The NT has four words to signify “ask” or one of the synonyms of that verb. All of them are used frequently. It is no easy matter to sort out the different inflexions of meaning which these carry, but the effort is worthwhile because of the finer nuances of meaning which can then be traced in not a few places.

“Aiteo” expresses the idea of petition, asked by an inferior of a superior. This very clear implication of the word puts Trench (“New Testament Synonyms”) in rather a flap because of Martha’s appeal to Jesus: “I know, that even now, whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will give it thee” (Joh 11:22). Trinitarian Trench does not like the implied notion that Jesus was not of equal status with his Father, and therefore he expresses himself somewhat scornfully about Martha’s lack of spiritual insight. But, indeed, if the apostle John felt equally disapproving, would he have included this in his record uncorrected?

1Jo 5:16 is a very problematical passage using this word “aiteo”. One problem arises from lack of nouns to the verbs. “If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask (Jesus), and he (the Father) shall give him (Jesus) life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he (Jesus) should beseech (God) for it.”

“Erotao” seems to have two distinct flavours:

1. It is used as equivalent of the English “enquire”. Thus, “Jesus asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?” (Mat 16:13). And in reply to the Pharisees’ interrogation about his own authority, Jesus replied: “I also will ask you one thing…” (Mat 21:24). Similarly, concerning the disciples’ mystification: “Jesus knew the disciples were desirous to ask him. Do ye enquire (seek) among yourselves of that I said, A little while and ye shall not see me…?” (Joh 16:19), to be followed by the assurance: “In that day ye shall ask me nothing (erotao, question, enquire)… Whatsoever (understanding) ye shall ask (“aiteo”, petition) the Father in my name, he will give it you” (16:23).

2. But this word is also used often as equivalent to “beseech”. It describes importunity: The Syrophoenician woman pleading on behalf of her daughter (Mar 7:26); the rich man begging that his five brothers be warned (Luk 16:27). In this sense, often enough. It is rather surprising, then, to find it used of Jesus “praying Simon” to let him use the fishing boat as a pulpit — a measure perhaps of how hard-pressed Jesus was by the crowd (Luk 5:3,1). And it is equally surprising to find Pharisees more than once beseeching Jesus to accept their hospitality (Luk 7:36; 11:37). Mere Pharisee hypocrisy? And in John 14:16 this supposedly Trinitarian gospel throws a spanner in the Trinitarian works with this word of Jesus: “I will pray (beseech, beg) the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter…”, with reference to what could be expected at his ascension to glory!

“Eperotao” is the same as “erotao” with the intensive prefix “epi” added to it. Accordingly, it means either (a) specially earnest enquiry, (b) an insistent pressing interrogation, or (c) enquiry with a certain legal formality about it — in this respect not markedly different from “punthanomai” below.

1. Women chattering during the service about matters which provoke their interest are bidden pursue this earnest seeking from their husbands at home (1Co 14:35). It is this word which describes the eager thirst for knowledge on the part of the boy Jesus as he heard the learned elders in the temple and “asked them questions” (Luk 2:46). Somewhat remarkably, the same word comes in Mar 8:23 to describe Jesus’ healing of the blind man by stages: “he asked him if he saw aught”. The word implies a special eagerness on the Lord’s part in the performance of this miracle. The symbolism here helps to explain. When a lawyer came “tempting Jesus”, asking the question: “Which is the great commandment in the law?” (Mat 22:35), by using “eperotao” the narrative acquits him of hypocrisy or evil purpose.

2. But there is no good meaning behind the summary phrase at the end of that day of debate in the temple: “No man durst ask him (press upon him) any more questions” (22:46). The same word describes the eagerness of the Pharisees to bring about his discomfiture: “He was demanded of the Pharisees when the kingdom of God should come” (Luk 17:20).

3. Pilate’s questioning of Jesus (Mat 27:11), and the high priest’s interrogation of the apostles (Acts 5:27) both seem to give to “eperotao” a certain flavor of legal procedure. Yet not necessarily (there being another word for this: see below), for in both of these places it may be the intense feeling or strong pressure of these worldly men that is being described.

Lastly, “punthanomai” very clearly describes (a) the question put by a superior to his inferior, and (b) akin to this, the formal legal enquiry.

