The Pioneers’ New Testament

We have dealt with this group of words before, in the study of “evangelists” (W.S.#43). However, the primary focus there was on the people so designated, and their activities. Due to the ubiquity of abuses of the English word, “gospel”, it may be useful also to concentrate more specifically upon the message itself.
There is a sense in which every one of these studies is a “gospel” message, since they are all offered as “good news” of the graciousness, power, and provision offered to all of us who choose to identify with the Kingdom of the King of Kings, in sharp contrast to the “bad news” so often mistakenly perpetrated under the label of “gospel,” in efforts to compel submission.
As we shall see, distortion of God’s message and intentions is not a modern problem. Jesus himself had to deal with “establishment-types” who resisted his message of welcome and transformation so adamantly that they eventually felt it necessary to get rid of him, and carefully plotted his demise.

The Good News is that their schemes failed! In the power of his resurrection, “He destroyed death, and brought life and immortality to light through the Gospel (I Tim.1:10)! In the process, “Through death, he destroyed the one who had the power of death, – that is, the devil – and rescued those who, by fear of death, were held in slavery all their lives” (Heb.2:14,15)! “He (God) rescued us from the [power] authority of the darkness, and transported us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love (Col.1:13)! Folks, This is good news – a news-flash that has been transforming people’s lives and relationships for more than 2000 years!

Euaggelion, literally, means “a good (or favorable) message.” Historically, it was usually used of the report of a military victory. The word appears a few times in the LXX, as a verb, mostly referring to victories, but also in the prophesies of Isaiah which are familiar from “The Messiah” – Is.40:10, 52:7, 60:6 – and the passage (Is.61:1) that Jesus quoted in Nazareth (Lk.4:18) as he introduced his Kingdom. It only occurs three times as a noun (I Sam.4:10, 18:22, 25). It also referred, classically, to a reward given to a messenger who delivered good news, or a sacrifice offered in gratitude.

In the New Testament, Mark opens his account clearly labeling it (1:1) “The gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.” Jesus himself began his ministry with the triumphant announcement (Mk.1:14), “The time has been fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God has arrived!” Both verbs are in the perfect tense, which refers to past action with present effects/implications! The requisite response is cast in the present imperative (indicating progressive, continuous action): “Change your ways [re-orient your lives] (see “repent”, W.S.#6), and become faithful (W.S.#1) to the gospel [good news]!” There is not a word about assenting to a list of “doctrines”, or groveling in one’s supposed “unworthiness” or “sinfulness”. It is a simple, gracious invitation to become loyal to the King and his Kingdom! (Please see the introduction to Citizens of the Kingdom.)

As his disciples walked together with Jesus, and observed/assisted with his teaching and healing, it became clear that this was no “free ride.” Jesus soon began to speak of “losing one’s life for my sake and the gospel’s” (Mk.8:35), and the adoption of a new set of priorities that could involve the leaving of family and property (Mk.10:29), but also the creation of new relationships that would be even closer – along with persecutions (v.30).

Early on, too, Jesus made clear that this “gospel” is intended to be available to all nations [Gentiles] (Mk.13:10) – see also W.S.#62 – an aspect that took his followers a bit longer to assimilate.
One can almost hear the wonder in Peter’s voice as he recounted his unprecedented visit to Cornelius. It is helpful to observe the elements included in his message on that occasion (Ac.10:34-43), which he later characterized as “the gospel” (Ac.15:7-8):
v.35 – “in every nation, one who respects him (God) and does justice” is acceptable to him.
v.36 – “The good news of peace, through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all”
v.38 – a brief summary of Jesus’ earthly activity
v.39 – “they” did away with him
v.40 – “God raised him!”
v.41 – “We saw him!”
v.42 – God made him judge of the living and the dead
v.43 – he takes away (W.S.#7) the failures of all who are faithful to him!

Paul provides a similar summary definition of the gospel in Rom.1:1-6, adding
v.4 – that Jesus was “certified” as the Son of God by his resurrection
v.5-6 – the purpose of all this was to enable all who belong to him to learn faithful obedience.
“Its source and goal are faithfulness!” (Rom.1:17)
To the folks at Ephesus, he also emphasized the inclusion of Gentiles as “fellow heirs, joint members of the Body, and sharers in the promise in Christ Jesus (Eph.3:6), which he later (6:19) equated with “the mystery of God (W.S. #57).
In I Thes.1:5, he reminded them that the “gospel that you all have received” is not a matter of theoretical debate, but of the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit, and is expected to result in faithful living. Notice, please, that the rare reference to the destruction of the opponents of the Gospel (II Thes.1:9) is intended as encouragement to the beleaguered faithful. It is NOT part of a “sermon” to threaten prospective converts!

To be sure, the faithful are sternly warned against people who advocate “another gospel” (II Cor.11:4, Gal.1:6), who “pervert the gospel” (Gal.1:7), or refuse to “obey the gospel” (I Pet.4:17, II Thes.1:8, Rom.10:16), terms which usually apply to those who tried to impose the strictures of the Jewish law upon Gentile converts, as if it represented some sort of superior “spirituality”. But these admonitions are aimed at the faithful, who may be in danger of being deceived by such teachings, and not at the perpetrators of the error, who are left in the Lord’s hands.

There is nothing complicated or obscure about “the truth of the gospel” (Gal.2:5, 2:14, Col.1:5). It is hidden (II Cor.4:3,4) only from those who are willfully disobedient. Paul admonished his co-workers in Philippi (1:27) to “continue acting like citizens worthy of the gospel … standing firmly in one spirit, with a single identity, working faithfully as a team for the gospel.” That is by far the best insurance against error!
“Healthy teaching” (I Tim.1:11) is “patterned after the good news of the blessed God!”
This is the gospel message that we, his followers, are expected to acknowledge, to incarnate, and to share:
“The Kingdom has arrived, because the King is alive and active among us!
Come and see!
Learn together to follow his instructions – and to live!”

There are many instances in the New Testament where confusion has resulted from a single English word having been used to represent multiple Greek words (see explanation in “Helps for Word Study”), and it is necessary to separate the disparate concepts for accurate understanding. This, however, is one of the much less frequent places where nearly synonymous Greek words have often been artificially divided in order to bolster “theological” arguments. Careful perusal of a non-theological lexicon like the historic Oxford work of Liddell and Scott, as well as the actual context of the New Testament uses of rhema and logos, reveals more similarity than difference. The two words are even used interchangeably on occasion: compare Mt.26:75 and Mk.14:72, which use rhema, with Lk.22:61, where the description of the same event uses logos; and the representation as the agent of creation and of its preservation, where II Pet.3:5-7 uses logos, and Heb.11:3 and 13 uses rhema. Any separation of meanings, therefore, must be made with caution and humility, since the sense must be derived from the context: the difference is not lexical.

It is true, however, that rhema represents considerably less diversity than does logos. Rhema refers simply to “anything said or spoken, the subject of a speech or matter”, and grammatically, “a phrase as opposed to a single word, or the verb, or predicate, in a sentence.” Logos, on the other hand, may refer to “computation or accounting” (Mt.18:23 and 25:19, Lk.16:2, Heb.13:17, I Pet.4:5); to “explanation, legal principle, or the statement of a theory or argument” (Mt.10:13, 22:46; Mk.12:13, Ac.22:22, 18:15); “inward or overt debate, thinking, reasoning” (I Cor.1:17, 2:4, 2:13, 4:20); “a continuous statement or narrative” (all the references to “preaching the word”); “a divine utterance” (“word of God, words of Jesus”); and various other forms of speech, argument, and discussion.
You may notice that none of these definitions make any reference to anything written – only to speech.

