The Pioneers’ New Testament

The answer to this question reveals a lot about a person. Although it represents only one single Greek word in the New Testament, zeteo and three prefixed forms, its 98 appearances encompass quite a variety of intensity – from casually “looking for” a person or an object (Mk.1:37, 3:32), or, more urgently, parents looking for a lost child (Lk.2:45,48,49) , to God “seeking” (Jn.4:22) for honest and earnest worshipers! There is an even greater variety of objects mentioned: a “home” sought by an evil spirit (Mt.12:43), material security (Lk.12:29), Judas’ efforts to betray Jesus (Mk.14:11), the rulers’ wish to kill him (Jn.5:16,18), the Lord himself (Ac.17:27), personal profit (I Cor.10:33), glory and honor and immortality (Rom.2:7), and many more. Clearly identifiable lexical clues would be helpful in discerning both the urgency of the “seeking” and its positive or negative connotations, but this is one of those aggravating situations where there are none, and we have only the contexts from which to make a call.

For example, on numerous occasions when great crowds were “seeking” for Jesus (Mk.1:37, Lk.4:32, Jn.1:38, 6:24,26; 7:11, 34,36; 8:21, 11:56, 13:33) most of them were probably just curious. However, exactly the same word is used of those who were eagerly “seeking” healing for themselves or others (Lk.5:18, 6:19), the scribes who were “seeking”to trap him in technicalities of disputes about their “law” (Mk.14:1, Lk.11:54), the mob “seeking” to arrest him (Mt.21:46, Mk.12:12, Lk.20:19, Jn.10:39), and the authorities “seeking” an excuse to kill him (Lk.22:2, Jn.5:16, 7:1, 25, 30; I:37,40: 11:8), Judas’ betrayal (Mt.26:16, Mk.14:11, Lk.22:6), and Pilate’s half-hearted effort to release him (Jn.19:12)!

Much more significant – and amazing! – is Jesus’ statement in Jn.4:23, noted above, that the Father himself is also “seeking”, for people to worship him in spirit and in truth, and representing himself, in the Lk.15 parables, as determinedly “seeking” for lost or wandering individuals (also Lk.19:10, Mt.18:12). This is no casual curiosity! It is an effort so determined as to involve willingness to pay an incredibly high price for its realization!

A similar attitude is reflected in the parables of the merchant “seeking” fine pearls (Mt.13:45) and, although the word is not used there, the finder of buried treasure (v.44), which support Jesus’ admonition to “seek the Kingdom of God and his justice” (Mt.6:33, Lk.12:31) above all else. Here, he introduces a scene of sharp contrast, as he describes the “seeking” of the “nations/Gentiles” [people outside the disciple group] for the necessities (or luxuries) of life (Lk.12:22-30, Mt.6:25-32), a contrast repeated in the several statements regarding the “saving” and “losing” of one’s earthly life and possessions (Lk.17:33, Jn.5:30,44). We see the same idea with different vocabulary in Mt.16:25, 10:38, Jn.12:25. In each of these cases, the “seeking” appears to imply the primary focus of one’s life and efforts.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to assume that every appearance of zeteo carries such weight. The listings in L/S also include “to inquire, investigate, or examine; to seek to do something; to require or demand; to conduct a judicial inquiry”, none of which would automatically involve a strong degree of personal commitment. These senses also occur in the New Testament. When Andrew and his companion “followed” Jesus home from John the Baptist’s meeting, they probably had nothing very monumental in mind (Jn.1:38), only asking “where are you staying?”. Jesus used zeteo regarding a discussion in which several disciples were trying to figure out what he meant (Jn.16:19). The Lord instructed Ananias to “inquire” for Paul in Damascus (Ac.9:11), and Cornelius’ emissaries to “inquire” for Peter in Joppa (Ac.10:19,21). The same word is used of Elymas’ opposition to Paul (Ac.13:8), and his later search for a guide (13:11) after losing his sight, of the decision by Paul’s party to sail for Macedonia (Ac.16:10), and the sailors’ efforts to abandon ship during the storm (Ac.27:30).
Zeteo carries the sense of “require or demand” in the Jews’ repeated demands for a “sign” (Mt.16:4, Mk.8:11, Lk.11:16), in Jesus’ statement that more will be required of those to whom much has been entrusted (Lk.12:48), and his warning that responsibility for all the unjust persecution of God’s messengers (Lk.11:50-51) would be charged against those who opposed him.

Parallel uses of zeteo can be found in the epistles. Reinforcing his Areopagos sermon (Ac.17:27) comment that all people everywhere were expected to “seek the Lord”, Paul returns to that theme in Rom.10:20, supplementing it with the admonition to “seek for glory and honor and immortality” (Rom.2:7), “seek to excel for the edifying of the Body” (I Cor.14:12), and “seek those things that are above, where Christ is”(Col.3:1). Perhaps more significantly, he cautions against selfish “seeking” (I Cor10:24, 13:5, Phil.2:21), and holds up his own behavior as an example (I Cor.10:33, II Cor.12:14, Gal.1:10, I Thes.2:6).

Peter, in his turn, urges his readers to “seek peace, and pursue it!” (I Pet.3:11), pairing zeteo with dioko, which is used of relentless pursuit or persecution – certainly not a casual affair! Earlier, Peter had used the prefixed (emphatic) forms, ekzeteo and epizeteo, to describe the urgent “seeking” of the ancient prophets to understand about Jesus’ coming (I Pet.1:10,11). He returns to the unprefixed zeteo (5:8) to describe the devil “seeking” for people to “devour” – but that certainly does not represent a reduction in intensity!

The writer to the Hebrews also makes more use of the prefixed forms: ekzeteo in 11:6 and 12:17, and epizeteo in 11:14 and 13:14, all of which carry a flavor of urgent effort. Several of these are supplemented with a form of spoudazo (to be eager, in haste, or serious; to be earnest, to study, lecture or teach, to pursue zealously), with which we will deal in more detail in the next study.

There is certainly a tone of desperation present in Rv..9:6, which was somewhat prefigured in Jn.7:34,36; 8:21, 13:33.

Much harder to characterize are Jesus’ enigmatic statements to his challengers in Jn.7:18, 19, 20, 25, 30 and 8:50. Those folks simply didn’t “get it”, and, I’m afraid, neither do we. This much is certain: his life on earth was not focused upon himself and his own “glory” (see #74). That seems to have been a concern that he willingly left in the Father’s hands (Jn.17). Perhaps we should simply follow his example! Very likely, his earlier statement (5:30), “I seek not my own will”, is closely connected, as is his critique of those who bask in the acclaim of their fellows, but “don’t seek honor from God!” (5:44).

Finally, in every account of the resurrection, the same theme precedes the glorious news: either “I know you’re looking for Jesus” (Mt.28:5) or “What/who are you looking for?” (Mk.16:6,Lk.24:5, Jn.20:15.) The faithful women were only “seeking”/expecting to pay their final respects to the body of one they had loved. Instead, they were entrusted with the most glorious message this poor world had ever received!
For the loving and faithful, what you “seek” is not always what you “find”! It’s much better!

 May all of our “seeking” be born of loving faithfulness, and yield that message of joy!

In view of all the attention given in the New Testament to the idea of the mutual dependence and community life of the citizens of the Kingdom of the Lord Jesus, it would be reasonable to assume that “unity” would be a common subject of discussion. I expect that many of you will be as surprised as I to realize that the word “unity” itself occurs only twice in the entire New Testament. Maybe if you’re busy “doing it” you don’t spend as much time “talking about it”!
Henotes – (L/S) “union, unity”, a common word in the mathematical works of Aristotle and Pythagoras and the philosophical writings of Epicurus, is used only by Paul, and only in Eph.4:3 of “the unity of the Spirit” and Eph.4:13 of “the unity of the faith [faithfulness]”. These are indeed critical to the life and health of the brotherhood, whose members are urged to work at maintaining the unity that the Spirit is in the process of building. Note that people are not to do the “creating”. No one but the Lord can do that. We are charged only with the maintenance work.
The building process is described in the immediately following paragraphs, and “faithfulness” is presented as both its source and its goal in vv.13-16. Both “the Spirit” and “faithfulness” are cast in the genitive case, of which one of the primary uses is to identify the source or origin of the principal noun (“unity”, in this case). This use of the genitive is second only to possession, which would not make any sense here. These two, together, are essential to genuine unity.

