The Pioneers’ New Testament

A favorite theme of the crowd who try to flaunt their superior wisdom by thundering authoritatively, “THE GREEK SAYS…..” is the canned, neatly-sorted lecture on “different words for different kinds of love”. The only problem, other than the fact that this represents nobody’s original first-hand study, is that it is flat-out mistaken, as even a minimal perusal of New Testament usage makes abundantly clear.

Agape, which such speakers effusively characterize as “self-giving, Godly, sacrificial love”, is the word used (in verb form) in Lk.6:32-35 and parallels – “even sinners love those who love them”; in Mt.6:24 – a slave juggling two masters; and in Jesus’ denunciation of the Pharisees (Lk.11:43) “loving the highest seats in the synagogues,” and (Jn.12:43) “the praise of men rather than God!” So let’s back off from the artificially created stereotypes, and take a sober look at the background of the words. Incidentally, only two words, not three, are used in the New Testament.

L/S lists, for agapao, “to greet with affection, to show affection” (Homer), “to caress or pet” (Plutarch), “to be fond of, to prize, or to desire” (Plato),“to be pleased or contented” (Homer), “to tolerate or put up with” (Plato), and “to be fond of doing something” (Aristotle). The noun form, agape, which some “scholars” mistakenly insist “never occurs in pagan writings”, according to the same lexicon has “the love of husband and wife” (Philodemos, 1^st Century BC) as its first entry; and then moves on to (LXX and NT) “the love of God for man or man for God, brotherly love, charity, or alms”, but notes that it was also a title for the Egyptian goddess, Isis!

The same reference work lists for the other word, phileo, (the one supposed to mean “only friendship”), includes “to love or regard with affection; the love of gods for men, or men for children or animals; to welcome or entertain a guest; the love of man and wife; to be fond of doing something”. If these lists look nearly parallel, it just might be because they are! The noun form, philos, in the New Testament occurs only as “friend” (W.S. #22). This may be applied casually, but L/S also quotes Aristotle, “A friend is another self!”

Both words are used by Jesus in the gospels of the mutual love between Father and Son (agape – Jn.17:26, 3;35, 15:9; phileo – Jn.5:20); of Jesus’ love for his disciples and others (agape – Jn.13:1, 14:21, chapters 15 and 17; phileo – Jn 11:3,36); and of Jesus’ admonitions regarding his people’s love for him (agape – Lk.7:47, Jn.8:42, 14:15, 24; 17; phileo – Mt.10:37, Jn.16:27). However, phileo is far less common (only 22 x total) than agape – 86 x as “love” and 27 x as “charity” and agapao 135 x.

Instructions regarding the love of one’s neighbor (Mt.19:19, 22:33-39, Rom.13:8-10, Jas.2:8), one’s enemy (Mt.5:44, Lk.6:27), and “the brethren,”or “one another” (Jn.13:34-35, 15:12, 15:17; Rom.12:9, 13:8; Gal.5:13, Eph.1:15,4:2; Col.1:4, 2:2; I Thes.3:12, 4:9; Heb.10:24, I Pet.1:22,2:17, and most of I Jn.) consistently use a form of agapao.

One rather surprising observation – also involving both words – is the choice of the tenses of verbs and participles. References to the love of either the Father or Jesus toward people are almost exclusively in the aorist tense. I’m not sure what to make of this. In some cases, it is a historical reference, which is understandable; or mentioned as the motivation for some action, as in “because he loved” (aorist)…he gave his Son…” But I was surprised to discover only four places where this “godly love” is expressed in the present (continuous) tense: Jn.16:27, Heb.12:6 and its parallel in Rev.3:19; and Rev.1:5. I think it is significant that two of those four declare, “Those whom I love, I discipline!” (Heb.12 and Rev.3) – where both words are present (continuous) tense.

When disciples are instructed to love, however, the forms are almost uniformly present. Is this because such love (again, both agapao and phileo) requires constant effort and attention? Because it is the consistent response of a permanently transformed life? Or simply because it is expected to become a character trait, a habitual behavior? Or have you another suggestion?

Another frequent theme is the appearance of these words in conditional clauses: a grammatical structure introduced by “if” (ei, ean), “in order that” (hina , hos) , or “because” (dia touto, hoti). In fact, I have found no reference at all to the popularly-touted phrase “unconditional love.” I’m sure that its perpetrators mean well: they intend to be “welcoming”, and they are correct that Jesus called many folks whose lives were less than exemplary. But they forget that Jesus himself also says plainly, “This is why the Father loves me, because I am laying down my life” (Jn.10:17), and (Jn.16:27) “The Father loves you because you have loved me!” In the longer discussion in Jn.14:15-24 he repeatedly predicates the promise of his own and the Father’s presence and love upon “following my instructions”! And in Jn.15:9-17, it depends upon the disciples’ replicating his love in their own interaction. Paul (I Cor.2:9, 8:13, II Cor.9:7), James (1:12), and John (I Jn.3 and 4), all assume that the life Jesus offers must be reciprocated with loving obedience in order to be actualized.

Love in the brotherhood is to be patterned after Jesus’ own example (Jn.13:34, 15:12,17; Eph.5:2, I Thes.4:9, I Pet.1:22, 2:17, and all of John’s first letter). The same pattern is to be seen in Christian marriage (Eph.5:25-33, Col.3:19). Is the church’s failure to “love as Jesus loved” partly responsible for the failure of so many homes? The church was intended to set the example for husbands and wives to follow! Where else can anyone learn “another kind of love?” It may be easier (for churches and families) to “split” than to commit to the hard work of faithful love – but it does not follow the New Testament pattern.

Like so many things we have examined before, perhaps here too we need to check our focus: to replace nit-picking the non-existent intricacies of the words with careful attention to the object we choose for either agapao or phileo. Is it directed toward “the praise of men” (Jn.12:43), “the highest seats” (Lk.11:43), and other elements of “this present world” (II Tim.4:10), or toward the Lord Jesus, his Father, and his Kingdom?

In I Thes.4:9, Paul writes that “you yourselves are being taught by God to love each other.” Jesus, of course, provided the ultimate example (Jn.14 and 15), and much later, John (II Jn.6) succinctly defines the “kind of love” he was talking about. This is how the Body is created (Eph.3:17), and is intended to grow (Eph.4:15-16; Col.2:2), and function (Gal.5:13 and Eph.4:2).
“May the Lord guide your [our] hearts into the love of God, and the endurance (supplied by) Christ!” (II Thes.3:5)

Amen!

“The world” has long been a difficult and ambiguous concept for people and groups seeking to be faithful. We are assured that “God so loved” it (Jn.3:16), but warned that we aren’t supposed to (I Jn.2:15). Jesus wants the Good News of his Kingdom preached “into all the world” (Mk.16:15), but promises to “show himself” (Jn.14:19-22) only to his disciples, and specifically not “to the world.” The dilemma Paul describes in I Cor.5:9-13 is a constant challenge for the people of God, of whom, although they must continue to interact with “the world” in which they live, a much higher standard of behavior is expected. How do we sort this out?

For starters, we need to recognize that the English word, “world”, represents three vastly different Greek words.
Oikoumene, used only 14x, classically referred to any inhabited region. Later, it was narrowed to the Greek world as opposed to “barbarian” (non-Greek) territory, and later still, to the Roman Empire. The reference is primarily political (Lk.2:1, 4:5), cultural (Ac.17:6, 19:27), or geographical (Ac.11:28, 24:5, Rom.10:18, Rev.3:10,6:14), although it is also noted that “the whole world” is deceived by Satan (Rev.12:9), judged by the Lord Jesus (Ac.17:31), and subjected (Heb.2:5) to his sovereignty.

