The Pioneers’ New Testament

Good morning, folks.

I think there needs to be a reminder of the purpose for which this site was created.  I have needed to delete a couple of “responses” which seemed to be aimed primarily at arguing some sort of theological or doctrinal position.  If you would refer to the several introductory statements, you would see that this is not intended to be a forum either to attack or to defend any such hobbyhorses.

The purpose of this site is to explore one question:  “What does the New Testament text SAY?”  In this attempt, language — vocabulary and grammar — is the tool.  “Word Study”, as here defined, is the attempt, using linguistic and historical tools, to discern the intention of the text. In the process, doubtless, “theology” and “doctrine” may well be either challenged or corroborated, depending upon the degree to which the compilers of those positions derived their teaching from the text itself, and the degree to which they stretched or ignored the text in favor of their own preconceptions.

As anyone who has attempted to write faithfully knows, there are occasions when words seem to be “supplied” beyond one’s own ability.  This, I believe, is only a shadow of what happened with the Biblical texts.  That is not to claim a similar level of “inspiration“, but simply to illustrate that it is perfectly possible for any writer — or speaker — to “say” much more than he may have overtly intended. (Case in point:  Caiaphas, at Jesus’ trial. John 11:50-51.  And he was not even a “believer!”)  Therefore, arguments as to what a writer “could” or “could not” have “known” are completely irrelevant.

I continue to welcome comment and critique;  but please keep it on the level to which this site is committed.  I will gladly publish and respond to linguistic challenge; but I will not allow this to become a forum for doctrinal disputes.

In the service of the King,
Ruth

Hello, everyone.  Dan will put these corrections into the PDF copy in the next couple weeks, but for those of you who may have made your own copy, here is the list of corrections which you can add by hand, yourselves:

Corrections for NT text – July 2009

 Mt.5:25   add [opponent] after “accuser”  (twice)

Mt.8:5,8, and 13, and 12:18   add [servant] after “child”

Mt.14:31  add “t” to “hesitate” 

Mt.26:25, 26:64, and 27:11   add at end, [or, “What do you say?]

Mk.15:2   same as above

Lk.17:3  typo:  “each other”     

Lk.23:3  same as Mt. 26:25

John – all ok    

Ac.8:22  typo:  “removed”  (insert “v” and “d”)

Ac. 8:39   typo:  remove extra “r” in “later”

Rest of Acts ok

Romans ok      

I Cor.1:2  change “were” to “are” in parentheses          

I Cor. 1:30  typo:  omit “h” before “identification”

II Cor. Ok

Gal. ok

Eph. Ok          

Phil. 2:16  typo:  “c” at beginning of “continue” in [].

I and II Thess. Ok

I and II Tim. Ok

Titus ok

Philemon ok

Heb. Ok          

James ok

I Peter 2:20  should be [] instead of ()  around “demonstrates”

I Peter 3:17   insert alternate [or, It is better (for) those who are doing good, if they want God’s will, to suffer rather than doing wrong.]

II Peter ok

I and II John ok           

 Rev.6:16-18   typos:  Remove “ at beginning, Put it before “fall”.  Remove ‘ after “anger”.  The closing “ at the end is correct.

Rev 18:20   make sure “exacted” is corrected.  The “x” was omitted in the printed version.

 In NOTES:  Rev.4:6-8  close parentheses after “speculation”.

   Intro to John’s letters:  add “t” to “written”

I will still be glad for any suggestions you have.

Well, folks, these 15 examples will have given you some idea of the possibilities of Word Study.  Refer back to the methods and resources suggested at the beginning of this series, and start digging in.

I am going to take a break from these postings for a while, as while working on them, I have discovered a few typos and corrections that need to be made in the translation.  I will be going over the whole text again, and when that’s done, we will post a corrected version.

That means this would be an excellent time for you to communicate any adjustments you might care to suggest, as well as other words that you would like to see handled.

Together, we can all hear the Lord much more clearly.

Thanks for your interest and participation.

Ruth

The word eikon, “image,” is one where the Greek and English concepts are unusually parallel. Historically, it referred to “a likeness, picture, or statue; one’s reflection in a mirror; a personal description; a representation or imaginary form; a pattern, archetype, similitude or comparison.”

The whole idea of “the image of God”, of course, derives from the Genesis account of the creation. Interestingly, this event is never mentioned in the context of “image” in the New Testament, where Jesus is the only person to whom the term “image of God” is applied (II Cor.4:4 and Col.1:15), and his people are being re-created in his image (Rom.8:29, I Cor.15:49, II Cor.3:18, Col.3:10). Nevertheless, the creation account includes significant elements that deserve our attention.

When Scripture speaks of the creation of “Man”, the word used is anthropos, a generic term which refers to the species, not to gender. The term includes both aner (man) and gune (woman). It might better be translated “people” except that it occurs also in the singular. Sometimes “person” works, but not always. On Creation Morning, when the Creator spoke everything into existence, he is quoted (in the Septuagint – “LXX” — the third century BC translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek) in Gen.1:26, “Let us make man according to our image…”. “Man” uses the singular form of anthropos, therefore referring to the species (the next phrases refer to “them”). The plurals “us” and “our” with which God refers to himself have often been considered the earliest hint of the concept of the Trinity, although some have treated it as the “royal ‘we’” referring to the English custom – which is unlikely. That practice arose many centuries later.

