The Pioneers’ New Testament

Since both Paul and John have pointedly explained that the “temple”/ “dwelling” of God is no longer – if indeed it ever was (see previous post) – in a “house made with hands”, but in the gathered Body of his people, it is helpful to explore the concept of “dwelling” itself. This is neither as simple as it sounds – a place to live – nor as complicated as the inventors of “doctrine” would try to make it, with all their rhetoric about “indwelling” (a word which does not occur anywhere, even in traditional translations of the New Testament), “abiding” (which does – W.S. #58), and other contrived “theological” intricacies with which they summarily include – or, more frequently, exclude – those with whose vocabulary and diagrams they agree or differ.

The concept of “dwelling” appears in New Testament writings in three families of words: meno, translated that way only 15x out of 120 occurrences; skenoo, 5x; and oikeo,9x: the latter being made more specific and sorted out by the addition of prefixes, as in egkatoikeo (1x), enoikeo (5x), perioikeo (1x), sunoikeo (1x), and most frequently katoikeo (48x). The vast majority of the uses of most of these words refer simply to geographical location, where people live or stay.

Enoikeo, however, “to dwell or inhabit, to be at home in”, has “God” (II Cor.6:16), “the Spirit” (Rom.8:11, II Tim.1:14), “the Word of Christ” (Col.3:16), or “faithfulness” (II Tim.1:5) as its subject. This is probably where the “indwelling” idea comes from – but please note, the reference is not private, but corporate, except in the final example. The elaborate images constructed from those few references completely fail to take into account that in four of the five, the object of “en” is plural: humin (you all), hemin (us), or autois (them). When the object of the preposition en is plural, “among” is a better translation than “in” (as, “inside of”): implying the corporate Body of Christ, not lonely individuals. The only singular reference is to the faithfulness of Timothy’s grandma.

A similar situation exists for katoikeo, “to settle or colonize, to inhabit, to take up residence,” the most frequent of the words, where it is not referring simply to location. Speaking of the Lord Jesus, in Col.1:19 and 2:9, in whom “dwells” all the completeness of God, the object of the preposition is singular, “in him”, as is the subject in II Pet.3:13 where “righteousness / justice” is said to “dwell” in the new heaven and new earth. Since both the object and its possessive modifier are plural in Eph.3:17, (“your hearts”), that passage may be read either individually or collectively, but the James 4:5 reference to the Spirit that dwells en hemin, is more likely to intend “among us.”

Oikeo, without prefix, also speaks primarily of habitation. Paul’s lament in Rom.7:17,18 of his personal struggle to obey, is cast in the first person singular. One should note that this is not the accusatory diatribe that is so frequently hurled at prospective “converts”, but the testimony of Paul’s own difficulties. There is likewise no indication that Paul – or anyone else, expects it to be normative.  Instructions to faithful disciples in a non-believing marital relationship are likewise singular (I Cor.7:12,13). But reference to the Spirit of God – Rom.8:9,11 and I Cor.7:12,13 (twice) —  revert to the plural, en humin, “among you”. The verbs are plural as well, although Rom.8:9 also contains a singular component, a warning to any who might ignore or disparage the Spirit’s activity.

As is frequently the case, John uses different vocabulary and has different emphases, from those of the other writers. It is not clear – unless they are simply trying to support an already-established “doctrine” – why traditional translators rendered meno , usually translated “remain, continue, stay, abide” – as “dwell” in Jn.6:56, 14:10, 14:17; and even in 1:38 and 39, where the disciples of John the Baptist are clearly asking about Jesus’ current residence. “Stay”would be more appropriate, since he was not at home at the time. The same is true of Luke’s only two uses of meno, in Ac.28:16,30, describing Paul’s situation in Rome.
Likewise, in John’s letters, whether the object of the preposition en is singular (I Jn.3:17,24; 4:15, 16) or plural (I Jn.4:12,13; II Jn.2), one of those more common translations would make more grammatical sense. Notice that elsewhere, in the same letter, meno appears 14x, and is translated 11x “abide” , 2x “continue”, and 1x “remain”. Please refer to W.S.#58 for a fuller discussion of meno.
In any case, meno does not imply the settled, permanent residence that often accompanies katoikeo. Geographical references are temporary; those involving the presence of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are contingent on the response of a person or group. Note the conditional constructions.

Even more unique is John’s use of yet another word, skenoo, literally, “to pitch a tent, or make an encampment”. This is the “habitation” of an army on the move! And look where it appears in John’s writing! In Jn.1:14, he is describing “The Word made flesh [human] and dwelling among us!” An interesting light on Jesus’ campaign to establish his Kingdom!

The same word appears again only in the Revelation! In Rv.7:15, John speaks of the huge crowd of the faithful in joyful worship around the throne, and marvels, “The one seated on the throne will pitch his tent with them!”
In Rv.12:12, he calls “those who are camping out in heaven” to exuberant celebration, even as they are included in the scorn of the “beast” who opposes God’s name and his “tent”.
And finally (21:3), upon the arrival of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of the Lamb, “God’s tent is with his people! He will camp with them, and they will be his people, the God himself will be with them, their God!”
Wait a minute! Isn’t it all over by then? Most of us thought that by that time, the “pilgrim people” could finally settle down in cozy glory! But no – we are still “camping”!

Where are we headed? We are not told. It’s not about geography, folks.
The only permanence is the gracious presence of the Lord among his people – plural – and mostly present tenses (16x), 5x aorist (already accomplished), and only three in the future tense.

That’s why we need so desperately to meet, share, and interact as his people: it is among those who have accepted the invitation to citizenship in his Kingdom that we are intended to experience, and enjoy, the presence of the King – “until he comes” – and even after that!

“Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”

In much the same way as an understanding of the inheritance of God’s people (W.S.#79, 80) has been altered throughout their long history, their perception of references to the temple of God has varied as well. A bit of history can do a lot to dispel some rather serious misunderstandings, and careful attention to the New Testament uses of the two words translated “temple” adds interesting and challenging light to the subject.

First, the history. We are told (II Sam.7) that God was not at all impressed when David got the bright idea to build him “a house”, reminding him that he (God) had the whole universe at his disposal for a “dwelling”. Even when Solomon was granted a “building permit” – thought to have been around 957 BC – he recognized that it could not “contain” God in the sense that a temple was interpreted among surrounding cultures. (More of this below.) That impressive edifice was eventually destroyed in the Babylonian conquest, during and after which prophetic messages of “re-building” were recorded. Subsequent to those prophecies, we have records of at least three such restorations: by Ezra and Nehemiah after the exile (538 BC); a re-dedication under the Maccabees in 164 BC after the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC; and the temple complex built under Herod the Great in 20 BC, which was in use during Jesus’ earthly ministry. So much for claims of “yet unfulfilled prophecy” regarding a physical reconstruction of “the temple”! “Been there, done that” — at least three times!

