The Pioneers’ New Testament

Lest I leave you with the impression that the previous study intends a dismissal of the significance of John the Baptist’s contribution to the Kingdom, let me hasten to append to that essay a quick survey of Jesus’ own evaluation of his cousin’s ministry. Please refer to the treatment of their relationship in #171 as well as #174, as supplements to the present document.
It may well be that, rather than diminishing his contribution, Jesus has suggested that John actually occupies a (if not “the”) significant turning-point of history!

Consider, for example, Jesus’ statement, recorded in both Matt.11:12-13 and Lk.16:6, that the Law and the Prophets were (in effect) “until John”, to which Luke added the contrasting “since then, the Kingdom of God is (present tense) being proclaimed!”
This meshes seamlessly with Mark’s statement (1:14) that after John’s arrest, Jesus appeared publicly announcing, “The time has been fulfilled : the Kingdom of God has arrived!” (both perfect tenses.)

If that time-line causes a problem for “flat-book” advocates who tirelessly trumpet only the first part of Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:17-18 that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, and that no part of either would “pass away”, please remind them not to forget his last phrase: “until it all happens [is fulfilled]! (See Mk.1:14 above.)
In his inaugural address (Lk.4:21), Jesus used the same theme: “Today the scripture has been fulfilled”, and as he headed for Jerusalem for the final time with his disciple group, it was with the blunt statement (Lk.18:31), “Look: we are going up into Jerusalem, and everything that has been written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be completed [fulfilled]!”

While it is certainly true that Jesus himself spoke of events that have yet to occur, he could not have been clearer in his declaration that he had personally fulfilled all that had been written before, and so long and so eagerly anticipated! The failure of those to whom he had been promised to welcome him as that fulfillment cannot negate its reality. And it was to those who did welcome him (Jn.1:12) that he gave the right “to become the children of God”. Notice, please, that Jesus did NOT apply that designation to “all people”, as is common in some modern circles.

John records several other discussions where Jesus used similar themes:
Jn.5:46-47: the matter-of-fact statement, “IF you were faithful to Moses, you would be faithful to me.”
Jn.6:30-35: making both a parallel and a distinction between the provision of manna in the desert and himself as the Bread of Life
Jn.7:19-24: critiquing advocates of the law who refuse to observe or obey it
Jn.8:37-45: emphasizing that behavior trumps pedigree in establishing one’s status before God.

A fuller examination of Matthew 11 yields interesting insight regarding Jesus and John. We are not told by any of the gospel writers how long John’s ministry had lasted before his “speaking truth to power” landed him in Herod’s dungeon. However, we can hardly blame him for his questions: that was rather shabby treatment for the “herald” of the long-awaited Messiah, and most likely NOT what John had expected as a result of his faithfulness! So he sent messengers to Jesus: “Is this for real? Or have I missed something?” A perfectly normal question.
Jesus’ answer is a catalog of evidence, which was apparently convincing to the messengers.

And then Jesus addressed the crowd about John’s work. No, this was not just a weirdo staging a demonstration in the desert. He was “more than a prophet” – he was indeed the promised “preparer of the road”. In fact, there was never anyone greater “born of women”! (v.11). The rest of that statement is puzzling, though. Despite his faithfulness, does John’s questioning under duress disqualify him from the Kingdom? I think, rather, that Jesus is again emphasizing the transition to whole new reality – a new creation!
Notice that John himself is not criticized: his fickle audiences are (v.12).
Violent people are assailing the Kingdom – perhaps trying to tailor it to their own expectations? – ever “since John.”
This is the context of the aforementioned statement (v.13) that “the law and prophets were until John.
Those who should know better are acting like squabbling children (16-18).
Cities who should have welcomed their King are compared unfavorably with ancient bastions of debauchery (20-24).

The latter part of the chapter (25-30), although it seems at first glance to be disconnected, actually provides a succinct summary of the new reality: there has been a massive paradigm shift!
“The wise and clever” (25) , although they have spent generations studying the old ways, simply have it all wrong.
In establishing his promised Kingdom, Jesus has done a new thing! This “new thing” is only accessible by revelation (25-27), and by careful training (29) in the yoke with the only One who knows the Father, understands the situation, and knows how it is supposed to operate! (Please see #77)

Our brother Jim suggested the perfect illustration, in a recent message, pointing out the significance of the sequence of events on the Mount of Transfiguration. The awe-struck disciples listen in on the conversation as Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) discuss with Jesus his coming departure, which he was about to “accomplish” (Lk.9:31) in Jerusalem. (see #191). Peter’s suggestion would have had plenty of precedent under the old system: the Old Testament is replete with examples of memorials being built in response to divine encounters. But after the voice of God out of the cloud identifies his Son, and instructs the frightened disciples to “Listen to him!”, they can see no one but Jesus! Having served their former purpose, the former spokesmen are gone!

“The Law and the prophets were (in effect) until John.
Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!”
In the presence of the Son of God, the only appropriate response is to listen / obey.

This is an outgrowth of the discovery, while working on the Epiphany study (#171), that the marked difference between the baptism preached and administered by John “the Baptist”, and the later practice of baptism as a symbol of commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom, has seldom been addressed. It is this latter category on which the study in chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom is focused (to which you may wish to refer). Here, we will attempt to explore the contrast between the two approaches.
John himself took great care to point out the difference: all four gospels (Mt.3:11-16, Mk.1:4-9, Lk.3:7-21, Jn.1:25-33) record his identification of his own role as “preparing the way”, in conformity with Isaiah’s prophecy, for the coming of the Lord. His messages did contain elements that were later incorporated in Kingdom teaching: the choosing of a completely re-directed life (see “repent” #6) which has clearly observable results (Lk.3:10-14); the announcement of the arrival of the Kingdom (note the perfect tense of eggiken – #164 – it is NOT future!); the irrelevance of the prevailing hierarchy (Mt.3:7-10 and Lk.7:29); and the absolute superiority of both Jesus and the Spirit-baptism that he would administer (Mt.3:11, Mk.1:8, Lk.3:16, Jn.1:26 – footnote).

John correctly described his function as a fore-runner (Jn.3:28), accepting the assignment announced to his father before his birth (Lk.1:17) “to get a prepared people ready for the Lord!” This is a concept that has been obscured much too frequently by the serious misunderstanding of “repentance” (#6) and “forgiveness” (#7), which too commonly are cast (incorrectly) in the guise of a legal “pardon” issued in spite of guilt, instead of the more linguistically correct message of “the taking away [removal] of shortcomings, failures, and transgressions.”

(Are you aware that even in the traditional KJV, the word “pardon” does not exist anywhere in the New Testament? It is included in neither John’s nor Jesus’ messages, baptisms, nor anywhere else!)

