The Pioneers’ New Testament

The subject of “healing” has probably generated as much discussion among earnest followers of the Lord Jesus, ranging from desperate hope to equally desperate discouragement, and from loving, encouraging ministrations to bitter blaming and recriminations, as any other topic. This study does not pretend to settle all questions, nor to present the elusive, infallible formula which so many have sought – or arrogantly claimed to have discovered. It merely seeks to offer, by means of examination of the vocabulary used in the New Testament, a bit of insight that may be helpful as we try to learn, to discern, and to follow our Lord’s instructions.

He did, after all, empower and instruct his disciples, when he sent them around the nearby countryside, to “heal the weak [sick], raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mt.10:8 and parallels), as they announced the arrival of his Kingdom. Similar instructions are included in Mark’s version (16:17,18) of the Great Commission, and in the experience of the early church as recorded in Acts. Healing had been a significant part of Jesus’ own ministry, with at least 40 instances recorded in the gospels. Although some of these refer to the same events, the count would be even higher if we were to include cleansing lepers, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and mobility to the lame and paralyzed, that don’t specifically use the word “heal.” Some of the lesser manuscripts include “to heal those with broken [crushed] hearts” in Jesus’ announcement of his mission in Lk.4:18.

There can be no question, then, that healing is intended to have a significant place in the ministry of Jesus’ followers. An examination of the vocabulary expands that responsibility tremendously.

Of the words denoting healing, therapeuo (v.), with 38 translations as “heal”, 5 as “cure”, and one as “worship”, and its noun equivalent therapeia, 2x “healing” and 2x “household”, are by far the most common.
Historically, these words were much more versatile, including “to do service (to gods or men), to honor parents or wait on a master, to care for a person, to treat medically, to mend garments, to train animals, to cultivate land, to prepare food or drugs”! It would be an interesting exercise to consider some of these as alternative translations! Perhaps there is more involved than we realize in Jesus’ instructions.

The other word, more exclusively referring to medical healing, iaomai (v) “heal” 26x and “make whole” 2x, and iasis (n) “healing” 1x and “cure”1x, was also more restricted historically, listed as “to heal, cure, or attempt to do so, to treat disease, to repair or remedy, to be healed, to recover.”
Ten times, the verb sozo is used. This is treated in #5, being more often traditionally rendered “save”.

The conditions from which people are “healed” are likewise varied.
Arrostos (5x) is used of any sickliness, or bad state of health. In the plural, it referred to epidemics. Only rarely does it describe moral weakness.
Astheneo (20x), asthenes (22x), astheneia (22x), asthenema (2x), is by far the most frequently used, and the most ambiguous. In traditional translations, the noun and the adjective are more frequently rendered “weak, weakness” and the verb more often “be sick”, but lexically, they all carry both meanings, as well as “to be needy, to be unable to do something, to be without power (opposite of dunamis) or influence, poverty, want of strength, feeble, sickly, or morally weak.” That pretty well covers most “needs”!
Kamno, used only 3x (Jas.5:15, Rv.2:3, Heb.12:3) can refer to physical illness, but its primary lexical meaning is “to be weary or fatigued from work or exertion”, as well as “to win by toil” and “to meet with disaster”!
Malakia, used only of disease, is seen only in Matthew 4:23, 9:35, and 10:1, each time in tandem with
nosos (12 occurrences), which is a broader term, including “sickness, disease, distress, anguish, disease of the mind” (L/S), and (Bauer) “vice or character defect”. These latter two words appear exclusively in the synoptics, except for a single case in Ac.19:12.

With this semantic background, we can see that James’ choice of vocabulary in 5:13-16 may be more significant than we commonly realize. Only once does he employ the most common (and most ambiguous) of the words, when he addresses asthenei tis “whoever is sick / needy / weak /unable to function properly”. This is about as broad a category as you can imagine. Such a person is encouraged to call upon the elders for prayer (#91) and anointing (#155) in the name (#24) of the Lord – as his representatives and on his behalf. The prayer of the faithful (#1) is represented as the agent of “saving / rescuing” (#5) the supplicant, who is described as kamnonta, for which “worn-out” or “exhausted” is at least as valid a rendition as “sick”, thus greatly expanding the “eligible clientele” for such merciful service. IF he has somehow brought it on himself (note, that is NOT assumed), by either deliberate or immature behavior (v.15), that condition will also be remedied. This is the context for James’ admonition to the mutual confession and prayer, whose goal is revealed to be perhaps beyond our idea of merely physical healing, by the use of iathete, rather than a form of therapeuo, which includes deliverance from all sorts of ills or suffering, as well as the cure of disease.
How beautifully are the Lord’s people utterly dependent upon one another!