More significant to the followers of Jesus, however, are the vocabulary considerations. There are two words translated “temple” in the New Testament. Hieron, occurring primarily in the synoptic gospels and Acts, uniformly refers to a physical location – including all the associated courtyards and buildings, where people gathered, begged, walked, taught, argued, and even set up commercial enterprises. The same word was also used of pagan temples (in the NT, the temple of Artemis of Ephesus). Before Homer, hieron was also used to refer to offerings and sacrifices (L/S), or any “sacred” objects, rites, or omens. After Homer, used with the definite article, the meaning narrowed to any “holy place”. The Jewish temple continued to be one of many gathering places for the faithful, after Pentecost, in addition to their meetings in homes (Ac.2:46, 5:42).

Naos, on the other hand, referred to the inner precincts of a pagan shrine, where an idol “lived”. In a Jewish context, it was the inner court, the “holy of holies”, where they, too, supposed the presence of God to dwell. It was this orientation that Paul was challenging in Ac.7:48 and 17:24, as he tried to make his hearers aware of the transcendence of the Lord he proclaimed. Understanding the word to refer to that portion where only the chosen priest was allowed to enter (Lk.1:9) emphasizes the audacity of the distraught Judas Iscariot, when he despairingly hurled the silver he had been paid for his treachery “into the naos” (Mt.27:5) – the sacred inner sanctum!

It was the naos that was separated from the more public parts of the temple area (hieron) by the thick curtain / veil which was torn in pieces at the time of Jesus’ death. The implications of this event are HUGE! The division between God and man – between “sacred” and “secular” – is forever removed! Jesus has opened the way, once and for all! (Heb.10:20). Please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a fuller discussion of this event.

A hint of something even more monumental occurs in Jesus’ statement (Jn.2:18-21) to his critics, after the “temple cleansing” incident. John notes (v.21) that Jesus was really talking about “the temple of his body”!
This is the concept that Paul picks up, in I Cor.3:16-17, 6:19, and II Cor.6:16. In each case, it is naos (in the singular) that he chose to use; and in each case, the “you”, whether as a subject or a possessive, is plural, while “body” and “temple” are uniformly singular.
In the I Cor.3 passage, Paul has been describing the task of “building” – by all participants – on the “foundation” which is the Lord Jesus himself. He then demands, “Don’t you all know that you (plural) are God’s temple (singular)?” , and employs the plural “you” twice more in the same thought. Only the warning to be careful not to “mess it up” reverts to the singular. One person can indeed do that! – but functioning as the Body, or the naos – dwelling – of the Spirit of God requires group cooperation! The preposition en usually indicates “in” when its object is singular, but “among” when the object is plural.

The discussion in I Cor.6:15-20 is not quite as clear-cut: somata is plural in v.15, plainly referencing the physical body as “parts” of Christ’s, which Paul then undertakes to explain. But in v.19, he reverts to the singular “body” and “temple”, with the plural subject and possessive. Likewise, in II Cor.6:16, Paul asserts that “WE are the temple (sg.) of the living God!”
Only together can we become the Body of Christ, or the Temple of God / the Holy Spirit!
These two phrases are essentially synonymous, according to Jesus! (cf. Jn.2:21)

It has usually been assumed that II Thes.2:4 referred to an event similar to Antiochus’ statue of Zeus (2^ndc. BC) or Augustus’ image of himself (contemporary to the writing?) in a physical temple – but the passages cited above open the additional possibility that this “temple”, too, could be the church – any or every “church” that submits to, or is co-opted by state control?

“Temple” references in the Revelation, a highly symbolic narrative (necessary in an era of intense persecution), are mixed – perhaps on purpose. The faithful are called “pillars” (support structure) in the temple of God (Rv.3:12), where they “serve him day and night” (7:15). “Messengers” come and go from “the temple” (chapters 11,14,15), as do “voices” (ch.16).

But there is no ambiguity in Rv.21:22, where John describes the consummate “City of God”: “I didn’t see a temple in it; for the Lord God, the all-powerful, and the Lamb, are its temple!”
Finally, fully united, the faithful and their Lord – the awe-struck apostle runs out of words to describe the glory of the scene.

We can only echo his parting prayer:

“Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”

As we consider the different aspects of “inheritance”, you may want to refer to the previous post, which treats the etymological and cultural considerations in more detail.

The word least frequently used in New Testament writings is prototokos, “firstborn”, which appears only 9 x. Except for Heb.11:28, where the writer recounts the Passover experience in Egypt, the word is exclusively applied to the Lord Jesus himself. It is used twice in the infancy narratives (Mt.1:25, Lk.2:7), relating physically to Mary, but all the rest are clear statements of Jesus’ primacy. Paul acknowledges him as “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom.8:29), the one to whom we are all destined to be conformed; “the firstborn of all creation” (Col.1:15), the one who created and sustains all the rest; and “the firstborn from the dead” (Col.1:18), by his glorious resurrection demonstrating his position to be of the absolute highest rank. A similar thought accompanies the reference in Heb.1:6 to his “introduction” to the world by the Father. The joyful consummation is likewise celebrated in Heb.12:23 and Rev.1:5. Remember (and give thanks!) that the Firstborn, besides being the deserving recipient of all glory, power and praise, has accepted responsibility for the welfare of all the rest of the family!

Only a little more frequent is the term kleros, translated 8 x as “lot” (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) in the scene at the cross, Ac.1:21 regarding Matthias ( and also 3x in 1:17 and 1:25, where “part” is used, as it is in Ac.8:21 of Peter’s rebuke to the conniving Simon). Only in I Pet.5:3 is it translated “heritage”, where the church is called “God’s heritage.”

