The Pioneers’ New Testament

Word Study #32– “Holy”

“Holy” is another term that has been the subject of much (un-holy) conflict, finger-pointing, and general misunderstanding. I am under no illusion of ability – mine or anyone else’s – to straighten it all out; but perhaps a careful examination of the vocabulary can shed a little light.

Hagios is a word that can be used either as a noun or an adjective; and sometimes the translator must make a call, since the Greek grammar allows an adjective or a participle to be used as a noun when it represents a person, idea, thing, or situation which carries the characteristics described by the adjective: e.g., “the faithful” may refer to the person who is faithful, and similarly with other descriptive designations.
In classical writings, hagios referred to anyone or anything devoted to the gods, whether in service or in sacrifice. There was an occasional corollary of purity of intention or behavior, but that idea, in pagan worship, bore little resemblance to a Christian understanding of “purity.”
Hagizo, the verb form in ancient texts, referred to making something or someone “sacred” by a burnt offering. The later form, hagiazo, appearing only in the LXX and NT literature according to Liddell-Scott, retained the connotation of total devotion to God. Notice that in both cases, it is an active verb, denoting an overt act of setting apart for divine use or service.
Hagiasmos, only later theologically colored (and distorted) by its traditional translation “sanctification”, linguistically, is simply the derivative noun applied to the effect of that “setting apart.”

Anything more elaborate than that – of which there is no short supply in theology and tradition – is neither linguistically nor grammatically derived, and certainly does not appear in the New Testament text. Far from being the province of a few singularly exalted individuals, these words describe the life that is reasonably to be expected of anyone who is committed to the Lord – who is “set-apart” from the surrounding culture, wholly devoted to him.

Interestingly, hagios (the adjective), although applied in the Old Testament (LXX), as it was in pagan usage, to places, objects, garments, official assignments, and ceremonies, in the New Testament – except for a few historical references (as throughout the letter to the Hebrews, when highlighting the failure and inadequacy of the old system) —  is almost exclusively applied to people.   We read of “holy brethren” (I Thes.5:27, Heb.3:1), “the Holy One” (Mk.1:4, Lk.4:34, Ac.3:14, I Jn2:20, Rv.3:7), “holy messengers” (Lk.9:26, Ac.10:22, Rv.14:10), “holy prophets” (Lk.1:70, Ac.3:21, Eph.3:5, II Pet.1:21), “holy children” (I Cor.7:14), “Holy Father” (of which there is only one – God himself!– Jn.17:11), “holy apostles” (Eph.3:5). Please notice that in referring to the “holy temple” (I Cor.3:17 and Eph.2:21), Paul hastens to add “which you all are!”. This designation, along with those to the “holy nation” and “holy priesthood” (I Pet.2:5-9) now belongs to the faithful brotherhood!
Other mentions of a holy “living sacrifice,” (Rom.12:1), “your holy calling” (II Tim.1:8), “the holy commandment” (II Pet.2:21), and the “first-fruits, roots, and branches” (Rom.11:16) are all unmistakably connected to the lives of the faithful.

This is even more universally the case when hagios is treated as a noun, and has been traditionally rendered “saints”.  Most of Paul’s letters are addressed to the hagiois (the “saints”), clearly referring to the entire congregation of the faithful, in each locale. He usually includes greetings both to and from the “saints” at both ends of the correspondence. Some translators, bound, I suppose, by the marble-statue-on-a-pedestal image, have rendered kletois hagiois “called to be saints/holy” – but there is neither infinitive nor purpose construction in the text. The calling, at least in this text, is not a goal or a mandate: it is a simple statement of fact — a label. The person who accepts the calling to follow the Lord Jesus, is henceforth designated as a “saint/holy person” – the possession of his Lord, “set apart” for his sovereign purpose.
Please note, however, that this understanding does not by any means abrogate the constant necessity to grow into greater maturity in that position, nor does it imply any sort of magical “instant perfection”. We encounter elsewhere, for example, admonitions that “the saints” ought to be able to mediate each other’s disputes (I Cor.6:1-2); the need for prodding to assemble the relief offering for the “poor saints”(Rom.15:26), and countless (often corrective – “saints” can also be scolded!) instructions to devote ourselves to mutual love and service. The point is, the designation “saints” or “holy brethren” is not reserved for a few rare, unusually devoted or powerful individuals. It is not an achievement, but simply a label – a way of referring to citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus.

This is further reinforced when one notices that every occurrence of the noun form, in any of the New Testament writings, is plural. “Saints” are not lonely hermits obsessed with keeping away from the “dirty” world. Neither are they super-heroes, swooping in to display magical powers. They are simply members of a devoted brotherhood, helping one another to learn to live lives of service – whether messy or glorious – controlled and empowered by their King.

Probably the best example of what Jesus had in mind for those who are “set apart” for his purposes (the lexical meaning of the verb form hagiazo, traditionally rendered “sanctified”), is found in his prayer recorded in Jn.17, especially verses 15-19, where the verb appears three times:
“I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not from (do not belong to ) the world, just as I am not from (do not belong to) the world. Set them apart [Make them holy] by the truth: your word is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for their sake, I am setting myself apart, in order that they also may be truly set apart.”

All of Jesus’ people are “set apart/made holy”, in order to be able faithfully to represent him in the world!

May we do so, together, with devotion and joy!

Since, as we have seen in many of these studies, the principle message of the New Testament concerns the revelation, the establishment, and an invitation to participative citizenship in the Kingdom of God, it should come as no surprise that the concept of “power” is a frequent subject of discussion. Also not surprisingly, even a cursory English survey of the uses of “power” reveals a wide variety of ideas, due in large part to the fact that this single English word has been used to represent four different Greek words which, despite some overlap, have quite distinct meanings.

Dunamis, the word most frequently used (117 times), is the only one that refers to miraculous deeds, by Jesus or his followers (22 times specifically, and many more by implication). Interestingly, that usage appears to be almost unique to Biblical writings. Classically, the word was used for a person’s ability to do a task, or to any natural capacity. Aristotle used it of the elementary forces, such as heat or cold; Galen, of the basic characteristics of substances, of medicines, or formulas; Plato of the “meaning” of a word; Archimedes of mathematical powers and roots; Heliodorus of magical substances or objects; and Herodotus of forces deployed for war. (Liddell/Scott) Not until the Septuagint (LXX) and New Testament writings is it applied to the activity of divine beings or miraculous works. Perhaps this is why it often appears in a phrase – “the power of God”, “the power of the Spirit”, “the power of the Lord”, “the power of Christ” (at least 43 times): to emphasize whose capability is in view.
Malevolent powers are also mentioned – Lk.10:19, Ac.8:10, Rom.8:38, I Thes.2:9) – as well as simple abilities of individuals – Mt.25:15, Ac.3:12, Ac.6:8, II Cor.8:3,4 – but the overwhelming majority of references are to a manifestation of the power of God, either directly (by Jesus), or through one or more of his people.
It is also interesting to note some of the words closely associated with dunamis:
– Jesus challenging his accusers that they know neither “the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mt.22:29)
– Lk.5:17 “The power of the Lord was present to heal”
– Peter and John’s declaration that “our own power or holiness” was not the source of the healing (Ac.3:12)
– I Cor.2:4: “demonstrations of the Spirit and power”
– I Cor.4:20 “The kingdom of God is not in words but in power”
– Rom.1:4 Jesus “declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection”
– “The power of his resurrection” II Cor.13:4, Phil.3:10, and many others.

