The Pioneers’ New Testament

The English word “perfect” carries many different ideas.  To illustrate:  when parents enfold a newborn child in their first “group hug”, gingerly unwrap the precious bundle to marvel at the tiny fingers and toes, and exclaim, “He/she’s perfect!” — nobody argues.  When the school child proudly brings home a “perfect” paper, he is praised.  Later, with considerably less delight, they may refer to their teenager as a “perfect storm!” and still later, he may land the “perfect” job for which he is “perfectly” qualified, and find the “perfect” match with whom to start the whole process all over again.  In each case, a different idea is in view.
Ironically, it is the sense of the “perfect” (without error) schoolwork, the only concept that is not represented among the Greek words used in the New Testament, upon which people have become fixated when pontificating about the “Christian life”.  Too often, it then becomes a weapon of theological warfare, ignoring the fact that none of the seven different words that traditional versions have rendered “perfect” carries any implication of being totally free from error!

Akribos (from akriboo) refers to “accurate information, careful investigation, thorough understanding.”  Luke uses it to describe his own research (1:3), Priscilla and Aquila correcting the errors in the teaching of Apollos (Ac.18:26), and legal investigations by government officials (Ac.23:15, 23:20, and 24:22).

Artios — “suitable, a perfect example of its kind, full grown, mature” — is used only once in the New Testament, (II Tim.3:17), of the maturity Paul sets before Timothy as a goal.

Epiteleo — “to pay in full, to discharge one’s duty, to complete, finish or accomplish a task” — is translated “perfect” only twice (II Cor.7:1 and Gal.3:3). In other contexts, the translations are more in accord with its definitions, especially those referring to the completing of a task (Rom.15:28, II Cor.8:6 and 8, and Phil.1:6).

Katartizo — “to adjust, put in order, restore, mend, furnish, equip, prepare,” involves the process of teaching, an important component of maturity.  It is even used classically of the setting of a broken or disjointed limb!  Jesus uses it of a disciple “becoming like his teacher” (Lk.6:40); Paul includes it in his instructions for the growth of the Body in Corinth (I Cor.1:10, II Cor.13:11) and his intention to add to his teaching in Thessalonica (I Thess.3:10).  God himself is doing the teaching in Heb.13:21 and I Pet.5:10:  “on-the-job training” of the very best kind!

By far the most common among the references are two related words:
teleios (adj.) — “complete, entire, whole; fully constituted, valid; full-grown, married; accomplished, trained, qualified; absolute or final, serious or dangerous (0f illness); and unblemished (of an animal sacrifice),      and
teleioo (v.) — to make perfect, complete, or accomplish; to execute or make valid a legal document; to be successful; to reach maturity (fruit, animals, or people); to be fulfilled or brought to consummation (a prophecy or promise.)
I have tentatively sorted the passages where these latter words appear into three groups on the strength of these definitions (definitely open to challenge!):  those that refer to a task or purpose being finished or accomplished; those that refer to maturity; and those that indicate completeness, validity, or fulfillment.

Jesus, for example, referred to “finishing” the particular healing work in which he was involved when he was warned to leave town because of Herod’s plotting (Lk.13:32).  In Phil.3:12, Paul speaks of God’s work in him not being yet “finished”.  James 1:4 refers to wisdom “finishing” its work in shaping God’s people, and Hebrews 9:11 to the better tabernacle than the elaborate tent in the desert.  In most of these, the word “complete would have worked equally well.

Frequently, “complete” is contrasted with “partial” or “in progress,” and refers to a goal that is still before us — James 2:22 refers to faithfulness being “made complete” by action; I Jn.4:17 to love being “made complete”; and Heb.11:40 to the faithful folks of the past being “made complete” only together with the followers of Jesus.  In his prayer (Jn.17:23) Jesus asks that his disciples be “made complete” in unity with each other, with himself, and with the Father.  And of course, there is the most familiar statement, in I Cor.3:10, that when all is “complete,” the partial will no longer be needed.

The greater portion of the references refer to maturity.  Paul frequently admonished his readers to “grow up” — a constant, lifetime assignment for all of us.  Clearly, that is the sense of Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:48, in the context of his teaching that the attitudes and behavior of his disciples are expected to be patterned after the Father, rather than the local culture, as a child learns to mimic his adult role models.  Paul, in Eph.4:13, Phil.3:15, and Col.1:28 and 4:12, incorporates the same idea of working/growing toward maturity, and John (I Jn.4:18) highlights the result of that maturing process: fear being replaced by a total confidence in the love of God.
Hebrews 2:10 and 5:9 suggest that maturity may have been a process, even for Jesus himself, as our forerunner.  This may also include the sense of establishing his qualifications for the work of conforming us to his own image.  Please note, to think of Jesus “maturing” is NOT to suggest that he was ever less than the earthly manifestation of our holy God.  But also remember that he did deign to be born and reared as a person.  I refuse to engage in the argument as to whether he ever had a normal childhood spat with his brothers.  To insist that he could not, however, is to miss the meaning of teleios altogether, as well as to deny his total identification with our human condition.  I do think this indicates that in our quest for the maturity to which we are called, we need not categorize immaturity as “sinful”, wrong, or evil.  It’s simply what a dear friend used to call “a No Parking zone.”

Note also that maturity is never represented as an instantaneous achievement. “Mature” looks different at age 10 — or 20 — or 40– or 70, physically, socially, and spiritually.  Jesus, and the faithful of historic times, are the only ones for whom it is spoken of as an accomplished fact.
For the rest of us, “Nobody’s perfect” must describe a goal, not an excuse:  a motivation, not a lame apology.  It is our privilege to declare with brother Paul,
“Not that I’ve already arrived, or already have been made complete (teleios) — but I’m striving intensely to take possession (of that for which) I was taken-possession-of by Christ Jesus.” (Phil.3:12), and later (v.15) “Anyone who is mature (teleios) must have this mind-set.”
Keep on keeping on!

This subject, which has borne the weight of complex “theological” arguments for centuries, is far too broad and deep to be contained in a post of reasonable length. I do not intend to try to settle all the hypothetical questions in which self-styled “experts” delight. An honest encounter with the New Testament will almost always come up with more questions than answers, and this one is no exception.
One can delve into the various deriatives of thelo (classically ethelo)(v.),thelema (n), and boulomai (v.), boule (n), or boulema (n) – none of which make the classical distinctions in which theoreticians delight – i.e., “permissive will,” “eternal will,” “ultimate will,”, “sovereign will,” and so on down the list of doctrinal hobbyhorses.

