayer for
healing, not a ceremonial incantation. The consequences of paraptoma are clear death! Eph.2:1, 2:5; Col.2:13, as well
as 5x in Romans 5.
Translators using the same label for all the hamartia related words as well as paraptoma, which is an entirely different
concept, and the inclusion of all the other words in the same indictment (by assorted individuals whose employment and
reputation depends upon the acceptance of their harsh verdict by their hearers / readers), have herded that hapless audience
into precisely the yoke of bondage that our brother Paul warned against in the opening quotation! There is no reference
in either gospels or epistles that demands continual, repetitious, corporate or individual confession of sins whether
accidental or deliberate, real or imagined! The single admonition in I Jn.1:9 is in the midst of his encouragement to keep on

277
working at faithful living acknowledging errors and moving on -- by the power of the Lord Jesus!

John the Baptist had repentance and confession of sins as a major part of his message (Mt.3:6, Mk.1:4-5, Lk.3:3), prior
to baptism. Remember that Paul had to correct major flaws in the dissemination of John's message in Ephesus (Ac.19:1-7).
The writer to the Hebrews (6:1-3), while acknowledging these as foundational, urges the readers no longer to dwell on the
elementary parts of the Christian message, but to go on to maturity to grow up!
Notice also that in response to the Pharisees' challenge that only God can take away sins (the lexical meaning of aphiemi,
usually erroneously rendered forgive see #7), Jesus did not argue that point, but simply declared that such authority is
his present tense and related it to his identity : not to his death, not to the cross, and not even to his resurrection
(Mt.9:2-6, Mk.2:5-10, Lk.5:20-24). And they got the point: they charged him with making himself equal to God which
of course, he was/is.
John the Baptist also referred to the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world (Jn.1:28) also a present tense.
Continuing to wallow in one's supposed sinfulness is a direct insult to the One who has taken it away!!!

Jesus did indeed warn those who refused to acknowledge him (Jn.8:21,24,34) that in doing so, they were rejecting the only
remedy. But this was not addressed to his followers! In fact, when Peter referred to himself as a sinful man (Lk.5:8),
Jesus ignored that designation completely, and simply invited him to join the Kingdom's work. Others were critical of the
folks that Jesus hung out with, who were on their list of sinners publicans (Mt.9:10-11, 11:19, 21:32; Mk.2:15-16;
Lk.5:27-30, 7:34, 18:10-13), a woman of shady reputation (Lk.7:37), and others. Later accounts add Gentiles (Gal.2:15),
and people ignorant of God (Rom.5); James includes a brother who has turned away (5:20), a person who refuses to do the
good that he knows (4:17), or rich folks whose selfishness trumps brotherly sharing (4:8). So yes, the term can be applied
to a brother's wrongdoing but these are clearly the exception, not expectation. And Jesus never used hamartolos to label
ANY of his own people! Why, then, do we?
Even Paul, whose letter to the Romans is so frequently sliced and diced to prove doctrines of sinfulness, (1) applies the
term to those who choose to oppose Jesus' message, and (2) uses it only in the past tense of himself and his brethren. He
takes particular pains in the first three chapters to point out that people chose to ignore what God had revealed to them. It
was not their original condition at birth! And in Rom.6:17, Eph.2:1-5, Col.1:13-14 and elsewhere, he vividly contrasts
the death (which characterizes life before commitment to Jesus' Kingdom, and is attributed to both hamartia and
paraptoma) with the resurrection life shared by the believer with his new Master!

Of course, new life does not mean instant or automatic maturity (See #13). Hence all the admonitions to get about the
business of growing up!
Deciding to learn a musical instrument does not make you an instant virtuoso.
Devotion to a sport does not make you an automatic star.
And commitment to the Lord and his Kingdom never did confer instant perfection.
All involve identical requirements to come to fruition.
Focus a single-minded, even fanatical, determination to bend every effort toward that goal.
Guidance from teachers, coaches, and more experienced players, as well as fellow aspirants
Practice diligent, consistent, and conscientious.
But none of these are enhanced by self-flagellation over every blunder. Errors need to be corrected, not merely
confessed or mourned. One's course may need frequent adjustments, or even at times reversals. Here is the beauty of
the provision alluded to previously in Jas.5:16 and Gal.6:1.
But, He (God) has rescued us from the power [authority] of darkness, and transported us into the kingdom of the Son of his
love! It's in him that we have the redemption the taking away of failures [sins] (Col.1:13-14).
Thanks be to God!

278
Word Study #142 You, You-all, or Each of You?
This is really more of a grammar lesson than an actual word study, but the word you is so badly misunderstood in what
passes for New Testament teaching, that I think you all will soon see why it is needed. The problem in this case is not
teachers with an axe to grind, or deliberate distortion of the text. The culprit in this error is the English language itself.
This subject is one where Elizabethan English, if rightly understood, does a better job of translating than modern
versions. The reason is that, unlike any other language I have encountered, modern literary English makes no distinction
between singular and plural in the second person pronoun, you. Speakers of other languages do not have this problem to
the same extent.
In older English, it was easier: ye, your, and you indicated plurals, while thou, thine, and thee were singular in
reference. They were not, as some suppose, an indicator of status or reverence, but simply of how many people were being
addressed.
Since modern convention makes no such distinction, however, native speakers of English tend to read most occurrences of
you as if they were individually addressed, whereas in the vast majority more than twice as many of the New
Testament references, the word is in fact plural addressed to a group, not an individual.
In the PNT translation, (available for free download on this site), I have attempted to remedy this problem by using you
all for the plural, substituting an italicized you where multiple you all's would seem too much for non-southern
readers.

The Greek language, like most others, makes very clear distinctions. In English translations, however, the word you has
been used for both singular (su, sou, soi, se) and plural (humeis, humon, humin, humas) pronouns. A plural you addressed
a group of people, as a group, a unit. If the individual members of a group were intended, hekastos humon, each / every
one of you, was used. This is seen in 12 of the 77 uses of hekastos (each, every) in the New Testament. Consequently,
there was no confusion on the part of the original readers or writers, as to the intention of a speaker or reporter.
In addition to the over 1000 uses of the singular pronoun, and nearly 2200 of the plural (I really don't think you wanted me
to list them all!), a subject is also clearly expressed in every verb form. So one must also distinguish between you and
you all when there is no pronominal subject in evidence. Here too, plurals predominate.

By this time, those of you who, like my dear husband of 50 years, hated grammar in grade-school, will be asking, SO
WHAT??? Who cares???
As pointed out repeatedly in Citizens of the Kingdom, it makes a huge difference in one's understanding of function and
responsibility in the Christian brotherhood!
Our being designated as the light of the world (Mt.5:14), the salt of the earth (Mt.5:14), the temple of the Holy Spirit
(I Cor.3:16,17; 6:19), and the Body of Christ (I Cor.12:27), are all plural. NONE of this is talking to or about
individuals. This little light of mine is NOT a Scriptural idea! If the Kingdom doesn't happen together, as a corporate
entity, it doesn't happen at all!

Likewise, most instructions are given in the plural. There are, of course, some things that have to be relegated to individual
effort. Interpersonal activity mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount, for example (Mt.5:22-37) relating to a brother, to
one's wife, to an abuser, to a court of law is, and must be, one's own responsibility, and is addressed in the singular.
But notice how Jesus shifts back to the plural, when turning to the treatment of enemies.
If, all alone and isolated, I were expected to figure out how to offer genuine love to a person who has considered me an
enemy, and do good to those who hate, or have abused me, I would often give up in despair. But this monumental
assignment is addressed in the plural! It is a group project!
So are all the blessings in the Beatitudes, and the vast majority of Paul's instructions to the churches. What is totally
impossible for an individual, while it may still be difficult, becomes possible in a mutually supportive brotherhood! That is
Kingdom living! Together, we can do and be far more than any of us could ever do or be alone.

Now, this is not to disparage individual accountability. That's where the twelve occurrences of hekastos humon , each one
of you, come in. One's initial commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom is clearly an individual matter. However much we
might wish it to be otherwise, no one can make that momentous decision for another. From Peter's first sermons (Ac.2:38,
3:26) all the way to Jesus' warning to the compromising folks in Thyatira (Rv.2:23) about the results of their behavior,
individual responsibility is not negated.
Every person is also responsible for making his own contribution to the worshiping group (I Cor.14:26), as well as to the

279
relief of suffering brethren (I Cor.16:2), and earlier in the same letter (1:12) every one is scolded for their divisive
following of strong personalities instead of the Lord Jesus.
Each one of you is responsible for marital love and care (Eph.5:33), for remembering, observing and propagating Paul's
teaching regarding faithfulness (I Thes.2:11, 4:4) and for loving each other (II Thes.1:3).
Each of you is admonished (Heb.6:11) to demonstrate the same eagerness, in confidence, hope, and (v.10) generosity,
until the end.

