The Pioneers’ New Testament

Does this seem to you like a strange pairing of words? Quite aside from the sad reality that some “neighbors” can certainly be a serious test of one’s commitment to Kingdom attitudes and behavior, the ancient admonition (which, remember, Jesus flatly contradicted) to “love your neighbor and hate your enemy” (Mt.5:43) makes a lot of sense to a tragically astonishing number of people who claim to follow him. But Jesus insists that both are to be loved (Mt.5:44) – not just tolerated, but actively loved. The verb is agapao (see #87), and if it needs greater clarification, the Lord has amply provided it: the neighbor is to be loved equally with one’s “self” (Mt.19:19, 22:29; Mk.12:31,33; Lk.10:27, Rom.13:9, Gal.5:14, Jas.2:8), and love for one’s enemy is to be expressed in actively doing good (Lk.6:27,35) to those who hate you, “blessing / speaking well of” those who curse you (Lk.6:28), and praying for one’s abusers.
The vocabulary is not the problem here. The words are quite without a trace of ambiguity.
Although there are three different terms translated “neighbor”, geiton (4x), perioikos (1x as a noun, 1x as a verb), and plesion (16x), none of the lexicons offer any distinctions. Uniformly, they refer to “someone living in one’s vicinity”, although plesion, the most common, is also rendered “one’s fellow man” (Bauer) and “friend, countryman, or companion” (Thayer).
No, the problem for most folks lies not in semantics, but in Jesus’ explicit instructions.

It’s not just that, as noted above, fully half of the uses of plesion – 8 out of 16 – insist that the neighbor is to be loved “as yourself”. This admonition has been twisted by advocates of a brand of pop-psychology to justify a narcissistic focus upon one’s “self” as a positive thing – but such an attitude is diametrically opposed both to Jesus’ own life and to his message. Jesus’ focus is consistently outward, and his concept of “neighborhood” is expansive.
Although in parables, he refers to “friends (philoi) and neighbors” (geiton) (Lk.15:6,9), Luke also refers to “relatives (suggeneis) and neighbors” (Lk.14:12, 1:58), and in Ac.3:37, seems to define the word as “a fellow-Hebrew” as does the prophet Jeremiah (31:34) quoted in Heb.8:11. Paul may be using it some of the same ways, calling for doing no wrong to a neighbor (Rom.13:10), “pleasing” him for his up-building (Rom.15:2), and interacting with absolute truthfulness (Eph.4:28), or he may be referring to fellow-disciples, although he usually calls the latter “brethren.”
Of course such instructions would be equally applicable to any associates, which would fit well with Jesus’ own departure from a narrow definition of “neighbor.

The classic example, of course, is the parable (Lk.10:27-36) of the “Good Samaritan” where we see a stark contrast between the comfortable “neighbor / countryman” image and the “enemy”. The “good guys” (neighbors) were too busy or too preoccupied to care for the unfortunate traveler. It is the perceived “enemy” who acts in a loving manner in Jesus’ story. And when the Lord pinned down the “legal expert” with the blunt question as to which of the men was “neighborly”, the lawyer couldn’t even bring himself to utter the word “Samaritan”, so thoroughly schooled was he in the assumption that Samaritans were, if not outright enemies, at least unacceptable creatures. He simply stammered, “the one who showed mercy” and let it go at that. One wonders how he later reflected upon that encounter.

Although “enemy” is the only translation of the 29 uses of echthrous (except for two places where “foe” was substituted), its application covers a much wider scope than does “neighbor”, ranging from describing personal animosity (Mt.5:43,44; 10:36; Lk.6:27,35: Gal.4:16), or deliberate efforts to destroy a person’s enterprises – a rival or competitor? (Mt.13:25, 28, and possibly Rv.11:5,12), to political opposition (Lk.1:71,74; 19:27,43), active opposition to the Gospel message and its promoters (Rom.5:10, 11:28; Phil.3:18, Col.1:21, Jas.4:4), and even to the devil himself (Mt.13:39, Lk.10:19, Ac.13:10). Seven of the references (Mt.22:44, Mk.12:36, Lk.20:43, Ac.2:35, I Cor.15:25, Heb.1:13,10:13) deal with the opponents of Jesus being made his “footstool” – a quote from Ps.110:1, numbered 109 in the LXX – denoting their total subjugation.
Paul also notes (I Cor.15:26), “The last enemy to be destroyed is death!”
But please note, that even in the cases where an “enemy” is eventually put down or destroyed, that destruction is an act of God! It is NOT an assignment delegated to any fellow-human!

The admonition in Rom.12:20 to provide food and water for an “enemy” is part of more detailed instructions (17-21), “Never give back wrong for wrong, but pay attention to what is right before everyone. If possible, in whatever has its source from you, (be) at peace with all people. Don’t avenge yourselves, dear ones, but give place for God’s wrath ….don’t be conquered (passive voice) by what is wrong, but overcome wrong (active voice) by doing good!”
Similarly, when a brother stands in need of correction (II Thes.3:15), the reminder is repeated, “don’t consider him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother!”

Review these references, and you cannot miss the observation that the only proactive behavior toward either a “neighbor” or an “enemy” asked – or even permitted – for a Kingdom citizen, consists of love: love in “shoe-leather”, actively doing good, providing food and water, blessing, and praying.

Perhaps it is at best a waste of time and effort, and at worst deliberate avoidance or delay tactics, to devote ourselves to the task of “defining” either a “neighbor” or an “enemy”, or to accept such a definition from anyone else, be it an individual, a group, or a civil government.

For the people of God, there is a single assignment:

With respect to a neighbor: actively to love and serve him.
With respect to an enemy: actively to love and serve him.

He may, as in Col.1:21, or Rom.5:10, become a brother!

The Lord has reserved for himself the task of seeing that things and people are properly and finally sorted out.

Thanks be to God.

This is an even more difficult study than the ones dealing with “riches/wealth” (#72) and “possessions” (#143). I strongly suspect that none of us in “developed” areas, even those at the lowest economic levels, have any real understanding of the depth of material poverty in much of the rest of the world – or, for that matter, the wealth, either, that exists in other than material realms! Comparing our own situations with those of folks only a few rungs higher or lower on a perceived “ladder”, whether of income, education, or other circumstance, obscures our view of genuine, desperate need. Picture being reduced to “dumpster-diving” in a place where there are no dumpsters, because nothing is ever thrown away; or sheltering under recycled metal or cardboard, where neither exists, for the same reason, and you may be beginning to approach understanding.

There is little doubt about the meaning of “poverty” in the New Testament. I suspect that the references to the term may have been less precise than the language would lead one to expect, because of the lexical information available regarding the words, but the picture is stark, nevertheless, and most of the appearances of any such vocabulary implies an economic condition lower than we can readily imagine.
Penes, classically “a day-laborer”, one who toils at heavy manual labor for his daily sustenance – the lexical opposite of plousios, “rich” – appears only a single time in the New Testament. In II Cor.9:9, Paul, quoting the LXX, speaks of one who has “given to the poor” as a just person. The lack of any other reference caused me to ask, “What about the day-laborers hired to work in the vineyard in Jesus’ parable (Mt.20:1-16)?” But these are ergates, skilled workers, tradesmen, or those who work the soil. They are a cut above those called “penes”. (And even these skilled men were only paid the subsistence wage of a denarius a day!)
Luke used a related word, penichros, (lexically, “poor, needy”) of the poor widow making her contribution in the temple (21:2). This is the only New Testament use of that word. Both he (21:3) and Mark (12:42,43) use the more common word, ptochos, describing the same incident.