It is not my intention here to get into a technical discussion of the Trinity. That is a game for folks who need complicated theories to enhance their egos! I simply call your attention to the fact that the initial intent was for Man (the species) to function with the unity and mutuality seen in interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: varied in function and activity, but perfectly one in purpose and devotion. This idea is developed in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 2. Sadly, the species — anthropos — chose not to cooperate.

The point of what God has been trying to do throughout all the ages since Creation, is to reveal himself – to, in, and through his people. The same theme appears in Jesus’ final recorded prayer for his disciples, in John 17: “that they may be one … so that the world may know …”
Please note that none of this is directed to or about individuals. No one person, however faithful, is capable of reflecting fully the image of the Triune God! We are not big enough, wise enough, nor yet sufficiently “conformed to his image.” Only by functioning as one, as our Sovereign prayed, can we begin to become what he intends, and “bear his image.”

Outside of Genesis, virtually all of the rest of the Old Testament occurrences of eikon, as well as those in Revelation, refer to idols and idolatry. Having totally missed – or rejected – the calling to reflect the image of their Creator, people created “images” of their own design, incorporating characteristics (power, ferocity, fecundity, etc.) which they hoped thereby to acquire. In Romans 1, Paul describes the tragic downward spiral that resulted. Jesus, too, described efforts to turn people back to their created purpose, having sent a long stream of messengers and prophets (see Mt.23:34 and parallels), until finally he came in person, to walk among men and create a demonstration project of his intentions.

The encounter between Jesus and his challengers (the only Synoptic use of eikon–Mt.22:20, Mk.12:16, Lk.20:24) over the payment of the Roman taxes (actually, tribute-money – the fee imposed by a conqueror upon vassal states, symbolic of their submission) is instructive. It combines several concepts of “image.” In ancient empires, as in modern times, coinage was designed bearing the “image” of a ruler – who (more overtly in those days) frequently insisted upon being worshipped as a divinity. It is partly for this reason that “money-changers” were required in the temple courts: money bearing an idolatrous image could not be used in a “holy” place. The religious potentates who accosted Jesus on that occasion should not have had such a thing as a Roman coin in their possession! It was “unclean”! Note that Jesus did not have one. This is further, seldom-noticed evidence of his opponents’ duplicity.
The Lord’s question is probing and perceptive: “Whose image is this?” The ensuing conversation reveals the cultural convention that the “image” is also a sign of ownership. It belongs to Caesar, and to his system. Let him have it. But don’t stop there! Let God also be given what belongs to him – what bears his image – ourselves, and our very life. Is it too much of a stretch, then, to suggest that his people, the bearers of his image, are in fact the “coinage” of the Kingdom, intended to be used for the King’s purposes?

“The image of God” refers not only to our provenance and ownership, but also to our destiny! Please notice: all of these assurances and admonitions are addressed in the plural. We will “arrive” together, or not at all.
Romans 8:29: Those whom the Lord has called, are intended (or, if you prefer, “destined”) to become “conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus – who is himself (II Cor.4:4) “the image of God.” Paul repeats this designation in the letter to Colossae (1:15) “he (Jesus) is the image of the unseen God!”
Earlier, he had explained to the folks at Corinth (I Cor.15:47-49), “The first person was from the dust of the earth; the second person was from heaven. “Dust people” are like the dust-person; and heavenly people are like the one from heaven. Just as we bore the image of the “man of dust”, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.”

This is the transformation that begins when people enlist in the Kingdom, and continues until its consummation. “The one who initiated a good work among you all, will keep working on it until it’s complete at the Day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil.1:6).
It requires our cooperation – Paul frequently speaks of “putting off” the old ways and “putting on” the new, as one changes one’s clothing. Typical of the shifting responsibility is the passage in Col.3:10: “Put on the new person,” he directs – an aorist (single, snapshot action) middle (verb voice in which the subject both acts and is affected by the action) form — “which is continually being renewed” — a present (continuous) passive (the subject is acted upon by an external force or person) participle — “in understanding, after the image of the one who created it.” The choice of direction is ours; the heavy lifting is in the capable hands of our Lord and King.
“And we all, with faces that have been uncovered, reflecting the Lord’s radiance, are being transformed (another present passive) into his image.”

Amen, Lord! Let it be so!

It’s certainly true that we/you’re not “perfect” — but we/you’re not scum, either!

It must cause real distress for our gracious Lord, having chosen, called and redeemed “a people” to populate and demonstrate his Kingdom, when he sees those people, instead of rejoicing in that calling and buckling down to work at it, preferring to wallow in lamentations about their self-diagnosed “unworthiness,” and proclaim themselves to be “wretches” and “worms”, instead of Kingdom citizens personally selected by the King of Kings!
It’s all over our hymnody: “such a worm as I,” “guilty, vile, and helpless we,” “false and full of sin I am,” “saved a wretch like me” … and so on and on.
But it’s NOT in the New Testament! And as such, it is dishonoring to the Lord who has called us! Paul admonished the Colossian brethren (1:12) rather, to “Joyfully keep giving thanks to the Father, who qualified you all for a share in the inheritance of his people!” Do you really intend to call brother Paul a liar? Or when Jesus himself says of the faithful, (Rev.3:4) “They will walk with me in white, because they are worthy,” is he mistaken?
I don’t think so.
Some call it “humility;” I “humbly” submit that a better word would be “falsehood”!