For clarification of specifics, however, we must turn to other vocabulary. In contrast to henotes, the word “one” (heis, mia, hen), which is so prominent in Jesus’ final recorded prayer for his followers in Jn.17, occurs in the New Testament (with varying implications) more than 300 times! The vast majority of these are simply counting (229x), or referring to “someone, a certain – , other, some, another, or simply a/an” (about 50x). It is the outliers with which we are concerned.

Jesus had shocked people earlier, already (Jn.10:30), with the simple statement, “The Father and I are one.” It nearly got him stoned! (v.31). His opponents correctly discerned – but did not understand or accept – the import of his words. Some of the implications of that statement are explored in chapter 2 of Citizens of the Kingdom. The union of Father and Son was so complete that the words, actions, goals, and even personalities of Jesus and the Father were virtually inseparable. And this relationship is the pattern (Jn.17:11) for the object of Jesus’ prayer “that they may be one, as we are”! The same phrase is repeated in Jn.17:21,22,23. Notice, please, that this is not a list of instructions to the disciples! Mere people could never possibly achieve it! It is a prayer for the sovereign action of God, which began to be answered with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost, and has been in process ever since. Ac.4:32 describes the “multitude” being “of one heart and one life [identity, “soul”]”. Paul’s later descriptions of the Body of Christ (see #84, and chapter 7 of Citizens) detail some of the ways this unity found expression. Consult Ac.2:42-47, 4:32-37; Rom.12:4,5; I Cor.10:17, 12 (whole chapter); Gal.3:28, Eph. 2 and 4; Col.3:15.

Second in frequency of New Testament usage is the figure, also initiated by Jesus, in Mt.19:5,6 and Mk.10:8,9, of the union of husband and wife. The idea is repeated in I Cor.6:16,17 and Eph.5:31. This, too, is represented as an act of God – not the whim, desire, custom, or law of people. Only God is able to “out of two create one”, since in the beginning it was he who created “out of one, two” (Gen.2).

Another outstanding aspect is seen in the “breaking down of walls” (Eph.2:14) – the bringing together of folks whose former alienation certainly equaled that of any modern foes, and forming them into a single unit, demonstrating the power and glory of their Lord (Rom.15:6-13, Gal.3:28, Eph.2:13-17, Col.3:12-15). A similar admonition to the folks at Philippi (1:27, 2:2), while not as specifically addressing opposing groups, advocates the same mutuality. (Refer again to #84).

Finally, there are clues to be found in the cases, many of which occur only in Christian writings, where the preposition sun– – “with, together, belonging to, with the help of, in company with” – is prefixed to other words. It is significant that Christian writers needed essentially to create a whole new vocabulary since their Greco-Roman culture was as individualistic as ours, and the principles of mutuality were just as foreign in the first century as they are in the twenty-first! Here is a partial list, with relevant references and lexical information. (Note: the substitution of gamma (g), mu (m), or sigma (s) for the nu (n) in “sun-” , as well as its occasional omission, is due to the written accommodation to phonetic issues, a common practice in the Greek language. It does not change the meaning.)
sugkleronomos – “joint heir, neighbor, one having adjoining property” – Rom.8:7, Heb.11:9 with Christ, Eph.3:6, I Pet.3:7 with each other
sugkoinoneo – “to have a joint share, to take part in, to be in partnership, to have fellowship with” – I Cor.9:23, Phil.4:14, Eph.5:11, Rv.1:9, 18:4. Note that two of these warn against unwholesome partnerships
suzeugnumi – “yoked together, paired, closely united. Commonly refers to marriage.” Used only twice: Mt.19:6, Mk.10:9
sumbibazo – “to be knit together, brought together, reconciled, or taught”. Referring to people: Col.2:2, 19; Eph.4:16. Referring to instructions: Ac.16:10, I Cor.2:16, Ac.9:22
summathetes – “fellow disciple, schoolmate”. Only used in Jn.11:16
sumphoneo – “to fit in or agree with, to fit together, as cut stones in a building, to harmonize”. Mt.18:19, 20:2,13; Lk.5:36, Ac.5:9, 15:15
sumpsuchos – “of one mind, at unity”. Used only once: Phil.2:2
sunagonizomai – “to struggle together” . Used only once: Rom.15:30, of urgent prayer
sunathleo – “to struggle together, to fight side by side, to practice”. Phil.1:27, 4:3, of working together in the interest of the kingdom
sunarmologeo – “to be fitted together like the blocks of a pyramid”. Eph,2:21, 4:16
sunoikodomeo – “to be built up together” . Only use: Eph.2:22
sussomos – does not exist at all in pagan literature, and is used only once in the N.T. Eph.4:6, where Paul speaks of Jews and Gentiles being a part “of the same Body”. This concept would have been foreign to anyone who lacked understanding of the Body of Christ.

Take particular note of the preponderance of instances where the operative verb is passive. The unity described in the New Testament is not and cannot be a do-it-yourself project. Notice that none of these words suggests the “anything goes” or “I’m ok, you’re ok” attitudes which today are often confused with the idea of “unity.” Neither do they suggest the slavish uniformity demanded by folks of more rigid persuasions. The goal is neither a hodge-podge of individuals blithely “doing their own thing” without challenge, nor a collection of identical automatons marching in artificial unison. Quite the opposite: the New Testament concept of unity requires the supernatural transformation of committed individuals into a supernatural unity that can faithfully reflect the image of its Creator!
Faithful individuals need to cooperate with the Builder, but dare not try to usurp his authority. The carefully fitted blocks of the pyramids (see sunarmalogeo, above) did not shape themselves! They were carefully cut and shaped, each to fit in its designated place, by master craftsmen. This is equally true of the building of “God’s dwelling place”.
The remaining, lexically unrelated, word reveals the same need for outside intervention. Katartizo, rendered “framed” in Heb.11:3 and “joined” in I Cor.10 is also used of “mending nets” (Mt.4:21, Mk.1:19) and the “restoration” of a fallen brother (Gal.6:1). Lexically, it also includes “to adjust or put in order, to set a dislocated limb, to learn, to discipline.”

If the unlikely combination of folks representing vastly different cultural backgrounds and assumptions that makes up the mixed multitude who are called into the Kingdom are ever going to be built together as the dwelling place of God and the manifestation of his kingly rule, it will take a lot of fitting and adjustment! But it is beyond the bound of possibility that the prayer of his own Son, asking that his people be “perfectly one, as we are”, should not be answered!
For exactly that purpose, we have been lovingly placed into the hands of the supreme Architect of the universe – and he is certainly equal to the task!

Thanks be to God!

I am well aware that in approaching this subject, I am opening the proverbial “can of worms”. Few seemingly simple words have been used so viciously to abuse and suppress the very people that they were intended to empower and protect! And we will get to that; but first, a few interesting observations.
For those who get bent-out-of-shape about words that in nearly every European language except English have “gender” as a part of their grammatical form: I find it amusing that kephale, the only Greek word translated “head”, happens to be a feminine noun! Since grammatical “gender” is completely independent of actual fact, this observation is just as irrelevant to correct translation as is the masculine grammatical form of anthropos – usually rendered “man” (the species), but just as accurately “person” or “human”. I only mention it by way of illustration, and with this reminder: don’t get hung up on grammatical gender! To do so only displays linguistic ignorance.
To those who consider the concept of “head” to denote the top of a hierarchy: there is a related word for that, kephalaios, “principal or chief”, but it never occurs in the New Testament. Lexically, the idea of “head honcho” is completely absent from the extensive uses of kephale.
These include (L/S) the physical head of a person or animal, a way of counting people, philosophically the “noblest” part of a person, life (as in risking – see Lk.21:8, Ac.27:34), a term used in imprecations or oaths (as in Mt.5:36, Ac.18:6); of inanimate things: the inflorescence of a plant, the top or brim of a vessel, the capital of a column, the source of a river; of statuary: a bust; and metaphorically: crown, completion, consummation, sum, or total.
Of the 76 appearances of the word in the New Testament, 47 have merely anatomical reference. Most of these are in the gospels or the Revelation. Other than those, Ac.18:18 and 21:24 refer to the Jewish custom of shaving one’s head in connection with a vow, and in Paul’s insightful description of the functions of the parts of a body, he mentions the head in I Cor.12:21.