Trench contrasts the words, observing that while penes and ptochos are usually used together in the LXX, and translated “poor and needy”, the former, applied by Xenophon and Sophocles to serfs or cultivators of the soil (and also to themselves), refers to one who “has nothing superfluous”, while the latter to one who “has nothing at all.” L/S says “a beggar, a person poorly provided-for,” and Bauer “a person dependent upon others for support.” Thayer suggests the picture of “one whose living depends upon alms” and also includes “destitute of power, wealth, influence, or position” and “to be so frightened as to cower or hide” as well as “to be reduced to begging.” The noun form, ptocheia, referred to “extreme poverty”. The picture is of a person wholly without resources.

 These are the folks that we are encouraged to “remember” (Gal.2:10), to whom “good news” is preached in/by the Lord Jesus (Mt.11:5, Lk.4:18, 7:22), and who are to be invited to a party (Lk.14:13,21). It is these that Jesus describes as “blessed” (see #89) in Mt.5:3 and Lk.6:20, and asserts that the Kingdom “belongs” (present tense – NOT “pie in the sky bye and bye!”) to them.
Already the poor were identified as the intended recipients of required almsgiving under Jewish law; similar responsibility on the part of Kingdom people was clearly re-stated by Jesus on several occasions, notably the rich young man who asked about “inheriting life” (Mt.19:21, Mk.10:21, Lk.18:22), in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk.16:20,22) where the same word is translated “beggar”, and at the conclusion of the scene where Jesus rejected the criticism of the gift of perfume, reminding the disciples that “the poor” would always be in need of their compassionate care (Mt.26:9,11; Mk.14:5,7; Jn.12:5,6,8). Jesus commended Zacchaeus’ charity (Lk.19:8), and must have frequently set an example of that behavior, since John notes (13:29) that the others assumed he was instructing Judas to “give something to the poor” – a Passover custom – when the latter was dismissed from the group.
These are the brethren for whom James advocates (2:2,3,5,6), roundly scolding those who would disparage or insult them, and the “poor saints” in Jerusalem (Rom.15:26) suffering from famine (Ac.11:28).
It is abundantly clear, therefore, that folks at the bottom of the economic system are to be honored, cared-for, and generously supported by followers of the Lord Jesus.

At the same time, there are a few other appearances of ptochos that do not fit this picture. It is used in Gal.4:9 as a deprecatory adjective describing the inferiority of the elements of people’s life and thought before their commitment to the Kingdom, and in Rv.13:6, “rich and poor, bond and free,” simply serves to include all levels of society.
In II Cor.8:9, Paul uses it of Jesus himself, who laid aside the “riches” that were rightly his as Creator and Sustainer of all that exists, “becoming poor for your sake” – living among men “with no place to lay his head” – in order to elevate his people to his own estate!
Paul describes a similar attitude among the brethren in Macedonia (II Cor.8:2) who, “despite their deep poverty”, eagerly and generously participated in the famine relief. Extraordinary generosity on the part of people of meager means is not rare – and may be a factor in the “blessedness” of which Jesus spoke.

In the Revelation to John, Jesus himself re-defines the concept of “poverty” in his messages to the churches at Smyrna (Rv.2:9) and Laodicea (3:17). To the former, who are being robbed, abused, and battered by persecutors, Jesus acknowledges, “I know … your poverty … but you are rich!” He warns of still greater trials ahead, but limits their duration.
To the latter, who carelessly boast about their prosperity and independence, his reprimand is stern: “you don’t realize that you are miserable, and in need of mercy, and poor, and blind, and naked!”

So perhaps, rather than the “cop-out” which I initially suspected in Bauer’s and Thayer’s additions to the classical definitions of penes, ptochos and related words, their insight regarding “dependence upon others for support”, “destitute of wealth, influence, or position”, and abject fear, may actually expand, rather than diminish, our responsibility, to extend – to any sort of people in any kind of need – even if, as in Laodicea, they are unaware of their “poverty”, the same care and compassion.
The one we call Master and Lord addressed – and alleviated – need wherever he found it.
Can his followers do less?

This subject of considerable controversy, liberally seasoned with both boasting (“prosperity” cults) and guilt-trips (“simple-living” advocates), like many other hotly disputed topics, finds its most “Christian” analysis (surprise, surprise!!) in the words of the Lord Jesus. In fact, the very first listing in Young’s Analytical Concordance is Lk.12:15, where he cautions, “Be on guard against all greed: because life does not consist of abundance of possessions”! (See also W.S.#72) “Stuff” is not what it’s about!
Notice, please, that the Lord did not categorically disparage “possessions” – huparchonta. In fact, Luke had earlier noted (8:3) the service of a group of women who looked after the needs of the disciple group (KJV – “ministered to them”), “out of their own substance” – another translation of huparchonta – the very same word. (If you’re worried about the term “minister”, it is explored in W.S.#40).

Huparchonta, the most commonly used of six words, appears only 14x in the New Testament. It is translated “possessions” 2x, “goods” 7x, “substance” 1x, and “(things) that one hath” 4x. Classical uses include “existing circumstances, present advantages, possessions, present or future resources,” and “according to one’s means”.
In Mt.24:47, 25:14; Lk.16:1, 12:44, the reference is to a person entrusted with stewardship over the possessions of another; the rest are dealing with one’s own. And although the expectation in the former group is uniform – faithful administration of the assignment – the latter category is not. Jesus’ assessment of faithfulness with respect to possessions is tailored to the person with whom he is interacting.
For example, Zacchaeus (Lk.19:8) is commended for his commitment to “give half his goods” to the poor. Both Mt.19:21 and Lk.12:33 record Jesus’ instruction to a rich young man, “Sell what you have” – note that neither writer includes the frequently quoted “all” to the statement, although in Lk.14:33, Jesus does speak of the necessity for a person to set aside “all that he has” in favor of discipleship. Even so, much later, Paul (I Cor.13:3) remarks upon the uselessness of even giving all of one’s possessions, if it is not a gesture of love.
This is the beauty of the scene in Ac.4:32: it reveals no required divestment of all property, but rather, “The multitude of those who had become faithful was of one heart, and one life: and none of them said that any of his possessions was his own, but for them, everything was shared.” – one might say, held in trust for the benefit of the brethren.

Ktema, used 4x, and only translated “possession” (Mt.19:22, Mk.10:22, Ac.2:45, 5:1), ktetor, “possessor” (only in Ac.4:34), and their corresponding verb, ktaomai, 3x “possess”, 1x “obtain”, 1x “provide”, and 2x “purchase”, usually referred (classically) to real estate, but also in the New Testament to Roman citizenship (Ac.22:28), provisions for a journey (Mt.10:9), behavior (Lk.21:9, I Thes.4:4), and “purchase” (Ac.1:18, 8:20).
This is even more the case with kataschesin,which is used only twice, of the Old Testament concept of “possessing” the land (Ac.7:5, 45), and chorion: “possession”1x (Ac.28:7), “field” 2x (Ac.1:18, 19), “parcel of ground” 1x (Jn.4:5), “a place”2x (Mt.26:38, Mk.4:32), and “land” 3x (Ac.4:37, 5:3, 5:8).

The large group of references that involve the radical sharing in the new church right after Pentecost (Ac.2:45, 4:32, 4:34, 4:37) and the consequent episode with Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5:1-10), deserves closer examination. It is essential to note that this unusual expression of shared life was never recorded to be a requirement. It grew out of the common life and devotion, both to the Lord and to one another, that was growing among them. The descriptions in Ac.2:42-47 and Ac.4:32-37 are of people whose highest – or perhaps only – priority was to learn more about the new life upon which they had embarked. They couldn’t get enough of being together! They were sharing in so many wonderful things – healing, deliverance from prison, learning from those who had walked and talked with Jesus, and absorbing hundreds of new arrivals – that the logistics must have been horrendous! So as needs arose, those who had property were able – and motivated – to provide for them. Barnabas earned his nickname, “Son of encouragement” from the generosity of his gift – so that most likely was not the norm. It’s not accidental, though, that this is mentioned immediately before Ananias and Sapphira’s scheme. Apparently that couple perceived that a large gift was the way to be admired!

