The Pioneers’ New Testament

This is another word about which we hear far too much!
Ubiquitous in hymnody, mystical literature, and groups with a pietistic orientation, it does not exist in New Testament writings! Find it if you can!

And with good reason: surrender is the last recourse of the conquered – those who have lost a war – a last-ditch effort to avoid total destruction! It is uniformly coerced – and there is no coercion in genuine Christian teaching! Jesus’ invitation is to deliberate, voluntary enlistment in his Kingdom! His people are called to join the winning team, not to plead for relief from disaster!

Now, it is certainly true that Jesus also spoke of “denying” (#68) one’s own self-interest, and “forsaking” possessions and other attachments (Mt.19:27,29; Mk.1:18, Lk.5:11, 14:23). But please note the tone of the parables with which he commended such action: Mt.13:44-46.
There is no coerced, mournful resignation or renunciation here!

The finder of the treasure in a field is so excited about his discovery that he hurries to sell everything he has in order to purchase the field – apo tes charas – out of his JOY!

Likewise, the merchant, who had been seeking (present tense – continuous effort) for fine pearls, upon finally discovering one of supreme value, deemed it well worth the expenditure of “all that he had.”

These gentlemen were neither mourning nor boasting of what they had “sacrificed” (#95) / “surrendered”. They were celebrating their great good fortune!

The writer to the Hebrews describes even Jesus’ endurance of an ignominious death as being “for the joy that was set before him” (Heb.12:2) – and that expectation as being fully and gloriously vindicated! Even such a dire situation is represented, not as “surrender”, but as ultimate triumph!

So where did all the “surrender” themes come from? My best guess is that it was an artifact of medieval mysticism, which arose as a lonely, introspective pursuit, that resulted when devout individuals were crowded out of the increasingly oppressive and opulent hierarchical institution that had replaced the simple New Testament brotherhood. Lack of a brotherhood leaves one who wishes to be faithful no alternative but a choice between two equally impossible options: either to withdraw into individualism, or to “forget the whole thing”. An extremely painful position.
It was also perhaps enhanced by the elevation to “sainthood” of spectacular “converts” like Augustine, who, tired of their lascivious luxury, “surrendered” it in favor of its opposite; or others who had actively opposed the Kingdom before signing on with the King.

The resulting atmosphere, in which “you have to be really, really bad – or at least say that you are – in order to be properly converted”, creates a dilemma which we have witnessed, in which serious young people have protested in confusion, “I want to commit my life to Jesus, but I can’t say I ran away from him or fought against him! It isn’t true!” It is just plain wrong to put people into such a situation!

If a Kingdom citizen’s deepest desire is faithfully to serve the King, what or to whom is he supposed to “surrender?” I strongly suspect that this teaching is just another effort to play on the vulnerability of sincere people, to feed their tendency to focus on self-condemnatory introspection (which, in addition to being contrived, is only self-centeredness in another costume), and keep them feeling “guilty” enough to be manipulated!

Lord, deliver us from those who demand “surrender,” and free us joyfully to seek your Kingdom above all!

Many of the words that are favorites of folks whose “gospel preaching” consists primarily of attempts to put their audience (read,”victims”) on a massive guilt-trip, occur rarely, if at all, in the New Testament, and seldom with the connotations which those “preachers” trumpet with such insistence. But this has to be one of the most abused words of all. In the traditional KJV that is so dear to their hearts, the English word “convict”appears only one single time (Jn.8:9),and “conviction” not at all! So much for their need to gloat over having brought people “under conviction”, to boast of the “strength of one’s convictions”, or of threatening folks with tender consciences that they must ransack their memories in order to be “convicted” of forgotten (or imagined) transgressions. There is no such teaching to be found in the New Testament – anywhere! (If you can find any, please feel free to comment. But be certain that you accurately quote a New Testament passage!)

The Greek word, elegcho, translated “convict” only in minor manuscripts of the John 8 passage cited above, where it describes the scene of the wannabe executioners slinking away at Jesus’ rebuke, does occur elsewhere, with other translations: “convince” 4x, “rebuke”5x, “reprove” 5x, and “tell one’s fault” 1x. Classically, it represents the language of the courtroom, or of philosophical debate. L/S lists “to disgrace, or put to shame; to treat with contempt; to cross-examine or question; to accuse one of doing wrong; to test or bring to proof; to be convicted (legally) of wrongdoing; to bring convincing proof; to refute (in a debate); to put right or correct; to decide a dispute; to expose a wrong or betray a weakness.”
The common English understanding of “convict” more closely parallels the passages where elegcho is rendered “convince” – Jesus challenges his accusers that they cannot “convince/convict” him of failing God’s standard (Jn.8:46); Paul describes an outsider being “convinced / convicted” (I Cor.14:24) by the prophetic messages of all the brotherhood to acknowledge that “God is surely among you all!”; and James makes the point that one dare not pick and choose only parts of the Law for observation, but that the Law itself passes equal judgment (“conviction”) on every transgression (2:9). Only in his letter to Titus (1:9) does Paul use elegcho in the context of debate or instruction.

Although elegcho was rendered “rebuke” and “reprove” 5x each, the more common word for those terms in Greek was epitimao (24x). Trench distinguishes between the two words, taking issue with the use of the word “reprove” for elegcho, considering that it fails to take into account the possibility of “being brought to one’s senses.” He holds that epitimao carries the notion of blaming, with no indication of whether the blame is deserved or not, and no assurance of its having any effect; whereas he thinks that elegcho describes a confrontation that at least causes a person to see his error, and hopefully to remedy it. This is more or less consistent with the L/S listing of “to assign blame, to censure, or the assessment of a penalty by a judge, for epitimao, although earlier, the term was also used for honor, or a price (the meaning of the root word, timao).

Epitimao is used of Jesus “rebuking” a storm (Mt.8:26, Mk.4:39, Lk.8:24), evil spirits (Mt.17:18, Mk.1:25, 9:25; Lk.4:35, 9:42), and a fever (Lk.4:39), however, and in all of these cases, the effect was both expected and dramatic – so that particular differentiation is probably not valid.

Certainly the use of elegcho in I Tim.5:20, Tit.1:13, 2:15; Heb.12:5, Rv.3:19 (translated “rebuke”) anticipates a change in behavior, as it does also in Jn.3:20, 16:8; Eph.5:11 and 13; II Tim.4:2 (translated “reprove”. Only the confrontation between Herod and John the Baptist (Lk.3:19) seems to have no expectation of improvement.
The instructions for dealing with a brother’s error uses elegcho in Mt.18:15 and epitimao in Lk.17:3.
In II Tim.4:2, both words are used together.
The usage, therefore, seems to suggest that the terms are nearly, if not entirely, synonymous.