In the New Testament, therefore, it is more fruitful to explore other questions. One’s understanding and attitude, for example, will vary according to whose “word” he encounters. This is expressed by the genitive case, which may indicate either possession or source. There are many places where logos refers simply to a statement or conversation of ordinary people (Mt.12:37, Mt.10:14, Lk.23:9, Ac.15;24, Mt.22:46, and many others.) At least 21 times, something is specifically labeled “the word of God”; 23 times “the word of the Lord, of Jesus, of the Lord Jesus Christ, of Christ.” or, when Jesus himself is speaking, “my word. Even more frequently, (45 x), the choice is simply “the word”, referencing some aspect of the message of Jesus, regardless of who was speaking it.

Another use of the same (genitive) form indicates not possession, not source, but the content of the “word”. Here again, both logos and rhema are used in this way, joined by “of”:
rhema:
– “the word of eternal life” (Jn.6:6)
– “the word of this life” (Ac.5:20, Phil.2:16, I Jn.1:1)
– “the word of truth” (Ac.26:25, II Cor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15, Jas.1:18)
logos:
– “the word of exhortation” (Ac.13:15, Heb.13:22)
– “the word of this salvation [rescue, safety]” (Ac.13:26)
– “the word of the prophets” (Ac.5;15), or “of prophecy” (II Pet.1:19, Rv.1:3)
– “the word of his grace” (Ac.20:32)
– “the word of promise” (Rom.9:9)
– “the word of wisdom, the word of knowledge” (Rom.12:8)
– “the word of reconciliation” (II Cor.5:19)
– “the word of faithfulness” (I Tim.4:6)
– “the word of righteousness / justice” (Heb.5:13)

A significant deviation in usage from the classical definitions occurs in another large group of references, all of which use logos. The word is also, in the words of Heb.4:12, “alive and powerful”! It is active:
– to heal (Mt.8:8) and to cast out evil spirits (Mt.8:16)
– to demonstrate the power and authority of Jesus (Lk.4:32,26)
– to pass judgment (Jn.12:47,48)
– to make disciples clean (Jn.15:3 – see previous post).
It “grew” and “multiplied (Ac.6:7, 12:24).
It was spread from the forming groups of disciples (I Thes.1:8), and was at work in their formation (2:13), able to “build them up” (Ac.20:32) and assure their inheritance.
It makes all foods holy (I Tim.4:5) and provides nourishment for faithful living (4:6).
It is the agent of new birth (Jas.1:18, I Pet.1:23), able to save and sustain those lives (Jas.1:21).
It was at work in the creation of all that exists (Heb.11:3), as well as its preservation (1:3).

Both rhema and logos are also used when the context is negative: “every idle word” (Mt.12:36) and the charges against Stephen (Ac.6:11,13) use rhema, while “speaking against Jesus” (Mt.12:32) and “those who corrupt the word” (II Cor.2:17) or handle it deceitfully (4:2) use logos. The words of such people can also have power (II Tim.2:17), “spreading like gangrene”, and any who ignore or distort the true word are to be avoided (I Tim.6:3 and I Thes.3:14). It was people who refused to hear the Father’s word (Jn.5:38) who failed to acknowledge and trust the Lord Jesus, and those in whom the word was not welcomed/received (Jn.8:37) who deliberately set out to destroy him.

By contrast, those who “hear / listen” (W.S.#27) and “accept” the word (Jn.12:47,48) are the ones who become faithful. These are admonished to remember, to be mindful of that word (II Pet.3:2, Jude 17), not to be ashamed of it (Mk.8:38), to “keep” it (Lk.11:28), and “continue in” it (Jn.8:34), with the result being the privilege to live in the freedom thereby engendered. Those who “received / welcomed” the word (Ac.2:41) were baptized as a testimony to their commitment (see chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom). They are then urged to “encourage one another with these words” (I Thes.4:18), to “hold on to faithful words” (II Tim.1:13), and to handle the word correctly (II Tim.2:15), taking care that it not be discredited (Tit.2:5). James (1:22) is even more specific: hearing / listening is not enough: DOING the word is essential. John the elder agrees (I Jn.3:18) “Dear children, let’s don’t live in theory (logos) or in talk, but in action and truth!”

“And now, I turn you all over to the Lord, and to his word of grace [his gracious word], that can build you all up, and give (you) the inheritance among all those who have been made holy!”(Ac.20:32)
“Everything he says” is useful for that!

Katharos (adj.) and its related words, kathairo and katharizo (verbs), and katharismos (noun), are as varied in classical usage as their English counterparts. Although there are many words which, to be properly understood, could be more accurately rendered by the use of a single, consistent translation (for example, see the discussion of “righteousness/justice” in W.S.#3), this is one where such an exercise would be extremely difficult. Some version of the concept of “cleanliness”, to be sure, is present in all of its manifestations, but I have not succeeded in finding a term that would fit for every occurrence.
Kathairo or kathaireo, the older form of the verb, for example, was used of “ridding a land of monsters and robbers, cleansing a wound, sifting or winnowing grain, pruning a tree, or performing religious purification rites” (L/S). The later form, katharizo, added “to clear ground of weeds, to cleanse (heal) from leprosy, or medical purgation.” The noun, katharismos, simply described the performance of any of these activities, and the adjective, katharos, the result of the process.

Perhaps a list of the adjectival uses of katharos, with illustrative New Testament references, would be helpful:
1. simple, physical cleanliness – Mt.23:25, Lk.11:39 (parallel passages regarding the washing of dishes), Mt.27:59 (“a clean linen cloth”), and similar in Rv.19:8, 19:14, and 15:6; and Heb.10:22 (“bodies washed with clean water”).
2. “without admixture” – [“pure”] – Mt.5:8, Tim.1:5, 3:9, II Tim.1:3, 2:22, I Pet.1:22, “a pure heart”; Rv.21:18,21, “pure gold”; and Rv.22:1, “pure water.”
3. “without debt, guilt, or liability” – Ac.18:6, 20:26 – Paul’s statement that he is no longer responsible for their response to his message.
4. “ritual or ceremonial purity” – Jn.3:25, Lk.2:22, Jn.2:6, Mk.7:19, Lk.11:41, Mk.1:44, Lk.5:14
5. “honest, correct, without blemish, sound, morally pure” – Jas.4:8, Tit.1:15, as well as parallels to the “ceremonial” kind listed above
6. “the healing of lepers” – Mt.8:3, 10:8, 11:5; Mk.1:42, Lk.4:27,7:22, 17:14,17.

Other uses are a bit harder to classify. Jesus, on occasion, deliberately blurred the line between physical cleanliness, ceremonial purity, and dedicated lives (Jn.13:10 – 11 and 15:3), as did the Holy Spirit’s instructions to Peter (Ac.10:15, 11:19). Especially in the upper room scene, Jesus’ intended meaning shifts sharply. And although the discourse on the Vine / branches is clearly an agricultural reference (see previous post), the implication of removing any hindrance to fruitfulness is clear. Similar admonitions are also seen in Heb.9:14, Ac.15:9, Titus 2:14, I Jn.1:9.
James 1:7 re-defines religious “purity” in very practical terms, and in no uncertain language.

This approach is at once more and less stringent than the “purification” demands of the Law. The advocates of the Law had compiled a handy check-list for assaying the ceremonial “purity” that they deemed requisite for proper worship. Jesus provided no such cut and dried convenience, but instead required – and offered – the total transformation of the focus of one’s life. Once this transformation is in progress (Lk.11:41, Jn.13:10), the practiced eye of the vine-dresser can readily make continual corrections to the health, direction, and growth of a branch. Notice that (Jn.15:2) it is the fruitful branches that receive this attention. Unfruitful ones are simply cut off and discarded. And it is not a condition of their becoming a part of the Vine, but of continuing in that condition, and of increasing their fruitfulness.

