The Pioneers’ New Testament

Having just considered the gift – and the challenge – of the “new creation” that results from commitment to Jesus’ Kingdom, it seems appropriate to look at what the New Testament says about creation itself. Not nearly as much as do the pulpit-pounding advocates of “Creationism”, who claim to represent “the Biblical view”!

Ktisis, translated 6x “creation” and 11x “creature” – and also 1x “building” (Heb.9:11) and 1x “ordinance” (I Pet.2:13) – for reasons unknown – is not a common topic. Ktisma, also translated “creature”, appears 4x; ktistes, “creator”, only once (I Pet.4:19), although the participial form of ktizo is translated that way in Rom.1:25; and ktizo, the verb “to create” 12x, and once more translated as “make”.

I was surprised to find that historically, none of these words had referred to the origins of the world, the universe, or even of humans. The historian Herodotus used them to refer to the founding of a city or country, the organizing of a governing body, or the building of any sort of edifice. The verb form also included the production or invention of any object, or the perpetration of a noteworthy deed. References to the “creation” as it is popularly understood are found exclusively in the LXX and the New Testament.

Both Greek and Roman traditions did include “creation stories”, but with a different twist. Hesiod, a Greek epic poet, contemporary with or slightly after Homer (about 700 BC) , describes different “ages” of man – gold, silver, bronze, iron – during which people were becoming progressively (or perhaps one should say “regressively” !) more barbaric, and were destroyed and re-created repeatedly by the gods. Ovid, the Latin poet, in his Metamorphoses, (first century BC/AD), describes a primeval state of chaos, which the gods tried to organize, with little success. Neither of these writers makes any attempt to “start from scratch.”

In contrast, the New Testament contains several mentions of “the beginning of creation” (Mk.10:6, 13:19; II Pet.3:4), and even presents Jesus himself as “the beginning of creation” (Rv.3:14), and Paul goes even farther and represents him as the the very agent and purposeof creation (Eph.3:9. Col.1:16) – “all things were created by him and for him”! A similar statement in Rv.4:11 affirms, “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they exist, and were created!”

Notice, please, that the burden of these declarations has nothing whatever to do with today’s prevalent obsessions with “when” or “how” any of this happened. The whole focus is upon who is responsible, and why creation exists. We would do well to focus our own attention similarly!

Paul goes to great pains in Rom.1 and again in Rom.8 to make the point that in creation, God has provided ample evidence of his character and purpose; and the descent of people into the depravity and chaos that sounds very similar to the degradation in the Greek and Roman accounts was the result of people’s deliberate choice to ignore that revelation, and not anything relating to their “original” condition. Remember that “creation” and “creature” are derived from the same word – the choice of one or the other was made by the translators, not the authors. Ktisis refers to any created thing (including people), as well as to creation as a whole. Consequently, just as the contagion of depravity described in Romans 1 spread to the whole of creation, the hope revealed in Romans 8 – the expectation of deliverance into the glorious New Creation – is contagious as well!

No wonder “the whole creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God!” (Rom.8:19). It is these to whom its care is entrusted, and in whom its hopes of fulfilling its original purpose – the pleasure of its creator (Rv.4:11) – can at last be realized. What a glorious prospect!

The New Creation has already begun “after the image” (Col.3:10) of its Creator – the image (W.S.#15) that had been so sadly defaced by the selfishness of its former heirs (Rom.1). Please also see chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom.

The classic description is in II Cor.5:17, Interestingly, in the Greek text, there is no verb in the sentence. Kaine ktisis may, but need not, be a modifier for the pronoun tis – “ anyone, someone”. The statement may with equal validity be taken to mean “that person is a new creature” (in the sense of a created being), or to intend that for such a person, “creation is new”! Both are grammatically correct, and both are true.

Paul adds the observation in Eph.2:10 that we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works [with a purpose for good deeds]”, which God also “prepared” for his people to do . No, this is not the “salvation by works” which seems to frighten some folks so badly. It is “salvation” for the purpose of accomplishing what the Creator (and Savior) intended all along! (W.S.#39). This is reinforced in Eph.4:24, where Paul asserts that we are “created according to God’s design, in justice (W.S.#3) and devotion to the truth” (W.S. #26).

James (1:18) calls the Lord’s people “the first-fruits of his creation” – the beginning of the harvest for which he started everything in the first place! We have kept him waiting a long time!

Some minor manuscripts of Mark even quote Jesus’ commission (Mk.16:15) as instructions to proclaim his “gospel” (#67) to “every creature” – every created thing (pase te ktisei)! This may even be a renewal of God’s original charge to his people to tend and care for all that he had created. (Gen.1:28). Paul may have understood it that way (Col.1:23).

It is also significant that, as Paul reminded Timothy (I Tim.4:4), “Everything that God created is good!”, and is to be received with thanksgiving (v.3). This despite the equally far-reaching affirmation in Heb.4:13, that no created thing is hidden from the eyes of God. There is absolutely NO New Testament justification for the common assumption that a person, or the physical creation, or the physical body, is inherently “evil”, “depraved”, or “sinful”! “Everything that God created is GOOD” – unless one chooses to use it wrongly, instead of as it was intended.

Finally, we should note Jesus’ crowning act of creation – Eph.2:15, also noted in Gal.6:15. It is the Lord Jesus himself who has taken people who represent the most opposite extremes imaginable, in their own thinking, and “created the two, in himself, into one new person, thus making peace.”

This is the true miracle of creation!

Thanks be to God!

From the many unexpected and sometimes shocking aspects of his earthly ministry, and the establishment of the New Covenant announced by the Lord Jesus at his last meal with the disciples before his betrayal, to his triumphant edict from the Throne quoted in Rev.21:5, “Look! I am making everything new!”, it had been obvious to anyone who was paying attention that something quite out-of-the-ordinary was happening whenever Jesus, or sometimes even his followers, appeared on the scene. This was a realization sometimes greeted with delight, and other times with dismay, depending upon the stock in the status-quo held by the observers/participants.

What I did not realize until beginning this study, was that the two Greek words in these accounts, which are both translated “new”, are not synonymous at all! At first I was skeptical of Trench’s assertion that neos, the lesser used of the two – only appearing 11 times – is merely a temporal observation, referring to a person or event younger or more recent than the others to which it is compared, whereas kainos, used 44 times, refers to the quality, kind, or condition of its object. However, the lexicons all bear out that contrast, with L/S offering “fresh, newly made or invented, innovative, without precedent” for kainos, and “youthful, young, or recent” for neos. Bauer concurs, listing “unusual, something not previously present, with implication that ‘old’ is obsolete; unknown, remarkable” for kainos, and “young, new, fresh” for neos. Thayer adds “superior to what it succeeds” and “previously non-existent” for kainos.

Examination of the New Testament uses of both words reveals that both are used in Jesus’ teaching about patching a garment and wine in wineskins, but neos describes the wine (“newly made”), and kainos the skins which had not been previously used, in all three synoptics.
The “new teaching [doctrine]” attributed to Jesus (Mk.1:27, or the “new ideas” discussed in the Areopagos Council (Ac. 17:19-21), both use kainos, as does the “new commandment” (Jn.13:34, I Jn.2:7-8, II Jn.5) which Jesus initiated. The related noun, kainotes, appearing only twice (Rom.6:4, 7:6) likewise refers to the total transformation of life expected of one who chooses to follow Christ.
This meshes well with repeated references to the “new creation” – uniformly kainos – that also describes the radically changed life of the committed (II Cor.5:17, Gal.6:15). Eph.2:15 is especially significant in this regard, representing Jesus as having deliberately “created” out of redeemed and reconciled Jew and Gentile, “one new (kainos) person”. Anthropos , the generic term for “man” — the species — may be taken as either “person” or “humanity”.

