The Pioneers’ New Testament

For far too long, in “Christian” circles, the word “rest” has evoked one of two images, neither of which has any New Testament derivation. It is presented either as a “do-nothing” accessory to the artificial “faith-works” discussion (W.S. #1 and #39), or as an image of lolling around on a cloud enjoying (?!?) one’s wings, halo, and harp! Of the 15 different Greek words that have been translated “rest” at some point, not a single one carries that imagery.

Two of those words, loipos and epiloipos, refer simply to a remainder or remnant, to “leftovers”, or to other individuals not previously mentioned – “the rest of the people…” These are not relevant to the concept at hand.
Seven words appear only once or twice with this translation: eirene (Ac.9:31), usually translated “peace” (W.S.#70); hesuchazo (Lk.23:56), “to be calm, quiet, or tranquil”; kataskenao (Ac.2:26), “to settle down in a dwelling; episkenao (II Cor.12:9), “to have one’s dwelling”; koimesis (Jn.11:13), “sleeping”; epanapauomai (Lk.10:6, Rom.2:17), “to rest in or upon”; and sabbatismos (Heb.4:9), “the rest required on the Sabbath.” The first three of these occur in other contexts, with other translations, which are more attuned to their definitions. The others appear nowhere else.

Katapausis, and its verb form, katapauomai, occurring primarily in the Hebrews 3 and 4 discussion (10 times) comparing God’s “rest” after finishing his work of creation, the entry of the Jews into Canaan, and the greater “rest” secured by Jesus, was classically defined as “putting down or deposing from power, a place of calm or rest, to cause to cease or to hinder” (as in Ac.14:18, where Paul and Barnabas had trouble restraining the people of Lystra from sacrificing to them as gods), or “to rest while one is well-off.” It appears also in Stephen’s sermon (Ac.7:49), highlighting God’s rejection of the idea that he could be contained in or confined to “a house”.
Anesis, classically applied to the loosening of the strings of an instrument, the relaxation of stress (the opposite of thlipsis, “hassles, tribulations”), recreation or relaxation (the opposite of spoude, “strenuous effort”), or the solution to a problem, is used only five times in the New Testament: three times translated “rest” (II Cor.2:13 and 7:5, II Thes.1:7), once as the “liberty” granted to Paul by the centurion guarding him (Ac.24:23), and once (II Cor.8:13) reassuring his readers that they were not being asked to support the laziness of others, but to serve a genuine need by the relief offering.

The most common word, anapausis (n.), with its verb forms, anapauo (active) and anapauomai middle and passive), was classically the most versatile. It included “rest from wandering” (Homer), “recreation” (Plato), “cadence” (in poetry or rhetoric), “to bring to a close” (Hermogenes), “to halt or rest troops, or to regain strength” (Xenophon), “to relieve someone, or to allow land to lie fallow.”
In the New Testament, Jesus used it of a cast-out evil spirit “seeking rest” (Mt.12:43, Lk.11:24). Rev.14:11 and 4:8 describe the thoroughly delightful scenes around the throne where no one rests, day or night, from the praises of God / the Lamb! After their missionary journey, Jesus invites his disciples to “rest a while” (Mk.6:31), and gently rebukes them – “Go ahead and take your rest” – in the garden (Mt.26:45, Mk.14:41). Paul frequently uses it of “refreshment” (I Cor.16:18, II Cor.7:13, Philemon 7,20), and Peter (I Pet.4:14) speaks of the spirit of God’s glory “resting on” his people who are under duress. The faithful “under the altar” (Rev.6:11), who impatiently ask, in effect, “How long, Lord, till you clean up this mess??!” (Don’t we all?!!) are told to “rest a little longer”, and the Spirit (Rev.14:13) speaks a blessing on “those who die in the Lord”, that “they can rest from their labors, for their deeds [works] follow after them.”

But maybe that doesn’t mean, as is frequently assumed, that there is no more work to be done! I have deliberately left for last, Jesus’ gracious words recorded in Mt.11:28-30, to which this study owes its impetus. It began in a conversation with my brother-in-law (Thanks, Bob!) after we had sat through a less-than-inspiring, “feel-good” type of sermon. One of the fragments of poorly-used “verses” that had been quoted was Mt.11:28, “I will give you rest.” Following along in my Greek text, as I usually do, I had been startled to see that “rest”, in that quote, is not a noun, but a future active verb! And there is no word in that passage that one could properly translate “give”, nor is there any dative case that could designate a recipient of a gift. The plural “you” is in the accusative case, a direct object. Literally, although it sounds awkward to us, he is saying, “I will rest you all.”
It had always seemed odd to me that this phrase, oft-quoted as an “invitation”, was in a paragraph about the “yoke” with which Jesus offers us his “training”. The connection had seemed fuzzy, until our conversation turned to our fascination with watching neighbors, who farmed with horses, in their field work. This would have been familiar to the rural folks who first listened to Jesus’ message. The meaning is only lost on our mechanized generation!
A young animal is trained for work by being yoked together with a stronger, more experienced one. The “teaching” member of the pair needs to be gentle and patient, and to lead without abusing the “student”. The harness assembly has to be carefully fitted to the size and strength of each animal, in order to enable them to do very strenuous work without injury. And after a row or two of plowing, the farmer would always “rest” his team in a shady spot, both to recover from the heavy work, and to “re-charge” for the completion of the task!
The Lord Jesus represents himself as both the lead animal in the yoke (v.29), carefully and patiently teaching his disciple, bearing that part of the load which the “new recruit” cannot, but gradually enabling him to assume his rightful share; and as the master, who considerately “rests” his team, to enable their endurance, and the successful completion of their work. When the yoke is perfectly fitted, the load, or the task, seems much lighter!

Might that image also inform the blessing in Rev.14? Met’ auton is as likely to intend “with them” as it is “after them.”
Frankly, I think I find the image of a refreshing rest under the Tree of Life, as a prelude to even more delightful work in tandem with the Lord of Glory, a far more attractive prospect than sitting around on a cloud!
How about you?

I have usually tried to provide studies of words that have appeared in the “search” lists on my web site. However, this is one, although it has been requested several times, to which I am unable to respond by examining its New Testament usage. The reason is quite simple: the word “sacrament” does not appear anywhere in the New Testament. Neither does the concept that it represents.

For a discussion of this subject, and a treatment of a few examples of symbolic observances that have sometimes been incorrectly labeled with the term “sacrament”, please refer to Part III, “Symbols of the Kingdom”, and especially chapter 9, “Symbol or Sacrament?”, in Citizens of the Kingdom.
That’s the best I can do, folks. It’s pretty hard to “study” a word that’s not there.

