The Pioneers’ New Testament

I’m not sure what the folks who asked for a study of these terms were expecting. If they wanted something high-flown, mystical, or “super-spiritual”, they asked the wrong person: for these are very plain, down-to-earth words, and flights of fancy are not my specialty.
Although two of the three Greek words, peinao and dipsao, are occasionally used metaphorically of intense desire, craving or longing, the vast majority are purely physical references. The third, limos, without exception, describes scarcity of harvest, or famine related to drought – not a rare occurrence in the ancient (or modern) middle east – and the associated hardship and even starvation (Mt.24:7, Mk.13:8, Lk.4:25, 15:14, 17; 21:11; Ac.7:11, 11:28; Rom.8:35, II Cor.11:27, Rv.6:8, 18:8)
Of the 7 incidents (14 references) where “hunger” and “thirst” appear together, only one (II Cor.11:27) uses limos; and of the rest, only two (Mt.5:6 and Rv.7:16) admit the possibility of metaphorical interpretation.

Peinao, the more frequent word for “hunger”, usually refers to one’s physical need for food. After a lengthy fast, Jesus was hungry (Mt.4:2, Lk.4:2). Pursued by Saul’s army, David and his companions were hungry (Mt.12:3, Mk.2:25, Lk.6:3-11). However, the need described is not always urgent. Jesus and his disciples on the way to Jerusalem (they probably left before breakfast!) were looking for a snack (Mt.21:18, Mk.11:12). Walking through the grain field, the disciples got the “munchies” and helped themselves – which, according to Mosaic law, would have been perfectly ok on any other day.

Paul comments (I Cor.4:11, Phil.4:12) on his own experience of uncertain support during his travels, and reminds folks of their cultural obligation to provide necessities even for enemies (Rom.12:20). On a more domestic note, he criticizes selfish behavior at the “church potluck” (I Cor.11:21, 34).

Jesus’ judgment parable (Mt.25 and Lk.6) is a commendation of folks providing for the needs of others, and a critique of those who did not do so. Usually the issue of urgency is not addressed.
Luke’s version of the Sermon on the Mount (Lk.6:21,25) confines the “beatitude” comment to physical hunger, in contrast to Mt.5:6.
Matthew’s insertion of “for justice [righteousness]” provides a transition to the four instances where peinao may have been used in a more metaphorical sense. These include Lk.1:53, where Mary declares, “He has filled the hungry with good things” – which certainly would have included, but not been confined to food; Jesus’ own statement in Jn.6:35, “He that comes to me shall never hunger” – which in the light of Paul’s experience noted above, probably requires metaphorical interpretation; and his triumphant declaration in Rv.7:16 of the eventual vindication of the martyrs surely reaches beyond the physical realm.
I suspect that it is this latter group of references that Paul had in mind when he wrote his “thank-you note” to the Philippian church for their support. For an accurate understanding of his intent, it is necessary to begin with Phil.4:11, rather than glibly and arrogantly trumpeting the much-misquoted v.13. Expressing gratitude for their concern, Paul also testifies, “I have learned to get along in any condition. I know how to be hard-up and how to handle plenty. I’ve been fully initiated, to be well-fed and to be hungry, to have plenty or to be in need. I have strength for every situation, in the One who enables me.”

Passages involving “thirst” contain a bit more ambiguity. Actually, the only ones referencing purely physical need of water are Rom.12:20, I Cor.4:11, the Mt.25 discussions already cited, and John’s account of Jesus’ word from the cross (19:28). John does not elaborate on the latter statement, as mystically inclined individuals are wont to do. Extreme thirst would not seem strange under the circumstances.
Jesus’ conversation with the Samaritan woman at Jacob’s well (Jn.4:13-15) thoroughly blurs the line between literal and figurative reference, as do his comments in Jn.6:35, 7:37, and Rev.7:16, 21:6, and 22:17. Even the immediate audiences did not always understand, so it’s small wonder if we don’t.
The woman in Samaria initially grasped at the prospect of no longer needing to make her lonely mid-day trek for water (v.15), and only after more conversation realized that this was the promised “Anointed One” with whom she was speaking, even though Jesus had explained that his “water” was different: life-giving, and abundant enough to be shared (13,14).
The focus in Jn.6:32-35 places more emphasis on the provision of bread, and includes “never being thirsty” almost as an afterthought.
Jn.7:37-39 clearly connects the “living water” with the gift of the Holy Spirit,which is also intended to “flow out”, and not to be hoarded for one’s private benefit.

In order to appreciate the metaphorical uses of “hunger” and “thirst”, it is necessary to remember that the setting of all this activity and conversation is in a desert culture. “Thirst” in the desert does not simply imply discomfort. One’s very survival is in question. Like “hunger” in a land where famine mercilessly stalks its victims, “thirst” is also a matter of dire necessity, and culturally, water, like shelter, is not to be denied, even to one’s enemy.

It is this sense of urgency which, I believe, Jesus intends to convey in that first “beatitude” regarding one’s longing for justice/righteousness. Remember (#3) that this is the same word, and not two different ideas! Mt.5:6 is the only reference where any object of the “hunger” or “thirst” is overtly specified. There is probably a reason – do you have any idea what it might be? (I don’t!)

But there is no ambiguity whatever in the Lord’s gracious offer.
In the desert, water is life. In this world and the next, both physically and figuratively, it is his gift to his people.
“They will no longer be hungry or thirsty; neither will the sun fall on them, nor any burning The Lamb in the midst of the throne will shepherd them, and he will be their guide to wells of living water.” (Rv.7:16,17).
“I will give to the thirsty from the spring of living water [water of life].” (Rv.21:6)

“The one who is thirsty must come – whoever wishes – he must take the living water as a gift!” (Rv.22:17).

Thanks be to God!

Although this is another word that does not appear at all in the New Testament, its ubiquity in today’s “Christian” discussions makes it a topic that needs attention. The early church was a case study in the inclusion of “Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female” in the Kingdom, and indeed, into the very family of the King. Interestingly, however, this was (laboriously) accomplished without either succumbing to the immoral excesses of first century Greek and Roman culture, or imposing rigid legal requirements upon participants, and certainly without robbing the language of all pronouns and making a meaningless muddle of its grammar!

We saw in #171 that some folks consider the Magi to have been the first “outsiders” to be included in the Kingdom. However, Jesus mentioned two others in his “inaugural address” (Lk.4:24-27), and personally visited, healed, and preached not only in “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Mt.4:16) – which was bad enough from an orthodox perspective (Jn.1:46) – but also in despised Samaria (Lk.9:52-56, 17:11-16; Jn.4) and made a Samaritan the hero of a major parable (Lk.10:30-37)! He frequently crossed the Sea of Galilee to the Decapolis (Mt.4:25, Mk.7:31), which was Gentile territory (Mk.5:1, Lk.8:26), and Perea (Mt.8:28), where the feeding of pigs clearly establishes a non-Jewish audience, and also traveled to the Idumean cities of Tyre and Sidon (Mk.3:8, Mt.15:21, Mk.7:24) and to Canaanite Caesarea Philippi, which Matthew cites as the location of Peter’s acknowledgment of Jesus as the Son of God, and his transfiguration. Mark lists “Simon the Canaanite” among the Twelve (other writers call him “the Zealot”), and also notes that the “Simon” who was drafted to carry Jesus’ cross was from Cyrene, a Libyan city in North Africa!