Other than that one instance, we have no record of a pre-condition being imposed upon any person in need of healing. It is true that Jesus remarked upon the faithfulness of the friends who carried a paralytic to him for healing (Lk.5:20), rebuked the disciples who had been unable to heal a child (Lk.9:41), and challenged the child’s father to trust him (Mk.9:22-24), but he made no such demand upon any person in need! In at least one case (Jn.5:13), the person didn’t even know who had healed him!
I suspect there are very good reasons for which the specific illnesses or disabilities are usually not clearly identified. The preponderance of references are to “all manner of” or “divers diseases”, “infirmities”, or simply “all who had need of healing.”

It is also true that while amazing healings bore testimony to the power of Jesus in the New Testament church (Ac.3 and 4, 8:7, 9:17-18, 14:9, 19:11-12, 20:10, 28:8), there were also occasions when healing did not take place (Gal.4:13, I Tim.5:23, I Cor.2:3, Phil.2:26-27, II Tim.4:20). We still face similar dilemmas.

There is no prescribed formula offered to “guarantee” healing. Jesus often accomplished it with a touch, and at other times simply with a word. On occasion, the disciples were instructed to apply oil (Mk.6:13, Jas.5:13-16), but this was not “standard procedure”.
Someone once suggested that the plague of “denominations” began when three blind men whom Jesus had healed, met each other at a “healing meeting.” One boasted that all it had required was a single touch of the Master’s hand (Mt.20:30). Another argued that wasn’t sufficient (Mk.8:25), but that a second touch was necessary in order to see clearly. The third maintained adamantly that unless Jesus put mud on your eyes, you had not experienced “the real thing.” So instead of rejoicing together at the mercy they had been shown, each went off to start his own church, criticizing the others for “teaching false doctrine”!

We are also not provided with any easy explanation of why, although many of us today can also point to times when the Lord has graciously intervened with his gift of healing, we have to acknowledge that , as we saw in the New Testament accounts as well, this does not always happen. Blaming the victim, as we have seen above, is unwarranted – and also cruel.
Notice, also, that neither Jesus nor his disciples ever urged anyone to “claim” or “believe” a healing in the absence of any observable evidence.
When unsuccessful disciples asked Jesus why they had been unable to help a child (Mk.9:29), his reply was a need for prayer (some manuscripts add “fasting”). We all have a lot to learn about that! (See #91)
There may be another key, in I Cor.11:30, where Paul suggests that simply going through the motions of some ritual without “discerning the Lord’s Body” (#84) may account for the weakness, sickliness, or even death, of some members of the group. Healing is listed among the functions described in a healthy Body, in the following chapter (12).
Might we become a more successful demonstration of our Lord’s Kingdom, if we allowed ourselves to be built more completely into a united, interactive Body? (Please see chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom).
This concept needs a lot more attention than it receives.

In addition to “healing”, the Lord’s people are urged to “support the weak” (I Thes.5:14), to exercise patience with those whose conscience is weak (I Cor.8:7-10), and to recognize the value of members who “seem” to be more weak (“feeble”) (I Cor.12:22). Although a person “weak in faithfulness” (Rom.14:1,2, 21) is not to be included in discussions requiring mature discernment, the “strong” are admonished to “bear with” their weakness, for their benefit (Rom.15:1). These are all necessary functions of a Body, although they would be merely a nuisance to an institution, which simply eliminates those who are perceived not to “fit”. The Lord never told his people to form – or to become – an institution.

It is deliberate, that this study does not end with a summary, or a coherent conclusion.
I have none to offer.
I merely present these observations in the hope of their being augmented and corrected by yours.

May we help each other toward both faithfulness and wholeness.

I have been trying without success to track down the provenance of a relatively recent arrival among the “buzz-words” in some popular “Christian” literature and teaching: the characterization of the world, and the lives of both the committed and the uncommitted, as “broken”. I have found no such reference anywhere in the New Testament. Can you help me?

By a huge majority, the primary reference in the New Testament to anything being “broken” is (are you ready for this?) to BREAD! Either as Jesus broke bread to feed the crowds that were following him (Mt.14:19, 15:36; Mk.6:41, 8:6, 8:19; Lk.9:15, etc.), or the pieces that were gathered up afterwards (Mt.14:20, Mk.6:43, 8:9; Lk.9:17) “so that nothing be wasted” (Jn.6:12), or in descriptions of the last supper (Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.22:19), and later similar observances by gathered disciples (Lk.24:30, Ac.2:46, 20:7, 20:11, 27:35; I Cor.10:16, 11:24), it is bread that is “broken.”

There are a few other things that are described as “broken” – or not – a fishing net (Lk.5:6, Jn.21:11), improperly prepared wineskins (Mt.9:17), an alabaster container (Mk.14:3), the chains of a demon-possessed man (Mk.5:4), branches from an olive tree (Rom.11:17,19,20), a house invaded by thieves (Mt.24:43, Lk.12:39), and a bone of the Passover lamb (Jn.19:36.) The Law of Moses (Jn.7:23), the Sabbath (Jn.5:18), and the Scripture (Jn.10:35) use a different word, luo, which has many other uses, most frequently with the sense of being released, set free, or made of no effect. But the term “broken”, is never applied to “the world”, and very rarely to people. The only references involving people are Mt.21:44 and its parallel in Lk.20:18, warning of the results of an unfriendly encounter with “the stone the builders rejected”, and Jesus’ announcement (Lk.4:18) that “healing the broken-hearted” was integral to his mission. (Is it, to ours?)

