The Pioneers’ New Testament

Our brother Jim asked a fascinating question at church a couple weeks ago: “What are keys for?” He went on to observe that we frequently think of locking doors for “protection” of ourselves or our property, and seldom of using a key to open a door. That made me curious: his suggestion that in contrast, the New Testament descriptions of the Kingdom say more about opening doors than about locking them sounded right – so I decided to check. It’s not unusual for Jim to be much more perceptive than most folks – but this is over the top! It is beautiful!

Keys – kleis – interestingly, only occurs six times in the New Testament. “Lock” never appears at all; “to shut” (four different words) about 20 times, and “to open” (anoigo) more than 70 times!
In fact, the only place where Jesus speaks of keys locking anyone out (Mt.23:13 uses the verb form and Lk.11:52 the noun), is in criticism of the scribes and Pharisees for their attempts to prevent “ordinary folks” from entering the Kingdom! (Luke uses gnoseos – knowledge – instead of “kingdom”; this is sometimes, I think spuriously, attributed to Gnostic influence, but “knowledge” of the Law was very important to first century Judaism as well.) In the Revelation, one messenger uses a key (20:1) to confine the dragon in the “bottomless pit”, but another uses it (9:1) to let locusts out. Jesus himself almost seems to display the “keys of death and hades” (1:18) as trophies of his resurrection, and reassures his struggling followers (3:7,8) that when he opens a door for them, no one can slam it in their faces! Jesus’ keys, in harmony with all the rest of his life and ministry, are all about setting people free!

Digging around further yielded more nuggets. Many of the references to “shut” are rather ordinary: a door is shut when the family retires for the night (Lk.11:7); when the disciples fear a raid by the authorities (Jn.20:19,26); in situations of imprisonment (Ac.5:23, Lk.3:20, Ac.26:10). A period of drought is described as “heaven [the sky] being shut” (Lk.4:25, Rv.11:6). Persistent refusal of the Lord’s message “shuts up” people away from faithfulness (Rom.11:32, Gal.3:22,23).

But how much more numerous – and more glorious – are all the things that are “opened”!
The eyes of the blind – Mt.9:30, 20:33, Jn.9:10,14,17,21,26,30,33; 10:21; 11:37; and even the eyes of Tabitha [Dorcas] when she was raised from death!
There are visions of heaven [the sky] being opened – at Jesus’ baptism (Mt.3:16, Lk.3:21, Jn.1:51,52), to welcome Stephen as he was stoned (Ac.7:56), to give Peter needed instructions (Ac.10:11), and to show the elderly disciple, John, the wonders revealed throughout the account of Revelation.
Graves were opened at the time of Jesus’ resurrection.
Prison doors yielded to messengers of God (Ac.5:19, 23; 12:10), and to jailed apostles (Ac.16:26,27).
Repeatedly, doors are flung open to let people in (Mt.25:11, Lk.12:36, 13:25; Ac.12:14,16), and to admit the true Shepherd to the sheepfold (Jn.10:3).

This term is also frequently used figuratively, of opportunities, as the Lord enabled the spreading of his message (I Cor.16:9, II Cor.2:12, Ac.14:27, Col.4:3), and also of Jesus’ gracious promise that the “door” will be opened to his faithful people who persist in “knocking” and seeking his ways (Mt.7:7,8; Lk.11:9,10). A prefixed form (dianoigo) is needed to convey the divine intervention involved (Lk.24:31,32) in order for the eyes of the grieving disciples at Emmaus to be “opened” to recognize the risen Lord as he “opened” the scriptures for them to understand.

Most of these, of course, required/employed no “keys”. But there is one more situation that does: the much-discussed “binding and loosing” conversation in Mt.16:18-19 and its related passage in Mt.18:18. These common words, deo and luo, are most commonly used of imprisonment and release, of healings, and of legal obligations. Much of the “theological” controversy about these two exceptional references, I believe, results from failure to (1) look at both passages together, and (2)pay careful attention to the grammatical constructions which are carefully (and, I believe, deliberately) parallel. Both the vocabulary and the grammar are nearly identical. It is true that the ch.16 statement is addressed to Peter personally: the verbs, and the pronoun, are singular, whereas the one in ch.18 is addressed to the entire brotherhood, since all terms are cast in the plural. However, the rebuke that Jesus addressed to Peter immediately afterward (v.21-23) should make it abundantly clear that he had not been thereby elevated to some sort of exalted status or authority. People who see either or both statements as conferring judicial privilege or prerogative, upon either an individual or the disciple group as a whole, have failed to notice that both statements employ perfect passive participles. Unfortunately, both passages are traditionally (incorrectly) read as if they were future active verbs. Correct attention to the actual grammatical structure reveals that the situation described is one of responsibility to discern and communicate accurately the action/decision that has already taken place “in heaven” – NOT the power to dictate that decision!

Whether the issue is admission to the Kingdom (note: the keys are to “the Kingdom”, not to “heaven”) as in chapter 16, or the forgiveness of an erring brother as in chapter 18, the “binding” or “loosing” “will be” – a future tense, that may sometimes carry the force of an imperative – “what has already been done (perfect passive) in heaven”. This is a very common use of a participle, called “circumstantial”, and is frequently translated as a dependent clause. The tense of the participle represents its “time” in relation to the primary clause of the sentence. A perfect tense, remember, describes a past action that continues, at least in effect, into the present, or beyond. The passive voice indicates that the subject is acted upon; it is not the actor.

Clearly, in neither case is anyone entrusted with a signed, blank check. In both, the person or group is cautioned only to mediate what has already occurred. This calls for careful discernment, not an executive decision.

Paul was probably following these – or similar – instructions when he dealt (II Cor.2:1-11) with the restoration of the person disciplined by the brotherhood in I Cor.5. Notice especially I Cor.5:4 and II Cor.2:10. Although his vocabulary is different, the idea is the same: “incarnating” the gift of restoration already provided by the Lord.

So perhaps the whole idea of “keys” in the Kingdom is somewhat parallel to the training “yoke” Jesus offered in Mt.11:28-30 (W.S.#77); or to the parent who, not without trepidation, tosses his car keys to his teenager! They are still Dad’s keys! But part of growing up requires learning to use them responsibly. And that learning involves serious risk.

It is the one who owns the keys (Rev.1:18), who opens doors for his people that no one can shut (3:7), who nevertheless is willing, himself, to “stand at the door and knock” (3:20), waiting for it to be thrown open in welcome by disciples willing to learn.

May we recognize – and heed – his voice!

Having dealt with the verb forms of these words in the study of “rejoicing” (#93), it may seem a bit redundant to return to the noun, “joy”. Several requests, and the prevalence of the concept among the beleaguered brethren of the early church, however, encouraged me to spend some time with the nouns as well, specifically augmenting the New Testament uses of agalliasis, euphrosune, and chara with their appearances in the Septuagint, which may aid in distinguishing between the terms. Especially interesting is the observation that euphrosune, which appears only twice in New Testament writings, is by far the most frequently used in the LXX – more than both of the others combined!