However, if you sift carefully through the gospels, you will also find some surprises. I will simply list a few, without
comment. You can work on them with a group of brethren. (Please share your observations!)
Mt.7:7 all 6 verbs are second person plural in form. Those in v.8 are third person singular.
The same is true in the parallel passage in Lk.11:9-10.
Mt.21:22 both verbs are second person plural.
Jn.3:7 the first you is singular, but the second is plural!
Jn.14:13,14; 15:7, 16; 16:23,24,26 The pronouns and second person verbs are all plural.
Even these few examples show that there is intended to be a lot more corporate, mutual involvement than we are
accustomed to assuming. There are similar surprises in the epistles.
You can easily sort out more of these, using either the PNT mentioned before, or better yet, get yourself a Greek interlinear
New Testament, where each word is identified for you. They are easy to recognize: if a word identified as you has 2 or 3
letters, it is singular; if it has 4 or 5, it is plural. I have included more grammatical information in the appendix to
Translation Notes.

And remember that except for the pastoral epistles (Timothy, Titus, Philemon), all of Paul's epistles, Hebrews, and the
letters of Peter, James, Jude, and the first letter of John, are uniformly addressed to congregations, or perhaps clusters of
congregations, not to individuals, although some include personal notes.
Paul describes the desirable balance in I Cor.12:27: You all (pl) are the Body of Christ, and individually, parts of it. This
is elaborated in chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom.
May each of us , and you /we all, faithfully do our part together!

280
Word Study #143 Possessions
This subject of considerable controversy, liberally seasoned with both boasting (prosperity cults) and guilt-trips (simple-
living advocates), like many other hotly disputed topics, finds its most Christian analysis (surprise, surprise!!) in the
words of the Lord Jesus. In fact, the very first listing in Young's Analytical Concordance is Lk.12:15, where he cautions,
Be on guard against all greed: because life does not consist of abundance of possessions! (See also W.S.#72) Stuff
is not what it's about!
Notice, please, that the Lord did not categorically disparage possessions huparchonta. In fact, Luke had earlier noted
(8:3) the service of a group of women who looked after the needs of the disciple group (KJV - ministered to them), out
of their own substance another translation of huparchonta the very same word. (If you're worried about the term
minister, it is explored in W.S.#40).

Huparchonta, the most commonly used of six words, appears only 14x in the New Testament. It is translated possessions
2x, goods 7x, substance 1x, and (things) that one hath 4x. Classical uses include existing circumstances, present
advantages, possessions, present or future resources, and according to one's means.
In Mt.24:47, 25:14; Lk.16:1, 12:44, the reference is to a person entrusted with stewardship over the possessions of another;
the rest are dealing with one's own. And although the expectation in the former group is uniform faithful administration of
the assignment the latter category is not. Jesus' assessment of faithfulness with respect to possessions is tailored to the
person with whom he is interacting.
For example, Zacchaeus (Lk.19:8) is commended for his commitment to give half his goods to the poor. Both Mt.19:21
and Lk.12:33 record Jesus' instruction to a rich young man, Sell what you have note that neither writer includes the
frequently quoted all to the statement, although in Lk.14:33, Jesus does speak of the necessity for a person to set aside
all that he has in favor of discipleship. Even so, much later, Paul (I Cor.13:3) remarks upon the uselessness of even
giving all of one's possessions, if it is not a gesture of love.
This is the beauty of the scene in Ac.4:32: it reveals no required divestment of all property, but rather, The multitude of
those who had become faithful was of one heart, and one life: and none of them said that any of his possessions was his
own, but for them, everything was shared. one might say, held in trust for the benefit of the brethren.

Ktema, used 4x, and only translated possession (Mt.19:22, Mk.10:22, Ac.2:45, 5:1), ktetor, possessor (only in Ac.4:34),
and their corresponding verb, ktaomai, 3x possess, 1x obtain, 1x provide, and 2x purchase, usually referred
(classically) to real estate, but also in the New Testament to Roman citizenship (Ac.22:28), provisions for a journey
(Mt.10:9), behavior (Lk.21:9, I Thes.4:4), and purchase (Ac.1:18, 8:20).
This is even more the case with kataschesin,which is used only twice, of the Old Testament concept of possessing the land
(Ac.7:5, 45), and chorion: possession1x (Ac.28:7), field 2x (Ac.1:18, 19), parcel of ground 1x (Jn.4:5), a place2x
(Mt.26:38, Mk.4:32), and land 3x (Ac.4:37, 5:3, 5:8).

The large group of references that involve the radical sharing in the new church right after Pentecost (Ac.2:45, 4:32, 4:34,
4:37) and the consequent episode with Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5:1-10), deserves closer examination. It is essential to
note that this unusual expression of shared life was never recorded to be a requirement. It grew out of common life and
devotion, both to the Lord and to one another, that was growing among them. The descriptions in Ac.2:42-47 and Ac.4:32-
37 are of people whose highest or perhaps only priority was to learn more about the new life upon which they had
embarked. They couldn't get enough of being together! They were sharing in so many wonderful things healing,
deliverance from prison, learning from those who had walked and talked with Jesus, and absorbing hundreds of new arrivals
that the logistics must have been horrendous! So as needs arose, those who had property were able and motivated to
provide for them. Barnabas earned his nickname, Son of encouragement from the generosity of his gift so that most
likely was not the norm. It's not accidental, though, that this is mentioned immediately before Ananias and Sapphira's
scheme. Apparently that couple perceived that a large gift was the way to be admired!

Please note that Ananias and Sapphira were NOT judged for the amount they contributed, or failed to contribute, but for
their deception. Peter did not challenge their ownership of the land only their prevarication (v.4, 8). It had already been
amply demonstrated that the brotherhood could weather the storms of persecution. But dishonesty would be fatal. Only
with total transparency and honesty can the Kingdom thrive. It is, after all, the domain of the One who proclaimed, I AM
the truth.

There are four other words that are occasionally translated goods

281
agathos most frequently appears as an adjective, good (63x), but also as good things 14x (only two of which,
Lk.16:25 and Gal.6:6, can be construed as being material), and goods 2x (Lk.12:18,19)
ousia only used twice, once as goods (Lk.15:12) and once as substance (Lk.15:13)
skeuos rendered 19x as vessel, and only twice translated goods (Mt.12:29 and Mk.3:7, in the parable where Luke
uses huparchonta of a strong man guarding his possessions)
huparxis only used twice: Ac.2:45 with ktema of the things sold to enable sharing in the brotherhood, and Heb.10:34 with
huparchonta, referring to property confiscated in persecution, in comparison to more enduring possessions in the heavens.

So, where does this leave the sincere aspirant to Kingdom living?
As in so many other situations, the key is found in one's focus.
There is absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament of the notion of the accumulation of possessions as a sign of
blessing quite the opposite (Lk.12:18,19, 16:25)!
But neither is there any endorsement of ostentatiously renouncing possessions and living off of the largesse of one's
wealthier (or worse, poorer) associates while loudly criticizing their more comfortable situation!
Finding a responsible balance is a dilemma where careful discernment by a group of folks seeking to be faithful is of the
utmost value. If whatever one possesses, whether much or little, material or otherwise, is simply held in trust for
Kingdom use, subject to mutual counsel with fellow Kingdom-seekers, it is unlikely that we will go far astray and those
possessions may do a lot of good.
May we be led, together , to such an end.

282
Word Study #144 The Poor
This is an even more difficult study than the ones dealing with riches/wealth (#72) and possessions (#143). I strongly
suspect that none of us in developed areas, even those at the lowest economic levels, have any real understanding of the
depth of material poverty in much of the rest of the world or, for that matter, the wealth, either, that exists in other than
material realms! Comparing our own situations with those of folks only a few rungs higher or lower on a perceived
ladder, whether of income, education, or other circumstance, obscures our view of genuine, desperate need. Picture being
reduced to dumpster-diving in a place where there are no dumpsters, because nothing is ever thrown away; or sheltering
under recycled metal or cardboard, where neither exists, for the same reason, and you may be beginning to approach
understanding.