Most of the folks listed as visitors to Jerusalem at Pentecost were probably either Diaspora Jews or proselytes, but the geographical range they represented (Ac.2:8-11) was enormous – all the way from Rome, through the province of Asia – now Turkey – (Cappadocia, Pontus, Phrygia, Pamphylia), Parthia (Persia), Media, and Mesopotamia to Egypt, then across to Crete, Cyrene, and the Arabian peninsula! All of these marvelled that they heard the word in their own native dialects!
When Peter, in his first sermon, included “all who are far away” in his invitation (Ac.2:39), he had no clue just how far that might be!

There were Greeks in the group early on, and Greek names appear among the deacons (Ac.6).
Philip had gone to Samaria to preach(Ac.8), and then welcomed an Ethiopian.
Saul the persecutor was headed to Damascus (Syria), and was chasing – and later protected by – believers there (Ac.9).
Peter encountered Aeneas (a Roman name) (Ac.9:33), and was staying with a tanner (9:42) – NO good Jew would associate with someone who handled dead animals!) when Cornelius’ messengers found him (Ac.10).
The congregation at Antioch was begun by brethren from Cyprus and Cyrene who (Ac.11:19-20) “spoke the word to Greeks also.”
All this activity was bound to make waves among those who clung to the traditional ways of old covenant exclusivity. And it did.

The Jerusalem Conference (Ac.15) is a classic example of a faithfully managed confrontation on the issue of “inclusion”. Please refer to the end of chapter 8 of Citizens of the Kingdom for a discussion of this meeting. Notable for our purpose here is the procedure:
(1) hearing the concerns of all sides (v.4)
(2) evaluation by (v.6) both the plural leadership (elders) and (v.12) “the whole assembly.”
(3) reference to Scriptural precedent (vv.15-18)
(4) a conciliatory summary (vv.19-21) , leading to
(5) consensus by “the apostles and elders and the whole church” (v.22).
Notice, please, that neither “side” won. Everybody won!
The strictures of the Old Covenant were not imposed upon Gentile believers, but neither were they “affirmed” and encouraged to continue their former behavior!
Everything related to their “cultural pattern” – idolatry – was to be left behind. All the behaviors listed – idolatry included perverted sexual practices, strangled sacrifices, and consumption of their blood – were flatly forbidden. BUT – the consequent letter was “received with great joy!” (15:31), as was intended.

Repeatedly, Paul and others refer to “turning from idols to serve the living and true God.” Behavior consistent with this “turning” is termed “these necessary things.”
Changed behavior had been the core of the preaching of John the Baptist (see #6).
Every description of the message proclaimed in the early church assumed a radically changed life, whether on the part of Jews or Gentiles.
This is the theme that is missing from so much of the modern “inclusiveness” conversation.,

The epistles, in contrast, are full of “before-and-after” descriptions. Paul characterized his own message (Ac.26:20) as advocating (1) a changed life, (2) turning to God, (3) practicing deeds worthy of a changed life. But he prescribed no new Law!
Notice, for example, that the weeding out of sorcery at Ephesus (Ac.19:19) happened at the local people’s own initiative – it was not externally commanded.
The “wall” between Jew and Gentile was demolished and enmity / hostility destroyed (Eph.2:11-22) “to create in him (Jesus) one new person (2:15)”, not by ecclesiastical decree, but by the power of the risen Lord!

Although the epistles were primarily written to churches with a significant Gentile component, the “before and after” descriptions of transformed lives apply to everyone. Paul describes “the habitual way of life when you lived according to the agenda of this world” (Eph.2:1) simply as having been “dead.” But he notes (v.3) “we all used to conduct our lives that way!” Notice the past tenses! This is also detailed in I Cor.5 and 6, Col.1:21 and most of chapter 3, where he urges that “former behavior be put to death, and a new way of life be “put on” as a garment.
It is important to note that in the same passages frequently (and correctly) quoted in opposition to various forms of sexual immorality, he also equates “greed” with idolatry! (Eph.5:5 and Col.3:5). Neither is a legitimate part of a transformed life! Nor are the other “respectable sins” listed. Deliberate change in ALL the patterns of life is expected. See also I Pet.1:14 and Rom.12:2.  The goal is maximum conformity to Christ, not doing the minimum necessary to “qualify”!

Paul takes care to establish that he is not out to establish a new law in place of the old one. Kingdom people are called to freedom (Gal.2, 4:5-7, 5:13; Col.2:13-23, I Pet.2;16), but not to “do their own thing”. We simply serve a new Master. Romans 3 makes abundantly clear the transformation that is required of everyone – regardless of background or pedigree. The unacceptability of following one’s “natural inclinations” is repeated in Rom.6:15-23, 7:5-6, 8:1-11, and 13:14. All of these are to be left behind, in favor of a new life. (Gal.5:15-26, Eph.4, I Thes.4:3-8, I Pet.1:18 and 4:3-4). Peter’s list of “old ways” to be avoided hits us all!

Admittedly, this teaching is not uniform, either today or in the first century. Hence the multitude of warnings about false teachers and false prophets (I Jn.4:1, Jude 4, II Pet.2:1-3), who can be readily recognized by their behavior. It is interesting that Peter has “luxurious living” at the top of his list of depravity! BEHAVIOR MATTERS! Not as a new legalism, but as a demonstration that life has been transformed! It is the purpose, not the admission ticket or the cause, of our identification with the Kingdom (see #39) (Rom.1:5, Eph2:9-10, Gal.6:8).

The old truism, “what you cultivate is what grows”, is appropriate here.
Such cultivation can only happen in the context of a seeking, sharing brotherhood, where learning new ways of living is assumed. Mutuality is mandatory – not to make excuses, but to avoid them!
II Cor.6:14-18 is usually associated with marriage – and appropriately so – but needs also to apply to the building of the Body of Christ, and pretty much any relationships of serious members.
As our dear (late) brother Vernard Eller observed dryly, “We need to make everyone welcome in our home, to be loved, and to experience how we live – but you don’t immediately let everyone rearrange the furniture and start throwing things out!” I have long considered that probably the best summary of Rom.14, I Cor.5,8,10; and I Thes.5:14-22.

“Let’s concentrate on prodding each other with [toward] love and good deeds” (Heb.10:24), and welcome folks of any and every variety who want to join a mutual effort to become faithful representatives of the Kingdom!

It would be convenient if the words translated “offend” or “offense” could be neatly sorted into categories, as so many others can. In this case, unfortunately, only the context can give us a clue as to whether a particular verb reference is to causing offense, taking offense, or committing some sort of offense; or whether the noun form refers to actual deliberate transgression, ignorant error, or merely a petulant complaint. Consequently, pontificating on this subject is even less acceptable than usual!

