The Pioneers’ New Testament

Is there a parent walking the earth, who hasn’t confronted squabbling kids with an annoyed “DID YOU HEAR ME?!!”  The question is not one of auditory acuity, although the sullen teenager’s “I heard you!” may try to confine it to that assumption.
We deeply value a companion who “really listens”.  And yet, when we’ve tried multiple times without success, to get Johnny or Susie to pick up their belongings, “LISTEN!” does not demand merely attention, but obedience.

All of these and more are encompassed in the use of the word akouo.  They always were.  Although akouo is the source from which our English word, “acoustics”  (which concerns primarily the transmission of sound waves) is derived, the classical writers also used it in a much wider variety of situations. The primary uses listed in the Oxford lexicon are:
— to hear: a sound, a message, or a reputation
–to pay attention, to respond to being called or summoned
— to hear and understand; to be the pupil of a teacher
Traditional English translators, for the most part, took no account of this breadth, using “understand” only once, and noted the expectation of response or obedience not at all, in the 415 uses of akouo in the New Testament, although 6 times they did substitute “hearken” where there was unmistakable “pay attention” flavor.

Although some clues can be found in the tenses of any imperative uses – i.e.,  an aorist could lean toward “sit up and take notice” and a present toward “keep on listening”, one must tread carefully here, since there is no definitive lexical or grammatical way to determine without question which aspect of the word was intended.  In examining the context in which the word appears, however, we must bear in mind that “Hear!” or “Listen!” refers to much more than simply bouncing sound waves onto eardrums.

The word “listen” actually does not occur at all in traditional translations.  “Obey” is only used when akouo appears with the prefix hup- (hupakouo), in which case it is the only appropriate choice.  However, obedience is certainly implied in a number of Jesus’ statements, as evidenced by the other verbs that are paired with akouo:
— Mt.7:24-26 – hear and do
— Mt.15:10 – hear and understand
— Lk.11:28 – hear and keep
— Jn.5:24 – hear and believe / become faithful
— Jn.5:25 – hear and live
— Jn.10 – hear and follow
His explanations of the Parable of the Sower/Seed (Mt.13:19-23 and parallels) focuses on people’s response to what they hear, as do his instructions to the disciples when they were sent out (Mt.10:14 and parallels).
Diakouo appears once (Ac.23:35) in the context of a court trial, in a usage similar to the more common diakrino (see W.S. #9), the implication being a careful examination.
Eisakouo (5 uses) has more of an implication of listening to a prayer (Zachariah and Cornelius), as does epakouo.  Please see the list of prepositions often used as prefixes in the Appendix to Translation Notes, for the meanings they can contribute.
In the Synoptic Gospels, slightly more than half of the occurrences of akouo refer simply to being made aware of information.  The balance shifts in John, especially when he is quoting Jesus.  Most of the Epistles speak mainly of hearing and listening or responding to information.  There are, however, several notable exceptions.
In addition to the prefixed form, eisakouo, the unaltered form is also used of prayer that is “heard” /answered  (Jn.9:27, Jn.11:41-42, and I Jn 5:14-15.)
The use of akouo in admonitions to heed the word of the prophets (Lk.16:29,31; Mt.13:13-15 and parallels) certainly implies obedience.

The flavor of teaching/learning shows up in Mark’s comment (4:33) that Jesus spoke to his disciples “as they were able to hear (absorb?) it”.  In his discourse in Jn.15:15 Jesus tells the disciples “Everything I heard from my Father, I made known to you,” and later, speaking of the Holy Spirit’s ministry to them (Jn.16:13), “He will not speak on his own, but whatever he hears, he will say.”

That people who gathered to “hear” Jesus teaching probably could have been sorted into several categories, is evident in his frequent repetition of “The one who has ears to hear, had better listen / pay attention!” (This is often cast as a third person imperative:  please see that form explained in the Appendix.)  A similar intent may exist in the “voice out of the cloud” quoted in all the Synoptic Transfiguration accounts (Mt.17:3, Mk.9:7, Lk.9:35), “Listen to him!”  Coming as it does right after Peter’s grandiose offer to build a memorial, it could even be read as “Shut up and pay attention!”

Jesus may also be intending such a nuanced understanding of akouo when he warns, “Take heed how (pos) you hear!” (Lk.8:18, KJV).  Since it immediately follows the parable of the Sower, the response to what one hears is clearly in view.  The parallel in Mk.4:24 (also KJV), “Take heed what (ti) you hear” (neither manuscript cites any textual variants) seems more likely to be calling for discernment as to what is worthy of one’s attention.  Both are legitimate concerns.

So this is one of those word studies that does NOT end up with neat categories or explanations.  Its value is rather to make us aware of greater breadth of meaning than we may assume in casual reading, and hopefully to encourage us to be selective in our hearing / listening, but to recognize also a call for response.

May we do so in faithfulness!

“Truth” – aletheia – is one of the words which, although already richly diverse in its classical usage, took on a whole new dimension in the New Testament.  Jesus’ use of the term in one of his “I AM” statements – Jn.14:6 — is as unique in literature as he himself is unique among people.  So as we pursue Pilate’s (probably cynical) question, “What is truth?” (Jn.18:38), it must be with the realization that, ever since Jesus walked the earth,  “truth” is no longer only a “what?”, but a “who?”, and one’s answer to that question determines the entire direction of his life.

The classical writers parallel many modern understandings of “truth”:
— honesty; the opposite of lying, falsehood, or pretense
— genuine, as opposed to artificial;  correct, as opposed to mistaken
— frankness or candidness in persons, as opposed to hypocrisy
–reality, as opposed to mere imitation, or, as in Plato, the “form” rather than a “shadow”
These are reflected in some of the New Testament uses of “truth” as well: in the idea of being “without deception” (Mt.22:16, Mk.12:14, Jn.4:23-24, Jn.8:40-46), or specifically “not lying or pretending” (Lk.4:25, 22:59, Mk.5:33, 12:32, Jn16:7, Rom.9:1, II Cor.7:14, 12:6, Phil.1:18,) among others.

