The Pioneers’ New Testament

“Nations”, as we think of them today – independent political entities – did not exist until relatively modern times. Modern usage has considered the term “nation” (a cohesive group, bound together by a common language, culture, and history) to be synonymous with “country” or “state” (a political entity defined by geographical boundaries, laws, and governance) – which, historically, it is not.
Old Testament references to “nations” and “kingdoms”, like those in Homer, usually referred to a single city and its environs, each with its own “king” (more like a warlord).
In the first century, virtually every “nation” in Europe, the middle east, and parts of Asia and Africa was dominated by Rome, as they had been earlier by Greece under Alexander, and earlier still by Persia, under Cyrus. None of these empires were ever termed “nations”. They were composed of many conquered nations.
The “nation” [ethnicity] with which one identified had little to do with political boundaries. The conquerors arranged and rearranged boundaries for their own convenience (much as they do today) with little regard for cultural, tribal, religious, or other loyalties. They appointed various levels of petty despots to do the local governing, with varying degrees of autonomy (and success). In the first century, some of these were Herod, Pilate, Claudius Lysius, Felix, and Festus. (You can fill in corresponding names for the 20^th and 21^st centuries!)
Jesus seems to have assumed this sort of structure in the parable (Lk.19:12-27) of the nobleman who traveled abroad “to receive a kingdom” and returned. This was probably a political grant from a higher potentate.

Liddell/Scott lists different categories of meanings for ethnos, the most common of the words rendered “nation..” (Other words rarely rendered “nation” are genea -1x– usually “generation” and genos -2 x– “kind, kindred, or offspring”.) The earliest, historically, represented “any body of people living together; a band of comrades; particular tribes, or even swarms or flocks of animals”! Later, implications of “foreign” or “barbaric” were added. In Athens, ethnos was applied to non-Athenian athletic clubs, and in the LXX, to non-Jews, and more generally, to people of a class or caste beneath one’s own, as well as to trade associations.
Consequently, a modern translation of ethnos as “nation” would be more accurately considered a cultural artifact of the time of translation, than a concept present in the original text. The common thread in many of these translations is the concept of “other”. It is mostly concerned with what a person is not, dividing “us” from “them”, and “in” from “out”. Of all the New Testament uses of the word, only ten refer to one’s own people. (Usually one’s own are called laos, “people”. Others are “ethnoi” – Gentiles, or nations). For Jews, the dichotomy was either ioudaioi, Jews, vs. hellen, Greeks; circumcision vs. uncircumcision, or laos, people, vs. ethnoi, nations or Gentiles.
For Greeks, it was hellen vs. barbaros (barbarians), a term which originally applied to anyone who did not speak Greek, but after Herodotus (4^th century BC), acquired the connotation of “brutal” or “rude”, although it continued to be applied, often in a disparaging way, to any foreigner.
Hellen (Greek) is also used, although less frequently (only 26 times) in the New Testament, usually as a more specific term of ethnic identity than ethnos, which is arbitrarily rendered “nation” (64 x) or “Gentile” (93 x), and applied to anyone who was not a Jew. Five times it was traditionally translated “heathen” – Ac.4:25, II Cor. 11:26, Gal.1:16, 2:9, 3:8 . This is not a different word. The choice among the alternatives, “nations”, “Gentiles”, and “heathen”, by traditional translators, is completely arbitrary. The word in every instance is ethnos.

One outstanding feature of the New Testament appearances of ethnos is the frequency of its being paired with “all”, “every”, or “many” (31 x), from the charge to Abraham (Rom.14:17,18) to Jesus’ instructions to his original disciples (Mt.28:19, Mk.13:10, Lk.24:47), and the glorious scenes in Rev.5:9, 7:9, 10:11 and many more. This, along with Paul’s more specific descriptions (especially in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians) reveals a massive paradigm shift! Ethnos is no longer a term of exclusion, but of gracious inclusion into the Kingdom – the people (laos) of God!

It took a while for those people to internalize the shift, and the writers are not shy about documenting their struggles. We don’t know whether the confrontation with Peter that Paul describes in Gal.2 was before or after the former’s experience with Cornelius (Ac.10) and/or the conference in Jerusalem (Ac.15), but rough spots are frankly acknowledged. Much of Paul’s correspondence with the group at Corinth involves clashes of backgrounds, as do Ephesians, Colossians, and many of his other letters. This may even show up in the vocabulary, since frequently, the term hellen is substituted for ethnos in settings that may have involved Gentile proselytes. Ac.14:1, 16:13, 17:4, 18:4 describe scenes in the synagogues of Iconium, Derbe, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and the crowd present at Pentecost (Ac.2:8-11) represented “many nations”. Might the shift in “label” have indicated that these folks, while not fully assimilated, were at least no longer considered rank outsiders?

But the objective was much higher than that. Jesus’ prayer for his people was that they all be as completely “one” as he was/is with the Father (Jn.17:21),and that prayer specifically included (v.20) “also those who are faithful to me because of their word”! This is the content of “God’s mystery” (W.S.#57) finally revealed to his people (Eph.3:3-9, Col.1:26-27, Rom.16:25-26). The “in” group has been re-defined: no longer identified by any ethnic identity, but by faithfulness to the King of Kings! And while the Law, the Prophets, and the Old Testament histories are full of admonitions to avoid those of alien”nations”, the New Testament is filled with celebration of their inclusion!

Despite his earlier hesitation. Brother Peter also finally got on board (I Pet.2:9-10). Writing (1:1) to “scattered refugees” (traditionally, “strangers”) who have been brought together by their adherence to the Lord Jesus, he encourages them to seek continually for greater faithfulness, reminding them, “You all are a chosen generation – a royal priesthood – a set-apart [holy] nation (ethnos) especially reserved for the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one who called you out of darkness into his amazing light! Once, you were not (even) a people (laos), but now you are God’s people(laos)!” In v.11, he refers to them as “temporary residents and foreigners” in the world from which they came!

Paul writes in a similar vein to the brethren in Ephesus (2:11-22) of their transition from being rank outsiders (11 and 12), through the work of Christ (13-16) in creating one Body out of two people, and describing their present status (17-19) as “fellow citizens with God’s people” and members of his own household! This is an ongoing process for all concerned (20-22), as the whole group is built together “into a permanent dwelling-place for God”!
At least 54 of the 93 places where ethnos is traditionally translated “Gentiles” refer specifically to their inclusion in the people of God. In the Kingdom, “in” and “out” is completely independent of national origin. It depends entirely upon one’s loyalty to the King, which is expected to transcend – indeed, to replace – any and all other allegiances (W.S.#4).

In the middle of a section of detailed instructions for the interaction of the widely varied members of that Kingdom in Colosssae, Paul reminds them (Col.3:11-12) that not only do the former divisions no longer matter, but they have ceased to exist! They/we are now all “God’s chosen people (W.S.#56), holy [set-apart for him] and loved!” and charged with representing the grace and power that accomplished such a feat to the rest of the world.

May we learn to prove faithful to that assignment!

“Redeem/redemption” appears a total of 25 times in the New Testament narratives. These terms have been used to translate seven different Greek words, five of which refer almost exclusively to the ransom of slaves or captives (prisoners of war). Remember that in the prevailing cultures, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, slavery had been the lot of many defeated populations, all over the then-known world. The concept was painfully familiar. So was the sometimes remote, sometimes common possibility of a compatriot accumulating sufficient goods to buy one’s freedom, or even of earning it for oneself. Prisoner exchange, likewise, was not unknown. Any of these options would be called “apolutrosis” – ransom, or redemption.

