The Pioneers’ New Testament

Ever since the first Council of the first century Christian church (Acts 15), faithful followers of Jesus have differed in their attitudes toward “the Law”. Some of them point to “verses” by which they demand adherence to the entire Old Testament system, and others resist any standard of conduct whatsoever. There is also a broad spectrum in between those positions. Can we find any coherent pattern in the New Testament? Possibly not; but careful examination can yield helpful principles.

“Law” – nomos – was used, classically, both of established civil or religious codes, and the habitual custom of a group. Aristotle used it of his natural observations, and several centuries earlier, Alcman had applied it to the music used to accompany recitations of epic texts. (L/S)*
Bauer* notes that early writers applied the term to instructions purportedly received from Zeus, Hermes, or Apollo; and therefore the word was naturally adopted in the LXX to refer to the principles codified by Moses. “Since the law and its observance are the central point of Jewish piety, the word became synonymous with their religion.” Actually, the LXX mixed nomos with logos and onoma almost at random (L/S)*, but this does not occur in New Testament writings.
Thayer* adds that over time, nomos was expanded to include the prophets, and all of the “sacred literature”, since the Jews did not distinguish between civil, moral, and ceremonial requirements.
(*See the Bibliography in Translation Notes for reference to these lexicons.)

Out of 195 occurrences of nomos in the New Testament, only 50 are in the Gospels. Only Luke (2:23,24, 39) adds the phrase “of the Lord”, and this appears only in his narrative of Jesus being taken to the temple as a baby. Elsewhere in the same passage, he refers to “the law of Moses” (2:22), or simply “the law” (2:27).
The Pharisees, opposing Jesus, refer to “our law” (Jn.19:7), as does Nicodemus advocating for his fair treatment (Jn.7:51).
Pilate challenges the mob to deal with Jesus “according to your law” (Jn.18:31), to which they respond, “we have a law…”. They also used it as a tool to crush those whom they presumed to dominate (Jn.7:49) “This crowd, that’s not acquainted with the law – they are cursed!”

BUT – let’s get to our perennial question: WHAT DID JESUS SAY? And the answer is, “not very much”, but what he did say was hugely significant. For starters, he never called it “the law of God.”
Five times (Lk.24:44, Jn.1:45, 7:19, 7:23, 8:5) Jesus refers to “the law of Moses,” while John himself comments in his introduction, (1:17) “The law was given through Moses, but graciousness and truth (came into being) through Jesus Christ.”
Addressing his opponents, Jesus pointedly refers to “your law” (Jn.8:17, 10:34); and speaking to the disciples (15:25) he calls it “their law.” Elsewhere, he uses no possessive at all, and says simply “the law.”

As he lays out the “constitution” of his Kingdom, the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus says plainly (Mt.5:17), “Don’t conclude that I came to destroy the law and the prophets. I did not come to destroy, but to fulfill [make complete]!” He then devotes a large section of that sermon to correcting prevalent misconceptions about the Law. Similar corrections are recorded scattered through Mark’s and Luke’s accounts. Jesus summarizes the true intent of the law (Mt.7:12, 22:36, 22:40, 23:23), as love toward God and one’s neighbor, or turns a questioner to its principles (Lk.10:26, Mt.12:5). The same positive idea appears in Mt.19:16 and parallels in Mk.10:17 and Lk.18:18, but without the word “law.”

There are, however, two strong statements that are consistently overlooked by folks who adhere to a “flat book” interpretation of Biblical authority (assuming equal force and authority between the Old and New Testaments). Both Matthew (11:13)and Luke (16:16) record Jesus’ announcement of a very basic “change of government.” The accounts are worded slightly differently, but the message is clear. “The law and the prophets were (in effect) until John (the Baptist). Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!” Things are different now!

Luke follows that declaration by a partial quote, which Matthew recorded elsewhere in more detail (5:18): “Until heaven and earth are done away with [pass away], one iota or accent mark will not be removed from the law, until it all happens [is completed]!” Matthew connects this with v.17, where Jesus declared his purpose to fulfill the law. (Please see the discussion of pleroo and teleioo in word study #13.)
Remember that enroute to Jerusalem (Lk.18:31, 22:37) Jesus had told his disciples everything that was about to happen, “so that everything written … about the Son of Man will be completed [fulfilled]”. Remember also that he had just spent three years sorting out for them which parts of “everything written” were actually “about him”! His “list” differed sharply from that of the powerful religious leaders — and many of the “lists” currently in vogue today.

In John’s account of the crucifixion (remember, he is the only one of the gospel writers who says that he was personally present), he records (19:28) that Jesus “knew that everything had been completed…” and (19:30) surrendered his life with the words, “It has been completed!” – a shout of triumph, not a whimper of defeat! This is a perfect tense (see appendix to the Notes). Luke reserves that conclusion until after the resurrection (24:44) “This is what I told you!”

As we turn in the next post, to consider the “law” in the early church (Acts) and the epistles, please remember that with Jesus’ death and resurrection, a monumental transition has occurred.
“Everything has been completed!” The new Kingdom has been established!

Years ago, in another state, we lived near a group of devoted followers of the Lord Jesus, whose first language was not English. When accosted by zealous “soul-savers” who demanded, “Are you saved?”, their usual – and quite Scriptural (Titus 1:2, 2:13, 3:7) – reply was, “I have a good (or “blessed”) hope!” This usually provoked an attack by the questioner: “HOPE??? If you don’t KNOW you are saved, you aren’t!” This was followed by a memorized lecture on the questioner’s carefully canned and footnoted version of the necessary remedy. As a consequence, the two groups, who could have related as brethren with much mutual benefit, seldom interacted at all, largely because of one misunderstood English word. How sad!
We have already considered (Word Study #5) the continually progressive nature of “salvation”, which should, but probably won’t, put to rest such arrogant discourtesy; we need also to look at the lexical meaning of elpis, “hope.”

Classically, it wasn’t complicated at all. Synonyms include “expectation, confidence, or one’s reason to believe in something or to expect an event.” The uncertainty that accompanies much English usage of “hope” – (“I hope it will – or won’t – rain!”) is completely absent from both classical and New Testament usage. Early English translators coped with this semantic anomaly by translating the verb form, elpizo, as “trust” (18 times, as opposed to “hope” only 10 times), but the Greek word does not “mean” different things in different contexts. It uniformly conveys “confident expectation”.

Similarly, simple expectation is apparent in the 16 “more ordinary” uses of elpizo in the New Testament – fully half of the total. “I hope to see you,” “I hope you know,” appear frequently in the epistles; lending with the “hope” of repayment (Lk.6:34-45), a farmer planting in “hope” of a harvest (I Cor.9:10), and Felix “hoping” that Paul would offer him a bribe (Ac.24:26) certainly involve expectation. So on what grounds do folks feel justified in changing the meaning of the word when it refers to less tangible matters?
Peter’s admonition (I Pet.1:13) to “set your hope[confidence] completely on the grace being brought to you all in the revelation of Jesus Christ,” and Paul’s explanation (Rom.8:24-25) of the true import of “hope” in relation to one’s confidence in Jesus’ provision, clearly intend to convey similar assurance. When Paul writes to Timothy (I Tim.4:10) of “hoping in the living God” as the motivation for his life of constant perseverance despite the concomitant privations, he is not describing wishful thinking, but a settled conviction.

