The Pioneers’ New Testament

In view of the many warnings, in the previous studies and elsewhere, to be on guard against deceptive messages and people, it seems prudent to examine the subject.
One extremely important observation that should be kept in mind throughout, is that the vast majority of these warnings and admonitions are addressed in the plural. The counsel of a committed brotherhood is essential to responsible discernment, because an individual, however faithful or insightful, can much more easily be misled than can a mutually seeking, trusting group.
Secondly, it is crucial to note that “deception” represents at least four separate categories of threats. (These references are only a few examples. They are not exhaustive). Most obvious, of course, are the overt schemes of those individuals, natural or supernatural, who actively and deliberately oppose the Kingdom, its King, and its loyal citizens (Eph.4:14, 5:6; I Tim.4:1, II Jn.7). Harder to detect, and therefore perhaps a greater danger, are errors that emerge from within the disciple group itself (II Cor.11:13, II Pet.2:14, I Jn.2:26). Even more dependent upon the discernment of the brotherhood are the errors of self-deception (I Cor.3:18, Eph.4:22, Jas.1:22,26; I Jn.1:8), or “wandering” caused by simple ignorance (Mt.22:29, Tit.3:3, Jas.5:20).

Sorting out the five nouns and nine verbs traditionally translated “deceit, deceive, deception , deceiver” gives some clue to the different ideas they represent, but they do not all fall into neat categories. Sometimes, the reference is primarily to self-deception: phrenapatao, deleazo, apatao, exapatao, paralogizomai, and planao are occasionally – but not always – used this way. But dolos, doliao, doloo, dolios, and katabrabeuo always describe external influences, and are never self-inflicted. Any of these, however, may be sourced either within or outside the disciple group: another reason for careful discernment in any faithful brotherhood.
Only once is any sort of deception said to have its immediate source in an act of God (II Thes.2:11), and that is the result of people’s overt, deliberate rejection of his ways.

The lexicons are helpful, but no more precise in distinguishing among the various words.
Apate / apatao, for example, (n) “trick, fraud, deceit; deception, seduction, wasting time, guile, treachery”, and (v) “to cheat or deceive, to seduce”, appears in Col.2:8 (intellectual), Eph.4:22, II Pet.2:13 (physical / psychological), Mt.13:22 (financial), II Thes.2:10 (judicial), as well as “spiritual” (Heb.3:13) contexts. Its source may be human (Eph.5:6), the serpent, or Satan himself (I Tim.2:14), or oneself (Jas.1:26). Only twice is self-deception the focus: II Pet.2:13 implies that it is deliberate, while Jas.1:26 may simply refer to an error in judgment.
The prefixed form exapatao is merely an intensified form of the verb, and is found in Rom.7:11, 16:18; I Cor.3:18, II Cor.11:3, II Thes.2:3.

Dolos and its related words, doloo, dolios, doliao, on the other hand, are always deliberate, and never self-inflicted. L/S lists for dolos “bait for fish, any cunning contrivance for deception” (this was used of the Trojan horse, as well as the Pharisees and Judas scheming for Jesus’ betrayal – Mt.26:4). Additional classical definitions include “a trick, trap, or stratagem; treachery – often implying an expectation of gain for the perpetrator.” This is the only word of this group that is used more than once in the New Testament. All indicate an active effort to mislead or destroy, whether the scene involves his enemies’ efforts to do away with Jesus (Mt.14:1, 26:4); generally unsavory behavior (Mk.7:22, Rom.1:29); misrepresentation of facts to influence choices (II Cor.2:16, I Thes.2:3, I Pet.2:22 where the traditional translation uses “guile”); hypocritical action and attitudes (Jn.1:47, I Pet.2:1, 3:10; Rv.14:5); or overt opposition to the truth of the gospel (Ac.13:10).
The other words each appear only a single time.
Doloo (L/S – “to disguise, to alter, adulterate, or falsify a substance”) is used in II Cor.4:2 of the distortion of true teaching.
Doliao (v) and dolios (n), L/S – “to deceive” and “treachery” respectively, appear in Rom.3:13 and II Cor.11:13.

Paralogizomai – L/S – “to defraud, to reason falsely, to disguise, to mislead by false reasoning”, (Bauer – “to deceive or delude, defraud, or distort”, and Thayer “to cheat by false reckoning”) appears only twice: Col.2:4 as an external threat, and Jas. 1:22 as self-deception – perhaps both by assuming rational arguments.

Phrenapatao (v) and phrenapates (n), (Bauer – to deceive or mislead oneself or another), each with a single appearance, may likewise be either internal (Gal.6:3) or external (Tit.1:10) in origin.
This is also true of deleazo, traditionally translated once “beguile” (II Pet.2:14), once “allure” (II Pet.2:18), both external, and once “enticed” (Jas.1:14) of one’s own inappropriate behavior. L/S defines this as “to catch with bait, and Bauer treats it in tandem with dolos.
Katabrabeuo, L/S “to deprive of one’s rights, or of a deserved prize”; and Thayer, “to bribe a judge to condemn someone”, appears only in Col.2:18, where Paul is seeking to counteract the influence of philosophical syncretism in the church.

By far the most frequently used of all the terms are planao, plane, planos. This group is also the most diverse in usage. L/S lists for the verb, planao “to lead astray, mislead, or deceive; to cause to wander”, or in the passive voice, “to digress, wander or stray, to be in doubt or at a loss.” Bauer adds “to be mistaken in judgment”. For the noun, plane,L/S has “wandering, roaming, going astray, illusion, deceit, imposture” and Bauer adds “error, delusion, deceit, any false concept”.  For the noun planos L/S reads “error, deceit, wandering, or, if a person, a vagabond or impostor.”
This is the only one of the plethora of terms that may also refer to innocent ignorance, where the parable in Mt.18:12,13 refers to a wandering sheep, and Peter uses it metaphorically (I Pet.2:25, and II Pet.2:15) of people who are equally confused. These errors can be consciously avoided, since one of the primary causes is “ignorance of the Scriptures and the power of God”! If you need incentive to study, there it is! But study carefully and selectively, bearing in mind that there are some who “handle deceitfully” (II Cor.4:2) even “the word of God”. These are described in more detail in II Cor.11:12-15. (An easy test: is the “teacher” making a profit from his “teaching?)
Those being “taught” can – and should – simply refuse such enticements, confident that they do not come from the Lord!

Sorting them out is not always easy: but we have been provided a resource of inestimable value, if we have the counsel of an interactive brotherhood, informed by mutual seeking after faithfulness, and empowered by the Spirit sent for the purpose by our risen Lord. Peter emphasized the need for transparent honesty patterned after Jesus himself (I Pet.2:1, 2:22, 3:10), and John (I Jn.4:1-6) provided detailed instructions for the needed discernment. James (5:19,20) chimes in with his admonition to watch out for one another’s welfare.

May we do so faithfully!

Any discussion of the topics in the previous three studies, sooner or later, comes around, as did many of Jesus’ first audiences, to the subject of “signs.” His opponents demanded a “sign” to authenticate Jesus’ claims about his identity and his mission, but faithful disciples also pressed for “signs of his coming”, which they, (not Jesus), equated with “the end of the age”. These requests uniformly use “age” – aion – and not “world” – kosmos, although some translators ignore this. Frequently, especially in John’s writing, “sign” – semeion – is used to describe what other writers termed “miracles” (see #113), “mighty deeds” (see #31), or “wonders” (also treated in #113).

Classically, semeion is even more versatile than those few examples. L/S lists “a sign of the future (Herodotus), the trace or tracks of an animal (Hippocrates), a sign from the gods (Antiphones), a wonder or portent (Plato), a sign or signal to do something – usually indicated by flags – such as to put to sea, to begin or end a battle, or to commence work; a landmark, boundary, or limit; a signet on a ring, a watchword or war cry, a birthmark or other distinguishing feature, a logical or mathematical proof, evidence or example, a medical symptom, or a unit of time in music.” Bauer adds “marks in the landscape showing direction, a signal previously agreed upon, a warning, a mark of genuineness or authenticity.” Both Bauer and Thayer note “an unusual occurrence, transcending the usual course of nature,” the origin of which can be either divine or demonic.
So how is a responsible translator or interpreter to sort through all these possibilities? Very carefully tentatively, and humbly. Try out some of these ideas wherever you are accustomed to reading “signs”.

