The Pioneers’ New Testament

OK, let’s begin by getting the primary cop-out out of the way.
If you ate a meal today, slept under adequate shelter last night, and reasonably expect to do so tomorrow, compared to much of the world, you are rich. So am I: despite having made a fine art out of “pinching pennies”, I nevertheless have a few to “pinch.” I expect most of you do , too: so let’s admit it, and focus on the more Biblical question of the faithful use of whatever resources we have.

Plousios (adj. and adv.), plouteo (v.), ploutizo (v.), and ploutos (n.), speak, classically, of any kind of abundance, plenty, or wealth, while chrema – possessions or money – less frequently used (only 7 x), is more narrowly defined.
Under the old covenant, or in classical times, abundant wealth or possessions were viewed as evidence of the blessing of God (or “the gods”). Jesus, however, had quite a different interpretation (Lk.6:24, Mt.19:23-24, Mk.10:25, Lk.14:2), and in his parables, the “rich” protagonists (Lk.12:16, 16:1, 16:19-22) are not exactly heroes.
But notice, please, that Jesus does not criticize their wealth, per se, but rather their attitude toward it, and their use of their resources. Zacchaeus (Lk.19:2), Joseph of Arimathea (Mt.27:57), and the women who provided for the needs of the disciple band “out of their own possessions” (Lk.8:2,3) are in quite a different category from the young man who turned sadly away from discipleship (Mt.19:23,24; Mk.10:25, Lk.18:23,25). He had a problem of priorities, not simply prosperity.
The warning recorded in Mk.10:24 concerns, according to some manuscripts, “them that trust in riches”. While spotty textual evidence allows the option that this could have been a later editorial comment, Jesus’ acceptance of the individuals mentioned above indicates that it may have been his intention. The parables in Lk.12:13-21 and 16:19-31, likewise, do not condemn the wealth, but rather its selfish hoarding and use.

None of the words translated “riches” appear at all in the Acts account, but chrema does, four times: in Ac.4:37, contrasting Barnabas’ generosity with the behavior of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11); Ac.8:18 and 20, recounting Peter’s encounter with Simon the magician; and Ac.24:26 regarding Felix hoping to receive a bribe from Paul.

An entirely different “flavor”, which appears to have no classical precedent other than the simple concept of abundance, is present in the epistles. Paul speaks of “the riches of the grace of God” (Eph.1:7, Tit.3:6), and his “generosity” (II Cor.8:2), of God’s mercy (Eph.2:4), his glory (Rom.9:23, Eph.3:16, Phil.4:19), and goodness (Rom.2:4). Peter applied the term “riches” to the privilege of entrance into the Kingdom (II Pet.1:1).
The faithful are admonished to appreciate (Eph.1:18) the riches of their inheritance in the Lord Jesus, and to become (I Tim.6:18) “rich in good deeds”, having been granted (Col.2:2) “the riches of full assurance of understanding”, and (Col.1:27) “the riches of the glory of the mystery” (W.S. #57) of their inclusion in the Kingdom. The term seems to have been completely redefined in the context of the Kingdom.

Paul warned Timothy not to “trust in uncertain riches” (I Tim.6:17), and (6:9) pointed out the perils of “wanting to be rich”, in harmony with Jesus’ own teaching about the “deceitfulness of riches” (Mt.13:22, Mk.14:19) in inhibiting commitment to the Kingdom.
James mounted quite a tirade (Jas.5:1-6) against the selfish use of worldly wealth, even assigning responsibility to it for conflicts and wars (4:1-3) (which sounds sadly contemporary!), and especially condemning it as a criterion for status in a brotherhood (2:1-7).

Nevertheless, Paul also exults over “the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom.11:33), and James notes (2:5) that God has granted to those who are poor from the world’s perspective to be “rich in faithfulness, and heirs of the Kingdom”! Paul holds up Jesus’ example of leaving his well-deserved “rich”condition (II Cor.8:9) in order to elevate his people to his own “riches” – in order to enable (8:2) their generosity! The often (mis)quoted comment in Phil.4:19, if seen in its proper context – a “thank-you” note for a generous contribution from a very poor congregation – far from the “blank check” touted by prosperity cults, is simply reassurance that such generosity will continue to be enabled!

Jesus sorted it out quite plainly in the message to the Laodicean church (Rev.3:17-19) which, sadly, has many modern clones, who have allowed apparent material prosperity to obscure their spiritual destitution.
Their riches have not exempted the wealthy from the devastation described in Rv.6:15 and 13:16; they find themselves in the same sinking boat as everyone else.
But perhaps the most contemporarily relevant message is found in the picture of economic collapse in Rev.18.
Notice that the people who are distraught at the fall of “Babylon” are (v.3) those who “got rich from the extravagance of her luxury!” It is those accustomed to that luxury (vv.9-13) and its purveyors who mourn their losses. The “cargo” listed includes no necessities – except perhaps grain, although at least some ordinary varieties would surely have been locally produced. It is “the fruit of your selfish passions …. all the delicacies and splendid things” (v.14) that are gone.

And where are the people of God – the citizens of his Kingdom – in all this? For these, the word is (v.20) “CELEBRATE over her, heaven [sky], and God’s people [saints], and envoys [apostles] and spokesmen [prophets]! God has passed judgment on her for you all!” [or, God has exacted judgment on her judgment of you all!]
Those committed to Kingdom values have already learned to function quite apart from the “permission” of the adherents and the rulers of the commerce of the world (13:15-17), and consequently are untouched by its demise. The mutual care described among the community of the faithful throughout the New Testament simply continues as usual. Financial collapse does not cause a true Kingdom brotherhood to moan about its budget! They simply ramp up their already-functioning mutual aid!

With which group do you identify?

The impetus for this study was one of my favorites among “contemporary” Scripture-based songs of praise, “Thou Art Worthy!” It quotes the traditional translation of Rv.4:11, “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created!” I love the concept: all of creation –including us! – existing solely for the pleasure of its Creator!
I was startled to discover, however, that the translation itself is incorrect. The quoted passage uses none of the words usually rendered “pleasure”, but is the only place in the New Testament where thelema, “will”, is translated that way. A correct translation would substitute the “means” or “agency” understanding of the preposition dia (through) for the commonly assumed “purpose” construction. Either of these can be valid on occasion. Please see similar uses of dia in Heb.2:10, and the translation notes associated there. The result would read, “through your will they exist, and were created.”
I still like the song and its message, though!

Even though it doesn’t occur where I expected / wanted it, there are nevertheless helpful things to be gained from the study of the word “pleasure.” It includes three basic “families” of words: one, eudokeo, which is usually positive in its associations; one, aresko, often negative, but occasionally positive, and entirely positive in its prefixed form, euaresteo / euarestos; and one uniformly negative, hedone; along with two more, spatalao and truphao, which are used only once each, both describing wanton, irresponsible indulgence in luxury (I Tim.5:6 and Jas.5:5).

