The Pioneers’ New Testament

For the past two years, I have been posting New Testament word studies nearly every week, to supplement the New Testament translation, The Pioneers’ New Testament, accompanying Translation Notes, and word study guides, all of which you can download from this site.
Now that the word study collection has reached 100 entries, I intend to take a break from that project, in order to index all the words that have been included, and make it easier for you to access the treatment of a particular word or concept without scrolling through the whole thing.  I intend to include an index of the Greek words treated, as well.
This may take a while, so don’t be surprised if you don’t find new material as regularly.

Meanwhile, please remember that your comments, suggestions, and requests for particular studies are still most welcome.  You can send them with the “comments” button on this page, and I will be checking it regularly.

Please also know that I constantly give thanks for each of you who has contributed to the readership total of more than 10,000 in these two years.  May we all help one another to greater faithfulness!

In the service of the King,
Ruth

This is a challenging study to organize, primarily because traditional translators have been extremely inconsistent in their treatment of the text’s original vocabulary. Not only does each of these English terms represent multiple Greek words, but several of the Greek words have been artificially divided into multiple English concepts. I have chosen to confine this study primarily to those references in which the words are applied specifically to faithful followers of the Lord Jesus.

Of the nine Greek words traditionally translated “servant”, four, therapen, oiketes, misthios, and misthatos are never connected with serving God at all, but refer only to workers, either employed or enslaved, in household or agricultural service.
Diakonos, people who simply do whatever needs to be done, has been treated in W.S.#40, and often, though not exclusively, applies to Kingdom service. Please refer to that earlier study.
Pais may refer either to a servant or a minor child, and there is no way to be certain which is intended. We will consider that among the other words relating to children.
Huperetes denotes more of an official position, rather like a deputy, officer, or assistant. It is used of the men in the high priest’s courtyard with Peter (Mt.26:58, Mk.14:54, 65), of John Mark’s serving as an assistant to Paul and Barnabas (Ac.13:5), an official at the synagogue (Lk.4:20), Jesus’ disciples (Jn.18:36, Lk.1:2), and Paul (Ac.26:16, I Cor.4:1), as well as 11x of government officials.
Doulos is by far the most frequently occurring term (120x). Classically, it always referred to slavery – either one born into bondage, a prisoner of war, or even a child sold by indigent parents. Slaves were wholly-owned possessions of their masters, although some held positions of great responsibility. It was not uncommon for a faithful slave to be set free, either by his master’s generosity, by earning and purchasing his freedom, or by being “redeemed” (W.S.#61) by another. Paul frequently used doulos to describe his own service to Jesus (Rom.1:1, Gal.1:10, Phil.1:1, Tit.1:1), as did James (1:1), Peter (II Pet.1:1), and Jude (1): service that they had freely chosen.
Insight into the “status” of slaves is available throughout the gospels – for example, in Mt.8:9, a servant does whatever he is told; Mt.10:24,25 – the relationship is likened to that of a student and a teacher; Mt.13:27,28 – the servants bring a problem to the master, and receive instructions for action; and you can find many others. I highly recommend this exercise! Start with Mt.24:45-50, Mk.13:34, Lk.15:22, and go on from there!
Paul makes an eloquent case in Rom.6:16-20 that a person is a servant/slave to whomever/whatever he chooses to obey, and urges (I Cor.7:22,23) that a definitive choice be made.
He speaks approvingly of others also as servants of the Lord Jesus Christ – Timothy, Epaphras, Tychicus – sometimes preferring the prefixed term, sundoulos – “fellow-servant/slave”.
It is interesting that on two occasions (Rev.19:10 and 22:9), the “messenger” – usually assumed to be a supernatural being of some sort – who delivered the revelation to John, flatly refused John’s “worship”, with the declaration, “sundoulos sou eimi” – (“I am your fellow-servant”)! Among faithful servants of the King, there are no superiors – none deserving of greater deference than all the rest – except the Sovereign himself!!!
And Jesus himself reminded his followers, shortly before his departure (Jn.15:15), “I no longer call you servants, but friends!” (See W.S.#22)

Ergates – workers – and sunergos – fellow-workers – frequently parallel doulos and sundoulos. Although conventionally applied to hired workers rather than slaves, in the Kingdom context they are used synonymously. Paul prefers the prefixed term here too, applying it to Timothy, Sysygos, Urbane, Priscilla and Aquila, Philemon, Archippus, Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke. As in other references to “work” (W.S.#39 and 99), notice that the “work” that occupies one’s attention can be positive or negative, and requires committed discernment.

We have noted above that under Roman law, a slave did have the possibility of gaining freedom. If this was granted before a magistrate and legally registered, he could even attain coveted Roman citizenship (Ac.22:28). Citizenship conferred considerable privilege. It was also granted to select allied cities (of which Tarsus was one – Ac.21:39) and their inhabitants, and could be inherited by birth, or earned by service to the state, as well as by purchase. A Roman citizen had legal rights (Ac.16:37-38, 22:25-26, 23:27, 25:16) not available to others.
But the New Testament proclaims a citizenship far beyond that offered by Rome (Please refer to W.S.# 4, 19, 20, 21, 149, and Citizens of the Kingdom. ) Politeia, politeuma,and politeuo, although variously translated in traditional versions, all refer to Kingdom citizenship conferred by faithfulness to the King, the Lord Jesus Christ. The scene of transformation described in Eph.2:12-19 is graphic – from alienated foreigners to “fellow citizens with the saints [God’s people]” – sumpolites – as is a similar reference in Col.1:13. As ransomed, free citizens, the faithful remain sundouloi to their King! This is explored in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom.

