The Pioneers’ New Testament

Can you figure this out?

I was really intending to begin work on a condensed treatment of the Kingdom (more fully explored in my 1993 volume, Citizens of the Kingdom), when I noticed something that I had missed previously, and have not seen treated anywhere.
It is well known that only Matthew uses the phrase “Kingdom of heaven” where Mark and Luke use “Kingdom of God.”  But upon closer observation, I noted that in all of Matthew’s 31 references to the “kingdom of heaven”, the word ouranos, “heaven”, appears in the plural – ton ouranon. (Those “o’s” in the endings are omegas.)  This does not show up in any translations of which I am aware, probably because a plural would sound awkward in English.  I have not found any credible explanation.

The lexicons are no help.  Liddell/Scott (Oxford) does not treat the question at all.  It simply lists the primary meaning as “sky”, and secondary “the abode of the gods above the visible sky”.  They note that philosophically, the term referred to the physical universe, and later to anything shaped like a dome or vault – even the roof of one’s mouth! – or a tent, dome, or lid for a container.  Bauer’s NT lexicon comments that the choice of singular or plural seems random.  (Maybe it is!)  Thayer gets very theological about it,  but does not offer consistent evidence.

Matthew’s other uses of “heaven” are nearly evenly divided between singulars (21) and plurals (20).  The phrase “Father in heaven” uses predominantly the plural, but when it is expressed with a participle, it is singular in form.  References to “treasure in heaven” appear with both singular and plural, as do the two conversations regarding “binding and loosing.”  The source of “voices,” “signs,” and “angels/messengers” also uses both.  I have been unable to discern any coherent pattern.

The other gospel writers aren’t much help either.  All of them consistently use “Kingdom of God” rather than “of heaven”, and their other uses of “heaven” are fewer, but no more consistent.  Mark has 12 singulars and 6 plurals (with “angels/messengers” in both).  Luke has 24 singulars and only 4 plurals, some of which reverse Mark’s choices.  In Acts, he uses no plurals at all.  Neither does John, in gospel, letters, or the Revelation.

The epistles offer a grand mix.  At first it seemed like Paul’s earlier writings used singular forms of “heaven”, and later ones the plural, but I Thess. uses one plural, and Col.4:1 a singular  (in the same context where Eph.6:9 uses a plural!), so one cannot make a pattern there.  Hebrews has 2 singulars and 3 plurals (one a footnoted inclusion).  James has 2 singulars, as does Peter who also throws in a plural.

I’ll be grateful if some of you will dig out your Young’s Concordances and weigh in with any insight you may have.  You will need to find the singulars and plurals by the use of a Greek text – if you do not read Greek easily, you can do it with an interlinear, which will allow you to locate the word.  For the forms of a noun, please see the appendix to my Translation Notes.  They are easy to recognize, if you know what to look for.

Please don’t use this invitation as a dumping ground for Dante-esque fantasies of multiple layers and such, or for fanciful diagrams that have their basis in doctrinal speculations rather than the Scripture text.
The word “heaven” may also deserve deeper study; but here, the question is simply the implication – if any (there may not be one!) – of the shift between singular and plural.

Remember that Word Study deals with the Biblical usage of a word, contextually, grammatically, and lexically.  The only “commentary” that is relevant is the text itself.  Within these parameters, all suggestions are fair game.

Thanks for your participation!

Few and fortunate are the faithful followers of Jesus who have not, at some point, been subjected to a massive guilt-trip by an enthusiastic, self-styled preacher-“evangelist”, roundly scolding them for the inadequacy of their “witnessing.”  This peremptory judgment is usually followed by an offer of reprieve, in exchange for submitting to lessons on “effective witnessing.”  The perpetrator of the guilt-trip then proceeds to outline a series of propositions (complete with chapter-and-verse proof-texts) which are to be carefully committed to memory, and retrieved on cue to demolish the defenses of a hapless target, thus fulfilling one’s supposed duty to “obey the Great Commission.”  I am quite certain that what the Lord had in mind when giving that assignment was quite different from this (only slightly) more civilized version of collecting scalps!  The only thing sadder than this abuse of the clear admonition of Scripture, is its deleterious effect on both the gullible “student” and his (not-so-unsuspecting) victim.

Let’s get one thing straight:  Jesus did tell his disciples (Lk.24:48), “You all are witnesses of these things (the fulfillment of ancient prophecies by means of his resurrection)”, and later (Ac.1:8) “You all will be my witnesses.”  Both of these statements are cast, not in the imperative (command) mood, but in the indicative:  a simple statement of fact.  A person who has observed or participated in any event is, by definition, a witness.

