The Pioneers’ New Testament

It has been brought to my attention that for the average person whose first language is English, the idea of “case”, to which I frequently refer in word studies which deal with nouns, makes no sense whatever.
The English language has no such phenomena in its use of nouns: our nouns do not appear in different forms. Pronouns do, in a limited way: the subject of a sentence employs “I, you, he, she, it; we, you, they”; a possessive is expressed by “my, your, his, her, its; our, your, their”; and an object – direct or indirect – by “me, you, him, her, it; us, you, them”. Even these, however, are often scrambled in common usage. So there really are no English equivalents of “case”, and to translate them requires a degree of circumlocution.

I have dealt with this issue in some detail in the Appendix to my Translation Notes, but since it is such an important key to understanding and evaluating the legitimacy (or not!) of the translation of a text, I have decided to offer a grossly over-simplified introduction. Please feel free to raise any questions that might clarify this subject for persons unacquainted with languages that include “case” with nouns. If you want a more comprehensive treatment, the grammar by A.T. Robertson will take you all the way back to Sanskrit, but this is an attempt at a simplified explanation.

The term “case” refers to the grammatical form of a noun, which is identified by the ending affixed to the “stem” of the word. The “stem” is the part that carries the “lexical meaning” (dictionary definition) of a word. The ending, or “case”, reveals nuances of its meaning and its use in the sentence. Nouns are also identified by “number” (singular or plural) and “gender” ( which has no connection to actual fact). By way of illustration, the Greek words for “hand, head, voice, or heart” all have feminine form; those referring to “foot, mouth, or mind” are masculine; and “breath, or body” are neuter – all completely regardless of the physical gender of their “possessors”. The “gender” of a word is an artifact of the language, and nothing more.

There are four “cases” (some grammarians divide them further, into six), in New Testament Greek. A beginning student will identify them most readily by using an Analytical Lexicon, which provides precise identification of every word-form exactly as it appears in the New Testament text, and includes a reference to the nominative singular form, the one in which a more comprehensive lexicon would list it.

The nominative case is the one used for the subject of a sentence, or, in the event of an intransitive verb, the predicate nominative. A variant form, sometimes classified as a separate “case”, is the vocative, which is used for direct address (the person or persons to whom one is speaking), in the absence of the second-person pronoun, “you”. It is often accompanied with a prefixed omega, which is translated simply “O”. The distinction may be rather ordinary; but may be quite significant. Vocative forms appear in Mt.15:28 and 17:17, Ac.1:1, Rom.2:1 and 9:20, James 2:20, and elsewhere. Significantly, it is not used in Heb.10:7, (a fact ignored by translators), implying that ho theos belongs to the subject of the verb, and is not a vocative address, which would have required a different form and an introductory omega, if the popular rendering were correct. The use of the nominative case clearly intends self-identification of the speaker, the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

The genitive case, most commonly indicating possession (“belonging to”), is used just about anywhere that an English speaker would use a phrase introduced by “of”. These uses would include:
*source: as in “Jesus of Nazareth”, or “John Smith of New York”
*price, or value: Ac.19:19 – the valueof the books burned by folks who renounced their sorcery
*material or content: Col.1:5 – “the word of truth”
*comparison: Lk.7:26 – “ more than a prophet”
*partitive: Jn.12:4 – “one of the disciples
*separation: Mt.13:49 – “out of the midst of the just ones [righteous]”
*measure of space or time: Eph.1:10 – “the fullness of time”
All of these are in addition to the most common possessive, often represented by (‘s) as well as “of” – “Son of God” and “God‘s Son” are equivalent.
The genitive case is also required for the objects of prepositions referring to any of these ideas, especially source, separation, or departure from. Please see the treatment of prepositions in the Translation Notes.

The dative case, usually including what was classically labeled “locative” (for location in place or time), is used to express an indirect object ; for example, a letter sent to someone, or something provided for someone. Example: I (subject: nominative) gave him (indirect object: dative) a letter (direct object: accusative). In Eph.1:1, it refers to the recipients of the letter.