And that is not all! The faithful are designated not only citizens of the Kingdom, but members of the very family of the King (Mt.12:48-50).
Of the seven words rendered “child/children”, only three are applied to Kingdom citizens.
Brephos and nepios refer to babies or very small children. Paidion is a pre-pubescent child of either gender, held up as an example of unpretentious love (Mt.18:3,4), and used as a term of affection throughout his letters by the elder apostle, John. Pais, as noted above, may refer either to a child or a young servant, although David (Lk.1:61, Ac.4:25), Israel (Lk.1:54), and Jesus himself (Lk.2:42, Ac.4:27,30; Ac.3:13,26) are all designated as pais to God, but other people are not. Elsewhere, the term does not specify whether it refers to a child or a servant, and traditional translators use them randomly.
This leaves teknion, teknon,and huios. Teknion, the diminutive (affectionate) version of teknon, appears only nine times, seven of them in I John, as the elder lovingly addresses his younger brethren (2:1,12,28; 3:7,18; 4:4, 5:21).
Teknon, which does not specify gender, is used classically of any offspring, human or animal. It may include both sons huioi and daughters thugater, and need not refer to physical descent. Geographical provenance (Mt.23:37, Lk.13:34, 23:28) or philosophical or theological affinity may also be understood – “children of light” (Eph.5:8), “of wrath”(Eph.2:3), “of the devil” (I Jn.3:10), or “of God” (Jn.1:12, 11:52; Phil.2:15, I Jn.3:1,2) – all of which employ teknon, despite being translated “sons” by some translators in many passages. (You can find these sorted out in Young’s Concordance.)

Huios, on the other hand, specifically intends “sons”. Please refer to the essay, “The Task of a Translator” for more detail. Despite Paul’s single use of teknon in Rom.8:16,17, it is usually huios that carries the weight of “inheritance” (W.S.#79,80). John uses huios only of Jesus, except where he designates the faithful as “sons of light” in 12:46. Other writers use it prolifically – Mt.5:9, 5:45, 8:12; Lk.6:35, 20:36; Rom.9:26, Gal.3:27, I Thes.5:5 – of “sons of the Father, the Kingdom, the Highest, the living God” (all mis-translated as “children”), as well as Rom.8:14,19,29; Gal.4:6,7; Heb.2:10,12:5-8, and Rev.21:7, where the correct word, “sons”, was used.
The declaration of the privileged status called “sons of God” does not exclude faithful females, but confers upon them equally exalted status! Gal.3:23-4:7 must be read as a unit, not cherry-picked for “verses”!

Servants – certainly! Workers – expected to be. Citizens – privileged to be! Beloved children – indeed! And “The whole creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God!” (Rom.8:19)
May our gracious Elder Brother – and his faithful people – speed the day!

In the former post (#98), we discovered that the New Testament usage of such terms as “gain”, “profit”, and “reward”, includes very few parallels to today’s common economic interpretations of those words. So are we to assume that we are offered no guidance for life in the “real world”, and therefore must adopt the financial value system of the culture in which we find ourselves? Only after subjecting them to careful scrutiny through the lens provided by the transformation (#97) of life toward the “image” (#15) of the Lord Jesus.

“Labor”, for example, representing kopos (n.) and kopiao (v.), may apply simply to “hard work, exertion” or “toil and trouble”, referring both to one’s secular employment (Mt.6:28, Lk.5:5, I Cor.3:8, 14; 4:12; II Tim.2:6) and to efforts on behalf of the Kingdom (Jn.4:38, I Cor.15:10,58; II Cor.6:5, 10:15, 11:23; I Thes.1:3, 3:5; Heb.6:10, Rv.2:2). See also “work” (W.S.#39), for references using ergazomai and ergates.
Note that Paul frequently takes great pains to point out that he has been careful to support his Kingdom work by his own manual labor (Ac.18:3, 20:34, I Cor.4:12, I Thes.2:9, 3:5), although he also commends those who have shared in contributing to his needs – the letter to Philippi is basically a “thank-you-note”.
Another recurring theme is Paul’s assessment of the Christian motivation for work: in order to share with those in need (Ac.20:35, II Cor.9:11, Eph.4:28), as well as to provide for one’s own necessities and to lead exemplary lives in society (I Thes.4:11). Nevertheless, he accompanies these instructions with a significant caveat: (I Tim.6:8) “Let’s be content with having food and clothing”, and goes on to warn of the dangers of excessive desires.

“Payment” and “wages”, interestingly, are both traditional translations of the same two words. Apodidomi, variously rendered “pay”(10x), “give” (10x), “reward” (6x), “sell”(3x), “deliver”(2x), “yield” (2x), and “repay, restore, perform, and recompense”(1x each), is listed classically as “to pay a debt, to render what is due, the yield of a crop, to give an account, to sell something for its worth, or to give or take a bribe”! It is used in both parables and examples of indebtedness (Mt.18:25,34; Lk.7:42, Mt.5:26, Lk.12:59), as well as being often translated “reward” (see W.S.#98).

Misthos, on the other hand, also referenced in #98, primarily carries the idea of “wages paid to a hired worker” in classical usage. Traditional translators rendered it this way in Jn.4:36, Mt.20:8, Lk.10:7, and Jas.5:4 – this last in criticism of employers who neglect or refuse promptly to pay a just wage – although those translators usually have chosen (often questionably) to render it “reward.” They have used the more accurate concept of “hiring” for the verb form in Mt.20:1,7, rendered the participle as “hired servants” in Lk.15:17,19 and Mk.1:20, and correctly applied it to Paul’s “rented house” in Ac.28:30.
If apodidomi intends “the payment of a debt”, and misthos intends “a deserved payment for work”, we may need to re-think the idea of “reward”, as noted at the end of #98. This is another of many concepts that need to be re-examined and clarified in the context of a faithfully studying brotherhood.

Another word, opsonion, further complicates the situation. Classically, “a salary paid in money, the pay of a policeman or soldier, an allowance paid to a victorious athlete, a student, or a family member; the wages of labor”, it occurs only four times in the New Testament. Two of these are straightforward: the instruction of John the Baptist to soldiers, “Be content with your pay” (Lk.3:14), and Paul’s question, “Does a soldier serve at his own expense?” (I Cor.9:7). The other two are more problematic. Despite his having repeatedly harped on the theme of his own self-support, (see kopiao above), and been effusive in his thanks to various churches for their generosity in contributing to his needs, Paul, in his argument in II Cor.11:8, writes, “I robbed other churches, taking wages (opsonion) for ministering to you all!” He is referring to the contribution received from Macedonia (Philippi) (11:9), which he acknowledged in his letter to them (Phil.4:14-19) as a gracious gift!
Similar ambiguity is seen in the statements, also in II Cor.11, as well as 2:17 and 12:13-15, and warnings about greed on the part of elders and teachers (I Tim.3:3,8; Tit.1:7,11) juxtaposed with admonitions (Gal..6:6, I Cor.9:1-15) to share in their support. This may suggest that both avenues of support are acceptable – neither exclusively – or perhaps allow latitude for different approaches in different situations.  It should be clear, however, that Kingdom work is never represented as a career or business!
The fourth appearance of opsonion? Romans 6:23. If you can figure that one out, in the context of the other uses of the word, please add your insight with the “comment” button! I’m sure Paul intends to contrast “wages” with “gift” – but that’s as far as I can go!