But in the New Testament, as Bauer’s lexicon notes, “Truth has a strongly practical side, which expresses itself in [behavior].”  Truth is something you DO, not a theoretical statement of intellectual conclusions.  John, in particular, writes of “obeying the truth” or “walking in the truth” (Jn.3:31, I Jn.1:6, II Jn 4, III Jn.3-4), as do Paul (Rom.2:8, II Cor.3:8, Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7), James (5:19), and Peter (I Pet.1:22).  This list can be expanded even more when one keeps in mind that pisteuo, traditionally translated “believe”, actually means “be/become faithful to” (see Word Study #1).

When the New Testament writers speak of “becoming faithful to the truth,”(traditional versions say “believing”) (I Thess.2:13, I Tim.4:3, II Tim.3:7), or “knowing (Col.1:6) the truth” (Paul uses epiginosko here – a strongly experiential form of “knowing”(as does the writer to the Hebrews in 10:26)—they are not referring to any sort of intellectual assent to a list of propositions, but to a chosen way of life!
I Jn.3:18 is especially interesting in this regard, as he admonishes his readers, “Dear children, let’s don’t love in theory [word] or in talk, but in action and truth!”

Also of interest are the instances where “truth” is paired with a noun in the genitive case.  Remember that although the most common use of the genitive is to indicate possession, it may also refer to a source (“coming from”) or the content (“made of”, “consisting of”).  Paul speaks of “the truth of Christ” (II Cor.11:10) or “of God” (Rom.1:25, 3:7), very likely an indication of source, and “of the Gospel (Gal.2:5) most likely content.   Turning the cases around, John refers to the “spirit of truth” (Jn.15:26, 16:3, I Jn.4:6), and Paul to “the word of truth” (IICor.6:7, Eph.1:13, Col.1:5, II Tim.2:15) , more likely to be a possessive genitive.  These come into sharper focus in the light of Jesus’ statements:
–“I AM …the truth” (Jn.14:6)
— “Thy word is truth” (Jn.17:17) (Remember that John had introduced Jesus himself as “the Word” – Jn.1:1)
— and John’s reminder, “The spirit is truth” (I Jn.5:6).
These three are the only references that seem to make any effort to actually define the term.

Truth is also presented as an active force in human affairs:
–Jesus’ statement, “You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (Jn.8:32)
–Jesus’ prayer, “Set them apart [make them holy] by [in] the truth” (Jn.17:17)
–James 1:18, where it is represented to be the agent of our birth into the family of God.

None of this should be seen as an attempt to minimize the understanding of “truth” as the absolute honesty and transparency, in both life and speech, expected of all God’s people.  That is basic to all the citations here.

Warnings about opposition to the truth, or refusal to be obedient to it/him, (Rom.1:18, 1:25, 2:8; Gal.2:14, 3:1, 5:7; II Thess.2:10, 2:12; I Tim.6:5, II Tim.2:18, 3:8, 4:4, Tit.1:14, I Jn.1:6, 1:8,2:4) are in no case concerned about the intricate details debated during centuries of theological speculation by hierarchical councils of various descriptions.  They are concerned with the behavior of those claiming to represent the Lord Jesus.

The same One who explained to Pilate that the purpose of his coming was to “bear witness to the Truth” (Jn.18:37), had earlier proclaimed himself to be the very personification of Truth! (14:6). What clearer synopsis, or identification, could there be, than “Everyone who is from [or, belongs to] the truth, listens to [obeys] my voice” (18:37)?  The Way, the Truth, and the Life, are all about the Lord Jesus!

They all simply refer us back to the same question invoked in several of our earlier studies:
Who’s calling the shots?
Who is in charge?
Who is your King?

In a well-intentioned, but misguided effort to boost the “involvement” of congregational members long reduced to mere spectator roles, countless institutional “churches” have jumped on the bandwagon of “Gift Discovery” campaigns.  A closer examination of their queries of “What are you good at?”, or, worse, “What are you passionate about?” (“empowering people for serious encounter with the Biblical text” is seldom an acceptable answer!), reveals that what they really mean is, “Which already-highly-defined slot in our corporate structure are you willing and able to occupy?” – an exercise that has absolutely no connection to the New Testament concept of the “gifts of God.”

The English word “gift” has been chosen as the translation for no fewer than nine different words in the Greek text.  These can be loosely grouped into three categories:
1.  “cosmic” gifts – dorea, dorema, dosis, classically representing a “bounty” from a king or other superior, a legacy, or a privilege granted
2.  “material” gifts – doron, anathema, doma, classically applied to fees, bribes, votive offerings, or simple presents of any kind
3.  “spiritual enablements” – charisma, charis, merismos, reference to graciousness, usually of a god.
None of these refers to learned skills or innate talents.  Skills and talents are certainly also given by God, and should definitely be used in his service, but they are not “gifts” in the New Testament sense of the word.

We will examine the most frequently used word in each of these categories, in an effort to sort out the diverse implications of the terms.  Please try to remember, these are not simply different ways of saying “gift”.  They are different words, and not one single concept.  It may be helpful to consider, in each case,

1. Who is the giver?
2.  Who is the recipient?
3.  What, exactly, is the gift, or for what purpose is it given?

Dorea is exclusively applied to the overwhelming gift of God to mankind:  his life (Heb.6:4), his Son (Jn.4:10), his Holy Spirit (most of the rest.)  Deliverance from death (Rom.5:15), and the privilege to participate in God’s own justice (5:17) are also included.  No person is capable of giving these:  see Ac.8:20, where Simon the magician is harshly judged for presuming that he could purchase the power to do so.  Dorea is frequently paired with charis – in which case it is translated “gracious gift” or “gift of grace.”  It may enable human generosity (II Cor.9:15) or service (Eph.3:17), but the source is clearly in God, and the result is the gracious inclusion of people in his glorious life.

Doron, on the other hand, except for one anomaly in Eph.2:8, is the province of mortals.  It speaks of people giving presents to other people (Mt.2:11, Rev.11:10), and of people making offerings, usually at the temple (Mt.5:23-24, 8:14, 15:5, 23:18-19, Lk.21:1, and Heb.5:1, 8:3, 8:4, and 9:9).  In both cases, the “gifts” are material things, or money.  The recipients, too, are human: either individuals, or the temple hierarchy.