All of these carry the expectation of a life never seen before – probably never even imagined! – and not a temporal reference. The only place where neos appears in a similar context is Col.3:10 – and the “new life” in view was indeed temporally “new” to those folks, although Paul goes on to speak of their being “continually renewed” (anakainoumenon) – a present passive participle – as well.

Perhaps the most significant of all is the uniform (except for a single reference in Heb.12:24) use of kainos in both gospel and epistle references to the “new covenant”. In this regard, please also refer to the treatment of “covenant” in W.S.#79 and 80. We discovered in that study the fallacy of the assumption that a “covenant” could never be abrogated. It was always a two-way proposition: “If you will do this, then I will —-” A breach by either party consistently renderes a covenant of no effect.
Most relevant here is the matter of fact statement in Heb.8:13: “In saying ‘new’, he has made the first one ‘old’, and what has become old and been superseded is near to disappearing!” The writer goes on, in chapter 9, to re-cast the term diatheke, formerly rendered “covenant”, in the light of a legal will, and to explain that a will only takes effect upon the death of the testator. It has no necessary connection with the much-touted idea of “blood covenants”. In this way, it becomes patently clear that the “new covenant” is something entirely apart from the old system, and that forcing artificial parallels is of no value. Jesus has done something entirely new! “(He) also made us capable administrators of a new covenant [will], (whose source) is not a written (legal document), but the Spirit! For the legal document kills, but the Spirit makes alive!” (II Cor.3:6)

This may be one reason why the Lord Jesus himself, much earlier, had remarked (Mt.13:52), “Every scribe trained for the Kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasures (W.S.#131) both new things and old.” Only with the discernment of the Holy Spirit can his people accurately sort out which “new” and “old” things actually belong together!

A different word altogether, used only once, is employed in Heb.10:20, speaking of “the living way he (Jesus) recently made new for us, through the curtain”, giving his people access not only to “holy” places and things that had been forbidden under the “old way”, but even to God himself! Prosphotos refers to recent events: to newly-drawn water, or food that is fresh (not spoiled). Jesus has indeed “done a new thing!”

Kainos appears more frequently in the Revelation than in any other part of the New Testament. We had a foretaste in Peter’s reference to “a new heaven and a new earth” (II Pet.3:13), which is repeated in Rv.21:1. But when the Lord’s triumph is complete, the glorious announcement from the Throne is “Look! I am making everything new!”

New names (identities – see #24 ) have been given to the faithful (Rv.3:12).

The folks singing around the throne do so with a “new song” (Rv.5:9, 14:3) of praise to the glory and worthiness of the Lamb.

A “new Jerusalem” – the prepared Bride is introduced (Rv.3:12, 21:2)

The “new creation” is finally realized: and Paul’s announcement of hope in II Cor.5:17 has finally come to complete fulfillment:

So if anyone is in Christ, (he is) a new creation [or, creation is new!] Old things are gone! Look! Something new – kainos – innovative, unprecedented, and superior to all that has gone before – has happened!”

Thanks be to God!

I have long been troubled by the pervasiveness of insistence upon (or bragging about) people being coerced into “accepting the Lord.” I suppose this notion, which is never mentioned in the New Testament, is enhanced by the familiar pictures of Jesus standing forlornly outside a closed door, which has neither doorknob nor latch string, as if begging for admission. What a travesty upon the character of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings! The wonder of wonders is not that a mere human should be so arrogant as to claim to “accept” the Lord of Glory, but that the Lord himself, in his incredibly gracious kindness, should deign to “accept” such bumbling, stumbling creatures as ourselves, into his Kingdom – his family – even his very Body! “Acceptance” is the gracious welcome proffered by a superior toward an inferior supplicant – not the rote recitation required of a hapless victim who has succumbed to the “theological” arguments of a well-trained accuser!

Indeed, the word “accept” appears only six times in the most traditional of translations (KJV), and is used for four different Greek words, all of which appear many more times with other renderings, but never with our Lord as the direct object!
In Ac.24:3, Tertullus is referring to favors received from the Roman overlords; in II Cor.8:17 and 11:4, Paul refers to his readers’ acceptance of his message; in Lk.20:21 and Gal.2:6, the reference is to God’s refusal to play favorites; and in Heb.11:35 to people who refused to “accept” deliverance from persecution at the price of unfaithfulness.

The adjective, “acceptable”, appearing 11 times, and representing five different words, uniformly refers to people or behavior that God considers acceptable. Likewise, of similar words rendered “accepted” (7x), five refer to God’s acceptance, one to the failure of a prophet’s own people to listen to him (Lk.4:24), and one to Paul’s desire that his service be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, by the brethren in Jerusalem (Rom.15:31). Most notable in this latter group is the much-neglected discovery announced by Peter as a result of his encounter with Cornelius (Ac.10:34,35) – “Then Peter opened his mouth and said, ‘In truth, I perceive that God does not play favorites, but in every nation, the one who respects him and does justice is received [accepted] by him!’”
Funny – it doesn’t say a word about reciting a litany about what an awful, “sinful” person he is! This must be another place where the “literal” crowd managed to hit the “delete” button and substitute their own formula!

It is certainly true that the verbs in question – apodechhomai, dechomai, prosdechomai, and lambano – are very common in both the New Testament and classical writings. In many cases, they seem nearly interchangeable. Apodechomai, used only once as “accept” appears five times translated “receive”; dechomai, 2x as “accept”, is rendered “receive” 52x, “suffer” 1x, and “take” 5x. Lambano is rendered 2x “accept”, 133 x “receive”, 104 x “take”, and scattered translations of “attain, bring, call, catch, have, and obtain.” Prosdechomai, which we noted in #124 and 125, “Wait”, and “Watch”, also includes “allow, look for, receive, take, and wait for.”
Their classical uses are also scattered, but one idea they all have in common is “receive”, in the sense of making someone welcome. This may apply to anyone, of any social status, be he compatriot or stranger. Jesus used it of the disciples he had commissioned (Mt.10:14, 40, 41; Mk.6:11, 9:47; Lk.9:5, 48, 10:8), and equated people’s reception of them with their welcome (or not) of him. Dechomai is also frequently used of the welcome accorded the gospel message in various places (II Cor.8:11; Ac.8:14, 17:11; I Thes.1:6, 2:13) as well as of its bearers (II Cor.7:15, Gal.4:14, Col.4:10). There is nothing liturgical, spooky, or “spiritual” about this: it is welcome, pure and simple.