Eudokeo usually expresses the perspective of the person or group that is pleased, content, happy, or in agreement with a situation or decision. It combines the prefix eu- (well, good, or favorable) with the common verb dokeo (to think, to seem, to have an opinion). It is used in quoting the voice of God’s approval of the Lord Jesus on the occasions of his baptism (Mt.3:17, Mk.1:11, Lk.3:22) and his transfiguration (Mt.17:5 and II Pet.1:17), although it is also used (with a negative) of God’s disapproval of those who complained in the desert (I Cor.10:5) and of the offerings under the old covenant (Heb.10:6,8,38).
Paul uses it to express his own desire to share with the Thessalonian group not only the Christian message, but his own life as well (I Thes.2:8), and his wish “to depart and be with Christ” (II Cor.5:8), as well as II Cor.12:10, where he speaks of “taking pleasure” even in his own weakness, because of the opportunity thus provided to experience the power of God. He applies the same term to the Macedonian and Asian congregations’ decision to send famine relief to Judea (Rom.15:26,27), and also to God’s pleasure (I Cor.1:21) to redeem the faithful by his message, (Gal.1:5) to reveal the Lord Jesus to Paul, and (Col.1:19) that all of God’s own completeness should have its permanent residence in the person of Jesus!
Jesus himself spoke of the Father’s pleasure (Lk.12:32) in giving his own Kingdom to his worried but faithful followers!
The noun form, eudokia, equates God’s pleasure with his will (Eph.1:5,9; Phil.2:13, II Thes.1:11). When the prefix sun- (with) is added, the resulting word means simple consent or agreement, whether for good (I Cor.7:12,13) or ill (Lk.11:48, Ac.8:1, 22:20, Rom.1:32).

Aresko, on the other hand, is much more mixed, frequently expressing the perspective of the one trying to please another. It ranges from Salome “pleasing” Herod (Mt.14:6, Mk.6:22) and Herod’s brutality “pleasing” the Jews (Ac.12:3) to admonitions toward “pleasing” the Lord (I Cor.7:33, I Thes.2:4,4:1; Col.1:10, II Tim.2:4, I Jn.3:22, Jn.8:29). “Pleasing people” can be either an effort to bring them to faithfulness (Rom.15:2, I Cor.10:33) or evidence of unfaithfulness (Rom.15:1, 15:3; Gal.1:10, I Thes.2:4, 2:15).
A similar, slightly related word, arkeo, refers more to contentment arising from sufficiency or satisfaction, especially in the passive voice, which occurs in half of its New Testament uses (Lk.3:14, I Tim.6:8, Heb.13:5, III Jn.10). This is not nearly as strong a word as aresko, but carries a similar idea.

There is nothing ambiguous, however, about hedone (English cognate – hedonism). Luke (8:14) lists it along with “cares and riches” as a deterrent to faithful living; Paul warns Titus (3:3) against serving “lusts [unwholesome longings] and pleasures”. Peter describes (II Pet.2:13) markedly unholy behavior. James (4:1,3) pinpoints it as a basic cause of warfare and strife.
Perhaps the greatest clarity may be seen in yet another word, only used twice in the New Testament: apolausis – pleasure, enjoyment, advantage, benefit. (English cognate, “applause”!) In I Tim.6:17, Paul reminds his young assistant to focus not on “uncertain riches” (see next post), but “on God, who richly provides us with everything for our benefit [enjoyment]!”
In contrast, the writer to the Hebrews (11:25) commends Moses for refusing “to temporarily have [enjoy] the benefit of copping out” (traditionally, “to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.”) Both the gracious provision of God and the careless denial of his ways are represented by the same word. The difference is one’s focus.

Careful attention to focus can enable discernment whether “pleasure / enjoyment” is a gift to be gratefully received or a trap to be avoided. Ascetic renunciation of all things deemed “pleasurable” is as much a denial of the graciousness of God as is mindless pursuit of “pleasure”. The pertinent question is, whose pleasure?
Any loving father (heavenly or earthly!) takes pleasure in seeing his children enjoy his good gifts. And that pleasure is multiplied when the gift is received with wide-eyed wonder and a delighted hug of thanks, and treasured precisely because it came from the father!  Such “pleasure” – on either side – need cause no apprehension regarding faithfulness.
The “pleasure” which is severely critiqued by James (4:1,3; 5:5) , Paul (I Tim.5:6, Tit.3:3), and Peter (II Pet.2:13), as well as the Lord Jesus himself (Lk.8:14), is self-centered, self-gratifying, and certainly to be avoided.
But, as always, the remedy is prescribed just as clearly as the problem: seeking the “good pleasure” (eudokia) of the will of the loving Father (Eph.1:5, 1:9; II Thes.1:11), who has himself provided both the motivation and the ability to do so (Phil.2:13) : “For God is the one who is working among you all, (to enable you) both to desire and to work for his pleasure!”
As brother Paul put it, (Rom.5:11), “Not only that (speaking of our reconciliation), but we are also thoroughly enjoying God, because of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
Thanks be to God!

Of all the aphorisms glibly quoted about what “Peace is…..”, I have never heard the one that would best describe its contribution to the New Testament message: Peace is practical! A faithful person does not stop at “wishing” someone “peace”: he is obligated to DO something about it (Jas.2:16)!
I have chosen to focus this study upon the primary word, eirene, and not the six other less frequently used words also sometimes translated “peace”, which refer only to “silence” or “quietness (considered in #139).Although a plurality of the appearances of eirene in the New Testament are found in simple greetings or leave-takings (33 times), almost as many (27) occur in direct admonitions for the life, corporately or individually, of the faithful brotherhood!

This is a marked departure from the classical uses of the word, in which the cessation of armed conflict by a treaty predominates. In the New Testament, this aspect is seen overtly only in Lk.14:22, Ac.12:20, Ac.24:2, and perhaps Rom.3:17 and Rv.6:4, although John the Baptist’s admonition to soldiers to “do violence to no one” (Lk.3:14) certainly would carry that idea (and have interesting and salutary effects on military activity!), as would Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:18 to “live peaceably with all people.”

Lexicographers uniformly note the LXX usage, and its correspondence to the Hebrew greeting, “shalom”, wishing safety, security, health, and general well-being to the person or group addressed. This usage, of course, is seen in most of the epistles, often in closings as well as greetings, and also in Jesus’ dismissal of people he had healed, and in his instructions to the disciples whom he was sending away to preach. It is interesting that in this latter setting, the greeting of peace is to be offered quite indiscriminately (Lk.10:5,6). Jesus reassures them that it just won’t “take” if the person or household is not capable of receiving it. This seems to assume some degree of power in the greeting – perhaps a prayer? or at least a blessing.   In any case, the disciple is not to pass such a judgment prematurely. Later, however, John (II Jn.10) excludes from those instructions people who are clearly known to have deliberately distorted the message.

Seven times “peace” is listed as an attribute of God (Rom.15:33, 16:20; I Cor.14:33, II Cor.13:11, Phil.4:9, I Thes.5:23, Heb.13:20), and three times as a primary component of the Gospel (Rom.10:15, Eph.6:15, Ac.10:36). (see also W.S.#67) Interestingly, though, the much-touted phrase, “peace with God”, appears only once (Rom.5:1)! This is yet another instance where common “evangelical” focus has been skewed by a “generally accepted doctrine” that totally lacks New Testament derivation. The vast majority of New Testament references relate to the peace that the Lord Jesus has created – and required!– among his people!