Epitimao is the word used of the discussion between Jesus and Peter in Mt.16:22 and Mk.8:32-33, as well as in the incident of the disciples scolding the crowds for “bothering” Jesus with their children (Mk.10:13, Mt.19:13, Lk.18:15) and his correcting (Lk.9:55) their misunderstanding. This was also the demand of the Pharisees who thought Jesus should forbid the praises of his disciples and the children in the Palm Sunday procession and later in the temple (Lk.19:39), and also describes the efforts of the crowd who tried to silence the blind men who were calling to Jesus for help (Mt.20:31), as well as to refer to Jesus’ instructions to his disciples (translated “charged them”) (Mt.3:12, 8:30, 10:48, 12:16; Lk.9:21).

It remains for us to examine the much-quoted passage in John 16:8-11, which is frequently cited as justification for much of the guilt-tripping perpetrated under the guise of “evangelism” (See #18, 43, and 67). First of all, please note that the subject of the verb, elegxei (future tense), no matter how you choose to translate it, is parakletos, the “coach”, the Holy Spirit. It is his job, not ours!
Please note also that the object of the verb is “the world” (ton kosmon), not the disciples, nor those who are contemplating joining them! Indeed, it is in the disciple group, coached and enabled by the Holy Spirit, that “the world” is intended to see a demonstration of Kingdom living, and the revelation that “the ruler of this world” has been defeated!!! (Jn.16:11)
As we have seen, it is perfectly in order for more mature members of the Kingdom to correct the brethren when necessary – please refer to #116, and see earlier references to the epistles to Timothy and Titus in this study, and the familiar Mt.18:15 passage – but it is not our job to reform (convict, rebuke, or reprove) the world, or to attempt to force Kingdom behavior upon those who have no commitment to our King. Kingdom behavior must be enabled by the Holy Spirit – there is no other way!

It is as the “outsider” experiences the life of the gathered group of disciples (I Cor.14-24-25), prophesying (see #45) and interacting under the instruction of the Holy Spirit, that he will be “convinced / convicted”, acknowledging the presence of God.

May we continually strive to become the welcoming brotherhood where this can happen!

Here is another word, requested several times, of which the commonly understood meaning has departed markedly from its historical usage.  It needs to be studied in conjunction with “transformation” (#97) and “repentance” (#6). All three of these share more in common than is usually realized, and all imply deliberate alteration in one’s behavior, rather than simple assent to a set of theoretical propositions or “beliefs.”

Even in traditional English translations, epistrepho, the primary Greek word, out of 39 New Testament appearances, is rendered “convert” or “converted” only 7x.  It is much more  commonly (and correctly) translated “turn” (16x), “turn about”, “turn again” (4x each), “return” (8x), and “come” or “go again” once each.

Likewise, strepho, the same word, but without a prefix, is rendered “converted” only twice, and some form of “turn” 16x.

Obviously, the translators thought they were dealing with a different concept in those aberrations: but perhaps that was due to the theological understanding of their own era taking precedence over etymology.  This is not a rare occurrence.

Liddell / Scott lists 14 meanings for epistrepho.  Remember, they have compiled the ways that a word has been used historically.  By far the most common, as well as the earliest use, is simply “to turn around”.  This is followed by: to put an enemy to flight, to return, to turn towards, to turn one’s attention toward or pay attention to, to turn or convert from an error (to correct), to repent (exclusively LXX and NT), to cause to return, to curve or twist (as a path), to be distorted, crooked (of a tree), or curled (hair), to conduct oneself or behave in a particular way, (and as a participle) earnest or vehement.

The uses of strepho are even more varied, including: to cause to rotate on an axis, to overturn or upset, to plow, to sprain or dislocate a joint, to twist or torture, to plait (braid), to wrestle, to turn something over in one’s mind, to give back, (in alchemy) the transmutation of metals,  to turn to or from an object or person, the revolving or cycling of heavenly bodies, to turn or change.

Of New Testament usage, likewise, the vast majority, for both words, involves physically turning around or returning: Jesus, or someone else, “turned and said …” or “returned” to where they had been before.  As we consider the passages where this is not the case, please keep in mind that the idea of physical turning is the primary meaning.  This implies, as we saw in “repent”, a deliberate change of direction and/or attention.

The most frequent traditional use of “convert” or “be converted” for epistrepho (there are only 7) is in quoting the prophecy of Isaiah (6:9-10) regarding the deliberate choice of the Israelite people not to pay attention to God’s instructions:  Mt.13:15, Mk.4:12, Jn.12:40, Ac.28:27.  The others are Jesus’ instructions to Peter (Lk.22:32) that he should “strengthen his brethren” after recovering from his desertion; James urging his readers (5:19-20) to seek the restoration of one who falls into error; and Peter’s admonition to his listeners to “repent and be converted” (Ac.3:19) to remedy their distress at recognizing their rejection of Jesus as the Promised One.

The only appearance of the noun form, epistrophe, (Ac.15:3) celebrates the enrollment of Gentiles into the Kingdom.

There are nine instances where “turning to God”, whether applied to the people of  Israel (Lk.1:16,17) or to the Gentiles (Ac.9:35, 11:21, 14:15, 15:19, 26:20; II Cor.3:16, I Thes.1:9), is mentioned;  in each, a change of life / direction is clearly indicated, not merely an acknowledgment of some theoretical argument.  This is also the case in Ac.26:28, “turning from darkness to light”.

Turning can also go the wrong direction, as in Gal.4:9 and II Pet.2:21.

The uses of strepho (the same verb, but without a prefix), are even more heavily weighted in favor of physically turning around. The exceptions are Jesus’ declaration (Mt.18:2) that Kingdom membership requires “being converted” to the attitude of small children;  (Ac.7:39) the Israelites’ desire to return to Egypt; and (Ac.7:42) God’s consequent “giving them up”.

In view of this evidence, I am inclined to suggest that other contemporary uses of the term “convert” may be more accurate than  the usual “Christian” usage.  For example:

–        an engine may be “converted” to run on a different kind of fuel

–        a factory may be “converted” to make a different product

–        land may be “converted” to raise a different crop

–        zoning may be “converted” to allow different developmental use

I’m sure you could get any number of good illustrations from these and other such modern usages.

They all share the implication of tangible, observable change – none are restricted to theoretical constructs or opinions.

As we saw in the studies of faith / faithfulness (#1), repentance (#6),  life (#28), transformation (#97), and many others, “conversion” is a much more active concept, with more readily observable results, than is commonly supposed.
It might well be characterized as the process of “naturalization” into Kingdom citizenship, “with all the rights,  privileges, and responsibilities thereby incurred.”

It is the beginning of the life that the gracious King has designed and prepared for his people.

Thanks be to God!