I’m afraid this is an instance that would probably fall into the category of what Jesus termed “the traditions of the elders” – and he did not have a very high opinion of those, their accompanying pomp and ceremony, or the way they had so often become tools for the oppression of “ordinary folks” by a dominant hierarchy (see Mt.15:2-6, and Mk.7:3-13). Paul also warned of the emptiness of “traditions” (Gal.1:14 and Col.2:8). Only in II Thess.2:15 and 3:6 did he use “tradition” (paradosis – “anything handed down, transmitted, or bequeathed”) in a positive light, and in both of those, he was referring to the teaching that he himself had given them. This was also the case in I Cor.11:2, where the same word was (“traditionally”) rendered “ordinance”. (Word Study #48 explores the varied uses of the concept of “ordain”.)

The closest thing to a concept of “sacrament” in the New Testament, if it is understood as persons benefiting from the presence of God among them, is Jesus’ promise to be present in any gathered group of his followers (Mt.18:20, Jn.14:23,25), especially when they are actively following his instructions (Mt.28:20). No ceremony or hierarchy is needed, intended, or even helpful. He had clearly stated, earlier, that no person was to be elevated above the rest (Mt.23:8) “You have one Master, and you are all brethren.”  The elevation of any individual is an act of direct disobedience to his instructions!

If we as his people have any “sacred” task, it is that each one mediate the gracious presence of the Lord Jesus to one another, as we/they function together as the Body of Christ, serving each other, and the world around us, “in his Name” (W.S. #24).

May we do so in faithfulness!

Of the six words translated “light” in the New Testament, two, lampas and luchnos, apply almost exclusively to a physical lamp or torch, something portable, and hand-kindled. The only exceptions are Mt.6:22 and its parallel Lk.11:34, where Jesus calls the eye the “light/lamp” of the body, Jn.5:35 where he refers to John the Baptist as a “light”, and Rv.21:23 where “the Lamb is the light” of the holy city. In each of these references, the more common term, phos, is used in the next breath, so it is reasonable to assume that the writers simply felt it necessary to differentiate a source for the “light” they had in mind.
Three of the words are used only twice each: pheggos, (classically, daylight, moonlight, splendor, luster, or delight) as ambient light (Lk.11:33), or moonlight (Mt.24:49 and parallel Mk.13:24); phoster (classically, that which gives light, stars, radiance, or a window) in Phil.2:15 “you shine as lights”, and Rv.21:11 “[light] radiance like a precious stone”; and photismos, (classically, any kind of illumination, frequently metaphorical) in II Cor.4:6 “the light of the knowledge of the glory of God” and 4:4, “the light of the gospel”.
In contrast, the primary word, phos, or in earlier Greek, phaos, used 70 times, could have referred classically to any of these: L/S lists “light of sun or moon, light of a torch, lamp or fire; the light of the eyes; a window; light as a metaphor for deliverance, happiness, or victory; or illumination of the mind.” Bauer adds “the bearers of enlightenment,” whether material, human, or supernatural.
The New Testament appearances of phos can be sorted into several categories – and you may wish to vary these boundaries. (Feel free!) Some clearly refer to ordinary illumination – daylight, firelight, lamplight (Mt.10:27, Mk.14:54, Lk.8:16, 12:3, 22:56; Jn.11:9, Ac.16:29, II Cor.4:6). Others are specifically contrasted with “darkness”, which may be understood simply as a natural state, or in a metaphorical sense of ignorance or evil (Mt.4:16, 6:23; Lk.11:35, Jn.1:5, 3:19-20, 8:12, 11:9; Ac.26:18, Rom.2:19, II Cor.4:6, 6:14,11:14; Eph.5:8, I Jn.1:5).
As was the case in the LXX, visible light occasionally represents the presence of God or one of his messengers (Mt.17:2, Ac.9:3, 12:7, 22:6, 9, 11; Ac.26:13, I Tim.6:16, Rv.21:24, 22:25).
The faithful are termed “children of light” (in contrast to “this generation” or to “darkness”) in Lk.16:8, Jn.12:36, Eph.5:8, I Thes.5:5. They even become a source of light (Mt.5:14,16; Lk.2:32, Ac.13:47, 26:23) to those in ignorance.

Light – or one’s attitude toward illumination – is a clear revealer of people’s allegiance, motives, and activity. John observed that even when light is available, some folks prefer darkness “because their deeds were evil” (Jn.3:19). Quite bluntly, he explains (3:20) “Everyone who practices wickedness hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds be exposed. (21) But the one who is acting in the truth (see  W.S.#26), comes to the light, in order that his deeds may be revealed, that they were performed in [for] God!” Repeatedly, behavior that is hidden or kept secret is assumed to be evil (Eph.5:12-13, I Jn.2:9) – that is the only reason for hiding! Darkness has tried (Jn.1:5) to defeat the light – and failed utterly!

“Children of light” (see above) are to have nothing to do with secrecy and darkness. If only people (especially any designated “leaders” ) in churches would recognize that all secrecy is consistently connected with darkness, not the light of the Lord, how very much pain and damage could be averted!
John reminds his readers (I Jn.2:8) “The darkness is passing away, and the true light is already shining!” Because, as he had written so eloquently in the introduction to his gospel, “Light came into the world”(1:4-9) in the person of the Lord Jesus! Later, (8:12, 9:5, 12:35, 36, 46) he quotes statements of Jesus himself, including two of his early “I AM” statements (W.S.#17), to corroborate that identification. Although James (1:17) speaks of the “Father of Lights”, in the rest of the New Testament, it’s all about Jesus!

Followers of Jesus are urged to “walk in the light” (I Jn. 1:7), “trust in the light” (Jn.12:36) while it is available (also I Jn. 1:7), to “let your light shine” (Mt.5:16) in order that observers may give glory (W.S.#74) to God, to “speak in the light” (Mt.10:27).
“Once you all were darkness, but now (you are) light, in the Lord! Behave as children of light! The harvest of the light (is) in all goodness and justice and truth. Find out what is pleasing to the Lord, and don’t participate with the unfruitful deeds of darkness: rather, rebuke them. The things they do secretly are shameful even to talk about, but everything is being exposed [revealed] by the light. Everything revealed IS light!” (Eph.5:8-14), is probably one of the best descriptions we have of the transformation of life that results from a genuine, wholehearted commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus. There are no exceptions to the complete openness and honesty, and the consequent total avoidance of secrecy or deception, that is expected of Kingdom citizens. “He that loves [keeps loving] his brother, stays in the light” (I Jn.2:10).
For children of light, to put it bluntly, anything that needs to be said or done in darkness / secrecy probably ought never to be said or done at all!

Peter offered an appropriate reminder (I Pet.2:9), “You all are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a set-apart [holy] nation, a people especially reserved for [committed to] the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one who called you out of darkness, into his amazing light!”, and Paul (Col.1:12) adds that the Lord not only called us, but “qualified us for a share of the inheritance of his people in the light!” – that glorious “light” of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ” (II Cor.4:6), which no darkness can defeat (Jn.1:5)!

May we continually encourage and help one another to “walk as children of light”!