Finally, there remains the use of “recompense” – six different words, none of them frequent.
Four of them use prefixes altering the understanding of didomi (“to give”) : antapodoma (Lk.14:12 and Rom.11:9), antapodosis (Col.3:24), apodidomi (Rom.12:17), antapodidomi(Lk.14:14, Rom.11:35, 12:19; II Thes.1:6, Heb.10:30). One is a prefixed form of misthos – antimisthia (Rom.1:27, II Cor.6:13), and one, misthapodosia, combines the two words (Heb.2:2, 10:35, 11:26). All refer simply to “repayment of what is owed or earned” (L/S), along a spectrum ranging from a simple social obligation (Lk.14:12), through reciprocal relationship (II Cor.6:13), all the way to divine vengeance (Rom.12:19, II Thes.1:6, Heb.10:30). Although the uses of misthapodosia in Hebrews – the only New Testament appearance of the word, were traditionally rendered “recompense of reward”, there is only that one single word in the text. Recurring as a refrain throughout, is the expectation of eventual justice, whether positive or negative from the perspective of the recipient.

So yes, the Kingdom does have an “economic policy”. It does speak to the ordinary concerns of daily needs, including responsible labor, just compensation, generosity of sharing, and avoidance of greed.
We will conclude this section with an examination of the people involved in the work of this Kingdom.

One place where the result of a “transformed” life (W.S.#97) becomes vividly evident is in one’s attitude toward these concepts. It is common that they are treated as if they were nearly synonymous, but that is seldom the case, although translators have often confused the different words in their texts. “Where you start” exerts a great deal of influence upon “where you come out”: there is a huge difference between the conclusions drawn by the advocates of “pie in the sky bye and bye”, those who prefer their “pie” now rather than later, and a few of us who aren’t convinced that “pie” has anything to do with the gospel message at all!

The traditional translation “gain”, for example, represents eight different Greek words, four of which are used only once or twice. Porismos (I Tim.6:5,6), prosergazomai (Lk.9:16), and diapragmateuomai Lk.19:15), are all classically used of simply earning a living. The idea of earning appears also to be why poieo was rendered “gain” once (Lk.19:18), even though that word is normally taken to mean “to make” (102x), or “to do” (353x). The Luke references are all in Jesus’ parable of the “pounds” or “talents”.

Ergasia, used six times, similarly refers to “one’s business or trade, productive labor, or a company of workmen” (L/S) – this last seen in Ac.19:24-25 – although it carries a different sense in Lk.12:58, which is Jesus’ advice to work at settling a dispute out of court, and Eph.4:19, which seems to fit better with the appearances of pleonekteo (used five times), dealing with greed, fraud, or unfair advantage (II Cor.2:11, 7:2, 12:17,18; I Thes.4:6).

The more common kerdos (n.), and kerdaino (v.), combining the idea of financial profit or advantage (Mt.6:26, 25:17,20,22; Mk.8:36, Lk.9:25, Jas.4:13) with the concept of other sorts of advantage (Phil.1:21, 3:7,8; Mt.18:15, I Cor.9:19-22 , I Pet.3:1) focusing on either conversions to the Kingdom or progress in Kingdom living, is also used, sometimes with the prefix aischro- (“shameful”), to warn against any mercenary motivation for one’s “Christian service”.

Paul is quite blunt in his assessment of such a motivation, in his own example of self-support (II Cor. 7:2, 12:17,18 and Ac.20:34,35, where he simply describes his activity in Ephesus), and his disparaging of those who choose not to follow that example (I Tim.3:3,8; 6:5, Tit.1:7,11). Peter (I Pet.5:2) registers a similar opinion.

“Profit,” on the other hand, also representing eight different words, uses totally different vocabulary, and none of those words make primary reference to financial concerns, with the possible exception of the use of opheleo in Mt.15:5 and Mk.7:11, regarding the support of one’s parents. The classical use of opheleo and its noun form opheleia, includes primarily “to help, advantage, to render service or benefit or to receive such service”, although it also referred to spoils of war (L/S).
The adjective form, ophelimos, adds “useful, serviceable, profitable”, and is applied to physical exercise (I Tim.4:8), godliness (same reference), the Scripture (II Tim.3:16), and good deeds (Tit.3:8).
“To be useful” would probably fit most of its contexts (Mt.16:26, Jn.6:63, Rom.2:25, 3:1; I Cor.13:3, 14:6; Gal.5:2, Heb.4:2,13:9), and even in the frustration of both the Jewish Council (Jn.12:19) and Pilate (Mt.27:24) at the failure of their schemes.
Less frequently used, chresimos (II Tim.2:14), euchrestos II Tim. 2:21,4:11; Phm.11), and ophelos (Lk.9:25, Jas.2:14-16) likewise refer to “usefulness, helpfulness, or assistance.”
Prokopto, speaking of moral or intellectual progress, or physical growth, may be used in a positive (Lk.2:52, Gal.1:14) or negative (II Tim.2:16, 3:9, 3:13) direction, as well as simply of the passing of a day (Rom.13:12.).

Sumphero, more frequently “bringing together” in classical usage, in the New Testament displays primarily its secondary meanings, “to confer a benefit, to be useful, expedient, or fitting”, being rendered 7x as “expedient” (Jn.11:50, 16:7, 18:14; I Cor.6:12, 10:33, 12:1, 12:7), and 6x as “profit” or “profitable” (Mt.5:29,30; Ac.20:20, I Cor.7:35, 10:33; Heb.12:10).

