The Pioneers’ New Testament

Let’s begin this one by understanding what “elders” are NOT. Nowhere in the New Testament are “elders” represented as members of a rotating, democratically elected committee, demographically varied in proportion to its congregation, and commissioned to direct the affairs (either “temporal” or “spiritual”) of the group, and to hire or fire its “leadership.”  Neither are they scrubbed and eager young men fulfilling a “mission” requirement!

Elders – presbutes – are, most basically, (are you ready for this?) “old people”!
“Elder” is a term of respect: the respect accruing from age and experience!
The term was applied to ambassadors, because it was elder, experienced statesmen who served in that capacity. A “council of elders” often directed the affairs of a city or state.
The elders in the New Testament church, likewise, had to have been older folks: in letters to both Timothy and Titus (I Tim.3:4-5 and Titus 1:6), Paul lists among their qualifications, “Look how their kids turned out!” to see if they were capable of proper leadership.

In the Gospel narratives, and through Acts 6, “elders” referred to the ruling council of the Jews, or, more generically, to their ancestors (“the traditions of the elders” Mk.7:3). Until this point, and occasionally thereafter, they are represented as antagonistic to Jesus and his message, and viewed as powerful adversaries.
Beginning in Ac.11:30, however, “elders” are mentioned in leadership roles in the church. They are always spoken of in the plural, and share advisory duties with the apostles (Ac.15), but interestingly, not one of them is ever individually named. Notice also that their duties were not at all dictatorial: the decision reached in Ac.15:22 was made by “the apostles and elders and the whole church”, although the resulting letter was authored by “the apostles and elders” (v.23).
In each city where a new fellowship formed, the founding apostles “appointed elders (plural) for them in every church” (Ac.14:23). Although the participle cheirotonesantes was used in the ancient Greek democracies (5^th and 6^th centuries BC) of elections by raised hands (the literal meaning of the word), by the first century it was used of any appointment or assignment. In neither case was a permanent position or title conferred.
Paul uses the same word to refer to his own work (II Cor.5:20) – traditionally translated “ambassador”, as it is in Eph.6:20, although there is no apparent reason for the change. It is the same word.

The most specific information we have about elders in the New Testament comes from Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus. Timothy, a young man who seems to have served a kind of apprenticeship with Paul (Ac.16), and later was sent as Paul’s deputy into a number of difficult situations, is reminded that while his youth should not inhibit the contribution he can make to the brotherhood, (I Tim.4:12), he must be careful to treat local elders – both men and women (5:1-2) – with deference and respect – even, or perhaps especially, when correction is needed.
It is interesting, and should be instructive, that the qualifications detailed in I Tim.3:1-7 for “oversight” – episkopes – (the English term “bishop”, used 4 times, doubtless derived from the 16-17^th century clerical structure, not from the lexical meaning of the word) – are identical to the qualifications posted to Titus (1:5-10) for the “elders” – presbuterous – that he was to establish in the congregations of Crete. Oversight is mentioned there also in 1:7. Cross-check the two lists. The order varies, but they match.
This parallel, as well as the use of the same terms in Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders (Ac.20:17-38), “Watch out for yourselves, and for all the flock in which the Holy Spirit set you as overseers (episkopous, to shepherd (poimainein) the church of God,” indicates clearly that “oversight”and “shepherding” are simply two of the tasks entrusted to the elders of a group. They are not titles, or separate assignments to separate individuals.
L/S lists the lexical definitions of episkopes as: an overseer, guardian, tutor, supervisor, or inspector. It appears only five times in the entire New Testament, and its derivative terms a total of six. The verb form, episkopeo, in I Pet.5:2, also addressed to “elders”, similarly includes an admonition to “tend” or shepherd the flock (poimanate).

This brings us to another task of the elders: “shepherding.” Jesus himself of course, is “exhibit A” of a “shepherd”, by his own testimony (Jn.10). In fact, well over half the references are to Jesus (9 out of 16). After his resurrection, Jesus assigned this task to Peter (Jn.21:6). Peter himself, having learned by sometimes hard experience, described what is necessary for faithful shepherding (I Pet.5:2-5).
How this pattern of self-giving care, “shepherding”, on the part of plural elders, morphed into the image of a singular “pastor” as an employee, or a corporate CEO, is a tragic puzzle.
L/S defines poimaino, in virtually all references after Homer, as “to herd or tend flocks, or, in the case of people, to tend and cherish, guide and govern.” Four of the references appear in the Revelation, representing Jesus’ continuing care for his people (2:27, 7:17, 12:15, 19:15). Poimaino‘s appearance with the Old Testament image of a “rod” in the hand of the shepherd, (since we know who the Shepherd is), should convey a sense of security and protection from harm, rather than the threat with which it is so often associated.
Only once in traditional translations is poimen rendered “pastor” (the Latin-derived word), and that is in Eph.4:11, which translators and commentators have mistakenly represented as members of their accustomed organizational hierarchy, and therefore employed the labels of that system. I consider the listing to be chronological rather than hierarchical, with gifted persons being supplied by the Holy Spirit to the group as they are needed. Please notice that here also, all the terms are plural.

They all describe the function of the elders – always plural, and of both genders (see I Tim.5:2 and Titus 2:2-5) – in each congregation. Their characteristics and duties include:
Ac.15 – mediating conflicts
I Tim.3:2-7 – exemplary personal and family life
I Tim.3:7 – faithfully represent the church to outsiders
I Tim.4:14 – conferring responsibility upon younger members
Titus 1:9 – able to teach the Word, and refute opponents
James 5:14 – praying for the sick/weak
I Peter 5:1-5 – no status-tripping! Set an example; not working for profit.
There is much speculation, and little solid information about the passage in I Timothy 5:9-15 regarding the support of elderly (over 60) widows. Some think it may have been a sort of an order; but considering the qualifications listed – good deeds, having raised children, welcomed strangers, relieved suffering, washed the saints’ feet – it may have been simply to support them, after the death of their husbands, so that they could continue this same sort of service.

Comparing these assorted duties to Paul’s description of his own activity (Ac.20:17-38), may lead one to conclude that elders are simply charged with responsibilities on the local level, similar to those required of apostles in their more itinerant work: “for the purpose of equipping God’s people to do work of service, and to build up the Body of Christ, until we all arrive into the unity of faithfulness, and of intimate acquaintance with the Son of God: (that is) into mature adulthood – into a measure of the maturity (whose source is) the completeness of Christ!” (Eph.4:12-13)
A worthy goal for any of the faithful!

This will be the first of a series of postings dealing with the various functions, frequently mistakenly labeled “offices”, served by different folks at different times in the New Testament church. They were simply jobs that needed to be done, for which the Lord, by the Holy Spirit, assigned responsibility “as he pleased.” A good introduction to the subject would be for you to review chapters 6, 7, and 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom, which deal with a distinctly different approach to “leadership” in the New Testament church from the one that is common in the 20-21^st century corporate structures that carry the name of “churches.”
Notice from the outset, that except when referring to a specific, named individual, every function is plural. Notice also that different people appear to have served different functions at different times. This should make it clear that IN NO CASE was any of these viewed as a lifetime position, assignment, title, office, or rank. Remember that Jesus himself had strictly forbidden that (Mt.23:1-12).
I choose to deal with these functions in alphabetical order, in order to avoid any appearance of hierarchical classification.