“Witness” and “testimony”, both translations of martus (the person) and its related words, martureo and marturomai (verbs), marturia, and marturion (nouns referring to the content of the testimony),  are, first of all, legal, judicial, courtroom words.  In antiquity, as in the first century, and still today, it is incumbent upon a “witness” that he report, as accurately as he is able, what he has personally experienced or observed – no more and no less.  He does not volunteer information, but simply answers questions.  Mere “hearsay” evidence is peremptorily  thrown out of court!

In his first letter, John outlines this principle ably and succinctly (1:3) – “It’s what we have seen and heard, that we are reporting to you!”  Luke, who did not have the privilege of first-hand experience, says (1:2) that in his account, he relied upon the “original eyewitnesses” for his information.  He does not call himself a witness, but a researcher-organizer of the testimony of others.  Paul, on the other hand, repeatedly refers to his own experience, in both oral and written testimony.

There are New Testament accounts of purported “witnesses” whose “testimony” was pre-programmed by others:  the false witnesses enlisted by the ecclesiastical authorities to testify at Jesus’ trial (Mt.26:59-60; Mk.14:55-58); the false report concocted by those same authorities to deny his resurrection (Mt.28:11-15); and the men brought in for the lynching of Stephen (Ac.6:11-15).  Which sort of company do you prefer to keep?

More commendable uses of martureo and its derivatives in the New Testament fall loosely into three groups:  simple evidence of a fact, or of a person’s reputation; verification of Jesus’ identity; and reports of his resurrection.  Notable among the first group are:  the requirement that two or three witnesses must agree in order for their testimony to be accepted (Mt.18:16, II Cor.13:1, Heb.10:28); Jesus’ instructions to people to give evidence of his having healed them (Mt.8:4, Lk.5:14, and Mk.1:44); and the integrity (or lack thereof) of individuals or groups (I Thess.2:10, Tit.1:13, Mk.6:11, and Lk.9:5).  This idea may also figure in Jesus’ word to his followers regarding their own prospect of being hauled into court (Mk.13:9, Lk.21:13). Even with their lives on the line, they are told not to plan out their “testimony” in advance.  By the Holy Spirit, he promises to guide it as needed.

Jesus frequently offered evidence for his claims regarding his relationship with the Father:  Jn.5:31-37, 8:12-18, and 10:25, and 37-38.  Everything he did was intended to serve as that evidence/ “witness”.   This is reminiscent of the admonition attributed to Francis of Assisi, “Preach the Gospel at all times; use words only when necessary.”  In Jn.15:26-27, both the promised Holy Spirit and the disciples themselves are entrusted with the same responsibility to give that evidence: “because you all are with me from the beginning.”  (Are “lessons in witnessing” a substitute for having spent time with Jesus?)  And Jesus himself reminded  Nicodemus (Jn.3:11) that his own testimony dealt with what he knew and had experienced.

The overwhelming majority of NT references to “bearing witness” (for anyone other than Jesus himself) concern the glorious news of his Resurrection!  This was the reason Peter gave for needing to choose as a replacement for Judas someone who (1) had been with Jesus, and (2)could testify that he is alive! (Ac.1:22).  Clearly, this was the central burden of the New Testament sermons  (Ac.2:24,32; 3:15, 5:32, 10:39,41; 13:31).  It was the message that  Festus found so confusing (Ac.25:19), and against which the ecclesiastical authorities campaigned so vigorously:  “Jesus is alive!!!”

Still today, this is the source and the content of what we as his people have to offer to all who are still living in darkness, pain, or fear. Everything else—healings (Ac.3:11-15), changed lives (19-20), the consummated Kingdom (20-21) – is secondary to the fact that Jesus is alive and active among his people! As during his earthly ministry, it is his observable activity among us that serves as testimony (evidence) that the message is true!   In the face of dire threats from the temple hierarchy, Peter and John (Ac.4:20) replied, “We cannot keep from speaking of what we have seen and heard!”  Neither can we.

Faithful “witness” to our living Lord has nothing whatsoever to do with memorized “answers to questions that nobody is asking.”  It has everything to do with our allowing him to create among us a fellowship (see Post #8) where his Life can be seen! Genuine “witness” is simply giving first-hand reports of that Life – when folks see it, and ask.

“You all ARE my witnesses!” (Lk.24:48).