Of course, the “biggie” for the “pie-in-the-sky” folks, is the concept of “reward”, representing two different words: apodidomi, which refers to any kind of payment or exchange – even a bribe! – and misthos , where “reward” is the primary choice of traditional translators, in spite of the fact that the classical usage (L/S) emphasizes “hired service, wages, pay, or allowance for public service, or a physician’s fee” more highly than “recompense or reward.” Both of these terms primarily spill over into the next post: however, a few observations are relevant here.
1. Material wealth is never mentioned as a “reward”, either here or hereafter. In fact, the nature of a “reward” is not specified at all, in most cases, although public adulation is called a “reward” – in a less than admirable sense – in Mt.6:1-5.

2. Some of the conditions leading to a “reward” are:
Mt.5:12, Lk.6:23 – endurance of persecution for faithfulness to Jesus
Mt.5:46, Lk.6:35 – loving enemies, doing good to those who hate you
Mt.6:1-5 – praying, giving alms, privately rather than ostentatiously
Mk.9:41 — offering a cup of water in Jesus’ name
I Cor.3:8, 14 – faithfully building on Jesus’ foundation
I Cor.9:17,18 – preaching the gospel without compensation
II Jn.8 – maintaining faithfulness

3. “Reward” is also used of the consequences of unfaithfulness: (Ac.1:18, II Pet.2:!3, Jude 11, Rev.11:18).

Very interestingly, the only mention of specifically monetary “reward” is the Ac.1:18 reference to the money that Judas received for his betrayal of Jesus! Is that the company you want to keep?

Just perhaps some of us would “profit” from an bit of an attitude adjustment!

Hello, folks — We have just returned from a visit with Dan, and this means that the corrections to the Translation Notes have finally made it to this site.  They can be found by clicking in the “download” box.

We worked on the PNT corrections too, but there is more to be done there, to make it more readily usable for you all.

Hopefully, that will happen before long.  Many thanks to his family for their patience while he coached his electronically-challenged mom through the process.  Since they are about a 6 hour drive away, our time together is limited.

Hope you will find the results helpful.

Blessings to you all.

Ruth

This study is the result of a conversation after church (Thanks, John!), when a brother remarked about people tossing around words like “transfiguration” without ever stopping to wonder what they actually mean. A quick check revealed that the word used by both Matthew and Mark is metamorphoo, whose noun form, transliterated, is recognized by every grade-school science student as “metamorphosis” – what happens when the caterpillar they have carefully fed with leaves, and watched as it spun its cocoon, emerges to their wonder and delight as a beautiful butterfly. It’s still the same critter – but it has been transformed into its intended, mature destiny.
Back at home with my reference books, I was startled to discover that metamorphoo (L/S “to transform, to change”) is used only four times in the entire New Testament: these two references to Jesus on the mountain (Mt.17:2, Mk.9:2), Romans 12:2 speaking of the faithful person’s mind (W.S.#96) being transformed to become capable of understanding and following the Lord’s instructions, and II Cor.3:18, of the process of their/our maturing to reflect the Lord’s own radiance – to be transformed into his very image – God’s original intent (Gen.1:26) at Creation!

How very beautifully that all fits together! Especially in the light added by Luke. Only he, who does not use metamorphoo at all, says anything about the topic of Jesus’ conversation with Moses and Elijah: his “departure” (exodos) – yes, the same word as “Exodus”– that was about to be “completed” (pleroun, from pleroo, to complete or to fulfill). This has been traditionally interpreted as a reference to Jesus’ death: but L/S lists no classical references to death for exodos. Only “going out, or the marching forth of a procession or a military expedition” are mentioned. The word occurs only here, in Heb.11:22 (of the historical exodus), and II Pet.1:15, of which the traditional interpretation is also open to question, due to Peter’s subsequent reference to the same event (vv.16-18) as a revelation of Jesus’ glory. I take this to be another of many signposts in the direction of seeing Jesus as focused upon his ultimate defeat not only of death, but of  all the forces of evil, which is/was his own mature destiny, rather than the traditional notions of “sacrifice” (W.S. #95). He was “departing” for the ultimate “expedition” – and conquered gloriously!

Of course, once you start tracking a word, one thing invariably leads to another. The English word “transform” also represents another Greek word, metaschematizo, used only five times, which, besides describing a change in a person or thing (L/S), as in Phil.3:21 – “He (Jesus) will transform our body to be like his”, also refers both to disguise and deception (ICor.11:13,14,15), and (I Cor.4:6) to a simple analogous illustration.

“Change”, also, can be for the better or worse. This adds five more Greek words to be considered, most of which seem to be nearly interchangeable, and none of which really dominate. For example, the statements in Hebrews of the necessity of “change” in the priesthood and the law incorporates (Heb.7:12) both metatithemi and metathesis, as does the enigmatic statement (Heb.4:5 and 12:27) of Enoch’s disappearance (traditionally rendered “translated,” which in modern usage refers only to language.)
The complaint about Stephen for “changing the customs Moses established” (Ac.6:14), and the “changing like a garment” of heaven and earth (Heb.1:12), both employ allatto, connected to the adjective allos “other”, which is used of Paul’s wish to “change his voice” (Gal.4:20), and the glorious “change” of the faithful to their resurrection bodies (I Cor.15:51), but also, both separately and in its prefixed form metallatto, of the perversity of those who have rejected the general revelation of God, and “exchanged” it for the worship of idols (Rom.1:23,25,26).
Jude (v.4) uses metatithemi for that “exchange”, and Paul (Gal.1:6) uses it to reprimand the departure of some people from faithfulness.
A change of location or jurisdiction is expressed by both metatithemi (Ac.7:16) and methistemi (Col.1:13, I Cor.13:2), which latter also applied simply to the loss of a job (Lk.16:4, Ac.13:22).
It is probably significant that metaballo, easily the most ambiguous term, is used only once (Ac.28:6), of the people of Melita “changing their minds” about Paul after he was unharmed by the snakebite.

The changes/transformations advocated in the New Testament go far beyond merely abstractly “changing one’s mind” or opinion. This is explored in more detail in W.S.#6, dealing with the call to metanoeo (noeo is the verb form of nous #96). Lexically, metanoeo, metanoia, is also a change of mind – but it is one that involves, like most of the “mind” references in the previous post, the entire re-orientation of one’s life.