Please note that Ananias and Sapphira were NOT judged for the amount they contributed, or failed to contribute, but for their deception. Peter did not challenge their ownership of the land – only their prevarication (v.4, 8). It had already been amply demonstrated that the brotherhood could weather the storms of persecution. But dishonesty would be fatal. Only with total transparency and honesty can the Kingdom thrive. It is, after all, the domain of the One who proclaimed, “I AM the truth.”

There are four other words that are occasionally translated “goods”:
agathos – most frequently appears as an adjective, “good” (63x), but also as “good things” 14x (only two of which, Lk.16:25 and Gal.6:6, can be construed as being material), and “goods” 2x (Lk.12:18,19)
ousia – only used twice, once as “goods” (Lk.15:12) and once as “substance” (Lk.15:13)
skeuos – rendered 19x as “vessel”, and only twice translated “goods” (Mt.12:29 and Mk.3:7, in the parable where Luke uses huparchonta of a strong man guarding his possessions)
huparxis – only used twice: Ac.2:45 with ktema of the things sold to enable sharing in the brotherhood, and Heb.10:34 with huparchonta, referring to property confiscated in persecution, in comparison to “more enduring possessions” in the heavens.

So, where does this leave the sincere aspirant to Kingdom living?
As in so many other situations, the key is found in one’s focus.
There is absolutely no endorsement in the New Testament of the notion of the accumulation of possessions as a sign of “blessing” – quite the opposite (Lk.12:18,19, 16:25)!
But neither is there any endorsement of ostentatiously renouncing possessions and living off of the largesse of one’s wealthier (or worse, poorer) associates while loudly criticizing their more comfortable situation!
Finding a responsible balance is a dilemma where careful discernment by a group of folks seeking to be faithful is of the utmost value. If whatever one “possesses”, whether much or little, material or otherwise, is simply “held in trust” for Kingdom use, subject to mutual counsel with fellow Kingdom-seekers, it is unlikely that we will go far astray – and those possessions may do a lot of good.
May we be led, together , to such an end.

This is really more of a grammar lesson than an actual word study, but the word “you” is so badly misunderstood in what passes for New Testament teaching, that I think “you all” will soon see why it is needed. The problem in this case is not teachers with an axe to grind, or deliberate distortion of the text. The culprit in this error is the English language itself. This subject is one where Elizabethan English, if rightly understood, does a better job of translating than “modern” versions. The reason is that, unlike any other language I have encountered, modern literary English makes no distinction between singular and plural in the second person pronoun, “you.” Speakers of other languages do not have this problem to the same extent.

In older English, it was easier: “ye, your, and you” indicated plurals, while “thou, thine, and thee” were singular in reference. They were not, as some suppose, an indicator of status or reverence, but simply of how many people were being addressed.
Since modern convention makes no such distinction, however, native speakers of English tend to read most occurrences of “you” as if they were individually addressed, whereas in the vast majority – more than twice as many – of the New Testament references, the word is in fact plural – addressed to a group, not an individual.
In the PNT translation, (available for free download on this site), I have attempted to remedy this problem by using “you all” for the plural, substituting an italicized “you” where multiple “you all’s” would seem too much for non-southern readers.

The Greek language, like most others, makes very clear distinctions. In English translations, however, the word “you” has been used for both singular (su, sou, soi, se) and plural (humeis, humon, humin, humas) pronouns. A plural “you” addressed a group of people, as a group, a unit. If the individual members of a group were intended, hekastos humon, “each / every one of you”, was used. This is seen in 12 of the 77 uses of hekastos (each, every) in the New Testament. Consequently, there was no confusion on the part of the original readers or writers, as to the intention of a speaker or reporter.
In addition to the over 1000 uses of the singular pronoun, and nearly 2200 of the plural (I really don’t think you wanted me to list them all!), a subject is also clearly expressed in every verb form. So one must also distinguish between “you” and “you all” when there is no pronominal subject in evidence. Here too, plurals predominate.

By this time, those of you who, like my dear husband of 50 years, “hated grammar” in grade-school, will be asking, “SO WHAT??? Who cares???”
As pointed out repeatedly in Citizens of the Kingdom, it makes a huge difference in one’s understanding of function and responsibility in the Christian brotherhood!

Our being designated as “the light of the world” (Mt.5:14), “the salt of the earth” (Mt.5:14), “the temple of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor.3:16,17; 6:19), and “the Body of Christ” (I Cor.12:27), are all plural. NONE of this is talking to or about individuals. “This little light of mine” is NOT a Scriptural idea! If the Kingdom doesn’t happen together, as a corporate entity, it doesn’t happen at all!

Likewise, most instructions are given in the plural. There are, of course, some things that have to be relegated to individual effort. Interpersonal activity mentioned in the Sermon on the Mount, for example (Mt.5:22-37) – relating to a brother, to one’s wife, to an abuser, to a court of law – is, and must be, one’s own responsibility, and is addressed in the singular.
But notice how Jesus shifts back to the plural, when turning to the treatment of “enemies”.
If all alone and isolated, I were expected to figure out how to offer genuine love to a person who has considered me an enemy, and to good to those who hate, or have abused me, I would often give up in despair. But this monumental assignment is addressed in the plural! It is a group project!
So are all the “blessings” in the Beatitudes, and the vast majority of Paul’s instructions to the churches. What is totally impossible for an individual, while it may still be difficult, becomes possible in a mutually supportive brotherhood! That is Kingdom living! Together, we can do and be far more than any of us could ever do or be alone.

Now, this is not to disparage individual accountability. That’s where the twelve occurrences of hekastos humon , “each one of you”, come in. One’s initial commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom is clearly an individual matter. However much we might wish it to be otherwise, no one can make that momentous decision for another. From Peter’s first sermons (Ac.2:38, 3:26) all the way to Jesus’ warning to the compromising folks in Thyatira (Rv.2:23) about the results of their behavior, individual responsibility is not negated.
Every person is also responsible for making his own contribution to the worshiping group (I Cor.14:26), as well as to the relief of suffering brethren (I Cor.16:2), and earlier in the same letter (1:12) “every one” is scolded for their divisive following of strong personalities instead of the Lord Jesus.
“Each one of you” is responsible for marital love and care (Eph.5:33), for remembering, observing and propagating Paul’s teaching regarding faithfulness (I Thes.2:11, 4:4) and for loving each other (II Thes.1:3).
“Each of you” is admonished (Heb.6:11) to demonstrate the “same eagerness, in confidence, hope,” and (v.10) generosity, “until the end.”

However, if you sift carefully through the gospels, you will also find some surprises. I will simply list a few, without comment. You can work on them with a group of brethren. (Please share your observations!)
Mt.7:7 – all 6 verbs are second person plural in form. Those in v.8 are third person singular.
The same is true in the parallel passage in Lk.11:9-10.
Mt.21:22 – both verbs are second person plural.
Jn.3:7 – the first “you” is singular, but the second is plural!
Jn.14:13,14; 15:7, 16; 16:23,24,26 – The pronouns and second person verbs are all plural.
Even these few examples show that there is intended to be a lot more corporate, mutual involvement than we are accustomed to assuming. There are similar surprises in the epistles.
You can easily sort out more of these, using either the PNT mentioned before, or better yet, get yourself a Greek interlinear New Testament, where each word is identified for you. They are easy to recognize: if a word identified as “you” has 2 or 3 letters, it is singular; if it has 4 or 5, it is plural. I have included more grammatical information in the appendix to Translation Notes.

And remember that except for the “pastoral epistles” (Timothy, Titus, Philemon), all of Paul’s epistles, Hebrews, and the letters of Peter, James, Jude, and the first letter of John, are uniformly addressed to congregations, or perhaps clusters of congregations, not to individuals, although some include personal notes.

