The Pioneers’ New Testament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks be to God!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having just considered the gift – and the challenge – of the “new creation” that results from commitment to Jesus’ Kingdom, it seems appropriate to look at what the New Testament says about creation itself. Not nearly as much as do the pulpit-pounding advocates of “Creationism”, who claim to represent “the Biblical view”!

Ktisis, translated 6x “creation” and 11x “creature” – and also 1x “building” (Heb.9:11) and 1x “ordinance” (I Pet.2:13) – for reasons unknown – is not a common topic. Ktisma, also translated “creature”, appears 4x; ktistes, “creator”, only once (I Pet.4:19), although the participial form of ktizo is translated that way in Rom.1:25; and ktizo, the verb “to create” 12x, and once more translated as “make”.

I was surprised to find that historically, none of these words had referred to the origins of the world, the universe, or even of humans. The historian Herodotus used them to refer to the founding of a city or country, the organizing of a governing body, or the building of any sort of edifice. The verb form also included the production or invention of any object, or the perpetration of a noteworthy deed. References to the “creation” as it is popularly understood are found exclusively in the LXX and the New Testament.

Both Greek and Roman traditions did include “creation stories”, but with a different twist. Hesiod, a Greek epic poet, contemporary with or slightly after Homer (about 700 BC) , describes different “ages” of man – gold, silver, bronze, iron – during which people were becoming progressively (or perhaps one should say “regressively” !) more barbaric, and were destroyed and re-created repeatedly by the gods. Ovid, the Latin poet, in his Metamorphoses, (first century BC/AD), describes a primeval state of chaos, which the gods tried to organize, with little success. Neither of these writers makes any attempt to “start from scratch.”

In contrast, the New Testament contains several mentions of “the beginning of creation” (Mk.10:6, 13:19; II Pet.3:4), and even presents Jesus himself as “the beginning of creation” (Rv.3:14), and Paul goes even farther and represents him as the the very agent and purposeof creation (Eph.3:9. Col.1:16) – “all things were created by him and for him”! A similar statement in Rv.4:11 affirms, “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they exist, and were created!”

Notice, please, that the burden of these declarations has nothing whatever to do with today’s prevalent obsessions with “when” or “how” any of this happened. The whole focus is upon who is responsible, and why creation exists. We would do well to focus our own attention similarly!

Paul goes to great pains in Rom.1 and again in Rom.8 to make the point that in creation, God has provided ample evidence of his character and purpose; and the descent of people into the depravity and chaos that sounds very similar to the degradation in the Greek and Roman accounts was the result of people’s deliberate choice to ignore that revelation, and not anything relating to their “original” condition. Remember that “creation” and “creature” are derived from the same word – the choice of one or the other was made by the translators, not the authors. Ktisis refers to any created thing (including people), as well as to creation as a whole. Consequently, just as the contagion of depravity described in Romans 1 spread to the whole of creation, the hope revealed in Romans 8 – the expectation of deliverance into the glorious New Creation – is contagious as well!

No wonder “the whole creation is waiting with eager anticipation for the revealing of the sons of God!” (Rom.8:19). It is these to whom its care is entrusted, and in whom its hopes of fulfilling its original purpose – the pleasure of its creator (Rv.4:11) – can at last be realized. What a glorious prospect!

The New Creation has already begun “after the image” (Col.3:10) of its Creator – the image (W.S.#15) that had been so sadly defaced by the selfishness of its former heirs (Rom.1). Please also see chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom.

The classic description is in II Cor.5:17, Interestingly, in the Greek text, there is no verb in the sentence. Kaine ktisis may, but need not, be a modifier for the pronoun tis – “ anyone, someone”. The statement may with equal validity be taken to mean “that person is a new creature” (in the sense of a created being), or to intend that for such a person, “creation is new”! Both are grammatically correct, and both are true.

Paul adds the observation in Eph.2:10 that we are “created in Christ Jesus for good works [with a purpose for good deeds]”, which God also “prepared” for his people to do . No, this is not the “salvation by works” which seems to frighten some folks so badly. It is “salvation” for the purpose of accomplishing what the Creator (and Savior) intended all along! (W.S.#39). This is reinforced in Eph.4:24, where Paul asserts that we are “created according to God’s design, in justice (W.S.#3) and devotion to the truth” (W.S. #26).