There is little doubt about the meaning of poverty in the New Testament. I suspect that the references to the term may
have been less precise than the language would lead one to expect, because of the lexical information available regarding
the words, but the picture is stark, nevertheless, and most of the appearances of any such vocabulary implies an economic
condition lower than we can readily imagine.
Penes, classically a day-laborer, one who toils at heavy manual labor for his daily sustenance the lexical opposite of
plousios, rich appears only a single time in the New Testament. In II Cor.9:9, Paul, quoting the LXX, speaks of one
who has given to the poor as a just person. The lack of any other reference caused me to ask, What about the day-
laborers hired to work in the vineyard in Jesus' parable (Mt.20:1-16)? But these are ergates, skilled workers, tradesmen,
or those who work the soil. They are a cut above those called penes. (And even these skilled men were only paid the
subsistence wage of a denarius a day!)
Luke used a related word, penichros, (lexically, poor, needy) of the poor widow making her contribution in the temple
(21:2). This is the only New Testament use of that word. Both he (21:3) and Mark (12:42,43) use the more common word,
ptochos, describing the same incident.

Trench contrasts the words, observing that while penes and ptochos are usually used together in the LXX, and translated
poor and needy, the former, applied by Xenophon and Sophocles to serfs or cultivators of the soil (and also to
themselves), refers to one who has nothing superfluous, while the latter to one who has nothing at all. L/S says a
beggar, a person poorly provided-for, and Bauer a person dependent upon others for support. Thayer suggests the
picture of one whose living depends upon alms and also includes destitute of power, wealth, influence, or position and
to be so frightened as to cower or hide as well as to be reduced to begging. The noun form, ptocheia, referred to
extreme poverty. The picture is of a person wholly without resources.
These are the folks that we are encouraged to remember (Gal.2:10), to whom good news is preached in/by the Lord
Jesus (Mt.11:5, Lk.4:18, 7:22), and who are to be invited to a party (Lk.14:13,21). It is these that Jesus describes as
blessed (see #89) in Mt.5:3 and Lk.6:20, and asserts that the Kingdom belongs (present tense NOT pie in the sky
bye and bye!) to them.
Already the poor were identified as the intended recipients of required almsgiving under Jewish law; similar responsibility
on the part of Kingdom people was clearly re-stated by Jesus on several occasions, notably the rich young man who asked
about inheriting life (Mt.19:21, Mk.10:21, Lk.18:22), in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk.16:20,22) where the
same word is translated beggar, and at the conclusion of the scene where Jesus rejected the criticism of the gift of
perfume, reminding the disciples that the poor would always be in need of their compassionate care (Mt.26:9,11;
Mk.14:5,7; Jn.12:5,6,8). Jesus commended Zacchaeus' charity (Lk.19:8), and must have frequently set an example of that
behavior, since John notes (13:29) that the others assumed he was instructing Judas to give something to the poor a
Passover custom when the latter was dismissed from the group.
These are the brethren for whom James advocates (2:2,3,5,6), roundly scolding those who would disparage or insult them,
and the poor saints in Jerusalem (Rom.15:26) suffering from famine (Ac.11:28).
It is abundantly clear, therefore, that folks at the bottom of the economic system are to be honored, cared-for, and
generously supported by followers of the Lord Jesus.

At the same time, there are a few other appearances of ptochos that do not fit this picture. It is used in Gal.4:9 as a
deprecatory adjective describing the inferiority of the elements of people's life and thought before their commitment to the
Kingdom, and in Rv.13:6, rich and poor, bond and free, simply serves to include all levels of society.
In II Cor.8:9, Paul uses it of Jesus himself, who laid aside the riches that were rightly his as Creator and Sustainer of all

283
that exists, becoming poor for your sake living among men with no place to lay his head in order to elevate his
people to his own estate!
Paul describes a similar attitude among the brethren in Macedonia (II Cor.8:2) who, despite their deep poverty, eagerly
and generously participated in the famine relief. Extraordinary generosity on the part of people of meager means is not rare
and may be a factor in the blessedness of which Jesus spoke.

In the Revelation to John, Jesus himself re-defines the concept of poverty in his messages to the churches at Smyrna
(Rv.2:9) and Laodicea (3:17). To the former, who are being robbed, abused, and battered by persecutors, Jesus
acknowledges, I know your poverty but you are rich! He warns of still greater trials ahead, but limits their
duration.
To the latter, who carelessly boast about their prosperity and independence, his reprimand is stern: you don't realize that
you are miserable, and in need of mercy, and poor, and blind, and naked!

So perhaps, rather than the cop-out which I initially suspected in Bauer's and Thayer's additions to the classical definitions
of penes, ptochos and related words, their insight regarding dependence upon others for support, destitute of wealth,
influence, or position, and abject fear, may actually expand, rather than diminish, our responsibility, to extend to any sort
of people in any kind of need even if, as in Laodicea, they are unaware of their poverty, the same care and compassion.
The one we call Master and Lord addressed and alleviated need wherever he found it.
Can his followers do less?

284
Word Study #145 Of Neighbors and Enemies
Does this seem to you like a strange pairing of words? Quite aside from the sad reality that some neighbors can certainly
be a serious test of one's commitment to Kingdom attitudes and behavior, the ancient admonition (which, remember, Jesus
flatly contradicted) to love your neighbor and hate your enemy (Mt.5:43) makes a lot of sense to a tragically astonishing
number of people who claim to follow him. But Jesus insists that both are to be loved (Mt.5:44) not just tolerated, but
actively loved. The verb is agapao (see #87), and if it needs greater clarification, the Lord has amply provided it: the
neighbor is to be loved equally with one's self (Mt.19:19, 22:29; Mk.12:31,33; Lk.10:27, Rom.13:9, Gal.5:14, Jas.2:8),
and love for one's enemy is to be expressed in actively doing good (Lk.6:27,35) to those who hate you, blessing / speaking
well of those who curse you (Lk.6:28), and praying for one's abusers.

The vocabulary is not the problem here. The words are quite without a trace of ambiguity.
Although there are three different terms translated neighbor, geiton (4x), perioikos (1x as a noun, 1x as a verb), and
plesion (16x), none of the lexicons offer any distinctions. Uniformly, they refer to someone living in one's vicinity,
although plesion, the most common, is also rendered one's fellow man (Bauer) and friend, countryman, or companion
(Thayer).
No, the problem for most folks lies not in semantics, but in Jesus' explicit instructions.

It's not just that, as noted above, fully half of the uses of plesion 8 out of 16 insist that the neighbor is to be loved as
yourself. This admonition has been twisted by advocates of a brand of pop-psychology to justify a narcissistic focus upon
one's self as a positive thing but such an attitude is diametrically opposed both to Jesus' own life and to his message.
Jesus' focus is consistently outward, and his concept of neighborhood is expansive.

Although in parables, he refers to friends (philoi) and neighbors (geiton) (Lk.15:6,9), Luke also refers to relatives
(suggeneis) and neighbors (Lk.14:12, 1:58), and in Ac.3:37, seems to define the word as a fellow-Hebrew as does the
prophet Jeremiah (31:34) quoted in Heb.8:11. Paul may be using it some of the same ways, calling for doing no wrong to a
neighbor (Rom.13:10), pleasing him for his up-building (Rom.15:2), and interacting with absolute truthfulness
(Eph.4:28), or he may be referring to fellow-disciples, although he usually calls the latter brethren.
Of course such instructions would be equally applicable to any associates, which would fit well with Jesus' own departure
from a narrow definition of neighbor.

The classic example, of course, is the parable (Lk.10:27-36) of the Good Samaritan where we see a stark contrast between
the comfortable neighbor / countryman image and the enemy. The good guys (neighbors) were too busy or too
preoccupied to care for the unfortunate traveler. It is the perceived enemy who acts in a loving manner in Jesus' story.
And when the Lord pinned down the legal expert with the blunt question as to which of the men was neighborly, the
lawyer couldn't even bring himself to utter the word Samaritan, so thoroughly schooled was he in the assumption that
Samaritans were, if not outright enemies, at least unacceptable creatures. He simply stammered, the one who showed
mercy and let it go at that. One wonders how he later reflected upon that encounter.

Although enemy is the only translation of the 29 uses of echthrous (except for two places where foe was substituted),
its application covers a much wider scope than does neighbor, ranging from describing personal animosity (Mt.5:43,44;
10:36; Lk.6:27,35: Gal.4:16), or deliberate efforts to destroy a person's enterprises a rival or competitor? (Mt.13:25, 28,
and possibly Rv.11:5,12), to political opposition (Lk.1:71,74; 19:27,43), active opposition to the Gospel message and its
promoters (Rom.5:10, 11:28; Phil.3:18, Col.1:21, Jas.4:4), and even to the devil himself (Mt.13:39, Lk.10:19, Ac.13:10).
Seven of the references (Mt.22:44, Mk.12:36, Lk.20:43, Ac.2:35, I Cor.15:25, Heb.1:13,10:13) deal with the opponents of
Jesus being made his footstool a quote from Ps.110:1, numbered 109 in the LXX denoting their total subjugation.
Paul also notes (I Cor.15:26), The last enemy to be destroyed is death!
But please note, that even in the cases where an enemy is eventually put down or destroyed, that destruction is an act of
God! It is NOT an assignment delegated to any fellow-human!