“Glory” is NOT a railroad terminal! It is not even a place. Centuries of songs (perpetuating the “Christian” mythology that equates it with similarly fanciful ideas of “heaven”) to the contrary, doxa refers to reputation, splendor, magnificence, brightness, or exaltation – but never to geography. The only “verse” that could even be twisted to support such a notion is I Tim.3:16, where the traditional translations refer to Jesus having been “received up into glory”, is a glaring example of the incorrect translation of the preposition en (in), which describes a state or condition, and requires a dative object, as if it were eis (into), which does imply destination or purpose, and requires an accusative object. There is not even a variant reading to that effect in any of the manuscript evidence. “Glory”, in that case, describes the triumphant circumstances of Jesus’ ascension, not its destination.

Although “glory” was ascribed to potentates of various kinds – “the kingdoms of this world” (Mt.4:8, Lk.4:6, Rv.21, 24, 26), kings themselves (Mt.6:29, Lk.12:27, Ac.12:23), and even to some people’s delight in ungodly behavior (Phil.3:19, I Thes.2:6, I Pet.1:24), as well as to assorted gods and heroes of antiquity, the vast majority of New Testament references are to the praise, honor, and worship due to God.
In the LXX, doxa had been used for the bright light that indicated God’s presence, either in the pillar of fire in the desert or in the “holy” precincts of the tabernacle or temple. This idea is also seen in Paul’s description of Moses communicating with God (II Cor.3:7-10), which serves as a prelude to his explanation that even greater “glory” is available, in the Lord Jesus (4:6), to all of his people (3:18)!

Throughout the gospel accounts, the terms “the glory of God”, “the glory of the Father”, “the glory of the Son”, appear in various combinations. This is because, as Jesus pointed out very explicitly in Jn.12:28, 13:31-32, 14:13, and evidenced repeatedly in his prayer (Jn.17), “they” are actually one and the same. There is no such thing as acknowledging the “glory” of one without the other (Jn.5:23, 8:50-54).
Paul was granted a similar vision and understanding when he wrote (II Cor.4:6) of “the illumination which comes from the recognition of God’s glory in the face of Jesus Christ”!
And in the final consummation, the description of the city where the Lord’s people continually enjoy his presence (Rv.21:23), “God’s glory illuminates it, and the Lamb is its lamp!” A lamp is required in order to make light accessible and useful!

Throughout his earthly ministry, people saw, or acknowledged, or marveled at the glory of God as they observed Jesus’ multitude of healings (Mt.9:8, 15:31; Mk.12:12, Lk.5:25-26, 13:13, 17:15, 17:18, 18:43), his teaching (Lk.4:15), and his other miracles (Jn.2:11, 11:4,40).
Jesus himself usually spoke of “glory” in connection with his return (Mt.16:27-28, 24:30, 25;31; Mk.8:38, 10:27, 13:26; Lk.9:26, 21:27, 24:26), although John records a greater emphasis on the recognition of his true identity (1:14, 7:18, 8:50, and the prayer in Jn.17) than do the synoptic writers. Jesus scolded those (Jn.5:41-44) who sought “glory” from one another, rather than from God. Traditional versions use “honor” here, but the word is doxa.

It is also important to note the manner in which Jesus advocates that his followers contribute to “the glory of God”. It is NOT by making a flamboyant announcement before a public performance of some sort, or a preface to a big brag thinly disguised as a “testimony”, that “this is all for the glory of God!” Jesus rather directed his people to live in such a way that “people may see your good deeds [works (W.S.#39), behavior], and glorify your Father” (Mt.5:16), noting that the Father would be “glorified” by their “bearing much fruit (W.S.#64) and becoming – not recruiting – his disciples (W.S.#51)!” He then set the ultimate example in his own prayer (Jn.17:4), “I have glorified you on earth by finishing the work that you gave me to do!”

The surpassing glory of the Lord Jesus himself, whom both Paul (I Cor.2:8) and James (Jas.2:1) call “the Lord of Glory”, runs through the epistles like a refrain. It is contrasted with human failings (Rom.3:7) – he has none! – and is the vehicle for praise to God (Rom.16:27). Jesus is himself the “image” (W.S. #15) of God’s glory (I Cor.1:7), and the goal of the transformation he accomplishes in his people (II Cor.3:18). Incredibly, his people are described as a part of “the riches of the glory of his inheritance” (Eph.1:18), and the venue of his own glory, for all the world to see, is his church (Eph.3:21)! The confession (W.S. #68) of his lordship (Phil.2:11) produces glory to the Father, and it is “according to his riches (W.S.#72) in glory by Christ Jesus “(Phil.4:19) that God intends to supply all we need in order to serve him. It is “to his eternal glory” (I Pet.5:10) that we are called, and his presence among us (Col.1:27) constitutes our “hope [expectation] of glory”!

Although the primary use of “glory” in the epistles is simply an expression of praise and honor to God, or a declaration of his greatness, goodness, and graciousness, it is also considered (Rom.6:4) the operative force in Jesus’ resurrection, the motive (Rom.15:7) for Christian hospitality, and the result of the faithfulness of the brethren who had sent famine relief to Judea (II Cor.8:19). Indeed, it is intended to be the goal (I Cor.10:31) of everything we do! The admonition to “glorify God in your body” (I Cor.6:20) is interesting in this regard: the noun “body” is singular, but the possessive is plural. This opens the possibility that the reference could be either one’s physical body, or the collective Body of Christ. In either case, it is an awesome privilege and responsibility to be actually expected to contribute to the limitless glory of God! It is the very purpose for our existence (Eph.1:12)!

Jesus had prayed (Jn.17:24) that his disciples might “behold his glory”, and there are at least five instances where people are reported to have been privileged to “see the glory of God” : Stephen (Ac.7:55) just before his death; Peter (II Pet.1:17) and his companions, when Jesus was transfigured on the mountain; John, (1:14) in the introduction to his gospel, of his acquaintance with Jesus; and in Jesus’ gently rebuke to Martha at her brother’s tomb (Jn.11:40).

Several places in the epistles, that amazing prospect is expanded even to the point of sharing that glory! And it’s not just “pie in the sky bye and bye”. In Rom.8:30 and I Cor.2:7, we learn that God planned and provided for all this “before the beginning!” Most of the references are present tense: Rom.2:7,10 – this gracious provision is to be constantly “sought” by faithful living, a concept that is repeated in II Thes.2:14, II Pet.1:3, I Pet.5:10. By focusing our attention on the Lord Jesus, we are continually being transformed (II Cor.3:18) into his likeness and glory, and even the hassles to which we are still subjected become tools toward that goal (II Cor.4:17). God is presently calling his own into his “kingdom and glory” (I Thes. 2:12), and that calling becomes a present source of hope for its future fulfillment (Rom.5:2, Col.3:4, I Pet.4:13-14), as does the gracious presence of Jesus among us (Col.1:27, Eph.1:18). Paul considers his own trials to contribute as well (II Tim.2:10).

For the faithful, as always, its all about Jesus! The writer to the Hebrews (2:10) refers to him as “the one because of whom and through whom everything exists, leading many sons into glory” – that is, his own personal possession, as he is “crowned with glory and honor” (2:9). The only appropriate response is to join with the elder, John, (Rev.1:6), in his acclaim:

“He has made us a kingdom, priests to God his father! Glory and power to him forever!”