The intent of John’s baptism is further attested by the use of the preposition eis in a purpose construction – eis metanoian – “into [for the purpose of] a changed life [repentance]” (Mt.3:11), and Luke’s record of his response to those who asked what shall we DO?” (Lk.3:10-14).
John also bore testimony to his own purpose being “that he (Jesus) be revealed to Israel” (Jn.1:31) as the Son of God.

There appears to have been a brief period during which both men were “baptizing disciples” (Jn.3:22-4:2), during which John quickly disabused his followers of the notion that they were competing (3:26-28). It seems that the practice of baptism implied identification with one’s teacher, an idea also referenced by Paul in I Cor.1. But John (whether the preacher or the author is not clear) also associated it with a more far-reaching acceptance of Jesus’ sovereignty (3:31-36). This may be the first New Testament evidence of the concept of a personal commitment. He also notes that Jesus himself was not the one doing the baptizing (4:1-2) at that time.
Luke notes (7:29) that Jesus overtly connected people’s attitudes toward John’s baptism to their perception and acceptance of God’s purposes, so it should certainly never be disparaged.

Jesus himself actually said very little about baptism. He made reference to “the baptism of John” (Mt.21:25, Mk.11:30, Lk.20:4) when he put the Pharisees on the defensive after they questioned his own authority.
He used the term in reference to his own approaching suffering and death (Mt.20:22,23; Mk.10:38-39) when responding to James and John’s attempted “status-grab” as well as simply describing his own prospective demise (Lk.12:50). It is not clear whether or not this is the same incident.
The only other mention of baptism by Jesus is in his final instructions to the disciples after his resurrection (Mt.28:19, Mk.16:16, Ac.1:5). Here, it is associated with (1) making disciples, (2) teaching new recruits the principles of Kingdom living, and (3) the results of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which John had predicted at the beginning.

After Pentecost, there is a marked shift in the accounts of baptism. They vary in the order ascribed to the various elements. Although Peter’s first sermon (Ac.2:38-41) still connects it with “repentance” and “the taking away of shortcomings” (in this case, their ignorance of who Jesus really was/is), he immediately included the gift of the Holy Spirit. Even more significantly, the following account (Ac.2:42-47) describes the vibrant community thereby created – the first such description – clearly a part of the “new creation” now in process.
Philip’s sojourn in Samaria included the baptism of those who chose to identify with his “preaching the Kingdom of God (Ac.8:12) and the name of Jesus”. Nothing is said about “repentance” there, and the gift of the Holy Spirit came later, mediated by other apostles.
In Philip’s subsequent encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (vv.26-40), that brother was baptized at his own request, upon learning of Jesus, with again, no mention of repentance. Some manuscripts include a note that “the Holy Spirit fell upon him” and others omit that phrase.
The two events are overtly connected in the account of Ananias and Saul (Ac.9:17-18) and also Peter and Cornelius (Ac.10:44-47), although the order is reversed in the latter case, since it took the intervention of the Holy Spirit to convince Peter that it was even OK to offer baptism to believing Gentiles (11:16).
In Philippi, neither the account of Lydia’s family (16:15) nor of the jailer’s household (16:33) mentions either “repentance” or “the Holy Spirit”, nor does that of Crispus’ household in Corinth (18:8).
However, the saga of Apollos (Ac.18:24-19:7) and the folks at Ephesus whom he had recruited while “knowing only the baptism of John” makes it clear that both Priscilla and Aquila and later Paul, recognized that John’s “baptism of repentance” was insufficient alone. Far too many people and groups even today are “parked” with those partially-taught folks in Ephesus! Remedying that lack, their identification with Jesus, and baptism “into (eis) the name [identity: see #24] of Jesus” were followed (v.5-6) by the manifestations of the Holy Spirit so necessary to the propagation of his Kingdom.

Clearly, as the message spread and the Kingdom continued to grow, people’s understanding of the implications of baptism also matured.
Twice (Rom.6:3-11 and Col.2:12) Paul represents it as symbolic of sharing in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, emphasizing a total break from one’s prior existence and a complete transformation of life.
To the Galatians, he spoke of being “clothed with Christ.” (Gal.3:27)
In I Cor.12 and Eph.4:5, he relates it to being joined with other disciples by baptism into the mutuality of one Body.
The theme of loyalty and identification also appears in Paul’s protest against factionalism (I Cor.1), even to the point of thankfulness that he did little baptizing among them, lest their loyalty be to him rather than to Jesus.
The identification of ancient Israel with Moses (I Cor.10:2) and Peter’s parallel with the folks rescued on Noah’s ark (I Pet.3:21) are clarified by Peter’s assertion that the act of baptism itself conveys no particular power, but simply expresses one’s chosen adherence to God.

Perhaps the most useful summary is facilitated by observing the objects of that little (but powerful) preposition “eis”. John preached a baptism eis metanoian – “into a changed life [repentance]” and eis ton erchomenon pisteuosin – “toward becoming faithful to the coming one.”

Baptism eis to onoma iesou – “into the name [identity] of Jesus,” eis ton thanaton – “into his death (and resurrection!), and eis hen soma – “into one Body”, on the other hand, provides the entrance into the very life of Jesus, of which the Spirit (#52 and 53) is the essential breath.

There IS a difference!

Here is another word that is frequently used in contemporary Christian circles in ways that bear no resemblance whatever to its New Testament antecedents. This study should be undertaken in tandem with a review of #32, “Holy”, because the Greek word for which “sanctuary” is the traditional translation, is simply the neuter form, hagion, of the adjective hagios, upon which that essay was based. The masculine and feminine forms refer to people, and the neuter to places or things. However, hagion is never used of the gathering place of the faithful – or of anyone else. That designation belongs to the word “synagogue”.

Hagion, translated four times as “sanctuary” and three times as “holy place”, appears only in the letter to the Hebrews (8:2, 9:1, 9:2, 9:12, 9:24, 9:25, 13:11), and refers exclusively to that portion of the Old Covenant’s tabernacle or temple area which could only be entered once a year, and then only by the high priest! There is absolutely no precedent for applying such a “reverential” designation to the principal assembly room of any “house of worship.”

Neither is there any New Testament application of the word to any person or group, regardless of its appearance in a number of saccharine choruses commonly designated “praise songs”. I am sure the folks who created them, and who repeat them interminably, all mean well – but they simply have never put forth the effort to understand what they are saying! Waxing sentimental about a few statements of God’s promises to “dwell” in / with / among his people (Rom.8:11, II Cor.6:16, II Tim.1:14) – an entirely different word and concept (See #82) – they substitute the idea of a place where only a high priest was allowed to go??? Come on, folks! That just doesn’t fit!!!