The admonition in Rom.12:20 to provide food and water for an enemy is part of more detailed instructions (17-21),
Never give back wrong for wrong, but pay attention to what is right before everyone. If possible, in whatever has its
source from you, (be) at peace with all people. Don't avenge yourselves, dear ones, but give place for God's wrath .don't
be conquered (passive voice) by what is wrong, but overcome wrong (active voice) by doing good!

285
Similarly, when a brother stands in need of correction (II Thes.3:15), the reminder is repeated, don't consider him as an
enemy, but admonish him as a brother!

Review these references, and you cannot miss the observation that the only proactive behavior toward either a neighbor
or an enemy asked or even permitted for a Kingdom citizen, consists of love: love in shoe-leather, actively doing
good, providing food and water, blessing, and praying.

Perhaps it is at best a waste of time and effort, and at worst deliberate avoidance or delay tactics, to devote ourselves to the
task of defining either a neighbor or an enemy, or to accept such a definition from anyone else, be it an individual, a
group, or a civil government.
For the people of God, there is a single assignment:
With respect to a neighbor: actively to love and serve him.
With respect to an enemy: actively to love and serve him.
He may, as in Col.1:21, or Rom.5:10, become a brother!
The Lord has reserved for himself the task of seeing that things and people are properly and finally sorted out.
Thanks be to God.

286
Word Study #146 The Sabbath Part 2
(Please refer to 110 for an historical approach.)
Observance of the Jewish Sabbath was, if such is possible, even more controversial in the first century than the term has
become among some Christian groups today. It got Jesus into a lot of trouble, so I guess it should be no surprise if it does
the same for others who are serious about faithfulness.
Although sabbath observance was only one among many requirements enshrined in the Jewish Law (W.S.#37 and 38), by
the time of Jesus, it may have been considered the most important. Issues of civic consequence, for example, were no
longer open to the discretion of either individuals or their ruling hierarchy, but were dictated by the Roman occupiers.
Religious requirements were all they had left, with which to define and / or maintain their group identity. So please
remember, they meant well. The leaders who became Jesus' opponents, critics, and eventual executioners, honestly
believed that they were acting as defenders of the faith, and consequently they had carefully developed extensive
commentaries and commentaries on those commentaries to assure that their revered Law would be correctly observed in
every detail, especially its hallmark, the Sabbath, which was defined and re-defined with more than a thousand detailed
instructions and regulations.

Lexical references to to sabbaton, or its plural form, ta sabbata, which are used interchangeably, are almost totally confined
to LXX and NT sources, except for the occasional reference to seven days as a week a concept which appears
historically in ancient Sumerian, Babylonian, and Persian cultures, prior to any contact with Jewish or Christian thought.
In the New Testament, 14 of the uses of sabbaton / sabbata are simply fixing the date when something happened. Four are
when Jesus showed up at a synagogue, and four when Paul did likewise (except that one of those was a gathering on a river
bank, not a synagogue). Quite simply, that's where people were so it was a sensible place to teach or preach. Showing
up was not controversial.
The trouble started when it came to specifics. Jesus' announcement of his mission (Lk.4:16) during the course of his visit to
the synagogue at Nazareth nearly got him thrown off a cliff! His healings on similar occasions caused an uproar. The
authorities (Lk.13:14) scolded the beneficiaries of his ministrations, Come on other days to be healed, not on the
Sabbath! Their objections frequently precipitated discussions about what was and was not appropriate Sabbath behavior
(Mt.12:10-12, Lk.6:5-9, 13:14; Mk.3:2-4). Jesus' reply is classic: should I treat people with less concern that you have for
your animals? (Lk.13:15, 14:5; Mt.12:10-12), but even more telling is his question, recorded only by Mark (3:4), Is it
permissible on the Sabbath to do good, or to do evil? To save a life, or to kill? Here is summarized one of the most
significantly different aspects of Jesus' teaching, in contrast to the Law which his critics so staunchly defended. It's no
longer a question of prohibitions, but of positive actions for another's welfare. In Jesus' universe, to fail (or refuse) to do
good IS to do evil, and to refuse to save a life IS to kill. And the day of the week on which it happens is quite irrelevant!

John (5:1-18) describes an incident of healing also on a sabbath at the pool of Bethzatha, and its aftermath in the temple.
First, the Jewish rulers berated the healed man for carrying his no-longer-needed cot (probably calling it work), and then
they turned on Jesus, who was their real target anyway. He mildly observed, My Father is still working, and so am I!
(v.17). John then explains, Because of this, therefore, the Jews were seeking to kill him, because he not only was
'breaking' the Sabbath, but was saying that his own Father was God, equating himself with God! (v.18)
The Synoptics all record (Mt.12:8, Mk.2:28, Lk.6:5) Jesus' claim that The Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath. They
place that statement at the time when the disciples were criticized for snacking in a grain field. Harvesting was work,
and therefore forbidden on the Sabbath, although the Law had specified that grain be deliberately left at the edges of a field
for the benefit of strangers (Lv.19:9,10).
Mark includes a second statement which Matthew and Luke missed: The Sabbath came to be, for the benefit of people,
not people for the Sabbath. (v.27)
Indeed, a day of rest and worship among the Lord's people is a wonderful, life-giving gift. How sad, that the desires of men
to rule over others should make it a day of restrictions and prohibitions, rather than one of the celebration of the kindness
and goodness of God!
In Heb.3 and 4, the writer details the sabbath rest (sabbatismos used only here) provided for faithful followers of the
Lord Jesus (See Rest #77). This is offered, not once-a-week, but permanently, in union with him, although it certainly
requires continuous attention and effort (4:11).
By Jesus' own testimony, besides being himself the Lord of the Sabbath as noted above as well as Lord of everything else!
he has already fulfilled everything that was formerly written truly about him in the Law and the Prophets, and is
himself the provider of rest (Mt.11:28). He issued no regulations about a particular day or observance except, as noted,

287
to do good and to save life-- every day!

There are eight places in the New Testament where the word sabbaton / sabbata is not translated sabbath, but is part of
the phrase, the first day of the week. Six of these refer to the day of Jesus' resurrection, and of the joyful discovery by his
followers that HE IS ALIVE!!! The other two are I Cor.16:2, where the readers are encouraged to set aside what they have
committed for the relief offering on the first day of the week, and Ac.20:7, the meeting where Paul preached young
Eutychus to sleep. Some folks insist that these two meetings indicate that the first day had been declared the new
Sabbath but there is no such statement to be found. Others are just as adamant that the original Jewish Sabbath be
required. One also searches in vain for any admonition to that effect. Some folks have extensive lists of activities that must
be avoided or performed on whichever day they have chosen, and eagerly try to force them, legally, upon the general
population.
By contrast, Paul warns in Col.2:16 against being deceived by those who pass judgment on you all, about food or drink, or
observance of feasts, or new moons, or sabbaths. At the Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15), which dealt with the inclusion of
Gentile converts, there was no mention of a Sabbath requirement being imposed upon the newcomers only the avoidance
of things connected to idol worship. Paul notes in Eph.2:15, that Jesus eliminated the law of commands and decrees, in
order that he might create the two, in himself, into one new person [humanity], thus making peace.
As for meetings, we have the testimony of Ac.2:46,47 that the brethren met daily to learn, to share, and to worship. Later,
it seems as if they assembled whenever Paul or another of the teachers was in the vicinity, as well as from house to house.
Heb.10:25 reminds us not to neglect getting together. But when and where seems to be flexible.

So Celebrate the gift of Sabbath rest! If you choose to do it on the day honored by Jewish tradition, do it giving thanks to
the Lord of the Sabbath!
If you prefer to commemorate the resurrection of our Lord and his present life among us,on the day when he definitively
defeated evil and death, celebrate his triumph, giving thanks!
Celebrate becoming loving siblings in his family!
Celebrate by actively doing good and saving life the only two Sabbath activities that Jesus specifically commended
to our observance.
More is better, when it involves folks who love the Lord and each other!

288
Word Study #147 The Land, the Earth
I recently encountered an author, during what was called a study of the Beatitudes, who made a statement that I could
only describe as not just unfounded, but as totally bizarre. He confidently asserted that when the Greek word ge appeared in
the New Testament, it referred not to the earth (as it is correctly translated in Mt.5:5), but to the promised land of Israel!
His claim was shakily based upon a single phrase quoted from Psalm 37:11, the meek shall inherit the land.
This is an excellent illustration of the error of piecing together bits of disconnected verses to prove a point. If you slice
and dice the pieces small enough, you can scramble the results to make any piece of literature say virtually anything.
Careful perusal of the Gospel accounts reveals not a single instance where Jesus spoke of restoring ancient boundaries, but
several (Mt.24, Mk.13, Lk.21) where he warned of even greater destruction than his hearers had ever seen! The Son of
Man who had no place to lay his head was (and is) NOT INTO REAL ESTATE!!! This, in spite of the glorious truth
that by virtue of creation, he rightfully owns it ALL (Col.1:15).