Bauer observes that agalliasis does not appear at all in “secular” writers, though he finds a few instances of referral to pagan deities, as well as Messianic contexts in the LXX. The distinctions show up much more clearly in the Septuagint than in the New Testament, although that impression may be colored by the handicap that my LXX concordance is much less comprehensive than Young’s.

Agalliasis seems to refer primarily to the euphoria of return from exile, of coronations, and of celebratory worship. Chara also refers to freedom from captivity – L/S connects it with good news, or joy at an event – but it also includes a strong sense of the presence of the Lord, especially in the psalms. Euphrosune describes pretty much any sort of a party – even the debauchery of Artaxerxes, and the celebrations of the defeat of Haman (Esther). It also appears in the prophets’ announcements (especially Isaiah and Jeremiah) that “the party’s over” and exile is on the horizon, as well as the celebrations at both the beginning and the completion of the rebuilding of wall and temple under Ezra and Nehemiah. Although euphrosune is frequently paired with one of the other words in celebrations of return from exile or defeat of enemies, it is also disparaged in Proverbs and Ecclesiastes as levity or frivolity.

In the New Testament, the situation is markedly different.. We have noted already that euphrosune appears only twice: one of which, (Ac.2:28)is an Old Testament quotation from Ps.15, and the other (Ac.14:17) is a part of Paul’s frantic attempt to prevent the offering of pagan sacrifice to him and Barnabas, in Lystra.
Agalliasis is used only five times: twice traditionally translated “joy” (Lk.1:44, Jude 24), and three times “gladness” (Lk.1:14 – paired with chara, Ac.2:46, Heb.1:9), all of which carry a celebratory air.
Chara, by contrast, appears 56x, (less than 20x in LXX), usually rendered “joy”, but 3x “gladness”. It is not clear why the traditional translators changed their word choice in Mk.4:16, Ac.12:14, and Phil:2:29.
L/S records uses of chara ever since the sixth century BC dramatists Aeschylus and Sophocles. They observe references to non-specific joy and delight, to the celebratory reaction to good news, and to enjoying an event, a thing, or a companion. Thayer notes that chara is the opposite of mourning,and suggests that an accompanying dative case identifies the cause and the genitive case the source of the “joy”. This can be a difficult call. There are many “causes” or “sources” of joy specifically mentioned, and not all are accompanied with a convenient genitive or dative case. For example:
Mt.2:10 – the Magi followed the star with “great joy”
Mt.13:20, Mk.4:16, Lk.8:13 – some people are said to have “received the Word with joy”
Mt. 13:44 – the finder of treasure sells all his belongings “with joy” to enable the purchase.

Then there is the “too-good-to-be-true” syndrome, which accompanies the joy of the disciples as the reality of Jesus’ resurrection dawns on them (Mt.28:8, Lk.14:41); and the exuberance of Rhoda upon recognizing that Peter is really at the door (Ac.12:14) after his miraculous release from prison.

The satisfaction of a job well done, or the faithfulness of one’s protegees (Lk.10:17, Ac.20:24, Rom.15:32, II Cor.7:13, Phil.1:24, 2:2, 4:1; I Thes.2:19,20; Heb.12:2, 13:17; III Jn.4) causes great joy.

I’m sure you can find more.

There is, however, another theme in the New Testament references to “joy” that is not found elsewhere, and this is especially significant. It is not at all surprising that all the healing and deliverance that accompanied Philip’s preaching in Samaria (Ac.8:8) should have resulted in “great joy in that city”, or that the report of many conversions should have brought “great joy to the all the brethren” (Ac.15:3) as Paul and his companions made their way to Jerusalem. But when the same reaction is reported among the disciples in Pisidian Antioch (Ac.13:51) after persecutors ran Paul and Barnabas out of town, one is made to realize that something quite different is going on here.
Might it just possibly be related to the prayer (Jn.17:13) accompanying Jesus’ parting conversation with his followers (Jn.16:20-24), as he bequeathed them his own joy, even on the way to his impending torture and death? Or to the power that enabled (Lk.24:52) their return to Jerusalem after his Ascension, “with great joy”, even though they were still mightily scared of the authorities there? Or to the strength to “endure joyfully” the confiscation of their possessions (Heb.10:34) and the “testings” of which James warned (1:2)?
None of these match well with any of the classical definitions.

And please note that none of these refers to any “pie in the sky” as a consolation prize!
James continues his admonition (1:3,4) by explaining that faithfulness under duress produces endurance (see #63), which is an essential component of maturity [completeness] in Kingdom living.
Peter (I Pet.1-3-9) indeed includes the anticipation of Jesus’ return in encouraging his readers to continue in faithfulness: but remember, as he speaks of joy in the “inheritance” provided by Jesus’ resurrection, that one receives an inheritance while he (the recipient) is living (see #79 and #80), not after his own death!

Bauer notes that the occasional use of chara (at least 10x) with a form of pleroma / pleroo (see #108) probably indicates the highest or most complete form of “joy”. Please check out Jn.3:29, 15:11, 16:24, 17:13, Ac,13:52, Rom.15:13, Phil.2:2, II Tim.1:4, I Jn.1:4, II Jn.12.
This is a joy born and nurtured in and by relationship, with the Lord Jesus and with each other.

This is the joy that Jesus prayed – and modeled – for his disciples, and that Paul and John both hold forth as the ultimate gift, in all its “fullness”[completeness]. Far exceeding the bounds of shallow celebration, or gloating over enemies, it is the very atmosphere of the Kingdom.

“May the God of hope [or, God, the source of hope] fill you all with all joy and peace, in faithfulness, so that you may overflow with hope [confidence] in [by] the power of the Holy Spirit!”(Rom.15-13)

Few issues generated as much controversy during Jesus’ earthly ministry as did the concept of sabbath observance. Please refer frequently to the previous study of “tradition” as we consider this as one example among many of a perfectly good and right principle gone awry under the weight of well-intentioned augmentation by “experts” to ensure the meticulous observance of God’s command.

The Jewish sources I was able to find base sabbath observance on the joyful celebration of two events: God’s having “rested” after his work of creation, and decreed similar weekly respite for his people – a privilege, in the ancient world, reserved for the wealthy and the powerful, but now extended to all; and the associated connection with their freedom from slavery in Egypt, where they also had enjoyed no rest. The former was “symbolized” by refraining from any activity deemed “creative”, or the exercise of any sort of control over one’s environment, and the latter by celebratory ceremonies – both of which, as we noted previously, are good and effective teaching tools.