The lexicons do not offer a lot of help. Please refer to studies #7 and #141 for the distinction between the two words usually ambiguously rendered “sin”, hamartia and paraptoma, which are both (rarely) translated “offense”.
As for the rest, proskomma (L/S: “offense, obstacle, hindrance; the result of stumbling – bruise or hurt”, to which Bauer and Thayer add “”the opportunity to take offense” and “causing someone to act against his conscience”) appears only six times in the New Testament: Romans 14:20 regarding one’s choice of diet, Rom.9:32-33 and I Pet.2:8 “a stumbling stone”, and warnings in Rom.14:13 and I Cor.8:9 about placing a “stumbling block” in the path of a brother.
Proskope (L/S – “offense taken, antipathy, cause of offense”, to which both other lexicographers agree) occurs only once – II Cor.6:3 – an admonition to “give no offense in anything.”
Aproskopos, a similar noun with a negative prefix, is not listed in any of the three lexicons. It is translated with some variant of “without offense” in its only three appearances: Ac.24:16, I Cor.10:32, and Phil.1:10.
Skandalon, appearing 13 times, is the most interesting etymologically. It is derived from a related word describing “a stick in a trap to which bait is attached, which acts as a trigger.” (L/S – a trap or snare laid for an enemy or a hunted animal; hence, metaphorically, a stumbling block, offense, or scandal.” Bauer picks up the same theme, offering “trap, temptation, enticement; that which gives offense, causes revulsion, arouses opposition or disapproval.” Thayer adds “any person or thing by which someone is entrapped or drawn into error.” Jesus (Mt.16:23,18:7; Lk.17:1), Paul (Rom.9:33, 14:13, 16:17), and John (I Jn.2:10, Rv.2:14) all warn against causing “offenses”. However, we also find recognition that some people will find truth itself, or actual facts, to be offensive (Rom.9:33, 11:9, I Cor.1:23, Gal.5:11).

The verbs are somewhat more easily sorted.
Ptaio – L/S – “to cause to stumble or fall, to trip, to make a false step or blunder”; Bauer – “to be ruined or lost” – only appears five times in the New Testament, used three times by James (2:10 and twice in 3:2) regarding struggles to keep the law, and twice by Paul (Rom.11:11) regarding the failures of Israel. Interestingly, in the LXX, 12 of its 13 uses refer to defeat in battle. The other warns against idolatry.
Proskopto – L/S – “to strike one thing against another, to encounter friction, to offend or take offense” – occurs seven times: in the temptation account, as the devil quotes Psalm 91 (Mt.4:6 and Lk.4:11), twice (Jn.11:9-10) in a purely physical sense (you don’t stumble if you can see where you are going!), and three times (Rom.9:32, 14:21; I Pet.2:8) metaphorically. The Rom.14 reference is to the causing of harm to a brother, but the other two describe the result of disobedience. In the LXX, it primarily describes the chaos of ungodly society.
Skandalizo dominates the verbs as its equivalent does the nouns, used 29x. L/S offers simply “to cause to stumble, to give offense”; Bauer – “to cause to be caught or to fall, to give offense, anger, or shock”; Thayer – to place an impediment, to cause one to judge unfavorably of another, to make indignant.” The verb does not appear in the LXX, where the noun is usually connected with idolatry. It appears in widely varying New Testament contexts, in which it also precipitates very different responses. For example, when the disciples asked Jesus, “Do you know that the Pharisees were offended?” (Mt.15:12) at his pronouncement that one’s dietary choices could not render a person “unclean”, he seems rather unconcerned, replying “Let them go! They are blind guides of the blind!”. But a short time later, (17:27), when questioned about the payment of a tax, he instructed Peter to pay it, “in order that we not offend them.” Clearly, the choice of response to “offense” requires careful discernment.
Jesus also warned against “offending [causing the fall] of one of these little ones who trust me” (Mt.1:6, Mk.9:42, Lk.17:2), but recognized that many would be offended [turned away] in the face of danger or persecution (Mt.13:21, Mk.4:17; Mt.24:10, 26:31-33; Mk.14:27-29). This latter group appears to reference a departure from faithfulness, rather than just “being upset”. I assume that this is also the case with the rather startling (and drastic) instructions in Mt.5:29-30, 18:8-9, and Mk.4:43-47, although there is no way to establish that impression unequivocally. The concept of a trap or snare (noted above) however, tends toward the likelihood of such an implication.

Here, as well as in the epistles (Rom.14:21, I Cor.8:13, II Cor.11:29), it is not always clear whether the warning is against setting a trap or being caught in one. This may be deliberate. The danger of a trap is not dependent upon whether it is intentionally or unintentionally set. Likewise, “giving” or “taking” offense are not always distinguished. In either case, both are to be avoided. We will give more careful attention to this dilemma in the next study.

In his directives to the culturally diverse churches in Rome and Corinth, Paul employs most of these terms, sometimes seemingly at random, so perhaps those letters provide the best summary.
In Rom.5:15-20, he uses paraptoma, and does not appear to distinguish between ignorance and deliberate transgression. He insists that the Law revealed, but did not create transgressions. Rom.11, on the other hand, may be a response to Gentile brethren who were getting a bit cocky about their perception of having replaced unbelieving Jews, with the assertion that the latter group’s “fall” was not necessarily permanent “IF they do not continue in unfaithfulness” (v.23). Do note, however, the conditional nature of that statement! Rom.14, dealing with brethren who have differing convictions about appropriate behavior, focuses on those who “have knowledge”. These are reminded neither to pass judgment on folks who have more scruples, nor to cause harm to their sensitive consciences. Notice, he does NOT say “Anything goes.” Similar advice is given in I Cor.8 and 10, which we will also examine in greater detail in the next study.

A necessary observation here, however, is that while in the LXX, the preponderance of references to any of the “offense” words concern behavior deemed offensive to God (proskomma), idolatry and dishonor (skandalon), deliberate offenses (paraptoma ), and defeats in battle ( ptaio), the New Testament, regardless of the word chosen, is primarily concerned with people’s relationship to each other in the Kingdom, and their response to the uniqueness of Jesus and the life he advocated and exemplified. Which “testament” or “covenant” is the present church living in?
Brother Paul suggests the most relevant principle (I Cor.10:32):
“Do not become a hindrance for either Jews or Greeks, or for God’s church!”

That’s enough to keep us all busy!

Lest I leave you with the impression that the previous study intends a dismissal of the significance of John the Baptist’s contribution to the Kingdom, let me hasten to append to that essay a quick survey of Jesus’ own evaluation of his cousin’s ministry. Please refer to the treatment of their relationship in #171 as well as #174, as supplements to the present document.
It may well be that, rather than diminishing his contribution, Jesus has suggested that John actually occupies a (if not “the”) significant turning-point of history!

Consider, for example, Jesus’ statement, recorded in both Matt.11:12-13 and Lk.16:6, that the Law and the Prophets were (in effect) “until John”, to which Luke added the contrasting “since then, the Kingdom of God is (present tense) being proclaimed!”
This meshes seamlessly with Mark’s statement (1:14) that after John’s arrest, Jesus appeared publicly announcing, “The time has been fulfilled : the Kingdom of God has arrived!” (both perfect tenses.)

If that time-line causes a problem for “flat-book” advocates who tirelessly trumpet only the first part of Jesus’ statement in Mt.5:17-18 that he did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, and that no part of either would “pass away”, please remind them not to forget his last phrase: “until it all happens [is fulfilled]! (See Mk.1:14 above.)
In his inaugural address (Lk.4:21), Jesus used the same theme: “Today the scripture has been fulfilled”, and as he headed for Jerusalem for the final time with his disciple group, it was with the blunt statement (Lk.18:31), “Look: we are going up into Jerusalem, and everything that has been written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be completed [fulfilled]!”