James (1:18) calls the Lord’s people “the first-fruits of his creation” – the beginning of the harvest for which he started everything in the first place! We have kept him waiting a long time!

Some minor manuscripts of Mark even quote Jesus’ commission (Mk.16:15) as instructions to proclaim his “gospel” (#67) to “every creature” – every created thing (pase te ktisei)! This may even be a renewal of God’s original charge to his people to tend and care for all that he had created. (Gen.1:28). Paul may have understood it that way (Col.1:23).

It is also significant that, as Paul reminded Timothy (I Tim.4:4), “Everything that God created is good!”, and is to be received with thanksgiving (v.3). This despite the equally far-reaching affirmation in Heb.4:13, that no created thing is hidden from the eyes of God. There is absolutely NO New Testament justification for the common assumption that a person, or the physical creation, or the physical body, is inherently “evil”, “depraved”, or “sinful”! “Everything that God created is GOOD” – unless one chooses to use it wrongly, instead of as it was intended.

Finally, we should note Jesus’ crowning act of creation – Eph.2:15, also noted in Gal.6:15. It is the Lord Jesus himself who has taken people who represent the most opposite extremes imaginable, in their own thinking, and “created the two, in himself, into one new person, thus making peace.”

This is the true miracle of creation!

Thanks be to God!

From the many unexpected and sometimes shocking aspects of his earthly ministry, and the establishment of the New Covenant announced by the Lord Jesus at his last meal with the disciples before his betrayal, to his triumphant edict from the Throne quoted in Rev.21:5, “Look! I am making everything new!”, it had been obvious to anyone who was paying attention that something quite out-of-the-ordinary was happening whenever Jesus, or sometimes even his followers, appeared on the scene. This was a realization sometimes greeted with delight, and other times with dismay, depending upon the stock in the status-quo held by the observers/participants.

What I did not realize until beginning this study, was that the two Greek words in these accounts, which are both translated “new”, are not synonymous at all! At first I was skeptical of Trench’s assertion that neos, the lesser used of the two – only appearing 11 times – is merely a temporal observation, referring to a person or event younger or more recent than the others to which it is compared, whereas kainos, used 44 times, refers to the quality, kind, or condition of its object. However, the lexicons all bear out that contrast, with L/S offering “fresh, newly made or invented, innovative, without precedent” for kainos, and “youthful, young, or recent” for neos. Bauer concurs, listing “unusual, something not previously present, with implication that ‘old’ is obsolete; unknown, remarkable” for kainos, and “young, new, fresh” for neos. Thayer adds “superior to what it succeeds” and “previously non-existent” for kainos.

Examination of the New Testament uses of both words reveals that both are used in Jesus’ teaching about patching a garment and wine in wineskins, but neos describes the wine (“newly made”), and kainos the skins which had not been previously used, in all three synoptics.
The “new teaching [doctrine]” attributed to Jesus (Mk.1:27, or the “new ideas” discussed in the Areopagos Council (Ac. 17:19-21), both use kainos, as does the “new commandment” (Jn.13:34, I Jn.2:7-8, II Jn.5) which Jesus initiated. The related noun, kainotes, appearing only twice (Rom.6:4, 7:6) likewise refers to the total transformation of life expected of one who chooses to follow Christ.
This meshes well with repeated references to the “new creation” – uniformly kainos – that also describes the radically changed life of the committed (II Cor.5:17, Gal.6:15). Eph.2:15 is especially significant in this regard, representing Jesus as having deliberately “created” out of redeemed and reconciled Jew and Gentile, “one new (kainos) person”. Anthropos , the generic term for “man” — the species — may be taken as either “person” or “humanity”.

All of these carry the expectation of a life never seen before – probably never even imagined! – and not a temporal reference. The only place where neos appears in a similar context is Col.3:10 – and the “new life” in view was indeed temporally “new” to those folks, although Paul goes on to speak of their being “continually renewed” (anakainoumenon) – a present passive participle – as well.