The difficulty arises from efforts, though inspired by the very best of intentions, to enforce the observance of a directive by carefully (perhaps obsessively?) defining and enumerating specific proscribed activities. The Talmud organized these into 39 categories, each of which was further subdivided, itemized and explained, and all of which were strictly forbidden. The resulting “law” could be abrogated only when deemed absolutely necessary to save human life.

Jesus himself, as well as the apostles, habitually attended a synagogue on the sabbath, observing the accepted tradition. This was also a very practical decision: they went, frequently in order to teach, because that was the time and place where people gathered! This was clearly the case in Paul’s journeys, as well, seeking out synagogues in the Gentile world.
Controversy arose over the details: primarily healing (9x), but also such “trivialities” as picking a snack (“harvesting”) in the grain field. It was here that Jesus chose to take a stand. Cutting through the layers of tradition, he posed the prior and more basic question: “Is it lawful on the sabbath to do good, or to do evil ? To save life, or to kill?” (Mk.3:4, Lk.6:9). His point is, neglecting or refusing to do “good” that is within one’s power, IS to do evil. With Jesus, we move out of the realm of prohibition, and into the realm of participation: actively doing the bidding of God.
He reminded them that although God “rested” on the seventh day, he did not retire! “My Father is still working, and so am I!” (Jn.5:17) (Please refer also to “rest” #77)
The authorities had eloquently demonstrated that although they made exceptions for the care of livestock (Mt.12:11, Lk.13:15-16, 14:5), and for their own ceremonies (Mt.12:5, Jn.7;22), they flatly refused to do so for the welfare of ordinary people (Lk.13:14, Jn.7:23). Jesus, in contrast, cares for people.

This is the context for his statement (Mk.2:27), “The sabbath came to be for the benefit of people, not people for the sabbath.” (This, too, is practical: it has been amply demonstrated in many settings that productivity increases if there is “time off” – but that is not the point here.)
A day set aside for rest, for worship, for sharing with the people of God, is a beautiful gift, to be enjoyed, and for which to give thanks! It is “the son of man [of God] (who) is Lord of the sabbath” (Mt.12:8, Mk.2:28, Lk.6:5) – and he is deeply concerned for the welfare of his people. For those who choose his Kingdom, he is also Lord of every other day in their lives, as well! But it is entirely appropriate to choose one in which to celebrate!

Interestingly, though, there is not a single instance in the New Testament where any particular day is commanded to be observed – except by the Jewish religious authorities who opposed Jesus! The expanding community after Pentecost is recorded as meeting together every day (Ac.2:46, 47; 5:42, 6:1, 16:5, 17:10, 17; 19:9) for fellowship, teaching, sharing, meals, and celebration! “The first day of the week” is mentioned as a meeting time in Troas (Ac.20:7) and as the time to collect funds for famine relief (I Cor.16:2), but nowhere else except the resurrection accounts. I like the idea of a resurrection celebration, but nowhere is it mandated.

Paul expresses a rather casual attitude in Rom.14, as an aside to his discussion of the observance (or not) of dietary regulations (14:5,13), emphasizing that neither days nor food should be allowed to become an issue in the brotherhood – “Someone judges one day beyond another; someone judges every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who pays attention to a day, does so for the Lord. And he who continues eating, is eating with respect to the Lord, for he is giving thanks to God.” His main concern (v.13) is “Then let’s no longer keep passing judgment on each other, but rather judge this: that no one place a cause of stumbling or falling away before his brother.”
Paul’s only specific mention of the word “sabbath” is in Col.2:16, where he warns against regulations that require special observances.

The only other New Testament use of “sabbath” (a different form of the word), occurs in Heb.4:9.We really need to see this in the whole context of chapters 3 and 4. The writer begins (3:1) with the best solution for any situation: “Fix your attention on Jesus!”

The subject under discussion is the failure of those who were delivered from Egypt under Moses’ leadership to “enter the rest” that God had offered. The diagnosis of the reason is blunt: “because of their unfaithfulness / disobedience” (3:16-19).The argument is a bit tough to follow in the beginning of chapter 4, but the admonition is clear: “Hang in there!!!” (3:6, 3:13, 3:14, 4:1, 4:3, 4:10, 4:11).
“There’s still a sabbath remaining for God’s people” (4:9),and “entering that rest” depends entirely upon maintaining identification with the Lord Jesus! (see references above)

We have been provided most graciously with three essential resources / “tools” for that “maintenance work”:
3:13 – the “coaching” of one another in/by the brotherhood
4:12 – evaluation and instruction by the Word of God
4:14-16 – the merciful intervention of our “great high priest, Jesus, the Son of God”.

Jesus himself is the promised “sabbath rest” for his faithful people!

Thanks be to God!

Here are two perfectly good and useful words/ideas whose value has been obscured, if not totally destroyed, by people or groups who have a “doctrinal” axe to grind. I treat these words together here partly due to this commonality, but also because both are also used by “traditional” translators for the same word, paradosis.
Paradosis, in classical usage, combines two very different strains of meaning, probably due to its derivation from the verb, paradidomi – literally, “to give” (didomi) with the prefix para- “along, beside, toward”, but also “against”. It is used both positively, as of a bequest or the delivery of a message, and negatively, of betrayal or examination by torture! Both senses are also represented by the noun, which most frequently refers to the transmission of history, legend, or doctrine, but also to surrender for legal prosecution.

Paradosis appears only 13 times in the New Testament, 12 of which are rendered “tradition” and one (I Cor.11:2) “ordinance.” There is no obvious reason for the single deviation. Of those usages, eight are in accounts of Jesus’ discussions with Pharisees regarding “the traditions of the elders” (Mt.15:2-6 and Mk.7:3-13). In both of the instances referenced, Jesus and his disciples are criticized for failure to observe a requirement of “tradition”, to which Jesus responds by pointing out quite bluntly that nit-picking about details of “tradition” actually amounts to outright violation of the explicit commands of God (Mt.15:3,6; Mk.7:8,13).

These traditions were initially designed, with the very best of intentions, to guide people into faithfulness to their God. It was only when the observance of traditions obscured the need for obedience to God’s overtly stated directives, that they lost any positive value. Please note, it’s not the “tradition” itself that Jesus criticizes. Washing one’s hands before eating, for example, is a good idea, simply from a health perspective. But elevating even a good idea to a level that takes precedence over God’s instructions, creates problems. Jesus’ frequent conflicts with the religious authorities over Sabbath observance provide additional insight, which we will examine in a later study.

Paul sings a similar tune in Gal.1:14, regarding his zeal for the Law before he met Jesus, and also regarding the details of pagan ritual (Col.2:8) formerly observed and still being advocated by some individuals among the Colossian brethren.

Actually, there are only three places where paradosis is used in a positive light: I Cor.11:2 (where it is translated “ordinance”), and II Thess.2:15 and 3:6. In each of these, Paul refers to the teaching that he himself has given to each group. ( I used “principles” in the PNT. I considered that choice more accurate, since the lexical meaning of the word refers to “anything handed down.”)