While both of the words above occur in the Old Testament (LXX), charisma does not.  It is a strictly New Testament word, that appears only after Pentecost!  More specific than dorea, it nevertheless consistently comes from God (mostly the Holy Spirit), although on occasion it was mediated by a person or group (II Cor.1:11, I Tim.4:14, II Tim.1:6).   Paul is careful to avoid taking credit for charisma (Rom.1:11-12), where he is quick to clarify his desire “that I may share with you all some spiritual gift for your strengthening” by adding “to be mutually encouraged among you all by means of one another’s faithfulness.”

The vast majority of charisma references relate to the formation and function of committed disciples as the Body of Christ (see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 7).  Rom.12:6 is the first specific reference to “gifts” in the Body, but 12:3-8 elaborates on the subject, as does the rest of the chapter.  Here we meet the concept that “spiritual gifts” are intended to be the equipment needed for the mutuality that is essential to a faithful Body.  I Cor.1:7 affirms that they assure the full provision for faithful activity, and I Cor.12:4-31 is the most complete treatise on the subject.  Diversity of empowerment and function is emphasized.  Service is the goal (5 and 6).  “The manifestation of the Spirit is given, by means of each one, for everyone’s benefit” (v.7).  These dative cases, traditionally interpreted as indirect objects (“to each one”), given the contextual emphasis on mutuality, are much more likely to intend datives of agency or means (see the section on this passage in Translation Notes, and “Uses of Cases” in the Appendix).  The Holy Spirit is the giver, the recipient is either the body of believers or a person in need; the individual is the agent or means by which the necessary enablement (gift) is delivered – a sort of a “postal service.”

I Peter 4:10 (actually, also v.11) echoes the same concern:  “Just as each one of you has received a spiritual gift, serve each other with it, as good trustees of the many-faceted grace of God.”

Notice again, that none of these “gifts” is a learned ability or natural talent, but the supernatural provision of God for the need at hand.
In no case are “gifts” represented as “diplomas” for having achieved a certain level of “saintliness”, or titles of honor (which Jesus had forbidden).
In no case are they the possession of any individual – and certainly not a permanent possession.  They seem to be distributed almost at random, as needed (I Cor.12:11), and a perusal of the Acts account indicates that different folks may be called upon for different tasks at different times.  The Spirit seems to use whoever is available!

The gifts of God are many and varied, but their purpose is one: to create (by means of dorea) and then to empower and manage (by distribution of charismata) a people who, together, can function as the Body of Christ in the world, “continuing the work of Jesus.”
The responsibility – and the privilege – are enormous.  But so is the provision.
May we respond in faithfulness!

The word “name” (to onoma) appears in the New Testament text more than 200 times, with several different implications, many of which are poorly understood – largely for cultural reasons.  More than 50 of those are merely identifying individuals – as our western culture would expect.  A few are simply counting – used as a synonym  for “people”, and 15-20, especially in the Revelation, refer to evil entities of some sort, or identification with them.  But that leaves us with the vast majority – primarily those referring to the name of God, of the Father, of Jesus, or of the Lord – which are not so easily sorted by dwellers in 21^st century western culture.  The implications of these must be gleaned from the context, which means that any “conclusions” we may draw are merely conjecture, and open to challenge.

Classically, to onoma referred either to a specific person, to one’s fame or reputation, to someone’s financial account or credit, to one’s ancestors, or to a political or business attachment to some source of authority. (Liddell/Scott).  The Arndt and Gingerich translation of Bauer’s lexicon (see appendix) contains a few more anthropological notes:  “The belief in the efficacy of a name is extremely old….This (N.T.) period of literature sees in the name something real:  a piece of the very nature of the personality whom it designates, that partakes of his qualities and his powers.”  It may refer to attributes, ownership, or loyalty.  “The use of a name without the attendant loyalty is seen as hypocrisy or deceit.”  In a similar manner, millenia earlier, people had been warned against “taking the Lord’s name in vain” – i.e., outside the realm of honor and obedience to him.
A name is often assumed to convey the power of the one named, for good or ill.  To “believe in the name” of someone is to certify that he is genuine.  To “call on the name” of someone – human or divine – was an attempt to access his power or intervention.

The Gospels are replete with references to Jesus’ having “come in his Father’s name” – as his representative (Mt.21:9 and parallels, Jn.5:43).  His deeds of power and compassion are offered as witness to the truth of that claim (Jn.10:25).  Consequently, when he sends out disciples “in his name”, or when anyone claims to represent him, similar evidence is reasonably to be expected (Mk.16:17, Lk.10:17, Lk.24:7).  Nevertheless, it is also clear that “in the name of Jesus” is NOT legitimately to be used as a pious version of “abracadabra”!  False claims of his name are roundly condemned, as is obvious in his categorical rejection of those who claimed a non-existent relationship to him in Mt.7:22, and similarly referenced in Mt.24:5, Mk.13:6, Lk21:8 and 21:8 and 17, and illustrated most dramatically in Ac.19:13-16.  This sort of situation does require careful discernment, however:  see Mk.9:38 and Jesus’ response in 9:39.

”Calling on” the name of Jesus (Ac.2:21, 4:12, 9:21, 15:17; Rom.10:13, I Cor.1:2, II Tim.2:19), like “trusting/believing/becoming faithful to” (see W.S. #1) his name (Jn.1:12, 2:23, 3:13-17) seems to carry a strong flavor of commitment to him and his cause, and a consequent expectation of obedience.  That commitment was assumed to be evidenced by “being baptized in the name of the Lord” (Ac.2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 22:16), regarding which Bauer’s lexicon notes: “Through baptism ‘eis to onoma’ [literally into the name] of someone, the one who is so baptized becomes the possession of, and comes under the protection of the one whose name he bears:  he is thenceforth under the control of …that one – wholly dedicated to him.”

Associating/acting “in someone’s name” was also assumed to access his power or intervention, as is evident in the various accounts of healings, both when disciples were sent out as Jesus’ representatives during and after his earthly ministry, and as the gathered group of committed followers took on their responsibility as the Body of Christ, ministering discipline (I Cor.5:4, II Thess.3:6) as well as healings (Ac.3:6, 4:7, 4:30, 16:18; James 5:14).
A huge amount of rhetoric has been expounded, (loosely) based upon Jesus’ encouraging his disciples to make requests “in his name.”  In the context of this more accurate understanding of the use of the concept of “name”, it should be abundantly clear that he was NOT offering anyone a “blank check”!  Instead of a license to append “in the name of Jesus” like an incantation (certified mail, or an insurance policy!) to every prayer or admonition, his statement must be viewed as a caution:  Be certain that the entreaty is motivated by, and is completely in harmony with the totality of his being – his personality – his Kingly position – and the work of his Kingdom – before attaching the name of Jesus to anything!