Perhaps the most significant of all is the uniform (except for a single reference in Heb.12:24) use of kainos in both gospel and epistle references to the “new covenant”. In this regard, please also refer to the treatment of “covenant” in W.S.#79 and 80. We discovered in that study the fallacy of the assumption that a “covenant” could never be abrogated. It was always a two-way proposition: “If you will do this, then I will —-” A breach by either party consistently renderes a covenant of no effect.
Most relevant here is the matter of fact statement in Heb.8:13: “In saying ‘new’, he has made the first one ‘old’, and what has become old and been superseded is near to disappearing!” The writer goes on, in chapter 9, to re-cast the term diatheke, formerly rendered “covenant”, in the light of a legal will, and to explain that a will only takes effect upon the death of the testator. It has no necessary connection with the much-touted idea of “blood covenants”. In this way, it becomes patently clear that the “new covenant” is something entirely apart from the old system, and that forcing artificial parallels is of no value. Jesus has done something entirely new! “(He) also made us capable administrators of a new covenant [will], (whose source) is not a written (legal document), but the Spirit! For the legal document kills, but the Spirit makes alive!” (II Cor.3:6)

This may be one reason why the Lord Jesus himself, much earlier, had remarked (Mt.13:52), “Every scribe trained for the Kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasures (W.S.#131) both new things and old.” Only with the discernment of the Holy Spirit can his people accurately sort out which “new” and “old” things actually belong together!

A different word altogether, used only once, is employed in Heb.10:20, speaking of “the living way he (Jesus) recently made new for us, through the curtain”, giving his people access not only to “holy” places and things that had been forbidden under the “old way”, but even to God himself! Prosphotos refers to recent events: to newly-drawn water, or food that is fresh (not spoiled). Jesus has indeed “done a new thing!”

Kainos appears more frequently in the Revelation than in any other part of the New Testament. We had a foretaste in Peter’s reference to “a new heaven and a new earth” (II Pet.3:13), which is repeated in Rv.21:1. But when the Lord’s triumph is complete, the glorious announcement from the Throne is “Look! I am making everything new!”

New names (identities – see #24 ) have been given to the faithful (Rv.3:12).

The folks singing around the throne do so with a “new song” (Rv.5:9, 14:3) of praise to the glory and worthiness of the Lamb.

A “new Jerusalem” – the prepared Bride is introduced (Rv.3:12, 21:2)

The “new creation” is finally realized: and Paul’s announcement of hope in II Cor.5:17 has finally come to complete fulfillment:

So if anyone is in Christ, (he is) a new creation [or, creation is new!] Old things are gone! Look! Something new – kainos – innovative, unprecedented, and superior to all that has gone before – has happened!”

Thanks be to God!

I have long been troubled by the pervasiveness of insistence upon (or bragging about) people being coerced into “accepting the Lord.” I suppose this notion, which is never mentioned in the New Testament, is enhanced by the familiar pictures of Jesus standing forlornly outside a closed door, which has neither doorknob nor latch string, as if begging for admission. What a travesty upon the character of the Lord of Lords and King of Kings! The wonder of wonders is not that a mere human should be so arrogant as to claim to “accept” the Lord of Glory, but that the Lord himself, in his incredibly gracious kindness, should deign to “accept” such bumbling, stumbling creatures as ourselves, into his Kingdom – his family – even his very Body! “Acceptance” is the gracious welcome proffered by a superior toward an inferior supplicant – not the rote recitation required of a hapless victim who has succumbed to the “theological” arguments of a well-trained accuser!

Indeed, the word “accept” appears only six times in the most traditional of translations (KJV), and is used for four different Greek words, all of which appear many more times with other renderings, but never with our Lord as the direct object!
In Ac.24:3, Tertullus is referring to favors received from the Roman overlords; in II Cor.8:17 and 11:4, Paul refers to his readers’ acceptance of his message; in Lk.20:21 and Gal.2:6, the reference is to God’s refusal to play favorites; and in Heb.11:35 to people who refused to “accept” deliverance from persecution at the price of unfaithfulness.

