The Pioneers’ New Testament

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

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

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

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

There are three scenes where Jesus himself is represented as giving thanks: before distributing food to the crowds (Mt.15:36, Mk.8:16, Jn.6:11,23); as he broke the bread at the Last Supper (Mt.26:27, Mk.14:23, Lk.22:7,19; and quoted by Paul in I Cor.11:24); and at Lazarus’ tomb (Jn.11:41). Only in this last instance does he specify the object of his thanksgiving, and his statement is instructive: “Father, I thank you that you listened to me. I knew that you are always listening to me, but I said that because of the crowd standing around …” The giving of thanks can be a powerful teaching tool, as it also was for Paul (Ac.27:35) during the shipwreck.

In his letters, Paul gives thanks to God for the faithfulness of individuals or groups (Phil.1:3, Col.1:3, Phm.4, I Thes.3:9), for the brethren who came to meet him on the way to Rome (Ac.28:15), for the generosity of the relief offering (II Cor.9:11), for the gift of praying in tongues (I Cor.14:16), and even that he had not baptized many in Corinth (I Cor.1:14), which he mentions to defuse the factionalism there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The actual lexical definitions of the five verbs and four nouns in this group are not so very different from one another. Classically, deomai was used by Homer as “to be in need or want”, by Plato and Herodotus as “to beg a thing from a person,” and by Plutarch and Thucydides as “to beg a favor.” Dei, as a particle, usually intends “It is necessary.”

Erotao is listed as “to ask a question, to beg, or to entreat, to make a request of a person”. Euchomai did refer to “prayer” as commonly understood, but also as “an unrealizable wish, to long for, to vow, or to promise.” Parakaleo, “to summon friends for help, to invite, to exhort, to encourage,” is dealt with in W.S.#53, “The Spirit”, and #138, “comfort”. Only proseuchomai refers exclusively to the prayer of worship.
Among the nouns, only deesis, “entreaty, petition”,and proseuche, “a prayer, or place of prayer” are commonly used. Enteuxis, “conversation, petition, intercession”, appears only once (I Tim.4:5), and euche, “a prayer, vow, wish, or aspiration,” is rendered once “prayer” (Jas.5:15), and twice “vow” (Ac.18:18 and 21:23).
Much more helpful in understanding is to address three questions:

Who is doing the praying?

To whom is it addressed?

What is the subject of the prayer or request?

A few examples can serve to illustrate the value of such observations.
Deomai, as noted above, half the time is simply one person making a request of another: Ac.8:34 – the Ethiopian asking Philip to explain what he was reading; Ac.21:39 – Paul requesting the commander to allow him to speak to the crowd; Lk.5:12 and 9:38 – people begging Jesus for healing; or II Cor.5:20 – Paul urging his readers to accept his message. When addressed to God, (Mt.9:38, Lk.22:32, Rom.1:10, Ac.8:22,24; I Thes.3:10), it is usually with a very specific request in mind, although that is not completely clear in Ac.4:31 or 10:2.

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

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

Proseuchomai, on the other hand, never represents simply a person-to-person situation. It is always directed to God. Even more significantly, it seldom concerns a specific “prayer-request.” It is also the only one that occurs in the imperative mood. Only three times in the gospels is an object specified: praying for one’s persecutors (Mt.5:44, Lk.6:28), Jesus praying for the children (Mt.9:13), and the admonition to pray that the flight from Jerusalem not be in winter (Mt.24:20, Mk.13:18). The rest of the praying, whether by Jesus or others, 19x, has no object mentioned. Thirteen times, it refers to Jesus’ final night in the Garden
Curiously, proseuchomai does not appear in the writings of John at all, in either his gospel or his epistles – and only twice in the Revelation. I have never encountered any speculation on a reason for that – have you?

Jesus usually seems to have preferred a “solitary place” for praying (Mt.14:23, Mk.1:35, 6:46; Lk.5:16,6:12, 9:28), although on several occasions his disciples were present, and asked to be taught (Mt.6:9, Lk.9:18, 11:1,2). Lk.9:18 is particularly puzzling in this regard: “He was praying privately, and his disciples were with him”. (The traditional version says he was “alone”. Not sure what the “dictation theory” advocates do with that!)
Jesus emphasized that prayer was not the place (if there is one) for showing off one’s piety (Mt.6:5,6,7; Mt.23:14, Mk.12:40, Lk.18:10,11; 20:47); that one must forgive before (or in the process of ) praying (Mk.11:25); and one must pray in faithfulness (Mk.11:24).