Contrary to many modern assumptions is the observation that there are more references to abuse/persecution “for the sake of his name” (at least 17), than there are to glorious “successes” (a few in Revelation, but not before that!)
Consistently, those who associate themselves with the name of Jesus are reminded of their responsibility to take care to bring no reproach upon that name/reputation! (I Cor.1:10, Col.3:17, II Thess.1:12, I Tim.6:1)
It is “in his name” that praise and thanksgiving are to be offered to God (Eph.5:20 and many other places), and that the unity of the brotherhood is to be maintained (I Cor.1:10).

And it gets even better!  The “name” given to Jesus after his triumph over death implies the awarding of a well-deserved title – “above all names” (Phil.2:9) – “above every conceivable rank or power” (Eph.1:21) – “higher than the name of any angels/messengers” (Heb.1:4).  The day will come when that truth is universally acknowledged (Phil.2:10) – and “every knee shall bow” in submission to the name of Jesus!  May God – and his people – speed that day!

But meanwhile, all who do acknowledge Jesus’ name have a clear assignment:  to represent their Sovereign faithfully.  Paul expressed this concern to the brethren in Thessalonica (II Thess.1:12): “That’s what we always keep praying for you all: that our God may make you worthy of the calling, and may fulfill (your) every good intention and faithful deed in (his) miraculous power, so that the name of our Lord Jesus will be glorified among you all, and you in him.”  The instructions are simple: (Col.3:17) “And everything – whatever you do, in word or deed, (do) everything in the name of the Lord Jesus …” — as his representatives – by his power – and for his honor!

Amen!

You have all heard some version of these tear-jerking lines:

“Jesus was ONLY born in order to die!”

“If I/you had been the ONLY sinner on earth, Jesus would have come and died for me/you!”

“YOUR sinfulness sent Jesus to the cross!”
Impassioned speakers have used these declarations for years, maybe centuries, to create enormous guilt-trips, and the indictment is meekly accepted by thousands.
The only trouble is, JESUS NEVER SAID THAT!!!

Increasingly annoyed by the self-centeredness inherent in that focus, which seems so contradictory to the God-ward and out-ward focus of all of Jesus’ words and actions, I decided to comb carefully through the Gospel accounts to discover what HE presented as the purpose of his coming.  Seems like it should be a no-brainer to consider Jesus himself as the best authority on such a subject.
Now, before you get all up-in-the-air about “inspiration”, please understand that I am not denying the inspiration of the writers of either the Gospels or the Epistles.  However, I do maintain that their explanations must be understood in the light of what Jesus himself has said.  So let’s take a look at his own words.

Purpose, in the Greek language, may be expressed grammatically in three ways:  with the particle hina and a subjunctive verb (usually translated “in order that”); with a simple infinitive (translated “to”); or with the use of the preposition eis, or the phrase eis touto (translated “for this reason”, or “this is why”).  A fourth, more ambiguous form uses the particle dei, “it is necessary” – which may, but need not have a purpose implication.  It is usually more of a forecast than a statement of purpose.  Here is a simple list of reference where Jesus is quoted as using one of these constructions.

Infinitives:
Mt.5:17 – to fulfill the law and the prophets (which he then proceeds to correct)
Mt.9:13 – to call not the just, but those who have failed
Mt.10:34 – to throw fire on the earth (separation, based on relation to him)
Mk.2:17 – parallel to Mt.9:13

Lk.12:49-53 – parallel to Mt.10:34
Mt.20:28 – not to be waited on, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom (a ransom secures release from captivity, and is the only – even oblique – reference to his death)
Lk.4:18-19 – to announce good news to the poor, to be a herald of healing to the blind and release to captives, to send out in freedom those that are “broken”
Lk.19:10 – to seek and to rescue those who are lost/destroyed.

hina:
Lk.22:29-30 – The Father gave him a Kingdom so that he could pass it on to the disciples
Jn.3:15 – both the conditional (believing/being faithful) and the subjunctive (“may have”)are in the present tense – not future.
Jn.3:16 – same combination of present tenses
Jn.3:17 – so that the world may (also present tense) be rescued/ “saved”
Note that if these referred to a single event, the tense would be aorist, and the result future.  Neither is the case.
Jn.6:38 – “I have come down from heaven not to do my own will, but to do the will of him that sent me.”  (used 3x in 38-40)
Jn.10:10 – “I have come that they may have life (present tense) and have it abundantly.”
Jn.12:46 – “I have come, a light, into the world, so that everyone who is (present tense) faithful to me may not remain in darkness.”
Jn.12:47 – not to judge the world but to rescue it
Jn.17:2 – to give eternal life (present tense), which he then proceeds to define as intimate acquaintance with the Father and with himself, to those who were given to him.
Jn.17:13 – “that they may have my joy complete among themselves.”

eis:
Mk.1:38 — “That’s why I came out” (to preach in other communities)
Jn.9:39 – for discernment (eis krima)
Jn.18:37 – (before Pilate) eis touto – “That’s why I was born and came into the world, to bear witness to the truth.”

dia touto: Jn.12:27:  “This is why I came to this hour” – Jesus does not explain this statement, but virtually everybody else does!

dei:  Remember, this indicates a forecast, not necessarily a purpose:
Mt.16:21 – to suffer abuse from the hierarchy, die, and be raised
Mk.9:31-32 —  parallel
Lk.22:37, 24:26, 24:44 – will deal with these later
Jn.3:14 – to be “raised up” or “exalted”
Jn.10:16 – to round-up the “other sheep” who will listen.

Conspicuous by its absence is any reference to private, individualistic “forgiveness of sins”.  See W.S.#7.  Jesus certainly did make that offer on occasion (Mt.9:2-6, parallels in Mark and Luke, and Lk.7:47), but when challenged, the objection had nothing whatever to do with his death, but rather with his right/authority  to forgive because of his identity with God!