“Peace / security / well-being” was widely anticipated as a characteristic of the Messianic Kingdom (Lk.1:79, 2:14, 19:38,42), and this is probably at least one reason for Jesus’ teaching on the subject in his final instructions to the disciples (Jn.14:27 and 16:33), bequeathing to his followers not just the “peace” of the common greeting, but “my peace”, which holds firm even under the anticipated persecution, rather than enabling them to escape it.
Although Luke mentions in Ac.9:31 that the young church enjoyed a period of peace (traditional translators used “rest”, but the word is eirene) from persecution after Saul’s conversion, most of the “peace” is experienced in the midst of or in spite of the hostility of opponents. It is often focused within the group, between brethren of diverse backgrounds (Mk.9:50, II Cor.3:11, Eph.2:14-17, 4:3; Col.1:20, 3:15; I Thes.5:13, II Tim.2:22, I Pet.3:11, Jas.3:17).
Peace is represented as the goal toward which the faithful are encouraged to strive (Jn.16:33, Rom.14:19, I Cor.7:15, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14), both among themselves and toward those outside (Rom.12:18, Heb.12:14, Jas.3:8, Ac.10:36).
It is also intended to become characteristic of the personality of a faithful person, being listed among the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal.5:22), and described as a result of fixing one’s attention upon the affairs of the Spirit (Rom.8:6). The peace offered to the faithful is paired with “doing good” (Rom.2:10), “joy” (Rom.15:13), the opposite of confusion (I Cor.14:33), love (II Cor.13:11 and Eph.6:23), the unity of the Spirit (Eph.4:3), God’s act of setting his people apart in holiness (I Thes.5:23),wisdom and justice (Jas.3:17,18), the protection of their / our hearts and minds (Phil.4:7), and the very presence of God (Phil.4:9)! The result of reconciliation (see last post), in repeated instances, is described as making, or having “made peace” among formerly alienated people and groups.

Peace is represented as the creation and the gift of the Lord Jesus, and attributed (also only once) to the giving of his life (Col.1:20). The Biblical writers go into much less explanatory detail regarding that provision than do most of their subsequent interpreters! Here, it is stated as a simple fact.
The gift also requires concerted effort on the part of recipients! Note the instructions that follow the promise of peace in Phil.4:8-9, where the focus is upon deliberately paying attention to things that contribute to peace, and upon continual practice!
Actualization of the gift of peace is not automatic! It requires concerted efforts on behalf of justice (Jas.3:18). Yes, I know the traditional translators said “righteousness” – but please see W.S.#3. It is the same word, only separated by the “doctrines” of folks who prefer to privatize their “faith”, keeping it sanitized and theoretical, and to avoid the often messy responsibility of faithfulness (W.S.#1).
The more accurate understanding is available from II Cor.13:11, “…be [live] in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you all.” The present active imperative, eireneuete, indicates constant effort in that regard. It would be equally valid to render it “keep making peace.”
Peace is not a “reward” to be passively received, or a blissful state in which to luxuriate with “no troubles”, but an assignment to be faithfully fulfilled!

Paul states rather bluntly in Rom.2:10 that God’s offer of “peace”, whether to Jew or Gentile, is to “all who are doing good,” and urges his readers (Rom.14:19) to “earnestly pursue matters of peace, and the things that build each other up.” He elaborates on this theme in Eph.2:14-22. Be careful not to carve this beautiful description of the peace that Jesus has created into tiny, isolated phrases to “prove” some obscure point of “theology.” Allow the whole picture to soak into your consciousness, and to transform your perception of the brotherhood that the Lord has created for his Kingdom! It is glorious!

Yes, that sort of a combination of diverse people is bound to make some sparks. But the remedy lies precisely in the peace that Jesus has created! Peace is not only the atmosphere in which the Kingdom survives and thrives, but the “umpire” or “referee” (Col.3:15) whose skill can sort out any resulting friction! That the “rules of the game” (Col.3:12-17) often need mediation should come as no surprise. It is evidence of life and growth – not failure!

The intensity of effort required in this regard is evident in the frequency with which we are urged to “pursue” it (Rom.14:19, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14, I Pet.3:11). Dioko is the same word that is used of persecution! Are we that relentless in pursuit of the characteristics of the Kingdom?
Only the “God of peace” (I Thes.5:23) can make us fully his – but (v.24) he is perfectly capable of doing the job. We are simply expected to co-operate!

“(May) God’s peace, which greatly exceeds all understanding, protect (our) hearts and (our) minds, in Christ Jesus” (Phil.4:7)!
“May the Lord of Peace himself give you all peace – through everything [every situation], in every way!” (II Thes.3:16.)

Although the English word, “reconcile”, has varied implications, all the way from “what you do with a bank statement” to “to render no longer opposed, to bring to acquiescence, to win over to friendliness, to bring into agreement or harmony, to settle a quarrel, or to make compatible”, when applied to “religious” matters, it becomes a concept for which common understanding has been skewed by almost exclusive focus on only one of the ten New Testament appearances of its related words.
Complicated theological treatises have been created, adding intricate and ominous details to Paul’s simple statement, in a subordinate, conditional clause (Rom.5:10), “IF, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son,” and totally ignoring the main clause, “much rather, now that we have been reconciled, shall we be kept safe [“saved”] in his life!” Paul himself says nothing whatever about the rationale, the need, or the process of that reconciliation, although involved and fanciful technical explanations have become a favorite playground for people who enjoy thundering judgment at others. For Paul, it is subordinate to his encouraging message of safety!

The very basic linguistic principle of looking at the way words are used is especially helpful in a situation like this, where a root word, allasso, used six times and exclusively translated, in traditional versions, as “change”, appears with three different prefixes, all traditionally translated “reconcile”. These include apo, “away from, usually connoting avoidance or departure, but also derivation or origin”; dia, “through, thoroughly , and occasionally causation”; and kata, “down, concerning, near, about, or direction toward.” These prefixed forms are themselves narrowly used: apokatalasso in Eph.2:16 and Col.1:20,21; diallasso in Mt.5:24, and katallasso in Rom.5:10 (twice), and II Cor.5:18, 19, 20, as well as I Cor.7:11, where it simply refers to an estranged marital relationship.
Lexically, there is little difference noted in any of the lexicons, except that Bauer restricts apokatallasso to Christian writers, and diallasso to disputes between individuals.

The very use of the term “reconcile” does, of course, require the assumption of a former condition of, if not overt enmity, at least some sort of alienation or substantial disagreement. Hence the need, whether as a condition of the reconciliation or as its goal, for acknowledging the situation, in order for it to be remedied (see previous post on homologeo, “saying the same thing”), is obvious. Once reconciled, however, (almost always an aorist tense), the relationship of the parties involved is permanently altered.
Keep in mind that the root word, alasso, “change”, (seen in isolation in Ac.6:14, Rom.1:23, I Cor.15:51, 52; Gal.4:20, and Heb.1:12), remains integral to the understanding of all of its forms. These are practical words, not merely records in a ledger. Change is expected.

When Jesus directed his followers to “make things right” (diallagethi) with an offended brother before making an offering (Mt.5:25), he expected observable results: a transformed relationship. (This is the only appearance of any of these terms in the gospel accounts).
Likewise, the context (Eph.2:13-22) of Paul’s use of apokatallasso combines the creation of a new relationship with God “in Christ Jesus” with the contemporaneous destruction of barriers between people, who are themselves being re-created into one Body, “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (v.19). The same theme is prominent in the Colossian passage (1:19-22): extending, here, not only to formerly alienated people, but to “things on earth and things in the heavens!”
The same situation is described in II Cor.5:17-21, where katallasso appears three times, and the noun form katallage twice. All creation has been made new! Not only for “us” (v.18), but for “the world” (v.19) is the “message of reconciliation” offered (v.20). And it is immediately paired with an assignment (see diakonia in W.S. #40): God has “made us responsible for the message of reconciliation!” A clear mandate for “show and tell”!