It is interesting that in the synoptic gospels, the majority of the uses of semeion are in conversations with the Pharisees or scribes, who are disputing Jesus’ authority. And this is after he has just given evidence, by his merciful use of power, of his godly provenance! (Mt.12:38-39, 16:1-4; Mk.8:11-12, Lk.11:16, 29-30). His retort (Mt.16:3), “Can’t you see?” bears witness that the evidence they are demanding has already been supplied.
It is also significant that when his disciples asked about indications of his return (Mt.24:3, Mk.13:4, Lk.21:7), his response began with “Watch out lest anyone lead you astray!” (Mt.24:4, Mk.13:22). That is still excellent advice! Jesus attributes some “signs and wonders” to “false Christs and false prophets” (Mt.24:24). One may well wonder, then, if the “sign of the Son of Man” appearing in the heaven [sky] (v.30) may not refer simply to his actual arrival (#164) there described, which would be possible, considering the L/S reference to the “standard” of a commanding officer. Mark’s parallel passage does not refer to a “sign”, but simply to Jesus’ appearance (13:26), although Luke 21:10, 25 are closer to Matthew’s version.

But notice, please, that none of these are intended to cause fear to the faithful! Trial, prison, even death, all end in triumph! Notice also, however, that nowhere are the Lord’s people promised escape – whether by “rapture” (another word which does not exist in the New Testament) or in any other form – but rather endurance.

Inexplicably, in John’s gospel, traditional translators almost exclusively substituted the word “miracles” for “signs”, although the word is uniformly “semeion” in Jn.2:11, 23; 3:2, 4:54, 6:2,14,26; 7:31, 9:16, 10:41, 11:47, 12:18,37. They did use “sign” in 2:18, 4:48, 6:30, and 20:30 for the same word. It is hard to imagine that such translators would, like the Pharisees, refuse to see all of those events as “signs” – evidence – of Jesus’ true identity!
Evidence is also clearly the intent, in Jesus’ own prediction (Mk.16:17,20) about “signs” as authentication of his representatives’ connection with him, and accounts of its fulfillment in Ac.2:22,43; 4:16, 22,30; 5:12, 6:8, 7:36, 8:6,13; 14:3, 15:12, where semeion is used consistently, although here, too, the traditional translations are not uniform. Frequently paired with dunamis or terata (see #113), there is no question that these “signs” were miraculous demonstrations of the power of God, intended to authenticate both the message and its bearers. The critical point that needs to be understood, is that the purpose of any and all signs was/is to point beyond the event itself, or its effect upon the individuals concerned, to the King and the Kingdom that they represent.

I heard someone point out, in reference to both Jesus’ promise mentioned above (Mk.16) and the account in Ac.8 of Philip’s encounter with Simon, the Samaritan magician, (who was so impressed with the “signs” accompanying Philip’s ministry, that he tried to buy into the program), that he had simply misread the grammar. Jesus spoke of signs “following” or accompanying the faithful – it is impostors who “follow” signs. Subject and object do make a difference!

It is precisely such error against which Paul warns in II Thes.2:9 (also noted in Rv.13:14, 16:14, 19:20). A flamboyant demonstration of power may not be from the Lord. It is only a sign of his involvement when the accompanying message is clearly his (Mt.24:3, Mk.13:22).

Do you notice anything missing here? There are NO New Testament parallels to the Old Testament stories of individual heroes like Moses, Gideon, Saul, and others, asking God for a “sign” regarding action to be taken or information to be believed. In Jesus’ Kingdom, there are no individual heroes! Jesus himself is the only superior, and he expects his people to be guided by his Holy Spirit and the discernment of the brotherhood (see “Following Instructions” #55).
In the New Testament, any “signs” are provided at God’s initiative and discretion – Lk.2:12, Jn.20:30, Ac.4:16, 15:12 – not on the demand of any individual.

Perhaps Paul summarized it best, in his observation recorded in I Cor.1:22
“Although the Jews demand a sign, and the Greeks are seeking wisdom, we are preaching [announcing, heralding] CHRIST!”

May we as his followers learn to do likewise!

Here, we will consider the last word group in this series (beginning with #165), and try to pull the topic together into a coherent picture.
Actually, there are two more words, but chrematizo, which usually applies to business dealings (L/S) and only rarely to divine directives (either Christian or pagan), is translated “reveal” only once, of Simeon in the temple (Lk.2:26), although the “warnings” of Mt.2:12, 2:22; Ac.10:22, and Heb.11:7 would certainly fall into that category, as would the instructions given to Moses (Heb.8:5), since they are overtly attributed to God.

We are primarily concerned with apokalupto, and its related noun, apokalupsis. Comprised of the prefix / preposition apo (away from), and the verb kalupto (to hide or conceal), it applies to the “uncovering” of information that was previously hidden – regardless of whether it had been deliberately concealed or was simply not obvious. L/S lists “to uncover, disclose, or reveal; to unmask”, and for the noun, “uncovering, unmasking, revelation”. Trench refutes Jerome’s claim that the word “only exists in ‘sacred Greek’”, by noting its use by both Plato and Demosthenes. He suggests that apokalupsis goes beyond merely “seeing” as described in earlier studies (especially horama and optasia), to include explanation, understanding, and instructions, as well. We saw a bit of this sense in phaneroo (#166) also.

In the New Testament, there is not a single instance where this “revealing” is done by anyone but God, unlike some of the previous words considered, nor is the content of the information, or the direction, sourced anywhere else. It may be delivered through another agency – “the Son” (Mt.11:27, Lk.10:22), “fire” (I Cor.3:13), “apostles and prophets” (Eph.3:5) or anyone else in the brotherhood (I Cor.14:6, 26, 30), but the source is unquestionably beyond any of those vehicles. This is probably most overtly stated in John’s introduction to his account of the Revelation, where he declares, “(This is) Jesus Christ’s revelation, which God gave him to show to his slaves [servants] ….” (Rv.1:1). He then describes the “chain reaction” by which the message is to be disseminated.

Except for Paul’s discussion in II Thes.2:3-12, where he is reminding his readers of the malevolent powers that deceive those who have refused (v.10) the truth, reassuring the beleaguered faithful that falsehood will not ultimately triumph (see also a similar phrase in Rom.1:18), the occurrences of apokalupto and apokalupsis are all concerned with instruction in faithfulness and/or encouragement regarding its final outcome.

There are directions given for specific situations – needed correction (Rom.2:5, I Cor.3:13, Phil.3:15, and the messages to the churches in Rv.2 and 3), personal assignments (Lk.2:32, Gal.1:12, 2:2; Eph.3:3), and the accurate understanding and communication of the message (Mt.16:17, Rom.1:17, Gal.3:23, Eph.3:5).
But best of all, there are multiple assurances of “the glory to be revealed” at Jesus’ promised coming, (Lk.17:30, Rom.8:18,19; 16:26; II Thes.1:7, I Pet.1:5,7,13; 4:13, 5:1), and the promised provision of all that is necessary to maintain faithfulness until that eagerly anticipated consummation (Mt.10:26, 11:25-27; Lk.10:22, 12:2; II Cor.12:1,7; Eph.1:17). Please notice that the few references to the destructive aspect of “revealed judgment” (Rom.1:18, II Thes.2:3-8) are addressed, not to “outsiders” who have been identified as “targets” for “conversion”, but to the faithful, as encouragement, that it is not the “bad guys” who ultimately win!

The over-arching purpose of “revelation” is preparing the faithful to share in the triumph of their King!
Whether that is accomplished through “vision” (natural or supernatural) that transcends our blindness (or myopia), or “revelation” in some other form – the mention of both optasias and apokalupseis in II Cor.12:1 implies that there must be a difference), or instructions or encouragement delivered by a “messenger” (natural or supernatural – see #140), the goal, and the end result for faithful disciples, is the same.

Like Moses (Heb.11:27), may we “hang in there” in faithfulness, regardless of adverse circumstances, “as one who is seeing (horon) the invisible” , and
“pursue peace with everyone, and total devotion to God, without which nobody will see (opsetai) the Lord” (Heb.12:14), because
“No one knows … who the Father is, except the Son, and the one(s) to whom the Son plans to reveal (apokalupsai) him” (Lk.10:22).