To understand the impact of Jesus’ use of “I AM” (ego eimi), you will need a bit of linguistics and a bit of history.  Many languages, including Greek (but not English), “conjugate” all of their verbs:  that is, the subject, “I, you, he, etc.” is inherent in the form of the verb, and does not require an expressed pronoun as a subject.  In ordinary speech, “I am” is adequately expressed by the verb, eimi, standing alone.  A pronominal subject would be used only for deliberate emphasis.
Historically, due to the account of Moses’ encounter with God at the Burning Bush (Exodus 3), “I AM” (with the pronoun) became traditionally recognized as the “name” of the Deity.  Somewhere along the line – I recently heard the suggestion that it may have been in order to avoid breaking the third commandment – people were forbidden to pronounce the “sacred” name at all.  Consequently, the use of the first person singular pronoun was forbidden to “ordinary people”.  The verb stands alone in the vast majority of Biblical references, even after the translation of the Old Testament into the Greek Septuagint, though it does appear, rarely, where strong emphasis is needed.

In light of the identification with God implied by the phrase, it is no surprise that the Gospel of John contains the greatest number of incidents where Jesus deliberately used that forbidden phrase.  John’s entire prologue is a paean of praise clearly identifying the Lord Jesus with the eternal God.
The first occurrence of “I AM” (I have used capital letters where the pronoun is included), and probably the earliest chronologically, is in Jesus’ conversation with the woman at Jacob’s well in Samaria (Jn.4:26), where he matter-of-factly declares his identity as the promised Anointed One.  She obviously got the message, as did the townspeople she recruited!
Four times, Jesus uses it in combination with his other “trademark”, “Don’t be afraid!” – in the storm at sea (Mt.14:26, Mk.6:50, Jn.6:20), and when he identifies himself to John (Rev.1:17).  To his frightened followers, the recognition (or reminder) of who Jesus is, becomes a great comfort, as it was in his Resurrection appearance (Lk.24:39).

For his opponents, on the other hand, it only incites or increases their anger and determination to get rid of him (see the discourses in Jn.6:41-51 and 8:21-29).  Sometimes these conversations are interpreted to imply that the hearers were confused, but here I must beg to differ.  Both interviews are peppered with “I AM” statements (6:41, 6:48, 8:23 twice, 8:24, 8:28, 8:57).  They knew exactly what he was saying:  they simply chose not to accept it.  This is clear from the conclusion at the end of John 8 (58-59), as they threaten to stone him.
The same is true of the trial scenes in Mk.14:62 and Lk.22:70.  Jesus’ “I AM” statement is the capstone of their case against him – and he and they both know it.  Although the phrase does not appear in Jn.5:18, it is clear that the point has been made:  “The Jews were seeking to kill him, because he not only was breaking the Sabbath, but was saying that his own Father was God, thus equating himself with God!”  See also Jn.10:30-33:  “The Father and I are one!” Again, the Jews picked up stones to stone him… and when asked why, they replied, “We’re not stoning you about any good deeds, but for blasphemy, because you, being human, make yourself out to be God!!”  And indeed that would have been heresy, had it not been absolutely true!
The use of “I AM” as an identifier is also clear in Jesus’ warning to his disciples in Mk.13:6 and Lk.21:8, against falling for impostors who would come pretending to his position. (“World-ending” is an ancient profession!)
Perhaps the most vivid of the scenes with his opponents is Jesus’ encounter with the posse that came to arrest him (Jn.18:5, 7, 8).  He calmly greets them, and inquires what they want; and at his simple “ego eimi”–  “I AM”,  “they backed off and fell to the ground!”   Please note:
the Lord of Glory could not have been “captured” without his own permission!

The other major block of references where Jesus’ “I AM” statements are quoted, contain a predicate nominative.  These too are instructive.
Jn.6:35  “I AM the Bread of Life.”  Bread has been spoken of as the most basic sustenance.  It was God’s provision for the ancient Hebrews in the desert, and now again in the first-century wilderness.
Jn.8:12  “I AM the Light of the world.”  The first element of creation, light has always been associated with God’s presence and his ways.
Jn.10:7, 9  “I AM the Door.”  The door to a sheepfold provided both access and protection.  A responsible shepherd was said to sleep across the doorway, to protect his flock from predators.
Jn.10:11, 14  “I AM the good shepherd.”  Old Testament prophets had berated the official “shepherds” for abusing the flock for their own gain.  Ezekiel described God’s determination to take over the job, and Jesus proclaims himself to be the final fulfillment of that promise.
Jn.14:6  “I AM the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”  Each of these is worth a separate study.
“Way”, hodos, may refer to a road, a journey, a direction, or a manner of life
“Truth” aletheia, indicates the opposite of falsehood; reality; or an actual event.
“Life” zoe, is one of three words translated this way; the only one that may (but need not) have an “everlasting” or “eternal” dimension.  It may indicate simply being alive, but may also refer to one’s livelihood, or subsistence, or even be a term of endearment.
Jn.11:25  “I AM the Resurrection and the Life.”  Martha had relegated resurrection to the future consummation, but Jesus does not. He goes on to explain that it is his very presence that confers Life (zoe).
Jn.15  “I AM the Vine.”  Prophets (Isaiah 3, 5, and Jeremiah 12) had applied the “vineyard” figure to the people of Israel.  Jesus’ parables also had critiqued their management (Mt.21, Mk12, Lk.20), and warned of the corrective action of God.  His teaching here explains the work of the true caretaker, as well as redefining the Vine (himself).

