The Pioneers’ New Testament

My friend’s invitation to an event at her church was kind and gracious.  “It’s just a fellowship meeting,” she explained, “Coffee, some board-games, conversation ….”  Now, I like coffee.  Conversation is pleasant.  I can even occasionally enjoy a board-game with the grandkids.  But is this “fellowship”?  “JUST a fellowship meeting? ”  Has the contemporary church forgotten, or has it deliberately rejected, the “length and breadth and height and depth” of that beautiful word, reducing it to softball games and hot dogs?

“Fellowship” is the most common translation (12 times) of koinonia, which in other contexts has been rendered “communication (2 x), communion (4 x), contribution (1 x), and distribution (1 x).”  Historically, it was quite a versatile word, used of joint business ventures, charitable contributions, the routine associations of human society, and even marriage!  The verb form could refer to almost any sort of a co-operative effort — even crime! –while the adjective refers to things held in common by corporations, willingness to share among members of a group, and partaking of either the suffering or the good fortune of one’s fellows.

In the New Testament, the usage is also varied:  these related words can refer to something as mundane as James and John’s partnership in their father’s fishing business (Lk.5:10), or as amazingly ultimate as Peter’s description of believers’ actually participating in the glory of the Lord Jesus at his coming (I Peter 5:1)!  The word only appears twice in the Gospels — the previously mentioned passage in Luke, and Mt.23:30, where Jesus warns his opponents of “sharing”  (koinonon) in the deeds of those who had stoned the prophets.

Interestingly, the word seems to have acquired broader and deeper meaning in the church after Pentecost.  Might a new slant on koinonia be connected to the power Jesus promised when he instructed the baffled disciples to “wait around” for the coming of the Holy Spirit?  The New Testament usage certainly changes after that momentous occasion.

Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 provide detailed descriptions of the “fellowship” (koinonia) of the early believers.  They couldn’t get enough of being together!  (But I don’t think they were playing board-games.)  They eagerly soaked-up the apostles’ teaching, shared their meals and possessions , and prayed together.  Incidentally, please note that there is no hint, in that description, of coerced communalism: the new brethren were just looking out for each other’s welfare, as they shared their whole lives.  That concern also spilled out beyond their immediate associates, as well, in many practical ways:

–When they learned of the famine in Judea, the scattered congregations spontaneously  started a relief-effort for the brethren who were affected (Rom.15:26, II Cor.8:4, 9:13)
–They shared willingly in each other’s sufferings for their faithfulness, as well as in the suffering of the Lord Jesus for them (Phil.3:10, Heb.10:33, II Cor.1:7, I Pet.4:13)
–Various individuals and groups contributed support, not only to Paul’s efforts (the whole epistle to Philippi is a “thank-you note”), but to those of other teachers (Gal.6:6), and also to the needs of the wider brotherhood (Rom.12:13).

Paul speaks of “fellowship” (koinonia) as related to the approval other apostles gave to his work (Gal.2:9), the sharing of the “mystery” of the inclusion of Gentiles in the plan of God (Eph.3:9), and also to individual people who had shared  his labors in various places.  He refers to sharing (koinonia) , personally and as a group, in the very sufferings of Jesus Christ (Phil.3:10), as does Peter (1 Pet. 4:13).  John’s first letter is the most extensive direct treatment of “fellowship” .  Created when folks learn of the Gospel and respond, koinonia is nurtured by honesty, love, mutual confession and forgiveness in the brotherhood.  Both Paul and John also warn against “sharing” (still using koinonia) in the evil of others: both in idol worship situations, and relating to those of their own number who would turn them away from Jesus — frequently for financial gain.

Koinonia is also used –only once, in I Cor.10:16 — of the celebration that has come to be labeled “communion.”  I have treated this subject in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 12. This is the same word that has been used of all the sharing of life, teaching, resources, joys, and sufferings already detailed.  Paul’s choice of the word koinonia makes abundantly clear that the purpose of the observation is the celebration of the depth of the mutual participation of the members of the Body — NOT some privatistic, esoteric appropriation of an undefined “spiritual” benefit.  Luke records in Acts 2 (previously cited) that they “broke bread from house to house” with JOY.  Nothing is said about a solemn ceremony officiated by a representative of a hierarchy (which, as noted before, Jesus had flatly forbidden.)  As in every other reference to koinonia, the mutuality of the entire brotherhood is paramount.

So yes, dear people!  May all our meetings be “fellowship meetings”!  May we live and breathe the koinonia described so vividly by the New Testament writers!  Building each other up in love, may we continue to grow together into “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ!”  (Eph.4:13).   For “Our fellowship / sharing / participation / koinonia is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.  We’re writing these things to you all in order that our mutual joy may be made complete!” (I John1:3-4).

John the Baptist appeared in the desert of Judaea, announcing, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the ‘sin’ (failures, faults, shortcomings, offences) of the world!”  From that time, Jesus proceeded to welcome all who chose to follow him, as members of his family, citizens of his Kingdom, participants in a community of folks who were in the process of being redeemed, transformed, re-created as members of the Body of Christ!

Ironically, high on the list of topics co-opted by the creators of creed and dogma as weapons or ammunition for laying heavy and unwarranted guilt-trips on those people is the concept of “forgiveness of sins.”  Their signal success at distorting the message of Jesus in this regard (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not mine to judge) is due to a serious misunderstanding of both words.  Each represents an instance of multiple Greek words (and therefore very different ideas) having been lumped together and expressed by one single word in most English translations.

There are three different words which have been rendered “forgive” by most translators:  apoluo (translated “forgive” only twice, out of 69 appearances in the New Testament), which most frequently signifies simple departure from a place, or sending away;  charizomai (translated “forgive”  in 11 of 23 occurrences), more often used of the gracious gifts of God for the needs and service of his people;   and  aphiemi  (47 out of 144 occurrences), for which the most common translation is simply “leave.”  It is interesting to note that none of these includes any implication of “forget”, with which it is so frequently paired in modern rhetoric.