Nevertheless, we owe it to this well-meaning but sadly misguided author to explore the ways that the concept of land is
used in the New Testament. It represents five different Greek words, which are only minimally differentiated in the
lexicons. We'll start, this time, with the least frequent.

Xeros, the adjective meaning dry, is used as a noun only once (Mt.23:15), where Jesus is describing the Pharisees'
exploring land and sea to make proselytes. Clearly, it is the universal extent of their efforts that is being emphasized. L/S
calls xeros terra firma, or the mainland.
Chorion, translated 2x field, 3x land, 1x parcel of ground, 2x place, and 1x possession, refers specifically to the
ownership or sale of real estate (Ac.4:34, 5:3, 5, 8; 1:18-19, 28:7), or, in the case of Mt.26:36 and Mk.14:32, simply a
place. L/S also suggests a place of business or office, a space enclosed by lines as in geometry or other boundaries,
and Bauer adds a city or other economic or political region or district.
Chora land 3x, country14x, field2x, ground 1x, region 5x L/S land, country, or territory; one's position or
proper place, and Bauer open country as opposed to a city or town, is most frequently simply a geographical location:
the land of Judah (Mk.1:5), the land of the Jews (Ac.10:39), the Magi returning to their own country (Mt.2:12), the
country of the Gadarenes (Mk.5:1), journeying to a far country (Lk.15:13), and the country of Galatia (Ac.18:23), among
others.
Agros, land4x, farm 1x, field 22x, is a fairly easy one (think agriculture). It's where seeds are planted (Mt.13:24,
13:31, 38; Lk.15:15,25), where wild flowers grow (Mt.6:28,30) or a potter digs clay (Mt.27:7). Additionally, it was
translated country (as opposed to a city) 8x (Mt.5:14, 6:36,56; 15:21, 16:12, Lk.8:34, 9:12, 23:26). L/S calls it tilled
land (as opposed to fallow), the country not town, or even the fruits of the land.

All of these together, though, seem few, next to the uses of ge. It was traditionally translated land 42x, and earth 188x,
as well as ground 18x, country 2x, and world 1x. This was the word (think geology) used to differentiate the normal
abode of people and animals from the heavens (#118), and the underworld, both classically and in New Testament
usages such as Mt.5:18, 35; 6:19, 11:25, 14:42, 18:18 and parallels; Jn.3:31, Ac.1:8, 4:24, 7:49; Rom.11:18, Eph.1:10.
It, along with xeros, is also uses as the opposite of the sea (Lk.5:11, 21:8,9; Ac.27:39,43,44).
Like chora, it's where seed is planted (Mk.4:5 and parallels), but ge is more likely to refer to the ground (soil) than to a
specific field or location.
It's where you land if you fall down (Ac.9:4), or where the people sat for a picnic (Mt.15:35).
Classically, ge was also one of the four elements that were thought to make up all created things earth, air, fire, and
water. This aspect does not occur in NT writings, but was prominent in others.

Apparently, traditional translators chose to change the word from earth to land when they thought it referred to a
particular geographical entity which is ok, IF you remember that it is not a different word in the text. Matthew
mentions the land of Judah (2:6), the land of Israel (2:20,21), the land of Zebulon and Naphtali (4:15), the land of Sodom
(10:15, 11:24), the land of Gennesseret (14:34).
Mark (4:1, 6:47) and Luke (5:3, 11; 8:27) and John (6:21, 21:8,9 11) mention ships either arriving or departing from land.

Stephen's sermon (Ac.7) lists comings and goings from many lands (3,4,6,11,29,36,40) throughout Jewish history, and
Paul's historical review in the synagogue at Antioch mentions the land of Egypt and the land of Canaan (Ac.13:17, 19).
The only New Testament reference to the land of promise is in Heb.11:9, of Abraham's wandering there. Check it out.

289
There is no other place where those two words are used together!
The other references to promise (a digression, but one critical to the point) involve the charge to Abraham to be the agent
of blessing to all nations, Jesus' Kingdom, the Holy Spirit, and the building together of the family of Jesus' people! Jesus
himself never connected the words promise and land AT ALL.
In fact, the Gospels, using four different words, use the English word promise only four times, and only once quoting
Jesus:
Lk.24:49 epaggelia I send the promise of my Father upon you (the Holy Spirit)
Mt.14:7 homologeo Herod's promise (oath) to Salome!
Lk.22:16 exomologeomai-- Judas' promise to the priests, to betray Jesus
Mk.14:11 epaggellomai parallel to Lk.22.
For a more complete treatment of the concept of promise, see #83.

Whether you choose to call ge land or earth, however, it is in every instance a finite concept. According to Jesus,
Heaven (#118) and earth will pass away (Mt.24:35, Mk.13:31, Lk.21:33), but his words will not!
Years later, Peter took up the same theme regarding the destruction of both heaven and earth (II Pet.3:10-13), and John ends
the account of the Revelation with the advent of a new heaven and a new earth, because the first heaven and the first earth
were gone! (Rv.21:1)
Paul's admonition to those who share in the resurrection life of the Lord Jesus, is as apt today as it was when first written
(Col.3:2): Keep paying attention to what's above, not what's on the earth!

It was the former covenant (See #79 and 80) now declared in Hebrews to be obsolete (7:18, 8:7-13) which proclaimed a
promise of land. And even then, (a matter that is usually forgotten), it was contingent upon obedience to the directives of
God (Dt.11:26-28 and all of chapter 28).
The New Covenant, established by the Lord Jesus, proclaims, not a land, but a Kingdom (see #19,20,21), which is also
contingent upon following the instructions of its King
ON EARTH!!!!

290
Word Study #148 The Scripture
Although scripture is an old English translation of one of the most ordinary of words, few such translations have
engendered more controversy, among both scholars and ordinary adherents to varied theological perspectives. The
Greek words, grapha, gramma (nouns) and grapho, graphomai (active and passive verbs, respectively), carry no defined
perspectives at all. The two nouns, which lexicons do not differentiate, may refer to any sort of drawing, painting,
mathematical diagram, or legal records, as well as any written document, letter, or inscription, whether intended for public
or private use. The term holy scripture appears in an extensive L/S list that also includes musical notes, medical
prescriptions, criminal records, catalogs, and various other sorts of lists! The verbs are just as diverse, including to draw a
map, to describe a mathematical figure, to brand or mark, to invoke a curse upon, to propose a law, to write a letter, to enroll
oneself or another, to take notes, or to petition for a hearing before a council! Consequently, there is clearly no theological
case to be made by etymology!

Nevertheless, even if one (correctly) interprets these common Greek words simply as writings, documents, or records, it is
clear that in the minds of the readers and writers of the New Testament documents, some writings carried greater authority
than others.
While the Law (#37,38), among its most devoted adherents, was honored almost (if not altogether) to the point of
worship, and It is written (more than 40x in the Gospels alone) seems to have been expected to end all speculation or
argument with a proof-text from the law, the psalms, or a prophet, please note that Jesus did not hesitate to make
corrections (Mt.5,6,7 and elsewhere) to its precepts, and even to refer to it as your law (Jn.8:17, 10:24) rather than
God's. He exhibited careful selectivity, also, in his view of the authoritative quality of the prophets. His statement in
Lk.18:31, Everything that has been written by the prophets about the son of man will be completed, is modified in
Lk.22:37 to all this that has been written about me, indicating the distinct possibility that not everything assumed to
refer to his person or his mission was necessarily accurate or relevant!
Both Jesus and the apostles quoted the law and the prophets sometimes in support of their message (Jn.2:22, 7:38,
Ac.8;32,35) and sometimes in contrast to it (Mt.22:29, Rom.7:6, 2:29; II Cor.3:6).
Some things only made sense to the disciples after the fact (Jn.20:9, Lk.24:27,32,45), and it is not unreasonable to assume
that faithful followers may still find that to be the case.

But for committed followers of Jesus, it is Jesus himself who must be the definitive arbiter as to what is or is not reliable
scripture. He challenged the Pharisees' minute attention to the details of their scriptures [writings] (Jn.5:39), with the
observation that, had they paid proper attention to those very scriptures, they would have seen that all which had
legitimately gone before, bore testimony to him!
But how do we discern what actually does apply to him?