The “I AM” statements in Revelation are all focused on Jesus’ all-encompassing constancy:  Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last (1:17, 21:6, 22:13), in varying combinations.  An interesting slant is found in 22:16, where Jesus refers to himself as the “root and offspring of David.”  Genealogy buffs know that a mere person is one or the other – not both.
But it is the continuous, present tense that characterizes the Lord Jesus. This is also clearly revealed in the statement itself:  “I AM” is a simple present tense.  This is also seen in Jesus’ own quoting of the original Burning Bush statement in Mt.22:31 and Mk.12:26-27.
In a very real sense, both past and future are irrelevant, and consequently no cause for inordinate concern, to people who are joined to the only One qualified to use that simple yet profound declaration – “I AM.”
.

Of all the imperatives in the New Testament, it may well be that this one stands in the sharpest contrast to the voices that constantly bombard our consciousness.  Economic, political, medical, social, and yes, even “religious” spokesmen, of every persuasion,  assault their already apprehensive audiences with the same message:  “Be afraid;  be very afraid!”
Jesus, in contrast, as well as virtually all of the supernatural participants in his recorded history, consistently greets worried or startled people with a reassuring, “Fear not!”  “Don’t be afraid!”
How have these encouraging words become so universally ignored among those who claim to represent him?  Indeed, the students in my husband’s class at a “Christian” high school, some years ago, overwhelmingly gave “fear of the consequences” as the primary reason for their commitment to the Lord! and a fellow teacher at the same school who called himself an “evangelist” questioned the validity of my own conversion when I said that I had never been “afraid of meeting God”!  This is not only tragic – it is a shameful misrepresentation of the one who commissioned us to spread his “good news”!

Even “before the beginning”,  the heavenly messengers’ greetings to Zachariah, to Mary, and to Joseph, were the same:  “Don’t be afraid!”  Zachariah’s prophecy at the time of Johns birth referred to the joyous prospect of serving God “without fear”(Lk.1:70), safe from the harassment of enemies;  and the announcement of Jesus’ birth to the frightened shepherds began with “Don’t be afraid!  I am bringing you good news!”
Jesus’ ministry was frequently punctuated with the same phrase:  admonishing his followers not to fear their persecutors (Mt.10:26,28, and Lk,12:4,7); reminding them of their great value in God’s sight (Mt.10:31, Lk.12:7);  reassuring Jairus about his daughter (Mk.5:36, Lk.8:50); promising the gift of participation in his Kingdom (Lk.12:32); and in his final bequest to the disciples before his death, the legacy of his peace (Jn.14:27).
One outstanding event appears in Mt.14:25, Mk.6:48-50, and Jn.6:19-21.  The scene is a ferocious storm on the Sea of Galilee.  The disciples are terrified at the sight of Jesus walking toward them across the waves. His greeting combines two of his “trademark” statements:  “Don’t be afraid – I AM!”  (The next post will explore the latter part in greater detail.  Here, I will simply remind you that “I AM” was God’s Burning Bush statement, a clear reminder of who Jesus is.)  It is only after they recognized him and received him into the boat, that the storm was stilled.
Luke chose to highlight a different encounter on the lake (5:4-10), one that contemporary “evangelists” would do well to emulate.  Overwhelmed by the huge catch of fish (quite an extravagant “thank you for the use of your boat”!), Peter reacted in the way many preachers expect (or demand) of their hearers:  “Leave me, Lord!  I’m a no-good sinner!”  But far from pouncing on that “confession” and flogging him with it,  (notice:  that was Peter’s diagnosis, not the Lord’s!), Jesus replied in a way more in keeping with his character:  “Don’t be afraid! (Don’t worry about it!)  I have a job for you!”  What a gracious welcome!

Matthew (17:7) records the same phrase addressed to the frightened disciples on the occasion of the Transfiguration.  Matthew (28:5) and Mark (16:6) quote the messengers’ address to the women at the tomb after the Resurrection, and Matthew also has Jesus himself repeating the same thing.
Twice in the Acts narrative, in Corinth (Ac.18:9-10) Jesus’ appearance to Paul, and just before the shipwreck (27:24) a “messenger of God” delivered the same message,   “Don’t be afraid!”  seems to have been almost like an authentication that a message was indeed from the Lord.  That is how John seems to have recognized that his visitor in Rv.1:17 was Jesus himself.  (It was combined with “I AM” there, as well.)