The dative case has other uses, including:
*agency: Eph.1:13 – “by the Holy Spirit” (the one who “labels” the faithful as his own)
*manner: Ac.7:60 – “ with a loud voice”
*means: Eph.2:8 – “by his graciousness”, 2:7 – “by his kindness
*cause or results: Eph.2:1 – (death caused) “by deliberate transgressions and failures”
*location in time: Lk.24:1 – “on the first day; Ac.10:9 – “on the next day”
or place: Jn.19:2 – “on his head”
*degree of difference: Heb.1:4 – “by so much more”
*association: friendly – Ac.10:23 – brethren from Joppa went with Peter
or hostile – Ac.6:9 – (arguing ) with Stephen
Please note that the use of cause or result refers to consequences, but not purpose. That requires the accusative case.
The dative case is also seen in the objects of prepositions referring to location, (over, under, beside, in, near, with), but lacks any sense of motion, direction, or purpose. It is primarily static.

The accusative case, on the other hand, is the most active of the cases.
Besides indicating the direct object of a sentence, (Eph.1:13 – “you heard the word”, it may appear as
*the subject of an infinitive in indirect discourse: (where it also serves as a direct object of the primary verb): Mt.28:20 – “teaching them to follow….”
*the subject of an infinitive in purpose clauses: Eph.1:4: “so that we might be …”
*extent of space or distance: Lk.24:40 : “a journey of”
*duration of time: Mt.12:40: “for three days and three nights”
(Notice that these latter two are different from similar items on the genitive list, which are only measures.)
It is also used for objects of prepositions denoting purpose, direction (toward or into), or motion.

These distinctions are basic to accurate translation and understanding of the intended message. Please see Word Study #182, “Of eis and en” for a more detailed illustration.
Careful perusal of the meticulous compilation of the Greek text from literally hundreds of manuscript fragments reveals a few variations in case endings for nouns, but there are very few, and they are faithfully footnoted, even when thought to be possible copyist’s errors.

Unfortunately, once a “verse” (an artifact added many centuries after the original writing) has been chosen to support a recognized “doctrinal” issue, the accuracy of its translation is no longer open to scrutiny from either lexical or grammatical perspectives. I will conclude by highlighting just one illustration of such an unwarranted manipulation of the text.
One example, among many, of the misunderstanding caused by ignoring (whether deliberately or inadvertently is not mine to judge) issues of grammatical case and lexical accuracy is blatantly obvious in “proof-text” passages like Gal.2:16.

Interestingly, this is a place where the traditional KJV is actually more accurate than modern “evangelical” counterparts, although understanding has been seriously skewed by eager interpreters. The passage in question reads (KJV): “Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith OF Jesus Christ, even we have believedIN Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith OF Christ ….”
Both the NASV and the NIV translators (unaware that “of” indicated possession?) changed both occurrences of “of “ to “in”, conforming it to evangelical dogma, but completely ignoring grammatical accuracy. In both places, there is no preposition, and the older version at least correctly translated the genitive case. There is simply NO construction in which “in” is a legitimate rendering of a genitive case.

The phrase (in all three) “believed IN” is likewise incorrect, since the text uses eis with its required accusative object (see W.S.#182). Giving the translators the benefit of any possible doubt, one may assume this was because they could find no convenient way to express the proper use of the accusative case while maintaining their (also incorrect) translation of pistis as “faith” and pisteuo” as “believe”. (Please see Word Study #1). In neither instance has the erroneous translation of pistis or pisteuo been addressed. A more “literal” rendering of the prepositional phrases would be “became loyal / faithful to / toward Jesus Christ”, with the genitive (possessive) cases correctly acknowledging our dependence upon the Lord’s faithfulness, rather than the achievement of some sort of “spiritual gymnastics” erroneously labeled “faith” on our part.

Romans 3:22 contains the identical error, in both “evangelical” versions, even though their revered KJV maintained the correct genitive possessive translation there as well.
There are many such passages. Please understand: this is not a sales pitch for the KJV. It has other problems. ALL translations need to be subject to scrutiny!

The dilemma, of course, is how to help an earnest student who has not had the privilege to study the Greek language, to discern and correct such errors.
First of all, it should be incumbent upon anyone who presumes to teach, to become knowledgeable about the language, in order to be aware that there actually are problems to be addressed.