We will begin with apostles: generally the first persons from whom a new group would have heard about the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom.
Apostolos is one of those words that, through the centuries, has acquired a somewhat mystical aura that never existed in its linguistic etymology. Classically, it referred to anyone sent anywhere for any purpose! This could be the ambassador or envoy of some royal personage, the commander of a military (usually naval) force, an export license for a business, or a slave sent on an errand. The verb, apostello, was similarly inclusive: simply, “to send.” In the New Testament, it was used of everything from Jesus “sending” the Holy Spirit, to his promise to return [“send back”] the donkey he borrowed on Palm Sunday! (So much for “status”!)

The synoptic gospels refer to the 12 original disciples as “apostles”, usually in the context of Jesus’ sending them out as his representatives. “Ambassadors” or “envoys” would be a logical choice here, given that the burden of Jesus’ message concerned the Kingdom he had come to establish (See word studies 19, 20, and 21.) This may have been the thought behind Peter’s eagerness (note that this was his own idea, before Pentecost) to replace Judas as a “witness to Jesus’ resurrection.” The group took this action on their own: Jesus had told them simply to wait for the Holy Spirit. And while they were not scolded for the choice of Matthias as an “apostle”, we never hear of him again.

As the church took root and grew, understandably, the experience of the men who had spent those three years walking and working with Jesus was respected. After all, they had “been there, done that.” But it was not long before the work – and the authority – needed to be shared more widely. Some of the original 12 may have filled multiple roles: we do not know, for example, if the “Philip” chosen as a “deacon” in Ac.6 (see previous post), the “apostle” of that name (Mt.10:3, Jn.14), and the “evangelist” who went first to Samaria and then to Gaza (Ac.8), are the same person, or two, or three. It was not an uncommon name. “Elders” (see next post) shared the mediator role with “apostles” at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15), and Paul and Barnabas (Ac.13:3), Judas and Silas (Ac.15:27 and 32) are also included with that label in Luke’s account. In various epistles, Paul adds Andronicus and Junia (Rom.16:7), Epaphroditus (Phil.2:25), Titus and other brethren (II Cor.8:23), and Tychicus (II Tim.4:12). The same word is applied to all, though translators reluctant to use “apostle” for any but those traditionally so labeled have changed it to “messenger” in some cases.

So – what makes a person an “apostle”? Paul speaks of a number of things which he labels “signs of an apostle”: endurance, signs and wonders [demonstrations of the power of God] (II Cor.12:12), having seen Jesus, and the conversion of a brotherhood (I Cor.9:1-2), Jesus’ appearance to him despite his former career as a persecutor (I Cor.15:7-9), and his (Paul’s) choice neither to flatter nor dominate them, his self-giving and self-support. He notes in I Cor.9:5-13 that as an apostle, he had a right to take along a wife on his travels as Peter and the others did, and to expect support, but he deliberately failed to claim those rights, as evidence that he was not working for his own gain. He had some rather caustic things to say about “false apostles” who had no such scruples (II Cor.11:5-13.)

Apostles, one of God’s gifts to the church (Eph.4:11), are usually itinerant, but they are not independent or free-lancers! Notice how Peter (Ac.10), following the explicit instructions of the Spirit in his visit to Cornelius, nevertheless took along other brethren as witnesses (10:23 and 11:2), and carefully reported back to the others in Jerusalem. Likewise, Paul and Barnabas (Ac.12:25 and 14:26) and later Paul and Silas (18:22) reported back to the church at Antioch, from which they had been sent out. Paul writes in Gal.2:7-9 about his own checking out of his message and activity with those who had served as apostles for longer than he.

The work of an apostle is likewise quite varied. It includes evangelizing (the many “missionary journeys”), strengthening and encouraging the young congregations (Ac.14:22, 16:40, 18:11, 20:1), correcting errors (Galatians and Corinthians), teaching (Ac.15:35, 18:11, Timothy and Titus), and moderating/mediating disputes (Ac.15, and much of both Corinthian letters).
Perhaps the best description of the work of a faithful apostle can be found in Paul’s farewell to the Ephesian elders (Ac.20:17-35). He reminds them of his behavior among them: refraining from pulling rank, teaching publicly and in homes, completing his assignment from the Lord Jesus to bear testimony to the grace of God, urging them to conform their lives to God’s plan, and setting an example of doing honest work in order to care for the weak.
It is hard to read such a statement, and then accept the ideas advanced by those who insist that there is no longer any need for apostles! There is no such nonsense in the New Testament! Faithful apostolic teaching will continue to be needed until the Lord comes!

Even Jesus himself is called an “apostle” (Heb.3:1), and he spoke often of having been “sent” by the Father with an assignment to fulfill. This is sprinkled like a refrain throughout the gospel of John. Paul, in most of his letters, describes his task as having been “sent by Jesus, according to the will of God.” Others were chosen and sent by the Holy Spirit through the agency of a gathered congregation.
When was the last time you enjoyed a prayer meeting like the one described in Ac.13:1-3? Dare we assume that the Spirit has not spoken, just because we have not heard him? Or must we admit that maybe we just weren’t listening?
We impoverish ourselves if we refuse to continue that pattern.

The handling of the verb diakoneo, with its accompanying noun forms, diakonia and diakonos, provides a vivid illustration of how far the contemporary church has departed from the New Testament pattern, and from the clear instructions of Jesus.
Classically, this family of words referred to any kind of service, the person who performed such service (Thayer summarizes quite well, “to attend to anything that may serve another’s interest”), or the care or support thus rendered. It was actually a very simple idea, even when broadened to include the giving, acceptance, or fulfillment of some specific assignment.

Jesus employed this concept in speaking of his own purpose, “not to be waited-on, but to serve” (Mt.20:28), and in expressing his expectation that his followers should display a similar attitude (Mt.23:11 and parallel in Mk.9:35), giving them the example (although the word is not used on that occasion) by washing their feet (Jn.13). Please refer to chapter 11 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a fuller exploration of this event.
In parables and narratives, diakoneo is frequently used of preparing and serving a meal (Lk.10:40, 12:37, 17:8; Jn.12:2, Mt.8:15, and Mk.1:31), or of a more generalized looking-after-needs (Mt.27:55, Mk.15:41, Lk.8:3, Phm.13), and the relief-offering sent by the Gentile churches to their Judean brethren (Rom.15:25, 15:31; II Cor.9:12, 8:19-20).

Whence, then, came the lofty, nearly-untouchable idea of “ministry/ministers” as members of an institutional, clerical hierarchy, quite set-apart from a disenfranchised “laity” (a word created from laos, “people”, though with the usually unspoken demeaning modifier, “common” or “ordinary.”) Certainly not from Jesus, who flatly forbade titles or elevated positions, reminding us that we are “all brethren” (Mt.23:11-12). See chapter 6 of Citizens of the Kingdom.

I strongly suspect that these varied and distorted translations (which, after all, date only from the 17^th century) are the artifacts of the hierarchical patterns that had developed in the institutional churches of the intervening centuries, for they certainly do not occur in the text. Of course this is not the only place where it has become a common practice to alter the text to match one’s “doctrine”, rather than the more faithful reverse process!