Aion (32x), on the other hand, with its adjectival form aionios (61x), had no classical reference to “the world” at all. L/S lists “a lifetime; an age or generation; a long, but clearly marked-out space of time; an epoch”, and for the adjective, “perpetual”, or “a title held for one’s lifetime.” Even Trench, who usually endorses traditional versions, laments the translation “world” rather than “age” because of the resultant failure to distinguish aion from kosmos, which he characterizes as the difference between measuring time, or space, noting that aion is the only one ever spoken of as “ending”! (“Eternal”???) Thayer notes Plato’s and Aristotle’s use of aion as “life force”, and says that the idea of “perpetuity” only entered with Hebrew rabbinic influence. Herodotus and others considered that numerous “ages” (aion) comprised “eternity”, for which he used the same term.
A similar thought is seen in New Testament references to “this age” (Mt.12:32), “the age to come” (Mk.10:30, Lk.18:30), and “the end of the age” (Mt.13:39, 24:3, 28:20). Traditional versions use “world” for all of these.
“This present age” carries considerable negative connotation, especially when referring to its “children” (Lk.16:8, 20:24) being preoccupied with their own affairs (Mt.13:22, I Tim.4:10), with its being ruled by malevolent powers (I Cor.2:8, II Cor.4:4, Eph.6:12), and itself characterized as “evil” (Gal.1:4). The faithful are cautioned not to be patterned after its ways (Rom.12:2), nor to be overly impressed by its philosophers (I Cor.1:20, 3:18), but to live carefully (Tit.2:12) in order to be found worthy (Lk.20:35) of the age yet to come.
In view of the preponderance of temporary implications of aion, it is puzzling why the adjectival form has almost exclusively been translated “eternal” and popularly understood to mean “endless”. I rather suspect that the adjective probably refers more to the quality than the quantity of whatever noun it modifies, but this whole idea should have serious further study by a faithful brotherhood. It is beyond the scope of this brief summary. At the very least, aion , age, should be carefully divided from the more general term “world”.  Please see also #28.

Kosmos, the most frequently used term (187x), also represents the greatest variety of classical usage. L/S lists “order, or good behavior (Aristotle); “the natural order of things” (Herodotus), or “the order of government – especially the constitution of Sparta”; “the order of the universe (Pythagoras) or “the earth as opposed to the heavens or the underworld”; “ornament or honor” (Homer); or, among various philosophers, “any specific region of the universe or its inhabitants.” Not until the New Testament writers did the term acquire the negative connotations of a kingdom of evil, or estrangement from God.
The context usually reveals whether the use of kosmos intends simply the physical creation and/or its human inhabitants (Mt.13:15,38; 26:13; Lk.12:20, Jn.1:9, 6:14, 16:28, 21:25; Ac.17:24, Rom.1:8, I Cor.14:10, Eph.1:4, Heb.4:3), people ignorant of God’s ways (Mt.5:14, 26:13; Jn.1:9, 3:19,14:31, 16:8, I Cor.1:20-28, 3:19; Gal.4:3, Eph.2:2,12; I Jn.3:1); overt antagonism toward Jesus, his people, or his Kingdom (Mt.18:7, Jn.1:10, 3:19, 7:4-7, 12:31, 14:30,15:18-19, 16:11,20,33; Rom.3:19, I Cor.4:9-13, Col.2:8, Heb.11:7, 38; Jas.4:4, and all of II Peter), or the contrast between the faithful and their surroundings (Mt.5:14, 16:26,Lk.12:30,Jn.12:25, 14:22,27; all of Jn.17, 18:36-37; I Cor.2:12,5:10, 6:2; I Cor.7:31-34,11:32; Gal.6:14, Phil.2:15; Heb.11:38; all of James, I Jn.3, 5:19).
Please note that these lists are not exhaustive. Feel free to add to them.

There are many instances describing Jesus’ own relation to the kosmos. He is its Creator (Jn.1:10), its Light (Jn.1:9, 8:12, 9:5, 12:46), he takes away its failures [“sins”] (Jn.1:29) – and see W.S.#7, he is its Savior (Jn.4:42, 3:17, 12:46, I Tim.1:15 – W.S.#5. He came to give it life (Jn.6:33), and to give his life in its behalf (Jn.6:51) – note that these are different grammatical constructions. He was sent by the Father into the world (Jn.10:36, Heb.10:5), in order to speak to the world from the Father (Jn.8:26), for judgment – W.S.#9 & 10 – (Jn.9:39); to reconcile – W.S.#69 – it to himself (II Cor.5:19). His kingdom is neither derived from nor controlled by the world (Jn.18:36-37), but he has overcome the world (Jn.16:33). It is all subject to him (I Cor.3:22)!

This lends a very sobering weight to John’s summary statement to the faithful in I Jn.4:17: “We are just like he is, in the world!” And if we look at descriptions of faithful disciples in relation to the world, the similarity is striking. Mt.5:14: “You all are the light of the world!” Mk.16:15: “As you all are going into the world, preach the good news!” Jn.17:14: “The world hated them, because they are not from [do not belong to] the world, just as I am not from [do not belong to] the world”. I Cor.2:12: “We did not receive the spirit of the world, but the Spirit that is from God!” You can find many more.
At the same time, we must remember that “the world” is also God’s good creation, which, like all of his creation, can be used rightly or wrongly (see previous post, and chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom). It’s “wisdom”, (I Cor. 1-3) apart from his, is “foolishness”, but its “goods” (I Jn.3:17) are to be used for the welfare of the brotherhood. Although our time of identification with the world and its ways is represented as negative, and in the past tense (II Cor.1:12 and elsewhere), it is that very “world” that Jesus came to “reconcile to himself” (II Cor.5:19), and which will eventually be fully subject to his reign (Rev.11:15)! Another place where it is the focus that matters?

Perhaps this constitutes at least a partial resolution to the dilemma regarding John’s statements with which we began, of God’s love for the world (Jn.3:16) and his warning against love for the world (I Jn.2:15). The same word – agapao – is used in both places (we will deal with that in a later post), but the form in the first is aorist (past, “snapshot”) tense, and the latter a present (continuous) tense. I think this is probably significant, but am not sure of the implication. Does anyone have a suggestion? John’s own elaboration in I Jn.4:9,14,17 may offer some assistance. James (4:4) treats a similar idea in terms of “friendship”.

It may, however, be “on purpose” that the concept of “the world” is so difficult to nail down.
John’s “we are just like he is in the world” may be intended as a perennial challenge to us as his people – his functioning Body – to discern together, in every situation, the specifics of that responsibility.
Faithfully representing its (and our) Creator, Owner, and Sovereign, may we walk kindly and confidently through his world.

“The Word became flesh, and lived [camped out] among us!” (Jn.1:14)

How can anyone who is aware of what else John has just said about “the Word”, and to whom it refers, possibly accept the NIV translators’ obsessive use of “sinful nature” as their preferred translation of sarx, “flesh”? No, they do not use it in this reference, of course: this is a classic case of the blatant manipulation of the message by “selective translation”, which is not truly translation at all! How can an academically honest “translator” justify arbitrarily adjusting the text, to support a preconceived “doctrinal” conclusion?