Let’s get one thing straight from the beginning. Scripture is clear, and Jesus said plainly, that he desired (Jn.17:24), planned (Jn.6:39-40), and provided (Jn.14:1-4) for his people to share life with him – permanently. Paul (I Cor.15) even goes so far as to say that without the resurrection (#35), we might as well forget the whole thing (v.17-18)! Although he represents the resurrection of committed disciples to have taken place, symbolically and practically, at their conversion and baptism (Rom.6:1-9, Col.2:12), and asserts that their / our new life has already begun, he clearly expects something more (I Thes.4:13-18) when Jesus returns.

Huge amounts of ink have been spilled over when, exactly, that resurrection takes place. None of the references to it make any mention of “heaven”, as we have seen. Opposing “sides” have stockpiled their textual “weapons”, some to insist that it is all instantaneous at the moment of physical death (citing the thief on the cross), and others to maintain that those who have passed on are “asleep” (a common euphemism for death both in and out of Scripture) until the Lord’s return (as suggested in the I Thes.4 passage). This whole controversy strikes me as rather silly, since, if “time shall be no more” (Rv.10:6), the “timing” couldn’t possibly matter – or even be discernible!

When Jesus spoke of “eternal life” (W.S.#28), it was almost always in the present tense, and predicated, as in Jn.3:36, upon obedience and faithfulness to the Son of God, and not upon subscribing to any list of “doctrines”. Indeed, the tense is occasionally even perfect: Jn.5:24 – (the faithful person) “has passed from death into life”! John reiterates that statement in his first letter (3:14) – it must have made an impression on him!

Nevertheless, (physical) death was / is still a “fact of life”: it was for Jesus himself, and has been for even the most faithful of his people. Jesus is the only one who said anything about “where” he was “going” – and his statement was simply, “I am going to the Father” (Jn.14:12, 28; 16:28), or “to the one who sent me” (Jn.16:5). For Paul, (Phil.1:23) “to depart and be with Christ” was an attractive prospect. But notice that this is embedded in a much longer discourse about faithful living.

Most of the references to a person having died say no more than that: whether the person was faithful – like Simeon, (Lk.2:28), John the Baptist (Mt.14:10-11 and parallels), Stephen (Ac.7:54-56), Dorcas (Ac.9:36), and James (Ac.12:1) – or unfaithful – like both Herods (Mt.2:19, Ac.2:23), Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5), and Judas (Mt.27:5) – or innocent, like the children of Bethlehem (Mt.2:18)– they just “died”. Please also refer to the previous post regarding the people who subsequently were raised. As noted there, there is no instance where they are said to have “gone” anywhere. The young man at Nain “sat up and talked” (Lk.7:15), Lazarus simply walked out of the tomb (Jn.11:44), and Dorcas “opened her eyes and sat up” (Ac.9:40). Luke (8:55) says that the little girl’s “spirit returned”, without saying from where. Jesus also committed his spirit to the Father at his death (Lk.23:45). Matthew (27:50) and Mark (15:36) speak of his having “released” his spirit, and John (19:30) says “yielded.” As he was stoned, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” (Ac.7:59). Please note that the word used in each case is pneuma – “spirit / breath” (W.S.#52) – and not the pagan concept of “soul” psuche. (Refer to discussion in #28, “life”).

We have also treated the word aion, aionios in the study on “life” , and seen that its reference is virtually impossible to pin down. The easy cop-out, rendering it “eternity, eternal, or forever” simply does not work in many places. For example, do you really think Jesus intended to say that he would accompany his disciples (Mt.28:20) “to the end of eternity”? I don’t think so!
Jesus’ responses to people who asked him about “eternal life” – even if the questioner thought they were referring to an afterlife – were exquisitely practical – “Do this, and you will live / enter into life!” is the refrain. Like “entering the Kingdom”, (#19,20,21), this happens during one’s physical life on earth! And a more accurate (yes, “literal”) translation of Jesus’ statement in Jn.11:26, in answer to Martha’s postponement of resurrection until the “last day” (v.24), is “Everyone living, who is faithful to me, will not die forever!” If he had meant “never die”, he would have used oudepote, and not eis ton aiona. Millions of faithful people have died – but not forever!

The epistles, concerned as they are with the faithfulness of living brotherhoods, make rather few references to death, except to say that it is really not a problem. Although Paul, who was probably thoroughly tired of sitting in jail, writes to the Philippians that he’d really like to “depart the be with Christ” (1:23), which he calls “far preferable”, his focus is that “Christ be magnified in my body whether through life or through death” (v.21).
In other contexts, “death”or “dead” is used as a description of total alienation from God and his ways (Rom.6,7,8), of people’s condition before their commitment to Jesus’ Kingdom (Eph.2:1, 2:5, Col.2:13), of the expected complete abandonment of one’s former way of life (Rom.6:11, 8:10, Heb.6:1, 9:14), or as identification with Jesus in his death and resurrection life (Rom.6:1-13, 8:11, I Cor.15, Eph.5:14).
Since the epistles were frequently written in a context of extreme persecution, however, the reality of the constant threat of execution is not ignored. Jesus had given fair warning that the time would come when (Jn.16:2) “everyone who kills you will perceive that he is offering service to God!” Paul himself (Ac.9:1, 22:4) had shared that perception before he met Jesus! But in his new life, he expressed a new attitude in II Cor.1:9-10, and II Cor.4:11,12 is buttressed with v.16-18. John relays Jesus’ message in Rv.2:10 to beleaguered brethren,and Paul reassures the Roman church (8:38) that death does not have the last word.
I really believe the primary lesson here is that it’s not about what happens to ME, either before or after physical death. It’s about faithfully representing Jesus and his Kingdom, regardless of the consequences either now or later!

We can say this because there is yet another glorious truth, far too frequently neglected in what passes for “Christian teaching”. Paul refers to it in II Tim.1:10 – (Jesus) “DESTROYED death, bringing to light life and immortality through the Good News!” and I Cor.15:26 – “The last enemy to be destroyed is death!” “So then, if we are living, we are living for the Lord, and if we die, we are dying for the Lord. Whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord!” (Rom.14:8).
The situation is even more vividly described in Heb.2:14,15: through (his) death, (Jesus) once-and-for-all destroyed the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and rescued those who, by fear of death, were held in slavery all their lives! One who does not fear death, cannot be enslaved or otherwise coerced!
“He (Jesus) died on behalf of everyone, in order that those who are alive might no longer be living for themselves, but for the one who died and was raised on their behalf!” (II Cor.5:15).
Jesus himself said it most simply: “Because I am alive, you also will be alive!” (Jn.14:9)

Where? When?
Here is one follower of the Lord Jesus who really doesn’t care.
In the words of an old hymn, “It’s heaven to me, wherever I be, if he is there!”
And of that, his promise is certain.

Thanks be to God!