Thelema and its related words are classically defined simply as: “to be willing, to consent, to delight in, to ordain or decree, to be naturally disposed toward a person, idea, or thing.”
Boulomai, the stronger word, is listed as “the wishes of the gods” (in Homer), “one’s choice or preference, to want to do something, desire, prefer, purpose, intend that something be done.”
Please note that none of these carry any implicationof direct causation. Both word groups legitimately contain sufficient latitude that people with “an axe to grind” can manipulate them with amazing dexterity. I choose not to join that fray, but rather to call your attention to the handful of places where the statement is plainly phrased: “This isthe will of God …” or, “The will of God is ….” Whatever direction people choose to push (or twist?) the more ambiguous statements, these few are unmistakably clear: and consequently, must inform / govern any conclusion that requires or permits interpretation. Any interpretation that directly contradicts what is plainly stated,must be recognized as being in error.

I am deliberately listing these with only minimal comment: they speak for themselves:
Mt.18:14 – Jesus speaking — “It is NOT the will of my/your Father in heaven that one of these little ones be destroyed/lost.” (note: “mikroi” may refer to actual children, or to newly recruited disciples.)
Jn.6:39 – Jesus speaking — “This is the will of the one that sent me: that I may not lose anyone of all that he has given me, but that I may raise him up in the last day.”
Jn.6:40 – still Jesus – “This is the will of him that sent me, that every one who sees the Son and is faithful to him may have eternal life, and I will raise him up in the last day.”
I Thess.4:3 — “This is the will of God” — the faithful being set-apart / “sanctified” / made holy for him – exhibiting exemplary moral and ethical behavior.
I Thess.5:18 — “This is the will of God in Christ Jesus” — that his people should give thanks continually, IN (not “for”) everything.
I Peter 2:15 — “This is God’s will: that by doing good, you should silence the ignorance” of those who make spurious accusations.
Mt.8:3 – Jesus, again — “I will – his intention to heal the leper.
Mt.9:13 – Jesus, quoting Hosea 6:6 — “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice.”
I Tim.2:4 – (God), “who will have [wants] all people to be saved/rescued, and come to understanding of the truth.”

These are completely unequivocal.
Another block of references indicate that “God’s will” is something that his people are expected to DO.
Mt.7:21 – Jesus speaking: “Not everyone who says to me “Lord, Lord!” will come into the kingdom of heaven, but he that keeps on doing the will of my Father in heaven.”
Mt. 12:50 (and parallel, Mk.3:35) – Jesus speaking — “Whoever does the will of my Father in heaven, this one is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Jn.4:34 – Jesus in Samaria — “My food is that I continually may do the will of the one that sent me, and that I may complete his work.”
Jn.6:38 – Jesus again — “I have come down from heaven, not to do what I want, but to dothe will of the one that sent me.”
Eph.6:6 — “as Christ’s slaves, doing God’s will with your whole self.”
Heb.10:7,9 – quoting Jesus, “I come to do your will.”
Heb.10:36 — “You all have need of endurance, in order that when/since you have done God’s will, you may obtain the promise.”
Heb.13:21 — “He will establish you all, in everything good, for doing his will.”
I Jn.2:17 — “The world is passing away, and so are its passions; but the person who keeps on doing God’s will remains forever.”

Of course, to “do God’s will,” one must know what that “will” is. And this is the key.
“God’s will” is not a subject for debates, but a pattern for the life of his people!
Actually, the whole New Testament is the “instruction manual” for that project: the demonstration – by the people he has called and assembled — of God’s mercy and gracious provision for his creation. The instruction manual is provided for a very simple purpose:
Jn.7:17 — “If anyone wants to DO his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God.” Might it possibly be a corollary, that a person who does not purpose to “do his will” can not know? (There is a similar flavor in James’ advice about asking for wisdom– 1:5).
Paul described it to the Ephesian brethren (1:9-10), “God let us in on the mystery of his will – he set it all out in him (Christ) – his plan for the consummation of all time – that absolutely everything be summed up under the headship of Christ – things in heaven and things on earth!” and later reiterated, (5:17) “So don’t be unwise, but keep working to understand what the will of the Lord is!”
He prayed for the Colossians (1:9-10), “asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge of his will …. so that you may behave in a manner worthy of the Lord, in order to please him fully!”
He gave the Roman readers a classic description of what should be integral to metanoia (W.S.#6) in 12:2 — “Do not continue to pattern yourselves by this age, but be continuously, completely changed by the renewal of your mind, so that you all will recognize what God’s will is – what is good, and pleasing, and complete.”
If that doesn’t send us scurrying back to the textbook (the New Testament), I don’t know what will.

To be sure, incidents of specific individual guidance are occasionally mentioned, as are callings to a particular task. These must not be ignored, but tested and confirmed in the Body. We are called to enable one another’s assignments.
Please note also that the designation “God’s will” is never applied, in any New Testament text, to any form of disaster, disease, or disobedience! Such things will happen in the world we live in – and will affect the lives of the faithful as well as the unfaithful. But in no instance are they represented as caused by “the will of God!” (Please see the previous post — #11) God’s will is that we respond/ react to whatever life brings, in faithfulness.
In I Pet.4:19, for example, “according to God’s will”, grammatically, could link either to “suffering” or to “entrust themselves.” Contextually, (see vv.12-16), the latter choice seems more consistent with the rest of the passage. This is one of many reasons why one should be extremely wary of quoted “verses” removed from their original context. Isolated “verses” are so easily twisted to win an argument or “prove” a point!

I believe that it is the “will of God” that his people quit wrangling over how that “will” applies to other people, and get about the business of incarnating the answer to Paul’s prayer “asking that you all may be filled with the certain knowledge of his will ….in order to please him fully!”
Amen, Lord! THY WILL BE DONE!!!!

How many times have you heard – or said — “God is/was testing me/you,” “God won’t give you more than you can handle!”, or “God has put me/you through a heavy trial!”, or something similar? The culturally expected response is usually respectful sympathy, and a few “piety points” to the credit of the speaker. Why does it so seldom occur to anyone to reply, as the apostle James did (1:13-14), “But God doesn’t DO that!” ?

There are four different words that have been translated “trial” — each only once in the entire New Testament. Dokime (also rendered “experience, experiment, or proof”), classically defined “to test or assay, to approve or sanction, to examine and admit to a class” , in Paul’s second letter to Corinth (8:2); dokimion (the means by which a test is made) in I Peter 1:7; peira (trial, attempt, experience) in Heb.11:36; and purosis (burning, cooking, or destruction by fire) in I Peter 4:12 and Rev.18. None of these are represented to be caused or “sent” upon his people by God, although several times he is said to have used them, or turned them to the benefit of the affected individual. Sometimes, with other translations, those same words merely refer to human investigations.