Notice the irony that it is the same word which Jesus used of his own purpose to serve, and to urge his followers to offer each other even the most menial of service, that has been wielded as a weapon to demand superior status and/or authority! In the first century, the meaning folks “heard” from the use of diakoneo was simple, selfless service. This was the behavior expected of every faithful follower. In fact, all of the other, more specialized assignments enumerated in Eph.4:12 are specifically said to be for the purpose of enabling that service!

Official positions of course were not unknown in the first century: but they were represented by different words: leitourgia/leitourgos (“to serve in public office; to perform public duties for either the state or the gods”) – notice the English cognate, “liturgy”– and huperetes (“an officer or agent of a government or hierarchy; the rendering of military service, or to serve any entity in a subordinate role: an assistant.”) These appear rarely in the New Testament; the former often referring to the Jewish legal hierarchy or priesthood, the latter when John Mark traveled with Paul and Barnabas as an assistant (perhaps in a sort of apprenticeship).

It is instructive to note the individuals to whom Paul applies the term diakonos. They include Timothy and Erastus (Ac.19:22), all those traveling with him to carry the relief offering to Judea (II Cor.3:3), Onesiphorus (II Tim.1:18), Onesimus (Phm.13), Tychicus (Eph.6:21 and Col.4:7), Epaphras (Col.1:17), Stephen’s household (I Cor.16:15), Archippus (Col.4:17), and Phoebe (Rom.16:1). He labels them ALL with the same word he applies to himself!
Interestingly, it is only Phoebe who is described with an additional title: Paul speaks of her as a prostatis – which L/S defines as “a presiding officer, guardian, patron, or protector” – and says that she has filled that position for him and for many others! We have no clue what that position entailed, or whether it was civil or religious. This is the only use of that word in the New Testament. It is in addition to the more common role of diakonos, (which is here used with a feminine article) in the church at Cenchrea. Traditional translators, bound by their definitions of “ministers”, could not bring themselves to use the word here, but substituted “servant” – a perfectly good translation, if it were not used as if the meaning were different.

Only five times (out of 30) is diakonos traditionally translated “deacon”, and interpreted as if it were an official title. Four of those are in I Tim.3:8, 10, 12, 13, where qualifications are listed. Nowhere in this passage is there any word indicating an “official position” (see above). Look again at the context: Should this not describe any faithful follower of the Lord Jesus?
Similar qualifications are applied to both men and women: Note that it is a cultural decision, not a linguistic or semantic one, to translate gune as “wife” rather that simply “woman” (both are correct). Other references that specifically connect women with diakoneo and its related words are Mk.8:15 (Peter’s mother-in-law), Mt.27:55 (the women who supported Jesus and his disciples in their travels, and Lk.10:40 and Jn.12:2 (Mary and Martha).

Paul also frequently uses diakonia to refer to an assignment that he was given: (1) to carry the news of Jesus’ Kingdom (Ac.12:25, 20:24, 21:19; II Cor.5:18), (2) to deliver the relief offering to Jerusalem (II Cor.4:1), or similar assignments given to others (Col.4:17 and I Tim.4:6). Perhaps “assignment” or “a task assigned by the Lord” would sometimes be a better translation. Such assignments may vary with the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

The recipients of our service may also vary: they may reach as far as the “outside world” (Ac.21:19, II Cor.5:18), or be directed specifically toward the brethren (I Pet.4:10-11, I Cor.12:5, Col.1:25), or toward anyone in need (II Cor.8:19-20, 9:12; Mt.25:44, Rom.5:25). Ultimately, it is all service to the Lord Jesus (II Cor.3:3, Col.4:7, I Tim 4:6, 1:12).

“There are different kinds of service (diakonion) but the same Lord; and there are differing jobs to do (energematon), but the same God who does all the work (energon).” I Cor.12:5-6

There is no better or more accurate conclusion than I Pet.3:10:
“Just as each one has received a spiritual gift [empowerment], SERVE EACH OTHER WITH IT, as good trustees of the many-faceted grace of God,”
determined, with our brother Paul, to “complete (our) race, and the assignment (we) received from the Lord Jesus” (Ac.20:24).
This is the essence of diakonia: ministry/service.

The long-standing “faith vs. works” controversy is a vivid example of the compounded error that results from misunderstood vocabulary and manipulated “proof-texts”. Any consideration of this subject must include the discussion of “faith/faithfulness” in Word Study #1, which you should review before going any farther.

Several different Greek words have been translated by the English “work/works”. The concept itself is really quite simple: someone is doing something. Classical uses of ergon include heroic or noble deeds (Homer), one’s business or profession, anything done or made (Xenophon), or action as opposed to mere words or argument. Lesser-used, similar words include praxis (business or moral action), and pragma (matters or affairs).
The verb forms, primarily ergazomai (used 28 x in the NT) usually referring to one’s employment, katergazomai(14 x) to earn, achieve, or conquer, and energeo (7 x) to be active or effective, do not seem to have attracted as much “theological combat.” Perhaps they are so obvious that twisting the meaning is more difficult!

Actually, there is very little New Testament basis for all the fuss. Jesus plainly expected of his followers behavior that would allow people to “see your good works and glorify your Father” (Mt.5:16) , and he offered his own “work” as evidence of his identity (Jn.5:36, 10:25, 10:32-38, 14:10-12). He challenged some half-hearted adherents, “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord”, and not do what I say?” (Lk.6:46)
“Work” (ergon) frequently refers to a specific assignment, either for Jesus himself (Jn.17:4) or someone else (Ac.13:2, 14:26), or for the tasks assigned to servants (Mk.13:34). It may refer to Jesus’ miraculous healings (Mt.11:2, Jn.9:3,4), and Paul describes the content of his message (Ac.26:20) as “preaching a changed life* and turning back to God, practicing deeds [works] worthy of a changed life”*. (*see Word Study #6 on “repentance”)

When people who ought to know better respond to an admonition like Paul’s to Titus (3:8) that “those who have become faithful to God (should) be careful to keep practicing good deeds” (traditionally, “to maintain good works”), with a horrified accusation of “That’s works-salvation!” as if they were confronting the prince of evil himself, it would be comical if it weren’t so tragic – even pathetic.
Although in no case is “work” represented as the cause of one’s identification with Jesus, it is consistently expected to be the result of that relationship. Please refer to Rom.13:12, I Cor.15:58, Eph.2:9-10, Col.1:10, II Thes.1:11, I Tim.2:10, 5:10, 6:18, and many other similar statements.
God’s gift of various service-ministries in the Body of his people (Eph.4:11-12) is clearly explained to be for the purpose of (pros) “equipping God’s people (eis) to do the work of service”; and even the very creation of that Body is for the purpose (epi) of the “good deeds [works] which God already prepared, so that (hina) we could live [walk] in them” (Eph.2:10). Every one of these is expressed in a purpose construction.

Face it, folks: everyone is continuously doing “works” of some sort: as we have seen, the word refers to “anything that is done or made”! The only question is the choice of the model, or arbiter, of these “works.” Jesus chose to do the “works” of his Father (Jn.5:36), and bluntly pointed out the source (8:39-41) of his opponents’ behavior. Committed followers of the Lord Jesus are continually admonished to display “works” worthy of their new calling (Ac.26:20, Rom.13:13, and others as noted above). The reputation of our King is on the line, as we interact as his representatives in his world.