We should also take note of who is responsible for the pruning / cleansing / purification. We have already seen that the Father is designated as the vintner (Jn.15:1); however, in Eph.5:26, Paul speaks of the Lord Jesus himself “cleansing the church to make it his own”. In Jn.15:3, “the Word that I have spoken” is credited with rendering Jesus’ followers “clean”; and in II Cor.7:1 and James 4:8, the responsibility is placed squarely upon the shoulders of aspiring disciples themselves. Looks pretty much like a mutual effort.

Peter (I Pet.1:22) uses a different, less common word, hagnizo, which more commonly applies to “religious purity”, when he declares that his readers have accomplished this, “by obeying the truth.” It is well to remember that both “the word” (Jn.1:14) and “the truth” (Jn.14:6) (see W.S.#66) are also references to Jesus himself.

It remains for us to consider the discussions in the letter to the Hebrews, the understanding of which has been severely inhibited by the common practice of “proof-texters” lifting a few phrases entirely out of their context. For example, the frequently quoted phrase, (Heb. 1:3), “when he (Jesus) had made a cleansing of “sins” – (the word is hamartia, failures or shortcomings, and not paraptoma, transgressions – see W.S.#7) – if taken in its context of the statement of God’s earlier attempts to make his ways known, which did not work (v.1), looks entirely different, declaring that Jesus’ successful mission (v.2 and 3) was to remedy the shortcomings / failures of the old system! This contrast is the announced purpose of the entire treatise, and occurs like a refrain throughout.
Likewise, Heb.9:14, in the context of its entire paragraph, also highlights Jesus’ superiority over the former priesthood, and those who quote the end of 9:22 “without the pouring-out of blood, deliverance doesn’t happen”, totally ignore the beginning of the sentence, “According to the law…..” V.23, immediately following, continues the emphasis that a better way was needed – and provided! Remember that “blood” and “life” are frequently used synonymously. (see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 12.)

Finally, how can anyone be aware of the glorious expression of confidence in Heb.10:19-23, the assurance that “our hearts have been cleansed (perfect tense) (lit., “sprinkled”) from consciousness of evil, and our bodies have been washed (also perfect tense) with clean water” (perhaps a reference to baptism), and still submit meekly to a requirement that they “confess sinfulness” in every worship service, and in countless hymns? That simply doesn’t compute! The perfect tense expresses “a past action with present consequences”!
Paul had earlier written to Titus (1:!5), “Everything is clean, for clean people! But for the impure and unfaithful, nothing is clean: their mind and conscience has been polluted!”
For all who belong to Jesus, heart, mind, and conscience have been cleansed!
Accept the joyful admonition in Heb.10:23-24:
“Let’s hang on to our commitment to [acknowledgment of] our hope [expectation] without hesitation! For the One who made the promise is faithful! Let’s concentrate on prodding each other (with) love and good deeds!”
And whether in song or liturgy, give heed to the Spirit’s word to our brother Peter (Ac.10:15):
“What God has cleansed, don’t you call unclean!”

“Everybody knows what that means, right? To bear fruit is to reproduce!”
At least, that is the proclamation of some enthusiastic folks who feel a need to count “conversions”, to display them like scalps on a belt, and to put-down anyone who sports fewer “trophies”. This is another of many places where the “tune” would be mightily modulated by a serious look at the New Testament.

Yes, there are four possible places (Romans 1:13, Phil.1:22 – where it could just mean “useful”, and maybe Jn.4:36 and Col.1:6), where karpos, the most common word translated “fruit” might be referring to conversions (although probably not the “four-step” variety), out of 66 appearances of the noun form and 8 of the verb! Not quite an overwhelming percentage!
At least 35 – probably 38 – of the references are simply agricultural images, many of them in parables. Two refer to physical birth, and at least 18 to the expected behavior of followers of Jesus.

These harmonize well with the variety seen in classical usage. According to Liddell/Scott, in Homer, karpos referred exclusively to agricultural produce – “the fruit of the earth.” Herodotus and Plato both spoke of wine as “the fruit of the vine”, and later writers used the word of any produce or crops. Xenophon used it of returns or profits on one’s work or investment. When describing the actions of persons, it signified reward, or the fulfillment of an oracle or prophecy. Bauer adds “result, outcome, advantage, gain, or product.”

Turning to the best authority of all, we should ask again, “What did Jesus say?”
He talked a lot about fruit (43 x) and harvests (20 x). Harvest, therizo, therismos, is a similar word, but generally confined to agricultural or seasonal ideas. Therizo is the only one used of “end times”.
All the synoptic gospels include the parables of the Sower (Mt.13:3-9 and 19-23, Mk.4:3-9 and 14-20, Luke 8:5-9 and 10-15) and the vineyard (Mt.21:34-43, Mk.12:1-12, Lk.20:9-16). The focus in the former, according to Jesus’ own explanation, concerns varied responses to the message of the Kingdom, while the latter explores the stewardship of its resources and the treatment of the King’s representatives.
Likewise, in pointing out that the value of a tree is judged by the quality of its produce (Mt.7:16-20, Lk.6:43-44), Jesus seems to assume that an observer can readily discern the quality of the fruit, and that no further elaboration is required.

He gives the most detailed teaching in Jn.15:1-17. Here, Jesus represents himself as the vine, the source of life and growth (1,4), and his followers as its branches (2-6). The Father himself does the pruning (katharizo, also rendered “cleansing”, which we will save for another post). If you have ever worked with grapevines, you know how technical this job is. One must recognize which buds are the fruiting ones, and take care not to remove too many, but also ensure that branches do not compete with one another for sunlight and room to grow! A good harvest requires an expert vintner.
Here, it is Jesus’ word (v.3) that governs the pruning. I think this is probably the reason for the slight digression (vv.9-15) in which he stresses the absolute necessity (5,7,10) of not only “remaining” (W.S.#58) tightly connected to him, but also of “following instructions” (10,12,14,17) (W.S.#55).

It is especially essential (see intro to PNT) here to distinguish between singular and plural forms of “you”. Most of this is a group assignment! (Branches, after all, are mostly attached to the vine by their attachment to other branches!) In the PNT text, plurals are identified by either “you all” or an italicized “you”. Huge errors occur when plurals are read as singular address.
There are also two grammatical constructions in this passage, both very easily identified, that are critical to understanding the message.
A clause indicating purpose is introduced by the particle, hina, “in order that” a desired result may occur. These are seen in
v.2, pruning is done in order that a branch may produce more fruit;
v.8, God’s purpose is “that you may bear much fruit, and become my disciples;”
v.11, “I have said these things in order that my joy may be in/among you all”;
v.16, “I chose (W.S.#56) you, and appointed you, that you should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should remain, in order that whatever you all ask the Father in my name (W.S.#24), he may give you.”
v.17, “I am giving you these instructions so that you all may keep on loving each other.”

Other clauses are conditional, (regardless of modern rhetoric to the contrary). They are introduced by ei, or ean, both forms of “IF”, or, if negative, “unless”. They occur in:
v.4, “unless [if you don’t (ean me)] you all remain in [on] me”, you cannot bear fruit.
v.6 “unless someone remains in me, he is thrown out like a branch and is dried up”
v.7, “IF you all remain in me, and my messages remain in/among you, you all shall ask …”
v.10, “IF you all follow my instructions, you will remain in my love …”
v.14, “You all are my friends, IF you continue to do as I am instructing you.”
Additional conditional statements continue throughout the rest of the discourse.