Lambano was occasionally used, classically, of involuntary “possession”by a spirit or deity, but the other words were not. More frequently, lambano is used to emphasize that “grace” (Jn.1:16), “fullness” (Jn.1:16), “my (Jesus’) testimony” (Jn.3:11,32,33; 5;34,41), “honor” (Jn.5:44), and the Holy Spirit (Jn.7:39, 20:22; Ac.1:8, 2:38, 8:15, 17, 19; 10:47), among others, are gifts received from the gracious hand of the Lord, and not the achievement of human effort. Indeed, Paul asks pointedly (I Cor.4:7), “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you brag as if you didn’t?” This is in a paragraph sternly critical of status-tripping in the body of believers. Literally everything about a disciple’s life is a gracious gift from the Lord, to be received with thanksgiving and employed for the welfare of the brotherhood and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other classical uses of the various words should also be kept in mind, and may color some interpretations. For apodechomai, L/S lists: to accept advice from, to follow as a teacher, to admit to one’s presence, to approve or receive favorably, to be content or satisfied with, to recover or receive back something that was lost or stolen.
For dechomai, they list: to accept as legal tender, to exchange, to understand, to accept apology and forgive, to accept as an ally, to await the attack of an enemy, to welcome, to accept responsibility for, to approve.
For prosdechomai, to admit to one’s presence, to admit an argument, to be capable of, to undertake, to take liability upon oneself
For lambano, to grasp or seize, to take by violence, to exact punishment, to catch, to find out, to detect, to apprehend with the mind, to receive hospitably, to receive in marriage, to receive as produce or profit, to receive permission, to purchase.

This is enough of a sample to show that the variety is considerable.

Perhaps the most reliable key to the proper use of “accept” among those who seek for faithfulness, lies simply in its New Testament usage. The verb appears only six times, and never refers to requirements placed upon people. Our appropriate assignment concerns the adjective – used 18x – three times as often – to act and interact in a manner acceptable to God, and giving honor to the Lord Jesus. Take a cue from brother Paul, who wrote to the Roman brethren (Rom.1:1,2):

“I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God’s compassion [mercy], to present your bodies, a living offering, set-apart, pleasing [acceptable*] to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this age, but be completely changed,by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is: what is good, and pleasing [acceptable*] and complete [perfect].”
*The word is euarestos, “pleasing, pleasant, acceptable, in good taste”.

A focus upon becoming “acceptable”, rather than forcing an artificial and unwarranted “acceptance” upon others, is much more likely to bear good fruit for the Kingdom!

“He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” I Jn.2:6, KJV, 1611

“The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him (Jesus), ought to walk [live, behave] as he did! ”IJn.2:6,  PNT, 2011

Even among the staunchest advocates of a “literal” interpretation of scripture (which usually means the KJV), I have never met one who refuses every form of transportation other than his own two feet, on the grounds that that is how Jesus got from place to place.

Clearly, locomotion is not what the apostle had in mind, although something dynamic certainly is!
“Walking” is a matter of considerable concern in the New Testament, having been used to represent six different Greek words. Three of these appear only a single time.

Emperipateo (L/S – “to walk among, to tarry among” or later, “to trample on or insult”) occurs only in II Cor.6:16, where Paul quotes the LXX promise of God, in Lv.26:12, to “pitch his tent” and “walk” among his people.
Dierchomai (L/S – “to go through, to pass through”), although used 17 times with that classical translation, is only rendered “walk” in one parable (parallel accounts in Mt.12:43 and Lk.11:24), of a cast-out evil spirit seeking another body to invade.
Orthopodeo (L/S – “to walk straight or uprightly”) has no classical listings other than the Gal.2:14 passage. Thayer says it does not exist elsewhere, though Bauer suggests a connection to a third century BC noun used by Sophocles referring to “progress”. Did Paul “make up” this one? It does make etymological sense, combining the words for “straight” and “foot.”

Stoicheo (L/S – “to be drawn up in a row or line as in battle, to move or march in sequence, to agree with or submit to”, and Bauer – “to follow in someone’s footsteps, to adhere to a person or principle”) was uniformly translated “walk” in its five uses: Ac.21:24, Rom.4:12, Gal.5:25 and 6:16, and Phil.3:16, all referring to living according to prescribed principles.
Poreuomai (L/S – “to go, walk, or march; to be driven or carried, to proceed (in law or philosophy), and Bauer –“to depart from somewhere, to follow someone or something, to go to one’s death, to conduct oneself, to live, to walk”) is much more commonly rendered simply “go” – 119x – or “depart” – 11x – with “walk” used only 9x. It refers to behavior in all but one of these. In Lk.13:33, Jesus simply indicates his intention to travel, but Lk.1:6, Ac.9:31, 14:16; I Pet.4:3, II Pet.2:10, 3:3; Jude 16,18 clearly carry the idea of one’s manner of life – the latter 6 in a distinctly negative sense.

By far the most common of the “walking” words is peripateo, with 97 New Testament appearances, 92 of them traditionally translated “walk”. All but six of the uses in the gospels and Acts refer simply to traveling on foot (a total of 42), but not a single one of its 49 appearances in the epistles lean that way.

It must be noted, of course, that the “walking” in the gospel accounts is not all “ordinary” locomotion: “the lame” (Mt.11:5, 15:31, Mk.2:9, Lk.5:23, 7:22; Jn.5, Ac.3:6,8,9,12; 14:8,10) whose healing is evidenced by their “walking”, or the little girl who had died (Mk.5:42) “walking around”, or Jesus himself (Mt.14, Lk.6) walking across the lake, are hardly ordinary, everyday strolls. But there is an even sharper shift in the epistles, at which the gospels only hint,as in Jn.8:12, 11:9,10; and 12:35, where Jesus clearly connects “walking”in light or in darkness with the faithful following of him, his instructions, and his ways.

L/S lists “walking around, to walk up and down (in the schools of philosophy) while teaching or engaging in discourse or debate, to dispute or argue” or simply “to live or conduct oneself.” Bauer adds, “the activities of daily life.” This latter implication is clearly the one in view in most of the epistles.

Paul is definitely referring to the transformation of life and behavior in his admonitions to “walking in newness of life” (Rom.6:4), “walk not after the flesh [human nature] but after the spirit” (Rom.8:1,4), “walk by faith and not by sight” (II Cor.5:7), “walk in the Spirit” (Gal.5:16), “Walk worthy of (our) calling” (Eph.4:1) and “walk as children of light” (Eph.5:8), in sharp contrast to the readers’ former life (I Cor.3:3, II Cor.4:2, Eph.2:2, 4:17, Col.3:7).

One’s general lifestyle (Col.1:10, 2:6; I Thes.2:12,4:1; I Jn.1:6,2:6), behavior toward outsiders (Eph.4:17, 5:15; Col.3:7, 4:5; I Thes.4:12), and toward each other in the brotherhood (Rom.14:15; II Cor.10:3, 12:18; Phil.3:17,18; II Thes.3:6, I Jn.1:7, and the whole of John’s last two letters) are likewise addressed.

These instructions mesh well with the lists, (although no form of “walk” is used there) in Eph.4:22-32 and Col.3:5-15, of behaviors and attitudes to “put off” and “put on”; a deliberate process to enable the realization of the transformed life that is possible only in the power of Jesus’ resurrection (Col.3:1-4).

The epistles also contain warnings concerning people – some within and some outside the fellowship – who choose to “walk”[live, behave] in the “darkness” (see #129) rather that the “light” (#75). Notice especially John’s discussion in I Jn.1, and also in 2:11, probably elaborating upon Jesus’ conversation which he had reported earlier (Jn.8:12 and 11:9-10). He now represents the choice,which Jesus had mentioned previously in connection with clarity of direction for the disciples, as affecting their mutual interaction as well. Paul, too, calls for discernment based on how people choose to “walk” (I Cor.3:3, II Cor.4:2, Phil.3:18, II Thes.3:6,11).

Of course the ultimate in beautiful companionship, hinted in II Cor.6:16 (mentioned in the beginning), and its LXX antecedents, is fulfilled at last in the Revelation. In Rv.3:4, Jesus himself welcomes the faithful – those who have not “dirtied their garments” (after he had given them clean ones!) – not to lounge around each on his private la-z-boy cloud, but “they shall WALK with me in white!” Jesus apparently, is still on the move, and so are his devoted followers.
The glorious vision of the holy city, his long-awaited Bride, has everyone “walking” – in the light of the glory of God, shed by the Lamp, which is equated with the Lamb.(Rv.21:24).