When we turn to elpis, the noun form, the reference is almost entirely to one’s Christian commitment and expectation, as opposed to the “ordinary” affairs of life (which involve only 5 of 53 uses of the word), and the certainty of expectation is, if anything, even more vivid. Interestingly, the word elpis does not appear at all in any of the Gospels. Might that be because of the constant, observable presence of the One who is later identified (I Tim.1:1) as “Christ Jesus, (who is) our hope[confidence]”? Paul asks, rhetorically, in Rom.8:24-25, “Who hopes for what he (already) sees?” Perhaps the time when his people needed “hope” the most, was after Jesus’ physical departure? This seems plausible, when one realizes that ten of the references, (Ac.2:26, 23:6, 24:15; Col.1:5, 1:27; I Thes.4:13, 5:8; and Tit.1:2, 2:13, 3:7) specifically mention either the Resurrection (Jesus’ or ours) or his Return; and several others could be interpreted that way. As Peter put it, (I Pet.1:3) “According to his (God’s) great mercy, he has given us another birth, into a living hope [confidence], by means of Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead!”

Among the abundant and glorious benefits of Jesus’ resurrection is the way it “spills over” upon all who follow him! It is this truth that enables all the other “hopes” of his people, including (Rom.5:2) “We revel in the hope [confidence] that comes from (source genitive) the glory of God!”, and (Rom.12:12) “Your confidence [hope] is the means (dative) to keep you all rejoicing!” In Gal.5:5, Paul speaks of our “hope of justice, that comes out of faithfulness”; in Eph.1:18 and 4:4, of “the hope [confidence] of his/our calling”; and in Phil.1:20, of his hope [confidence] that he will be found faithful. Also included are “the hope of the gospel” (Col.1:23), “the hope of glory” (Col.1:27), the “patience of hope [the endurance produced by the confident expectation which has its source in the Lord Jesus Christ]”  (I Thes.1:3), “the blessed hope” of Jesus’ return (Tit.2:13), and (Tit.3:7) “the hope [expectation] of eternal life”! These are just a sampling. Grab a concordance and check them all! It cannot help but increase your enjoyment – “hope” – of the goodness of God!

The five uses of elpis in the letter to the Hebrews deserve particular attention, partly because (please see the introductory material in Translation Notes) it was probably written to a second generation congregation, who therefore lacked the privilege of personal memories of the initial arrival of either Jesus himself or “ambassadors” of his Kingdom. They may have been somewhat worn down by years of persecution; hence the early admonition (3:6) to “hang on to our determination and [hope] confident expectation firmly until the end.” Again in 6:11, the instruction is to “demonstrate the same eagerness for complete confidence [full assurance] of hope [expectation] until the end; and 6:18, a reminder to “come running to take hold of the hope that he (Jesus) offered.” In 7:18-19, after a rehearsal of the inadequacy and failure of the old system and its hierarchy, it is summarized, “The previous commandment is set aside, because of its weakness and uselessness – for the law didn’t make anything [or, anyone] complete – but a better hope is introduced, through which/whom we come near to God!” The only place where elpis is not traditionally translated “hope” is Heb.10:23, where someone substituted “faith” – an entirely different word. This is probably one factor which contributed to the erroneous assumption that “faith” was a doctrine to be “professed”, rather that a faithful way of life (see Word Study #1). In the PNT, I offer the alternative, “Let’s hang on to our commitment to our hope without hesitation” – which I consider a more accurate representation of the text – and in harmony with Heb.11:1 – much quoted but little understood or heeded: “Faithfulness is the basis [foundation] of our hope [expectation], the proof [legal evidence] of what is unseen.”

The object of one’s hope is made obvious by his faithfulness – and is intended, among other things, to serve as an incentive (I Jn.3:3) to purity of life, (II Thes.2:16)eternal encouragement, (Gal.5:5) justice, and (Rom.12:12) indescribable joy! Such a life will provoke curiosity, which is why Peter (I Pet.3:15) urges his readers to be ready to answer questions about that hope. This admonition is not a “hunting license” but a mandate to be approachable! (See W.S. #18)

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

During his time on earth, Jesus said very little about the implications, or even the fact, of his resurrection, except to assure his confused followers that it was going to happen (Mt.16:21, 17:23; Lk.9:22, Jn.2:19, Mk.9:31, 10:34). My favorite of the direct quotes comes later – from Rv.1:17-18: “Don’t be afraid! I AM the first and the last! I ‘m the one who is alive! I was dead, but look! I am alive forever! And I have the keys of death and hades.” And yes, I know he did not use any of the “resurrection” words in that statement, but the message is certainly, gloriously, there!

That illustrates the difficulty of working on this subject as a word study. It is a concept that permeates the whole New Testament, in many different forms. The task is further complicated by the fact that there are only two Greek words specifically used for the purpose, but traditional translators have used them interchangeably, and rendered them variously as “to rise, to arise, to raise, to be raised, risen, to stand up, to awaken,” and many more.
The classical writers aren’t much help here, either. Anistemi – one of the primary verbs – was used of just about any kind of “getting up”, whether from sleep or a sick bed (Herodotus), to arise as a champion or to rise from one’s seat as a token of respect (Homer), to produce witnesses, to mount a rebellion, to set up a building or statue, or, rarely until the New Testament era, to rise from the dead. Egeiro, the other most-used verb, has virtually the same list of meanings. I have been unable to discern a difference. Egeiro is used more frequently in the New Testament, unless one includes the noun forms. Anastasis, “resurrection”, would push the balance the other way.

In addition to prophesying his own situation (Mt.16:21 and parallels), Jesus listed “raise the dead” among his instructions when he commissioned his disciples for their journey (Mt.10:8), and also as evidence for his identity in replying to the messengers from John the Baptist (Mt.11:5 and 11). Accounts of his own activity in that regard include (Lk.7:14) the raising of the widow’s son at Nain, (Lk.8:54) Jairus’ daughter, and of course (Jn.11) his friend Lazarus. Recorded incidents of disciples following those instructions are in Ac.9:36-42 (Peter and Dorcas), and Ac.20:7-12 (Paul and Eutychus) – although Dr. Luke, in this latter account, questions whether the boy was actually dead.

Because the verb forms are so frequently used of other situations – getting up and going somewhere – I have chosen to focus primarily upon the noun, anastasis.

The resurrection of Jesus was (and should still be!!!) the primary burden of the gospel message! It was presented as the ultimate proof of Jesus’ identity. Peter cites it early on (Ac.1:22) in his urging that a replacement be found for Judas “to become a witness with us of his (Jesus’) resurrection.” In his Pentecost sermon (Ac.2:31-36) he declares that the resurrection reveals Jesus as the source of the Holy Spirit’s coming, and provides evidence that “God made this Jesus, whom you all crucified, both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One]!” The complaint of the Council, a short time later (Ac.4:2) was that the apostles were “teaching the people, and proclaiming, in Jesus, the resurrection of the dead!”, and as the brotherhood met together (4:33), “the apostles gave testimony of the Lord Jesus’ resurrection.”
Paul attracted curious attention in Athens by “preaching about Jesus and the resurrection”(Ac.18, 32), and answered his accusers, before the Sanhedrin (Ac.23:6) and the Roman court (24:15) that the resurrection was the basis for the charges against him. This totally confused Festus, who explained his dilemma to Agrippa (Ac.25:19), that the Jews had brought no accusations of evildoing, as he expected, but “some argument about their own religion, about a certain Jesus who had been put to death, whom Paul said was alive”!

Why, then, in so-called “Christian” teaching or “doctrine”, is the balance so heavily weighted toward Jesus’ death, rather than his resurrection? Because a “cross” is so much easier to symbolize (read, “idolize”) than an empty tomb? Because it is still a symbol of condemnation and blame, and can be used to induce crippling guilt and abject submission? The truly Scriptural “symbol” of our faith is the Resurrection life – both his and ours!