I suspect that one reason for the misunderstanding with which Paul and James are contending in Romans 4 and James 2, was the prevalent Jewish attitude toward their Law (see the previous 2 postings.) They do not contradict each other! Both apostles make the point that observance of the minutiae of the Law (“the works of the Law”) has nothing to do with genuine faithfulness to the person, Jesus Christ. But both are equally adamant that one’s behavior constitutes irrefutable evidence of to whose Kingdom he belongs.

Don’t forget that when Jesus spoke of judgment (see word studies 9 and 10) in Mt.25 and Lk.16, he said not a word about what the several individuals “believed”, or to what intricacies of “doctrine” or dogma they may have subscribed. His focus was entirely upon their behavior, specifically their treatment of people in need. Their behavior revealed – it did not create or determine – their allegiance (or, if you prefer, their “spiritual status.”  The same idea is obvious in the interview with Zacchaeus (Lk.19:1-10), where Jesus declared, “Today salvation [deliverance] has come to this house”  in response to his declaration of restitution to those he had been cheating.  No one asked what Zacchaeus “believed.”
Likewise, all the similar passages in Revelation – 18:6, 20:12, 20:13, 22:12 – speak of “giving to (each one) according to his/her/their works/deeds.” Paul wrote to Titus of  people who “claim to know God, but deny him by what they do” (1:16). Jesus begins six of the seven messages to the churches (Rev.2 and 3) with “I know your works”, and gives them instructions on how to straighten up.

There is no legitimate distinction or conflict between “faith/faithfulness” and “works/behavior.”
A much healthier focus would be patterned after the report of the onlookers at Pentecost (Ac.2:11), who spoke of how the newly Spirit-baptized brethren were proclaiming the wonderful works of God! That same refrain echoes around his throne (Rev.15:3) as everyone celebrates his marvelous works and triumphant justice! We have the promise (Heb.13:21/ that “he will establish you all, in everything good, for doing his will!” There is only one appropriate response: “And everything – whatever you do – in word or deed – do everything in the name (W.S. #24) of the Lord Jesus, continually giving thanks to God the Father through him!”
That is the “work” of a lifetime – and more!

Throughout the book of Acts, a refrain recurs persistently: Stephen (6:13) and Paul (18:13, 8:15, and 21:28) are both accused of “teaching things contrary to the law.” Even Jewish converts (15:5, 21:20), as unaware as many well-meaning people today that a new Kingdom has been established, argued fiercely that Gentile converts must be forced into a Jewish mold. Appearing to be “devout according to the law” (22:12, 21:24, 22:3) was taken as a compliment. The keeping of the law was not discouraged; neither was the observance of legitimate civil law. Both were respected (religious law – 13:15, 24:14, 25:8, 28:23; and civil – 19:37-40), and the justice required by both was requested (23:3, 25:11). Nevertheless, something new was in the air.

Speaking of Jesus’ resurrection, Paul’s message (13:39) was, “In this man (Jesus), everyone who is faithful is made just from all those things that the Law of Moses couldn’t make right!”
The rest of the New Testament could be said to consist of elaborating upon that one glorious piece of news: Jesus has done what no one else could do!

I was surprised to discover that the law is not mentioned at all in Mark’s gospel, in Paul’s letters to Corinth (II), Colossae, Philemon, Thessalonica (I and II), Timothy (II), and Titus, either of Peter’s letters, those of John and Jude, or the Revelation!
Of course, Paul manages to make up for it in his letter to the Romans (and you thought laws today were complicated??!). In many cases scattered through Romans, it is unclear whether Paul is referring to civil or religious law. Try reading it both ways, realizing that nomos can refer to either. Some places, of course, it is clear, when he speaks of Jewish convention. But perhaps some of this ambiguity is deliberate, since one of the main points (3:19-20) is that no one is able to keep any law perfectly. Notice, he is not saying that law (civil or religious) causes violations: it rather reveals them.
The remedy (3:22) is the faithfulness OF the Lord Jesus. Please notice the genitive case here (refer to the grammatical appendix to Translation Notes.) A genitive form indicates primarily possession, and may also designate a source. The “standard” translation, “faith IN Christ”, cannot possibly be correct, as that would require a dative case (or a preposition with the accusative). It is Jesus‘ faithfulness upon which we may depend!
Both the death/resurrection figure of baptism (chapter 6) and that of marriage laws (chapter 7) are closing in on the same concept: a completely new life, as the gracious gift of God, in identification with Jesus’ resurrection! (8:3) “For what could not possibly come from the law, in its weakness because of human nature, God (created, by) sending his own Son.”

Paul devotes much of his letter to the Galatians to the same theme: the futility of achieving faithfulness by adherence to the law. He concludes both arguments the same way: (Gal.5:14, Rom.13:8). The fulfillment of the law, is simply to live in love for one’s neighbor – an echo of Jesus’ own summary (Mt.7:12, Lk.10:26, Mt.22:36).
In the Ephesian letter, another element is added (2:15), “He (Jesus) eliminated the law of commands and decrees, in order that he might create (Jew and Gentile) into one person, thus making peace!”
In Philippians, Paul summarily renounces the privilege and prerogatives of his own “pedigree” with respect to the law (chapter 3), in favor of identification with Christ.

The clearest treatment of all comes in the letter to the Hebrews, which is almost entirely devoted to the superiority of Jesus to everyone and everything that had gone before. The futility and failure of the old system is methodically laid bare, and summarized (7:18-19) “the previous commandment [instruction] is set aside, because of its weakness and uselessness – for the law didn’t make anything [or, anyone] complete, but a better hope is introduced, through which we come near to God!”
Chapter 8 speaks of Jesus mediating “a superior covenant, which is established upon superior promises” (v.6), and, referring to the old prophecy of a “new covenant” (8:13), “in saying “new”, he has made the first “old”, and what has become old and been superseded, is near to disappearing!”

Heb.10:1: “The law had only a shadow of the good things that were coming, not the real thing!” That the writer may have been exposed to Plato’s ideas of “shadows” and “forms” does not impugn the integrity of the message. It is simply a useful way of making the point. A “shadow” is ok, as long as it leads one to the reality (Jesus) that has cast the shadow.
“He (Jesus) is taking away the first, in order to establish the second!” (10:9)

The writer then concludes the argument (10:19-25) with a confident summary of the complete solution for all the problems and inadequacies of the old ways: There is no longer a “veil” between God and his people (please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom), as Jesus has provided for us complete freedom of access (19). He himself is the only “priest” (mediator) that we need (21).
This provides the grounds for the brotherly admonition:
(22) “Let’s approach him with a true heart, in abundant confidence [complete faithfulness].”
(23) “Let’s hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation – for the one who made the promise is faithful!”
(24) “Let’s concentrate on prodding each other, with love, and good deeds” – no longer the rigid requirements of an unbending law, but the joyful response of our hearts to the King’s glorious invitation to share his own life!
(25) “Let’s don’t neglect getting together … but keep on coaching each other, more and more…!”

The rest of the letter, recognizing the seriousness of faithfulness, continues in the vein of encouragement to constancy. Faithfulness is no effortless “trip to glory”. But “The one who made the promise is faithful”, and it is his faithfulness upon which we may depend, from which we may learn, and which, by constant, deliberate exposure, we may absorb!
“The law (that comes from) the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, (definitively) set you all free from the law (that comes from) failure and death!” (Rom.8:2)

Thanks be to God!