Exousia, the second most frequently used among the “power” words (103 times), is quite distinctly different. Without exception, it refers to delegated authority. It is often paired with dunamis. When Jesus commissioned his disciples for their mission (Mt.10:1, Mk.3:15 and 6:7, Lk.9:1), he gave them both dunamis and exousia – the ability necessary for their assignment, and the authority to use it. On the other hand, his reference to the power of the Holy Spirit to be conferred at Pentecost used only dunamis (Ac.1:8), as did the subsequent discussion with the temple hierarchy, who questioned their display of dunamis with, “Where did THAT come from?(4:7)”. Maybe they had given up on the “authority” question by that time. His opponents among the scribes and Pharisees had not challenged Jesus’ ability to act as he did: that was obvious. They questioned his right (authority – exousia) to do so (Mt.21:23-27, Mk.11:28-33, Lk.20:2-8).
Political power, natural or supernatural, is universally represented by exousia, in conformity with classical usage (Lk.23:27, many times in Eph. and Col.) L/S lists “office, magistracy, consulate,” and “to exercise authority over a political entity”, as well as the abuse of that authority; but also notes exousia as simply “permission to act”. The Roman centurion who approached Jesus on behalf of his child [servant] understood this (Mt.8:9), noting that his own authority was delegated, and he himself also assigned responsibilities to inferiors. The same idea appears in several parables (Mk.13:34, Lk.19:17), and in Paul’s accounts of his former assignment from the Jewish authorities (Ac.9:14, and 26:10, 12). In every case, exousia is assigned by a superior to a lesser person.
Jesus’ conversation with Pilate (Jn.19:10,11) is an interesting case in point. When Pilate boasted of his authority (exousia) either to crucify or set Jesus free, Jesus’ answer is often touted by deterministic “theologians” as “proof” that “God intended all this to happen”. However, the use of exousia in both Pilate’s question and Jesus’ answer may indicate simply that both men clearly understood the meaning of the word: authority can only be conferred by a higher authority, (whether divine or political is not specified), upon a petty politician! Pilate is much less “powerful” than he thinks he is!  Jesus, in a sense, has called his bluff!  And he knows it.
In Romans 13, Paul maintains that no legitimate authority (exousia) exists, except that which is properly regulated “under God”!

Ischus (9 times) and kratos (11 times) are somewhat harder to separate, as both, classically, referred primarily to bodily strength. Kratos was also used as an attribute of the power of the gods in Homer (which may highlight the difference in the perception of divinity between the classical civilizations and the Biblical community – which would be an interesting cultural study!). It also referred to political sovereignty in the LXX, and to the possession of territory in Herodotus. Pythagoras used it as a “name” for the number ten.
Ischus , also primarily referring to physical strength, tended more toward the idea of brute force (Aeschylus), and was used by Plato and Idumeus of a powerful kingdom, and militarily, of a main body of troops (neither of which violates the concept of “brute force”!)
The words are similarly difficult to distinguish in the New Testament, often appearing paired with dunamis or exousia, as if the writer is trying to be sure that all the bases are covered! In Eph.6:10, three of the words are included: “Be strengthened (dunamis) in the Lord, by the force (kratos) of his strength (ischus)” (traditionally, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might”.) In Rev.5:12 and 7:2, ischus is paired with dunamis, and in Jude 26, kratos is paired with exousia.
Peter’s urging the brethren to “serve” (“minister”) with the strength (ischus) supplied by God would lead one to conclude that the “diakonia” (serving) in view is more practical than theoretical. A similar flavor comes through in the admonition (Mk.12:30, 33; Lk.10:27) that love for God is to consume one’s heart, “soul” (see W.S.#28), mind, and strength (ischus), all physical attributes.
Kratos in the NT often seems focused primarily on God/Jesus’ eventual triumph (I Pet.5:11, 4:11; Rv.1:6; Eph.1:19; Col.1:11, I Tim.6:16; Rv.5:13) which is already being realized as a consequence of his having (Heb.2:14) already “destroyed the one who had – PAST TENSE!! – the power (kratos) of death” and set his captives free!

All of these “power words” – and more – are piled together in Paul’s enthusiastic prayer recorded in Eph.1:17-23: that all of us, his people, may be supernaturally enlightened and enabled to know “…the exceeding greatness of his (Jesus’) power (dunamis) that is available for us …. the energy (energian) of God’s powerful (kratos) strength (ischus) was demonstrated definitively when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his own right, in heaven, far above every ruler (arche) and authority (exousia) and power (dunamis) and title of nobility (kuriotetos)…!!!

To him be all honor and glory and praise!

Have you felt obligated to accept the burden of guilt perpetrated by those who insist, “You have not really ‘forgiven’ a person who has wronged you unless you have ‘forgotten’ the incident”?
Have efforts to “forget” life-altering events or betrayals nearly reduced you to despair?
Did it ever occur to you to investigate whether the much-quoted admonition to “forgive and forget” ever appeared in the New Testament at all?
Take heart, my wounded brothers and sisters who are serious about faithfulness: it isn’t there!
And neither is the corresponding allegation, intended to shame you by example, that “God has forgotten all of your offenses.” Forgiven, certainly. Forgotten – well, hymns and sermons to the contrary, the subject is not even discussed in the New Testament writings.

There are only eleven appearances of the English word “forget” in the entire New Testament; and these combine three different Greek words, one of which, in I Pet. 1:9, the only time that lambano is translated that way, (a word that usually means “take, receive, accept, attain, or, rarely, take away”) and is therefore a bit suspect. The others, epilanthanomai and eklanthano are quite similar in classical usage, with the latter being perhaps a bit more emphatic.
Of the other occurrences, nine refer to people “forgetting” – all but one in a negative sense: Mt.16:5 and Mk.8:14 record the disciples’ failure to pack lunch before their trip; James 1:24 and 25 admonish the man who looks in a mirror and forgets what he saw; and the writer to the Hebrews asks reprovingly, (12:5) “Have you forgotten (God’s instructions)?” The same writer reminds readers not to forget to do good, to share, and to extend hospitality (13:2 and 16).
The only positive mention of “forgetting” is in Phil.3:13, where Paul speaks of forgetting his pedigreed past in order to devote all his energy to seeking greater maturity in Christ.
Twice, the reference is to God, and is one of encouragement: Lk.12:6 quotes Jesus as declaring that not even sparrows are “forgotten” by him, and again in Hebrews 6:10, “God is not unjust, to forget your work, and the love you all demonstrated for his name, and the way you’ve looked after his people.”

That’s it, folks. That’s ALL the New Testament says about forgetting!
Even in the Old Testament, where the LXX usually uses epilanthanomai to translate the Hebrew shakach, forgetting is warned against – “Don’t forget what God has done!” – not advocated; and when it is said of God, it refers to his judgment, not his mercy. Check it for yourself in Young’s Concordance.