More commendable, but still linguistically in error, is the occasionally popular idea of a place of worship as a “sanctuary” or a location of safety and refuge for society’s “victims du jour” – whether the conscientious objector of the Vietnam era or the undocumented immigrant of the early 21^st century . Patterned, I suppose, after the “cities of refuge” provided by the Old Testament law (Num.35), the concept is an excellent one, and fully in harmony with New Testament principles of providing shelter for those in need. In fact, I suspect that the primary reason for the absence of such instructions in the New Testament was that the faithful were more likely to need that sort of protection than to be in a position to offer it, (“Refuge” is nowhere to be found in the New Testament text). The idea is good – but “sanctuary” it is not.

By all means, celebrate the living presence of the Lord in and among his people!
Share that celebration with any who need a place of protection, shelter, or care!
But do so with the joyful realization that the idea of a secluded, walled-off “sanctuary” is a relic of the past!
No longer is access restricted to the upper echelons of hierarchy, or the lonely, introspective, self-centered contemplation of mystics.
In Jesus, “the veil is taken away!” – torn to shreds! – in the glory of his triumph!
ALL of his people are not only eligible but welcomed into the courts of our King!

Thanks be to God!

It seems as though every announcement of yet another “world crisis” – of which there has never been a scarcity – invariably gives birth, among the very vocal advocates of a particularly aggressive “evangelical” orientation, to an increasingly urgent campaign which represents “accepting Christ” – which is NOT a New Testament concept – see #133 – as the exclusive route of “escape”, not only from the immediately perceived threat, but from some “eternal” manifestation thereof.

Never having noticed such a theme in the New Testament, I decided to undertake a deliberate search, only part of which could involve actual “word study” (the word “escape” does appear, but in very different contexts), and the rest requiring a careful perusal of the Gospels to discover Jesus’ own methods of “recruiting” or enlisting followers.

“Escape” was traditionally used to translate seven different Greek words, but was used only twice by Jesus himself. Once, Lk.21:36, using ekpheugo, he is encouraging single-minded faithfulness on the part of his disciples, in order to “stand before the Son of Man” after either the destruction of Jerusalem or perhaps his final coming. The distinctions between those events are clear only to people who are trying to “prove” their own pet theories. The other, using pheugo, without prefix, which is Jesus’ only recorded threat of “the judgment of hell”, occurs in his stern critique of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who were actively opposing his ministry (Mt.23:33). It is never used of the ignorant.

It is quite enlightening, however, to examine the other uses of the various words.
By far the majority are related to the common word, pheugo, and its prefixed variants. According to L/S, the primary use of pheugo is “to flee or take flight, to take refuge, to purpose or endeavor to get away”. In fact, 26 of its 29 occurrences are traditionally translated “flee”. Of these, 18 (Mt.2:13, 8:33, 10:23, 24:16, 26:56; Mk.5:14, 13:14, 14:50, 14:52, 16:8; Lk.8:34, 21:21; Jn.10:5,12,13; Ac.7:29, 27:30; Rv.12:6) refer simply to running away for one’s own physical safety, as does one of the “escape” translations (Heb.11:34).
John the Baptist spoke of “fleeing from the coming wrath” (Mt.3:7, Lk.3:7), but Jesus did not!
Of greater significance are Paul’s admonitions regarding what his readers should “flee from”: I Cor.6:18 – perversions, I Cor.10:14 – idolatry, I Tim.6:11 – “these things” (he has been talking about the pursuit of wealth), and II Tim.2:22 – “youthful passions”.
James (4:7) assures us that even the devil will “flee” from those who resist him.
Peter, in his second letter, uses the prefixed form, apopheugo, (L/S – “to avoid, flee from, escape) in similar advice regarding “the corrupt passions of the world” (1:4), “depraved human passions (2:18), and “the world’s contamination” (2:20).
Diapheugo (L/S – “to escape, get away, survive”) appears only once, regarding prisoners escaping during the shipwreck (Ac.27:2).
Ekpheugo (L/S – “to flee or escape, to be legally acquitted, to escape death, to omit”) refers to Paul’s escape from Damascus (II Cor.11:33), as well as warnings to the faithful not to neglect or be careless about their commitment to following instructions (I Thes.5:3, Heb.2:3), and to exercise caution in judging others (Rom.2:3). In the Revelation, “fleeing away” concerns, not people at all, but “every island” (16:20) and even “heaven/the sky” itself (20:11)!
Diasozo (L/S – “to preserve through danger, to come safely through, to recover from an illness, to preserve, maintain, or keep”) describes safety in a shipwreck (Ac.28:1,4; 27:43,44) or flood (I Pet.3:20), healing (Mt.14:6, Lk.7:3), and the safe transport of a prisoner (Ac.23:24).
Out of a couple hundred uses of exerchomai (literally, “to come out”) traditional translators chose “escape” only in Jn.10:39, of Jesus avoiding arrest.
There are only two uses of a noun form, ekbasis (L/S – “a way out, termination, completion, accomplishment”). I Cor.10:15 promises divine provision in times of stress (traditionally “a way of escape”), although extra-Biblical uses of the word tend more toward successful endurance than avoidance. In Heb.13:7, the same word was traditionally rendered “the end”, where “result” would have been more accurate.

Significantly, except for John the Baptist and the single instance of Jesus with the Pharisees noted above, the use of any of the “escape” words is almost entirely mundane and practical, and neither “spiritual” nor a matter of “destiny”.
And Jesus himself never offered any form of “escape”, either immediate or future, as an incentive for enlistment in his Kingdom. Quite the opposite! He repeatedly emphasized the high cost of faithfulness!

I was interested, and somewhat surprised, to discover that the gospels record very few instances of Jesus actually taking the initiative to invite someone to join his group. The synoptics describe the “calling” of Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew (Levi) with a simple “Follow me!” and the offer to “teach you to fish for people” (with no further explanation – although that lack does not inhibit expansive elaboration by many self-styled “teachers”!)
Interestingly, Luke (5:10) records Peter’s profession of his purported “sinfulness” – which would have surely been pounced-on by modern “evangelists” – being summarily dismissed without comment by the Lord himself, and followed by an invitation to get involved in the work of the Kingdom!
John includes several general invitations: “Come and see!” to Andrew and his companion (1:39), later repeated by Philip to Nathanael (1:46), an offer of water to the thirsty (4:10, 7:37-39), life itself (5:21-29, 40), and true freedom (8:30-36).
There are many more instances recorded of Jesus teaching those who were already following to some degree, than overtly recruiting.
Even more interesting is Jesus’ response to people who, on their own initiative, volunteered to follow him. Mt.8:18-22, Lk.9:57-62, 10:17; Mt.16:21-28 and parallels, and 19:16-22 all focus, not on escape to safety from worldly or other-worldly perils, but on the expectation of homelessness, abuse, persecution, and the necessity of making loyalty to Jesus and his Kingdom one’s absolute priority (Mt.22:1-7, Mk.9:43-48, Lk.9:23), even in the event of the loss of life itself, after the pattern of Jesus own personal expectation.
Jesus never offered anyone a “free one-way ticket to glory”, or a promise of “going to heaven when they die” (see #118 and #119). If you can find any such references, please contribute them.
Notice in the much-quoted interview with Nicodemus (Jn.3) that the discussion is about entering – or seeing – the Kingdom, not “heaven”! Those two are never equated.
To the young man who inquired about “eternal life” (see #28), the instruction was to use his wealth to look after the poor, and personally to follow Jesus. (Mk.10:17-22)
When a man who had been healed begged to follow him (Mk.5:18), he was gently told to go tell the folks at home what Jesus had done.