Amen!

“Honor”, a frequent request on the “search” lists, represents two different “families” of words. However, we will deal here with only one: timao / time, because the other, doxazo /doxa, is much more frequently (and probably more correctly) translated “glory” (144 x for the noun and 54 x for the verb, against only rendered “honor” 6 x for the noun and 3 for the verb). That will require a separate study.

Time, the noun, classically referred primarily to “honor or esteem accorded to the gods or to one’s superiors, or bestowed by them as a reward”, to the dignity of civic office, an honor, or a compliment. It was also used of the appraised value of an object or property, or its price; and of either a penalty or compensation awarded in the settlement of a lawsuit.
Timao, the verb, is parallel: to honor, esteem or value, to estimate value or worth, to pay due regard to a person, or legally to assess a reward or penalty.

Eight times in the New Testament, time simply designates a price: the money involved in Judas’ betrayal of Jesus (Mt.27:6,9); the price of property (Ac.4:34 and 5:2,3); the value of books burned in Ephesus (Ac.19:19); and the “price” with which Jesus ransomed his people (I Cor.6:20, 7:23).
Closely related, the idea of value of household utensils (Rom.9:21, I Tim.2:20,21), or of usefulness (Col.2:23) is also fairly straightforward.

After that, however, when referring to people, the situation becomes somewhat more complicated. Even the instances where people are instructed simply to render “due respect” to others (Rom.13:7 – government officials, I Tim.6:1– slaves to masters, I Pet.3:7 – husbands to wives, or I Thess.4:4 – one’s own inclinations), and where Jesus himself laments the lack of respect accorded to a prophet by his own countrymen (Jn.4:44, Mt.13:57, Mk.6:4), when it comes to mutual relations within the Christian brotherhood, Paul emphasizes (Rom.12:10) an extra measure of devotion to be expressed there, and (I Cor.12:23,24) special care to be taken of those upon whom the rest of the world would place less value. Peter contrasts the “value” placed upon Jesus himself (I Pet.2:7) by his opponents (the “builders”) with the true value seen by the faithful. In 2:17, he expresses an interesting (and appropriate) attitude toward the world’s hierarchies: “Honor (timesate- aorist imperative: a decision?) everyone, love (agapate– present imperative) the brotherhood, respect (phobeisate – present imperative) God, honor (timate– present imperative) the king”! The king is to be “honored” just like everyone else – not scorned because the brethren know the emptiness of hierarchy – but God, and the brotherhood, are in a special, more elevated category!

There are times, however, when “honor” itself clearly includes some practical evidence of respect. Jesus’ scolding of the Pharisees (Mt.15:4-8, Mk.7:6-13) for creating a loophole for failure to support one’s parents, Luke’s account of the provisions supplied to Paul’s group by the inhabitants of Melita (Ac.28:10), and Paul’s instructions to Timothy (I Tim.5:3) regarding the care of widows, are plain enough to raise the possibility that a similar idea is present in I Tim.5:17 with regard to faithful elders (remember, however, W.S. #42, that these are old people, not officials!).

Paul speaks approvingly (Rom.2:7) of people “seeking glory and honor and immortality” by the perseverance born of good deeds, and assures them that the result will be “praise and honor and peace” (v.10). The writer to the Hebrews, however, offers a reminder that even under the old system, the “honor” of priesthood was not intended to be a result of personal ambition, but only the appointment of God (Heb.5:4), and also contrasts Jesus’ faithfulness with that of Moses, as the difference between the “honor” due to a builder and the admiration of the building he has produced (3:13). Nevertheless, Peter (I Pet.1:7) encourages the expectation on the part of the faithful of “commendation and glory and honor” when Jesus comes.

It remains to consider the places where “honor” becomes an aspect of the praises offered to God himself. Jesus dealt with this matter very specifically. His own testimony should lay to rest the arguments of those who try to “demote” the Lord Jesus to a lower “status” than whatever nebulous entity it is that they call “God”. He states unequivocally (Jn.5:23) “The one who does not honor the Son, does not honor the Father who sent him”, and (8:49) plainly equates the honor ascribed to each as one and the same.

Usually, in scenes of praise, “honor” is combined with other words, including “glory and honor” (I Tim.1:17, Heb.2:7,9; II Pet.1:17, Rev.4:9,11; 5:12, 21:24, 26), or “honor and power” (I Tim.6:16, Rv.4:11, 7:12, 19:1). The creatures around the throne give “glory and honor and thanks” to the One who is alive forever (Rv.4:9). There are even longer lists, as in the exuberance of Rv.5:12: “The slaughtered Lamb is worthy to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing!”

Forget the technicalities of defining the terms!
Far better to simply follow the example of the living creatures, the elders, and “every created thing in heaven and on earth and beneath the earth and on the sea” (5:13), ascribing to the one seated on the throne and to the Lamb “Blessing and honor and glory and power” – falling down before him in worship!
Amen!

OK, let’s begin by getting the primary cop-out out of the way.
If you ate a meal today, slept under adequate shelter last night, and reasonably expect to do so tomorrow, compared to much of the world, you are rich. So am I: despite having made a fine art out of “pinching pennies”, I nevertheless have a few to “pinch.” I expect most of you do , too: so let’s admit it, and focus on the more Biblical question of the faithful use of whatever resources we have.

Plousios (adj. and adv.), plouteo (v.), ploutizo (v.), and ploutos (n.), speak, classically, of any kind of abundance, plenty, or wealth, while chrema – possessions or money – less frequently used (only 7 x), is more narrowly defined.
Under the old covenant, or in classical times, abundant wealth or possessions were viewed as evidence of the blessing of God (or “the gods”). Jesus, however, had quite a different interpretation (Lk.6:24, Mt.19:23-24, Mk.10:25, Lk.14:2), and in his parables, the “rich” protagonists (Lk.12:16, 16:1, 16:19-22) are not exactly heroes.
But notice, please, that Jesus does not criticize their wealth, per se, but rather their attitude toward it, and their use of their resources. Zacchaeus (Lk.19:2), Joseph of Arimathea (Mt.27:57), and the women who provided for the needs of the disciple band “out of their own possessions” (Lk.8:2,3) are in quite a different category from the young man who turned sadly away from discipleship (Mt.19:23,24; Mk.10:25, Lk.18:23,25). He had a problem of priorities, not simply prosperity.
The warning recorded in Mk.10:24 concerns, according to some manuscripts, “them that trust in riches”. While spotty textual evidence allows the option that this could have been a later editorial comment, Jesus’ acceptance of the individuals mentioned above indicates that it may have been his intention. The parables in Lk.12:13-21 and 16:19-31, likewise, do not condemn the wealth, but rather its selfish hoarding and use.