Where, then, did this distorted limitation of Jesus’ purpose come from?  His comments in Lk.22:37 and 24:44 may be helpful.  Jesus explains on both occasions, “everything that is written about me must be fulfilled.”  Many times, he had found it necessary to correct misperceptions of what the “anointed one” would be or do.  Religious authorities had  concocted elaborate – but mistaken – ideas of a political emancipator, and other glorious (to them) job descriptions for the awaited “messiah.”  Is Jesus perhaps cautioning his people to sort carefully which of the oft-quoted prescriptions of the Law and the Prophets really are “about him”?  Perhaps we need to look at these again, and instead of trying to cram Jesus into the traditions of an ancient sacrificial system, turn our energies rather to participating in the Kingdom that HE SAID he came to inaugurate!  Not everything “written” is necessarily “about him.”
Notice also the accounts (Mt.27:11, Mk.14:61 and 15:9, Lk.23:5 and 13-22, Jn.19:6-16) of Jesus’ trial.  The charge against him was his Kingship and Sonship – there was no “religious” element at all.

Jesus has come “in the Father’s name” – as his representative (Jn.5:43), as the Light that can enable us no longer to “walk in darkness” (Jn.12:46).  He has come to rescue the world (12:47).  He has fulfilled the (legitimate) promises of ancient writings (Mk.5:17), and ransomed his people from whatever captivity they suffer.  He has come that his “sheep” may know abundant life (Jn 10:10), and to bestow “eternal life” – which he has defined as intimate acquaintance with both himself and the Father (Jn.17:2), upon those who trustingly follow him in faithfulness.  He has covered all the bases – provided for every need.  My son Dan has an excellent summary in his blog post “Enough with salvation already!” which I commend to your attention.  http://nailtothedoor.blogspot.com/2009/05/enough-with-salvation-already.html

The crucial question here is the same as in so many other places and situations, and the only one that matters, in the last analysis:
WHO IS YOUR KING?

I owe this study to my 12 year old grandson, Thomas, who asked me, “Grandma, did you ever work on ‘friend’?”  I hadn’t — didn’t really think there was much to investigate, but his comment, “Some people say they’re your friends, but they really aren’t,” got my attention.  Jesus had that problem, too.  Who hasn’t?  So I started to dig, and — no surprise — saw some very intriguing patterns emerging.

Two words are traditionally translated “friend” in the New Testament, and two more have been added by modern translators, completely muddying the communication.
Hetairos is used only four times, and only in Matthew’s gospel.  Classically, the word referred primarily to political partisans, business or religious associates, or casual companions.  Matthew uses it of children’s playmates (11:16), in the landowner’s reply to his disgruntled workers (20:13), in the host’s response to the improperly clad man at his feast (22:12), and Jesus’ addressing Judas in the betrayal scene (26:50).  None carry any personal level of involvement or affection, and certainly no mutuality.

Philos, used 29 times, covers a broader spectrum, although a greater degree of personal involvement is usually implied.  (Not always:  it is used in Lk.23:12 of Pilate and Herod, in their shared frustration at the case against Jesus.)  Jesus uses it in parables, often paired with “neighbors” or “family members” (Lk.15:6,9; 21:16; 14:10; Ac.10:24), or referring to a cordial relationship (Mt.11:19, Lk.7:34, Lk.7:6; 11:5,6,8; 15:29; Jn.3:29; Ac.19:31; 27:3).  Two instances seem to fit better with the flavor of hetairos — Lk.12:4 and Jn.19:12 — but there, philos was the writers’ choice.
There seems to be a change of the depth of meaning in John’s gospel, where Jesus speaks of Lazarus (11:11) as “our friend” and John notes (11:5) that Jesus “loved” (egapa) that whole family.  And in his farewell word to the disciples (15:13-15), “promoting” them from the status of “servants” to “friends” for whom he is prepared to lay down his life, an even deeper relationship is indicated.

The most interesting and, I think, significant observation is that both hetairos and philos almost entirely disappear from the text after Pentecost!  The faithful, after that time, consistently refer to one another as adelphoi — brethren!  Please note that, although the preponderance of uses are masculine in form, this does NOT indicate the preferential treatment of males.  It is simply the generic form of the word — all words have “gender” (not necessarily related to fact) in many languages.  (For example, in Greek, “hand” is feminine, and “leg” is masculine, regardless of the gender of its possessor.)  The point is, identification with the Kingdom/family of the Lord Jesus has introduced an entirely new level of relationship to his people.
“Brother” still does refer to physical family relationships, as it did in the Gospels, but from the time (Ac.9:17) when Ananias addressed the newly-enlightened Saul as “Brother”, it is the term of choice among fellow-disciples.
This usage is not unique to the Christian community:  it was used classically of religious associates, or even military companions, and Peter (Ac.2:29), Paul (Ac.22:1), and Stephen (Ac.7:2) all used it in addressing their unbelieving (even hostile) Jewish audiences.  However, the vast majority of the 346 New Testament references are to committed fellow-disciples.
Jesus had used it that way (Mt.28:10, Mk.3:33-34, Jn.20:17).  Especially notable is his statement in Mt.23:8, flatly forbidding any hierarchical structure among his followers (which many still ignore, at their peril).  Even John, an acknowledged apostle and elder, learned that lesson so well that he refers to himself in the introduction to his Revelation (1:9), as “your brother, and companion in the hassles, and the Kingdom, and endurance (that is) in Jesus.”  “Brother” is the highest — and only — “title” legitimately applied to any follower of Jesus.  As members of Jesus’ own family (Mt.12:49, Mk.3:34, Lk.8:21), we belong to one another in unique and wonderful ways.  So-called “contemporary translations” do us a great disservice in reducing that God-given bond to the casual status of “friends.”

To top it off, the revisionists manage also to throw agapetos (watered-down to “dear friends”) into the mix.  Agapetos is the participial/noun/adjectival form of the much-preached verb agapao, which seems to grow in its glow with every fresh-hatched “theologian” who gloms onto it.  I will only say here that the word itself is far less “sanctified” than is usually proclaimed.  If you need a “f”r instance”, how about Jesus’ disparaging comment (Lk.6:32) “Even sinners [losers] also love (agaposin) those who love (agapontas) them”?  That doesn’t sound much like “godly love” to me!
Liddell/Scott lists “regard with great affection or fondness; hold in high esteem; used of affection between children and parents, or God and man, or husband and wife.”  Theologizing aside, a genuine depth of relationship is definitely in view.  If you have a problem with the slightly archaic “beloved”, “dear people” or “loved ones” is more to the point than simply “friends.”  And when it is paired with adelphoi “dear (or even “dearest”) brethren” is accurate.  Reducing both of these to mere “politician-speak” (“my friends”) seriously cheapens the vocabulary.