It remained for faithful followers to elaborate on precise definitions of the “fruit” that was to be borne. Paul wrote to the Romans (6:21,22), contrasting the “fruit” [results] of their lives before and after commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom, and to the Galatians (5:19-23) and Ephesians (5:8-10) in the same vein. Characteristics of the new life mentioned in these include (Rom.) a life devoted to God [holiness], (Gal.) love, joy [rejoicing], peace, generosity of mind, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, (Eph.) goodness, justice, truth, and finding out what is pleasing to the Lord!
Changed lives had already been urged by John the Baptist (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) when he demanded “fruit worthy of repentance” (W.S.#6) of his hearers.
Remember that “justice” is the lexical meaning of the word traditionally translated “righteousness” (W.S. #3), which endows its “fruit” (Phil.1:11, Heb.12:11, Jas.3:18) with a decidedly different “flavor”!
Twice (Phil.4:17 and Rom.15:28), the sharing of material gifts among brethren are termed “fruit.”
The letter to the Hebrews closes with a description of the appropriate offering [“sacrifice”] of praise to God as “the fruit of lips that acknowledge his name” (W.S. #24).

Paul’s admonition to the Colossian church (1:10) is a succinct summary: “behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order to please him fully, bearing fruit in every good deed, and continually growing in your acquaintance with God!”
Quite a contrast to “scalp-collecting”, bearing this sort of fruit is a worthy goal for us all!

References to patience in the New Testament are primarily representations of three word “families”, which, while quite different in “flavor”, are extremely difficult to separate in any definitive manner. “Easy” definitions do not hold up under closer scrutiny. The best we can do is to outline a “territory” covered by each word-grouping, recognizing that there will be overlap that escapes our best efforts. Frequently, two or more of these are found in the same sentence, so they are clearly not synonyms. Translators have almost randomly said “patience and longsuffering,” “endurance and patience,” “forbearance and longsuffering,” or some similar combination.

Makrothumeo (v.) and makrothumia (n.) are used 11 x and 13 x respectively. Liddell/Scott lists simply “to be longsuffering toward another, to persevere, to bear patiently.” Bauer adds “to delay” and “to be even-tempered”, upon which Thayer elaborates “to be patient in bearing the offenses of others, to be slow in avenging or punishing.” Peter (I Pet.3:20, II Pet.3:9, 3:15) and Paul (Rom.2:4 and 9:22) both ascribe this characteristic to God, but Paul also admonishes the brethren at Ephesus (4:2), Colosssae (1:11 and 3:12), and Thessalonica (I Thes.5:14) to exhibit the same attitude toward one another. He appears to be appealing for a generosity of spirit that teaches gently (II Tim.4:2) rather than imposing demands. Usually (not always) it is demonstrated by someone more mature in the Kingdom toward those less experienced. I have frequently used “generosity” or “generous-mindedness” to render these words, intending them as a description of attitude, not necessarily with material implications.

Hupomeno (v.) and hupomone (n.), used 17x and 32x respectively, on the other hand, deal primarily with one’s response to being abused. Thayer makes a helpful point in noting that the distinction is best seen where both words are used together, or in their opposites. Hupomeno / hupomone refer to “a temper which does not succumb under suffering,” whereas makrothumia is “self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong.” Hupomone is the opposite of cowardice or despondency, and makrothumia is the opposite of wrath or revenge.
Hupomone is the “patience” usually associated with those under persecution (Lk.21:19, Rom.5:3, 15:4 and 5; II Cor.6:4, Heb.10:36 and 12:1; and Rv.2:2,3,19; 3:10, 13:10,14:12), as is its verb equivalent (I Pet.2:20, Rom.12:12; Mt.10:22 and 24:13; Mk.13:13, Heb.10:32 and 12:7; I Tim.2:12).
Bauer, Thayer, and Trench all suggest that this describes a faithful response to unavoidable suffering, and consequently cannot apply to God: but that observation breaks down on the passages in Heb.12:2 and 3, which refer to Jesus, who said clearly that he could have called upon all the hosts of heaven to deliver him, had he so chosen.

Hupomone appears on many of the lists of virtues toward which the faithful are urged to strive – II Tim.3:10, I Tim.6:11, Rom.15:4,5; Col.1:11.
In order to maintain a distinction, I have usually used “endurance” for these words.
James complicates the situation by mixing the two concepts almost at random, using makrothumia in 5:7,8 and 5:10, but hupomone in 5:11 and 1:3,4. Perhaps this is deliberate: your suggestions of any possible pattern or reasoning are welcome!

Finally, we turn to anoche (only used twice) and anechomai (15x). The noun appears only in Romans 2:4 and 3:26, referring to the amazing kindness [forbearance] of God. The verb is variously rendered as “forbear” (Eph.4:2 and Col.3:13), “endure” (II Thes.1:4, II Tim.4:3), and “suffer” (Mt.17:17, Mk.9:19, Lk.9:41, I Cor.4:12, II Cor.11:19,20; Heb.13:22).
L/S notes that anoche classically referred to an armistice or truce, and Trench offers the reminder that a truce is only a temporary cessation of hostility. The word was also used of forbearance, or “bearing with” someone – in more contemporary parlance, “putting up with” difficult people or situations. This was frequently my translation choice. It is clearly the burden of Jesus’ exclamation to his disciples, “How long do I have to put up with this?!” (Parallel passages noted above in the synoptics), and Paul’s sarcastic statements to the Corinthians about their willingness to accept false teaching (II Cor.11:1,4,19,20), as well as Gallio’s to the Jews (Ac.18:14). These words may parallel the idea of “endurance,” but don’t seem to fit very well with “patience” – nor do the two uses of stego or the three of hupophero – both also rendered “endure” or “bear”.

All three categories seem to refer primarily to attitude, rather than to specifics of behavior. This is quite clear in Paul’s instructions to Timothy (II Tim.4:2), whom he sent as a “trouble-shooter” to fledgeling congregations on several occasions. “Administer discipline,” he tells his young deputy, “give rebukes, keep on coaching, with all generosity of mind (makrothumia) as you teach.” Makrothumia does not imply “anything goes” – it is simply the attitude with which instruction is to be given. Likewise, there is nothing in hupomone to imply that “patience” under persecution requires one to adopt “door-mat” status. The beleaguered folks who received the letter to the Hebrews were reminded (10:36),”You all have need of patience [endurance], in order that when [after] you have done God’s will, you may obtain the promise.” Don’t back down, but persist in faithfulness, willingly enduring whatever fall-out that produces.
And despite the somewhat negative flavor of the passages already quoted, there is no grudging condescension in anechomai. In Eph.4:2, it is used in combination with makrothumia – “with a generous attitude, putting up with each other in love.” In Col.3:13, it is paired with charizomai, “being gracious toward one another.” Although traditionally translated “forgive”, charizomai actually has the same stem as charis – “grace” (see W.S.#60).

We are instructed to forbear [put up with] one another’s immaturity and peculiarities, and to forgive [be gracious about] error or offense, but in both cases, patiently to “keep on coaching” (W.S.#53) the team toward greater faithfulness.
Discernment enabled by the Holy Spirit is often required, properly to identify and respond to the situation with which we are confronted.
We all have a lot to learn!

“Nations”, as we think of them today – independent political entities – did not exist until relatively modern times. Modern usage has considered the term “nation” (a cohesive group, bound together by a common language, culture, and history) to be synonymous with “country” or “state” (a political entity defined by geographical boundaries, laws, and governance) – which, historically, it is not.
Old Testament references to “nations” and “kingdoms”, like those in Homer, usually referred to a single city and its environs, each with its own “king” (more like a warlord).
In the first century, virtually every “nation” in Europe, the middle east, and parts of Asia and Africa was dominated by Rome, as they had been earlier by Greece under Alexander, and earlier still by Persia, under Cyrus. None of these empires were ever termed “nations”. They were composed of many conquered nations.
The “nation” [ethnicity] with which one identified had little to do with political boundaries. The conquerors arranged and rearranged boundaries for their own convenience (much as they do today) with little regard for cultural, tribal, religious, or other loyalties. They appointed various levels of petty despots to do the local governing, with varying degrees of autonomy (and success). In the first century, some of these were Herod, Pilate, Claudius Lysius, Felix, and Festus. (You can fill in corresponding names for the 20^th and 21^st centuries!)
Jesus seems to have assumed this sort of structure in the parable (Lk.19:12-27) of the nobleman who traveled abroad “to receive a kingdom” and returned. This was probably a political grant from a higher potentate.