The adjective, “acceptable”, appearing 11 times, and representing five different words, uniformly refers to people or behavior that God considers acceptable. Likewise, of similar words rendered “accepted” (7x), five refer to God’s acceptance, one to the failure of a prophet’s own people to listen to him (Lk.4:24), and one to Paul’s desire that his service be accepted in the spirit in which it is offered, by the brethren in Jerusalem (Rom.15:31). Most notable in this latter group is the much-neglected discovery announced by Peter as a result of his encounter with Cornelius (Ac.10:34,35) – “Then Peter opened his mouth and said, ‘In truth, I perceive that God does not play favorites, but in every nation, the one who respects him and does justice is received [accepted] by him!’”
Funny – it doesn’t say a word about reciting a litany about what an awful, “sinful” person he is! This must be another place where the “literal” crowd managed to hit the “delete” button and substitute their own formula!

It is certainly true that the verbs in question – apodechhomai, dechomai, prosdechomai, and lambano – are very common in both the New Testament and classical writings. In many cases, they seem nearly interchangeable. Apodechomai, used only once as “accept” appears five times translated “receive”; dechomai, 2x as “accept”, is rendered “receive” 52x, “suffer” 1x, and “take” 5x. Lambano is rendered 2x “accept”, 133 x “receive”, 104 x “take”, and scattered translations of “attain, bring, call, catch, have, and obtain.” Prosdechomai, which we noted in #124 and 125, “Wait”, and “Watch”, also includes “allow, look for, receive, take, and wait for.”
Their classical uses are also scattered, but one idea they all have in common is “receive”, in the sense of making someone welcome. This may apply to anyone, of any social status, be he compatriot or stranger. Jesus used it of the disciples he had commissioned (Mt.10:14, 40, 41; Mk.6:11, 9:47; Lk.9:5, 48, 10:8), and equated people’s reception of them with their welcome (or not) of him. Dechomai is also frequently used of the welcome accorded the gospel message in various places (II Cor.8:11; Ac.8:14, 17:11; I Thes.1:6, 2:13) as well as of its bearers (II Cor.7:15, Gal.4:14, Col.4:10). There is nothing liturgical, spooky, or “spiritual” about this: it is welcome, pure and simple.

Lambano was occasionally used, classically, of involuntary “possession”by a spirit or deity, but the other words were not. More frequently, lambano is used to emphasize that “grace” (Jn.1:16), “fullness” (Jn.1:16), “my (Jesus’) testimony” (Jn.3:11,32,33; 5;34,41), “honor” (Jn.5:44), and the Holy Spirit (Jn.7:39, 20:22; Ac.1:8, 2:38, 8:15, 17, 19; 10:47), among others, are gifts received from the gracious hand of the Lord, and not the achievement of human effort. Indeed, Paul asks pointedly (I Cor.4:7), “What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you brag as if you didn’t?” This is in a paragraph sternly critical of status-tripping in the body of believers. Literally everything about a disciple’s life is a gracious gift from the Lord, to be received with thanksgiving and employed for the welfare of the brotherhood and the glory of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Other classical uses of the various words should also be kept in mind, and may color some interpretations. For apodechomai, L/S lists: to accept advice from, to follow as a teacher, to admit to one’s presence, to approve or receive favorably, to be content or satisfied with, to recover or receive back something that was lost or stolen.
For dechomai, they list: to accept as legal tender, to exchange, to understand, to accept apology and forgive, to accept as an ally, to await the attack of an enemy, to welcome, to accept responsibility for, to approve.
For prosdechomai, to admit to one’s presence, to admit an argument, to be capable of, to undertake, to take liability upon oneself
For lambano, to grasp or seize, to take by violence, to exact punishment, to catch, to find out, to detect, to apprehend with the mind, to receive hospitably, to receive in marriage, to receive as produce or profit, to receive permission, to purchase.

This is enough of a sample to show that the variety is considerable.