OK, let’s give the guilt-trippers the benefit of all possible doubt, and consider that maybe we have to look at “remembering” in order to justify their scolding. This includes five Greek words, all quite similar, all related etymologically. They are anamimnesko (used only once), mimneskomai (the middle voice – see appendix to Notes – also used only once), mnaomai (15 times), mnemoneuo (19 times), and hupomimnesko (3 times). All of their classical definitions are very similar.
All but two of the references (out of a total of 40) are simply to people remembering or being reminded of past events, messages, or behaviors.
The two referring to God, Heb.8:12 and Heb.10:17, are both instances of the same quotation the writer takes from the prophecy of Jeremiah. Recognizing the utter failure of the law to produce the life that God designed and desired for his people, the writer combines several of Jeremiah’s messages about the promised New Covenant: (8:10-12) “This is the covenant that I will establish….when I give my laws into their understanding, I will write them on their hearts …They will all know about me, from the least to the greatest of them. I will be merciful about their injustices, and I will no longer remember [keep score of] their shortcomings [failures].” Please notice the conclusion, (Heb.8:13): “In saying ‘new’, he has made the first one “old”; and what has become old and been superseded is near to disappearing!”

It is possible, that with some intricate verbal gymnastics, people could turn that quotation into support for their proclamations about God “forgetting”, but in doing so, they ignore the whole message of Hebrews 7 through 10, which is to highlight the inadequacy, the utter failure of the old covenant, and its sharp contrast with the New, as established by Jesus! In fact, I would even suggest that it is the “failure” of the Law that may even be the “failure” (translation of hamartia – see W.S.#7) that is in view in the prophecy! However, even if you give the guilt-preachers enough editorial license to ignore the context, there is still nothing that commands – or even suggests – that “forgetting” is advocated, much less demanded, of faithful people! Our instructions, repeatedly, are “Do not forget!” “Remember!”

Clearly, (again see W.S. #7), we indeed are instructed – expected – to “forgive [release]” our abusers, as Jesus himself demonstrated. But this has nothing whatever to do with the unrealistic requirement of “forgetting.”
One brother put it this way: “To forgive is not to forget, but to refuse to be bound or limited by evil.” There are wrongs in this life that cannot be set right. They have passed into history, and their consequences, although they can certainly be redeemed, cannot disappear. But in deliberately forsaking vengeance and resentment, both the injured party and the offender can be set free (the real meaning, remember, of aphiemi), although the course of both lives may have been permanently, irretrievably and unforgettably altered. Yet, in those wonderful instances when, by the grace of God, reconciliation becomes possible, how much poorer would everyone concerned be, if all were “forgotten”? Remember – and give thanks!

We are instructed to “remember”, throughout the Gospels, especially John, what Jesus said, did, and taught. In the Epistles, we are told to “remember the poor” (Gal.2:10), and those imprisoned for their faithfulness (Heb.13:3); to remember our former alienation from God and his ways in order to appreciate (and imitate) his graciousness (Eph.2:11); and the faithfulness of our brethren and teachers many times. Even those who have faltered in their faithfulness are admonished to “remember” the devotion of their “first love” (Rv.2:5, 3:3) for the Lord and for each other.

Remembering is a much more fruitful focus for our attention.

What do you intend, when you say that you “know” someone/something?  You know who they are? You are close associates or friends? You are able to perform a task?  You are acquainted with certain facts?  You can quote something from memory?  You can recognize an artifact or idea, speak a language, or understand a culture?  The English language incorporates all of these “meanings” – and more – some of which may be contradictory — into a single word, “to know.”

The New Testament writers, in contrast, employ eight different words, all of which traditional translators have rendered simply as “know.”  Is it any wonder that confusion can result?  An evil spirit screams at Jesus, “I know you!” (Lk.4:34), yet later, the ultimate blessing of “eternal life” is attributed to “knowing” him (Jn.17:3)!  The reader of the average English text has no clue that these are different words.  Unfortunately, they don’t all sort out quite that easily, but we can clear up some of the fog with careful attention to vocabulary.  In this study, correct understanding of the differences between the original words will probably not materially change one’s understanding of most passages, as much as it will enhance our appreciation for the message.

The most commonly used of all of these words is oida.  It is the perfect tense form of the verb horao, “to see”, and occurs at least 285 times in the New Testament.  Classical uses of oida are obviously connected to the concept of “seeing.” They include looking at or paying attention to something, “mental” sight or discernment, to behold or observe an object or event, or to be acquainted with a fact. This is not foreign to us:  “Oh, I see!” is equivalent to “I get it!”  “I understand.” In the New Testament, it is concerned primarily with information, which may or may not influence one’s life. “I know” (oida) may be an expression of confidence or expectation, as in Eph.1:18, but it need not.  It may concern awareness of someone’s reputation (Rom.16:15, I Thess.1:5), or of an event or idea (like all 13 occurrences in Acts).

Ginosko, the second most frequent NT usage, (196 uses), usually presupposes more personal involvement with the person, event, or principle that is “known.”  Classically, it included recognition, discernment, or opinion that results from personal experience or observation.  The word was also used of the marital relationship.  Frequently, the NT writers used it to refer to the simple identification of individuals (Lk.24:35), of recognition or understanding of events or people (Mt.24:43), or of “finding out” (Jn.12:9) information.

The difference between oida and ginosko is most easily seen in passages where both are used.  For example, look at Jesus’ upper room conversation with Peter in Jn.13:7.  To Peter’s protest at the apparent impropriety of a master washing the feet of disciples, Jesus replies, “You don’t know (ouk oidas) what I’m doing now, but you will understand/know (gnose) later.”  And Peter did learn the lesson – by experience – quite well, as evidenced by his later instructions to the brotherhood (I Pet.4:10), “As each one has received a spiritual gift, serve each other with it.”  You may also want to follow the interplay between oida and ginosko in John 7 and 8 or John 13 and 14, which is easily done by using Young’s concordance (see Word Study instructions), for further understanding of the different implications of the two words.

Epiginosko (the prefix epi is an intensifier) appears only 30 times translated “know”, 5 as “acknowledge”, and 3 as “perceive.”  Classical definitions include to witness or observe, to recognize, to find out or discover, to become acquainted, or to decide or adjudicate.  Many of the NT references are focused on recognition or identification (Mk.6:33 and parallels, Ac3:10, 9:30, 12:14, 19:34; Lk.24:16 and 31), or reassurance (Lk.1:4, II Cor13.5, Col.1:6, I Tim4:3).   Peter’s warning takes on an even more serious tone, when he uses epiginosko (the stronger term) both times in II Pet.2:21:  “It would be better for them never to have become acquainted with the way of justice, than having known it, to turn back ….”

Other words are less frequent, and less “loaded”:
Epistamai, classically to know how to do something, to understand a matter, to know as a fact, in Homer, to know for certain, or in Aristotle referring to scientific facts, in the NT usage refers primarily to information, primarily about an individual’s past history (Ac.20:18).
Proginosko (source of English “prognosis”), to know or perceive beforehand, usually without being told, occurs only five times, and it must be remembered that it refers to knowing, not causation, despite the distortion by some translators. (II Pet.3:17 and I Pet.1:2 use the same word.)
Sunoida, used only four times, refers to shared knowledge (the prefix sun- is the preposition “with”).
Diaginosko (source of English “diagnosis”) appears only once, in a legal investigation (Ac.24:22).
Agnoeo (source of English “agnostic”) – the “a” is a negative prefix – is used four times as “not knowing” (Ac13:7, and Rom.2:4, 6:3, and 7:1), and 10 times as “to be ignorant”.  Please note that this ignorance does not presuppose hostility – simply “not knowing.”