“Tradition” is not inherently wrong, but it must be constantly judged/ evaluated in the light of the Lord’s specific instructions. It is NOT, as some groups insist, equal in authority to the scriptures themselves. In fact, it was failure to distinguish “the traditions of men” (Mt.15:6, Mk.7:13) from the instructions of God, that caused problems for Jesus and his associates, and has continued to do so through all the centuries since the first!

“Ordinance”, on the other hand, in addition to the I Cor. reference above, represents seven other Greek words, of which four – diatage (Rom.13:2), ktisis (I Pet.2:13), dogmatizomai (Col.2:20), and diatagma (Heb.11:23) – refer exclusively to civil law or royal decree. One, dogma, refers to both civil and religious law (Lk.2:1, Ac.16:4, 17:7; Eph.2:15); one, dikaioma (Lk.1:6, Heb.9:1, Heb.9:10) exclusively to the Jewish Law; and only one, paradosis (I Cor.11:2) to the instructions of a Christian teacher.

The verb, diatasso, which refers to the giving of any sort of instructions – (Lk.8:55) Jesus telling the little girl’s family to give her some food, (Lk.3:13) the terms of the license given to tax collectors, (Tit.1:5, I Cor.7:17, 16:1) various instructions for arranging local leadership in new congregations, and (Ac.18:2) Claudius’ decree that expelled all Jews from Rome – certainly does not carry any normative weight with respect to faithfulness!
Nowhere is diatasso applied either to the establishment of a hierarchy (see W.S#48) or to the observance of any ceremony, as has been advocated by groups who (correctly) reject the concept of “sacrament” (W.S.#76) but still want to cling to some of its “magic.”

In classical usage, all of these words have primarily civil rather than “religious” connotations.
Diatasso lists “to appoint, to distribute, to classify; to make arrangements, to pledge oneself, to set an army in array, to make testamentary distribution, to bequeath”.
Diatage – “command, ordinance; testamentary disposition, or a medical regimen”
Diatagma – “ordinance or edict”
Dogmatizo – “to decree by ordinance, to lay down a judicial opinion”
Ktisis – “(most commonly) creation; founding or settling, creation of authority”
Dogma – “notion, decision, judgment; a public decree or ordinance, opinion or belief”
Dikaioma –“ judicial amendment of a wrong; pleadings in a suit, credentials”
Only the latter two are used of the Old Testament Law – see references above.

So where do we come out?
A “tradition” (paradosis) has value, IF it involves, enables, or enhances faithfulness to the Lord Jesus and his Kingdom – but ONLY as long as those who observe or adhere to it constantly judge (test) its effect on their obedience to his directives. Like any symbols (see chapter 9 of Citizens of the Kingdom) traditions can be a valuable teaching tool, as long as they are not invested with magical powers, used to abuse or exclude other disciples, or otherwise to distort the message of Jesus and his Kingdom.

Likewise, “ordinances” – which, please bear in mind, both lexically and in New Testament usage, are primarily civil pronouncements – are to be respected, insofar as they are properly ordered and observed UNDER the ultimate authority of the only true King (I Pet.2:13).

Carefully shared discernment by a faithful brotherhood is essential in determining whether the observance or the violation of any specific tradition or ordinance best expresses our faithfulness to the King and his Kingdom.
May we help each other to find the Way.

Treatment of plerophoria in the previous post, relating to “full” assurance, trust, or understanding, leads us to the family from which that compound word is derived. Although some of the uses of the adjective, pleres “full”, refer simply to the capacity of a container (Mt.14:20, 15:37, Mk.6:43, 8:19), or a fully developed (mature) head of grain (Mk.4:28), and most of the rest describe dominant features of someone’s personality, whether positive (Lk.4:1, Jn.1:14, Ac.6:3,5,8; 7:55, 9:36, 11:24) or negative (Ac.13:10, 19:28); and 35 of the 91 appearances of the verb pleroo mention the fulfilling or accomplishment of prophecy or obedience to the Law, 7 simply the passage of time, 7 the completion of an assignment, and 10 parallel to the uses of the adjective, there remains a considerable contingent that deserves more specific attention.

Classical uses of the words related to pleroo are as varied as the English associations with “filling” or “being full”. They include complete payment (“in full”), accomplishing / completing an assignment, duty, or task; the “fulfilling” of prophecy or purpose, the “full” phase of the moon, maturity, to gorge or to satiate one’s appetite, to consecrate, or even to impregnate!

As is the case with other words, however, New Testament usages also can deviate markedly from classical patterns. For example, although the many references to “fulfilling” the law and the prophets would have been readily understandable to first century audiences, I have been unable to find any classical parallel to Jesus’ expressed legacy to his confused and troubled disciples (Jn.15:11, 16:24) and his prayer to the Father on their behalf (17:13) that his (Jesus’) joy might “be fulfilled” in / among them. This legacy is referenced later as well (Ac.13:52, Rom.15:13, I Jn.1:4, II Jn.12), and also evident in interactions in the brotherhood (Phil.2:2, II Tim.1:4). In this regard please see also #92, “Rejoice”, and look for “joy” in a later study.

In this case, Jesus seems concerned that this aspect of his own life and personality – his joy – be transferred and/or reproduced in the lives of his disciples, and only so would it be “fulfilled” [made complete]! Try to get your head around THAT!

Paul writes of “being filled” with (Rom.15:14) all knowledge; (II Cor7:4)comfort / encouragement; (10:6) obedience; (Eph.3:19) the fullness of God; (5:18) the Spirit; (Phil.1:11) the fruits [harvest] of righteousness [justice]; (4:19) the supply of needs to enable generosity; (Col.1:19) certain knowledge of God’s will – all of which evidence one’s development toward maturity in Kingdom living. On the surface, all these ideas seem to parallel those treated in #13 – teleios, “mature”, [perfect] – but the reach of pleroo is much farther than that vision of maturity.

The idea of “completeness” becomes quite central to the understanding of the New Testament uses of these words, and particularly of the noun form , pleroma, almost exclusively rendered “fullness”.
Especially in Ephesians and Colossians, Paul has borrowed the vocabulary of incipient Gnosticism to highlight the unique completeness of Jesus. Please note that he has borrowed the VOCABULARY, NOT the ideology, as some critics would like to assume. In fact, he has re-defined virtually all of the terms that he uses.

Scholars differ on the dates they ascribe to this Eastern philosophy / mythology. Some see its beginnings in the first century BC, and others not until the second or third centuries AD. Like any philosophical system, it probably did not emerge full-blown or the scene in the eastern Mediterranean. We have noted before the syncretistic nature of many cultures there. Many and varied ideas had arrived, both with ardent proponents and with casual business people, along the trade routes that intersected in the region, where they merged and diverged in dizzying profusion. The idea was to keep one’s bases covered: a new idea, a new deity, could easily be added to the mix, (“just for good measure”), as in the Athenian altar “to an unknown god.” Across several centuries and cultures, Alexandrian, Persian, Jewish and other adaptations had emerged, with syncretistic manifestations appropriate to each. What follows is a grossly over-simplified summary.