None of the words translated “riches” appear at all in the Acts account, but chrema does, four times: in Ac.4:37, contrasting Barnabas’ generosity with the behavior of Ananias and Sapphira (5:1-11); Ac.8:18 and 20, recounting Peter’s encounter with Simon the magician; and Ac.24:26 regarding Felix hoping to receive a bribe from Paul.

An entirely different “flavor”, which appears to have no classical precedent other than the simple concept of abundance, is present in the epistles. Paul speaks of “the riches of the grace of God” (Eph.1:7, Tit.3:6), and his “generosity” (II Cor.8:2), of God’s mercy (Eph.2:4), his glory (Rom.9:23, Eph.3:16, Phil.4:19), and goodness (Rom.2:4). Peter applied the term “riches” to the privilege of entrance into the Kingdom (II Pet.1:1).
The faithful are admonished to appreciate (Eph.1:18) the riches of their inheritance in the Lord Jesus, and to become (I Tim.6:18) “rich in good deeds”, having been granted (Col.2:2) “the riches of full assurance of understanding”, and (Col.1:27) “the riches of the glory of the mystery” (W.S. #57) of their inclusion in the Kingdom. The term seems to have been completely redefined in the context of the Kingdom.

Paul warned Timothy not to “trust in uncertain riches” (I Tim.6:17), and (6:9) pointed out the perils of “wanting to be rich”, in harmony with Jesus’ own teaching about the “deceitfulness of riches” (Mt.13:22, Mk.14:19) in inhibiting commitment to the Kingdom.
James mounted quite a tirade (Jas.5:1-6) against the selfish use of worldly wealth, even assigning responsibility to it for conflicts and wars (4:1-3) (which sounds sadly contemporary!), and especially condemning it as a criterion for status in a brotherhood (2:1-7).

Nevertheless, Paul also exults over “the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God” (Rom.11:33), and James notes (2:5) that God has granted to those who are poor from the world’s perspective to be “rich in faithfulness, and heirs of the Kingdom”! Paul holds up Jesus’ example of leaving his well-deserved “rich”condition (II Cor.8:9) in order to elevate his people to his own “riches” – in order to enable (8:2) their generosity! The often (mis)quoted comment in Phil.4:19, if seen in its proper context – a “thank-you” note for a generous contribution from a very poor congregation – far from the “blank check” touted by prosperity cults, is simply reassurance that such generosity will continue to be enabled!

Jesus sorted it out quite plainly in the message to the Laodicean church (Rev.3:17-19) which, sadly, has many modern clones, who have allowed apparent material prosperity to obscure their spiritual destitution.
Their riches have not exempted the wealthy from the devastation described in Rv.6:15 and 13:16; they find themselves in the same sinking boat as everyone else.
But perhaps the most contemporarily relevant message is found in the picture of economic collapse in Rev.18.
Notice that the people who are distraught at the fall of “Babylon” are (v.3) those who “got rich from the extravagance of her luxury!” It is those accustomed to that luxury (vv.9-13) and its purveyors who mourn their losses. The “cargo” listed includes no necessities – except perhaps grain, although at least some ordinary varieties would surely have been locally produced. It is “the fruit of your selfish passions …. all the delicacies and splendid things” (v.14) that are gone.

And where are the people of God – the citizens of his Kingdom – in all this? For these, the word is (v.20) “CELEBRATE over her, heaven [sky], and God’s people [saints], and envoys [apostles] and spokesmen [prophets]! God has passed judgment on her for you all!” [or, God has exacted judgment on her judgment of you all!]
Those committed to Kingdom values have already learned to function quite apart from the “permission” of the adherents and the rulers of the commerce of the world (13:15-17), and consequently are untouched by its demise. The mutual care described among the community of the faithful throughout the New Testament simply continues as usual. Financial collapse does not cause a true Kingdom brotherhood to moan about its budget! They simply ramp up their already-functioning mutual aid!

With which group do you identify?

The impetus for this study was one of my favorites among “contemporary” Scripture-based songs of praise, “Thou Art Worthy!” It quotes the traditional translation of Rv.4:11, “Thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are, and were created!” I love the concept: all of creation –including us! – existing solely for the pleasure of its Creator!
I was startled to discover, however, that the translation itself is incorrect. The quoted passage uses none of the words usually rendered “pleasure”, but is the only place in the New Testament where thelema, “will”, is translated that way. A correct translation would substitute the “means” or “agency” understanding of the preposition dia (through) for the commonly assumed “purpose” construction. Either of these can be valid on occasion. Please see similar uses of dia in Heb.2:10, and the translation notes associated there. The result would read, “through your will they exist, and were created.”
I still like the song and its message, though!

Even though it doesn’t occur where I expected / wanted it, there are nevertheless helpful things to be gained from the study of the word “pleasure.” It includes three basic “families” of words: one, eudokeo, which is usually positive in its associations; one, aresko, often negative, but occasionally positive, and entirely positive in its prefixed form, euaresteo / euarestos; and one uniformly negative, hedone; along with two more, spatalao and truphao, which are used only once each, both describing wanton, irresponsible indulgence in luxury (I Tim.5:6 and Jas.5:5).

Eudokeo usually expresses the perspective of the person or group that is pleased, content, happy, or in agreement with a situation or decision. It combines the prefix eu- (well, good, or favorable) with the common verb dokeo (to think, to seem, to have an opinion). It is used in quoting the voice of God’s approval of the Lord Jesus on the occasions of his baptism (Mt.3:17, Mk.1:11, Lk.3:22) and his transfiguration (Mt.17:5 and II Pet.1:17), although it is also used (with a negative) of God’s disapproval of those who complained in the desert (I Cor.10:5) and of the offerings under the old covenant (Heb.10:6,8,38).
Paul uses it to express his own desire to share with the Thessalonian group not only the Christian message, but his own life as well (I Thes.2:8), and his wish “to depart and be with Christ” (II Cor.5:8), as well as II Cor.12:10, where he speaks of “taking pleasure” even in his own weakness, because of the opportunity thus provided to experience the power of God. He applies the same term to the Macedonian and Asian congregations’ decision to send famine relief to Judea (Rom.15:26,27), and also to God’s pleasure (I Cor.1:21) to redeem the faithful by his message, (Gal.1:5) to reveal the Lord Jesus to Paul, and (Col.1:19) that all of God’s own completeness should have its permanent residence in the person of Jesus!
Jesus himself spoke of the Father’s pleasure (Lk.12:32) in giving his own Kingdom to his worried but faithful followers!
The noun form, eudokia, equates God’s pleasure with his will (Eph.1:5,9; Phil.2:13, II Thes.1:11). When the prefix sun- (with) is added, the resulting word means simple consent or agreement, whether for good (I Cor.7:12,13) or ill (Lk.11:48, Ac.8:1, 22:20, Rom.1:32).