The remedy is equally clear. Jesus himself has “been there, done that.” Heb.2:18 tells us, “In that he himself has suffered temptation/testing, he can help those who are being tempted/tested.” Or, as a later writer has put it, “He made himself like us, so that he could make us like himself!” By having experienced severe temptation/testing and triumphed over it, Jesus was enabled to extend his own success to his people!
Paul’s reassurance in I Cor.10:13 is essentially the same. Notice carefully that this passage also attributes to God not the source of the testing, but rather the “way out!” These two passages need to be held together, like the two lenses of a binocular, to obtain a proper perspective. And as always, only the Lord Jesus can “hold everything together” as needed. He has had a lot of practice, as Peter reminds us (II Pet.2:4-9) – and has also promised to rescue his people (Rev.3:10) from the greater testing on the horizon – to enable their/our endurance. “He has been tested in everything, just like us – but he didn’t flunk!” (Heb.4:15)

So where do we come out? It is appropriate neither to apply the label “trial/testing/temptation” to every major or minor annoyance of life (although one’s response to those certainly does “prove” — demonstrate – where his loyalties lie!), nor to ascribe all our “troubles” to the “will of God” (another needed word study!) Only when tests/temptations are recognized in their true light – attempts to turn us aside from whole-hearted devotion to the Lord and his Kingdom – and their source is rightly identified – persons or institutions that have set themselves in opposition to that Kingdom, and that malevolent power whose cause they serve – can the battle lines be accurately drawn.

(I Peter 4:12-16) observes, “Don’t be surprised/shocked” when trials/testings come – that is to be expected, if one is faithful to the Kingdom of a King whom the world does not acknowledge. Just make sure, he notes, that the “sufferings” imposed from the outside are not deserved.
And don’t blame God!!! He does not attack his own Kingdom or its citizens. Jesus gave his life in their/our defense!
THY KINGDOM COME!!!!!!

Please remember that a “word study” must confine itself to passages where the actual word  is  used.  There are other references that may – or may not – bear upon the subject under consideration.  It is important to distinguish, for example, between simple cause and effect, and “the judgment of God.”  Actions do have consequences:  it may be simply a result of the way the world works – do not confuse consequences with overt judgments.

Only in threatening theological rhetoric is talk about the “final judgment” used in an attempt to bludgeon members of an audience into accepting a list of statements about the nature and purposes of God.  There is not a single example in the New Testament record of anything similar being primary – or even present!– in the “evangelistic” message.
While classical uses of krino do include the sense of a legal, judicial verdict, there is no sense of divine retribution, and certainly none of “eternal” duration.  Although that idea does occur – rarely – in the New Testament, implicit references to judgment are found only in 7 of the 68 uses of aionion (“eternal” or “everlasting”), while all the rest refer to “life” and all sorts of “blessedness.”  A related word, krimatos, is only found with one of those seven – Heb.6:2, where it appears on the list of foundational things that need to be “laid aside” in order to move on to maturity (see W.S. #6).

In point of fact, the vast majority of references to the judgment of God are addressed to the faithful, for their encouragement and comfort!  Romans 2:16, Gal.5:10, I Pet.2:23 and 4:5, and Rev.6:10, 11:18, 16:5-6, 17:1, 18:8, and 19:2 all speak of the eventual vindication of the faithful and the destruction of their persecutors.
Another large group of references, Rom.2:16, I Pet.1:17, II Pet.2:1, and Rev. 16:7 and 19:11, emphasize that the judgment of God is consummately fair, and therefore greatly to be desired by folks who have suffered unjust treatment.  Heb.4:13 does not use the word, but characterizes a situation where the faithful have nothing to fear: “There’s no created thing concealed from him: everything is naked and exposed to his eyes, with respect to whom the Word (evaluates) us.”  John 5:22-30 and much of chapter 8 explain that Jesus himself will judge honestly.  Here is a judge that cannot be “bought”!
Of course, judgment that is absolutely just and fair can seem like a threat, to anyone who is trying to hide, or get away with something.  But for all who have struggled to live faithfully, in a world that does not acknowledge its true King, it presents the joyful prospect of deliverance.  I treasure our last conversation with a dear, elderly brother, who, after a lifetime of service to his church, was the victim of vicious false accusations, and had been repudiated by many.  He had stood kindly by us, years earlier, when we had been the victims of false gossip.  Brother John had been able to retain his radiant love and trust in the Lord’s mercy, and told us:  “We can all hold on to this:  the Lord knows the truth, and he is the one that is our final judge.”  That was a joyful statement of trust – not of fear.

On the rare occasions when mention of judgment is directed to the uncommitted – Mt.12:41-42 and parallels, Lk.10:14, Acts 13:46, 17:31, and 24:25, notice that it is usually to people – often religious leaders – who have already deliberately placed themselves in opposition to Jesus – not to those who are unaware of his ways.

Attention should be given, of course, to the two unique occurrences of solemn warnings directed to people within the brotherhood.  The letter to the Hebrews highlights the danger of deliberately ignoring or violating one’s commitment to faithfulness (10:24-31), while urging readers to keep after each other, encouraging one another to “hang in there” in faithfulness, lest any turn and become opponents.  James also (2:12-13) echoes Jesus own warning (previously cited) in Mt.7:2, that one will be “judged” with the same degree of mercy that he has extended to his brethren.  Both admonitions are intended to motivate caution, not terror.

Finally, it may be instructive to revisit a few of the passages that are frequently (mistakenly) used in an effort to frighten listeners into submission with lurid descriptions of torment.
Look at the “sheep and goats” judgment scene in Matthew 25.  Notice the charge brought against the “unfaithful”.  Jesus says nothing about what either group “believed,” or to what creed or doctrine they subscribed (or failed to subscribe).  He passes judgment on their behavior – their neglect of the needs around them.
The same charge appears in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  Actually, that gentleman probably “believed” all the “right things.”  He probably even ascribed his wealth to the “blessing of God!”  It is his treatment of the beggar that is the focus of his condemnation.
And among those who love to quote the Revelation to strike terror to the hearts of their audience, I have not heard anyone refer Rev.18, the account of the fall of Babylon, to the present economic distress (v.11-19).  I’m afraid more who claim the label “Christian” are weeping with the merchants “who got rich off of her luxurious excesses” (v.15) – note that there are few real necessities listed in the account of the collapse – than are heeding the voice from heaven (v.20), “Celebrate over her, heaven, and God’s people, and apostles and prophets!  God has passed judgment on her for you!”