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

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

One student suggested, “It sounds like just sort of hanging out with the Lord!”

I rather like that. In fact, I think it sums up proseuchomai very well. Perhaps it is often simply making ourselves available, and waiting for instructions.
After all, (Rom.8:26) “We don’t even know how we ought to pray” – but that’s ok – the Holy Spirit can compensate for our ignorance, as long as we are “hanging out” and available.

“By means of all prayer and petition, keep on praying at all times in the Spirit, being constantly alert about it” (Eph.6:18).

“Don’t worry about anything, but in everything, by prayer (proseuche) and petition (deesis), with thanksgiving, your requests must be made known before God.” (Phil.4:6)

Proseuchesthe “Keep on praying [hanging-out with the Lord!], incessantly!” (I Thes.5:17).

It was only during work on the previous post, “bless” (#89), that it became evident that “bless” and “praise” have sometimes been used interchangeably as translations for the same word, and often appear together, especially in the praise scenes in the Revelation. There is also frequent implicit overlap with the use of “glory” (W.S.#74) and “honor” (W.S. #73). Consequently, the idea of praise to the Lord, throughout the New Testament, is far more ubiquitous than the use of any of the specific words so translated, which include six nouns and three verbs.

In three of these instances, it is an aberrant translation of a word more commonly rendered differently: “praise” is used only once for eulogeo (against 43 x “bless”) – Lk.1:64; once for arete (against 4x “virtue”) – I Pet.2:9; and four times for doxa (against 144x “glory”) – Jn.9:24, 12:43 (2x), I Pet.4:11.
Twice, it is the only translation of a rarely used word – ainesis, which is only seen in Heb.13:15, and ainos in Mt.21:16,Lk.18:43. This narrows our study conveniently to one noun and three verbs.

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

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

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

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

Although the word is used at least 16x in the LXX, Trench notes that the connection with pagans celebrating their gods and heroes led to some degree of avoidance in both Jewish and early Christian practice. Alexander had been criticized (3^rd century BC) for accepting “hymns” to himself and his accomplishments instead of deferring to the gods. Among the “church fathers”, notably Origen and Jerome, it became a requirement that a “hymn” be a direct address of praise and glory to God.

Some historians see in passages like Lk.1:46-55, 68-79; Ac.4:24, 16:25; Eph.5:14, I Tim.3:16, and II Tim.2:11-14 snippets of what they interpret as an early hymn. Others call them “creeds”, which is another problem altogether!

Whether or not any specific examples remain for us, music was certainly included in the worship of the New Testament church. Paul encouraged the churches at Ephesus and Colossae (Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16) to “keep teaching and admonishing each other with psalms (psalmois), hymns (humnois), and spiritual songs (odais pneumatikais), singing in the thankfulness [grace] that’s in your hearts, to God.”
“Psalms” are the most ancient, at least in the Judeo-Christian tradition. These were probably some of the ones preserved in the Old Testament records. The word is derived from the verb, “to touch, or to pluck a stringed instrument”, with which the singing was usually accompanied. With “hymns”, the lyrics were predominant, as they celebrated honor and mighty deeds, whereas “songs” could be dirges, joyful songs of praise, or simply a recitation of lyric poetry. Singing is also part of the agenda Paul described in Corinth (I Cor.14:15), both “with [by means of] the Spirit and by means of [using] the understanding [mind]” – with either prescribed or Spirit-led language and music. It is the suggestion of James (5:3) for celebrating one’s rejoicing, and one of the vehicles of praise and tribute to the King in his consummated Kingdom (Rev.5:9, 14:3, 15:3).

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

1. It must be sung.
2. It must be praise.
3. It must be to/about God.

That might still be an appropriate guide!

Songs of praise have habitually accompanied movements of renewal among the Lord’s people, both the source and the expression of great joy.

After all, by his gracious provision, (Eph.1:6), “We exist for the praise of his glory!”