1. It is the word used of the nobleman enquiring of his servants the precise hour of his son’s recovery (Joh 4:52), of the prodigal’s older brother asking for explanation of the unexpected celebration (Luk 15:26), and of the Roman soldier sent by Cornelius enquiring, as of one of an inferior race, the way to Simon Peter’s house (Acts 10:18) — yet it is also Peter’s word, as from the Lord’s representative, when meeting Cornelius: “I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me” (Acts 10:29).

2. The “legal enquiry” aspect of “punthanomai” is readily discernible: the chief priests cross-questioning Peter (Acts 4:7), the Roman captain and Felix making enquiry about Paul (Acts 21:33; 23:19,34). But it is somewhat startling to find the same word used of Peter’s eagerness to identify the traitor Jesus had spoken about: “Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him (to John), that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake” (Joh 13:24). Peter doubtless wished not only for inquisition but also summary condemnation of the guilty one.

Assyria emerged as a territorial state in the 14th century BC. Its territory covered what is now the northern part of modern Iraq. From the beginning, Assyria was a strong military power bent on conquest and expansion. By the 9th century BC, Assyria had consolidated its control over all of northern Mesopotamia (the land “between the rivers” — ie the Tigris and the Euphrates). Then the Assyrian armies marched beyond their own borders — in brutal and efficient waves — to expand their empire, seeking booty to finance their plans for still more conquest. By about 850 BC, the Assyrian menace posed a direct threat to the small Jewish states to the west and south — Israel and Judah, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of the Old Testament.

During the period from 850 to 700 BC, the Assyrian empire reached its zenith. During part of this time, the kings of Assyria, ruling in Nineveh on the Tigris, also exercised dominion over ancient Babylon on the Euphrates about 200 miles to the south; they were quite pleased to refer to themselves as “kings of Babylon” (much as Queen Victoria of England claimed the additional title “Empress of India”).

It was also during the latter part of this period (approx 720-700 BC) that king Sargon of Assyria conquered and occupied the Northern Kingdom of Israel (2Ki 17:1-6). His successor Sennacherib carried many thousands of captives away to Nineveh and Babylon (Mic 4:10; Psa 137:1-4), defeated 46 fortified cities of the Southern Kingdom of Judah (Isa 8:7,8;10:5,6), and finally threatened even the city of Jerusalem — before meeting a titanic defeat — at the hand of the Angel of the Lord (Isa 37:1-36).

This might seem like so much dry-as-dust history, except for these facts:

1. The modern-day Iraq of Saddam Hussein occupies the same territory as the OT Assyria. Its leader behaves in the same brutal fashion as did the ancient kings of Assyria — his mind ever set on the acquisition of land, wealth, and power. His lack of concern for human life allows him to use threats other world leaders would shrink from — and, when provoked, to carry out such threats. He styles himself the head of the whole Arab world, and he demonstrates an intense hatred for the Arabs’ common enemy Israel. And he is perhaps the greatest threat to the peace of the Middle East and the world.

2. A number of OT prophecies, about the coming and work of the Messiah, were written by prophets (most notably, Isaiah) who lived in Jewish lands under the long shadow of the Assyrian threat at the time of its greatest expansion. It is clear that many of their prophecies had immediate (but incomplete) fulfillments in:

• The deliverance of Jerusalem from Sennacherib, through the faith of righteous king Hezekiah;

• The destruction of the Assyrian oppressors by the power of God;

• The return from captivity of many Jews whom Sennacherib and his predecessors had carried into slavery; and

• A new period of peace in a regenerated nation of Judah.

But it is even more clear that a number of such prophecies still await their final (and perfect) realization at the return of Christ.

It is possible that the development of a modern-day “Assyrian”, with avowed designs to expand its territory and, in the process, annihilate the people of Israel, is a precursor to a coming divine deliverance. This last deliverance will be so stupendous as to dwarf all previous revelations of God, for it will be none other than the return of the Lord Jesus Christ in great power and glory to vanquish the “Assyrian” and all his allies, to save his people Israel, and to establish God’s millennial (1,000-year) Kingdom on this earth.

A summary of Bible references to Assyria helps us to develop a fuller picture of the Last Days:

Is all this the fate of an Iraqi coalition led against Israel by that modern-day “Assyrian” Saddam Hussein (or some even-more-powerful successor)?