Paul describes the desirable balance in I Cor.12:27: “You all (pl) are the Body of Christ, and individually, parts of it.” This is elaborated in chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom.
May “each of us” , and “you /we all”, faithfully do our part – together!

“Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage!” (Gal.5:1, KJV)  There! I did it!  A quote from the “traditional translation”!  And what’s more, I feel like shouting it at top volume every time someone in a “church service”, contemporary, liturgical, or anything in between — starts expounding on how “we all sin every day”, and need to “confess” stuff that we can’t even imagine, let alone “remember”!  If that isn’t “bondage”, I don’t know what is!

This subject has been addressed in chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom, and in word studies # 3, 5, 7, 23, 27, 34, 88, 120, 121, and 128, where you will find more detail on some aspects of the question, but I’ve been asked to do a “stand-alone” treatment of the topic, so here goes.

By now, you all surely know that my first question is, “What did JESUS say?” But before we turn to that, it is necessary to sort out the vocabulary.  The confusion in “Christian” circles surrounding the idea of “sin” results from the perverse decision of translators to use that designation for three nouns, two verbs, and one adjective for all of which they actually use the word “sin” in the text, and the even more perverse choice of interpreters and doctrine-writers to add to the mix six more concepts which were never even translated “sin”, but which they include in their definitions. And that doesn’t even count the completely spurious decision of the NIV translators to render “flesh” (#85) as “sinful nature”.
Remember please, as we have noted before, that English (and most other) translations were made many centuries after “doctrines” were codified, and were highly influenced by the positions of their sponsors!

In the exercise of sorting terminology, Trench’s Synonyms of the New Testament is more helpful than the classical lexicons, since classical writers did not express any “theological” orientation with these words, but simply referred to failed purpose, errors of various kinds, character faults, or neglected responsibility.   Trench has arranged the words in a sort of “order of seriousness” that may contribute to understanding.
Hamartia and hamartema, the most commonly used in the New Testament, are the most benign of the group.  Classically they referred to missing a mark, or failing to grasp a concept.  Homer used it when one of his heroes hurled his spear and missed.  Thucydides used the verb form, hamartano, of getting lost on a journey, and Aristotle used it of trying for results beyond one’s capability. None of these had any ethical baggage.  There may have been a very serious mistake, even one with dire consequences, but it was an honest mistake or failure.
Classical writers used asebeia (ungodliness) or adikia (injustice) if they intended ethical implications.  Strangely, although both of these appear in the New Testament, neither was ever rendered “sin.”
Agnoema  (ignorance of what one should have known) appears only three times (Lk.23:24, I Tim.1:13, and Heb.9:7).
Hettema (neglecting a duty, failing to render what is owed) appears only twice (Rom.11:12, I Cor.6:7).
None of these four are ever translated “sin” — by anyone except preachers!

Anomia (15x) and paranomia (1x), on the other hand, referred specifically to lawbreaking.  These were usually rendered “iniquity” or “unrighteousness”, and consistently involved a deliberate (not inadvertent) offense.
Parakoe (disobedience — see #27 and 88), was also deliberate, and only occurs three times (Rom.5:19, II Cor.10:6, Heb.2:12)
Parabasis (overstepping a line), appearing only 7x, also referred to lawbreaking, and is usually rendered “transgression”.
Paraptoma, “falling when one should have stood upright, a false step, slip, or blunder; defeat, transgression, trespass”, is rendered in the New Testament 8x “trespass”, 6x “offense”, 2x “fall”, 2x “fault”, and 4x “sins”.  It seems usually to have a sense of a deliberate act, although there is a possibility of a “bad choice” in Gal.6:1 and Jas.5:16.  The reference in James, please note, is the only place where it is connected with “confession” to a group, and that is for the purpose of mutual prayer for healing, not a ceremonial incantation.  The consequences of paraptoma are clear — death! — Eph.2:1, 2:5, Col.2:13, as well as 5 times in Romans 5.

Translators using the same label for all the hamartia-related words as well as paraptoma, which is an entirely different concept, and the inclusion of all these other words in the same indictment (by assorted individuals whose employment and reputation depends upon the acceptance of their harsh verdict by their hearers / readers) have herded that hapless audience into precisely the “yoke of bondage” that our brother Paul warned against in the opening quotation!  There is no reference in either gospels or epistles that demands continual, repetitious, corporate or individual “confession of sins” — whether accidental or deliberate, real or imagined!  The single admonition in I Jn.1:9 is in the midst of his encouragement to keep on working at faithful living — acknowledging errors and moving on — by the power of the Lord Jesus!

John the Baptist had “repentance” and “confession of sins” as a major part of his message (Mt.3:6, Mk.1:4-5, Lk.3:3), prior to baptism.  Remember that Paul had to correct major flaws in the dissemination of John’s message in Ephesus (Ac.19:1-7).  The writer to the Hebrews (6:1-3), while acknowledging these as foundational, urges the readers no longer to dwell on the “elementary” parts of the Christian message, but to go on to maturity!  To “grow up”!
Notice also that in response to the Pharisees’ challenge that “only God can take away sins” (the lexical meaning of aphiemi, usually erroneously rendered “forgive” — see #7), Jesus did not argue that point, but simply declared that such authority is his — present tense — and related it to his identity:  not to his death, not to the cross, and not even to his resurrection (Mt.9:2-6, Mk.2:5-10, Lk.5:20-24).  And they got the point — they charged him with “making himself equal to God” — which of course, he was / is!  John the Baptist also referred to “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn.1:28) — also in the present tense.  Continuing to wallow in one’s supposed “sinfulness” is a direct insult to the One who has taken it away!

Jesus did indeed warn those who refused to acknowledge him (Jn.8:21,24,34) that in doing so, they were rejecting the only remedy.  But this was not addressed to his followers!  In fact, when Peter referred to himself as a “sinful man”, (Lk.5:8), Jesus ignored that designation completely, and simply invited him to join in the Kingdom work.  Others were critical of the folks that Jesus “hung out” with, who were on their list of “sinners” — publicans (Mt.9:10-11, 11:19, 21:32; Mk.2:15-16, Lk.5:27-30);  a woman of shady reputation (Lk.7:37), and others.  Later accounts add Gentiles (Gal.2:15), and people ignorant of God (Rom.5).  James includes a brother who has turned away (5:20), a person who refuses to do the good that he knows (4:17), or rich folks whose selfishness trumps brotherly sharing (4:8).  So yes, the term can be applied to a brother’s wrongdoing — but these are clearly exceptions, not expectation.  And Jesus never used hamartolos to label ANY of his own people!  Why, then, do we?
Even Paul, whose letter to the Romans is so frequently sliced and diced to “prove” doctrines of “sinfulness”,  (1) applies the term only to those who choose to oppose Jesus’ message, and (2) uses it only in the past tense of himself and his brethren.  He takes particular pains in the first three chapters to point out that people chose to ignore what God had revealed to them.  It was not their “original condition” at birth!  And in Rom.6:17, Eph.2:1-5, Col.1:13-14 and elsewhere, he vividly contrasts the “death” (which characterizes life before commitment to Jesus’ Kingdom and is attributed to both hamartia and paraptoma)   with the resurrection life shared by the believer with his new Master!

Of course, “new life” does not mean instant or automatic maturity (See #13).  Hence all the admonitions to get about the business of growing up!
Deciding to learn a musical instrument does not make you an instant virtuoso.
Devotion to a sport does not make you an automatic star.
And commitment to the Lord and his Kingdom never did confer instant “perfection”
All involve identical requirements to come to fruition.
— Focus — a single-minded, even fanatical, determination to bend every effort toward the goal
— Guidance — from teachers, coaches, more experienced “players”, and fellow-aspirants
— Practice — diligent, consistent, and conscientious.
But none of these are enhanced by self-flagellation over every blunder.  Errors need to be corrected, not merely “confessed” or “mourned”.  One’s course may need frequent adjustments, or even at times reversals.  Here is the beauty of the provision alluded-to earlier, in Jas.5:16 and Gal.6:1.