As noted in several of my word studies (notably 142 and 182), using an interlinear Greek text with an analytical lexicon can be enormously helpful while acquiring that ability, once a student has a basic understanding of the value of grammar in accurate communication.

It would also be helpful if works of “scholarship” were vetted for linguistic integrity at least as carefully as they are for “doctrinal” acceptability. Ideally, of course, the latter should be contingent upon the former – but try getting that past institutional adjudicators!

Unless/until serious seekers after faithfulness demand this integrity of their gatekeepers, we who consider it important to ask “But what does the text say?” will remain lonely voices in the wilderness.

May we help each other into faithfulness!

A recent discussion concerning the proper understanding of a handful of “proof-texts” which are loudly trumpeted as normative to “Christian doctrine” (see study #47) motivated me to offer in a more organized form several principles of translation which are vital to the discipline of linguistics, quite apart from anyone’s “systematic theology.”

As noted in an earlier essay, “The Task of a Translator”, honest, responsible translation requires the rendering of the intent of the original writer or speaker as precisely as possible, into the “target language”. This is requisite in business and political contexts: why, then, is such precision not required of Biblical translators?
Accurate translation has (or should have) absolutely NO room for influence by the political, sociological, philosophical, or theological perspective of the translator. An honest translator of ANY text, is NOT an editor. He must make every effort to serve only as a conduit of what has been said or written by another.

This assignment becomes more difficult as the distance – whether of language, culture, or history – between the original text and the target audience increases. Consequently, when the text of the New Testament writings is the translation in question, there are a number of essential historical and cultural details that are usually ignored, much to the detriment of accurate results. Here are a few:

1.The earliest New Testament manuscripts are uniformly written in Greek. There are “scholars” who insist upon Aramaic, but they have produced NO manuscript evidence prior to the third or fourth centuries. I have been privileged to see fragments of New Testament manuscripts in legible Greek that have been dated to the first century. In the words of a dear brother / teacher / mentor years ago, “the closer you are to the source, the clearer and better is the water.”

2.There are those who insist that the “theological” words in the New Testament Greek manuscripts must be traced back to their Hebrew antecedents in the LXX. These well-meaning people forget (or ignore) the historical fact that the LXX was commissioned because the Jews of the Diaspora, after many generations away from their homeland, no longer understood or spoke Hebrew! They had become acculturated to the Greek world in which they lived.

3.A corollary to the foregoing is the observation that most Old Testament quotations in the New Testament documents correspond more closely to the LXX than to the Old Testament as we know it. The LXX was the “Scripture” that most first century folks knew.

4.Most of the New Testament was written to individuals or churches composed largely of Gentile converts – at least Luke/Acts, most of Paul’s letters, and the churches mentioned by John in the Revelation. These folks would have had Greek background, and consequently a classical Greek understanding of the vocabulary and grammar. Any trained linguist is aware that usage, both historical and contemporary, is the key to understanding both vocabulary and grammar in any language, and this is no exception.

5.Perhaps the most obvious, and certainly the most accessible evidence lies in the Acts 15 record of the Jerusalem conference, which was convened to figure out how (or whether) to incorporate Gentile converts into the Christian brotherhood. NOBODY – even the most ardent of the “Judaizers” – is recorded to have insisted that these “alien” brethren learn Hebrew, study the Law and/or the Prophets, or adopt any of the other trappings of the Old Ways (except circumcision, which was voted down). They were required ONLY to abandon all of their former idolatrous practices: blood or strangled sacrifices and various sexual perversions were inherent in idol worship. They were assured, “If you keep yourselves from these things, you do well.” (Ac.15:29). If an understanding of the intricacies and assumptions of the Old Covenant (many of which had been copied from pagan neighbors) had been essential, surely these would have been imposed upon the newcomers. But they were not.

Moving to more recent history, one must also be aware of the basic error (mentioned in #2) of assuming even the existence of “theological words.” To be sure, “theology” has developed its own very precise and highly defined vocabulary: but the source of that vocabulary is NOT the New Testament!