Even in contexts where fear is a very normal reaction to the perceived peril of a situation, (e.g., the storm at sea, etc.) Jesus consistently seeks to allay, not to induce, their fears.  There is only one context in which he does not do so:  the situations where the religious rulers, scribes and Pharisees, Herod, and even Pilate, are represented as fearing either Jesus himself, or the crowds who followed him, as they pursued their nefarious plans.

We cannot, of course, neglect the handful of passages that refer to the “fear” of God.  Unfortunately, ever since Aeschylus (5^th century BC), the same word, phobeomai, has also been used to refer to the reverence or respect due to a deity, a government official, or even the master of a slave.   This sense of the word also appears in Philo (1^st century) and Plutarch (2^nd.century AD), as well as the Septuagint.  (cf. Bauer’s lexicon – see appendix.)  The context usually makes clear the intent:  some examples appear in Lk.1:50, 18:2-4, and 23:40;  Acts 10 (referring to Cornelius); several sermons, and some of the epistles.  “Those who fear [reverence] God” was a frequent reference to godly Gentiles.  It is a gross distortion to represent these as advocating that one should be afraid of God!

The noun forms of “fear” deal primarily with either “respect”, or the normal human reaction to peril, with a couple of major exceptions.  In Romans 8:15, Paul reminds his readers, “You all didn’t receive a spirit of slavery, (that would take you) into fear, but you received a spirit of being made (adopted as) sons!” , and in the same vein, Hebrews 2:14-15 affirms that through his death, Jesus once and for all destroyed the one who had the power of death, and rescued those who by fear of death, had been held in slavery all their lives.

As an old man, John sums up the faithful followers’ point of view at the end of his beautiful treatise on the love of God (I John 4:18-19):  “Fear doesn’t exist in love;  but a mature love throws out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.  The one who is afraid has not been made mature in love.  We keep on loving because he loved us first.”  At whatever level of maturity we find ourselves, this is the goal.

Faithful representation of the Lord Jesus will always seek to alleviate, never to instill fear.  This poor world has more than enough fear already.  An accurate presentation of “the Gospel” is the same today as it was to the terrified shepherds on the hillside so long ago:  “Don’t be afraid!   I am bringing you Good News!”

It is a message our world desperately needs!  Proclaim it faithfully!

Ok, here are the corrections that I have found since I re-wrote the Notes for Dan to post.  You can make them by hand until he gets the new version posted.  There are not many.

In “Task of a Translator” – last paragraph – “the 2^nd edition is now complete, and posted on line.”
Jn.8:33-47, the list of people should read, “Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Menno, and all their fellows”.
11:28-37, line 1 – change “the” to “that”
18:33-37, line 1 – “that”, not “hat”

Ac.2 – end of chapter, end quote after “them”
Rom.12:18-21, line 2 – substitute “then” for “than”
I Cor.3:9 – replace “job” with “particular task”
II Cor.1, line 4 – comma after “genitive”
Eph.4:30 – capital A for apolutreos
I Tim.1:17, line 2 – apostrophe in “Paul’s”
John’s letters – intro. – add Jn.21:17 to Mt.16:17 in third paragraph
Rev.2:7 – “re: Nicolaitans – Etymologically, it could possibly be a combination of Nike, the name of the goddess of victory, and laos, people, and thus refer to a pagan cult.

Good morning, folks.

I think there needs to be a reminder of the purpose for which this site was created.  I have needed to delete a couple of “responses” which seemed to be aimed primarily at arguing some sort of theological or doctrinal position.  If you would refer to the several introductory statements, you would see that this is not intended to be a forum either to attack or to defend any such hobbyhorses.

The purpose of this site is to explore one question:  “What does the New Testament text SAY?”  In this attempt, language — vocabulary and grammar — is the tool.  “Word Study”, as here defined, is the attempt, using linguistic and historical tools, to discern the intention of the text. In the process, doubtless, “theology” and “doctrine” may well be either challenged or corroborated, depending upon the degree to which the compilers of those positions derived their teaching from the text itself, and the degree to which they stretched or ignored the text in favor of their own preconceptions.