Although the gracious generosity inherent in charizomai  is an important component of a correct understanding of forgiveness, and noted in Eph.4:32 and Col.3:13 as the model for our treatment of one another, I choose here to focus on the more usual term, aphiemi, because it has been so grossly misunderstood.

Etymologically, aphiemi is made up of a prefix, apo, “away from”, and the verb, hiemi, “to send away, to discharge, to set free, to release, to dismiss, to acquit of a charge, to put away or divorce, to get rid of, to leave, to cancel.”  Adding a prefix to such a word tends to strengthen it in the direction of the prefix (“away from”), indicating a sense of removal.  Notice, “ignore” is NOT on that list of definitions.  Nobody is saying, “Oh, that’s ok, it doesn’t matter.”  It DOES matter:  it matters so much that the situation in question needs to be removed — taken away — disposed-of.   (please see posting #6.)   Aphiemi does not describe a clever lawyer getting his client off the hook without penalty for his crimes.  It is the error  that is removed.

But what is that “error” that is being removed?  The misunderstanding is even greater when it comes to the concept of “sin.”  This English word also is used for three different Greek words:  hamartia (175 times), hamartema (only 4 times), and paraptoma (23 times).  To complicate the situation, theology and dogma have added the baggage contained in three more words, none of which are ever translated that way!

Hamartia, by far the most common, very seldom carries the indication of a deliberate offence.    The lexicons include: “to miss a target, to fail of one’s purpose, to be deprived of something needful, to fail or neglect an assigned task, to err or to do wrong, to be mistaken.”  These are primarily the errors of immaturity or ignorance.  This is the word that appears most frequently with aphiemi.  (Interestingly, the second most common is not an offence at all, but debt. )   Hamartia is also the word associated with Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees over his authority to “forgive” (remember, that word means to remove, dismiss, or get rid of) “sins”. (Matthew 9:6, Mk.2:7,10, and Lk.5:21-24.)  Note two things:  (1) Jesus is speaking in the present tense — he HAS authority, and (2) Jesus does not dispute the statement that “only God” can do that.  It is precisely because he is God Incarnate that he has that authority!  Jesus makes  no mention of his death as being associated with his right to forgive.

Stephen (Ac.7:60) prays that his executioners be “forgiven” for their hamartia — acknowledging, as did Jesus on the cross, Peter in Ac.3:17, and Paul on several occasions, that they were acting in ignorance.  Peter’s question regarding forgiving his brother uses hamartia (Mt:18:21), but Jesus’ parable in reply shifts the focus to one of debt.  This incident has often been viewed as parallel to the teaching in Luke 17:3-4, which was initiated by Jesus, but makes no mention of Peter.  The Luke account is dealing with a very different scenario, although it also uses hamartia.  Here, Jesus is referring to “straightening out” a brother who has taken a wrong turn, and the command to forgive is prefaced by a conditional clause indicated by the use of the particle ean with a subjunctive verb.  “IF he repents (see Word Study #6) — changes his direction” — he is to be forgiven.  Acknowledging that this may take several tries does not remove the condition:  it is embedded in the structure of the sentence.  It describes a situation similar to the restoration (II Cor.2:7-10) of the person who was disciplined in I Cor.5.

Paraptoma, on the other hand, carries more of the freight of a deliberate offense.    Alternate translations include “fall (2x), fault(2x), offense(7x), sin(3x), and trespass(9x). ” Lexicons add “a false step, a blunder, defeat, transgression, trespass.”  The references are about evenly divided between offenses against people and against God, but are generally deliberate in both cases.  It appears frequently in Romans 4, 5, and 11 regarding Israel’s refusal of Jesus; and in Ephesians and Colossians regarding the excesses of pagan life before conversion.   In Eph.2:1, Paul refers to both of the words together, making clear that they comprise two different classes of offenses.

Entirely missing from any of these concepts are situations where one has deliberately chosen to do — or to yield to the control  of — what is overtly evil.  Kakia (11 times): “evil, malice, maliciousness, wickedness”; kakos (35 times) “ugly, base, craven, worthless, evil, pernicious, abusive, foul”; and poneros (23 times) : “evil, harm, wicked, wickedness, the Evil One”; occur far less frequently. They have in no case been translated “sin”, and with a single exception, never appear in connection with aphiemi or any of the other forgiveness terms.   The exception is found in Ac.8:22, the interview between Peter and Simon the magician in Samaria who tried to “buy” the ability to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Peter does not sound really confident that “forgiveness” will be extended in this situation.  His analysis is stern;  Simon has showed himself to be quite alien to the spirit of true discipleship.  Please note that this indictment is completely unique to this one situation.  There is no parallel anywhere in the New Testament, unless it be the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5), where there is not even any suggestion of the possibility of redemption.  An accusation of having deliberately chosen evil is the most serious of charges.  Reducing it to a routine recitation is irresponsible in the extreme.

Loyal disciples of Jesus find themselves at many different levels of maturity, understanding, and conformity to the Lord’s ways.  John, in his first letter, assumes that as we mature, we will continue to discover things that need to be “taken away” from our experience, assuring his readers that the Lord is ready and willing to take care of that if they will cooperate.  However, requiring committed disciples repeatedly to “confess” guilt for offenses that they have neither committed nor even considered, in order to be pronounced “forgiven” by someone in a hierarchical structure (which the Lord Jesus categorically forbade — see Mt.23:1-12), is a gross distortion — even a denial — of his gracious provision for the people he has redeemed for himself and called to populate his Kingdom!

“Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the failures, faults, shortcomings,stumblings, and offenses of the world!”  This is part of his program to re-create his people in his own image, and directly connected to the call to “Repent/change direction.”  His authority and power to accomplish this monumental task reside in his very BEING — the King of Kings and Lord of Lords — “because in him, all the fullness of deity has its bodily, permanent residence (Col.2:9)!”