It is the frequently used ginosko, oida, and epiginosko that need more attention than they commonly receive.  Notice, please, that none are “inferior” to others in any way; they are simply different. Notice also that none of these contain any admonitions regarding intricate details of dogma or argument.  And Jesus bluntly informed his curious disciples (Ac.1:7) that “it is not for you to know” (ginosko) a roadmap of the future!

Although oida usually refers to knowing or figuring out facts, Paul clearly expects it to inform one’s way of life.  In Gal.4:16 he points out that when they did not “know” God, they followed lesser leaders, and in Eph.1:18, “knowing” one’s calling is supposed to motivate a godly life.  Phil.4:12, often (mis)quoted, expresses the apostle’s confidence that in the power of God, he “knows how to” deal with any situation.  It is not an expression of infallibility or omnipotence on his part — or ours!
Ginosko more commonly represents knowledge acquired by personal experience or relationship.  It predominates heavily in Jesus’ prayer (Jn17).  When Jesus is explaining the meaning of parables, or someone is referring to God’s understanding of a person’s situation, ginosko is usually (though not always) the choice.
It is clear that something more than passing acquaintance is intended in Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian brethren (Eph.3:19) that they may “know” (gnonai) the love of Christ, which vastly exceeds “knowledge” (gnoseos)!  (The verb is wonderful!  It is a form from which our “hyperbole” is derived!)  A similar flavor occurs throughout John’s first letter.  He is speaking of a very intimate involvement between Jesus and his people.
Epiginosko is usually reserved for very close acquaintance between people, or a thorough understanding of information.
All three are important ingredients or enablers of faithfulness, which, in the final analysis, is intended to be the goal of all our pursuit of “knowledge”:  that we may experience the full measure of the maturity/completeness that our King intends for us.

May we continue to grow in that knowledge!

*Note: The following treatise is only a brief summary of this matter.  A closer examination of the component parts may come later:  especially if some of you all join in the study effort!

For probably as long as they have had the intellectual and linguistic capacity to do so, people have wondered – and speculated – about “life”: and their philosophical, religious, and even physiological conclusions have differed greatly.
This is an instance where the same English word  has been applied to three distinctly different Greek terms, resulting in the blurring, if not the complete loss, of important elements of understanding.  Especially interesting in this regard is the sharp departure from classical usages that we see in the New Testament.

Bios (source of the English “biology”), in classical writings, referred to one’s mode or manner of life, his livelihood, or merely his physical existence.  The term was used of animals, as well as people.  Some writers used it of the “real world” as opposed to mere philosophical speculation.  It appears only 10 times in the New Testament, translated 5 times as “life” and 5 as “living.”

Zoe (source of “zoology”) is even less common in the classics.  Homer used it of physical existence; others referred to one’s substance or property, or even a term of endearment, “my Life!!”  It may also refer to one’s chosen way of life.  This is the term that dominates in the New Testament – there are 133 occurrences.

Psuche (source of “psychology”), although a favorite of the 5^th and 6^th century BC philosophers, used by Homer denoting “ghosts, or departed spirits”, and as an entity that leaves the body if a person faints, more frequently referred to someone’s personality, or conscious self.  At times it was used simply to count individuals.  Some philosophers used it of one’s moral or intellectual self.  Early physicians used it as the source of life and consciousness.  It was the Stoics and Epicureans who divided the concept of psuche (“soul”) from soma (“body”).  For Plato, it was “the immaterial principle of movement and life”.  Hippocrates referred it to the emotions.  Please note: these all date prior to the third century BC:  they are NOT “Christian” ideas! There are 103 uses of psuche in the New Testament, with widely varying translations, the most common of which are “life” and “soul.”

Interesting cultural observations can be made on the basis of words that are commonly used together: in this case, specifically, the combination with aion (n.) and aionios (adj.), which are usually translated with some form of “eternal.”  Although aion was also used of a lifetime, age, or generation, or any clearly defined epoch, Epicurus often preferred the concept of “perpetuity.”  For other uses of aion , please see #86.

The only classical incidence of aionios noted in Liddell/Scott as being used with bios was in reference to Egyptian monarchs.  This fits well with the ancient Egyptian cultural practice of carefully preserving bodies and organs, and providing them with artifacts, wealth, food, pets, and even servants for their welfare in the afterlife.   It was the physical life that they expected to be continued or replicated.  No pairing of bios and aionios occurs anywhere in New Testament writings.

Pindarus, Plato, Epicurus, Homer, and many other Greek writers/philosophers wrote of the psuche – a disembodied entity that existed in a shadowy realm after death, occasionally interacting with the living; but their primary use of “eternal” (or, more frequently, “immortal”) referred almost exclusively to gods and heroes.  This pairing, also, never occurs in the New Testament, even in the places where traditional translators rendered psuche as “soul,” the 3rd to 5^th century BC pagan term.

In all the New Testament writings, only zoe is used in conjunction with any form of aion – a combination that never occurred in the classical writings.  The consistency of this choice indicates with unusual clarity that a very different concept is in view.  Zoe appears with aion or aionion 43 times, and the idea of something quite beyond ordinary existence is present in at least that many more of the uses.  Might this not be a deliberate, overt rejection of the pagan concept of disembodied “souls”, in favor of Jesus’ statements, “I AM the …life” (Jn.14:6), “I have come that they might have life” (Jn.10:10)?  All of these employ a form of zoe, as do Jn.8:12, “The one who is following me shall have the light of life”, and Jn.11:25, “I AM the resurrection and the life.”  Many years later, as an elderly man, John put it very simply: (I Jn.5:11-12) “God gave us eternal life!  This life is in his Son.  The person who has [holds on to] the Son has life; the one who doesn’t have [hold on to] the Son, doesn’t have the life!”  Here too, zoe is used throughout.

So where did all the rhetoric about “eternal souls” come from?  Not from the New Testament!  Psuche and aionion are never used together there.   The English words do not appear together, even in traditional translations that arbitrarily use “soul” instead of “life” in about half of the appearances.  To be fair, we must note that there are four places (yes, only four in the entire New Testament) where the traditional translators refer to “saving souls”:  Heb.10:39, Jas.1:21 and 5:20, I Pet.1:9.  Please refer to W.S. #5 for a discussion of the concept of “save”.  I can only conclude that those translators were more heavily influenced by the “Golden Age” of Greek philosophy than by the message of Jesus, who had offered his followers the privilege to “enter into life (zoe)!”  And Jesus spoke of “life (zoe)” – with or without the addition of aionion (“eternal”) – primarily in the present tense!