The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him (Jesus), ought to walk [live, behave] as he did!” I.Jn.2:6
“Walk [live]in a manner worthy of God, who is calling you into his own Kingdom and glory!” (I Thes.2:12.

May we walk together into faithfulness!

This subject needs to be studied in combination with W.S.#72, “Riches”, which I commend to your attention. The concepts are parallel, not only in their partial reference to material prosperity, but also in the diversity which both encompass.

The verb, thesaurizo, used 8x in the New Testament, refers (L/S) classically to the collection, preservation, or storage of anything of value: primarily fruits or grain. The use of a public granary, or reserving resources of any kind for a particular purpose, is also included, as is the less-noble idea of hoarding.
The noun, thesauros, used 18x, referred to the vaults of a bank, a granary, any receptacle for valuables, a mine, a military strong-room or magazine, a cavern or subterranean dungeon, an offertory box, or the contents of any of these, as well as to anything or anyone that was highly valued.
More rarely, the “borrowed” Persian terms, gaza (Ac.8:27) and gazaphulakion (Mk.12:41, 43; Lk.21:1, Jn.8:20) were used of a formal national or religious “treasury.”

Much of the same diversity is seen in the New Testament. The “treasures” opened when the magi presented their gifts (Mt.2), for example, were probably articles of their traveling baggage!
Paul urged the Corinthian brethren (I Cor.16:2) to set aside (“save up”) their promised contribution to the relief offering in a systematic way.
The “treasures of Egypt” in the context of Heb.11:26, probably referred to all the perks of royalty that Moses abandoned in favor of identification with God’s people.
In the previous two posts, we noted “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col.2:3) reserved for the faithful in their identification with the Lord Jesus.
A similar connection appears in II Cor.4:7, where Paul speaks of the glory of God having been entrusted to us in “earthen vessels”, reminding us that the treasure [glory] involved is the Lord’s and not ours to brag about.

Interestingly, the “treasure” words appear more than twice as often in the gospels as they do in the epistles, although many are in parallel passages. In these, it is as important to note what is NOT said, as to hear what IS said.
For example, consider the story of the wealthy young man who was contemplating discipleship (Mt.19:21, Mk.10:21, Lk.18:22). Only Luke quotes Jesus as saying “sell all you have” – the others say “what you have” or “your possessions” – but all specify, “give to the poor.” NOT “to the temple hierarchy”. Not even to Jesus’ own ministry. Paul, too, goes to great pains to emphasize (II Cor.12:14) that he does not ask anyone to support his work, or him personally – only to share with needy brethren. Certainly there is no encouragement or mandate to support the flamboyant lifestyle of the “builders” of megachurches or TV shows! “Giving TO THE POOR” is the vehicle for “laying up treasure in heaven”, as is Jesus’ concluding invitation, “Come, follow me!” (W.S.#101).
Jesus weighs in, in a similar vein, in his criticism of the “rich fool” (Lk.12:21)who “accumulates treasure for himself …”, and in his instructions not to “store up for yourselves treasures that are subject to bugs, corrosion, or theft (Mt.6:19, Lk.12:33,34) – obviously material possessions of various kinds.
I suspect that it is selfishness that Jesus is addressing, rather than the specific items of anyone’s hoarding.

This is also evident in James’ later distillation of that teaching, (Jas.5:1-6), where the abuse of others in one’s accumulation of goods is the principal focus.
Peter (II Pet.3:7) and Paul (Rom.2:5) deal just as sternly with the eventual results of choosing to ignore justice and right in favor of one’s own self-interest. Please note: this is NOT represented as punishment or retribution, but simply the inevitable result of selfish behavior.
Note also that Jesus did not hesitate to include “for yourselves” in the alternative, “heavenly” storing-up, and its effect upon one’s heart.

Jesus also uses the idea of “treasure” in a context that is clearly not material at all. In Mt.12:33-37 and Lk.6:43-45, he points out that a person’s communication reveals the character of what is “stored” in his heart, and that any final analysis will be made on the basis of simple and very obvious evidence.

Matthew also records two teaching incidents that do not appear in any of the other accounts. Both concern “the kingdom of heaven”, which is referred to by the other writers as “the kingdom of God”. Please refer to studies # 19, 20, 21, and 118 for exploration of these concepts.
After an extended period of teaching about the Kingdom, Jesus remarked to his disciples (Mt.13:52), “Every scribe [teacher?] trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure both new things and old.” He had just been explaining to them a collection [“treasure”?] of parables, and it is reasonable to assume that he expects that teaching to be remembered and replicated. This assumption would fit as well with Paul’s uses of thesauros in II Cor. and Col. already cited.

Earlier in that same teaching session (Mt.13:44), Jesus had likened the kingdom itself to a “treasure”, so valuable that its discoverer deemed it worthy of the exchange of “everything that he has” – a stark contrast to the incident where the wealthy young man turned away (Mt.19 and parallels). And please note that in neither case is the “treasure” deferred to some sort of future existence! I strongly suspect that the excited buyer of that field had already started to dig up his treasure by the time the ink was dry on his deed!

It is significant that “treasure” is spoken of as “in heaven” only three times, out of the 26 New Testament occurrences of thesaurizo / thesauros. Perhaps if proper attention is paid to what we seek to collect or preserve here on earth, and how we choose to use it, we need not worry unduly about the rest.
May we help each other faithfully to administer whatever kind of “treasure” comes under our control, and to value the Kingdom itself above all!

If you are trying to follow a “train of thought” here, the “departure station” was the reference in the previous post, where Paul asserts that in Jesus (Col.2:3), “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”! We have already dealt with “knowledge” (#29), and since the words are often used together, it is reasonable to assume that they are connected, but not synonymous. (The astute observation of our son’s late father-in-law was, “Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is having enough sense not to put one in a fruit salad!”)

In exploring “wisdom”, though, we are faced with another dilemma: two Greek words, sometimes interchangeably and sometimes identically translated as “wise” and “prudent”. Scholars with much higher credentials than mine have tried and failed to make a neat distinction between sophos and phronimos. L/S leans heavily toward practicality for phronimos, but also retains that flavor in more than half of the listings for sophos. Trench insists that only sophos has a moral component, and is used only with respect to God or to good men – but that simply is not true (see Rom.1:22, I Cor. 1:3, II Cor.1:12, Col.2:23, Jas.3:15,17). Bauer’s approach is more balanced, including both natural worldly wisdom and that which comes only from God in the treatment of sophos, and relegating phronimos primarily, although not exclusively, to matters of judgment or opinion.
Both words, to a degree at least, appear to be subject to one’s conscious choice, as well as being a native, gifted, or learned ability.
Plato and Aristotle used both words: the former for flights of philosophical fantasy as well as carefully reasoned argument, and the latter of scientific or mathematical understanding!

So perhaps we may also be forgiven for our occasional confusion!
Primarily because of the contexts in which they occur, I usually use words like “sensible” or “reasonable” for phronimos, and reserve “wise” for sophos, but I would not insist upon either choice.