As anyone who has attempted to write faithfully knows, there are occasions when words seem to be “supplied” beyond one’s own ability.  This, I believe, is only a shadow of what happened with the Biblical texts.  That is not to claim a similar level of “inspiration“, but simply to illustrate that it is perfectly possible for any writer — or speaker — to “say” much more than he may have overtly intended. (Case in point:  Caiaphas, at Jesus’ trial. John 11:50-51.  And he was not even a “believer!”)  Therefore, arguments as to what a writer “could” or “could not” have “known” are completely irrelevant.

I continue to welcome comment and critique;  but please keep it on the level to which this site is committed.  I will gladly publish and respond to linguistic challenge; but I will not allow this to become a forum for doctrinal disputes.

In the service of the King,
Ruth

Hello, everyone.  Dan will put these corrections into the PDF copy in the next couple weeks, but for those of you who may have made your own copy, here is the list of corrections which you can add by hand, yourselves:

Corrections for NT text – July 2009

 Mt.5:25   add [opponent] after “accuser”  (twice)

Mt.8:5,8, and 13, and 12:18   add [servant] after “child”

Mt.14:31  add “t” to “hesitate” 

Mt.26:25, 26:64, and 27:11   add at end, [or, “What do you say?]

Mk.15:2   same as above

Lk.17:3  typo:  “each other”     

Lk.23:3  same as Mt. 26:25

John – all ok    

Ac.8:22  typo:  “removed”  (insert “v” and “d”)

Ac. 8:39   typo:  remove extra “r” in “later”

Rest of Acts ok

Romans ok      

I Cor.1:2  change “were” to “are” in parentheses          

I Cor. 1:30  typo:  omit “h” before “identification”

II Cor. Ok

Gal. ok

Eph. Ok          

Phil. 2:16  typo:  “c” at beginning of “continue” in [].

I and II Thess. Ok

I and II Tim. Ok

Titus ok

Philemon ok

Heb. Ok          

James ok

I Peter 2:20  should be [] instead of ()  around “demonstrates”

I Peter 3:17   insert alternate [or, It is better (for) those who are doing good, if they want God’s will, to suffer rather than doing wrong.]

II Peter ok

I and II John ok           

 Rev.6:16-18   typos:  Remove “ at beginning, Put it before “fall”.  Remove ‘ after “anger”.  The closing “ at the end is correct.

Rev 18:20   make sure “exacted” is corrected.  The “x” was omitted in the printed version.

 In NOTES:  Rev.4:6-8  close parentheses after “speculation”.

   Intro to John’s letters:  add “t” to “written”

I will still be glad for any suggestions you have.

Well, folks, these 15 examples will have given you some idea of the possibilities of Word Study.  Refer back to the methods and resources suggested at the beginning of this series, and start digging in.

I am going to take a break from these postings for a while, as while working on them, I have discovered a few typos and corrections that need to be made in the translation.  I will be going over the whole text again, and when that’s done, we will post a corrected version.

That means this would be an excellent time for you to communicate any adjustments you might care to suggest, as well as other words that you would like to see handled.

Together, we can all hear the Lord much more clearly.

Thanks for your interest and participation.

Ruth

The word eikon, “image,” is one where the Greek and English concepts are unusually parallel. Historically, it referred to “a likeness, picture, or statue; one’s reflection in a mirror; a personal description; a representation or imaginary form; a pattern, archetype, similitude or comparison.”

The whole idea of “the image of God”, of course, derives from the Genesis account of the creation. Interestingly, this event is never mentioned in the context of “image” in the New Testament, where Jesus is the only person to whom the term “image of God” is applied (II Cor.4:4 and Col.1:15), and his people are being re-created in his image (Rom.8:29, I Cor.15:49, II Cor.3:18, Col.3:10). Nevertheless, the creation account includes significant elements that deserve our attention.

When Scripture speaks of the creation of “Man”, the word used is anthropos, a generic term which refers to the species, not to gender. The term includes both aner (man) and gune (woman). It might better be translated “people” except that it occurs also in the singular. Sometimes “person” works, but not always. On Creation Morning, when the Creator spoke everything into existence, he is quoted (in the Septuagint – “LXX” — the third century BC translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek) in Gen.1:26, “Let us make man according to our image…”. “Man” uses the singular form of anthropos, therefore referring to the species (the next phrases refer to “them”). The plurals “us” and “our” with which God refers to himself have often been considered the earliest hint of the concept of the Trinity, although some have treated it as the “royal ‘we’” referring to the English custom – which is unlikely. That practice arose many centuries later.

It is not my intention here to get into a technical discussion of the Trinity. That is a game for folks who need complicated theories to enhance their egos! I simply call your attention to the fact that the initial intent was for Man (the species) to function with the unity and mutuality seen in interaction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: varied in function and activity, but perfectly one in purpose and devotion. This idea is developed in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 2. Sadly, the species — anthropos — chose not to cooperate.