While it is certainly true that Jesus himself spoke of events that have yet to occur, he could not have been clearer in his declaration that he had personally fulfilled all that had been written before, and so long and so eagerly anticipated! The failure of those to whom he had been promised to welcome him as that fulfillment cannot negate its reality. And it was to those who did welcome him (Jn.1:12) that he gave the right “to become the children of God”. Notice, please, that Jesus did NOT apply that designation to “all people”, as is common in some modern circles.

John records several other discussions where Jesus used similar themes:
Jn.5:46-47: the matter-of-fact statement, “IF you were faithful to Moses, you would be faithful to me.”
Jn.6:30-35: making both a parallel and a distinction between the provision of manna in the desert and himself as the Bread of Life
Jn.7:19-24: critiquing advocates of the law who refuse to observe or obey it
Jn.8:37-45: emphasizing that behavior trumps pedigree in establishing one’s status before God.

A fuller examination of Matthew 11 yields interesting insight regarding Jesus and John. We are not told by any of the gospel writers how long John’s ministry had lasted before his “speaking truth to power” landed him in Herod’s dungeon. However, we can hardly blame him for his questions: that was rather shabby treatment for the “herald” of the long-awaited Messiah, and most likely NOT what John had expected as a result of his faithfulness! So he sent messengers to Jesus: “Is this for real? Or have I missed something?” A perfectly normal question.
Jesus’ answer is a catalog of evidence, which was apparently convincing to the messengers.

And then Jesus addressed the crowd about John’s work. No, this was not just a weirdo staging a demonstration in the desert. He was “more than a prophet” – he was indeed the promised “preparer of the road”. In fact, there was never anyone greater “born of women”! (v.11). The rest of that statement is puzzling, though. Despite his faithfulness, does John’s questioning under duress disqualify him from the Kingdom? I think, rather, that Jesus is again emphasizing the transition to whole new reality – a new creation!
Notice that John himself is not criticized: his fickle audiences are (v.12).
Violent people are assailing the Kingdom – perhaps trying to tailor it to their own expectations? – ever “since John.”
This is the context of the aforementioned statement (v.13) that “the law and prophets were until John.
Those who should know better are acting like squabbling children (16-18).
Cities who should have welcomed their King are compared unfavorably with ancient bastions of debauchery (20-24).

The latter part of the chapter (25-30), although it seems at first glance to be disconnected, actually provides a succinct summary of the new reality: there has been a massive paradigm shift!
“The wise and clever” (25) , although they have spent generations studying the old ways, simply have it all wrong.
In establishing his promised Kingdom, Jesus has done a new thing! This “new thing” is only accessible by revelation (25-27), and by careful training (29) in the yoke with the only One who knows the Father, understands the situation, and knows how it is supposed to operate! (Please see #77)

Our brother Jim suggested the perfect illustration, in a recent message, pointing out the significance of the sequence of events on the Mount of Transfiguration. The awe-struck disciples listen in on the conversation as Moses (representing the Law) and Elijah (representing the prophets) discuss with Jesus his coming departure, which he was about to “accomplish” (Lk.9:31) in Jerusalem. (see #191). Peter’s suggestion would have had plenty of precedent under the old system: the Old Testament is replete with examples of memorials being built in response to divine encounters. But after the voice of God out of the cloud identifies his Son, and instructs the frightened disciples to “Listen to him!”, they can see no one but Jesus! Having served their former purpose, the former spokesmen are gone!

“The Law and the prophets were (in effect) until John.
Since then, the Kingdom of God is being proclaimed!”
In the presence of the Son of God, the only appropriate response is to listen / obey.

This is an outgrowth of the discovery, while working on the Epiphany study (#171), that the marked difference between the baptism preached and administered by John “the Baptist”, and the later practice of baptism as a symbol of commitment to Jesus and his Kingdom, has seldom been addressed. It is this latter category on which the study in chapter 10 of Citizens of the Kingdom is focused (to which you may wish to refer). Here, we will attempt to explore the contrast between the two approaches.
John himself took great care to point out the difference: all four gospels (Mt.3:11-16, Mk.1:4-9, Lk.3:7-21, Jn.1:25-33) record his identification of his own role as “preparing the way”, in conformity with Isaiah’s prophecy, for the coming of the Lord. His messages did contain elements that were later incorporated in Kingdom teaching: the choosing of a completely re-directed life (see “repent” #6) which has clearly observable results (Lk.3:10-14); the announcement of the arrival of the Kingdom (note the perfect tense of eggiken – #164 – it is NOT future!); the irrelevance of the prevailing hierarchy (Mt.3:7-10 and Lk.7:29); and the absolute superiority of both Jesus and the Spirit-baptism that he would administer (Mt.3:11, Mk.1:8, Lk.3:16, Jn.1:26 – footnote).

John correctly described his function as a fore-runner (Jn.3:28), accepting the assignment announced to his father before his birth (Lk.1:17) “to get a prepared people ready for the Lord!” This is a concept that has been obscured much too frequently by the serious misunderstanding of “repentance” (#6) and “forgiveness” (#7), which too commonly are cast (incorrectly) in the guise of a legal “pardon” issued in spite of guilt, instead of the more linguistically correct message of “the taking away [removal] of shortcomings, failures, and transgressions.”

(Are you aware that even in the traditional KJV, the word “pardon” does not exist anywhere in the New Testament? It is included in neither John’s nor Jesus’ messages, baptisms, nor anywhere else!)

The intent of John’s baptism is further attested by the use of the preposition eis in a purpose construction – eis metanoian – “into [for the purpose of] a changed life [repentance]” (Mt.3:11), and Luke’s record of his response to those who asked what shall we DO?” (Lk.3:10-14).
John also bore testimony to his own purpose being “that he (Jesus) be revealed to Israel” (Jn.1:31) as the Son of God.

There appears to have been a brief period during which both men were “baptizing disciples” (Jn.3:22-4:2), during which John quickly disabused his followers of the notion that they were competing (3:26-28). It seems that the practice of baptism implied identification with one’s teacher, an idea also referenced by Paul in I Cor.1. But John (whether the preacher or the author is not clear) also associated it with a more far-reaching acceptance of Jesus’ sovereignty (3:31-36). This may be the first New Testament evidence of the concept of a personal commitment. He also notes that Jesus himself was not the one doing the baptizing (4:1-2) at that time.
Luke notes (7:29) that Jesus overtly connected people’s attitudes toward John’s baptism to their perception and acceptance of God’s purposes, so it should certainly never be disparaged.

Jesus himself actually said very little about baptism. He made reference to “the baptism of John” (Mt.21:25, Mk.11:30, Lk.20:4) when he put the Pharisees on the defensive after they questioned his own authority.
He used the term in reference to his own approaching suffering and death (Mt.20:22,23; Mk.10:38-39) when responding to James and John’s attempted “status-grab” as well as simply describing his own prospective demise (Lk.12:50). It is not clear whether or not this is the same incident.
The only other mention of baptism by Jesus is in his final instructions to the disciples after his resurrection (Mt.28:19, Mk.16:16, Ac.1:5). Here, it is associated with (1) making disciples, (2) teaching new recruits the principles of Kingdom living, and (3) the results of the gift of the Holy Spirit, which John had predicted at the beginning.