Words related to phronimos (used 18x), phronesis (2x), phronimoteros (1x), and phronimos (the adverb – 1x) appear much less frequently than sophia (51x) / sophos (21x) / sophizo (2x) / sophoteron (1x). The older term, “prudent” fits well for most of the former group, as they refer to people behaving sensibly, from the world’s standpoint, in their situations (Lk.16:8 – 2x, Mt. 7:24, 24:45, 25:2-9 – 4x – , Lk.12:42). Please note, that simply using “good judgment” is nowhere represented as “wrong”. “Worldly wisdom” is only criticized when it is valued above that which comes from God, or contradicts Kingdom principles, as in the warnings recorded in Rom.11:25, 12:16; I Cor.4:10, II Cor.11:19. Indeed, using one’s best judgment is recommended in Mt.10:16, Lk.1:17, I Cor.10:15, and Eph.1:8.

The uses of sophia / sophos, on the other hand, require some sorting. L/S lists “cleverness or skill in a craft or art, skill in matters of common life, sound judgment, practical wisdom, learning, speculative wisdom, natural philosophy”, and notes that only among the Jews was it considered an attribute of God. This is not really surprising, if one considers the antics ascribed to the Greek and Roman deities. Both Paul (I Tim.1:17, Rom.16:7) and Jude (25) actually use the phrase, “the only wise God”. Might they have had exactly that contrast in mind?

Paul is careful to distinguish, in the first three chapters of I Corinthians, between “the wisdom of the world” and “the wisdom of God” – but he uses sophia /sophos for both. James also makes a clear distinction in Jas.3:13-17, offering a reliable standard by which the “real thing” may be recognized.
When the Ephesian and Colossian churches were under assault by advocates of mystical Eastern cults which claimed a superior, esoteric “wisdom”, Paul reminded them (Eph.1:8, 1:17, 3:10; Col.1:9, 1:28, 2:3, 2:23, 3:16) that disciples have already been made partakers of the very wisdom of God himself – “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” in the Lord Jesus Christ – and consequently have no need of anything “beyond” that (Col.3:16) “Christ’s word must continually reside among you all, richly, in all wisdom, as you keep teaching and admonishing each other”!

The wisdom required for that assignment is plainly and overtly recognized as the gift of God. Jesus had promised it for times of trial (Lk.21:15). It was listed right up there with the Holy Spirit among the qualifications sought for the first deacons (Ac.6:3), and heavily relied upon by Stephen (Ac.6:10), Paul (Rom.2:6,7; I Pet.3:15), and James 1:5.
A “word of wisdom” is listed among the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the church in I Cor.12:8, paired with a “word of knowledge” – the combination being a necessary component of faithful discipleship (#51). Someone has said, “knowing what needs doing, AND what to do about it”. “Walking in wisdom” (Eph.5:15, Col.4:5), likewise, is essential for faithful witness (#18).
Even Jesus himself, as a child, “increased in wisdom” as he matured (Mt.13:54, Mk.6:2, Lk.2:40,52), but for us “ordinary mortals”, it seems primarily to be the result of gracious revelation (Mk.11:25, 23:35; Rom.16:19, Eph.1:8, 1:17, Col.1:9).

A few other words are rarely rendered “wise”: suniemi (once — II Cor.10:12 —  “wise” and 24x “understanding”), sunetos (only used 4x, and invariably rendered “prudent” – Mt.11:25, Lk.10:27, Ac.13:17, I Cor.1:19), and magos (rendered 4x “wise men” in Mt.2, and 2x “sorcerer” in Ac.8 and 13). This latter word is Persian, and referred to astrologer-priests.

By way of contrast, several of the words appear with the negative prefix, “a-”, and are rendered “unwise, foolish, without understanding”: asophos (Eph.5:15), anoetos (Rom.1:14,Gal.3:1,3; I Tim.6:9, Tit.3:3), asunetos (Rom.1:21, 10:19; Mt.15:16, Rom.1:31), and aphron (Rom.2:20, Eph.5:7, I Pet.2:15). The contexts of most of these give the impression that the ignorance in each case was a matter of choice, unlike moros, which seems to be a condition that can be remedied.

Perhaps Paul’s (Eph.5:17) admonition, “be not unwise, but understand what the Lord’s will (#12) is,” the gracious invitation of James (1:5) to simply ask when we lack the wisdom for faithful living, and Paul’s reminders (Col.3:16 and I Tim.1:17) of the Word (#66) as the vehicle for communicating and sharing that wisdom, provide the best summary for those of us who are serious about learning faithfulness.

“Oh, the depth of God’s wealth and wisdom and knowledge! How (far) beyond searching are his judgments, and beyond comprehension his ways! For who knew the Lord’s mind? Or who became his advisor? Or who gave anything before to him, that it should be repaid to him? Because everything has its source, existence, and goal in him! Glory to him forever!” (Rom.11:33-36, PNT)

This study is an outgrowth of the former post. When I ran across the only reference for aischune that was not translated “shame”, but rather “dishonesty” (II Cor.4:2), where Paul asserts, “we have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty”, I thought this required attention. I have long advocated for the total avoidance of “hidden things” or secrecy of any kind in a Christian brotherhood, so the connection of “hidden things” with “shame” or “dishonesty” seemed quite relevant to these efforts. Of course, with careful study, one frequently learns that nothing is as simple as he would like it to be. This was no exception.

Both “hidden” and “secret” are traditional translations of the same words, with very few, seldom-appearing exceptions. Almost all (8 out of 12 words) are some variant of the verb krupto: primarily kruptos (noun, adjective, and adverb forms), another adverb kruphe, and the prefixed forms apokrupto / apokruphos, perikrupto, and egkrupto. L/S lists roughly the same usage for all of them: “to hide with a notion of protection, to hide oneself, to cover or bury, to conceal or keep secret, to engage in intrigue, to connive”, or in the adjectival forms, “hidden, secret, disguised, underhanded, hard to understand, obscure.”

Similar variety is also represented in New Testament usage. There are things and people that are “hidden” for protection (Mt.7:24, 13:44; Jn.7:10, 8:59, 12:36,19:38; Col.3:3). Some refer simply to ordinary privacy (Mt.1:18, 24:26, 26:26; I Pet.3:4). Some things are “hidden”, waiting for the proper time to be “revealed” (Mt.11:25, Lk.10:21, Eph.3:9, Col.1:26, 2:3; Mt.13:35, Rom.16:25). Some are rather ambiguous as to whether the “hiding” is a positive or a negative thing (Mt.10:26, Mk.4:22, Lk.12:2, 8:17, 8:27, 9:45, 18:34; Mt.5:14, Lk.1:24, Mt.13:33, Lk.13:21). And some are indeed nefarious, and strictly warned-against (Mt.25:18, 25:25; Rom.2:16, I Cor.4:5, II Cor.4:2, Eph.5:12, Rv.6:15,16).

Another perspective of interest is “who is hiding (or trying to hide) what, from whom, and why?” Jesus’ admonition in Mt.6:4, 6, 18, for example,is  an encouragement to keep one’s faithfulness private between the disciple and the Father, whose “seeing in secret” is loving affirmation, quite in contrast to the warning expressed by the same word in Rom.2:16 or I Cor.4:5. Whether or not we welcome the time when “the secrets of all hearts will be revealed” simply depends upon what is in our hearts!
Also interestingly, there is no overt suggestion that “things hidden from the beginning of the world” (Eph.3:9, Col.1:26, Mt.13:35, Rom.16:25) were deliberately concealed by the hand of God: only that they are exclusively and deliberately revealed (note the context of the above references), by his will and timing, and under his instructions.
The only people from whom the message of the Kingdom is deliberately withheld (II Cor.4:3, Lk.19:42, Mt.11:25, Lk.10:21) are those who have rejected the call of the King, in whom alone are “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col.2:3). It is he, also, in whom the very lives of those who trust him are “hidden” by the protective hand of God (Col.3:3), after having already chosen to begin the promised Kingdom life.