The Gnostic system had strong intellectual appeal, being based on gnosis – “knowledge”. (#29). Adherents posited a remote supreme being, designated pleroma – much too “divine” to be able to interact with matter, which was viewed as “evil”. The creation and administration of the material universe was delegated to various levels of “emanations” known as “aeons” (yes, the same word as aion, noted in #55). These were thought to have “emerged” from the pleroma, in a sequence becoming gradually less “divine” until some of them eventually could interact with matter. Jesus was assigned a place, by these philosophers, somewhere among these lesser beings, or sometimes among the arche (called “principalities and powers” in the NT), who were thought to supervise earthly affairs. Also in the hierarchy of “emanations” were sophia “wisdom” and gnosis “knowledge” – sometimes personified, sometimes not – which were expected, by their skilled deployment, to “rescue” the “enlightened” from the evil bonds of the material universe. All these intermediaries had to be courted or placated by intricate systems of asceticism and legalism, in order for the requisite “wisdom and knowledge” to be revealed.
“Salvation” was defined as liberation from both matter and ignorance.
“Faith” (pistis) was acceptance of the concomitant dogma.
The “soul” (psuche) was a disembodied entity (which had been “rescued” from matter by this esoteric knowledge), rather than simple human life (#55).
Some of this bears a sobering resemblance to the ideas of people and groups today that focus on escaping from the “evil world” instead of following Jesus’ example of redeeming it! It is not difficult to see gnostic-inspired teaching as a possible source of the corruption of “pistis” (#1), either, and the increasing focus upon debates about fine points of “doctrine” rather than Kingdom living.

With this brief background, it is easy to appreciate Paul’s strategy in Eph.1:23, 3:19, 4:10,13; and Col.1:11-17 and 2:2-10. Holding up the Lord Jesus as himself the agent of creation (Col.1:16), as well as the chosen bodily dwelling (Col.2:9) of “all the fullness (pleroma) of deity”, the only way “everything holds together” (Col.1:17), and the repository of “ALL the treasures of wisdom (sophia) and knowledge (gnosis)” (Col.2:3), Paul neatly disposes of pretty much the entirety of the Gnostic or proto-gnostic hierarchy. “And you all,” he concludes, “have been made complete (the perfect passive participle of pleroo) in him – who is the head of all arche and authorities.” (Col.2:10).

There is no need either to adopt or to refute as “evil” any or all of the intermediaries invented by proponents of these – or any other – complicated systems. You already have all that there is, in your identification with Jesus! This is the Lord Jesus whom we serve, and who has called us not only to populate his Kingdom, but even to function as members of his very own Body! The earthly, physical body could not possibly be evil, if Jesus chose to inhabit one! The definitive answer to the advocates of any sort of syncretism is simply Jesus. Don’t bother to waste time and energy defining or discrediting any system’s individual elements. As Creator, Sustainer, and reigning Lord of all that exists, Jesus is clearly superior to it ALL. His people need no supplements!

“In him, all God’s completeness [fullness] was pleased to make its permanent residence” (Col.1:19) … “and you all have been fulfilled [made complete] in him!” (Col.2:10)

Thanks be to God!

From observing the “noise level” about the terms “Christian assurance” and “assurance of salvation” in some circles, one would expect to find the New Testament liberally salted with references to this word. Its appearance on the “search” lists indicates the likelihood that some folks are looking for ammunition to use in these battles. Well, people, you’re not going to find it in a careful word study.
The English word “assurance” only appears nine times, in any form, even in traditional translations. Once each, it is a (mis)translation of pistis (see W.S.#1) Ac.17:31 – against 239 renditions as “faith”, which isn’t much better – and pistoomai , II Tim.3:14, a verb form which has only a single New Testament appearance. Once – I Jn.3:19 – it is used for peitho (against 22x “persuade”, 8x “trust”, and 7x “obey”– W.S.#88) ; once – Ac.2:36 – for asphalos (against 2x for an arrest!); and once for sumbibazo –Ac.16:10 – where it does not parallel any of the four other uses of the word.
Four times it was the choice for plerophoria, the only word for which “assurance” is the only — or even the primary – traditional translation: Col.2:2, I Thes.1:15, Heb.6:11, and 10:22, in each of which “confidence” or “conviction” would suit just as well.
Not a single reference contains either a threat that some inadvertent misstep will cause one to “lose”, or a guarantee that, having once been sufficiently frightened to “raise his hand” in a “revival”, one will be permanently protected from ever “losing” his “salvation” (W.S.#5). Both caution (Heb.3:13-14) and reassurance (I Jn.3:19-21), are present, however.
So since responsible word study simply doesn’t have a dog in that fight, and since the concept of assurance, also labeled certainty, confidence, and “being sure”, is abundant, I invite you to lay down your weapons, and feast instead on the veritable banquet of encouragement that the Lord has provided for us. You can find additional studies on this subject in W.S.#1, pistis, and #36, elpis.

Plerophoria, mentioned above as the only word consistently rendered “assurance” by traditional translators, is classically defined as “certainty, fullness of assurance, complete satisfaction”. In the Colossians passage, Paul connects it to “an accurate understanding of God’s mystery, Christ”, which is developed as a result of “your hearts (being) encouraged and knit together in love” – the interaction of a congregation of Kingdom citizens. In I Thessalonians, he adds “miraculous power, and the Holy Spirit” as grounds for this “firm conviction”. His concern is the same as that expressed by Luke in his introduction, (using the verb form in 1:1, and asphaleian in 1:4), to convey the absolute certainty and veracity of the message of Jesus.

A similar idea is approached from a different angle by the use of peitho, only once rendered “assurance”, but 26x connected to “persuasion”. These are about evenly divided between attempts to convince someone (Mt.27:20, 28:14, Lk.16:31, 20:6;Ac.13:43, 14:19, 18:4, 19:8,26; 21:14, 26:28, 28:23, Rom.5:11), and expressions of confidence (Ac.26:26, Rom.8:38, 14:14, 15:14; II Cor.2:3, 5:10; Gal.1:10; Phil.1:25, 3:3; II Thes.3:4, I Tim.1:5, 12; Phm.21, Heb.6:9,11:13). The same word is used in other contexts regarding obedience (#88) and trust (#1).

Asphaleia, asphales, and asphalos, referring about equally to physical security (including arrest – Mk.14:44, jail – Ac.16:24, and the sealing of Jesus’ tomb – Mt.27:64,65,66) and certainty about facts (Ac.2:36, 21:34, 22:30, 25:26; Phil.3:1), are similarly divided in their classical usage: “safety, caution, legal security, steadfastness, soundness, (opp. risk)”.