At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be accepted by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits while believing the Truth:	At the Judgment at Christ’s coming we will be rejected by Christ if we have these attitudes and traits even if we believe all the Truth:
Showing a gentle attitude toward all (Phi 4:5).	Hard and austere (Luk 19:21,22).
Being generous in mind, spirit, and pocket, whether others are deserving or not (Luk 6:27-35).	Unforgiving of real or imagined wrongs (Mat 18:34,35).
Genuinely forbearing, forgiving and being easy to live with (Col 3:13).	Unmerciful, harsh and critical (Mat 7:1-5).
Insistent that a place be found every day for prayer and Bible reading whatever the distractions (1Th 5:17,18).	Concerned with routine ecclesial duties, while ignoring immediate needs of the stranger (Luk 10:30-32).
Actively seeking for opportunities to help others less fortunate than ourselves, irrespective of whether they share our faith, or are likely to do so (Gal 6:10).	Making demands of others while offering little help (Mat 23:3,4).
Willing to consider fairly others’ points of view, and assume that their motives are genuine (Jam 1:19).	Lack of fellow-feeling for those who are tempted or fall (Joh 8:1-7).
Ready to delegate authority and duties, to share responsibilities and encourage others, especially the young (2Ti 2:2).	Always trying to be in the spotlight (Jam 3:1).
Providing a stable, warm, loving, home atmosphere to attract others; ready to use home at all times as the greatest place from which to witness (1Ti 3:2-5).	Applying class, racial or group stereotypes to others (Jam 2).
Grieving at condition of “sheep without a shepherd” (Mat 9:36).	Having little time or concern for those “in the world” or who differ from us (Isa 65:5).
Having compassion on the ignorant, and those out of the Way, and in danger of being “lost” (Heb 5:2).	Shunning and condemning those considered to be sinners, and treating some as “beyond the pale” (Mat 23:13).
Joyful in welcoming the returning wayward (Luk 15:32).	Coldly and grudgingly accepting the returning wayward (Luk 15:25-28).
Showing mercy towards those who have doubts (Jud 1:22).	Neglectful of the lonely, aged, and afflicted; concerned only with the “strong” and the “good attendees” (Mat 25:45).
Friend of sinners, “despairing of no man” (Luk 7:34).	Bigoted and unreasonable (Jud 1:16).
Willing to be patient in negotiation, seeing compromise in proper circumstances as strength (1Th 5:13).	Considering any compromise on anything, or any moderation, as weakness (2Co 10:12).
Avoiding controversy wherever and whenever possible, seeking instead to find strength in things that are shared in common (2Ti 2:24).	More concerned with controversial matters than the fostering of harmony and finding common ground (1Ti 6:4,5).
Unflinching in our loyalty to Christ at whatever cost (Mat 10:32-39).	Not prepared to make a clear commitment of faith or loyalty (Mar 8:38).
Willing to accept shame and even suffer cheerfully the “loss of all things” for the Truth (Phi 3:7,8).	Afraid of persecution, loss of prestige, worldly goods, or livelihood because of the Truth (Gal 6:12).
Encouraging our children, chiefly by our example, to accept the Truth (Eph 6:4).	Partial and over-indulgent toward our own children (1Sa 3:12,13).
Treating “fellowship” as a door through which to draw others into the security and warmth of God’s family (Rev 3:20).	Treating “fellowship” as a wall to keep others out of our special clique (3Jo 1:9,10).
Eager to extend the wonderful good news of salvation “everywhere”, worldwide, with no limit of race, language, color or class; optimistic in regard to witnessing (Rom 10:14-18).	Convinced that this is “the day of small things”; therefore doing little or nothing to propagate the Truth in the world; pessimistic as regards witnessing (Mat 25:26,27).

(AE)

1. Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith;

2. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;

4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.

7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit.

8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated.

9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible.

10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal.

11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal.

12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible.

13. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty.

14. And yet they are not three almighties, but one almighty.

15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;

16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.

17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord;

18. And yet they are not three Lords but one Lord.
19. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord;

20. So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say; There are three Gods or three Lords.

21. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten.

22. The Son is of the Father alone; not made nor created, but begotten.

23. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits.

25. And in this Trinity none is afore or after another; none is greater or less than another.

26. But the whole three persons are coeternal, and coequal.

27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

28. He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

29. Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

30. For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

31. God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.

32. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.

33. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.

34. Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.

35. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.

36. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.

37. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ;

38. Who suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead;

39. He ascended into heaven, He sits on the right hand of the Father, God, Almighty;

40. From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
41. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies;

42. and shall give account of their own works.

43. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting and they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

44. This is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved.

[Exact date uncertain; generally assumed to be 5th or 6th century.]

The only problem that arises regarding this verb and noun (“ekdikeo”, “ekdikesis”) is whether they always mean just that, or whether there is a milder, more impersonal meaning: “do justice”. Rom 13:4 might seem to fall into this category: “he (the ruler) is… a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Yet what might be impersonal administration of justice in a human ruler is a very personal anger — “wrath” — in an Almighty God who sees His laws being flouted. And the context also suggests vengeance: “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto the wrath (of God): for it is written, Vengeance is mine: I will repay, saith the Lord” (Rom 12:19).

There can be no doubt about the meaning of the Lord’s prophecy of the horrors of AD 70: “these be the days of vengeance” (Luk 21:22). Israel had violently rejected the Son of God, and continued to do so; and the Father was angry.

The parable of the importunate widow, a problem to our translators, ceases to be a problem when the context is allowed to do its work. The second half of Luk 17 is all about the Second Coming; and Luk 18:8 rounds off with: “when the Son of man cometh…” Then is there not here a plain directive to apply the intervening parable to the Second Coming? In that case, who is the widow? — Israel or the new Israel? The former, doubtless: Isa 54:5-8; Lam 1:1 (ct Mat 28:20; Heb 13:5).

For centuries Israel has seen herself undeservedly bereft of help and at the mercy of her enemies. To the Jews their God has seemed like an unjust judge, callously heedless of their needs and their rights. Only when Israel turns to God in a persistent importunity not to be gainsaid will there be response to their plight. “And shall not God (then) avenge his own elect, they crying day and night unto him, he being (hitherto) longsuffering (with their persecutors) regarding them? Then (when they are importunate) he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man (the Messiah: Dan 7:13) cometh, shall he find faith (in God’s power to save) in the Land?” — implying: Only in a small remnant.

In the parable, the widow cries: “Avenge me of mine adversary” (Luk 18:3), and this is right. But the Revisers, missing the point of the parable and uneasy about a widow crying for vengeance, have turned it into: “Do me justice” (RV mg.). The RSV has “Vindicate”. NEB: “Demanding justice.” But the AV is right.

These words are often quoted as supplying the reason for the rooting out of false doctrine. The application made of them is this: ‘Just as leaven, given time, permeates and changes the whole mass of dough, so also any single difficulty in any ecclesia will inevitably ruin the otherwise good character of the rest.’

However, what Paul is talking about in this chapter is bad behavior, not false ideas. The context is the case of incest: “sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: A man has his father’s wife” (1Co 5:1).

This open flouting of all moral restraints on the part of one was aggravated by the permissive, even proud and defiant, attitude of the ecclesia: “And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have been filled with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?” (1Co 5:2).

In the entire chapter there is no hint of doctrinal error. This simple fact alone makes it clear that the words quoted are being made to do duty for a purpose other than their original intention.

Objection to a general application of this saying (“A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump”) is also made in the following:

“Long experience shows that whereas nothing contributes to the lowering of tone in an ecclesia like persistent bad behaviour, it is possible for the community to immunize itself almost completely from the cranky ideas of one member, be he never so good a propagandist. Paul’s words [however] are absolutely true in the field of morals” (HAW, Tes 43:312).

In the case of Corinth, what made the sin “leaven” was the proud willingness to allow its influence to affect the whole of the ecclesia. And even should we talk of doctrinal divergence as “leaven”, then it is still true that one false teacher does not introduce the “leaven” singlehandedly. He usually has to have the approbation of the arranging brethren or the whole ecclesia. In supporting this deviation in their midst, and taking no steps to correct or isolate the problem, it is in fact they who are introducing the leaven.

“In the case of 1Co 5 the evil was not only unrepented of, it had not been repudiated by the ecclesia, although it was the case of open and manifest sin. The second epistle, however, shows the response of the ecclesia to rebuke, and also (so at any rate many would interpret it) the restoration of the repentant sinner (2Co 2:5-11; 7:8-11)… It is, as Paul showed, the ecclesia’s responsibility to judge open sin, and to repudiate it while doing all possible for the recovery of the sinner (1Co 5:12,13)” (LGS, Chdn 105:218,219).