This is a classic example of the poverty of language and understanding created by “translators” who are either bound to an agenda, or who have not troubled themselves to treat the original vocabulary with the precision and integrity it deserves.  Here are four words, with four distinctly different meanings, merged into one term so vague as to communicate virtually nothing.  Lowest common denominators simply do not work!

As casual associates progress through deepening friendship to Christian brotherhood, and thence to the precious gift of the mutuality of love learned in the Kingdom of our Elder Brother, we are privileged to grow together into his very image — no longer servants, but friends, and beloved brethren, whom Jesus has designated as members of his own family!
There IS a difference!

Good morning, folks.
We have just returned from a week with Dan’s family, and between enjoying the grandkids, he and I had a chance to do some rearranging on the blog, which we think will be helpful to you.

We have put the Word Study introduction and instructions on a separate tab, so you can find them easily, without scrolling clear back to near the beginning.

We have added a PDF copy of Citizens of the Kingdom, to which many of my notes and word studies refer.  You are invited to make the same use of this as the other copyright publications:  feel free to make a print copy for yourself if that is more convenient.  The only restriction is commercial use, as with all the material here.  That would require written permission.  I do have some of the original print copies on hand, so if you want to use them for a group study, I can make them available to you.  Instructions are on the Citizens tab.

We hope you will find these changes useful.  We have been delighted with the traffic this effort has received.   Of course we would enjoy hearing directly from more of you, with your thoughts and critique.  Faithfulness is intended to be a group effort!

Thanks for your interest.

Some folks have associated Jesus’ statement that some of those present would “see the Kingdom come in power” (Mt.16:28, Mk.9:1, Lk.9:27) with the immediately following experience of the Transfiguration.  Others chalk it up to a supposed “misunderstanding” (?!?) of the time lapse before the “Second Coming”.  I am more inclined to go with those who relate it to Pentecost, and the powerful activity of the Holy Spirit in the early church.

Surprisingly, there are only 27 uses of the word “kingdom” in Acts and the epistles.  Describing the period between Jesus’ resurrection and the ascension, Luke notes (Ac.1:3) that “the Kingdom of God” was the content of the “graduate course” that Jesus conducted for his disciples during that time.  Even so, they still had the wrong idea (1:6), clinging to the notion that a political coup for the nation was in store.  Jesus’ reply (1:7-8) is one that much of his church has yet to grasp.  He bluntly asserts that any such concerns are none of our business!  The Kingdom of which he has been speaking will be established as the power of the Holy Spirit enables his people to spread out through all the known world as his “witnesses” (see W.S.#18) to his reign!

It took a while, but eventually the faithful disciples began to understand.  “The Kingdom of God,” along with the news of his definitive defeat of death, became the core of their message.  In Ac.8:12, we learn that in Samaria, “Philip was preaching about the Kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ”.  Early on, the realization became vivid, that the message was not a glory-trip, nor one of personal aggrandizement.  Paul, in Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (Ac.14:22), after himself having been stoned, beaten, and run out of town, is found “strengthening the morale of the disciples, encouraging them to remain faithful, and (warning them) that it is necessary for us to enter the Kingdom of God through many hassles”!  See also Ac.19:8, 20:25, 28:23 and 28:31.

With all its ubiquity, however, it is hard to find a concise “definition” of the Kingdom, beyond the certainty that the King is in charge! There is a sense in which every description of the New Testament church is actually an account of the Kingdom in action.  Here again, I would refer you to Citizens of the Kingdom for fuller exploration.  Paul asserts (Col.1:13) “He (God) has rescued us from the power [authority] of darkness and transported us into the Kingdom of the Son of his Love!”  Everything else grows out of that triumphant truth!  His redeemed, rescued people are expected to live out the present reality of that rescue!  Both “rescued” and “transported” are aorist tenses: they have already happened!

Gal.5:19-24, I Cor.6:9-11, and Eph.4:17-5:20 all detail “before and after” descriptions of the life of “rescued” people.  Note especially the “BUT” in I Cor.6:11!  A radical change of lifestyle was expected of Kingdom citizens, not just a slightly sanitized substitute for the sordid situation of their surrounding society.
Paul admonishes the young Thessalonian church (I Thess.2:12)…”you all should live in a manner worthy of God, who is calling you into his own Kingdom and glory!”
Notice, however, that nobody is instituting a new legalism.  Everybody knew that hadn’t worked.   Paul reminded the Roman brotherhood (Rom.14:17), “The Kingdom of God is not food and drink, but justice, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit!”
Neither does it require complex doctrinal reasonings and formulas, as he reminded the folks in Corinth (I Cor.4:20), “The Kingdom of God does not consist of talk, but of power!” – the present-tense experience of the power of the Holy Spirit!
As committed disciples interact, under the direction of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by their faithful life to the Resurrection of their King, onlookers can begin to glimpse the beauty of his Kingdom.

Of course, we all recognize that our best, most earnest efforts, our most careful faithfulness, still falls far short of the promised Kingdom.  But not to worry!  After all, one of the reasons Jesus said he came in the first place was to “take away our shortcomings!”  (See W.S. #7).  That’s one of his specialties!

Although they comprise only a small minority among the references to the Kingdom, there are also passages that speak of a future dimension – a consummated Kingdom – far beyond anything we can imagine, let alone experience, in this present world.
As an old man, imprisoned for his faithfulness, and possibly soon to face execution, Paul reminded Timothy (II Tim.4:1) of the much-anticipated prospect of the “appearance and kingly reign” of Jesus, at which time he will “judge” [sort out] (see W.S.#9 and 10) the living and the dead, and (v.18) of the rescue and vindication that he expects at that time.
Peter also encourages his readers (II Pet.1:11) to remain faithful as they await “entrance into the eternal Kingdom” of Jesus.
The writer to the Hebrews (12:28), while using a perfect tense (“we have received”), nevertheless offers the assurance that when everything else is shaken apart, this Kingdom will stand.
During the Revelation, John was privileged to glimpse the time when “the kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of our God, and of his Christ (Anointed One)” (Rev.11:15), and he literally runs out of words in his effort to describe that glory.