Ever since the first Council of the first century Christian church (Acts 15), faithful followers of Jesus have differed in their attitudes toward “the Law”. Some of them point to “verses” by which they demand adherence to the entire Old Testament system, and others resist any standard of conduct whatsoever. There is also a broad spectrum in between those positions. Can we find any coherent pattern in the New Testament? Possibly not; but careful examination can yield helpful principles.

“Law” – nomos – was used, classically, both of established civil or religious codes, and the habitual custom of a group. Aristotle used it of his natural observations, and several centuries earlier, Alcman had applied it to the music used to accompany recitations of epic texts. (L/S)*
Bauer* notes that early writers applied the term to instructions purportedly received from Zeus, Hermes, or Apollo; and therefore the word was naturally adopted in the LXX to refer to the principles codified by Moses. “Since the law and its observance are the central point of Jewish piety, the word became synonymous with their religion.” Actually, the LXX mixed nomos with logos and onoma almost at random (L/S)*, but this does not occur in New Testament writings.
Thayer* adds that over time, nomos was expanded to include the prophets, and all of the “sacred literature”, since the Jews did not distinguish between civil, moral, and ceremonial requirements.
(*See the Bibliography in Translation Notes for reference to these lexicons.)

Out of 195 occurrences of nomos in the New Testament, only 50 are in the Gospels. Only Luke (2:23,24, 39) adds the phrase “of the Lord”, and this appears only in his narrative of Jesus being taken to the temple as a baby. Elsewhere in the same passage, he refers to “the law of Moses” (2:22), or simply “the law” (2:27).
The Pharisees, opposing Jesus, refer to “our law” (Jn.19:7), as does Nicodemus advocating for his fair treatment (Jn.7:51).
Pilate challenges the mob to deal with Jesus “according to your law” (Jn.18:31), to which they respond, “we have a law…”. They also used it as a tool to crush those whom they presumed to dominate (Jn.7:49) “This crowd, that’s not acquainted with the law – they are cursed!”

BUT – let’s get to our perennial question: WHAT DID JESUS SAY? And the answer is, “not very much”, but what he did say was hugely significant. For starters, he never called it “the law of God.”
Five times (Lk.24:44, Jn.1:45, 7:19, 7:23, 8:5) Jesus refers to “the law of Moses,” while John himself comments in his introduction, (1:17) “The law was given through Moses, but graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus Christ.”
Addressing his opponents, Jesus pointedly refers to “your law” (Jn.8:17, 10:34); and speaking to the disciples (15:25) he calls it “their law.” Elsewhere, he uses no possessive at all, and says simply “the law.”

As he lays out the “constitution” of his Kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says plainly (Mt.5:17), “Don’t conclude that I came to destroy the law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill [make complete]!” He then devotes a large section of that sermon to correcting prevalent misconceptions about the Law. Similar corrections are recorded scattered through Mark’s and Luke’s accounts. Jesus summarizes the true intent of the law (Mt.7:12, 22:36, 22:40, 23:23), as love toward God and one’s neighbor, or turns a questioner to its principles (Lk.10:26, Mt.12:5). The same positive idea appears in Mt.19:16 and parallels in Mk.10:17 and Lk.18:18, but without the word “law.”

There are, however, two strong statements that are consistently overlooked by folks who adhere to a “flat book” interpretation of Biblical authority (assuming equal force and authority between the Old and New Testaments). Both Matthew (11:13)and Luke (16:16) record Jesus’ announcement of a very basic “change of government.” The accounts are worded slightly differently, but the message is clear. “The law and the prophets were (in effect) until John (the Baptist). Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!” Things are different now!

Luke follows that declaration by a partial quote, which Matthew recorded elsewhere in more detail (5:18): “Until heaven and earth are done away with [pass away], one iota or accent mark will not be removed from the law, until it all happens [is completed]!” Matthew connects this with v.17, where Jesus declared his purpose to fulfill the law. (Please see the discussion of pleroo and teleioo in word study #13.)
Remember that enroute to Jerusalem (Lk.18:31, 22:37) Jesus had told his disciples everything that was about to happen, “so that everything written … about the Son of Man will be completed [fulfilled]”. Remember also that he had just spent three years sorting out for them which parts of “everything written” were actually “about him”! His “list” differed sharply from that of the powerful religious leaders — and many of the “lists” currently in vogue today.

In John’s account of the crucifixion (remember, he is the only one of the gospel writers who says that he was personally present), he records (19:28) that Jesus “knew that everything had been completed…” and (19:30) surrendered his life with the words, “It has been completed!” – a shout of triumph, not a whimper of defeat! This is a perfect tense (see appendix to the Notes). Luke reserves that conclusion until after the resurrection (24:44) “This is what I told you!”

As we turn in the next post, to consider the “law” in the early church (Acts) and the epistles, please remember that with Jesus’ death and resurrection, a monumental transition has occurred.
“Everything has been completed!” The new Kingdom has been established!

Years ago, in another state, we lived near a group of devoted followers of the Lord Jesus, whose first language was not English. When accosted by zealous “soul-savers” who demanded, “Are you saved?”, their usual – and quite Scriptural (Titus 1:2, 2:13, 3:7) – reply was, “I have a good (or “blessed”) hope!” This usually provoked an attack by the questioner: “HOPE??? If you don’t KNOW you are saved, you aren’t!” This was followed by a memorized lecture on the questioner’s carefully canned and footnoted version of the necessary remedy. As a consequence, the two groups, who could have related as brethren with much mutual benefit, seldom interacted at all, largely because of one misunderstood English word. How sad!
We have already considered (Word Study #5) the continually progressive nature of “salvation”, which should, but probably won’t, put to rest such arrogant discourtesy; we need also to look at the lexical meaning of elpis, “hope.”

Classically, it wasn’t complicated at all. Synonyms include “expectation, confidence, or one’s reason to believe in something or to expect an event.” The uncertainty that accompanies much English usage of “hope” – (“I hope it will – or won’t – rain!”) is completely absent from both classical and New Testament usage. Early English translators coped with this semantic anomaly by translating the verb form, elpizo, as “trust” (18 times, as opposed to “hope” only 10 times), but the Greek word does not “mean” different things in different contexts. It uniformly conveys “confident expectation”.

Similarly, simple expectation is apparent in the 16 “more ordinary” uses of elpizo in the New Testament – fully half of the total. “I hope to see you,” “I hope you know,” appear frequently in the epistles; lending with the “hope” of repayment (Lk.6:34-45), a farmer planting in “hope” of a harvest (I Cor.9:10), and Felix “hoping” that Paul would offer him a bribe (Ac.24:26) certainly involve expectation. So on what grounds do folks feel justified in changing the meaning of the word when it refers to less tangible matters?
Peter’s admonition (I Pet.1:13) to “set your hope[confidence] completely on the grace being brought to you all in the revelation of Jesus Christ,” and Paul’s explanation (Rom.8:24-25) of the true import of “hope” in relation to one’s confidence in Jesus’ provision, clearly intend to convey similar assurance. When Paul writes to Timothy (I Tim.4:10) of “hoping in the living God” as the motivation for his life of constant perseverance despite the concomitant privations, he is not describing wishful thinking, but a settled conviction.