At a distance of more than 2000 years, it must be acknowledged that evaluating and sorting bits of recorded information and
observations is problematic at best. Scholars correctly point out that the presently recognized canon of scripture
represents only a portion of the writings of the New Testament era. The official councils that ruled upon the inclusion or
exclusion of specific documents were no more composed of unbiased scholars than are subsequent translation committees!
Nevertheless, anyone who reads many of the rejected accounts some of which bear closer resemblance to Greek
mythology, philosophical polemics, or simple flights of fancy than to responsible reporting or thoughtful teaching can
readily discern a sharp difference in the quality of writing. Documentary study, when responsibly done, is a separate and
respectable discipline, but it is beyond the scope of this brief paper.

For the purpose of this discussion, I have chosen to assume that we have, in the New Testament text, a reasonably accurate
account of the life and teachings of Jesus and the practices and understandings of his earliest followers.
The integrity of the existing account is additionally evidenced by the warts and all presentation of both individuals
(including those recognized as leaders) and group interactions. There is no credible evidence of whitewashing.
That is not to say, however, that every word was divinely dictated! No such claim is made anywhere in the text. In
fact, Paul overtly notes (I Cor.7:12,25) when he is expressing his own opinion, not the Lord!
His statement to Timothy (II Tim.3:16) has been seriously misinterpreted. The problem derives from the textual absence of
any verb from the sentence. An English translation needs a verb. But where does it belong? Most translators, conforming
to their prior teaching, have rendered it All Scripture [writing] (is) inspired [breathed] by God, and (is) useful ..., but the
grammar would equally support, All God-breathed [inspired] writing (is) useful .... There is no grammatical clue as to

291
where the is belongs or to how many there are! It's hard to imagine anyone trying to maintain that all writing of
whatever provenance is either inspired by God OR useful! Clearly, Paul's point is that inspired writing is useful for
teaching, correction, and discipline. Remember, scripture in the text, is NOT a different word from writing! And
inspired does not mean dictated.
The same caveat applies to Peter's complaint (II Pet.3:16) about Paul's writings, and the much-quoted reference to the other
scriptures. Peter calls for discernment, on the part of both teachers and hearers. This is still a serious need among God's
people.

I believe that the lack of such discernment is the key to a very large percentage of theological disagreement among well-
meaning disciples yet today. Quoting the passages mentioned above, a large contingent of teachers / writers subscribes to
the flat book theory of inspiration, claiming that every word from Genesis to Revelation was directly chosen by God
(in KJV English, no less), and is equally authoritative. As we have seen, Jesus did not subscribe to that theory, nor did he
ask it of his followers. In fact, his frequent use of BUT I SAY ... (Mt.5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44) or because of the hardness
of your hearts, Moses wrote that for you (Mt.19:8, Mk.10:5), grows out of his understanding that he needed to correct the
errors of the old ways of thinking, behaving, and interpreting the plans and instructions of the Father. The entire letter to the
Hebrews is devoted to that same subject: The old ways did not work! That's why Jesus had to come, personally, and
straighten things out!

Jesus explained (Mt.11:13, Lk.16:16) that the law and the prophets were (in effect) until John (the Baptist), and Since
then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!
Paul understood this (II Cor.3:12-14), In Christ it has come to an end! and Eph.2:15, He eliminated the law of
commands and decrees!
Folks who quote Jesus' statement in Mt.5:17-18 regarding the permanence of the law and the prophets, neglect the last
phrase: until it all happens [is fulfilled]! Jesus himself IS that fulfillment! (Lk.18:31, Jn.19:28).
Luke's version of the great commission (Lk.24:44-48) is the proclamation of that fulfillment!
So how does an earnest disciple identify authoritative Scripture? Basically, it is a choice.
Personally, I have chosen the New Testament as my standard. I impose that choice upon no one else, but I identify the most
closely with folks who have chosen similarly. If there seems to be some sort of conflict in the text, Jesus' own words make
the call.
Luke described his quest in the prologue to his gospel (1:1-4) he carefully researched the available information, and
checked it out with folks who had been there, done that. The other writers may have combined their own experience with
the accounts of others they don't say. But Jesus had the final word. There are few discrepancies in direct quotes.
Pre-Christian writings can be helpful indeed, the apostles referred to them frequently, when their audiences were
familiar with the ancient texts. The Jews at Berea used them to confirm Paul's message. But they were not imposed
upon Gentile groups (Ac.15).
The judgment of others who are well- acquainted with the Lord is also helpful. It's fairly easy to discern whether a
statement, idea, or action is consistent with the personality of someone you know very well.
The Biblical writers and teachers challenged each other (Gal.2) and corrected one another (Ac.18:24-28).
Paul summarized it well in Rom.15:4-6:
For whatever was written before, was written for our instruction, in order that by means of the endurance and the 'coaching'
of the Scriptures [writings] we might have hope [confidence].
May God, (the source)of endurance and encouragement, give you all concern (about) the same things, among each other,
with Christ Jesus as the standard, in order that unitedly, with one mouth [voice] you all may glorify the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ!
Amen!

292
Word Study #149 Citizenship
(This essay was previously published as a separate entity, on May 23, 2011, and is offered here edited as a word study.)

Throughout history, as well as today, one outstanding indicator of the difference between observable, practical Christianity
a mutual effort at faithfulness and the theoretical, doctrine-driven, pie-in-the-sky version concerned primarily with
sorting who is in and who is out-- , is the understanding that a group promulgates of the Kingdom of God: you can
easily tell, by whether they speak of it as a present reality or a future dream.
The Biblical balance is skewed heavily in the direction of the present reality.
It started at the very beginning of Jesus' ministry. Actually, it started at Creation, but immediately after his baptism by John,
Mark tells us that Jesus came into Galilee preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God, saying, The time HAS
BEEN fulfilled; the Kingdom of God HAS ARRIVED! (1:14,15)
He explained it further in his inaugural address (Lk.4:18-21), as providing good news to the poor, release to the captives,
sight to the blind, and freedom to those broken by oppression. He announced (the word is the same as what is translated
herald the task of a news anchor!) TODAY this HAS BEEN FULFILLED in your hearing! It only takes third or
fourth grade English to realize that has been refers to something that is already present.
Later, he outlined the constitution of the Kingdom in Mt.5,6,7 and Lk.6.
More than half of his recorded parables refer to the Kingdom, many of them introduced with The Kingdom of God IS
like... (NOT will be). And in the Acts passage that was read this morning, it was also the content of the graduate
course that Jesus conducted for his disciples in the period between his resurrection and his ascension that is, the period
we are in right now : He presented himself ALIVE to them during 40 days, talking about the Kingdom of God.
He had put it very plainly before, in Lk.16 and Mt.11, The Law and the Prophets were in effect UNTIL JOHN, and since
then , the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!
THE KING HAS ARRIVED! THE KINGDOM EXISTS wherever the authority of the King is recognized.
A powerful example is seen in the Lord's prayer which I'm quite sure was never intended to be a rote memorization to be
recited, but to encourage our participation, together with the Lord Jesus, in the basic ingredients of the Kingdom. The
Kingdom exists and flourishes where and when God's name (his entire personality) is recognized as holy belonging
uniquely and exclusively to him and where presently doing his will is the deliberate choice of his people. This is already
the case in heaven his people are called to model it as well as to pray for it on earth: in other words, we are called to
incarnate the Kingdom.
Jesus corrected the eschatological expectations of the disciples, who were still hung-up on the restoration of Israel,
explaining that the Kingdom will be established and grow as the Holy Spirit enables his people to spread its influence.
The whole rest of the NT describes that Kingdom in action. There are no cut-and-dried definitions. Its forms vary with the
situation. Only two things are certain and inviolable: THE KING IS IN CHARGE, and a radical difference in lifestyle
is expected. The people of God are not merely asked to adopt a slightly sanitized substitute for the sordid situation of their
surrounding society. The change is enormous variously described as the change from death to life, from foreigners to
citizens, from captive slaves to a ransomed, free people.
This is a Kingdom different from anything the world has ever seen. Sadly, through the ages, most folks who say they
believe in Jesus have preferred to defer any observable difference to a future heavenly paradise, and not be bothered with
it now. But please consider: Is it not possible that, had the Lord Jesus confined his remarks to ethereal, theoretical talk of
heaven and hell, he would very probably never have so incurred the wrath of the authorities, both religious and political?
They felt their authority threatened in the present, not the future. His opponents understood far better than we, that in the
Kingdom of which he spoke, nothing is familiar and manageable. Nothing is under the control of those who are used
to exercising control. There is only one King and his authority is absolute. IN THIS LIFE not just the next.
Furthermore, Jesus was not talking about a revolution, as some have suggested, all through the centuries. Revolutions never
solve or even address any real problems. A revolution only changes the cast of characters in an oppressive power
system, reversing the role of oppressor and oppressed. Jesus is out to rearrange the entire structure of things so that there
exists no oppressive power structure. His citizens function together as his Body, of which he is the only Head!
I have scratched the surface of this assignment in a small study-guide, which is still waiting for folks to try it out and

293
improve on it. Would love to find a few volunteers! What, exactly, is involved in becoming a part of the Body of Christ?
The idea of citizenship was well understood by first century folks. Rome conferred citizenship upon select allied cities
(among which were Philippi, Tarsus, and other major centers) and their inhabitants, as well as to people who had served the
state. Even a slave could gain citizenship, if his freedom was attested by his master before a magistrate.
Citizens had legal rights not afforded to others and Paul asserted those rights on occasion in Philippi, Jerusalem, and
Caesarea.
But the New Testament proclaims a citizenship far beyond that offered by Rome. there is a wonderful description in
Eph.2:11-22. Right in the middle, v.19, is the key:
Now, therefore, you all are no longer strangers and temporary residents, but you are fellow-citizens with God's people, and
members of God's household.
The citizenship conferred by our King, although vastly surpassing anything the nations of the world can offer, nevertheless
bears some similarities to other forms of citizenship.