But “He (God) has rescued us from the power [ authority] of darkness, and transported us into the kingdom of the Son of his love!  It’s in him that we have the redemption — the taking away of failures [sins]” (Col.1:13-14).

Thanks be to God!

When it comes to people’s overactive imaginations being passed off as “Christian teaching”, it would be difficult to find a more blatant example that the purported “study” of “angels”.
From the superstitious Pharisees protesting to their Sadducee opponents at Paul’s trial (Ac.23:9) “But what if a spirit or angel spoke to him?”, through the Renaissance paintings of fearsome, robed apparitions, or later depictions of kindly, protective, effeminate-looking beings in shining garments and halos, or assorted 13^th to 20^th century amalgamations of Dante and Milton with oddly distorted and combined snippets of Old Testament references, or ubiquitous fat pink cherubs, to modern supernatural speculation and cheap (or expensive) jewelry, one can find some sort of “angel” to suit nearly any predilection or decor! Most of these bear little if any resemblance to either accurate semantics or New Testament reality.
Now, please take a deep breath between your shouts of “Heresy! Heresy!”, and let’s ask our perennial question: “But what does the (New Testament) TEXT say?” We will not even try to cover it all.

The answer, as usual, starts with the vocabulary. Like many of the nouns we have considered, aggelos probably started life as the participial form of a verb: in this case, aggelo, “to carry or deliver a message,” and its derivatives aggelia and aggelion, both translated “message” or “news.” In turn, the aggelos was the carrier of a message – any message – from anyone, to anyone. Oddly, the occasional, often facetious request , “Be an angel and …(do something)” may be closer to the actual meaning of the word than most of the “teaching” you have heard! Put most simply, a verb describes action; its participle or noun counterpart refers either to the doer of that action, or at times, its result. The word says nothing whatever about the character, pedigree, or DNA of the message-bearer, let alone his/her/its appearance, origin, or ultimate destiny.
Classically, one of the most common tasks of a messenger/aggelos was to report on the progress of a battle (remember Marathon?). It was even used of birds or other artifacts of augury! The focus was uniformly on the delivery of necessary information – not the means or agent of that delivery – the report, not the reporter.

That this continued to be the case in the first century is obvious in the use of aggelos not only for supernatural apparitions, although there certainly were such (Mt.1 and 2, Lk.1 and 2, and elsewhere), but also of prophets (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk.7:27), the messengers sent by John the Baptist to Jesus (Lk.7:24), the disciples commissioned and sent out by Jesus (Lk.9:52), and even the spies hidden by Rahab in Jericho (Jas.2:25), who were all clearly human. In such cases, traditional translators usually fell back on the correct word, “messenger”, after having used the transliteration, “angel” in places where they had decided (although the writers had used the same word) that a message was delivered by some sort of supernatural being. (Twice, they translated apostolos as “messenger”, presumably because they were unwilling to confer the “title” (their own creation) of “apostle” upon the individuals involved. (See W.S.#41, and remember that Jesus had forbidden the use of titles!)
Reference is also made to the agents of Satan as “messengers/aggeloi” (II Cor.12:7), but NOT, as some insist, to Satan himself.
Jesus also makes a particular point that aggeloi are not omniscient (Mt.24:36).

The folks on the ground at the time were not always as certain about the identifications as were those traditional translators. Notice Peter’s confusion when he was delivered from prison (Ac.12), and the gathered prayer group’s response to Rhoda’s announcement of his arrival. They thought she was seeing ghosts! Notice also that Luke’s initial resurrection account (24:4) speaks of “two men”, although later (v.23), the traveling disciples referred to “a vision of angels [messengers]”.

The confusion of modern readers is probably largely due to their perverse preoccupation with assigning titles and/or job descriptions to individuals , rather than focusing on the more necessary (and scriptural) concern that a message be delivered! Again, the status vs. function orientation rears its ugly head. Please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom, as well as the end of chapter 13.
Notice, please, that the messenger is never the originator or the author of a message: merely its transportation. In fact, it probably doesn’t matter who the messenger is: only that he faithfully delivers the word entrusted to him, or performs his assigned task. This is the case whether the originator of the message is God (Lk.1 and 2, Ac.10), another person (Lk.7:24, Jas.2:25), or even Satan (I Cor.12:7, Mt.5:21). The latter, incidentally, is said to have messengers/angels, but never to be one – “fallen” or otherwise!

The tasks of messengers are greatly varied. An aggelos may be assigned to reap a field (Mt.13:39), to gather the Lord’s people (Mt.24:31, Mk.13:27), to prepare the way for Jesus (Mt.11:10, Mk.1:2, Lk.7:27), to care for him in the desert (Mt.4:11, Mk.1:13) or in the garden (Lk.22:43), to precede his arrival at a preaching destination (Lk.7:52), to stir the healing waters in a pool (Jn.5:4), to carry questions to Jesus from his cousin John (Lk.7:24),to deliver the joyous news of his resurrection (Mt.28:2, Lk.24:23, Jn.20:12), or to accompany his return in glory (Mt.16:27, Mk.8:38, Mt.25:31, Lk.9:26)! And that is only in the gospels!

I have deliberately chosen not to differentiate between the translations of “angel” and “messenger”, because they represent the same word. To the writers, there was only one idea.
They did not seem to care whether the “messenger” was natural or supernatural – why, then, should we?

Do you think the apostles cared, or asked for some sort of heavenly credential, when the prison doors opened and they were directed to go back and continue preaching in the temple (Ac.5:19)? Peter (Ac.12) thought he was dreaming, but followed the messenger who released him the second time. And Stephen’s account of Moses’ experience (Ac.7:30-38) refers alternately to “the Lord” and “the messenger/angel of the Lord”, while he quotes the “voice” as self-identifying, “I AM the God of your fathers!” Similarly, aggelos and pneuma (see #52 and 53) are interchanged in the encounters between Cornelius and Peter (Ac.10), Philip and the Ethiopian (Ac.8:26), and the Pharisee/Sadducee argument in Ac.23:8-9. These, being used interchangeably, are clearly related, but not equated.

The epistles add insight. The first two chapters of Hebrews are quite explicit in repeatedly asserting the superiority of Jesus over any sort of messenger/aggelos. Indeed, in 1:6, “all God’s messengers” (natural and supernatural?) are instructed to “worship him!” and in chapter 2, it is clear that Jesus voluntarily and temporarily assumed a lower position, only for the purpose of destroying death, and breaking its power. Does it matter, whether the roll-call of the celebrants in his eventual glory includes different categories of the faithful, or simply synonyms (12:22)? I don’t think so!

Both Peter (I Pet.3:22) and Paul (Rom.8:38) also assert Jesus’ superiority over messengers; the latter even declaring that “we” (his people) “shall judge angels/messengers”(I Cor.6:3)!

Paul’s admonition to the Colossian church (Col.2:15-19, but especially v.18), is extremely relevant today, to folks who are as inclined as their earlier brethren to become fascinated with all sorts of mythological beings, thinking to supplement their “knowledge”or status, and prone to give them more credence than the Lord himself! Paul repeatedly warned both Timothy and Titus (I Tim.1:4, 4:7; II Tim.4:4, Tit.1:14), to avoid such myths – both Jewish and pagan. The healthy growth of the Body depends upon Jesus alone!

The “messengers” who are the primary actors in the Revelation, following instructions from “voices”, “the throne”, or “the altar”, emptying jars, blowing trumpets, and relaying information to John, are most likely supernatural beings; it is not always clear to John – or his readers – whether he is hearing from the messengers or from Jesus himself. But here, too, he is strictly advised that the messenger is not to be worshiped (22:8).