Glory to him forever!

Nearly thirty years had passed since all the wonderful events recorded in the introductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the ministry of Jesus. After so long, did even the participants begin to wonder if it had all been just a beautiful dream? That can happen so easily, when hope is long deferred. Did anyone remember the prophecies, the promises, the wonder of those days?

Then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, a strange figure appeared at the edge of the Judaean desert, reminiscent of the prophets many centuries before, both in his rather scruffy appearance, his odd behavior, and his compelling, unequivocating message.

“Metanoeite!” he thundered. “The promised Kingdom has arrived!” English expositors have rendered that command, “Repent!”, and subsequently distorted it into a demand for repetitive, coerced assent to the sentence of guilt that they have concocted against their target audience. Oddly, neither Jesus, nor John, nor any of the later messengers, associated that call, either with violations of any list of forbidden thought or behavior, or with any convoluted connection to Adam and Eve in the garden. The word they chose was much more vital than either. Interestingly, it appears only 34 times in the entire New Testament, but the idea is pervasive.

Metanoeite, a present imperative form, never carried any implication of “I’m so sorry I was naughty — I must be a terrible person!” or “oops! I was caught!”. Metanoeite indicates a total and radical change of one’s mind / orientation / behavior / purpose — and results in a complete transformation of life. It represents a shift of focus from one’s former, self-centered concerns to a singular focus on the ways and goals of the Kingdom. Such a transformation takes a while — thus the use of the present tenses. Remember that the present tense, especially in the imperative mood, indicates a sustained, not punctiliar action. But that the results are expected to be seen in one’s behavior was well understood. This is obvious in the question posed by John’s listeners: “What shall we do?” Look at the description of his interviews in Luke 3:10-14.

–People in the crowd are expected to share food and clothing with those who lack either.

–Tax collectors are to quit cheating!

–Soldiers are forbidden to do violence to anyone!

Not a word is said about what they were supposed to “believe”!

And although the word appears very rarely in Paul’s writings, (as a verb only once, and as a noun four times), the understanding and expectation clearly persisted in the early church, as evidenced by the exhortations to the churches of Revelation. The folks at Ephesus are urged (Rv.2:5) to return to the loving behavior they had exhibited at the beginning; those at Pergamon (2:16) and Thyatira (2:22) to turn from the idol-worship they had come to tolerate; those in Sardis (3:3) to return to the way of life they had adopted at their conversion; and in Laodicea (3:19) to quit bragging about their financial prosperity and return to their dependence on the Lord’s provision. These expectations echo Jesus’ own statements, when he compared the responses of various groups to his message, with comparable historical situations — see Matthew 11:20-21 and 12:41, and parallels in Luke 10 and 11, and also Lk.13:3-5. It is behavior — “lifestyle” if you prefer — that is addressed in every situation: and metanoeite requires an all-encompassing change.

The noun form, metanoia, occurs only 24 times, and presents similar expectations. Both John (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) and Jesus (Mt.9:13, Mk.2:17, Lk.5:22) insisted upon observable evidence of one’s having made a change, as do Peter and Paul in sermons and epistles. Consistently, metanoia refers either to a person’s initial ceding of his life to the Lord’s control, or to a major course-correction by a person or group that had (either deliberately or inadvertently) turned away. In either case, again, a drastic change of direction is in view.

A new Kingdom was being inaugurated — one with markedly different norms of behavior and citizenship from the prevailing culture — of the first, and every subsequent century! I have dealt with some of these counter-cultural issues in greater detail in an earlier volume, Citizens of the Kingdom, 1993.

The call, “metanoeite” constituted, in essence, an invitation to citizenship in Jesus’ Kingdom, which he was creating for the purpose of demonstrating the original intentions, and the transforming power, of God. The whole of the New Testament is intended as a “user’s manual” for Kingdom living!

Perhaps the most significant reference, in light of present day teaching and practice, is found in Hebrews 6:1. Metanoia — traditionally translated “repentance” — (I have chosen to use “a changed life”) — heads the list of “foundational” things that, the writer urges, once established, need to be “laid aside” in order to move on to maturity! Not abrogated; not denied; definitely assumed, but nevertheless laid aside, no longer the primary focus. Why then are committed followers of the Lord Jesus constantly berated — and in liturgical circles, continually expected to repeat profuse apologies and pleas for “forgiveness” (another needed study)– about an assortment of supposed deliberate offenses against God — none of which could possibly be a part of a life that had truly changed direction! The same writer does have some very sobering things to say about turning one’s back on the gracious gift of life (Heb.6:4-7), but quickly adds (v.9) that such behavior is not assumed among the faithful!

I submit that continually groveling in one’s supposed “sinfulness” constitutes a denial of the life-changing grace of God! True, at the point of initial commitment, we have not instantly reached maturity. We have been born into a new life, which needs to grow and develop. We may even stumble, or fall flat on our faces, like children learning to walk. But we are expected to be headed in the direction our Lord has indicated, urging and helping one another along the way (Heb.3:12-14.)

“Repentance” and “forgiveness” are NOT the sum total of the gospel message, as is implied when an “accredited official” needs to pronounce the audience “forgiven” at every meeting, and to state that this “news” represents the “gospel” that they are to “believe.” That is only the beginning of the message. Jesus’ invitation is to participation in the work of his Kingdom — to life the way he created it to be lived — in company with all the others he has called.

Metanoeite! Continually engage in the process of changing life to conform to his pattern! With the Spirit of the Lord enabling the Body of Christ, it can be done!

Metanoeite!! Reject the Accuser, recognizing that it is he who insists that you are “not worthy”. Turn to the Redeemer, instead, who has said that you ARE (Col.1:12)!