There is one unrelated word that is once translated “make reconciliation” (Heb.2:17), and once “be merciful” (Lk.18:13): hilaskomai, used only these two times in the entire New Testament. Homer used it of sacrifices in efforts to appease the gods of Olympus, in his stories of their often capricious manipulation of human affairs.Plato occasionally applied it to interpersonal conflict. Significantly, even the two New Testament references also seem to assume that more pagan notion of negotiating a temporary truce with God, in contrast with all the previous passages, where the initiative comes from God’s side, and results in a total, permanent transformation. The Hebrews reference, even though it describes the Lord Jesus, does so in the context of a parallel with the duties of the Jewish high priest under the old system (which, the writer asserts repeatedly, did not work!) The publican [tax collector] in Jesus’ parable quoted by Luke exhibits a similar attitude, of a desire to appease a God whose displeasure he feared. He is commended only because of being compared with the Pharisee, whose self-congratulatory attitude was even worse!

Notable in all of these words is the preponderance of aorist tenses, which signify either punctiliar past or decisive, singular action. The reconciliation offered in the New Testament is an accomplished fact. Only once is the verb in the present (progressive or continuous) tense: when speaking of what God was in the process of doing, in the person of Christ (II Cor.5:19). Reconciliation is a “done deal,” although its message (II Cor.5) still needs to be delivered and received.

We would do well to consider whether this accomplished fact is evident in the message we proclaim, and in the fellowships that claim to represent its Author.
Reconciliation is one of the primary components in the building (Eph.2:20-22) of “God’s permanent dwelling place”, for which his people are deliberately being “built together”
Any purported “reconciliation with God” that does not include the reconciliation of former human enemies into one Body, one brotherhood, one Kingdom, is not only patently false, but diabolically fraudulent!

May we build – and be built – in faithfulness!

These are words for which the most common misunderstanding results from the extreme narrowing of their application in modern English. Today, they are usually used in a legal, or quasi-legal context, and deal with admitting or concealing criminal – or at least unsavory – conduct. This, however, comprises only a very minor part of classical and New Testament uses of the terms.
Homologeo, and its prefixed form, exomologeo, traditionally translated “confess, profess, promise, and thank”, had a much broader classical domain. The literal meaning, from “homos”, “the same”, and “lego” , “to speak or to say”, was “to say the same thing, to agree.” It was used mathematically of correspondence or coordination, socially of a promise or agreement to do something, logically or philosophically of admitting ignorance and of granting or conceding a proposition, and of common consent or consensus in a group discussion.
Some of these aspects appear in New Testament usage. By far the most frequent – at least a dozen times – refers to acknowledging one’s identification with Jesus (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8, Jn.9:22, Rom.4:11, 10:9, 10:10, 15:9; Ac.24:14, Phil.2:11, Heb.4:14, 13:15; I Jn.4:2, 4:15), and his reciprocal acknowledgment of those who do so (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8, Rv.3:5).

The more frequently “preached” association with “sins” occurs only five times, two of which involve John the Baptist and not Jesus (Mt.3:6, Mk.1:5). It is significant that every one of these, including also Ac.19:18, Jas.5:16, and I Jn.1:19, uses the term hamartia, (failure, shortcoming, error). Paraptoma (deliberate transgression) is never mentioned at all (see W.S. #7). James, in particular, links “confession” within the brotherhood to mutual prayer for one another’s strength and healing. And in Ac.19, it is the result, not the condition, of the conversion of the magic practitioners. Even in these few references, there is nothing to suggest that one is asked, (much less required) to sift repeatedly through a list of “no-no’s” to find items to “confess”, or to apologize for some sort of vague, unknown offenses (just in case you missed one!). It is simply an acknowledgment that one has not perfectly measured up to the Lord’s – and our own – goal.
Other references raise puzzling questions. Why did the traditional translators choose to depart from the usual rendition, “confess”, and choose “thank” in Mt.11:25 and Lk.10:21 – the only time they did so? Did they reject the idea of Jesus simply “agreeing” with the Father?

Denial, on the other hand, represents three different words.
Antilego, literally “to speak against, to dispute or question, to declare opposition, to contradict,” concerns factual disputes (Ac.28:19, 22; Lk.20:7, Jn.19:12), back-talk(Tit.2:9), or overt contradiction (Ac.13:45, Lk.2:34).
Arneomai, and its prefixed (stronger) form, exarneomai, refers to people: “to deny, to disown, to utterly reject, or to refuse any association.” They occur in contrast to homologeo in Mt.10:23 and parallel Lk.12:9, and II Tim.2:12,13; and repeatedly in the scene with Peter before Jesus’ crucifixion (Mt.26, Mk.14, Lk.22, Jn.18). This is the charge leveled against the Jewish leadership (Ac.3:13,14) and against unfaithful former brethren (I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22,23, Jude 4).
Once, arneomai has nothing whatever to do with faithfulness, Lk.8:45, the “not me” response to Jesus asking who touched him in the crowd.
One aspect that does not occur in classical usage appears in I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, Rv.2:13 and 3:8, where one’s profession of faithfulness is evaluated (or negated) by his behavior. Likewise, its usefulness in determining the reliability of both human and spiritual “messengers” (II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22) goes beyond classical parameters, although the idea of “self– denial” is not entirely unique to the Christian message.

The two concepts are frequently used together, by way of contrast, usually either between acknowledging the truth of a statement of fact and opposing or rejecting it (Ac.23:8, I Jn.2:22, 4:2), or making similar statements about one’s relationships: not very complicated at all.
The very same word that describes Peter’s “denial” of association with Jesus, and the behavior that negates one’s “profession of faith” (I Tim.3:5, II Pet.2:1, Tit.1:16), is used in Jesus’ admonition to self-denial in all three parallels, and Paul’s similar message in Titus 2:12.
But were the traditional translators unaware that John the Baptist was simply acknowledging, and not contradicting, the reality of his own status (Jn.1:20) under cross-examination?

Homologeo is not always positive: it is used of Judas’ “promise” to the chief priests to betray Jesus (Lk.22:6), of Jesus’ warning to impostors (Mt.7:23), and Herod’s promise to Salome (Mt.14:7)!
Likewise, arneomai is not always negative. It may be simple honesty, as in (Heb.11:24) Moses’ refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, or the temple authorities’ recognizing that they could not deny the miraculous healing of the lame beggar (Ac.4:16). Paul echoes Jesus’ own statement (Mt.10:33) when he reminds Timothy (II Tim.2:12) of that warning, but quickly adds (v.13) that this does not in any way inhibit or deny Jesus’ own faithfulness.
The congregations that Jesus commends, in the messages to Pergamon and Philadelphia, are cited for (Rv.2:13) “not denying” his (Jesus’) faithfulness, even under brutal persecution, and despite their minimal power, (Rv.3:8) having “kept my word, and not denied my name (see W.S.# 66 and 24).

Used in a manner consistent with the New Testament, both of these terms/concepts are an integral part of faithful living.
Like most “abused words,” they need simply to be restored to their intended understanding.
A good start would be to revise and re-define the practice of “confession” and restore it to the joyful acknowledgment of belonging to the Lord Jesus – a celebration, rather than a mournful duty – looking forward to the day when “Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!”