Jesus did offer on-the-job training (Mt.11:28), peace amid fierce opposition (Jn.14:27-31, 15:18 through most of chapter 16), and both the ability and the authority to represent him (Mt.10:1, Mk.3:14-15), as well as constant companionship (Jn.13-17) and eventual resurrection (Jn.6:40), but these were addressed to folks already committed to him and his Kingdom.

When the Kingdom is accurately described and demonstrated, no recruiting is necessary! Neither are made-up promises of escape or prosperity needed or appropriate.
Enlistment in the Kingdom of Jesus must be completely voluntary, with full understanding of the risks as well as the benefits.
Anything less does violence to the Kingdom, the King, and his committed disciples!

When I was asked to prepare a Jan.6 message for our congregation, my initial reaction (born of childhood memories of little boys in bathrobes and tinfoil-and-construction paper “crowns” stumbling through inane recitations about the esoteric implications of gold, frankincense and myrrh!) was a distressed “OH, NO!!!!” But I have learned, over many years, that accepting a challenging assignment just may result in actually learning something – and this was no exception.

The label of this “Feast Day”, designated by liturgical traditions as “Epiphany”, is the English cognate derived from the Greek word, epifaneia, (treated briefly in #166, “Appear”), which is used only six times in the New Testament, but quite frequently in classical writings. L/S lists “appearance (as opposed to reality), coming into light or view, daybreak, dawn, a manifestation of divine power, the accession to the throne of an emperor, the manifestation or appearance of a deity to a worshiper, outward show or fame.” The New Testament references pertain exclusively to Jesus’ eventual return in glory, but strangely, that event is not included in any of the historical or liturgical references to “Epiphany”. And the word does not appear in any of the scriptures assigned to its celebration!

The western church usually celebrates Epiphany as the time of the arrival of the “wise men” or Magi, which some of them then expand to refer to the inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God.
Some Eastern Orthodox groups observe Jan.6 as the “correct” date of Jesus’ birth – the discrepancy with Dec.25 involving the Julian vs. the Gregorian calendars – although it is unlikely that either represents Jesus’ actual “birthday”. Others link it to Jesus’ baptism by John, and subsequently to their own baptism.
Coptic and Syrian communions connect it to recognizing Jesus as “the Light of the World”, and are thought to have adopted the timing of the celebration to counteract the solstice / sun-worship of surrounding cultures.

All three of these perspectives are worth celebrating, whether or not their calendars are technically correct. I would like to suggest a few observations, usually neglected, from the Biblical accounts concerning each one of them, and recommend them all as worthy of further study.

First: the Magi, the “wise men”. Notice in Mt.2:1-12, the only place they are mentioned, that we do NOT know who they were, where they came from, how many there were, or when they arrived. Through the centuries, elaborate traditions have turned them into “kings”, concluded that there were three (probably because of the mention of three gifts), named them, assigned them racial and cultural identities and biographies – none of which are derived from the gospel account. So – What DO we know?
Matthew calls them “magi” – the source of the English word “magic”, and the same word used to describe Simon the sorcerer in Ac.8:9! – and says simply that they were “from the east.” This, and their following of a star, strongly suggests that they were astrologers – a practice sternly condemned in Old Testament law (Dt.18:9-14), and often punishable by death! An overland journey from Babylon or Persia – both east of Palestine – where such studies were common, would have taken months, if not years. (Certainly more than 12 days!) Notice that after finding out when they had sighted the star, Herod ordered the massacre of all the babies under the age of two!

Much has been made – also totally devoid of Scriptural evidence – of the so-called “spiritual” implications of the gifts. But one obvious element is consistently overlooked: Not only were/are gold, frankincense, and myrrh extremely valuable, but they are also very portable! A small quantity represents great value. The little family was soon to undertake a long and perilous journey, and to spend several years as refugees in a foreign country. Might this not have been God’s very practical provision to finance their exile (whether the donors knew it or not!)?
Matthew’s brief conclusion, too, is often overlooked; After the visitors offered their gifts and worshiped, “they went home by another road.” Has anyone truly worshiped, who does not thereafter, wherever he goes, take “another road?

It took many years,and many more deliberate interventions by the Lord – Jesus’ welcome and healing of foreigners, Peter’s encounter with Cornelius, the brotherhood at Antioch, the Jerusalem Conference – before Jesus’ disciples finally caught on to the message that Paul called “the mystery hidden from the foundation of the world, but now revealed …” that Jesus came to include all sorts of people in his Kingdom. But even though the idea can be found in some older prophetic writings, it is possible that this was indeed the first tangible demonstration of overt inclusion – and as such, it is certainly worth celebrating!

The Orthodox celebration of Christmas on Jan.6 is a subject that requires historical rather than Biblical study. But the link with Jesus’ baptism by John (Mt.3:13-17), has also become rather convoluted. It is sometimes scrambled with his presentation in the temple, in order to justify the practice of infant baptism, but the fact is (Lk.3:23) that Jesus was 30 years old when he was baptized, and embarking on his public ministry.

A more serious scrambling occurs in the failure to distinguish between John’s baptism, and the baptism of Christian commitment. This failure dates at least all the way back to Paul’s visit to Ephesus (Ac.19:1-7), where he found a group of disciples who had been taught an incomplete message that had included only “John’s baptism” – which Paul immediately undertook to correct. He explained that John had preached “a baptism of repentance” in preparation for Jesus’ arrival. “Clean things up! The King is coming!” John called for confession and repentance – a radical change of life and behavior. Clearly, both he and Jesus realized that Jesus had no such need, and neither is mentioned in the description of his baptism. The significant points in this scene are three:

First is Jesus’ interaction with John, who had rightly recognized Jesus’ superiority. Without abandoning that true identity, Jesus nevertheless refused to avail himself of the privileged status he deserved – a pattern he followed throughout his life, and one urged upon his followers on many occasions (Phil.2).