The Epistles contain two complementary strands of teaching concerning the Resurrection: establishing the certainty of that fact, as a validation of Jesus’ identity, and exploring the results that should consequently be evident in the lives of his followers.
In Rom.1:4, Paul reiterates that the resurrection shows Jesus to be God’s Son. The writer to the Hebrews lists it (6:2) among the most basic teachings, that form the foundation for everything else, and Peter (I Pet.1:3) represents it as the source of the “living hope” with which the faithful are gifted, and later (3:21) the producer of a “healthy consciousness of God.” Paul even goes so far as to declare (I Cor.15:17) that if Christ wasn’t raised, we might as well forget the whole thing! Of the principles listed in the first paragraph of that chapter, the resurrection is the only one that includes extensive documentation – fully half the paragraph!

Elsewhere, emphasis is strong, upon identification of faithful individuals with the Lord to whom they belong. Peter (I Pet.3:21-22) and Paul (Rom.6:3-11) both connect the expected transformation of life with the symbolism of baptism – the “burial” of the former life, and “resurrection” to the new. A similar theme appears in Col.2:12 – “buried with him in baptism, you all were resurrected together, in him….” and its corollary (3:1-3)”since you all were resurrected together with Christ, keep seeking what is above…” He goes on in the rest of his letter to outline the characteristics of a resurrection life.
Eph.2:1-10 also contains a vivid before-and-after picture: “You all had been dead…” whereupon he proceeds to describe the life of a person who has not been “raised with Christ”; (v.4) “But God … made us alive!” and then proceeds to describe the graciousness and kindness thus manifested, and (v.10) its expected results.

Brother Paul summarized the matter even more eloquently (if that is possible), in his letter to Philippi (3:10-11): “I want to know [become intimately acquainted with] him, and the power of [that comes from] his resurrection: and the sharing of [that comes from] his sufferings, being transformed together by [with] his death, if somehow I may arrive into the resurrection from the dead.”

Please notice: “suffering” and “death” are neither denied, nor minimized, nor avoided; but they are bookended – with the Resurrection! Paul’s aspiration – and ours – starts with Jesus’ resurrection, and ends with our own!

And that makes an enormous difference.
All praise to the glory of his graciousness!

As we approach this topic, please remember that it is in no way intended to diminish or disparage the enormous impact upon the human family of Jesus’ act, in allowing himself to be tortured and put to death by people who had rejected the invitation to enlist in his Kingdom. “He came to his own (world, people), and his own refused to welcome him” (Jn.1:11) summarizes incalculable suffering.
I do, however, intend to put that event into a more Biblical perspective, by calling your attention to the overwhelmingly greater attention paid by the New Testament writers to the glorious truth and power of his Resurrection! By becoming narrowly fixated only upon the cross, (nearly, if not altogether, to the point of idolatry), well-meaning writers and speakers have badly skewed the Biblical message.

It was very difficult to find historical information about “crosses” or “crucifixion.” The early classical historians and writers, Herodotus and Thucydydes in the 5^th century BC, and Homer at least a century earlier, used stauros to refer to any kind of stakes or pilings driven into the ground as a foundation for a building, as fencing, or as fortifications. Not until Polybius in the second century BC, and Didorus Siculus in the first, does Liddell/Scott mention any use of a “cross” as an instrument of execution. In the first two centuries AD, of course, it is common in Plutarch, Josephus, and Lucian, among others. I found one suggestion that the Roman Empire may have copied the practice from Carthage, in North Africa; but apparently that particular form of brutality came on the scene comparatively late in ancient history, and was inflicted primarily upon the lowest classes of criminals.
Most writers of “history” tend to concentrate on gruesome descriptions of the process (which was indeed horrible), and leap from there into complex doctrinal dissertations that have no New Testament basis. They frequently try to relate it to the Old Testament sacrificial system and its law – conveniently ignoring the fact that in that system, the prescribed form of execution was stoning. I do not intend to argue the fine points in which such writers/speakers delight. I would only ask, as many times before, “What did Jesus say?” Can one claim to be proclaiming Jesus, without consulting him?

Of the 28 occurrences of stauros in the New Testament, eleven are simply describing the circumstances of Jesus’ death. The only other references in the Gospels are the parallel passages in Mt.10:38 and 16:24, Mk.8:34 and 10:21, and Lk.9:23 and 14:21. These are considered in the previous post (#33). The verb form, stauroo, to crucify, is a bit more frequent, with 46 New Testament uses, of which 25 are in accounts of Jesus’ trial and death, and 4 in accounts of his resurrection! Only in Mt.20:19 and 26:2 is Jesus himself quoted, and in both instances, he is giving a simple forewarning to the disciples of what is about to happen. In no case does Jesus himself make any statement about either the causes or the implications of that event.
Peter’s two sermons, recorded in Ac.2:36 and 4:10 – the only uses of stauroo in that earliest history of the church – vividly point out to the listeners that although they thought they had disposed of Jesus, HE IS ALIVE!!!, and thereby demonstrated to be “both Lord and Christ [the Anointed One]” (chapter 2), and (chapter 4) active among his people!

There is a bit more reference to the cross in the Epistles, but much less than I expected. Paul speaks of the cross eleven times, and uses the verb form eight times. Some of the “accomplishments” attributed to the cross, that are seldom mentioned in modern teaching, include Eph.2:16 – the reconciling of Jew and Gentile into one Body, Col.1:20 – making peace by reconciling everything to himself (Jesus), Gal.5:24 – those who belong to Jesus have (active voice) “crucified the human nature with its cravings and passions”, and its parallel in Rom.6:6 – “our old person was (passive voice) crucified together with him … so that we may be no longer enslaved to failure.” In Gal.6:14, Paul affirms “In no way will I brag, except about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world is crucified, as far as I am concerned, and I with respect to the world.”

Paul becomes somewhat more theoretical about the subject in both of his letters to Corinth. Scolding the group for their divisions, he asks (1:13) “Paul wasn’t crucified for you, was he?”, making the point, in the first two chapters, that no one but Jesus deserves their loyalty. There, as in Gal.5:11 and Phil.2:8, where this is only one element of Paul’s description of Jesus’ obedience, his intention seems to be to highlight the degradation assumed by society at large to be associated with crucifixion. He notes that the willing acceptance of this dishonor by Jesus should be a strong motivation for eschewing the elevation of any individuals. Only once does Paul make any connection with “charges against us” (Col.2:14) – something Jesus himself never mentioned at all – yet, tragically, that has become, in the minds of many, the sum total – the only focus – of their “gospel message”! (Please refer to W.S.#7, for a study of “forgiveness”, and note that Jesus’ authority to forgive was derived from WHO HE WAS/IS – “God-with-us”– and is not connected in any of the Gospel accounts to his death.)

In this regard, it is useful also to include some of Paul’s references to Jesus’ death, where the cross is not specifically mentioned, in trying to reconstruct the message. Please refer to the end of chapter 12 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a summary of these. One is made to wonder, why we hear so little about most of these.
And don’t forget that even Paul, whom folks that delight in designing “doctrines” love to quote (often not very carefully), qualifies his statement about Jesus’ death (I Cor.15:3) with the assertion (v.14), “If Christ hasn’t been raised, our preaching is useless!”

It will be necessary to save a more detailed examination of the primacy of the resurrection for the next posting. I will only note here that in contrast to the 28 references to the cross, there are 40 to anastasis, the primary word used for the resurrection. The verb form, anistemi, occurs 112 times (as opposed to 46 uses of “crucify”), and that is without taking into account the other words used in the glorious message that JESUS IS ALIVE – and in him, we too shall live!
Stay tuned.