Lanthano / lathra (L/S – “to escape notice, unseen, secretly, privately, imperceptibly”, but also “treacherously, by stealth”) in the New Testament usually refers to privacy (Jn.11:28, Mt.1:19, 2:7; Ac.16:7), with only the latter two references bearing any underhanded flavor. The verb form carries a tone of attempted avoidance (Mt.7:24, Lk.8:47), but in a protective sense.

Aphanes (an adverb formed by adding the negative prefix “a” to the stem of phaneros, translated “manifest”, referring to any sort of revelation (Lk.8:17, Mk.4:22, I Cor.3:13, 14:25; Eph.5:13), is only used a single time, in Heb.4:13, and, like the citations in Mt.6 above, whether it is a threat or a promise depends upon whose side one has chosen to join!

 It is in the matter of “choosing sides” that the concept of “darkness” is thrown into the mix. All but 4 of the 59 references use some form of skotia / skotos (L/S – “darkness, blindness, obscurity, gloom, uncertainty, deceit, ignorance, death”). Occasionally it refers simply to the onset of evening (Jn.6:17, 20:1), the eclipse at the time of Jesus’ death (Mt.27:45, Mk.15:33, Lk.23:44), or the eventual destination of those who actively oppose the Lord, his people, and his ways (II Pet.2:4, 17; Jude 6, 13; Heb.12:18, Mt.8:12, 22:13, 25:30). A few times the implication appears to be privacy (Mt.10:27, Lk.12:13).
But most of the time, it is a description of intellectual or spiritual ignorance, whether as a result of opposing the Lord (Rom.1:21, 11:10; Eph.4:8, Mt.8:12, 22:13, 25:30, II Pet.2:17), or simply not having heard of his ways (Mt.4:16, Lk.1:79, Ac.26:18, Rom.2:19).
Darkness is also represented as the realm of overt evil (Lk.22:15, Jn. 3:19, Eph.5:8, 11,12; 6:12; I Thes.5:4,5), from which the faithful are urged to make a definitive break (I Pet.2:9, Col.1:13, Eph.5:11, II Cor.6:14, Rom.13:12, Mt.6:23, Lk.11:35).
John seems to draw the battle lines with the greatest clarity, both in his gospel (1:5, 8:12, 12:35,46) and in his first letter (I Jn.1:5,6; 2;8,9,11). Please refer also to study #75, “Light”, by way of contrast.

The key to the connection with “secrecy” lies in Jn.3:19-21: “The light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil. Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. But the one who is doing [acting in] the truth, comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be revealed, that they were performed in [for] God.”
Paul harmonizes very well with this tune in the paragraph that contains the reference with which we began: II Cor.4:1-6.

While it may be necessary in hostile environments for faithful brethren to operate quietly with respect to the darkness that surrounds, and sometimes threatens them (Mt.7:24, Jn.7:10, 8:59, 12:36), within a faithful brotherhood, there is no such need!
“Renouncing the shameful, hidden things” (II Cor.4:2), and “things hidden in darkness” (I Cor.4:5), we may take our places in complete, trusting mutuality as the Body of our Lord Jesus!
“Once, you all were darkness, but now you are light, in the Lord! Behave as children of light!” (Eph.5:8)
Amen!

I am just plain fed-up!

Whether it’s the “creeds” and “confessions” of liturgical groups, or the “praise songs”, “old hymns”, or pious-sounding, flowery prayers of groups that consider themselves less formal, the ubiquitous requirement to wallow in self-deprecation about “all my guilt and shame” is so blatantly opposed, not only to Jesus’ teaching, but to his entire life and interaction with people, that I often feel like walking out! Or at least, carrying a protest sign:

“JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!!!”

Please show me one single place where he did!

Neither noun — neither “guilt” nor “shame” – appears a single time in the entire New Testament, in connection with earnest followers of Jesus! In fact, “guilt”, in any context, is completely absent.
This subject has been addressed previously in the postings on repentance (#6), forgiveness of sins (#7), and “humility” (#14), but I think we need to look at these two words individually. They are symptoms of a pervasive disease, that is potentially fatal to the genuine message of Jesus, not to mention the welfare of his people.

The concept of “guilt” is not totally absent from New Testament writings. Twice, Jesus uses anaitios (L/S – guiltless, without fault or blame), once of himself (Mt.12:7) and once of priests performing their legitimate sabbath duties (Mt.12:5).
There are three words traditionally translated “guilty”. Hupodikos (L/S – a legal term, referring to trial and conviction), is used only in Rom.3:19, making the point that whether Jew or Gentile, the whole world has ignored God’s instructions. Opheilo (L/S – referring primarily to monetary debt, legal obligation, or duty) was only once rendered “guilty” (Mt.23:18), regarding one’s obligation incurred by oath. Its other translations are “ought,must, should” 18x, “debt” 5x, and “duty” 4x.
Enochos (L/S – legal liability or a court sentence), is translated “danger” 5x (Mt.5:21,22 – 4 uses – and Mk.3:29), 1x “subject” (Heb.2:15), and 4x “guilty” (Mt.26:66 and Mk.14:64 regarding the verdict at Jesus’ mock trial; James’ indictment – 2:10 – of people picking and choosing only parts of the law to observe; and I Cor.11:27.) This last is the only one that could conceivably be applied to “believers” – and it is directed toward those who are doing active damage to the function of the Body.

It is difficult to sort out the “shame / ashamed” words.
Aischunomai (5x), epaischuneo (11x), and kataischuneo (12x) (L/S – to dishonor, disfigure or tarnish; to disdain, to be ashamed (and consequently not do something), to be ashamed of having done something; to feel shame, or to cause another to do so) are exclusively rendered “ashamed” in the New Testament, except for two instances where for some reason, “confounded” was used (I Cor.1:27, I Pet.2:6), and two (I Cor.11:4,5) where “dishonor” was chosen. The only reference to a committed person being “ashamed” is with reference (Rom.6:21) to his former life. But Paul immediately follows that remark with v.22, “But now that you have been set free —” and paints a picture of sharp contrast.

Many references are admonitions to not be ashamed when persecuted or put-down (I Pet.4:6, II Tim.1:8, 12, 16; Heb.12:12, Phil.1:20); nor of the Gospel itself (Rom.1:16, 9:3, 10:11); of Jesus (Mk.8:38, Lk.9:26), or of each other (II Cor.7:14, 9:4), and to take care that God / Jesus have no reason to be ashamed of us (Heb.2:11, 11:16).
There are statements that opponents were – or ought to be – ashamed (Lk.13:17, I Pet.3:16, Tit.2:8), and that brethren who are in error should be corrected, in order that they may be restored (I Cor.4:14, 6:5, 15:34; II Cor.10:8, II Thes.3;14), but none implying continuing “shame” on the part of faithful followers.