Turning to the traditional word “sure”, we encounter a variety of terms, also.
Bebaios, classically “firm, steadfast, steady, durable, guaranteed, confirmed”, is used in reference to the promise of God (Rom.4:16, Heb.2:2, 9:17), the words of prophecy (II Pet.1:19), our hope/expectation of the fulfillment of both (Heb.3:6, 3:14, 6:19), and our own calling (II Pet.1:10) which latter is not automatic, but requires effort/ “diligence”!

Stereos, “firm, solid, solidified, settled”, is applied to God’s foundation (II Tim.2:19), constancy in faithfulness/loyalty (I Pet.5:9), and the “solid food” (Heb.5:12,14) intended for mature disciples.

Both ginosko (Lk.10:11, Jn.6:69) and oida (Rom.2:2, 15:29, Jn.16:30) – usually rendered “know” (W.S.#29) – are rarely rendered “be sure”.

“Confidence” represents tharrheo, “to be of good courage, to be unafraid, to be confident” (II Cor.5:6, 5:8, 7:16); pepoithesis, “trust, confidence, boldness” (II Cor.1:15, 8:22, 10:2; Eph.3:12, Phil.3:4), hupostasis , “origin, foundation, substructure, confidence, courage, resolution” (II Cor.11:17, 9:4, Heb.1:3, 11:1, 3:14), and parrhesia, “outspokenness, freedom of speech, liberality, lavishness, freedom of action, without fear”.
A treasured element of citizenship in the Athenian democracy, parrhesia appears in the New Testament with two traditional translations – another case where it is important to remember that “confidence” and “boldness” are the same word.

Boldness is not arrogance or self-promotion, but simply the confidence that is born of identification with the Kingdom! “Confidence” in the Lord to whom we belong (Ac.28:31, Heb.3:6, 10:35; I Jn.2:28, 3:21, 5:14) is the source of the “boldness” with which we may approach both the Lord of Glory himself (Eph.3:12, Phil.1:20, I Tim.3:13, Heb.4:16,10:19; I Jn.4:17), and others in his name (Ac.4:13,29; 9:29, 14:3, 18:26, 19:8).

Consequently, having followed brother Luke’s example and gotten our facts straight, and realized the resources cited by brother Paul of the power of the Holy Spirit and the support of fellow Kingdom citizens, we may live confidently in genuine “Christian assurance.”

“Let’s approach him (Jesus, our high priest), with a true heart, in abundant confidence, [or, complete faithfulness]” (Heb.10:23)
“Let’s hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation – for the one who made the promise is faithful!” (v.23)

Thanks be to God!

“Compassion” was one of the words that appeared several times on the “search” lists. This topic was addressed in Word Studies #59 – “mercy”, and #60 – “grace”, and the present study should be viewed as a supplement to those, to which I would encourage you to refer. There, you may recall, we (tentatively) concluded that “mercy” generally assumed some sort of merciful act or behavior, whereas “grace” appears more as a description of the character trait or motivation that results in generous action, although there is overlap in their use. “Compassion” probably falls somewhere between these two, bearing some of the “flavor” of each. All have their utmost manifestation in the life and ministry of the Lord Jesus, and all are expected to be replicated in the lives of his followers.

Splanchnizomai, the primary word translated “compassion”, seems at first glance a rather odd choice. Its primary classical use was in reference to the entrails of a sacrificed animal, or the powers of those individuals who were thought to be able to “read” future events by examining or consuming them! I suppose that its later reference to all of one’s inner organs as the seat of one’s emotions is no more repulsive than the modern English usage of “heart” or “guts” in a similar way. That might seem just as strange to folks unacquainted with our culture.

In the New Testament, splanchnizomai, which appears only a dozen times, is traditionally rendered “moved with compassion” 5 times, and “have compassion” 7 times. It is used only in the synoptic gospels, preceding accounts of Jesus’ healing (Mt.14:14, 20:34; Mk.1:41, 9:22), the raising of a young dead man (Lk.7:13), feeding people (Mt.15:32, Mk.8:2), and teaching crowds (Mt.9:36, Mk.6:34). It describes the attitude on the part of the protagonist in three parables: the master’s release of a debtor (Mt.18:27), the “good Samaritan” (Lk.10:33), and the prodigal son (Lk.15:20). Every occurrence of the word is immediately followed by an act expressing the compassion felt by the individual in question.

A few other words are also translated “compassion”.
Eleeo, treated in detail in #59, usually translated “mercy”, was rendered “compassion” three times: in Mt.18:33 regarding the debt noted above, Mk.5:19 – Jesus’ instructions to a healed man to tell the folks at home of God’s “compassion”/mercy to him, and Jude 22 regarding a disciple’s responsibility to rescue an errant fellow-disciple from self-destruction.
Oikteiro, of which the only New Testament use is Rom.9:15, is related to the noun and adjective forms universally translated “mercy” (also see #59).
Metriopatheo also used only once (Heb.5:2), refers to Jesus’ sympathetic understanding of our plight as a result of having shared our humanity. In this, it closely parallels
sumpatheo, also used only in Hebrews – 4:15 where it also refers to Jesus’ being able, in his function as high priest, to “sympathize” with our “infirmities”, and 10:34, where the readers are commended for their sharing in the sufferings of those imprisoned or otherwise persecuted for their faithfulness.
L/S defines sumpatheo, and its adjective form, sumpathes, as “a feeling of sympathy” (our English cognate is “sympathy”). Its etymological make-up, however, is more specific, combining sum- (a form of the preposition “with”), and pathe (“suffering,or misfortune”). This parallels the Latin “com-” (also “with, or together”), and passio, (suffering), which is the etymological source of “compassion”.
These seem to lean heavily toward a deeper involvement that simply “feeling sorry” for someone. They require sharing his distress to the point of strong motivation toward action to alleviate his suffering.

Only Peter uses the adjective form, sumpatheis – and he piles on four other descriptive terms to make sure we get the point. Addressing attitudes and behavior in the brotherhood (I Pet.3:8), he admonishes his readers: “Finally, all of you, be like-minded (homophrones), sympathetic (sumpatheis), loving the brethren (philadelphoi), compassionate (eusplanchnai), unassuming (tapeinophrones).

Peter is talking about a deep level of involvement here, far more than a pleasant Sunday morning handshake! Of the descriptive words he chooses, not only sumpatheis, but also homophrones – “of the same mind” (see #96), philadelphoi “familial love”(#12, #87), and tapeinophrones “humble-minded” (#14), are used only here in the New Testament, although related words are referenced in the word studies noted. Please refer to these for more detailed discussion, as all are important, if a “colony of the Kingdom” is to function as intended.
Only eusplanchnai appears anywhere else. You can easily see its relation to our primary word, splanchnizomai. The prefix, eu- denotes “good” or “well”. L/S says “good-hearted”. The single other use is in Eph.4:32, where Paul combines it with chrestoi (kind) and charizomai (gracious -#60, forgiving-#7) in describing interactions in the brotherhood.