After Pentecost, there is a marked shift in the accounts of baptism. They vary in the order ascribed to the various elements. Although Peter’s first sermon (Ac.2:38-41) still connects it with “repentance” and “the taking away of shortcomings” (in this case, their ignorance of who Jesus really was/is), he immediately included the gift of the Holy Spirit. Even more significantly, the following account (Ac.2:42-47) describes the vibrant community thereby created – the first such description – clearly a part of the “new creation” now in process.
Philip’s sojourn in Samaria included the baptism of those who chose to identify with his “preaching the Kingdom of God (Ac.8:12) and the name of Jesus”. Nothing is said about “repentance” there, and the gift of the Holy Spirit came later, mediated by other apostles.
In Philip’s subsequent encounter with the Ethiopian eunuch (vv.26-40), that brother was baptized at his own request, upon learning of Jesus, with again, no mention of repentance. Some manuscripts include a note that “the Holy Spirit fell upon him” and others omit that phrase.
The two events are overtly connected in the account of Ananias and Saul (Ac.9:17-18) and also Peter and Cornelius (Ac.10:44-47), although the order is reversed in the latter case, since it took the intervention of the Holy Spirit to convince Peter that it was even OK to offer baptism to believing Gentiles (11:16).
In Philippi, neither the account of Lydia’s family (16:15) nor of the jailer’s household (16:33) mentions either “repentance” or “the Holy Spirit”, nor does that of Crispus’ household in Corinth (18:8).
However, the saga of Apollos (Ac.18:24-19:7) and the folks at Ephesus whom he had recruited while “knowing only the baptism of John” makes it clear that both Priscilla and Aquila and later Paul, recognized that John’s “baptism of repentance” was insufficient alone. Far too many people and groups even today are “parked” with those partially-taught folks in Ephesus! Remedying that lack, their identification with Jesus, and baptism “into (eis) the name [identity: see #24] of Jesus” were followed (v.5-6) by the manifestations of the Holy Spirit so necessary to the propagation of his Kingdom.

Clearly, as the message spread and the Kingdom continued to grow, people’s understanding of the implications of baptism also matured.
Twice (Rom.6:3-11 and Col.2:12) Paul represents it as symbolic of sharing in Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, emphasizing a total break from one’s prior existence and a complete transformation of life.
To the Galatians, he spoke of being “clothed with Christ.” (Gal.3:27)
In I Cor.12 and Eph.4:5, he relates it to being joined with other disciples by baptism into the mutuality of one Body.
The theme of loyalty and identification also appears in Paul’s protest against factionalism (I Cor.1), even to the point of thankfulness that he did little baptizing among them, lest their loyalty be to him rather than to Jesus.
The identification of ancient Israel with Moses (I Cor.10:2) and Peter’s parallel with the folks rescued on Noah’s ark (I Pet.3:21) are clarified by Peter’s assertion that the act of baptism itself conveys no particular power, but simply expresses one’s chosen adherence to God.

Perhaps the most useful summary is facilitated by observing the objects of that little (but powerful) preposition “eis”. John preached a baptism eis metanoian – “into a changed life [repentance]” and eis ton erchomenon pisteuosin – “toward becoming faithful to the coming one.”

Baptism eis to onoma iesou – “into the name [identity] of Jesus,” eis ton thanaton – “into his death (and resurrection!), and eis hen soma – “into one Body”, on the other hand, provides the entrance into the very life of Jesus, of which the Spirit (#52 and 53) is the essential breath.

There IS a difference!

Here is another word that is frequently used in contemporary Christian circles in ways that bear no resemblance whatever to its New Testament antecedents. This study should be undertaken in tandem with a review of #32, “Holy”, because the Greek word for which “sanctuary” is the traditional translation, is simply the neuter form, hagion, of the adjective hagios, upon which that essay was based. The masculine and feminine forms refer to people, and the neuter to places or things. However, hagion is never used of the gathering place of the faithful – or of anyone else. That designation belongs to the word “synagogue”.

Hagion, translated four times as “sanctuary” and three times as “holy place”, appears only in the letter to the Hebrews (8:2, 9:1, 9:2, 9:12, 9:24, 9:25, 13:11), and refers exclusively to that portion of the Old Covenant’s tabernacle or temple area which could only be entered once a year, and then only by the high priest! There is absolutely no precedent for applying such a “reverential” designation to the principal assembly room of any “house of worship.”

Neither is there any New Testament application of the word to any person or group, regardless of its appearance in a number of saccharine choruses commonly designated “praise songs”. I am sure the folks who created them, and who repeat them interminably, all mean well – but they simply have never put forth the effort to understand what they are saying! Waxing sentimental about a few statements of God’s promises to “dwell” in / with / among his people (Rom.8:11, II Cor.6:16, II Tim.1:14) – an entirely different word and concept (See #82) – they substitute the idea of a place where only a high priest was allowed to go??? Come on, folks! That just doesn’t fit!!!

More commendable, but still linguistically in error, is the occasionally popular idea of a place of worship as a “sanctuary” or a location of safety and refuge for society’s “victims du jour” – whether the conscientious objector of the Vietnam era or the undocumented immigrant of the early 21^st century . Patterned, I suppose, after the “cities of refuge” provided by the Old Testament law (Num.35), the concept is an excellent one, and fully in harmony with New Testament principles of providing shelter for those in need. In fact, I suspect that the primary reason for the absence of such instructions in the New Testament was that the faithful were more likely to need that sort of protection than to be in a position to offer it, (“Refuge” is nowhere to be found in the New Testament text). The idea is good – but “sanctuary” it is not.

By all means, celebrate the living presence of the Lord in and among his people!
Share that celebration with any who need a place of protection, shelter, or care!
But do so with the joyful realization that the idea of a secluded, walled-off “sanctuary” is a relic of the past!
No longer is access restricted to the upper echelons of hierarchy, or the lonely, introspective, self-centered contemplation of mystics.
In Jesus, “the veil is taken away!” – torn to shreds! – in the glory of his triumph!
ALL of his people are not only eligible but welcomed into the courts of our King!

Thanks be to God!

It seems as though every announcement of yet another “world crisis” – of which there has never been a scarcity – invariably gives birth, among the very vocal advocates of a particularly aggressive “evangelical” orientation, to an increasingly urgent campaign which represents “accepting Christ” – which is NOT a New Testament concept – see #133 – as the exclusive route of “escape”, not only from the immediately perceived threat, but from some “eternal” manifestation thereof.

Never having noticed such a theme in the New Testament, I decided to undertake a deliberate search, only part of which could involve actual “word study” (the word “escape” does appear, but in very different contexts), and the rest requiring a careful perusal of the Gospels to discover Jesus’ own methods of “recruiting” or enlisting followers.