This brief survey covers all five “word families” traditionally rendered “broken” – klao / klaomai / klasma; suntribo / suntribomai; sunthlaomai; diorusso; and schizo (for this last, please also see #127). Only klao appears more than twice with this translation. Suntribo is also rendered “bruised” in Mt.12:20 (Jesus won’t break a bruised reed); Lk.9:39 (the injury of a child by an evil spirit), and Rom.16:20 (the promise of Satan’s ultimate defeat!)
So the word “break/broken” does occur – but there is simply no New Testament reference to either a “broken world” or “broken lives.”

The fervor with which this subject is usually addressed, however, leads me to wonder whether it is not just the plain, old-fashioned Calvinist “original sin” story, re-cast in language deemed more acceptable to contemporary thought. That story is not derived from the New Testament, either, as we saw in word studies 3,5,7, 23, 27, 34, 88, 120, 121, 128, and 141. And may I remind you that even using the very latest of proposed estimates of the dating of New Testament manuscripts, our present New Testament pre-dates Mr. Calvin by more than a thousand years, and consequently is bound to be closer to the “real” story!

Just as surely as our Lord Jesus came to TAKE AWAY old-fashioned “sins” (#7), he certainly has also TAKEN AWAY whatever more euphemistic “brokenness” exists. To use the term “broken” without any regard for who “broke” what, constitutes avoidance (whether deliberate or not is not mine to say) of personal responsibility. The first three chapters of Romans make abundantly clear that the futility to which all creation – including people – is presently subject, is the result, NOT of some inherent, inborn defect, but of willful ignorance of the ways and intentions of the Creator.

We do not live in a world that has been “broken” by some invasive, external force, but in a world whose people have selfishly and deliberately chosen (Rom. 1,2,3) to flaunt the gracious plans of its Creator, and to submit rather to the power of darkness.
But this is the very power – the very futility – from which the Lord Jesus rescued us, when he installed us as citizens of his Kingdom! The glorious announcements are all cast in past tenses (Gal.1:4, Col.1:13, I Pet.1:18, and many others)! It is also this same rescue for which the rest of the creation waits with eager anticipation (Rom.8:20).

“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).

I refer you specifically to the conclusions proposed in #141, as relevant here as well. In order properly to function in the Kingdom, the Lord’s people must quit digging themselves into a hole, whether they call it “sinfulness” or “humility” or “brokenness”, and work at moving on toward maturity!

We must learn to distinguish between the errors of deliberate disobedience, the “former life” which was put to death and buried in our baptism (Rom.6:4), and errors of simple immaturity, which will be superseded as we learn to “walk in newness of life”.
Ironically, the folks who make the most noise about being “born again” seem blissfully unaware that new life – of whatever kind – is never “born” as a fully mature individual!
Admonitions to “grow up!” (I Pet.2:2, II Pet.3:18, Eph.4:15), and to “put off” old behavior and “put on” new (I Cor.13:11, 15:53; Gal.3:27, Eph.4:20-25, Col.3:8, 10-12; I Thes.5:8) abound throughout the New Testament text.

We have a choice, folks! We are not victims of a “broken” status quo.

Where will you expend your efforts?

Forget the lamentations over what is/was “broken”.

Let’s choose to “grow up” into life!

It has become common, in some circles, to enthuse effusively about an “anointed meeting”, “anointed” preaching or singing, or some other type of flamboyant performance. The speaker / writer is usually describing some sort of emotional high, the achievement of which is interpreted as being Spirit- induced, and therefore assumed to be desirable. Others credit (or blame) a “strong anointing” or “heavy anointing” for an irresistible impulse to speak or act in an unusual manner, implying that they are following the Lord’s direction. This is yet another popular concept that is completely absent from the New Testament text.
While it is true that there are occasions described in the Old Testament in which bizarre behavior is attributed to “the spirit of the Lord” (Jdg.14:6,19; 15:14; I Sam.10:10-11, 19:24), the term “anointing” is not used.

“Anointing” was used, under the old covenant, for the selection and coronation of kings, the dedication of artifacts (tabernacle, temple, or their furnishings), and the appointment of priests. Except for the few instances where it refers simply to personal hygiene (Ruth 3:3, Mic.6:15), it was the act of a prophet or other leader. Only rarely (Ps.45:7, Is.61:1) is God himself the actor.

There are no such incidents described in the New Testament at all. Bizarre or uncontrolled behavior is never attributed to the Holy Spirit. In fact, the only references to out-of-control behavior are recognized overtly as an attack by an evil spirit (Mt.17:14-18 and parallels; Mt.8:28-29 and parallels, Ac.19:13-16). In fact, Paul’s sensible instructions for public meetings include admonitions to the careful exercise of control (I Cor.14).
The word “anoint” does appear several times, however, so it behooves us to examine what is intended by its use. Please notice that the direct object of “anoint” is almost exclusively the Lord Jesus himself, unless he is the subject.