Aresko, on the other hand, is much more mixed, frequently expressing the perspective of the one trying to please another. It ranges from Salome “pleasing” Herod (Mt.14:6, Mk.6:22) and Herod’s brutality “pleasing” the Jews (Ac.12:3) to admonitions toward “pleasing” the Lord (I Cor.7:33, I Thes.2:4,4:1; Col.1:10, II Tim.2:4, I Jn.3:22, Jn.8:29). “Pleasing people” can be either an effort to bring them to faithfulness (Rom.15:2, I Cor.10:33) or evidence of unfaithfulness (Rom.15:1, 15:3; Gal.1:10, I Thes.2:4, 2:15).
A similar, slightly related word, arkeo, refers more to contentment arising from sufficiency or satisfaction, especially in the passive voice, which occurs in half of its New Testament uses (Lk.3:14, I Tim.6:8, Heb.13:5, III Jn.10). This is not nearly as strong a word as aresko, but carries a similar idea.

There is nothing ambiguous, however, about hedone (English cognate – hedonism). Luke (8:14) lists it along with “cares and riches” as a deterrent to faithful living; Paul warns Titus (3:3) against serving “lusts [unwholesome longings] and pleasures”. Peter describes (II Pet.2:13) markedly unholy behavior. James (4:1,3) pinpoints it as a basic cause of warfare and strife.
Perhaps the greatest clarity may be seen in yet another word, only used twice in the New Testament: apolausis – pleasure, enjoyment, advantage, benefit. (English cognate, “applause”!) In I Tim.6:17, Paul reminds his young assistant to focus not on “uncertain riches” (see next post), but “on God, who richly provides us with everything for our benefit [enjoyment]!”
In contrast, the writer to the Hebrews (11:25) commends Moses for refusing “to temporarily have [enjoy] the benefit of copping out” (traditionally, “to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season.”) Both the gracious provision of God and the careless denial of his ways are represented by the same word. The difference is one’s focus.

Careful attention to focus can enable discernment whether “pleasure / enjoyment” is a gift to be gratefully received or a trap to be avoided. Ascetic renunciation of all things deemed “pleasurable” is as much a denial of the graciousness of God as is mindless pursuit of “pleasure”. The pertinent question is, whose pleasure?
Any loving father (heavenly or earthly!) takes pleasure in seeing his children enjoy his good gifts. And that pleasure is multiplied when the gift is received with wide-eyed wonder and a delighted hug of thanks, and treasured precisely because it came from the father!  Such “pleasure” – on either side – need cause no apprehension regarding faithfulness.
The “pleasure” which is severely critiqued by James (4:1,3; 5:5) , Paul (I Tim.5:6, Tit.3:3), and Peter (II Pet.2:13), as well as the Lord Jesus himself (Lk.8:14), is self-centered, self-gratifying, and certainly to be avoided.
But, as always, the remedy is prescribed just as clearly as the problem: seeking the “good pleasure” (eudokia) of the will of the loving Father (Eph.1:5, 1:9; II Thes.1:11), who has himself provided both the motivation and the ability to do so (Phil.2:13) : “For God is the one who is working among you all, (to enable you) both to desire and to work for his pleasure!”
As brother Paul put it, (Rom.5:11), “Not only that (speaking of our reconciliation), but we are also thoroughly enjoying God, because of our Lord Jesus Christ!”
Thanks be to God!

Of all the aphorisms glibly quoted about what “Peace is…..”, I have never heard the one that would best describe its contribution to the New Testament message: Peace is practical! A faithful person does not stop at “wishing” someone “peace”: he is obligated to DO something about it (Jas.2:16)!
I have chosen to focus this study upon the primary word, eirene, and not the six other less frequently used words also sometimes translated “peace”, which refer only to “silence” or “quietness (considered in #139).Although a plurality of the appearances of eirene in the New Testament are found in simple greetings or leave-takings (33 times), almost as many (27) occur in direct admonitions for the life, corporately or individually, of the faithful brotherhood!

This is a marked departure from the classical uses of the word, in which the cessation of armed conflict by a treaty predominates. In the New Testament, this aspect is seen overtly only in Lk.14:22, Ac.12:20, Ac.24:2, and perhaps Rom.3:17 and Rv.6:4, although John the Baptist’s admonition to soldiers to “do violence to no one” (Lk.3:14) certainly would carry that idea (and have interesting and salutary effects on military activity!), as would Paul’s admonition in Romans 12:18 to “live peaceably with all people.”

Lexicographers uniformly note the LXX usage, and its correspondence to the Hebrew greeting, “shalom”, wishing safety, security, health, and general well-being to the person or group addressed. This usage, of course, is seen in most of the epistles, often in closings as well as greetings, and also in Jesus’ dismissal of people he had healed, and in his instructions to the disciples whom he was sending away to preach. It is interesting that in this latter setting, the greeting of peace is to be offered quite indiscriminately (Lk.10:5,6). Jesus reassures them that it just won’t “take” if the person or household is not capable of receiving it. This seems to assume some degree of power in the greeting – perhaps a prayer? or at least a blessing.   In any case, the disciple is not to pass such a judgment prematurely. Later, however, John (II Jn.10) excludes from those instructions people who are clearly known to have deliberately distorted the message.

Seven times “peace” is listed as an attribute of God (Rom.15:33, 16:20; I Cor.14:33, II Cor.13:11, Phil.4:9, I Thes.5:23, Heb.13:20), and three times as a primary component of the Gospel (Rom.10:15, Eph.6:15, Ac.10:36). (see also W.S.#67) Interestingly, though, the much-touted phrase, “peace with God”, appears only once (Rom.5:1)! This is yet another instance where common “evangelical” focus has been skewed by a “generally accepted doctrine” that totally lacks New Testament derivation. The vast majority of New Testament references relate to the peace that the Lord Jesus has created – and required!– among his people!

“Peace / security / well-being” was widely anticipated as a characteristic of the Messianic Kingdom (Lk.1:79, 2:14, 19:38,42), and this is probably at least one reason for Jesus’ teaching on the subject in his final instructions to the disciples (Jn.14:27 and 16:33), bequeathing to his followers not just the “peace” of the common greeting, but “my peace”, which holds firm even under the anticipated persecution, rather than enabling them to escape it.
Although Luke mentions in Ac.9:31 that the young church enjoyed a period of peace (traditional translators used “rest”, but the word is eirene) from persecution after Saul’s conversion, most of the “peace” is experienced in the midst of or in spite of the hostility of opponents. It is often focused within the group, between brethren of diverse backgrounds (Mk.9:50, II Cor.3:11, Eph.2:14-17, 4:3; Col.1:20, 3:15; I Thes.5:13, II Tim.2:22, I Pet.3:11, Jas.3:17).
Peace is represented as the goal toward which the faithful are encouraged to strive (Jn.16:33, Rom.14:19, I Cor.7:15, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14), both among themselves and toward those outside (Rom.12:18, Heb.12:14, Jas.3:8, Ac.10:36).
It is also intended to become characteristic of the personality of a faithful person, being listed among the “fruit of the Spirit” (Gal.5:22), and described as a result of fixing one’s attention upon the affairs of the Spirit (Rom.8:6). The peace offered to the faithful is paired with “doing good” (Rom.2:10), “joy” (Rom.15:13), the opposite of confusion (I Cor.14:33), love (II Cor.13:11 and Eph.6:23), the unity of the Spirit (Eph.4:3), God’s act of setting his people apart in holiness (I Thes.5:23),wisdom and justice (Jas.3:17,18), the protection of their / our hearts and minds (Phil.4:7), and the very presence of God (Phil.4:9)! The result of reconciliation (see last post), in repeated instances, is described as making, or having “made peace” among formerly alienated people and groups.