Please remember that the vast majority of New Testament writings are devoted to the effort to encourage and teach committed followers of the Lord Jesus “the Way” of life together as citizens of his Kingdom. They WERE NOT, and ARE NOT, a list of principles that anyone was required to”believe”, or with whose veracity one was required to argue or to agree.

That all happened later, as in the second and third centuries, a hierarchy (which Jesus himself had flatly forbidden – Mt.23:8-10) emerged, and with it the need to force “ordinary” (“lay”) people into subjection to their authority. You need a codified “doctrine” if you are going to exclude (or execute!) heretics for deviation! But you CAN’T FIND THAT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT!!!
There are instructions for restoring someone whose behavior has necessitated discipline, but NONE for regulating thought. That all came later.

Officially codified and proof-tested “doctrines” came much later, by more than a thousand years, as Councils, Reformers, Counter-reformers, and heresy-hunters of various stripes threw the brotherly attitude of the Jerusalem Conference to the winds and angrily consigned one another to the flames – both figuratively and literally.

With similar (although usually less violent) attitudes, virtually every “official” translation into a “modern” language has been done in the last few hundred years by a person or group whose purpose was to advocate or challenge a particular “theological” perspective. Read the introduction (called the “Epistle Dedicatory” ) of the venerable King James Version, if you doubt this – a treatise on royalty and its privilege!

Others carefully specify the “theological pedigrees” of those chosen to do the “translating” (so that you may be sure their work is “safe”) – see introductions to the NAS and NIV.

Some, to their credit, at least admit that they have made changes to cater to a particular bias (new RSV).

Still others fail even to distinguish between paraphrase and translation (Amplified, Living, Good News, Message), and end up being quoted as if they were equivalent to translations. They are NOT.

It is entirely in order that people should write, for the benefit of others, the insight they have derived from their study of Scripture, and the life to which we have all been graciously invited.

It is NOT appropriate, however, to represent the insight or observation as if it were an integral part of the New Testament text, and certainly not to require assent to such conclusions as a test of faithfulness.

Our favorite teacher’s favorite question is still the only one that really matters:
“But what does the TEXT say?”
We must find out, if we are to follow faithfully.

Good morning, folks.  Having completed a review of the previously published Translation Notes, I decided to post, for those of you who may have made a copy, a list of corrections, so that you can make them for yourselves until the corrected version is ready to post.  I will only include text changes here; punctuation can wait for the new version.

Introduction:  third paragraph:  remove the first “rather”, as it is redundant.
Task of Translator:  last paragraph:  “The latest revision is now complete,  and available online”.
Mt.12:22-33: last line should read: “attribute the unfamiliar to evil influence”
Mk.1, first paragraph should read “amount and location of water” (not “rater)
Mk.7, first line, substitute “good” for “god”
Ac.2, paragraph on vv.42-27:  “imagine twelve disciples /apostles needing to officiate …
Rom.9: first paragraph:  add “V.5 may be the most obvious statement we have, equating “Christ” and “God”.
Rom.10, next-to-last paragraph, add: “Who could have guessed that the fulfillment of such a call in 1957 would need to wait for the invention —  and accessibility to “common people”– of the internet? But the Lord has used it. Thanks be to God!”
Rom.14:9: add: Another take on “why” Jesus died and arose:in order to be Lord of both the living and the dead!
(end of paragraph:  add:  “and faithfulness.”
I Cor.15:35-49: change “are” to “is.”
I Cor.16, first line: add “for responsible collection, transport, and delivery of the relief offering”
II Cor.3; at end of 12-18 paragraph:add “note (v.14) that it Christ, the old covenant has come to an end!”
Col.3, end of first paragraph: “Jesus is the “image”/pattern, as well as the agent, for the renewal”
II Tim.3, end of last paragraph:  “Certainly not “all writing” is “inspired”!
Titus:2:13:add : note “our great God and deliverer [savior], Jesus Christ” is a single reference, not dual.
Titus 3:4-6:add “God our deliverer” and “Jesus our deliverer” have the same form.
Philemon 18: change “him” to “Philemon”
Hebrews 12: end of paragraph:add: “Perhaps it refers to the burning of whatever is “shaken”?  The destruction of anything that is not conducive to the King’s eventual triumph?”
II Jn, first line: add “if” it is a coded address…
Rev.2, beginning: add “the singular forms of “you” are surprising: but the notes are addressed to “the messenger” of each congregation.  this invites further exploration.”
Rev.6:15-17, change “force” to “forced.”