He spoke of “laying down his psuche for his sheep, maintaining that he had the authority both to lay it down and to reclaim it (Jn.10:15-17).  Yet it was his “spirit” (pneuma) that he committed to his Father from the cross (Lk.23:46), and Stephen offered the same commitment to Jesus himself at the time of his own death.  I could not find any references to “the spirit of God” or “the spirit” of a person outside of the LXX (Septuagint) or the New Testament.  The deliberate choice of pneuma – classically more generally used of wind, or simple respiration – instead of psuche may have been a further gesture of rejection of the pagan implications of psuche.  Indeed, the writer to the Hebrews notes the difficulty of distinguishing between the two (4:12), and relegates that task to the Word of God!  If only his people today had the grace to do likewise!

The focus of the New Testament is clearly upon zoe – which is represented as originating in (“invented” by?) the Lord Jesus himself (Jn.1:21).  Fully half of the references in the Gospels are specifically paired with a form of aion/aionion, and many of the rest definitely imply a higher order of living.
Even more significant is the fact that most of these occur with present tense verbs.  Even statements like Jesus’ telling his opponents (Jn.5:40), “You don’t want to come to me in order that you may have life,” does not use a future tense, as is often assumed by those who use only English, but a present subjunctive form, which is required in this kind of a statement of purpose or intent.  The same structure occurs in the much-quoted Jn.3:16, and also in John’s statement of the evangelistic purpose of his gospel (20:31).  These are all talking about the present, not the future!
Yes, there are a handful of references to “in the world to come,” such as Mk.10:30 and its parallel in Lk.18:30, but these are the exception.  Additionally, they express a continuation of what has already begun, not something that only begins in the future.
More common is Paul’s expression in I Tim.4:8, “a promise of life both now and in the future.” Both Gospels and Epistles are concerned with the quality, not just the duration, of life.

I will close this brief summary with a few of the passages where “eternal life” is succinctly defined – all using “zoe”:
Jn.6:63 (Jesus speaking) “The messages I have spoken to you all are spirit, and they are life!”
Jn.11:25 (Jesus) “I AM the resurrection and the life!”
Jn.14:6 (Jesus) “I AM the way, the truth, and the life!”
Jn.10:28 (Jesus, of his “sheep”) “I am giving them eternal life, and they will never be destroyed!”
Jn.12:50 (Jesus, of his Father) “His command IS eternal life!”
Jn.17:3 (Jesus) “This is eternal life, that they may be acquainted with you, the only true [real, genuine] God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”
Col.3:4 “Christ, who is our life…”
II Cor.4:10 “In order that Jesus’ life may be revealed in our mortal flesh [human nature]”
I Jn 5:20 “We have our very existence in the True One, in his Son, Jesus Christ!
HE IS THE TRUE [GENUINE] GOD, AND ETERNAL LIFE!!”

THANKS BE TO GOD!!!

Is there a parent walking the earth, who hasn’t confronted squabbling kids with an annoyed “DID YOU HEAR ME?!!”  The question is not one of auditory acuity, although the sullen teenager’s “I heard you!” may try to confine it to that assumption.
We deeply value a companion who “really listens”.  And yet, when we’ve tried multiple times without success, to get Johnny or Susie to pick up their belongings, “LISTEN!” does not demand merely attention, but obedience.

All of these and more are encompassed in the use of the word akouo.  They always were.  Although akouo is the source from which our English word, “acoustics”  (which concerns primarily the transmission of sound waves) is derived, the classical writers also used it in a much wider variety of situations. The primary uses listed in the Oxford lexicon are:
— to hear: a sound, a message, or a reputation
–to pay attention, to respond to being called or summoned
— to hear and understand; to be the pupil of a teacher
Traditional English translators, for the most part, took no account of this breadth, using “understand” only once, and noted the expectation of response or obedience not at all, in the 415 uses of akouo in the New Testament, although 6 times they did substitute “hearken” where there was unmistakable “pay attention” flavor.

Although some clues can be found in the tenses of any imperative uses – i.e.,  an aorist could lean toward “sit up and take notice” and a present toward “keep on listening”, one must tread carefully here, since there is no definitive lexical or grammatical way to determine without question which aspect of the word was intended.  In examining the context in which the word appears, however, we must bear in mind that “Hear!” or “Listen!” refers to much more than simply bouncing sound waves onto eardrums.

The word “listen” actually does not occur at all in traditional translations.  “Obey” is only used when akouo appears with the prefix hup- (hupakouo), in which case it is the only appropriate choice.  However, obedience is certainly implied in a number of Jesus’ statements, as evidenced by the other verbs that are paired with akouo:
— Mt.7:24-26 – hear and do
— Mt.15:10 – hear and understand
— Lk.11:28 – hear and keep
— Jn.5:24 – hear and believe / become faithful
— Jn.5:25 – hear and live
— Jn.10 – hear and follow
His explanations of the Parable of the Sower/Seed (Mt.13:19-23 and parallels) focuses on people’s response to what they hear, as do his instructions to the disciples when they were sent out (Mt.10:14 and parallels).
Diakouo appears once (Ac.23:35) in the context of a court trial, in a usage similar to the more common diakrino (see W.S. #9), the implication being a careful examination.
Eisakouo (5 uses) has more of an implication of listening to a prayer (Zachariah and Cornelius), as does epakouo.  Please see the list of prepositions often used as prefixes in the Appendix to Translation Notes, for the meanings they can contribute.
In the Synoptic Gospels, slightly more than half of the occurrences of akouo refer simply to being made aware of information.  The balance shifts in John, especially when he is quoting Jesus.  Most of the Epistles speak mainly of hearing and listening or responding to information.  There are, however, several notable exceptions.
In addition to the prefixed form, eisakouo, the unaltered form is also used of prayer that is “heard” /answered  (Jn.9:27, Jn.11:41-42, and I Jn 5:14-15.)
The use of akouo in admonitions to heed the word of the prophets (Lk.16:29,31; Mt.13:13-15 and parallels) certainly implies obedience.

The flavor of teaching/learning shows up in Mark’s comment (4:33) that Jesus spoke to his disciples “as they were able to hear (absorb?) it”.  In his discourse in Jn.15:15 Jesus tells the disciples “Everything I heard from my Father, I made known to you,” and later, speaking of the Holy Spirit’s ministry to them (Jn.16:13), “He will not speak on his own, but whatever he hears, he will say.”

That people who gathered to “hear” Jesus teaching probably could have been sorted into several categories, is evident in his frequent repetition of “The one who has ears to hear, had better listen / pay attention!” (This is often cast as a third person imperative:  please see that form explained in the Appendix.)  A similar intent may exist in the “voice out of the cloud” quoted in all the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts (Mt.17:3, Mk.9:7, Lk.9:35), “Listen to him!”  Coming as it does right after Peter’s grandiose offer to build a memorial, it could even be read as “Shut up and pay attention!”

Jesus may also be intending such a nuanced understanding of akouo when he warns, “Take heed how (pos) you hear!” (Lk.8:18, KJV).  Since it immediately follows the parable of the Sower, the response to what one hears is clearly in view.  The parallel in Mk.4:24 (also KJV), “Take heed what (ti) you hear” (neither manuscript cites any textual variants) seems more likely to be calling for discernment as to what is worthy of one’s attention.  Both are legitimate concerns.

So this is one of those word studies that does NOT end up with neat categories or explanations.  Its value is rather to make us aware of greater breadth of meaning than we may assume in casual reading, and hopefully to encourage us to be selective in our hearing / listening, but to recognize also a call for response.