Perhaps the most reliable key to the proper use of “accept” among those who seek for faithfulness, lies simply in its New Testament usage. The verb appears only six times, and never refers to requirements placed upon people. Our appropriate assignment concerns the adjective – used 18x – three times as often – to act and interact in a manner acceptable to God, and giving honor to the Lord Jesus. Take a cue from brother Paul, who wrote to the Roman brethren (Rom.1:1,2):

“I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God’s compassion [mercy], to present your bodies, a living offering, set-apart, pleasing [acceptable*] to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this age, but be completely changed,by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is: what is good, and pleasing [acceptable*] and complete [perfect].”
*The word is euarestos, “pleasing, pleasant, acceptable, in good taste”.

A focus upon becoming “acceptable”, rather than forcing an artificial and unwarranted “acceptance” upon others, is much more likely to bear good fruit for the Kingdom!

“He that saith he abideth in him, ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.” I Jn.2:6, KJV, 1611

“The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him (Jesus), ought to walk [live, behave] as he did! ”IJn.2:6,  PNT, 2011

Even among the staunchest advocates of a “literal” interpretation of scripture (which usually means the KJV), I have never met one who refuses every form of transportation other than his own two feet, on the grounds that that is how Jesus got from place to place.

Clearly, locomotion is not what the apostle had in mind, although something dynamic certainly is!
“Walking” is a matter of considerable concern in the New Testament, having been used to represent six different Greek words. Three of these appear only a single time.

Emperipateo (L/S – “to walk among, to tarry among” or later, “to trample on or insult”) occurs only in II Cor.6:16, where Paul quotes the LXX promise of God, in Lv.26:12, to “pitch his tent” and “walk” among his people.
Dierchomai (L/S – “to go through, to pass through”), although used 17 times with that classical translation, is only rendered “walk” in one parable (parallel accounts in Mt.12:43 and Lk.11:24), of a cast-out evil spirit seeking another body to invade.
Orthopodeo (L/S – “to walk straight or uprightly”) has no classical listings other than the Gal.2:14 passage. Thayer says it does not exist elsewhere, though Bauer suggests a connection to a third century BC noun used by Sophocles referring to “progress”. Did Paul “make up” this one? It does make etymological sense, combining the words for “straight” and “foot.”

Stoicheo (L/S – “to be drawn up in a row or line as in battle, to move or march in sequence, to agree with or submit to”, and Bauer – “to follow in someone’s footsteps, to adhere to a person or principle”) was uniformly translated “walk” in its five uses: Ac.21:24, Rom.4:12, Gal.5:25 and 6:16, and Phil.3:16, all referring to living according to prescribed principles.
Poreuomai (L/S – “to go, walk, or march; to be driven or carried, to proceed (in law or philosophy), and Bauer –“to depart from somewhere, to follow someone or something, to go to one’s death, to conduct oneself, to live, to walk”) is much more commonly rendered simply “go” – 119x – or “depart” – 11x – with “walk” used only 9x. It refers to behavior in all but one of these. In Lk.13:33, Jesus simply indicates his intention to travel, but Lk.1:6, Ac.9:31, 14:16; I Pet.4:3, II Pet.2:10, 3:3; Jude 16,18 clearly carry the idea of one’s manner of life – the latter 6 in a distinctly negative sense.

By far the most common of the “walking” words is peripateo, with 97 New Testament appearances, 92 of them traditionally translated “walk”. All but six of the uses in the gospels and Acts refer simply to traveling on foot (a total of 42), but not a single one of its 49 appearances in the epistles lean that way.

It must be noted, of course, that the “walking” in the gospel accounts is not all “ordinary” locomotion: “the lame” (Mt.11:5, 15:31, Mk.2:9, Lk.5:23, 7:22; Jn.5, Ac.3:6,8,9,12; 14:8,10) whose healing is evidenced by their “walking”, or the little girl who had died (Mk.5:42) “walking around”, or Jesus himself (Mt.14, Lk.6) walking across the lake, are hardly ordinary, everyday strolls. But there is an even sharper shift in the epistles, at which the gospels only hint,as in Jn.8:12, 11:9,10; and 12:35, where Jesus clearly connects “walking”in light or in darkness with the faithful following of him, his instructions, and his ways.