I hope this is helpful.  Let me know if you spot anything else!

Ok, folks, I have made all the corrections I found, in the individual postings.  You may not notice a lot of difference — most are just punctuation or typos — only a few other changes.

Now I will get about fixing the errors in the compiled text.  So don’t blame Dan for the delay.  I hope to send him the corrected text by early nest week.

Good morning, everyone —

This is just to let you all know that I haven’t forgotten you!
The Two Hundred Word Studies have finally been compiled into one document.  Now you just have to wait till Dan has a chance to do the new index with his better software, and it will be available.

As I was working, I found (surprise, surprise!) a number of corrections that needed to be made in the original studies.  They are fixed in the new document, but  I realized that most of you will be still using the original postings. So I have begun making the same corrections in the old ones.  So far, I have done fifty.  This will take a while, so I will let you know as they are finished.  The changes are not major: a few places where I neglected to italicize the Greek words, a number of typos, and some changes in words, phrasing, or emphasis — but I want you to have the best information that I can provide.

Meanwhile, please send me a note if there are other studies you would like to see, or if there are things you would like to add to the existing ones.  There are a lot of folks using the site now — it is about to pass 52,000 uses, and the site has not counted all the individual people.  Even more gratifying is the reach to 165 countries!  Won’t it be great when we can all meet!

Thanks for your continued interest.  May we help each other to greater faithfulness!

Ruth

Hello, friends —

As you have seen, Dan has posted the latest PNT revision for your free download.  Some of the corrections you have already seen, in the updates we did the last couple years;  but there are quite a few more.  Notably, I have italicized more of the plural uses of “you” that were previously missed.  This is an important feature to note, as it materially affects the mutuality that is endemic to Jesus’ message.  I have also offered a number of alternate readings — indicated by brackets [ ] — which I consider to be a matter of linguistic ethics, since they are equally valid interpretations of the vocabulary and grammar.
There are no major changes — a few typos — yes, we are still finding those — but if you have already made yourself a copy, it is still reasonably reliable.

I cannot tell you how much work and patience it has taken for Dan to shepherd me through these revisions.  It is amazing — and my gratitude knows no bounds.  And not just the technological expertise:  to have a son be this much concerned to enable his mom’s “handing in the assignment” made by the Lord more than 50 years ago, is an unspeakably precious gift.  To all you young folks out there :  it is a beautiful example for you, and can give the “old folks” incredible hope and delight!

Unless something else intervenes, I  am going to be taking a break from the word studies for a bit now, since they have reached 200 entries, and working at assembling them in a unit as we did previously.  This is a good time for you to express an opinion:  would you rather have them in two sets of 100, or all together?  And are there aspects that should be included, which I have neglected?

When that is done, I hope to hit the more challenging task of indexing the Greek words.  But I will have to learn some different computer operations for that, so don’t hold your breath!

Meanwhile, please do send your observations about any errors or oversights that should be included in the word study compilations.

And thanks for your participation.  This work has now passed 45,000 uses, in 156 countries!  What fun it will be to meet you all when the Lord brings us all together!

After a painstaking process of revision and reformatting, I’m happy to announce that the Fourth Digital Edition of the Pioneers’ New Testament is available for download!  Mom will append some notes on what’s actually new with this version, but in the meantime, you can get it here:

Download the Pioneers’ New Testament, 4th Digital Edition

It’s the fall of the year as I am writing this: the time when “churches” of nearly every stripe gear up for their annual “stewardship campaigns.” The title, I am convinced, is chosen to give a slightly more “sanctified” flavor to plain-old, manipulative fund-raising: but nobody is really fooled. They all know it takes “big bucks” to run big institutions, and to pay hired staff to run big programs, so somehow the “country-club dues” need to masquerade as one’s “spiritual stewardship obligation.” Dust off the much-misinterpreted parables of “talents” and such, along with the tear-jerking “widow’s mite”, and here we go again!