OK, I might as well admit it at the beginning: I have procrastinated about this study, because I know it will rattle a lot of cages. Ask the average individual who has an “evangelical” bent, of whatever “flavor”, why a person should identify with / “believe in” Jesus, and you are likely to hear some variation on the theme, “in order to go to heaven when you die.” Search the New Testament, however, and you will fail to find a single reference to that objective. It simply isn’t there, folks.
Oh yes, I know that people have concocted elaborate collections of “proofs”, by combining poorly translated phrases gleaned from dissected bits of “verses” completely isolated from their contexts. Most of these owe their “success” (read, “believability”) to the mistaken notion that the “Kingdom of God” (Matthew calls it the Kingdom of heaven) is entirely a future phenomenon – an idea that we have shown to be in error in studies #19, 20, and 21.
A careful perusal of the word “heaven” itself results in a very different picture.

Ouranos, ( as well as its related words) is the only Greek word ever translated “heaven.” It is also rendered “sky” and “air”. These choices were made wholly at translators’ discretion: there is no guidance in the grammar or vocabulary to lead one way or another, except one’s perception of the context – (birds, for example, fly in the “air” – Mt.6:26). If one wishes to translate “literally”, therefore, he must concede that any of these three words is an equally legitimate choice, in every instance.

Historically, the primary meaning of ouranos, according to Liddell/Scott, was “the vault or firmament of heaven/sky, where the stars and other heavenly bodies are set”. It also included “the universe”, “climate”, or “anything shaped like the vault of heaven: a roof, ceiling, lid, tent, or pavilion” or even “the roof of one’s mouth, the palate”, as well as being considered the abode of the gods (but not of dead mortals, however illustrious or exemplary their earthly lives may have been.)

Many of these ideas appear in the New Testament. “Heaven” is a part of creation, along with the earth and the sea (Mk.13:27, Ac.2:5, 2:19, 4:24; Eph.1:10, 3:15; Col.1:16, 1:23; Rv.5:13, 10:6,14:7, 14:15). With them, it will eventually“pass away” (Mt.5:18, 24:35; Mk.13:31, Lk.16:17, 21:33; Rv.20:11).
It is where the stars are (Mt.24:29, Mk13:25, Heb.11:12, Rv.13:10, 9:1); the location of clouds (Mt.24:30, 26:64, Mk.14:62, Ac.1:11); where rain comes from (Lk.4:25, 17:29; Jas.5:18), and how one can predict the weather (Mt.16:2,3; Lk.12:56). It provides a metaphor for great distance or extent (“from one end of heaven to the other” Mt.24:31 and parallels), and “every nation under heaven” (Ac.2:5, Eph.3:15).

But the New Testament also expands the reference to include “the throne of God” (Mt.5:34, Ac.7:49), the dwelling of the Father (14x in Matthew alone), the “place” where both Jesus (Jn.3:13,6:38) and the Holy Spirit (I Pet.1:12) came from; where Jesus presently resides (Mk.16:19, Ac.3:21, 7:55, Heb.9:24, 12:25; I Pet.3:22), and from whence he is expected to return to earth (I Cor.15:47, Phil.3:20, I Thes.1:10, 4:16; II Thes.1:7).
Heaven is represented as the source of visions (Jn.1:32, Mt.3:16, Mk.1:10, Lk.3:22, Ac.2:2, 9:3, 22:6, 10:11, 11:5-10, II Cor.2:2, II Pet.1:18, and throughout the Revelation),
the source of the “assignments” of both John the Baptist and Jesus himself (Mt.21:25, Mk.11:30, Lk.20:4,5),
and also of “signs”, especially regarding the Lord’s identity (Mt.6:1, Mk.8:11, Lk.11:16) and his return (Lk.21:11, Mt.24:30).

It is the abode of some (not all) “messengers” (see reference to aggelos in “Helps for Word Study” lesson 3) – (Mt.18:10, 22:30; Mk.12:25,13:32; Lk.2:15, 22:43), and also of “powers”, both benign and malevolent (Mk.13:25, Lk.21:26).
The names of faithful disciples are recorded there (Lk.10:20, Heb.12:23).
“Rewards” – Lk.6:23,(W.S.#98) and “treasures” (Mt.6:20, 19:21, and parallels) are “on deposit” there.
Decisions regarding matters on earth (Mt.16:19, 18:18) are represented as being made “in heaven”.

Interestingly, however, the much quoted parable of the respective fates of the rich man and the beggar (Lk.16:19-31) does not employ the word ouranos at all, nor do the accounts of any of the individuals raised from death: Lazarus (Jn.11), the daughter of Jairus (Mk.5:35-43, Lk.8:49-56), the widow’s son (Lk.7:11-17), and Tabitha / Dorcas (Ac.9:36-42). None of these regaled their audiences with tales of “visits to heaven” or anything of the kind. We will look at the entirely separate issue of “death” in the next study.

The epistles, which we have referenced only briefly up to this point, reveal a slightly different perspective. Both Paul (Eph.4:10) and the writer of Hebrews (7:26) speak of Jesus’ exaltation “above” or “higher than” the heavens, and Paul details the obligation of all creatures “in heaven and on earth and under the earth” to worship at his feet (Phil.2:9).
Peter refers to the heavens, although “made” by the word of God (II Pet.3:5), “passing away” (3:7, 3:10), “being on fire” (3:12)– (Wait a minute!  that’s not where we’ve been told fire was!) — , and he looks forward, as does John, repeatedly in the Revelation, to “a new heaven and a new earth” (3:13), in which, at last, “justice will settle down to live”!
Our hope (Col.1:5), our Master (Eph.6:9, Col.4:1), the focus of our behavior (Phil.3:20), our destined “dwelling” (physical body?) (II Cor.5:2), our enduring – as opposed to confiscated – possessions (Heb.10:34), our inheritance (I Pet.1:4), are all presently “in heaven”, despite the surprising discovery that nothing is said about anybody but Jesus and the two “witnesses” / martyrs from Rev.11:12,13,15 actually “going there”! (Rom.10:6, Heb.9:24, 4:14).
In fact, Peter (Ac.2:34), Paul (Rom.10:6) and John (3:13) all assert that this is impossible for ordinary mortals!
Although in John’s visions recorded in the Revelation, there are numerous scenes of thousands “around the throne” singing praises, remember that neither the time, the individuals (except for their faithfulness), nor the geographical (or cosmological) location is specifically identified.
In the final scene, the New Jerusalem is seen “coming down from God out of heaven (Rev.21:2) after the introduction of the “new heaven and new earth.”

Stay tuned, and review the studies of the Kingdom (#19,20,21) and “Life” (#28) in preparation for an examination of the New Testament approach to the “destiny” of the faithful.

I hope that the folks who were asking for this study did not expect some sort of simplistic answer. Many such “answers” have been promoted throughout history, none of which are supported by exhaustive examination of the text. It should raise questions in the minds of thinking people, that during the first three centuries of the Christian church, military involvement was grounds for expulsion from the group. That policy was only changed under Constantine – the military conqueror. Biblically, even as early as John the Baptist (Lk.3:14), soldiers asking for guidance were told, “Do violence to no one!” (Can you imagine an army operating like that?)