I suspect that people who are accustomed to liturgical “confessions” in which they are obliged to refer to themselves as “unworthy sinners” will be amazed to discover that the term “unworthy” (anaxios) appears only four times in the entire New Testament! It is a tragic reality that both hymnody and theological pronouncements, under the guise of “appropriate humility” (see W.S.#14), have bamboozled unsuspecting believers into continually wallowing in their imagined “unworthiness” instead of rejoicing and growing in the gracious provision of our Lord, who has (Col.1:12) “qualified us (KJV “made us meet) to share in the inheritance of his people, in the light!”

Who is really “unworthy”? In Ac.13:46, Paul and Barnabas, as they left the synagogue in Pisidian Antioch, warned the authorities that in rejecting the message of Jesus, they had “judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life.” Later, Paul wrote to the folks in Corinth (I Cor.6:2), amazed that they considered themselves “unworthy” to settle their own disputes, but rather used civil courts; and later warned them (11:27,29) to evaluate their “worthiness” to share in the observance of communion, in which admonition he listed (1) divisions, centered upon people and their ideas, (2)lack of concern for the poor members of the group, and (3) failure to “discern the Body” (see Chapter 7 of Citizens of the Kingdom)and their relatedness to it, as disqualifying a person from participation.
That’s ALL, folks. Those are the only references.

Nevertheless, a great deal is said about “worthiness”, and it is true that some references indicate its perceived lack: we should also examine those. The concept is expressed in two “families” of words: axios (adj.)/axioo(verb)/axios(adv.), and hikanos (adj.)/hikanoo(verb). In classical usage, they are somewhat similar.
Axios may refer to a price or monetary value, as well as to a person’s character. It often carries the idea of being deserving of reward or honor, or even retribution.
Hikanos, occasionally translated “worthy” (5 x out of 38), more frequently expresses ideas of competence or sufficiency (of quantity or ability), or appropriateness.
Axios was also used in a courtroom setting, where Pilate (Lk.23:15), Lysias (Ac.23:29) and Paul (Ac.25:11) all declare that nothing “deserving of death” has been proven.
Jesus spoke of workers “deserving” their wages (Mt.10:10, Lk.10:17), and Jewish elders told Jesus that a centurion “deserved” his attention (Lk.7:4), although the man himself maintained that he did not (7:7) and elsewhere (Mt.8:8 and Lk.7:6), hikanos is chosen in that same situation.
Axios also describes persons of similar status, as in John the Baptist’s oft-quoted statement about his “not being worthy” to untie Jesus’ sandals. This may be what has triggered the “humility competition” in many churches, but John was simply making the point that he, personally, did not have the status of the promised Messiah. Some versions of that quote also use hikanos. In the parable of the prodigal, the son who had wasted his inheritance rightly admitted his “unworthiness”, but note that the father did not leave him there.

“Deserving,” of course, works both ways. Heb.10:29 warns that disregarding Jesus “deserves” greater severity than disregarding Moses, having already established (3:3) that Jesus “deserves” the greater glory. And Jesus himself warns prospective disciples that to be “worthy” of him requires that one give him absolute priority over all other affections (Mt.10:37).
The rest of that statement (Mt.10:38) has been grossly abused. The phrase, “taking up one’s cross” has become so ubiquitous, that practically any unavoidable difficulty, aggravation, or inconvenience is likely to be piously labeled, “just the cross I have to bear.”
WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT STATEMENT FOR THE BLASPHEMY THAT IT IS!!!
The cross, for Jesus, was NOT an unavoidable inconvenience! Neither was it a case of submission to illness, natural disaster, or insurmountable evil! Jesus was speaking sober truth when he said he could have called upon all the hosts of heaven to rescue him! He CHOSE not to do so, in order to ransom the people of his Kingdom from the domain of death and fear (Heb.2:14-15), by his triumph over both! Cross-bearing entails voluntarily suffering completely undeserved and avoidable injustice for the sake of the Kingdom of Jesus! (This topic definitely “deserves” its own separate study, but it is integral to this one, since Jesus includes “cross-bearing” as a criterion of “worthiness” for his followers.) Ac.5:41, where the verb form occurs with an intensifying prefix, is an early example of disciples making this connection. See also II Thes.1:5. The writer to the Hebrews notes (11:38) that the world was not worthy of the disciples whom it persecuted and killed.

If “worthiness” was really entirely out of reach, we would hardly have so many admonitions to behave in a manner “worthy of the Lord” (Col.1:10), “worthy of his calling” (Eph.4:1), or “worthy of God’s calling into his Kingdom” (I Thes.2:12). Some of the characteristics listed as part of that “worthiness” are (Col.) bearing fruit, and growing in acquaintance with Jesus; (Eph.) avoiding status-tripping, and displaying generosity, gentleness, and mutual care and concern.
John the Baptist had also admonished his listeners to “bear fruit worthy of [appropriate for] a changed life (Mt.3:8). Perhaps the difference is clarified by the use of both words together, in Col.1:10 and 12. As noted above, in v.10, Paul instructs his readers to live worthily (axios), and then reminds them (v.12) that the Father has enabled (hikanoo) them to do so.

It might be prudent for us to take a lesson from the three uses of axios in Revelation 5. We are told, in answer to the question in v.2, “Who is worthy (axios) to open the book?”, that “no one in heaven or on earth, or below the earth” was able to do so. But in v.9, the Lamb is acclaimed as “worthy to take the book and to open its seals.” We are not told the content of the book – although many folks have undertaken to pontificate about it – only that the opening of its seals results in horrific judgments upon the earth, and finally in everyone around the throne breaking out in praises to the Lamb (v.12).
The lesson? That the province of God’s people is NOT to pass – and certainly not to exact – judgments upon the world – or each other!– but to occupy ourselves with exuberant praises to the Lamb, who is “worthy (axios) to receive power and riches and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and blessing!!!”

It would be most appropriate (hikanos) for the people of God to leave behind their programmed protestations of unworthiness (anaxios), and concentrate their attention upon worthily (axios) representing their Lord and King in his world! The Lord has made you/us worthy to be citizens of his Kingdom, a part of his very own Body! Let’s quit contradicting his Word, and get on with the business of living its truth!

Word Study #32– “Holy”

“Holy” is another term that has been the subject of much (un-holy) conflict, finger-pointing, and general misunderstanding. I am under no illusion of ability – mine or anyone else’s – to straighten it all out; but perhaps a careful examination of the vocabulary can shed a little light.

Hagios is a word that can be used either as a noun or an adjective; and sometimes the translator must make a call, since the Greek grammar allows an adjective or a participle to be used as a noun when it represents a person, idea, thing, or situation which carries the characteristics described by the adjective: e.g., “the faithful” may refer to the person who is faithful, and similarly with other descriptive designations.
In classical writings, hagios referred to anyone or anything devoted to the gods, whether in service or in sacrifice. There was an occasional corollary of purity of intention or behavior, but that idea, in pagan worship, bore little resemblance to a Christian understanding of “purity.”
Hagizo, the verb form in ancient texts, referred to making something or someone “sacred” by a burnt offering. The later form, hagiazo, appearing only in the LXX and NT literature according to Liddell-Scott, retained the connotation of total devotion to God. Notice that in both cases, it is an active verb, denoting an overt act of setting apart for divine use or service.
Hagiasmos, only later theologically colored (and distorted) by its traditional translation “sanctification”, linguistically, is simply the derivative noun applied to the effect of that “setting apart.”