Apolutrosis, the most common of the words, used 9 x in the New Testament, lutron (2 x), lutrosis (2 x), and antilutron (1 x), all nouns, and lutroo (3 x), the verb form from which they are derived, uniformly refer, in classical usage, to either the ransom of a prisoner or slave, or the redemption of a pledge or obligation – either the process or the price of such a transaction.
Agorazo, “to purchase”, and its prefixed form, exagorazo, both verbs, more frequently refer to ordinary commerce (28 x, more than the sum of all the “redeem” words), although they may also be used for the purchase of slaves, either for their freedom or simply a change of ownership. Twice, exagorazo is used in Paul’s admonitions about “redeeming the time” (Eph.5:16 and Col.4:5), or making responsible use of it.
In this cultural context, nobody needed an explanation of “captivity”, either. Four of the five words translated that way are derived from aichme , “spear”, and refer to prisoners of war: the nouns aichmalosia and aichmalotos, used once each, and the verbs aichmaloteuo (2 x) and aichmalotizo (3 x). The other, zogreo, used only once, refers to captured animals who were kept in cages.

Both Matthew (20:28) and Mark (10:45) record Jesus’ statement that he intended to give his life as a “ransom (lutron) for many” (pollon). Luke refers, in the infancy narrative (2:38) and the despairing lament of the disciples enroute to Emmaus (24:21) to the expectation that Jesus would “redeem Israel”, but only quotes Jesus himself once (21:28), “Your deliverance [redemption] is coming near” in reference to his final triumph. In fact, Jesus himself does not use the word “sacrifice”, so common in modern parlance, even a single time in reference to his own mission, nor do any of the Gospel writers: “redemption / ransom” is their chosen term in every instance.

Please note, in the light of this choice of vocabulary, that the primary idea communicated is a change of ownership or jurisdiction, rather than the “get-out-of-jail-free” notion that is so commonly preached: and this makes an enormous difference in the expectations for the consequent life of those who have been “redeemed!”
Although the verb he chose in Col.1:13 is errusato – “rescued” (W.S.#5), rather than one of the “redeem” words, probably the best description of the situation is Paul’s triumphant reminder, “He has rescued us from the power of darkness, and has transplanted us into the kingdom of the Son of his love!”
The writer to the Hebrews chose apallaxe – also “to set at liberty” – in describing the effect of Jesus’ having passed through death and come out the other side, thus having destroyed the one who held the power of death, (Heb.2:14-15), upon those whose fear of death had held them in lifetime bondage. The idea is the same.

There is an impressive list of oppressors from which our Lord has “bought” our redemption, in addition to that primal fear.

Exagorazo: Gal.3:13 and 4:5 – the curse and bondage of the Law
lutroo: Titus 2:14 – all lawlessness, and I Pet.1:18 – the empty / futile ways of our ancestors
apolutrosis: Eph.1:7, our transgressions, and Col.1:14 – our failures.
Please note that these latter two are taken away (aphesis), not just ignored or overlooked! And please remember that although this is certainly included as part of the “package” of redemption, Jesus’ right to “forgive / take away” failures and transgressions was predicated on who he is / was – God in person! – (see W.S.#7). Neither he nor his critics related it to his death.
Even his choice of timing lends evidence to the focus on redemption. As our son Dan pointed out when we were considering this study, Jesus’ death and resurrection happened at Passover – the celebration of deliverance from bondage in Egypt – and not on the Day of Atonement, with its focus on “sins”. How have so many people missed that observation?

Do not forget, also, that redemption is much more than mere escape from negative things and circumstances! The deliverance described in Col.1:13 is into the Kingdom of the Son of God!
Apolutrosis includes (Rom.3:24) being made just;
(Rom.8:24) being adopted (see Translation Notes) as sons of God, and eventual release from the constraints of our bodies;
(I Cor.1:30 and Eph.1:14) becoming the set-apart possession of the Lord Jesus; for which we have already been provided
(Eph.1:14 and 4:30) with his seal of ownership, in the person of his Holy Spirit.
On a practical level, having been “bought” (agorazo) by our Master, and therefore having become his possession, it is reasonable to expect
(I Cor.6:30) that we become eager to reflect honor upon him;
(I Cor.7:23) that we refuse to allow ourselves to become enslaved to anyone or anything else; and
(II Pet.2:1) make every effort not to deny or discredit him in any way.

Even if this were “all there is”, the condition of those so “redeemed” would be glorious! But there is more! A future also awaits, as the culmination of Jesus’ act of redemption! In Heb.9:15-17, the transaction is cast in the context of a will, under which the heirs only acquire their inheritance after the death (refer to 2:14) of the testator. The Holy Spirit is described (Eph.1:14) as the down-payment on that inheritance, until it is complete, and Rom.8:23 also intimates that, despite the present reality of the Holy Spirit, this is only the beginning!
Those gathered around the throne (Rev.5:9, and 14:3,4) celebrate the redemption of “people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” into the Kingdom of the Lamb.

You may have noticed that there is one question that we have not addressed: “To whom was the ransom owed or paid?” This is neither an oversight nor deliberate avoidance. The reason for its lack is simple. Although centuries of “theologians,” and preachers of many persuasions, have adamantly proclaimed the accuracy of their “logically” devised theories, the New Testament itself does not speak to that issue. Since this is a New Testament study, I will not presume to do so, either.

Our attention can be much more profitably focused upon seeking faithfully to fulfill the purpose of the One who has redeemed us for himself! He has graciously provided us with very clear instructions for that exercise.
Thanks be to God!

There, but for the grace of God, go I!” has become, in some circles, a “proudly humble” way of calling attention to another’s unfortunate (or otherwise degraded) condition. The obvious but unspoken (and unwarranted) assumption that such “grace” is absent in the experience of that “other”, and the consequent air of condescension, seem totally to escape the notice of the speaker. This is evidence of a serious misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and expansiveness of the “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” so enthusiastically, but narrowly, and, sadly, quite selfishly celebrated in song and sermon.
Are you bothered by the inclusion of “selfishly”? Count the occurrences of “I, me, my” in that and other similar songs! That is diametrically opposed to New Testament attitudes!
A more accurate understanding of “grace” would move such a speaker to action (mercy! See W.S.#59), rather than to a piously superior sort of pity!

Grace – charis – was a very common word, with a long list of classical uses, including “outward beauty, grace, or favor; kindness or good will; thankfulness, or an expression of gratitude; a favor (personal or political) done or returned; a grant made in legal form; gratification; homage or worship; majesty; something done for the pleasure or “sake” of someone.” Its mythological personification was worshiped as the wife of the Greek god Hephaestus, and the attendants of Aphrodite (“the Graces”). (L/S). Bauer adds “gracious care: the action of someone who volunteers to do something to which he is not bound or obligated; the practical application of good will by gods or men; the condition of a person so favored.”
It is probably the “lack of obligation” idea that has given rise to the popular evangelical phrase “unmerited favor”, although no etymological data includes any analysis of whether a favor is deserved or not.