Even on a worldly plane, it is a weighty decision to change one's citizenship, one that should not be taken lightly nor made
impulsively. One is wise,if not legally bound, to live in a country for a while, to become familiar with its customs and laws,
before taking such a step. Likewise, no one should ever be rushed into the Kingdom!!! A citizen needs to be fully
apprised of what he is getting into! People recruited in campaigns more closely resembling scalp-collecting than
Kingdom advocacy, rarely become active, productive citizens.
There is nothing wrong with living in a country as a visitor or foreigner. People go to another country for a variety of
reasons.
There are tourists and turistas. We learned the distinction from a friend in Mexico, years ago. When Jose remarked,
Ustedes no me parecen turistas, (You all don't seem like tourists to me!) we recognized it as a complement.
Turistas are the overbearing, complaining, arrogant folks who loudly criticize everything unfamiliar.
Tourists go to learn, appreciate varied friendships, and even may adopt some of the ways of their host country. However,
even these, with their much healthier attitude, do not usually make the commitment of citizenship. They retain
sovereignty over their own way of life. They are free to choose where they will and won't conform. That is not wrong.
But full citizenship demands a renunciation of that autonomy.
Some folks go into a country as entrepreneurs for what they can get out of it. They will adapt only to what contributes to
their own perceived profit, and don't much care about their effect on the local citizens. There are entrepreneurs in the
Kingdom as well.
Some enter a country deceitfully, with a goal of its detriment, or even its destruction. John, Paul and Peter all warned of
these in the Kingdom.
Then there are those who enter as refugees. They really didn't want to leave home, and did so only to escape war or disaster
of some sort. They have no desire to become productive, contributing citizens they only want a place to hide. Sadly,
many have entered the Kingdom also only because they were threatened with destruction. Unfortunately, some folks call
such threats evangelism. It's NOT good news! It was not Jesus' approach!
Jesus never threatened anyone! To the tax-collecting cheat, Zacchaeus, he simply said, I'm coming over for lunch! and
the man's life was radically changed. When Peter, who would have been a fine target for today's so-called evangelists,
called himself a sinner and asked the Lord to go away, his response was simply, Come on, Peter, I have a job for you!
If only those who are called his followers would follow that example!
Our King, in recruiting citizens for his Kingdom, called folks to become participants in a new and wonderful life, in
company with the King, and others he had called. They were not turistas, tourists, entrepreneurs, or refugees, but
members of his citizenship class!
The responsibility of a foreigner in a country is minimal. He has no obligation to other citizens, nor they to him. But the
true content of Jesus' offer is full citizenship. No one is a citizen alone. He shares both privilege and responsibility with
every other citizen.
He pledges support and allegiance, renouncing every other loyalty and receives the protection of his Sovereign.
Acknowledging Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, for first century followers, was a far cry from the required password or
the creedal recitation it has become in subsequent generations. It was a powerful declaration of absolute allegiance to Jesus'
Kingdom a declaration that could, and frequently did, cost the life of the person involved! These were titles that the

294
Roman emperors, drunk with power, reserved for themselves, as symbols of their overtly-claimed deity! Applying either of
those terms to anyone but the emperor was treason punishable by assorted forms of gruesome death. One could only
persist in that declaration of loyalty by the power of the Holy Spirit, as Paul noted in I Cor.12:3.
Remember: The Kingdom is not a democracy, in which one can participate minimally, enthusiastically, or not at all, at his
own discretion.
A King is an absolute ruler. What he says, goes.
Kingdom citizens have no concern for equality. Their goal is much higher. They are to become ONE, just as Jesus and his
Father are.(Jn.17)
The Kingdom is not a place to find yourself. That search belongs to the old creation, where self-centeredness quickly
became the original sin. The New Creation was engineered by the One who spoke of losing, denying, disowning the
tyranny of self in favor of being built into the body of the King.
The Kingdom is not an institution, with hierarchy and flow-charts. There is ONLY ONE SUPERIOR.
All the citizens are members of his family of his own Body! (another good study!)

Consider very carefully, then,as you contemplate the King's offer of full citizenship.
The Kingdom has been a long time in the building, and it is not finished yet.
Study the blueprints carefully, and only then decide. The blueprints of the Kingdom were drawn by the Supreme Architect
of the Universe the same Architect who also set the standards for the building code. His specifications are not subject to
revision.
As Paul reminded the folks at Corinth, The Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power
the present-tense experience of the power of the Holy Spirit.
The Kingdom is not an idea to be argued, but a life to be lived!
We also have the assurance (Heb.12:28) that when everything else is shaken apart, this Kingdom WILL STAND.
Clearly, there is more in store for those who choose ways of faithfulness. The future is not irrelevant. It simply is not the
only, or the main, consideration. It holds indescribable promise the culmination of the citizenship class.
BUT UNTIL THEN we already have a King to honor and obey, and fellow-citizens of his Kingdom with whom to learn to
reflect his very being!
There are only two requirements:
to acknowledge the King as our only sovereign,
and to follow his instructions TOGETHER.
The citizenship class always has room for more. There are no restrictive quotas. The King is still recruiting citizens for his
Kingdom.

295
Word Study #150 Incarnation: Part 2
(This essay was previously published, but not numbered as a word study, on December 19, 2011)
This study was undertaken during the Christmas season, with its focus on the Incarnation. The seasonal nature of that
celebration tends to obscure the impact of such a momentous event. It is easy to be sentimental about a baby in a manger;
and pick it up later at Easter time with a lot of talk, most of it not supported by scripture, about Jesus' death. But that
ignores what is probably among the most amazing and most crucial parts of the story, the statement in John 1:14 : The
Word became flesh, and lived for a while among us!
Flesh: a real, live person! Somewhere along the line, I think probably in the middle ages, flesh came to be considered
evil or sinful. The NIV even translates it that way. That can not possibly be true, or Jesus would not have adopted it, or
emphasized it to his disciples after the resurrection, when they were frightened, thinking they were seeing a ghost A spirit
has no flesh and bones, as you see I do! Please refer to W.S. #85.
In the early church, the acid test of faithfulness (I Jn.4:1-3) was the acknowledgment that Jesus Christ was come in the
flesh! that he was REAL. Hebrews 2 goes into considerable detail about why that was necessary, in order for him to
definitively DESTROY death; but basically, it was because he knew that show was superior to tell when it came to
forming a faithful Kingdom. Tell had been tried for a long time the whole Old Testament period. The letter to the
Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that tell did not work. That's why Jesus decided he needed to show.
Even that, though, is only half of the story. The concept of Incarnation has TWO branches: Jesus becoming a genuine,
human person for our benefit, and his people becoming a manifestation of his own Body (#84), for the benefit of the rest of
the world! Incarnation has become OUR JOB!Fortunately, the Creator of the universe has graciously undertaken the task of
creating that Body which is a good thing, since we ourselves can be pretty clueless, and often mess things up royally!
Both Isaiah and Jeremiah referred to God as a potter, and his people as clay, although that analogy appears only once in the
new Testament. Notice that God told Jeremiah, Go down to the potter's house, and there, my word will come to you!
Since beginning to work with clay, I have learned many things about how the Lord chooses to work starting long before a
potter begins to form any vessel. I prepare my clay from scratch digging and mixing it, to achieve a clay body which I
can use. There are many ways in which this illustrates the effort the Lord expends, also, to create a Body he can use.
While in some places, usable clay can be found in a single deposit, in our area, successful pottery requires a mixture of four
different kinds of clay, none of which is useful alone! This is also true of the Lord's clay body.
The red clay is strong but good for nothing but bricks. It cracks when shaped, bent, or rolled thin.
The yellow is smooth and pliable, but not strong enough to stand up by itself.
The gray is grainy. It doesn't stain like the other two, but will not polish to a nice surface. However, I always add it if the
pot is intended for cookware, as the grit helps it to resist thermal shock.
The white is sticky, and while it can be used alone if one works very slowly, it does not polish well, but it can be used to
remedy the problems of some of the other types.
Before any of these can be used, they need to be powdered, soaked, and strained to remove gravel, sticks, roots, and
assorted junk. This pounding and straining process does not change the being of any of the clays. They still have their
created attributes to contribute to the mix, but they are no longer individually recognizable, and have become a part of
something entirely new.
The clay cannot have the junk strained out without being wet. The proper amount of water at any time is essential. You
are familiar with the references to water as the Holy Spirit. There are just a few attributes that are relevant here. It is not
for nothing that Jesus told his disciples to WAIT for the Spirit to empower their assignment. At many points in the process
of clay preparation,
YOU HAVE TO WAIT. To get the mix properly strained, I soak it for a week or two, in order that the particles be
completely absorbed and soak up as much water as possible.
Then, after straining, you have to WAIT again while it settles, and excess water is poured off.
After it is dried to a consistency you can handle, if the proportions are not right, one or more ingredients can be added to
improve the texture. At each point, the clay has to be thoroughly mixed.
When you are satisfied with the mix, it then has to WAIT again to sit for several weeks to mature, to avoid
separation. There is a difference between mixing and combining. I tried combining two clays, because I thought it might