Peace is represented as the creation and the gift of the Lord Jesus, and attributed (also only once) to the giving of his life (Col.1:20). The Biblical writers go into much less explanatory detail regarding that provision than do most of their subsequent interpreters! Here, it is stated as a simple fact.
The gift also requires concerted effort on the part of recipients! Note the instructions that follow the promise of peace in Phil.4:8-9, where the focus is upon deliberately paying attention to things that contribute to peace, and upon continual practice!
Actualization of the gift of peace is not automatic! It requires concerted efforts on behalf of justice (Jas.3:18). Yes, I know the traditional translators said “righteousness” – but please see W.S.#3. It is the same word, only separated by the “doctrines” of folks who prefer to privatize their “faith”, keeping it sanitized and theoretical, and to avoid the often messy responsibility of faithfulness (W.S.#1).
The more accurate understanding is available from II Cor.13:11, “…be [live] in peace, and the God of love and peace will be with you all.” The present active imperative, eireneuete, indicates constant effort in that regard. It would be equally valid to render it “keep making peace.”
Peace is not a “reward” to be passively received, or a blissful state in which to luxuriate with “no troubles”, but an assignment to be faithfully fulfilled!

Paul states rather bluntly in Rom.2:10 that God’s offer of “peace”, whether to Jew or Gentile, is to “all who are doing good,” and urges his readers (Rom.14:19) to “earnestly pursue matters of peace, and the things that build each other up.” He elaborates on this theme in Eph.2:14-22. Be careful not to carve this beautiful description of the peace that Jesus has created into tiny, isolated phrases to “prove” some obscure point of “theology.” Allow the whole picture to soak into your consciousness, and to transform your perception of the brotherhood that the Lord has created for his Kingdom! It is glorious!

Yes, that sort of a combination of diverse people is bound to make some sparks. But the remedy lies precisely in the peace that Jesus has created! Peace is not only the atmosphere in which the Kingdom survives and thrives, but the “umpire” or “referee” (Col.3:15) whose skill can sort out any resulting friction! That the “rules of the game” (Col.3:12-17) often need mediation should come as no surprise. It is evidence of life and growth – not failure!

The intensity of effort required in this regard is evident in the frequency with which we are urged to “pursue” it (Rom.14:19, II Tim.2:22, Heb.12:14, I Pet.3:11). Dioko is the same word that is used of persecution! Are we that relentless in pursuit of the characteristics of the Kingdom?
Only the “God of peace” (I Thes.5:23) can make us fully his – but (v.24) he is perfectly capable of doing the job. We are simply expected to co-operate!

“(May) God’s peace, which greatly exceeds all understanding, protect (our) hearts and (our) minds, in Christ Jesus” (Phil.4:7)!
“May the Lord of Peace himself give you all peace – through everything [every situation], in every way!” (II Thes.3:16.)

Although the English word, “reconcile”, has varied implications, all the way from “what you do with a bank statement” to “to render no longer opposed, to bring to acquiescence, to win over to friendliness, to bring into agreement or harmony, to settle a quarrel, or to make compatible”, when applied to “religious” matters, it becomes a concept for which common understanding has been skewed by almost exclusive focus on only one of the ten New Testament appearances of its related words.
Complicated theological treatises have been created, adding intricate and ominous details to Paul’s simple statement, in a subordinate, conditional clause (Rom.5:10), “IF, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son,” and totally ignoring the main clause, “much rather, now that we have been reconciled, shall we be kept safe [“saved”] in his life!” Paul himself says nothing whatever about the rationale, the need, or the process of that reconciliation, although involved and fanciful technical explanations have become a favorite playground for people who enjoy thundering judgment at others. For Paul, it is subordinate to his encouraging message of safety!

The very basic linguistic principle of looking at the way words are used is especially helpful in a situation like this, where a root word, allasso, used six times and exclusively translated, in traditional versions, as “change”, appears with three different prefixes, all traditionally translated “reconcile”. These include apo, “away from, usually connoting avoidance or departure, but also derivation or origin”; dia, “through, thoroughly , and occasionally causation”; and kata, “down, concerning, near, about, or direction toward.” These prefixed forms are themselves narrowly used: apokatalasso in Eph.2:16 and Col.1:20,21; diallasso in Mt.5:24, and katallasso in Rom.5:10 (twice), and II Cor.5:18, 19, 20, as well as I Cor.7:11, where it simply refers to an estranged marital relationship.
Lexically, there is little difference noted in any of the lexicons, except that Bauer restricts apokatallasso to Christian writers, and diallasso to disputes between individuals.

The very use of the term “reconcile” does, of course, require the assumption of a former condition of, if not overt enmity, at least some sort of alienation or substantial disagreement. Hence the need, whether as a condition of the reconciliation or as its goal, for acknowledging the situation, in order for it to be remedied (see previous post on homologeo, “saying the same thing”), is obvious. Once reconciled, however, (almost always an aorist tense), the relationship of the parties involved is permanently altered.
Keep in mind that the root word, alasso, “change”, (seen in isolation in Ac.6:14, Rom.1:23, I Cor.15:51, 52; Gal.4:20, and Heb.1:12), remains integral to the understanding of all of its forms. These are practical words, not merely records in a ledger. Change is expected.

When Jesus directed his followers to “make things right” (diallagethi) with an offended brother before making an offering (Mt.5:25), he expected observable results: a transformed relationship. (This is the only appearance of any of these terms in the gospel accounts).
Likewise, the context (Eph.2:13-22) of Paul’s use of apokatallasso combines the creation of a new relationship with God “in Christ Jesus” with the contemporaneous destruction of barriers between people, who are themselves being re-created into one Body, “fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household” (v.19). The same theme is prominent in the Colossian passage (1:19-22): extending, here, not only to formerly alienated people, but to “things on earth and things in the heavens!”
The same situation is described in II Cor.5:17-21, where katallasso appears three times, and the noun form katallage twice. All creation has been made new! Not only for “us” (v.18), but for “the world” (v.19) is the “message of reconciliation” offered (v.20). And it is immediately paired with an assignment (see diakonia in W.S. #40): God has “made us responsible for the message of reconciliation!” A clear mandate for “show and tell”!