Metanoeite!! Stop groveling at the gate! Stand up on your feet, and with thanksgiving, join the triumphal procession of the King!

The time was many years ago, when we were still sufficiently inexperienced at the discipline of Word Study that we expected it to be able to answer most, if not all, of our questions. (It can’t.)
We were leading a group in the study of Philippians, and stopped short at Philippians 1:19, where Paul comments, (KJV) “For I know that this will turn out for my salvation…”
“Whoa! Wait a minute!” one student exclaimed. “Wasn’t Paul already ‘saved’?” Well, we all thought so, having at that time subscribed to the definition that equated the term with one’s initial “commitment to Christ.” But then, what was Paul saying? The curious among us needed to find out.

Out came the concordances, grammars, and lexicons.   Out did NOT come total clarity with which to clobber any and all dissent.   “What does the text SAY?”

Let’s start with the historical uses of the words. The compilers of the Oxford lexicon list for the verb form, sozo:
–to save from death, keep alive, preserve
–to escape destruction
–to be healed, to recover from sickness
–to save or recover an opportunity
–to observe or maintain laws or customs
–to keep in mind, to remember
–to bring one safely to a place
–to rescue from captivity or danger

and for the noun form, soteria (or soterion):
–deliverance or preservation
–a way or means of safety
–safe return, or keeping safe
–security, or a guarantee of safety
–bodily health, well-being
–an offering in thanks for deliverance
–a physician’s fee!

Both are frustratingly broad, very like the widely trumpeted teachings about the Hebrew “shalom”.  All, strangely, have the flavor of practical, tangible experience: there is historically no hint of any reference to one’s “eternal destiny,” although that may be deduced from a few (by no means all) of the New Testament references.

This appears to be one of the cases where the New Testament writers took a commonly used and understood word, and poured into it additional meaning that did not originally exist. Please note that they did not abrogate the original intent; it still referred to physical healings, rescue from storms and shipwrecks, deliverance from enemies and persecutors.   But a new dimension was added, when any of these included or resulted from one’s relatedness to Jesus.

The tenses of verbs used add considerable light to the subject. The vast majority of active voice references occur in purpose constructions, and are cast in the aorist tense, whether subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive forms are used. (Please see the appendix to the Translation Notes for further explanation.) They speak of the Lord’s intentions, his purpose, in coming to rescue his people from their wanderings, or, as he put it, “to save men’s lives, not to destroy them” (Lk.9:56 and parallels). Jesus himself uses it in reference to many of his healings.

Nearly an equal number of uses are in the passive voice, focusing on the receiver, rather than the doer, of the action. Among these, the predominant tenses are present (continuous action) and future. People “will be” or “are in the process of being” saved or rescued, except for a few purpose constructions that retain the aorist (implying, I think, the completion of the process.)

When attention shifts to the noun form, soteria, the accompanying verbs shift markedly to the present and future, except for two very interesting exceptions: Jesus’ comment (Lk.19:9) upon Zacchaeus’ announcement of his change of purpose and intention, that “Soteria has happened” on that day, and the song of praise in Rev.12:10, that it “has arrived” when the Accuser has finally been “cast down.” All the rest refer clearly to a work in progress, especially when Paul urges the Philippian brethren (2:12) to “keep on working” at it, or reminds those in Rome (13:11) that it is now “nearer” than at the beginning of their/our faithfulness.

With the linguistic prevalence of references to rescue or deliverance, it is also interesting to compare what folks are urged to be “saved from” with common “understandings.” Very seldom are the NT writers specific about that (except in the case of healings), unlike their modern counterparts, who would not even consider it to be a question. (Everyone needs to be saved from hell, right? “Just sign up for this guaranteed fire-insurance policy!”) As a matter of fact, that warning does not appear even once in the New Testament! Neither does “Where will you be if you die tonight?”  New Testament “salvation” is about living, not dying! In fact, the word only occurs one single time paired with aionion, the word usually translated “eternal” (which needs its own study.) This would lead one to believe that at least it is not the primary emphasis.

In Zachariah’s prophecy when John the Baptist was born, he spoke of “deliverance from our enemies, and from all who hate us,” (Lk.1:71), and in 74-75 “the privilege to worship him (God) in purity and justice without fear!”  Only secondarily does he refer to the “taking away of their hamartia” which has mistakenly been associated with paraptoma (deliberate transgressions) under the label of “sins.”  This also requires its own study, but hamartia basically refers to failure to attain a goal or standard.    Zachariah focuses wholly on the gracious mercy of God.

In Peter’s evangelistic sermon at Pentecost, he urged his listeners to (Ac.2:40) “be rescued (saved) from this crooked generation!”  He also notes the result: (41) those who responded were “added”  to the brotherhood (see also Ac.2:42-47.)
Paul does mention in Rom.5:9 being “saved from wrath,” but he does not specify whether that “wrath” is God’s, or simply the constant state of those who ignore him.
James refers to “saving from death” the life (psuche is another good study) of a person who is headed in the wrong direction.

SO — back to the question that started all of this:  Wasn’t Paul already “saved?” Are we? Is anyone?
What does the text SAY?
Jesus has already protected and rescued us many times, from many perils (some of our own making, some not.) He has healed and restored many of us, both physically and in terms of broken relationships. He has already (Col.1:13) “delivered us from the power of darkness, and transported us into his Kingdom” (the word used here is not sozo, but a much stronger errusato).

Still, there is much that is yet to be realized, if we consider all those future tenses, as well as the present progressives, and the beautiful goals he has outlined for the life of his people.  There had to be a beginning, of course:  but, in the vernacular of centuries later, “We ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”

So, “Brother, are you saved?”
Well, WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY???