References to these concepts include two primary word-families. The most common includes strateia – “warfare” – (2x), strateuomai – “to make war” – (7x), stratiotes – “soldier” – (26x), strateuma – army – (8x), antistrateuomai – “to make war against” – (1x), sustratiotes – “fellow-soldier” – (2x), and stratiologeo – “to enlist or recruit” – (1x). Although the people mentioned as “soldiers” are invariably members of the occupying Roman legions (only one of whom, a subordinate of Cornelius – Ac.10:7 – is described as “devout”), and “centurions”, (commanders of 100 soldiers) appear 24x, the “warfare”, both strateia (n.) (II Cor.10:4 and I Tim.1:18) and strateuomai (v.) (II Cor.10:3, I Tim.1:18, Jas.4:1, I Pet.2:12), refers entirely to the spiritual struggle to live in faithfulness – or, in the latter two instances, the forces against which that struggle is engaged.
Paul does use the unwavering, primary loyalty and obedience required of military personnel as an illustration of the absolute commitment required of Kingdom citizens (II Tim.2:4), and in arguing for the support of persons assigned a particular task (I Cor.9:7), but he certainly does not endorse signing up for Caesar’s legions! His speaking of Epaphroditus (Phil.2:25) and Archippus (Phm.2) as “fellow-soldiers” is parallel to calling others “co-workers” and “fellow-servants/slaves.”

The most salient reference in this “family” is II Cor.10:3-4: “Although we are living as (ordinary) humans, we are not doing battle by those standards. The weapons of our battle are not (merely) human, but powerful, by means of God ….(v.5) subjugating every mind [thought] for obedience to Christ.” Our “warfare” is to subjugate our own minds, not other people!

Second in frequency is the use of polemeo (7x) and polemos (16x). These references are divided among “ordinary” strife between kingdoms or nations (Mt.24:6, Mk.13:7, Lk.21:9; Lk.14:31, I Cor.14:8), conflict between people (Jas.4:1,2) – which James matter-of-factly attributes to human selfishness , and, predominately in the Revelation, various phases of the cosmic struggle between good and evil. Please notice that NONE OF THESE WARS ARE INITIATED OR FOUGHT BY PEOPLE! The perpetrators are: the Beast (Rv.11:7, 13:4,13:7), the Dragon (Rv.12:17), “the spirits of demons” and Satan (Rv.16:14, 20:8) who gather kings, but no actual battle is recorded, and a horde of locusts (Rv.9:7-9). When (19:19-20) the Beast has kings and their armies assembled for battle, they are all destroyed by divine intervention. And when the Lamb conquers other kings who are allied with the Beast it is NOT because he and his companions are so “rough and tough and mean” or armed with superior weaponry, but (17:14) “Because he is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, and those with him are called, and chosen, and faithful!” His only weapon is “the sword of his mouth” (Rv.2:16 and19:21, and see also Eph.6:17).

Note also that there is only one ever mentioned who “passes judgment and makes war in justice” (19:11) – the rider on the white horse, whose name (v.13) is “the Word of God”. (So much for “just wars.”)

Two other, less frequent terms deserve our notice. Mache / machomai , appearing 4x each, refer entirely to disputes between individuals. Translations usually tend toward “fight” or “strive”, to describe arguments among Jesus’ critics (Jn.6:52), disputes about the Law (Tit.3:9), “foolish discussions” (II Tim.2:23, 24), and fuss over possessions (Jas.4:1,2). All of these are to be avoided.

Agonizomai (7x) is otherwise primarily used of athletic contests, or contention in a court of law. Like its English cognate “agony”, it conveys the sense of intense effort. Paul’s messages, to Timothy regarding “fighting a good fight” (I Tim.6:12 and II Tim.4:7), and to the Colossians about the urgency of his prayers on their behalf (Col.1:29,4:12) are supplemented by Jesus’ instructions to “strive to enter the narrow gate” (Lk.13:24), and, strangely, his statement to Pilate of what his disciples would have done if his Kingdom “were of this world.” (Jn.18:36). This last was not, as is commonly supposed, a military statement. Agonizomai is never used of military action. Jesus’ people do not even engage in less-widespread violence, even in his – or their own – defense.

The references to weapons (hopla – 6x, and panoplia – 3x) are likewise instructive. Panoplia simply adds the prefix “pan” – “all”. Only in Jn.18:3, where it describes the armed officers who arrested Jesus, and Jesus’ parable in Lk.11:22, does the word refer to conventional weapons of war, in the New Testament. In Rom.6:13, Paul twice uses the secondary meaning of “tools or instruments”, regarding the proper use of one’s physical body. Elsewhere, he stresses that the “weapons” of which he speaks are a different kind: I Cor.10:4 – “not carnal [human]”, Rom.13:12 – “the armor of light”, II Cor.6:7 – “armor of justice [righteousness]” , and the classic passage in Ephesians 6:11 and 13-17.

Notice that the goal here is not conquest, domination, or even physical self-defense, but merely to “stand firm” (v.11). Truth (W.S.#26), justice (#3), the gospel (#67) of peace (#70), faithfulness (#1), and deliverance [salvation] (#5) are all defensive equipment; the only “offensive weapon” – the sword (see above) – is the Word of God.

It should be abundantly clear, therefore, that for citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom, although in this life conflict, oppression, and even apparent defeat appear to be a “given”, those citizens do not resort to the methods or the weapons of “normal” warfare. The outcome of the battle is assured, for those who are “called and chosen and faithful”, in the ultimate victory of the Lamb – the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords!

Thanks be to God!

Here is another requested word that is frequently misunderstood as a result of the evolution of the English language. Most people presently tend to associate it uniformly with giving orders, if not overtly scolding, when that concept, although present, is only a minimal part of classical usage. Traditional translators have used “admonish” or “admonition” to represent four different Greek words.

Two, noutheteo (v.) and nouthesia / nouthetia (n), are related, and derived from nous, one of the words translated “mind.”(W.S.#96). Their classical uses include “to give advice, to warn, to put in mind (remind)”, and only secondarily “to chastise” and “rebuke”. The verb form appears 8x in the New Testament: 4x rendered “admonish” (Rom.15:14, Col.3:16, I Thes.5:12, II Thes.3:15) – of which three refer to mutual activity among the brotherhood – and 4x as “warn” (Ac.20:31, I Cor.4:14, Col.1:28, II Thes.5:14). Frequently, both are associated with teaching, and only twice (II Thes.3:15 and I Thes.5:14) with correction. Note that both of these are addressed to the group, and not to any individual or official. The noun appears only 3x, twice (I Cor.10:11 and Eph.6:4) regarding instruction and once (Tit.3:10) correction.