So perhaps we should characterize “sympathy / compassion” as “grace / mercy” with shoe-leather under it. They appear to be coming at the same general idea from slightly different directions: a gracious character trait, of which the Lord Jesus provides the prime example, that motivates both sharing a deep understanding and concern for another’s condition, and action – doing whatever is possible to alleviate his difficulty, disability, or distress.
The aggregate represents an essential element of the brotherhood shared by Kingdom citizens – and an assignment guaranteed to keep us VERY busy!

While we are talking about buzz-words, let’s look at a couple more – “church planting” and “church growth”. It is no surprise that neither of these phrases can be found in the New Testament. However, there are a few references to the verbs, phuteuo, to plant, as well as speiro, to sow; and auxano, to grow. The words themselves are not at all ambiguous. An examination of their subjects and objects, however, can be instructive. (One “plants” cuttings or immature seedlings, but “sows” seed.)

Most of the synoptic uses of phuteuo are in parables referring to the planting of a vineyard. Paul uses it in a similar way in I Cor.9:7. The concept of “vineyard” is interesting, and could be explored later. For our purpose here, we will merely observe that the person who did the planting did so in the expectation that the vines would grow to maturity and bear fruit (in that order!)
Two other occurrences are found in Jesus’ matter-of-fact response to the Pharisees’ taking offense at his teaching (Mt.15:13), one (Lk.17:28) to the “business as usual” going on in Sodom before its destruction, one (Lk.13:6) to the unfruitful fig tree, and one (Lk.17:6) to Jesus’ enigmatic statement about the power of faithfulness. In his letter to Corinth, Paul uses the figure of “planting” and “watering” (I Cor.3:6,7,8) to describe his and Apollos’ work among the people there. He does not specify what he “planted.”

The references to “sowing”, on the other hand, both in synoptic accounts (Mt.13:3-19, 13:24-30, 13:31-32; Lk.8:5), and in John’s (Jn.4:36-37), focus understandably on the seeds rather than plants. And Jesus very kindly illuminates the details for us. In Mt.13:37, “The one who sows the seed is the Son of Man, and the good seeds are the sons of the Kingdom” (in contrast to the weeds); and in Mk.4:14, “The sower sows the Word,” or (Lk.8:11) “The seed is the Word of God.”

The epistles are less specific. Paul speaks (I Cor.9:11) of his having “sowed spiritual things” for them; of planting seeds as an illustration of the difference between one’s “natural” and “resurrection” body (I Cor.15:36-44); of “reaping” what one “sows” (Gal.6:7-8) in terms of one’s chosen manner of life; and with respect (II Cor.9:6-10) to generosity in sharing one’s resources. James concludes a treatise about consistent living (3:18) with “a crop of justice [righteousness] is sown in peace, by those who make peace.”

And that, folks, is all that is said about “planting”!
When anything is planted, of course, it is with the expectation of a harvest. But there are only three specific identifications of what is “planted” with respect to the Christian message: “the word / word of God”, “the sons of the Kingdom”, and “justice.” Paul adds, “What you sow is not the body that will be, but you sow a bare seed …But God gives it a body, as he wishes!” (I Cor.15:37,38).
“The church” is NOT what is planted! It is profoundly to be hoped that these plantings will result in the formation of “colonies of the Kingdom”, but that remains to be seen.

The intermediate step, naturally or supernaturally, is growth. But here too, both physical and spiritual expectation differs sharply from common rhetoric. You don’t pick grapes the first year you plant cuttings, nor harvest wheat immediately after grain is sown. What is planted must first grow to maturity, before bearing fruit. Creatures, or people, must also be nurtured to maturity (at least, they should!) before they are expected to reproduce! (Please see W.S.#13 and #64)

Some of the seeds will sprout, and some won’t (Mt.13, Mk.4, Lk.8). The same word, auxano, is used of the growth of a child (Lk.1:80, 2:40), of lilies (Mt.6:28), of seeds (Mt.13:32), of the brotherhood (Eph.2:21), and even of the word of God (Ac.12:24, 19:20)! Peter (I Pet.2:2) admonishes his readers to “grow up!”, and in II Pet.3:18, to “Grow in grace, and knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Paul advocates “increase / growth” (same word) in “the fruits of justice” (II Cor.9:10), “your faithfulness” (II Cor.10:!5), “the knowledge of God” (Col.1:10), “the increase / growth of God” (Col.2:19), and “to grow up into him (Jesus)” (Eph.4:15).
The only place in the New Testament where “growth” refers to an increase in population is Stephen’s sermon in Ac.7:17, where he refers to the Israelites in Egypt.

“The church” is what happens while all this “growth” is taking place! As Paul reminded the folks at Corinth, “You all are God’s farm!” (I Cor.3:9). It is the atmosphere in which growth happens. But there is not a single reference to “grow” with “church”as its subject – or its object.

I will conclude with a look at the description of a time when the “population” of the church did increase dramatically, but none of the “planting” or “growing” words appear. This is the scene described in Ac.2:42-47.

A huge group had joined their fellowship at Pentecost, but nobody seems to have immediately organized a lecture tour for Peter, whose sermon had precipitated such a large response. Instead of launching a splashy media campaign (yes, there were “media” in the first century – that was the function of a “herald” kerux) , the group simply continued (Ac.2:42) “paying eager attention to the apostles’ teaching, to sharing, to the breaking of bread, and to prayers.” Luke goes onto describe their sharing of resources, and notes (but does not detail) the experience of “wonders and signs”. Meeting “in the temple and from house to house” (v.46) daily, they were simply praising God, enjoying each other, and being gracious toward all the people!
Luke’s concluding statement is the kicker: “And the Lord added those who were being rescued [“saved”]to their community, every day!”

The church grew – simply by BEING the church!
They were not trying to “sell” a theology or philosophy, or to start “a new religion”.
There was no need to mount an “outreach campaign”.

They only needed to become God’s “demonstration farm”, so that folks could see the Kingdom in action.
If people today could see a demonstration of “the real thing”, that just might happen again.

I would love to be a part of a group of folks willing to try it!

Some years ago, I tried to comfort and encourage a very earnest young man, who was deeply distressed at having been sharply criticized by the “superiors” in the corporate structure of his denomination (a problem addressed in chapter 6 of Citizens of the Kingdom) for failing to succeed at their stated goal of “building churches.” Neither he nor those “superiors” had ever noticed that Jesus said that was his job (Mt.16:18), or that he had never subsequently delegated it to anyone else. I don’t think that observation helped him much; he had been pretty thoroughly indoctrinated into a “corporate” model of “church”, a model that exalts a few and discourages most, and bears no resemblance whatever to the New Testament church.