When we turn to elpis, the noun form, the reference is almost entirely to one’s Christian commitment and expectation, as opposed to the “ordinary” affairs of life (which involve only 5 of 53 uses of the word), and the certainty of expectation is, if anything, even more vivid. Interestingly, the word elpis does not appear at all in any of the Gospels. Might that be because of the constant, observable presence of the One who is later identified (I Tim.1:1) as “Christ Jesus, (who is) our hope[confidence]”? Paul asks, rhetorically, in Rom.8:24-25, “Who hopes for what he (already) sees?” Perhaps the time when his people needed “hope” the most, was after Jesus’ physical departure? This seems plausible, when one realizes that ten of the references, (Ac.2:26, 23:6, 24:15; Col.1:5, 1:27; I Thes.4:13, 5:8; and Tit.1:2, 2:13, 3:7) specifically mention either the Resurrection (Jesus’ or ours) or his Return; and several others could be interpreted that way. As Peter put it, (I Pet.1:3) “According to his (God’s) great mercy, he has given us another birth, into a living hope [confidence], by means of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead!”

Among the abundant and glorious benefits of Jesus’ resurrection is the way it “spills over” upon all who follow him! It is this truth that enables all the other “hopes” of his people, including (Rom.5:2) “We revel in the hope [confidence] that comes from (source genitive) the glory of God!”, and (Rom.12:12) “Your confidence [hope] is the means (dative) to keep you all rejoicing!” In Gal.5:5, Paul speaks of our “hope of justice, that comes out of faithfulness”; in Eph.1:18 and 4:4, of “the hope [confidence] of his/our calling”; and in Phil.1:20, of his hope [confidence] that he will be found faithful. Also included are “the hope of the gospel” (Col.1:23), “the hope of glory” (Col.1:27), the “patience of hope [the endurance produced by the confident expectation which has its source in the Lord Jesus Christ]”  (I Thes.1:3), “the blessed hope” of Jesus’ return (Tit.2:13), and (Tit.3:7) “the hope [expectation] of eternal life”! These are just a sampling. Grab a concordance and check them all! It cannot help but increase your enjoyment – “hope” – of the goodness of God!

The five uses of elpis in the letter to the Hebrews deserve particular attention, partly because (please see the introductory material in Translation Notes) it was probably written to a second generation congregation, who therefore lacked the privilege of personal memories of the initial arrival of either Jesus himself or “ambassadors” of his Kingdom. They may have been somewhat worn down by years of persecution; hence the early admonition (3:6) to “hang on to our determination and [hope] confident expectation firmly until the end.” Again in 6:11, the instruction is to “demonstrate the same eagerness for complete confidence [full assurance] of hope [expectation] until the end; and 6:18, a reminder to “come running to take hold of the hope that he (Jesus) offered.” In 7:18-19, after a rehearsal of the inadequacy and failure of the old system and its hierarchy, it is summarized, “The previous commandment is set aside, because of its weakness and uselessness – for the law didn’t make anything [or, anyone] complete – but a better hope is introduced, through which/whom we come near to God!” The only place where elpis is not traditionally translated “hope” is Heb.10:23, where someone substituted “faith” – an entirely different word. This is probably one factor which contributed to the erroneous assumption that “faith” was a doctrine to be “professed”, rather that a faithful way of life (see Word Study #1). In the PNT, I offer the alternative, “Let’s hang on to our commitment to our hope without hesitation” – which I consider a more accurate representation of the text – and in harmony with Heb.11:1 – much quoted but little understood or heeded: “Faithfulness is the basis [foundation] of our hope [expectation], the proof [legal evidence] of what is unseen.”

The object of one’s hope is made obvious by his faithfulness – and is intended, among other things, to serve as an incentive (I Jn.3:3) to purity of life, (II Thes.2:16)eternal encouragement, (Gal.5:5) justice, and (Rom.12:12) indescribable joy! Such a life will provoke curiosity, which is why Peter (I Pet.3:15) urges his readers to be ready to answer questions about that hope. This admonition is not a “hunting license” but a mandate to be approachable! (See W.S. #18)

“May the God of hope [or, God, the source of hope] fill you with all joy and peace, in faithfulness, so that you may overflow with hope [confidence] in [by] the power of the Holy Spirit!” (Rom.15:13)
AMEN!!!

During his time on earth, Jesus said very little about the implications, or even the fact, of his resurrection, except to assure his confused followers that it was going to happen (Mt.16:21, 17:23; Lk.9:22, Jn.2:19, Mk.9:31, 10:34). My favorite of the direct quotes comes later – from Rv.1:17-18: “Don’t be afraid! I AM the first and the last! I ‘m the one who is alive! I was dead, but look! I am alive forever! And I have the keys of death and hades.” And yes, I know he did not use any of the “resurrection” words in that statement, but the message is certainly, gloriously, there!

That illustrates the difficulty of working on this subject as a word study. It is a concept that permeates the whole New Testament, in many different forms. The task is further complicated by the fact that there are only two Greek words specifically used for the purpose, but traditional translators have used them interchangeably, and rendered them variously as “to rise, to arise, to raise, to be raised, risen, to stand up, to awaken,” and many more.
The classical writers aren’t much help here, either. Anistemi – one of the primary verbs – was used of just about any kind of “getting up”, whether from sleep or a sick bed (Herodotus), to arise as a champion or to rise from one’s seat as a token of respect (Homer), to produce witnesses, to mount a rebellion, to set up a building or statue, or, rarely until the New Testament era, to rise from the dead. Egeiro, the other most-used verb, has virtually the same list of meanings. I have been unable to discern a difference. Egeiro is used more frequently in the New Testament, unless one includes the noun forms. Anastasis, “resurrection”, would push the balance the other way.

In addition to prophesying his own situation (Mt.16:21 and parallels), Jesus listed “raise the dead” among his instructions when he commissioned his disciples for their journey (Mt.10:8), and also as evidence for his identity in replying to the messengers from John the Baptist (Mt.11:5 and 11). Accounts of his own activity in that regard include (Lk.7:14) the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, (Lk.8:54) Jairus’ daughter, and of course (Jn.11) his friend Lazarus. Recorded incidents of disciples following those instructions are in Ac.9:36-42 (Peter and Dorcas), and Ac.20:7-12 (Paul and Eutychus) – although Dr. Luke, in this latter account, questions whether the boy was actually dead.

Because the verb forms are so frequently used of other situations – getting up and going somewhere – I have chosen to focus primarily upon the noun, anastasis.

The resurrection of Jesus was (and should still be!!!) the primary burden of the gospel message! It was presented as the ultimate proof of Jesus’ identity. Peter cites it early on (Ac.1:22) in his urging that a replacement be found for Judas “to become a witness with us of his (Jesus’) resurrection.” In his Pentecost sermon (Ac.2:31-36) he declares that the resurrection reveals Jesus as the source of the Holy Spirit’s coming, and provides evidence that “God made this Jesus, whom you all crucified, both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One]!” The complaint of the Council, a short time later (Ac.4:2) was that the apostles were “teaching the people, and proclaiming, in Jesus, the resurrection of the dead!”, and as the brotherhood met together (4:33), “the apostles gave testimony of the Lord Jesus’ resurrection.”
Paul attracted curious attention in Athens by “preaching about Jesus and the resurrection”(Ac.18, 32), and answered his accusers, before the Sanhedrin (Ac.23:6) and the Roman court (24:15) that the resurrection was the basis for the charges against him. This totally confused Festus, who explained his dilemma to Agrippa (Ac.25:19), that the Jews had brought no accusations of evildoing, as he expected, but “some argument about their own religion, about a certain Jesus who had been put to death, whom Paul said was alive”!