Is that “laying it on too thick”? Maybe – but I don’t think so. None of the three word-groups referring to “stewardship” in the New Testament carry any implication whatever of funding salaries, real estate, or programs.

The most common word group consists of oikonomos – a person – (L/S: one who manages a household, the steward of an estate, manager, administrator, the title of a state financial officer, housekeeper, housewife); oikonomia – the job – (L/S: the management of a household, thrift, direction, regulation, arrangement, government proceedings, transaction, legal contract; Thayer: management or oversight of another’s property; Bauer: being entrusted with a commission); and oikonomeo – the verb – (L/S: to order, regulate, manage, administer, dispense, or handle). These are all connected with oikos (L/S: house, dwelling, home; household goods or substance, members of a household or a ruling family; estate, inheritance). Oikodomeo ( building, edification) is another word entirely (note the insertion of the “d”), and is not connected. Sorry, folks: a “building fund” doesn’t qualify!

Only Luke, among the gospel writers, uses this term, once in a positive sense (12:42) and once in a negative (16:1-8 – a very puzzling parable which I will not attempt to exegete), both concerning individuals entrusted with the management of someone else’s property.
Most of the usage in the epistles concerns the faithful performance of responsibility assigned by the Lord. Paul speaks of “stewardship” of “the mystery of God” (see #57), which he defines as the inclusion of both Jew and Gentile into one Body (I Cor.4:1, and Eph.3:9, where it was incorrectly rendered “fellowship”); of “the grace of God” (#60) (Eph.3:2, incorrectly translated “dispensation”, and also used by Peter in I Pet.4:10); of “the gospel” (#67) (I Cor.9:17, also incorrectly rendered “dispensation”), and simply “of God” (Col.1:25, Tit.1:7).
Each of these references the careful, accurate and responsible handling of the message with which he / they/ we are entrusted, as well as its faithful embodiment.
Eph.1:10 looks forward to the final consummation when everything in heaven and earth finally acknowledges its rightful Owner and Lord.
In Rom.16:23, the same word is used as the title of Erastus, the city treasurer.
In Gal.4:2, it refers to the guardian of a minor child, in combination with the next word.

The second cluster of words comprises primarily references to permission granted by a superior authority, whether spiritual or secular. It includes epitropos – the person – (L/S: one to whom the charge of anything is entrusted; a steward, trustee or administrator; the executor of an estate; a governor, viceroy, guardian or protector); epitrope – the task – L/S:an arbiter in a lawsuit; the office of a Roman procurator; guardianship, stewardship); and epitrepo – the verb – (L/S: to bequeath, commit, or entrust; to refer a legal issue; to permit, allow, or command). Although like the former group, they involve the management of people or property not one’s own, the most common New Testament usage is of simple permission. Traditional translators often used the old English “suffer” (10x) in the sense of “allow” (Mt.8:21,31; 19:8; Lk.8:32, 9:59; Mk.10:4; Ac.21:39; I Tim.2:12), as well as other expressions of the granting of a request (Mt.5:13, Jn.19:38; Ac.21:40, 26:1,12; 27:3, 28:16) or a hope for the Lord’s permission (Lk.9:61, I Cor.14:34, 16:7, Heb.6:3). Individuals are designated with specific assignments in Mt.20:8, Lk.8:3, and Gal.4:2. Only in the Matthew and Luke references just cited is the word “steward” traditionally used, but the original word is the same.

The function (performing an assigned task) is also present in the usage of huperetes (L/S: a servant or attendant, a helper in any work, an assistant, a petty officer). Trench calls this a military word, and connects it to diakonos in a civilian context (see #79) , often rendered “minister”, which is an occasional translation of huperetes as well. In the New Testament, it is applied to low-level government officials such as guards (Mt.5:25, 26:58; Mk.14:54,65; Jn.7:32,45,46; 18:3,12,18, 22; 19:6, Ac.5:22,26); to other individuals commissioned to any sort of service (Lk.1:2, 4:20; Ac.13:5, 26:16) and in Jesus’ statement (Jn.18:36) contrasting his “servants” with the forces of a military “king”.