Homer, Hippocrates, and many others classically used sarx as a synonym for soma, “body” (see previous post). Bauer succinctly defines it as “the material that covers the bones of a human or animal”, and L/S adds “the pulp of a fruit”! Classical, LXX, and New Testament writers all refer to “flesh and blood” as evidence of genuine humanity. Jesus himself used it as proof of the reality of his resurrection (Lk.24:39)! A person’s provenance “according to the flesh” is simply his genealogy. Bauer, L/S, and Trench all note that the reference is to the physical, natural order of things or people, including their physical abilities, limitations, or illnesses, as well as the seat of their affections. This sometimes includes procreation (Jn.1:13), but not with any “sinful” connotations. It is for these reasons that I have deemed “human” or “human nature” to be more accurate translations of sarx. Bauer also notes that the LXX attaches no negative aspect to sarx, although Epicurus (3^rd.century BC) does, considering it inferior to the pneuma (spirit) or psuche / nous (mind).
The characterization of God-ordained marriage as “becoming one flesh” is a gracious gift, not an accusation. This is even more obvious in Paul’s admonition that such a relationship be carefully and responsibly guarded, both in I Cor.6:16-17 where “body” and “flesh” are used interchangeably, and in Eph.5:29-31.

Genealogical references are common in the New Testament – Jn.3:6, Rom.1:3, 4:1, 9:3,5,8; 11:14; I Cor.10:18, Gal.4:23, Eph.2:11, Phil.3:4, Heb.2:14, 12:9 – as are references to simple human experience or frailty – Mt.26:41 (where Jesus calls “the flesh” “weak”, not “evil”!), Lk.3:6, Jn.8:15, Ac.2:31, Rom.6:19, I Cor.1:26, 29; 7:28; II Cor.4:11, 5:16, 7:5, 12:7; Gal.1:16, 4:13; Phil.1:22, Col.2:1,5; Heb.5:7. None of these carry overtly moral connotations.

There are occasions, of course, where the faithful are warned to be careful where they focus their attention. It is one thing to be aware of one’s “human nature”, and even to accept or acknowledge its limitations or weaknesses, and quite another to allow one’s thoughts and behavior to be ruled by it.
We are instructed to “put off” (Col.2:11) – and here, the majority text does not include either of the “sin” words, but uses both sarx and soma in the genitive case, which is the reason for my rendering the phrase “putting away the body’s human nature” rather than the traditional rendering, “the body of sin”. We are  warned against (Col.2:23) “the gratifying of the human nature [flesh] and (Eph.2:3) its passions”; but we are also encouraged to see that Jesus’ own life be “revealed in our mortal flesh” (II Cor.4:11), and to govern “the life I now live in the flesh” by Jesus’ own faithfulness (Gal.2:20)!

It is no secret that “flesh” and “spirit” are in competition – sometimes severely – for our attention and our loyalty (Gal.5:13-19), but we are not helpless pawns in this game. “The one who is cultivating his human nature [flesh], from that human nature will reap decay; but the one who is cultivating the spirit, will reap eternal life from the Spirit” (Gal.6:8). Or, as one student paraphrased it, “you don’t plant corn and expect to pick beans!”

For a broader perspective on the concept of “human nature”, both its positive and negative potential, please refer to chapter 3 of Citizens of the Kingdom. The human – nature and all – was a part of the creation that its holy Creator deliberately pronounced “very good”! But, also like the rest of creation, it has not always been put to its intended use. Hence the need for a new creation (II Cor.5:17), which has been richly provided in the Lord Jesus, who not only embodies it, but enables his people to do likewise!

The New Testament writers take great pains to establish the true humanity of the Lord Jesus. The confession that “Jesus Christ has come in the flesh” (I Jn.4:2,3, and II Jn.7) is held to be the acid test of faithfulness! The writer to the Hebrews repeatedly asserts that this was absolutely necessary in order for Jesus to accomplish our redemption (Heb.2:14, 5:7, 9:14, 10:20). Peter (I Pet.3:18, 4:1,2) echoes that thought, and Paul (Eph.2:15, Col.1:22) adds that this was the only way the Lord could unite Jewish and Gentile believers. John’s whole prologue (Jn.1:1-18), as well as the first paragraph of his first letter, targets the amazing, almost too-good-to-be-true reality of what has come to be called “the Incarnation” – a word derived from the Latin equivalent, carnis, of the Greek sarx, and related to the English “carnal”, which has suffered the same distortions as “flesh”. Lexically, there is nothing inherently evil in any of these words, which simply refer to ordinary natural things or situations. “Carnally minded” (Rom.8:6), does not mean “evil-minded,” but simply having one’s attention focused on the wrong part of human life. It is applied to ordinary [unredeemed] people (I Cor.1:3-4), weapons (II Cor.10:4), commands (Heb.7:16), ceremonies (Heb.9:10), and “things” (Rom.15:27, I Cor.9:11), as opposed to others that are transformed by being deliberately focused on the Lord.

It is that very “ordinariness” that makes Jesus’ willing identification with our human condition so overwhelming. Paul marvels at Jesus’ willingness to “empty himself” of all his divine prerogatives (Phil.2:6-8) for our benefit, and holds that attitude up as an example for the faithful (2:5). Hebrews 2:9 and 2:14-18 elaborate on the same theme. Jesus is able to come to our rescue and serve as our example precisely because he himself has “been there, done that” (Heb.2:10-16), and emerged triumphant!

The word became flesh, and lived among us! – and continues to do so, as he promised, in his living Body! (W.S.#84)
Thanks be to God!

There are few single words that have engendered the controversy and misunderstanding that has long surrounded the term “body”, and at the same time suffered an equivalent lack of attention to its major New Testament uses. (Another word in the same category will follow.)
Out of the 145 occurrences of soma in the New Testament, more than half of which refer either to a lifeless corpse (25 x) or the physical body of an ordinary person (51 x), the greatest abuse has occurred by the co-opting of a single phrase which appears only one single time into a complicated “doctrine” which then takes on a life of its own. Three examples will suffice, though I am sure you can find others.

1. At least as early as medieval times, and even in some of the second and third century “church fathers”, devout people lit upon Paul’s lament in Romans 7 of a persistent problem in his own experience, as if it were an endorsement of the dualism that had pervaded eastern mysticism for millennia: the assumption that anything connected with the physical body (or any other material thing) was inherently evil. Although anyone who takes faithfulness seriously is bound to feel that way on occasion, such an assumption is directly contrary to the majority testimony of Scripture. Such folks have chosen to ignore totally Paul’s surrounding admonitions (Rom.6:6,12; 8:10) regarding the total transformation of mortal life accomplished by Jesus’ resurrection, and substituted all sorts of ascetic practices, which Paul had already summarily dismissed as worthless (Col.2:23 and elsewhere) for achieving “holiness”.

2. I Peter 2:24, a portion of a larger series of quotations from Isaiah and other ancient prophets, is the only New Testament statement directly connecting Jesus’ body with “sins” (hamartia, “failures”, not paraptoma “deliberate transgressions” – see W.S.#7). This brief quote has metastasized into a complex “doctrine” that posits a vindictive, vengeful God who demands capital punishment for every conceivable infraction or error – which notion Jesus himself actively opposed (see John 8). It is true that skillful manipulators can cherry-pick “verses” from Romans to “prove” almost anything they choose, but simple integrity demands the inclusion of the whole message. These folks choose to ignore the many more numerous statements (Heb.2:14-15, Rom.5:10-11, 21; Rom.6:4) that the glorious accomplishment of Jesus’ death – and resurrection – was to destroy both death and people’s fear of its perpetrator!