Tapeinos (adj.), tapeinoo(v.), and tapeinophrosune(n.), the words usually translated “humility” or “to humble”, are indeed commended as attitudes and behavior becoming for the people of God. But the actual meaning of the words is poles apart from their usual demeaning English connotations.
Tapeinos was originally a geographical word, used of “low-lying” land, or low water in a river or pond. Astronomically, it referred to stars near the horizon; and physically, to people of short stature. From there, its usage morphed into ideas of powerlessness, poverty, weakness, or a lack of prestige. In a moral sense, it could have either good or bad connotations – probably depending upon the perspective of the speaker.
Tapeinoo, the verb form, indicates a decrease in size or influence, fasting or abstinence of any kind, as well as humiliation or abasement.
Tapeinophrosune – with the addition of a suffix taken from the verb phroneo (to have understanding, to be wise or prudent, to be sane, to know by experience, to purpose or direct one’s attention, to be in possession of one’s senses) – directed the implication to a person’s deliberate attitude of mind.

The New Testament frequently contrasts “humbled” with “exalted”. In Mary’s song, for example (Lk.1:51-53) she refers to the “putting down” of the “mighty” with the exaltation of the “lowly.” Jesus uses a similar comparison (Mt.18:4 and 23:12, and parallels in Lk.18:14 and 14:11) of “humbling oneself” — tapeinoo — leading to “exaltation” — hupsoo.
This appears to be what has led some folks to conclude that they are being asked to adopt a stance of groveling, self-deprecating worthlessness, and (proudly!) to label it “humility”! They fail to notice that tapeinoo is used of Jesus himself (Phil.2:8), and Jesus never pretended to think he was worthless! Paul’s point is that Jesus deliberately chose to forego the privileged position that was rightfully his. He focused on Jesus’ absolute obedience to the Father’s will: simply the direct opposite of self-promotion.
A similar healthier tone is seen in the Isaiah prophecy quoted by John the Baptist (Lk.3:5). The scene is one of road construction, where hilltops are scraped off (tapeinoo) and valleys filled (hupsoo) to create a level super-highway for the arrival of the King! This was a common practice in antiquity. It is leveling that is called-for — not degradation!

Although he did not use the word, a similar attitude is evident in Jesus’ instructions to his disciples in Mt.20:25: “You all know that the rulers of the nations (Gentiles) dominate them, and their great ones wield oppressive power over them; but it shall not be that way among you all!” and in Mt.23:12, “You are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And don’t call any one on earth Father, for your one Father is in heaven. And do not be called Leaders, because your one Leader is Christ.” Jesus himself is the only superior, among his people: he has expressly forbidden human hierarchy! How sad, that these instructions are so universally ignored!

James, in his instructions about the rich and poor in the church (chapter 2) becomes quite specific in denouncing status and favoritism in the brotherhood. Paul went to great lengths in his letter to Colossae (chapter 2) to point out the “false humility” of various pagan practices, which had been touted as representing some sort of superior “spirituality” (does that sound contemporary?!). He makes the point that such exercises are only a form of showing-off, and have no value for Kingdom living.

In his farewell to the elders from Ephesus (Ac.20:13-35) Paul listed the characteristics of his service among them, which he described as “humility” — his faithful teaching, his self-support, and his honesty before them all. “Lowliness” (tapeinophrosune), an assumption of completely level standing, is listed along with gentleness, patience and forbearance, as needful for healthy relationships in the Body (Eph.4:2).

I like the motto I copied from a friend’s desk:
“Humility is not thinking less of yourself,
it is thinking of yourself less!”
Deliberate focus upon Kingdom affairs and interests rather than our own self-interest – obedience modeled after the Lord Jesus — the absence of posturing and pretentious behavior – are worth a lot more in the service of our King, than abject servitude and songs about “wretches” and “worms”!
The observation may be coarse and ungrammatical, but it is nevertheless gloriously true:
“God don’t make no junk!”
We are created and called to be servants – even children! — of the King, citizens of the Kingdom in which there is only one superior – the King himself – and the citizens serve him, and one another, in the true “humility” of mutual respect, honor, and love!

The English word “perfect” carries many different ideas.  To illustrate:  when parents enfold a newborn child in their first “group hug”, gingerly unwrap the precious bundle to marvel at the tiny fingers and toes, and exclaim, “He/she’s perfect!” — nobody argues.  When the school child proudly brings home a “perfect” paper, he is praised.  Later, with considerably less delight, they may refer to their teenager as a “perfect storm!” and still later, he may land the “perfect” job for which he is “perfectly” qualified, and find the “perfect” match with whom to start the whole process all over again.  In each case, a different idea is in view.
Ironically, it is the sense of the “perfect” (without error) schoolwork, the only concept that is not represented among the Greek words used in the New Testament, upon which people have become fixated when pontificating about the “Christian life”.  Too often, it then becomes a weapon of theological warfare, ignoring the fact that none of the seven different words that traditional versions have rendered “perfect” carries any implication of being totally free from error!