Diatheke, as noted in the previous post, presents a problem, in being translated half the time as “covenant” and half as “testament”, which, Heb.9 explains, is a reference to a legal will. Inheritance by will differs from familial inheritance in that blood relationship is not required, although (see previous posting) under Roman law, citizenship was required. As citizens of his Kingdom, and members of his family, of course, Jesus’ people qualify on both counts!
Many of the passages where diatheke appears, clearly reference the historic “covenants” (Lk.1:72, Ac.3:25, 7:8; Rom.9:4, 11:27; Gal.4:24, Eph.2:12, II Cor.3:14, Heb.8:9, 9:4, 9:15; Rev.11:19.)
Four refer to the prescribed legal technicalities required in any “covenant” or “will” (Gal.3:15,17; Heb.9:16,17.)
Most significantly, however, the letter to the Hebrews details two elaborations upon Jesus’ announcement (Mt.26:28, Mk.14:24, Lk.22:20), which Paul quoted in ICor.11:25, of a “new covenant / testament / will”, explaining the inadequacy and failure of the old (Heb.8:9, 10; 9:15) – also seen in II Cor.3:14 – and describing Jesus’ establishing of a “new” (Heb.9:15) and “better” (Heb.7:22, 8:6) one, “not like the old” (Heb.8:9). Identifying Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, stating that God had always intended to remedy the weakness and failure of the former “covenants” (Heb.8 and 9), the writer details their failings. Unfortunately, many interpreters have used distorted fragments of this passage to identify the death of Jesus with the ancient ritual sacrifices – which are here declared to be an exercise in futility – completely ignoring the fact that it had already been established (Heb.2:14,15) that the real purpose and effect of that event, because he emerged triumphant on the other side of the grave, was to destroy death itself! The later references (Heb.10:15-17, 12:24; 13:20) emphasize that triumph, and (10:29) the glorious accomplishment of setting aside the faithful as God’s own possession. We are strictly warned not to depreciate this accomplishment!

More dominant than all of these other words combined are kleronomeo (v),”to inherit”, kleronomia (n), “inheritance”, and kleronomos , “heir”. Four times in the synoptics, in parable (Mt.21:38, Mk.12:7, Lk.20:14) and personal encounter (Lk.12:13), the term applies strictly to legal, temporal inheritance, and five times (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13,14; Gal.4:30, Heb.11:8) to God’s promise to Abraham. In Gal.4:1, Paul refers to the legal requirement of majority (age) for inheritance. A formal declaration by the father was necessary to establish his son as an heir, when he attained legal age. Might this be the prototype of the “voice from heaven” recorded at Jesus’ baptism and again in the transfiguration accounts?
Jesus’ own inheritance, already discussed above as the Firstborn, is also noted in Eph.1:18 – as consisting of his people! – and Heb.1:2 and 1:4, as his being “heir of everything” and his consequent supremacy over all created beings.

All the rest (at least 30 references) refer to the heritage of the Lord’s faithful people!

Of special interest is the invitation to those among “the nations / Gentiles” (Mt.25:34), W.S.#62, to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you all from the foundation of the world!” This is an unmistakable reaffirmation that the intention was always the inclusion of all who would choose faithfulness.
“The Kingdom” (W.S.#19,20,21) is identified with inheritance in I Cor.15:50, Gal.5:21, Eph.5:5, Jas.2:5, and “the promise” in Gal.3:29, Heb.6:12, 6:17, 9:15. “The promise” is also related in Mt.19:29, and in discussions with several of Jesus’ questioners (Mk.10:17, Lk.8:18,10:25) to “eternal life” (W.S.#28).
Remember: one does not receive an inheritance after HE dies, but as explained in Heb.9:15-16, after the death of the person who wrote the will!
Thus Paul writes to the folks at Ephesus in the aorist tense – the inheritance has already been conferred (Eph.1:11), and to the Romans (8:17) and Galatians (4:7) in the present tense – “we are heirs!”

To be sure, there is more to come – Col.3:24 looks forward to the eventual receipt of “the reward of the inheritance” and I Pet.1:4 to the bestowal of the “inheritance that cannot decay, or be polluted, or fade away”, already secured by the Lord Jesus, but presently “kept in heaven”.
Paul (Eph.1:14) considers the Holy Spirit’s presence and power among us as merely a “down-payment” or guarantee of all that awaits the final consummation, when , with Jesus himself, those who remain faithful (Rev.21:7) “shall inherit all things”, and (Heb.1:14) also finally “inherit salvation”! (W.S.#5)

“Dear people, NOW we are God’s children (tekna): and it hasn’t been revealed yet what we will be! But we do know that when he [it] is revealed, we will be like him – for we shall see him as he is!” (I Jn.3:2)

Thanks be to God!

In order correctly to understand the concept of “inheritance” – kleronomeo (v.), kleronomia (n.), and kleronomos (heirs) – in the New Testament, it is necessary to bear in mind that we are here confronted with three different cultures – Hebrew, Greek, and Roman – none of which correspond directly to our own, or to each other. An exhaustive treatment of these is obviously not in the purview of this study: for more detail, I found the Jewish Encyclopedia (online), and Gibbon’s classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire most helpful. I will recount here only a few salient points.

In all three, as in many other ancient cultures, an heir acquired not only the property, but also the obligations and debts of the deceased. Accordingly, it was not uncommon for a prospective heir to renounce or abandon his heritage. In Roman law, there was even a provision for a debt-ridden father to arrange for his son to be legally adopted by another, in which case the debt “died” with the father.
Adopted sons shared equal status with natural ones. Since inheritance was patrilineal, adoption involved only the husband. A wife could have her own property, but it was treated entirely separately.
Only a Roman citizen could execute or receive bequest from a will. If a slave was to be a beneficiary, his freedom had to be granted first, in the legal document.

In the ancient Hebrew tradition, the obligation of an heir was similar, but the (even more ancient) principle of primogeniture was also observed, although this convention could be abrogated by the father, as it was in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, or Ephraim and Manasseh. The firstborn (prototokos) was entitled to a “double portion”of the estate: it was divided into one part more than the total number of sons, and the firstborn received two such portions – but also double the responsibility, not only for the debt or other obligations of the father, but also for the welfare and support of the rest of the family. In the absence of a firstborn son, a servant might be considered the heir (see Gen.15:2,3).
It is significant to note that the Hebrew emphasis on the firstborn was not unique. In fact, it represented a very humane departure from surrounding cultures, some of which demanded a fertility rite of burning one’s firstborn son in sacrifice to the gods! (Lv.18:21, 20:3,4).

The Greek culture, here as in other areas, was considerably more lenient. All the sons of a family were considered equal, and entitled to equal portions. Daughters, too, could be included at the discretion of their brothers. In the other groups, daughters received a dowry, but not an inheritance, except with special dispensation as in Num.27. Please also see the treatment of “sons” in the essay, “The Task of a Translator.”