There is a way in which it still all boils down to a case of discernment (see W.S.#9)– of choosing sides.  Paul’s testimony in I Cor.4:3-5 is a classic example of the confidence that a committed disciple can rightfully derive from the prospect of God’s judgment.  “It matters little to me,” he observes, “that I should be examined (judged) by you all, or by any human tribunal.  I don’t even keep examining myself!  For I am not aware of anything (that is a problem) for myself; but that’s not how I have been made just:  the one who examines (judges) us is the Lord.  So don’t pass judgment on anything before the time – until the Lord comes.  He will illuminate the things hidden by darkness and reveal the plans of (people’s) hearts.  And then praise will be given to each one, from God.”
If we are not “hiding anything in darkness,” then there is no cause for panic!
I Jn.3:19-20 seems to anticipate the problem of people being (wrongly) made to feel “guilty”, reminding us that “even if our hearts scold us, God is greater than our hearts” and eminently able to override any criticism.

Our confidence is in the mercy of God, which we have received in Jesus Christ!
Give thanks to the only One we can count on to be consistently merciful and fair!
As in so many other situations, there is only one necessary question:
Whose side are we on?  To whom do we belong?

(I am going to divide the consideration of krino into two postings, since the two major aspects of the word (excluding simple courtroom scenes) are both seriously misunderstood.)

“Do not pass judgment, so that you all will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)
“Don’t keep judging according to appearances, but judge just judgment (evaluate things fairly).”  (John 7:24)

These apparently contradictory statements by Jesus use derivatives of the same word, in each instance:  the very same word (krino, krisis) that also refers to God’s final sorting-out  at the “end of the ages.”  (This latter usage will be dealt with in the next post.)  Translating krino is one of those places where a translator must work with extreme caution, and uncommon flexibility, because, frustrating as it is, the Greek words are no more precise than the English.

Historical records show the verb, krino, rendered as “to separate or distinguish, to divide, to pick out, to choose the best, to decide disputes or questions, to contend, to compete in games, to evaluate, to esteem, to decide in favor of, to bring to trial, to pass sentence.”

The noun, krisis, and occasionally krima, is rendered “decision, choice, selection, verdict, interpretation (as of dreams), a trial of skill or strength, a dispute, an event or issue to be decided, the turning point of a disease, a legal decision.”

There is no necessary negative connotation in any of these.  Common, non-theological English uses the word “judge” in many of the same ways.  Contests, legal decisions, debates or disputes, evaluation of persons or situations all require “judgment.”  Please note, consequently, that in neither Greek nor English does the word “judge” automatically imply condemnation – or even disapproval.  It may, in fact, indicate the direct opposite!

The concepts in question are clarified when a form of krino appears with a prefix:
— ana (again, or up) creates anakrino, “to examine closely, to interrogate, to  inquire into
— dia (through, or toward) creates diakrino,“to distinguish, to separate, to decide, to argue”
— epi (upon, over) creates epikrino, “to pass sentence, to assent”
— kata (down, against) creates katakrino, “to condemn”
— sun (together)  creates sungkrino, “to compare.”
Unfortunately, these compound forms are used comparatively rarely.  Most of the time, we are left to figure out the sense of krino from its context.

Taken in their context, for example, the two quotations with which we began are not contradictory at all.  Consult the rest of the paragraph in the Matthew 7 reference.  The prohibition is directed at self-appointed “perfection police,” who enjoy nit-picking at others without regard to their own need for correction.  This is unacceptable.  However, the give and take of mutual admonition is essential for healthy growth.  Witness Paul’s instructions in I Cor. 5 and 6, and notice that he is concerned (5:12) with the relationships of those within the brotherhood.  This is reinforced in I Cor. 11:31-32:  “If we would be evaluating ourselves, we would not be judged.  When we are judged by the Lord, we are being disciplined, so that we will not be condemned (katakrino) with the world.”  This kind of “judgment” is an act of compassion and protection, not condemnation!

Such an understanding highlights a significant difference between the New Testament and the contemporary church.  The original idea, in the message of both Jesus himself and all the apostles, began with “metanoeite” (see Word Study #6), a call to change one’s entire orientation of life.  Sadly, that no longer seems to be the standard assumption.  We have correctly perceived that the invitation to the new community/kingdom of Jesus’ followers is open to all.  But when the entry points, “repentance” (W.S.#6) and “forgiveness” (W.S.#7), are robbed of their true content, and it is no longer assumed that there will be either a radical change of life or the removal of offending behaviors, and that invitation is reduced to an insipid verbal assent to a prescribed list of “beliefs” or “doctrines,” the life-giving aspect of “judgment” disappears as well.

Look for a moment at a few of the places where “judgment” is advocated – even commanded – in the church!  Notice that in the John 7 passage already quoted, the verbs are plural – not singular (individual).  This is a job for the brotherhood as a whole, as are all the other such admonitions.  That is an important safeguard, to assure that any “judgment” will be “just,” and not capricious. In I Cor.6, Paul goes into considerable detail about the need for disputes in the brotherhood to be settled internally – by Christian standards, and not by those of the outside world. In I Cor.14:9, the whole congregation is to “evaluate” carefully any messages delivered to the group.  Jude (22) calls for “discerning” where mercy is called for.  Even what appears to be an individual responsibility – assuring that one does not cause another to stumble or fall (Rom.14:13) – is addressed in the plural.  And Peter calls for “judgment” to begin in the household of God.  It is the task of the group to “clean up our act!”  Discernment/judgment is essential, if a person or group is to act responsibly as representative of the Kingdom in an alien world.   This is at least one of the reasons why “discernment” is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to the Body (I Cor.12:10).

At the same time, clearly, “judgment” needs to be exercised with caution.  In many of his epistles, Paul reminds his readers that the mandate for discernment/judgment is not a license to dictate all the minutiae of life, or to catalog and rank the “sins of the world.”  Jesus intends to take those away! Discernment is needed in order to draw lines only where they matter.  The Kingdom is not a new Law.  Its citizens are urged to be considerate, rather than picky, about such things as food and drink, customs and celebrations (Col.2:16 f), and the details of people’s former lives (Rom.2).  James warns against economic discrimination (2:1-7), and obsessing about technicalities of law (ch.4).  Romans 14 is a beautiful treatise on helping one another to find ways of faithfulness.  Don’t forget that a changed life is assumed! But in that context, compassion, not coercion, is the hallmark of faithful “judgment,” remembering that (14:8) “The person who is a slave to Christ — is pleasing to God”!