Secondly, Jesus set an example of recognizing and supporting the calling of others. John had not been certified, “ordained”, or otherwise endorsed by any existing hierarchical or ecclesiastical organization. His only credential was his obedience to the call of God. By his action, Jesus made a powerful assertion that he supported such obedience.

Third, it is after the baptism that the Holy Spirit gives testimony to Jesus’ identity as God’s obedient and dearly loved Son. This marks a sharp transition in the content of the practice and teaching of baptism.

The baptism of disciples “into the Name [identity – see #24] of Jesus” is a totally different affair from John’s version. One of the best summaries is offered by Paul in Rom.6:4 : “We were buried together with him through baptism, into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might live a completely new life!” Nothing is said here about “confession” or “repentance”! Christian baptism represents the definitive end of one life and the beginning of another! (I have devoted a whole chapter – ch.10 – to this in Citizens of the Kingdom.) The “fuel” for Kingdom living is not continual mournful repetitions of “confessions” and “repentance”, but rather the power of resurrection life, in union with Jesus and his people!

As we celebrate in Epiphany both Jesus’ baptism and our own, perhaps we would do well to pay greater attention to the difference between John’s and Jesus’ versions of baptism, and to renew our own commitment to a life of resurrection with him!

And finally, with our Syrian and Coptic brethren, we celebrate the coming of Light into the world. Not only has “the One who said, Light will shine out of darkness, shined in our hearts” (II Cor.4:6), but he has personally commissioned his people (Mt.5:14) to mediate that light to the world! This, incidentally, is another place where the admonition is addressed in the plural. It can only happen in the gathered group of his people! “Shining the Light” was never an individual assignment! As John noted (3:19-21), some folks will welcome that light, and celebrate the glory of God; others will seek to hide in the darkness, lest their nefarious schemes be discovered. Some will even try to extinguish it. But the Light has come! Darkness can ultimately neither understand nor defeat it. As Paul affirmed bluntly, “Once, you all were darkness; but now you are light in the Lord! Behave as children of light (Eph.5:8) There is additional treatment of Light in #75.

So, let’s do celebrate Epiphany:
the dawn, the coming of Light, the accession of our King to his rightful throne!

Give thanks for the revelation of the Light to the world, and the privilege to participate in its shining!

Reflect on your own Resurrection Life, that began when you chose to be baptized into the Kingdom, and continues as we all learn to walk together among his people!

And with the Magi – whoever they are, wherever they came from, and whenever they arrived – let us worship together, and go forward by a different road!

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 15,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 3 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

I owe this study to our brother Solomon,who, during the course of his recent message, commented, “We have a choice: it’s up to us, whether we are the victims of men, or prisoners of Christ.” He noted that Paul had made exactly that choice when writing from a Roman prison to the brethren in Ephesus (Eph.3:1, 4:1).
Bonds (literally being chained or tied up) and imprisonment were no foreign concept to first-century disciples. It was a fact of life. Not only the Roman occupiers, but also the Jewish hierarchy constantly threatened both – and even summary execution – in their efforts to thwart “the glorious liberty of the sons of God.” And hundreds, then thousands of the faithful made the same choice. Nothing infuriates an oppressor more than “victims” who refuse to be intimidated!
Most of us today do not face such dire circumstances, although we should constantly remember those who do. Oppression takes many forms, and it is not always the result of either faithful or unfaithful behavior. Remember the geopolitical situation in which the New Testament accounts were sited. Although some people were imprisoned for actual crimes (Barabbas, or the thief next to Jesus on the cross), the vast majority had simply run afoul of powerful people (John the Baptist, Paul, and even Jesus himself), or simply succumbed to debt (several parables) due to their abject poverty.

The four words translated “prison” have little ambiguity.
Although oikema – used only once in the New Testament – in addition to “prison” may also refer to a room, a dwelling, a cage or stall, a storeroom, a workshop, a room in a temple, or even a brothel (L/S), its use in Ac.12:7 is clear from the context.
Likewise, teresis, translated once “prison” (Ac.5:19), once “hold” (Ac.4:3), and once “keeping” (I Cor.7:19) the commands of God, although its classical usages extended to “watching, safekeeping, guarding, preservation, observance, vigilance” (L/S) as well as “custody”, has fairly obvious reference in each case. The verb form, tereo, is common with respect to “commandments.”
Desmoterion, appearing only four times, and defined simply as “prison or jail” in all three lexicons, etymologically is composed of desmos (“bonds”) and terion (“place”). It is used of the confinement of John the Baptist (Mt.11:2), Peter and John (Ac.5:21, 23), and Paul and Silas (Ac.16:26).
Phulake, on the other hand, besides being more frequently used (39x), covers considerably more territory. L/S lists “watching or guarding, a station or post, a watch of the night (see #125), a prison, guarding, keeping, or preserving – whether for security or custody, precaution, or safeguard.” The references in Mt.5:25, 18:30, and Lk.12:58, clearly relate to imprisonment for debt. Mt.14:3,10; parallels in Mk.6:17, 27; and the briefer references in Lk.3:20 and Jn.3:24 concern John the Baptist. The reason for the incarceration mentioned in Mt.25:36, 39,43, 44 is not given. Barabbas (Lk.23:19, 25) was in prison for sedition and murder. Although Peter, having boasted of his willingness to follow Jesus to prison (Lk.22:33), soon backed off from that bravado, he later defied the authorities and took the consequences (Ac,5:19, 22, 25 and 12:4, 5, 6, 10, 17), both times experiencing miraculous deliverance. Neither he nor anyone else seems to have expected such rescue to be the norm, however, as attested in Heb.11:36, and evidenced by his own reaction to the second such incident (Ac.12:11).
Paul never tried to deny his former role in dragging the brethren off to prison (Ac.8:3, 22:4, 26:10), but balanced it with accounts of his own “jail time” (II Cor.6:5, 11:23), which Luke augments in Ac.16:23, 24, 27, 37, 40.
One may well wish that Peter (I Pet.3:19) and John (Rv.18:2, 20:7) had been more specific about the “prisons” to which they refer – but then, I guess folks who love to speculate about such things could not spin such fantastic theories, and they would be disappointed! I do not choose to play their games.

Notice, please, however, that God does not imprison anyone! The devil does (Rv.2:10), and so do the agents of civil and religious hierarchies, as noted above. It is never represented as “God’s will!” Jesus announced his mission (Lk.4:18,19) as bringing release to captives!