Acknowledging Jesus Christ as “our Lord and Savior”, for first century followers, was a far cry from the creedal recitation that it has become in subsequent generations. It was a powerful declaration of allegiance to Jesus’ new Kingdom — one that could, and frequently did, cost the life of the person involved! These were titles that the Roman emperors, drunk with power, had reserved for themselves, as symbols of their self-proclaimed deity! The two words in combination appear less than a dozen times in the New Testament, but used individually, they carry the same freight.

Kurios — Lord — in first century usage, could be as non-threatening as the polite form of address, “sir” or “mister”. It could refer to the master of a household, the head of a family, or any person with authority over another. It was common in both masculine and feminine forms, as the respectful way to address any person of social standing, beyond their mid-teens.  It could also, of course, refer to the master of slaves or servants, over whom he had absolute power — even that of life or death.  He offered protection and care, but at the price of absolute and unquestioning obedience.

Throughout history,  it also referred to government officials, guardians or trustees, or to those who held sovereign power over a city or state. By the first century BC, it also referred to the deified rulers of nations or empires. “Caesar is Lord” was the commonly required oath of allegiance in the Roman Empire.

This casts a glaring light on Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 12:3, that “No one can say, “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” A person on trial for his life could only escape the death sentence by replacing that confession with “Caesar is Lord; Jesus is cursed,” and burning incense at the imperial temple. A choice had to be made, which kingdom one would serve.

Soter, “savior”, likewise started out as a relatively low-key term. (Its related words will be considered in another posting.) “Savior,” “deliverer,” or “rescuer” might designate anyone who protected another from disease, death, or other disaster. It, too, however, as early as the writings of Homer, began to be applied, first to Zeus, and then to other gods, who were honored with temple sacrifices after a military victory or perilous sea journey, by those who had returned safely. Nearly every harbor town had a shrine available for such a purpose.
In both the LXX and the New Testament, God is called “savior”, in acknowledging the deliverance of his people.
Consequently, it was not a stretch for the emperors to adopt that title as well. Jesus hinted at that practice when he noted that “The kings of the nations … who flaunt their authority, are called benefactors…” (Luke 22:25). Eventually, only the emperor dared lay claim to that title.

It is interesting that the later New Testament epistles — Timothy, Titus, and II Peter — are the setting for most of the uses of the combined terms “Lord and Savior.” These were written at a time when persecution had become extremely intense, and lives were on the line daily: the ultimate test of loyalty to the King of Kings lay in that statement.

When will folks who weekly repeat declarations that Jesus is “Lord and Savior” — while displaying in their places of “worship” the symbols of “Caesar” (their earthly nation)! — dare to consider the far-reaching implications of making a faithful –and fate-ful –choice? Who is your King?

This one is a challenge, and one that requires the use of historical lexicons, rather than just the concordance. Most people who use only English translations assume that these are two very different ideas. However, they are actually translations of the same word! The choice by the translators is completely arbitrary, and has created serious misunderstandings among people who are sincerely concerned with faithfulness.

Listing of classical uses of dikaios, (the adjective form), begins with Homer, who is thought to have composed his famous epics, the Iliad and the Odyssey around the tenth century BC. The first appearance of dikaios refers to well-ordered, civilized behavior; being observant of one’s duty to both gods and men. Later, it referred to equality, fairness, and impartiality; to legal precision; to doing or receiving what is right and just. (This was the original English meaning of “righteous”, as well.) It referred to the mutual obligations in contracts.

The noun form, dikaiosune, was also a legal term: the business of a judge in a courtroom. It referred to legally claimed rights or demands; to the vindication of the innocent and the sentence passed upon the guilty.

The verb form, dikaioo, could refer either to the demanding or maintaining of one’s rights, or to being “set right”, to be caused to act properly, or to be treated justly. Therefore, whether vindication or punishment was in view, would depend upon the perspective — or the behavior — of the individual concerned. And the resultant behavior would depend upon the “justice” of the situation — and the judge!

None of these ideas is foreign to the Old Testament prophets, who frequently called for justice among God’s people. Neither is it foreign to the New Testament writers. How the simple concept of “justice” morphed into the much more elusive, theological construct of “righteousness” is unclear. I’m inclined to guess that it happened contemporaneously with the transformation of the Law, (which was designed to promote/create a just and fair society,) into an increasingly complex system of ceremonial and ecclesiastical minutiae that required constant professional analysis, refinement and interpretation!

When people in positions of leadership begin to acquire power over their fellows — be that power physical, political, or theological — justice among the general populace is one of the early casualties. The stern requirement of “righteousness” , defined (and therefore understood) exclusively by those in power, then became a useful tool in retaining and increasing their dominion.

Turning to the concordance, (the back of the book this time — see the introduction to Word Study), it is interesting that the adjective dikaios is translated “just” 33 times, “right” 5 times, and “righteous” 41 times. The context will provide you with some clues to the reasons why different words were chosen. But remember, the original word did not change. The changes were an artifact of the ideas of the translators, not the first writers.

The verb form was rendered “justify” almost exclusively — a word which today is understood far more theoretically than the more accurate “to make just” or “to do justice” would allow. For the noun form, most translators do not touch the idea of “justice” at all, moving exclusively to the term “righteousness.” This can only have been a theological decision, as there is no linguistic reason for the departure. Read an assortment of these references, substituting “justice” for “righteousness,” remembering that it is the same original word in each instance. How would that affect your understanding of any of these passages?

I suggest that the biggest difference would be the substitution of the concept of transformation for the sleight-of-hand idea to which many of us have become accustomed. You know the drill — the statement that “God doesn’t see” us as we are, but “sees” instead the moral perfection of Jesus. Could the originators and the perpetrators of that line really think that the Creator of the universe is so easily deceived? Or would choose to be? If one understands the active nature of the verb dikaioo, it becomes clear that there is no deception or pretense involved. Dikaioo implies a transformation of the lives of those who come to Christ — a new creation — that endows people with the true justice that the Lord Jesus embodies.