Anything more elaborate than that – of which there is no short supply in theology and tradition – is neither linguistically nor grammatically derived, and certainly does not appear in the New Testament text. Far from being the province of a few singularly exalted individuals, these words describe the life that is reasonably to be expected of anyone who is committed to the Lord – who is “set-apart” from the surrounding culture, wholly devoted to him.

Interestingly, hagios (the adjective), although applied in the Old Testament (LXX), as it was in pagan usage, to places, objects, garments, official assignments, and ceremonies, in the New Testament – except for a few historical references (as throughout the letter to the Hebrews, when highlighting the failure and inadequacy of the old system) —  is almost exclusively applied to people.   We read of “holy brethren” (I Thes.5:27, Heb.3:1), “the Holy One” (Mk.1:4, Lk.4:34, Ac.3:14, I Jn2:20, Rv.3:7), “holy messengers” (Lk.9:26, Ac.10:22, Rv.14:10), “holy prophets” (Lk.1:70, Ac.3:21, Eph.3:5, II Pet.1:21), “holy children” (I Cor.7:14), “Holy Father” (of which there is only one – God himself!– Jn.17:11), “holy apostles” (Eph.3:5). Please notice that in referring to the “holy temple” (I Cor.3:17 and Eph.2:21), Paul hastens to add “which you all are!”. This designation, along with those to the “holy nation” and “holy priesthood” (I Pet.2:5-9) now belongs to the faithful brotherhood!
Other mentions of a holy “living sacrifice,” (Rom.12:1), “your holy calling” (II Tim.1:8), “the holy commandment” (II Pet.2:21), and the “first-fruits, roots, and branches” (Rom.11:16) are all unmistakably connected to the lives of the faithful.

This is even more universally the case when hagios is treated as a noun, and has been traditionally rendered “saints”.  Most of Paul’s letters are addressed to the hagiois (the “saints”), clearly referring to the entire congregation of the faithful, in each locale. He usually includes greetings both to and from the “saints” at both ends of the correspondence. Some translators, bound, I suppose, by the marble-statue-on-a-pedestal image, have rendered kletois hagiois “called to be saints/holy” – but there is neither infinitive nor purpose construction in the text. The calling, at least in this text, is not a goal or a mandate: it is a simple statement of fact — a label. The person who accepts the calling to follow the Lord Jesus, is henceforth designated as a “saint/holy person” – the possession of his Lord, “set apart” for his sovereign purpose.
Please note, however, that this understanding does not by any means abrogate the constant necessity to grow into greater maturity in that position, nor does it imply any sort of magical “instant perfection”. We encounter elsewhere, for example, admonitions that “the saints” ought to be able to mediate each other’s disputes (I Cor.6:1-2); the need for prodding to assemble the relief offering for the “poor saints”(Rom.15:26), and countless (often corrective – “saints” can also be scolded!) instructions to devote ourselves to mutual love and service. The point is, the designation “saints” or “holy brethren” is not reserved for a few rare, unusually devoted or powerful individuals. It is not an achievement, but simply a label – a way of referring to citizens of the Kingdom of Jesus.

This is further reinforced when one notices that every occurrence of the noun form, in any of the New Testament writings, is plural. “Saints” are not lonely hermits obsessed with keeping away from the “dirty” world. Neither are they super-heroes, swooping in to display magical powers. They are simply members of a devoted brotherhood, helping one another to learn to live lives of service – whether messy or glorious – controlled and empowered by their King.

Probably the best example of what Jesus had in mind for those who are “set apart” for his purposes (the lexical meaning of the verb form hagiazo, traditionally rendered “sanctified”), is found in his prayer recorded in Jn.17, especially verses 15-19, where the verb appears three times:
“I am not asking you to take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. They are not from (do not belong to ) the world, just as I am not from (do not belong to) the world. Set them apart [Make them holy] by the truth: your word is truth. Just as you sent me into the world, I also sent them into the world. And for their sake, I am setting myself apart, in order that they also may be truly set apart.”

All of Jesus’ people are “set apart/made holy”, in order to be able faithfully to represent him in the world!

May we do so, together, with devotion and joy!

Since, as we have seen in many of these studies, the principle message of the New Testament concerns the revelation, the establishment, and an invitation to participative citizenship in the Kingdom of God, it should come as no surprise that the concept of “power” is a frequent subject of discussion. Also not surprisingly, even a cursory English survey of the uses of “power” reveals a wide variety of ideas, due in large part to the fact that this single English word has been used to represent four different Greek words which, despite some overlap, have quite distinct meanings.

Dunamis, the word most frequently used (117 times), is the only one that refers to miraculous deeds, by Jesus or his followers (22 times specifically, and many more by implication). Interestingly, that usage appears to be almost unique to Biblical writings. Classically, the word was used for a person’s ability to do a task, or to any natural capacity. Aristotle used it of the elementary forces, such as heat or cold; Galen, of the basic characteristics of substances, of medicines, or formulas; Plato of the “meaning” of a word; Archimedes of mathematical powers and roots; Heliodorus of magical substances or objects; and Herodotus of forces deployed for war. (Liddell/Scott) Not until the Septuagint (LXX) and New Testament writings is it applied to the activity of divine beings or miraculous works. Perhaps this is why it often appears in a phrase – “the power of God”, “the power of the Spirit”, “the power of the Lord”, “the power of Christ” (at least 43 times): to emphasize whose capability is in view.
Malevolent powers are also mentioned – Lk.10:19, Ac.8:10, Rom.8:38, I Thes.2:9) – as well as simple abilities of individuals – Mt.25:15, Ac.3:12, Ac.6:8, II Cor.8:3,4 – but the overwhelming majority of references are to a manifestation of the power of God, either directly (by Jesus), or through one or more of his people.
It is also interesting to note some of the words closely associated with dunamis:
– Jesus challenging his accusers that they know neither “the Scriptures nor the power of God” (Mt.22:29)
– Lk.5:17 “The power of the Lord was present to heal”
– Peter and John’s declaration that “our own power or holiness” was not the source of the healing (Ac.3:12)
– I Cor.2:4: “demonstrations of the Spirit and power”
– I Cor.4:20 “The kingdom of God is not in words but in power”
– Rom.1:4 Jesus “declared to be the Son of God with power by his resurrection”
– “The power of his resurrection” II Cor.13:4, Phil.3:10, and many others.

Exousia, the second most frequently used among the “power” words (103 times), is quite distinctly different. Without exception, it refers to delegated authority. It is often paired with dunamis. When Jesus commissioned his disciples for their mission (Mt.10:1, Mk.3:15 and 6:7, Lk.9:1), he gave them both dunamis and exousia – the ability necessary for their assignment, and the authority to use it. On the other hand, his reference to the power of the Holy Spirit to be conferred at Pentecost used only dunamis (Ac.1:8), as did the subsequent discussion with the temple hierarchy, who questioned their display of dunamis with, “Where did THAT come from?(4:7)”. Maybe they had given up on the “authority” question by that time. His opponents among the scribes and Pharisees had not challenged Jesus’ ability to act as he did: that was obvious. They questioned his right (authority – exousia) to do so (Mt.21:23-27, Mk.11:28-33, Lk.20:2-8).
Political power, natural or supernatural, is universally represented by exousia, in conformity with classical usage (Lk.23:27, many times in Eph. and Col.) L/S lists “office, magistracy, consulate,” and “to exercise authority over a political entity”, as well as the abuse of that authority; but also notes exousia as simply “permission to act”. The Roman centurion who approached Jesus on behalf of his child [servant] understood this (Mt.8:9), noting that his own authority was delegated, and he himself also assigned responsibilities to inferiors. The same idea appears in several parables (Mk.13:34, Lk.19:17), and in Paul’s accounts of his former assignment from the Jewish authorities (Ac.9:14, and 26:10, 12). In every case, exousia is assigned by a superior to a lesser person.
Jesus’ conversation with Pilate (Jn.19:10,11) is an interesting case in point. When Pilate boasted of his authority (exousia) either to crucify or set Jesus free, Jesus’ answer is often touted by deterministic “theologians” as “proof” that “God intended all this to happen”. However, the use of exousia in both Pilate’s question and Jesus’ answer may indicate simply that both men clearly understood the meaning of the word: authority can only be conferred by a higher authority, (whether divine or political is not specified), upon a petty politician! Pilate is much less “powerful” than he thinks he is!  Jesus, in a sense, has called his bluff!  And he knows it.
In Romans 13, Paul maintains that no legitimate authority (exousia) exists, except that which is properly regulated “under God”!