New Testament occurrences represent five different Greek verbs: aleipho, egchrio, epichrio, murizo, and chrio, and only one single noun, chrisma. (This is NOT the same word as charisma,with which some people confuse it.)

Historically, aleipho, the most commonly used of the words, was an athletics-derived practice: the rubbing of one’s body with oil in preparation for gymnastic training or competition. In New Testament usage, it referred to simple personal hygiene (Mt.6:17), to honoring a guest with extra attention after the normal courtesy of washing his feet (Lk.7:38,46; Jn.11:2, 12:3), or the preparation of a body for burial (Mk.16:1). Mark (14:8) also uses murizo in this latter sense – its only New Testament appearance.
Aleipho, egchrio, and epichrio all describe the therapeutic application of any substance in connection with physical healing, whether by disciples (Mk.6:13), or elders (Jas.5:14), or by Jesus himself (Jn.9:6,11), as well as in Jesus’ instructions to the (willfully) blind church of Laodicea (Rv.3:18).

Only the un-prefixed form of chrio is used in what might be called a “spiritual” sense. Lexically, this word was also used of the cosmetic and hygienic application of oil, but additionally includes the symbolic expression of “anointing in token of consecration.” I think it is significant that four of its five appearances refer overtly and specifically to Jesus having been “anointed” by God.

Jesus himself made that claim, in quoting Isaiah’s prophecy upon the inauguration of his ministry (Lk.4:18). The folks at the prayer meeting (Ac.4:27) when Peter was delivered from prison bore testimony to the same fact, as did Peter in his sermon at Cornelius’ home (Ac.10:38), and the writer to the Hebrews (1:9). Only Paul (II Cor.1:21 ) extends the term to “us” – the faithful – and it is clearly considered a part of our incorporation into the Body of Christ (perhaps the means of that incorporation). Read vv.20-22 as a unit. Notice that in no instance is either privilege or responsibility conferred upon any individual except Jesus!

The adjective, christos, universally rendered “Christ”, of course, is related etymologically, and is never used of anyone but the Lord Jesus, except in the occasional claim of an impostor (Mt.24:5 and parallels).

There remain for consideration only the three occurrences of the noun, chrisma – all of which occur in John’s first letter (I Jn.2:20, 27) – twice traditionally translated “anointing” and once “unction”. Yes, that is the ONLY New Testament use of the word.
From 2:18 through the end of the chapter, John is addressing the issue of deserters, deceivers, and deceptive teaching. He reminds his readers that they (together – it is plural!) are already equipped to sort out questions of faithfulness. He had quoted Jesus in his gospel account, explaining that the Holy Spirit / “Spirit of Truth” would be coming for the purpose of guiding his people (Jn.16:13) “IN (not “into”) all truthfulness.” Here is another of many places where prepositions matter! Faithful disciples do not need to be led INTO truth: that is the sphere they already inhabit, by virtue of their commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom. But they / we will always need to be led properly to function IN the truth, as different challenges / situations will require differing responses.

Enabling this discernment is a major function of the Holy Spirit, who, I believe, personifies the “anointing” to which John refers here. Notice how the “job description” in v.27 matches the Jn.16 passage.

Notice also the results of the anointing, when applied to the people of God: occasional physical healing (Jas.5), incorporation into the Body of Christ (II Cor.1), and the discernment necessary to function appropriately in that Body (I Jn.2).

As we have seen so frequently elsewhere, in every case, the mortal recipients of the “anointing” are addressed in the plural. It is neither a gold medal awarded, nor a position of power or status granted, to any individual, but rather the gracious enabling provided to the gathered citizens of the Kingdom, in their mutual quest for faithfulness to their anointed King!

Thanks be to God!

For far too long, these words, quoted by John as Jesus’ final statement from the cross, have been represented as if they were a pathetic whimper of abject submission to the unmitigated evil which sincere, but misguided, interpreters insist that God inflicted upon his Son in vicarious (one could just as well say “vicious”!) punishment for the offenses of mankind.
Woven skillfully into closely reasoned doctrinal positions, most of which bear no resemblance whatever to anything that Jesus himself said or taught, the resulting package has been accepted without question, despite its absurdly circular reasoning, as authoritative “proof” of those systems, and consequently has escaped serious examination.

The two words traditionally translated “finish”, teleioo and teleo – treated briefly in the studies on “perfection / maturity” (#13) and “fulfillment” (#108), both of which make more frequent use of pleroo – have a distinctly different flavor. Lexically, teleioo generally carries the freight of completion, (hence its frequent parallel with pleroo, referring to maturity and commonly translated “perfect”), while teleo leans more toward the idea of accomplishment, although the lines between those two are not easily defined.