“Escape” was traditionally used to translate seven different Greek words, but was used only twice by Jesus himself. Once, Lk.21:36, using ekpheugo, he is encouraging single-minded faithfulness on the part of his disciples, in order to “stand before the Son of Man” after either the destruction of Jerusalem or perhaps his final coming. The distinctions between those events are clear only to people who are trying to “prove” their own pet theories. The other, using pheugo, without prefix, which is Jesus’ only recorded threat of “the judgment of hell”, occurs in his stern critique of the hypocrisy of the Pharisees who were actively opposing his ministry (Mt.23:33). It is never used of the ignorant.

It is quite enlightening, however, to examine the other uses of the various words.
By far the majority are related to the common word, pheugo, and its prefixed variants. According to L/S, the primary use of pheugo is “to flee or take flight, to take refuge, to purpose or endeavor to get away”. In fact, 26 of its 29 occurrences are traditionally translated “flee”. Of these, 18 (Mt.2:13, 8:33, 10:23, 24:16, 26:56; Mk.5:14, 13:14, 14:50, 14:52, 16:8; Lk.8:34, 21:21; Jn.10:5,12,13; Ac.7:29, 27:30; Rv.12:6) refer simply to running away for one’s own physical safety, as does one of the “escape” translations (Heb.11:34).
John the Baptist spoke of “fleeing from the coming wrath” (Mt.3:7, Lk.3:7), but Jesus did not!
Of greater significance are Paul’s admonitions regarding what his readers should “flee from”: I Cor.6:18 – perversions, I Cor.10:14 – idolatry, I Tim.6:11 – “these things” (he has been talking about the pursuit of wealth), and II Tim.2:22 – “youthful passions”.
James (4:7) assures us that even the devil will “flee” from those who resist him.
Peter, in his second letter, uses the prefixed form, apopheugo, (L/S – “to avoid, flee from, escape) in similar advice regarding “the corrupt passions of the world” (1:4), “depraved human passions (2:18), and “the world’s contamination” (2:20).
Diapheugo (L/S – “to escape, get away, survive”) appears only once, regarding prisoners escaping during the shipwreck (Ac.27:2).
Ekpheugo (L/S – “to flee or escape, to be legally acquitted, to escape death, to omit”) refers to Paul’s escape from Damascus (II Cor.11:33), as well as warnings to the faithful not to neglect or be careless about their commitment to following instructions (I Thes.5:3, Heb.2:3), and to exercise caution in judging others (Rom.2:3). In the Revelation, “fleeing away” concerns, not people at all, but “every island” (16:20) and even “heaven/the sky” itself (20:11)!
Diasozo (L/S – “to preserve through danger, to come safely through, to recover from an illness, to preserve, maintain, or keep”) describes safety in a shipwreck (Ac.28:1,4; 27:43,44) or flood (I Pet.3:20), healing (Mt.14:6, Lk.7:3), and the safe transport of a prisoner (Ac.23:24).
Out of a couple hundred uses of exerchomai (literally, “to come out”) traditional translators chose “escape” only in Jn.10:39, of Jesus avoiding arrest.
There are only two uses of a noun form, ekbasis (L/S – “a way out, termination, completion, accomplishment”). I Cor.10:15 promises divine provision in times of stress (traditionally “a way of escape”), although extra-Biblical uses of the word tend more toward successful endurance than avoidance. In Heb.13:7, the same word was traditionally rendered “the end”, where “result” would have been more accurate.

Significantly, except for John the Baptist and the single instance of Jesus with the Pharisees noted above, the use of any of the “escape” words is almost entirely mundane and practical, and neither “spiritual” nor a matter of “destiny”.
And Jesus himself never offered any form of “escape”, either immediate or future, as an incentive for enlistment in his Kingdom. Quite the opposite! He repeatedly emphasized the high cost of faithfulness!

I was interested, and somewhat surprised, to discover that the gospels record very few instances of Jesus actually taking the initiative to invite someone to join his group. The synoptics describe the “calling” of Peter, Andrew, James, John, and Matthew (Levi) with a simple “Follow me!” and the offer to “teach you to fish for people” (with no further explanation – although that lack does not inhibit expansive elaboration by many self-styled “teachers”!)
Interestingly, Luke (5:10) records Peter’s profession of his purported “sinfulness” – which would have surely been pounced-on by modern “evangelists” – being summarily dismissed without comment by the Lord himself, and followed by an invitation to get involved in the work of the Kingdom!
John includes several general invitations: “Come and see!” to Andrew and his companion (1:39), later repeated by Philip to Nathanael (1:46), an offer of water to the thirsty (4:10, 7:37-39), life itself (5:21-29, 40), and true freedom (8:30-36).
There are many more instances recorded of Jesus teaching those who were already following to some degree, than overtly recruiting.
Even more interesting is Jesus’ response to people who, on their own initiative, volunteered to follow him. Mt.8:18-22, Lk.9:57-62, 10:17; Mt.16:21-28 and parallels, and 19:16-22 all focus, not on escape to safety from worldly or other-worldly perils, but on the expectation of homelessness, abuse, persecution, and the necessity of making loyalty to Jesus and his Kingdom one’s absolute priority (Mt.22:1-7, Mk.9:43-48, Lk.9:23), even in the event of the loss of life itself, after the pattern of Jesus own personal expectation.
Jesus never offered anyone a “free one-way ticket to glory”, or a promise of “going to heaven when they die” (see #118 and #119). If you can find any such references, please contribute them.
Notice in the much-quoted interview with Nicodemus (Jn.3) that the discussion is about entering – or seeing – the Kingdom, not “heaven”! Those two are never equated.
To the young man who inquired about “eternal life” (see #28), the instruction was to use his wealth to look after the poor, and personally to follow Jesus. (Mk.10:17-22)
When a man who had been healed begged to follow him (Mk.5:18), he was gently told to go tell the folks at home what Jesus had done.

Jesus did offer on-the-job training (Mt.11:28), peace amid fierce opposition (Jn.14:27-31, 15:18 through most of chapter 16), and both the ability and the authority to represent him (Mt.10:1, Mk.3:14-15), as well as constant companionship (Jn.13-17) and eventual resurrection (Jn.6:40), but these were addressed to folks already committed to him and his Kingdom.

When the Kingdom is accurately described and demonstrated, no recruiting is necessary! Neither are made-up promises of escape or prosperity needed or appropriate.
Enlistment in the Kingdom of Jesus must be completely voluntary, with full understanding of the risks as well as the benefits.
Anything less does violence to the Kingdom, the King, and his committed disciples!

When I was asked to prepare a Jan.6 message for our congregation, my initial reaction (born of childhood memories of little boys in bathrobes and tinfoil-and-construction paper “crowns” stumbling through inane recitations about the esoteric implications of gold, frankincense and myrrh!) was a distressed “OH, NO!!!!” But I have learned, over many years, that accepting a challenging assignment just may result in actually learning something – and this was no exception.

The label of this “Feast Day”, designated by liturgical traditions as “Epiphany”, is the English cognate derived from the Greek word, epifaneia, (treated briefly in #166, “Appear”), which is used only six times in the New Testament, but quite frequently in classical writings. L/S lists “appearance (as opposed to reality), coming into light or view, daybreak, dawn, a manifestation of divine power, the accession to the throne of an emperor, the manifestation or appearance of a deity to a worshiper, outward show or fame.” The New Testament references pertain exclusively to Jesus’ eventual return in glory, but strangely, that event is not included in any of the historical or liturgical references to “Epiphany”. And the word does not appear in any of the scriptures assigned to its celebration!