One key to that transformation lies in another phrase that appears in several of the references – Rom.12:2, Eph.4:23, Col.3:10: “the renewal of your/our minds” or “understanding”. In Titus 3:5, “renewal” is paired with “regeneration”.  Both the Ephesians and Colossians passages call for the “putting off” of one’s former life, in favor of the new – and very different – life in Christ. The mixed tenses of the imperatives and participles imply both decisive, punctiliar action (aorist), and continuous (present) effort.
“Renewal” represents four Greek words, three of which, anakainoo (II Cor.4:16, Col.3:!0), anakainosis (Rom.12:2, Tit.3:5), and anakainizo (Heb.6:6), are related, and one, ananeomai (Eph.4:23) is used only once. L/S records no other meanings for any of these. They are quite parallel to the ideas in II Cor.5:17 referring to a “new creation” and Eph.2:15 and 4:24 to a “new man [person]”.

You may have noticed that all of these references refer to a major alteration in the nature, life, and behavior of individuals or groups – all, that is, except the two instances that initiated this investigation: the use of metamorphoo in the three disciples’ experience with Jesus. Did Jesus himself somehow “change,” there on the mountain? He needed no “transformation” to become what God intended, although Heb.2:10, 5:9,7:28 do speak of his “maturing” (W.S.#13).
I think the key to the discrepancy here may be in Jesus’ charge to his awe-struck companions (Mt.17:9), “Don’t tell anyone the vision (horama)” until after the resurrection. Horama is used 11 times in the New Testament, all but this one in Acts (9:10, 9:12, 10:3, 10:17, 11:5, 12:9, 16:9, 16:10, 18:9) – and all are referring to a supernatural experience imparting information or instructions not available in any other way. I think Peter must have understood it this way, from his comment in II Pet.1:16-18. He asserts that they were privileged to be “eyewitnesses of his magnificence [glory]”. Jesus did not change. His true identity was supernaturally revealed to them (emprothen auton). And this revelation, whether by vision or some other means, is the beginning of the transformation of all who choose to follow him.

“And we all, with faces that have been uncovered, reflecting the Lord’s own radiance, are being transformed [metamorphosed!] into his image, from glory to glory, according to the pattern of the Lord’s spirit”(II Cor.3:18).   Every verb form is in the present tense. It is continuously happening, from the beginning of one’s “turning to the Lord” (v.16).

May we continually delight in – and cooperate with! – that metamorphosis!

Thanks be to God!

When I saw “What does the New Testament say about the mind?” on the search list, my first thought was “Not much!” Bad response! “Mind” has been used to represent seven different Greek words in the New Testament. None of them are particularly common. Their classical usage is similar, but not synonymous. Sorting them is challenging.  Three of these words can be rather quickly laid aside, because of their rarity.

Phronema, “thought, purpose, aspiration,” or, in a negative sense, “presumption, arrogance” (L/S), appears only in Rom.8:7 and 8:27, referring, in both cases, to the focus of attention, whether on the human nature or on the Spirit.
Ennoia, “thinking, reflection, cogitation”, or “a notion, concept, or idea” (L/S), a common word in the Greek philosophers, likewise appears only twice: I Pet.4:1 and Heb.4:12, both of which tend toward the sense of a deliberately determined attitude by which one’s life is consciously ordered.
Psuche, more commonly translated “life” or “soul”, is rendered three times “mind”: Ac.14:2, Phil.1:27, Heb.12:3. For a more thorough treatment of this word, please refer to W.S.#28.

This leaves us with four words, which may be a little easier to distinguish, since they appear in more contexts.
Noema, “perception, thought, purpose, idea, concept, understanding, mind” (L/S), used six times, occurs only in Paul’s writings. In II Cor.3:14, 4:4, and 11:3, the reference is to the blinding of the “understanding” of those who have refused the guidance of the Holy Spirit; II Cor.2:11 is more specific about where that blockage comes from (the traditional translation there is “devices.” The only positive references are Phil.4:7, promising the protection of their/our minds by the peace of God, and II Cor.10:5, a reminder of the faithful disciple’s responsibility (a present active participle), to “subjugate every mind [thought] into the obedience of Christ (like his)”. In both positive and negative contexts, noema seems to be quite definitely subject to an individual’s conscious decision.

Gnome, “intelligence, means of knowing, thought, judgment, opinion, verdict, intention, consent” (L/S), occurs eight times. This is the word used when Paul states that he has no “word from the Lord” on a matter, but offers his opinion (I Cor.7:25, 7:40; II Cor.8:10), or defers a decision about Onesimus’ future to Philemon’s approval (Phm.4). In Rev.17:13 and 17, the ungodly have also made a deliberate decision to join the enemies of God. Paul’s decision regarding his itinerary (Ac.20:3), and his admonition (I Cor.1:10) to the Corinthian brotherhood to settle their differences, also represent thoughtful determination.

Dianoia, “thought, intention, purpose; notion, idea, intelligence, understanding, intellectual capacity” (L/S), is used thirteen times: once (traditionally) translated “imagination” (Lk.1:51), three times “understanding” (Eph.1:18, 4:18, I Jn.5:20), and nine times “mind”.
The associated words in the parallel passages quoting the admonition to “love God” are interesting. In traditional translations, Mt.22:37 includes only “heart” (kardia), “soul” (psuche), and “mind” (dianoia). Mk.12:30 says “heart, soul, mind, and strength (ischus),” and Lk.10:27 uses “heart, soul, strength and mind”. For treatment of psuche see W.S.#28, and for ischus see W.S.#31. The passage they all are quoting, Dt.6:5, in the LXX uses only dianoia, psuche, and dunamis, completely omitting any word for “heart”. The traditional OT translation says “heart, soul, and might”. The OT text includes one of the Hebrew words for “heart”, and makes no mention of “mind”! This would be an interesting topic for textual scholars to investigate. However, the presence of dianoia in all three synoptics, probably as a LXX quote, would certainly indicate that (1) the mind is definitely expected to be fully involved in one’s love of God, and (2) it is an entity completely separate from any of the others mentioned.
Paul’s reference to one’s dianoia in Eph.2:3, 4:18, and Col.1:21, as well as the Lk.1;51 passage, make it abundantly clear that the unredeemed “mind” can be disposed to lead one to opposition to the Kingdom; but the prophecies quoted in Heb.8:10 and 10:16, as well as Peter (I Pet.1:13, II Pet.3:1), Paul (Eph.1:18), and John (I Jn.5:20), are equally emphatic that the mind/understanding can and must be enlightened, transformed, and reminded to be consciously pointed in the right direction.