We have dealt with this group of words before, in the study of “evangelists” (W.S.#43). However, the primary focus there was on the people so designated, and their activities. Due to the ubiquity of abuses of the English word, “gospel”, it may be useful also to concentrate more specifically upon the message itself.
There is a sense in which every one of these studies is a “gospel” message, since they are all offered as “good news” of the graciousness, power, and provision offered to all of us who choose to identify with the Kingdom of the King of Kings, in sharp contrast to the “bad news” so often mistakenly perpetrated under the label of “gospel,” in efforts to compel submission.
As we shall see, distortion of God’s message and intentions is not a modern problem. Jesus himself had to deal with “establishment-types” who resisted his message of welcome and transformation so adamantly that they eventually felt it necessary to get rid of him, and carefully plotted his demise.

The Good News is that their schemes failed! In the power of his resurrection, “He destroyed death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (I Tim.1:10)! In the process, “Through death, he destroyed the one who had the power of death, – that is, the devil – and rescued those who, by fear of death, were held in slavery all their lives” (Heb.2:14,15)! “He (God) rescued us from the [power] authority of the darkness, and transported us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love (Col.1:13)! Folks, This is good news – a news-flash that has been transforming people’s lives and relationships for more than 2000 years!

Euaggelion, literally, means “a good (or favorable) message.” Historically, it was usually used of the report of a military victory. The word appears a few times in the LXX, as a verb, mostly referring to victories, but also in the prophesies of Isaiah which are familiar from “The Messiah” – Is.40:10, 52:7, 60:6 – and the passage (Is.61:1) that Jesus quoted in Nazareth (Lk.4:18) as he introduced his Kingdom. It only occurs three times as a noun (I Sam.4:10, 18:22, 25). It also referred, classically, to a reward given to a messenger who delivered good news, or a sacrifice offered in gratitude.

In the New Testament, Mark opens his account clearly labeling it (1:1) “The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus himself began his ministry with the triumphant announcement (Mk.1:14), “The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has arrived!” Both verbs are in the perfect tense, which refers to past action with present effects/implications! The requisite response is cast in the present imperative (indicating progressive, continuous action): “Change your ways [re-orient your lives] (see “repent”, W.S.#6), and become faithful (W.S.#1) to the gospel [good news]!” There is not a word about assenting to a list of “doctrines”, or groveling in one’s supposed “unworthiness” or “sinfulness”. It is a simple, gracious invitation to become loyal to the King and his Kingdom! (Please see the introduction to Citizens of the Kingdom.)

As his disciples walked together with Jesus, and observed/assisted with his teaching and healing, it became clear that this was no “free ride.” Jesus soon began to speak of “losing one’s life for my sake and the gospel’s” (Mk.8:35), and the adoption of a new set of priorities that could involve the leaving of family and property (Mk.10:29), but also the creation of new relationships that would be even closer – along with persecutions (v.30).

Early on, too, Jesus made clear that this “gospel” is intended to be available to all nations [Gentiles] (Mk.13:10) – see also W.S.#62 – an aspect that took his followers a bit longer to assimilate.
One can almost hear the wonder in Peter’s voice as he recounted his unprecedented visit to Cornelius. It is helpful to observe the elements included in his message on that occasion (Ac.10:34-43), which he later characterized as “the gospel” (Ac.15:7-8):
v.35 – “in every nation, one who respects him (God) and does justice” is acceptable to him.
v.36 – “The good news of peace, through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all”
v.38 – a brief summary of Jesus’ earthly activity
v.39 – “they” did away with him
v.40 – “God raised him!”
v.41 – “We saw him!”
v.42 – God made him judge of the living and the dead
v.43 – he takes away (W.S.#7) the failures of all who are faithful to him!

Paul provides a similar summary definition of the gospel in Rom.1:1-6, adding
v.4 – that Jesus was “certified” as the Son of God by his resurrection
v.5-6 – the purpose of all this was to enable all who belong to him to learn faithful obedience.
“Its source and goal are faithfulness!” (Rom.1:17)
To the folks at Ephesus, he also emphasized the inclusion of Gentiles as “fellow heirs, joint members of the Body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus (Eph.3:6), which he later (6:19) equated with “the mystery of God (W.S. #57).
In I Thes.1:5, he reminded them that the “gospel that you all have received” is not a matter of theoretical debate, but of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, and is expected to result in faithful living. Notice, please, that the rare reference to the destruction of the opponents of the Gospel (II Thes.1:9) is intended as encouragement to the beleaguered faithful. It is NOT part of a “sermon” to threaten prospective converts!

To be sure, the faithful are sternly warned against people who advocate “another gospel” (II Cor.11:4, Gal.1:6), who “pervert the gospel” (Gal.1:7), or refuse to “obey the gospel” (I Pet.4:17, II Thes.1:8, Rom.10:16), terms which usually apply to those who tried to impose the strictures of the Jewish law upon Gentile converts, as if it represented some sort of superior “spirituality”. But these admonitions are aimed at the faithful, who may be in danger of being deceived by such teachings, and not at the perpetrators of the error, who are left in the Lord’s hands.

There is nothing complicated or obscure about “the truth of the gospel” (Gal.2:5, 2:14, Col.1:5). It is hidden (II Cor.4:3,4) only from those who are willfully disobedient. Paul admonished his co-workers in Philippi (1:27) to “continue acting like citizens worthy of the gospel … standing firmly in one spirit, with a single identity, working faithfully as a team for the gospel.” That is by far the best insurance against error!
“Healthy teaching” (I Tim.1:11) is “patterned after the good news of the blessed God!”
This is the gospel message that we, his followers, are expected to acknowledge, to incarnate, and to share:
“The Kingdom has arrived, because the King is alive and active among us!
Come and see!
Learn together to follow his instructions – and to live!”

There are many instances in the New Testament where confusion has resulted from a single English word having been used to represent multiple Greek words (see explanation in “Helps for Word Study”), and it is necessary to separate the disparate concepts for accurate understanding. This, however, is one of the much less frequent places where nearly synonymous Greek words have often been artificially divided in order to bolster “theological” arguments. Careful perusal of a non-theological lexicon like the historic Oxford work of Liddell and Scott, as well as the actual context of the New Testament uses of rhema and logos, reveals more similarity than difference. The two words are even used interchangeably on occasion: compare Mt.26:75 and Mk.14:72, which use rhema, with Lk.22:61, where the description of the same event uses logos; and the representation as the agent of creation and of its preservation, where II Pet.3:5-7 uses logos, and Heb.11:3 and 13 uses rhema. Any separation of meanings, therefore, must be made with caution and humility, since the sense must be derived from the context: the difference is not lexical.

It is true, however, that rhema represents considerably less diversity than does logos. Rhema refers simply to “anything said or spoken, the subject of a speech or matter”, and grammatically, “a phrase as opposed to a single word, or the verb, or predicate, in a sentence.” Logos, on the other hand, may refer to “computation or accounting” (Mt.18:23 and 25:19, Lk.16:2, Heb.13:17, I Pet.4:5); to “explanation, legal principle, or the statement of a theory or argument” (Mt.10:13, 22:46; Mk.12:13, Ac.22:22, 18:15); “inward or overt debate, thinking, reasoning” (I Cor.1:17, 2:4, 2:13, 4:20); “a continuous statement or narrative” (all the references to “preaching the word”); “a divine utterance” (“word of God, words of Jesus”); and various other forms of speech, argument, and discussion.
You may notice that none of these definitions make any reference to anything written – only to speech.