3. The repeated references to the scene at the Last Supper (Mt.26:26, Mk.14:22, Lk.22:19, I Cor.10:16-17, and 11:24-29), regarding which centuries of “theologians” have demonstrated that the political prevarications of the 1990’s regarding “what the meaning of ‘is‘ is”, are not at all original!
Jesus frequently used the same sentence structure when explaining his parables (“the seed is the Word”, “the harvest is the end of the age”, etc.) that he used when he told his disciples, “This is my Body”. In each case, “this is” functions as a simple synonym for “this represents”. Time and energy spent arguing the details of some sort of magical transformation of simple food, or its supposed supernatural power, would be much better devoted to exploring the task of becoming the Body of which he spoke!

Historically, soma was a very versatile word. In Homer, it referred exclusively to dead bodies, but later, in the 5^th century BC, it was used by Pindarus as the opposite of “spirit”, and by Plato as the opposite of “shadow” (seen in Col.2:17) or “soul”, as well as an animal body as opposed to a plant – although Paul includes plants in I Cor.15 . Lysias uses it as a compilation of civil rights, or a civic assembly, and Aristotle of a mathematical proof or a three dimensional figure. In the third century BC, it was first applied to any person, and later primarily of slaves (as in Rev.18:13).

Considerable attention is devoted to the “body” in the New Testament. Jesus considered it of greater importance than food and clothing (Mt.6:25), but less than “life” (psuche) – see W.S.#28. It can be destroyed (Mt.10:28), but also redeemed (Rom.8:23) and transformed (Phil.3:21). It is to be handled with care and appropriate honor (Rom.6:8, I Cor.6), because the physical body of the faithful person, like all the rest of his life, is “for the Lord” (I Cor.6:15), and belongs to him. Indeed, it is to be offered as a “living sacrifice” to God (Rom.12:1) – and a sacrifice, regardless of its content, must be of spotless purity. Such an offering could not possibly be acceptable if the body were inherently evil!

Most significant of all, if judged by the proportion of attention accorded to it in the New Testament, is the awe-inspiring concept of the faithful as comprising the very Body of Christ! For a fuller discussion of that subject, please see chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom. Paul approaches this wonder from three different angles:

– the inclusion of the faithful from all backgrounds in a single unit: “one body” (Rom.12:4,5; Eph.2:16, 4:4; Col.3:15) without distinction;
– the intended function of each member [part] of that Body for the benefit of the whole (I Cor.12:12-27, Rom.12:4-8);
– and the mutual responsibility that such unity entails (Eph.1:23, 4:4, 4:12, 4:16; Col.1:8, 1:24, 2:19), symbolized in the observance of “communion” – W.S. #8, koinonia – (I Cor.10:16-17, 11:24-29).

Do not forget that it is “in (en) one Body” (Col.3:15) that we are called. Not “into” – that would require the preposition eis, and imply the initial invitation to participation. It is we who have already accepted the invitation, and are consequently being incorporated into that one Body, who are then “called” [given further instructions – W.S.#55] , some of which follow in vv.16,17. The complicated inventions, theories, and requirements concocted by self-appointed teachers and hierarchies of every description are completely beside the point.
The only thing that matters is v.19 – “holding on to the Head [Jesus himself]. It’s from him that all the Body, supplied through its joints and ligaments, and knit together, keeps growing with the growth that comes from God!”
The task of every member of that Body (please note that every function listed in Eph.4:11 is plural) is for the purpose of “equipping God’s people” for the job of “building up the Body of Christ”! (Eph.4:12). “The purpose is that we be no longer babies, agitated and carried around by every wind of teaching, deceitfully manipulated by people who are deliberately trying to mislead us, but as we interact truthfully in love, we may grow up in every way into him who is the Head – Christ. From him, the whole Body, joined together [harmonized] and knit together by the proper function of every available ligament, according to the measured working of each individual part, makes bodily growth for building itself up in love.” (Eph.4:14-16).

Amen, Lord! May it be so!

The concept of “promise” is closely related to the previous two postings. This is another idea which has been mightily embellished in “accepted teaching”, with little regard for what is actually discussed in the New Testament writings.
It involves one single word-family: epaggelia, epaggelomai, and epaggelma, although the English word “promise” also traditionally occurs, only once each, as a variant translation for homologeo and exomologeo, both usually rendered “confess” (W.S. #68), both describing nefarious behavior , of Herod (Mt.14:7), and Judas (Lk.22:6), as does the use of epaggelomai in Mk.14:11 of the Jewish council.

Classically, both the noun and verb forms originally referred merely to an announcement or edict: a command (Polybius) , or a legal summons (Aeschylus). Only later did they also include “an offer or promise, made of one’s own free will”, or an expectation, including the purported curative property of a potion or drug (Galen). Consequently, even though most of the New Testament uses of the words fall into the category of an offer or a promise, this background should be kept in mind, and should influence our understanding, at least to the extent of serving as a reminder that a “promise” is not a casual or trivial thing, and is not to be taken lightly.

One significant grouping of New Testament references is historical:
–God’s promise to Abraham
1. of descendants (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13-20, Heb.6:13, 11:11)

2. of the land in which he wandered (Ac.7:5, Heb.11:8-10)

3. of the extension of his blessing to all future faithful (Gal.3:8, 14-18; Gal.4:23,38; Heb.7)
– God’s promise to the people of Israel at the time of the Exodus (Ac.7:17)
– And more generally, “to the fathers [ancestors]”, in which case no specifics of the “promise” are mentioned, except that its fulfillment is connected with Jesus’ resurrection (Ac.13:32,33; 26:6-8, Rom.9:5, 15:8).
A similar theme, with different words, is found in the study of “Inheritance / Covenant” (W.S. #79, 80.)

When we turn to the rest of the New Testament, neither geography nor genealogy figure into any mention of the “promise”. On at least two occasions, Romans 9 and Galatians 3, Paul takes great pains to redefine the concept of “children / heirs of the promise” as intending all who are faithful to Jesus, and no longer necessarily lineal descendants of Abraham. This theme also appears, in less detail, in Eph.2:12, and throughout the letter to the Hebrews.

Jesus himself is recorded as having used the word “promise” only once – Lk.42:49 – when he instructed his disciples to wait in Jerusalem for “my Father’s promise”, which he then specifically identified as the coming of the Holy Spirit. Luke quotes that admonition again in Ac.1:1:4.
In his Pentecost sermon, Peter announces that it has been fulfilled (Ac.2:33), in Jesus’ (himself, in this case, not his followers!) “having received the promised Holy Spirit from the Father” after his resurrection and exaltation, and having subsequently “poured out” upon his faithful followers the powers that had just been demonstrated. Peter ends by declaring (2:39) that “the promise is for you all, and for your children, and for all who are far away, whoever the Lord our God will call!”
The only qualifications are (1) a deliberate change in the orientation of one’s life (W.S.#6), and (2)submitting to baptism (Ch.10 of Citizens of the Kingdom), in the name (W.S.#24) of the Lord Jesus, in order that one’s failures [shortcomings] be removed (W.S. #7). He urges them to  “be rescued” (W.S. #5), not from some dreaded future terror, but (v.40) “from this crooked generation”!
In Eph.1:13, Paul expands the understanding of “the Holy Spirit of promise”, explaining that this is the “guarantee”, or “seal” [stamp of ownership], that we have become God’s possession. This is also the idea in II Cor.7:1, which refers back to 6:16-18, where God’s calling to become a part of his family is described. Please note that in both of these, the promise is conditioned upon the response of the ones to whom it is offered!