Akribos (from akriboo) refers to “accurate information, careful investigation, thorough understanding.”  Luke uses it to describe his own research (1:3), Priscilla and Aquila correcting the errors in the teaching of Apollos (Ac.18:26), and legal investigations by government officials (Ac.23:15, 23:20, and 24:22).

Artios — “suitable, a perfect example of its kind, full grown, mature” — is used only once in the New Testament, (II Tim.3:17), of the maturity Paul sets before Timothy as a goal.

Epiteleo — “to pay in full, to discharge one’s duty, to complete, finish or accomplish a task” — is translated “perfect” only twice (II Cor.7:1 and Gal.3:3). In other contexts, the translations are more in accord with its definitions, especially those referring to the completing of a task (Rom.15:28, II Cor.8:6 and 8, and Phil.1:6).

Katartizo — “to adjust, put in order, restore, mend, furnish, equip, prepare,” involves the process of teaching, an important component of maturity.  It is even used classically of the setting of a broken or disjointed limb!  Jesus uses it of a disciple “becoming like his teacher” (Lk.6:40); Paul includes it in his instructions for the growth of the Body in Corinth (I Cor.1:10, II Cor.13:11) and his intention to add to his teaching in Thessalonica (I Thess.3:10).  God himself is doing the teaching in Heb.13:21 and I Pet.5:10:  “on-the-job training” of the very best kind!

By far the most common among the references are two related words:
teleios (adj.) — “complete, entire, whole; fully constituted, valid; full-grown, married; accomplished, trained, qualified; absolute or final, serious or dangerous (0f illness); and unblemished (of an animal sacrifice),      and
teleioo (v.) — to make perfect, complete, or accomplish; to execute or make valid a legal document; to be successful; to reach maturity (fruit, animals, or people); to be fulfilled or brought to consummation (a prophecy or promise.)
I have tentatively sorted the passages where these latter words appear into three groups on the strength of these definitions (definitely open to challenge!):  those that refer to a task or purpose being finished or accomplished; those that refer to maturity; and those that indicate completeness, validity, or fulfillment.

Jesus, for example, referred to “finishing” the particular healing work in which he was involved when he was warned to leave town because of Herod’s plotting (Lk.13:32).  In Phil.3:12, Paul speaks of God’s work in him not being yet “finished”.  James 1:4 refers to wisdom “finishing” its work in shaping God’s people, and Hebrews 9:11 to the better tabernacle than the elaborate tent in the desert.  In most of these, the word “complete would have worked equally well.

Frequently, “complete” is contrasted with “partial” or “in progress,” and refers to a goal that is still before us — James 2:22 refers to faithfulness being “made complete” by action; I Jn.4:17 to love being “made complete”; and Heb.11:40 to the faithful folks of the past being “made complete” only together with the followers of Jesus.  In his prayer (Jn.17:23) Jesus asks that his disciples be “made complete” in unity with each other, with himself, and with the Father.  And of course, there is the most familiar statement, in I Cor.3:10, that when all is “complete,” the partial will no longer be needed.

The greater portion of the references refer to maturity.  Paul frequently admonished his readers to “grow up” — a constant, lifetime assignment for all of us.  Clearly, that is the sense of Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:48, in the context of his teaching that the attitudes and behavior of his disciples are expected to be patterned after the Father, rather than the local culture, as a child learns to mimic his adult role models.  Paul, in Eph.4:13, Phil.3:15, and Col.1:28 and 4:12, incorporates the same idea of working/growing toward maturity, and John (I Jn.4:18) highlights the result of that maturing process: fear being replaced by a total confidence in the love of God.
Hebrews 2:10 and 5:9 suggest that maturity may have been a process, even for Jesus himself, as our forerunner.  This may also include the sense of establishing his qualifications for the work of conforming us to his own image.  Please note, to think of Jesus “maturing” is NOT to suggest that he was ever less than the earthly manifestation of our holy God.  But also remember that he did deign to be born and reared as a person.  I refuse to engage in the argument as to whether he ever had a normal childhood spat with his brothers.  To insist that he could not, however, is to miss the meaning of teleios altogether, as well as to deny his total identification with our human condition.  I do think this indicates that in our quest for the maturity to which we are called, we need not categorize immaturity as “sinful”, wrong, or evil.  It’s simply what a dear friend used to call “a No Parking zone.”

Note also that maturity is never represented as an instantaneous achievement. “Mature” looks different at age 10 — or 20 — or 40– or 70, physically, socially, and spiritually.  Jesus, and the faithful of historic times, are the only ones for whom it is spoken of as an accomplished fact.
For the rest of us, “Nobody’s perfect” must describe a goal, not an excuse:  a motivation, not a lame apology.  It is our privilege to declare with brother Paul,
“Not that I’ve already arrived, or already have been made complete (teleios) — but I’m striving intensely to take possession (of that for which) I was taken-possession-of by Christ Jesus.” (Phil.3:12), and later (v.15) “Anyone who is mature (teleios) must have this mind-set.”
Keep on keeping on!