Nous, the most common of the words, appearing 24 times – 17 as “mind” and 7 as “understanding”–shows even more vividly that while the mind certainly controls a person’s attitudes, thoughts, and behavior, it is also itself controlled by his deliberate decision. L/S lists “the mind, in the sense of being employed in thinking, perception, feeling, or deciding; to have one’s mind directed toward something; resolve or purpose; reason or intellect;” or even (Anaxagoras) “the active principle of the universe”! Like dianoia, nous can be either a positive or negative force, as Paul laments in Rom.7:23-35.
This is the only word used of “the mind of the Lord” (Rom.11:34, I Cor.2:16) or “the mind of Christ” (also I Cor.2:16), except for a single occurrence of phronema in Rom.8:27.
Paul warns of the danger of “corrupt minds” (I Tim.6:5, II Tim.3:8), or their being “defiled” (Tit.1:15), “reprobate” (Rom.1:28), characterized by “vanity” (Eph.4:17), “shaken” (II Thes.2:2), or having inflated ideas of one’s own importance (Col.2:18); but he also holds out the option of choosing to have one’s life “transformed (see next post) by the renewing of your mind” (Rom.12:2), and to be “renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Eph.4:23), until “we have the mind of Christ” (I Cor.2:16)! He urges the Corinthian church, threatened by factions, to be “joined together in the same mind” (I Cor.1:10).
After his resurrection, Jesus graciously “opened the minds [understanding]” of his mourning disciples, “to understand the Scriptures”, and to realize that he was really alive and in their midst (Lk.24:45). Only then did things begin to make sense to them. It requires “a mind that has wisdom” (Rev.17:9) or a person “that has understanding” (Rev.13:18) to discern the Lord’s hand – and that does not start only at the end of history!
But there are times when even a wise and devoted mind is not enough. Paul goes to great length to explain (I Cor.14:14-19) that while worship, the singing of praises, and prayer may at times need to go beyond the reach of one’s mind/understanding, that does not obviate the need for the mind’s involvement. Expressions both with and beyond the understanding are intended to be supplementary, and not mutually exclusive.

Close attention to many of these references reveals, however, that faithfulness is not a “mind trip”! The mind/understanding, while necessary and helpful, is not an end in itself.
Probably the best summary may be found in Rom.12:2: “Be (continuously) completely changed, by the renewal of your mind (nous), so that you all will recognize what God’s will is” – whereupon Paul spends the next couple chapters describing the practical outcome of that transformation.
When, using a third person imperative of phroneo, Paul writes to the Philippians that they must adopt and internalize the “mind” of the Lord Jesus (Phil.2:5), it is in the midst of admonitions to faithful living.
Committing worries and concerns to the Lord, (Phil.4:7), he concludes, “God’s peace, which greatly exceeds all understanding (nous), will protect your hearts and minds (noema) in Christ Jesus!”

May this confidence spur our hearts and minds to determined faithfulness!

For the purpose of this study, a supplement to #94, although the Elizabethan English word “suffer” was also used as a synonym for “allow” (aphiemi, didomi, eao, epitrepo) and “endure” (anechomai), these will not be considered here. We will confine ourselves to the references where “suffer” is used to translate pascho, pathema. These words probably include the broadest range, scripturally, of any of the four words mentioned in the previous post: but even so, the New Testament writers do not apply it to mere annoyance or inconvenience, as so many folks are prone to do today.

Classically, the word includes the plight of a victim of any kind of oppression, the experience of any misfortune, the payment of a legal penalty, any abuse or ill-treatment, but also of well-being, or the receiving of benefits! (L/S). Thayer indicates that it can be used of any sensate experience, but usually one of evil, illness, or bad fortune. Medically (L/S), it was used of symptoms or troubles.
Similar diversity is also seen in the New Testament. Pascho is used in the complaint of Pilate’s wife about her dream (Mt.27:19), the plight of the woman who could not be helped by doctors (Mk.5:26), the group of Jews abused by Pilate (Lk.13:2), the mutual dependence of the human body (I Cor.12:26), and the punishment deserved by a person convicted of a crime (I Pet.4:15).

However, the majority of the 39 New Testament appearances of the verb form and 14 of the noun refer specifically to the sufferings of either Jesus (24x), or his people (25x), as a direct result of their faithfulness. Jesus spoke repeatedly of his anticipated suffering of rejection by the elders and priests of the Jewish hierarchy (Mt.16:21, 17:12; Mk.8:31, 9:12; Lk.9:22, 17:25), as well as the specific event of his death (Lk.22:15, 24:26). Notice that Jesus himself, in contrast to popular emphases, spoke more frequently of “suffering” in connection with his being rejected by those who should have welcomed him, than he did of his actual death. It is important to note that fully half of these, in both categories, end with the declaration of the equal certainty of his resurrection.
Repeatedly, that is the key: for the Lord Jesus himself, and for his people, whatever their circumstances. His resurrection, and by extension, theirs/ours, is the power that enables endurance. Paul clearly understood this (Rom.8-18), as did Peter (I Pet.4:13).

In fact, if you will check all of Paul’s uses of pascho and pathema – I Cor.12:26, II Cor.1:5-7, Gal.34, Phil.1:29, 3:10; Col.1:24, I Thes.2:14, II Thes.1:12, II Tim.1:12, 3:11 – you will see that they all refer either to his own (Paul’s) mistreatment, or that of his readers. Only in Phil.3:10 does he connect it to the sufferings of Jesus. Neither Jesus nor Paul, on any occasion, makes any connection of these words with “forgiveness” (W.S. #7) as has been widely taught as “doctrine”. Look it up, folks. It’s not there, and neither is any hint that “suffering” was ever “sent” or “caused” by God! (see “trials”, W.S.#11)

In Ac.9:16, Ananias is told by Jesus that Paul will need to suffer many things “on behalf of my name”, which Paul then passes on in Phil.1:29 “for his sake”; and in II Thes.1:5, he refers to that beleaguered group’s suffering “on behalf of the Kingdom of God”. In each case, the preposition is huper, “on behalf of.” As we saw in W.S. #94 regarding persecution and tribulation, suffering also is viewed simply as one of the consequences to be expected, as a part of identification with Jesus and his Kingdom. (See also W.S.#34, the cross.)