The English readers’ understanding of the situation is further complicated by the occasional alternative use of the word diatheke. Liddell/Scott defined this word, as does the writer to the Hebrews, as a legal will, which takes effect upon the death of the testator (Heb.9:15-20). The concept became confused by the consistent use of the term in the LXX to refer to the several “covenants” that God had instituted with his people. L/S lists only a single classical use of diatheke as a covenant, by the dramatist Aristophanes, but notes that it is “frequent in LXX”. One is made to wonder, then: did the LXX translators in the third century BC deliberately depart from the primary meaning of the word? Or did their subsequent interpreters misunderstand? It is true that the concept of “blood covenant” is not unique to cultures with an Old Testament heritage; but neither is it the primary translation of diatheke. A legal will has no necessary connection with the killing of either an animal or a person. It does, however, have no force until the death of the testator is duly certified (Heb.9:16).
Perhaps the traditional translators recognized that problem when they used “covenant” 20 x for diatheke, and “testament” 19 x. But using different translations for the same word compounds, rather than solving, misunderstanding. English usage, of course, still refers to one’s “last will and testament”. And perhaps we would do well to recognize that what we call the “Old Testament” or the “New Testament” (as in Jesus’ words in the “Last Supper”narratives), represents God’s repeated attempts to communicate his legacy to his intended heirs, and not just another in a long series of failed “covenants”. That would cast an interesting light on Stephen’s sermon (Ac.7), and the entire letter to the Hebrews, as both detail the many situations in which the original heirs had chosen to opt out of the responsibility portion of their legacy, while clinging tenaciously to the property / privilege!

Another word resembling, but not directly connected to the kleronomeo / kleronomia group (which etymologically include “nomos” – law, or legal), is kleros, classically translated as “a part or lot, or anything which is assigned by lot”, and later morphed into “a piece of land, farm, or estate; a legacy”. The LXX refers to Canaan having been divided “by lot”; and to various decisions made or officials appointed by the casting or drawing of “lots”, a procedure that is not fully explained (except by the fertile imagination of commentators!). Because of the connection to the inheritance of land, it was occasionally used of one’s heritage in other contexts (I Pet.5:3, Ac.1:17, 25); and because of the “choice” connection, it became a reference to gambling (the guards “casting lots” for Jesus’ robe – (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) or to the selection of Matthias (Ac.1:17-26), as well as a simple “share” or “portion” as in Ac.26:18, Col.1:12, Ac.8:21.

With this background, then, in the next post, we will move on to consider the unique New Testament usages of these different aspects of “inheritance”. The vocabulary treated here can help us to distinguish whether a reference is to the inheritance of a “firstborn” (prototokos), to lineal, birthright inheritance (kleronomia), to inheritance established by a duly certified will (diatheke), or simply to one’s share (kleros) of some commodity or partnership.
It is critical to remember that, in any case, inheritance involves responsibility, as well as privilege or possession, and that both acceptance and abrogation of one’s inheritance have serious consequences.

“Meek” is another word which, despite Jesus’ placing a high value upon the trait it describes (Mt.5:5, 11:29), is often used today rather scornfully or disparagingly, even by people who claim to be his followers. In modern parlance, “meek” has come to denote a subservient, doormat-type of individual, easily kicked-around and abused, lacking either the ability or the backbone to protest or retaliate. Such a characterization could hardly be farther from the actual meaning of praos / praus (adj.) and praotes / prautes (n.). (The different spellings are artifacts of different Greek dialects, the former in each pair being Attic and the latter Ionic in origin.)

The words imply an attitude of courtesy (Bauer), gentleness (L/S), or a mild and considerate disposition – but not as a result of weakness! “Meekness” can only exist where great strength is under strict control! It describes a domesticated animal that has been carefully trained for its master’s purposes, or even the taming of wild beasts!
Such an understanding meshes well with the Mt.11:28-30 passage discussed in W.S.#77. The “meekness” with which Jesus describes himself is not the unhappy lot of the subjugated, but the deliberate choice of the almighty God, for the benefit and the education of his people!

None of these words are ever translated in any other way in the traditional versions. However, the words with which they are sometimes paired can cast considerable light upon their intended meaning. In the passage noted above, for example, Jesus characterizes himself as “meek and lowly”, using the word tapeinos, often rendered “humble” (W.S.#14), also a deliberate choice on his part. Paul also juxtaposes those two words in Eph.4:2 and Col.3:12. Similarly, he combines “meekness” with “gentleness” – epieikeia – classically defined as “reasonableness, equity, fairness, virtue, tolerance, or capability” – in II Cor.10:1 and Tit.3:2, and with both “longsuffering” (makrothumia) – Col.3:12 – and “patience” (hupomone) – I Tim.6:11. Please refer to W.S. #63 for the distinction between these words. Prautes appears between “faithfulness” and “self-control” on the list of the “fruits” (produce – W.S.#64) of the Spirit in Gal.5:22-23, a very appropriate association.
Peter holds up the ideal of a “meek and quiet spirit” (I Pet.3:4), using hesuchia, more commonly translated “calm, tranquil, cautious, or of gentle character”. The adjectival form, hesuchios, is also the word chosen to describe the tranquil characteristic of the life desired by the beleaguered faithful in I Tim.2:2.

Perhaps the most vivid example of “meekness” as a deliberate choice rather than a helpless default is to be found in Paul’s admonition to people and/or groups involved in administering discipline to erring members (I Cor.4:21, Gal.6:1, II Tim.2:25). In each case, “meekness” is to characterize an attempt to correct or restore a person to faithfulness and to the brotherhood. Please note, in no instance is an error to be ignored, overlooked, or minimized. There is no hint of an apologetic “I might be mistaken, but…” The offense is to be confronted plainly, but not arrogantly. The goal is not exclusion, but restoration.

In a similar vein, James urges his readers to “receive the word with meekness” (1:21), and to demonstrate their faithfulness (3:13) by their behavior “with meekness” – both of which could as accurately be rendered “without arrogance.” This is also the attitude which Peter advocates (I Pet.3:15) in explaining one’s “hope” (W.S.#36) to challengers — meta prautetos kai phobou, “with gentleness and respect” (see treatment of phobos in W.S.#16). This is not a “plan of attack”, but a calm and respectful explanation.

The ultimate paradigm, of course, is the Lord Jesus himself (Mt.21:5), who chose a lowly beast of burden, rather than a regal steed, for his arrival in Jerusalem. That choice was not only a deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech.9:9), but also an identification with his own statement (Mt.5:5) of who will “inherit the earth”!  But do not forget that immediately after this event, he proceeded to emphatically clear the cheating profiteers out of the temple!  This was NOT a violation of his “meekness”!  His power was carefully controlled, and not destructive!