Clearly, there is “more in store” for those who choose ways of faithfulness.  The future is not irrelevant. It holds indescribable promise.
BUT, “until then”, we already have a King to honor and obey, and fellow-citizens of his Kingdom with whom to learn to reflect his glorious graciousness.
Let’s start practicing now – and put some shoe-leather under the earnest prayer of our hearts,
Thy Kingdom come!  Thy will be done – ON EARTH as surely as it is in heaven!

One critical element necessary for the understanding of Jesus’ references to the Kingdom is found in the passage commonly labeled “the Lord’s Prayer.”
Although it is reasonable to question whether Jesus ever intended it to become a memorized, rote recitation (I don’t think he did), by its grammatical structure, the prayer sheds an interesting light on the concept of the Kingdom.  Parallelism of structure is a frequently used tool in many cultures, both ancient and modern, for illustrating or emphasizing interlocking relationships.

Three phrases here are identical in form:
hagiostheto   to  onoma  sou
eltheto          he basileia sou
genetheto    to thelema sou
The first element – the verb – in each phrase is a third-person aorist passive imperative.  There exists no such form in English, and consequently all attempts to translate it fall far short.   In English, we assume the subject of an imperative verb to be the second-person – “you” – the individual being addressed.  A third person imperative requires a stated subject – in this case, the noun – “name” (onoma), “kingdom” (basileia), and “will” (thelema).  But then there is a problem, how to represent the verb.  Some have rendered it “may” or “let” this happen – but that is far too weak, carrying a wishful-thinking flavor (for which Greek would have used the optative, rather than the imperative mood), or a request that the hearer “allow” it to happen (which would require a hortatory subjunctive).  An imperative is much stronger than either of these.  Whether a second or a third person, it is a command, not a suggestion or a wish.  I have usually chosen to use “must” (which would usually be expressed with dei + an infinitive).  That is still not right, but I think it is closer.  Suggestions are most welcome!

The parallel structure, in any case, denotes a kind of connection, not quite an equation, but close, between the three elements, all of which are included in the summation, “as in heaven, so also on earth.”  One could even say, then, that these are the basic ingredients of the Kingdom:  it exists and flourishes wherever/whenever God’s name is recognized as holy (belonging uniquely and absolutely to him), and presently doing his will is the deliberate choice of his people.  In one sense, the coming of the Kingdom may be defined by the preceding and following statements.  This is already the case in heaven – and his people are called to model it as well as to pray for it, on earth: in effect, to incarnate the Kingdom.

Important aspects of the Kingdom are further illuminated in many of Jesus’ parables. One must be careful not to read too much into these stories.  Parables are usually designed to make one primary point.  Jesus’ purpose is not served by (as a dear teacher/brother/friend once put it) “counting and analyzing the hairs on the tail of the Samaritan’s donkey!”
Nevertheless, a few observations and questions may be helpful – not as definitive “doctrine”, but as aids to understanding the impact of the stories on the original listeners.  We will examine only the parables that overtly include some version of the phrase, “The Kingdom of God (or heaven) is like…”Others may also have bearing: these definitely do.

1.  The wheat and weeds in the field (Mt.13:24-30).  The workers are worried about the weeds, but the Master, conceding that they were planted by an enemy, chooses not to endanger his growing crop by allowing over-zealous weeding.  How much good grain has been destroyed by workers more eager to pull weeds than to cultivate the crop?  (Mark’s version – 4:26 – speaks only of the growth of the crop.)
2.  The mustard seed (Mt.13:31-32, Mk.4:30-32, Lk.13:18-19). It not only grows amazingly, but provides shelter for creatures!
3.  The yeast (Mt.13:33, Lk.13:20-21) also grows – not just to get bigger or make more yeast, but to make bread – basic sustenance for people!
4.  The treasure in the field (Mt.13:44).  Notice the delight of the man:  he does not think he is making a “sacrifice”!
5.  The pearl (Mt.13:45-46), also, is deemed of ultimate value by the merchant – well worth whatever it costs.
6.  The fish-net (Mt.13:47-50).  A grand mixture of varieties, useful and not, will be sorted later.  Compare this with the weeds (#1). These two combine present and future ideas, whereas #2-5 are strictly present.
7.  Three vineyard parables.  The two in Mt.21:28-32 and 33-41, while the Kingdom is mentioned only once (31), are sternly critical of the present unfaithfulness of the people entrusted with the care of the vineyard (long considered a symbol of the people of God), whereas the earlier one (20:1-15), describing the hiring of workers throughout the day, critiques the selfishness of even faithful workers who assumed that their seniority would confer higher status/salary.
8.  The wedding banquet (Mt.22:1-13) highlights not only the rudeness of the first folks invited to the party and the consequent random inclusion of outsiders, but a man who is improperly dressed.  It has been suggested that festive robes were customarily provided by the host.  Had this man perhaps refused the gift, thinking his own “good enough” (no need to change!)?
9.  The ten virgins with oil lamps (Mt.25:1-13) also combines present and future.  The girls are waiting for the arrival of the wedding party, but the focus is on having made (or not!) adequate preparations.  (Why is there no criticism for not “sharing”?)
10.  Similarly, the “talents” (Mt.25:14-30) and the “minas” (Lk.19:11-27) deal with an interim period.  Only Luke’s version mentions the Kingdom, or the overt hostility of some of the subjects.  Matthew has the servants’ responsibilities scaled according to their abilities (v.15), whereas Luke has them commissioned equally.  Those who acted faithfully are equally commended in Matthew, but Luke records a variation.  Both, however, exclude the slacker.
11.  The sheep and goats (Mt.25:31-46) is the only one of the Kingdom parables to be quite specifically focused on the future, “when the Son of Man comes in his glory.” It is seldom pointed out that this “judgment” is explicitly said to be of the ethnoi – “nations” or “Gentiles” (same word), or that the criteria by which they are divided have nothing whatever to do with anything that either group “believed” (pisteuo, in any of its forms is nowhere to be found in the account), but rather concerns their behavior. Of interest, also, is the exercise of comparing the criteria Jesus lists here, with his “inaugural address” in Lk.4 (see part 1).  I do not believe the similarity is accidental.  Might these folks, although unwittingly, have actually been participating in Kingdom work?  I suggest that it behooves us to be slow to pontificate about who may or may not be included.