We might as well start practicing!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think, despite the one single instance where Paul calls himself makarios to be presenting his case before Agrippa (Ac.26:2), it is safe to say that for the most part, people are not – and probably can not be – the initiators of a condition of makarios / makarismos (blessedness). It is received from the gracious hand of the Lord, as the result of a relationship of obedient conformity to his directions.
Eulogeo and its associated words, however, are within our prerogative – and indeed our responsibility – to share and convey to others, be they brethren, or antagonists, or the Lord himself.
Nineteen of the uses of eulogeo refer to “blessing” received by people, and ten by God. In fifteen instances, people are doing the “blessing” (or instructed to do so); eight time it is God/Jesus. And there are nine references where it could be a synonym for prayer. We see an interesting slant in Heb.6:7: rather than calling the provision of sun and rain on the fields “blessings”, the writer suggests that the land is “blessed” when that provision is rightly used to bear a fruitful harvest! The “blessing” appears not to be the provision, but the reward for its intended use!

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

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

(See also word studies 27, 39, and 55 for more on this subject.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We all have a lot to learn!

A favorite theme of the crowd who try to flaunt their superior wisdom by thundering authoritatively, “THE GREEK SAYS…..” is the canned, neatly-sorted lecture on “different words for different kinds of love”. The only problem, other than the fact that this represents nobody’s original first-hand study, is that it is flat-out mistaken, as even a minimal perusal of New Testament usage makes abundantly clear.

Agape, which such speakers effusively characterize as “self-giving, Godly, sacrificial love”, is the word used (in verb form) in Lk.6:32-35 and parallels – “even sinners love those who love them”; in Mt.6:24 – a slave juggling two masters; and in Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees (Lk.11:43) “loving the highest seats in the synagogues,” and (Jn.12:43) “the praise of men rather than God!” So let’s back off from the artificially created stereotypes, and take a sober look at the background of the words. Incidentally, only two words, not three, are used in the New Testament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another frequent theme is the appearance of these words in conditional clauses: a grammatical structure introduced by “if” (ei, ean), “in order that” (hina , hos) , or “because” (dia touto, hoti). In fact, I have found no reference at all to the popularly-touted phrase “unconditional love.” I’m sure that its perpetrators mean well: they intend to be “welcoming”, and they are correct that Jesus called many folks whose lives were less than exemplary. But they forget that Jesus himself also says plainly, “This is why the Father loves me, because I am laying down my life” (Jn.10:17), and (Jn.16:27) “The Father loves you because you have loved me!” In the longer discussion in Jn.14:15-24 he repeatedly predicates the promise of his own and the Father’s presence and love upon “following my instructions”! And in Jn.15:9-17, it depends upon the disciples’ replicating his love in their own interaction. Paul (I Cor.2:9, 8:13, II Cor.9:7), James (1:12), and John (I Jn.3 and 4), all assume that the life Jesus offers must be reciprocated with loving obedience in order to be actualized.

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

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

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

Amen!

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

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

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

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

There are many instances describing Jesus’ own relation to the kosmos. He is its Creator (Jn.1:10), its Light (Jn.1:9, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46), he takes away its failures [“sins”] (Jn.1:29) – and see W.S.#7, he is its Savior (Jn.4:42, 3:17, 12:46, I Tim.1:15 – W.S.#5. He came to give it life (Jn.6:33), and to give his life in its behalf (Jn.6:51) – note that these are different grammatical constructions. He was sent by the Father into the world (Jn.10:36, Heb.10:5), in order to speak to the world from the Father (Jn.8:26), for judgment – W.S.#9 & 10 – (Jn.9:39); to reconcile – W.S.#69 – it to himself (II Cor.5:19). His kingdom is neither derived from nor controlled by the world (Jn.18:36-37), but he has overcome the world (Jn.16:33). It is all subject to him (I Cor.3:22)!