There are two other clusters of the use of kephale. In Mt.21:42, Mk.12:10, Lk.20:17, and Ac.4:11, reference is made to Ps.118:22, regarding “the stone that the builders rejected” having been made “the head of the corner” (KJV). Peter quotes the same passage (I Pet.2:6,7) and adds the comment from Is.28:16. In doing so, he agrees with Paul’s statement in I Cor.3:11 where he speaks of Jesus as the “foundation,” but these are completely different from the former group. Clearly, the KJV translators did not understand the construction of the Roman arch, which was ubiquitous in the first century, and consequently, they totally missed the wry humor in the statement. The writers/speakers are calling attention to the utter cluelessness of those who considered themselves the “builders”, pointing out that they did not even know what the carefully but oddly shaped keystone of an arch is for! It bears no resemblance to a cornerstone – a ceremonial, decorative (but useless) component slipped into place at the dedication of a building – or even if it were a part of the foundation. The keystone, uniquely shaped for a perfect fit, is integral to the integrity of the entire structure! Without it, the whole building – arch or dome – would collapse! The point is that only Jesus is capable of holding the “building of God” (whether one applies that term to the church or to the entire universe) intact. These same translators likewise erred in the rendering of the alternate word, akrogoniaios. Used only twice, it refers also to the top of the arch: The prefix akro– is from the word “high” (think “acropolis”). It has no reference to their choice of “chief” (Eph.2:20, I Pet.2:6). There is no such thing as a “chief” cornerstone.

Finally, and arguably the most important, are the references, all in Paul’s epistles, to Jesus himself as the “head”: not only of the church, which is represented as his Body (Eph.4:15, Col.1:18), but of “all things” (Eph.1:22), even of “all principality and power” (Col.2:10) – spiritual forces of all kinds! Although the word is not repeated there, the statement in Col.1:15-17 succinctly summarizes the realization that from the beginning of creation (perhaps even before that!) it is only in Jesus that “everything holds together” – precisely the function of a keystone (Col.2:19). He is the only way the Body can work together as intended. The reverse is also true: one may observe that while a Body is unable to function without its head – it simply dies – neither can a Head accomplish much unless it has a Body with which it can interact with its surroundings!

It is this glorious truth of Jesus as the Head of the Body that must be the context for any responsible interpretation of the remaining passages (I Cor. 11:1-10 and Eph.5:32-33). Reinforced (or perhaps established) by Jesus’ prayer in Jn.17, especially v.22, a New Testament understanding of the function of the “head” is, like so many other aspects of life, radically different from any patterns that exist outside Jesus’ Kingdom. Whether the “list” is the I Cor. “God – Christ – husband – wife” or the Ephesians “Christ – church – husband – wife”, it does not describe a hierarchy as has been represented by the arrogant and oppressive “chain of command” teaching that has been prominent in some circles off and on for at least the last 50 years, but an equation!
Perhaps some of you learned as a school-child the expression of relationships in a math or science problem that looked like this: “a:b::c:d”, representing that the pair “a” and “b” are related to each other in the same way as “c” is to “d”. That is exactly what Paul is trying to say here. And all the components of both lists are encompassed in Jesus’ prayer to the Father “that they may (continually) be one, just as we are one”!

In such a context, being designated as a “head” is not an assignment of status, but of responsibility! In his prayer, Jesus detailed the provision, protection, and empowerment that he had afforded to his followers while he was with them. Similar patterns of nurture and protection are noted in the Ephesians passage. Both are in the context of total self-giving love, and are to be emulated, in his present Body, by any who are designated “head”, in any capacity. Remember also that in the Corinthian letter, we are reminded that both men and women have been entrusted with heretofore unheard-of responsibility and privilege (Please see fuller discussion in chapter 13 of Citizens of the Kingdom). Whether on a physical or spiritual level, the “head” is responsible for the protection and the welfare, as well as the direction and enabling of the activity of the rest of the Body.

If you are tempted to react – either gleefully or resentfully – to the idea of a husband as a “head”, take a deep breath, get out your New Testament, and review the characteristics of Jesus’ relationship to his Father, and to the Church, his beloved Bride! Because here, as in everything else concerning the Kingdom, it’s all about Jesus! Make no mistake: Jesus was not a doormat – and neither was he a tyrant! He expects neither of his people! And where there is no husband to serve as enabler and protector, that role is assigned to the church (I Tim.5) as well as to whatever family is available. This would not have been an uncommon situation in a context of intense persecution.

After detailing the superiority of Jesus over all the ideas and beings, hypothetical or actual, to which the Colossian brethren had been introduced, Paul bluntly diagnosed their problem as “not holding on to the Head.” “It’s only from him that all the Body, supplied through its joints and ligaments, and knit together, keeps growing with the growth that comes from God.” (Col.2:19).
“The growth that comes from God”, for all of his people, is neither more nor less than the building together and functioning together of all of the members of the Body of Christ, learning, under the supremely loving and competent direction of its Head, to reflect all that he is, to a world so desperately in need of his loving touch.

The most common use of the word cheir requires no research or explanation: the hand is the part of one’s body with which he performs the most ordinary of daily tasks. Even in reference to God’s messengers – natural or supernatural – (Mt.4:6), hands may simply be viewed as a tool or implement. However, the figurative uses of the term, referring to custodial care, power, or authority, and the employment of one’s hands to convey blessing and healing, or judgment and arrest, can require discernment, and it is these upon which I propose to focus this study.

The ambiguity is not unique to New Testament usage. It occupies an entire (very large) page of very small print in L/S, the Oxford lexicon of Greek usage. In addition to “hand or paw”, they note that it may refer to position (“on which hand [side]?”), careful rearing (“by hand”) of a child or animal, and leading (by taking one’s hand). It is used of prayer, voting, reaching out to help or protect, or in a hostile sense, to harm or destroy. “In hand” may denote “under control, in process, or at close quarters.” To place someone or something “in the hands” of another confers responsibility; giving or offering one’s hand attests authenticity or trustworthiness. The hand is often used to describe the attributes of the person using it, and may even be represented as acting of itself (“what your hand finds to do”). Indeed, it may be used of any act or deed, a person’s handiwork or handwriting, and even an anchor, axle, or pillar! And that is just a random sampling.

Forty-seven of the New Testament references to “hands” are purely physical. There are however a few significant points among them.
Pilate (Mt.27:24) clearly had in mind something deeper than simple cleanliness in his highly public “hand-washing” as he disclaimed responsibility for Jesus’ execution.
Paul’s statements that “God is not worshiped [helped or assisted] by men’s hands” (Ac.17:25) and “they are not gods which are made by hands” (Ac.19:2), define limits not only to physical hands, but to the domain of human effort.
His repeated (Ac.20:34, I Cor.4:12) reminder of his having personally earned the expenses of his labors and his associates reinforces his admonition that the faithful likewise should “work with their hands” (Eph.4:28, I Thes.4:11) in order to have resources to share with people in need.

“The Hand of God” or “the hand of the Lord” is credited with leading and protection (Lk.1:66, Jn.10:29, Ac.7:25, Heb.8:9) and creation (Ac.7:50, Heb.1:10, 2:7, I Pet.5:6), as well as judgment (Mt.3:!2, Ac.13:11, Heb.10:31). It was “into the hands of the Father” (Lk.23:46) that Jesus released his spirit as he died.

Jesus’ own hands seem to have been constantly busy! Offering loving blessing to children (Mt.19:13-15, Mk.10:16), and to his bewildered disciples (Lk.24:50), identifying his disciples as family (Mt.12:49), rescuing Peter from the consequences of his impetuosity (Mt.14:31), many unspecified “mighty works” (Mk.6:2), and healing “all manner of weaknesses” (at least 20x, probably more) by “laying his hands upon them”.
The Lord Jesus, who personified the love of God, was always touching people! Especially those who were not “supposed “ to be touched! Nothing more effectively communicates love – especially to folks that others deem “untouchable” – than a compassionate touch, or a comforting (or celebratory!) hug! And no, the idea of a “hug” is not a silly modern notion, and not at all extraneous. The word which has been rendered “touch” is haptomai – L/S:”to take hold of, to hang on to, to grasp, cleave, cling to” , and only secondarily “engage, undertake, perceive,” and even “to attack or apprehend”. It appears 13x as Jesus’ initiative toward a person in need, and 17x as people crowded to grab hold of “even the edge of his robe.” The result of those touches was usually healing, except for Jesus’ reassuring his frightened disciples after his transfiguration (Mt.17:7), and blessing little children (Mk.10:13, Lk.18:15). (Could this last have been the origin of the “group hug”?
Only once did he make a negative response to “touching”, gently telling Mary not to hang on to him (Jn.20:17), but to get busy and spread the wonderful news that he was alive. There were also parts of that glorious event yet to be completed.