So – who / what is an aggelos?
Perhaps the writer to the Hebrews said it best: “Aren’t they all just officiating spirits, sent to take care of those who are inheriting God’s deliverance?” (Heb.1:14)

It seems as if, when the Lord has one of his human servants available, and something needs to be communicated or done, he sends that available person as a “messenger.”
But if there is no one handy – no problem – he also has an ample supply of supernatural servants.And if his message gets through, or the job is done, it really doesn’t matter who does it!

This realization can delightfully enhance our perception of our brothers and sisters, as well as any other aggelos that is sent our way – as well as our own sense of responsibility.
Have you seen or heard from an aggelos lately?
Have you been one?

This study was supposed to supplement #136, but the intervening subjects were more pressing. So please review that one as a prologue to this subject. For words that are so rarely used in the New Testament, these have received an inordinate amount of attention, primarily among those who want to demand the “subordination” of others. This study is neither an offensive nor a defensive weapon. I don’t have a dog in that fight. My advocacy, as you should have seen by now, is for the mutuality of both attitudes and behavior in the Kingdom. As we have seen, the “submission” called for in the New Testament is first to Jesus and his Kingdom, and secondly to one another – an entirely mutual situation.

We are concerned here primarily with four different words, which have sharply different connotations, but which are similarly translated in traditional versions, . Three of them are used 11x each, and the fourth (and harshest) only 8x. Distinguishing among them is critically necessary for understanding.

Hesuchazo, with its counterpart, hesuchia, is the most gentle of the terms, and always voluntary. Trench connects it with prautes – great strength under strict control – which we have treated in #78, “meekness”. L/S defines hesuchazo/hesuchia as “at rest, tranquil, calm”, as well as ‘being at rest from warfare.” Bauer adds “abstaining from work on the sabbath”. Thayer contributes “minding one’s own business, not meddling in the affairs of others.” It describes the tranquility of life deeply desired by the beleaguered, persecuted disciples addressed in I Thes.4:11, II Thes.3:12, I Tim.2:2, and the cessation of arguments (Ac.22:2, Lk.14:4, Ac.11:18), including, (amusingly) Ac.21:14, where his companions gave up on trying to change Paul’s mind!

Remember these contexts when you encounter hesuchia in Peter’s advice to sisters (I Pet.3:4) and when Paul, writing to Timothy, uses the same word both in admonition to the whole group (I Tim.2:2) and in describing women’s participation (v.11,12). In v.11, it is paired with hupotasso – see #136 – and in v.12 it is contrasted to authentein – a word used only once, and referring to a violent coup d’tat. This would suggest that it is orderly courtesy, rather than any form of exclusion, that is in view.

Next along the spectrum is probably sipao – L/S “to keep silence at the behest of another, to keep a secret, to gesture rather than speaking.” Most of its New Testament uses involve stopping a protest or argument (Mk.3:4), Mark’s version (4:39) of Jesus commanding the wind and sea to “be still”; or insisting that another “calm down” (Mt.20:31, Mk.10:48, Lk.18:39). It is also used of Jesus’ refusal to reply to situations that were an obvious trap (Mt.26:63, Mk.14:61), and the disciples’ being too embarrassed to reply (Mk.9:34) to him about their dispute. In contrast, Jesus uses it to encourage Paul in a vision not to be intimidated into silence (Ac.18:9), and retorts to his critics (Lk.19:40) that if they succeed in silencing the children’s praises, the very rocks will take up the cry. In no instance does sipao require, demand, or request the silence of any member of a faithful brotherhood. Gabriel’s word to Zachariah in Lk.1:20 is simply a statement of fact – not at all a “curse” as some imagine.

Sigao / sige, on the other hand – L/S “to whisper, to keep a secret, to be silent (as both a positive quality and as a fault!), to be mystical or unknown”, while used in some parallels with sipao, especially in the gospels (Lk.9:36, 29:26) and Acts (12:17, 15:12,13; 21:40), appears in several other contexts as well. Paul uses it in Romans 16:25 of the revelation of God’s intention to include the Gentiles having been “kept secret (doesn’t say by whom) since the world began”. John, in Rv.8:1, marvels that “there was silence in heaven for half an hour!” in contrast to all the rejoicing that had been going on.
Of particular interest, in view of frequent controversy among some church groups, are the three occurrences of sigao in I Cor.14. It has been common for a “leader” to choose one of these as a flag to wave or a cause upon which to take a stand – the choice depending whether he prefers to forbid (1) the use of prayer in tongues (v.28), (2)the exercise of prophetic gifts on the part of everyone in a congregation (v.30), or (3) the participation of women (v.34), and ignore any of which he approves. But sigao is not about prohibitions!!! The same word is used in all three situations. Paul’s concern is an orderly meeting, where “all may learn, and all be encouraged”(v.31), and where an outsider may see the Kingdom in action (v.25). This requires that each of the mentioned contributions be carefully and considerately controlled, but not summarily forbidden. This becomes abundantly clear if you read the whole chapter, rather than selected, isolated “verses”. The instructions are to facilitate and regulate, not to prevent, participation. Please refer to the treatment of I Cor.14 in the Translation Notes, for a more detailed discussion.

Finally, less frequently used, and much more abrupt, phimao can be a peremptory demand that someone “Shut up!!”. L/S points out that the derivation of the word is the use of a muzzle or any device to keep the mouth of an animal shut! This is borne out in I Cor.9:9, and I Tim.5:18.
Phimao was Jesus’ command in exorcising demons (Mk.1:25, Lk.4:35), and used together with sipao in quieting the storm (Mk.4:39). Matthew conveys a sense of satisfaction (22:12) when Jesus bested the Sadducees at their own game of intricate arguments (he “shut them up!”). And Peter (I Pet.2:15) advocates achieving a similar victory over critics by exhibiting indisputably excellent behavior. Matthew (22:12) also uses it to represent the stunned speechlessness of an intruder upon being discovered unprepared, at a feast.

So there you have it. Four discrete words: each has its own “flavor”, and each has its usage confined to a rather narrow range of situations and relationships. We need to take care not to confuse them, or to assume any coercive tone among fellow disciples seeking for faithfulness. The mutuality described in both these studies (136 and 139), and the coaching / encouragement described in #138, can occupy our attention much more productively than can exclusionary efforts. Only together can we become a credit to the Kingdom.

“They shall be comforted!”
Although Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:4 is a clear reference to mourning someone’s death (see previous post), his total sharing of our human condition is indisputable (Heb.2:14-18 and elsewhere).
Nevertheless, it is NOT in the Holy Spirit’s job description to wrap you in a warm fuzzy “blankie”, hand you a pacifier, and bestow a sympathetic pat on your head (“spiritual”, of course!) every time you stub your toe or get your feelings hurt!

Traditional translators have done us a great disservice by their choice to use “comfort / comforter” for the richly varied words, parakaleo (verb), paraklesis (corresponding noun), and parakletos (the person doing it). To be fair, the verb form is also rendered “beseech” and “exhort” – although unfortunately with no hint that these represent the same original word. The persistent notion of the “blankie” image, reinforced in traditional translations of the Beatitudes and Jesus’ final discourse in Jn.14, as well as several epistles, is neither accurate nor helpful. This, despite the fact that one of the worst aspects of any devastating loss is the despairing question, “What now???”. When the future looks like it has disappeared into a black hole, you don’t need a “blankie” – you need a direction! You need to “get a life”! And that is exactly what is promised in parakaleo – a life!

Even a cursory check of the lexicons reveals a much wider scope for parakaleo, and places the rendition of “comfort” near the bottom of the list. The primary intent, according to L/S, is “to call for or summon, especially summoning a friend for support at a trial.” This is followed by “to invite, to appeal, to exhort or encourage”, before (6^th in the sequence) “to comfort or console.” “To demand or require, to beseech or entreat, and to relent, repent, or regret” finish out the list.
I encourage you to try out some of these alternatives in places where you are accustomed to reading “comfort”, remembering that any one of them would be an equally valid choice for parakaleo.