The writer to the Hebrews, in illustrating the shortcomings of the old, obsolete system, is the only one to propose a reason for the suffering of the Lord Jesus: Heb.2:9-10 – so that his death and subsequent glory would destroy (14-15) the power of death over his people, and to make him mature (teleios) for that assignment; Heb.5:8 – it was the way he “learned obedience” (for the same purpose); and Heb.9:26 – to definitively abolish (the word is athetesis, used of the nullification of a contract or treaty) the “failures” [“sins”] of his people. This latter passage is the only place in the entire New Testament where that connection is made. So how did it become the only thing so many people include in their distorted version of “gospel teaching”? Because a good guilt-trip makes it so easy to manipulate people?
Later, the same writer describes the early sufferings of his readers (10:32, 34) – the latter containing the same word with the “together” prefix – as encouragement for their continued faithfulness. “Don’t give up now!” See vv.32-38.

Peter’s first letter, written to refugees scattered across Asia Minor by severe violence against the brotherhood, is almost entirely devoted to encouraging their faithfulness under duress. Again, resurrection hope predominates. Whether Jesus’ sufferings (1:11, 4:1, 4:13, 5:1) or theirs (2:19-23, 3:14-18, 4:13-19, 5:9-10), it is faithful behavior in spite of suffering which promises participation in the Kingdom – both present and future. Twice (3:17-18 and 4:13-19) he reminds them “just make sure that your suffering is not deserved” for some less noble reason! Please see W.S. #12 for a discussion of the references to “God’s will.”

“Sacrifice”(thuo, thusia), on the other hand, as it is used in the New Testament, is always performed at a person’s own initiative. Classically, the only use of either word was the slaughter of animals for food, or burnt as offerings to the gods, or referring to the festivities surrounding those ceremonies. Bauer adds that later, the Rom.12:1 reference was interpreted as an advocacy of martyrdom, but there is no evidence that such was the original intent.
Sixteen times in the New Testament, the word refers to pagan sacrifices to idols. Paul deals with the dilemma this causes in I Cor.8. Nineteen times, the reference is to the sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament Law – most of them emphasizing its futility (Heb.5:1, 7:27, 8:3, 9:9, 10:1, 5, 8;11) – or to Jesus’ statements that sacrifice is not what God wanted (Mt.9:13, 12:7, Mk.12:33, Ac.7:42). In Lk.15:23,27, 30; Jn.10:10, 10:13, thuo is used simply of slaughtering an animal for food. In Mt.22:4, Mk.14:12, Lk.22:7, the reference is to the killing of the passover lamb, which only once is connected to Jesus (I Cor.5:7). Remember, in that context, that the Passover was a celebration of deliverance from slavery, and had nothing to do with “sin.” That connection is only made in Heb.9:26 and 10:12 where the focus is on the impotence and futility of the old sacrificial system. Interestingly, Jesus never used the word of himself or of anything he did, although Paul does once (Eph.5:2).

“Sacrifice” on the part of God’s people is used in a positive sense in the New Testament only five times, but these are significant. Remember, of all these concepts, sacrifice is the only voluntary one. All imply deliberate action. In Rom.12:1, Paul urges, “present your bodies as a living sacrifice to God”, not killing, but living in worship and obedience to him. In Phil.2:17, Paul speaks of the “sacrifice” of their worship, and doesn’t mind at all if it costs his own life. In Phil 4:18, he refers to the gift of support that the Philippian church had sent to him in prison as “an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God”. Heb.13:15-16 advocates a “sacrifice of praise” in worship and thanksgiving, with the assurance that this, like “doing good and sharing”, is pleasing to God.

In the New Testament concept of “sacrifice”, there is no hint of the popular notion of “giving up” some pet vice or pleasure in order to curry favor before God. The “sacrifice” pleasing to God is simply the willing offering of oneself – to be used as he sees fit – for his Kingdom and for his world –
“a living offering, set-apart, pleasing to God. This is your logical [reasonable] worship!” (Rom.12:1)

Let’s be reasonable, folks!

In both of the previous two studies, the concept of “giving thanks” and/or “rejoicing” occasionally referred to persecution, tribulation, suffering, or, as some want to call it, “sacrifice”, on behalf of Jesus and his Kingdom.
None of these four words appear frequently in the New Testament, but their prevalence in “accepted Christian teaching” requires an examination of what really is said in Scripture regarding these subjects.
Contrary to popular assumptions, not one of them is ever presented as having been instigated, caused, or commanded by God, in the New Testament.

Since they represent somewhat different concepts, we will deal with these words in two separate posts. “Persecution” and “tribulation” are used together four times (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17, Rom.8:35, II Thes.1:4), almost as synonyms, and often assumed to be a normal consequence of faithful living. Persecution and tribulation are not a matter of choice. Both are externally imposed. The only choice is how one will respond.
Jesus described persecution / tribulation as one reason for the falling away of many who had initially been enthusiastic about the Kingdom (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17), and Paul reminded the converts in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch that the violent opposition they were experiencing was “only normal” (Ac.14:22).

Classically, dioko had more frequently referred to a chase, as in a war or a hunt, or the eager pursuit of an object, person, or goal. This latter is seen also in Rom. 14:19, I Cor.14:1, Phil.3:12,14; I Thes.5:15, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14, I Pet.3:11.
It is also used of haste, of the wind driving a ship (Homer), or avid pursuit of an argument (Plato), as well as “to drive away” (Herodotus). Not until the New Testament did the idea of pursuit or legal prosecution acquire the flavor of being abused, driven away, or attacked because of one’s faith commitment, but after that, it appears to be the dominant idea.