Liddell/Scott lists different categories of meanings for ethnos, the most common of the words rendered “nation..” (Other words rarely rendered “nation” are genea -1x– usually “generation” and genos -2 x– “kind, kindred, or offspring”.) The earliest, historically, represented “any body of people living together; a band of comrades; particular tribes, or even swarms or flocks of animals”! Later, implications of “foreign” or “barbaric” were added. In Athens, ethnos was applied to non-Athenian athletic clubs, and in the LXX, to non-Jews, and more generally, to people of a class or caste beneath one’s own, as well as to trade associations.
Consequently, a modern translation of ethnos as “nation” would be more accurately considered a cultural artifact of the time of translation, than a concept present in the original text. The common thread in many of these translations is the concept of “other”. It is mostly concerned with what a person is not, dividing “us” from “them”, and “in” from “out”. Of all the New Testament uses of the word, only ten refer to one’s own people. (Usually one’s own are called laos, “people”. Others are “ethnoi” – Gentiles, or nations). For Jews, the dichotomy was either ioudaioi, Jews, vs. hellen, Greeks; circumcision vs. uncircumcision, or laos, people, vs. ethnoi, nations or Gentiles.
For Greeks, it was hellen vs. barbaros (barbarians), a term which originally applied to anyone who did not speak Greek, but after Herodotus (4^th century BC), acquired the connotation of “brutal” or “rude”, although it continued to be applied, often in a disparaging way, to any foreigner.
Hellen (Greek) is also used, although less frequently (only 26 times) in the New Testament, usually as a more specific term of ethnic identity than ethnos, which is arbitrarily rendered “nation” (64 x) or “Gentile” (93 x), and applied to anyone who was not a Jew. Five times it was traditionally translated “heathen” – Ac.4:25, II Cor. 11:26, Gal.1:16, 2:9, 3:8 . This is not a different word. The choice among the alternatives, “nations”, “Gentiles”, and “heathen”, by traditional translators, is completely arbitrary. The word in every instance is ethnos.

One outstanding feature of the New Testament appearances of ethnos is the frequency of its being paired with “all”, “every”, or “many” (31 x), from the charge to Abraham (Rom.14:17,18) to Jesus’ instructions to his original disciples (Mt.28:19, Mk.13:10, Lk.24:47), and the glorious scenes in Rev.5:9, 7:9, 10:11 and many more. This, along with Paul’s more specific descriptions (especially in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians) reveals a massive paradigm shift! Ethnos is no longer a term of exclusion, but of gracious inclusion into the Kingdom – the people (laos) of God!

It took a while for those people to internalize the shift, and the writers are not shy about documenting their struggles. We don’t know whether the confrontation with Peter that Paul describes in Gal.2 was before or after the former’s experience with Cornelius (Ac.10) and/or the conference in Jerusalem (Ac.15), but rough spots are frankly acknowledged. Much of Paul’s correspondence with the group at Corinth involves clashes of backgrounds, as do Ephesians, Colossians, and many of his other letters. This may even show up in the vocabulary, since frequently, the term hellen is substituted for ethnos in settings that may have involved Gentile proselytes. Ac.14:1, 16:13, 17:4, 18:4 describe scenes in the synagogues of Iconium, Derbe, Thessalonica, and Corinth, and the crowd present at Pentecost (Ac.2:8-11) represented “many nations”. Might the shift in “label” have indicated that these folks, while not fully assimilated, were at least no longer considered rank outsiders?

But the objective was much higher than that. Jesus’ prayer for his people was that they all be as completely “one” as he was/is with the Father (Jn.17:21),and that prayer specifically included (v.20) “also those who are faithful to me because of their word”! This is the content of “God’s mystery” (W.S.#57) finally revealed to his people (Eph.3:3-9, Col.1:26-27, Rom.16:25-26). The “in” group has been re-defined: no longer identified by any ethnic identity, but by faithfulness to the King of Kings! And while the Law, the Prophets, and the Old Testament histories are full of admonitions to avoid those of alien”nations”, the New Testament is filled with celebration of their inclusion!

Despite his earlier hesitation. Brother Peter also finally got on board (I Pet.2:9-10). Writing (1:1) to “scattered refugees” (traditionally, “strangers”) who have been brought together by their adherence to the Lord Jesus, he encourages them to seek continually for greater faithfulness, reminding them, “You all are a chosen generation – a royal priesthood – a set-apart [holy] nation (ethnos) especially reserved for the purpose of sending out messages about the excellence of the one who called you out of darkness into his amazing light! Once, you were not (even) a people (laos), but now you are God’s people(laos)!” In v.11, he refers to them as “temporary residents and foreigners” in the world from which they came!

Paul writes in a similar vein to the brethren in Ephesus (2:11-22) of their transition from being rank outsiders (11 and 12), through the work of Christ (13-16) in creating one Body out of two people, and describing their present status (17-19) as “fellow citizens with God’s people” and members of his own household! This is an ongoing process for all concerned (20-22), as the whole group is built together “into a permanent dwelling-place for God”!
At least 54 of the 93 places where ethnos is traditionally translated “Gentiles” refer specifically to their inclusion in the people of God. In the Kingdom, “in” and “out” is completely independent of national origin. It depends entirely upon one’s loyalty to the King, which is expected to transcend – indeed, to replace – any and all other allegiances (W.S.#4).

In the middle of a section of detailed instructions for the interaction of the widely varied members of that Kingdom in Colosssae, Paul reminds them (Col.3:11-12) that not only do the former divisions no longer matter, but they have ceased to exist! They/we are now all “God’s chosen people (W.S.#56), holy [set-apart for him] and loved!” and charged with representing the grace and power that accomplished such a feat to the rest of the world.

May we learn to prove faithful to that assignment!

“Redeem/redemption” appears a total of 25 times in the New Testament narratives. These terms have been used to translate seven different Greek words, five of which refer almost exclusively to the ransom of slaves or captives (prisoners of war). Remember that in the prevailing cultures, for hundreds, if not thousands, of years, slavery had been the lot of many defeated populations, all over the then-known world. The concept was painfully familiar. So was the sometimes remote, sometimes common possibility of a compatriot accumulating sufficient goods to buy one’s freedom, or even of earning it for oneself. Prisoner exchange, likewise, was not unknown. Any of these options would be called “apolutrosis” – ransom, or redemption.

Apolutrosis, the most common of the words, used 9 x in the New Testament, lutron (2 x), lutrosis (2 x), and antilutron (1 x), all nouns, and lutroo (3 x), the verb form from which they are derived, uniformly refer, in classical usage, to either the ransom of a prisoner or slave, or the redemption of a pledge or obligation – either the process or the price of such a transaction.
Agorazo, “to purchase”, and its prefixed form, exagorazo, both verbs, more frequently refer to ordinary commerce (28 x, more than the sum of all the “redeem” words), although they may also be used for the purchase of slaves, either for their freedom or simply a change of ownership. Twice, exagorazo is used in Paul’s admonitions about “redeeming the time” (Eph.5:16 and Col.4:5), or making responsible use of it.
In this cultural context, nobody needed an explanation of “captivity”, either. Four of the five words translated that way are derived from aichme , “spear”, and refer to prisoners of war: the nouns aichmalosia and aichmalotos, used once each, and the verbs aichmaloteuo (2 x) and aichmalotizo (3 x). The other, zogreo, used only once, refers to captured animals who were kept in cages.