For too long, those who presume to “teach” have acted as if all the gospel references to Jesus “knowing” what lay ahead for him, referred only to his impending death. Such an assumption is seriously in error. He was indeed well aware of that prospect. But please note that in nearly every place that Jesus mentioned his death, he also foretold his resurrection, and often his subsequent glorification! (W.S.#34 and 35)!
Re-read Jesus’ prayer in John17, and notice his supreme confidence in the inheritance into which he was moving! Absolute security in that expectation is what enabled the “meekness” with which he lived, taught, – and departed.
His is the ultimate definition of “meekness” – the gentleness of incredible power, under strict control, deliberately rejecting both personal aggrandizement and self-defense. Such an attitude can only be inspired by total confidence, in one’s identity, his destiny, and to whom he belongs.

Blessed indeed, are the meek!

For far too long, in “Christian” circles, the word “rest” has evoked one of two images, neither of which has any New Testament derivation. It is presented either as a “do-nothing” accessory to the artificial “faith-works” discussion (W.S. #1 and #39), or as an image of lolling around on a cloud enjoying (?!?) one’s wings, halo, and harp! Of the 15 different Greek words that have been translated “rest” at some point, not a single one carries that imagery.

Two of those words, loipos and epiloipos, refer simply to a remainder or remnant, to “leftovers”, or to other individuals not previously mentioned – “the rest of the people…” These are not relevant to the concept at hand.
Seven words appear only once or twice with this translation: eirene (Ac.9:31), usually translated “peace” (W.S.#70); hesuchazo (Lk.23:56), “to be calm, quiet, or tranquil”; kataskenao (Ac.2:26), “to settle down in a dwelling; episkenao (II Cor.12:9), “to have one’s dwelling”; koimesis (Jn.11:13), “sleeping”; epanapauomai (Lk.10:6, Rom.2:17), “to rest in or upon”; and sabbatismos (Heb.4:9), “the rest required on the Sabbath.” The first three of these occur in other contexts, with other translations, which are more attuned to their definitions. The others appear nowhere else.

Katapausis, and its verb form, katapauomai, occurring primarily in the Hebrews 3 and 4 discussion (10 times) comparing God’s “rest” after finishing his work of creation, the entry of the Jews into Canaan, and the greater “rest” secured by Jesus, was classically defined as “putting down or deposing from power, a place of calm or rest, to cause to cease or to hinder” (as in Ac.14:18, where Paul and Barnabas had trouble restraining the people of Lystra from sacrificing to them as gods), or “to rest while one is well-off.” It appears also in Stephen’s sermon (Ac.7:49), highlighting God’s rejection of the idea that he could be contained in or confined to “a house”.
Anesis, classically applied to the loosening of the strings of an instrument, the relaxation of stress (the opposite of thlipsis, “hassles, tribulations”), recreation or relaxation (the opposite of spoude, “strenuous effort”), or the solution to a problem, is used only five times in the New Testament: three times translated “rest” (II Cor.2:13 and 7:5, II Thes.1:7), once as the “liberty” granted to Paul by the centurion guarding him (Ac.24:23), and once (II Cor.8:13) reassuring his readers that they were not being asked to support the laziness of others, but to serve a genuine need by the relief offering.

The most common word, anapausis (n.), with its verb forms, anapauo (active) and anapauomai middle and passive), was classically the most versatile. It included “rest from wandering” (Homer), “recreation” (Plato), “cadence” (in poetry or rhetoric), “to bring to a close” (Hermogenes), “to halt or rest troops, or to regain strength” (Xenophon), “to relieve someone, or to allow land to lie fallow.”
In the New Testament, Jesus used it of a cast-out evil spirit “seeking rest” (Mt.12:43, Lk.11:24). Rev.14:11 and 4:8 describe the thoroughly delightful scenes around the throne where no one rests, day or night, from the praises of God / the Lamb! After their missionary journey, Jesus invites his disciples to “rest a while” (Mk.6:31), and gently rebukes them – “Go ahead and take your rest” – in the garden (Mt.26:45, Mk.14:41). Paul frequently uses it of “refreshment” (I Cor.16:18, II Cor.7:13, Philemon 7,20), and Peter (I Pet.4:14) speaks of the spirit of God’s glory “resting on” his people who are under duress. The faithful “under the altar” (Rev.6:11), who impatiently ask, in effect, “How long, Lord, till you clean up this mess??!” (Don’t we all?!!) are told to “rest a little longer”, and the Spirit (Rev.14:13) speaks a blessing on “those who die in the Lord”, that “they can rest from their labors, for their deeds [works] follow after them.”

But maybe that doesn’t mean, as is frequently assumed, that there is no more work to be done! I have deliberately left for last, Jesus’ gracious words recorded in Mt.11:28-30, to which this study owes its impetus. It began in a conversation with my brother-in-law (Thanks, Bob!) after we had sat through a less-than-inspiring, “feel-good” type of sermon. One of the fragments of poorly-used “verses” that had been quoted was Mt.11:28, “I will give you rest.” Following along in my Greek text, as I usually do, I had been startled to see that “rest”, in that quote, is not a noun, but a future active verb! And there is no word in that passage that one could properly translate “give”, nor is there any dative case that could designate a recipient of a gift. The plural “you” is in the accusative case, a direct object. Literally, although it sounds awkward to us, he is saying, “I will rest you all.”
It had always seemed odd to me that this phrase, oft-quoted as an “invitation”, was in a paragraph about the “yoke” with which Jesus offers us his “training”. The connection had seemed fuzzy, until our conversation turned to our fascination with watching neighbors, who farmed with horses, in their field work. This would have been familiar to the rural folks who first listened to Jesus’ message. The meaning is only lost on our mechanized generation!
A young animal is trained for work by being yoked together with a stronger, more experienced one. The “teaching” member of the pair needs to be gentle and patient, and to lead without abusing the “student”. The harness assembly has to be carefully fitted to the size and strength of each animal, in order to enable them to do very strenuous work without injury. And after a row or two of plowing, the farmer would always “rest” his team in a shady spot, both to recover from the heavy work, and to “re-charge” for the completion of the task!
The Lord Jesus represents himself as both the lead animal in the yoke (v.29), carefully and patiently teaching his disciple, bearing that part of the load which the “new recruit” cannot, but gradually enabling him to assume his rightful share; and as the master, who considerately “rests” his team, to enable their endurance, and the successful completion of their work. When the yoke is perfectly fitted, the load, or the task, seems much lighter!

Might that image also inform the blessing in Rev.14? Met’ auton is as likely to intend “with them” as it is “after them.”
Frankly, I think I find the image of a refreshing rest under the Tree of Life, as a prelude to even more delightful work in tandem with the Lord of Glory, a far more attractive prospect than sitting around on a cloud!
How about you?