In the New Testament, therefore, it is more fruitful to explore other questions. One’s understanding and attitude, for example, will vary according to whose “word” he encounters. This is expressed by the genitive case, which may indicate either possession or source. There are many places where logos refers simply to a statement or conversation of ordinary people (Mt.12:37, Mt.10:14, Lk.23:9, Ac.15;24, Mt.22:46, and many others.) At least 21 times, something is specifically labeled “the word of God”; 23 times “the word of the Lord, of Jesus, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of Christ.” or, when Jesus himself is speaking, “my word. Even more frequently, (45 x), the choice is simply “the word”, referencing some aspect of the message of Jesus, regardless of who was speaking it.

Another use of the same (genitive) form indicates not possession, not source, but the content of the “word”. Here again, both logos and rhema are used in this way, joined by “of”:
rhema:
– “the word of eternal life” (Jn.6:6)
– “the word of this life” (Ac.5:20, Phil.2:16, I Jn.1:1)
– “the word of truth” (Ac.26:25, II Cor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15, Jas.1:18)
logos:
– “the word of exhortation” (Ac.13:15, Heb.13:22)
– “the word of this salvation [rescue, safety]” (Ac.13:26)
– “the word of the prophets” (Ac.5;15), or “of prophecy” (II Pet.1:19, Rv.1:3)
– “the word of his grace” (Ac.20:32)
– “the word of promise” (Rom.9:9)
– “the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge” (Rom.12:8)
– “the word of reconciliation” (II Cor.5:19)
– “the word of faithfulness” (I Tim.4:6)
– “the word of righteousness / justice” (Heb.5:13)

A significant deviation in usage from the classical definitions occurs in another large group of references, all of which use logos. The word is also, in the words of Heb.4:12, “alive and powerful”! It is active:
– to heal (Mt.8:8) and to cast out evil spirits (Mt.8:16)
– to demonstrate the power and authority of Jesus (Lk.4:32,26)
– to pass judgment (Jn.12:47,48)
– to make disciples clean (Jn.15:3 – see previous post).
It “grew” and “multiplied (Ac.6:7, 12:24).
It was spread from the forming groups of disciples (I Thes.1:8), and was at work in their formation (2:13), able to “build them up” (Ac.20:32) and assure their inheritance.
It makes all foods holy (I Tim.4:5) and provides nourishment for faithful living (4:6).
It is the agent of new birth (Jas.1:18, I Pet.1:23), able to save and sustain those lives (Jas.1:21).
It was at work in the creation of all that exists (Heb.11:3), as well as its preservation (1:3).

Both rhema and logos are also used when the context is negative: “every idle word” (Mt.12:36) and the charges against Stephen (Ac.6:11,13) use rhema, while “speaking against Jesus” (Mt.12:32) and “those who corrupt the word” (II Cor.2:17) or handle it deceitfully (4:2) use logos. The words of such people can also have power (II Tim.2:17), “spreading like gangrene”, and any who ignore or distort the true word are to be avoided (I Tim.6:3 and I Thes.3:14). It was people who refused to hear the Father’s word (Jn.5:38) who failed to acknowledge and trust the Lord Jesus, and those in whom the word was not welcomed/received (Jn.8:37) who deliberately set out to destroy him.

By contrast, those who “hear / listen” (W.S.#27) and “accept” the word (Jn.12:47,48) are the ones who become faithful. These are admonished to remember, to be mindful of that word (II Pet.3:2, Jude 17), not to be ashamed of it (Mk.8:38), to “keep” it (Lk.11:28), and “continue in” it (Jn.8:34), with the result being the privilege to live in the freedom thereby engendered. Those who “received / welcomed” the word (Ac.2:41) were baptized as a testimony to their commitment (see chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom). They are then urged to “encourage one another with these words” (I Thes.4:18), to “hold on to faithful words” (II Tim.1:13), and to handle the word correctly (II Tim.2:15), taking care that it not be discredited (Tit.2:5). James (1:22) is even more specific: hearing / listening is not enough: DOING the word is essential. John the elder agrees (I Jn.3:18) “Dear children, let’s don’t live in theory (logos) or in talk, but in action and truth!”

“And now, I turn you all over to the Lord, and to his word of grace [his gracious word], that can build you all up, and give (you) the inheritance among all those who have been made holy!”(Ac.20:32)
“Everything he says” is useful for that!

Katharos (adj.) and its related words, kathairo and katharizo (verbs), and katharismos (noun), are as varied in classical usage as their English counterparts. Although there are many words which, to be properly understood, could be more accurately rendered by the use of a single, consistent translation (for example, see the discussion of “righteousness/justice” in W.S.#3), this is one where such an exercise would be extremely difficult. Some version of the concept of “cleanliness”, to be sure, is present in all of its manifestations, but I have not succeeded in finding a term that would fit for every occurrence.
Kathairo or kathaireo, the older form of the verb, for example, was used of “ridding a land of monsters and robbers, cleansing a wound, sifting or winnowing grain, pruning a tree, or performing religious purification rites” (L/S). The later form, katharizo, added “to clear ground of weeds, to cleanse (heal) from leprosy, or medical purgation.” The noun, katharismos, simply described the performance of any of these activities, and the adjective, katharos, the result of the process.

Perhaps a list of the adjectival uses of katharos, with illustrative New Testament references, would be helpful:
1. simple, physical cleanliness – Mt.23:25, Lk.11:39 (parallel passages regarding the washing of dishes), Mt.27:59 (“a clean linen cloth”), and similar in Rv.19:8, 19:14, and 15:6; and Heb.10:22 (“bodies washed with clean water”).
2. “without admixture” – [“pure”] – Mt.5:8, Tim.1:5, 3:9, II Tim.1:3, 2:22, I Pet.1:22, “a pure heart”; Rv.21:18,21, “pure gold”; and Rv.22:1, “pure water.”
3. “without debt, guilt, or liability” – Ac.18:6, 20:26 – Paul’s statement that he is no longer responsible for their response to his message.
4. “ritual or ceremonial purity” – Jn.3:25, Lk.2:22, Jn.2:6, Mk.7:19, Lk.11:41, Mk.1:44, Lk.5:14
5. “honest, correct, without blemish, sound, morally pure” – Jas.4:8, Tit.1:15, as well as parallels to the “ceremonial” kind listed above
6. “the healing of lepers” – Mt.8:3, 10:8, 11:5; Mk.1:42, Lk.4:27,7:22, 17:14,17.

Other uses are a bit harder to classify. Jesus, on occasion, deliberately blurred the line between physical cleanliness, ceremonial purity, and dedicated lives (Jn.13:10 – 11 and 15:3), as did the Holy Spirit’s instructions to Peter (Ac.10:15, 11:19). Especially in the upper room scene, Jesus’ intended meaning shifts sharply. And although the discourse on the Vine / branches is clearly an agricultural reference (see previous post), the implication of removing any hindrance to fruitfulness is clear. Similar admonitions are also seen in Heb.9:14, Ac.15:9, Titus 2:14, I Jn.1:9.
James 1:7 re-defines religious “purity” in very practical terms, and in no uncertain language.

This approach is at once more and less stringent than the “purification” demands of the Law. The advocates of the Law had compiled a handy check-list for assaying the ceremonial “purity” that they deemed requisite for proper worship. Jesus provided no such cut and dried convenience, but instead required – and offered – the total transformation of the focus of one’s life. Once this transformation is in progress (Lk.11:41, Jn.13:10), the practiced eye of the vine-dresser can readily make continual corrections to the health, direction, and growth of a branch. Notice that (Jn.15:2) it is the fruitful branches that receive this attention. Unfruitful ones are simply cut off and discarded. And it is not a condition of their becoming a part of the Vine, but of continuing in that condition, and of increasing their fruitfulness.

We should also take note of who is responsible for the pruning / cleansing / purification. We have already seen that the Father is designated as the vintner (Jn.15:1); however, in Eph.5:26, Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus himself “cleansing the church to make it his own”. In Jn.15:3, “the Word that I have spoken” is credited with rendering Jesus’ followers “clean”; and in II Cor.7:1 and James 4:8, the responsibility is placed squarely upon the shoulders of aspiring disciples themselves. Looks pretty much like a mutual effort.

Peter (I Pet.1:22) uses a different, less common word, hagnizo, which more commonly applies to “religious purity”, when he declares that his readers have accomplished this, “by obeying the truth.” It is well to remember that both “the word” (Jn.1:14) and “the truth” (Jn.14:6) (see W.S.#66) are also references to Jesus himself.

It remains for us to consider the discussions in the letter to the Hebrews, the understanding of which has been severely inhibited by the common practice of “proof-texters” lifting a few phrases entirely out of their context. For example, the frequently quoted phrase, (Heb. 1:3), “when he (Jesus) had made a cleansing of “sins” – (the word is hamartia, failures or shortcomings, and not paraptoma, transgressions – see W.S.#7) – if taken in its context of the statement of God’s earlier attempts to make his ways known, which did not work (v.1), looks entirely different, declaring that Jesus’ successful mission (v.2 and 3) was to remedy the shortcomings / failures of the old system! This contrast is the announced purpose of the entire treatise, and occurs like a refrain throughout.
Likewise, Heb.9:14, in the context of its entire paragraph, also highlights Jesus’ superiority over the former priesthood, and those who quote the end of 9:22 “without the pouring-out of blood, deliverance doesn’t happen”, totally ignore the beginning of the sentence, “According to the law…..” V.23, immediately following, continues the emphasis that a better way was needed – and provided! Remember that “blood” and “life” are frequently used synonymously. (see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 12.)

Finally, how can anyone be aware of the glorious expression of confidence in Heb.10:19-23, the assurance that “our hearts have been cleansed (perfect tense) (lit., “sprinkled”) from consciousness of evil, and our bodies have been washed (also perfect tense) with clean water” (perhaps a reference to baptism), and still submit meekly to a requirement that they “confess sinfulness” in every worship service, and in countless hymns? That simply doesn’t compute! The perfect tense expresses “a past action with present consequences”!
Paul had earlier written to Titus (1:!5), “Everything is clean, for clean people! But for the impure and unfaithful, nothing is clean: their mind and conscience has been polluted!”
For all who belong to Jesus, heart, mind, and conscience have been cleansed!
Accept the joyful admonition in Heb.10:23-24:
“Let’s hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation! For the One who made the promise is faithful! Let’s concentrate on prodding each other (with) love and good deeds!”
And whether in song or liturgy, give heed to the Spirit’s word to our brother Peter (Ac.10:15):
“What God has cleansed, don’t you call unclean!”

“Everybody knows what that means, right? To bear fruit is to reproduce!”
At least, that is the proclamation of some enthusiastic folks who feel a need to count “conversions”, to display them like scalps on a belt, and to put-down anyone who sports fewer “trophies”. This is another of many places where the “tune” would be mightily modulated by a serious look at the New Testament.

Yes, there are four possible places (Romans 1:13, Phil.1:22 – where it could just mean “useful”, and maybe Jn.4:36 and Col.1:6), where karpos, the most common word translated “fruit” might be referring to conversions (although probably not the “four-step” variety), out of 66 appearances of the noun form and 8 of the verb! Not quite an overwhelming percentage!
At least 35 – probably 38 – of the references are simply agricultural images, many of them in parables. Two refer to physical birth, and at least 18 to the expected behavior of followers of Jesus.

These harmonize well with the variety seen in classical usage. According to Liddell/Scott, in Homer, karpos referred exclusively to agricultural produce – “the fruit of the earth.” Herodotus and Plato both spoke of wine as “the fruit of the vine”, and later writers used the word of any produce or crops. Xenophon used it of returns or profits on one’s work or investment. When describing the actions of persons, it signified reward, or the fulfillment of an oracle or prophecy. Bauer adds “result, outcome, advantage, gain, or product.”

Turning to the best authority of all, we should ask again, “What did Jesus say?”
He talked a lot about fruit (43 x) and harvests (20 x). Harvest, therizo, therismos, is a similar word, but generally confined to agricultural or seasonal ideas. Therizo is the only one used of “end times”.
All the synoptic gospels include the parables of the Sower (Mt.13:3-9 and 19-23, Mk.4:3-9 and 14-20, Luke 8:5-9 and 10-15) and the vineyard (Mt.21:34-43, Mk.12:1-12, Lk.20:9-16). The focus in the former, according to Jesus’ own explanation, concerns varied responses to the message of the Kingdom, while the latter explores the stewardship of its resources and the treatment of the King’s representatives.
Likewise, in pointing out that the value of a tree is judged by the quality of its produce (Mt.7:16-20, Lk.6:43-44), Jesus seems to assume that an observer can readily discern the quality of the fruit, and that no further elaboration is required.

He gives the most detailed teaching in Jn.15:1-17. Here, Jesus represents himself as the vine, the source of life and growth (1,4), and his followers as its branches (2-6). The Father himself does the pruning (katharizo, also rendered “cleansing”, which we will save for another post). If you have ever worked with grapevines, you know how technical this job is. One must recognize which buds are the fruiting ones, and take care not to remove too many, but also ensure that branches do not compete with one another for sunlight and room to grow! A good harvest requires an expert vintner.
Here, it is Jesus’ word (v.3) that governs the pruning. I think this is probably the reason for the slight digression (vv.9-15) in which he stresses the absolute necessity (5,7,10) of not only “remaining” (W.S.#58) tightly connected to him, but also of “following instructions” (10,12,14,17) (W.S.#55).

It is especially essential (see intro to PNT) here to distinguish between singular and plural forms of “you”. Most of this is a group assignment! (Branches, after all, are mostly attached to the vine by their attachment to other branches!) In the PNT text, plurals are identified by either “you all” or an italicized “you”. Huge errors occur when plurals are read as singular address.
There are also two grammatical constructions in this passage, both very easily identified, that are critical to understanding the message.
A clause indicating purpose is introduced by the particle, hina, “in order that” a desired result may occur. These are seen in
v.2, pruning is done in order that a branch may produce more fruit;
v.8, God’s purpose is “that you may bear much fruit, and become my disciples;”
v.11, “I have said these things in order that my joy may be in/among you all”;
v.16, “I chose (W.S.#56) you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, in order that whatever you all ask the Father in my name (W.S.#24), he may give you.”
v.17, “I am giving you these instructions so that you all may keep on loving each other.”

Other clauses are conditional, (regardless of modern rhetoric to the contrary). They are introduced by ei, or ean, both forms of “IF”, or, if negative, “unless”. They occur in:
v.4, “unless [if you don’t (ean me)] you all remain in [on] me”, you cannot bear fruit.
v.6 “unless someone remains in me, he is thrown out like a branch and is dried up”
v.7, “IF you all remain in me, and my messages remain in/among you, you all shall ask …”
v.10, “IF you all follow my instructions, you will remain in my love …”
v.14, “You all are my friends, IF you continue to do as I am instructing you.”
Additional conditional statements continue throughout the rest of the discourse.

It remained for faithful followers to elaborate on precise definitions of the “fruit” that was to be borne. Paul wrote to the Romans (6:21,22), contrasting the “fruit” [results] of their lives before and after commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom, and to the Galatians (5:19-23) and Ephesians (5:8-10) in the same vein. Characteristics of the new life mentioned in these include (Rom.) a life devoted to God [holiness], (Gal.) love, joy [rejoicing], peace, generosity of mind, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, (Eph.) goodness, justice, truth, and finding out what is pleasing to the Lord!
Changed lives had already been urged by John the Baptist (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) when he demanded “fruit worthy of repentance” (W.S.#6) of his hearers.
Remember that “justice” is the lexical meaning of the word traditionally translated “righteousness” (W.S. #3), which endows its “fruit” (Phil.1:11, Heb.12:11, Jas.3:18) with a decidedly different “flavor”!
Twice (Phil.4:17 and Rom.15:28), the sharing of material gifts among brethren are termed “fruit.”
The letter to the Hebrews closes with a description of the appropriate offering [“sacrifice”] of praise to God as “the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (W.S. #24).

Paul’s admonition to the Colossian church (1:10) is a succinct summary: “behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order to please him fully, bearing fruit in every good deed, and continually growing in your acquaintance with God!”
Quite a contrast to “scalp-collecting”, bearing this sort of fruit is a worthy goal for us all!

References to patience in the New Testament are primarily representations of three word “families”, which, while quite different in “flavor”, are extremely difficult to separate in any definitive manner. “Easy” definitions do not hold up under closer scrutiny. The best we can do is to outline a “territory” covered by each word-grouping, recognizing that there will be overlap that escapes our best efforts. Frequently, two or more of these are found in the same sentence, so they are clearly not synonyms. Translators have almost randomly said “patience and longsuffering,” “endurance and patience,” “forbearance and longsuffering,” or some similar combination.

Makrothumeo (v.) and makrothumia (n.) are used 11 x and 13 x respectively. Liddell/Scott lists simply “to be longsuffering toward another, to persevere, to bear patiently.” Bauer adds “to delay” and “to be even-tempered”, upon which Thayer elaborates “to be patient in bearing the offenses of others, to be slow in avenging or punishing.” Peter (I Pet.3:20, II Pet.3:9, 3:15) and Paul (Rom.2:4 and 9:22) both ascribe this characteristic to God, but Paul also admonishes the brethren at Ephesus (4:2), Colosssae (1:11 and 3:12), and Thessalonica (I Thes.5:14) to exhibit the same attitude toward one another. He appears to be appealing for a generosity of spirit that teaches gently (II Tim.4:2) rather than imposing demands. Usually (not always) it is demonstrated by someone more mature in the Kingdom toward those less experienced. I have frequently used “generosity” or “generous-mindedness” to render these words, intending them as a description of attitude, not necessarily with material implications.

Hupomeno (v.) and hupomone (n.), used 17x and 32x respectively, on the other hand, deal primarily with one’s response to being abused. Thayer makes a helpful point in noting that the distinction is best seen where both words are used together, or in their opposites. Hupomeno / hupomone refer to “a temper which does not succumb under suffering,” whereas makrothumia is “self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong.” Hupomone is the opposite of cowardice or despondency, and makrothumia is the opposite of wrath or revenge.
Hupomone is the “patience” usually associated with those under persecution (Lk.21:19, Rom.5:3, 15:4 and 5; II Cor.6:4, Heb.10:36 and 12:1; and Rv.2:2,3,19; 3:10, 13:10,14:12), as is its verb equivalent (I Pet.2:20, Rom.12:12; Mt.10:22 and 24:13; Mk.13:13, Heb.10:32 and 12:7; I Tim.2:12).
Bauer, Thayer, and Trench all suggest that this describes a faithful response to unavoidable suffering, and consequently cannot apply to God: but that observation breaks down on the passages in Heb.12:2 and 3, which refer to Jesus, who said clearly that he could have called upon all the hosts of heaven to deliver him, had he so chosen.

Hupomone appears on many of the lists of virtues toward which the faithful are urged to strive – II Tim.3:10, I Tim.6:11, Rom.15:4,5; Col.1:11.
In order to maintain a distinction, I have usually used “endurance” for these words.
James complicates the situation by mixing the two concepts almost at random, using makrothumia in 5:7,8 and 5:10, but hupomone in 5:11 and 1:3,4. Perhaps this is deliberate: your suggestions of any possible pattern or reasoning are welcome!

Finally, we turn to anoche (only used twice) and anechomai (15x). The noun appears only in Romans 2:4 and 3:26, referring to the amazing kindness [forbearance] of God. The verb is variously rendered as “forbear” (Eph.4:2 and Col.3:13), “endure” (II Thes.1:4, II Tim.4:3), and “suffer” (Mt.17:17, Mk.9:19, Lk.9:41, I Cor.4:12, II Cor.11:19,20; Heb.13:22).
L/S notes that anoche classically referred to an armistice or truce, and Trench offers the reminder that a truce is only a temporary cessation of hostility. The word was also used of forbearance, or “bearing with” someone – in more contemporary parlance, “putting up with” difficult people or situations. This was frequently my translation choice. It is clearly the burden of Jesus’ exclamation to his disciples, “How long do I have to put up with this?!” (Parallel passages noted above in the synoptics), and Paul’s sarcastic statements to the Corinthians about their willingness to accept false teaching (II Cor.11:1,4,19,20), as well as Gallio’s to the Jews (Ac.18:14). These words may parallel the idea of “endurance,” but don’t seem to fit very well with “patience” – nor do the two uses of stego or the three of hupophero – both also rendered “endure” or “bear”.

All three categories seem to refer primarily to attitude, rather than to specifics of behavior. This is quite clear in Paul’s instructions to Timothy (II Tim.4:2), whom he sent as a “trouble-shooter” to fledgeling congregations on several occasions. “Administer discipline,” he tells his young deputy, “give rebukes, keep on coaching, with all generosity of mind (makrothumia) as you teach.” Makrothumia does not imply “anything goes” – it is simply the attitude with which instruction is to be given. Likewise, there is nothing in hupomone to imply that “patience” under persecution requires one to adopt “door-mat” status. The beleaguered folks who received the letter to the Hebrews were reminded (10:36),”You all have need of patience [endurance], in order that when [after] you have done God’s will, you may obtain the promise.” Don’t back down, but persist in faithfulness, willingly enduring whatever fall-out that produces.
And despite the somewhat negative flavor of the passages already quoted, there is no grudging condescension in anechomai. In Eph.4:2, it is used in combination with makrothumia – “with a generous attitude, putting up with each other in love.” In Col.3:13, it is paired with charizomai, “being gracious toward one another.” Although traditionally translated “forgive”, charizomai actually has the same stem as charis – “grace” (see W.S.#60).

We are instructed to forbear [put up with] one another’s immaturity and peculiarities, and to forgive [be gracious about] error or offense, but in both cases, patiently to “keep on coaching” (W.S.#53) the team toward greater faithfulness.
Discernment enabled by the Holy Spirit is often required, properly to identify and respond to the situation with which we are confronted.
We all have a lot to learn!