Rightly understood, judgment/discernment serves as an extremely useful tool, as aspiring followers of Jesus seek to learn his ways.  It is exercised, by common consent, within the brotherhood, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in a mutual effort toward faithfulness.  We have not been called to “reform” the world.  It is our joyful privilege to demonstrate an alternative to its ways, and to invite all who will, to transfer their allegiance from the world to the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus!

My friend’s invitation to an event at her church was kind and gracious.  “It’s just a fellowship meeting,” she explained, “Coffee, some board-games, conversation ….”  Now, I like coffee.  Conversation is pleasant.  I can even occasionally enjoy a board-game with the grandkids.  But is this “fellowship”?  “JUST a fellowship meeting? ”  Has the contemporary church forgotten, or has it deliberately rejected, the “length and breadth and height and depth” of that beautiful word, reducing it to softball games and hot dogs?

“Fellowship” is the most common translation (12 times) of koinonia, which in other contexts has been rendered “communication (2 x), communion (4 x), contribution (1 x), and distribution (1 x).”  Historically, it was quite a versatile word, used of joint business ventures, charitable contributions, the routine associations of human society, and even marriage!  The verb form could refer to almost any sort of a co-operative effort — even crime! –while the adjective refers to things held in common by corporations, willingness to share among members of a group, and partaking of either the suffering or the good fortune of one’s fellows.

In the New Testament, the usage is also varied:  these related words can refer to something as mundane as James and John’s partnership in their father’s fishing business (Lk.5:10), or as amazingly ultimate as Peter’s description of believers’ actually participating in the glory of the Lord Jesus at his coming (I Peter 5:1)!  The word only appears twice in the Gospels — the previously mentioned passage in Luke, and Mt.23:30, where Jesus warns his opponents of “sharing”  (koinonon) in the deeds of those who had stoned the prophets.

Interestingly, the word seems to have acquired broader and deeper meaning in the church after Pentecost.  Might a new slant on koinonia be connected to the power Jesus promised when he instructed the baffled disciples to “wait around” for the coming of the Holy Spirit?  The New Testament usage certainly changes after that momentous occasion.

Acts 2:42-47 and 4:32-35 provide detailed descriptions of the “fellowship” (koinonia) of the early believers.  They couldn’t get enough of being together!  (But I don’t think they were playing board-games.)  They eagerly soaked-up the apostles’ teaching, shared their meals and possessions , and prayed together.  Incidentally, please note that there is no hint, in that description, of coerced communalism: the new brethren were just looking out for each other’s welfare, as they shared their whole lives.  That concern also spilled out beyond their immediate associates, as well, in many practical ways:

–When they learned of the famine in Judea, the scattered congregations spontaneously  started a relief-effort for the brethren who were affected (Rom.15:26, II Cor.8:4, 9:13)
–They shared willingly in each other’s sufferings for their faithfulness, as well as in the suffering of the Lord Jesus for them (Phil.3:10, Heb.10:33, II Cor.1:7, I Pet.4:13)
–Various individuals and groups contributed support, not only to Paul’s efforts (the whole epistle to Philippi is a “thank-you note”), but to those of other teachers (Gal.6:6), and also to the needs of the wider brotherhood (Rom.12:13).

Paul speaks of “fellowship” (koinonia) as related to the approval other apostles gave to his work (Gal.2:9), the sharing of the “mystery” of the inclusion of Gentiles in the plan of God (Eph.3:9), and also to individual people who had shared  his labors in various places.  He refers to sharing (koinonia) , personally and as a group, in the very sufferings of Jesus Christ (Phil.3:10), as does Peter (1 Pet. 4:13).  John’s first letter is the most extensive direct treatment of “fellowship” .  Created when folks learn of the Gospel and respond, koinonia is nurtured by honesty, love, mutual confession and forgiveness in the brotherhood.  Both Paul and John also warn against “sharing” (still using koinonia) in the evil of others: both in idol worship situations, and relating to those of their own number who would turn them away from Jesus — frequently for financial gain.

Koinonia is also used –only once, in I Cor.10:16 — of the celebration that has come to be labeled “communion.”  I have treated this subject in greater detail in Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 12. This is the same word that has been used of all the sharing of life, teaching, resources, joys, and sufferings already detailed.  Paul’s choice of the word koinonia makes abundantly clear that the purpose of the observation is the celebration of the depth of the mutual participation of the members of the Body — NOT some privatistic, esoteric appropriation of an undefined “spiritual” benefit.  Luke records in Acts 2 (previously cited) that they “broke bread from house to house” with JOY.  Nothing is said about a solemn ceremony officiated by a representative of a hierarchy (which, as noted before, Jesus had flatly forbidden.)  As in every other reference to koinonia, the mutuality of the entire brotherhood is paramount.

So yes, dear people!  May all our meetings be “fellowship meetings”!  May we live and breathe the koinonia described so vividly by the New Testament writers!  Building each other up in love, may we continue to grow together into “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ!”  (Eph.4:13).   For “Our fellowship / sharing / participation / koinonia is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.  We’re writing these things to you all in order that our mutual joy may be made complete!” (I John1:3-4).

John the Baptist appeared in the desert of Judaea, announcing, “Behold the Lamb of God who takes away the ‘sin’ (failures, faults, shortcomings, offences) of the world!”  From that time, Jesus proceeded to welcome all who chose to follow him, as members of his family, citizens of his Kingdom, participants in a community of folks who were in the process of being redeemed, transformed, re-created as members of the Body of Christ!

Ironically, high on the list of topics co-opted by the creators of creed and dogma as weapons or ammunition for laying heavy and unwarranted guilt-trips on those people is the concept of “forgiveness of sins.”  Their signal success at distorting the message of Jesus in this regard (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not mine to judge) is due to a serious misunderstanding of both words.  Each represents an instance of multiple Greek words (and therefore very different ideas) having been lumped together and expressed by one single word in most English translations.

There are three different words which have been rendered “forgive” by most translators:  apoluo (translated “forgive” only twice, out of 69 appearances in the New Testament), which most frequently signifies simple departure from a place, or sending away;  charizomai (translated “forgive”  in 11 of 23 occurrences), more often used of the gracious gifts of God for the needs and service of his people;   and  aphiemi  (47 out of 144 occurrences), for which the most common translation is simply “leave.”  It is interesting to note that none of these includes any implication of “forget”, with which it is so frequently paired in modern rhetoric.

Although the gracious generosity inherent in charizomai  is an important component of a correct understanding of forgiveness, and noted in Eph.4:32 and Col.3:13 as the model for our treatment of one another, I choose here to focus on the more usual term, aphiemi, because it has been so grossly misunderstood.