I have usually tried to provide studies of words that have appeared in the “search” lists on my web site. However, this is one, although it has been requested several times, to which I am unable to respond by examining its New Testament usage. The reason is quite simple: the word “sacrament” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. Neither does the concept that it represents.

For a discussion of this subject, and a treatment of a few examples of symbolic observances that have sometimes been incorrectly labeled with the term “sacrament”, please refer to Part III, “Symbols of the Kingdom”, and especially chapter 9, “Symbol or Sacrament?”, in Citizens of the Kingdom.
That’s the best I can do, folks. It’s pretty hard to “study” a word that’s not there.

I’m afraid this is an instance that would probably fall into the category of what Jesus termed “the traditions of the elders” – and he did not have a very high opinion of those, their accompanying pomp and ceremony, or the way they had so often become tools for the oppression of “ordinary folks” by a dominant hierarchy (see Mt.15:2-6, and Mk.7:3-13). Paul also warned of the emptiness of “traditions” (Gal.1:14 and Col.2:8). Only in II Thess.2:15 and 3:6 did he use “tradition” (paradosis – “anything handed down, transmitted, or bequeathed”) in a positive light, and in both of those, he was referring to the teaching that he himself had given them. This was also the case in I Cor.11:2, where the same word was (“traditionally”) rendered “ordinance”. (Word Study #48 explores the varied uses of the concept of “ordain”.)

The closest thing to a concept of “sacrament” in the New Testament, if it is understood as persons benefiting from the presence of God among them, is Jesus’ promise to be present in any gathered group of his followers (Mt.18:20, Jn.14:23,25), especially when they are actively following his instructions (Mt.28:20). No ceremony or hierarchy is needed, intended, or even helpful. He had clearly stated, earlier, that no person was to be elevated above the rest (Mt.23:8) “You have one Master, and you are all brethren.”  The elevation of any individual is an act of direct disobedience to his instructions!

If we as his people have any “sacred” task, it is that each one mediate the gracious presence of the Lord Jesus to one another, as we/they function together as the Body of Christ, serving each other, and the world around us, “in his Name” (W.S. #24).

May we do so in faithfulness!

Of the six words translated “light” in the New Testament, two, lampas and luchnos, apply almost exclusively to a physical lamp or torch, something portable, and hand-kindled. The only exceptions are Mt.6:22 and its parallel Lk.11:34, where Jesus calls the eye the “light/lamp” of the body, Jn.5:35 where he refers to John the Baptist as a “light”, and Rv.21:23 where “the Lamb is the light” of the holy city. In each of these references, the more common term, phos, is used in the next breath, so it is reasonable to assume that the writers simply felt it necessary to differentiate a source for the “light” they had in mind.
Three of the words are used only twice each: pheggos, (classically, daylight, moonlight, splendor, luster, or delight) as ambient light (Lk.11:33), or moonlight (Mt.24:49 and parallel Mk.13:24); phoster (classically, that which gives light, stars, radiance, or a window) in Phil.2:15 “you shine as lights”, and Rv.21:11 “[light] radiance like a precious stone”; and photismos, (classically, any kind of illumination, frequently metaphorical) in II Cor.4:6 “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” and 4:4, “the light of the gospel”.
In contrast, the primary word, phos, or in earlier Greek, phaos, used 70 times, could have referred classically to any of these: L/S lists “light of sun or moon, light of a torch, lamp or fire; the light of the eyes; a window; light as a metaphor for deliverance, happiness, or victory; or illumination of the mind.” Bauer adds “the bearers of enlightenment,” whether material, human, or supernatural.
The New Testament appearances of phos can be sorted into several categories – and you may wish to vary these boundaries. (Feel free!) Some clearly refer to ordinary illumination – daylight, firelight, lamplight (Mt.10:27, Mk.14:54, Lk.8:16, 12:3, 22:56; Jn.11:9, Ac.16:29, II Cor.4:6). Others are specifically contrasted with “darkness”, which may be understood simply as a natural state, or in a metaphorical sense of ignorance or evil (Mt.4:16, 6:23; Lk.11:35, Jn.1:5, 3:19-20, 8:12, 11:9; Ac.26:18, Rom.2:19, II Cor.4:6, 6:14,11:14; Eph.5:8, I Jn.1:5).
As was the case in the LXX, visible light occasionally represents the presence of God or one of his messengers (Mt.17:2, Ac.9:3, 12:7, 22:6, 9, 11; Ac.26:13, I Tim.6:16, Rv.21:24, 22:25).
The faithful are termed “children of light” (in contrast to “this generation” or to “darkness”) in Lk.16:8, Jn.12:36, Eph.5:8, I Thes.5:5. They even become a source of light (Mt.5:14,16; Lk.2:32, Ac.13:47, 26:23) to those in ignorance.

Light – or one’s attitude toward illumination – is a clear revealer of people’s allegiance, motives, and activity. John observed that even when light is available, some folks prefer darkness “because their deeds were evil” (Jn.3:19). Quite bluntly, he explains (3:20) “Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. (21) But the one who is acting in the truth (see  W.S.#26), comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be revealed, that they were performed in [for] God!” Repeatedly, behavior that is hidden or kept secret is assumed to be evil (Eph.5:12-13, I Jn.2:9) – that is the only reason for hiding! Darkness has tried (Jn.1:5) to defeat the light – and failed utterly!

“Children of light” (see above) are to have nothing to do with secrecy and darkness. If only people (especially any designated “leaders” ) in churches would recognize that all secrecy is consistently connected with darkness, not the light of the Lord, how very much pain and damage could be averted!
John reminds his readers (I Jn.2:8) “The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining!” Because, as he had written so eloquently in the introduction to his gospel, “Light came into the world”(1:4-9) in the person of the Lord Jesus! Later, (8:12, 9:5, 12:35, 36, 46) he quotes statements of Jesus himself, including two of his early “I AM” statements (W.S.#17), to corroborate that identification. Although James (1:17) speaks of the “Father of Lights”, in the rest of the New Testament, it’s all about Jesus!