The promise is related, in Ac.13:23, to Jesus’ own resurrection, and it is his faithfulness (the form is a simple possessive genitive) upon which the faithful may depend (Gal.3:22). Eph.3:6 reiterates the breadth of the reach of the promise: that Gentiles, too, “are to be fellow-heirs, and joint members of the Body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus!”
Notice, please, that this is cast in the present tense! I wonder if this has always been a problem for the faithful? Paul needed to remind Timothy (I Tim.4:8) that the promise is “for life now and in the future”. Please refer to the discussion of “eternal life” in W.S.#28. We do injustice to the text if we confine “the promise of life” (II Tim.1:1, Jas.1:2, II Pet.1:4, I Jn.2:25) exclusively to either the present or the future. Both are crucial to proper understanding.
When Heb.9:15 speaks of an “eternal inheritance”, remember (W.S.#79,80) that an inheritance is received during one’s lifetime, after the death, not of the recipient, but of his benefactor!

Heb.6:10-12 describes the stubborn endurance necessary for “inheriting the promises”, and Heb.8:6 points out that the covenant / will which Jesus mediates [administers] is established upon “better promises” that was the earlier, now-obsolete one (v.7).
It is “after having done God’s will” (an aorist tense), that the promise is received (also aorist – a “done deal”!) . James’ reference to “inheriting the kingdom” (2:5) is very contemporary: he is talking about behavior in the present-day brotherhood!

A few of the references (II Pet.3:4,9) refer specifically to Jesus’ promised return – simply that it is going to happen – no details are given. Most details are derived from the fertile imaginations of commentators! Others, like Ac.26:6, Eph.3:6, Gal.3:14, 22, 29, while not identifying the content of the promise, connect it solidly to Jesus.

There could be no better summary than Paul’s, in II Cor.1:20 – “For whatever God’s promises are, the “yes” is in him (Jesus)!”, and Peter’s “Through him we’ve also been given very great and valuable promises, in order that through these, you all might become sharers of divine nature!”

It’s all about Jesus, folks!
Thanks be to God!

Since both Paul and John have pointedly explained that the “temple”/ “dwelling” of God is no longer – if indeed it ever was (see previous post) – in a “house made with hands”, but in the gathered Body of his people, it is helpful to explore the concept of “dwelling” itself. This is neither as simple as it sounds – a place to live – nor as complicated as the inventors of “doctrine” would try to make it, with all their rhetoric about “indwelling” (a word which does not occur anywhere, even in traditional translations of the New Testament), “abiding” (which does – W.S. #58), and other contrived “theological” intricacies with which they summarily include – or, more frequently, exclude – those with whose vocabulary and diagrams they agree or differ.

The concept of “dwelling” appears in New Testament writings in three families of words: meno, translated that way only 15x out of 120 occurrences; skenoo, 5x; and oikeo,9x: the latter being made more specific and sorted out by the addition of prefixes, as in egkatoikeo (1x), enoikeo (5x), perioikeo (1x), sunoikeo (1x), and most frequently katoikeo (48x). The vast majority of the uses of most of these words refer simply to geographical location, where people live or stay.

Enoikeo, however, “to dwell or inhabit, to be at home in”, has “God” (II Cor.6:16), “the Spirit” (Rom.8:11, II Tim.1:14), “the Word of Christ” (Col.3:16), or “faithfulness” (II Tim.1:5) as its subject. This is probably where the “indwelling” idea comes from – but please note, the reference is not private, but corporate, except in the final example. The elaborate images constructed from those few references completely fail to take into account that in four of the five, the object of “en” is plural: humin (you all), hemin (us), or autois (them). When the object of the preposition en is plural, “among” is a better translation than “in” (as, “inside of”): implying the corporate Body of Christ, not lonely individuals. The only singular reference is to the faithfulness of Timothy’s grandma.

A similar situation exists for katoikeo, “to settle or colonize, to inhabit, to take up residence,” the most frequent of the words, where it is not referring simply to location. Speaking of the Lord Jesus, in Col.1:19 and 2:9, in whom “dwells” all the completeness of God, the object of the preposition is singular, “in him”, as is the subject in II Pet.3:13 where “righteousness / justice” is said to “dwell” in the new heaven and new earth. Since both the object and its possessive modifier are plural in Eph.3:17, (“your hearts”), that passage may be read either individually or collectively, but the James 4:5 reference to the Spirit that dwells en hemin, is more likely to intend “among us.”

Oikeo, without prefix, also speaks primarily of habitation. Paul’s lament in Rom.7:17,18 of his personal struggle to obey, is cast in the first person singular. One should note that this is not the accusatory diatribe that is so frequently hurled at prospective “converts”, but the testimony of Paul’s own difficulties. There is likewise no indication that Paul – or anyone else, expects it to be normative.  Instructions to faithful disciples in a non-believing marital relationship are likewise singular (I Cor.7:12,13). But reference to the Spirit of God – Rom.8:9,11 and I Cor.7:12,13 (twice) —  revert to the plural, en humin, “among you”. The verbs are plural as well, although Rom.8:9 also contains a singular component, a warning to any who might ignore or disparage the Spirit’s activity.

As is frequently the case, John uses different vocabulary and has different emphases, from those of the other writers. It is not clear – unless they are simply trying to support an already-established “doctrine” – why traditional translators rendered meno , usually translated “remain, continue, stay, abide” – as “dwell” in Jn.6:56, 14:10, 14:17; and even in 1:38 and 39, where the disciples of John the Baptist are clearly asking about Jesus’ current residence. “Stay”would be more appropriate, since he was not at home at the time. The same is true of Luke’s only two uses of meno, in Ac.28:16,30, describing Paul’s situation in Rome.
Likewise, in John’s letters, whether the object of the preposition en is singular (I Jn.3:17,24; 4:15, 16) or plural (I Jn.4:12,13; II Jn.2), one of those more common translations would make more grammatical sense. Notice that elsewhere, in the same letter, meno appears 14x, and is translated 11x “abide” , 2x “continue”, and 1x “remain”. Please refer to W.S.#58 for a fuller discussion of meno.
In any case, meno does not imply the settled, permanent residence that often accompanies katoikeo. Geographical references are temporary; those involving the presence of Father, Son, or Holy Spirit are contingent on the response of a person or group. Note the conditional constructions.

Even more unique is John’s use of yet another word, skenoo, literally, “to pitch a tent, or make an encampment”. This is the “habitation” of an army on the move! And look where it appears in John’s writing! In Jn.1:14, he is describing “The Word made flesh [human] and dwelling among us!” An interesting light on Jesus’ campaign to establish his Kingdom!

The same word appears again only in the Revelation! In Rv.7:15, John speaks of the huge crowd of the faithful in joyful worship around the throne, and marvels, “The one seated on the throne will pitch his tent with them!”
In Rv.12:12, he calls “those who are camping out in heaven” to exuberant celebration, even as they are included in the scorn of the “beast” who opposes God’s name and his “tent”.
And finally (21:3), upon the arrival of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of the Lamb, “God’s tent is with his people! He will camp with them, and they will be his people, the God himself will be with them, their God!”
Wait a minute! Isn’t it all over by then? Most of us thought that by that time, the “pilgrim people” could finally settle down in cozy glory! But no – we are still “camping”!