The disciples, later apostles, and others in the early church, continued this practice of “laying their hands on” folks in need of healing, as Jesus had mentioned before his departure (Mk.16:18), but it seems also to have acquired additional significance among them. People were commissioned in this way for particular assignments (Ac.6:6, 13:3, I Tim.4:14, II Tim.1:6). Remember (#48) that this was simply a sign of brotherly approval and participation, and NOT the conferral of a lifetime title or position of status as it has become in modern rituals of “ordination”.
The gesture also accompanied prayer – not only for healing (Ac.3:7, 5:12, 9:12, 25:8), but also for the bestowal of the Holy Spirit (Ac.8:17,18; 9:12, 9:41, 19:6) and various unspecified “miracles” (Ac.5:12, 14:3, 19:11). It appears on the list of “basic” teachings in Heb.6:2.
Relief was sent to the sufferers in the Judean famine “by the hands of Barnabas and Saul” (Ac.11:30). Five times, Paul identifies the authenticity of a letter by his own handwriting (I Cor.16:21, Gal.6:11, Col.4:18, II Thes.3:17, Phm.19).
Some sort of spiritual empowerment seems to have been conferred on at least one occasion (II Tim.1:6).
Paul’s advice to Timothy to use the act of official commissioning cautiously and judiciously (I Tim.5:22) could be better heeded today.

We should also be aware that neither being “in the hands” [power, authority] of someone, nor “laying hands on” a person is always a good thing. Jesus warned that he was about to be “betrayed into the hands” of his enemies, who had repeatedly tried to “lay hands upon him” (13x), and that his followers could face similar treatment (9 or 10 times) – which they did.

But they did so with the full assurance of their Master’s confidence, promised in Jn.3:34, 10:28,29; and demonstrated in Jn.13:34, that not only they, but “all things” had been “given into his hands” by the Father – and that no force in heaven or earth could snatch them away.
May we also rest in that certainty, as we offer our hands in his service!

It is sad that a topic which was such a welcome and compassionate feature of the ministry of Jesus, his disciples, and the early church, should have become a focus of controversy for contemporary groups, even resulting in the overt abuse of many suffering people and their caregivers.
Clearly, we will not solve all the problems of two millennia in one brief study, but perhaps we can make a few suggestions to add some light and reduce the heat of the discussions. Please bear in mind that this is the earnest intention of this posting!

The first surprise is in the lexical meanings of the three different word groups that have been rendered “heal.” The most common, therapeuo (v.), therapeia (n), is also the least specific. L/S lists “to do service (to gods or people), to honor parents, to wait upon a master, to pay attention, to treat medically, to train animals, to cultivate land, to prepare food or drugs, to mend garments”! It is only in juxtaposition with a diagnosis that one can be anywhere near certain that “healing” is the intention. Perhaps we should start by expanding our understanding of the extent of Jesus’ ministrations to folks with widely varied needs!
Iaomai (v.), iama and iasis (n), are more exclusively focused upon medical attention: “heal, cure, treat diseases; remedy or counteract” are primary, with “repair” also included as well as “refine” (as in alchemy).
Sozo, more commonly rendered “save” with “eternal” consequences by modern evangelicals, seems primarily to be used in more desperate situations: its first listing is “to save from death, to keep alive”, but also includes “to recover from sickness, to keep safe or preserve, to remember or keep in mind, to rescue.” Its prefixed form, diasozo, is similar, but more emphatic.

The words referring to diagnoses are likewise extremely diverse. About half the time, the accounts specify the problem of the sufferer: blindness, deafness, crippling of legs, feet, or hands; paralysis, leprosy, hemorrhage, fever, or even a cut-off ear! Notice, please, that demonic conditions are treated as a separate malady (16x), and not, as some would have it, simply showing ignorance of the source of distress. Elsewhere, usually in a crowd setting, the record shows Jesus being presented with “all kinds of diseases” and “healing them ALL”. Descriptions of these “generic” afflictions also use widely varied vocabulary.
Arrhotos, (arrhoteo, -ia) (5x) may refer either to “sickness, especially epidemics, a lingering infirmity, or moral weakness.”
Asthenos (astheneo) the most common, (35x) can include weakness, feebleness, sickliness, disease”, but also “poverty” (Herodotus), “moral weakness” (Plato), or “any person who is needy, insignificant, or powerless”! Most of us fit somewhere in there!
Malakia (3x) may be “moral weakness, sickliness, or cowardice.”
Nosos, nosema (13x), the only one essentially confined to physical conditions, encompasses “sickness, plague, disease, distress, anguish, any disease of the mind, or any grievous affliction.”
These words usually occur in different combinations of two or three in the various gospel narratives, seemingly thereby to indicate that whatever the problem, Jesus, and by extension, his people, both care, and do something about it!

Regardless of the specific vocabulary, the vast majority of references to healing occur in the gospels (58x), and nearly all of those focus on Jesus’ personal action, although there are 7 instances of authority being delegated to the disciples (in one of which their attempt failed – Lk.9:42). Healing definitely figured into the expectations and ministry of the early church, as evidenced in Ac.3 and 4, 5:16, 8:7, 9:34, 10:38, 14:9, 28:8,9; I Cor.12:9, 28, 30; Jas.5:16). Here, too, though, it was not always immediately successful (Ac.9:36).

Contrary to the claims of folks who propose to “teach” others to “heal”, the New Testament reveals no requirements, techniques, prescribed incantations, or ceremonies; and any healing that occurs is overtly and immediately attributed to the power of God in Jesus.
There are no flamboyant professional healers, except the sons of the Jewish priest, Skeva, (Ac.19:13-17), who did not fare so well in Ephesus. Peter and John (Ac.3:12,16) and Paul and Barnabas (Ac.14:8-18) had clear opportunity to take credit to themselves for miraculous healings, but uniformly rejected personal acclaim, insisting repeatedly that it was the Lord’s doing and not theirs.

“Gifts of healing” (I Cor.12:9, 28, 30) are indeed among the equipment provided by the Holy Spirit for the benefit of folks both within and outside the Body, but as noted in #25, “gifts” are not the possession of the person who employs them, but rather the Lord’s provision for the individual who is in need. James (5:14-16) assigns this responsibility to the elders (#42) of the group.

It is just as fruitless to try to develop a prescribed “methodology” as it is to identify “qualified” individuals or “appropriate” occasions for healing. The occasion is appropriate wherever / whenever there is a need: healing consistently accompanied Jesus’ own teaching. The Sabbath was no problem for him, as it was for the “official” types who opposed him (Lk.6:7, 13:14, 14:3), nor did it matter where it happened: on a public street (Lk.8:44), in someone’s home (Lk.4:38,39 and others), or in a synagogue (Lk.4:33). His instructions to his disciples (Mt.10:1, 10:8, Mk.3:15, Lk.9:1,2; 10:9) and the subsequent ministries of Philip (Ac.8), Peter and John (Ac.3,4), Paul (Ac.16:18, 28:9) and others, likewise, had no restrictions or outlines to follow.
Jesus’ examples of “technique” are just as varied. He did not even need to be present for his “word” to accomplish a healing (Mt.8:7-13, Lk.7:7, Mk.7:26-30), but at other times, he gave explicit instructions to the patient (Mk.2:11, Jn.5:8, 9:7), or addressed commands to a demon (Mt.8:28-32). But most frequently of all, he reached out and touched the suffering person – whether or not that was officially sanctioned or socially acceptable. According to the Law, a leper (Mt.8:3), a dead person (Lk.7:11) or a woman (Mk.1:31) was not to be touched. We will revisit this graciousness in the next post.
There were even occasions where the afflicted were restored by simply touching his clothing (Mt.9:20, 14:36, and parallels)!