May we do so in faithfulness!

“Truth” – aletheia – is one of the words which, although already richly diverse in its classical usage, took on a whole new dimension in the New Testament.  Jesus’ use of the term in one of his “I AM” statements – Jn.14:6 — is as unique in literature as he himself is unique among people.  So as we pursue Pilate’s (probably cynical) question, “What is truth?” (Jn.18:38), it must be with the realization that, ever since Jesus walked the earth,  “truth” is no longer only a “what?”, but a “who?”, and one’s answer to that question determines the entire direction of his life.

The classical writers parallel many modern understandings of “truth”:
— honesty; the opposite of lying, falsehood, or pretense
— genuine, as opposed to artificial;  correct, as opposed to mistaken
— frankness or candidness in persons, as opposed to hypocrisy
–reality, as opposed to mere imitation, or, as in Plato, the “form” rather than a “shadow”
These are reflected in some of the New Testament uses of “truth” as well: in the idea of being “without deception” (Mt.22:16, Mk.12:14, Jn.4:23-24, Jn.8:40-46), or specifically “not lying or pretending” (Lk.4:25, 22:59, Mk.5:33, 12:32, Jn16:7, Rom.9:1, II Cor.7:14, 12:6, Phil.1:18,) among others.

But in the New Testament, as Bauer’s lexicon notes, “Truth has a strongly practical side, which expresses itself in [behavior].”  Truth is something you DO, not a theoretical statement of intellectual conclusions.  John, in particular, writes of “obeying the truth” or “walking in the truth” (Jn.3:31, I Jn.1:6, II Jn 4, III Jn.3-4), as do Paul (Rom.2:8, II Cor.3:8, Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7), James (5:19), and Peter (I Pet.1:22).  This list can be expanded even more when one keeps in mind that pisteuo, traditionally translated “believe”, actually means “be/become faithful to” (see Word Study #1).

When the New Testament writers speak of “becoming faithful to the truth,”(traditional versions say “believing”) (I Thess.2:13, I Tim.4:3, II Tim.3:7), or “knowing (Col.1:6) the truth” (Paul uses epiginosko here – a strongly experiential form of “knowing”(as does the writer to the Hebrews in 10:26)—they are not referring to any sort of intellectual assent to a list of propositions, but to a chosen way of life!
I Jn.3:18 is especially interesting in this regard, as he admonishes his readers, “Dear children, let’s don’t love in theory [word] or in talk, but in action and truth!”

Also of interest are the instances where “truth” is paired with a noun in the genitive case.  Remember that although the most common use of the genitive is to indicate possession, it may also refer to a source (“coming from”) or the content (“made of”, “consisting of”).  Paul speaks of “the truth of Christ” (II Cor.11:10) or “of God” (Rom.1:25, 3:7), very likely an indication of source, and “of the Gospel (Gal.2:5) most likely content.   Turning the cases around, John refers to the “spirit of truth” (Jn.15:26, 16:3, I Jn.4:6), and Paul to “the word of truth” (IICor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15) , more likely to be a possessive genitive.  These come into sharper focus in the light of Jesus’ statements:
–“I AM …the truth” (Jn.14:6)
— “Thy word is truth” (Jn.17:17) (Remember that John had introduced Jesus himself as “the Word” – Jn.1:1)
— and John’s reminder, “The spirit is truth” (I Jn.5:6).
These three are the only references that seem to make any effort to actually define the term.

Truth is also presented as an active force in human affairs:
–Jesus’ statement, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn.8:32)
–Jesus’ prayer, “Set them apart [make them holy] by [in] the truth” (Jn.17:17)
–James 1:18, where it is represented to be the agent of our birth into the family of God.

None of this should be seen as an attempt to minimize the understanding of “truth” as the absolute honesty and transparency, in both life and speech, expected of all God’s people.  That is basic to all the citations here.

Warnings about opposition to the truth, or refusal to be obedient to it/him, (Rom.1:18, 1:25, 2:8; Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7; II Thess.2:10, 2:12; I Tim.6:5, II Tim.2:18, 3:8, 4:4, Tit.1:14, I Jn.1:6, 1:8,2:4) are in no case concerned about the intricate details debated during centuries of theological speculation by hierarchical councils of various descriptions.  They are concerned with the behavior of those claiming to represent the Lord Jesus.

The same One who explained to Pilate that the purpose of his coming was to “bear witness to the Truth” (Jn.18:37), had earlier proclaimed himself to be the very personification of Truth! (14:6). What clearer synopsis, or identification, could there be, than “Everyone who is from [or, belongs to] the truth, listens to [obeys] my voice” (18:37)?  The Way, the Truth, and the Life, are all about the Lord Jesus!

They all simply refer us back to the same question invoked in several of our earlier studies:
Who’s calling the shots?
Who is in charge?
Who is your King?

In a well-intentioned, but misguided effort to boost the “involvement” of congregational members long reduced to mere spectator roles, countless institutional “churches” have jumped on the bandwagon of “Gift Discovery” campaigns.  A closer examination of their queries of “What are you good at?”, or, worse, “What are you passionate about?” (“empowering people for serious encounter with the Biblical text” is seldom an acceptable answer!), reveals that what they really mean is, “Which already-highly-defined slot in our corporate structure are you willing and able to occupy?” – an exercise that has absolutely no connection to the New Testament concept of the “gifts of God.”

The English word “gift” has been chosen as the translation for no fewer than nine different words in the Greek text.  These can be loosely grouped into three categories:
1.  “cosmic” gifts – dorea, dorema, dosis, classically representing a “bounty” from a king or other superior, a legacy, or a privilege granted
2.  “material” gifts – doron, anathema, doma, classically applied to fees, bribes, votive offerings, or simple presents of any kind
3.  “spiritual enablements” – charisma, charis, merismos, reference to graciousness, usually of a god.
None of these refers to learned skills or innate talents.  Skills and talents are certainly also given by God, and should definitely be used in his service, but they are not “gifts” in the New Testament sense of the word.

We will examine the most frequently used word in each of these categories, in an effort to sort out the diverse implications of the terms.  Please try to remember, these are not simply different ways of saying “gift”.  They are different words, and not one single concept.  It may be helpful to consider, in each case,

1. Who is the giver?
2.  Who is the recipient?
3.  What, exactly, is the gift, or for what purpose is it given?

Dorea is exclusively applied to the overwhelming gift of God to mankind:  his life (Heb.6:4), his Son (Jn.4:10), his Holy Spirit (most of the rest.)  Deliverance from death (Rom.5:15), and the privilege to participate in God’s own justice (5:17) are also included.  No person is capable of giving these:  see Ac.8:20, where Simon the magician is harshly judged for presuming that he could purchase the power to do so.  Dorea is frequently paired with charis – in which case it is translated “gracious gift” or “gift of grace.”  It may enable human generosity (II Cor.9:15) or service (Eph.3:17), but the source is clearly in God, and the result is the gracious inclusion of people in his glorious life.

Doron, on the other hand, except for one anomaly in Eph.2:8, is the province of mortals.  It speaks of people giving presents to other people (Mt.2:11, Rev.11:10), and of people making offerings, usually at the temple (Mt.5:23-24, 8:14, 15:5, 23:18-19, Lk.21:1, and Heb.5:1, 8:3, 8:4, and 9:9).  In both cases, the “gifts” are material things, or money.  The recipients, too, are human: either individuals, or the temple hierarchy.