Why, then, in so-called “Christian” teaching or “doctrine”, is the balance so heavily weighted toward Jesus’ death, rather than his resurrection? Because a “cross” is so much easier to symbolize (read, “idolize”) than an empty tomb? Because it is still a symbol of condemnation and blame, and can be used to induce crippling guilt and abject submission? The truly Scriptural “symbol” of our faith is the Resurrection life – both his and ours!

The Epistles contain two complementary strands of teaching concerning the Resurrection: establishing the certainty of that fact, as a validation of Jesus’ identity, and exploring the results that should consequently be evident in the lives of his followers.
In Rom.1:4, Paul reiterates that the resurrection shows Jesus to be God’s Son. The writer to the Hebrews lists it (6:2) among the most basic teachings, that form the foundation for everything else, and Peter (I Pet.1:3) represents it as the source of the “living hope” with which the faithful are gifted, and later (3:21) the producer of a “healthy consciousness of God.” Paul even goes so far as to declare (I Cor.15:17) that if Christ wasn’t raised, we might as well forget the whole thing! Of the principles listed in the first paragraph of that chapter, the resurrection is the only one that includes extensive documentation – fully half the paragraph!

Elsewhere, emphasis is strong, upon identification of faithful individuals with the Lord to whom they belong. Peter (I Pet.3:21-22) and Paul (Rom.6:3-11) both connect the expected transformation of life with the symbolism of baptism – the “burial” of the former life, and “resurrection” to the new. A similar theme appears in Col.2:12 – “buried with him in baptism, you all were resurrected together, in him….” and its corollary (3:1-3)”since you all were resurrected together with Christ, keep seeking what is above…” He goes on in the rest of his letter to outline the characteristics of a resurrection life.
Eph.2:1-10 also contains a vivid before-and-after picture: “You all had been dead…” whereupon he proceeds to describe the life of a person who has not been “raised with Christ”; (v.4) “But God … made us alive!” and then proceeds to describe the graciousness and kindness thus manifested, and (v.10) its expected results.

Brother Paul summarized the matter even more eloquently (if that is possible), in his letter to Philippi (3:10-11): “I want to know [become intimately acquainted with] him, and the power of [that comes from] his resurrection: and the sharing of [that comes from] his sufferings, being transformed together by [with] his death, if somehow I may arrive into the resurrection from the dead.”

Please notice: “suffering” and “death” are neither denied, nor minimized, nor avoided; but they are bookended – with the Resurrection! Paul’s aspiration – and ours – starts with Jesus’ resurrection, and ends with our own!

And that makes an enormous difference.
All praise to the glory of his graciousness!

As we approach this topic, please remember that it is in no way intended to diminish or disparage the enormous impact upon the human family of Jesus’ act, in allowing himself to be tortured and put to death by people who had rejected the invitation to enlist in his Kingdom. “He came to his own (world, people), and his own refused to welcome him” (Jn.1:11) summarizes incalculable suffering.
I do, however, intend to put that event into a more Biblical perspective, by calling your attention to the overwhelmingly greater attention paid by the New Testament writers to the glorious truth and power of his Resurrection! By becoming narrowly fixated only upon the cross, (nearly, if not altogether, to the point of idolatry), well-meaning writers and speakers have badly skewed the Biblical message.

It was very difficult to find historical information about “crosses” or “crucifixion.” The early classical historians and writers, Herodotus and Thucydydes in the 5^th century BC, and Homer at least a century earlier, used stauros to refer to any kind of stakes or pilings driven into the ground as a foundation for a building, as fencing, or as fortifications. Not until Polybius in the second century BC, and Didorus Siculus in the first, does Liddell/Scott mention any use of a “cross” as an instrument of execution. In the first two centuries AD, of course, it is common in Plutarch, Josephus, and Lucian, among others. I found one suggestion that the Roman Empire may have copied the practice from Carthage, in North Africa; but apparently that particular form of brutality came on the scene comparatively late in ancient history, and was inflicted primarily upon the lowest classes of criminals.
Most writers of “history” tend to concentrate on gruesome descriptions of the process (which was indeed horrible), and leap from there into complex doctrinal dissertations that have no New Testament basis. They frequently try to relate it to the Old Testament sacrificial system and its law – conveniently ignoring the fact that in that system, the prescribed form of execution was stoning. I do not intend to argue the fine points in which such writers/speakers delight. I would only ask, as many times before, “What did Jesus say?” Can one claim to be proclaiming Jesus, without consulting him?

Of the 28 occurrences of stauros in the New Testament, eleven are simply describing the circumstances of Jesus’ death. The only other references in the Gospels are the parallel passages in Mt.10:38 and 16:24, Mk.8:34 and 10:21, and Lk.9:23 and 14:21. These are considered in the previous post (#33). The verb form, stauroo, to crucify, is a bit more frequent, with 46 New Testament uses, of which 25 are in accounts of Jesus’ trial and death, and 4 in accounts of his resurrection! Only in Mt.20:19 and 26:2 is Jesus himself quoted, and in both instances, he is giving a simple forewarning to the disciples of what is about to happen. In no case does Jesus himself make any statement about either the causes or the implications of that event.
Peter’s two sermons, recorded in Ac.2:36 and 4:10 – the only uses of stauroo in that earliest history of the church – vividly point out to the listeners that although they thought they had disposed of Jesus, HE IS ALIVE!!!, and thereby demonstrated to be “both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One]” (chapter 2), and (chapter 4) active among his people!

There is a bit more reference to the cross in the Epistles, but much less than I expected. Paul speaks of the cross eleven times, and uses the verb form eight times. Some of the “accomplishments” attributed to the cross, that are seldom mentioned in modern teaching, include Eph.2:16 – the reconciling of Jew and Gentile into one Body, Col.1:20 – making peace by reconciling everything to himself (Jesus), Gal.5:24 – those who belong to Jesus have (active voice) “crucified the human nature with its cravings and passions”, and its parallel in Rom.6:6 – “our old person was (passive voice) crucified together with him … so that we may be no longer enslaved to failure.” In Gal.6:14, Paul affirms “In no way will I brag, except about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified, as far as I am concerned, and I with respect to the world.”

Paul becomes somewhat more theoretical about the subject in both of his letters to Corinth. Scolding the group for their divisions, he asks (1:13) “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?”, making the point, in the first two chapters, that no one but Jesus deserves their loyalty. There, as in Gal.5:11 and Phil.2:8, where this is only one element of Paul’s description of Jesus’ obedience, his intention seems to be to highlight the degradation assumed by society at large to be associated with crucifixion. He notes that the willing acceptance of this dishonor by Jesus should be a strong motivation for eschewing the elevation of any individuals. Only once does Paul make any connection with “charges against us” (Col.2:14) – something Jesus himself never mentioned at all – yet, tragically, that has become, in the minds of many, the sum total – the only focus – of their “gospel message”! (Please refer to W.S.#7, for a study of “forgiveness”, and note that Jesus’ authority to forgive was derived from WHO HE WAS/IS – “God-with-us”– and is not connected in any of the Gospel accounts to his death.)