The other words are somewhat harder to pin down.
Aischune , the noun form of “shame”, only appearing 6x, is likewise never applied to the faithful. The one reference to Jesus, (Heb.12:2), says that he “endured the cross, despising the shame” (NOT “assuming” or “bearing” it!) The verb is kataphroneo, (L/S – “to look down upon, to be disdainful of, to think contemptuously of, to disregard, or neglect!”) This looks more to me like triumph and complete superiority than the much-touted “submission”! Where did the notion of his “bearing” or “becoming” shame come from? Certainly not the New Testament!
Paul (II Cor.4:2, Phil.3:9), Jude (13), and John (Rv.3:18) all speak of the “shame” of the disobedient, and Luke (14:9) describes the embarrassment of an egotistical guest. Notice the translation in II Cor.4:2 is “dishonesty”. That bears further study. Is requiring people to “confess” “shame” without any reason, really urging them to dishonesty?

Entrepomai, used 9x, represents a historical alteration of meaning. L/S lists “to command respect, to hesitate or feel misgivings, to reverence or feel regard for,” and only later “to feel shame or fear.” In Mt.21:37, Mk.12:6,Lk.20:13, and Heb.12:9, “reverence” was chosen; in Lk.18:2,4 , “regard”; and only 3x, I Cor.4:14, II Thes.3:14, Tit.2:8, “ashamed.” I will welcome your thoughts on how these choices might have been made. They are all valid translations of the word…..
Other words for dishonorable behavior are used more rarely: aschemosune (2x), atimia, atimao (negative forms of timao, to honor) 8x, entrope (2x), making little or no reference to its effect, or the perception of the actors. It is interesting that the only two uses of paradeigmatizo are Mt.1:19 of Joseph’s reluctance to embarrass Mary publicly, and Heb.6:6, the charge that those who turn away, put Jesus himself to public shame. (If you have downloaded the PNT, please add that in brackets to the end of the verse! I will correct it in the next version.)

 So, where does all this leave us?

Very simply: seek to live in such a way that we will have nothing of which to be ashamed,
that we will not make the Lord ashamed of us,
and that none of us will cause shame to other brethren.

But scrap the platitudes about “guilt and shame”!!!‘
YOU ARE NOT A “WRETCH”!!
YOU ARE NOT A “WORM”!!!
If you belong to Jesus, YOU ARE NOT “FULL OF GUILT AND SHAME”!
It does NOT make you “holier”, more appreciative, or more faithful, to wallow around “confessing”or singing songs, bemoaning some artificial construct of “guilt and shame”!

And for Jesus’ sake – (please note that I am using that phrase as Paul did, and not as a profanity!) – quit assuming that that sort of behavior is “praising the Lord”!!!

Praise him rather for setting you FREE from all that, to follow him!

This study started at church, too:  with the question, “Is the word about heaven being ‘torn open’ in Mark 1:10 the same as what happened to the temple veil when Jesus died (Mt.27:5, Mk.15:38, Lk.23:45)?”  A quick check confirmed that it is.

I was surprised to discover that schizo, (L/S – to separate or divide, physically or intellectually; to split wood, to have differing opinions, to shatter, tear, or cut) appears only ten times in the New Testament.  Four of these are cited above.  Five times, it is translated “rend” – the three above regarding the temple, and again in the Mt.27 reference speaking of rocks shattered by the earthquake, and the guards’ decision (Jn.19:24) not to tear apart Jesus’ robe.  Twice, it is rendered “divide” – Ac.14:4 and 23:7, of divided opinions in the crowds;  once “make a rent” (Lk.5:36) of a new patch on old fabric; once (Jn.21:11) when the fish-net was not broken; and once “open”, in the Mt.1:10 with which we began.
The noun, schisma (L/S – “a tear in a a garment, a division of opinion, plowing, or cloven hoofs”) occurs only eight times.  It is translated “division” 5x – Jn.7:43, 9:16, 10:19; I Cor.1:10, 11:18 – all referring to divisions of opinion among people; “rent” twice – Mt.9:16,  Mk.2:21 – which are parallel to Luke’s use of the verb (5:36) above; and “schism” once – I Cor.12:25 – regarding divisions in the Body.

Schizo / schisma seems to share the more drastic end of a spectrum of words describing breaking or dividing, with regnumi (5 uses) and its prefixed form, diarregnumi (also 5 uses).  Both are listed by L/S as “burst, break, rend, or shatter”, and in passive form, “to be wrecked, broken, torn, or disjointed.”

They also refer to the dramatic tearing of clothing (Mt.26:65, Mk.14:63, Ac.14:14), the bursting of wineskins by the fermentation process (Mk.2:22,Lk.5:37), the destructive activity of evil spirits (Lk.8:29, Mk.9:18, 9:42)  or pigs (Mt.7:6), as well as Luke’s account of a broken fish net (Lk.5:6).

The idea of “division” is usually less dramatic, and much more frequently represented by merizo (14x) or diamerizo (12x).  L/S lists “to divide, to distribute,or separate” groups of people, objects, ideas, or animals.  This may involve simple sharing of goods and/or responsibilities (Mk.6:41, Lk.12:13, Ac.2:3, II Cor.10:13, Heb.7:2), but also with a more hostile slant, a “house divided against itself” (Mt.12:25,26;  Mk.3:24,26), or serious divisions in the church (I Cor.1:13).

Aphorizo (L/S “to mark off boundaries, to separate species, to determine or define”) shares much of this sense (Mt.13:49, 25:32, Lk.6:22,19:9, Rom.1:1, II Cor.6:17, Gal.1:15), or “to set apart for office” (Ac.13:2), but can also have the sense, also noted in L/S, of “to banish, or set apart for rejection (Gal.2:12).

Dichostasia (L/S “dissension, sedition”), appearing only 3x (Rom.16:17, I Cor.3:3, Gal.5:20), seems to include only the negative aspects of division.

I had previously assumed that Mark’s use of schizo in his account of Jesus’ baptism was just the effusive vocabulary of an excited young man, which is evident in so much of his writing.
Matthew and Luke say simply that “heaven was opened”, and John reports the descent of the dove, but does not mention “heaven” at all.
Anoigo, the word used in Mt.3:16 and Lk.3:21, is a very ordinary word,  used of opening doors (literal and figurative), prisons,  eyes, mouths, treasures, and also of visions (Ac.7:56, 10:11, and frequently in the Revelation).  It appears 70 times in the New Testament, sometimes referring to miracles, but only part of the time.

 Looking at all of these word uses, however, leads me to suppose that Mark is really much more insightful that he usually gets credit for.  Maybe more so than all the rest!

Consider:  these are Mark’s only uses of schizo.  Might he not have intended that we make a connection?  Might the “heavens” have been “split open”, not so much to let the dove / Spirit out, but to allow people to see IN?
The Gospel accounts vary as to who saw what.  The Matthew passage is  not conclusive with respect to  the reference of “he”.  Jesus and John have both just been named.  The “voice” saying “this is my Son” would give the impression that it is being addressed to John.

Mark, however, (1:11) quotes “You are my Son” – obviously addressed to Jesus.  Luke follows Mark.  John does not connect the vision with the baptism at all, but he bears clear testimony to what he saw, and its correspondence to what God had told him previously.
No one reports whether the crowd saw or heard anything.  With the testimony equally divided, I think it is safe to say that at least Jesus and John saw and heard what had happened, and possibly others.

Now fast-forward to the scene in the temple at the time of Jesus’ death, which must surely have caused enormous consternation.  Remember, that huge, thick curtain was designed to prevent people from seeing or entering “the place where God dwelt”.  (Please refer to Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 8).
But Jesus had spent the last three years trying to show the Father to anyone who was willing to look!(Jn.14:9).
His death, and subsequent destruction of both death, its power, and the one who controlled it (Heb.2:4), also destroyed the last vestiges of any validity for any pretense of the separation of people from their God!  The veil was deliberately destroyed so that those who had so long been excluded could not only see in, but also enter in to the very presence of the One we worship!
The writer to the Hebrews also notes that the temple / tabernacle was “a representation of the heavenly things” (Heb.9:23,24), but  Jesus has transported his people to the “real thing”!