As to those who resort to this passage for proof of the necessity to separate from error, how often have they been as eager and energetic to seek the reclamation of the brethren whom they brand in the most infamous terms? If we follow the apostle’s example (supposedly) in purging out any who offend, then we must endeavor to follow his example also in fervently seeking their reinstatement. This, in the case of “false doctrine”, would involve a most serious effort to bring about reunion of the divided sections of the brotherhood — especially when the ones who “caused” the divisions by their peculiar ideas have now in some cases been dead for years.

A further point must be made in regard to 1Co 5: even if this passage may be used of those who teach wrongly concerning the first principles, it still goes no further than demanding that the single ecclesia purge out its own “leaven”. There is no hint that failure to do so would result in the Corinthian ecclesia being expelled from the worldwide association of all her sister-ecclesias.

“If the application so often put on this passage be granted, it becomes a terrible ground of censure of those who apply it thus. For, if the leaven of false teaching really leavens so drastically, how is it that the writings of the ‘spiritually decadent’ are read, scrutinised, criticised, and discussed so vigorously? If such activities do not ‘leaven’ some who are doctrinally ‘pure’, why should they be so damaging to others?” (HAW again).

It is in the nature of leaven, and indeed it is the only reason for ever using the figure, that it changes the basic nature of any material with which it comes into contact. If this proves not to be the case with something that is called “leaven”, then the whole argument with regard to that divergence — whether in morals or doctrine — collapses.

Using this criterion, certain retroactive tests may be made. The Christadelphian body has experienced many grievous divisions, ostensibly to excise “leaven” from pure dough in each case. If the thesis were correct that those errors or so-called errors would have a leavening influence on the rest, then it should be true that the body that contained such leaven would be by now thoroughly leavened. But this is just not the case! What has actually happened many times is that the teaching, or perhaps action, that aroused so much indignation in other ecclesial circles far removed from the center has quietly sunk into oblivion, never again to trouble anyone except those who separated themselves prematurely and who, to justify their separation, continue to be exercised about a long-dead issue.

One of the main historical reasons for one “pure fellowship” group’s separation from the main body of believers was the queer ideas of a rather eccentric brother; this brother circulated several pamphlets on the nature and sacrifice of Christ in the early part of the 20th century. His uncertain speculations were not summarily repudiated by more responsible brethren elsewhere (though neither were they accepted), and the pages of the break-away periodical were for years filled with denunciations of the leavening nature of his work. Some 90 years have now passed since all this began, and one occasionally still reads criticisms of this brother and of his “toleration” by others. But his writings have completely vanished, and no one else has to our knowledge ever taken up those ideas he so weakly articulated. It was told me by another brother who once belonged to one of the separated ecclesias that, in his travels, he had visited the old ecclesia of that long-dead brother. The ecclesia met in a hall with an extensive library, and our friend began a search therein for some of the brother’s questionable writings. He found none and so asked a brother of that meeting where they were kept; this brother in fact was a relative of the original perpetrator of the questionable ideas. “Oh, we wouldn’t have that sort of thing around here!” was the immediate reply. And so it seems that the only ecclesias where the old “leaven” still exists are those who supposedly “purged” it out in the first place, but who still keep a few “fragments” under wraps on the “top shelf” to demonstrate to later generations how terrible it really was!

Returning to a more positive conclusion here, we should endeavor to make an application of these verses to ourselves individually, for certainly this was Paul’s intention, as 1Co 5:8 would indicate: “Therefore let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth.”

“To this day the Orthodox Jew is ruthless in the exclusion of all leaven (or yeast) from his home for the seven day feast [ie, of Passover]; even to the extent of using a special set of cutlery, crockery and cooking utensils lest a trace should be left on that normally used. In many cases this is merely a slavish adherence to the letter of the law but we can take a lesson from it. Should we not be just as diligent and just as ruthless ourselves with our lives, with our thoughts, words and deeds to exclude from them anything savouring of malice or evil? Bearing in mind the nature of the evil which Paul had in mind at this time the warning is surely not to be lightly passed over when we live in a world rapidly becoming as morally degenerate as was the world by which the brethren and sisters at Corinth were surrounded. Such moral depravity must at all costs be kept at bay, and the only way this can possibly be done is by each one purging from his or her heart the old leaven that as a community we may be a new lump, as we are unleavened” (E. Toms, “Christ Our Passover”, Dawn 21:280,281).