It was this exercise, many years ago, that led one student in a word study class to the suggestion quoted in W.S.#53 – one that I still find more attractive than most: the work of an excellent “coach”, who, being well-versed in the techniques and requirements of a game, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of his players, is able to encourage each one’s optimum performance for the sake of forming a winning team – sometimes with a hug, and sometimes with a kick in the pants! I think “coaching” stands a much better chance of bearing Kingdom fruit than does the pacifier and blankie approach!

It would be interesting to know how the traditional translators sorted parakaleo into their chosen categories.
“Beseech” was chosen 43x. In the gospels (15x), it refers uniformly to requests for healing – with the intriguing exception of Mt.8:31,34 and its parallel in Mk.5:10,12, of demons trying to negotiate a “lighter sentence” from Jesus!

In Paul’s epistles (11x), it involves his instructions to various groups. Notice that he appeals to them, he does not give orders. Five times he makes requests of particular individuals. Only once does he refer to his own prayer (II Cor.12:8), although 6x the translators chose to render the same word “pray” (Mt.26:53, Mk.5:17,18; Ac.16:9, 24:4, and 27:34).

In Acts, “beseech” was primarily used for invitations, as was “desire” (13:42, 16:15, 8:31, 9:38, 28:14). It was also used in court cases (25:2, 19:31, 16:39).
In Hebrews (13:19,22) it is a request for prayer, and in I Pet.2:11, an admonition to faithful living.

“Comfort” and “exhort” were chosen 23x each – although speakers of English would be unlikely to assume that those two could possibly represent the same idea! One would expect them rather to appear as opposites! But folks, both are presented to you as “translations” of parakaleo! The common thread could be a flavor of advocacy – maybe. If you can detect another, please suggest it!
There is another, rarely used word, paramutheomai, that conveys something closer to our standard impression of “comfort” – it describes the folks who came to “console” Mary and Martha in the loss of their brother (Jn.11:19,31), and the treatment of the weak and despairing advocated in I Thes.5:14. L/S offers words like “attempt to reassure, assuage, console, soften, palliate”, but also includes “encourage or exhort.” (You could, however, more readily find a “blankie” in paramutheomai than in parakaleo.) It is not a bad thing, it is just not primary or predominant, appearing only 4x in verb form and 2x a noun, in the entire NT.

The “comfort” of parakaleo is much more robust. It is “encouragement” that may even lead to a solution – or at least growth, maturity, or strengthening. Paul’s extended description of God’s “comfort” in the first chapter of II Cor., is not a “poor baby” type of sympathy, but a dynamic move toward reconciliation, as evidenced in the follow-up in chapter 7. Clearly, the transgressor referenced in chapter 2 was corrected, not coddled.

Another clue can be gained from the words associated with parakaleo: conveying encouraging information (Eph.6:22, Col.4:8), extreme stress on the part of the one doing the “comforting” (Col.2:2), instructions for faithful living (I Thes.2:11 – where paramutheomai is also used), strengthening in faithfulness (I Thes.3:2), edifying (I Thes.5:11), and being established (II Thes.2:17) in good efforts.

It is also significant that this is a mutual task in the brotherhood (I Thes.4:18, I Cor.14:31). Remember: although the New Testament writings were set down long before the “church” morphed into a hierarchical institution, English translations were not! Could that have had some bearing on the choice of “exhort” when the same word was used of Peter, Paul, Timothy, or Titus, but rendered “comfort” in other contexts?

“Exhortation” (still parakaleo, remember), includes many subjects: Ac.2:40 – urging people to join the Kingdom; Ac.14:22 – to continue in faithfulness; I Tim.6:2 and 2:15 – teaching; Tit.1:9 – convincing opponents, 2:6 – encouraging responsible living, and 2:15 – even occasional rebuke; and I Pet.5:1 – urging elders to take responsibility for younger members.

So what about the promise with which we began, of “comfort” for people who “mourn”?
In most cases, “encouragement” would be a much better word than either “exhortation” – which has acquired negative connotations – or “comfort” which has grown mushy. “Encouragement” holds out the possibility of support, or even of a solution! This applies even for the “ultimate” problem of death (I Thes.4:18), since Jesus has accomplished its definitive defeat!

Paul demonstrates that there is a difference between “comfort” and “encouragement” in I Cor.14:3, where he defines New Testament prophecy as including
oikodome – “edification” or building up – often instruction
paraklesin – “exhortation, instruction, encouragement”
paramuthian – “comfort, reassurance, consolation”
and assigns all three to the responsibility of the entire brotherhood (14:31).

He also uses the latter pair together in I Thes.2;11, where he cites his own example of faithful “coaching”.
The goal, as always, (v.12), is that the Lord’s people be a credit to his Kingdom!

To that end,
“Let’s don’t neglect getting together … but keep on coaching each other, more and more, as you see the Day getting nearer!” (Heb.10:25)

This investigation is the result of a statement which appeared, and was expounded at length, in materials for a study group :
“Christ’s call for us to mourn together in the face of sin and suffering is a humble declaration of our own brokenness.”
Never having perceived such a “call”, I asked my usual question: “Did Jesus ever say that?”, and determined to find out. The answer is a resounding “NO!!!”
In fact, the English word “mourn” appears only ten times in the entire New Testament, and represents three different Greek words. (Contrast that with the seven words, and more than 70 appearances of “rejoice!” – W.S. #93)

Trench lists four words, only three of which are translated “mourn” in the NT.
Lupeomai, the most general, refers to any form of pain, grief or sorrow, and is the opposite of chaireo , “to rejoice.”
Pentheo, a stronger word, (L/S) is primarily a mourning for the dead, often, but not always, as a public event. It is often joined with klaiein, to cry.
Threneo, often joined with oduresthai, is “to bewail or make a dirge over the dead.” It may take the form of wailing or lamentation, or a poetic composition or song.
Koptein, derived from kopto, “to cut or smite”, referred to the dramatic beating of one’s head or breast in sign of grief. At times, it even involved the cutting of one’s body.

None of the gospel references to any of these words, or even related concepts, has anything whatever to do with one’s “sinfulness”. They are uniformly related to death: the slaughter of the children of Bethlehem (Mt.2:18), children “playing funeral” (Mt.11:17 and Lk.7:32), Jairus’ daughter (Lk.8:52); Jesus’ own impending death (Lk.23:27, Jn.16:20), or his disciples’ grief after his burial (Mk.16:10), as well as the Ac.8:2 account of Stephen’s death. The only exceptions are the occasion in Mt.24:30, where “the tribes of earth” are just plain terrified of the chaos that surrounds them, and Jesus’ response to the question of fasting (Mt.9:15) referring to a wedding party as an example for his disciples celebrating is presence among them. These are a bit of an anomaly but certainly without any accusations of “sinfulness”!

Consequently, the twisting of the reference to “mourning” in the “Beatitudes” to force any such implication is unwarranted, and wholly without precedent. Sadness at the loss – even temporarily – of a loved one is perfectly normal, not wrong or unfaithful. Even Jesus shared that (Jn.11:33).

There is another extremely crucial component here, which is almost always missed by readers of the English text, due to the inadequacy of our language (see the introduction to Pioneers New Testament). It is shared with all the rest of the Beatitudes, and indeed with most (not all) of the Sermon on the Mount: the subject of each statement is plural! “The poor”, “the mourners”, “the meek”, yes, all the way to “the persecuted”, are all treated in a group context! Not only these, but virtually all of even the normal but distressing vicissitudes of life are SO much more bearable when they are shared! In fact, I would go so far as to suggest that this may be why the “blessing” begins and ends with belonging to the Kingdom! This is the ultimate in sharing, and of life as it was intended to be lived!