In both the cases, the dramatic splitting open of the curtain and of heaven itself is not the work of any earthly power.  Jesus’ ministry of restoration is gloriously bookended by two displays of the gracious hand of God, crashing through aeons of separation and tearing them to shreds, in his mighty, amazing gesture of welcome – not only to his Son, but to his people!

Thanks be to God

From billboards to bumper stickers, novels, movies, songs, and sermons, we are bombarded with the (usually designed to be threatening) question: “Are you ready to meet God?” or “Jesus is coming: are you ready?”
Laying aside for the moment the most egregious error in such a message – which is failing (or refusing) to recognize that the word of the Lord’s coming is NOT a threat, but a promise, greatly to be anticipated – let us rather consider just what it is to be “ready”. Please review studies 124 and 125 as we undertake this one.

Different aspects of “readiness” – for many different occasions – are represented in the New Testament by three different “families” of words, which, although quite distinct in their implications, are seldom distinguished by English translators. See if you can suggest alternate words that would convey the differences.

Interestingly, only one of these, hetoimazo, hetoimos, is ever used in connection with the Lord’s return, although a second, kataskeuazo, appears four times regarding John’s preparations for Jesus’ first appearance.

I have chosen to pass over the four instances where mello, a versatile word used for anything that is “about to happen”, is translated “ready” (Lk.7:2, Ac.20:7, Rv.3:2, 12:4), because there is no idea of preparation involved. The reference is simply temporal: the more common translations are “shall” (25x), “should” (19x), and other indications of the immediate future.

Likewise, prothumia / prothumos was classically used of willingness or eagerness to do something, and in the New Testament, four times with respect to the relief offering collected by the Gentile churches for the Judean famine (II Cor.8:11,12; 8:19, 9:2), once (Ac.17:11) of the eagerness with which the Bereans received Paul’s message, once of Paul’s desire to preach in Rome (Rom.1:15), and twice as Jesus warns his disciples that although their “spirit is [ready] willing” (Mt.26:41, Mk.14:38), their human nature is not. Prothumia speaks of desire and enthusiasm, but lacks practical substance.

Paraskeuazo , appearing only 4x, leans a bit more heavily upon practicality regarding the offering (II Cor.9:2,3), and also refers to preparations for battle (I Cor.14:8), or simply the preparation of a meal (Ac.10:10). The noun form, paraskeue (Mt.27:62, Mk.15:42, Lk.23:54, Jn.19:14,31,42) refers exclusively to the Jewish Day of Preparation before the Passover Sabbath.
Kataskeuazo, referenced earlier, more often used in the sense of building: a house (Heb.3:3,4), the tabernacle (Heb.9:2,6), or Noah’s ark (Heb.11:7, I Pet.3:20), is also used in prophecy, by Gabriel (Lk.1:17) and both John the Baptist and Jesus quoting Isaiah (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk.7:27). Both words are classically used of producing, preparing, or procuring something, or making preparations; but both are also used of fraudulent legal manipulations, to influence a court or “pack” a jury! I have not detected this aspect in any of the New Testament references, although I am sure that it happened – case in point, Ac.23:12-16, describing one of the plots against Paul (with the use of hetoimos).

The most common, and most versatile, of the words referring to “readiness” is hetoimos(17x), hetoimazo (29x). Liddell/Scott notes virtually any kind of preparation, whether for a meal, warfare, or any other event; to have cash-in-hand for payment of an obligation; the feasibility of a task; a promise made good; or lack of hesitation. New Testament uses include preparations identical with those in which paraskeuazo is used: preparing the way / people for Jesus’ arrival (Mt.3:3, Mk.1:3, 14:12; Lk.1:17, 3:4), and later, preparing the Passover meal (Mt.26:17,19; Mk.14:15,16; Lk.22;8,12,13), and the discussion (more frequently using prothumia) of the relief offering (II Cor.9:5).
Commander Lysias’ orders to assemble a military escort for Paul (Ac.23:23), and preparation for battles – which, please note, did NOT take place – (Rv.9:7, 15; 16:12); Paul’s request to Philemon for a guest room (Phm.22), and the women’s preparation of embalming spices (Lk.23:56, 24:1), as well as ordinary preparation of meals or lodging (Lk.9:52, 14:17; 17:8, Mk.14:15; Mt.22:4), all employ forms of hetimazo.

The adverb, hetoimos, expresses Paul’s acceptance of whatever fate awaits him in Jerusalem (Ac.21:13), as well as his deliberate travel plans (Ac.21:13), and Peter’s assessment of the Lord’s readiness to exercise judgment (I Pet.4:5). Earlier, Peter had used the adjective hetoimos in boasting of his loyalty to Jesus (Lk.22:33). Six times, the reference is to God himself doing the preparing: Mt.20:23 – arranging positions in the final kingdom; Lk.2:31 – the working out of the deliverance planned for all people; I Cor.2:9 – the unimaginably glorious inheritance prepared “for them that love him”; Heb.11:16 – the city, whose builder and maker is God; Rv.12:6 – refuge from persecution for the “woman” (the church?), and I Pet.1:5 – “the deliverance [salvation] that is prepared to be revealed in the last time”; and twice (Jn.14:2,3) Jesus speaks of “preparing a place” for his disciples.
Paul urges both Titus (3:1) and Timothy (II Tim.2:21) that they, and those they teach, be “ready / prepared for every good work”, and Peter (I Pet.3:15) advocates constant readiness to respond to questioners who are puzzled by “the hope that is in / among you”.

Only in a few parables does Jesus connect “readiness” with his return.
The parable about the feast (Mt.22:1-13 and Lk.14:16-24) uses the “ready” words only with respect to the preparations made by the host. It is their rude behavior that excludes the invited guests.
The judgment scene in Mt.25:31-46 refers to “the kingdom prepared” for those who have acted mercifully, and “the fire prepared” (not for people) for “the devil and his messengers”. Again, people are not charged with making the preparations.

In contrast, the story of the girls awaiting the arrival of the bridegroom (some manuscripts say “the bride”) places the responsibility squarely upon the guests. The ones who were welcomed were the ones who had been careful to keep their lamps working! (A reflection of Mt.5:14-16?)
Most significant of all is Jesus’ teaching in Mt.24:42-51 and Luke 12:35-48. The Master has been out of town, leaving his servants to tend to his affairs, and entrusting some with the responsibility to care for the others. Those whom the Master finds faithfully fulfilling their assigned duties are commended, and rewarded – not with starry crowns, but with greater responsibility! Notice that the one incurring the most severe punishment is the servant “in charge”, who abused those entrusted to his care! (Lk.12:45,46 and Mt.24:46-49), and treated his assignment as one of privilege, rather than responsibility.
Luke adds (47,48) the observation that the Master’s expectations (and reaction) are commensurate with the degree to which the servants were aware of his wishes.

Please note that nothing at all is said about what anyone “thought” or “believed”, or to what sort of doctrine, dogma, or creed he subscribed! (Refer also to W.S.#10).

Jesus does indeed encourage his people to “be ready” for his coming (Mt.24:44, Lk.12:40,47). It behooves us therefore, to check with him regarding what that “readiness” entails!

As long as you are busy following the Master’s instructions, YOU ARE READY!

Go out to meet him in unmitigated JOY!