I have deliberately refrained from compiling these observations into a neat pattern of conclusions.  I don’t believe Jesus’ intention was to provide us with doctrinal weapons with which to clobber one another.  I believe he sought to engage our hearts, minds, and energies in the work of his Kingdom.
I hope these questions can contribute to that effort.

I have chosen to divide this study into three parts:  one a generalized overview of Gospel references, another of more detailed examination of a few points, and the third of its final consummation.
One outstanding contributing factor to the difference between an observable, practical view of Christianity and the theoretical “pie-in-the-sky-bye-and-bye” version is the understanding that a group promulgates of the Kingdom of God.  Specifically, do they speak of it primarily in the present or the future tense?

Both of these occur in the gospel accounts, and elsewhere in the New Testament, but the Biblical balance is skewed heavily in the direction of the Kingdom as a present reality.  Notice the prevalence of Jesus’ statements and his instructions to his disciples to echo them:  “The Kingdom of God is (present tense) among you,” or, “The Kingdom of God has arrived” – eggiken – (perfect tense:  a past event whose effect continues in the present and perhaps beyond).  A few examples are in Lk.17:20-21; Mt.4:17; Mk.1:15; Mt.10:7; Lk.10:9-11.
Even more vivid, although frequently missed by English translators, is Jesus’ response to the hierarchy-types who accused him of a connection with the devil in his casting out of evil spirits, “If I am doing this by the finger [power] of God, then the Kingdom of God has gotten ahead of you!”  (Mt.12:28 and Lk.11:20)  Ephthasen is the aorist form of phthano, a rarely used word that speaks of one competitor in a race outrunning or overtaking another.  The tense here, in both references, is aorist: something that has already happened!

Jesus put it even more plainly in Lk.16:16 and Mt.11:12:  “The law and the prophets were (in effect) until John (the Baptizer).  Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!” (present tense).  The King has arrived!  The Kingdom exists wherever the authority of the King is recognized!

In his inaugural address (Lk.4:18-21), Jesus set forth the principles upon which his Kingdom would operate:
It would be good news to the poor, who had been despised and marginalized by a society that equated riches with God’s approval.  (Does that sound familiar?)
He declared that he had been sent to announce (keruxai) release to the captives (explained at least partly in Hebrews 2:15).  A “kerux” was a herald:  the cultural equivalent of a news anchor – a public messenger of what was presently going on.
He would give sight to the blind (both physically and spiritually) – one of the most frequent manifestations of his power to heal.
He would set at liberty people who had been crushed by oppression (tethrausmenous).  This is the only NT use of thrauno, which denotes an utterly helpless and hopeless condition.  Tradition has interpreted this, and the earlier reference to “captives”, in a political sense:  but Jesus did not.  Neither did he postpone any of it to some sort of idyllic future.  He rather affirmed, “Today this scripture has been fulfilled (perfect tense) in your hearing!”

His subsequent teaching – and activity – were simply a practical demonstration of his announced purpose:  “proclaiming (keruxai again) the Lord’s accepted time.” An announcement is not a vague promise for some distant future:  it is giving notice of a present event.  (Eniauton refers to any defined period of time.)
Interestingly, when messengers come from John the Baptist asking about his identity (Mt.11:5, Lk.7:21), Jesus lists those same elements, with a few additions, as evidence that he is indeed “the one who was to come.”
This same orientation is present in the majority of Jesus’ parables about the Kingdom.  Of eleven that he specifically says describe the Kingdom, 4 are clearly descriptions of present conditions and 6 contain both present and future elements.  Only one – the sheep and goats scene in Mt.25 – focuses on the future, and even that relies on the evidence of the present behavior of those judged.  (I have not counted parallels as separate events.)  It is helpful to look at these in detail, but that is beyond the scope of this post.  We will consider some outstanding elements of the parables in Part 2.

Jesus also found it necessary on several occasions to correct prevalent misconceptions about the Kingdom, some of which still persist, uncorrected, among his followers.  The scribes, to whom he responded with one of his banquet parables, clearly had “bye-and-bye” in mind when they piously remarked (Lk.14:15), “whoever eats bread in the Kingdom of God is greatly privileged [blessed].”  Jesus’ story points out that those invited do not all respond to the gracious invitation (16-24).   Even more bluntly, he replies to a group fixated on a future kingdom (Lk.17:20-21), “The Kingdom of God is not coming with meticulous observations.  Neither will they say ‘Look, here!’ or “There!’  For look: the Kingdom of God is already among you all!”
To those who expected that a final political consummation was imminent (Lk.19:11-24), Jesus gave a reminder that faithfulness (or lack of it) before “the end” governed the eventual outcome.
Even after the resurrection, the disciples were still asking, “Lord, is this the time you will re-establish the kingdom of Israel?” (Ac.1:6).  Jesus’ reply communicates that their question is missing the point completely:  he speaks instead of the gift of the Holy Spirit, who will empower the growth of his Kingdom among them.

During his time with them, Jesus had admonished his followers (Mt.6:33) to “keep seeking” for the Kingdom of God.  This is a present imperative.  And like most of his instructions, it is addressed in the plural – it is a mutual, group effort, not a lonely, individual quest.
He encouraged one scribe, who had responded thoughtfully in a discussion, “You are not far from the Kingdom of God” (Mk.12:34).
He told his disciples that they were privileged to have “the mysteries of the Kingdom of God” revealed to them, when he explained the meaning of parables (Mt.13:11, Lk.8:10), and urged them to dispose of anything that would hinder their participation in the Kingdom (Mk.9:47 and parallels).
There are similar indications in various epistles, of the contemporary nature of the calling to faithfulness.  More of those later.

However, there are definitely aspects of the Kingdom that are not yet realized.  Jesus also spoke (Mt.25 and elsewhere) of “when the Son of Man comes in his glory and the Father’s”, and several times of the Kingdom as an inheritance to be anticipated.  Someone has characterized this apparent ambiguity as “living between the already and the not-yet.”  Faithful followers must maintain this healthy tension, and neither discount the present nor ignore the future.
We will consider a few specifics in more detail in the next study.