L/S lists “walking around, to walk up and down (in the schools of philosophy) while teaching or engaging in discourse or debate, to dispute or argue” or simply “to live or conduct oneself.” Bauer adds, “the activities of daily life.” This latter implication is clearly the one in view in most of the epistles.

Paul is definitely referring to the transformation of life and behavior in his admonitions to “walking in newness of life” (Rom.6:4), “walk not after the flesh [human nature] but after the spirit” (Rom.8:1,4), “walk by faith and not by sight” (II Cor.5:7), “walk in the Spirit” (Gal.5:16), “Walk worthy of (our) calling” (Eph.4:1) and “walk as children of light” (Eph.5:8), in sharp contrast to the readers’ former life (I Cor.3:3, II Cor.4:2, Eph.2:2, 4:17, Col.3:7).

One’s general lifestyle (Col.1:10, 2:6; I Thes.2:12,4:1; I Jn.1:6,2:6), behavior toward outsiders (Eph.4:17, 5:15; Col.3:7, 4:5; I Thes.4:12), and toward each other in the brotherhood (Rom.14:15; II Cor.10:3, 12:18; Phil.3:17,18; II Thes.3:6, I Jn.1:7, and the whole of John’s last two letters) are likewise addressed.

These instructions mesh well with the lists, (although no form of “walk” is used there) in Eph.4:22-32 and Col.3:5-15, of behaviors and attitudes to “put off” and “put on”; a deliberate process to enable the realization of the transformed life that is possible only in the power of Jesus’ resurrection (Col.3:1-4).

The epistles also contain warnings concerning people – some within and some outside the fellowship – who choose to “walk”[live, behave] in the “darkness” (see #129) rather that the “light” (#75). Notice especially John’s discussion in I Jn.1, and also in 2:11, probably elaborating upon Jesus’ conversation which he had reported earlier (Jn.8:12 and 11:9-10). He now represents the choice,which Jesus had mentioned previously in connection with clarity of direction for the disciples, as affecting their mutual interaction as well. Paul, too, calls for discernment based on how people choose to “walk” (I Cor.3:3, II Cor.4:2, Phil.3:18, II Thes.3:6,11).

Of course the ultimate in beautiful companionship, hinted in II Cor.6:16 (mentioned in the beginning), and its LXX antecedents, is fulfilled at last in the Revelation. In Rv.3:4, Jesus himself welcomes the faithful – those who have not “dirtied their garments” (after he had given them clean ones!) – not to lounge around each on his private la-z-boy cloud, but “they shall WALK with me in white!” Jesus apparently, is still on the move, and so are his devoted followers.
The glorious vision of the holy city, his long-awaited Bride, has everyone “walking” – in the light of the glory of God, shed by the Lamp, which is equated with the Lamb.(Rv.21:24).

The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him (Jesus), ought to walk [live, behave] as he did!” I.Jn.2:6
“Walk [live]in a manner worthy of God, who is calling you into his own Kingdom and glory!” (I Thes.2:12.

May we walk together into faithfulness!

This subject needs to be studied in combination with W.S.#72, “Riches”, which I commend to your attention. The concepts are parallel, not only in their partial reference to material prosperity, but also in the diversity which both encompass.

The verb, thesaurizo, used 8x in the New Testament, refers (L/S) classically to the collection, preservation, or storage of anything of value: primarily fruits or grain. The use of a public granary, or reserving resources of any kind for a particular purpose, is also included, as is the less-noble idea of hoarding.
The noun, thesauros, used 18x, referred to the vaults of a bank, a granary, any receptacle for valuables, a mine, a military strong-room or magazine, a cavern or subterranean dungeon, an offertory box, or the contents of any of these, as well as to anything or anyone that was highly valued.
More rarely, the “borrowed” Persian terms, gaza (Ac.8:27) and gazaphulakion (Mk.12:41, 43; Lk.21:1, Jn.8:20) were used of a formal national or religious “treasury.”