Followers of Jesus are urged to “walk in the light” (I Jn. 1:7), “trust in the light” (Jn.12:36) while it is available (also I Jn. 1:7), to “let your light shine” (Mt.5:16) in order that observers may give glory (W.S.#74) to God, to “speak in the light” (Mt.10:27).
“Once you all were darkness, but now (you are) light, in the Lord! Behave as children of light! The harvest of the light (is) in all goodness and justice and truth. Find out what is pleasing to the Lord, and don’t participate with the unfruitful deeds of darkness: rather, rebuke them. The things they do secretly are shameful even to talk about, but everything is being exposed [revealed] by the light. Everything revealed IS light!” (Eph.5:8-14), is probably one of the best descriptions we have of the transformation of life that results from a genuine, wholehearted commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus. There are no exceptions to the complete openness and honesty, and the consequent total avoidance of secrecy or deception, that is expected of Kingdom citizens. “He that loves [keeps loving] his brother, stays in the light” (I Jn.2:10).
For children of light, to put it bluntly, anything that needs to be said or done in darkness / secrecy probably ought never to be said or done at all!

Peter offered an appropriate reminder (I Pet.2:9), “You all are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a set-apart [holy] nation, a people especially reserved for [committed to] the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one who called you out of darkness, into his amazing light!”, and Paul (Col.1:12) adds that the Lord not only called us, but “qualified us for a share of the inheritance of his people in the light!” – that glorious “light” of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor.4:6), which no darkness can defeat (Jn.1:5)!

May we continually encourage and help one another to “walk as children of light”!

“Glory” is NOT a railroad terminal! It is not even a place. Centuries of songs (perpetuating the “Christian” mythology that equates it with similarly fanciful ideas of “heaven”) to the contrary, doxa refers to reputation, splendor, magnificence, brightness, or exaltation – but never to geography. The only “verse” that could even be twisted to support such a notion is I Tim.3:16, where the traditional translations refer to Jesus having been “received up into glory”, is a glaring example of the incorrect translation of the preposition en (in), which describes a state or condition, and requires a dative object, as if it were eis (into), which does imply destination or purpose, and requires an accusative object. There is not even a variant reading to that effect in any of the manuscript evidence. “Glory”, in that case, describes the triumphant circumstances of Jesus’ ascension, not its destination.

Although “glory” was ascribed to potentates of various kinds – “the kingdoms of this world” (Mt.4:8, Lk.4:6, Rv.21, 24, 26), kings themselves (Mt.6:29, Lk.12:27, Ac.12:23), and even to some people’s delight in ungodly behavior (Phil.3:19, I Thes.2:6, I Pet.1:24), as well as to assorted gods and heroes of antiquity, the vast majority of New Testament references are to the praise, honor, and worship due to God.
In the LXX, doxa had been used for the bright light that indicated God’s presence, either in the pillar of fire in the desert or in the “holy” precincts of the tabernacle or temple. This idea is also seen in Paul’s description of Moses communicating with God (II Cor.3:7-10), which serves as a prelude to his explanation that even greater “glory” is available, in the Lord Jesus (4:6), to all of his people (3:18)!

Throughout the gospel accounts, the terms “the glory of God”, “the glory of the Father”, “the glory of the Son”, appear in various combinations. This is because, as Jesus pointed out very explicitly in Jn.12:28, 13:31-32, 14:13, and evidenced repeatedly in his prayer (Jn.17), “they” are actually one and the same. There is no such thing as acknowledging the “glory” of one without the other (Jn.5:23, 8:50-54).
Paul was granted a similar vision and understanding when he wrote (II Cor.4:6) of “the illumination which comes from the recognition of God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ”!
And in the final consummation, the description of the city where the Lord’s people continually enjoy his presence (Rv.21:23), “God’s glory illuminates it, and the Lamb is its lamp!” A lamp is required in order to make light accessible and useful!

Throughout his earthly ministry, people saw, or acknowledged, or marveled at the glory of God as they observed Jesus’ multitude of healings (Mt.9:8, 15:31; Mk.12:12, Lk.5:25-26, 13:13, 17:15, 17:18, 18:43), his teaching (Lk.4:15), and his other miracles (Jn.2:11, 11:4,40).
Jesus himself usually spoke of “glory” in connection with his return (Mt.16:27-28, 24:30, 25;31; Mk.8:38, 10:27, 13:26; Lk.9:26, 21:27, 24:26), although John records a greater emphasis on the recognition of his true identity (1:14, 7:18, 8:50, and the prayer in Jn.17) than do the synoptic writers. Jesus scolded those (Jn.5:41-44) who sought “glory” from one another, rather than from God. Traditional versions use “honor” here, but the word is doxa.

It is also important to note the manner in which Jesus advocates that his followers contribute to “the glory of God”. It is NOT by making a flamboyant announcement before a public performance of some sort, or a preface to a big brag thinly disguised as a “testimony”, that “this is all for the glory of God!” Jesus rather directed his people to live in such a way that “people may see your good deeds [works (W.S.#39), behavior], and glorify your Father” (Mt.5:16), noting that the Father would be “glorified” by their “bearing much fruit (W.S.#64) and becoming – not recruiting – his disciples (W.S.#51)!” He then set the ultimate example in his own prayer (Jn.17:4), “I have glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do!”

The surpassing glory of the Lord Jesus himself, whom both Paul (I Cor.2:8) and James (Jas.2:1) call “the Lord of Glory”, runs through the epistles like a refrain. It is contrasted with human failings (Rom.3:7) – he has none! – and is the vehicle for praise to God (Rom.16:27). Jesus is himself the “image” (W.S. #15) of God’s glory (I Cor.1:7), and the goal of the transformation he accomplishes in his people (II Cor.3:18). Incredibly, his people are described as a part of “the riches of the glory of his inheritance” (Eph.1:18), and the venue of his own glory, for all the world to see, is his church (Eph.3:21)! The confession (W.S. #68) of his lordship (Phil.2:11) produces glory to the Father, and it is “according to his riches (W.S.#72) in glory by Christ Jesus “(Phil.4:19) that God intends to supply all we need in order to serve him. It is “to his eternal glory” (I Pet.5:10) that we are called, and his presence among us (Col.1:27) constitutes our “hope [expectation] of glory”!

Although the primary use of “glory” in the epistles is simply an expression of praise and honor to God, or a declaration of his greatness, goodness, and graciousness, it is also considered (Rom.6:4) the operative force in Jesus’ resurrection, the motive (Rom.15:7) for Christian hospitality, and the result of the faithfulness of the brethren who had sent famine relief to Judea (II Cor.8:19). Indeed, it is intended to be the goal (I Cor.10:31) of everything we do! The admonition to “glorify God in your body” (I Cor.6:20) is interesting in this regard: the noun “body” is singular, but the possessive is plural. This opens the possibility that the reference could be either one’s physical body, or the collective Body of Christ. In either case, it is an awesome privilege and responsibility to be actually expected to contribute to the limitless glory of God! It is the very purpose for our existence (Eph.1:12)!