While both of the words above occur in the Old Testament (LXX), charisma does not.  It is a strictly New Testament word, that appears only after Pentecost!  More specific than dorea, it nevertheless consistently comes from God (mostly the Holy Spirit), although on occasion it was mediated by a person or group (II Cor.1:11, I Tim.4:14, II Tim.1:6).   Paul is careful to avoid taking credit for charisma (Rom.1:11-12), where he is quick to clarify his desire “that I may share with you all some spiritual gift for your strengthening” by adding “to be mutually encouraged among you all by means of one another’s faithfulness.”

The vast majority of charisma references relate to the formation and function of committed disciples as the Body of Christ (see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 7).  Rom.12:6 is the first specific reference to “gifts” in the Body, but 12:3-8 elaborates on the subject, as does the rest of the chapter.  Here we meet the concept that “spiritual gifts” are intended to be the equipment needed for the mutuality that is essential to a faithful Body.  I Cor.1:7 affirms that they assure the full provision for faithful activity, and I Cor.12:4-31 is the most complete treatise on the subject.  Diversity of empowerment and function is emphasized.  Service is the goal (5 and 6).  “The manifestation of the Spirit is given, by means of each one, for everyone’s benefit” (v.7).  These dative cases, traditionally interpreted as indirect objects (“to each one”), given the contextual emphasis on mutuality, are much more likely to intend datives of agency or means (see the section on this passage in Translation Notes, and “Uses of Cases” in the Appendix).  The Holy Spirit is the giver, the recipient is either the body of believers or a person in need; the individual is the agent or means by which the necessary enablement (gift) is delivered – a sort of a “postal service.”

I Peter 4:10 (actually, also v.11) echoes the same concern:  “Just as each one of you has received a spiritual gift, serve each other with it, as good trustees of the many-faceted grace of God.”

Notice again, that none of these “gifts” is a learned ability or natural talent, but the supernatural provision of God for the need at hand.
In no case are “gifts” represented as “diplomas” for having achieved a certain level of “saintliness”, or titles of honor (which Jesus had forbidden).
In no case are they the possession of any individual – and certainly not a permanent possession.  They seem to be distributed almost at random, as needed (I Cor.12:11), and a perusal of the Acts account indicates that different folks may be called upon for different tasks at different times.  The Spirit seems to use whoever is available!

The gifts of God are many and varied, but their purpose is one: to create (by means of dorea) and then to empower and manage (by distribution of charismata) a people who, together, can function as the Body of Christ in the world, “continuing the work of Jesus.”
The responsibility – and the privilege – are enormous.  But so is the provision.
May we respond in faithfulness!

The word “name” (to onoma) appears in the New Testament text more than 200 times, with several different implications, many of which are poorly understood – largely for cultural reasons.  More than 50 of those are merely identifying individuals – as our western culture would expect.  A few are simply counting – used as a synonym  for “people”, and 15-20, especially in the Revelation, refer to evil entities of some sort, or identification with them.  But that leaves us with the vast majority – primarily those referring to the name of God, of the Father, of Jesus, or of the Lord – which are not so easily sorted by dwellers in 21^st century western culture.  The implications of these must be gleaned from the context, which means that any “conclusions” we may draw are merely conjecture, and open to challenge.

Classically, to onoma referred either to a specific person, to one’s fame or reputation, to someone’s financial account or credit, to one’s ancestors, or to a political or business attachment to some source of authority. (Liddell/Scott).  The Arndt and Gingerich translation of Bauer’s lexicon (see appendix) contains a few more anthropological notes:  “The belief in the efficacy of a name is extremely old….This (N.T.) period of literature sees in the name something real:  a piece of the very nature of the personality whom it designates, that partakes of his qualities and his powers.”  It may refer to attributes, ownership, or loyalty.  “The use of a name without the attendant loyalty is seen as hypocrisy or deceit.”  In a similar manner, millenia earlier, people had been warned against “taking the Lord’s name in vain” – i.e., outside the realm of honor and obedience to him.
A name is often assumed to convey the power of the one named, for good or ill.  To “believe in the name” of someone is to certify that he is genuine.  To “call on the name” of someone – human or divine – was an attempt to access his power or intervention.

The Gospels are replete with references to Jesus’ having “come in his Father’s name” – as his representative (Mt.21:9 and parallels, Jn.5:43).  His deeds of power and compassion are offered as witness to the truth of that claim (Jn.10:25).  Consequently, when he sends out disciples “in his name”, or when anyone claims to represent him, similar evidence is reasonably to be expected (Mk.16:17, Lk.10:17, Lk.24:7).  Nevertheless, it is also clear that “in the name of Jesus” is NOT legitimately to be used as a pious version of “abracadabra”!  False claims of his name are roundly condemned, as is obvious in his categorical rejection of those who claimed a non-existent relationship to him in Mt.7:22, and similarly referenced in Mt.24:5, Mk.13:6, Lk21:8 and 21:8 and 17, and illustrated most dramatically in Ac.19:13-16.  This sort of situation does require careful discernment, however:  see Mk.9:38 and Jesus’ response in 9:39.

”Calling on” the name of Jesus (Ac.2:21, 4:12, 9:21, 15:17; Rom.10:13, I Cor.1:2, II Tim.2:19), like “trusting/believing/becoming faithful to” (see W.S. #1) his name (Jn.1:12, 2:23, 3:13-17) seems to carry a strong flavor of commitment to him and his cause, and a consequent expectation of obedience.  That commitment was assumed to be evidenced by “being baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac.2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16), regarding which Bauer’s lexicon notes: “Through baptism ‘eis to onoma’ [literally into the name] of someone, the one who is so baptized becomes the possession of, and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears:  he is thenceforth under the control of …that one – wholly dedicated to him.”

Associating/acting “in someone’s name” was also assumed to access his power or intervention, as is evident in the various accounts of healings, both when disciples were sent out as Jesus’ representatives during and after his earthly ministry, and as the gathered group of committed followers took on their responsibility as the Body of Christ, ministering discipline (I Cor.5:4, II Thess.3:6) as well as healings (Ac.3:6, 4:7, 4:30, 16:18; James 5:14).
A huge amount of rhetoric has been expounded, (loosely) based upon Jesus’ encouraging his disciples to make requests “in his name.”  In the context of this more accurate understanding of the use of the concept of “name”, it should be abundantly clear that he was NOT offering anyone a “blank check”!  Instead of a license to append “in the name of Jesus” like an incantation (certified mail, or an insurance policy!) to every prayer or admonition, his statement must be viewed as a caution:  Be certain that the entreaty is motivated by, and is completely in harmony with the totality of his being – his personality – his Kingly position – and the work of his Kingdom – before attaching the name of Jesus to anything!

Contrary to many modern assumptions is the observation that there are more references to abuse/persecution “for the sake of his name” (at least 17), than there are to glorious “successes” (a few in Revelation, but not before that!)
Consistently, those who associate themselves with the name of Jesus are reminded of their responsibility to take care to bring no reproach upon that name/reputation! (I Cor.1:10, Col.3:17, II Thess.1:12, I Tim.6:1)
It is “in his name” that praise and thanksgiving are to be offered to God (Eph.5:20 and many other places), and that the unity of the brotherhood is to be maintained (I Cor.1:10).