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

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

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

“The Word became flesh, and lived [camped out] among us!” (Jn.1:14)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Testament writers take great pains to establish the true humanity of the Lord Jesus. The confession that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (I Jn.4:2,3, and II Jn.7) is held to be the acid test of faithfulness! The writer to the Hebrews repeatedly asserts that this was absolutely necessary in order for Jesus to accomplish our redemption (Heb.2:14, 5:7, 9:14, 10:20). Peter (I Pet.3:18, 4:1,2) echoes that thought, and Paul (Eph.2:15, Col.1:22) adds that this was the only way the Lord could unite Jewish and Gentile believers. John’s whole prologue (Jn.1:1-18), as well as the first paragraph of his first letter, targets the amazing, almost too-good-to-be-true reality of what has come to be called “the Incarnation” – a word derived from the Latin equivalent, carnis, of the Greek sarx, and related to the English “carnal”, which has suffered the same distortions as “flesh”. Lexically, there is nothing inherently evil in any of these words, which simply refer to ordinary natural things or situations. “Carnally minded” (Rom.8:6), does not mean “evil-minded,” but simply having one’s attention focused on the wrong part of human life. It is applied to ordinary [unredeemed] people (I Cor.1:3-4), weapons (II Cor.10:4), commands (Heb.7:16), ceremonies (Heb.9:10), and “things” (Rom.15:27, I Cor.9:11), as opposed to others that are transformed by being deliberately focused on the Lord.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Most significant of all, if judged by the proportion of attention accorded to it in the New Testament, is the awe-inspiring concept of the faithful as comprising the very Body of Christ! For a fuller discussion of that subject, please see chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom. Paul approaches this wonder from three different angles:

– the inclusion of the faithful from all backgrounds in a single unit: “one body” (Rom.12:4,5; Eph.2:16, 4:4; Col.3:15) without distinction;
– the intended function of each member [part] of that Body for the benefit of the whole (I Cor.12:12-27, Rom.12:4-8);
– and the mutual responsibility that such unity entails (Eph.1:23, 4:4, 4:12, 4:16; Col.1:8, 1:24, 2:19), symbolized in the observance of “communion” – W.S. #8, koinonia – (I Cor.10:16-17, 11:24-29).

Do not forget that it is “in (en) one Body” (Col.3:15) that we are called. Not “into” – that would require the preposition eis, and imply the initial invitation to participation. It is we who have already accepted the invitation, and are consequently being incorporated into that one Body, who are then “called” [given further instructions – W.S.#55] , some of which follow in vv.16,17. The complicated inventions, theories, and requirements concocted by self-appointed teachers and hierarchies of every description are completely beside the point.
The only thing that matters is v.19 – “holding on to the Head [Jesus himself]. It’s from him that all the Body, supplied through its joints and ligaments, and knit together, keeps growing with the growth that comes from God!”
The task of every member of that Body (please note that every function listed in Eph.4:11 is plural) is for the purpose of “equipping God’s people” for the job of “building up the Body of Christ”! (Eph.4:12). “The purpose is that we be no longer babies, agitated and carried around by every wind of teaching, deceitfully manipulated by people who are deliberately trying to mislead us, but as we interact truthfully in love, we may grow up in every way into him who is the Head – Christ. From him, the whole Body, joined together [harmonized] and knit together by the proper function of every available ligament, according to the measured working of each individual part, makes bodily growth for building itself up in love.” (Eph.4:14-16).

Amen, Lord! May it be so!

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

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

One significant grouping of New Testament references is historical:
–God’s promise to Abraham
1. of descendants (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13-20, Heb.6:13, 11:11)

2. of the land in which he wandered (Ac.7:5, Heb.11:8-10)

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

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

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

The promise is related, in Ac.13:23, to Jesus’ own resurrection, and it is his faithfulness (the form is a simple possessive genitive) upon which the faithful may depend (Gal.3:22). Eph.3:6 reiterates the breadth of the reach of the promise: that Gentiles, too, “are to be fellow-heirs, and joint members of the Body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus!”
Notice, please, that this is cast in the present tense! I wonder if this has always been a problem for the faithful? Paul needed to remind Timothy (I Tim.4:8) that the promise is “for life now and in the future”. Please refer to the discussion of “eternal life” in W.S.#28. We do injustice to the text if we confine “the promise of life” (II Tim.1:1, Jas.1:2, II Pet.1:4, I Jn.2:25) exclusively to either the present or the future. Both are crucial to proper understanding.
When Heb.9:15 speaks of an “eternal inheritance”, remember (W.S.#79,80) that an inheritance is received during one’s lifetime, after the death, not of the recipient, but of his benefactor!

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

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

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

It’s all about Jesus, folks!
Thanks be to God!