Where are we headed? We are not told. It’s not about geography, folks.
The only permanence is the gracious presence of the Lord among his people – plural – and mostly present tenses (16x), 5x aorist (already accomplished), and only three in the future tense.

That’s why we need so desperately to meet, share, and interact as his people: it is among those who have accepted the invitation to citizenship in his Kingdom that we are intended to experience, and enjoy, the presence of the King – “until he comes” – and even after that!

“Even so, come, Lord Jesus!”

In much the same way as an understanding of the inheritance of God’s people (W.S.#79, 80) has been altered throughout their long history, their perception of references to the temple of God has varied as well. A bit of history can do a lot to dispel some rather serious misunderstandings, and careful attention to the New Testament uses of the two words translated “temple” adds interesting and challenging light to the subject.

First, the history. We are told (II Sam.7) that God was not at all impressed when David got the bright idea to build him “a house”, reminding him that he (God) had the whole universe at his disposal for a “dwelling”. Even when Solomon was granted a “building permit” – thought to have been around 957 BC – he recognized that it could not “contain” God in the sense that a temple was interpreted among surrounding cultures. (More of this below.) That impressive edifice was eventually destroyed in the Babylonian conquest, during and after which prophetic messages of “re-building” were recorded. Subsequent to those prophecies, we have records of at least three such restorations: by Ezra and Nehemiah after the exile (538 BC); a re-dedication under the Maccabees in 164 BC after the desecration by Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BC; and the temple complex built under Herod the Great in 20 BC, which was in use during Jesus’ earthly ministry. So much for claims of “yet unfulfilled prophecy” regarding a physical reconstruction of “the temple”! “Been there, done that” — at least three times!

More significant to the followers of Jesus, however, are the vocabulary considerations. There are two words translated “temple” in the New Testament. Hieron, occurring primarily in the synoptic gospels and Acts, uniformly refers to a physical location – including all the associated courtyards and buildings, where people gathered, begged, walked, taught, argued, and even set up commercial enterprises. The same word was also used of pagan temples (in the NT, the temple of Artemis of Ephesus). Before Homer, hieron was also used to refer to offerings and sacrifices (L/S), or any “sacred” objects, rites, or omens. After Homer, used with the definite article, the meaning narrowed to any “holy place”. The Jewish temple continued to be one of many gathering places for the faithful, after Pentecost, in addition to their meetings in homes (Ac.2:46, 5:42).

Naos, on the other hand, referred to the inner precincts of a pagan shrine, where an idol “lived”. In a Jewish context, it was the inner court, the “holy of holies”, where they, too, supposed the presence of God to dwell. It was this orientation that Paul was challenging in Ac.7:48 and 17:24, as he tried to make his hearers aware of the transcendence of the Lord he proclaimed. Understanding the word to refer to that portion where only the chosen priest was allowed to enter (Lk.1:9) emphasizes the audacity of the distraught Judas Iscariot, when he despairingly hurled the silver he had been paid for his treachery “into the naos” (Mt.27:5) – the sacred inner sanctum!

It was the naos that was separated from the more public parts of the temple area (hieron) by the thick curtain / veil which was torn in pieces at the time of Jesus’ death. The implications of this event are HUGE! The division between God and man – between “sacred” and “secular” – is forever removed! Jesus has opened the way, once and for all! (Heb.10:20). Please see chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a fuller discussion of this event.

A hint of something even more monumental occurs in Jesus’ statement (Jn.2:18-21) to his critics, after the “temple cleansing” incident. John notes (v.21) that Jesus was really talking about “the temple of his body”!
This is the concept that Paul picks up, in I Cor.3:16-17, 6:19, and II Cor.6:16. In each case, it is naos (in the singular) that he chose to use; and in each case, the “you”, whether as a subject or a possessive, is plural, while “body” and “temple” are uniformly singular.
In the I Cor.3 passage, Paul has been describing the task of “building” – by all participants – on the “foundation” which is the Lord Jesus himself. He then demands, “Don’t you all know that you (plural) are God’s temple (singular)?” , and employs the plural “you” twice more in the same thought. Only the warning to be careful not to “mess it up” reverts to the singular. One person can indeed do that! – but functioning as the Body, or the naos – dwelling – of the Spirit of God requires group cooperation! The preposition en usually indicates “in” when its object is singular, but “among” when the object is plural.

The discussion in I Cor.6:15-20 is not quite as clear-cut: somata is plural in v.15, plainly referencing the physical body as “parts” of Christ’s, which Paul then undertakes to explain. But in v.19, he reverts to the singular “body” and “temple”, with the plural subject and possessive. Likewise, in II Cor.6:16, Paul asserts that “WE are the temple (sg.) of the living God!”
Only together can we become the Body of Christ, or the Temple of God / the Holy Spirit!
These two phrases are essentially synonymous, according to Jesus! (cf. Jn.2:21)

It has usually been assumed that II Thes.2:4 referred to an event similar to Antiochus’ statue of Zeus (2^ndc. BC) or Augustus’ image of himself (contemporary to the writing?) in a physical temple – but the passages cited above open the additional possibility that this “temple”, too, could be the church – any or every “church” that submits to, or is co-opted by state control?

“Temple” references in the Revelation, a highly symbolic narrative (necessary in an era of intense persecution), are mixed – perhaps on purpose. The faithful are called “pillars” (support structure) in the temple of God (Rv.3:12), where they “serve him day and night” (7:15). “Messengers” come and go from “the temple” (chapters 11,14,15), as do “voices” (ch.16).

But there is no ambiguity in Rv.21:22, where John describes the consummate “City of God”: “I didn’t see a temple in it; for the Lord God, the all-powerful, and the Lamb, are its temple!”
Finally, fully united, the faithful and their Lord – the awe-struck apostle runs out of words to describe the glory of the scene.

We can only echo his parting prayer:

“Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”

As we consider the different aspects of “inheritance”, you may want to refer to the previous post, which treats the etymological and cultural considerations in more detail.

The word least frequently used in New Testament writings is prototokos, “firstborn”, which appears only 9 x. Except for Heb.11:28, where the writer recounts the Passover experience in Egypt, the word is exclusively applied to the Lord Jesus himself. It is used twice in the infancy narratives (Mt.1:25, Lk.2:7), relating physically to Mary, but all the rest are clear statements of Jesus’ primacy. Paul acknowledges him as “the firstborn among many brothers” (Rom.8:29), the one to whom we are all destined to be conformed; “the firstborn of all creation” (Col.1:15), the one who created and sustains all the rest; and “the firstborn from the dead” (Col.1:18), by his glorious resurrection demonstrating his position to be of the absolute highest rank. A similar thought accompanies the reference in Heb.1:6 to his “introduction” to the world by the Father. The joyful consummation is likewise celebrated in Heb.12:23 and Rev.1:5. Remember (and give thanks!) that the Firstborn, besides being the deserving recipient of all glory, power and praise, has accepted responsibility for the welfare of all the rest of the family!