As our brother John, in his old age, wrote to the folks he had loved, taught, and served for many years, “Dear people, now we are God’s children, and it hasn’t yet been revealed (ephanerothe) what we will be. We do know that when he is revealed, (phanerothe), we will be like him, because we will see him (opsometha) as he is!” (I Jn.3:2).

Thanks be to God!

I thought this was going to be an easy one – a mere footnote to the previous study. Wrong again! In fact, it may even need a footnote of its own! The concept of “appear / appearance” in the New Testament is much more complicated than it – – well, than it “appears”!

References include four nouns and six verbs.
The nouns can be rather easily sorted, and two of them are connected to study #165: eidos, connected to eidon, and opsis to optasia.
Eidos, L/S: “that which is seen, outward pattern or beauty, class, kind, or species; a situation or state of things, “form” – as in Plato – opposed to “substance”, (Bauer adds “outward appearance”) – occurs 5x in the New Testament, with four different translations: “appearance” in I Thess.5:22, “fashion” in Lk.9:29, “sight” in II Cor.:7, and “shape” in Lk.3:22 and Jn.5:37, although all of these bear the general idea of something readily visible.

Opsis, L/S: “the aspect, face, or appearance of a person or thing, visual impression or image, anything seen,” occurs only three times, each also translated differently: Jn.7:24, “judge not according to appearance”, Jn.11:44, Lazarus’ face had been covered for burial, and Rv.1:16 describes Jesus’ countenance. Here, too, even in the case of the heavenly vision, the reference is simply to what was seen by observer(s).

Prosopon, the common word for someone’s “face” (55x) or occasionally their “presence” (7x) – see #164 – is translated “appearance” twice: II Cor.5:12 and 10:7, both in contrast to what is actually true. Its rendering as “person” (Mt.22:16, Mk.12:14, Lk.20:21, Gal.2:16) has a similar flavor.

Only epiphaneia (English cognate – “epiphany”), for which L/S includes “the manifestation of a deity to worshipers” in addition to the more mundane “appearance, aspect, coming into light or view, sudden appearance, dawn, the accession of an emperor to the throne, outward show, fame, or distinction” makes specific reference to an actual event, as opposed to something merely observed. It is used in the New Testament exclusively to the return of the Lord Jesus (I Tim.6:14, II Tim.4:1, 4:8, Tit.2:13, and II Thes.2:8 – where the traditional translators inexplicably substituted “brightness”), except for II Tim.1:10, which refers to the accomplishments of his first coming.

It is the verbs that present more of a challenge. The prefixed verbs are nearly evenly divided between natural and supernatural references.
Anaphainomai, occurring only twice, in Lk.19:11 speaks of the (mistaken) assumption that “the Kingdom should immediately appear”, but also simply of a boat having sighted Cyprus on its journey (Ac.21:3). Both forms are passive, although the translations are active. (More of this later.)
Classical uses include “to bring to light, to display, to declare, to appear plainly, to be seen or found.”

Emphanizo, “to show forth, exhibit, become or make visible, to exhibit in court, to declare or explain”, is most frequently courtroom vocabulary (Ac.23:15, 23:22,24:1,25:2,25:15) – and this is also one possible interpretation of Heb.9:24. However, it is also used of Jesus’ promise to “show himself” to his followers (Jn.14:21,22), and the appearance of other resurrected individuals after Jesus’ resurrection (Mt.27:53). All these verbs are active forms, except Mt.27 and Heb.9.

Epiphainoo, with only four occurrences, is also equally divided, using passive structures in Tit.2:11, 3:4, and active in Ac.27:20, and Lk.1:79. Its lexical information is similar, but also includes the phenomenon of dreams, visions, or divine manifestations (L/S) which, oddly, were not included in the classical information for emphanizo.

Erchomai, “to come”, is treated in #164, and was only once rendered “appear” (Ac,22:30), so we will not revisit that at this point.

Things become more complicated when we turn to the fifteen references listed for optomai. Lexicographers differ as to whether to treat this as a separate word, or in conjunction with horao, an irregular verb which we encountered in study #165 as simply “to look at, or to see.” Bauer calls it “a new present, formed from the aorist passive, ophthen, to let oneself be seen”, and notes that it is primarily used of the risen Christ. This is usually true, but not always. It is also used of heavenly messengers (Lk.1:11, 22:43), the Spirit’s fire at Pentecost (Ac.2:3), Abraham (Lk.13:28), “life” (Jn.3:36), and even fellow-believers (Heb.13:23).
L/S considers optomai “a corruption of the middle voice opsomai, which only occurs in a future active form”, but the grammatical form is middle, not active.
ALL of the 15 New Testament occurrences, however, are identified as aorist passive forms. Grammatically, one would have to translate such a form as “….was seen by …” (a passive structure) rather than “…..appeared to ….” (active). The accompanying dative case would allow either expression – the only difference being whether the focus was on the thing or person seen, or the viewer.

Traditional translators used “see” (37x) for the same word, when it was found in the active voice – 21x in the future active tense, and also the 5x where the form is future middle. (The rest are aorist passive). None of these, however, refer to “ordinary seeing”. Except for the aberrant “you see to that” in Mt.27:4,24 and Ac.18:15, all seem to be supernaturally enabled. This being the case, it probably matters little, if at all, whether it is the “appearance” or the “seeing” that is so enabled.

Similar anomalies occur with phaino / phainomai, where active, middle, and passive forms are also mixed. L/S lists active uses as “to bring light, to cause to appear, to show or make clear, to set forth or expound, to inform”; and passive, “to appear, to shine brightly, to become, to be manifest or revealed.” Actual New Testament instances, however, seem to interpret more active forms as “shine” (Jn.1:15, 5:35, II Pet.1:19, I Jn.2:8, etc.), and to reserve “appear” for passive and middle forms. These, however, are not all supernatural occurrences. Although they are used of “the angel/messenger of the Lord” (Mt.1:20, 2:13, 2:19), “the son of man” (Mt.24:30), or “Jesus” (Mk.16:19), they are also used of weeds in a field (Mt.13:26), sin (Rom.7:13), mere outward appearance (Mt.23:27, 6:16-18), “the ungodly” (I Pet.4:18), and “ a vapor” (Jas.4:14).

This needs to be balanced with another word, phaneroo, only 12 times translated “appear”, but 28x “manifest” or “make manifest”. L/S lists “make manifest, reveal, make clear, disclose, make or become visible, make known or famous”. Thayer adds “to reveal something that was formerly hidden, to be plainly recognized.” The difference between these last two may be that there is an element of information or explanation in phaneroo, in addition to what is “seen..” Here too there are more passive than active forms, especially in the “manifest” translations. Active forms are used only in Jn.17:6, I Cor.4:5, II Cor.2:14, 11:6; Col.4:4, Tit.1:3, often in the sense of explaining things. The passive forms frequently (but not always) refer to Jesus’ first coming (Jn.17:6, I Tim.3:, 16, Tit.1:3, I Pet.1:20, I Jn.1:2, 3:5, 3:8,4:9, Jn.1:31, 9:3) and its results presently among his people (I Cor.2:14, 4:10, 5:11, 11:6; Eph.5:13, Col.1:26, 4:4; II Tim.1-10, Heb.9:8, I Jn.2:19), as well as his return (II Tim.1:10, I Pet.5:4, I Jn.2:28, 3:2, Rv.3:18, 15:4).

If, like me, you are inclined to wonder why it has to be so complicated, try out the “view” from another perspective, and marvel at the multiplicity of ways our gracious Lord has used, in his efforts to show himself, and demonstrate his ways, to his clueless people – US!

Some of these ideas may become clearer when we turn to the more accessible concept of reveal/ revelation. For now, I’ll just repeat my request that any of you who can add insight here, please do! Just hit the “comment” button, and join in!

This is another fascinating investigation prompted by a reference at church to one of the incidents where Jesus restored the sight of a blind man, that segued into a question of what actually constitutes “vision” or “sight.” Although the common English usage tends to equate those two words, it is interesting that while classically, all three Greek nouns, optasia, horama, and horasis, could also refer to anything visible, or to the act of sight, in the New Testament, they uniformly refer specifically to supernatural revelations: and these are surprisingly few. If you can discern any pattern or reason for this, please add your insight!