Ischus (9 times) and kratos (11 times) are somewhat harder to separate, as both, classically, referred primarily to bodily strength. Kratos was also used as an attribute of the power of the gods in Homer (which may highlight the difference in the perception of divinity between the classical civilizations and the Biblical community – which would be an interesting cultural study!). It also referred to political sovereignty in the LXX, and to the possession of territory in Herodotus. Pythagoras used it as a “name” for the number ten.
Ischus , also primarily referring to physical strength, tended more toward the idea of brute force (Aeschylus), and was used by Plato and Idumeus of a powerful kingdom, and militarily, of a main body of troops (neither of which violates the concept of “brute force”!)
The words are similarly difficult to distinguish in the New Testament, often appearing paired with dunamis or exousia, as if the writer is trying to be sure that all the bases are covered! In Eph.6:10, three of the words are included: “Be strengthened (dunamis) in the Lord, by the force (kratos) of his strength (ischus)” (traditionally, “Be strong in the Lord and in the power of his might”.) In Rev.5:12 and 7:2, ischus is paired with dunamis, and in Jude 26, kratos is paired with exousia.
Peter’s urging the brethren to “serve” (“minister”) with the strength (ischus) supplied by God would lead one to conclude that the “diakonia” (serving) in view is more practical than theoretical. A similar flavor comes through in the admonition (Mk.12:30, 33; Lk.10:27) that love for God is to consume one’s heart, “soul” (see W.S.#28), mind, and strength (ischus), all physical attributes.
Kratos in the NT often seems focused primarily on God/Jesus’ eventual triumph (I Pet.5:11, 4:11; Rv.1:6; Eph.1:19; Col.1:11, I Tim.6:16; Rv.5:13) which is already being realized as a consequence of his having (Heb.2:14) already “destroyed the one who had – PAST TENSE!! – the power (kratos) of death” and set his captives free!

All of these “power words” – and more – are piled together in Paul’s enthusiastic prayer recorded in Eph.1:17-23: that all of us, his people, may be supernaturally enlightened and enabled to know “…the exceeding greatness of his (Jesus’) power (dunamis) that is available for us …. the energy (energian) of God’s powerful (kratos) strength (ischus) was demonstrated definitively when he raised him from the dead, and seated him at his own right, in heaven, far above every ruler (arche) and authority (exousia) and power (dunamis) and title of nobility (kuriotetos)…!!!

To him be all honor and glory and praise!

Have you felt obligated to accept the burden of guilt perpetrated by those who insist, “You have not really ‘forgiven’ a person who has wronged you unless you have ‘forgotten’ the incident”?
Have efforts to “forget” life-altering events or betrayals nearly reduced you to despair?
Did it ever occur to you to investigate whether the much-quoted admonition to “forgive and forget” ever appeared in the New Testament at all?
Take heart, my wounded brothers and sisters who are serious about faithfulness: it isn’t there!
And neither is the corresponding allegation, intended to shame you by example, that “God has forgotten all of your offenses.” Forgiven, certainly. Forgotten – well, hymns and sermons to the contrary, the subject is not even discussed in the New Testament writings.

There are only eleven appearances of the English word “forget” in the entire New Testament; and these combine three different Greek words, one of which, in I Pet. 1:9, the only time that lambano is translated that way, (a word that usually means “take, receive, accept, attain, or, rarely, take away”) and is therefore a bit suspect. The others, epilanthanomai and eklanthano are quite similar in classical usage, with the latter being perhaps a bit more emphatic.
Of the other occurrences, nine refer to people “forgetting” – all but one in a negative sense: Mt.16:5 and Mk.8:14 record the disciples’ failure to pack lunch before their trip; James 1:24 and 25 admonish the man who looks in a mirror and forgets what he saw; and the writer to the Hebrews asks reprovingly, (12:5) “Have you forgotten (God’s instructions)?” The same writer reminds readers not to forget to do good, to share, and to extend hospitality (13:2 and 16).
The only positive mention of “forgetting” is in Phil.3:13, where Paul speaks of forgetting his pedigreed past in order to devote all his energy to seeking greater maturity in Christ.
Twice, the reference is to God, and is one of encouragement: Lk.12:6 quotes Jesus as declaring that not even sparrows are “forgotten” by him, and again in Hebrews 6:10, “God is not unjust, to forget your work, and the love you all demonstrated for his name, and the way you’ve looked after his people.”

That’s it, folks. That’s ALL the New Testament says about forgetting!
Even in the Old Testament, where the LXX usually uses epilanthanomai to translate the Hebrew shakach, forgetting is warned against – “Don’t forget what God has done!” – not advocated; and when it is said of God, it refers to his judgment, not his mercy. Check it for yourself in Young’s Concordance.

OK, let’s give the guilt-trippers the benefit of all possible doubt, and consider that maybe we have to look at “remembering” in order to justify their scolding. This includes five Greek words, all quite similar, all related etymologically. They are anamimnesko (used only once), mimneskomai (the middle voice – see appendix to Notes – also used only once), mnaomai (15 times), mnemoneuo (19 times), and hupomimnesko (3 times). All of their classical definitions are very similar.
All but two of the references (out of a total of 40) are simply to people remembering or being reminded of past events, messages, or behaviors.
The two referring to God, Heb.8:12 and Heb.10:17, are both instances of the same quotation the writer takes from the prophecy of Jeremiah. Recognizing the utter failure of the law to produce the life that God designed and desired for his people, the writer combines several of Jeremiah’s messages about the promised New Covenant: (8:10-12) “This is the covenant that I will establish….when I give my laws into their understanding, I will write them on their hearts …They will all know about me, from the least to the greatest of them. I will be merciful about their injustices, and I will no longer remember [keep score of] their shortcomings [failures].” Please notice the conclusion, (Heb.8:13): “In saying ‘new’, he has made the first one “old”; and what has become old and been superseded is near to disappearing!”

It is possible, that with some intricate verbal gymnastics, people could turn that quotation into support for their proclamations about God “forgetting”, but in doing so, they ignore the whole message of Hebrews 7 through 10, which is to highlight the inadequacy, the utter failure of the old covenant, and its sharp contrast with the New, as established by Jesus! In fact, I would even suggest that it is the “failure” of the Law that may even be the “failure” (translation of hamartia – see W.S.#7) that is in view in the prophecy! However, even if you give the guilt-preachers enough editorial license to ignore the context, there is still nothing that commands – or even suggests – that “forgetting” is advocated, much less demanded, of faithful people! Our instructions, repeatedly, are “Do not forget!” “Remember!”