A proper linguistic understanding of dikaios, dikaioo, and dikaiosune eliminates another “favorite debate” of folks who enjoy focusing on theoretical theology rather than the practical principles of faithful living: the endless argument over whether “righteousness” is “imparted” (instantly created) or “imputed” (attributed or assumed) — both without regard to any empirical evidence — to an individual who makes a profession of “faith” (see Word Study #1 for this one). Neither of these words appears in the New Testament — nor do most of the terms that refer to theoretical speculation. More to the point of the transformation of life described by all the New Testament writers, would be the recognition that the justice of God, created and exemplified by the Lord Jesus, is carefully implanted in those who are his. It is all a gracious gift, to be sure: but one that, like everything else about such a wonderful new life, needs to be watered, nurtured, and cultivated, in order to grow to reflect with integrity the perfect justice of our Lord, the Giver of Life.

The usual way to communicate the opposite of a word, in the Greek language, is to add an “a” as a negative prefix: hence, “pistos“, faithful (see last week’s post), becomes “apistos“, unfaithful. Unfortunately, when people begin to “label” each other and each other’s ideas, it is not that simple. Due to changes in the English language over the course of time, the concept of “doubt” has crept in to confuse the situation, and grossly distorted the picture. Many people assume that “doubt” indicates a perverse, deliberate refusal to “believe,” (read, “accept the required dogma”), making it essentially synonymous with “unbelief.” This has no basis in the original language.

If you will look for “doubt” in Young’s concordance, you will see that the term has been used to translate four different Greek words, which are themselves quite distinct from one another. Interestingly, not one of these describes a situation where a person has taken a deliberate stand against faithfulness. Mostly, the individuals are puzzled, and trying to make sense out of a confusing event. Uncertainty, for which no one is scolded, is much more in evidence than the outright rejection of a message. We must be just as careful not to confuse these ideas.

The first of the terms that has been translated “doubt” is aporeomai. Historically, it conveyed a sense of utter bewilderment, of being at a loss to understand something. In the New Testament, it appears only four times: in John 13, when the disciples were trying to figure out who the betrayer would be; in Acts 25:20, when Festus confesses to Herod that he has no clue what charge to write, upon remanding Paul to Rome; in Galatians 4:20 of Paul’s uncertainty as to the continued faithfulness of those brethren; and II Corinthians 4:8 when he speaks of his own confusion. “Baffled” might convey the thought in more modern language.

Diakrino, by far the most common of the four, referred historically to discussion or debate, to discernment or evaluation. Here again, there is no negative connotation. It is used of Peter trying to figure out his vision, prior to visiting Cornelius (Acts 10:20 and 11:12); of the discernment required in dealing with the issue of meat offered to idols (Romans 14:23); and the restriction of discussions requiring discernment to mature believers (Romans 14:1). Jesus uses it in the statements about moving mountains (Matt.21 and Mark 11), indicating that these are not “playthings” for discussion.  Perhaps one of the most significant is James 1:6 — where the request for wisdom is plainly intended to be used for instructions for action, and not just “ammunition” for debate or argument. The flavor, consistently, is discernment, in an effort to be faithful.

Diaporeo is more similar to aporeomai, but is considerably stronger. It refers to a matter for agitated discussion. It describes the confusion of the crowd at Pentecost, (Acts 2), trying to understand what is happening; and also the confusion among the temple authorities when (Acts 5) the apostles were not found in prison where they had been locked up so carefully. It refers to Herod’s confusion, when he finally decided that Jesus must be a resurrected or reincarnated John the Baptist, and the bewildered reaction of the women at the empty tomb (Lk.24:4). It is used together with aporeomai in II Corinthians 4:8, as the more severe of the two terms.

Distazo is used only twice in the New Testament. Jesus uses it to Peter in Matt.14:31, when the latter floundered in his attempt to walk on the water. This has frequently been read as a rebuke, but rightly understood in the historical context of the word, “hesitation, uncertainty”, it sounds more like a critique than a criticism: “You almost made it!” Uncertainty definitely fits the other use, the resurrection scene where some were “uncertain.”

The important point is that none of these indicates a refusal of faithfulness.

Quite apart from all of these is apistia (noun), and its related apisteo (verb) and apistos (adjective) forms. Look at the very different flavor of the historical uses: (v) to disbelieve, distrust, suspect; (n) faithlessness, treachery, unbelief, disobedience; (a) untrustworthy, incredible, suspicious, disobedient, disloyal, faithless.
The verb form appears in the New Testament seven times, the noun twelve, and the adjective ten.
It refers to outright rejection of Jesus and his message (the home-folks at Nazareth, or the present state of Jewish opponents); the ancient Hebrews who did not enter the Promised Land; Paul’s description of his own days as a persecutor.
Sometimes it is related to ignorance: as in Paul’s former case, or that of an unbelieving spouse (I Corinthians 7). Jesus connected it to outright disobedience in the case of the slave-overseer who abused his subordinates. Paul frequently uses the two terms in close association.
In almost every instance, it constitutes a deliberate rejection of God’s ways, by the deliberate choice of disobedience.

The remedy is in a joint effort among the brotherhood (Hebrews 3:12-14.) It requires mutual support and daily “coaching” to hang on and to avoid the deception which would lead to unfaithfulness.

So what of poor Thomas, who has been made a scapegoat through many generations as “the doubter”? Which of these words do you think applied to him? And in what way? Was Jesus scolding him for not being gullible, and immediately accepting the word of what seemed to him to be delusional reports? I don’t believe he was. To get the whole story, we need to look back at the account of Thomas at the time of Lazarus’ death. I submit that Thomas was the most faithful of them all, on this occasion. Everyone had tried to dissuade Jesus from returning to Judea, knowing that it was suicide to do so. But he was adamant, so Thomas spoke up –“Let’s all go along –we might as well die with him.” That’s faithfulness! and Jesus had not forgotten that scene. After the resurrection, he knew what Thomas needed in order to believe — and provided it. Jesus’ admonition was in the present tense: “Don’t become unfaithful, but faithful!”