In view of this, what, then, is the proper understanding of “stewardship” or “stewards”?
In every case, the word refers to responsibility conferred by a superior: delegated authority over people or property not one’s own.
That responsibility can be revoked (Lk.12,16), if abused or otherwise not faithfully handled.
It definitely requires an accounting, as illustrated in parables that do not specifically use the word: Mt.21:33-41, Mk.12:2-9, Lk.20:9-16; Mt.25:2-25, Lk.19:12-25.

It is entirely in order that we should regularly help each other to examine the faithfulness of our handling (“stewardship”) of all that has been entrusted to us, taking meticulous care that it is administered according to the orders of the One to whom “everything / everyone in heaven and earth belongs”!

Whether or not that includes any particular fund-raising campaign, is a question that needs to be asked – and answered – frequently , very seriously, and with extreme caution.

“Just as each one has received a spiritual gift [empowerment], serve each other with it, as good trustees [stewards] of the many-faceted grace of God!” (I Pet.4:10) remembering that
(I Cor.4:2) “It is required [expected] of caretakers [stewards] that a person be found faithful!”

Amen!

In the course of the previous study three words that would seem to the reader of English somewhat synonymous with “seeking” were conspicuous by their absence! Perhaps they may be regarded as either the methodology or the direction of the “seeking”, or even its result, since earnest seeking after the Lord and his ways is never finished. In any case, they are worthy of our attention.
“Search” appears in the New Testament much more rarely than “seek”, although it encompasses four separate Greek words. In none of these do we find any implication of searching for an object, person, or condition of life, as was common with zeteo (“seek”) , except for the single incident (Mt.2:8) where Herod commanded the Magi to “search” (exetazo)for the child Jesus, and report back to him. Even there, the primary concern was for information.

The predominant word, ereunao, (L/S: to inquire or search, to examine into a question, or to perform exploratory surgery) appears 6x, and is exclusively rendered “search”. Three of those involve careful perusal of the Scriptures (Jn.5:32, 7:52; I Pet.1:11), which at that time would of necessity have been the LXX; and three refer to God being fully apprised of the condition of people’s “hearts” [motivations] (Rom.8:27, I Cor.2:10, Rv.2:23). Peter uses the intensified prefixed form, exereunao, in I Pet.1:10, of the urgency of the prophets’ investigations – the only New Testament use of that word.
Exetazo, (L/S: to scrutinize, examine closely, to question a person intently, or approve by test), in addition to the Mt.2 reference above, appears with two other translations: Jn.21:12 when the disciples “did not dare to ask Jesus who he was”, and Mt.10:11 where they were instructed to inquire for a worthy person with whom to stay, on their journeys.
The fourth word, anakrino, is rendered “search” only once (Ac.17:11), of the Bereans’ “searching the Scriptures” to authenticate Paul’s message. L/S lists “examine closely, interrogate (legally), to examine one’s qualifications for a position, to dispute or wrangle” as alternatives. Most of the New Testament uses refer to courtroom examinations (Lk.23:!4, Ac.4:9, 12:19, 24:8, 28:18) or other sorts of evaluation (I Cor.2:15, 4:3,4; 9:3, 10:25,27; 14:24).

The idea of “searching the Scriptures”, quite common in the usage outlined above, leads logically to the idea of study. Oddly, that (English) word only appears twice in the New Testament, each time from a different Greek source. This seems strange, until one realizes that most “study” in ancient times was done as the “disciple” of a teacher (see #51), and not independently. Notice the comment of observers in Jn.7:15, when they wondered how Jesus came by his expertise, “never having [studied] been a disciple.” The words rendered “study” by traditional translators both incorporate a sense of diligent effort, not simply “book-learning”.
Spoudazo (L/S: to be busy, eager, in haste or hurry; to pay serious attention; to work hard, to study, lecture, or teach), is rendered “study” only in II Tim.2:15. All its other appearances simply imply serious, diligent effort (Gal.2:10, Eph.4:3, I Thes.2:17, II Tim.4:9,21; Tit.3:12, Heb.4:11, II Pet.1:15, 3:14).
Philotimeomai (L/S: to be ambitious, to aspire, to strive eagerly, – or literally, to seek after honor), appears only three times: II Cor.5:9 traditionally translated “labor”, referring to Paul’s aspiration to be pleasing to God; Rom.15:20, to his “striving” to preach in places where the gospel had not previously been carried; and I Thes.4:11 where it was rendered “study”, but where if one considers the entire thought in vv.11 and 12, it plainly advocated pursuing the goal of a peaceful life.