Although he makes no reference to the spectacular splitting of the temple veil (#127 and Chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom) mentioned by all the synoptic writers, John nevertheless displays a unique understanding of what is “finished.” Not only is he the only writer to quote this statement from the cross, but earlier, he had also noted Jesus’ telling the disciples (4:34), “My food is that I may do the will of the one that sent me, and that I may finish / complete his work!”, and replying to the Pharisees’ challenge (5:36) “The work that the Father gave me to finish: these deeds testify about me, that the Father has sent me.” Both of these are purpose clauses, employing aorist subjunctive forms.
As Jesus prayed (17:4), “I glorified you on earth (by) finishing the work that you gave me to do,” the verb is aorist indicative, indicating past, completed action.
But notice that at the time of that statement, Jesus had not yet died or arisen! What, then, was “finished”? (Jn.19:28-30)

For a partial answer, please refer back to #23, where we explored Jesus own version of his purpose, which is quite different from the condensed and distorted version usually promulgated. Additional light can be gleaned from Luke’s use of teleo, where it was traditionally translated “accomplished” (12:50, 18:31, 22:37), describing respectively an unexplained reference to an impending “baptism” (usually assumed to involve his suffering), to the fulfillment of prophecy “about the Son of Man”, and to “all that has been written about me”. Each of these is related in some way to a prophetic message: however, the second, with its parallels in Mt.20:17-19 and Mk.10:32-34, requires particular attention.
While the Matthew and Mark accounts specifically refer to Jesus’ betrayal and execution, Luke’s account does not. Instead, he records Jesus’ forecast that when they get to Jerusalem, “everything that has been written about me will be completed / fulfilled / finished”! If Jesus is correct – and I believe he always is – then there remains no “unfulfilled prophecy” from the ancient writings! And the folks who confidently construct future scenarios out of Old Testament prophecies, are seriously out-of-line.

This observation is corroborated by Jesus’ own words mentioned above in John’s gospel, as well as by his earlier statements (Mt.11:13, Lk.16:16) that “the law and the prophets were (in effect) until John” (the Baptist).

Please note this in no way discredits genuine New Testament prophecy, whether articulated by Jesus himself (Mt.24, 25; Mk.13, Lk.21, and elsewhere), or by various ones of his followers (parts of the Revelation and epistles) – although as Brother Paul reminds us (I Cor.14), we do need to be careful to evaluate what is represented to be prophetic. (See #45). And it does raise questions about folks who, ignorant of history, label many of the earlier writings as “yet to be fulfilled”. I venture to contend that the Lord Jesus represents authority and understanding far greater than theirs!

So – what was “finished”, when he proclaimed it so, and deliberately dismissed his “spirit / breath” (pneuma) (Jn.19:30)?
Exactly what he had declared in his prayer the previous evening: “I finished the work you gave me to do!” He had introduced the Kingdom designed by his Father to “the people you gave me out of the world” (Jn.17:6), and equipped them to carry on that Kingdom’s work. He had inaugurated a “demonstration project” to make his Kingdom accessible to the world. He had thereby finished / fulfilled the purpose of his Incarnation, and set the stage for its next installment (#150).
He had set the ultimate example of selfless obedience (Phil.2:6-8), so that the only “unfinished” thing remaining was (Phil.2:9-11) in the hands of the Father, who would shortly validate the whole affair by effecting his Son’s triumphant resurrection, and with it the definitive defeat of death and despair.

It is for this reason that I urge you to take another look at this “last word”, and at least entertain the possibility that, far from a “last gasp” of surrender or defeat, it is rather a shout of triumph!
The synoptics are unanimous in characterizing the departure of Jesus’ spirit as energetic, and not as a feeble expiration due to his terrible suffering. Mt.27:50 records “shouting with a loud voice”. Mk.15:37, “letting out a great shout”, and Lk.23:46, “shouting in a loud voice”, even though only John recorded the actual words of that climactic shout.
Jn.19:28 : “Jesus knew that everything had already been completed, in order for the Scripture to be fulfilled …” and announced in glorious victory, “It is finished!” (19:30) Having successfully crossed that “finish line”, he sat down at the right hand of God, (Heb.10:13) – you sit down when the work is all done! – , where “all he has to do now is wait until his enemies are placed as a stool for his feet!”

“It is finished!”

Praise the Lord!

One of the least substantiated statements of modern “teaching” or “preaching”, whether the perpetrators represent themselves as “evangelical”/ “fundamental”/ “conservative”, or as “welcoming”/ “accepting”/ “liberal”, is their frequent reference to God’s “unconditional love” or “unconditional grace”.  Neither of these phrases, nor the word “unconditional” itself, appears anywhere in the New Testament text.  A careful search of Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, for even just the genesis of the idea, reveals that there is no such thing.

Now, it is certainly true that nowhere are we told that it is necessary for a person to attain some exalted level of ‘holiness”, moral or ethical perfection, or anything else, in order to be eligible to answer Jesus’ call.  But that realization must never obscure the condition that the call must be answered – the invitation “Follow me” does come with  required “RSVP” attached – in order for that gracious offer to take effect!  And this has always been the case.