New Testament usage is also quite wide-ranging. Charis can refer to a simple “thank you” (Lk.7:19, 6:32,33,34) to a person or a group (II Cor.4:15); to giving thanks for a meal (I Cor.10:30), or profound thanksgiving to God (Rom.6:17, I Tim.1:12, II Tim.1:3, I Cor.15:57, II Cor.2:14, 8:16, 9:15, Col.3:16).
The aspect of “favor” or “good will” appears in Lk.1:30, 2:52; Ac.2:47, 7:10, 7:46) and political maneuvering in Ac.24:27 and 25:9.
Charis can describe that gracious attribute of God seen in his calling of people to himself and his Kingdom, and enabling their conversion and transformation of life (I Cor.1:4, 15:10; Gal.1:15, I Tim.1:14). This “grace”has observable results: when Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the apostles to check out the new group that had formed there, he “saw the grace of God” (Ac.11:23), and welcomed them as true brethren. We aren’t told what he “saw” – but he clearly recognized it as a “family trait.” Charis was also recognized as the active force in people becoming faithful in Achaia (Ac.18:27), and Paul urged the newly faithful in Pisidian Antioch (Ac.13:43) to continue (W.S.#58) in it, despite bitter opposition.
In Eph.2:5-7, Paul waxes eloquent about the results of being “rescued” (W.S.#5) by God’s graciousness: being made alive with Christ, and identified with his resurrection (W.S. #35) and seated together with him, as a demonstration of his gracious kindness! Notice how quickly the narrative moves away from their former, alienated condition, into the glorious, gracious provision of God! Why is it now more in vogue to dwell on people’s degradation? As one student observed, “It doesn’t say that I need to be – or pretend to be – total scum in order to experience grace!”

Somehow, sadly, in subsequent centuries, the balance has tipped strangely, and what was supposed to be the beginning of a lifelong process of transformation has been placed on hold, until the final consummation! Not so in true New Testament teaching! The focus here is on the grace that enables Kingdom living! Charis is the fuel that runs the “engine” of the transformation of life among those who are faithful! It involves “being made just” (W.S.#3) (Ac.15:11, Rom.3:24, and chapters 4 and 5); enabling honest behavior (II Cor.1:12), enabling service, both to the brotherhood and to those outside (Eph.4:7, Heb.12:28). It includes both generosity, and the means with which to express it (II Cor.9:8 and 14), confidence in prayer for help (Heb.4:16), and “coaching” (W.S.53) when needed.
The faithful are admonished to let charis motivate and regulate our speech (Eph.4:29, Col.4:6), and to be careful stewards of such a gracious gift (I Pet.4:10, Rom.12:6), using each manifestation of God’s grace to serve one another.
Both James (4:6) and Peter (I Pet.5:5) paraphrase the statement they had heard from Jesus himself (Lk.14:11) that God actively opposes (the same word that James uses in the next sentence to tell his readers how to treat the devil!) the arrogant, but gives grace to the unassuming (“humble” W.S.#14).

The expectation of faithful living as a response to God’s grace (II Cor.6:1, II Pet.3:18, Titus 2:11-15) is carefully and deliberately distinguished from the establishment – or defense – of the Law. This was obvious already in Johns prologue statement (1:17), “The law was given through Moses, but grace/graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus Christ!”
There are many warnings (Rom.4:4, 4:16, 11:6; Gal.1:6, 5:4; Heb.13:9; Rom.5,6,and 11) against trying to combine the new life with the old legalism, and also against the opposite problem, interpreting freedom from law as an excuse for licentiousness (Jude 4), which, he notes, actually amounts to denying the Lord Jesus! Heb.10:29 and 12:15 have a similar tone.

Luke, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews frequently represent charis as not only supplying the enablement for an assignment (W.S.#55), but view the very assignment itself as a gift of grace (Ac.14:26, 15:40, 20:24; Rom.1:5, 12:6; Gal.2:9, Eph.3:2,7,8; 4:7; II Tim.1:9; Heb.2:9, 12:28).
In II Cor.8 and 9, especially 9:8 and 9:13, virtually everything connected with the offering for famine relief is included under the rubric of “grace”.
Paul urges Timothy not only to “be strong” in the grace that has come to him, but to be careful to pass it on (II Tim.2:1,2) to faithful people who will do likewise. This should be seen as the primary responsibility of every person entrusted/gifted with a task in the Body! (See Chapters 6-8 of Citizens of the Kingdom). “The grace/graciousness that is in Christ Jesus”, like the “mercy” we studied in the last post (#59), is not a treasure to be hoarded and admired, but a trust to be shared!

The final paragraph in Paul’s letter to Titus (2:11-14) provides an excellent summary of the effects and expectations that accompany the grace of God – who is called, in deliberate defiance of the Roman emperor’s edict, “our Savior / deliverer” (W.S.#4) in v.11. The application of the same title to Jesus, “our great God and Savior”in v.13 is not a contradiction, but a reiteration of that designation.
“His grace/graciousness was revealed (aorist tense: already accomplished) to all people (v.11); teaching/educating us (present participle: continuous action) to deny (aorist participle – a definitive act) ungodliness and worldly desires/longings, in order that (purpose clause) we may live (aorist subjunctive – purpose) sensibly and justly in the present age (v.12)while we are waiting (present participle – continuous ) for our blessed expectation/hope, and the appearance of (or from) the glory, of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (v.13) (all the nouns are genitive – possession or source).
He gave himself for us [on our behalf], in order to (purpose) ransom us from all lawlessness, and to cleanse for himself a prepared people, eager for good deeds [things to do]!” (v.14).
In short, his purpose is to establish his Kingdom among us!

“Thanks – charis – be to God, for his indescribable gift!” (II Cor.9:15)

“Mercy” is another word that, due to its having been used traditionally to represent four different Greek words, is very frequently misunderstood. Sometimes mistaken as a synonym for “grace” – which will be treated in a later post – it has typically been co-opted by the compilers of creeds, confessions and liturgies as a component of what I sometimes call the “cockroach syndrome.” You are surely familiar with the unfortunate caricature: God sitting sternly up on a cloud, making black marks in his ledgers, noting the details of every infraction by his creatures, and, in response to their programmed, groveling pleas for “mercy” (see W.S. #6), saying grudgingly, “Well, I could – and maybe should – just stomp you like a cockroach as you try to scurry away and hide, but I won’t, because after all, I really am merciful!”
It would be difficult to find anything (short of the abrupt descent of a celestial boot!) more antithetical to the true mercy of God, as revealed in and by our Lord, Jesus Christ! He ought to sue those guys for libel!

The most common word translated “mercy” is the noun, eleos (28 x) – verb form eleeo (33 x). Classically, it refers to mercy, compassion, or pity, or, when combined with poieo (to do or to make), the giving of alms. (Liddell/Scott). This character trait was personified and worshiped at Athens and Epidaurus – which, interestingly, was a center of medical treatment.
The other words were used much more rarely: oiktirmos / oiktirmon, “sympathetic, compassionate” (5x and 3x respectively), and hilaskomai (2 x) and hileos (1 x). These latter two, which are the only ones used classically of “appeasing angry gods”, unfortunately seem to have claimed the primary attention of doctrine-writers. In the New Testament, they appear only in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.8:13), and in Hebrews in reference to the duties of the high priest under the old (obsolete) covenant (2:17 and 8:12). These are hardly the best authorities!

Thayer distinguishes between eleos and oiktirmos by noting that the former is a mercy that leads to action to alleviate or eliminate misery, while the latter offers pity for a hopeless situation – but the uses of oiktirmos in Lk.6:36, Phil.2:1, and Col.3:12 do not fit that analysis. They all imply action.