The point of what God has been trying to do throughout all the ages since Creation, is to reveal himself – to, in, and through his people. The same theme appears in Jesus’ final recorded prayer for his disciples, in John 17: “that they may be one … so that the world may know …”
Please note that none of this is directed to or about individuals. No one person, however faithful, is capable of reflecting fully the image of the Triune God! We are not big enough, wise enough, nor yet sufficiently “conformed to his image.” Only by functioning as one, as our Sovereign prayed, can we begin to become what he intends, and “bear his image.”

Outside of Genesis, virtually all of the rest of the Old Testament occurrences of eikon, as well as those in Revelation, refer to idols and idolatry. Having totally missed – or rejected – the calling to reflect the image of their Creator, people created “images” of their own design, incorporating characteristics (power, ferocity, fecundity, etc.) which they hoped thereby to acquire. In Romans 1, Paul describes the tragic downward spiral that resulted. Jesus, too, described efforts to turn people back to their created purpose, having sent a long stream of messengers and prophets (see Mt.23:34 and parallels), until finally he came in person, to walk among men and create a demonstration project of his intentions.

The encounter between Jesus and his challengers (the only Synoptic use of eikon–Mt.22:20, Mk.12:16, Lk.20:24) over the payment of the Roman taxes (actually, tribute-money – the fee imposed by a conqueror upon vassal states, symbolic of their submission) is instructive. It combines several concepts of “image.” In ancient empires, as in modern times, coinage was designed bearing the “image” of a ruler – who (more overtly in those days) frequently insisted upon being worshipped as a divinity. It is partly for this reason that “money-changers” were required in the temple courts: money bearing an idolatrous image could not be used in a “holy” place. The religious potentates who accosted Jesus on that occasion should not have had such a thing as a Roman coin in their possession! It was “unclean”! Note that Jesus did not have one. This is further, seldom-noticed evidence of his opponents’ duplicity.
The Lord’s question is probing and perceptive: “Whose image is this?” The ensuing conversation reveals the cultural convention that the “image” is also a sign of ownership. It belongs to Caesar, and to his system. Let him have it. But don’t stop there! Let God also be given what belongs to him – what bears his image – ourselves, and our very life. Is it too much of a stretch, then, to suggest that his people, the bearers of his image, are in fact the “coinage” of the Kingdom, intended to be used for the King’s purposes?

“The image of God” refers not only to our provenance and ownership, but also to our destiny! Please notice: all of these assurances and admonitions are addressed in the plural. We will “arrive” together, or not at all.
Romans 8:29: Those whom the Lord has called, are intended (or, if you prefer, “destined”) to become “conformed to the image of the Lord Jesus – who is himself (II Cor.4:4) “the image of God.” Paul repeats this designation in the letter to Colossae (1:15) “he (Jesus) is the image of the unseen God!”
Earlier, he had explained to the folks at Corinth (I Cor.15:47-49), “The first person was from the dust of the earth; the second person was from heaven. “Dust people” are like the dust-person; and heavenly people are like the one from heaven. Just as we bore the image of the “man of dust”, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly one.”

This is the transformation that begins when people enlist in the Kingdom, and continues until its consummation. “The one who initiated a good work among you all, will keep working on it until it’s complete at the Day of Christ Jesus.” (Phil.1:6).
It requires our cooperation – Paul frequently speaks of “putting off” the old ways and “putting on” the new, as one changes one’s clothing. Typical of the shifting responsibility is the passage in Col.3:10: “Put on the new person,” he directs – an aorist (single, snapshot action) middle (verb voice in which the subject both acts and is affected by the action) form — “which is continually being renewed” — a present (continuous) passive (the subject is acted upon by an external force or person) participle — “in understanding, after the image of the one who created it.” The choice of direction is ours; the heavy lifting is in the capable hands of our Lord and King.
“And we all, with faces that have been uncovered, reflecting the Lord’s radiance, are being transformed (another present passive) into his image.”

Amen, Lord! Let it be so!

It’s certainly true that we/you’re not “perfect” — but we/you’re not scum, either!