With the exception of Jesus’ instructions to the disciples regarding their experience of his Transfiguration (Mt.17:19), and Paul’s generic reference in II Cor.12:1, every incidence of any of these words involved an individual being provided with divine instructions or information that would have been accessible to him in no other way: from Zachariah in the temple (Lk.1:22) receiving a “heads-up” about John’s birth, to news (Lk.24:23) of Jesus’ resurrection! How else could Ananias (Ac.9:10,12) have connected with Saul, the persecutor, or Peter, still an observant Jew, (Ac.10:3, 17,19, 11:5) with Cornelius, the Roman centurion? It’s no wonder that shortly thereafter, Peter was uncertain of the physical reality of his release from prison (Ac.12:19)! Macedonia had not been on Paul’s agenda until his vision (Ac.16:9, 10). Notice that each of these experiences was sufficiently recognizable as being from the Lord, that it resulted in prompt obedience, as Paul noted later at his trial (Ac.26:19).

The verbs, on the other hand, present more of a challenge. In the New Testament, “ordinary” seeing is virtually always noted with verbs or participles. However, it is not always clear whether the “seeing” is natural or supernatural. There are five primary words translated “see” or “look”, and lexicographers seem to have found them as difficult to differentiate as we do. (The “other side” of this concept, when something or someone “appeared” to a person or group, will be considered later). Here, we are concerned with the observer’s perspective.

Probably the easiest is blepo – L/S: “to have the power of sight, to perceive or be aware, to look or expect, to behold or see.” The only times it refers to anything less physical is when combined with one of the other terms: notably the charge of “looking, but not seeing” (Mt.13:13-17, Mk.4:12, Lk.10:24, Ac.28:26), where there is a shift to a form of eidon; and accounts of healing where the result, anablepo, is used (Mt.11:5, 20:34; Mk.10:51,52; Lk.18:41-43; A.9:12-18).
Anablepo, L/S: “to look up, to recover one’s sight, to revive”, also describes Jesus’ gesture in prayer (Mt.14:19, Mk.6:41, Mk.7:34, Lk.9:16); his calling Zacchaeus out of the tree (Lk.19:5), and watching the rich folks at the temple treasury (Lk.21:1).

Horao, L/S: “to look or see, to have sight, to pay attention, to behold, discern, or perceive; to observe, to look out or provide for”, and also “to see in a vision, to appear in a vision”, is also the etymological source of two of the nouns, horama and horasis. Clearly, more than physical perception is indicated in references to “seeing God” (Mt.5:8, 24:30,64; Jn.1:18), “the Son” (Mk.13:26, 14:62; Lk.17:32, 21:27), or “the Father” (Jn.6:46, 14:7, 16:16,17) and to Zachariah’s vision in the temple (Lk.1:22). Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances may fall into both categories (I Cor.9:1, 15:5-8). Jesus reports his own experience, (Jn.8:38,57), and John refers in I Jn.3:6 4:20, and III Jn.11, to evidence that a person has not seen the Lord. There is, however, no New Testament reference to purely physical blindness that employs horao, but it is this word with which, after listing things of which we cannot be certain in this life, John concludes (I Jn.3:2), “We do know that when he is revealed, we will be like him, because we will see him as he is!” Increased “exposure” to the Lord himself enables closer resemblance to his example!

Theoreo, likewise, L/S: “to watch, look at, behold; to be a spectator at games, to contemplate or consider, to speculate”, although occasionally used in these rather mundane contexts, has clearly supernatural reference in the reaction of unclean spirits to Jesus’ presence (Mk.3:11, 5:15), Jesus’ statements in Jn.14:7, 19; 16:10,16, 17, 19, that “the world” cannot “see” him, in the vision granted to Stephen at his death (Ac.7:56), and Peter’s experience (Ac.10:11) noted earlier. Jesus also used theoreo in Jn.6:40, 62 and 12:45, of disciples “seeing” either himself or the Father, and his promise that if a person “keeps his word” they will “never see death” (Jn.8:51) – a statement as enigmatic now as it was when he said it!

The most difficult to sort out of all the words for “seeing” is eidon, which is the irregular aorist tense of both horao (to see) and oida (to know)! It has no present tense form. Only the context can give a clue to whether it is “seeing” or “knowing” that is intended, so one must bear in mind that there is a sense in which they may be synonymous. Any choice is, of necessity, arbitrary, and open to challenge. L/S lists “to mark or observe, to meet a person, to experience, to perceive, examine, or investigate, to appear or seem to be, to be acquainted with facts, situations, or individuals.” Bauer adds “to become aware, consider, take note; to perceive what happened, to see with one’s own eyes.” A form of eidon commonly refers to a person “seeing” a supernatural vision (Mk.1:11, Jn.1:33, Lk.1:12,29; 9:32; Ac.7:55, 9:12, 10:3,17; 11:5,6,13; 16:10, and 48x in the Revelation). It also describes situations which we might label as “insight”, understanding or perception, as in Jesus calling out his disciples or responding to crowds (too numerous to list), the Magi “seeing” (and recognizing the import of) a star (Mt.2:2,9,10); people flocking to John the Baptist (Mt.11:8,9 and parallels), or the Pharisees demanding to “see” a sign (Mt.12:38).
The idea of evidence or experience is present in several post-Resurrection situations (Lk.24:39, Mt.28:6,17; Mk.16:5, Jn.20:20,29), as well as the statements about “seeing” or “not seeing” corruption/decay (Ac.2:27,31; 13:35-37) or death (Heb.11:5), the Kingdom of God (Jn.3:3, Mk.9:1), and miracles, signs, and wonders (Jn.4:48, 6:26).

One aspect that may be unique to the New Testament is the combination of “seeing” with responding to a perceived need, both in the judgment scene of Mt.25:37-39 and the parable of the “good Samaritan” (Lk.10:31-38), an example that Jesus had set consistently throughout his ministry (Mt.5:1, 8:18, 9:36, 14:14, Mk.6:34, 9:14, and many others). John, in his first epistle, uses theoreo for the same idea (3:17), and he and Paul (Ac.26:19) both clearly imply that genuine “vision” or “seeing” requires obedient response.

Although a “vision” may be granted to the Lord’s people in times of extreme stress for comfort or encouragement, as it was to Stephen (Ac.7:55) and Paul (II Tim.4:17, Ac.27:23, 18:9), its ultimate purpose is neither to serve as a warm cuddly blankie nor to create private, other-worldly ecstasy. It is simply one of the many ways that the Lord makes assignments and supplies instructions, strength, and encouragement to his faithful people.

It is also significant, from the opposite perspective, that the same word, tuphlos, is used for both physical (Mt.12:22, 21:14) and spiritual (Mt.15:14, 23:16-19, 24-46; Jn.9:39-41) blindness. Even though the latter category is usually a matter of choice rather than misfortune, the remedy for both is also the same: accepting the gift – or restoration – of sight at the gracious hand of Jesus, and following him.

Lord, open our eyes that we may truly see – and having “received our sight” (Mt.20:34, Mk.10:52, Lk.18:43), immediately get up and follow Jesus along the road!

Just as many earnest followers of the Lord Jesus have been misled into the assumption that any real manifestation of his Kingdom is reserved for some dreamy never-never-land in the distant (or imminent) future (please refer to studies #19,20,21), they have likewise been duped by a similar distortion of references to his “coming”, and consequently missed out on both the intended enjoyment and the comfort of his present Presence among them! A few simple adjustments of vocabulary and grammar can correct this, and open amazing vistas for those of us whose faithfulness grows weary with waiting. Anticipation of the Lord’s return and participation in the reality of his presence need not be mutually exclusive!

Although there are many words in the New Testament which have sometimes been translated “come” or “coming”, only three – eggizo, erchomai, and parousia – refer with any frequency to either of the events commonly called “the Lord’s coming”, whether intending his first arrival or the eventual consummation. Most of the eleven prefixed versions of erchomai, and forms of baino, ginomai, eimi, histemi, lambano, poreuomai, and strepho, with or without prefixes, as well as heko, kataluo, kukloo, phero, phthano,choreo, and others – the total reaches more than 40 – are simply describing the movement of persons from one locality to another, either physically or intellectually. The nuances of these terms are interesting, and I commend their exploration to any of you who are my fellow “language-junkies”, but they are not germane to the subject at hand.

Perhaps the most interesting, and certainly the most revelatory of the biases of translators, is their treatment of eggizo. Historically and lexically, it is quite simple. L/S lists “to bring near, to approach, to be imminent,” or, with an infinitive, “to be at the point of doing something.” But it gets more complicated when one pays close attention to the tenses of that ordinary little verb. Only once does it occur in the future tense (James 4:8), and there, it immediately follows the same word used as an aorist (decisive) imperative! (Please consult a good grammar, or the very brief treatment in the appendix to my Translation Notes, for a discussion of verb tenses.)
All the rest are either present (in the process of happening) – eggizei – Mt.15:8 (footnote), Mk.11:1, Lk.12:33, 15:1, 18:35, 19:37, 21:28; Ac.9:3, 10:9, 22:6; Heb.7:19, 10:25; aorist (a single event that has already happened) – Eggisen – (the capital E indicates the Greek eta, a long “e”, to distinguish it from epsilon) – Lk.18:40, 19:29,41; 24:15; Ac.21:33, 22:15; Phil.2:30; or, most significantly, perfect (a past event or condition which continues, at least in effect, into the present and perhaps beyond) – Eggiken – Mt.3:2, 4:17, 10:7, 26:45,46; Mk.1:15, 14:42;; Lk.10:9,11, 21:8,20, 22:1,47; 24:28; Ac.7:17; Rom.13:12, Jas.5:8, I Pet.4:7.

When the notion of “approach” is expressed in either of these “past” tenses, the meaning of the word is skewed toward the idea of “arrival.” Picture an airport notice-board: an “approaching” plane is marked “arrived” when it touches down, even though it takes a while longer until you can greet the “arrival” of passengers. But it is all one event. This has huge implications for Jesus’ announcements of the arrival of his Kingdom! Nearly all of those are expressed in perfect tenses! But far too many translators and commentators treat them as if they were future – or at least very tentatively present “approaches”! Very few take the pains to treat verb tenses in a uniform manner. Check it out!

Erchomai – “to come” – presents similar issues with tenses. When Jesus speaks of “having come” for a specific task or purpose, he almost always uses either aorist (Elthon) – Mt.5:17, 9:13, 10:34, 18:11, 20:28 and parallels; Mk.2:17, 10:35; Lk.5:32, 19:10; Jn.1:11, 9:39, 12:47; and referenced in I Tim.1:15 – or perfect (elElutha) tenses – Lk.5:32, Mk.9:1, Jn.3:19, 5:43; 12:46; I Jn.4:2. Both of these are “past” tenses, in that they have already begun to affect the people or situations referenced.

The primary exception is in expressions of time, which require the subjunctive mood. The subjunctive form, elthE, is grammatically characterized as a “vivid condition”, which is similar in structure to a purpose clause. Although there may be a future “flavor” to the statement, its imminence and certainty is not in question. The subjunctive verb is therefore cast in the aorist (past) tense, and usually rendered “when” or “until” an expected event has taken place. Examples are found in Mt.10:23, 25:31; Mk.8:8; Lk.9:26, 18:8, 22:18; Jn.15:26; Ac.2:20, 3:20; I Cor.4:5, 11:26, 13:10; I Thes.1:10.

Present (erchomai) and future (eleusetai) tenses seem to appear almost interchangeably. Prophecy frequently employed a present tense to communicate the certainty of its fulfillment (Mt.21:5 and parallels in Mk.11:9,10 and Lk.13:35, Mt.24:3, 42,44; Lk.12:40, Mt.26:64, Mk.13:26, 24:62; Lk.21:27). John, using the present tense, quotes Jesus in announcing that the prophesied time “now is” (Jn.4:21,23), as well as in reference to his return (Jn.14:3,28). Interestingly, though, he uses future forms (16:7-13) regarding the coming of the Holy Spirit after Jesus’ departure, and his promise (14:23) that he and the Father will both take up residence with his loving and faithful followers. I doubt that he intended that these statements should become “ammunition” for theological war games or trinitarian battles. I think it much more likely that his point is to assure his people of his continual presence.

And “presence” is the primary lexical meaning of our final word, parousia, although unfortunately, it is not the primary translation (probably also due to theological bias). Parousia is derived from pareimi, a combination of the prepositional prefix para (beside) and the verb eimi (to be), in participial form. L/S lists the lexical usage as “the presence of persons, the arrival or visit of a state official, or secondarily, one’s belongings.” Traditional translators used this primary meaning only twice (II Cor.10:10, Phil.2:12), and 22x preferred “coming”, which is not listed at all in the classical lexicon. It is from this deviation, however, that intricate theories and diagrams have been spawned from the fertile imaginations of commentators. I have no interest in taking sides in their battles.

I will simply provide you with a list of all the appearances of parousia, and suggest that you spend some time examining each one for yourself, bearing in mind that the actual meaning of the word is “presence”. It only occurs 4x in the Gospels – all in Matthew – 24:3,27,37,39. I wonder why: if it is as central a concept as some folks seem to assume?
Other references are: I Cor.15:23, 16:17; II Cor.7:6,7; Phil.1:26; I Thes.2:19, 3:13, 4:15, 5:23; II Thes.2:1, 8,9; Jas.5:7,8; II Pet.1:16, 3:4, 3:12; I Jn.2:28.
Parousia does not occur at all in the Revelation! Wouldn’t you think it should, if the folks who tie the word, and the Revelation itself, exclusively to a final consummation, were correct?
Given the four instances (I Cor.16:17, II Cor.7:6,7, Phil.1:26) where Paul uses parousia in simply referring to the comfort and encouragement derived from the presence of a beloved brother, might not similar encouragement be intended regarding the promised presence of the Lord?

Look, for example, at Jas.5:8, where both eggizo (in the perfect tense) and parousia are used. That “verse” is commonly quoted as a statement of anticipation (at best) or threat (at worst) of Jesus’ return. But what if brother James intended something more like “the presence of the Lord has arrived” (perfect tense)? Suddenly, we can hear him saying that the resources needed for the patience he is advocating, are available for us!
And what if Paul’s statement (II Thes.2:8) of the annihilation of the “lawless one” is intended, not for some distant future, but as the triumph of light over darkness that John declared (3:19) at the very beginning, using a perfect tense of erchomai? The presence of light has ALWAYS destroyed darkness – and always will!
You can take it from there, exploring many of the other references. We would all be enriched, if you would share your observations as comments.

I believe it is the gracious intention of the Lord that his people live in the light of his presence – NOW – in order that we may give thanks with even greater enthusiasm at his final “coming”!
Thanks be to God!

This is not really a linguistic study, but I think it is needed, due to many misunderstandings. In few cases is it more obvious that Bible translators and/or “scholars” are city people and academics with no real experience of rural life than when they turn to sheep. Some well-meaning folks through the years have undertaken to try to enlighten them – but even these cite only their experience with large commercial operations. Although wealthy individuals (like Abraham) in Biblical times, did own very large flocks and herds which were tended by others, this was not the norm in first century Palestine, especially among the “ordinary” folks who gathered to listen to Jesus. Most of them could have identified more readily with the poor man in Nathan’s parable (II Sam.12:3) who had made a pet of his only ewe lamb. Common people lived very close to their few animals, not infrequently even sharing a section of their dwellings. Consequently, I think that my years of caring for a small flock (2-5 ewes and their lambs) can provide helpful, and even perhaps useful insight on these teachings.

My sheep were all pets – to the great amusement of the neighbors, many of whom were “real” farmers. It is not possible to become “personally acquainted” with individual animals in a large operation, where they are more likely to be numbered than named – so they were amazed when my sheep came running in response to being called by name (Jn.10:3). And they gradually stopped laughing when, due to close attention and careful observation, I began to experience more successful lambing and survival rates.

Sheep, whether wild or domestic, are flocking creatures. They seldom go off on their own. But as Jesus noted in parables, they can and do get lost (Mt.12:11-12, Lk.15:4-6). Interestingly, in neither case does Jesus say how it happened. Unlike many who claim to represent him, Jesus does not blame the victim! Perhaps the “lost sheep” was fleeing in panic from a predator (real or perceived). Maybe it was injured or weak, and simply could not keep up with the rest. Or it could have lingered too long in an especially tasty section of the pasture, and been inadvertently left behind. If it was a lamb, it might have been rejected by its mother ewe, or pushed aside by a stronger sibling. A lamb’s exuberant bouncing and climbing could have taken it too close to the edge of a precipitous path. I saw most of these things among my own sheep – as well as seeing (or experiencing) them in churches!

For these, and many other reasons,sheep really need the care of a skilled and loving shepherd! I have had to physically restrain a reluctant ewe to get her to allow her lambs to nurse. It was not unusual that one needed help with a difficult delivery. Occasionally, my ignorance or inexperience was the unfortunate cause of the loss of a lamb, or even a mother. I had to learn by experience to remove poisonous plants from the pasture, to take proper care of an injury to avoid infection, to keep their feet in good condition, and to separate the boy lambs from their sire before he attacked them as rivals!
It is also easy for me to identify with the shepherds (Lk.2) who were watching their flocks overnight! Normally, the flocks would have been herded into a sort of open courtyard at night, where a few men could guard them all (Jn.10:1-10). But that would not be done in lambing season (which is good evidence that Jesus must have been born in early spring!) A crowded sheepfold could cause a newborn lamb to be stepped-on, a distressed ewe to be overlooked, or make it very difficult to sort out which lambs belonged to which mothers! Careful shepherds always spend the night with sheep who are near to delivery. The lives of both mother and babies depend on it!

Jesus remarked with great insight upon the plight of “sheep without a shepherd” (Mt.9:36,26:31; Mk.6:34, 14:27), and of “the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Mt.10:6, 15:24) who had yet to recognize (or had refused to follow) the true Shepherd of the flock. Sheep depend on the shepherd constantly – for safety, for pasture, for shelter, for care. Most people who preach thundering warnings about the shepherd’s “rod” are unaware that it is an instrument for the protection and defense of the sheep, not their punishment! With his rod, the shepherd held wild animals at bay, often at the risk of his own life (Jn.10:15). He could also use it to lift an injured animal to safety. The rod was used FOR – NOT ON – the sheep!

The translations of the associated verb, poimaino, also reveal the ignorance of the translators, who 7x call it simply “feed” (Lk.17:7, Jn.21:16, Ac.20:28, I Cor.9:7, I Pet.5:2, Jude 12, Rv.7:17), or 4x – wholly without linguistic justification – “rule” (Mt.2:6, Rv.2:27, 12:5, 19:15), despite the lexical definitions (L/S) “to tend and cherish, to guide and govern, to soothe or beguile”! Classical writers understood that sheep can only successfully be “tended/shepherded” with loving care! Nobody “rules over” them!
And folks who complain about not being “fed” in churches – or who advertise how well they are “fed” – are likewise missing the point. There are three different words that refer to “feeding” (providing nourishment). Bosko, “to feed, nourish, or graze”, appears 8x: six of them referring to pigs (Mt.8:30, Mk.5:11, 14; Lk.8:32,24 and 15:15), and only twice to people (Jn.21:15,17).
Trepho, “to bring up or rear, to cause to grow, breed, or produce”, refers twice to birds (Mt.6:26, Lk.12:24), once to the woman in the desert (Rv.12:6), and once to the needy (Mt.25:37).
Psomizo, “to feed by hand” (implying very personal involvement) is used in Rom.12:20 of caring for one’s enemy, and in I Cor.13:3 of caring for the poor.

The job of “shepherding” is much more comprehensive than that. He must be a vet, a midwife, a guide, a companion, and even a referee or mediator! Mopsy was our first sheep, and considered herself to be the absolute monarch of the barnyard. For years, a new sheep, or even the calf who arrived later, and the family puppy, had to be introduced to Mopsy and to pass her inspection before any of the others would accept their presence. If she lowered her head or stomped her foot, only prompt intervention would prevent the others from harassing the newcomer. Peacemaking could be a real challenge! But eventually, she apparently came to feel more secure, and showed less hostility to new arrivals. Even if successful at peacemaking, though, a good shepherd can guide his flock to good, healthful pasture, and drive off the predators, but the sheep must then do the grazing! Poimaino is a cooperative, not a passive, operation!

“The flock” is only referenced ten times – 3x referring to (4-legged) sheep (Lk.2:8, I Cor.9:7, 20), and the rest to a group of the faithful. Five of these latter use the diminutive form of poimne “flock”, poimnion. The use of the diminutive may simply indicate the small size of the group, but it is also frequently a term of endearment like the Spanish suffix -ito, -ita, or the German -chen. This is significant in Jesus’ use of the term in Lk.12:32 : “Don’t be afraid, little flock, because your Father is pleased to give you the Kingdom!” After a discourse about the trials they will face, this is intended to be an encouragement to those for whose welfare he cares deeply.

The safety – indeed, the very survival – of the flock depends upon their being kept together, where the shepherd can defend them, and see to their care. Perhaps these multiple responsibilities are part of the reason why Paul addresses the elders of Ephesus (Ac.20:28) and Peter writes to fellow-elders (I Pet.5:2) as a plural charge. Note (#42) that elders are always plural, and addressed together as a group. They are charged with the care and protection of their congregations, urged to “watch over the little flock” and be an example to them of godly living. Peter also specifically warns against any domineering or profit-making on their part.
Although Jesus, the Good Shepherd, is clearly capable of handling all these challenges and more, Jn.10:16 is illustrative that even he may find it a daunting task to build all of his”sheep”/followers into a single flock! He paid a high price for that accomplishment!
I think Peter may have glimpsed that reality when he addressed the elders at the end of his first letter. Review that entire chapter (I Pet.5) in the light of shepherds defending a flock both from predators and from their own ignorance or stubbornness (of which both 4-legged and 2-legged “sheep” have an abundant supply!), remembering that Jesus himself is the only “Chief Shepherd”!

The goal is a single flock, together, waiting to greet their Chief Shepherd with joy – both his and theirs!

“Find” is another word that has acquired a unique usage – which has little to do with its lexical properties – among people of “evangelical” persuasions, who love to talk about the magical-seeming effects when an errant individual “finds God” or “finds Jesus” – neither of whom, in case you wondered, has ever been “lost”!

“Find / found” is a very simple study, involving only one single Greek word, heurisko, for which the classical lexicography includes “to discover or find out; to devise or invent; to be able; to get, gain, or procure; to acquire or obtain;” or even “the price obtained at an auction”! Heurisko appears 174 times in the New Testament. Its grammatical object may be information, a creature or object, or a person.

For example, Mt.1:18 reports the discovery of Mary’s pregnancy; Mt.26:60 and Mk.24:55 speak of the inability of Jesus’ opponents to “find” adequate false witnesses against him; Lk.4:17 notes that Jesus “found” Isaiah’s prophecy in the synagogue’s scroll; and later, (8:18) Jesus’ rather plaintive wondering if, at his coming, he would “find” any faithfulness on the earth.

There are indeed instances of people “finding” Jesus – but all refer simply to his physical location: the shepherds (Lk.2;12) after their angelic visitation; the Magi (Mt.2:8); Mary and Joseph when he stayed behind in the temple (Lk.2:45,46); the disciples who were hunting for him when he had gone off to pray (Mk.1:37); the crowds who were following him (Jn.6:25); and Andrew’s excited report to Peter (Jn.1:41), “We have found the Messiah!” After Jesus’ resurrection, the women “found” the stone rolled away from the tomb, and failed to “find” his body (Lk.24:2,3,23,24).

More frequently, it is reported that it was Jesus who “found” someone: Philip (Jn.1:43), a man from whom he had cast out demons (Lk.8:35); others whom he had healed (Jn.5:4, 9:35); merchants in the temple (Jn.2:14); the disciples sleeping in Gethsemane (Mt.26:40, 43; Mk.14:37,40; Lk.22:45).

In parables, he told of a master “finding” servants acting faithfully or unfaithfully (Mt.24:45-50, Mk.13:36, Lk.12:37-38,43); of one servant “finding” another (Mt.18:28); or a landowner “finding” workers to hire. Other parables deal with people “finding” mundane things like a treasure (Mt.13:44), a pearl (Mt.13:46), a coin (Lk.15:8,9); a sheep (Lk.15:4,5; Mt.8:13); a colt (Mt.21:2 and parallels), figs on a tree (or not) (Mk.11:13,21; Lk.13:6,7); or fish in the sea (Jn.21:6).

More significantly, Jesus also spoke of “finding” less tangible things. One of the most frequently quoted statements, Mt.7:7-10, and its parallel in Lk.11:9-12, contain no clear statement of what is to be “sought” or “found”. The word “find” has no direct object. Matthew refers simply to the Father “giving good things”, and Luke to his provision of the Holy Spirit. Jesus remarked that those who “find” the “road that leads into life” (zoen) (Mt.7:14) are few, but then seems to make a blanket offer of “rest for yourselves” – psuchen – (Mt.11:29) in companionship with him and in sharing in his work. Absorption into partnership in the work of the Kingdom provides welcome rest from the often desperate efforts at self-aggrandizement that occupy so many.

Here, we circle back to the discussion in the previous post, where we noticed that it is in the loss of one’s psuche – the self-centered, self-focused life – that one “finds” or “enters into” the zoen aionion – the “eternal life” of the Kingdom. Please refer again to #28. The change of vocabulary regarding “life” is vital to proper understanding.

The 34 references in Acts are exclusively to locating people or acquiring information, except for a single mention in Ac.17:27 of the possibility of Gentiles earnestly seeking and “finding” God. Paul reiterates this hope in Rom.10:21, but in most of his other writings, his concern is more for “finding” evidence of faithfulness on the part of his readers (Rom.4:1, 7:10, 7:18, 7:21, I Cor.4:2, II Cor.5:3, 9:4, 11:12, 12:20; Phil.3:9). Peter (I Pet.1:7, II Pet.3:14) and John (II Jn.4, Rv.2:2, 3:2, 5:4, 9:6, 12:8, 14:5) share the same concern.

At other times, “finding” is simply an acknowledgment of “the way things are” : Gal.2:17 – one’s own need of the Lord’s intervention, Phil.2:8 – recognition of Jesus’ humanity, I Cor.15:15 – Paul’s admission that he would be “found” a false witness if there were no resurrection. Pilate’s testimony of having “found no fault” in Jesus (Lk.23:4,14,22 and Jn.18:38, 19:4, 19:6), and Jesus’ group “finding” that Lazarus had already been buried (Jn.11:7) are similar simple statements of fact.
The delightful discovery of a gracious healing (Mk.7:30, Lk.7:10,117:18) likewise is announced with the use of heurisko.

On a more sober note, Jesus (Jn.7:34,35,36) describes a time when people will not be able to “find” him even if they decide to look for him, because of their having refused to heed his message while he was in their presence.

In contrast, for those committed to following him, there is the comforting prospect of sheep “finding” good pasture and safe shelter in the loving care of their Shepherd (Jn.10:9); of a faithful messenger and his household “finding” [enjoying, experiencing] the mercy of the Lord (II Tim.1:16-18); and the confidence born of acquaintance with a sympathetic and understanding High Priest, by whose ministrations “we may receive mercy (#59), and find grace (#60) for timely help!” (Heb.4:14-16).

With deepest gratitude, then, may we together bend every effort to provide an affirmative answer to our Lord’s question (Lk.18:8) “When the Son of Man comes, will he find faithfulness on the earth?”.
May he “find” us faithful servants, carefully following his instructions (Mt.24:46) #55, and (Lk.12:37-38) eagerly watching (#125) for his arrival!

There are groups with whom one cannot associate for very long without hearing a tear-jerking lament about the condition (and/or future prospects!) of “the lost” – by which they usually mean anyone who differs with their chosen theological perspective. As is usually the case with many artificial boundaries drawn around carefully proof-texted points of “doctrine”, this one requires exceedingly skillful verbal gymnastics to relate it even remotely to the New Testament text.

Only two Greek words are used here. One, the verb, zemioo (noun form, zemia), classically defined simply as “to cause loss, to do damage, to assess a penalty or fine”, appears only four times as a verb (Mt.16:26, Mk.8:36, I Cor.3:15, Phil.3:8) and twice (Ac.27:21 and Phil.3:7) as a noun. All but the first two, which we will treat with the more common word, refer primarily to material or financial losses.

The other word, apollumi, which Liddell / Scott characterizes as a stronger form of ollumi, an earlier word which does not appear in the New Testament, is a bit more problematic. It is listed as “to destroy utterly (usually referring to a death in battle), to demolish or lay waste, to ruin”, and in the middle or passive voice, “to lose one’s life or possessions, to cease to exist, to die, to be undone.”
Traditional translators have stretched the usage even farther, rendering the same word as “lost” 11x, “lose” 15x, “destroy” 28x, and “perish” 33x. Please remember that any choice in translation, when several options may be lexically valid, reflects the opinion of the translator, and as such, must always be subject to challenge. Who can say without question, for example, without additional information, whether a coin, a sheep, a child (Lk.15) is simply missing (“lost”), has died (“perished”), or has been deliberately “destroyed”?

Even more germane to all the rhetoric about “the lost” is that in 92 appearances in the New Testament, no form of apollumi EVER appears with the adjective aionion (eternal)! The reference to “eternal destruction” in II Thes.1:9 employs a different (and much stronger) word for “destruction” – olethron.
In the much-quoted Jn.3:15-16, aionion is the modifier of zoen (see “Life”, #28), and NOT apollumi; and the phrasing in Jn.10:28 is identical with that in Jn.11:26 (with a different verb); the prepositional phrase eis ton aiona, literally “into/toward the ages”, which is usually translated “forever.” This is the reason for my choice in the PNT to correct the misleading “shall never die” to read “will not die forever” – neither Jesus’ “sheep” nor Lazarus had died “forever” – it was not a permanent condition! Paul picked up the same theme in I Cor.15:18, reassuring his readers of the promised resurrection of those who had already died.

With this background in mind, let us turn to a few specifics. Of the several different translations of apollumi, “lost” is the least frequent. In the gospels, it is applied to sheep (Mt.10:6, 15:24; Lk.15:4,6), a coin (Lk.15:8,9), scraps of bread (Jn.6:12), and only 5x to people: Judas (Jn.17:12, 18:9; a son/brother (Lk.15:24,32), and the folks for whom Jesus came seeking (Lk.19:10). Mt.18:11 is not found in the most reliable manuscripts. Paul, whose writings have been sliced and diced to “prove” so many “doctrines”, only uses the word once (II Cor.4:3) regarding people who have rejected the message of Jesus! (Twice more if you include the “perish” translations in II Cor.2:15, II Thes.2-10)

Traditional translators used “destroy” for the same word, apollumi, 28x. It’s what Herod (Mt.2:13) and the Pharisees (Mt.12:14, Mk.3:26, Mt.27:20, Mk.11:18, Lk.19:47) wanted to do with Jesus; and what demons / evil spirits tried to do with their victims (Mk.9:22, Mt.10:28) and feared that Jesus would do to them (Mk.1:24, Lk.4;34). Jesus contrasted this with his own intent to rescue (“save” – see #5) people (Lk.9:56,Jn.10:10), and challenged his critics that to refuse such rescue was the same as destroying them (Lk.6:9). In parables (Mt.21:41, 22:7, Mk.12:9) and historical references (Lk.17:27-29), he spoke of the destruction of those who had been deliberately unfaithful.
Paul (Rom.14:15) warned folks to be careful lest their perceived superior “knowledge” “destroy” others of tender conscience. “Damage” might have been better here. This theme recurs where the translators chose to render the same word “perish” in I Cor.8:11).

“Perish” is the most common of the translators’ choices, and most frequently refers to the temporary, transitory quality of mortal life or material goods. Only in I Cor.1:18, II Cor.2:15, II Thes.2:10, and I Pet.3:9 is there any hint of a connection to having overtly rejected the message of the Lord Jesus, and it is presented there as a simple result, rather than an imposed penalty, for that situation. There is no reference to anyone who is ignorant of that message.

Finally, it is necessary to examine Jesus’ statement, recorded six times in four different contexts, regarding the “saving” or “loss” of one’s life. In every case, it is psuche that is referenced (please see the study on “life” in #28), even though some translators have chosen, seemingly at random, to substitute the Platonic philosophical term “soul” for some of those occurrences – not all of them – only the ones that fit their own preconceptions.

The earliest appearance is Mt.10:39, in a record of instructions for the disciples whom Jesus had commissioned to represent him. They were not promised a flower-strewn pathway: much of the discourse is devoted to warnings of rejection and persecution, even by their own family members. Jesus is addressing the issue of one’s priorities, and contrasting the “losing” with the “finding” of one’s life / self / identity. (More of this in the next post.)

A similar – but significantly, NOT identical – statement appears in all three synoptic accounts (Mt.16:25, Mk.8:35, Lk.9:24), immediately after Peter’s testimony to Jesus’ identity and the Lord’s rebuke of his reluctance to accept the price that Jesus would pay for that status. Here, the concern is the contrast of one’s normal inclination to save (sozo) / preserve his life / self / identity (psuche) with “losing” (apolese) it. Notice, however,that in both places, “for my sake” – (Jesus’) – is crucial. Mark says “for my sake and the gospel’s”. Luke follows Matthew. This is a call to devoted discipleship, not an excuse for carelessness or flamboyant, risky behavior.
The consistent use of psuche in all of these passages poses an interesting dilemma for those who are obsessed with the notion of “saving souls”. Jesus does not appear to advocate or endorse that effort!

In Lk.17:33, the scene shifts to the chaotic world conditions at the time of Jesus’ return. Whereas the earlier passages spoke of “wanting” (thelo) to save their lives, this one conveys a more desperate – maybe even panicky – “seeking” (zetese) to “preserve” (peripoiesasthai) one’s life. This latter word conveys the tone of a purchased or negotiated settlement! A warning, perhaps, that “cutting a deal” with the persecutors is not the best idea? (Lesser manuscripts repeat the use of sozo). The use of the same word for “loss”, however, is the same throughout.

The final appearance of this theme is in Jn.12:25, in the prelude to the last week of Jesus’ life on earth. Philip and Andrew had just brought word that some Greek sightseers, in town for the passover, wanted to meet Jesus, who was preoccupied with his imminent departure. Both participles are changed. Here, Jesus speaks of the one who “loves” (philon) his psuche (life / self / individuality) “losing” it, in contrast to the one who “hates” (mison) his psuche in this world guarding/keeping (phulaxei) it, into (eis) eternal life (zoen aionion). Notice the unique transition to the use of zoen in this passage, instead of psuchen, and refer again to the study of “life.”

If, therefore, one chooses to follow Jesus’ instructions and example, his focus will be on the work and welfare of the Kingdom, and not his own (or anyone else’s) self-centered psuche “life” (or “soul”!)
Loss is certainly acknowledged (Phil.3:7,8), but not lamented – Paul calls it mere garbage – in comparison with its replacement: the glorious life – the zoen aionion – of the Kingdom!

We saw in the previous posting how a flagrant error in the translation of paideuo has resulted in an incorrect focus on punishment, where the actual intent of several passages is actually education or training. A similar error has caused similar results, when one considers the common rendering of ekdikeo, ekdikesis, and ekdikos as “avenge, revenge, or vengeance” in spite of the fact that three out of the four lexical definitions deal with the vindication of a wronged person (or God himself) by an act of legal justice or remedy; the formulation of a verdict (either positive or negative) by a court of law; and the noun form’s application to any legal advocate, whether of defense or prosecution.

None of these words appear frequently in the New Testament.
Ekdikesis (6x) is traditionally translated “revenge” once (II Cor.:11), “punishment” once (I Pet.2:14), and “vengeance” 4x (Lk.21:22, Rom.12:19, II Thes.1:8, Heb.10:30).
Ekdikeo (also used 6x) appears once as “revenge” (II Cor.10:6) and 5x “avenge” (Lk.18:3,5; Rom.12:19, Rv.6:10, 19:2).
Ekdikos occurs only twice: once as “avenger” (I Thes.4:6) and once as “revenger” (Rom.13:4).

Revisit each of these passages, deliberately avoiding your normal assumption of vindictiveness, and imagine how you would read them if you assumed only the administration of justice, rather than retaliation. This is especially noteworthy if you consider the context – for example, II Thes.1:5-10, where the real burden of the message is one of justice for the faithful who have been mightily abused.
You might also find it useful to refer to the studies on justice (#3) and judgment (#9,10), where we also found it necessary to challenge the automatic presumption of a negative tone. Try to realize that one’s assessment of the nature of any of these situations will depend entirely upon his choice of with which side he has decided to identify!
The same situation is true of the un-prefixed form, dike, which appears only three times. Especially instructive is the description of Paul’s experience with the snake bite at the bonfire (Ac.28:4), where the local folks first assumed that dike (“vengeance” or “justice”) had caught up with an evil person, and then changed their minds and decided that he must be a god! So quickly does people’s perception change!
The same word in Jude 7, applied to Sodom, can be interpreted more in line with prevailing stereotypes, but in Ac.25:15, it is simply a demand for a legal verdict.
In virtually every case, “to do or accomplish justice” would be a much clearer expression of the lexical meaning of the words.

How, then, did both translators and interpreters become so obsessed with vindictiveness, and (often cruel) vengeance? I think the answer has at least two components.

One clue may be found in the vocabulary of the LXX – the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This would make it one of the many errors which have at least a partial source in the reluctance on the part of many well-meaning people to realize that since Jesus came, THINGS HAVE CHANGED!!! Consequently, they treat both testaments as if they were equivalent – which they are not. (See #148). But even so, it should be clear that most of the references, especially to the defeat of enemies, are recorded from the perspective of the Israelite kings and heroes. Only Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and a few of the minor prophets attribute destruction to the act of God – and for them, it is usually his judgment on their own nation, much more frequently than upon others. This, however, could be a partial source of the threats levied by members of ecclesiastical hierarchies to keep their (perceived) underlings subservient to their pronouncements.

Secondly, please remember that English translations were made more than a thousand years after the writing of the texts – well after the codification of “doctrines” and the rise of the hierarchical structures – and they were made, for the most part, at the behest of the powerful, to reinforce their dominance. (Have you ever read the introduction to the King James Version? I was shocked, when challenged to do so!) Threats, both “temporal” and “eternal” are a great way to do this.

To be fair, we must acknowledge that the concept of “punishment” does exist, although rarely, in the presence of two word groups which are correctly translated in that way.

Timoreo, used only twice (Ac.22:5 and 26:11), refers to the persecution inflicted upon believers by Paul, before his conversion. Its noun counterpart, timoria, occurs only in Heb.10:9, a warning against overtly disparaging the Lord Jesus. A prefixed form, epitimia, also occurring only a single time, refers to the discipline of an erring brother (II Cor.2:6).

Of the other group, kolazo (Ac.4:21) refers to the Sanhedrin trying to figure out what to do with the apostles (how to “punish” them), but only once (II Pet.2:9) is it attributed to God. Its noun equivalent, kolasis, is used of the lot of those who had exercised no compassion (Mt.25:46). This is the only place where it appears with aionion (“eternal” – an uncertain translation – see #28) besides the Jude 7 use with dike.

Much of the threatening “evangelical” (gross misnomer) rhetoric makes lurid use of Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk.16:19-31), in which not one of these words appears! I will not attempt here to exegete that whole story, but will simply note its parallel to the Matthew 25 passage. In neither parable is any reference made either to what anyone “believed” or to any flagrant wickedness! All are judged simply for their lack of compassionate action.

There remains one admonition, however, that is worthy of note, regardless of whether ekdikesis is interpreted as “vengeance” or as simple justice. It is the quote from Dt.32:35 in both Rom.12:19 and Heb.10:30, and addressed, in theme, in Jesus’ parable in Lk.18:7,8: that “vengeance / justice” is the responsibility of GOD, and not of the wronged individual. Although the Old Testament refers frequently to kings, warriors, or others, wreaking “vengeance” upon their enemies, there is no such reference in the New Testament! All three reports in the Revelation – ekdikeo in 6:10 and 19:2, and krino in 18:20 – are the proprietary action of God, as are the assurances given by both Peter and Paul, noted above, of the eventual triumph of Jesus’ Kingdom.

Please note that this is NOT to excuse his people from their obligation to act in justice, and to seek it for others (see #3); but neither is it a license to usurp God’s sovereign prerogative to judge and to act.

For the citizens of his Kingdom, these words, like so many others that have been incorrectly used, are intended not as a threat, but as loving encouragement, as reassurance that under the sovereignty of our King, the eventual outcome will be consummately just and fair. We just need to leave it in his hands.

Thanks be to God!