Chrematizo, only once rendered “admonish” (Heb.8:5), regarding God’s instructions to Moses, is translated “warn” (also with respect to God’s instructions) 4x: Mt.2:12 – the Magi, Mt.2:22 – Joseph, Ac.10:22 – Cornelius, and Heb.11:7 – Noah. Specific revelation is referenced in Lk.2:26 (Simeon), and the giving of the law in Heb.12:25, whereas Ac.11:26 and Rom.7:3 are simply labeling.

In classical writings, chrematizo could also refer to business dealings, negotiations in public assemblies, the administration of justice, or the instructions received from an oracle. A very versatile word!

Hupodeiknumi, which is also translated “warn” in Mt.3:7, Lk.3:7, and Lk.12:5, as well as “show” (as in “reveal”) in Lk.6:47, Ac.9:16, 20:35, is never rendered “admonish”. Please note also that none of these references to “warning” are ever in the context of a threat to the hearers. They represent simply the provision of information and instructions for action. Contemporary speakers who claim to speak for the Lord would do well to remember this!

Paraineo, used only twice in the New Testament, is translated once as “admonish” (Ac.27:9) and once “exhort” (Ac.27:22), both describing Paul’s advice to the sailors on the voyage to Rome. These fit well with the classical usage, “to recommend or advise, to propose a course of action.”

The alternate translation of paraineo, “exhort”, is more commonly used to render parakaleo (19x). Please refer to W.S.#53 for additional exploration of this concept. Parakaleo, historically, was used “to summon or send for” a person, or “to invoke the gods.” subsequently, it was used of a summons for a trial, the calling of a witness, or an appeal in court. Etymologically, it is made up of “kaleo”, to call or invite, and “para”, alongside of. Later, it was used of proposals, demands and requirements, or exhortation, encouragement, and entreaty. Only traditional translators of the Septuagint and the New Testament ever rendered it “comfort”. They did so 23x. There is no classical precedent for that choice, which has led to serious misunderstandings of the Biblical message.  Please see #138.

“Beseech”, used 43x for parakaleo, with its later connotations of abject begging, is rather weak for this word. “Exhort, urge, encourage, or admonish” would much more accurately convey the force of the word.

Parakaleo usually (25x in the synoptics) appears in people’s appeals to Jesus for healing, where it has traditionally been rendered “beseech/besought, pray, or entreat”, and only once refers to the preaching of John the Baptist (Lk.3:18) as “exhortation.”

In the usage of parakaleo in Acts, the idea of requests persists, but is almost equally balanced with “exhortation”, directed both toward “the brethren” (11:23, 14:22, 15:32, 16:40, 20:2) and toward groups who were yet to become committed (2:40).
It is not surprising that in the epistles, which were, after all, written for the instruction and encouragement of the brethren in each locality, parakaleo appears more frequently than in the gospels and Acts combined – 61x. Its ubiquity is somewhat obscured by the traditional translators’ shifting among “beseech, comfort, desire, and exhort” – when in every instance, it is instruction or encouragement that is in view.

As you can easily see, these observations are rather widely scattered. Perhaps the best summary can be gleaned from brother Paul:

“I myself have been persuaded about you all, my brothers,…. that you are also able to keep reminding [admonishing]each other…”.(Rom.15:14)

“Christ’s word must continually reside among you , richly, in all wisdom, as you keep teaching and admonishing each other ….” (Col.3:13)

and the writer to the Hebrews:

“Keep on coaching [exhorting] each other, every day … so that not one of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of failure [sin]…” (Heb.3:13).

“Admonition” and “exhortation” of and for one another is the best insurance for remaining faithful disciples.

May we continually encourage one another in this direction!

Requests for a study on “conversation” sent me beating the bushes for etymological dictionaries!
The English word is used 13 times by traditional translators for the noun anastrophe, as well as once for politeuma and once for tropos. The verb anastrepho is translated “have conversation” twice. But in none of these does the implication parallel our modern use of “conversation” as “sitting around with a cup of coffee and talking about things.” This time, our misunderstanding is a result of the English language, not the Greek.

Like all languages, English has changed both its structure and its vocabulary over the years. In the mid-14^th century, “conversation” referred to “living together and having dealings with others; one’s manner of conducting himself in the world” – which is much closer to the Greek words in the text.

In the early 16^th century, the domain of “conversation” added criminal behavior, and in the late 16^th century, it included sexual intercourse. By the late 18^th century, it was the legal term for adultery! (I found the most useful source to be an Etymological Dictionary by Douglas Harper, who lists his own sources as the Oxford English Dictionary, and others by Klein, and Weekley.)
None of these varied definitions is a part of the modern understanding of “conversation”, and only the oldest is included in the lexical information on any of the Greek words so translated in the New Testament.

According to Liddell/Scott, anastrepho, of which only the middle and passive forms were rendered “conversation”, was used classically as “to dwell, to go about in public, to be engaged in some activity, to conduct oneself, to behave.”
Classical uses of the noun form, anastrophe, likewise included “one’s dwelling or abode, mode of life or behavior, civilized life, occupation, or concern.” Active voice occurrences, in both cases, carry the more literal sense of overthrowing, reversing, or returning, but they are not relevant to the ”conversation” question.
Politeuma, with only a single New Testament appearance, was classically a reference to citizenship, with its duties and privileges. Please see W.S.#100, as well as the essay on “citizenship” (#150), and the small book, Citizens of the Kingdom which is also available as a free download on this site.
Tropos, usually used in an adverbial phrase, refers to the manner or custom in which anything is done.

Are you seeing any pattern here? This is not the first time that misunderstanding of a word has led well-meaning people to assume a theoretical rather than a practical focus for their ideas of “faithfulness [faith]” (W.S.#1). “Conversation”, like “faithfulness”, is used in the New Testament to refer not to talk, but to behavior!

Anastrepho, for example, only translated “had our conversation” in II Cor.1:12 and Eph.2:3, where Paul is clearly referring to his/their manner of life before their conversion, is rendered “abide” in Mt.17:22 regarding Jesus spending time in Galilee; “be used” in Heb.10:33 of the mistreatment of believers; “behave yourself” in I Tim.3:15; “live” in Heb.13:18 and II Pet.2:18; and “pass” in I Pet.1:17 – all referring to one’s manner of life.

Anastrophe, used 13x, and uniformly translated “conversation”, is also an obvious reference to one’s manner of life or behavior, whether in the unconverted past (Eph.4:22, I Pet.1:18, II Pet.2:7), the setting of an example of appropriate living (Gal.1:13, I Tim.4:12, Heb.13:7, Jas.3:13, I Pet.2:12, 3:2), or a goal toward which the faithful are urged to strive (I Pet.1:15, II Pet.3:11).
Realism also requires a recognition that while “holy” (W.S.#32) living may result in the conversion of others (I Pet.3:1), it may also provoke persecution and false accusation (I Pet.3:16). Peter, perhaps even more than most other writers, seems to assume persecution, simply advising his readers to be certain that abuse is not deserved, for some less noble reason (see also I Pet.4:14-16).