Clearly, (again see W.S. #7), we indeed are instructed – expected – to “forgive [release]” our abusers, as Jesus himself demonstrated. But this has nothing whatever to do with the unrealistic requirement of “forgetting.”
One brother put it this way: “To forgive is not to forget, but to refuse to be bound or limited by evil.” There are wrongs in this life that cannot be set right. They have passed into history, and their consequences, although they can certainly be redeemed, cannot disappear. But in deliberately forsaking vengeance and resentment, both the injured party and the offender can be set free (the real meaning, remember, of aphiemi), although the course of both lives may have been permanently, irretrievably and unforgettably altered. Yet, in those wonderful instances when, by the grace of God, reconciliation becomes possible, how much poorer would everyone concerned be, if all were “forgotten”? Remember – and give thanks!

We are instructed to “remember”, throughout the Gospels, especially John, what Jesus said, did, and taught. In the Epistles, we are told to “remember the poor” (Gal.2:10), and those imprisoned for their faithfulness (Heb.13:3); to remember our former alienation from God and his ways in order to appreciate (and imitate) his graciousness (Eph.2:11); and the faithfulness of our brethren and teachers many times. Even those who have faltered in their faithfulness are admonished to “remember” the devotion of their “first love” (Rv.2:5, 3:3) for the Lord and for each other.

Remembering is a much more fruitful focus for our attention.

What do you intend, when you say that you “know” someone/something?  You know who they are? You are close associates or friends? You are able to perform a task?  You are acquainted with certain facts?  You can quote something from memory?  You can recognize an artifact or idea, speak a language, or understand a culture?  The English language incorporates all of these “meanings” – and more – some of which may be contradictory — into a single word, “to know.”

The New Testament writers, in contrast, employ eight different words, all of which traditional translators have rendered simply as “know.”  Is it any wonder that confusion can result?  An evil spirit screams at Jesus, “I know you!” (Lk.4:34), yet later, the ultimate blessing of “eternal life” is attributed to “knowing” him (Jn.17:3)!  The reader of the average English text has no clue that these are different words.  Unfortunately, they don’t all sort out quite that easily, but we can clear up some of the fog with careful attention to vocabulary.  In this study, correct understanding of the differences between the original words will probably not materially change one’s understanding of most passages, as much as it will enhance our appreciation for the message.

The most commonly used of all of these words is oida.  It is the perfect tense form of the verb horao, “to see”, and occurs at least 285 times in the New Testament.  Classical uses of oida are obviously connected to the concept of “seeing.” They include looking at or paying attention to something, “mental” sight or discernment, to behold or observe an object or event, or to be acquainted with a fact. This is not foreign to us:  “Oh, I see!” is equivalent to “I get it!”  “I understand.” In the New Testament, it is concerned primarily with information, which may or may not influence one’s life. “I know” (oida) may be an expression of confidence or expectation, as in Eph.1:18, but it need not.  It may concern awareness of someone’s reputation (Rom.16:15, I Thess.1:5), or of an event or idea (like all 13 occurrences in Acts).

Ginosko, the second most frequent NT usage, (196 uses), usually presupposes more personal involvement with the person, event, or principle that is “known.”  Classically, it included recognition, discernment, or opinion that results from personal experience or observation.  The word was also used of the marital relationship.  Frequently, the NT writers used it to refer to the simple identification of individuals (Lk.24:35), of recognition or understanding of events or people (Mt.24:43), or of “finding out” (Jn.12:9) information.

The difference between oida and ginosko is most easily seen in passages where both are used.  For example, look at Jesus’ upper room conversation with Peter in Jn.13:7.  To Peter’s protest at the apparent impropriety of a master washing the feet of disciples, Jesus replies, “You don’t know (ouk oidas) what I’m doing now, but you will understand/know (gnose) later.”  And Peter did learn the lesson – by experience – quite well, as evidenced by his later instructions to the brotherhood (I Pet.4:10), “As each one has received a spiritual gift, serve each other with it.”  You may also want to follow the interplay between oida and ginosko in John 7 and 8 or John 13 and 14, which is easily done by using Young’s concordance (see Word Study instructions), for further understanding of the different implications of the two words.

Epiginosko (the prefix epi is an intensifier) appears only 30 times translated “know”, 5 as “acknowledge”, and 3 as “perceive.”  Classical definitions include to witness or observe, to recognize, to find out or discover, to become acquainted, or to decide or adjudicate.  Many of the NT references are focused on recognition or identification (Mk.6:33 and parallels, Ac3:10, 9:30, 12:14, 19:34; Lk.24:16 and 31), or reassurance (Lk.1:4, II Cor13.5, Col.1:6, I Tim4:3).   Peter’s warning takes on an even more serious tone, when he uses epiginosko (the stronger term) both times in II Pet.2:21:  “It would be better for them never to have become acquainted with the way of justice, than having known it, to turn back ….”

Other words are less frequent, and less “loaded”:
Epistamai, classically to know how to do something, to understand a matter, to know as a fact, in Homer, to know for certain, or in Aristotle referring to scientific facts, in the NT usage refers primarily to information, primarily about an individual’s past history (Ac.20:18).
Proginosko (source of English “prognosis”), to know or perceive beforehand, usually without being told, occurs only five times, and it must be remembered that it refers to knowing, not causation, despite the distortion by some translators. (II Pet.3:17 and I Pet.1:2 use the same word.)
Sunoida, used only four times, refers to shared knowledge (the prefix sun- is the preposition “with”).
Diaginosko (source of English “diagnosis”) appears only once, in a legal investigation (Ac.24:22).
Agnoeo (source of English “agnostic”) – the “a” is a negative prefix – is used four times as “not knowing” (Ac13:7, and Rom.2:4, 6:3, and 7:1), and 10 times as “to be ignorant”.  Please note that this ignorance does not presuppose hostility – simply “not knowing.”

It is the frequently used ginosko, oida, and epiginosko that need more attention than they commonly receive.  Notice, please, that none are “inferior” to others in any way; they are simply different. Notice also that none of these contain any admonitions regarding intricate details of dogma or argument.  And Jesus bluntly informed his curious disciples (Ac.1:7) that “it is not for you to know” (ginosko) a roadmap of the future!

Although oida usually refers to knowing or figuring out facts, Paul clearly expects it to inform one’s way of life.  In Gal.4:16 he points out that when they did not “know” God, they followed lesser leaders, and in Eph.1:18, “knowing” one’s calling is supposed to motivate a godly life.  Phil.4:12, often (mis)quoted, expresses the apostle’s confidence that in the power of God, he “knows how to” deal with any situation.  It is not an expression of infallibility or omnipotence on his part — or ours!
Ginosko more commonly represents knowledge acquired by personal experience or relationship.  It predominates heavily in Jesus’ prayer (Jn17).  When Jesus is explaining the meaning of parables, or someone is referring to God’s understanding of a person’s situation, ginosko is usually (though not always) the choice.
It is clear that something more than passing acquaintance is intended in Paul’s prayer for the Ephesian brethren (Eph.3:19) that they may “know” (gnonai) the love of Christ, which vastly exceeds “knowledge” (gnoseos)!  (The verb is wonderful!  It is a form from which our “hyperbole” is derived!)  A similar flavor occurs throughout John’s first letter.  He is speaking of a very intimate involvement between Jesus and his people.
Epiginosko is usually reserved for very close acquaintance between people, or a thorough understanding of information.
All three are important ingredients or enablers of faithfulness, which, in the final analysis, is intended to be the goal of all our pursuit of “knowledge”:  that we may experience the full measure of the maturity/completeness that our King intends for us.

May we continue to grow in that knowledge!