There is one unrelated word that is once translated “make reconciliation” (Heb.2:17), and once “be merciful” (Lk.18:13): hilaskomai, used only these two times in the entire New Testament. Homer used it of sacrifices in efforts to appease the gods of Olympus, in his stories of their often capricious manipulation of human affairs.Plato occasionally applied it to interpersonal conflict. Significantly, even the two New Testament references also seem to assume that more pagan notion of negotiating a temporary truce with God, in contrast with all the previous passages, where the initiative comes from God’s side, and results in a total, permanent transformation. The Hebrews reference, even though it describes the Lord Jesus, does so in the context of a parallel with the duties of the Jewish high priest under the old system (which, the writer asserts repeatedly, did not work!) The publican [tax collector] in Jesus’ parable quoted by Luke exhibits a similar attitude, of a desire to appease a God whose displeasure he feared. He is commended only because of being compared with the Pharisee, whose self-congratulatory attitude was even worse!

Notable in all of these words is the preponderance of aorist tenses, which signify either punctiliar past or decisive, singular action. The reconciliation offered in the New Testament is an accomplished fact. Only once is the verb in the present (progressive or continuous) tense: when speaking of what God was in the process of doing, in the person of Christ (II Cor.5:19). Reconciliation is a “done deal,” although its message (II Cor.5) still needs to be delivered and received.

We would do well to consider whether this accomplished fact is evident in the message we proclaim, and in the fellowships that claim to represent its Author.
Reconciliation is one of the primary components in the building (Eph.2:20-22) of “God’s permanent dwelling place”, for which his people are deliberately being “built together”
Any purported “reconciliation with God” that does not include the reconciliation of former human enemies into one Body, one brotherhood, one Kingdom, is not only patently false, but diabolically fraudulent!

May we build – and be built – in faithfulness!

These are words for which the most common misunderstanding results from the extreme narrowing of their application in modern English. Today, they are usually used in a legal, or quasi-legal context, and deal with admitting or concealing criminal – or at least unsavory – conduct. This, however, comprises only a very minor part of classical and New Testament uses of the terms.
Homologeo, and its prefixed form, exomologeo, traditionally translated “confess, profess, promise, and thank”, had a much broader classical domain. The literal meaning, from “homos”, “the same”, and “lego” , “to speak or to say”, was “to say the same thing, to agree.” It was used mathematically of correspondence or coordination, socially of a promise or agreement to do something, logically or philosophically of admitting ignorance and of granting or conceding a proposition, and of common consent or consensus in a group discussion.
Some of these aspects appear in New Testament usage. By far the most frequent – at least a dozen times – refers to acknowledging one’s identification with Jesus (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8, Jn.9:22, Rom.4:11, 10:9, 10:10, 15:9; Ac.24:14, Phil.2:11, Heb.4:14, 13:15; I Jn.4:2, 4:15), and his reciprocal acknowledgment of those who do so (Mt.10:32, Lk.12:8, Rv.3:5).

The more frequently “preached” association with “sins” occurs only five times, two of which involve John the Baptist and not Jesus (Mt.3:6, Mk.1:5). It is significant that every one of these, including also Ac.19:18, Jas.5:16, and I Jn.1:19, uses the term hamartia, (failure, shortcoming, error). Paraptoma (deliberate transgression) is never mentioned at all (see W.S. #7). James, in particular, links “confession” within the brotherhood to mutual prayer for one another’s strength and healing. And in Ac.19, it is the result, not the condition, of the conversion of the magic practitioners. Even in these few references, there is nothing to suggest that one is asked, (much less required) to sift repeatedly through a list of “no-no’s” to find items to “confess”, or to apologize for some sort of vague, unknown offenses (just in case you missed one!). It is simply an acknowledgment that one has not perfectly measured up to the Lord’s – and our own – goal.
Other references raise puzzling questions. Why did the traditional translators choose to depart from the usual rendition, “confess”, and choose “thank” in Mt.11:25 and Lk.10:21 – the only time they did so? Did they reject the idea of Jesus simply “agreeing” with the Father?

Denial, on the other hand, represents three different words.
Antilego, literally “to speak against, to dispute or question, to declare opposition, to contradict,” concerns factual disputes (Ac.28:19, 22; Lk.20:7, Jn.19:12), back-talk(Tit.2:9), or overt contradiction (Ac.13:45, Lk.2:34).
Arneomai, and its prefixed (stronger) form, exarneomai, refers to people: “to deny, to disown, to utterly reject, or to refuse any association.” They occur in contrast to homologeo in Mt.10:23 and parallel Lk.12:9, and II Tim.2:12,13; and repeatedly in the scene with Peter before Jesus’ crucifixion (Mt.26, Mk.14, Lk.22, Jn.18). This is the charge leveled against the Jewish leadership (Ac.3:13,14) and against unfaithful former brethren (I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22,23, Jude 4).
Once, arneomai has nothing whatever to do with faithfulness, Lk.8:45, the “not me” response to Jesus asking who touched him in the crowd.
One aspect that does not occur in classical usage appears in I Tim.5:8, II Tim.3:5, Tit.1:16, Rv.2:13 and 3:8, where one’s profession of faithfulness is evaluated (or negated) by his behavior. Likewise, its usefulness in determining the reliability of both human and spiritual “messengers” (II Pet.2:1, I Jn.2:22) goes beyond classical parameters, although the idea of “self– denial” is not entirely unique to the Christian message.

The two concepts are frequently used together, by way of contrast, usually either between acknowledging the truth of a statement of fact and opposing or rejecting it (Ac.23:8, I Jn.2:22, 4:2), or making similar statements about one’s relationships: not very complicated at all.
The very same word that describes Peter’s “denial” of association with Jesus, and the behavior that negates one’s “profession of faith” (I Tim.3:5, II Pet.2:1, Tit.1:16), is used in Jesus’ admonition to self-denial in all three parallels, and Paul’s similar message in Titus 2:12.
But were the traditional translators unaware that John the Baptist was simply acknowledging, and not contradicting, the reality of his own status (Jn.1:20) under cross-examination?

Homologeo is not always positive: it is used of Judas’ “promise” to the chief priests to betray Jesus (Lk.22:6), of Jesus’ warning to impostors (Mt.7:23), and Herod’s promise to Salome (Mt.14:7)!
Likewise, arneomai is not always negative. It may be simple honesty, as in (Heb.11:24) Moses’ refusing to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, or the temple authorities’ recognizing that they could not deny the miraculous healing of the lame beggar (Ac.4:16). Paul echoes Jesus’ own statement (Mt.10:33) when he reminds Timothy (II Tim.2:12) of that warning, but quickly adds (v.13) that this does not in any way inhibit or deny Jesus’ own faithfulness.
The congregations that Jesus commends, in the messages to Pergamon and Philadelphia, are cited for (Rv.2:13) “not denying” his (Jesus’) faithfulness, even under brutal persecution, and despite their minimal power, (Rv.3:8) having “kept my word, and not denied my name (see W.S.# 66 and 24).

Used in a manner consistent with the New Testament, both of these terms/concepts are an integral part of faithful living.
Like most “abused words,” they need simply to be restored to their intended understanding.
A good start would be to revise and re-define the practice of “confession” and restore it to the joyful acknowledgment of belonging to the Lord Jesus – a celebration, rather than a mournful duty – looking forward to the day when “Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!”