The commissioned disciples seem to have added the practice of anointing with oil (Mk.6:13): there is no record of Jesus having done so, although he did use mud [clay] once (Jn.9:6). James (5:14) later advocated this practice. No one gives any explanation, although the purely secular example of the “good Samaritan” illustrates the common use of oil in treating wounds.
Apostles also employed a simple command (Ac.3:6, 9:34, 14:9), or a touch (Ac.28:8, 3:7, 9:12, 9:41) even, again, of a garment (Ac.19:11). Their carrying on of the healing ministry often specifically includes prayer (Ac.4:30, 9:40, Jas.5:16), although this is not mentioned in Jesus’ activity.

But what of that shibboleth of self-styled healers – the “magic word”, “faith”?
First of all, please refer back to study #1, exploring the word pistis, and remember that it is NOT an alternative term for autosuggestion! In most contexts, “trust”, “faithfulness”, or “loyalty” is a more accurate translation. Jesus only once scolded anyone for its lack: and that was in explaining to the disciples the reason for their failure to heal a demon-tormented child. He did ask the father in that scene to trust him – but that is the only record of his articulating any such condition. There are places where he credited a person’s trust / loyalty for their healing (Mt.9:22, 29; 15:28 and parallels), but the vast majority of incidents include no such statement – and the man introduced in Jn.5:13 did not even know who had healed him! In Mk,.2:5, it is the trust / loyalty of the men who carried their friend to Jesus that is commended. And in the many crowd scenes, no sorting of any kind is recorded. We have only the simple statement that “he healed them ALL.” (Mt.4:23,24; 8:16, 9:35, 12:15, 19:2, 21:14, and parallels)

Completely absent is any requirement that a person “claim” a healing of which there has been no evidence. Had the blind man in Mk.8:24 been urged to do so, Jesus would have had no occasion to offer the “second touch” that completed his restoration! And it was the irrefutable evidence of the lame man strolling around with Peter and John that so flummoxed the bigwigs at the temple (Ac.4:14). Repeatedly, observers are described as marveling at what they had SEEN.
Also absent is any suggestion of “blaming the victim” for his condition – a concept that Jesus plainly repudiated in Jn.9:1-4 – and which is the apex of the cruelty of the modern “healing business”!

So – with all this variety, is there anything of which we may be certain?
Most assuredly!
*Jesus not only announced his purpose “to heal the broken hearted” (Lk.4:!8) in his inaugural address, but demonstrated the compassionate use of his power to restore people throughout his earthly career, whether the need was physical illness, lack of food, moral laxity, or even death!
*In assigning responsibility to his disciples, these same concerns are dominant: both before and after his departure.
*The provision by means of the Holy Spirit, for the continuation of Kingdom service on the part of its citizens included physical healing among the many assignments and enablements by which they are expected to represent their King to the world.

May we help each other to learn to do so responsibly!

We have touched on these words in previous posts: #65 includes the use of katharos in the concept of cleansing, and #32 explores the departure of New Testament teaching from general assumptions about “holiness”, as well as the references in #192 to the “purifying” of “hearts.” Nevertheless, the inclusion of three entirely separate word-families, which share areas of commonality, but also differ significantly, makes this an idea worthy of its own treatment.

The adjective hagnos, with its associated forms, the verb hagnizo, the nouns hagneia, hagnotes, and hagnismos,and also the adverb hagnOs (with omega), is the most frequently used. It can refer to ritual purity, innocence, chastity, or more general morality (L/S). Trench suggests that it might simply be an alternate form of hagios (#32), but that it probably is not, since he considers that hagios is most frequently used in relationship to God, and hagnos in reference to one’s bodily life. However, the New Testament uses of the two words do not bear out that distinction. He does concede that hagnos was also used of pagan deities, especially the (rare!!) virgin goddesses, and sees overlap in a connection to the consecration of anyone or anything to the service of a deity.

New Testament appearances of hagnos and related words fall roughly into four categories: Jewish ritual purification rites 4x (Jn.11:55, Ac.21:24, 21:26, 24:18); general moral rectitude 5x (I Tim.5:22, I Jn.3:3, II Cor.6:6, 7:11; I Pet.1:22); another 5x where it is traditionally rendered “chastity” (II Cor.11:2, I Tim.4:12, 5:2; Tit.2:5, I Pet.3:2), and simple, straightforward honesty 4x (Phil.1:16, 4:8; Jas.3:17, 4:8).

Two observations are relevant here:
First, “chastity” is not, as sometimes represented, a synonym for “celibacy”, since the references in both Peter and Titus are addressed clearly to married couples. It refers rather to honesty, fidelity, and morality in marriage; and the admonition to Timothy requires similar moral behavior of the unmarried. Classically, if the reference was to virginity, they said so, as Paul did, figuratively, in the II Cor. passage.
Secondly, James’ reference (3:17) to “wisdom from above”, and Peter’s to “obeying the truth” (I Pet.1:22) as the means of “purifying yourselves”, both probably have the idea of honesty and simplicity in view, as well as morality. We will consider this in more detail in the next word-grouping.

Most frequently translated “sincere, sincerity” (4x out of 5), eilikrines and eilikrineia, in classical usage, also referred to a “pure” substance – without alloy or admixture – hence the rendering when the reference was not a substance of “pure, simple, absolute.” In II Cor.1:12, Paul pairs eilikrineia with haploteti (honesty). The modifier tou theou probably belongs with both nouns, not just one or the other. He uses a similar construction in 2:17. God is the source (expressed by the use of the genitive case) of all of these virtues. In Phil.1:10, that sincerity / simplicity is presented as “insurance” against being led into evil, and in II Pet.3:1 as a shield against distortions of the message. This constitutes a sharp contrast with the complicated theological structures concocted over the centuries, ostensibly to “prevent error”. The New Testament remedy for error is simplicity, not complexity. It is complicated documents, contracts, or explanations that are replete with “escape clauses”, contingencies, disclaimers, and assorted other vehicles creating “wiggle room” to avoid responsibility, or renege on the delivery of promised goods or services. It is rather simplicity and sincerity that characterize the honest and genuine gospel message – or any other!

Finally, katharizo (v.), katharos (adj), katharismos, katherotes (n), which were partially treated in #65 with reference to cleansing (10x), were used much more frequently with the idea of purifying – 17x in adjectival form, 6x as a verb, and 4x as a noun. Some of these correspond to the ritual uses of hagnos: (Lk.2:22, Jn.2:6, 3:25; Heb.9:13,23; and possibly Heb.10:22).
A sharp transition appears in Paul’s message to Titus (1:15) when the latter was confronting people trying to re-impose legal requirements upon his charges: “It’s not about ceremonies or regulations!” he insists. “It’s pure [clean] PEOPLE that God desires!” Paul reiterates this idea in 2:14.
Katharos actually incorporates virtually all the shades of meaning present in the other two words.
The L/S list is fairly comprehensive, including “physically clean (not dirty); clear of admixture; free of debt, pollution, or guilt; ceremonial purity; sound, without blemish; real, genuine, pure, clean, simple; moral purity.” The verb form katharizo also included the healing of diseases., and clearing ground of weeds.

Motivation is referenced in the allusions to “pure hearts” in I Tim.1:5, 3:9; II Tim.1:3, 2:22; I Pet.1:22.
Ordinary cleanliness may be all that is intended in Rv.15:6, and an unmixed substance in Rv.21:8 and 22:1.
Mt.5:8, Rom.14:20, and Jas.1:27 may be deliberate attempts to blur the line between ceremonial purity and the leading of a life of simple devotion to God. Heb.10:22, Tit.1;15, and Ac.15:9 may also fall into that category.
In Ac.20:26, Paul simply bears testimony to his having faithfully delivered an accurate message, and thereby discharged his duty. The ball is now in their court.

How then shall we summarize this widely scattered collection of observations?
I think that a singular focus upon faithfulness is the key.
Our dear (late) brother, Vernard Eller was fond of quoting a statement attributed to Kierkegaard: “Purity of heart is to will one thing.”
If that “one thing” is determined and exclusive loyalty to the King of Kings, I can enthusiastically endorse that definition.
May we continually serve him – and each other – with “purity of heart”!