Both Matthew (20:28) and Mark (10:45) record Jesus’ statement that he intended to give his life as a “ransom (lutron) for many” (pollon). Luke refers, in the infancy narrative (2:38) and the despairing lament of the disciples enroute to Emmaus (24:21) to the expectation that Jesus would “redeem Israel”, but only quotes Jesus himself once (21:28), “Your deliverance [redemption] is coming near” in reference to his final triumph. In fact, Jesus himself does not use the word “sacrifice”, so common in modern parlance, even a single time in reference to his own mission, nor do any of the Gospel writers: “redemption / ransom” is their chosen term in every instance.

Please note, in the light of this choice of vocabulary, that the primary idea communicated is a change of ownership or jurisdiction, rather than the “get-out-of-jail-free” notion that is so commonly preached: and this makes an enormous difference in the expectations for the consequent life of those who have been “redeemed!”
Although the verb he chose in Col.1:13 is errusato – “rescued” (W.S.#5), rather than one of the “redeem” words, probably the best description of the situation is Paul’s triumphant reminder, “He has rescued us from the power of darkness, and has transplanted us into the kingdom of the Son of his love!”
The writer to the Hebrews chose apallaxe – also “to set at liberty” – in describing the effect of Jesus’ having passed through death and come out the other side, thus having destroyed the one who held the power of death, (Heb.2:14-15), upon those whose fear of death had held them in lifetime bondage. The idea is the same.

There is an impressive list of oppressors from which our Lord has “bought” our redemption, in addition to that primal fear.

Exagorazo: Gal.3:13 and 4:5 – the curse and bondage of the Law
lutroo: Titus 2:14 – all lawlessness, and I Pet.1:18 – the empty / futile ways of our ancestors
apolutrosis: Eph.1:7, our transgressions, and Col.1:14 – our failures.
Please note that these latter two are taken away (aphesis), not just ignored or overlooked! And please remember that although this is certainly included as part of the “package” of redemption, Jesus’ right to “forgive / take away” failures and transgressions was predicated on who he is / was – God in person! – (see W.S.#7). Neither he nor his critics related it to his death.
Even his choice of timing lends evidence to the focus on redemption. As our son Dan pointed out when we were considering this study, Jesus’ death and resurrection happened at Passover – the celebration of deliverance from bondage in Egypt – and not on the Day of Atonement, with its focus on “sins”. How have so many people missed that observation?

Do not forget, also, that redemption is much more than mere escape from negative things and circumstances! The deliverance described in Col.1:13 is into the Kingdom of the Son of God!
Apolutrosis includes (Rom.3:24) being made just;
(Rom.8:24) being adopted (see Translation Notes) as sons of God, and eventual release from the constraints of our bodies;
(I Cor.1:30 and Eph.1:14) becoming the set-apart possession of the Lord Jesus; for which we have already been provided
(Eph.1:14 and 4:30) with his seal of ownership, in the person of his Holy Spirit.
On a practical level, having been “bought” (agorazo) by our Master, and therefore having become his possession, it is reasonable to expect
(I Cor.6:30) that we become eager to reflect honor upon him;
(I Cor.7:23) that we refuse to allow ourselves to become enslaved to anyone or anything else; and
(II Pet.2:1) make every effort not to deny or discredit him in any way.

Even if this were “all there is”, the condition of those so “redeemed” would be glorious! But there is more! A future also awaits, as the culmination of Jesus’ act of redemption! In Heb.9:15-17, the transaction is cast in the context of a will, under which the heirs only acquire their inheritance after the death (refer to 2:14) of the testator. The Holy Spirit is described (Eph.1:14) as the down-payment on that inheritance, until it is complete, and Rom.8:23 also intimates that, despite the present reality of the Holy Spirit, this is only the beginning!
Those gathered around the throne (Rev.5:9, and 14:3,4) celebrate the redemption of “people from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” into the Kingdom of the Lamb.

You may have noticed that there is one question that we have not addressed: “To whom was the ransom owed or paid?” This is neither an oversight nor deliberate avoidance. The reason for its lack is simple. Although centuries of “theologians,” and preachers of many persuasions, have adamantly proclaimed the accuracy of their “logically” devised theories, the New Testament itself does not speak to that issue. Since this is a New Testament study, I will not presume to do so, either.

Our attention can be much more profitably focused upon seeking faithfully to fulfill the purpose of the One who has redeemed us for himself! He has graciously provided us with very clear instructions for that exercise.
Thanks be to God!

There, but for the grace of God, go I!” has become, in some circles, a “proudly humble” way of calling attention to another’s unfortunate (or otherwise degraded) condition. The obvious but unspoken (and unwarranted) assumption that such “grace” is absent in the experience of that “other”, and the consequent air of condescension, seem totally to escape the notice of the speaker. This is evidence of a serious misunderstanding of the nature, purpose, and expansiveness of the “Wonderful Grace of Jesus” so enthusiastically, but narrowly, and, sadly, quite selfishly celebrated in song and sermon.
Are you bothered by the inclusion of “selfishly”? Count the occurrences of “I, me, my” in that and other similar songs! That is diametrically opposed to New Testament attitudes!
A more accurate understanding of “grace” would move such a speaker to action (mercy! See W.S.#59), rather than to a piously superior sort of pity!

Grace – charis – was a very common word, with a long list of classical uses, including “outward beauty, grace, or favor; kindness or good will; thankfulness, or an expression of gratitude; a favor (personal or political) done or returned; a grant made in legal form; gratification; homage or worship; majesty; something done for the pleasure or “sake” of someone.” Its mythological personification was worshiped as the wife of the Greek god Hephaestus, and the attendants of Aphrodite (“the Graces”). (L/S). Bauer adds “gracious care: the action of someone who volunteers to do something to which he is not bound or obligated; the practical application of good will by gods or men; the condition of a person so favored.”
It is probably the “lack of obligation” idea that has given rise to the popular evangelical phrase “unmerited favor”, although no etymological data includes any analysis of whether a favor is deserved or not.

New Testament usage is also quite wide-ranging. Charis can refer to a simple “thank you” (Lk.7:19, 6:32,33,34) to a person or a group (II Cor.4:15); to giving thanks for a meal (I Cor.10:30), or profound thanksgiving to God (Rom.6:17, I Tim.1:12, II Tim.1:3, I Cor.15:57, II Cor.2:14, 8:16, 9:15, Col.3:16).
The aspect of “favor” or “good will” appears in Lk.1:30, 2:52; Ac.2:47, 7:10, 7:46) and political maneuvering in Ac.24:27 and 25:9.
Charis can describe that gracious attribute of God seen in his calling of people to himself and his Kingdom, and enabling their conversion and transformation of life (I Cor.1:4, 15:10; Gal.1:15, I Tim.1:14). This “grace”has observable results: when Barnabas was sent to Antioch by the apostles to check out the new group that had formed there, he “saw the grace of God” (Ac.11:23), and welcomed them as true brethren. We aren’t told what he “saw” – but he clearly recognized it as a “family trait.” Charis was also recognized as the active force in people becoming faithful in Achaia (Ac.18:27), and Paul urged the newly faithful in Pisidian Antioch (Ac.13:43) to continue (W.S.#58) in it, despite bitter opposition.
In Eph.2:5-7, Paul waxes eloquent about the results of being “rescued” (W.S.#5) by God’s graciousness: being made alive with Christ, and identified with his resurrection (W.S. #35) and seated together with him, as a demonstration of his gracious kindness! Notice how quickly the narrative moves away from their former, alienated condition, into the glorious, gracious provision of God! Why is it now more in vogue to dwell on people’s degradation? As one student observed, “It doesn’t say that I need to be – or pretend to be – total scum in order to experience grace!”