Etymologically, aphiemi is made up of a prefix, apo, “away from”, and the verb, hiemi, “to send away, to discharge, to set free, to release, to dismiss, to acquit of a charge, to put away or divorce, to get rid of, to leave, to cancel.”  Adding a prefix to such a word tends to strengthen it in the direction of the prefix (“away from”), indicating a sense of removal.  Notice, “ignore” is NOT on that list of definitions.  Nobody is saying, “Oh, that’s ok, it doesn’t matter.”  It DOES matter:  it matters so much that the situation in question needs to be removed — taken away — disposed-of.   (please see posting #6.)   Aphiemi does not describe a clever lawyer getting his client off the hook without penalty for his crimes.  It is the error  that is removed.

But what is that “error” that is being removed?  The misunderstanding is even greater when it comes to the concept of “sin.”  This English word also is used for three different Greek words:  hamartia (175 times), hamartema (only 4 times), and paraptoma (23 times).  To complicate the situation, theology and dogma have added the baggage contained in three more words, none of which are ever translated that way!

Hamartia, by far the most common, very seldom carries the indication of a deliberate offence.    The lexicons include: “to miss a target, to fail of one’s purpose, to be deprived of something needful, to fail or neglect an assigned task, to err or to do wrong, to be mistaken.”  These are primarily the errors of immaturity or ignorance.  This is the word that appears most frequently with aphiemi.  (Interestingly, the second most common is not an offence at all, but debt. )   Hamartia is also the word associated with Jesus’ dispute with the Pharisees over his authority to “forgive” (remember, that word means to remove, dismiss, or get rid of) “sins”. (Matthew 9:6, Mk.2:7,10, and Lk.5:21-24.)  Note two things:  (1) Jesus is speaking in the present tense — he HAS authority, and (2) Jesus does not dispute the statement that “only God” can do that.  It is precisely because he is God Incarnate that he has that authority!  Jesus makes  no mention of his death as being associated with his right to forgive.

Stephen (Ac.7:60) prays that his executioners be “forgiven” for their hamartia — acknowledging, as did Jesus on the cross, Peter in Ac.3:17, and Paul on several occasions, that they were acting in ignorance.  Peter’s question regarding forgiving his brother uses hamartia (Mt:18:21), but Jesus’ parable in reply shifts the focus to one of debt.  This incident has often been viewed as parallel to the teaching in Luke 17:3-4, which was initiated by Jesus, but makes no mention of Peter.  The Luke account is dealing with a very different scenario, although it also uses hamartia.  Here, Jesus is referring to “straightening out” a brother who has taken a wrong turn, and the command to forgive is prefaced by a conditional clause indicated by the use of the particle ean with a subjunctive verb.  “IF he repents (see Word Study #6) — changes his direction” — he is to be forgiven.  Acknowledging that this may take several tries does not remove the condition:  it is embedded in the structure of the sentence.  It describes a situation similar to the restoration (II Cor.2:7-10) of the person who was disciplined in I Cor.5.

Paraptoma, on the other hand, carries more of the freight of a deliberate offense.    Alternate translations include “fall (2x), fault(2x), offense(7x), sin(3x), and trespass(9x). ” Lexicons add “a false step, a blunder, defeat, transgression, trespass.”  The references are about evenly divided between offenses against people and against God, but are generally deliberate in both cases.  It appears frequently in Romans 4, 5, and 11 regarding Israel’s refusal of Jesus; and in Ephesians and Colossians regarding the excesses of pagan life before conversion.   In Eph.2:1, Paul refers to both of the words together, making clear that they comprise two different classes of offenses.

Entirely missing from any of these concepts are situations where one has deliberately chosen to do — or to yield to the control  of — what is overtly evil.  Kakia (11 times): “evil, malice, maliciousness, wickedness”; kakos (35 times) “ugly, base, craven, worthless, evil, pernicious, abusive, foul”; and poneros (23 times) : “evil, harm, wicked, wickedness, the Evil One”; occur far less frequently. They have in no case been translated “sin”, and with a single exception, never appear in connection with aphiemi or any of the other forgiveness terms.   The exception is found in Ac.8:22, the interview between Peter and Simon the magician in Samaria who tried to “buy” the ability to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit.  Peter does not sound really confident that “forgiveness” will be extended in this situation.  His analysis is stern;  Simon has showed himself to be quite alien to the spirit of true discipleship.  Please note that this indictment is completely unique to this one situation.  There is no parallel anywhere in the New Testament, unless it be the case of Ananias and Sapphira (Ac.5), where there is not even any suggestion of the possibility of redemption.  An accusation of having deliberately chosen evil is the most serious of charges.  Reducing it to a routine recitation is irresponsible in the extreme.

Loyal disciples of Jesus find themselves at many different levels of maturity, understanding, and conformity to the Lord’s ways.  John, in his first letter, assumes that as we mature, we will continue to discover things that need to be “taken away” from our experience, assuring his readers that the Lord is ready and willing to take care of that if they will cooperate.  However, requiring committed disciples repeatedly to “confess” guilt for offenses that they have neither committed nor even considered, in order to be pronounced “forgiven” by someone in a hierarchical structure (which the Lord Jesus categorically forbade — see Mt.23:1-12), is a gross distortion — even a denial — of his gracious provision for the people he has redeemed for himself and called to populate his Kingdom!

“Behold the Lamb of God who TAKES AWAY the failures, faults, shortcomings,stumblings, and offenses of the world!”  This is part of his program to re-create his people in his own image, and directly connected to the call to “Repent/change direction.”  His authority and power to accomplish this monumental task reside in his very BEING — the King of Kings and Lord of Lords — “because in him, all the fullness of deity has its bodily, permanent residence (Col.2:9)!”

Glory to him forever!

Nearly thirty years had passed since all the wonderful events recorded in the introductions to Matthew’s and Luke’s accounts of the ministry of Jesus. After so long, did even the participants begin to wonder if it had all been just a beautiful dream? That can happen so easily, when hope is long deferred. Did anyone remember the prophecies, the promises, the wonder of those days?

Then, suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere, a strange figure appeared at the edge of the Judaean desert, reminiscent of the prophets many centuries before, both in his rather scruffy appearance, his odd behavior, and his compelling, unequivocating message.

“Metanoeite!” he thundered. “The promised Kingdom has arrived!” English expositors have rendered that command, “Repent!”, and subsequently distorted it into a demand for repetitive, coerced assent to the sentence of guilt that they have concocted against their target audience. Oddly, neither Jesus, nor John, nor any of the later messengers, associated that call, either with violations of any list of forbidden thought or behavior, or with any convoluted connection to Adam and Eve in the garden. The word they chose was much more vital than either. Interestingly, it appears only 34 times in the entire New Testament, but the idea is pervasive.