A surprising number of New Testament passages, from Paul and others, arise out of the events of our Saviour’s birth. They suggest many valuable lessons. A look at several:

Romans 8

Man in his natural state is heir only to death; more precisely, he earns death as his “wages” (Rom 6:23). There is only one way of escape from death, and that is to die! This the believer does in baptism:

“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?… For he that is dead is freed from sin” (Rom 6:3,7).

But true baptism is more than a mechanical process. It is validated only by belief, before baptism, and obedience, after baptism. Otherwise it is a meaningless show.

But for those who have escaped death, even if only prospectively, what a wonderful blessing!

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death” (Rom 8:1,2).

What exactly is this “law” of sin and death? This passage refers back to Rom 7, where “law” means either the law of Moses (vv 1,2,6-9) or our sin-prone natures. Moses revealed, in those who heard it and tried to keep it, the “law” or principle within themselves that tended solely toward sin.

How is it that God, through Christ, has made us free from this two-faceted law of sin and death?

“For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in (the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in (he flesh” (Rom 8:3).

God’s first step in releasing man from this bondage was the begettal of a Son in the likeness, or sameness, of our flesh.

Here was one who though “in the flesh” physically, did not “walk after the flesh” (v 4). Instead, he walked “after the Spirit” by being “spiritually minded” v 5) — giving us an example to follow.

In following Christ’s example, we are “born” again: Although we remain physically “in the flesh” — and nothing can change this in the present age — we must walk “in the Spirit of Christ (v 9). In other words, Christ is “born” again in us (v 13), and we become new creatures. We are “led by the Spirit” (v 14) — not the Holy Spirit in its miracle-working manifestation — but rather the spirit, or teaching, or example, of Christ. In following this path, we become the “Sons of God” — patterned after His first Son born long years ago in Bethlehem.

In the exalted language of the Spirit John describes the birth of Jesus — and our “rebirth”:

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:12-14).

Of course, Jesus here is unmistakably “the Word made flesh”, reflecting the glory of the Father. Not so obvious perhaps is the teaching in vv 12,13, that we may also become “the word made flesh” by a rebirth of our “spirits”. Which is just another way of saying that as we read and believe the gospel of Christ, and as we put his principles into practice in our lives, then God is impressing His word upon us, and we are in the process of becoming individual “writings” of God.

John concludes his gospel with these words:

“And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written” (John 21:25).

There is no limit to the works of Jesus. His work continues even to this very day, in all those who believe. By receiving the written word of God in their hearts and conforming to its impulses, those who believe become at last the other “books” of which John spoke. The life story of each one is another “gospel,” another “book” telling of the works of Christ! So many are they that the world will scarcely be able to contain them — a multitude which no man can number.

“Adoption” or “Sonship”?

Paul continues his theme in Rom 8:15:

“For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”

The RSV more correctly renders “adoption” as “sonship,” which is quite proper — the root word being “son.” “Adoption” gives the unfortunate idea, to modern minds at least, of a distinctly second-class relationship. It is a word that in no way does justice to the blessed state to which God has elevated us. In one sense there is, of course, just one “only-begotten” Son. But in a broader sense we are all “begotten” by the Word of God to be His sons, and no son of God is “second-class”! But then again, in the very fullest sense, there is only one Son of God, for we are all sons only in that we have become “the body of Christ”!

Paul next pictures the whole creation in birth-pangs, groaning to be “delivered”. It is the universal longing, almost inexpressible, for the fulfillment of God’s purpose in the “birth” of sons (vv 19,22). These “sons” will be born as the dew from the womb of the morning (Psa 110:3, RSV). They who have been “dwellers in dust,” and God’s dead men, will awake and sing for joy, as dew of light upon the earth (Isa 26:17-19, RSV).

“And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren” (Rom 8:28-29).

All things, even trials and suffering, have a place in God’s overall purpose for His children. This purpose calls for their spiritual development in conformity with His Son “the firstborn”, whose character was formed and tested in the things which he suffered (Heb 5:7-9). In learning of Christ and emulating his character, we “die” to our sins and “live” again according to his righteousness (1Pe 2:19-25).

“What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall He not with him also freely give us all things?… Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” (Rom 8:31-35).

Galatians 4

After concluding in Gal 3 that we may become the children of Abraham by faith in Christ, and therefore heirs according to the promise, Paul proceeds in Gal 4 to consider the preeminent “heir,” the “one seed” of Gal 3:16:

“Now I say, that the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all” (Gal 4:1).