The western church usually celebrates Epiphany as the time of the arrival of the “wise men” or Magi, which some of them then expand to refer to the inclusion of Gentiles among the people of God.
Some Eastern Orthodox groups observe Jan.6 as the “correct” date of Jesus’ birth – the discrepancy with Dec.25 involving the Julian vs. the Gregorian calendars – although it is unlikely that either represents Jesus’ actual “birthday”. Others link it to Jesus’ baptism by John, and subsequently to their own baptism.
Coptic and Syrian communions connect it to recognizing Jesus as “the Light of the World”, and are thought to have adopted the timing of the celebration to counteract the solstice / sun-worship of surrounding cultures.

All three of these perspectives are worth celebrating, whether or not their calendars are technically correct. I would like to suggest a few observations, usually neglected, from the Biblical accounts concerning each one of them, and recommend them all as worthy of further study.

First: the Magi, the “wise men”. Notice in Mt.2:1-12, the only place they are mentioned, that we do NOT know who they were, where they came from, how many there were, or when they arrived. Through the centuries, elaborate traditions have turned them into “kings”, concluded that there were three (probably because of the mention of three gifts), named them, assigned them racial and cultural identities and biographies – none of which are derived from the gospel account. So – What DO we know?
Matthew calls them “magi” – the source of the English word “magic”, and the same word used to describe Simon the sorcerer in Ac.8:9! – and says simply that they were “from the east.” This, and their following of a star, strongly suggests that they were astrologers – a practice sternly condemned in Old Testament law (Dt.18:9-14), and often punishable by death! An overland journey from Babylon or Persia – both east of Palestine – where such studies were common, would have taken months, if not years. (Certainly more than 12 days!) Notice that after finding out when they had sighted the star, Herod ordered the massacre of all the babies under the age of two!

Much has been made – also totally devoid of Scriptural evidence – of the so-called “spiritual” implications of the gifts. But one obvious element is consistently overlooked: Not only were/are gold, frankincense, and myrrh extremely valuable, but they are also very portable! A small quantity represents great value. The little family was soon to undertake a long and perilous journey, and to spend several years as refugees in a foreign country. Might this not have been God’s very practical provision to finance their exile (whether the donors knew it or not!)?
Matthew’s brief conclusion, too, is often overlooked; After the visitors offered their gifts and worshiped, “they went home by another road.” Has anyone truly worshiped, who does not thereafter, wherever he goes, take “another road?

It took many years,and many more deliberate interventions by the Lord – Jesus’ welcome and healing of foreigners, Peter’s encounter with Cornelius, the brotherhood at Antioch, the Jerusalem Conference – before Jesus’ disciples finally caught on to the message that Paul called “the mystery hidden from the foundation of the world, but now revealed …” that Jesus came to include all sorts of people in his Kingdom. But even though the idea can be found in some older prophetic writings, it is possible that this was indeed the first tangible demonstration of overt inclusion – and as such, it is certainly worth celebrating!

The Orthodox celebration of Christmas on Jan.6 is a subject that requires historical rather than Biblical study. But the link with Jesus’ baptism by John (Mt.3:13-17), has also become rather convoluted. It is sometimes scrambled with his presentation in the temple, in order to justify the practice of infant baptism, but the fact is (Lk.3:23) that Jesus was 30 years old when he was baptized, and embarking on his public ministry.

A more serious scrambling occurs in the failure to distinguish between John’s baptism, and the baptism of Christian commitment. This failure dates at least all the way back to Paul’s visit to Ephesus (Ac.19:1-7), where he found a group of disciples who had been taught an incomplete message that had included only “John’s baptism” – which Paul immediately undertook to correct. He explained that John had preached “a baptism of repentance” in preparation for Jesus’ arrival. “Clean things up! The King is coming!” John called for confession and repentance – a radical change of life and behavior. Clearly, both he and Jesus realized that Jesus had no such need, and neither is mentioned in the description of his baptism. The significant points in this scene are three:

First is Jesus’ interaction with John, who had rightly recognized Jesus’ superiority. Without abandoning that true identity, Jesus nevertheless refused to avail himself of the privileged status he deserved – a pattern he followed throughout his life, and one urged upon his followers on many occasions (Phil.2).

Secondly, Jesus set an example of recognizing and supporting the calling of others. John had not been certified, “ordained”, or otherwise endorsed by any existing hierarchical or ecclesiastical organization. His only credential was his obedience to the call of God. By his action, Jesus made a powerful assertion that he supported such obedience.

Third, it is after the baptism that the Holy Spirit gives testimony to Jesus’ identity as God’s obedient and dearly loved Son. This marks a sharp transition in the content of the practice and teaching of baptism.

The baptism of disciples “into the Name [identity – see #24] of Jesus” is a totally different affair from John’s version. One of the best summaries is offered by Paul in Rom.6:4 : “We were buried together with him through baptism, into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so also we might live a completely new life!” Nothing is said here about “confession” or “repentance”! Christian baptism represents the definitive end of one life and the beginning of another! (I have devoted a whole chapter – ch.10 – to this in Citizens of the Kingdom.) The “fuel” for Kingdom living is not continual mournful repetitions of “confessions” and “repentance”, but rather the power of resurrection life, in union with Jesus and his people!

As we celebrate in Epiphany both Jesus’ baptism and our own, perhaps we would do well to pay greater attention to the difference between John’s and Jesus’ versions of baptism, and to renew our own commitment to a life of resurrection with him!

And finally, with our Syrian and Coptic brethren, we celebrate the coming of Light into the world. Not only has “the One who said, Light will shine out of darkness, shined in our hearts” (II Cor.4:6), but he has personally commissioned his people (Mt.5:14) to mediate that light to the world! This, incidentally, is another place where the admonition is addressed in the plural. It can only happen in the gathered group of his people! “Shining the Light” was never an individual assignment! As John noted (3:19-21), some folks will welcome that light, and celebrate the glory of God; others will seek to hide in the darkness, lest their nefarious schemes be discovered. Some will even try to extinguish it. But the Light has come! Darkness can ultimately neither understand nor defeat it. As Paul affirmed bluntly, “Once, you all were darkness; but now you are light in the Lord! Behave as children of light (Eph.5:8) There is additional treatment of Light in #75.

So, let’s do celebrate Epiphany:
the dawn, the coming of Light, the accession of our King to his rightful throne!

Give thanks for the revelation of the Light to the world, and the privilege to participate in its shining!

Reflect on your own Resurrection Life, that began when you chose to be baptized into the Kingdom, and continues as we all learn to walk together among his people!

And with the Magi – whoever they are, wherever they came from, and whenever they arrived – let us worship together, and go forward by a different road!

The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

4,329 films were submitted to the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. This blog had 15,000 views in 2012. If each view were a film, this blog would power 3 Film Festivals

Click here to see the complete report.