Because, of course, to Jesus, the “building” process had absolutely nothing to do with either impressive-looking real estate, or the weekly entertainment of an audience of thousands of admirers.

The theme of “building” does appear, in at least four different aspects, in the New Testament narratives, but with a distinctly different flavor. Most of these occurrences employ a form of oikodomeo, of which classical uses include “to build a house, to design or fashion something, to construct on a foundation (physically or philosophically), to edify, or to be emboldened.” The other verb, kataskeuazo, “to equip or furnish, construct or build, prepare, arrange, establish”, appears only ten times, and refers primarily to physical construction, although that sense is broadened in four references to “preparing the way” of the Lord (see #102). All the rest are in Hebrews, and reference the old, obsolete ways.

Out of 24 uses of oikodomeo, 14 refer simply to physical construction, and most of those describe activity under the old covenant: Noah’s ark, the temple, a synagogue, the tombs of the prophets. The rest are in parables (Mt.7:24-26, Lk.6:48,49; Mt.21:33, Mk.12:1, Lk.12:18) except for the physical location of Nazareth (Lk.4:29). Other than Jesus’ then-enigmatic statements (Mt.26:61, Mk.14:58, Jn.2:20) and reactions to them, in which he was referring to his resurrection, the only gospel use of oikodomeo in a sense other than physical construction is his word in Mt.16:18, “I will build my church.”
But after Pentecost, everything changes. The transition is marked by the fulfillment of the event described in Ps.118:22 and quoted in Mt.21:42, Mk.12:10, Lk,20:17, Ac.4:11, I Pet.2:7, where, in each case, the participial form, “builders”, is used. The power of this figure is lost for those who are unacquainted with ancient construction, due to the mistaken use of the word “cornerstone” in most translations.
A cornerstone, today, is strictly ornamental. It is usually formally added at the dedication of a building – its space and shape carefully prepared beforehand and left vacant until its ceremonial installation. The scene described in scripture, however, is that of the construction of the ubiquitous Roman arch. Its keystone, a carefully fashioned, wedge-shaped component at the very top, holds the whole thing together. Without it, the arch would collapse, and the whole building with it. The message is, that the (self-appointed) builders were clueless – and discarded the most crucial component because of its odd shape, ignorant that it was, in fact, absolutely essential. Both the phrase “the head (kephale) of the corner”, and Isaiah’s akrogoniaion, which combines akros – high, with gonia, – knee, or corner, make it obvious that the stone in question, which is identified with the Lord Jesus, is ON TOP, and necessary to the entire structure, not a decorative “dedication” or memorial!

With Jesus himself holding everything together, as Paul asserts in Col.1:17, the figure changes completely. The construction materials, “you all”, are now “living stones” (I Pet.2:5), being built into a “spiritual house” and a “dedicated priesthood.” Paul chimes in also with plural you‘s in every case: Eph.2:20 – “you all also are being built on the foundation of apostles and prophets”, Col.2:7 – “rooted and built up in him (Jesus)”, Eph.2:22 – “in him, you all are being built together into a permanent dwelling place for God, in the Spirit.” (These latter references use prefixed forms of oikodomeo.) Notice the passive voice of the verbs. The “building materials are being acted upon, they are not the agents of the action.

Of the six uses of the noun form, oikodome, building, three refer to the temple complex, which Jesus expected to be destroyed – “not one stone left upon another.” Three refer to the new orientation: I Cor.3:9 – “You all are God’s building”, II Cor.5:1 – “a dwelling made without hands, a home from God”, Eph.2:21 – “the whole building grows into a holy temple in the Lord!” Here we see a transition to active verb forms.

It remains to consider the other lexical domain of oikodomeo and its related words, usually translated “edify”. This is an admissible choice, but only if one remembers that it is the same word as the one translated “build”. Unlike the former group of references, most of these are active. And please remember, they are all from the epistles – letters which were written to groups that are already committed to the Lord, though at varying stages of maturity. The task of “building” is intended to be shared by the brotherhood – but (I Cor.3:10) “Each one must watch out how he builds,” and later in the same letter (ch.14), Paul details both hazards and assets, emphasizing (v.12) “seek to excel in what will edify the congregation.” Whether the question involves the use of tongues and prophecy, or any of the other group activities listed in v.26-31, the mutual goal is that “all may learn and all be encouraged” (v.31).
The same concern occupies Eph.4:12 – God’s people are to be equipped, by workers with varied responsibilities, (v.11), to all be involved in “building up the Body of Christ” toward maturity (v.13). The goal is enabling the “whole Body” – v.16 – for “building itself up in love.” One’s speech (v.29) is to be focused on “building what is needed” in order to “give grace to the listeners.” Similar instructions are found in I Cor.8:1, 10:23; I Thes.5:11, Rom.15:2, II Cor.10:8, 13:10; I Tim.1:4.

Conspicuously absent is any reference to real estate, or to attracting crowds of curious spectators. The direct object of “build” is overwhelmingly focused upon “the congregation”, “yourselves”, “the Body of Christ”, and “each other”!

“Building the church” is the Lord’s job. Mt.16:18, with which we began, is the only place where “church” is the direct object of the verb, “to build.”
“Building up” each other is our job; as well as being responsible to present ourselves to the Master Builder in order to be built into the Body through which he can continue to redeem his world.

Building / edifying seems to include any activity that serves to enhance the faithfulness of a Body of disciples.

May we continually build and encourage each other to that end!

Well, folks, it has finally happened!

Dan and I pulled a couple marathon sessions over the weekend, and as of tonight, if you look under “downloads”, you will find:

— the latest, corrected version of the Pioneers’ New Testament

— corrected and augmented Translation Notes

— a combined, indexed document containing the first 100 Word Studies
I still hope to do a Greek index, if I can ever figure out how to do accents, breath marks, and subscripts on the computer.

All of these are in Adobe format, which anyone can download to a memory stick and take to an instant-printer, and have bound in any way you choose.   (I had a working copy made and bound for about $25 a year or so ago.)

Please note that the copyright allows you to make copies for your personal use (or to give away);  but any sale, or other use of the material for the profit of any individual or group is expressly excluded, without written permission from us.

I take very seriously the admonition that the Lord’s message is NOT to be “peddled for profit”.  I hope you will honor that choice.  If I can make the work of more than 30 years available for free, I think you should be able to share it with the click of your mouse for free.  “Freely you have received, freely give.”

The 13,400+ times that someone has made use of the material offered here, are amazing reassurance to me that the Lord has had his hand on this project from “before the beginning.”  I give thanks for each one of you, as well as for the monumental amount of work and effort that Dan has made on its behalf.

I still welcome your feedback on the “comments” option on the blog site.

Thanks for your interest.

May we continue to help each other toward faithfulness!

Love, Ruth