This subject, which has borne the weight of complex “theological” arguments for centuries, is far too broad and deep to be contained in a post of reasonable length. I do not intend to try to settle all the hypothetical questions in which self-styled “experts” delight. An honest encounter with the New Testament will almost always come up with more questions than answers, and this one is no exception.
One can delve into the various deriatives of thelo (classically ethelo)(v.),thelema (n), and boulomai (v.), boule (n), or boulema (n) – none of which make the classical distinctions in which theoreticians delight – i.e., “permissive will,” “eternal will,” “ultimate will,”, “sovereign will,” and so on down the list of doctrinal hobbyhorses.

Thelema and its related words are classically defined simply as: “to be willing, to consent, to delight in, to ordain or decree, to be naturally disposed toward a person, idea, or thing.”
Boulomai, the stronger word, is listed as “the wishes of the gods” (in Homer), “one’s choice or preference, to want to do something, desire, prefer, purpose, intend that something be done.”
Please note that none of these carry any implicationof direct causation. Both word groups legitimately contain sufficient latitude that people with “an axe to grind” can manipulate them with amazing dexterity. I choose not to join that fray, but rather to call your attention to the handful of places where the statement is plainly phrased: “This isthe will of God …” or, “The will of God is ….” Whatever direction people choose to push (or twist?) the more ambiguous statements, these few are unmistakably clear: and consequently, must inform / govern any conclusion that requires or permits interpretation. Any interpretation that directly contradicts what is plainly stated,must be recognized as being in error.

I am deliberately listing these with only minimal comment: they speak for themselves:
Mt.18:14 – Jesus speaking — “It is NOT the will of my/your Father in heaven that one of these little ones be destroyed/lost.” (note: “mikroi” may refer to actual children, or to newly recruited disciples.)
Jn.6:39 – Jesus speaking — “This is the will of the one that sent me: that I may not lose anyone of all that he has given me, but that I may raise him up in the last day.”
Jn.6:40 – still Jesus – “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one who sees the Son and is faithful to him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
I Thess.4:3 — “This is the will of God” — the faithful being set-apart / “sanctified” / made holy for him – exhibiting exemplary moral and ethical behavior.
I Thess.5:18 — “This is the will of God in Christ Jesus” — that his people should give thanks continually, IN (not “for”) everything.
I Peter 2:15 — “This is God’s will: that by doing good, you should silence the ignorance” of those who make spurious accusations.
Mt.8:3 – Jesus, again — “I will – his intention to heal the leper.
Mt.9:13 – Jesus, quoting Hosea 6:6 — “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”
I Tim.2:4 – (God), “who will have [wants] all people to be saved/rescued, and come to understanding of the truth.”

These are completely unequivocal.
Another block of references indicate that “God’s will” is something that his people are expected to DO.
Mt.7:21 – Jesus speaking: “Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord!” will come into the kingdom of heaven, but he that keeps on doing the will of my Father in heaven.”
Mt. 12:50 (and parallel, Mk.3:35) – Jesus speaking — “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, this one is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Jn.4:34 – Jesus in Samaria — “My food is that I continually may do the will of the one that sent me, and that I may complete his work.”
Jn.6:38 – Jesus again — “I have come down from heaven, not to do what I want, but to dothe will of the one that sent me.”
Eph.6:6 — “as Christ’s slaves, doing God’s will with your whole self.”
Heb.10:7,9 – quoting Jesus, “I come to do your will.”
Heb.10:36 — “You all have need of endurance, in order that when/since you have done God’s will, you may obtain the promise.”
Heb.13:21 — “He will establish you all, in everything good, for doing his will.”
I Jn.2:17 — “The world is passing away, and so are its passions; but the person who keeps on doing God’s will remains forever.”

Of course, to “do God’s will,” one must know what that “will” is. And this is the key.
“God’s will” is not a subject for debates, but a pattern for the life of his people!
Actually, the whole New Testament is the “instruction manual” for that project: the demonstration – by the people he has called and assembled — of God’s mercy and gracious provision for his creation. The instruction manual is provided for a very simple purpose:
Jn.7:17 — “If anyone wants to DO his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God.” Might it possibly be a corollary, that a person who does not purpose to “do his will” can not know? (There is a similar flavor in James’ advice about asking for wisdom– 1:5).
Paul described it to the Ephesian brethren (1:9-10), “God let us in on the mystery of his will – he set it all out in him (Christ) – his plan for the consummation of all time – that absolutely everything be summed up under the headship of Christ – things in heaven and things on earth!” and later reiterated, (5:17) “So don’t be unwise, but keep working to understand what the will of the Lord is!”
He prayed for the Colossians (1:9-10), “asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge of his will …. so that you may behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order to please him fully!”
He gave the Roman readers a classic description of what should be integral to metanoia (W.S.#6) in 12:2 — “Do not continue to pattern yourselves by this age, but be continuously, completely changed by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is – what is good, and pleasing, and complete.”
If that doesn’t send us scurrying back to the textbook (the New Testament), I don’t know what will.