The idea of “conditional statements” is not theological nor philosophical.  A conditional statement is neither more nor less than a grammatical construction, most easily recognized as two clauses, one of which is introduced by “if” (ei, ean), and the other – at least implicitly: it is sometimes omitted in English translations – by “then” (an).  The mood and tense of the verbs in the statements give an indication of the expected likelihood (or not) of the “condition” being fulfilled. (For a more complete discussion, please see a Greek grammar. Robertson and Marshall are both good.)

For example, contrast Jesus’ two statements in John 8.  To the Pharisees (Jn.8:42), he retorts, “IF God were your father, (then) you would love me”.  Both clauses are in the imperfect tense, implying that neither is the case.  To his followers (Jn.8:31), he asserts, “IF you continue (present tense) in my word, (then) you will be (future) my disciples.”  Here, both are considered plausible.
If the consequence is negative, the particle me is used rather than the more common ou, in which case, in translation, the conditional clause would be introduced by “unless” (Mt.13:20) “Unless the Lord had shortened the time ….”

The principle that must be understood is that a conditional statement has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of the individual making it, or with arbitrary orders issued to underlings (“Shape up or else!”).  A conditional sentence or clause is neither an immutable promise nor a dire threat.  It is simply a statement of the way things are: cause and effect, evidence or action and results.  It described the circumstances under which something will be true, or realized.

As noted before, I cannot speak to Hebrew grammar, but the idea seems similar under the old covenant as well.  Deuteronomy 29 and 30, along with many other pentateuch passages, outline very carefully that a choice must be made.  See especially Dt.30:15-20.  The frequently repeated admonition to “choose life!” is strong evidence that choices have consequences, for good or ill.

Jesus also required a choice – a choice evidenced by both attitude and behavior.  Although this idea is present in the synoptics, it is most vividly evident in the gospel of John.  A few examples follow:
Mt.6:14,15 – “IF you take away [forgive] their transgressions for people, your heavenly father will also take them away from you all.” (followed by, IF you don’t, he won’t.)
Jn.7:17 – “IF anyone wants to do his will, he will know —”
Jn.8:51 – “IF anyone keeps my word, he will not see death forever.”
Jn.11:40 – “IF you are faithful, you will see the glory of God.”
Jn.14:23 – “IF anyone loves me, he will keep my word.”
Jn.15:14 – “You are my friends IF you continue doing as I am instructing you.”
Please note that although all these statements are conditional in form and intent, there is no hint of compulsion!  The tone is, “IF this is what you want, here is the way to realize it.”

Stephen’s sermon in Ac.7 delineated the history of people’s refusal to observe the condition that obedience was an integral and necessary element of their being “chosen”.
Later, a false condition was imposed by the group who were insisting upon a prior conversion to Judaism (Ac.15:1), which condition was promptly repudiated by the Jerusalem Council in their letter (v.29), “IF you keep yourselves from these things (the accouterments of idolatry), you will do well.”
That this sort of statement is not  confined to “religious”  settings is evident in the words of the town clerk to the mob in Ephesus, (Ac.19:39), “IF you all have some other dispute, let it be settled in a legal assembly!”

The epistles are also peppered with conditional statements:
Rom.6:8 – “IF then we died with Christ, we are trusting that we will also live together with him.”
Rom.6:16 – “IF you present yourselves to someone as slaves, for obedience, you are slaves to whomever you obey!”
I Cor.15: 12-19 – the whole paragraph about the resurrection.
Gal.5:18 – “IF you are being led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
Col.3:1 – “IF you all were resurrected with Christ, keep seeking what is above …”

All of the messages to the churches quoted in  Rv. 2 and 3, likewise, make use of “unless”, or something similar, indicating the conditional nature of the admonitions, the observance of which will definitely influence the outcome of each situation.

There are also many clauses introduced by “so that”, “in order that”, “because”, and other particles that imply purpose.  Purpose is completely different from a conditional situation.  Purpose indicates God’s (or anyone else’s) intention, while a conditional statement asserts that if the condition is not met, the main premise will not take effect.

As I have consistently done elsewhere in these studies, I seriously invite any of you to correct any errors here.  But please remember to do so by referencing specific, coherent New Testament passages, and not by simply waving “doctrinal” flags.

May we all exert our efforts, accurately to represent the gracious welcome offered by the Lord Jesus, to all who choose to respond in faithfulness!

May we, in the process, avoid cheapening his offer by pretending that there are no conditions involved.

Let us rather acknowledge and observe his conditions, gratefully and faithfully loving, serving, and following his instructions!

This study arose when someone posed a question regarding the lexical inclusion of the idea of “dance” in the words translated “rejoice” (#93). I am not a student of Hebrew, so I will not presume to comment on that language. However, I was able to find no such reference in any of the Greek lexicons, so I can say with confidence that it is not the case in any of the New Testament writings.