Somehow, sadly, in subsequent centuries, the balance has tipped strangely, and what was supposed to be the beginning of a lifelong process of transformation has been placed on hold, until the final consummation! Not so in true New Testament teaching! The focus here is on the grace that enables Kingdom living! Charis is the fuel that runs the “engine” of the transformation of life among those who are faithful! It involves “being made just” (W.S.#3) (Ac.15:11, Rom.3:24, and chapters 4 and 5); enabling honest behavior (II Cor.1:12), enabling service, both to the brotherhood and to those outside (Eph.4:7, Heb.12:28). It includes both generosity, and the means with which to express it (II Cor.9:8 and 14), confidence in prayer for help (Heb.4:16), and “coaching” (W.S.53) when needed.
The faithful are admonished to let charis motivate and regulate our speech (Eph.4:29, Col.4:6), and to be careful stewards of such a gracious gift (I Pet.4:10, Rom.12:6), using each manifestation of God’s grace to serve one another.
Both James (4:6) and Peter (I Pet.5:5) paraphrase the statement they had heard from Jesus himself (Lk.14:11) that God actively opposes (the same word that James uses in the next sentence to tell his readers how to treat the devil!) the arrogant, but gives grace to the unassuming (“humble” W.S.#14).

The expectation of faithful living as a response to God’s grace (II Cor.6:1, II Pet.3:18, Titus 2:11-15) is carefully and deliberately distinguished from the establishment – or defense – of the Law. This was obvious already in Johns prologue statement (1:17), “The law was given through Moses, but grace/graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus Christ!”
There are many warnings (Rom.4:4, 4:16, 11:6; Gal.1:6, 5:4; Heb.13:9; Rom.5,6,and 11) against trying to combine the new life with the old legalism, and also against the opposite problem, interpreting freedom from law as an excuse for licentiousness (Jude 4), which, he notes, actually amounts to denying the Lord Jesus! Heb.10:29 and 12:15 have a similar tone.

Luke, Paul, and the writer to the Hebrews frequently represent charis as not only supplying the enablement for an assignment (W.S.#55), but view the very assignment itself as a gift of grace (Ac.14:26, 15:40, 20:24; Rom.1:5, 12:6; Gal.2:9, Eph.3:2,7,8; 4:7; II Tim.1:9; Heb.2:9, 12:28).
In II Cor.8 and 9, especially 9:8 and 9:13, virtually everything connected with the offering for famine relief is included under the rubric of “grace”.
Paul urges Timothy not only to “be strong” in the grace that has come to him, but to be careful to pass it on (II Tim.2:1,2) to faithful people who will do likewise. This should be seen as the primary responsibility of every person entrusted/gifted with a task in the Body! (See Chapters 6-8 of Citizens of the Kingdom). “The grace/graciousness that is in Christ Jesus”, like the “mercy” we studied in the last post (#59), is not a treasure to be hoarded and admired, but a trust to be shared!

The final paragraph in Paul’s letter to Titus (2:11-14) provides an excellent summary of the effects and expectations that accompany the grace of God – who is called, in deliberate defiance of the Roman emperor’s edict, “our Savior / deliverer” (W.S.#4) in v.11. The application of the same title to Jesus, “our great God and Savior”in v.13 is not a contradiction, but a reiteration of that designation.
“His grace/graciousness was revealed (aorist tense: already accomplished) to all people (v.11); teaching/educating us (present participle: continuous action) to deny (aorist participle – a definitive act) ungodliness and worldly desires/longings, in order that (purpose clause) we may live (aorist subjunctive – purpose) sensibly and justly in the present age (v.12)while we are waiting (present participle – continuous ) for our blessed expectation/hope, and the appearance of (or from) the glory, of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ (v.13) (all the nouns are genitive – possession or source).
He gave himself for us [on our behalf], in order to (purpose) ransom us from all lawlessness, and to cleanse for himself a prepared people, eager for good deeds [things to do]!” (v.14).
In short, his purpose is to establish his Kingdom among us!

“Thanks – charis – be to God, for his indescribable gift!” (II Cor.9:15)

“Mercy” is another word that, due to its having been used traditionally to represent four different Greek words, is very frequently misunderstood. Sometimes mistaken as a synonym for “grace” – which will be treated in a later post – it has typically been co-opted by the compilers of creeds, confessions and liturgies as a component of what I sometimes call the “cockroach syndrome.” You are surely familiar with the unfortunate caricature: God sitting sternly up on a cloud, making black marks in his ledgers, noting the details of every infraction by his creatures, and, in response to their programmed, groveling pleas for “mercy” (see W.S. #6), saying grudgingly, “Well, I could – and maybe should – just stomp you like a cockroach as you try to scurry away and hide, but I won’t, because after all, I really am merciful!”
It would be difficult to find anything (short of the abrupt descent of a celestial boot!) more antithetical to the true mercy of God, as revealed in and by our Lord, Jesus Christ! He ought to sue those guys for libel!

The most common word translated “mercy” is the noun, eleos (28 x) – verb form eleeo (33 x). Classically, it refers to mercy, compassion, or pity, or, when combined with poieo (to do or to make), the giving of alms. (Liddell/Scott). This character trait was personified and worshiped at Athens and Epidaurus – which, interestingly, was a center of medical treatment.
The other words were used much more rarely: oiktirmos / oiktirmon, “sympathetic, compassionate” (5x and 3x respectively), and hilaskomai (2 x) and hileos (1 x). These latter two, which are the only ones used classically of “appeasing angry gods”, unfortunately seem to have claimed the primary attention of doctrine-writers. In the New Testament, they appear only in the parable of the Pharisee and the publican (Lk.8:13), and in Hebrews in reference to the duties of the high priest under the old (obsolete) covenant (2:17 and 8:12). These are hardly the best authorities!

Thayer distinguishes between eleos and oiktirmos by noting that the former is a mercy that leads to action to alleviate or eliminate misery, while the latter offers pity for a hopeless situation – but the uses of oiktirmos in Lk.6:36, Phil.2:1, and Col.3:12 do not fit that analysis. They all imply action.

The most common use of eleeo is in reference to Jesus either being asked to heal someone (5 x in Matthew, 2x in Mark, and 3 x in Luke), or having done so (Mk.5:19, Phil.2:27), or in Elizabeth’s celebration of the healing of her sterility (Lk.1:58). Indeed, Mary, Elizabeth, and Zachariah provide a delightful catalog of evidence of “the mercy of God” in Lk.1:50-78: (51) scattering the arrogant, (52) de-throning the powerful, (53) feeding the hungry and dismissing the uncaring wealthy, (54) keeping his promise, (57-58) enabling Elizabeth to have a child, (67)enabling Zachariah’s prophecy, (68) providing redemption, (71) deliverance from the hatred of enemies, (72) remembering his covenant, (74-75) giving his people the privilege to worship him without fear – see W.S. #16 – and the removal of their failures – see W.S.#7, and (78) guiding them into the ways of peace!
“Loving generosity” might be the best description of that list!

The celebration of God’s mercy continues in the epistles: Eph.2:4 – God, who is rich in mercy ….made us alive together with Christ! Titus 3:5 – the mercy of God rescued us (see W.S. #5) from the futility described in v.3; I Pet.1:3 “according to his mercy,” he gave us new birth into hope (#36) by the resurrection of Jesus (#35); I Peter 2:10 – “You all are experiencing mercy” by having been made God’s people!. Heb.4:16 – because Jesus understands our humanity, we find mercy, and grace to help in our time of need!
“Mercy” is occasionally added (4x) to the more usual greeting of “grace and peace”, which has sometimes been called a melding of the standard Hebrew (peace) and Greek greetings. However, the usual Greek greeting, chaire, is not derived from charis. I wonder if Paul changed it deliberately? We will take a more detailed look at this when we consider “grace”.