So who are these captives/prisoners?
Here, we encounter two groups of words.
Aichmalotos (the person) and aichmalosia (his condition), with their verb forms aichmaloteuo and aichmalotizo, refer specifically to “captives” and “captivity” strongly connected to prisoners of war. These unfortunates were usually forced into slavery, rather than being thrown into prison – though neither was a happy lot. (Please see #100 for a treatment of slavery.) These terms are rarely used: Jesus’ “inaugural address” in Lk.4:18,19, and its fulfillment described in Eph.4:8 – note that this happened at his resurrection/ascension – the tenses are past, not future!; Jesus’ warning (Lk.21:24) of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem; Paul’s description of his former enslavement to “sin”/failure (Rom.7:23), and the same brother’s later admonition to “bring every thought into captivity to Christ (II Cor.10:5). Three times, he made reference to those who were his “fellow-prisoners” – sunaichmalotos – Andronicus and Junia (Rom.16:7), Aristarchus (Col.4:10), and Epaphras (Phm.23).

Desmios (L/S) “bound, captive”, (Bauer) “anyone in prison”, appears 15x. It refers to Barabbas (Mt.27:15, 16; Mk.15:6), the others who were in the Philippian jail (Ac.16:25, 27), and Paul (Ac.23:18; 25:14, 27; 28:17). Heb.13:3 expresses concern for all of the faithful who suffer imprisonment.
But most significant are Paul’s statements in Eph.3:1, 4:1; II Tim.1:8, and Phm.1 ,9, where, although confined by the civil authorities at the behest of the Jewish hierarchy, he calls himself “the prisoner of Jesus Christ!” The grammatical form is a simple possessive. Neither civil nor religious oppressors can claim final ownership of one who belongs – by his own deliberate choice – to the King of Kings! Years earlier, Paul had explained, (Rom.6:16) “You are slaves / servants to whomever you (choose to) obey!” And he had made that choice.

Desmos , also refers to imprisonment, either literal or figurative. L/S adds “anything for tying or fastening, a door-latch, mooring cable, bonds, a spell, or a chain.” Bauer notes “the bond that prevents a mute or crippled person from normal function”. Physical restraints are indicated in Lk.8:29, Ac.16:26, 22:30, 26:29, 31; healing in Lk.13:16; and imprisonment in Ac.20:23, Phil.1:7, 13, 14, 16; Col.4:18, II Tim.2:9; Phm.10, 13; Heb.10:34, 11:36. When the English word “bonds” applies to slavery, it is usually taken from doulos (see #100).

Here, as with sunaichmalotos, a prefixed form, sundesmos , is significant. In both cases, the prefix “sun-” which is also the preposition “with”, thereby conveying the sense of “together”, alters the root word. L/S lists “a union, anything that binds together, sinews or ligaments, civil or political union (to form a state), a conspiracy, the fastening of garments, the connection of heavenly bodies.” It appears in Ac.8:23, where Peter diagnoses Simon’s “bondage to iniquity”, but in Paul’s letters the tone is much more positive. In Eph.4:3, he urges the maintenance of “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, in Col.2:19, he emphasizes the need for coordination of the Body of Christ – the faithful – by the proper working of its “joints and ligaments”, and in Col.3:14, describes love as “the bond of maturity [perfection] (see #13.) Paul also reassures Timothy (II Tim.2:9) that despite his own imprisonment, “the word of God is not imprisoned!”

So brother Solomon’s suggestion was not only insightful, but absolutely correct.
Regardless of circumstances – personal, religious, or political – we do have a choice. Not necessarily of the circumstance, but definitely of its interpretation, its effect, and our response.

Whose prisoner are you?

In view of the many warnings, in the previous studies and elsewhere, to be on guard against deceptive messages and people, it seems prudent to examine the subject.
One extremely important observation that should be kept in mind throughout, is that the vast majority of these warnings and admonitions are addressed in the plural. The counsel of a committed brotherhood is essential to responsible discernment, because an individual, however faithful or insightful, can much more easily be misled than can a mutually seeking, trusting group.
Secondly, it is crucial to note that “deception” represents at least four separate categories of threats. (These references are only a few examples. They are not exhaustive). Most obvious, of course, are the overt schemes of those individuals, natural or supernatural, who actively and deliberately oppose the Kingdom, its King, and its loyal citizens (Eph.4:14, 5:6; I Tim.4:1, II Jn.7). Harder to detect, and therefore perhaps a greater danger, are errors that emerge from within the disciple group itself (II Cor.11:13, II Pet.2:14, I Jn.2:26). Even more dependent upon the discernment of the brotherhood are the errors of self-deception (I Cor.3:18, Eph.4:22, Jas.1:22,26; I Jn.1:8), or “wandering” caused by simple ignorance (Mt.22:29, Tit.3:3, Jas.5:20).

Sorting out the five nouns and nine verbs traditionally translated “deceit, deceive, deception , deceiver” gives some clue to the different ideas they represent, but they do not all fall into neat categories. Sometimes, the reference is primarily to self-deception: phrenapatao, deleazo, apatao, exapatao, paralogizomai, and planao are occasionally – but not always – used this way. But dolos, doliao, doloo, dolios, and katabrabeuo always describe external influences, and are never self-inflicted. Any of these, however, may be sourced either within or outside the disciple group: another reason for careful discernment in any faithful brotherhood.
Only once is any sort of deception said to have its immediate source in an act of God (II Thes.2:11), and that is the result of people’s overt, deliberate rejection of his ways.

The lexicons are helpful, but no more precise in distinguishing among the various words.
Apate / apatao, for example, (n) “trick, fraud, deceit; deception, seduction, wasting time, guile, treachery”, and (v) “to cheat or deceive, to seduce”, appears in Col.2:8 (intellectual), Eph.4:22, II Pet.2:13 (physical / psychological), Mt.13:22 (financial), II Thes.2:10 (judicial), as well as “spiritual” (Heb.3:13) contexts. Its source may be human (Eph.5:6), the serpent, or Satan himself (I Tim.2:14), or oneself (Jas.1:26). Only twice is self-deception the focus: II Pet.2:13 implies that it is deliberate, while Jas.1:26 may simply refer to an error in judgment.
The prefixed form exapatao is merely an intensified form of the verb, and is found in Rom.7:11, 16:18; I Cor.3:18, II Cor.11:3, II Thes.2:3.

Dolos and its related words, doloo, dolios, doliao, on the other hand, are always deliberate, and never self-inflicted. L/S lists for dolos “bait for fish, any cunning contrivance for deception” (this was used of the Trojan horse, as well as the Pharisees and Judas scheming for Jesus’ betrayal – Mt.26:4). Additional classical definitions include “a trick, trap, or stratagem; treachery – often implying an expectation of gain for the perpetrator.” This is the only word of this group that is used more than once in the New Testament. All indicate an active effort to mislead or destroy, whether the scene involves his enemies’ efforts to do away with Jesus (Mt.14:1, 26:4); generally unsavory behavior (Mk.7:22, Rom.1:29); misrepresentation of facts to influence choices (II Cor.2:16, I Thes.2:3, I Pet.2:22 where the traditional translation uses “guile”); hypocritical action and attitudes (Jn.1:47, I Pet.2:1, 3:10; Rv.14:5); or overt opposition to the truth of the gospel (Ac.13:10).
The other words each appear only a single time.
Doloo (L/S – “to disguise, to alter, adulterate, or falsify a substance”) is used in II Cor.4:2 of the distortion of true teaching.
Doliao (v) and dolios (n), L/S – “to deceive” and “treachery” respectively, appear in Rom.3:13 and II Cor.11:13.