Metanoeite, a present imperative form, never carried any implication of “I’m so sorry I was naughty — I must be a terrible person!” or “oops! I was caught!”. Metanoeite indicates a total and radical change of one’s mind / orientation / behavior / purpose — and results in a complete transformation of life. It represents a shift of focus from one’s former, self-centered concerns to a singular focus on the ways and goals of the Kingdom. Such a transformation takes a while — thus the use of the present tenses. Remember that the present tense, especially in the imperative mood, indicates a sustained, not punctiliar action. But that the results are expected to be seen in one’s behavior was well understood. This is obvious in the question posed by John’s listeners: “What shall we do?” Look at the description of his interviews in Luke 3:10-14.

–People in the crowd are expected to share food and clothing with those who lack either.

–Tax collectors are to quit cheating!

–Soldiers are forbidden to do violence to anyone!

Not a word is said about what they were supposed to “believe”!

And although the word appears very rarely in Paul’s writings, (as a verb only once, and as a noun four times), the understanding and expectation clearly persisted in the early church, as evidenced by the exhortations to the churches of Revelation. The folks at Ephesus are urged (Rv.2:5) to return to the loving behavior they had exhibited at the beginning; those at Pergamon (2:16) and Thyatira (2:22) to turn from the idol-worship they had come to tolerate; those in Sardis (3:3) to return to the way of life they had adopted at their conversion; and in Laodicea (3:19) to quit bragging about their financial prosperity and return to their dependence on the Lord’s provision. These expectations echo Jesus’ own statements, when he compared the responses of various groups to his message, with comparable historical situations — see Matthew 11:20-21 and 12:41, and parallels in Luke 10 and 11, and also Lk.13:3-5. It is behavior — “lifestyle” if you prefer — that is addressed in every situation: and metanoeite requires an all-encompassing change.

The noun form, metanoia, occurs only 24 times, and presents similar expectations. Both John (Mt.3:8 and Lk.3:8) and Jesus (Mt.9:13, Mk.2:17, Lk.5:22) insisted upon observable evidence of one’s having made a change, as do Peter and Paul in sermons and epistles. Consistently, metanoia refers either to a person’s initial ceding of his life to the Lord’s control, or to a major course-correction by a person or group that had (either deliberately or inadvertently) turned away. In either case, again, a drastic change of direction is in view.

A new Kingdom was being inaugurated — one with markedly different norms of behavior and citizenship from the prevailing culture — of the first, and every subsequent century! I have dealt with some of these counter-cultural issues in greater detail in an earlier volume, Citizens of the Kingdom, 1993.

The call, “metanoeite” constituted, in essence, an invitation to citizenship in Jesus’ Kingdom, which he was creating for the purpose of demonstrating the original intentions, and the transforming power, of God. The whole of the New Testament is intended as a “user’s manual” for Kingdom living!

Perhaps the most significant reference, in light of present day teaching and practice, is found in Hebrews 6:1. Metanoia — traditionally translated “repentance” — (I have chosen to use “a changed life”) — heads the list of “foundational” things that, the writer urges, once established, need to be “laid aside” in order to move on to maturity! Not abrogated; not denied; definitely assumed, but nevertheless laid aside, no longer the primary focus. Why then are committed followers of the Lord Jesus constantly berated — and in liturgical circles, continually expected to repeat profuse apologies and pleas for “forgiveness” (another needed study)– about an assortment of supposed deliberate offenses against God — none of which could possibly be a part of a life that had truly changed direction! The same writer does have some very sobering things to say about turning one’s back on the gracious gift of life (Heb.6:4-7), but quickly adds (v.9) that such behavior is not assumed among the faithful!

I submit that continually groveling in one’s supposed “sinfulness” constitutes a denial of the life-changing grace of God! True, at the point of initial commitment, we have not instantly reached maturity. We have been born into a new life, which needs to grow and develop. We may even stumble, or fall flat on our faces, like children learning to walk. But we are expected to be headed in the direction our Lord has indicated, urging and helping one another along the way (Heb.3:12-14.)

“Repentance” and “forgiveness” are NOT the sum total of the gospel message, as is implied when an “accredited official” needs to pronounce the audience “forgiven” at every meeting, and to state that this “news” represents the “gospel” that they are to “believe.” That is only the beginning of the message. Jesus’ invitation is to participation in the work of his Kingdom — to life the way he created it to be lived — in company with all the others he has called.

Metanoeite! Continually engage in the process of changing life to conform to his pattern! With the Spirit of the Lord enabling the Body of Christ, it can be done!

Metanoeite!! Reject the Accuser, recognizing that it is he who insists that you are “not worthy”. Turn to the Redeemer, instead, who has said that you ARE (Col.1:12)!

Metanoeite!! Stop groveling at the gate! Stand up on your feet, and with thanksgiving, join the triumphal procession of the King!

The time was many years ago, when we were still sufficiently inexperienced at the discipline of Word Study that we expected it to be able to answer most, if not all, of our questions. (It can’t.)
We were leading a group in the study of Philippians, and stopped short at Philippians 1:19, where Paul comments, (KJV) “For I know that this will turn out for my salvation…”
“Whoa! Wait a minute!” one student exclaimed. “Wasn’t Paul already ‘saved’?” Well, we all thought so, having at that time subscribed to the definition that equated the term with one’s initial “commitment to Christ.” But then, what was Paul saying? The curious among us needed to find out.

Out came the concordances, grammars, and lexicons.   Out did NOT come total clarity with which to clobber any and all dissent.   “What does the text SAY?”

Let’s start with the historical uses of the words. The compilers of the Oxford lexicon list for the verb form, sozo:
–to save from death, keep alive, preserve
–to escape destruction
–to be healed, to recover from sickness
–to save or recover an opportunity
–to observe or maintain laws or customs
–to keep in mind, to remember
–to bring one safely to a place
–to rescue from captivity or danger

and for the noun form, soteria (or soterion):
–deliverance or preservation
–a way or means of safety
–safe return, or keeping safe
–security, or a guarantee of safety
–bodily health, well-being
–an offering in thanks for deliverance
–a physician’s fee!

Both are frustratingly broad, very like the widely trumpeted teachings about the Hebrew “shalom”.  All, strangely, have the flavor of practical, tangible experience: there is historically no hint of any reference to one’s “eternal destiny,” although that may be deduced from a few (by no means all) of the New Testament references.