To be sure, incidents of specific individual guidance are occasionally mentioned, as are callings to a particular task. These must not be ignored, but tested and confirmed in the Body. We are called to enable one another’s assignments.
Please note also that the designation “God’s will” is never applied, in any New Testament text, to any form of disaster, disease, or disobedience! Such things will happen in the world we live in – and will affect the lives of the faithful as well as the unfaithful. But in no instance are they represented as caused by “the will of God!” (Please see the previous post — #11) God’s will is that we respond/ react to whatever life brings, in faithfulness.
In I Pet.4:19, for example, “according to God’s will”, grammatically, could link either to “suffering” or to “entrust themselves.” Contextually, (see vv.12-16), the latter choice seems more consistent with the rest of the passage. This is one of many reasons why one should be extremely wary of quoted “verses” removed from their original context. Isolated “verses” are so easily twisted to win an argument or “prove” a point!

I believe that it is the “will of God” that his people quit wrangling over how that “will” applies to other people, and get about the business of incarnating the answer to Paul’s prayer “asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge of his will ….in order to please him fully!”
Amen, Lord! THY WILL BE DONE!!!!

How many times have you heard – or said — “God is/was testing me/you,” “God won’t give you more than you can handle!”, or “God has put me/you through a heavy trial!”, or something similar? The culturally expected response is usually respectful sympathy, and a few “piety points” to the credit of the speaker. Why does it so seldom occur to anyone to reply, as the apostle James did (1:13-14), “But God doesn’t DO that!” ?

There are four different words that have been translated “trial” — each only once in the entire New Testament. Dokime (also rendered “experience, experiment, or proof”), classically defined “to test or assay, to approve or sanction, to examine and admit to a class” , in Paul’s second letter to Corinth (8:2); dokimion (the means by which a test is made) in I Peter 1:7; peira (trial, attempt, experience) in Heb.11:36; and purosis (burning, cooking, or destruction by fire) in I Peter 4:12 and Rev.18. None of these are represented to be caused or “sent” upon his people by God, although several times he is said to have used them, or turned them to the benefit of the affected individual. Sometimes, with other translations, those same words merely refer to human investigations.

The remedy is equally clear. Jesus himself has “been there, done that.” Heb.2:18 tells us, “In that he himself has suffered temptation/testing, he can help those who are being tempted/tested.” Or, as a later writer has put it, “He made himself like us, so that he could make us like himself!” By having experienced severe temptation/testing and triumphed over it, Jesus was enabled to extend his own success to his people!
Paul’s reassurance in I Cor.10:13 is essentially the same. Notice carefully that this passage also attributes to God not the source of the testing, but rather the “way out!” These two passages need to be held together, like the two lenses of a binocular, to obtain a proper perspective. And as always, only the Lord Jesus can “hold everything together” as needed. He has had a lot of practice, as Peter reminds us (II Pet.2:4-9) – and has also promised to rescue his people (Rev.3:10) from the greater testing on the horizon – to enable their/our endurance. “He has been tested in everything, just like us – but he didn’t flunk!” (Heb.4:15)

So where do we come out? It is appropriate neither to apply the label “trial/testing/temptation” to every major or minor annoyance of life (although one’s response to those certainly does “prove” — demonstrate – where his loyalties lie!), nor to ascribe all our “troubles” to the “will of God” (another needed word study!) Only when tests/temptations are recognized in their true light – attempts to turn us aside from whole-hearted devotion to the Lord and his Kingdom – and their source is rightly identified – persons or institutions that have set themselves in opposition to that Kingdom, and that malevolent power whose cause they serve – can the battle lines be accurately drawn.

(I Peter 4:12-16) observes, “Don’t be surprised/shocked” when trials/testings come – that is to be expected, if one is faithful to the Kingdom of a King whom the world does not acknowledge. Just make sure, he notes, that the “sufferings” imposed from the outside are not deserved.
And don’t blame God!!! He does not attack his own Kingdom or its citizens. Jesus gave his life in their/our defense!
THY KINGDOM COME!!!!!!

Please remember that a “word study” must confine itself to passages where the actual word  is  used.  There are other references that may – or may not – bear upon the subject under consideration.  It is important to distinguish, for example, between simple cause and effect, and “the judgment of God.”  Actions do have consequences:  it may be simply a result of the way the world works – do not confuse consequences with overt judgments.

Only in threatening theological rhetoric is talk about the “final judgment” used in an attempt to bludgeon members of an audience into accepting a list of statements about the nature and purposes of God.  There is not a single example in the New Testament record of anything similar being primary – or even present!– in the “evangelistic” message.
While classical uses of krino do include the sense of a legal, judicial verdict, there is no sense of divine retribution, and certainly none of “eternal” duration.  Although that idea does occur – rarely – in the New Testament, implicit references to judgment are found only in 7 of the 68 uses of aionion (“eternal” or “everlasting”), while all the rest refer to “life” and all sorts of “blessedness.”  A related word, krimatos, is only found with one of those seven – Heb.6:2, where it appears on the list of foundational things that need to be “laid aside” in order to move on to maturity (see W.S. #6).