Jesus gave careful instructions regarding the response of his disciples to persecution: from “rejoicing” in the confidence of the confirmation of their Kingdom citizenship (Mt.5:10-12, echoed by Paul in Rom.12:14 and I Cor.4:12), to prayer and kindness toward the perpetrators (Mt.5:44), and prudent advice that when it gets too hot in one town (Mt.10:23), it’s time to move! He matter-of-factly warned that persecution would come (Lk.21:12, Mt.23:34), explaining that disciples could expect the same treatment that he himself was encountering (Jn.15:20).

Paul, interestingly, speaks more of his own past record of “persecuting the church” (Ac.22:4, 26:11;  ICor.15:9, Gal.1:13,23; Phil.3:6) than he does of the persecution he personally endured (Gal..5:11, 6:12; II Cor.12:10, II Tim.3:11). And please remember: this “persecution” was not merely social exclusion, financial hardship, or being “talked-about”. Beatings and stonings, prison and death were harsh realities, and not uncommon.
We should not neglect II Tim.3:12, which has often been mis-used, leading some to try to provoke opposition, under the banner of “Everyone that wants to live in a godly manner in Christ Jesus will be persecuted.” Such people need to be reminded of Peter’s warnings regarding “suffering”, which will be treated in the next post (I Pet.2:19-23, 3:14-18, and 4:15).

Thlipsis, classically “pressure, oppression, affliction” (L/S), “distress brought on by outside circumstances” (Bauer), seems to focus more on the affected person, than on the particular circumstances of the persecution. Only five times does it clearly refer to anything but the price of faithfulness: Jesus used it (Jn.16:21) of a woman’s labor in childbirth, James referred to the desperate condition of widows and orphans (1:27), Paul, of final retribution for the unfaithful (Rom.2:9, II Thes.1:6) and the Corinthians’ complaint (II Cor.8:13) of being “burdened” by the expectation of a relief contribution. Elsewhere, 39 times, the reference is to being hassled – sometimes more, sometimes less severely – as a direct result of faithfulness to Jesus’ Kingdom. The one probable exception is the description of political turmoil in Mt.24 and Mk.13 (similar account in Lk.21). A careful reading of these passages reveals that here it is the earlier classical understanding of thlipsis that is intended, as whole nations and kingdoms are disrupted (Mt.24:6-8 and Mk.13:7-8), providing a context for more specific attacks upon the faithful, and a fertile field for perpetrators of deception. (Remember, when you hear predictions by self-styled “world-enders” in times of political unrest, that Jesus himself warned against that very thing in Mt.24:23-27 and Mk.13:21-23).
Please note also that in no case does thlipsis, translated 17x “affliction” and 21x “tribulation”, refer to a single, historical or future event, but consistently to the conditions under which the faithful need to enter the Kingdom (Ac.14:22), to receive the Word (I Thes.1:6), to support one another (Phil.4:14) with joyful generosity (II Cor.8:2), to endure patiently (Rom.12:12), and to encourage one another’s faithfulness (II Thes.1:4).

Jesus put it very realistically (Jn.16:33): “In the world, you have (present tense, not future) hassles (KJV – tribulations). But take courage! I have conquered (perfect tense!) the world!” Notice that this statement occurs even before either his death or his resurrection!
This is why Paul could write (Rom.5:2,3) “We revel in the hope [confidence] of the glory of God! Not only this, but we even appreciate our hassles [tribulations], knowing that hassles produce endurance …”
Read, and soak up, his confident description in II Cor.1:4-7, of both the comfort and the responsibility conferred by the Lord’s presence in the midst of those hassles. Later in the same letter (4:17), amid stress that would probably have crushed most of us, he can declare, “Our temporary, insignificant hassles are producing for us a fantastically overwhelming, eternal amount of glory!” and in 7:4, “I’m overflowing with joy, in spite of all our hassles!”

Please notice here: in no case does Paul attribute the “hassles / tribulations / afflictions” to “God’s will” (see W.S.#12), or to God’s causative action!
The Lord knows (Rev.2:9) and limits (v.10) them, and “coaches” us through them (II Cor.1:4), refusing to allow them to separate us from his love and care (Rom.8:35). He does not deliberately hassle his own!

Thanks be to God!

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

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

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

Interestingly, it is also the response advocated, for the faithful, to the fall of Babylon (Rev.18:20)!

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

By far the most frequently used word is chairo (“rejoice”42x, “be glad”14x, “joy” – as a verb – 5x, and 12x as a greeting or farewell.) Its noun form is chara, “joy”, 53x. Chairo may represent a sort of median between the exuberance of agalliao and the more ordinary enjoyment of euphraino. L/S lists “to take pleasure in, to express joy, laughter, to be glad to hear something, or to delight in doing something.” Bauer adds that a hoti clause may give the reason for the rejoicing, and a participle may describe what one is delighted by. He points out that a prepositional phrase with en, as noted in the previous post, is circumstantial, and not causal. In the imperative or vocative forms, chairo serves as a greeting or farewell.

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

Chairo is the only one of the four words that consistently applies specifically to life “in the Lord”, and requires seeing beyond immediate, often unfavorable circumstances.
Mt.5:12 and Lk.6:23 record Jesus’ words regarding the faithful (or “blessed” – W.S.#89) response to persecution. Notice that in each case, he specifies that the abuse is “for the sake of – heneka – the Son of Man” (Lk.) and “for my sake” (heneken emou) (Mt.). Clearly, this must have been a necessary caveat, since Peter (I Pet.4:13-15) later also found it prudent to add a blunt warning that readers be sure that the “persecution” was for faithfulness, and not deserved, for some less noble reason!
Jesus also offered another guideline for his disciples’ rejoicing – it should not be because of the powers granted to them for ministry, but simply because of their inclusion in the Kingdom and its work! A similar theme occurs in Jn.4:36, and Paul picks up the same idea in Phil.1:18 and Col.1:24-25, where he identifies the price paid for Kingdom service as contributing to the Lord’s own efforts, a statement similar to Peter’s noted above.

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

“As for the rest, my brothers – be constantly rejoicing in the Lord!” (Phil.3:1)
“Keep on rejoicing in the Lord! Again, I’ll say, keep on rejoicing!” (Phil.4:4)
“Always keep rejoicing!” (I Thes.5:6)
“Continue to love him, whom you have not seen, being faithful toward him … and celebrating with indescribable and glorious joy!” (I Pet.1:8)