In this regard, it is useful also to include some of Paul’s references to Jesus’ death, where the cross is not specifically mentioned, in trying to reconstruct the message. Please refer to the end of chapter 12 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a summary of these. One is made to wonder, why we hear so little about most of these.
And don’t forget that even Paul, whom folks that delight in designing “doctrines” love to quote (often not very carefully), qualifies his statement about Jesus’ death (I Cor.15:3) with the assertion (v.14), “If Christ hasn’t been raised, our preaching is useless!”

It will be necessary to save a more detailed examination of the primacy of the resurrection for the next posting. I will only note here that in contrast to the 28 references to the cross, there are 40 to anastasis, the primary word used for the resurrection. The verb form, anistemi, occurs 112 times (as opposed to 46 uses of “crucify”), and that is without taking into account the other words used in the glorious message that JESUS IS ALIVE – and in him, we too shall live!
Stay tuned.

I suspect that people who are accustomed to liturgical “confessions” in which they are obliged to refer to themselves as “unworthy sinners” will be amazed to discover that the term “unworthy” (anaxios) appears only four times in the entire New Testament! It is a tragic reality that both hymnody and theological pronouncements, under the guise of “appropriate humility” (see W.S.#14), have bamboozled unsuspecting believers into continually wallowing in their imagined “unworthiness” instead of rejoicing and growing in the gracious provision of our Lord, who has (Col.1:12) “qualified us (KJV “made us meet) to share in the inheritance of his people, in the light!”

Who is really “unworthy”? In Ac.13:46, Paul and Barnabas, as they left the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, warned the authorities that in rejecting the message of Jesus, they had “judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life.” Later, Paul wrote to the folks in Corinth (I Cor.6:2), amazed that they considered themselves “unworthy” to settle their own disputes, but rather used civil courts; and later warned them (11:27,29) to evaluate their “worthiness” to share in the observance of communion, in which admonition he listed (1) divisions, centered upon people and their ideas, (2)lack of concern for the poor members of the group, and (3) failure to “discern the Body” (see Chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom)and their relatedness to it, as disqualifying a person from participation.
That’s ALL, folks. Those are the only references.

Nevertheless, a great deal is said about “worthiness”, and it is true that some references indicate its perceived lack: we should also examine those. The concept is expressed in two “families” of words: axios (adj.)/axioo(verb)/axios(adv.), and hikanos (adj.)/hikanoo(verb). In classical usage, they are somewhat similar.
Axios may refer to a price or monetary value, as well as to a person’s character. It often carries the idea of being deserving of reward or honor, or even retribution.
Hikanos, occasionally translated “worthy” (5 x out of 38), more frequently expresses ideas of competence or sufficiency (of quantity or ability), or appropriateness.
Axios was also used in a courtroom setting, where Pilate (Lk.23:15), Lysias (Ac.23:29) and Paul (Ac.25:11) all declare that nothing “deserving of death” has been proven.
Jesus spoke of workers “deserving” their wages (Mt.10:10, Lk.10:17), and Jewish elders told Jesus that a centurion “deserved” his attention (Lk.7:4), although the man himself maintained that he did not (7:7) and elsewhere (Mt.8:8 and Lk.7:6), hikanos is chosen in that same situation.
Axios also describes persons of similar status, as in John the Baptist’s oft-quoted statement about his “not being worthy” to untie Jesus’ sandals. This may be what has triggered the “humility competition” in many churches, but John was simply making the point that he, personally, did not have the status of the promised Messiah. Some versions of that quote also use hikanos. In the parable of the prodigal, the son who had wasted his inheritance rightly admitted his “unworthiness”, but note that the father did not leave him there.

“Deserving,” of course, works both ways. Heb.10:29 warns that disregarding Jesus “deserves” greater severity than disregarding Moses, having already established (3:3) that Jesus “deserves” the greater glory. And Jesus himself warns prospective disciples that to be “worthy” of him requires that one give him absolute priority over all other affections (Mt.10:37).
The rest of that statement (Mt.10:38) has been grossly abused. The phrase, “taking up one’s cross” has become so ubiquitous, that practically any unavoidable difficulty, aggravation, or inconvenience is likely to be piously labeled, “just the cross I have to bear.”
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT STATEMENT FOR THE BLASPHEMY THAT IT IS!!!
The cross, for Jesus, was NOT an unavoidable inconvenience! Neither was it a case of submission to illness, natural disaster, or insurmountable evil! Jesus was speaking sober truth when he said he could have called upon all the hosts of heaven to rescue him! He CHOSE not to do so, in order to ransom the people of his Kingdom from the domain of death and fear (Heb.2:14-15), by his triumph over both! Cross-bearing entails voluntarily suffering completely undeserved and avoidable injustice for the sake of the Kingdom of Jesus! (This topic definitely “deserves” its own separate study, but it is integral to this one, since Jesus includes “cross-bearing” as a criterion of “worthiness” for his followers.) Ac.5:41, where the verb form occurs with an intensifying prefix, is an early example of disciples making this connection. See also II Thes.1:5. The writer to the Hebrews notes (11:38) that the world was not worthy of the disciples whom it persecuted and killed.

If “worthiness” was really entirely out of reach, we would hardly have so many admonitions to behave in a manner “worthy of the Lord” (Col.1:10), “worthy of his calling” (Eph.4:1), or “worthy of God’s calling into his Kingdom” (I Thes.2:12). Some of the characteristics listed as part of that “worthiness” are (Col.) bearing fruit, and growing in acquaintance with Jesus; (Eph.) avoiding status-tripping, and displaying generosity, gentleness, and mutual care and concern.
John the Baptist had also admonished his listeners to “bear fruit worthy of [appropriate for] a changed life (Mt.3:8). Perhaps the difference is clarified by the use of both words together, in Col.1:10 and 12. As noted above, in v.10, Paul instructs his readers to live worthily (axios), and then reminds them (v.12) that the Father has enabled (hikanoo) them to do so.

It might be prudent for us to take a lesson from the three uses of axios in Revelation 5. We are told, in answer to the question in v.2, “Who is worthy (axios) to open the book?”, that “no one in heaven or on earth, or below the earth” was able to do so. But in v.9, the Lamb is acclaimed as “worthy to take the book and to open its seals.” We are not told the content of the book – although many folks have undertaken to pontificate about it – only that the opening of its seals results in horrific judgments upon the earth, and finally in everyone around the throne breaking out in praises to the Lamb (v.12).
The lesson? That the province of God’s people is NOT to pass – and certainly not to exact – judgments upon the world – or each other!– but to occupy ourselves with exuberant praises to the Lamb, who is “worthy (axios) to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing!!!”

It would be most appropriate (hikanos) for the people of God to leave behind their programmed protestations of unworthiness (anaxios), and concentrate their attention upon worthily (axios) representing their Lord and King in his world! The Lord has made you/us worthy to be citizens of his Kingdom, a part of his very own Body! Let’s quit contradicting his Word, and get on with the business of living its truth!