In point of fact, the vast majority of references to the judgment of God are addressed to the faithful, for their encouragement and comfort!  Romans 2:16, Gal.5:10, I Pet.2:23 and 4:5, and Rev.6:10, 11:18, 16:5-6, 17:1, 18:8, and 19:2 all speak of the eventual vindication of the faithful and the destruction of their persecutors.
Another large group of references, Rom.2:16, I Pet.1:17, II Pet.2:1, and Rev. 16:7 and 19:11, emphasize that the judgment of God is consummately fair, and therefore greatly to be desired by folks who have suffered unjust treatment.  Heb.4:13 does not use the word, but characterizes a situation where the faithful have nothing to fear: “There’s no created thing concealed from him: everything is naked and exposed to his eyes, with respect to whom the Word (evaluates) us.”  John 5:22-30 and much of chapter 8 explain that Jesus himself will judge honestly.  Here is a judge that cannot be “bought”!
Of course, judgment that is absolutely just and fair can seem like a threat, to anyone who is trying to hide, or get away with something.  But for all who have struggled to live faithfully, in a world that does not acknowledge its true King, it presents the joyful prospect of deliverance.  I treasure our last conversation with a dear, elderly brother, who, after a lifetime of service to his church, was the victim of vicious false accusations, and had been repudiated by many.  He had stood kindly by us, years earlier, when we had been the victims of false gossip.  Brother John had been able to retain his radiant love and trust in the Lord’s mercy, and told us:  “We can all hold on to this:  the Lord knows the truth, and he is the one that is our final judge.”  That was a joyful statement of trust – not of fear.

On the rare occasions when mention of judgment is directed to the uncommitted – Mt.12:41-42 and parallels, Lk.10:14, Acts 13:46, 17:31, and 24:25, notice that it is usually to people – often religious leaders – who have already deliberately placed themselves in opposition to Jesus – not to those who are unaware of his ways.

Attention should be given, of course, to the two unique occurrences of solemn warnings directed to people within the brotherhood.  The letter to the Hebrews highlights the danger of deliberately ignoring or violating one’s commitment to faithfulness (10:24-31), while urging readers to keep after each other, encouraging one another to “hang in there” in faithfulness, lest any turn and become opponents.  James also (2:12-13) echoes Jesus own warning (previously cited) in Mt.7:2, that one will be “judged” with the same degree of mercy that he has extended to his brethren.  Both admonitions are intended to motivate caution, not terror.

Finally, it may be instructive to revisit a few of the passages that are frequently (mistakenly) used in an effort to frighten listeners into submission with lurid descriptions of torment.
Look at the “sheep and goats” judgment scene in Matthew 25.  Notice the charge brought against the “unfaithful”.  Jesus says nothing about what either group “believed,” or to what creed or doctrine they subscribed (or failed to subscribe).  He passes judgment on their behavior – their neglect of the needs around them.
The same charge appears in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  Actually, that gentleman probably “believed” all the “right things.”  He probably even ascribed his wealth to the “blessing of God!”  It is his treatment of the beggar that is the focus of his condemnation.
And among those who love to quote the Revelation to strike terror to the hearts of their audience, I have not heard anyone refer Rev.18, the account of the fall of Babylon, to the present economic distress (v.11-19).  I’m afraid more who claim the label “Christian” are weeping with the merchants “who got rich off of her luxurious excesses” (v.15) – note that there are few real necessities listed in the account of the collapse – than are heeding the voice from heaven (v.20), “Celebrate over her, heaven, and God’s people, and apostles and prophets!  God has passed judgment on her for you!”

There is a way in which it still all boils down to a case of discernment (see W.S.#9)– of choosing sides.  Paul’s testimony in I Cor.4:3-5 is a classic example of the confidence that a committed disciple can rightfully derive from the prospect of God’s judgment.  “It matters little to me,” he observes, “that I should be examined (judged) by you all, or by any human tribunal.  I don’t even keep examining myself!  For I am not aware of anything (that is a problem) for myself; but that’s not how I have been made just:  the one who examines (judges) us is the Lord.  So don’t pass judgment on anything before the time – until the Lord comes.  He will illuminate the things hidden by darkness and reveal the plans of (people’s) hearts.  And then praise will be given to each one, from God.”
If we are not “hiding anything in darkness,” then there is no cause for panic!
I Jn.3:19-20 seems to anticipate the problem of people being (wrongly) made to feel “guilty”, reminding us that “even if our hearts scold us, God is greater than our hearts” and eminently able to override any criticism.

Our confidence is in the mercy of God, which we have received in Jesus Christ!
Give thanks to the only One we can count on to be consistently merciful and fair!
As in so many other situations, there is only one necessary question:
Whose side are we on?  To whom do we belong?

(I am going to divide the consideration of krino into two postings, since the two major aspects of the word (excluding simple courtroom scenes) are both seriously misunderstood.)

“Do not pass judgment, so that you all will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)
“Don’t keep judging according to appearances, but judge just judgment (evaluate things fairly).”  (John 7:24)

These apparently contradictory statements by Jesus use derivatives of the same word, in each instance:  the very same word (krino, krisis) that also refers to God’s final sorting-out  at the “end of the ages.”  (This latter usage will be dealt with in the next post.)  Translating krino is one of those places where a translator must work with extreme caution, and uncommon flexibility, because, frustrating as it is, the Greek words are no more precise than the English.