Much of the same diversity is seen in the New Testament. The “treasures” opened when the magi presented their gifts (Mt.2), for example, were probably articles of their traveling baggage!
Paul urged the Corinthian brethren (I Cor.16:2) to set aside (“save up”) their promised contribution to the relief offering in a systematic way.
The “treasures of Egypt” in the context of Heb.11:26, probably referred to all the perks of royalty that Moses abandoned in favor of identification with God’s people.
In the previous two posts, we noted “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Col.2:3) reserved for the faithful in their identification with the Lord Jesus.
A similar connection appears in II Cor.4:7, where Paul speaks of the glory of God having been entrusted to us in “earthen vessels”, reminding us that the treasure [glory] involved is the Lord’s and not ours to brag about.

Interestingly, the “treasure” words appear more than twice as often in the gospels as they do in the epistles, although many are in parallel passages. In these, it is as important to note what is NOT said, as to hear what IS said.
For example, consider the story of the wealthy young man who was contemplating discipleship (Mt.19:21, Mk.10:21, Lk.18:22). Only Luke quotes Jesus as saying “sell all you have” – the others say “what you have” or “your possessions” – but all specify, “give to the poor.” NOT “to the temple hierarchy”. Not even to Jesus’ own ministry. Paul, too, goes to great pains to emphasize (II Cor.12:14) that he does not ask anyone to support his work, or him personally – only to share with needy brethren. Certainly there is no encouragement or mandate to support the flamboyant lifestyle of the “builders” of megachurches or TV shows! “Giving TO THE POOR” is the vehicle for “laying up treasure in heaven”, as is Jesus’ concluding invitation, “Come, follow me!” (W.S.#101).
Jesus weighs in, in a similar vein, in his criticism of the “rich fool” (Lk.12:21)who “accumulates treasure for himself …”, and in his instructions not to “store up for yourselves treasures that are subject to bugs, corrosion, or theft (Mt.6:19, Lk.12:33,34) – obviously material possessions of various kinds.
I suspect that it is selfishness that Jesus is addressing, rather than the specific items of anyone’s hoarding.

This is also evident in James’ later distillation of that teaching, (Jas.5:1-6), where the abuse of others in one’s accumulation of goods is the principal focus.
Peter (II Pet.3:7) and Paul (Rom.2:5) deal just as sternly with the eventual results of choosing to ignore justice and right in favor of one’s own self-interest. Please note: this is NOT represented as punishment or retribution, but simply the inevitable result of selfish behavior.
Note also that Jesus did not hesitate to include “for yourselves” in the alternative, “heavenly” storing-up, and its effect upon one’s heart.

Jesus also uses the idea of “treasure” in a context that is clearly not material at all. In Mt.12:33-37 and Lk.6:43-45, he points out that a person’s communication reveals the character of what is “stored” in his heart, and that any final analysis will be made on the basis of simple and very obvious evidence.

Matthew also records two teaching incidents that do not appear in any of the other accounts. Both concern “the kingdom of heaven”, which is referred to by the other writers as “the kingdom of God”. Please refer to studies # 19, 20, 21, and 118 for exploration of these concepts.
After an extended period of teaching about the Kingdom, Jesus remarked to his disciples (Mt.13:52), “Every scribe [teacher?] trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure both new things and old.” He had just been explaining to them a collection [“treasure”?] of parables, and it is reasonable to assume that he expects that teaching to be remembered and replicated. This assumption would fit as well with Paul’s uses of thesauros in II Cor. and Col. already cited.

Earlier in that same teaching session (Mt.13:44), Jesus had likened the kingdom itself to a “treasure”, so valuable that its discoverer deemed it worthy of the exchange of “everything that he has” – a stark contrast to the incident where the wealthy young man turned away (Mt.19 and parallels). And please note that in neither case is the “treasure” deferred to some sort of future existence! I strongly suspect that the excited buyer of that field had already started to dig up his treasure by the time the ink was dry on his deed!

It is significant that “treasure” is spoken of as “in heaven” only three times, out of the 26 New Testament occurrences of thesaurizo / thesauros. Perhaps if proper attention is paid to what we seek to collect or preserve here on earth, and how we choose to use it, we need not worry unduly about the rest.
May we help each other faithfully to administer whatever kind of “treasure” comes under our control, and to value the Kingdom itself above all!