“Reading”, of course, for most of us, is an integral part of “study.” It represents only a single Greek word: the verb anaginosko (33x) and the noun anagnosis (3x). Early in its history, before Homer, it signified “to know for certain, to recognize, to persuade or convince”, but as literacy became more widespread, there was a shift to “recognizing written characters,” and thence to “read, or read aloud”

While “scribes” were customarily employed for legal issues or documents (rather like a modern notary), or, in the case of the Jewish culture, for sifting and interpreting the intricacies of their Law, basic literacy was not rare in the first century Roman world. Luke’s notation that Jesus went into the synagogue and “stood up to read” (Lk.4:16) implies that this was customary behavior. There was no objection until he started to preach! It was his message that bothered them. See also the invitation extended to Paul and Barnabas (Ac.13:15) in Antioch.

Jesus’ challenge to the scribes who opposed him, “Haven’t you read …..?” (Mt.12:3, and parallels Mk.2:25 and Lk.6:3; Mt.12:5, 19:4, 21:16; Mt.21:43 and parallel Mk.12:10; Mt.22:31 and parallel Mk.12:26; Mt.24:15 and parallel Mk.13:14), and to the young lawyer (Lk.10:26) did not assume a negative reply. Of course they had read the accounts to which Jesus referred! They prided themselves on their “knowledge of the Law”, had only scorn for those with less expertise (Jn.7:49), and delighted in debating all of its many irrelevant details. I am sure you have encountered their contemporary “cousins” who can quote “Bible verses” by the yard – if not the mile! – and offer “proof-texts for the most intricate of “doctrines” (see #47), but remain not only blissfully unaware of Jesus’ own standard of “judgment” (clearly outlined in Matt.25!), but scornful of folks who consider it vital to faithfulness! No, “having read” does not necessarily assume understanding!
With similar attitudes, passersby read the sign Pilate had attached to the cross, and complained about its wording! (Jn.19:20)
There is ample evidence of the custom of public reading from the Law and the prophets in a synagogue meeting (Ac.13:27, 15:21, and II Cor,3:14,15). Paul asserts that, just as it was for the scribes who argued with Jesus, familiarity should have enabled them to recognize him: but something akin to Moses’ use of a veil (see Citizens of the Kingdom, chapter 8) prevented their understanding.
Philip (Ac.8:28-32) “heard” the Ethiopian traveler reading from Isaiah’s prophecy, and quickly recognized what he was reading. Many newly literate people find it easier, especially in a foreign language, to understand what they are reading if they read it aloud.
To Timothy, Paul sent instructions for “reading, exhortation, and teaching” to be emphasized among the brethren (I Tim.4:13).
He also directed that his own letters be read in the churches, and passed around to neighboring groups (II Cor.1:13, Eph.3:4, Col.4:16, I Thes.5:27).
John strikes a similar theme in Rv.1:3.
Perhaps these are adaptations from the Jewish synagogue practice.
The writing and reading of letters was the normal method of communication for many centuries, before our electronic age! See Ac.15:31. They provided a vital link, for instruction, for maintaining affectionate contact (II Cor.3:2) with scattered brethren, and even served as official communications (Ac.23:34).

So by all means, let those who “seek” for the Lord and his ways include “searching”, “study”, and “reading” in their “seeking” , as well as the concerted efforts described in the studies of discipleship (#51) and “following instructions” (#55).
Be aware of the context of all these admonitions, which are almost uniformly directed to a group of seekers after faithfulness. Be aware also that the shared discernment of a faithful brotherhood is vital to the faithful results of any search.
May we help each other toward that end!