Jesus had prayed (Jn.17:24) that his disciples might “behold his glory”, and there are at least five instances where people are reported to have been privileged to “see the glory of God” : Stephen (Ac.7:55) just before his death; Peter (II Pet.1:17) and his companions, when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain; John, (1:14) in the introduction to his gospel, of his acquaintance with Jesus; and in Jesus’ gently rebuke to Martha at her brother’s tomb (Jn.11:40).

Several places in the epistles, that amazing prospect is expanded even to the point of sharing that glory! And it’s not just “pie in the sky bye and bye”. In Rom.8:30 and I Cor.2:7, we learn that God planned and provided for all this “before the beginning!” Most of the references are present tense: Rom.2:7,10 – this gracious provision is to be constantly “sought” by faithful living, a concept that is repeated in II Thes.2:14, II Pet.1:3, I Pet.5:10. By focusing our attention on the Lord Jesus, we are continually being transformed (II Cor.3:18) into his likeness and glory, and even the hassles to which we are still subjected become tools toward that goal (II Cor.4:17). God is presently calling his own into his “kingdom and glory” (I Thes. 2:12), and that calling becomes a present source of hope for its future fulfillment (Rom.5:2, Col.3:4, I Pet.4:13-14), as does the gracious presence of Jesus among us (Col.1:27, Eph.1:18). Paul considers his own trials to contribute as well (II Tim.2:10).

For the faithful, as always, its all about Jesus! The writer to the Hebrews (2:10) refers to him as “the one because of whom and through whom everything exists, leading many sons into glory” – that is, his own personal possession, as he is “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). The only appropriate response is to join with the elder, John, (Rev.1:6), in his acclaim:

“He has made us a kingdom, priests to God his father! Glory and power to him forever!”

Amen!

“Honor”, a frequent request on the “search” lists, represents two different “families” of words. However, we will deal here with only one: timao / time, because the other, doxazo /doxa, is much more frequently (and probably more correctly) translated “glory” (144 x for the noun and 54 x for the verb, against only rendered “honor” 6 x for the noun and 3 for the verb). That will require a separate study.

Time, the noun, classically referred primarily to “honor or esteem accorded to the gods or to one’s superiors, or bestowed by them as a reward”, to the dignity of civic office, an honor, or a compliment. It was also used of the appraised value of an object or property, or its price; and of either a penalty or compensation awarded in the settlement of a lawsuit.
Timao, the verb, is parallel: to honor, esteem or value, to estimate value or worth, to pay due regard to a person, or legally to assess a reward or penalty.

Eight times in the New Testament, time simply designates a price: the money involved in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus (Mt.27:6,9); the price of property (Ac.4:34 and 5:2,3); the value of books burned in Ephesus (Ac.19:19); and the “price” with which Jesus ransomed his people (I Cor.6:20, 7:23).
Closely related, the idea of value of household utensils (Rom.9:21, I Tim.2:20,21), or of usefulness (Col.2:23) is also fairly straightforward.

After that, however, when referring to people, the situation becomes somewhat more complicated. Even the instances where people are instructed simply to render “due respect” to others (Rom.13:7 – government officials, I Tim.6:1– slaves to masters, I Pet.3:7 – husbands to wives, or I Thess.4:4 – one’s own inclinations), and where Jesus himself laments the lack of respect accorded to a prophet by his own countrymen (Jn.4:44, Mt.13:57, Mk.6:4), when it comes to mutual relations within the Christian brotherhood, Paul emphasizes (Rom.12:10) an extra measure of devotion to be expressed there, and (I Cor.12:23,24) special care to be taken of those upon whom the rest of the world would place less value. Peter contrasts the “value” placed upon Jesus himself (I Pet.2:7) by his opponents (the “builders”) with the true value seen by the faithful. In 2:17, he expresses an interesting (and appropriate) attitude toward the world’s hierarchies: “Honor (timesate- aorist imperative: a decision?) everyone, love (agapate– present imperative) the brotherhood, respect (phobeisate – present imperative) God, honor (timate– present imperative) the king”! The king is to be “honored” just like everyone else – not scorned because the brethren know the emptiness of hierarchy – but God, and the brotherhood, are in a special, more elevated category!

There are times, however, when “honor” itself clearly includes some practical evidence of respect. Jesus’ scolding of the Pharisees (Mt.15:4-8, Mk.7:6-13) for creating a loophole for failure to support one’s parents, Luke’s account of the provisions supplied to Paul’s group by the inhabitants of Melita (Ac.28:10), and Paul’s instructions to Timothy (I Tim.5:3) regarding the care of widows, are plain enough to raise the possibility that a similar idea is present in I Tim.5:17 with regard to faithful elders (remember, however, W.S. #42, that these are old people, not officials!).

Paul speaks approvingly (Rom.2:7) of people “seeking glory and honor and immortality” by the perseverance born of good deeds, and assures them that the result will be “praise and honor and peace” (v.10). The writer to the Hebrews, however, offers a reminder that even under the old system, the “honor” of priesthood was not intended to be a result of personal ambition, but only the appointment of God (Heb.5:4), and also contrasts Jesus’ faithfulness with that of Moses, as the difference between the “honor” due to a builder and the admiration of the building he has produced (3:13). Nevertheless, Peter (I Pet.1:7) encourages the expectation on the part of the faithful of “commendation and glory and honor” when Jesus comes.

It remains to consider the places where “honor” becomes an aspect of the praises offered to God himself. Jesus dealt with this matter very specifically. His own testimony should lay to rest the arguments of those who try to “demote” the Lord Jesus to a lower “status” than whatever nebulous entity it is that they call “God”. He states unequivocally (Jn.5:23) “The one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him”, and (8:49) plainly equates the honor ascribed to each as one and the same.

Usually, in scenes of praise, “honor” is combined with other words, including “glory and honor” (I Tim.1:17, Heb.2:7,9; II Pet.1:17, Rev.4:9,11; 5:12, 21:24, 26), or “honor and power” (I Tim.6:16, Rv.4:11, 7:12, 19:1). The creatures around the throne give “glory and honor and thanks” to the One who is alive forever (Rv.4:9). There are even longer lists, as in the exuberance of Rv.5:12: “The slaughtered Lamb is worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing!”

Forget the technicalities of defining the terms!
Far better to simply follow the example of the living creatures, the elders, and “every created thing in heaven and on earth and beneath the earth and on the sea” (5:13), ascribing to the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb “Blessing and honor and glory and power” – falling down before him in worship!
Amen!