In addition to the Gospel uses of “mourning”, there are four references in the epistles, quite different from one another, although they do deal more specifically with behavior than do those in the gospels.

In I Cor.5:2, Paul scolds that brotherhood for taking pride in their “acceptance / tolerance” of unacceptable behavior (How contemporary!) saying, in effect, that they should rather “mourn” (be ashamed) to have done so.

In II Cor.2:21, he speaks of his own distress at the departure of some of their members from faithfulness, and in II Cor.7:7, he commends the repentance and reformation of those who realized their error and changed their ways.

In Jas.4:9, we see a bit of a reprise of Lk.6:25. Both – Lk.6:24-26 and Jas.4:8-10 – are in a context of critiquing the arrogance of the wealthy and their disregard for the needy around them. These latter two, I suppose, are the only ones that could be imagined to focus on “sinfulness”, but both are quite specific, and not a general, undefined condition.

Of the remaining references, all are in the Revelation, and six of the seven occur in Rv.18:7,8,9, and 11. (The other, Rv.1:7, parallels Mt.24:30). The topic is the final fall of “Babylon”, the symbol of the economic system that has oppressed the “poor” and the “faithful” alike. The “mourners” are not those of Mt.5, who are proclaimed “blessed” or “privileged”, but rather those who had luxuriated in the excesses that Babylon’s merchants had supplied!

Don’t waste any sympathy there! The instructions to the faithful are in v.20: “Celebrate [rejoice] over her, heaven, God’s people, envoys [apostles], and prophets! God has passed judgment on her FOR YOU!” (Perhaps our response to such collapse reveals to which “camp” we belong!)

Rather than twisting Jesus’ words to condemn his earnest followers, calling them “spiritually bankrupt” and “broken”, we should take – and offer – encouragement (a better word for parakaleo than “comfort” – stay tuned for that one!) from Jesus’ recognition that mourning and sorrow will be a part of this life. He’s “been there, done that”, and so he knows and understands.

But he – and consequently we – know that that “mourning” is not the last chapter!
Together, we can look forward to his promise:
“He will dry every tear from their eyes. Death will no longer exist: neither will grief nor crying nor pain exist any longer. The former things are gone!”
The one sitting on the throne said, “Look! I am making everything new!” (Rv.21:4,5)

Until then, give thanks for the blessing that we wait – endure – yes, and even “mourn” – together.

Thanks be to God!

Like a great many of the words for which folks have requested a study, this one probably will not make any of the opposing “camps” (either the “keep women DOWN” or the “do your own thing” folks) very happy. But by now, you should know that this blog does not exist to provide you with weapons with which to clobber each other!

Please bear in mind ( and read the introduction to the King James Version if you don’t believe it), that the beloved “traditional version” was prepared at the behest of, and to reinforce the authority of, an absolute monarch, who was emphatically declaring his supremacy over the English church, and its departure from the domination of Rome! This just might have had some bearing upon the choices of “subject” and “submit” to translate hupotasso, although they are not at all the only – or even the primary – meanings of the word.

The classical uses of hupotasso are quite varied, including (L/S) “to place or arrange, to post in the shelter of (for protection), to draw up behind (as military reinforcement), to subdue or make subject, to be obedient or timid, to underlie or imply, to be associated with, to follow an idea, a person, or a series of numbers, and to be a minor premise in an argument”!
Take your pick! You can make a case for any of these.
Bauer adds, “to be attached or appended to a literary document”, and notes that any of these may be voluntary or involuntary when applied to people.
Thayer adds “to yield to admonition or advice.”

Before examining the varied occurrences of hupotasso, we will do well to consider the other words which were also translated “subject, subdue, submit”, and whose definitions are sufficiently specific, that we may safely assume that one of them would have been chosen, had that been the intention.

Doulagogeo, L/S “to enslave, (passive, to be enslaved), or to treat as a slave”, is used only once in the New Testament, in I Cor.9:27, where Paul speaks of forcibly subjecting his physical nature to his own will.

Enochos, L/S “legally liable, culpable, or held in bondage”, is treated in #128, since one of its more common translations is “guilty”. It is only once rendered “subject to bondage”, in Heb.2:15 – the result of the fear of death, on the part of those who have not yet realized that Jesus has eviscerated that threat.

Katagonizomai, L/S “to prevail against, to conquer, to contend against, to win by struggle” (and of course a passive form would convey being the victim of such struggle), also appears only once, in Heb.11:33, where some of the historical heroes of faithfulness are described as having “subdued kingdoms”.

Hupeiko, L/S “to withdraw, to depart, to retire from office in favor of another, to yield, give way, or concede”, likewise makes only a single appearance, in Heb.13:17, where the readers are admonished to “submit” to their civil rulers. Commentators have interpreted hegoumenois as if it referenced “church officials” (of which there were none at that time – but many at the time of translation!), but the word is universally used of governmental authorities. The error is probably attributable to a common misunderstanding of psuchon in the next phrase as “souls” instead of the more accurate “lives” (see W.S.#28).
All of these meanings may be ruled out for the uses of hupotasso, because those words were equally available to the writers, if that had been their intent.
Likewise, “obey/obedience” is better used for hupakouo or peitho (see #27, 39, 55, and 88) than for hupotasso.

The primary words suggested by L/S above, such ideas as orderly arrangement, protection, reinforcements, and association, are probably also primary among New Testament references concerning relationships among people. This is especially the case in the much (mis-)quoted passage in Eph.5, which begins with v.21, not 22. “Be subject [submissive, subjected] to each other, in the respect that has its source in Christ.” (The verb does not even occur in v.22.) Paul then proceeds to use the care and protection offered by the Lord to his church as the example for family relationships. That certainly does not suggest a demeaning role for anybody!

Such an overt, detailed context is not repeated in the other, similar passages, (Col.3:18, I Pet.3:1,5), although both are mitigated with instructions (in Col.) for loving care, or reasoning (in Pet.) advocating a contribution to the conversion of husbands!, that communicate anything but abject servitude!

Considerably more attention is devoted to the “subjection” of all creation, whether to futility (Rom.8:20) or to the Lord Jesus (I Cor.15:27-28, Eph.1:22, Heb.2:5,8; I Pet.3:22).
Admonitions to “submit” to civil authorities (Rom.13:1-5, Tit.3:1, I Pet.2:13) are of course themselves “subject” to the example of the apostles, and indeed of Jesus himself, who drew a firm line where official “submission”conflicted with their prior submission to God.
Submission to God is also advocated, in Heb.12:9, I Cor.15:28, Jas.4:7, Rom.10:3.

Although readers are urged to pay attention (and deference) to their elders, both in the church (I Cor.16:16, II Cor.9:13, I Pet.5:5) – notice, please, that Peter repeats Paul’s Eph.5 instructions that “All of you, be subject to one another” – and in the family (I Tim.3:4, Tit.2:5-9), as well as the Eph. and Col. passages already referenced, this is not absolute, as illustrated in the encounter between Paul and Peter reported in Gal.2:5.

Simple respect and responsibility are also included, as in the instructions for orderly participation in meetings of the brotherhood (I Cor.14:32, 34), and in Jesus’ childhood “submission” to his parents (Lk.2:54).

Even when the Lord gave his disciples unusual powers for a particular assignment, he warned (Lk.10:17,20) that this not be a cause for boasting or celebration, but reminded them instead to keep their focus on the Kingdom.

And this, in sum, is the optimum solution to all the disputes that arise concerning “submission” among the Lord’s people. Please notice that in none of these passages is anyone thundering at anyone else, “YOU MUST SUBMIT [BE SUBJECT] TO ME!!!”

When Kingdom people, as a cooperative venture, primarily seek the welfare of the Kingdom, each of us will subordinate our own interests (or “status”) to those of the brotherhood. In that atmosphere, the specifics can readily and amicably be worked out.

All honor and authority belongs to our King, and it is he to whom, ultimately, we all owe submission, in love.