I was surprised when it was brought to my attention that I had neglected to post a study of the New Testament uses of the word “heart”. I was even more surprised to discover that there is not a single instance among its 158 appearances where it is used with its primary meaning, “the organ in man or animal which is the center of the circulation of the blood”!
There is also no reference to “giving one’s heart to the Lord”, and only one which speaks of his “dwelling” in the hearts of the faithful (Eph.3:17). There are only two referring to anyone’s heart being “broken” – one in Lk.4:18, where it is a condition that Jesus said he was sent to heal, (and certainly not held up as the crowning achievement – like scalps on a belt – of a self-styled “evangelist”)! The statement in Ac.2:37, often used as an excuse for this attitude / effort, uses katenugesan, “to pierce with pain”, a word quite unrelated to suntetrimmenous, “broken or crushed”. The other is Paul’s scolding (Ac.21:13) of his companions’ attempt to dissuade him from going toward certain disaster in Jerusalem, complaining that they are “breaking his heart.”
So having thus disposed of a very large portion of popular (though almost totally imaginary) rhetoric, let’s have a look at what is actually said.

Ever since the earliest classical writings, the heart (kardia) was considered the seat of one’s feelings, passion, anger, fear, courage, sorrow, or joy as well as love (L/S). A somewhat parallel use of splagchna (inward parts, vital organs), 10x as a noun, an 12 as a verb, which some modern translators render as “heart” – probably because they think it more “proper” than “guts”! – the KJV said “bowels” – is more often confined to expressions of compassion or deep affection. Kardia was also assumed to function in one’s mind, intention, inclination, desire or purpose. It also referred to the center of anything, animate or inanimate: as the heart wood of a tree, the depth of the sea, or Jesus’ reference to “the heart of the earth” (Mt.12:40).
Bauer’s list is similar, suggesting “the seat of physical, mental, or spiritual life, the source of one’s volition, the faculty of thought or understanding, the organ of natural or spiritual enlightenment, moral or emotional decisions, wishes, or desires” to which he adds “the dwelling place of heavenly powers or beings”, whether good (Eph.3:17) or evil (Ac.5:3, Jn.13:2).

Most of these aspects can be found in New Testament writings. The heart may represent the repository of treasured memories (Lk.1:66, 2:19, 2:51), the source of motivation or purpose for both good and evil speech and action (Mt.5:28, 9:4, 12:34-45, 15:18-19, 24:48, Lk.6:45, Ac.5:4, 7:23, 39; Rom.1:24, 6:17), and the “location” of arguments or “reasoning” – dialogizomai – (Mk.2:6, 8; Lk.3:15, 5:22, 9:47, 24:38; Rom.10:6). Jesus and others spoke of “understanding with your hearts” (Mt.13:15, Jn. 12:40, Ac.28:27, Rom.1:21), and warnings against the hardening of hearts (lack of receptivity to truth or mercy) are not rare (Mt.19:8, Mk.3:5, 6:52, 8:17, 10:5, 16:14, Jn.12:40, Rom.2:5, Heb.3:8, 4:7).

The condition of one’s “heart” is revealed by his attitudes and behavior, whether commendable (Mt.11:29, 12:35, Lk.1:17, Lk.2:35, 8:15, Rom.6:17) or reprehensible (Mt.15:8, 19; Lk.1:51, 6:45, Ac.8:21, 22, Eph. 4:18, Heb.3:10,12; Jas.1:26, 3:14, 5:5; II Pet.2:14), as is his love for God (Mt.22:37, Mt.12:33, 22:37, Lk.10:27, Mk.12:30).

We are assured that God not only knows our hearts (Lk.16:15, Ac.1:24, 15:8; Rom.8:27, I Cor.4:5, I Thes.2:4, Heb.4:12, 8:10, 10:16; I Jn.3:20, Rv.2:23), but also guides and directs the hearts of those who seek his ways (Ac.14:17, 15:9, 16:14; Rom.10:8, I Cor.2:9, Phil.4:7, Col.3:15, I Thes.3:13, II Thes.3:5, II Pet.1:19) and even sometimes those who don’t (Rv.17:17)!
That does not, however, absolve us from the responsibility to be selective regarding what we allow to influence our hearts! (Mt.6:21 and parallel Lk.12:34; Mt.13:19 and parallels Mk.4:15, Lk.8:12; Rom.16:8, Heb.10:22, Jas.4:8, 5:8; I Pet.3:4, 15; I Jn.3:19).
Jesus urged his disciples to “settle it in your hearts” (Lk.21:14) not to worry about planning a defense when on trial for their faithfulness, but to trust in the leading that he would provide.

With the gracious gift of the Holy Spirit, the necessary vigilance and confidence is both enabled and assisted (Rom 5:5, II Cor.1:22, 4:6; Gal.4:6). This, of course, includes the several references in which traditional translators have inaccurately chosen to represent parakaleo by the word “comfort”, conjuring up the image of a teddy-bear or security “blankie”. Please see #138 for a correction of that image. Jesus – and Paul – are neither offering a “blankie” nor asking the faithful to provide such artificial “comfort” to one another. They rather have in view consistent and courageous encouragement,support, and “coaching” in faithfulness (Jn.14 and 16, Col.2:2 and 4:8; Eph.6:22, II Thes.2:17).

The hearts of the faithful are also expected to be deeply involved in their interaction on a purely human level. Paul conveys heartfelt concern for his readers, especially when there has been any misunderstanding (Rom.9:2, 10:1; II Cor.2:4, 3:2-3, 6:11, 7:3, 8:16; Phil.1:7, I Thes.2:17), and expects commensurate sincerity within their respective groups (II Cor.5:12), both in their worship (Eph.5:19, Col.3:16) and their more ordinary affairs (Eph.6:5, Col.3:22, I Thes.3:5, I Tim.1:5, Rom.2:15, I Cor.7:37, II Cor.9:7) as does Peter (I Pet.1:22).
Jesus had also recognized normal human emotions in his farewell (Jn.14 and 16), and did not condemn them, but gave instructions for dealing with them. This is seen also in Mt.18:35.

The heart is represented as the source of one’s deliberate commitment to faithfulness (Mk.11:23, Lk.24:25, Ac.8:37, 11:23, 13:22; Rom.2:29, 10:9-10; Eph.3:17, I Thes.3:13,Heb.10:22, 13:9, Jas.4:8, I Jn.3:19-21) as well as of the choice not to listen and obey (II Cor.3:15, 5:12, and the quotes from Isaiah 6:9-10 in Mt.13:15, Jn. 12:40, Ac.28:27).

Here are a few other random observations, in no particular order – some surprising, some just interesting – for you to explore and “reason [discuss] in your hearts”!
* James’ instructions to the folks teetering on the brink of unfaithfulness (4:8) to “wash their hands and purify their (own) hearts”! Haven’t we always been told that was an almost magical act of God connected in some esoteric way to Jesus’ death? Although Peter in Ac.15:9 did attribute it to God’s act in response to faithfulness, the verbs in this instance are both active aorist imperatives!
* “Pure” hearts are evidenced by (I Tim.1:5) “charity” [love – agape] and (II Tim.2:22) “calling on the Lord” – which is the “fuel” for “fleeing youthful passions, and pursuing justice, faithfulness, love, and peace” and “avoiding useless arguments (v.23).
* The “umpire” brabeueto when one’s heart must deal with an uncertain situation (Col.3:15) is the peace of God. How would that affect your choices or decisions?
* Does the “location” of our “treasure” (Mt.6:21, Lk.12:34) affect our reaction to situations like the one described in Rv.18, when the economy tanks and everything falls apart? Is Jesus’ warning in Lk.21:34 connected to this?
* In Rom.1:21-32, Paul clearly describes the depraved condition of the “hearts” of the unfaithful as their choice, not their “original condition”. Why do people who are so fond of quoting Romans for their “doctrines” consistently ignore this?

* And finally , please review the beautiful effects of the unity resulting from the Holy Spirit’s activity around Pentecost (#187). In Ac.2:46, Luke describes the general mood of joyful celebration as they shared their meals “with rejoicing and simple hearts.” He goes into more detail in Ac.4:32-34, “the multitude of those who had become faithful was one heart and one life [identity; traditionally “soul”], and freely shared all that they had, until “there was no one needy among them.” He never pretends that there were no bumps in the road – see the very next chapter if you think that the account is whitewashed!