For the faithful, it is essential to note that the mercy of God is not a treasure to be hoarded, nor a pardon to be begged-for, but a trait to be learned and shared! Very early, Jesus included that expectation in the Beatitudes (Mt.5:7) and parables. The inquiring lawyer in Lk.10:37 grudgingly recognized that “showing mercy” was the point of Jesus’ story of the Samaritan, and the parable of the debtors (Mt.18:33) stresses that mercy received must also be passed on. Even more pointedly, Jesus quoted their own scripture to the nit-picking scribes and Pharisees (Mt.9:13 and 12:7) , that God values mercy above their showy “sacrifices”, and (Mt.23:23) also above their meticulous tithing of herbs. Please note that “mercy” is attached, (not antithetical) to “justice” and “faithfulness”! There is no hint of an “Anything goes” attitude here.

In the same vein, James warns that in failing to show mercy to one’s brother, one places his own situation in jeopardy (2:13-15). Paul urges the Corinthians (II Cor.4:1) that the mercy they have received is intended to provoke faithful living. In Phil.2:1, Rom.12:1, and Col.3:12, he uses the less common oiktirmos, but the message is the same: mercy received must result in merciful and faithful behavior.
James (3:17) characterizes godly wisdom as including being “full of mercy and good fruit”; Jude uses the same word (21 and 22) with more solemn overtones, of the rescue of an errant brother. In I Cor.12:8, Paul lists “showing mercy” among the gifts of the Holy Spirit, to be exercised in the growth of the brotherhood – “with cheerfulness [good humor].” No reluctant toleration here. The idea of “loving generosity” fits very well.

Paul eloquently summarizes the intent of the gracious gift of God’s mercy in Rom.12:1,2:
“I encourage you all, therefore, brothers, because of God’s compassion [mercy], to present your bodies a living offering, set-apart, pleasing to God: this is your logical worship. And do not (continue to) pattern yourselves by this age, but be (continuously) completely changed, by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is: what is good, and pleasing, and complete [perfect].”

There is nothing to add but “Amen!”

It is unfortunate that traditional translators have most frequently (59 out of 119 incidents) chosen “abide” – the word least familiar to speakers of modern English, and therefore the most easily corrupted by unwarranted “mystical” interpretations – to represent a rather ordinary word like meno. The classical uses of meno include nothing esoteric at all. Liddell/Scott lists “to stay or wait, to endure or remain, to keep or preserve, to abide by an opinion or conviction”, among similar ideas. This single word has been split, by those traditional translators, into multiple variants, including “continue (11 x), dwell (15 x), endure (3 x), remain (17 x), and tarry (9 x), and nearly as many more used only a single time each. NONE of these connote the “abiding” image of “saints” sitting silently in serene bliss, doing absolutely nothing but languishing in the light of their halos!

Of the total, about a third refer simply to being, living, temporarily waiting, or staying in a particular location, as do nearly all of the cases where meno appears with a prefix: epimeno, katameno, parameno, prosmeno, and hupomeno. Eighteen describe a person’s condition or circumstances, as in Jn.5:38, 8:35, 12:46; I Cor.7:8, 11, 20, 24, and others; and fourteen indicate simple survival (Heb.12:7, Mt.11:23, I Cor.15:6). Persistence is advocated in various epistles (II Tim.3:14, I Jn.2:24, Heb.3:14), as well as repeatedly in John’s writings.

John shifts the focus substantially, and departs markedly from these more classical connotations, to give greater attention to relationships, rather than merely location, duration, or condition. Actually, this departure, almost unique to John’s work, is one very strong piece of evidence for the (disputed) single authorship of all the material attributed to him. He uses a form of meno at least 58 times, more than any other writer, and only 10 of these fall into the usual categories. Most of the rest refer to deep and enduring relationships, but they are relationships with very practical implications. They are typified by Jesus’ own unity with the Father (Jn.14:10).

Another outstanding deviation in John’s work is his choice of verb tenses. One would ordinarily expect the concept of “remaining” to be expressed in the present tense – especially if referring to the establishment or endurance of relationship. In other writings, a temporary condition is usually expressed in the aorist tense, and an on-going state in the present. John, however, uses an aorist tense five times: the first “remain” in Jn.15:4, both conditional statements in15:7, the imperative in 15:9, and the conditional clause in I Jn.2:24. I’d really like to ask him why! It is possible that he has in mind a definitive point of commitment – the aorist is used that way in reference to “becoming faithful”. All the rest of his verbs are present (continuous) tenses. Usually, the present tense indicates that no terminal point is in view.

Each of the primary admonitions has a very comforting air of reciprocity. Not only does Jesus state confidently “I am in the Father and the Father is in me” (Jn.14:10), but he applies the same reciprocity to his followers: (15:4) “Remain in me and I in you”; (15:9-10) “Follow my instructions and you will remain in my love, just as I have followed my Father’s instructions and remain in his love”; (8:31) “remain in my word” and (I Jn.2:14) “The word of God is living in you”; (II Jn.2 and 4) “The truth remains in/among us” and “your children walking in the truth.” Although meno is not used there, the same idea appears in Jesus’ prayer (Jn.17:21): he expects his own relationship with the Father to be replicated in ours with him!

There are ample lists of evidence of the development of that relationship – Jn.15:5 – bearing fruit; 15:8 – the glory of God!; I Jn.2:6 – copying Jesus’ behavior; 2:10 – love for the brethren; 2:!7 – doing God’s will; 3:24 – the presence of the Holy Spirit; 4:12,13,16 – maturity in love.
Note especially the juxtaposition of truth and love in II Jn.1 and 2, also echoed in I Pet.1:22. That realization would go a long way toward bridging “doctrinal divides”, from both directions! How frequently do you see “love” as the hallmark of those who claim to be champions of the “truth”? Or a passion for the “truth” among those whose battle-cry is “unconditional love”? If these do not go together, then neither is genuine!

There are very explicit conditional statements associated with faithful “remaining / continuing”. Jn.8:31 – “IF you remain in my word, you are truly my disciples.” Jn.15:7 – “IF you remain in me and my teachings remain in you” is the requirement for answered prayer. I Jn.2:24 – IF what you have heard remains in you, you are staying with the Son and the Father.” Paul, too, recognized that one is rewarded (I Cor.3:14) IF his work survives the test, and uses a prefixed form, epimeno, in Rom.11:22,23) to declare that the spiritual status of both Jew and Gentile is DEPENDENT upon their “remaining” in faithfulness or unfaithfulness.

Likewise, neither Jesus nor John minced words about negative evidence: Jn.5:38 – (Jesus to the Pharisees) “You don’t have the Word of God among you, because you are not faithful to the one he sent!”; I Jn.3:!4 – “The one who doesn’t love, remains in death!”; Jn.3:36 – “The wrath of God remains” on those who are not faithful to his Son (in contrast to v.35, eternal life is experienced by those who are). Note that all of these are PRESENT, not future, tenses! He is not talking about “destiny” here, but about the present state of affairs!

So how does one “abide / remain / continue” in the Lord Jesus and his word / truth? He has provided not only careful directions, but the perfect demonstration: his own example of deliberate obedience to the Father’s instructions (Jn.15:9), to the point that he could credit his Father with everything he did (Jn.14:10)!
Everyone who becomes deliberately faithful to him need not live in darkness (Jn.12:46).
“The one who keeps saying he’s living in relationship with him ought to walk [live, behave] as he did!” (I Jn.2:6).

Very simple – but not easy.
May we urge – and help – each other faithfully to abide/continue/remain in him!