Perhaps only together can we rightly discern between necessary caution and unfaithful refusal. Maybe that’s yet another reason why our gracious Lord has given us to each other!

As we begin this series of word-studies, let me remind you of the perspective from which all this work is undertaken. My serious study of the New Testament was motivated by having been invited to “come and see” a supremely attractive way of life, introduced, advocated, and empowered by the Lord Jesus Christ. The invitation to participate in the Kingdom that he described and demonstrated was irresistible — and the more I learned, the more I wanted to be a part of it. My search has been two-fold: (1) for instructions in experiencing that Life, and (2) for folks with whom to share it.
Consequently, I have resonated with the intensely practical tone of the New Testament. I see the Lord Jesus and his followers outlining and modeling the way people were originally created (and are presently being re-created) to relate and interact. Neither they nor I place any value on high-flown speculation or complicated theories. The “demonstration project” in which (Ephesians 3:10) whatever “rulers and powers” may exist in heaven or on earth, are enabled to see the wisdom and love of God, is not an intricately argued philosophical or theological system, but the manifestation among us of his gracious gift of Resurrection Life!

Therefore, a good place to start seems to be with the concept of “faith”/faithfulness, since one’s understanding of “pistis” and its related words will color his perspective on virtually everything else. Understanding the meaning of this concept must include the noun, verb, and adjectival forms: pistis, pisteuo, and pistos.

First, look up “faith” in Young’s concordance. Scan quickly down the column of references, and notice that not one makes any reference to an “intellectual assent to a list of statements or propositions” about the nature, history, or purposes of God. Historically and linguistically, pistis has nothing theoretical about it at all. The classical writers used it to describe trust or trustworthiness, loyalty, confidence and honesty. It was also a term used in politics, of a treaty, an exchange of assurances, of political protection or safety granted in exchange for submission. In economics, it referred to good credit, a guarantee, pledge, or security deposit!

This fits well with the definition provided in Hebrews 11:1, which speaks of “substance” and “evidence”, both courtroom terms. If a case lacks “substance” it is thrown out of court. “Evidence” is confined to information actually seen or experienced by a witness, or it is not accepted.
The writer then turns to a list of individuals, in each case citing the demonstration of their faithfulness to the call of God. Abraham, for example, did not deliver a sermon about the nature of God — he simply followed instructions. God said “Go” and he went, without having the slightest idea of where he was going (Heb.11:8). Proceeding down the list, notice that the pattern of following instructions is common to all.
Not a word is said about what they “thought” or “believed” about what was going on. They simply followed orders. Careful note is taken that it did not “all turn out ok” for everyone. Commendable faithfulness does not guarantee one’s safety or prosperity!

Another interesting cluster of references centers around the many healings that took place during Jesus’ ministry. Notice that it was often not the patient, but the person who brought someone to Jesus whose “pistis” is commended: the friends who lowered a paralyzed man through the roof, Jairus who sought help for his daughter, the centurion who advocated for his servant/child, among others. And when the disciples failed to heal the boy while Jesus was on the Mount of Transfiguration, it was their “pistis”, not the child’s or his father’s, that was critiqued. In John’s account of the man at the pool (chapter 5), the healed man did not even know who had restored him, nor did the blind beggar at the temple gate (chapter 9). And in no case was anyone urged to “believe” that a healing had taken place in the absence of empirical evidence. On the occasions when Jesus did make the usually quoted statement “Your faith(fulness) has saved/rescued you,” it is after some action by the person that demonstrated his/her commitment to/trust in Jesus.

The verb form, pisteuo, usually translated “believe”, historically was used in the sense of trusting or relying on someone. Where an object of that trust is expressed, it is usually the person of Jesus, or something he had done. Out of 233 occurrences, the reference is to a future event only 4 times, and to some fact about 5-10 times (depending on how you classify them.) Those facts include (1)Jesus’ resurrection, (2) his “I AM” statements, (3)something he had said. In no case is there a detailed list.
Clearly, there had already been efforts to reduce faithfulness to such a list by the time James wrote his letter. It is still just as true, as he notes in 2:19, that if one wants a “list” (a “creed”), the devil himself could acknowledge everything on anyone’s list as “true.” It is one’s commitment to the person of Jesus that sets his people apart — and strangely, that appears on no “lists.”

An additional clue to the active nature of both the noun and verb forms is found in the grammatical structure. Frequently, translations render the object of “faith” or “believing” as “in Christ.” This phrase is one of Paul’s favorites, but he uses it to describe the context, the very atmosphere, in which our resurrection life exists. The choice to use, or not to use, a preposition is of the utmost importance in understanding. “In” can be expressed by two different prepositions: en, and eis. En may only be used with the dative case, which implies a static situation: the location or environment in which something takes place. This is used when speaking of the condition of those who have been called out of their former life into a new one. Eis, on the other hand, is used only with the accusative case, which is much more active, more dynamic. And it is eis that is used with pisteuo — it implies motion, direction, or purpose. I have usually rendered it “become faithful toward”, or something similar, to convey the active sense of the case.
There is yet another construction that has been erroneously translated “in Christ”, which uses no preposition at all. That is where the text employs a genitive case — most commonly indicating possession, but also frequently the source of the object. Here, adherence to the text requires “of” and not “in” for accuracy. Thus, Gal.2:20, Eph.3:12, and others are pointing to our dependence on his faithfulness (Jesus!), not our own.

The adjectival form, pistos, has suffered less abuse, being frequently translated “faithful.” Other historical uses included such ideas as “genuine, loyal, credible.”