The single use of politeuma in Phil.3:20 is poorly translated in traditional versions, as the lexical reference to citizenship fits the context much better. Certainly behavior is also in view. During the process of the transformation of life by the power of the Lord Jesus, an observable difference is expected. This is part of learning citizenship in the Kingdom!

Tropos appears only 6 times in the New Testament, and was rendered “conversation” only once (Heb.13:5). Elsewhere, it is rendered “manner” (Jude 7), “means” (II Thess.2:3, 3:16), and “way” (Rom.3:2, Phil.1:18), and clearly refers to something being done or accomplished.

So, what are we to say for “conversation”? Primarily, that it does not belong in a (later than 14^th century) English translation of the New Testament – at least, not as a rendition of any of the words for which it was used historically.
Certainly one’s “way of life” will be accompanied with conversation about its source, goal, and practice. But as we have seen before, a life transformed by commitment to Jesus’ Kingdom is a demonstration project to be lived, not a theory to be debated.

I like the quote attributed to Francis of Assissi, “Preach the gospel at all times – use words only when necessary.”
Kingdom living will provoke conversation – but does not consist of it.

“The Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power” (I Cor.4:20) – the power of the King’s resurrection!

Thanks be to God!

It has long been assumed, by teachers and preachers of varied theological and philosophical persuasions, that biblical mentions of vineyards, vines, and fig trees invariably represent the nation of Israel. That this assumption has at least some factual basis is evidenced in the violent reactions of the hierarchical leadership to Jesus’ use of those figures in parables – Mt.21:45, Mk.12:12, Lk.20:19.
However, an extensive search for historical precedent for that connection has yielded very little documentation. If you can find more, please add them to this collection.

Most of the Septuagint references to any of these words are primarily agricultural. There are at least 11 instances of legal requirements regarding the husbandry of produce: provisions for the poor, protection for a neighbor’s property, stewardship of the soil.
The enjoyment of one’s own “vine and fig tree” symbolizes prosperity and security – describing the Promised Land before they entered it (6x), the restoration of the people after exile (15x), the “bribe” offered by the Assyrians (6x), and a non-specific state of “blessedness” (6x).
The destruction of that idyllic state is prominent in the judgment meted out for the nation’s unfaithfulness (38x).
The growth or budding of vines or trees simply indicates the coming of spring at least 8x, and 3x in the New Testament.

In fact, there are only five Old Testament passages where specific, overt reference is made to the Israelite nation in relation to vines and trees. Isaiah 5:1-7 recounts the Lord’s lament over the failure of his carefully planted and tended vineyard to produce the hoped-for harvest. His only recourse is to tear it up and start over. Jeremiah 2:20-21 describes similar displeasure, and 12:10 (actually, vv.7-14) lays a considerable portion of the blame upon the individuals entrusted with its care. And Hosea 9:10 and 10:1 describe God’s efforts to create a productive vineyard out of plants carefully transplanted from the wild, meticulously nurtured, but rendered unproductive by the people’s failure to renounce their idolatry and selfishness.

The theme is nowhere near as prominent in the New Testament as I expected, either. Mention of vines and figs in the epistles occur only in James’ comment (3:12) regarding a plant bearing only its own kind of fruit, and Paul’s reminder that one who plants expects to eat the harvest (I Cor.9:7). Neither has any national or ethnic tone.

Jesus did pick up these ideas quite vividly in four parables, only one of which appears in all three synoptic gospels: Mt.21:33-41, Mk.12:1-9, Lk.20:9-16. This is the one which most nearly parallels Isaiah’s and Jeremiah’s complaints, and which drew fire from the hierarchy-types, who “recognized that he was talking about them” – the tenant farmers who conspired to defraud the owner of the vineyard, and subsequently abused and killed his messengers/servants/son. Jesus’ sentence of eviction closely parallels the earlier prophets’ warnings of destruction. Only this time, there is no possibility of return mentioned (Mt.21:41-44, Mk.12:9, Lk.20:16), but a simple, peremptory statement that the vineyard will be given to others who will produce its fruit.

The unfruitful fig tree in Lk.13:6-8, on the other hand, although it has been barren for three years (the approximate length of Jesus’ earthly ministry), is given “one more year” – v.8 – (perhaps the care and fertilization efforts of his people after Pentecost?) before finally being cut down.
The barren figs along the road (an event, not a parable) recounted in Mt.21:19-21 and Mk.11:13-21, however, have no such reprieve. That scene always bothered me, as I did not think Jesus would be petulant, as it seems to the casual observer. But when we lived in California, and had two lovely fig trees in our yard, it made sense. We learned that tiny figs appear on the branches in the spring before any leaf buds are evident. A tree fully leafed-out, with no fruit (even unripe) visible, would rightly be seen as worthless. It would never bear.

Likewise, exposure to the needs of an agricultural community, as well as a subsistence economy, provides insight into the parable of the vineyard workers in Mt.20:1-8. A denarius was a standard wage – enough for one day. The earliest-hired laborers appear to have considered it reasonable. Those not hired in the morning probably spent the day worrying whether they would feed their families that night. And perhaps the owner, too, was under pressure. Grapes must be harvested when they are ready, lest they be spoiled by getting over-ripe, or damaged by weather. The master’s repeated trips to the employment center may have been in desperation to complete the harvest at the proper time. This would have made the last group the most necessary of all! His generosity may have been spurred by his need.

And finally, the affair of the two sons (Mt.21:28-32) replays a frequent theme of Jesus’ entire ministry – that behavior is a much more significant and reliable indicator of faithfulness than pious talk!

It remains to consider the sharp shift of focus in Jesus’ final conversation with his disciples recorded in Jn.15:1-8. That focus is no longer on the failed figure of a vineyard, or on any political or religious institution, but on the “real thing”! He announces, “I AM (see W.S.#17) the genuine [real, true] vine” (v.1). This is the ultimate “demonstration farm”, and the Father is the farmer (georgos, the expert on all the crops, not merely ampelourgos, the vinedresser.)
Cultivating and maintaining vines requires a high level of skill. My husband learned from his own father to recognize which were fruiting buds, and which would produce only leaves or new branches. A healthy vine needs a balance of all three, but the pruning must be done before anything starts to grow or to become obvious to the untrained eye. The direction of growth is selected in the pruning process. Anything diseased or damaged must be eliminated, along with excessive vegetative growth, or branches that compete for a place in the sun. Although a healthy twig can be planted to clone a supplementary vine, only those remaining attached to the vine will bear fruit.
The fruit is borne on the branches, but the life that produces it comes through the parent vine.
And please notice, that although branches need – and receive – individual attention from the vinedresser, all of the words are plural. It is only together that we/they “bear fruit and become disciples (v.8)”. Please refer also to W.S.#64, “Bearing fruit”, and #65, “Pruning” .