And it gets even better!  The “name” given to Jesus after his triumph over death implies the awarding of a well-deserved title – “above all names” (Phil.2:9) – “above every conceivable rank or power” (Eph.1:21) – “higher than the name of any angels/messengers” (Heb.1:4).  The day will come when that truth is universally acknowledged (Phil.2:10) – and “every knee shall bow” in submission to the name of Jesus!  May God – and his people – speed that day!

But meanwhile, all who do acknowledge Jesus’ name have a clear assignment:  to represent their Sovereign faithfully.  Paul expressed this concern to the brethren in Thessalonica (II Thess.1:12): “That’s what we always keep praying for you all: that our God may make you worthy of the calling, and may fulfill (your) every good intention and faithful deed in (his) miraculous power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified among you all, and you in him.”  The instructions are simple: (Col.3:17) “And everything – whatever you do, in word or deed, (do) everything in the name of the Lord Jesus …” — as his representatives – by his power – and for his honor!

Amen!

You have all heard some version of these tear-jerking lines:

“Jesus was ONLY born in order to die!”

“If I/you had been the ONLY sinner on earth, Jesus would have come and died for me/you!”

“YOUR sinfulness sent Jesus to the cross!”
Impassioned speakers have used these declarations for years, maybe centuries, to create enormous guilt-trips, and the indictment is meekly accepted by thousands.
The only trouble is, JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Increasingly annoyed by the self-centeredness inherent in that focus, which seems so contradictory to the God-ward and out-ward focus of all of Jesus’ words and actions, I decided to comb carefully through the Gospel accounts to discover what HE presented as the purpose of his coming.  Seems like it should be a no-brainer to consider Jesus himself as the best authority on such a subject.
Now, before you get all up-in-the-air about “inspiration”, please understand that I am not denying the inspiration of the writers of either the Gospels or the Epistles.  However, I do maintain that their explanations must be understood in the light of what Jesus himself has said.  So let’s take a look at his own words.

Purpose, in the Greek language, may be expressed grammatically in three ways:  with the particle hina and a subjunctive verb (usually translated “in order that”); with a simple infinitive (translated “to”); or with the use of the preposition eis, or the phrase eis touto (translated “for this reason”, or “this is why”).  A fourth, more ambiguous form uses the particle dei, “it is necessary” – which may, but need not have a purpose implication.  It is usually more of a forecast than a statement of purpose.  Here is a simple list of reference where Jesus is quoted as using one of these constructions.

Infinitives:
Mt.5:17 – to fulfill the law and the prophets (which he then proceeds to correct)
Mt.9:13 – to call not the just, but those who have failed
Mt.10:34 – to throw fire on the earth (separation, based on relation to him)
Mk.2:17 – parallel to Mt.9:13

Lk.12:49-53 – parallel to Mt.10:34
Mt.20:28 – not to be waited on, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (a ransom secures release from captivity, and is the only – even oblique – reference to his death)
Lk.4:18-19 – to announce good news to the poor, to be a herald of healing to the blind and release to captives, to send out in freedom those that are “broken”
Lk.19:10 – to seek and to rescue those who are lost/destroyed.

hina:
Lk.22:29-30 – The Father gave him a Kingdom so that he could pass it on to the disciples
Jn.3:15 – both the conditional (believing/being faithful) and the subjunctive (“may have”)are in the present tense – not future.
Jn.3:16 – same combination of present tenses
Jn.3:17 – so that the world may (also present tense) be rescued/ “saved”
Note that if these referred to a single event, the tense would be aorist, and the result future.  Neither is the case.
Jn.6:38 – “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but to do the will of him that sent me.”  (used 3x in 38-40)
Jn.10:10 – “I have come that they may have life (present tense) and have it abundantly.”
Jn.12:46 – “I have come, a light, into the world, so that everyone who is (present tense) faithful to me may not remain in darkness.”
Jn.12:47 – not to judge the world but to rescue it
Jn.17:2 – to give eternal life (present tense), which he then proceeds to define as intimate acquaintance with the Father and with himself, to those who were given to him.
Jn.17:13 – “that they may have my joy complete among themselves.”

eis:
Mk.1:38 — “That’s why I came out” (to preach in other communities)
Jn.9:39 – for discernment (eis krima)
Jn.18:37 – (before Pilate) eis touto – “That’s why I was born and came into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

dia touto: Jn.12:27:  “This is why I came to this hour” – Jesus does not explain this statement, but virtually everybody else does!

dei:  Remember, this indicates a forecast, not necessarily a purpose:
Mt.16:21 – to suffer abuse from the hierarchy, die, and be raised
Mk.9:31-32 —  parallel
Lk.22:37, 24:26, 24:44 – will deal with these later
Jn.3:14 – to be “raised up” or “exalted”
Jn.10:16 – to round-up the “other sheep” who will listen.

Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to private, individualistic “forgiveness of sins”.  See W.S.#7.  Jesus certainly did make that offer on occasion (Mt.9:2-6, parallels in Mark and Luke, and Lk.7:47), but when challenged, the objection had nothing whatever to do with his death, but rather with his right/authority  to forgive because of his identity with God!

Where, then, did this distorted limitation of Jesus’ purpose come from?  His comments in Lk.22:37 and 24:44 may be helpful.  Jesus explains on both occasions, “everything that is written about me must be fulfilled.”  Many times, he had found it necessary to correct misperceptions of what the “anointed one” would be or do.  Religious authorities had  concocted elaborate – but mistaken – ideas of a political emancipator, and other glorious (to them) job descriptions for the awaited “messiah.”  Is Jesus perhaps cautioning his people to sort carefully which of the oft-quoted prescriptions of the Law and the Prophets really are “about him”?  Perhaps we need to look at these again, and instead of trying to cram Jesus into the traditions of an ancient sacrificial system, turn our energies rather to participating in the Kingdom that HE SAID he came to inaugurate!  Not everything “written” is necessarily “about him.”
Notice also the accounts (Mt.27:11, Mk.14:61 and 15:9, Lk.23:5 and 13-22, Jn.19:6-16) of Jesus’ trial.  The charge against him was his Kingship and Sonship – there was no “religious” element at all.

Jesus has come “in the Father’s name” – as his representative (Jn.5:43), as the Light that can enable us no longer to “walk in darkness” (Jn.12:46).  He has come to rescue the world (12:47).  He has fulfilled the (legitimate) promises of ancient writings (Mk.5:17), and ransomed his people from whatever captivity they suffer.  He has come that his “sheep” may know abundant life (Jn 10:10), and to bestow “eternal life” – which he has defined as intimate acquaintance with both himself and the Father (Jn.17:2), upon those who trustingly follow him in faithfulness.  He has covered all the bases – provided for every need.  My son Dan has an excellent summary in his blog post “Enough with salvation already!” which I commend to your attention.  http://nailtothedoor.blogspot.com/2009/05/enough-with-salvation-already.html

The crucial question here is the same as in so many other places and situations, and the only one that matters, in the last analysis:
WHO IS YOUR KING?