296
look nice. But they cracked in the firing. Their shrinkage was not alike. Thorough MIXING is necessary for a successful
product. A lot of talk is bounced around today about diversity. And that can be a good thing but only if the diverse
people are MIXED, and not just combined.
The forming of a pot, its finishing and firing, also require extensive experience on the part of a potter. They must be
regulated by both the characteristics and content of the clay body, and the final result that is desired. (Jeremiah and Paul
were not potters! The clay does NOT always perform as the potter may have in mind!) But as Jeremiah observed, if a pot is
spoiled, the potter can readily use the clay for something else. Unfired clay is completely recyclable.
Perhaps the potter will adjust the mix, or even modify his earlier plan.
Perhaps he will need to work more slowly, allowing the clay to become partly firm before adding more.
Perhaps he will need thicker walls, to be scraped later to the shape and thickness he intended.
Perhaps it will be necessary to do preliminary smoothing and polishing before the piece is finished. Even after it is mostly
dry, an even, polished surface may require the addition of a thin coating of finer clay, known as slip, to correct
imperfections. Many hours of rubbing with a smooth stone are needed to create a good shine.
The firing, too, requires that the potter be very familiar with his clay, and know how much heat it can endure.. Earthenware,
with its high iron content, cannot endure high-fire temperatures. It melts. But other clays, like fine porcelains, would
crumble if only fired to low temperatures.
Our focus today, however, is simply upon the preparation of the clay body, and the Body into which the Lord intends to
form his people, in order that we may actually become a credible part of the miracle of the Incarnation. I was not able to
find a Gospel reference to the quotation attributed to Jesus in Heb.10:5, but I believe it is hugely relevant to correct many
of the common misperceptions that have persisted in what is labeled Christian doctrine. Jesus says very plainly,
(presumably to his Father), You didn't want sacrifices and offerings, but you fashioned a Body for me! And after
detailing some of the failings of the old system, he declares, Look, I have come to do your will!
If we are rightly to fulfill the mandate to participate in the Incarnation, it behooves us to find out what Jesus considers that
it involves. Please refer to W.S.#23 as a starting place.
May we be properly strained, mixed, and blended into the Body that our Master Potter can use for his purposes!

297
Topic Index
Abide.............................................115 Follow Me.....................................200 Ministry..........................................79
Accepting......................................261 Following Instructions..................109 Miracles........................................224
Admonish, Admonition................230 Forgetting........................................59 Mourn, Mourning.........................269
Angels...........................................275 Forgiveness.....................................14 Mystery.........................................113
Apostles..........................................81 Free, Freedom...............................204 Name of Jesus.................................47
Are you Ready?............................249 Friends............................................43 Nations..........................................123
Assurance......................................212 Fruit..............................................127 Neighbors......................................285
Bearing Fruit.................................127 Fulfillment....................................214 New...............................................263
Bless, Blessed, Blessing...............176 Full, Fullness................................214 Obedience.....................................174
Body..............................................166 Gain..............................................194 Obey........................................53, 174
Break.............................................251 Gifts................................................49 Open..............................................251
Building........................................206 Giving Thanks..............................182 Ordain.............................................95
Calling..........................................107 Glory.............................................147 Ordinance......................................216
Changed........................................192 God's Will.......................................23 Overseers........................................83
Children........................................198 Gospel...........................................133 Patience.........................................125
Chosen...........................................111 Grace.............................................119 Payment........................................196
Church....................................97, 208 Grow.............................................208 Peace.............................................139
Churches, Building.......................206 Guilt..............................................253 Perfect.............................................25
Citizens.........................................198 Hear................................................53 Persecution....................................186
Citizenship....................................293 Heaven..................................234, 236 Plant..............................................208
Clean.............................................129 Hidden..........................................255 Pleasing.........................................141
Comfort.........................................271 Holy................................................63 Pleasure.........................................141
Compassion..................................210 Honor............................................145 Poor...............................................283
Confess.........................................135 Hope................................................71 Possessions...................................281
Continue........................................115 Humility..........................................27 Power..............................................61
Conversation.................................228 I AM................................................33 Praise............................................178
Convert, Conversion.....................238 Image of God..................................29 Pray, Prayer...................................180
Convict, Conviction......................240 In the Name of Jesus.......................47 Preachers.........................................87
Covenant.......................................156 Incarnation............................168, 296 Priests..............................................87
Creation........................................265 Inheritance............................156, 158 Profit.............................................194
Cross...............................................67 Jesus is Lord.....................................9 Promise.........................................164
Darkness.......................................255 Joy.................................................220 Prophets..........................................89
Deny..............................................135 Judgment.........................................17 Prune.............................................129
Disciples.......................................101 Judgment, THE...............................19 Purify............................................129
Divide...........................................251 Justice...............................................8 Quiet.............................................273
Doctrine..........................................93 Keys..............................................222 Ready............................................249
Doubt................................................6 Kingdom.............................37, 39, 41 Receiving......................................261
Dwell / Dwelling..........................162 Know..............................................57 Recompense..................................196
Earth..............................................289 Labor.............................................196 Reconcile, Reconciliation.............137
Elders..............................................83 Land..............................................289 Redeem.........................................121
Enemies........................................285 Law...........................................73, 75 Redemption...................................121
Eternal Life.....................................55 Life..................................................55 Rejoice..........................................184
Evangelists......................................85 Light..............................................149 Remain..........................................115
Exhort, Exhortation......................230 Listen..............................................53 Remembering..................................59
Faith/faithfulness..............................4 Lord..................................................9 Repent.............................................12
Fear not...........................................31 Love..............................................172 Rest...............................................152
Fellowship......................................16 Meek.............................................154 Resurrection....................................69
Fig Trees.......................................226 Mercy............................................117 Reward..........................................194
Fighting.........................................232 Messengers...................................275 Riches...........................................143
Flesh..............................................168 Mind..............................................190 Righteousness...................................8

298
Sabbath.................................218, 287 Tear...............................................251 Wait, Waiting................................245
Sacrament.....................................151 Temple..........................................160 War, Warfare.................................232
Sacrifice........................................188 Temptation......................................21 Watch............................................247
Salvation.................................10, 212 Testing.............................................21 Way...............................................202
Scripture........................................291 Thanks..........................................182 Weak.............................................154
Secrets...........................................255 The Way........................................202 What's New...................................263
Servants........................................198 The Word......................................131 Why DID Jesus come?...................45
Service............................................79 Tradition.......................................216 Will.................................................23
Shame...........................................253 Transfigured..................................192 Wisdom.........................................257
Shepherds........................................83 Transformed..................................192 Wise..............................................257
Silence..........................................273 Treasure........................................259 Witness............................................35
Sin.................................................277 Trial.................................................21 Word.............................................131
Sons..............................................198 Tribulation....................................186 Workers.........................................198
Spirit.....................................103, 105 Truth...............................................51 Works..............................................77
Split...............................................251 Unfaithfulness...................................6 World............................................170
Submit, Subject.............................267 Unworthy........................................65 Worship...........................................99
Suffering.......................................188 Victory..........................................243 Worthy............................................65
Surrender......................................242 Vines.............................................226 You................................................279
Teachers..........................................91 Vineyards......................................226
Teaching..........................................93 Wages............................................196

299