Paralogizomai – L/S – “to defraud, to reason falsely, to disguise, to mislead by false reasoning”, (Bauer – “to deceive or delude, defraud, or distort”, and Thayer “to cheat by false reckoning”) appears only twice: Col.2:4 as an external threat, and Jas. 1:22 as self-deception – perhaps both by assuming rational arguments.

Phrenapatao (v) and phrenapates (n), (Bauer – to deceive or mislead oneself or another), each with a single appearance, may likewise be either internal (Gal.6:3) or external (Tit.1:10) in origin.
This is also true of deleazo, traditionally translated once “beguile” (II Pet.2:14), once “allure” (II Pet.2:18), both external, and once “enticed” (Jas.1:14) of one’s own inappropriate behavior. L/S defines this as “to catch with bait, and Bauer treats it in tandem with dolos.
Katabrabeuo, L/S “to deprive of one’s rights, or of a deserved prize”; and Thayer, “to bribe a judge to condemn someone”, appears only in Col.2:18, where Paul is seeking to counteract the influence of philosophical syncretism in the church.

By far the most frequently used of all the terms are planao, plane, planos. This group is also the most diverse in usage. L/S lists for the verb, planao “to lead astray, mislead, or deceive; to cause to wander”, or in the passive voice, “to digress, wander or stray, to be in doubt or at a loss.” Bauer adds “to be mistaken in judgment”. For the noun, plane,L/S has “wandering, roaming, going astray, illusion, deceit, imposture” and Bauer adds “error, delusion, deceit, any false concept”.  For the noun planos L/S reads “error, deceit, wandering, or, if a person, a vagabond or impostor.”
This is the only one of the plethora of terms that may also refer to innocent ignorance, where the parable in Mt.18:12,13 refers to a wandering sheep, and Peter uses it metaphorically (I Pet.2:25, and II Pet.2:15) of people who are equally confused. These errors can be consciously avoided, since one of the primary causes is “ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God”! If you need incentive to study, there it is! But study carefully and selectively, bearing in mind that there are some who “handle deceitfully” (II Cor.4:2) even “the word of God”. These are described in more detail in II Cor.11:12-15. (An easy test: is the “teacher” making a profit from his “teaching?)
Those being “taught” can – and should – simply refuse such enticements, confident that they do not come from the Lord!

Sorting them out is not always easy: but we have been provided a resource of inestimable value, if we have the counsel of an interactive brotherhood, informed by mutual seeking after faithfulness, and empowered by the Spirit sent for the purpose by our risen Lord. Peter emphasized the need for transparent honesty patterned after Jesus himself (I Pet.2:1, 2:22, 3:10), and John (I Jn.4:1-6) provided detailed instructions for the needed discernment. James (5:19,20) chimes in with his admonition to watch out for one another’s welfare.

May we do so faithfully!

Any discussion of the topics in the previous three studies, sooner or later, comes around, as did many of Jesus’ first audiences, to the subject of “signs.” His opponents demanded a “sign” to authenticate Jesus’ claims about his identity and his mission, but faithful disciples also pressed for “signs of his coming”, which they, (not Jesus), equated with “the end of the age”. These requests uniformly use “age” – aion – and not “world” – kosmos, although some translators ignore this. Frequently, especially in John’s writing, “sign” – semeion – is used to describe what other writers termed “miracles” (see #113), “mighty deeds” (see #31), or “wonders” (also treated in #113).

Classically, semeion is even more versatile than those few examples. L/S lists “a sign of the future (Herodotus), the trace or tracks of an animal (Hippocrates), a sign from the gods (Antiphones), a wonder or portent (Plato), a sign or signal to do something – usually indicated by flags – such as to put to sea, to begin or end a battle, or to commence work; a landmark, boundary, or limit; a signet on a ring, a watchword or war cry, a birthmark or other distinguishing feature, a logical or mathematical proof, evidence or example, a medical symptom, or a unit of time in music.” Bauer adds “marks in the landscape showing direction, a signal previously agreed upon, a warning, a mark of genuineness or authenticity.” Both Bauer and Thayer note “an unusual occurrence, transcending the usual course of nature,” the origin of which can be either divine or demonic.
So how is a responsible translator or interpreter to sort through all these possibilities? Very carefully tentatively, and humbly. Try out some of these ideas wherever you are accustomed to reading “signs”.

It is interesting that in the synoptic gospels, the majority of the uses of semeion are in conversations with the Pharisees or scribes, who are disputing Jesus’ authority. And this is after he has just given evidence, by his merciful use of power, of his godly provenance! (Mt.12:38-39, 16:1-4; Mk.8:11-12, Lk.11:16, 29-30). His retort (Mt.16:3), “Can’t you see?” bears witness that the evidence they are demanding has already been supplied.
It is also significant that when his disciples asked about indications of his return (Mt.24:3, Mk.13:4, Lk.21:7), his response began with “Watch out lest anyone lead you astray!” (Mt.24:4, Mk.13:22). That is still excellent advice! Jesus attributes some “signs and wonders” to “false Christs and false prophets” (Mt.24:24). One may well wonder, then, if the “sign of the Son of Man” appearing in the heaven [sky] (v.30) may not refer simply to his actual arrival (#164) there described, which would be possible, considering the L/S reference to the “standard” of a commanding officer. Mark’s parallel passage does not refer to a “sign”, but simply to Jesus’ appearance (13:26), although Luke 21:10, 25 are closer to Matthew’s version.

But notice, please, that none of these are intended to cause fear to the faithful! Trial, prison, even death, all end in triumph! Notice also, however, that nowhere are the Lord’s people promised escape – whether by “rapture” (another word which does not exist in the New Testament) or in any other form – but rather endurance.