This appears to be one of the cases where the New Testament writers took a commonly used and understood word, and poured into it additional meaning that did not originally exist. Please note that they did not abrogate the original intent; it still referred to physical healings, rescue from storms and shipwrecks, deliverance from enemies and persecutors.   But a new dimension was added, when any of these included or resulted from one’s relatedness to Jesus.

The tenses of verbs used add considerable light to the subject. The vast majority of active voice references occur in purpose constructions, and are cast in the aorist tense, whether subjunctive, imperative, or infinitive forms are used. (Please see the appendix to the Translation Notes for further explanation.) They speak of the Lord’s intentions, his purpose, in coming to rescue his people from their wanderings, or, as he put it, “to save men’s lives, not to destroy them” (Lk.9:56 and parallels). Jesus himself uses it in reference to many of his healings.

Nearly an equal number of uses are in the passive voice, focusing on the receiver, rather than the doer, of the action. Among these, the predominant tenses are present (continuous action) and future. People “will be” or “are in the process of being” saved or rescued, except for a few purpose constructions that retain the aorist (implying, I think, the completion of the process.)

When attention shifts to the noun form, soteria, the accompanying verbs shift markedly to the present and future, except for two very interesting exceptions: Jesus’ comment (Lk.19:9) upon Zacchaeus’ announcement of his change of purpose and intention, that “Soteria has happened” on that day, and the song of praise in Rev.12:10, that it “has arrived” when the Accuser has finally been “cast down.” All the rest refer clearly to a work in progress, especially when Paul urges the Philippian brethren (2:12) to “keep on working” at it, or reminds those in Rome (13:11) that it is now “nearer” than at the beginning of their/our faithfulness.

With the linguistic prevalence of references to rescue or deliverance, it is also interesting to compare what folks are urged to be “saved from” with common “understandings.” Very seldom are the NT writers specific about that (except in the case of healings), unlike their modern counterparts, who would not even consider it to be a question. (Everyone needs to be saved from hell, right? “Just sign up for this guaranteed fire-insurance policy!”) As a matter of fact, that warning does not appear even once in the New Testament! Neither does “Where will you be if you die tonight?”  New Testament “salvation” is about living, not dying! In fact, the word only occurs one single time paired with aionion, the word usually translated “eternal” (which needs its own study.) This would lead one to believe that at least it is not the primary emphasis.

In Zachariah’s prophecy when John the Baptist was born, he spoke of “deliverance from our enemies, and from all who hate us,” (Lk.1:71), and in 74-75 “the privilege to worship him (God) in purity and justice without fear!”  Only secondarily does he refer to the “taking away of their hamartia” which has mistakenly been associated with paraptoma (deliberate transgressions) under the label of “sins.”  This also requires its own study, but hamartia basically refers to failure to attain a goal or standard.    Zachariah focuses wholly on the gracious mercy of God.

In Peter’s evangelistic sermon at Pentecost, he urged his listeners to (Ac.2:40) “be rescued (saved) from this crooked generation!”  He also notes the result: (41) those who responded were “added”  to the brotherhood (see also Ac.2:42-47.)
Paul does mention in Rom.5:9 being “saved from wrath,” but he does not specify whether that “wrath” is God’s, or simply the constant state of those who ignore him.
James refers to “saving from death” the life (psuche is another good study) of a person who is headed in the wrong direction.

SO — back to the question that started all of this:  Wasn’t Paul already “saved?” Are we? Is anyone?
What does the text SAY?
Jesus has already protected and rescued us many times, from many perils (some of our own making, some not.) He has healed and restored many of us, both physically and in terms of broken relationships. He has already (Col.1:13) “delivered us from the power of darkness, and transported us into his Kingdom” (the word used here is not sozo, but a much stronger errusato).

Still, there is much that is yet to be realized, if we consider all those future tenses, as well as the present progressives, and the beautiful goals he has outlined for the life of his people.  There had to be a beginning, of course:  but, in the vernacular of centuries later, “We ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”

So, “Brother, are you saved?”
Well, WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY???

Acknowledging Jesus Christ as “our Lord and Savior”, for first century followers, was a far cry from the creedal recitation that it has become in subsequent generations. It was a powerful declaration of allegiance to Jesus’ new Kingdom — one that could, and frequently did, cost the life of the person involved! These were titles that the Roman emperors, drunk with power, had reserved for themselves, as symbols of their self-proclaimed deity! The two words in combination appear less than a dozen times in the New Testament, but used individually, they carry the same freight.

Kurios — Lord — in first century usage, could be as non-threatening as the polite form of address, “sir” or “mister”. It could refer to the master of a household, the head of a family, or any person with authority over another. It was common in both masculine and feminine forms, as the respectful way to address any person of social standing, beyond their mid-teens.  It could also, of course, refer to the master of slaves or servants, over whom he had absolute power — even that of life or death.  He offered protection and care, but at the price of absolute and unquestioning obedience.

Throughout history,  it also referred to government officials, guardians or trustees, or to those who held sovereign power over a city or state. By the first century BC, it also referred to the deified rulers of nations or empires. “Caesar is Lord” was the commonly required oath of allegiance in the Roman Empire.

This casts a glaring light on Paul’s statement in I Corinthians 12:3, that “No one can say, “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit.” A person on trial for his life could only escape the death sentence by replacing that confession with “Caesar is Lord; Jesus is cursed,” and burning incense at the imperial temple. A choice had to be made, which kingdom one would serve.

Soter, “savior”, likewise started out as a relatively low-key term. (Its related words will be considered in another posting.) “Savior,” “deliverer,” or “rescuer” might designate anyone who protected another from disease, death, or other disaster. It, too, however, as early as the writings of Homer, began to be applied, first to Zeus, and then to other gods, who were honored with temple sacrifices after a military victory or perilous sea journey, by those who had returned safely. Nearly every harbor town had a shrine available for such a purpose.
In both the LXX and the New Testament, God is called “savior”, in acknowledging the deliverance of his people.
Consequently, it was not a stretch for the emperors to adopt that title as well. Jesus hinted at that practice when he noted that “The kings of the nations … who flaunt their authority, are called benefactors…” (Luke 22:25). Eventually, only the emperor dared lay claim to that title.

It is interesting that the later New Testament epistles — Timothy, Titus, and II Peter — are the setting for most of the uses of the combined terms “Lord and Savior.” These were written at a time when persecution had become extremely intense, and lives were on the line daily: the ultimate test of loyalty to the King of Kings lay in that statement.

When will folks who weekly repeat declarations that Jesus is “Lord and Savior” — while displaying in their places of “worship” the symbols of “Caesar” (their earthly nation)! — dare to consider the far-reaching implications of making a faithful –and fate-ful –choice? Who is your King?