So in a very real sense, the concept of the disciple group as branches of the Vine, which has been identified as the Lord himself, is an apt supplement to the descriptions of that same group as members of the Body of Christ (#84, and chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom).
Both are vivid examples of the lengths to which the Lord of Glory has been willing to go, in order that his people may enjoy the privilege of being an integral part of his Kingdom – and indeed, of his own Life!
May we be found fruitful – and faithful – in that privileged position!

“Do you believe in miracles?” has to be one of the silliest questions ever posed by people who presume to pass judgment on one another’s “faithfulness” or “intelligence” (or lack of either!) by their replies to simplistic, programmed doctrinal examinations. Nowhere in the New Testament is anyone asked to profess such a “belief” (see W.S.#1).
Miracles are the gracious acts of God which are designed to enable ordinary citizens of Earth to perceive his grace, his power, his love, and his glory, in order that they might choose to become faithful citizens of the Kingdom of his beloved Son! They are intended to draw attention, not to some spectacular “wow” factor, but beyond any specific event – beyond the limits of time or space or normal human expectation – to the realm of life as its Creator originally intended for it to be lived.

There are three primary words which are used to speak of such events: dunamis, rendered 8x “miracle” and 77x “power”; semeion, 22x “miracle” and 51x “sign”; and teras, consistently rendered “wonders”, 16x. This last only appears in the plural, terata, and is always accompanied by at least one of the other two words. Trench speculates that this may be because teras was so frequently used in pagan contexts of omens and portents, that Christian writers took care that the term not be interpreted magically. The ancients frequently assumed that unusual appearances in the sky or creatures behaving strangely were messages from the gods, so this would have been a valid concern.
Trench further suggests, “These different words do not so much represent different kinds of miracles, as they do miracles contemplated from different points of view.”

Both dunamis and semeion may refer to healing, to exorcism, to the credentials or identification of Jesus or his representatives, or simply generically to his activities among people of all descriptions.
As noted in W.S.#31, dunamis generally refers to the power or ability to do something. Lexically, it also described any natural capacity that could be cultivated, for either good or ill, as well as a manifestation of divine power. I share the lament expressed by Trench that traditional translators, seemingly at random, chose to use “miracles” 8x (Mk.9:39, Ac.2:22, 8:13, 19:11; I Cor.12:10,28; Gal.3:5, Heb.2:4), and “mighty works” 12x (Mt.11:20,21,23; 13:54,58; 14:2; Mk.6:2,5,24; Lk.10:13, 19:37; II Cor.12:12), instead of opting for consistency. Surely they did not consider the deeds of Jesus himself less “miraculous” than similar activities which he enabled Philip, Paul, and other brethren to perform!

The same question could/should be raised regarding the traditional treatment of semeion. This, too, had classical uses that were related to the activity of pagan gods and heroes, as well as to the proof of an argument, an instance or example, or an indication of the future. In the New Testament, it usually includes the ethical end and purpose of an event, the prime object of which is to lead observers to something beyond their experience. “It must go beyond nature, valuable, not so much for what is accomplished, but for what it indicates of the grace and power of the doer, or his connection to a higher, spiritual world” (Trench). In order to be a “sign”, an event must be something that could not have “just happened” – the raising of Lazarus who had been dead for four days (Jn.11:47), the healing with a simple word of a man lame from birth (Ac.4:16), or the feeding of a large crowd with a very small amount of food (Jn.6:14).

Please note, that confining the term “miracle” to occurrences that are clearly beyond nature, IN NO WAY needs to diminish our appreciation of divine activity in the natural course of life. It is no more necessary or appropriate to label all of God’s creation as “miraculous” than it is to declare that “all the children are above average!” Nature also bears testimony to the power and glory of God (Rom.1:19,20) but it is not all “miraculous.” Neither are the birth of a child (unless under unusual circumstances like those of Sarah, Elizabeth, and Mary), gradual (even if astonishing) recovery from illness or accident, or provision for various needs through normal human channels. All of these can – and should – be recognized as gracious gifts of God (see James 1:17). But everything designated a “miracle” in the New Testament was immediate, and also immediately and clearly recognized by participants and spectators alike as completely out-of-the-ordinary.

John takes special care to explain how certain ones of Jesus’ acts became “signs” (2:11, 2:23, 4:54, 6:2, 6:14), and even notes Jesus’ complaint (6:26) that for the vast majority, the real intent of the “sign” was missed completely. (All of these use semeion.)
The demands of skeptical authorities for a “sign” from Jesus (Mt.12:38-39, 16:4; Mk.8:11-12, Lk.11:16,29,30; Jn.2:18, 4:48, 6:30) seem to carry more of the pagan, “magical” flavor, as do the warnings against the performance of impostors and false prophets (Mt.24:24, Mk.13:22, IIThes.2:9, Jn.4:48, Rv.13:14, 16:14), but genuine demonstrations of the power of God do serve as validation of the message, not only carried by Jesus,but also his delegated representatives (Mk.16:17,20; Jn.20:30, Ac.2:22,43; 5:12, 14:3, Rom.15:19, II Cor.12:12, Heb.2:4).

That the true import of these can be seriously misunderstood is evident in the episode with Simon the magician in Samaria (Ac.8), as well as in those who attributed Jesus’ acts as empowered by “the prince of demons” (Mt.9:34, 12:24). Therefore, it is absolutely essential that true disciples who are assigned and empowered to mediate the touch of the Lord, acknowledge plainly, as did the early apostles, that “God did these things by the hands of” various ones of their number (Ac.2:43, 4:22, 6:8, 14:3, 15:12, 19:11). Here, as so frequently in other situations, careful discernment on the part of the brotherhood is absolutely essential, to distinguish between genuine signs and dangerous deception (Mt.24, Mk.13, Lk.21).

Conspicuous by its absence is any suggestion of a requirement that anyone “believe” that a miracle of any kind had occurred in the absence of evidence. To the contrary, when any reaction on the part of either the beneficiary or the spectators is mentioned, it is one of amazement at the unexpected graciousness of what they had seen or experienced.
There is absolutely no Scriptural precedent for the practice of “blaming the victim” that is common among some flamboyant, self-styled “healers”. Remember that in the only recorded incident where disciples’ attempts at healing had “failed”, Jesus attributed the failure to the “faith/faithfulness” of the disciples, not that of the supplicant father or his son (Mt.17:14-18 and parallels).

We may much more appropriately join in the prayer of some of our earliest brethren (Ac.4:30) as they faced persecution and prison: “And now, Lord ….Reach out with your hand for healings and signs and wonders to happen, through the name of your holy child [servant] Jesus!” His gracious answer enabled their confident propagation of his message (v.31).

Amen, Lord! Let it continually be so!