Inexplicably, in John’s gospel, traditional translators almost exclusively substituted the word “miracles” for “signs”, although the word is uniformly “semeion” in Jn.2:11, 23; 3:2, 4:54, 6:2,14,26; 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12:18,37. They did use “sign” in 2:18, 4:48, 6:30, and 20:30 for the same word. It is hard to imagine that such translators would, like the Pharisees, refuse to see all of those events as “signs” – evidence – of Jesus’ true identity!
Evidence is also clearly the intent, in Jesus’ own prediction (Mk.16:17,20) about “signs” as authentication of his representatives’ connection with him, and accounts of its fulfillment in Ac.2:22,43; 4:16, 22,30; 5:12, 6:8, 7:36, 8:6,13; 14:3, 15:12, where semeion is used consistently, although here, too, the traditional translations are not uniform. Frequently paired with dunamis or terata (see #113), there is no question that these “signs” were miraculous demonstrations of the power of God, intended to authenticate both the message and its bearers. The critical point that needs to be understood, is that the purpose of any and all signs was/is to point beyond the event itself, or its effect upon the individuals concerned, to the King and the Kingdom that they represent.

I heard someone point out, in reference to both Jesus’ promise mentioned above (Mk.16) and the account in Ac.8 of Philip’s encounter with Simon, the Samaritan magician, (who was so impressed with the “signs” accompanying Philip’s ministry, that he tried to buy into the program), that he had simply misread the grammar. Jesus spoke of signs “following” or accompanying the faithful – it is impostors who “follow” signs. Subject and object do make a difference!

It is precisely such error against which Paul warns in II Thes.2:9 (also noted in Rv.13:14, 16:14, 19:20). A flamboyant demonstration of power may not be from the Lord. It is only a sign of his involvement when the accompanying message is clearly his (Mt.24:3, Mk.13:22).

Do you notice anything missing here? There are NO New Testament parallels to the Old Testament stories of individual heroes like Moses, Gideon, Saul, and others, asking God for a “sign” regarding action to be taken or information to be believed. In Jesus’ Kingdom, there are no individual heroes! Jesus himself is the only superior, and he expects his people to be guided by his Holy Spirit and the discernment of the brotherhood (see “Following Instructions” #55).
In the New Testament, any “signs” are provided at God’s initiative and discretion – Lk.2:12, Jn.20:30, Ac.4:16, 15:12 – not on the demand of any individual.

Perhaps Paul summarized it best, in his observation recorded in I Cor.1:22
“Although the Jews demand a sign, and the Greeks are seeking wisdom, we are preaching [announcing, heralding] CHRIST!”

May we as his followers learn to do likewise!

Here, we will consider the last word group in this series (beginning with #165), and try to pull the topic together into a coherent picture.
Actually, there are two more words, but chrematizo, which usually applies to business dealings (L/S) and only rarely to divine directives (either Christian or pagan), is translated “reveal” only once, of Simeon in the temple (Lk.2:26), although the “warnings” of Mt.2:12, 2:22; Ac.10:22, and Heb.11:7 would certainly fall into that category, as would the instructions given to Moses (Heb.8:5), since they are overtly attributed to God.

We are primarily concerned with apokalupto, and its related noun, apokalupsis. Comprised of the prefix / preposition apo (away from), and the verb kalupto (to hide or conceal), it applies to the “uncovering” of information that was previously hidden – regardless of whether it had been deliberately concealed or was simply not obvious. L/S lists “to uncover, disclose, or reveal; to unmask”, and for the noun, “uncovering, unmasking, revelation”. Trench refutes Jerome’s claim that the word “only exists in ‘sacred Greek’”, by noting its use by both Plato and Demosthenes. He suggests that apokalupsis goes beyond merely “seeing” as described in earlier studies (especially horama and optasia), to include explanation, understanding, and instructions, as well. We saw a bit of this sense in phaneroo (#166) also.

In the New Testament, there is not a single instance where this “revealing” is done by anyone but God, unlike some of the previous words considered, nor is the content of the information, or the direction, sourced anywhere else. It may be delivered through another agency – “the Son” (Mt.11:27, Lk.10:22), “fire” (I Cor.3:13), “apostles and prophets” (Eph.3:5) or anyone else in the brotherhood (I Cor.14:6, 26, 30), but the source is unquestionably beyond any of those vehicles. This is probably most overtly stated in John’s introduction to his account of the Revelation, where he declares, “(This is) Jesus Christ’s revelation, which God gave him to show to his slaves [servants] ….” (Rv.1:1). He then describes the “chain reaction” by which the message is to be disseminated.

Except for Paul’s discussion in II Thes.2:3-12, where he is reminding his readers of the malevolent powers that deceive those who have refused (v.10) the truth, reassuring the beleaguered faithful that falsehood will not ultimately triumph (see also a similar phrase in Rom.1:18), the occurrences of apokalupto and apokalupsis are all concerned with instruction in faithfulness and/or encouragement regarding its final outcome.

There are directions given for specific situations – needed correction (Rom.2:5, I Cor.3:13, Phil.3:15, and the messages to the churches in Rv.2 and 3), personal assignments (Lk.2:32, Gal.1:12, 2:2; Eph.3:3), and the accurate understanding and communication of the message (Mt.16:17, Rom.1:17, Gal.3:23, Eph.3:5).
But best of all, there are multiple assurances of “the glory to be revealed” at Jesus’ promised coming, (Lk.17:30, Rom.8:18,19; 16:26; II Thes.1:7, I Pet.1:5,7,13; 4:13, 5:1), and the promised provision of all that is necessary to maintain faithfulness until that eagerly anticipated consummation (Mt.10:26, 11:25-27; Lk.10:22, 12:2; II Cor.12:1,7; Eph.1:17). Please notice that the few references to the destructive aspect of “revealed judgment” (Rom.1:18, II Thes.2:3-8) are addressed, not to “outsiders” who have been identified as “targets” for “conversion”, but to the faithful, as encouragement, that it is not the “bad guys” who ultimately win!

The over-arching purpose of “revelation” is preparing the faithful to share in the triumph of their King!
Whether that is accomplished through “vision” (natural or supernatural) that transcends our blindness (or myopia), or “revelation” in some other form – the mention of both optasias and apokalupseis in II Cor.12:1 implies that there must be a difference), or instructions or encouragement delivered by a “messenger” (natural or supernatural – see #140), the goal, and the end result for faithful disciples, is the same.

Like Moses (Heb.11:27), may we “hang in there” in faithfulness, regardless of adverse circumstances, “as one who is seeing (horon) the invisible” , and
“pursue peace with everyone, and total devotion to God, without which nobody will see (opsetai) the Lord” (Heb.12:14), because
“No one knows … who the Father is, except the Son, and the one(s) to whom the Son plans to reveal (apokalupsai) him” (Lk.10:22).

As our brother John, in his old age, wrote to the folks he had loved, taught, and served for many years, “Dear people, now we are God’s children, and it hasn’t yet been revealed (ephanerothe) what we will be. We do know that when he is revealed, (phanerothe), we will be like him, because we will see him (opsometha) as he is!” (I Jn.3:2).

Thanks be to God!