*Note: The following treatise is only a brief summary of this matter.  A closer examination of the component parts may come later:  especially if some of you all join in the study effort!

For probably as long as they have had the intellectual and linguistic capacity to do so, people have wondered – and speculated – about “life”: and their philosophical, religious, and even physiological conclusions have differed greatly.
This is an instance where the same English word  has been applied to three distinctly different Greek terms, resulting in the blurring, if not the complete loss, of important elements of understanding.  Especially interesting in this regard is the sharp departure from classical usages that we see in the New Testament.

Bios (source of the English “biology”), in classical writings, referred to one’s mode or manner of life, his livelihood, or merely his physical existence.  The term was used of animals, as well as people.  Some writers used it of the “real world” as opposed to mere philosophical speculation.  It appears only 10 times in the New Testament, translated 5 times as “life” and 5 as “living.”

Zoe (source of “zoology”) is even less common in the classics.  Homer used it of physical existence; others referred to one’s substance or property, or even a term of endearment, “my Life!!”  It may also refer to one’s chosen way of life.  This is the term that dominates in the New Testament – there are 133 occurrences.

Psuche (source of “psychology”), although a favorite of the 5^th and 6^th century BC philosophers, used by Homer denoting “ghosts, or departed spirits”, and as an entity that leaves the body if a person faints, more frequently referred to someone’s personality, or conscious self.  At times it was used simply to count individuals.  Some philosophers used it of one’s moral or intellectual self.  Early physicians used it as the source of life and consciousness.  It was the Stoics and Epicureans who divided the concept of psuche (“soul”) from soma (“body”).  For Plato, it was “the immaterial principle of movement and life”.  Hippocrates referred it to the emotions.  Please note: these all date prior to the third century BC:  they are NOT “Christian” ideas! There are 103 uses of psuche in the New Testament, with widely varying translations, the most common of which are “life” and “soul.”

Interesting cultural observations can be made on the basis of words that are commonly used together: in this case, specifically, the combination with aion (n.) and aionios (adj.), which are usually translated with some form of “eternal.”  Although aion was also used of a lifetime, age, or generation, or any clearly defined epoch, Epicurus often preferred the concept of “perpetuity.”  For other uses of aion , please see #86.

The only classical incidence of aionios noted in Liddell/Scott as being used with bios was in reference to Egyptian monarchs.  This fits well with the ancient Egyptian cultural practice of carefully preserving bodies and organs, and providing them with artifacts, wealth, food, pets, and even servants for their welfare in the afterlife.   It was the physical life that they expected to be continued or replicated.  No pairing of bios and aionios occurs anywhere in New Testament writings.

Pindarus, Plato, Epicurus, Homer, and many other Greek writers/philosophers wrote of the psuche – a disembodied entity that existed in a shadowy realm after death, occasionally interacting with the living; but their primary use of “eternal” (or, more frequently, “immortal”) referred almost exclusively to gods and heroes.  This pairing, also, never occurs in the New Testament, even in the places where traditional translators rendered psuche as “soul,” the 3rd to 5^th century BC pagan term.

In all the New Testament writings, only zoe is used in conjunction with any form of aion – a combination that never occurred in the classical writings.  The consistency of this choice indicates with unusual clarity that a very different concept is in view.  Zoe appears with aion or aionion 43 times, and the idea of something quite beyond ordinary existence is present in at least that many more of the uses.  Might this not be a deliberate, overt rejection of the pagan concept of disembodied “souls”, in favor of Jesus’ statements, “I AM the …life” (Jn.14:6), “I have come that they might have life” (Jn.10:10)?  All of these employ a form of zoe, as do Jn.8:12, “The one who is following me shall have the light of life”, and Jn.11:25, “I AM the resurrection and the life.”  Many years later, as an elderly man, John put it very simply: (I Jn.5:11-12) “God gave us eternal life!  This life is in his Son.  The person who has [holds on to] the Son has life; the one who doesn’t have [hold on to] the Son, doesn’t have the life!”  Here too, zoe is used throughout.

So where did all the rhetoric about “eternal souls” come from?  Not from the New Testament!  Psuche and aionion are never used together there.   The English words do not appear together, even in traditional translations that arbitrarily use “soul” instead of “life” in about half of the appearances.  To be fair, we must note that there are four places (yes, only four in the entire New Testament) where the traditional translators refer to “saving souls”:  Heb.10:39, Jas.1:21 and 5:20, I Pet.1:9.  Please refer to W.S. #5 for a discussion of the concept of “save”.  I can only conclude that those translators were more heavily influenced by the “Golden Age” of Greek philosophy than by the message of Jesus, who had offered his followers the privilege to “enter into life (zoe)!”  And Jesus spoke of “life (zoe)” – with or without the addition of aionion (“eternal”) – primarily in the present tense!

He spoke of “laying down his psuche for his sheep, maintaining that he had the authority both to lay it down and to reclaim it (Jn.10:15-17).  Yet it was his “spirit” (pneuma) that he committed to his Father from the cross (Lk.23:46), and Stephen offered the same commitment to Jesus himself at the time of his own death.  I could not find any references to “the spirit of God” or “the spirit” of a person outside of the LXX (Septuagint) or the New Testament.  The deliberate choice of pneuma – classically more generally used of wind, or simple respiration – instead of psuche may have been a further gesture of rejection of the pagan implications of psuche.  Indeed, the writer to the Hebrews notes the difficulty of distinguishing between the two (4:12), and relegates that task to the Word of God!  If only his people today had the grace to do likewise!

The focus of the New Testament is clearly upon zoe – which is represented as originating in (“invented” by?) the Lord Jesus himself (Jn.1:21).  Fully half of the references in the Gospels are specifically paired with a form of aion/aionion, and many of the rest definitely imply a higher order of living.
Even more significant is the fact that most of these occur with present tense verbs.  Even statements like Jesus’ telling his opponents (Jn.5:40), “You don’t want to come to me in order that you may have life,” does not use a future tense, as is often assumed by those who use only English, but a present subjunctive form, which is required in this kind of a statement of purpose or intent.  The same structure occurs in the much-quoted Jn.3:16, and also in John’s statement of the evangelistic purpose of his gospel (20:31).  These are all talking about the present, not the future!
Yes, there are a handful of references to “in the world to come,” such as Mk.10:30 and its parallel in Lk.18:30, but these are the exception.  Additionally, they express a continuation of what has already begun, not something that only begins in the future.
More common is Paul’s expression in I Tim.4:8, “a promise of life both now and in the future.” Both Gospels and Epistles are concerned with the quality, not just the duration, of life.

I will close this brief summary with a few of the passages where “eternal life” is succinctly defined – all using “zoe”:
Jn.6:63 (Jesus speaking) “The messages I have spoken to you all are spirit, and they are life!”
Jn.11:25 (Jesus) “I AM the resurrection and the life!”
Jn.14:6 (Jesus) “I AM the way, the truth, and the life!”
Jn.10:28 (Jesus, of his “sheep”) “I am giving them eternal life, and they will never be destroyed!”
Jn.12:50 (Jesus, of his Father) “His command IS eternal life!”
Jn.17:3 (Jesus) “This is eternal life, that they may be acquainted with you, the only true [real, genuine] God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.”
Col.3:4 “Christ, who is our life…”
II Cor.4:10 “In order that Jesus’ life may be revealed in our mortal flesh [human nature]”
I Jn 5:20 “We have our very existence in the True One, in his Son, Jesus Christ!
HE IS THE TRUE [GENUINE] GOD, AND ETERNAL LIFE!!”

THANKS BE TO GOD!!!