It must cause real distress for our gracious Lord, having chosen, called and redeemed “a people” to populate and demonstrate his Kingdom, when he sees those people, instead of rejoicing in that calling and buckling down to work at it, preferring to wallow in lamentations about their self-diagnosed “unworthiness,” and proclaim themselves to be “wretches” and “worms”, instead of Kingdom citizens personally selected by the King of Kings!
It’s all over our hymnody: “such a worm as I,” “guilty, vile, and helpless we,” “false and full of sin I am,” “saved a wretch like me” … and so on and on.
But it’s NOT in the New Testament! And as such, it is dishonoring to the Lord who has called us! Paul admonished the Colossian brethren (1:12) rather, to “Joyfully keep giving thanks to the Father, who qualified you all for a share in the inheritance of his people!” Do you really intend to call brother Paul a liar? Or when Jesus himself says of the faithful, (Rev.3:4) “They will walk with me in white, because they are worthy,” is he mistaken?
I don’t think so.
Some call it “humility;” I “humbly” submit that a better word would be “falsehood”!

Tapeinos (adj.), tapeinoo(v.), and tapeinophrosune(n.), the words usually translated “humility” or “to humble”, are indeed commended as attitudes and behavior becoming for the people of God. But the actual meaning of the words is poles apart from their usual demeaning English connotations.
Tapeinos was originally a geographical word, used of “low-lying” land, or low water in a river or pond. Astronomically, it referred to stars near the horizon; and physically, to people of short stature. From there, its usage morphed into ideas of powerlessness, poverty, weakness, or a lack of prestige. In a moral sense, it could have either good or bad connotations – probably depending upon the perspective of the speaker.
Tapeinoo, the verb form, indicates a decrease in size or influence, fasting or abstinence of any kind, as well as humiliation or abasement.
Tapeinophrosune – with the addition of a suffix taken from the verb phroneo (to have understanding, to be wise or prudent, to be sane, to know by experience, to purpose or direct one’s attention, to be in possession of one’s senses) – directed the implication to a person’s deliberate attitude of mind.

The New Testament frequently contrasts “humbled” with “exalted”. In Mary’s song, for example (Lk.1:51-53) she refers to the “putting down” of the “mighty” with the exaltation of the “lowly.” Jesus uses a similar comparison (Mt.18:4 and 23:12, and parallels in Lk.18:14 and 14:11) of “humbling oneself” — tapeinoo — leading to “exaltation” — hupsoo.
This appears to be what has led some folks to conclude that they are being asked to adopt a stance of groveling, self-deprecating worthlessness, and (proudly!) to label it “humility”! They fail to notice that tapeinoo is used of Jesus himself (Phil.2:8), and Jesus never pretended to think he was worthless! Paul’s point is that Jesus deliberately chose to forego the privileged position that was rightfully his. He focused on Jesus’ absolute obedience to the Father’s will: simply the direct opposite of self-promotion.
A similar healthier tone is seen in the Isaiah prophecy quoted by John the Baptist (Lk.3:5). The scene is one of road construction, where hilltops are scraped off (tapeinoo) and valleys filled (hupsoo) to create a level super-highway for the arrival of the King! This was a common practice in antiquity. It is leveling that is called-for — not degradation!

Although he did not use the word, a similar attitude is evident in Jesus’ instructions to his disciples in Mt.20:25: “You all know that the rulers of the nations (Gentiles) dominate them, and their great ones wield oppressive power over them; but it shall not be that way among you all!” and in Mt.23:12, “You are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And don’t call any one on earth Father, for your one Father is in heaven. And do not be called Leaders, because your one Leader is Christ.” Jesus himself is the only superior, among his people: he has expressly forbidden human hierarchy! How sad, that these instructions are so universally ignored!

James, in his instructions about the rich and poor in the church (chapter 2) becomes quite specific in denouncing status and favoritism in the brotherhood. Paul went to great lengths in his letter to Colossae (chapter 2) to point out the “false humility” of various pagan practices, which had been touted as representing some sort of superior “spirituality” (does that sound contemporary?!). He makes the point that such exercises are only a form of showing-off, and have no value for Kingdom living.

In his farewell to the elders from Ephesus (Ac.20:13-35) Paul listed the characteristics of his service among them, which he described as “humility” — his faithful teaching, his self-support, and his honesty before them all. “Lowliness” (tapeinophrosune), an assumption of completely level standing, is listed along with gentleness, patience and forbearance, as needful for healthy relationships in the Body (Eph.4:2).

I like the motto I copied from a friend’s desk:
“Humility is not thinking less of yourself,
it is thinking of yourself less!”
Deliberate focus upon Kingdom affairs and interests rather than our own self-interest – obedience modeled after the Lord Jesus — the absence of posturing and pretentious behavior – are worth a lot more in the service of our King, than abject servitude and songs about “wretches” and “worms”!
The observation may be coarse and ungrammatical, but it is nevertheless gloriously true:
“God don’t make no junk!”
We are created and called to be servants – even children! — of the King, citizens of the Kingdom in which there is only one superior – the King himself – and the citizens serve him, and one another, in the true “humility” of mutual respect, honor, and love!