In fact, orcheomai, “to dance” , appears only four times in the entirety of the New Testament text: two of which describe Salome’s (probably lewd) performance before Herod (Mt.14:6, Mk.6:22), and the other two in the complaint of the children playing in the marketplace (Mt.11:7 and Lk.7:22).

Choros, (English cognate, “chorus”), a noun referring to either a company of singers and dancers, or to the dance itself, occurs only once (Lk.15:25), at the party celebrating the return of the prodigal son.

Both words are more common in the LXX, used multiple times in the celebrations at the return of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, the worship of foreign gods (including the golden calf), or celebrating the destruction of the Pharaoh’s army, among others. Clearly a cultural expression, it is not clear whether dancing was indigenous to the Hebrew people, or adopted from neighbors. Historians represent it as an integral part of pagan religious rites, especially fertility rituals. There is nothing inherently “wrong” in the use of cultural expressions in worship, as long as they follow the Acts 15 injunction to avoid anything connected with idolatry. Dancing, per se, is neither advocated nor forbidden in the Biblical text, and probably must be evaluated in context.

Singing, on the other hand, is advocated in both the LXX and New Testament texts, represented by four different words, which are not always easily distinguishable.

Ado, the most “generic”, applies to all vocal sounds, whether human, animal, or avian, or even the sound of the wind. It may refer to a song or chant, usually in praise or celebration of either a deity or a person. In the LXX, especially in Ezra and Nehemiah, it seems to have denoted a class or order of functionaries in the tabernacle/temple, along with priests and Levites, which included both men and women who were assigned to the duty of singing praises to God. Ado was also used of songs or chants designed to celebrate or to teach about historic events.

Frequently used in combination with ado was psallo, which usually referred to instrumental music, either alone or as an accompaniment to a song of praise or history.

Humneo / humnos, classically, would have described epic recitations, repeated through many generations, honoring a specific hero, deity, or historic occasion. It is also used as a title for many of the psalms that have a historical theme.

All of these words carry over into the New Testament, although their use is not frequent. Jesus and his disciples “sang a hymn” at the conclusion of their Passover supper together (Mt.26:30, Mk,14:26), as did Paul and Silas (Ac.16:25) in the prison at Philippi. These, and the Old Testament quote from Ps.22:22 in Heb.2:12, use humneo.

The singing of “new songs” around the throne in Rv.5:19, 14:3, 15:3, uses ado, as huge crowds proclaim the praises of the Lamb, whereas psallo describes praises to God in Rom.15:9 (quoted from II Sam.22:50). Paul speaks of singing both “with the spirit”(probably a reference to the use of unlearned tongues) and “with the understanding” in the company of the Christian brotherhood (I Cor.14:15), and James (5:13) considers this an appropriate expression of joyfulness.

Most instructive of all, however, is Paul’s advice in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16, where all three terms are used together, as he urges the brethren to “talk to each other in psalmois (psalms) and humnois (hymns) and odais pneumatikais (spiritual songs), adontes and psallontes (singing with and without instrumental accompaniment), TO THE LORD” (Eph.5) and in Colossians, of teaching and admonishing each other with the same categories of musical expression.

Both of these instructions are significant, and should have a much greater effect than is common, upon the music used in a gathering of the Lord’s people. Remember that the vocabulary comes out of a context of songs of praise honoring either human heroes or pagan gods. Both the Ephesian and Colossian churches were of Gentile background. Consequently, the admonition that singing be directed to the Lord is crucial. All honor and praise belongs to him!

Note also that there is no mention of anything like the self-centered “I, me, my” or one’s personal ecstasy or despair, that has come to dominate so much of so-called “Christian” or “gospel” music. Sometimes this is cast as a groveling “confession”, and others as triumphant boasting. And if you can’t discern whether the singer is focused on the Lord or on his/her girl/boyfriend, there is a serious problem. Look again at the songs of praise around the throne! They are totally occupied with the glory of the King!

Secondly, music in the brotherhood (Col.3:16) is for the purpose of teaching (#47) and admonishing (#116) each other, and as such needs to be carefully vetted for compatibility with what Jesus actually said, advocated, and taught! There is an incredible collection of both new and old “hymns” and “praise songs” that promote “teaching” that is lamentably foreign to the true gospel (#67) message. It is not at all rare that I find it necessary to refrain from singing all or part of a “hymn” for that reason.

It is the “word / message of Christ” (#66) that must be the absolute standard for our musical choices!

Brother Paul’s conclusion (Col.3:17) is probably the safest guide, whether for “song and dance” or for all of life:

“And everything – whatever you do – in word or deed, (do) everything in the name (#24) of the Lord Jesus, (continually) giving thanks to God the Father through him!”

Evaluate every activity by this yardstick, and we won’t go far wrong.