Historical records show the verb, krino, rendered as “to separate or distinguish, to divide, to pick out, to choose the best, to decide disputes or questions, to contend, to compete in games, to evaluate, to esteem, to decide in favor of, to bring to trial, to pass sentence.”

The noun, krisis, and occasionally krima, is rendered “decision, choice, selection, verdict, interpretation (as of dreams), a trial of skill or strength, a dispute, an event or issue to be decided, the turning point of a disease, a legal decision.”

There is no necessary negative connotation in any of these.  Common, non-theological English uses the word “judge” in many of the same ways.  Contests, legal decisions, debates or disputes, evaluation of persons or situations all require “judgment.”  Please note, consequently, that in neither Greek nor English does the word “judge” automatically imply condemnation – or even disapproval.  It may, in fact, indicate the direct opposite!

The concepts in question are clarified when a form of krino appears with a prefix:
— ana (again, or up) creates anakrino, “to examine closely, to interrogate, to  inquire into
— dia (through, or toward) creates diakrino,“to distinguish, to separate, to decide, to argue”
— epi (upon, over) creates epikrino, “to pass sentence, to assent”
— kata (down, against) creates katakrino, “to condemn”
— sun (together)  creates sungkrino, “to compare.”
Unfortunately, these compound forms are used comparatively rarely.  Most of the time, we are left to figure out the sense of krino from its context.

Taken in their context, for example, the two quotations with which we began are not contradictory at all.  Consult the rest of the paragraph in the Matthew 7 reference.  The prohibition is directed at self-appointed “perfection police,” who enjoy nit-picking at others without regard to their own need for correction.  This is unacceptable.  However, the give and take of mutual admonition is essential for healthy growth.  Witness Paul’s instructions in I Cor. 5 and 6, and notice that he is concerned (5:12) with the relationships of those within the brotherhood.  This is reinforced in I Cor. 11:31-32:  “If we would be evaluating ourselves, we would not be judged.  When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, so that we will not be condemned (katakrino) with the world.”  This kind of “judgment” is an act of compassion and protection, not condemnation!

Such an understanding highlights a significant difference between the New Testament and the contemporary church.  The original idea, in the message of both Jesus himself and all the apostles, began with “metanoeite” (see Word Study #6), a call to change one’s entire orientation of life.  Sadly, that no longer seems to be the standard assumption.  We have correctly perceived that the invitation to the new community/kingdom of Jesus’ followers is open to all.  But when the entry points, “repentance” (W.S.#6) and “forgiveness” (W.S.#7), are robbed of their true content, and it is no longer assumed that there will be either a radical change of life or the removal of offending behaviors, and that invitation is reduced to an insipid verbal assent to a prescribed list of “beliefs” or “doctrines,” the life-giving aspect of “judgment” disappears as well.

Look for a moment at a few of the places where “judgment” is advocated – even commanded – in the church!  Notice that in the John 7 passage already quoted, the verbs are plural – not singular (individual).  This is a job for the brotherhood as a whole, as are all the other such admonitions.  That is an important safeguard, to assure that any “judgment” will be “just,” and not capricious. In I Cor.6, Paul goes into considerable detail about the need for disputes in the brotherhood to be settled internally – by Christian standards, and not by those of the outside world. In I Cor.14:9, the whole congregation is to “evaluate” carefully any messages delivered to the group.  Jude (22) calls for “discerning” where mercy is called for.  Even what appears to be an individual responsibility – assuring that one does not cause another to stumble or fall (Rom.14:13) – is addressed in the plural.  And Peter calls for “judgment” to begin in the household of God.  It is the task of the group to “clean up our act!”  Discernment/judgment is essential, if a person or group is to act responsibly as representative of the Kingdom in an alien world.   This is at least one of the reasons why “discernment” is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Body (I Cor.12:10).

At the same time, clearly, “judgment” needs to be exercised with caution.  In many of his epistles, Paul reminds his readers that the mandate for discernment/judgment is not a license to dictate all the minutiae of life, or to catalog and rank the “sins of the world.”  Jesus intends to take those away! Discernment is needed in order to draw lines only where they matter.  The Kingdom is not a new Law.  Its citizens are urged to be considerate, rather than picky, about such things as food and drink, customs and celebrations (Col.2:16 f), and the details of people’s former lives (Rom.2).  James warns against economic discrimination (2:1-7), and obsessing about technicalities of law (ch.4).  Romans 14 is a beautiful treatise on helping one another to find ways of faithfulness.  Don’t forget that a changed life is assumed! But in that context, compassion, not coercion, is the hallmark of faithful “judgment,” remembering that (14:8) “The person who is a slave to Christ — is pleasing to God”!

Rightly understood, judgment/discernment serves as an extremely useful tool, as aspiring followers of Jesus seek to learn his ways.  It is exercised, by common consent, within the brotherhood, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in a mutual effort toward faithfulness.  We have not been called to “reform” the world.  It is our joyful privilege to demonstrate an alternative to its ways, and to invite all who will, to transfer their allegiance from the world to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus!