The Pioneers’ New Testament

“Study” is another requested word, which appears only twice in traditional English New Testaments – and not at all in some of them – although the idea is quite prevalent, in references to disciples (“students” or “learners”) #51, teachers #46 and 47, and “following instructions” #55. Please include these studies as you consider the present topic.

Two Greek words are involved. Philotimeomai, translated once “study” (I Thes.4:11), once “strive” (Rom.15:20), and once “labor” (II Cor.5:9), was used classically of ambition, earnest endeavor, or aspiration, in addition to the meaning of its component parts, which indicate “to love or seek after honor”. It’s not hard to see that translators must have puzzled over that one!

The more common word, spoudazo, also only once rendered “study”, in Paul’s familiar admonition to Timothy (II Tim.2:15), appears a total of 11 times, with 7 different translations! Its noun equivalent, spoude, is also represented by seven different translations in twelve appearances. Classical usage of both of these includes a sense of urgency, of serious attentiveness, strenuous effort, engagement, or pursuit, and sometimes hurry, eagerness, or ardent zeal, although in the middle of these, lexicographers Liddell and Scott include “to study, lecture or teach”.
Paul uses the same word in urging Timothy (II Tim.4:9, 21) and Titus (3:12), to try really hard to meet him at a particular place and time; in encouraging the Corinthian church to get their act together regarding the relief offering (II Cor.8:7,8:10) and to straighten out their problems (II Cor.7:11,12); and in expressing his concern and that of others for the welfare of the brethren in Thessalonica (I Thes.2:17) and Corinth (II Cor.8:16).

Peter, also using the same word, urges his readers to make faithfulness their top priority (II Pet.1:5,10; 3:14), as well as expressing his own eagerness (1:15) to provide them with helpful reminders of his teaching. “Diligence” is the traditional translation here, but the word is still spoudazo.
Both Paul (Eph.4:3) and the writer to the Hebrews (4:11) advocate similar determined effort, translated “endeavor” in Ephesians and “labor” in Hebrews, still making use of spoudazo.
None of these really fit into a modern English idea of “study”, and for this reason, the II Tim.2:15 passage would probably also be better understood in the sense of “make a strenuous effort”.

Nevertheless, any folks who are committed to such an effort most definitely have a lot to “learn”. In addition to the frequent admonition to discipleship already treated in #51, manthano, a related verb, appears 25 times, 24 of which rendered “learn” and one as “understand”. Manthano was classically used of “learning from a teacher” or “learning by study”, ever since Homer! It also referred to forming a habit, or “learning by heart” (memorizing). This is the word with which Jesus challenged the Pharisees to “learn” Gods desire for mercy as opposed to sacrifice (Mt.9:13), and invited his disciples to “learn” by sharing his yoke (Mt.11:29). Both Matthew (24:32) and Mark (13:28) include his instruction to “learn the parable of the fig tree.” Jesus’ opponents used the same word to critique his failure to seek apprenticeship under their approved teachers (Jn.7:15), which was the only culturally acceptable way to become recognized as a legitimate “teacher”.

Paul is quite specific about the “course syllabus” for the Kingdom’s “citizenship class”, including Rom.16:17 – the original teaching they had “learned”, I Cor.4:6 – “learning” not to go beyond what has been written and start elevating particular individuals, I Cor.14:31 – that all may “learn” from wisdom given to / through other members of the Body, Eph.4:20 – “learning”to sort out what is or is not compatible with what they had already “learned”, Col.1:5-7 – the word of the genuine Gospel which they had “learned”, I Tim.5:4 – “learning” to show one’s devotion to the Lord by his life in his/her own family, and Titus 3:14 – “learning” how to maintain good works.
He also speaks of his own having learned (Phil.4:11) to be content under all circumstances, adapting equally well to adverse or pleasant conditions, and warns against “learning to be idle” (I Tim.5:13), or making such a fetish of “learning” as never to settle in upon the truth (II Tim.3:7).
Hebrews even speaks of Jesus himself needing to “learn obedience from the things that he suffered” (5:8), in order to be merciful to his people, as well as to serve as their example.

The other primary word associated with learning is paideuo, traditionally translated “learn” only once out of 13 appearances. Here, traditional translators have seriously skewed our understanding of a vital concept. The word itself, lexically related to pais, “child”, is classically defined as “to teach or educate, to rear a child” (or, in the passive voice, to be so taught), and only marginally “to correct or discipline”. (The word “discipline” does not occur anywhere in traditional translations of the New Testament.) Unfortunately, traditional translators chose this secondary sense as their primary rendering of paideuo, and then compounded the error by using “chasten” six times (I Cor.11:32, II Cor.6:9, Heb.12:6,7,10; Rv.3:19), and “chastise” twice (Lk.23:16,22). This error has prompted most interpreters to promulgate the notion of “punishment”, a concept which does not exist at all in the lexical meaning of the word! These translators (who should really be called editors or revisionists!) used “teach”, the primary meaning, only twice (Ac.22:3 and Tit.2:12), and “instruct” once (II Tim.2:25). This is an egregious distortion of the idea of “educating” or “rearing” a child of the Kingdom!
The perversity – ubiquity – and tragic results – of this error will be explored in a later study.

Two other words translated “learning” are treated in other studies.

In Romans 15:4, where Paul asserts that the purpose of former writings is “for our learning”, the word is didaskalia, teaching – see #47; and in Ac.26:24, using gramma (a derivative of grapho, to write) – see #148 – the frustrated and uncomprehending Governor Festus shouts at Paul, “Your much learning/study/writing has driven you crazy!”

You may also find the words translated “understanding” helpful. They are explored under their more common translations, akouo – listen, hear, #27; ginosko – know – along with eido, oida, and epistamai, #29; and nous – mind – #96,

Suniemi, mentioned briefly in #130 – wise – is usually (25x) rendered “understand”, in the sense of figuring something out, or comprehending a point of teaching (or being unable to do so). Two of these, Lk.24:45 and Eph.5:17, involve specific enabling granted to people earnestly committed to following the Lord to understand his ways, and one, Rom.15:21, refers to people who have yet to make such a commitment.

Neither “study”, “learning”, nor “understanding” is ever represented as a purely intellectual exercise, except possibly the situation described in II Tim.3:7. Practical results are always expected!
Toward this end, all of these efforts are of value, but only as they enable faithfulness to the Lord Jesus and service to his people.
As such, they deserve our most “strenuous effort”!

Well, folks, we finally got it done.  Dan has just posted a corrected version of the Translation Notes, and a combined document of the first 150 Word Studies.  If you already copied the first 100, and want just the supplement of 50, email me, and I will send it to you as a separate document.

We have also updated the searchable index in the “Indexes” tab.

As always, you are free to download and/or print anything you want, for  your own use.  No part of this work may be sold at any time.  It is the Lord’s stuff, and his only “price” is following his directions!

In the service of the King —

Ruth and Dan

(Please use this as a companion study to #148)

Here is another requested word that appears only once in the entire New Testament.
I find it interesting that in all the arguing and pontificating that goes on regarding the many versions of “inspiration” ascribed to the Biblical writings, virtually no attention is given to internal evidence – statements by the writers themselves – of the reasons or motivations for their writing. These statements are plentiful, and should certainly be viewed with a seriousness at least equal to the stature accorded to the documents in which they are contained!

Does it surprise you that only one of those writers – John, in the Revelation – makes any claim to having been told what to write, by the Lord or a messenger of his? John reports that he was instructed to write specific messages to particular churches (2:1,8,12,18, 3:1,7,14). Other instructions are (1:19)to “write what you have seen”, and not to write the message of the “thunders” (10:4). And John makes no similar claim about either his letters or the gospel that bears his name.

Neither Matthew nor Mark includes any explanation in his narrative. Luke,though (1:1-4), not only states his purpose very clearly, but also describes his careful research and organization efforts, in order that Theophilos may “be assured of the accuracy of the teaching (he) had received.” And John, as he concludes his account, notes (20:30-31) that although he left out a lot of things, he wrote what he did in order to enable his readers “to trust that Jesus is the Anointed One, the Son of God,” and, having become faithful, to “have life in his name”. John thus declares the purpose of his work to be deliberately evangelistic, whereas Luke’s is to give additional evidence to someone who has already been taught.

Although the history recounted in Acts is addressed to the same individual as Luke’s gospel, the introduction is simpler: after all, here, in a considerable portion of the narrative (the “we” passages), Luke is a participant, and no longer just a researcher.
There are two records of “writing” by believers contained within that history. First is the letter written by the folks at the Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15:23-29) to the Gentile believers. It was written, reporting the consensus of the gathered group, to reassure them that they were not required to adopt Jewish customs, but merely to avoid (15:20) “the pollution of idols, sexual perversions, strangled things, and blood”, all of which were components of idol worship.
The other letter (Ac.18:28) was written by brethren in Ephesus to counterparts in Achaia (Corinth), urging them to welcome Apollos into their fellowship.
There were also letters written by the Roman officials.

Paul’s letters frequently included a note about his purpose in writing: Rom.15:15 – to remind them about what he had taught; I Cor.4:14 – not to scold, but to warn them about false teaching; I Cor.7:1 – to reply to questions they had sent him; II Cor.7:12 – to settle a dispute; 9:1 – to urge the collection of a relief offering; and 13:2, 10 – to correct errors. His purpose stated in Gal.1:20 was to recount his own personal history, in Eph.3:3 to share a revelation; in Phil.3:1 to keep them safe from error; and in Philemon, to encourage his acceptance of Onesimus. He says he wrote I Thes.4:9, 5:1, to commend their love, and to reassure them about Jesus’ return, and I Tim.3:14 to communicate his plans to visit.
Several times, notably in I Cor.7, he says, “I have no instructions from the Lord – this is my best judgment”. Only once (I Cor.14), after a lengthy outline for orderly sharing in a meeting, does he claim to be wielding the Lord’s own authority.

Peter writes (I Pet.5:12) to encourage the faithfulness of his readers, and (II Pet.3:1) to remind them of his message.
John (I Jn.1:4) says that his goal is to make their mutual joy complete, (2:1), to prevent error, and (2:12) because they are faithful and growing!
Jude (3) also writes to encourage faithfulness.

Nobody claims to be writing a definitive statement of “doctrine” to which all are required to subscribe, or an inviolable code of conduct which all must observe – except for the one requirement imposed by Jesus himself and repeatedly appearing in all John’s works – mutual love in the brotherhood.

So – who – or what – is “inspired”?
The word, theopneustos, appears only one single time in the entire New Testament, and not at all in the LXX. It likewise does not appear at all in ancient classical literature, although Plutarch (2^nd.century AD) used it occasionally. It may have been an “invented” word, since no etymology is given in any lexicons, other than its component parts: theo – God, and pneustos, from pneo, to breathe or to blow. The sound linguistic approach of examining other usages of a word, is not possible, since there are none. The use of theo- indicates clearly that the reference is to inspiration by/from God – people can also be “inspired” by other people, by a cause, by an idea, etc. – but as noted in Word Study #148, the rest of the sentence is problematic, due to its lack of any verb. Please see that treatment.
There is another valid consideration, suggested in a conversation with my son, Dan, who pointed out that help could be found in the broader context of this quotation, specifically the reference in v.15 to Timothy’s “knowledge of the holy writings / scriptures since childhood” , and the beneficial results of that knowledge. Later,I realized that this would also solve the problem of what to do with the kai in v.16, before ophelimos, “useful”, by enabling the reading, “From early childhood, you’ve known the holy scriptures/writings that empower you to be wise for deliverance /salvation, through the faithfulness that is in Christ Jesus.  All writing inspired by God is also useful …”.  This may be the best solution of all, and I intend to incorporate it in the next edition of the PNT.  (If you have downloaded it, please add this to your copy!)

In either case, for anyone who takes the New Testament seriously, it is unwise, if not downright impossible, to make a dogmatic, definitive statement regarding its “divine” or “human” origin.
Far more productive would be redoubling our most earnest efforts to understand and to follow its precepts, and to honor the One by whose gracious Kingdom its narrative is “inspired”!

The subject of “healing” has probably generated as much discussion among earnest followers of the Lord Jesus, ranging from desperate hope to equally desperate discouragement, and from loving, encouraging ministrations to bitter blaming and recriminations, as any other topic. This study does not pretend to settle all questions, nor to present the elusive, infallible formula which so many have sought – or arrogantly claimed to have discovered. It merely seeks to offer, by means of examination of the vocabulary used in the New Testament, a bit of insight that may be helpful as we try to learn, to discern, and to follow our Lord’s instructions.

He did, after all, empower and instruct his disciples, when he sent them around the nearby countryside, to “heal the weak [sick], raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons” (Mt.10:8 and parallels), as they announced the arrival of his Kingdom. Similar instructions are included in Mark’s version (16:17,18) of the Great Commission, and in the experience of the early church as recorded in Acts. Healing had been a significant part of Jesus’ own ministry, with at least 40 instances recorded in the gospels. Although some of these refer to the same events, the count would be even higher if we were to include cleansing lepers, giving sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf, and mobility to the lame and paralyzed, that don’t specifically use the word “heal.” Some of the lesser manuscripts include “to heal those with broken [crushed] hearts” in Jesus’ announcement of his mission in Lk.4:18.

There can be no question, then, that healing is intended to have a significant place in the ministry of Jesus’ followers. An examination of the vocabulary expands that responsibility tremendously.

Of the words denoting healing, therapeuo (v.), with 38 translations as “heal”, 5 as “cure”, and one as “worship”, and its noun equivalent therapeia, 2x “healing” and 2x “household”, are by far the most common.
Historically, these words were much more versatile, including “to do service (to gods or men), to honor parents or wait on a master, to care for a person, to treat medically, to mend garments, to train animals, to cultivate land, to prepare food or drugs”! It would be an interesting exercise to consider some of these as alternative translations! Perhaps there is more involved than we realize in Jesus’ instructions.

The other word, more exclusively referring to medical healing, iaomai (v) “heal” 26x and “make whole” 2x, and iasis (n) “healing” 1x and “cure”1x, was also more restricted historically, listed as “to heal, cure, or attempt to do so, to treat disease, to repair or remedy, to be healed, to recover.”
Ten times, the verb sozo is used. This is treated in #5, being more often traditionally rendered “save”.

The conditions from which people are “healed” are likewise varied.
Arrostos (5x) is used of any sickliness, or bad state of health. In the plural, it referred to epidemics. Only rarely does it describe moral weakness.
Astheneo (20x), asthenes (22x), astheneia (22x), asthenema (2x), is by far the most frequently used, and the most ambiguous. In traditional translations, the noun and the adjective are more frequently rendered “weak, weakness” and the verb more often “be sick”, but lexically, they all carry both meanings, as well as “to be needy, to be unable to do something, to be without power (opposite of dunamis) or influence, poverty, want of strength, feeble, sickly, or morally weak.” That pretty well covers most “needs”!
Kamno, used only 3x (Jas.5:15, Rv.2:3, Heb.12:3) can refer to physical illness, but its primary lexical meaning is “to be weary or fatigued from work or exertion”, as well as “to win by toil” and “to meet with disaster”!
Malakia, used only of disease, is seen only in Matthew 4:23, 9:35, and 10:1, each time in tandem with
nosos (12 occurrences), which is a broader term, including “sickness, disease, distress, anguish, disease of the mind” (L/S), and (Bauer) “vice or character defect”. These latter two words appear exclusively in the synoptics, except for a single case in Ac.19:12.

With this semantic background, we can see that James’ choice of vocabulary in 5:13-16 may be more significant than we commonly realize. Only once does he employ the most common (and most ambiguous) of the words, when he addresses asthenei tis “whoever is sick / needy / weak /unable to function properly”. This is about as broad a category as you can imagine. Such a person is encouraged to call upon the elders for prayer (#91) and anointing (#155) in the name (#24) of the Lord – as his representatives and on his behalf. The prayer of the faithful (#1) is represented as the agent of “saving / rescuing” (#5) the supplicant, who is described as kamnonta, for which “worn-out” or “exhausted” is at least as valid a rendition as “sick”, thus greatly expanding the “eligible clientele” for such merciful service. IF he has somehow brought it on himself (note, that is NOT assumed), by either deliberate or immature behavior (v.15), that condition will also be remedied. This is the context for James’ admonition to the mutual confession and prayer, whose goal is revealed to be perhaps beyond our idea of merely physical healing, by the use of iathete, rather than a form of therapeuo, which includes deliverance from all sorts of ills or suffering, as well as the cure of disease.
How beautifully are the Lord’s people utterly dependent upon one another!

Other than that one instance, we have no record of a pre-condition being imposed upon any person in need of healing. It is true that Jesus remarked upon the faithfulness of the friends who carried a paralytic to him for healing (Lk.5:20), rebuked the disciples who had been unable to heal a child (Lk.9:41), and challenged the child’s father to trust him (Mk.9:22-24), but he made no such demand upon any person in need! In at least one case (Jn.5:13), the person didn’t even know who had healed him!
I suspect there are very good reasons for which the specific illnesses or disabilities are usually not clearly identified. The preponderance of references are to “all manner of” or “divers diseases”, “infirmities”, or simply “all who had need of healing.”

It is also true that while amazing healings bore testimony to the power of Jesus in the New Testament church (Ac.3 and 4, 8:7, 9:17-18, 14:9, 19:11-12, 20:10, 28:8), there were also occasions when healing did not take place (Gal.4:13, I Tim.5:23, I Cor.2:3, Phil.2:26-27, II Tim.4:20). We still face similar dilemmas.

There is no prescribed formula offered to “guarantee” healing. Jesus often accomplished it with a touch, and at other times simply with a word. On occasion, the disciples were instructed to apply oil (Mk.6:13, Jas.5:13-16), but this was not “standard procedure”.
Someone once suggested that the plague of “denominations” began when three blind men whom Jesus had healed, met each other at a “healing meeting.” One boasted that all it had required was a single touch of the Master’s hand (Mt.20:30). Another argued that wasn’t sufficient (Mk.8:25), but that a second touch was necessary in order to see clearly. The third maintained adamantly that unless Jesus put mud on your eyes, you had not experienced “the real thing.” So instead of rejoicing together at the mercy they had been shown, each went off to start his own church, criticizing the others for “teaching false doctrine”!

We are also not provided with any easy explanation of why, although many of us today can also point to times when the Lord has graciously intervened with his gift of healing, we have to acknowledge that , as we saw in the New Testament accounts as well, this does not always happen. Blaming the victim, as we have seen above, is unwarranted – and also cruel.
Notice, also, that neither Jesus nor his disciples ever urged anyone to “claim” or “believe” a healing in the absence of any observable evidence.
When unsuccessful disciples asked Jesus why they had been unable to help a child (Mk.9:29), his reply was a need for prayer (some manuscripts add “fasting”). We all have a lot to learn about that! (See #91)
There may be another key, in I Cor.11:30, where Paul suggests that simply going through the motions of some ritual without “discerning the Lord’s Body” (#84) may account for the weakness, sickliness, or even death, of some members of the group. Healing is listed among the functions described in a healthy Body, in the following chapter (12).
Might we become a more successful demonstration of our Lord’s Kingdom, if we allowed ourselves to be built more completely into a united, interactive Body? (Please see chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom).
This concept needs a lot more attention than it receives.

In addition to “healing”, the Lord’s people are urged to “support the weak” (I Thes.5:14), to exercise patience with those whose conscience is weak (I Cor.8:7-10), and to recognize the value of members who “seem” to be more weak (“feeble”) (I Cor.12:22). Although a person “weak in faithfulness” (Rom.14:1,2, 21) is not to be included in discussions requiring mature discernment, the “strong” are admonished to “bear with” their weakness, for their benefit (Rom.15:1). These are all necessary functions of a Body, although they would be merely a nuisance to an institution, which simply eliminates those who are perceived not to “fit”. The Lord never told his people to form – or to become – an institution.

It is deliberate, that this study does not end with a summary, or a coherent conclusion.
I have none to offer.
I merely present these observations in the hope of their being augmented and corrected by yours.

May we help each other toward both faithfulness and wholeness.

I have been trying without success to track down the provenance of a relatively recent arrival among the “buzz-words” in some popular “Christian” literature and teaching: the characterization of the world, and the lives of both the committed and the uncommitted, as “broken”. I have found no such reference anywhere in the New Testament. Can you help me?

By a huge majority, the primary reference in the New Testament to anything being “broken” is (are you ready for this?) to BREAD! Either as Jesus broke bread to feed the crowds that were following him (Mt.14:19, 15:36; Mk.6:41, 8:6, 8:19; Lk.9:15, etc.), or the pieces that were gathered up afterwards (Mt.14:20, Mk.6:43, 8:9; Lk.9:17) “so that nothing be wasted” (Jn.6:12), or in descriptions of the last supper (Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.22:19), and later similar observances by gathered disciples (Lk.24:30, Ac.2:46, 20:7, 20:11, 27:35; I Cor.10:16, 11:24), it is bread that is “broken.”

There are a few other things that are described as “broken” – or not – a fishing net (Lk.5:6, Jn.21:11), improperly prepared wineskins (Mt.9:17), an alabaster container (Mk.14:3), the chains of a demon-possessed man (Mk.5:4), branches from an olive tree (Rom.11:17,19,20), a house invaded by thieves (Mt.24:43, Lk.12:39), and a bone of the Passover lamb (Jn.19:36.) The Law of Moses (Jn.7:23), the Sabbath (Jn.5:18), and the Scripture (Jn.10:35) use a different word, luo, which has many other uses, most frequently with the sense of being released, set free, or made of no effect. But the term “broken”, is never applied to “the world”, and very rarely to people. The only references involving people are Mt.21:44 and its parallel in Lk.20:18, warning of the results of an unfriendly encounter with “the stone the builders rejected”, and Jesus’ announcement (Lk.4:18) that “healing the broken-hearted” was integral to his mission. (Is it, to ours?)

This brief survey covers all five “word families” traditionally rendered “broken” – klao / klaomai / klasma; suntribo / suntribomai; sunthlaomai; diorusso; and schizo (for this last, please also see #127). Only klao appears more than twice with this translation. Suntribo is also rendered “bruised” in Mt.12:20 (Jesus won’t break a bruised reed); Lk.9:39 (the injury of a child by an evil spirit), and Rom.16:20 (the promise of Satan’s ultimate defeat!)
So the word “break/broken” does occur – but there is simply no New Testament reference to either a “broken world” or “broken lives.”

The fervor with which this subject is usually addressed, however, leads me to wonder whether it is not just the plain, old-fashioned Calvinist “original sin” story, re-cast in language deemed more acceptable to contemporary thought. That story is not derived from the New Testament, either, as we saw in word studies 3,5,7, 23, 27, 34, 88, 120, 121, 128, and 141. And may I remind you that even using the very latest of proposed estimates of the dating of New Testament manuscripts, our present New Testament pre-dates Mr. Calvin by more than a thousand years, and consequently is bound to be closer to the “real” story!

Just as surely as our Lord Jesus came to TAKE AWAY old-fashioned “sins” (#7), he certainly has also TAKEN AWAY whatever more euphemistic “brokenness” exists. To use the term “broken” without any regard for who “broke” what, constitutes avoidance (whether deliberate or not is not mine to say) of personal responsibility. The first three chapters of Romans make abundantly clear that the futility to which all creation – including people – is presently subject, is the result, NOT of some inherent, inborn defect, but of willful ignorance of the ways and intentions of the Creator.

We do not live in a world that has been “broken” by some invasive, external force, but in a world whose people have selfishly and deliberately chosen (Rom. 1,2,3) to flaunt the gracious plans of its Creator, and to submit rather to the power of darkness.
But this is the very power – the very futility – from which the Lord Jesus rescued us, when he installed us as citizens of his Kingdom! The glorious announcements are all cast in past tenses (Gal.1:4, Col.1:13, I Pet.1:18, and many others)! It is also this same rescue for which the rest of the creation waits with eager anticipation (Rom.8:20).

“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).

I refer you specifically to the conclusions proposed in #141, as relevant here as well. In order properly to function in the Kingdom, the Lord’s people must quit digging themselves into a hole, whether they call it “sinfulness” or “humility” or “brokenness”, and work at moving on toward maturity!

We must learn to distinguish between the errors of deliberate disobedience, the “former life” which was put to death and buried in our baptism (Rom.6:4), and errors of simple immaturity, which will be superseded as we learn to “walk in newness of life”.
Ironically, the folks who make the most noise about being “born again” seem blissfully unaware that new life – of whatever kind – is never “born” as a fully mature individual!
Admonitions to “grow up!” (I Pet.2:2, II Pet.3:18, Eph.4:15), and to “put off” old behavior and “put on” new (I Cor.13:11, 15:53; Gal.3:27, Eph.4:20-25, Col.3:8, 10-12; I Thes.5:8) abound throughout the New Testament text.

We have a choice, folks! We are not victims of a “broken” status quo.

Where will you expend your efforts?

Forget the lamentations over what is/was “broken”.

Let’s choose to “grow up” into life!

It has become common, in some circles, to enthuse effusively about an “anointed meeting”, “anointed” preaching or singing, or some other type of flamboyant performance. The speaker / writer is usually describing some sort of emotional high, the achievement of which is interpreted as being Spirit- induced, and therefore assumed to be desirable. Others credit (or blame) a “strong anointing” or “heavy anointing” for an irresistible impulse to speak or act in an unusual manner, implying that they are following the Lord’s direction. This is yet another popular concept that is completely absent from the New Testament text.
While it is true that there are occasions described in the Old Testament in which bizarre behavior is attributed to “the spirit of the Lord” (Jdg.14:6,19; 15:14; I Sam.10:10-11, 19:24), the term “anointing” is not used.

“Anointing” was used, under the old covenant, for the selection and coronation of kings, the dedication of artifacts (tabernacle, temple, or their furnishings), and the appointment of priests. Except for the few instances where it refers simply to personal hygiene (Ruth 3:3, Mic.6:15), it was the act of a prophet or other leader. Only rarely (Ps.45:7, Is.61:1) is God himself the actor.

There are no such incidents described in the New Testament at all. Bizarre or uncontrolled behavior is never attributed to the Holy Spirit. In fact, the only references to out-of-control behavior are recognized overtly as an attack by an evil spirit (Mt.17:14-18 and parallels; Mt.8:28-29 and parallels, Ac.19:13-16). In fact, Paul’s sensible instructions for public meetings include admonitions to the careful exercise of control (I Cor.14).
The word “anoint” does appear several times, however, so it behooves us to examine what is intended by its use. Please notice that the direct object of “anoint” is almost exclusively the Lord Jesus himself, unless he is the subject.

New Testament occurrences represent five different Greek verbs: aleipho, egchrio, epichrio, murizo, and chrio, and only one single noun, chrisma. (This is NOT the same word as charisma,with which some people confuse it.)

Historically, aleipho, the most commonly used of the words, was an athletics-derived practice: the rubbing of one’s body with oil in preparation for gymnastic training or competition. In New Testament usage, it referred to simple personal hygiene (Mt.6:17), to honoring a guest with extra attention after the normal courtesy of washing his feet (Lk.7:38,46; Jn.11:2, 12:3), or the preparation of a body for burial (Mk.16:1). Mark (14:8) also uses murizo in this latter sense – its only New Testament appearance.
Aleipho, egchrio, and epichrio all describe the therapeutic application of any substance in connection with physical healing, whether by disciples (Mk.6:13), or elders (Jas.5:14), or by Jesus himself (Jn.9:6,11), as well as in Jesus’ instructions to the (willfully) blind church of Laodicea (Rv.3:18).

Only the un-prefixed form of chrio is used in what might be called a “spiritual” sense. Lexically, this word was also used of the cosmetic and hygienic application of oil, but additionally includes the symbolic expression of “anointing in token of consecration.” I think it is significant that four of its five appearances refer overtly and specifically to Jesus having been “anointed” by God.

Jesus himself made that claim, in quoting Isaiah’s prophecy upon the inauguration of his ministry (Lk.4:18). The folks at the prayer meeting (Ac.4:27) when Peter was delivered from prison bore testimony to the same fact, as did Peter in his sermon at Cornelius’ home (Ac.10:38), and the writer to the Hebrews (1:9). Only Paul (II Cor.1:21 ) extends the term to “us” – the faithful – and it is clearly considered a part of our incorporation into the Body of Christ (perhaps the means of that incorporation). Read vv.20-22 as a unit. Notice that in no instance is either privilege or responsibility conferred upon any individual except Jesus!

The adjective, christos, universally rendered “Christ”, of course, is related etymologically, and is never used of anyone but the Lord Jesus, except in the occasional claim of an impostor (Mt.24:5 and parallels).

There remain for consideration only the three occurrences of the noun, chrisma – all of which occur in John’s first letter (I Jn.2:20, 27) – twice traditionally translated “anointing” and once “unction”. Yes, that is the ONLY New Testament use of the word.
From 2:18 through the end of the chapter, John is addressing the issue of deserters, deceivers, and deceptive teaching. He reminds his readers that they (together – it is plural!) are already equipped to sort out questions of faithfulness. He had quoted Jesus in his gospel account, explaining that the Holy Spirit / “Spirit of Truth” would be coming for the purpose of guiding his people (Jn.16:13) “IN (not “into”) all truthfulness.” Here is another of many places where prepositions matter! Faithful disciples do not need to be led INTO truth: that is the sphere they already inhabit, by virtue of their commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom. But they / we will always need to be led properly to function IN the truth, as different challenges / situations will require differing responses.

Enabling this discernment is a major function of the Holy Spirit, who, I believe, personifies the “anointing” to which John refers here. Notice how the “job description” in v.27 matches the Jn.16 passage.

Notice also the results of the anointing, when applied to the people of God: occasional physical healing (Jas.5), incorporation into the Body of Christ (II Cor.1), and the discernment necessary to function appropriately in that Body (I Jn.2).

As we have seen so frequently elsewhere, in every case, the mortal recipients of the “anointing” are addressed in the plural. It is neither a gold medal awarded, nor a position of power or status granted, to any individual, but rather the gracious enabling provided to the gathered citizens of the Kingdom, in their mutual quest for faithfulness to their anointed King!

Thanks be to God!

For far too long, these words, quoted by John as Jesus’ final statement from the cross, have been represented as if they were a pathetic whimper of abject submission to the unmitigated evil which sincere, but misguided, interpreters insist that God inflicted upon his Son in vicarious (one could just as well say “vicious”!) punishment for the offenses of mankind.
Woven skillfully into closely reasoned doctrinal positions, most of which bear no resemblance whatever to anything that Jesus himself said or taught, the resulting package has been accepted without question, despite its absurdly circular reasoning, as authoritative “proof” of those systems, and consequently has escaped serious examination.

The two words traditionally translated “finish”, teleioo and teleo – treated briefly in the studies on “perfection / maturity” (#13) and “fulfillment” (#108), both of which make more frequent use of pleroo – have a distinctly different flavor. Lexically, teleioo generally carries the freight of completion, (hence its frequent parallel with pleroo, referring to maturity and commonly translated “perfect”), while teleo leans more toward the idea of accomplishment, although the lines between those two are not easily defined.

Although he makes no reference to the spectacular splitting of the temple veil (#127 and Chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom) mentioned by all the synoptic writers, John nevertheless displays a unique understanding of what is “finished.” Not only is he the only writer to quote this statement from the cross, but earlier, he had also noted Jesus’ telling the disciples (4:34), “My food is that I may do the will of the one that sent me, and that I may finish / complete his work!”, and replying to the Pharisees’ challenge (5:36) “The work that the Father gave me to finish: these deeds testify about me, that the Father has sent me.” Both of these are purpose clauses, employing aorist subjunctive forms.
As Jesus prayed (17:4), “I glorified you on earth (by) finishing the work that you gave me to do,” the verb is aorist indicative, indicating past, completed action.
But notice that at the time of that statement, Jesus had not yet died or arisen! What, then, was “finished”? (Jn.19:28-30)

For a partial answer, please refer back to #23, where we explored Jesus own version of his purpose, which is quite different from the condensed and distorted version usually promulgated. Additional light can be gleaned from Luke’s use of teleo, where it was traditionally translated “accomplished” (12:50, 18:31, 22:37), describing respectively an unexplained reference to an impending “baptism” (usually assumed to involve his suffering), to the fulfillment of prophecy “about the Son of Man”, and to “all that has been written about me”. Each of these is related in some way to a prophetic message: however, the second, with its parallels in Mt.20:17-19 and Mk.10:32-34, requires particular attention.
While the Matthew and Mark accounts specifically refer to Jesus’ betrayal and execution, Luke’s account does not. Instead, he records Jesus’ forecast that when they get to Jerusalem, “everything that has been written about me will be completed / fulfilled / finished”! If Jesus is correct – and I believe he always is – then there remains no “unfulfilled prophecy” from the ancient writings! And the folks who confidently construct future scenarios out of Old Testament prophecies, are seriously out-of-line.

This observation is corroborated by Jesus’ own words mentioned above in John’s gospel, as well as by his earlier statements (Mt.11:13, Lk.16:16) that “the law and the prophets were (in effect) until John” (the Baptist).

Please note this in no way discredits genuine New Testament prophecy, whether articulated by Jesus himself (Mt.24, 25; Mk.13, Lk.21, and elsewhere), or by various ones of his followers (parts of the Revelation and epistles) – although as Brother Paul reminds us (I Cor.14), we do need to be careful to evaluate what is represented to be prophetic. (See #45). And it does raise questions about folks who, ignorant of history, label many of the earlier writings as “yet to be fulfilled”. I venture to contend that the Lord Jesus represents authority and understanding far greater than theirs!

So – what was “finished”, when he proclaimed it so, and deliberately dismissed his “spirit / breath” (pneuma) (Jn.19:30)?
Exactly what he had declared in his prayer the previous evening: “I finished the work you gave me to do!” He had introduced the Kingdom designed by his Father to “the people you gave me out of the world” (Jn.17:6), and equipped them to carry on that Kingdom’s work. He had inaugurated a “demonstration project” to make his Kingdom accessible to the world. He had thereby finished / fulfilled the purpose of his Incarnation, and set the stage for its next installment (#150).
He had set the ultimate example of selfless obedience (Phil.2:6-8), so that the only “unfinished” thing remaining was (Phil.2:9-11) in the hands of the Father, who would shortly validate the whole affair by effecting his Son’s triumphant resurrection, and with it the definitive defeat of death and despair.

It is for this reason that I urge you to take another look at this “last word”, and at least entertain the possibility that, far from a “last gasp” of surrender or defeat, it is rather a shout of triumph!
The synoptics are unanimous in characterizing the departure of Jesus’ spirit as energetic, and not as a feeble expiration due to his terrible suffering. Mt.27:50 records “shouting with a loud voice”. Mk.15:37, “letting out a great shout”, and Lk.23:46, “shouting in a loud voice”, even though only John recorded the actual words of that climactic shout.
Jn.19:28 : “Jesus knew that everything had already been completed, in order for the Scripture to be fulfilled …” and announced in glorious victory, “It is finished!” (19:30) Having successfully crossed that “finish line”, he sat down at the right hand of God, (Heb.10:13) – you sit down when the work is all done! – , where “all he has to do now is wait until his enemies are placed as a stool for his feet!”

“It is finished!”

Praise the Lord!

One of the least substantiated statements of modern “teaching” or “preaching”, whether the perpetrators represent themselves as “evangelical”/ “fundamental”/ “conservative”, or as “welcoming”/ “accepting”/ “liberal”, is their frequent reference to God’s “unconditional love” or “unconditional grace”.  Neither of these phrases, nor the word “unconditional” itself, appears anywhere in the New Testament text.  A careful search of Scripture, both Old Testament and New Testament, for even just the genesis of the idea, reveals that there is no such thing.

Now, it is certainly true that nowhere are we told that it is necessary for a person to attain some exalted level of ‘holiness”, moral or ethical perfection, or anything else, in order to be eligible to answer Jesus’ call.  But that realization must never obscure the condition that the call must be answered – the invitation “Follow me” does come with  required “RSVP” attached – in order for that gracious offer to take effect!  And this has always been the case.

The idea of “conditional statements” is not theological nor philosophical.  A conditional statement is neither more nor less than a grammatical construction, most easily recognized as two clauses, one of which is introduced by “if” (ei, ean), and the other – at least implicitly: it is sometimes omitted in English translations – by “then” (an).  The mood and tense of the verbs in the statements give an indication of the expected likelihood (or not) of the “condition” being fulfilled. (For a more complete discussion, please see a Greek grammar. Robertson and Marshall are both good.)

For example, contrast Jesus’ two statements in John 8.  To the Pharisees (Jn.8:42), he retorts, “IF God were your father, (then) you would love me”.  Both clauses are in the imperfect tense, implying that neither is the case.  To his followers (Jn.8:31), he asserts, “IF you continue (present tense) in my word, (then) you will be (future) my disciples.”  Here, both are considered plausible.
If the consequence is negative, the particle me is used rather than the more common ou, in which case, in translation, the conditional clause would be introduced by “unless” (Mt.13:20) “Unless the Lord had shortened the time ….”

The principle that must be understood is that a conditional statement has nothing whatever to do with the reliability of the individual making it, or with arbitrary orders issued to underlings (“Shape up or else!”).  A conditional sentence or clause is neither an immutable promise nor a dire threat.  It is simply a statement of the way things are: cause and effect, evidence or action and results.  It described the circumstances under which something will be true, or realized.

As noted before, I cannot speak to Hebrew grammar, but the idea seems similar under the old covenant as well.  Deuteronomy 29 and 30, along with many other pentateuch passages, outline very carefully that a choice must be made.  See especially Dt.30:15-20.  The frequently repeated admonition to “choose life!” is strong evidence that choices have consequences, for good or ill.

Jesus also required a choice – a choice evidenced by both attitude and behavior.  Although this idea is present in the synoptics, it is most vividly evident in the gospel of John.  A few examples follow:
Mt.6:14,15 – “IF you take away [forgive] their transgressions for people, your heavenly father will also take them away from you all.” (followed by, IF you don’t, he won’t.)
Jn.7:17 – “IF anyone wants to do his will, he will know —”
Jn.8:51 – “IF anyone keeps my word, he will not see death forever.”
Jn.11:40 – “IF you are faithful, you will see the glory of God.”
Jn.14:23 – “IF anyone loves me, he will keep my word.”
Jn.15:14 – “You are my friends IF you continue doing as I am instructing you.”
Please note that although all these statements are conditional in form and intent, there is no hint of compulsion!  The tone is, “IF this is what you want, here is the way to realize it.”

Stephen’s sermon in Ac.7 delineated the history of people’s refusal to observe the condition that obedience was an integral and necessary element of their being “chosen”.
Later, a false condition was imposed by the group who were insisting upon a prior conversion to Judaism (Ac.15:1), which condition was promptly repudiated by the Jerusalem Council in their letter (v.29), “IF you keep yourselves from these things (the accouterments of idolatry), you will do well.”
That this sort of statement is not  confined to “religious”  settings is evident in the words of the town clerk to the mob in Ephesus, (Ac.19:39), “IF you all have some other dispute, let it be settled in a legal assembly!”

The epistles are also peppered with conditional statements:
Rom.6:8 – “IF then we died with Christ, we are trusting that we will also live together with him.”
Rom.6:16 – “IF you present yourselves to someone as slaves, for obedience, you are slaves to whomever you obey!”
I Cor.15: 12-19 – the whole paragraph about the resurrection.
Gal.5:18 – “IF you are being led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.”
Col.3:1 – “IF you all were resurrected with Christ, keep seeking what is above …”

All of the messages to the churches quoted in  Rv. 2 and 3, likewise, make use of “unless”, or something similar, indicating the conditional nature of the admonitions, the observance of which will definitely influence the outcome of each situation.

There are also many clauses introduced by “so that”, “in order that”, “because”, and other particles that imply purpose.  Purpose is completely different from a conditional situation.  Purpose indicates God’s (or anyone else’s) intention, while a conditional statement asserts that if the condition is not met, the main premise will not take effect.

As I have consistently done elsewhere in these studies, I seriously invite any of you to correct any errors here.  But please remember to do so by referencing specific, coherent New Testament passages, and not by simply waving “doctrinal” flags.

May we all exert our efforts, accurately to represent the gracious welcome offered by the Lord Jesus, to all who choose to respond in faithfulness!

May we, in the process, avoid cheapening his offer by pretending that there are no conditions involved.

Let us rather acknowledge and observe his conditions, gratefully and faithfully loving, serving, and following his instructions!

This study arose when someone posed a question regarding the lexical inclusion of the idea of “dance” in the words translated “rejoice” (#93). I am not a student of Hebrew, so I will not presume to comment on that language. However, I was able to find no such reference in any of the Greek lexicons, so I can say with confidence that it is not the case in any of the New Testament writings.

In fact, orcheomai, “to dance” , appears only four times in the entirety of the New Testament text: two of which describe Salome’s (probably lewd) performance before Herod (Mt.14:6, Mk.6:22), and the other two in the complaint of the children playing in the marketplace (Mt.11:7 and Lk.7:22).

Choros, (English cognate, “chorus”), a noun referring to either a company of singers and dancers, or to the dance itself, occurs only once (Lk.15:25), at the party celebrating the return of the prodigal son.

Both words are more common in the LXX, used multiple times in the celebrations at the return of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem, the worship of foreign gods (including the golden calf), or celebrating the destruction of the Pharaoh’s army, among others. Clearly a cultural expression, it is not clear whether dancing was indigenous to the Hebrew people, or adopted from neighbors. Historians represent it as an integral part of pagan religious rites, especially fertility rituals. There is nothing inherently “wrong” in the use of cultural expressions in worship, as long as they follow the Acts 15 injunction to avoid anything connected with idolatry. Dancing, per se, is neither advocated nor forbidden in the Biblical text, and probably must be evaluated in context.

Singing, on the other hand, is advocated in both the LXX and New Testament texts, represented by four different words, which are not always easily distinguishable.

Ado, the most “generic”, applies to all vocal sounds, whether human, animal, or avian, or even the sound of the wind. It may refer to a song or chant, usually in praise or celebration of either a deity or a person. In the LXX, especially in Ezra and Nehemiah, it seems to have denoted a class or order of functionaries in the tabernacle/temple, along with priests and Levites, which included both men and women who were assigned to the duty of singing praises to God. Ado was also used of songs or chants designed to celebrate or to teach about historic events.

Frequently used in combination with ado was psallo, which usually referred to instrumental music, either alone or as an accompaniment to a song of praise or history.

Humneo / humnos, classically, would have described epic recitations, repeated through many generations, honoring a specific hero, deity, or historic occasion. It is also used as a title for many of the psalms that have a historical theme.

All of these words carry over into the New Testament, although their use is not frequent. Jesus and his disciples “sang a hymn” at the conclusion of their Passover supper together (Mt.26:30, Mk,14:26), as did Paul and Silas (Ac.16:25) in the prison at Philippi. These, and the Old Testament quote from Ps.22:22 in Heb.2:12, use humneo.

The singing of “new songs” around the throne in Rv.5:19, 14:3, 15:3, uses ado, as huge crowds proclaim the praises of the Lamb, whereas psallo describes praises to God in Rom.15:9 (quoted from II Sam.22:50). Paul speaks of singing both “with the spirit”(probably a reference to the use of unlearned tongues) and “with the understanding” in the company of the Christian brotherhood (I Cor.14:15), and James (5:13) considers this an appropriate expression of joyfulness.

Most instructive of all, however, is Paul’s advice in Eph.5:19 and Col.3:16, where all three terms are used together, as he urges the brethren to “talk to each other in psalmois (psalms) and humnois (hymns) and odais pneumatikais (spiritual songs), adontes and psallontes (singing with and without instrumental accompaniment), TO THE LORD” (Eph.5) and in Colossians, of teaching and admonishing each other with the same categories of musical expression.

Both of these instructions are significant, and should have a much greater effect than is common, upon the music used in a gathering of the Lord’s people. Remember that the vocabulary comes out of a context of songs of praise honoring either human heroes or pagan gods. Both the Ephesian and Colossian churches were of Gentile background. Consequently, the admonition that singing be directed to the Lord is crucial. All honor and praise belongs to him!

Note also that there is no mention of anything like the self-centered “I, me, my” or one’s personal ecstasy or despair, that has come to dominate so much of so-called “Christian” or “gospel” music. Sometimes this is cast as a groveling “confession”, and others as triumphant boasting. And if you can’t discern whether the singer is focused on the Lord or on his/her girl/boyfriend, there is a serious problem. Look again at the songs of praise around the throne! They are totally occupied with the glory of the King!

Secondly, music in the brotherhood (Col.3:16) is for the purpose of teaching (#47) and admonishing (#116) each other, and as such needs to be carefully vetted for compatibility with what Jesus actually said, advocated, and taught! There is an incredible collection of both new and old “hymns” and “praise songs” that promote “teaching” that is lamentably foreign to the true gospel (#67) message. It is not at all rare that I find it necessary to refrain from singing all or part of a “hymn” for that reason.

It is the “word / message of Christ” (#66) that must be the absolute standard for our musical choices!

Brother Paul’s conclusion (Col.3:17) is probably the safest guide, whether for “song and dance” or for all of life:

“And everything – whatever you do – in word or deed, (do) everything in the name (#24) of the Lord Jesus, (continually) giving thanks to God the Father through him!”

Evaluate every activity by this yardstick, and we won’t go far wrong.

As noted previously, I make an earnest effort to respond to requests for word studies. This becomes difficult, however, when the suggested words occur seldom, or not at all, in the New Testament text. And, hard as it may be for those who promote “doctrines” to believe, this is the case with one of their favorite “passwords”, “atonement.”
Even in their traditionally beloved KJV, the term “atonement” appears only one single time – Rom.5:11 – where it represents katallage, which is more commonly rendered “reconciliation” (#69). Katallage also appears only once in the LXX – Is.9:5 – where it speaks of restitution for “things acquired by deceit”.

Another word family, hilaskomai (v.), hilasmos (n.), and hilasterion (combined with “place”), appearing in the New Testament only twice in each form, was used frequently in pagan writings of attempts to appease offended deities, but was never used by Jesus, or by any of the gospel writers, except as the verb appears in the publican’s plea for mercy (Lk.18:13), and the Heb.2:17 description of the duty of the high priest under the old (failed) system. The noun is seen only in I Jn.2:2 and 4:10, where it is traditionally translated “propitiation,” and the compound form in Rom.3:25 and Heb.9:5, referring to the “place of mercy” described among the tabernacle/temple furnishings in the LXX (Ex.25:16-21, 31;17, 35:11, 38:5-8) and the institution – and subsequent re-institution – of the ceremonial Day of Atonement (Lv.16:2-15, Ezek.43:14-20). The LXX uses the noun (7x) and verb (10x) forms primarily in reference to mercy or forgiveness begged of God – more in line with the pagan usage. Even so, only twice (Num.5:8 and Ezk.44:27) is there an accompanying reference to the killing of an animal sacrifice – once a ram, and once a goat.

So how did this come to be such a central theme in what passes for “Christian teaching”, when Jesus never made any reference to it?
How did it become identified with Jesus’ death, when that took place at the time of Passover – a festival of freedom and deliverance from bondage – and NOT on the Day of Atonement, with its focus on the problem of “sins”?
How can “theologians” cherry-pick a few “verses” from Hebrews describing the old ways, with which to embroider their theories, and ignore the over-arching message of that entire epistle, that the old system was a complete failure?

The Day of Atonement does appear once (Lv.25:9) prescribed as the introduction to the Year of Jubilee, which Jesus announced as the permanent condition in his Kingdom (Lk.4:18-19). Notice that this announcement was at the beginning, not the end, of his ministry.
I have never heard that connection addressed. I wonder if perhaps that “introduction to the Jubilee” idea was behind the content of the “repentance” (#6) message of John the Baptist, as Jesus’ fore-runner? It would fit his messages better than those of Jesus, and would blend well with Jesus’ statement (Lk.16:16) that “the law and the prophets (were in effect) until John. Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!”

In the absence of any evidence that Jesus himself ever viewed his purpose (#23) or activity as being connected with “atonement” – whether the pagan concept of appeasement of an angry deity, attempted restitution for offenses, or punishment for unnamed “sins” – I can only conclude that this is another case where “doctrines” were invented – and their acceptance mandated – to enhance the power of an emerging hierarchy over unwitting subordinates.

I prefer to follow King Jesus into the Kingdom he has prepared for all of us who answer his call!