But the community that resulted was mightily attractive to observers.
A Body was being formed – described later by Paul as having only one Head – the Lord Jesus – but here Luke concentrates on their one heart. That was / is just as essential to the interaction of many widely-varied members, and probably the most undeniable evidence of the hand of God.
May we continue to serve him – and each other – with one heart!

Whenever I hear someone make this very common claim, I feel a need for an extended conversation in order to figure out exactly what he intends to communicate. Unfortunately, the phrase is often intended as a conversation stopper, rather than a starter, which seems primarily to say “It’s none of your business”. I can understand that sentiment: I too reject the onslaught of doctrinaire eager-beavers with their carefully proof-texted checklists. But I recognize that that response does not address the need for sympathetic mutual understanding.
So, although I realize that such a speaker does not usually draw his definitions from this source, I have chosen to approach the issue by examining the New Testament uses of both words, each of which carries both positive and negative implications, depending on the context. As we saw in studies #52 and 53 on the word “spirit”, (which should form a significant part of the present investigation), the latitude of the meaning of “spiritual” is wide: ranging all the way from “things pertaining to or administered by the Holy Spirit” through “the innermost thoughts and purposes of a human being” to “the nefarious operation of evil spirits.” So it is entirely appropriate to inquire of those who claim “spirituality”, to “what kind” they are referring!

The adjective pneumatikos, with its related adverb pneumatikOs (replacing the omicron with omega), is the only source for the translation “spiritual, spiritually”. They appear respectively 25x and 2x in the New Testament writings.
Trench has a helpful essay on the classical distinctions between sarkikos, psuchikos, and pneumatikos: the former referring to “the flesh” (see #85) – one’s bodily human functions and existence, the second to his (somewhat higher) faculties of reasoning: the mind or intellect (#28), all quite distinct from the Platonic idea of “soul” which has been co-opted and distorted by some purveyors of “doctrine”; and the latter, very rare in classical literature, pertaining to connectedness with the divine. Paul appears to make a similar distinction in I Cor.2:13-15 and 3:1.
L/S, on the other hand, simply lists “anything moved by air or breath, an immaterial being, a school of physicians that referred all questions of health to pneumatic experiences.” All of these make a clear distinction between the physical, mental, and “spiritual”, unlike those who attribute “spiritual” achievements to various sorts of physical and/or mental exercises or contortions.

Bauer lists five different aspects of “spiritual” in New Testament usage. (The list is his, the associated references are mine:
1. It may intend simply the “inner life” of a human being, in contrast to somatikos or psuchikos (I Cor. 15:44,46. ) Note that here Paul specifically and intentionally excludes the pagan idea of a pre-existent “spiritual” state.
2. It may refer to events directly caused, or individuals led, gifted, or influenced by the Holy Spirit (Rom.1:11, I Cor.2:15, 3:1, 12:1, 14:1, 37; Gal.6:1, Eph.1:3, 5:19; Col.1:19, 3:16).
3. It may describe a supernatural state of being, such as resurrection (I Cor.15:46), or
4. things or matters that are in contrast to those of merely earthly origin (Rom.15:27, I Cor.12:13,14; 9:11).
5. It may refer to impersonal things that nevertheless serve more-than-ordinary purposes (Rom.7:14, I Cor.10:3,4; I Pet.2:5).
In addition to Bauer’s list, there are also references to overtly evil beings or influence (Eph.6:12, Rv.11:8).

The supernatural or paranormal may include genuinely healthy “spirituality”, but may just as readily have less beneficent provenance. The serious need for careful discernment concerning spirits or spiritual influences is explored in the earlier studies mentioned above.

Although it is represented by more discrete words (3), “religion” is mentioned much more rarely in the New Testament.
Threskeia (L/S: religious cult, worship or ritual; religious formalism, service of a god, superstition) refers primarily to ceremonies and rituals. It appears only 4x, three of which (Ac.26:5, Jas.1:26, Col.2:18) have a distinctly negative flavor. The adjective threskos (used only in Jas.1:26) is rather ambiguous, but then James uses the very same word (1:27) when he describes “pure religion”, which consists of merciful care for widows and orphans, and exemplary living. With this single exception, however, one could hardly be blamed for disassociating himself from threskeia.

Eusebes / eusebos, on the other hand, (L/S: loyalty, respect, reverence; living or acting piously toward one’s parents, gods, or members of one’s household) is hard to criticize. Usually translated “devout” or “godly”, its 6 appearances are all commendations (Ac.10:2, 10:7, 22:12; II Tim. 3:12, Tit.2:12, II Pet.2:9). The eu- prefix (“well” or “good”) simply adds weight to the stem derived from the verb
sebomai for which L/S lists “to revere or worship, pay honor or respect”; Bauer notes that “it was applied to pagans who accepted the monotheism of Judaism, and attended the synagogue, but did not obligate themselves to the whole Jewish Law.” It appears 5x translated “worship” (Mt.15:9, Ac.16:14, 18:7, 18:13, 19:27), 3x translated “devout” (Ac.13;50, 17:4, 17:7), and only once “religious” (Ac.13:43).

That is the sum total of New Testament references to “religion/religious”! One could even make a case that it is not a very “religious” book at all!

So where does this leave us? With the familiar caveat, “It depends entirely upon what you mean by what you say!”
If by “spiritual” you intend a constant effort to be led by the Holy Spirit to understand, participate, and share in the life of Jesus’ Kingdom, you are my brother / sister, and we have much to share.
If, on the other hand, you intend by contrived physical or mental gymnastics trying to tap into some other type of “spiritual” knowledge or activity, thanks, but no thanks. John’s advice in I Jn.4:1-6 is sound.
If your avoidance of being “religious” involves recoiling from the trappings of (often empty) ceremony, the cut-and-dried “doctrines” upon which the guardians of self-aggrandizing institutions insist, and (often-abusive) hierarchies (which Jesus himself rejected), you join a millennia- long parade of earnest, loyal Christ-followers who have done likewise. Welcome to their ranks!

But do not forget that a vitally necessary component of genuine following (see #101) is identification with a Body of fellow-followers. Neither Jesus nor his disciples ever advocated the lonely, self-centered, mystical isolationism that has attracted sincere but misguided “seekers” periodically through the ages.
James’ definition of “true religion” is far more practical than either ceremonial or contemplative. It is clearly focused upon the needs of others, after the pattern set by the Lord Jesus himself, and completely different from either institutional or individualistic prescriptions.

It should therefor be incumbent upon anyone using this vocabulary, whether with positive or negative intent, both to clarify his own assumptions, and to proceed with caution before evaluating someone else’s choices!

As always, please remember that I welcome serious dialogue on this or any other subject.

Another concept that has been blown completely out of proportion in supposedly “Christian” teaching and hymnody is the often parroted but never examined phrase, “bought with Jesus’ blood”.
The phrase occurs only once in the entire New Testament (Ac.20:28).  It refers to the church, and not to individuals, and is itself  a poor translation of a word that appears in only one other, quite different, context (I Tim.3:13) regarding the acquiring of one’s reputation!
Jesus never represented himself as having “bought” – or intended to buy – anyone or anything.  All of the gospel uses of any of the five Greek words traditionally translated “buy” or “bought” refer to simple commerce.
Peter (I Pet.2:1) and Paul (I Cor.6:20, 7:23) refer to the faithful having been “bought”– but neither mentions anything about a medium of exchange, the occasion, nor the need for such a purchase, and they uniformly use plural forms in reference to it (see #142).  Neither do they indicate, or even speculate upon from whom the “purchase” was made  (more of this later).
Actually, these three references, ideologically, would fit better with the study of  redemption/ransom (#61) than they do here.

We are dealing here with five different words.  By far the most frequently used is the simplest: agorazo, used 30 times and always translated “buy”, is obviously related to agora, the marketplace in every city or town.  L/S has only very simple definitions to suggest:  “to buy in a market” or “to frequent (hang-around in) the marketplace.”  The New Testament appearances of agorazo are, for the most part, just as simple.  People go out and buy food, or other items.  It also applies to the activity of the merchants that Jesus drove out of the temple (Mt.21:12, Mk.11:15, Lk.19:45), to the temple rulers buying a field with Judas’ money (Mt.27:7), and the lament of sellers of luxury goods in Rv.18:11 when the economy crashes and nobody buys their wares.  There are only three anomalies, found in the epistles mentioned above,where the clear intent is to establish the Lord’s ownership of his people, and their consequent obligation to honor, obey, and serve him.  There are also three places in the Revelation where, inexplicably, traditional translators changed their rendering to “redeem” (#61) and one of which  (Rv.5:19) is the only other mention of “blood”. These three are also treated entirely in the plural.