Only a little more frequent is the term kleros, translated 8 x as “lot” (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) in the scene at the cross, Ac.1:21 regarding Matthias ( and also 3x in 1:17 and 1:25, where “part” is used, as it is in Ac.8:21 of Peter’s rebuke to the conniving Simon). Only in I Pet.5:3 is it translated “heritage”, where the church is called “God’s heritage.”

Diatheke, as noted in the previous post, presents a problem, in being translated half the time as “covenant” and half as “testament”, which, Heb.9 explains, is a reference to a legal will. Inheritance by will differs from familial inheritance in that blood relationship is not required, although (see previous posting) under Roman law, citizenship was required. As citizens of his Kingdom, and members of his family, of course, Jesus’ people qualify on both counts!
Many of the passages where diatheke appears, clearly reference the historic “covenants” (Lk.1:72, Ac.3:25, 7:8; Rom.9:4, 11:27; Gal.4:24, Eph.2:12, II Cor.3:14, Heb.8:9, 9:4, 9:15; Rev.11:19.)
Four refer to the prescribed legal technicalities required in any “covenant” or “will” (Gal.3:15,17; Heb.9:16,17.)
Most significantly, however, the letter to the Hebrews details two elaborations upon Jesus’ announcement (Mt.26:28, Mk.14:24, Lk.22:20), which Paul quoted in ICor.11:25, of a “new covenant / testament / will”, explaining the inadequacy and failure of the old (Heb.8:9, 10; 9:15) – also seen in II Cor.3:14 – and describing Jesus’ establishing of a “new” (Heb.9:15) and “better” (Heb.7:22, 8:6) one, “not like the old” (Heb.8:9). Identifying Jesus as the fulfillment of ancient prophecies, stating that God had always intended to remedy the weakness and failure of the former “covenants” (Heb.8 and 9), the writer details their failings. Unfortunately, many interpreters have used distorted fragments of this passage to identify the death of Jesus with the ancient ritual sacrifices – which are here declared to be an exercise in futility – completely ignoring the fact that it had already been established (Heb.2:14,15) that the real purpose and effect of that event, because he emerged triumphant on the other side of the grave, was to destroy death itself! The later references (Heb.10:15-17, 12:24; 13:20) emphasize that triumph, and (10:29) the glorious accomplishment of setting aside the faithful as God’s own possession. We are strictly warned not to depreciate this accomplishment!

More dominant than all of these other words combined are kleronomeo (v),”to inherit”, kleronomia (n), “inheritance”, and kleronomos , “heir”. Four times in the synoptics, in parable (Mt.21:38, Mk.12:7, Lk.20:14) and personal encounter (Lk.12:13), the term applies strictly to legal, temporal inheritance, and five times (Ac.7:5, Rom.4:13,14; Gal.4:30, Heb.11:8) to God’s promise to Abraham. In Gal.4:1, Paul refers to the legal requirement of majority (age) for inheritance. A formal declaration by the father was necessary to establish his son as an heir, when he attained legal age. Might this be the prototype of the “voice from heaven” recorded at Jesus’ baptism and again in the transfiguration accounts?
Jesus’ own inheritance, already discussed above as the Firstborn, is also noted in Eph.1:18 – as consisting of his people! – and Heb.1:2 and 1:4, as his being “heir of everything” and his consequent supremacy over all created beings.

All the rest (at least 30 references) refer to the heritage of the Lord’s faithful people!

Of special interest is the invitation to those among “the nations / Gentiles” (Mt.25:34), W.S.#62, to “inherit the kingdom prepared for you all from the foundation of the world!” This is an unmistakable reaffirmation that the intention was always the inclusion of all who would choose faithfulness.
“The Kingdom” (W.S.#19,20,21) is identified with inheritance in I Cor.15:50, Gal.5:21, Eph.5:5, Jas.2:5, and “the promise” in Gal.3:29, Heb.6:12, 6:17, 9:15. “The promise” is also related in Mt.19:29, and in discussions with several of Jesus’ questioners (Mk.10:17, Lk.8:18,10:25) to “eternal life” (W.S.#28).
Remember: one does not receive an inheritance after HE dies, but as explained in Heb.9:15-16, after the death of the person who wrote the will!
Thus Paul writes to the folks at Ephesus in the aorist tense – the inheritance has already been conferred (Eph.1:11), and to the Romans (8:17) and Galatians (4:7) in the present tense – “we are heirs!”

To be sure, there is more to come – Col.3:24 looks forward to the eventual receipt of “the reward of the inheritance” and I Pet.1:4 to the bestowal of the “inheritance that cannot decay, or be polluted, or fade away”, already secured by the Lord Jesus, but presently “kept in heaven”.
Paul (Eph.1:14) considers the Holy Spirit’s presence and power among us as merely a “down-payment” or guarantee of all that awaits the final consummation, when , with Jesus himself, those who remain faithful (Rev.21:7) “shall inherit all things”, and (Heb.1:14) also finally “inherit salvation”! (W.S.#5)

“Dear people, NOW we are God’s children (tekna): and it hasn’t been revealed yet what we will be! But we do know that when he [it] is revealed, we will be like him – for we shall see him as he is!” (I Jn.3:2)

Thanks be to God!

In order correctly to understand the concept of “inheritance” – kleronomeo (v.), kleronomia (n.), and kleronomos (heirs) – in the New Testament, it is necessary to bear in mind that we are here confronted with three different cultures – Hebrew, Greek, and Roman – none of which correspond directly to our own, or to each other. An exhaustive treatment of these is obviously not in the purview of this study: for more detail, I found the Jewish Encyclopedia (online), and Gibbon’s classic The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire most helpful. I will recount here only a few salient points.

In all three, as in many other ancient cultures, an heir acquired not only the property, but also the obligations and debts of the deceased. Accordingly, it was not uncommon for a prospective heir to renounce or abandon his heritage. In Roman law, there was even a provision for a debt-ridden father to arrange for his son to be legally adopted by another, in which case the debt “died” with the father.
Adopted sons shared equal status with natural ones. Since inheritance was patrilineal, adoption involved only the husband. A wife could have her own property, but it was treated entirely separately.
Only a Roman citizen could execute or receive bequest from a will. If a slave was to be a beneficiary, his freedom had to be granted first, in the legal document.

In the ancient Hebrew tradition, the obligation of an heir was similar, but the (even more ancient) principle of primogeniture was also observed, although this convention could be abrogated by the father, as it was in the case of Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Esau, or Ephraim and Manasseh. The firstborn (prototokos) was entitled to a “double portion”of the estate: it was divided into one part more than the total number of sons, and the firstborn received two such portions – but also double the responsibility, not only for the debt or other obligations of the father, but also for the welfare and support of the rest of the family. In the absence of a firstborn son, a servant might be considered the heir (see Gen.15:2,3).
It is significant to note that the Hebrew emphasis on the firstborn was not unique. In fact, it represented a very humane departure from surrounding cultures, some of which demanded a fertility rite of burning one’s firstborn son in sacrifice to the gods! (Lv.18:21, 20:3,4).

The Greek culture, here as in other areas, was considerably more lenient. All the sons of a family were considered equal, and entitled to equal portions. Daughters, too, could be included at the discretion of their brothers. In the other groups, daughters received a dowry, but not an inheritance, except with special dispensation as in Num.27. Please also see the treatment of “sons” in the essay, “The Task of a Translator.”