I owe this study to our brother Solomon,who, during the course of his recent message, commented, “We have a choice: it’s up to us, whether we are the victims of men, or prisoners of Christ.” He noted that Paul had made exactly that choice when writing from a Roman prison to the brethren in Ephesus (Eph.3:1, 4:1).
Bonds (literally being chained or tied up) and imprisonment were no foreign concept to first-century disciples. It was a fact of life. Not only the Roman occupiers, but also the Jewish hierarchy constantly threatened both – and even summary execution – in their efforts to thwart “the glorious liberty of the sons of God.” And hundreds, then thousands of the faithful made the same choice. Nothing infuriates an oppressor more than “victims” who refuse to be intimidated!
Most of us today do not face such dire circumstances, although we should constantly remember those who do. Oppression takes many forms, and it is not always the result of either faithful or unfaithful behavior. Remember the geopolitical situation in which the New Testament accounts were sited. Although some people were imprisoned for actual crimes (Barabbas, or the thief next to Jesus on the cross), the vast majority had simply run afoul of powerful people (John the Baptist, Paul, and even Jesus himself), or simply succumbed to debt (several parables) due to their abject poverty.

The four words translated “prison” have little ambiguity.
Although oikema – used only once in the New Testament – in addition to “prison” may also refer to a room, a dwelling, a cage or stall, a storeroom, a workshop, a room in a temple, or even a brothel (L/S), its use in Ac.12:7 is clear from the context.
Likewise, teresis, translated once “prison” (Ac.5:19), once “hold” (Ac.4:3), and once “keeping” (I Cor.7:19) the commands of God, although its classical usages extended to “watching, safekeeping, guarding, preservation, observance, vigilance” (L/S) as well as “custody”, has fairly obvious reference in each case. The verb form, tereo, is common with respect to “commandments.”
Desmoterion, appearing only four times, and defined simply as “prison or jail” in all three lexicons, etymologically is composed of desmos (“bonds”) and terion (“place”). It is used of the confinement of John the Baptist (Mt.11:2), Peter and John (Ac.5:21, 23), and Paul and Silas (Ac.16:26).
Phulake, on the other hand, besides being more frequently used (39x), covers considerably more territory. L/S lists “watching or guarding, a station or post, a watch of the night (see #125), a prison, guarding, keeping, or preserving – whether for security or custody, precaution, or safeguard.” The references in Mt.5:25, 18:30, and Lk.12:58, clearly relate to imprisonment for debt. Mt.14:3,10; parallels in Mk.6:17, 27; and the briefer references in Lk.3:20 and Jn.3:24 concern John the Baptist. The reason for the incarceration mentioned in Mt.25:36, 39,43, 44 is not given. Barabbas (Lk.23:19, 25) was in prison for sedition and murder. Although Peter, having boasted of his willingness to follow Jesus to prison (Lk.22:33), soon backed off from that bravado, he later defied the authorities and took the consequences (Ac,5:19, 22, 25 and 12:4, 5, 6, 10, 17), both times experiencing miraculous deliverance. Neither he nor anyone else seems to have expected such rescue to be the norm, however, as attested in Heb.11:36, and evidenced by his own reaction to the second such incident (Ac.12:11).
Paul never tried to deny his former role in dragging the brethren off to prison (Ac.8:3, 22:4, 26:10), but balanced it with accounts of his own “jail time” (II Cor.6:5, 11:23), which Luke augments in Ac.16:23, 24, 27, 37, 40.
One may well wish that Peter (I Pet.3:19) and John (Rv.18:2, 20:7) had been more specific about the “prisons” to which they refer – but then, I guess folks who love to speculate about such things could not spin such fantastic theories, and they would be disappointed! I do not choose to play their games.

Notice, please, however, that God does not imprison anyone! The devil does (Rv.2:10), and so do the agents of civil and religious hierarchies, as noted above. It is never represented as “God’s will!” Jesus announced his mission (Lk.4:18,19) as bringing release to captives!

So who are these captives/prisoners?
Here, we encounter two groups of words.
Aichmalotos (the person) and aichmalosia (his condition), with their verb forms aichmaloteuo and aichmalotizo, refer specifically to “captives” and “captivity” strongly connected to prisoners of war. These unfortunates were usually forced into slavery, rather than being thrown into prison – though neither was a happy lot. (Please see #100 for a treatment of slavery.) These terms are rarely used: Jesus’ “inaugural address” in Lk.4:18,19, and its fulfillment described in Eph.4:8 – note that this happened at his resurrection/ascension – the tenses are past, not future!; Jesus’ warning (Lk.21:24) of the imminent destruction of Jerusalem; Paul’s description of his former enslavement to “sin”/failure (Rom.7:23), and the same brother’s later admonition to “bring every thought into captivity to Christ (II Cor.10:5). Three times, he made reference to those who were his “fellow-prisoners” – sunaichmalotos – Andronicus and Junia (Rom.16:7), Aristarchus (Col.4:10), and Epaphras (Phm.23).

Desmios (L/S) “bound, captive”, (Bauer) “anyone in prison”, appears 15x. It refers to Barabbas (Mt.27:15, 16; Mk.15:6), the others who were in the Philippian jail (Ac.16:25, 27), and Paul (Ac.23:18; 25:14, 27; 28:17). Heb.13:3 expresses concern for all of the faithful who suffer imprisonment.
But most significant are Paul’s statements in Eph.3:1, 4:1; II Tim.1:8, and Phm.1 ,9, where, although confined by the civil authorities at the behest of the Jewish hierarchy, he calls himself “the prisoner of Jesus Christ!” The grammatical form is a simple possessive. Neither civil nor religious oppressors can claim final ownership of one who belongs – by his own deliberate choice – to the King of Kings! Years earlier, Paul had explained, (Rom.6:16) “You are slaves / servants to whomever you (choose to) obey!” And he had made that choice.

Desmos , also refers to imprisonment, either literal or figurative. L/S adds “anything for tying or fastening, a door-latch, mooring cable, bonds, a spell, or a chain.” Bauer notes “the bond that prevents a mute or crippled person from normal function”. Physical restraints are indicated in Lk.8:29, Ac.16:26, 22:30, 26:29, 31; healing in Lk.13:16; and imprisonment in Ac.20:23, Phil.1:7, 13, 14, 16; Col.4:18, II Tim.2:9; Phm.10, 13; Heb.10:34, 11:36. When the English word “bonds” applies to slavery, it is usually taken from doulos (see #100).

Here, as with sunaichmalotos, a prefixed form, sundesmos , is significant. In both cases, the prefix “sun-” which is also the preposition “with”, thereby conveying the sense of “together”, alters the root word. L/S lists “a union, anything that binds together, sinews or ligaments, civil or political union (to form a state), a conspiracy, the fastening of garments, the connection of heavenly bodies.” It appears in Ac.8:23, where Peter diagnoses Simon’s “bondage to iniquity”, but in Paul’s letters the tone is much more positive. In Eph.4:3, he urges the maintenance of “the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace”, in Col.2:19, he emphasizes the need for coordination of the Body of Christ – the faithful – by the proper working of its “joints and ligaments”, and in Col.3:14, describes love as “the bond of maturity [perfection] (see #13.) Paul also reassures Timothy (II Tim.2:9) that despite his own imprisonment, “the word of God is not imprisoned!”

So brother Solomon’s suggestion was not only insightful, but absolutely correct.
Regardless of circumstances – personal, religious, or political – we do have a choice. Not necessarily of the circumstance, but definitely of its interpretation, its effect, and our response.

Whose prisoner are you?