Emporeuomai, used only once (Jas.4:13) –  although there are a few uses of related words – seems to be somewhat more business related.  L/S lists “to travel on business, to trade, to be a merchant, to make gain”, but also “to over-reach, to cheat”!   You may recognize the word “emporium” as an English cognate, through its Latin equivalent.

Exagorazo, more correctly translated (4x) as “redeem”, is treated in #61.  The alternative “to buy from” is mentioned in L/S, but it is not used that way in the New Testament.

Ktaomai, rendered “obtain” once (Ac.22:28), “possess” 3x (Lk.18:12, 21:9, I Thes.4:4), “provide” once (Mt.10:9), and “purchase” twice (Ac.1:18, 8:20), relates more to property than to people in L/S summaries, and at least as much to the owning or holding of property as to its acquisition.

Pepoieomai, used only twice (Ac.20:28, I Tim.3:13) is, as noted above, poorly translated. L/S offers “to keep safe or preserve, to keep or save for oneself, to procure, secure, achieve, or lay up.”

Please note that none of these have anything whatever to do with the satisfaction of a debt or any other penalty (see #188). That sort of “payment”, referring exclusively to either borrowed money or taxes, is represented by apodidomi, which is only rarely used of purchase (Ac.5:8 – land; Ac.7:9 – Joseph, into slavery, and Heb.10:16 – Esau’s birthright).

Another element usually overlooked in this discussion is that in order for anything to be bought, it has to be for sale!  Who is the seller?  And who or what is being sold?
Here, we are dealing with three words.
Apodidomi, as noted above, is usually connected with payments other than purchase.  L/S includes “to render what is due, to pay a debt, bribe, or taxes, the yield of land, to concede, allow, exhibit, or display.”  This is seen in its use in Mt.18:25-34, Lk.7:42, 12:51 of debt; in Mt.11:21, Mk.12;17, Lk.20:25, Rom.13:7 of taxes; in Lk. 10:35 for service rendered, and in Mt.21:41 as rent for agricultural land.  None of these refer to anything that Jesus did.

Piprasko, and its earlier form pernemi, (L/S: the sale of slaves, to export captives for sale,to sell for a bribe; much later used also of merchandise;  passive: to be betrayed or ruined), occurs only 9x.  Once it describes the sale of a debtor (Mt.18:25), twice of real estate (Ac.4:34, 5:4), twice of other belongings (Mt. 13:46, Ac.2:45), 3x of perfume (Mt.26:9, Mk.14:5, Jn.12:5), and once (Rom.7:14) of Paul’s lament of being “sold under sin (KJV)” – pempramenos hupo hamartian would be better translated “sold (into slavery) by sin [shortcomings, failures]”. Hupo is often used of agency.  Otherwise, there is no hint of who or what did the selling;  the participle is passive.  Particularly in Romans, Paul tends to “personify” the idea of “sin / failure / shortcoming”.

Poleo, (L/S: to sell or offer for sale, to carry on business or trade, to give up or betray, to farm-out or let-out taxes, offices, or priesthoods) appears 21 times, and applies consistently to ordinary – or underhanded – commerce.

I believe, therefore, that this preponderance of evidence demands that a serious student reconsider the choice of words in the translation of the few isolated instances where, mis-using three different words, the inventors of “doctrine” have contrived “proofs” of Jesus having “bought” individuals as from a slave-market.  (Do you really think he would have patronized a “store” run by his arch-enemy?!!)
It is necessary to recognize instead that the citizens of his Kingdom have been set free to serve the Lord, not by some sort of contrived commercial transaction (worldly or other-worldly), but by the executive order of the King of Kings!
Thanks be to God!

The term “myth” has been seriously misunderstood, and consequently misinterpreted, in Christian circles along the entire “conservative-liberal” spectrum. Some folks find its application to Biblical study highly offensive, assuming the word to be derogatory; others totally fail to see why there should be any problem with it, since they neither make that assumption nor are particularly bothered with it.

Historical scholars made a grave error when they labeled their research of both Old Testament and New Testament archeology as “de-mythologizing” the Biblical narratives without explaining their definition of the word. Giving these folks all possible benefit of any doubt, I suspect that at least some of them did not intend to cast aspersion upon the factual accuracy of those records, but rather to place them carefully in their historical context. I am equally certain that others, some of whom I have encountered personally, did have much more destructive intent. The furor which arose as a result, however, probably was caused primarily by a failure to understand that the vocabulary of the disciplines of anthropology and archeology is descriptive, and not necessarily derogatory.
To the cultural anthropologist, “myth” simply denotes the narrative, either historical or fanciful or some combination thereof, upon which the members of a specific cultural group base their self-understanding, their mores, and their very existence as a people. Their use of the word “myth” itself, makes no judgment as to the historical veracity of the events to which the “myth” refers.
It is the function of the narrative that is in view: whether it describes the emergence of humankind from a hole in the ground or the world on the back of a giant sea turtle, the glorification (and sanitization of the behavior) of the “founding fathers” of the U.S., the antics of assorted pagan deities, or the treasured narratives of the Christian (or any other) faith tradition. ALL are “myths”, in the anthropological sense, since their function is to define the society in question, with total disregard to the opinions of scientists, pseudo-scientists, historians, or anyone else.

This is in harmony with the oldest definitions of muthos listed by L/S: Homer used it of “any public word or speech; a fact, threat, or command; counsel or advice; reasoning, saying, or rumor”. Only much later did muthos morph from the sense of “a tale, story, or narrative” into “fiction: the opposite of historic truth, which is represented by logos; legend, myth; the (literary) plot of a comedy or tragedy.” By the first century, the sense of “fiction” had become predominant.

The five uses of muthos in the New Testament clearly intend the latter sense. It appears in I Tim.1:4, 4:7; II Tim.4:4, Titus 1:14, and II Pet.1:16, always in a negative light. It does not occur at all in the LXX.
Interestingly, in his letter to Titus, Paul warns specifically against “Jewish fables [myths],” connecting them with people’s man-made regulations, and “turning away from the truth”. Folks who have been encouraged to supplement their understanding of New Testament teaching with the fanciful conjectures of earlier and contemporary Jewish writers would do well to heed this warning.
Peter is even more specific, as he emphasizes to his readers that the burden of his teaching about “the power and presence of the Lord Jesus” was NOT based upon “cleverly-devised myths”, but rather upon his own personal experience! Peter often did lean toward the practical, as he sought to understand and to follow the Lord. And the sharing of actual experience was always – and is still – the most valid “evangelism!”
Paul seems to have discerned that Timothy was facing similar dangers. In I Tim.1:4, he connects “myths [fables]” with “interminable genealogies”, the preoccupation with which threatened to distract people from simple obedience to the truth. There are still groups that want to check a person’s “pedigree” before accepting the veracity of his commitment. (I have been their victim!)

In I Tim.4:7, “bebelous (L/S: irreligious, scornful, profane) and graodeis (a derogatory term for old women) muthous” most likely refers to any notions that would interfere with the immediately following advice: “Discipline yourself toward godliness!”

Paul’s second letter to  Timothy (4:4) describes people who simply avoid or ignore the truth, in favor of muthous ektropesontai – “turning aside to myths.” Might this apply to folks who feel a need to obsess over figuring out elaborate explanations for every un-answered question? Speculation can be so much easier and more entertaining than simple obedience!

So yes: it it absolutely clear that “myths” – in the literary sense – can present a grave danger to faithfulness. We need to take the apostles’ warning quite seriously.
But let us also avoid getting hung-up on the technical vocabulary of a scholarly discipline from which we could gain valuable historical insight. Evaluate the effects of their “discoveries”, rather than rejecting them out-of-hand because of the terminology they choose. (And if you are an historian, please find or invent a less-threatening word!)

To all the faithful, be sure to choose carefully which will be the “myths” (in the anthropological sense) that will inform and govern your life, behavior, and indeed, your very being!