The English readers’ understanding of the situation is further complicated by the occasional alternative use of the word diatheke. Liddell/Scott defined this word, as does the writer to the Hebrews, as a legal will, which takes effect upon the death of the testator (Heb.9:15-20). The concept became confused by the consistent use of the term in the LXX to refer to the several “covenants” that God had instituted with his people. L/S lists only a single classical use of diatheke as a covenant, by the dramatist Aristophanes, but notes that it is “frequent in LXX”. One is made to wonder, then: did the LXX translators in the third century BC deliberately depart from the primary meaning of the word? Or did their subsequent interpreters misunderstand? It is true that the concept of “blood covenant” is not unique to cultures with an Old Testament heritage; but neither is it the primary translation of diatheke. A legal will has no necessary connection with the killing of either an animal or a person. It does, however, have no force until the death of the testator is duly certified (Heb.9:16).
Perhaps the traditional translators recognized that problem when they used “covenant” 20 x for diatheke, and “testament” 19 x. But using different translations for the same word compounds, rather than solving, misunderstanding. English usage, of course, still refers to one’s “last will and testament”. And perhaps we would do well to recognize that what we call the “Old Testament” or the “New Testament” (as in Jesus’ words in the “Last Supper”narratives), represents God’s repeated attempts to communicate his legacy to his intended heirs, and not just another in a long series of failed “covenants”. That would cast an interesting light on Stephen’s sermon (Ac.7), and the entire letter to the Hebrews, as both detail the many situations in which the original heirs had chosen to opt out of the responsibility portion of their legacy, while clinging tenaciously to the property / privilege!

Another word resembling, but not directly connected to the kleronomeo / kleronomia group (which etymologically include “nomos” – law, or legal), is kleros, classically translated as “a part or lot, or anything which is assigned by lot”, and later morphed into “a piece of land, farm, or estate; a legacy”. The LXX refers to Canaan having been divided “by lot”; and to various decisions made or officials appointed by the casting or drawing of “lots”, a procedure that is not fully explained (except by the fertile imagination of commentators!). Because of the connection to the inheritance of land, it was occasionally used of one’s heritage in other contexts (I Pet.5:3, Ac.1:17, 25); and because of the “choice” connection, it became a reference to gambling (the guards “casting lots” for Jesus’ robe – (Mt.27:35, Mk.15:24, Lk.23:34, Jn.19:24) or to the selection of Matthias (Ac.1:17-26), as well as a simple “share” or “portion” as in Ac.26:18, Col.1:12, Ac.8:21.

With this background, then, in the next post, we will move on to consider the unique New Testament usages of these different aspects of “inheritance”. The vocabulary treated here can help us to distinguish whether a reference is to the inheritance of a “firstborn” (prototokos), to lineal, birthright inheritance (kleronomia), to inheritance established by a duly certified will (diatheke), or simply to one’s share (kleros) of some commodity or partnership.
It is critical to remember that, in any case, inheritance involves responsibility, as well as privilege or possession, and that both acceptance and abrogation of one’s inheritance have serious consequences.

“Meek” is another word which, despite Jesus’ placing a high value upon the trait it describes (Mt.5:5, 11:29), is often used today rather scornfully or disparagingly, even by people who claim to be his followers. In modern parlance, “meek” has come to denote a subservient, doormat-type of individual, easily kicked-around and abused, lacking either the ability or the backbone to protest or retaliate. Such a characterization could hardly be farther from the actual meaning of praos / praus (adj.) and praotes / prautes (n.). (The different spellings are artifacts of different Greek dialects, the former in each pair being Attic and the latter Ionic in origin.)

The words imply an attitude of courtesy (Bauer), gentleness (L/S), or a mild and considerate disposition – but not as a result of weakness! “Meekness” can only exist where great strength is under strict control! It describes a domesticated animal that has been carefully trained for its master’s purposes, or even the taming of wild beasts!
Such an understanding meshes well with the Mt.11:28-30 passage discussed in W.S.#77. The “meekness” with which Jesus describes himself is not the unhappy lot of the subjugated, but the deliberate choice of the almighty God, for the benefit and the education of his people!

None of these words are ever translated in any other way in the traditional versions. However, the words with which they are sometimes paired can cast considerable light upon their intended meaning. In the passage noted above, for example, Jesus characterizes himself as “meek and lowly”, using the word tapeinos, often rendered “humble” (W.S.#14), also a deliberate choice on his part. Paul also juxtaposes those two words in Eph.4:2 and Col.3:12. Similarly, he combines “meekness” with “gentleness” – epieikeia – classically defined as “reasonableness, equity, fairness, virtue, tolerance, or capability” – in II Cor.10:1 and Tit.3:2, and with both “longsuffering” (makrothumia) – Col.3:12 – and “patience” (hupomone) – I Tim.6:11. Please refer to W.S. #63 for the distinction between these words. Prautes appears between “faithfulness” and “self-control” on the list of the “fruits” (produce – W.S.#64) of the Spirit in Gal.5:22-23, a very appropriate association.
Peter holds up the ideal of a “meek and quiet spirit” (I Pet.3:4), using hesuchia, more commonly translated “calm, tranquil, cautious, or of gentle character”. The adjectival form, hesuchios, is also the word chosen to describe the tranquil characteristic of the life desired by the beleaguered faithful in I Tim.2:2.

Perhaps the most vivid example of “meekness” as a deliberate choice rather than a helpless default is to be found in Paul’s admonition to people and/or groups involved in administering discipline to erring members (I Cor.4:21, Gal.6:1, II Tim.2:25). In each case, “meekness” is to characterize an attempt to correct or restore a person to faithfulness and to the brotherhood. Please note, in no instance is an error to be ignored, overlooked, or minimized. There is no hint of an apologetic “I might be mistaken, but…” The offense is to be confronted plainly, but not arrogantly. The goal is not exclusion, but restoration.

In a similar vein, James urges his readers to “receive the word with meekness” (1:21), and to demonstrate their faithfulness (3:13) by their behavior “with meekness” – both of which could as accurately be rendered “without arrogance.” This is also the attitude which Peter advocates (I Pet.3:15) in explaining one’s “hope” (W.S.#36) to challengers — meta prautetos kai phobou, “with gentleness and respect” (see treatment of phobos in W.S.#16). This is not a “plan of attack”, but a calm and respectful explanation.

The ultimate paradigm, of course, is the Lord Jesus himself (Mt.21:5), who chose a lowly beast of burden, rather than a regal steed, for his arrival in Jerusalem. That choice was not only a deliberate fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy (Zech.9:9), but also an identification with his own statement (Mt.5:5) of who will “inherit the earth”!  But do not forget that immediately after this event, he proceeded to emphatically clear the cheating profiteers out of the temple!  This was NOT a violation of his “meekness”!  His power was carefully controlled, and not destructive!

For too long, those who presume to “teach” have acted as if all the gospel references to Jesus “knowing” what lay ahead for him, referred only to his impending death. Such an assumption is seriously in error. He was indeed well aware of that prospect. But please note that in nearly every place that Jesus mentioned his death, he also foretold his resurrection, and often his subsequent glorification! (W.S.#34 and 35)!
Re-read Jesus’ prayer in John17, and notice his supreme confidence in the inheritance into which he was moving! Absolute security in that expectation is what enabled the “meekness” with which he lived, taught, – and departed.
His is the ultimate definition of “meekness” – the gentleness of incredible power, under strict control, deliberately rejecting both personal aggrandizement and self-defense. Such an attitude can only be inspired by total confidence, in one’s identity, his destiny, and to whom he belongs.

Blessed indeed, are the meek!