It is for these reasons that I have usually chosen to render pistis as “faithfulness” or “loyalty”, and pisteuo as “to be or to become faithful” or “to trust.”

It should be noted also that with the more active understanding of the words, as in James 1, the age-old Reformation argument about “faith” vs. “works” simply disappears. As James points out very well, behavior is the only way that “faith” can be demonstrated. These are two sides of the same coin, not conflicting principles.

May we all constantly increase in faithfulness, by means of the perfect faithfulness of the Lord Jesus!

The discipline of Word Study is based upon the linguistic principle of context. Responsibly used, the New Testament is itself its own best commentary, as the usage of a word provides the most accurate clues to its intent. It is also helpful if you can explore the historical and contemporary uses of the vocabulary, but that can wait. For responsible word study, the tools you need are few:
1. at least 2 or 3 different New Testament translations — the more the better. NOT paraphrases. A paraphrase is not a helpful study tool, as it invariably departs from a literal rendering of the text. One of these should be the KJV, to facilitate the use of the concordance.
2. Young’s Analytical Concordance. First compiled in the 19th century, Young’s work has resources not available elsewhere. Entries are sorted by the original word used in the text, and in the back, a separate section identifies alternate translations for most words.
3. A notebook
4. A few brothers/sisters to compare notes with. This is IMPORTANT, as you will discover things that you will find it hard to accept unless they are confirmed by the study of others whose faithfulness you trust.
5. Leave your other commentaries, dictionaries, etc. on the shelf, until AFTER you have completed your own study.

LESSON 1.
There are many places where one English word represents the same Greek word throughout the text. These are the easiest. Even here, looking at the context is very constructive. Write down what you understand the word to mean before you begin, and compare with your conclusions. Consider the audience being addressed; the subject under discussion; whether the focus is past, present, or future. Ask questions!

It is important to look up every reference. Use multiple translations. Often the greatest insight comes from the references that don’t seem to “fit.”
Read the surrounding material. What does the word seem to mean here?

You are right now looking at New Testament references only, for language reasons. If you want to include OT uses, you will need a copy of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT, and a concordance to that work, since the correspondence between Greek and Hebrew words is outside the scope of this study.

After you have looked up every reference to your target word, try to formulate a definition that would “fit” in every instance. Can you think of a synonym, or a phrase, that describes it?

If your target word appears with more than one Greek word in the listing, you need to proceed to Lesson 2.

LESSON 2
There are many places where the same English word has been used to translate two or more Greek words. This results in the confusion of separate concepts as if they were one. The Greek language, for the most part, is much more precise than English. If a different word is used, A DIFFERENT CONCEPT IS INTENDED!!! Accurate understanding requires that these differences be identified and communicated. The approach of Young’s Concordance is very helpful here. References are separated according to the original word, which enables the student to distinguish which passages are truly talking about the same idea, and which are not connected, even if the same English word has been used.

For example, the English word “gift” is used to translate no less than NINE different Greek words! It is NOT a single concept! The different words have implications including such ideas as:
–the identity and relationship of the giver and receiver
–the nature and purpose of the gift
— the intentions of the parties involved,
and other considerations. The carefully chosen vocabulary of the writers must be honored, by any responsible translator or teacher!

Ask yourself, what is the difference between these terms? Why was one chosen over another? What errors result from assuming that all are alike?

LESSON 3
Yet another complication occurs when a single Greek word has been translated by multiple English words. This usually happens when the translator’s theological presuppositions are challenged by the text. “Righteousness” and “justice”, for example, are translations of the SAME WORD! Dikaiosune and its related verbal and adjectival forms, are LEGAL, not philosophical or religious words. However, it appears that translators/theologians preferred a “theological” flavor — which of course can be kept pretty theoretical rather than practical! — to the more overtly obvious concept of “justice.” Sadly, it is not rare for folks to prefer theoretical speculation to practical instructions! That was one of the big problems the “establishment” had with Jesus!

To discover these situations, “the answers are in the back of the book,” in the section titled “Index-Lexicon to the NT.” You need to copy down the original word (Young has helpfully transliterated them for you in both sections), and look it up in the back, where he has listed all the other ways that the KJV translators rendered it. Then return to the main concordance listings, and track down each of the alternates.

Realize that THESE ARE ALL THE SAME WORD — consequently, the same concept! Your conclusion must include ALL the references. You need to come up with a single word, phrase, or concept that would fit in ANY of those contexts! Be careful that you confine your search to groups of references that appear under the SAME ORIGINAL WORD.

For example, look at the word, AGGELOS. The transliterated form, “angel”, has been used when the powers-that-be thought that the reference was to a supernatural being. Where they assumed the creature to be human, they wrote “messenger.” But THE WORD IS THE SAME! This indicates that the focus is not upon who or what is carrying a message, but simply upon the FUNCTION being performed. Yet a huge mythology has grown up around speculation about many sorts of “angelic” creatures — when the very same word is used of quite ordinary humans. God can use natural or supernatural “messengers”, as he pleases! Even you and me!

This is also true of many other words referring to functions served by many individuals in the NT church. They were not “titles” or “offices” at all (Jesus had forbidden that!) but simply assignments to do a needed task. “Titles” were assigned much later, as a hierarchy developed.

Well, folks, this is just to get you started. In the next weeks, I hope to post a few specific studies to whet your appetite. I will augment them with some further linguistic research. One of my favorite resources is the Oxford Greek Lexicon (Liddell/Scott) which lists literary word usage through many centuries, and provides fascinating insight. But basically, with these few simple tools, you can find a huge amount of wonderful stuff.

Happy digging!

Hello all,

Just wanted to highlight that a revised version of the Translators Notes has been uploaded.  This version includes some spelling & grammatical edits as well as some minor revisions, and a better-rendered illustration of Greek verb tenses at the end.  The entire document is 191 pages and is just under 1 meg.  Feel free to download it from the link at right!  More soon. . .