The most common use of eleeo is in reference to Jesus either being asked to heal someone (5 x in Matthew, 2x in Mark, and 3 x in Luke), or having done so (Mk.5:19, Phil.2:27), or in Elizabeth’s celebration of the healing of her sterility (Lk.1:58). Indeed, Mary, Elizabeth, and Zachariah provide a delightful catalog of evidence of “the mercy of God” in Lk.1:50-78: (51) scattering the arrogant, (52) de-throning the powerful, (53) feeding the hungry and dismissing the uncaring wealthy, (54) keeping his promise, (57-58) enabling Elizabeth to have a child, (67)enabling Zachariah’s prophecy, (68) providing redemption, (71) deliverance from the hatred of enemies, (72) remembering his covenant, (74-75) giving his people the privilege to worship him without fear – see W.S. #16 – and the removal of their failures – see W.S.#7, and (78) guiding them into the ways of peace!
“Loving generosity” might be the best description of that list!

The celebration of God’s mercy continues in the epistles: Eph.2:4 – God, who is rich in mercy ….made us alive together with Christ! Titus 3:5 – the mercy of God rescued us (see W.S. #5) from the futility described in v.3; I Pet.1:3 “according to his mercy,” he gave us new birth into hope (#36) by the resurrection of Jesus (#35); I Peter 2:10 – “You all are experiencing mercy” by having been made God’s people!. Heb.4:16 – because Jesus understands our humanity, we find mercy, and grace to help in our time of need!
“Mercy” is occasionally added (4x) to the more usual greeting of “grace and peace”, which has sometimes been called a melding of the standard Hebrew (peace) and Greek greetings. However, the usual Greek greeting, chaire, is not derived from charis. I wonder if Paul changed it deliberately? We will take a more detailed look at this when we consider “grace”.

For the faithful, it is essential to note that the mercy of God is not a treasure to be hoarded, nor a pardon to be begged-for, but a trait to be learned and shared! Very early, Jesus included that expectation in the Beatitudes (Mt.5:7) and parables. The inquiring lawyer in Lk.10:37 grudgingly recognized that “showing mercy” was the point of Jesus’ story of the Samaritan, and the parable of the debtors (Mt.18:33) stresses that mercy received must also be passed on. Even more pointedly, Jesus quoted their own scripture to the nit-picking scribes and Pharisees (Mt.9:13 and 12:7) , that God values mercy above their showy “sacrifices”, and (Mt.23:23) also above their meticulous tithing of herbs. Please note that “mercy” is attached, (not antithetical) to “justice” and “faithfulness”! There is no hint of an “Anything goes” attitude here.

In the same vein, James warns that in failing to show mercy to one’s brother, one places his own situation in jeopardy (2:13-15). Paul urges the Corinthians (II Cor.4:1) that the mercy they have received is intended to provoke faithful living. In Phil.2:1, Rom.12:1, and Col.3:12, he uses the less common oiktirmos, but the message is the same: mercy received must result in merciful and faithful behavior.
James (3:17) characterizes godly wisdom as including being “full of mercy and good fruit”; Jude uses the same word (21 and 22) with more solemn overtones, of the rescue of an errant brother. In I Cor.12:8, Paul lists “showing mercy” among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be exercised in the growth of the brotherhood – “with cheerfulness [good humor].” No reluctant toleration here. The idea of “loving generosity” fits very well.

Paul eloquently summarizes the intent of the gracious gift of God’s mercy in Rom.12:1,2:
“I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God’s compassion [mercy], to present your bodies a living offering, set-apart, pleasing to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this age, but be (continuously) completely changed, by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is: what is good, and pleasing, and complete [perfect].”

There is nothing to add but “Amen!”

It is unfortunate that traditional translators have most frequently (59 out of 119 incidents) chosen “abide” – the word least familiar to speakers of modern English, and therefore the most easily corrupted by unwarranted “mystical” interpretations – to represent a rather ordinary word like meno. The classical uses of meno include nothing esoteric at all. Liddell/Scott lists “to stay or wait, to endure or remain, to keep or preserve, to abide by an opinion or conviction”, among similar ideas. This single word has been split, by those traditional translators, into multiple variants, including “continue (11 x), dwell (15 x), endure (3 x), remain (17 x), and tarry (9 x), and nearly as many more used only a single time each. NONE of these connote the “abiding” image of “saints” sitting silently in serene bliss, doing absolutely nothing but languishing in the light of their halos!

Of the total, about a third refer simply to being, living, temporarily waiting, or staying in a particular location, as do nearly all of the cases where meno appears with a prefix: epimeno, katameno, parameno, prosmeno, and hupomeno. Eighteen describe a person’s condition or circumstances, as in Jn.5:38, 8:35, 12:46; I Cor.7:8, 11, 20, 24, and others; and fourteen indicate simple survival (Heb.12:7, Mt.11:23, I Cor.15:6). Persistence is advocated in various epistles (II Tim.3:14, I Jn.2:24, Heb.3:14), as well as repeatedly in John’s writings.

John shifts the focus substantially, and departs markedly from these more classical connotations, to give greater attention to relationships, rather than merely location, duration, or condition. Actually, this departure, almost unique to John’s work, is one very strong piece of evidence for the (disputed) single authorship of all the material attributed to him. He uses a form of meno at least 58 times, more than any other writer, and only 10 of these fall into the usual categories. Most of the rest refer to deep and enduring relationships, but they are relationships with very practical implications. They are typified by Jesus’ own unity with the Father (Jn.14:10).

Another outstanding deviation in John’s work is his choice of verb tenses. One would ordinarily expect the concept of “remaining” to be expressed in the present tense – especially if referring to the establishment or endurance of relationship. In other writings, a temporary condition is usually expressed in the aorist tense, and an on-going state in the present. John, however, uses an aorist tense five times: the first “remain” in Jn.15:4, both conditional statements in15:7, the imperative in 15:9, and the conditional clause in I Jn.2:24. I’d really like to ask him why! It is possible that he has in mind a definitive point of commitment – the aorist is used that way in reference to “becoming faithful”. All the rest of his verbs are present (continuous) tenses. Usually, the present tense indicates that no terminal point is in view.

Each of the primary admonitions has a very comforting air of reciprocity. Not only does Jesus state confidently “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jn.14:10), but he applies the same reciprocity to his followers: (15:4) “Remain in me and I in you”; (15:9-10) “Follow my instructions and you will remain in my love, just as I have followed my Father’s instructions and remain in his love”; (8:31) “remain in my word” and (I Jn.2:14) “The word of God is living in you”; (II Jn.2 and 4) “The truth remains in/among us” and “your children walking in the truth.” Although meno is not used there, the same idea appears in Jesus’ prayer (Jn.17:21): he expects his own relationship with the Father to be replicated in ours with him!

There are ample lists of evidence of the development of that relationship – Jn.15:5 – bearing fruit; 15:8 – the glory of God!; I Jn.2:6 – copying Jesus’ behavior; 2:10 – love for the brethren; 2:!7 – doing God’s will; 3:24 – the presence of the Holy Spirit; 4:12,13,16 – maturity in love.
Note especially the juxtaposition of truth and love in II Jn.1 and 2, also echoed in I Pet.1:22. That realization would go a long way toward bridging “doctrinal divides”, from both directions! How frequently do you see “love” as the hallmark of those who claim to be champions of the “truth”? Or a passion for the “truth” among those whose battle-cry is “unconditional love”? If these do not go together, then neither is genuine!

There are very explicit conditional statements associated with faithful “remaining / continuing”. Jn.8:31 – “IF you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples.” Jn.15:7 – “IF you remain in me and my teachings remain in you” is the requirement for answered prayer. I Jn.2:24 – IF what you have heard remains in you, you are staying with the Son and the Father.” Paul, too, recognized that one is rewarded (I Cor.3:14) IF his work survives the test, and uses a prefixed form, epimeno, in Rom.11:22,23) to declare that the spiritual status of both Jew and Gentile is DEPENDENT upon their “remaining” in faithfulness or unfaithfulness.

Likewise, neither Jesus nor John minced words about negative evidence: Jn.5:38 – (Jesus to the Pharisees) “You don’t have the Word of God among you, because you are not faithful to the one he sent!”; I Jn.3:!4 – “The one who doesn’t love, remains in death!”; Jn.3:36 – “The wrath of God remains” on those who are not faithful to his Son (in contrast to v.35, eternal life is experienced by those who are). Note that all of these are PRESENT, not future, tenses! He is not talking about “destiny” here, but about the present state of affairs!

So how does one “abide / remain / continue” in the Lord Jesus and his word / truth? He has provided not only careful directions, but the perfect demonstration: his own example of deliberate obedience to the Father’s instructions (Jn.15:9), to the point that he could credit his Father with everything he did (Jn.14:10)!
Everyone who becomes deliberately faithful to him need not live in darkness (Jn.12:46).
“The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him ought to walk [live, behave] as he did!” (I Jn.2:6).

Very simple – but not easy.
May we urge – and help – each other faithfully to abide/continue/remain in him!

“Mystery” is a term that has suffered abuse in two different ways.
There have always been self-styled “teachers” who dodge the inexplicability and total lack of Biblical basis for their complex, high-flown “doctrines” by intoning, with an air of solemn superiority, “Oh, that …that is a part of the mystery of God!” These individuals do not even deserve the respect of refutation.
Throughout the course of Christian history, there have also been numerous cycles during which “scholars” claim to have “discovered” links between Christian faith and the Greek and near-eastern “mystery religions”. Although it is possible to find such “links” in corrupted versions of Christian thought and practice, the New Testament, although the word “mystery” does appear there, bears no credible resemblance to any of those observances. In fact, more frequently, it calls for the direct opposite in both belief and practice.

Many, if not most, of the “mystery” cults involved some variety of fertility worship, due to their derivation from the seasonal myths of Demeter and Persephone, Orpheus and Eurydice, or other underworld connections. Their version of “resurrection” (loudly touted as a parallel) was merely a temporary return from the abode of the dead, repeated yearly, and celebrated with orgiastic fertility rites, or equally temporary asceticism. Communication with the deities was achieved with hallucinogenic substances, strong drink, or, as at Delphi, the noxious vapors of thermal springs.
All of these were very ancient – the Dionysian cult is dated by some historians as early as 6000 BC, the Eleusian about 2000 BC, and the Orphic in the 4^th century BC. Although the second century AD writer, Justin Martyr, spoke of them as “demonic imitations of the true faith”, the actual fact was probably more likely the reverse: the syncretistic corruption of the New Testament message by the adoption of magical, secretive overtones of the “mysteries.” I had often wondered how the simple, symbolic observations, instituted by Jesus as reminders and teaching tools, morphed into a notion of magical, inherently powerful “sacraments” (please see chapter 9 of Citizens of the Kingdom). I have to wonder if this transformation was not effected by exactly that syncretism. It certainly does not appear in the New Testament.

Another major contrast is seen in the lack of conflict between the contemporary civil religion (emperor-worship) of the Roman Empire, and the “mysteries.” These were considered supplementary, and did not compete for people’s devotion, whereas commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus (see W.S.#4), which required absolute faithfulness, and refused political compromise, was often a matter of life or death for its adherents.

According to Liddell/Scott, musterion could refer either to secret knowledge imparted only to initiates, to the paraphernalia used in ceremonial rites, to medicinal recipes or remedies, or to military secrets! Interestingly, it is this latter category that was taken over into the Latin “sacramentum”, although Jerome, in the early 5^th century AD, used that substitute seven times (Eph.1:9, 3:9, 5:32; Col.1:27, I Tim.3:16, Rv.1:20, 17:7) in his Latin Vulgate translation. I could not discern any pattern to these choices – can you?
By that time, of course, to further confuse the situation, the simple symbols of commitment had long been distorted into the magical notion of “sacrament”, along with several other ceremonies (see above).

The New Testament does use the word musterion, 26 times. In the New Testament, it is not an esoteric secret inaccessible to human minds, but always refers to information that has been revealed, although it does require a degree of spiritual discernment.
The most common (7 x) is the assertion (Rom.11:25, 16:25-26; Eph.3:3-6, Col.1:26-27, 2:2, 4:3) that God’s eternal plan for his people includes both Jewish and Gentile believers. This is typified in the end of Paul’s letter to Rome, “The mystery that from all eternity has been kept secret, has now been revealed…..His revealed purpose is that this plan be made known, so that all the nations [all the gentiles] may come to him in faithful obedience!”
The emphasis on the revelation of things formerly hidden appears another 6 x (I Cor.2:1, 2:7; Eph.1:9,3:3 – expounded in vv.9-12 – and 6:19), including the establishing of the Lord Jesus as the head over everything, and his intentions that his glorious grace, power and wisdom be demonstrated to everyone, everywhere, THROUGH HIS CHURCH!

Musterion occurs only once in each of the synoptic gospels – parallel passages – (Mt.13:11, Mk.4:11, Lk.8:10) when Jesus is explaining to the inquiring disciples the parable of the Sower/Seed/Soil. He characterizes this explanation as evidence that the “mysteries of the Kingdom of God” are being revealed to those who have accepted his call to that Kingdom, not to curious spectators.
Only 5 times is musterion used in the plural: twice here, and three times in I Cor.4:1, 13:2, 14:2. Might this be implying reference to multiple bits of information? The other 21 uses in the New Testament are singular, usually referencing God’s single, over-arching purpose for creation.
Three of the four references in the Revelation (1:20 and 17:5,7) are simply explanations of symbolism, while the other (10:7) refers again to God’s original purpose. This may parallel Paul’s summary statement to Timothy (I Tim.3:16), which basically reviews Jesus’ own history: specifically regarding his true humanity, his vindication attested by his resurrection (“made just …seen by messengers” – please remember that “messengers” may be either human or supernatural – the word is the same), the spread of his message to the gentiles/nations, and his ascension in glory!

Finally, sharing in the “mystery”, which is now revealed, rather than hidden, confers tremendous responsibility upon its participants: no longer under dread oaths to preserve secrecy as in the ancient mysteries, but instructed to make it known as broadly as they can (I Cor.4:1 and 13:2)!
This is also evident in Eph.3:9-12, a portion of which may serve us well as a closing summary. Marveling at the privilege of his assignment, Paul aims to “shed light on what is our responsibility, derived from the mystery ….to make known, now, to the rulers and authorities in heaven, through the church, the many-faceted wisdom of God! This is the plan of the ages, which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord!” And his people are entrusted with its execution!

In short, with an accurate understanding of the word (and the concept) “musterion”, faithful followers of Jesus will abandon their obsession with their “sacred rituals” (borrowed from the ancient “mysteries”), in favor of their sacred responsibility, rightly to represent the King and his Kingdom!

“Oh, the depth of God’s wealth, and wisdom, and knowledge! How (far) beyond reasoning are his judgments, and beyond comprehension his ways! ….
Glory to him forever! Amen!” (Rom.11:33, 36)

Amen, indeed!

In the final conflict, with all the forces of evil arrayed against him, “The Lamb will conquer them, because (1) he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and (2) those with him are called and chosen and faithful” (Rv.17:14).
It is no surprise that the Lord’s identity should be the primary cause of his victory: but how incredibly gracious, that his faithful followers should be not only included, but credited, as well!

A large segment of “Christian teaching”, sadly, neglects to take into account the order of the words describing “those with him.” Its advocates insist that only the “chosen” are ever “called” to be his. The overwhelming evidence of the New Testament, however, as well as the simple vocabulary, yields a very different scenario. Thayer (see Appendix) notes, in his rather ponderous treatment of kaleo, that only those who have responded to an invitation are considered to be among the “called”, or the invited guests. Those who have refused are not included in that terminology. ( See Jesus’ parable in Lk.14:24).
The invitation is exceedingly broad. It is the choice that is crucial, and even after it is made, faithfulness is required. Mt.22:14 and II Pet.1:10, the only other places where “called” and “chosen” are used together, maintain the same order.

The primary words which are translated “choose” eklego, and “chosen” eklektos, are really quite straightforward. Liddell/Scott defines the verb form as “to pick or single out, to select or choose”, and even on occasion “to levy taxes or tribute”, and the noun/participle/adjective as “selected, choice, chosen.” Even in New Testament usage, they frequently refer simply to the everyday choices of life, whether of associates (Ac.1:2, Jn.6:70, Ac.6:5) or of prestigious seats (Lk.14:7). The choice by the KJV translators to change the English word to “elect” in reference to believers, is a reflection of their theological presuppositions, not of the text. The word in the text is identical, in every case.
Paul uses eklektos (Rom.8:33, Col.3:12, II Tim.2:10, Tit.1:1) in a manner almost synonymous with “saints” or “brethren”, as does Peter (I Pet.1:2). It is a “label” of the identity of those who belong to Jesus, and it is used to urge persistence in faithfulness. Peter, likewise, uses it first of Jesus himself (I Pet.2:4), then (v.9) to re-define the concept of “God’s chosen people”, which in turn also becomes an impetus for faithful living.

In the Gospels, the “chosen ones” (the faithful) are singled out for both protection (Mt.24:22,31; Mk.13:20,22,27; Lk.18:7) and responsibility (Jn.15:16-19). Disciples are not “chosen” to sit around and bask in the glory of their “election”, but to get busy about bearing good fruit for the Kingdom, actively loving each other, and enduring any resultant persecution with patience and faithfulness born of their identification with the Lord Jesus! Jesus himself, of course, is identified as “chosen” – scornfully by the Jewish leaders (Lk.23:35), and honorably by Peter (I Pet.2:6), and it is “in him” (Eph.1:4) that we in turn are “chosen.” The deliberate extension of this term to Gentile believers (Eph.1:4, Col.3:12-15) is extremely significant, in view of the prevailing assumption that it applied only to ethnic Jews (appearing in the LXX more than 100 times). Here again, it is essential to bear in mind that a person’s response is the critical factor.

This also sheds much-needed light on the complicated, much-debated schemes that people have concocted concerning Paul’s “arguments” (actually, explanations) in Romans. Reading chapters 9-11 in the light of understanding the importance of one’s response, reveals, not some sort of divine “shell game”, but simply the affirmation that regardless of one’s ethnicity, his response to God’s call is the critical component of his “chosen” status. Neither Jew nor Gentile has been categorically either excluded or included. “All Israel” has been re-defined as all who embrace Kingdom citizenship. Please notice the conditional clauses in 11:22 “if you keep on staying in his generosity”, and 11:23 “if they do not keep on in unfaithfulness.” The calling has not changed, nor been rescinded (11:29), but it IS conditional.  People’s responses can and do change.
I am well aware that folks prone to proof-texting can string together disconnected “verses” from these chapters to make elaborate systems (usually to exclude someone), and conflicting claims. But our brother Paul did not write “verses” to be rearranged like puzzle pieces. He wrote a letter, and at least to this translator, it is neither complicated nor exclusionary, if viewed as a whole.

The same principle applies to those who find in-group vs. out-group “destiny” in Romans 8. Read the whole paragraph (18-30). Paul’s point is to encourage the brethren to remain faithful, in the midst of severe opposition. He reminds them of the glorious prospect of the consummated Kingdom, of the Spirit’s gracious provision and intercession in our weaknesses and ignorance, and the ultimate power of God to use everything to which life subjects us for eventual good – both his and ours! V.29 is an encouragement, not a threat! These hassles do not catch God unawares: he knew it all along, and is quite capable of using everything for the benefit of those he “predestined” – NOT, please note, to be “saved” or “lost”, but to be “conformed to the image [likeness] of his Son”! It it these whom he chose, called, made just, and glorified! All four verbs are cast in aorist tenses (see grammatical information in Translation Notes), denoting action that is already accomplished in/by the Lord Jesus! Accomplished, in the same, all-too-human people who still need the Spirit’s intercession and instruction, and each other’s mutual support! This is the impetus for the paean of praise with which the chapter closes.

Regarding the “destiny” aspect of “choice,” as noted in W.S.#48,  proorizo, only once associated with choice, appears only 6 times in the entire New Testament, and two of them are in the passage just cited. The others are Eph.1:5 – we are “destined” for adoption as sons of God, and Eph.1:11 – to be a part of God’s glorious plan for all his creation! In the frightened disciples prayer in Ac.4:28, they saw the circumstances of Jesus’ death as pre-determined (notice that we are not told if that was an accurate assessment or not). In I Cor.2:7, Paul again emphasizes God’s plan for his people to share his glory!

This is the sum-total of New Testament references to “predestination”!

All who have answered the “call” and enlisted in the Kingdom, are “chosen”, and “destined” to be with the King! These are the called and the chosen!
May we also prove faithful!

OK, this is not technically a “word study”. It is more a topical survey: but it is so closely related to the previous post, that it deserves our attention. We saw in our study of “calling” that that designation primarily applies to one’s inclusion in the Kingdom, and his participation in the transformed life to which we are all “called”, together. There are occasions, however, when a person is handed a very specific assignment: and this can occur in a number of ways.

Jesus, of course, personally chose twelve of his disciples, and later 70 more, to whom he delegated the responsibility to “preach the Kingdom” ahead of his own arrival (Lk.10:1). After Pentecost, his methods were more varied.
Sometimes, as with the early (Ac.3 and 4) accounts of Peter and John, it was simply a case of acting faithfully when an opportunity arose, on the instructions they had been given years earlier (Lk.9:2, 10:9).

In Ac.6:1-6, the congregation perceived a need, and were instructed to suggest godly individuals to take care of it, who were then “appointed” by the apostles. Interestingly, at least two of these quickly “outgrew” their original assignment, with Stephen (ch.7) becoming a powerful advocate for “the Way”, and subsequently being martyred, and Philip (ch.8) becoming an itinerant evangelist.

Philip‘s case is interesting. His trip to Samaria may (or may not) have been on his own initiative, but after his successful mission there (8:26), a messenger instructed him to head for the Gaza road, and (v.29) the Spirit directed him to the Ethiopian’s chariot, and then (39-40) even “carried him off” after the assignment was completed! Perhaps in order to receive a “specific assignment” we need to be busy at the tasks we already perceive!

Ananias, on the other hand, (Ac.9:10-19) is introduced simply as “a certain disciple” – just one of the folks in Damascus. But the Lord spoke to him directly, in a vision. And although at first he argued about it, his obedience gifted all the rest of us, down through the centuries, with the ministry of Paul! We never hear of Ananias again. He was just listening when the Lord needed to recruit someone.

Peter also was busy (Ac.10) when the Lord directed (by means of a “messenger”) Cornelius to send for him. Knowing that the assignment would give Peter cultural problems, the Spirit designed an object lesson, as well as explicit directions to respond to the summons. Wisely, Peter included other brethren as witnesses, who aided in responsibly reporting to questioners, later.

Barnabas (Ac.11:22-26) was sent by the apostles to Antioch, to check out the gathering there. He had already established a reputation for gracious faithfulness (4:36, 9:27). He seems to have recruited Saul on his own initiative (v.25).

We are not told how Agabus (Ac.11:28, 21:10) became known as a prophet, but his word was taken seriously by the group at Antioch, who immediately organized famine relief. Paul later refused his counsel, but his prophecy proved to be correct.

Then of course, there is Saul/Paul. It is important to note that not all of his instructions were as dramatic as his Damascus Road encounter with Jesus (Ac.9). I don’t know why so many folks seem to think that is the one that should be normative. After he was committed to the Lord, it did not require such drastic measures to get his attention! The congregation at Damascus (9:24-45) sheltered, accepted, and nurtured Saul, and helped him escape the city. Barnabas enabled his acceptance by the other apostles (v.27). The Holy Spirit spoke to the prayer meeting in Antioch (Ac.13), to commission their first journey, and they were sent out by both the group (v.3) and the Spirit (v.4). During the trips, however, the “leading” seems to have been more a matter of necessity! When they were run out of one town, they went on to the next! The account of the second journey is interesting. The second trip was undertaken at Paul’s own initiative (Ac.15:36-41), and the Lord is neither blamed nor credited for the argument with Barnabas that resulted in their separation.

Wouldn’t you like to know how they were “forbidden by the Holy Spirit” to preach in Asia, and how “the spirit of Jesus would not allow” their next attempt, to Bithynia? It was only after these frustrations, that Paul “saw a vision” and his group “concluded that God had called” them to Macedonia. Interestingly, we are told that it was simply Paul’s annoyance (16:18) that precipitated the healing of the fortune-teller.
Later, another vision reassured him of the Lord’s protection in Corinth.

Honesty requires the conclusion that there are more questions than answers in the latest account. After two years in Ephesus (19:21), Paul “set out in the Spirit” to go through Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem. Both of those are in the opposite direction from Jerusalem. He was warned of trouble by many brethren (20:22, 21:4, 21:10), but consistently rejected their counsel. Yet he took the advice (21:18-26) of the elders in Jerusalem, which resulted in his arrest and imprisonment. Please note that in no case is either of these decisions attributed to “God’s will”! It is presented simply as narrative. Those who claim to explain it as “God’s plan”, cannot draw any direct evidence from the New Testament. It is clear, however, that the power of God was entirely adequate to use what may have been mistakes, or even just stubbornness, on the part of his devoted servant, for his good purposes. This should be an encouragement to us all!

Other disciples did allow themselves to be “led” by the counsel of brethren. Paul recruited Timothy (Ac.16:3), who was highly recommended by his home congregation, as an assistant and apprentice, and Silas, (Ac.15:40) who shared his second journey.
Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders” (Ac.14:3) in every new congregation, and urged Titus (Tit.1:5) to do likewise.
From Corinth, where he had met and worked with Aquila and Priscilla (Ac.18:1-3), Paul took them along to Ephesus, (18:18), where they in turn corrected the teaching of Apollos, preparing him for more responsible service, to which the Ephesian brethren subsequently recommended him.

So where does all this come out? The mandate (“call”), as we saw in #54, is to faithful Kingdom living. During this process, specific guidance can come in many ways: from the Lord himself, a vision, a messenger (heavenly or otherwise), brotherly counsel by either congregations or individuals, or merely through circumstance and opportunity.
Our job is simply to follow the instructions we already understand, remaining alert to more specific guidance through any of these sources.

May we do so faithfully!

Many a faithful follower of Jesus has agonized over the concept of “God’s calling” on his life. This concern is exacerbated by the common declaration, “God has a wonderful plan for your life!” which is too frequently followed by threats about the dire consequences of an individual’s failure to find and follow a hypothetical, predetermined outline in precise detail. “Missing one’s calling” is a pervasive fear among many sincerely devoted disciples. This is another case where a careful survey of New Testament teaching provides both challenge and comfort.

There are seventeen different Greek words that traditional translators have occasionally rendered “call.” Seven of these refer exclusively to “naming” a person or place, or describing its characteristics. Five are simply summoning a person, or gathering a group, and one, epikaleo, describes appealing to or calling upon either God or some person in authority. Only four – and these not exclusively – are used concerning a call from God.
Kaleo (and its passive form, kaleomai), classically, was quite broad. Liddell/Scott lists “to call or summon, to invite to one’s home, to summon to court, to demand or require, or to call by name.”
Klesis, the noun form, could be simply one’s name or reputation, but also a summons, an invitation, or an invocation. L/S notes that only in the NT is it used as a “religious calling”, and in most instances, that is open to interpretation.
Kletos, the participle or adjective, refers to “anyone or anything that is invited, welcomed, called, or chosen.”
We will confine this study to the minority of references that are specifically designated as relating to God.

One of the most common references is to the Lord’s gracious invitation to join his Kingdom. Almost exclusively addressed in the plural, it nevertheless deals with one’s initial conversion. Rom.9:24,25 reminds us that this call extends equally to Jew and Gentile; and a lengthy section of I Cor.7:15-20, as well as I Cor.1:26, stresses that it reaches across all social barriers, the effects of which are summarily erased by that supreme commitment. Peter’s Pentecost sermon also opens the promise to “you, and your children, and those who are far off, whoever the Lord shall call” (Ac.2:39). Rom.1:6 includes “all who belong to Jesus”, and I Cor.1:9 speaks of being “called into (eis) the community [fellowship]” of God’s Son.

Other references highlight the expected effects of that calling:
Gal.5:13 – We are called into a liberty that excludes both bondage to the Law and the excesses of licentiousness.
Col.3:15 – As God’s chosen people, we are called in one Body, to peace (this statement follows a detailed description of the resultant life).
Heb.9:15 – By the provision of the New Covenant, which the writer compares to a duly executed will, the “called” receive a promised inheritance.
I Pet.3:9 – We are “called” to return blessing for cursing, and I Pet.2:21 – to endure patiently whatever suffering results from deliberately following Jesus’ example.
Those who are “called” simply see things differently (I Cor.1:24): they operate in a different sphere (Eph.4:1), with different standards. The life of those who are “called” is one of constant effort toward the goal of conformity to the image of the Lord Jesus (Phil.3:14), continually urged on to greater faithfulness (II Thess.1:11), taking care to become “neither lazy nor unfruitful” in the Kingdom (II Pet. 1:10).