As noted previously, I make an earnest effort to respond to requests for word studies. This becomes difficult, however, when the suggested words occur seldom, or not at all, in the New Testament text. And, hard as it may be for those who promote “doctrines” to believe, this is the case with one of their favorite “passwords”, “atonement.”
Even in their traditionally beloved KJV, the term “atonement” appears only one single time – Rom.5:11 – where it represents katallage, which is more commonly rendered “reconciliation” (#69). Katallage also appears only once in the LXX – Is.9:5 – where it speaks of restitution for “things acquired by deceit”.

Another word family, hilaskomai (v.), hilasmos (n.), and hilasterion (combined with “place”), appearing in the New Testament only twice in each form, was used frequently in pagan writings of attempts to appease offended deities, but was never used by Jesus, or by any of the gospel writers, except as the verb appears in the publican’s plea for mercy (Lk.18:13), and the Heb.2:17 description of the duty of the high priest under the old (failed) system. The noun is seen only in I Jn.2:2 and 4:10, where it is traditionally translated “propitiation,” and the compound form in Rom.3:25 and Heb.9:5, referring to the “place of mercy” described among the tabernacle/temple furnishings in the LXX (Ex.25:16-21, 31;17, 35:11, 38:5-8) and the institution – and subsequent re-institution – of the ceremonial Day of Atonement (Lv.16:2-15, Ezek.43:14-20). The LXX uses the noun (7x) and verb (10x) forms primarily in reference to mercy or forgiveness begged of God – more in line with the pagan usage. Even so, only twice (Num.5:8 and Ezk.44:27) is there an accompanying reference to the killing of an animal sacrifice – once a ram, and once a goat.

So how did this come to be such a central theme in what passes for “Christian teaching”, when Jesus never made any reference to it?
How did it become identified with Jesus’ death, when that took place at the time of Passover – a festival of freedom and deliverance from bondage – and NOT on the Day of Atonement, with its focus on the problem of “sins”?
How can “theologians” cherry-pick a few “verses” from Hebrews describing the old ways, with which to embroider their theories, and ignore the over-arching message of that entire epistle, that the old system was a complete failure?

The Day of Atonement does appear once (Lv.25:9) prescribed as the introduction to the Year of Jubilee, which Jesus announced as the permanent condition in his Kingdom (Lk.4:18-19). Notice that this announcement was at the beginning, not the end, of his ministry.
I have never heard that connection addressed. I wonder if perhaps that “introduction to the Jubilee” idea was behind the content of the “repentance” (#6) message of John the Baptist, as Jesus’ fore-runner? It would fit his messages better than those of Jesus, and would blend well with Jesus’ statement (Lk.16:16) that “the law and the prophets (were in effect) until John. Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!”

In the absence of any evidence that Jesus himself ever viewed his purpose (#23) or activity as being connected with “atonement” – whether the pagan concept of appeasement of an angry deity, attempted restitution for offenses, or punishment for unnamed “sins” – I can only conclude that this is another case where “doctrines” were invented – and their acceptance mandated – to enhance the power of an emerging hierarchy over unwitting subordinates.

I prefer to follow King Jesus into the Kingdom he has prepared for all of us who answer his call!

Quotations gleaned from an exhibit of historical documents visited with Dan in Atlanta, 2012
“It’s only a press – but a press from which will flow a constant stream.
Through it, God will spread his word.
A spring of truth will flow from it.
Like a new star, it will scatter the darkness of ignorance
and cause an unknown light to shine for all.”

J. Gutenberg

“Right well he perceived and considered this only or most chiefly to be the cause of all mischief in the church, that the scriptures of God were hidden from the peoples eyes: for so long the abominable doings and idolatries maintained by the Pharasaical Clergy could not be espied, and therefore all their labor was with might and main to keep it down, so that either it should not be read at all, or if it were, they would darken the right sense with the mist of their sophistry, and so entangle them which rebuked or despised their abominations, with arguments of philosophy and with worldly similitudes and apparent reasons of natural wisdom: and with wresting the scripture unto their own purpose, contrary to the process, order, and meaning of the text, would so delude them in descanting upon it with allegories, and amaze them, expounding it in many senses laid before unlearned lay people, that though thou felt in thy heart, and were sure that all were false that they said, yet couldest thou not solve their subtle riddles.”

Description of William Tyndale’s work (1550) , in Foxe’s Book of Martyrs

“Because the bible is the light to our path,
the key to the kingdom of heaven,
our comfort in affliction,
the source of all wisdom,
the mirror where we see God’s face,
the record of his favor,
and the only food and nourishment for our souls,
we thought we should dedicate our efforts and study
to nothing that could be more acceptable to God and beneficial to his church
than translating of the Bible into English. “

Geneva Bible Preface, 1560

Those of us who are still working at the task are in good company!
Substitute “the internet” for “a press” in Gutenberg’s statement, and it still applies! So does much of the rest!
May we all labor faithfully, to the same end!

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, graphe, 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 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”!   This is the only use of the word theopneustos in the entire text of the New Testament. 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!

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, “country”14x, “field”2x, “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, “land”4x, “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 used 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. 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!!!!