It may surprise you to discover that in only 5 instances are any of the “called/calling” words applied to a single individual! Notice, please, that this count does not include Rom.1:1 and 1:7, or I Cor.1:1 and 1:2, where there is no verb in the text. Translators completely violated the meaning of those phrases when they inserted “to be” in each case, when the grammar of the text simply indicates naming – “called an apostle” and “called [saints] God’s people.”
The only places where a “call” is directed to a single individual are:
Heb.11:8 – Abraham was “called to go out”, and he obeyed.
Ac.13:2 – The Holy Spirit instructed the group at Antioch to send Paul and Barnabas out “for the job to which I’ve called [assigned] them.”
Ac.16:10 – After being “forbidden” to go several different places, and experiencing a vision, Paul and his companions “concluded that God had called us” to Macedonia.
Gal.1:15 – Paul recognizes that it was God’s call that halted his career of persecuting the church.
I Tim.6:12 – Paul urges his young apprentice to “grab hold of the eternal life (see W.S.#28) to which you were called.”

So yes: specific, individual “calling” does happen: but it is by no means the norm. Clearly, there are also other instances of specific instructions being given to individuals; but they are not labeled “calling” in the New Testament. We will look at some of these in the next post.    Please also see W.S. #12, “God’s will”.

But meanwhile, be encouraged! Your “calling” is to live faithfully as a citizen of Jesus’ kingdom!
I Pet.2:9 – He has “called you all out of darkness, into his amazing light!”
I Thess.5:24 – “The one who is calling you is faithful!” and will enable us to live faithfully (v.23).
Rom.8:28 – “We know, then, that for those who keep on loving God, he keeps working everything together for good, for those who are being called according to his plan.”
II Tim.1:9 – “He delivered us, and called us with a holy calling … before time began!”

Eph.1:18 – “(I pray that) the eyes of your hearts may be flooded with light, so that you may know the confident expectation [hope] (that proceeds from) his calling!
If you are committed to Jesus’ Kingdom, and to faithfulness to him as King, you have not “missed your calling”! We just need to learn to follow instructions.
And as we saw in the last two posts, we have an excellent teacher for that effort.
Thanks be to God!

Correcting some Misunderstandings

Jesus told Nicodemus (Jn.3:8), “The spirit [wind] blows where he [it] wishes; you hear his[its] voice [sound], but you don’t know where he [it] comes from and where he [it] is going.” So it should come as no surprise that some confusion should arise about the Spirit’s activity. Why else would John, later, as an old man, have deemed it necessary to give such careful instructions about discerning the provenance of things attributed to “the spirit” (I Jn.4:1-6)? There is no true spirit from God that does not acknowledge the Lord Jesus! This is the acid test.

With this in view, we will first consider several aspects of the Spirit’s assignment that Jesus himself introduced. In Jn.14:16, Jesus refers to the Spirit of Truth as a parakletos, which, unfortunately, was traditionally translated “comforter”, conjuring up the image of a fuzzy, “security-blankie” that will “make everything ok.” This is NOT what Jesus, (who, please remember, was soon to suffer torture and death), had in mind.  (See #138 for a more detailed treatment.)
The verb, parakaleo, from which the term is derived, refers to “calling or summoning a friend for support in a trial; to exhort or encourage; to demand or require; to intercede;” as well as “to comfort or console.” The noun, then, must refer to anyone so summoned. Parakaleo is worthy of a word-study on its own – which exercise I commend to you. After an exhaustive review of its more than 100 New Testament uses, one student remarked, “That sounds like my basketball coach!” He explained that the best coach for any sports team has an excellent knowledge of how the game should be played, and also knows his players. He trains them carefully, sometimes with a hug, and sometimes with a kick in the pants, whichever is appropriate for the the occasion! That has been one of my favorite images of the job of the Holy Spirit ever since. The Christian life is not about “how I feel”, or “where I end up.” It’s about learning to play faithfully and well, on the winning team!

The same passage contains the promise (v.17), “He is staying beside you, and will be en [in, among] you all.” The English translation, lacking a plural form of the word “you,” (see the introduction to The Pioneers’ New Testament, and W.S. #142), has led to a very privatistic interpretation of the “indwelling Holy Spirit,” completely ignoring the fact that in both cases, the “you” is plural. The same thing is true of Paul’s statement in I Cor.3:16, 17, and even more vividly in I Cor.6:19, where “body” is singular, but “your” is plural. This very likely indicates that the reference is to the composite Body of Christ, as much if not more than to an individual’s physical body. If the individual members of a group are intended, a different form, hekastos humon (each one of you) is used. Were we properly to appreciate the primacy of the Body of believers, as described in the New Testament (and chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom), I think we would have fewer problems with people claiming private “revelations” and going off on tangents. This is why I prefer the translation “among” to “in,” when the object is plural.

John’s report of Jesus’ discourse, continued in chapter 16, includes two more misused passages. We are frequently told that the Holy Spirit’s job is to “convict us of “sin.” Are you aware that Jesus never said that? Look carefully at v.8. “The world” is the object of that sentence. And Jesus goes on to say that it is because they are not faithful to him! Far too many sincere, but very mistaken people, take upon themselves the job of trying to “convict the world” – which is the Holy Spirit’s responsibility – and berate their fellow “believers” if the Holy Spirit hasn’t made them feel sufficiently “sinful”! (Please see Word Studies # 6, 7, and 121 for more on this subject.) This part of the Spirit’s work does NOT apply to those who are seeking to follow Jesus, but to the uncommitted.

His work with respect to faithful disciples is outlined in 16:13-15. Here, it is the preposition that is misunderstood. He is to lead us “in (en) all truth(fulness).” En has no directional implications. It has a dative (static) object. Please see #182 for more detail on this distinction.The directional kind of “in” [into] is represented by eis, which requires an accusative object. Jesus is talking to people who are already committed to him, who are already “in the truth” (and we have seen that Jesus himself is equated with that truth (W.S.#26). The rest of the paragraph presents the “course syllabus” for the Spirit’s teaching. “Signing up” is the beginning, not the end. There is much for the believer to learn.

Finally, consider the many accounts recorded in Acts of disciples being “filled with the Holy Spirit.” to put to rest once and for all the arguments about whether this is a single occurrence at conversion, or if it happens with baptism, or at some subsequent time. The evidence leads to the choice “all of the above” – and more! It should be obvious that at least some of the group “filled” at the prayer meeting described in Ac.4:8 had also been present at Pentecost. Had they been “missed” the first time? I don’t think so. They needed help with another challenge. For the folks in Samaria (Ac.8) it was subsequent to their conversion and baptism. For Cornelius and his group, it was before they had been baptized. In Ephesus, Paul apparently sensed something missing, and the gift came even later (Ac.19). Peter and Stephen both seem to have received an extra “booster shot” several times when needed.

It is past time for God’s people to stop trying to program the Holy Spirit to fit their theological or denominational agendas, and welcome him whenever, wherever, and however he shows up! And the more the better! We’ve been graciously given instructions for recognizing him when he comes, and for avoiding the counterfeits that are still rampant in our world.
Jesus has triumphed, but his team still needs coaching, until the final “whistle.” He has provided a “Coach” who knows the game plan very well.

(Did you know the “game” even has an umpire? The only use of brabeuo (classically, “to judge or act as umpire”) in the New Testament, is in Col.3:15: it is the “peace of Christ” that holds that position among his people!)

Our job is to learn from the Coach – welcome the rulings of the Umpire – and give all our energy to the game!

All glory and honor to King Jesus!