“The heir” is singular; Paul is speaking of Christ — although the principles may have application to those in Christ as well. He refers to (he standard wisdom of his day, that even the heir of a great estate must be subjected to discipline in his early years, as a preparation for the great work of rulership that awaits him. In such a preparatory stage, then, the heir is essentially no different than the lowliest of servants, and is placed under “tutors and governors” (v 2) who later will be his servants! This is precisely the situation in which God placed His Son; even after Jesus had begun to recognize his divine mission, he was still for some years “subject unto” Joseph and Mary (Luke 2:51).

Paul argues further, to those who were once in bondage to the law of Moses, that Christ has come to lift them from a lower state, servitude, to a higher one, sonship.

“But when the time had fully come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman, horn under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying, ‘Abba! Father!’ So through God you are no longer a slave but a son, and if a son then an heir” (Gal 4:4-7, RSV).

Though the elevation to sonship necessitates a further discipline of servitude, it is now a servitude (as was Christ’s) in full awareness of the potential heirship of all things. How could “sons” of God, once delivered to this higher tutelage, with the wonderful vistas it provides, how could they ever desire to return to a degrading bondage which offered no release but death? But this is precisely what the Galatian believers were doing!:

“My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you” (v 19).

“Listen to the law,” says Paul, and he illustrated the two states by reference to the two sons of Abraham. One (Ishmael) was never more than a slave and the son of a slave because of his foolish reliance on the flesh. The other (Isaac), though younger, was the son of the freewoman, and himself the child of promise and heir of all things — although he was first subjected to persecution. Paul concludes for us all:

“Even so it is now … So then, brethren we are… children… of the free (woman)” (vv 29,31).

1 Peter 1,2

Peter also takes up this theme of the believer’s new birth, in language patterned upon the birth of Christ:

“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever” (1Pe 1:22,23).

Christ was “begotten” by the special procreative power of the Holy Spirit. We too become “sons of God” when His Holy Spirit-word acts upon our minds. The incorruptible seed is planted in our minds and takes root in a “plant” that is radically different than the natural growth of “grass” and “flower” (v 24), because it has the potential to endure forever (v 25). This is the only sense of course, in which believers have eternal life now (1Jo 5:12,13)!

So, Peter continues, Christ is “born” in you, although at first he is only a “baby”. As newborn babes then, he says, you must earnestly desire the “milk” (1Pe 2:2) — as did the babe in Bethlehem. Do not seek high things, but bide your time, trusting in the Lord, resting upon His gracious care — as did Jesus before you. Then grow up in the Lord, again as did Jesus, to a full maturity of sonship.

Christ appears to us first as a newborn babe in a manger. And so are we, “newborns”, when first called by the glorious gospel. Yet, as with that babe, there is a wonderful hope for the future, in the flowering of youth and strength, and fin — ally in supreme manhood. Our faith and character must grow and will grow, until we approach to “the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Eph 4:13).

It can be done! If we stand at the beginning of our probations and look right to the end, seeing Christ in his perfection, it may seem an impossible task! But even a “marathon” is the sum total of so many single steps, and God has told us that He will give us strength to run that race! He has commanded us to follow His Son, and to grow up — as he did, step by step, learning obedience through trials. And to those who obey, whether they be wise or simple, He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, and the sufferings through which they pass in the “fellowship.” of His Son. More and more, step by step, they will learn who Christ truly is, and become more conformed to that image. The baby in the manger uttered his first cry, and thereby his Father slaked a claim upon our lives. Thereby the Mighty God of all creation became also “Abba” — the tender Father of a little child; and our Father as well! The God of remote abstractions and technical theories. He is a God who loves people, a Father who holds back no blessing from His “children”, who searches out and loves even the least worthy and most neglected.

A tiny cry in a manger. It was truly a miracle. It was the greatest of all miracles -the birth of God’s own Son! But isn’t every birth a “miracle,” and a mystery? Isn’t every child a “holy child,” because he or she receives life from the God of holiness? Isn’t every child a “gift” from God, showing His continuing love for man, showing that even yet He has not “given up” on us? And isn’t every child a special child — like Samuel or John or even Jesus — to be dedicated by righteous parents to the service of God? Like Mary and Joseph, many of us have been entrusted by God with future kings and queens — who will one day, by God’s grace, sit upon thrones and apply to the nations the lessons learned in their parents’ homes.

And, in fact, aren’t we all “children of God,” begotten by His love, who manifest our “sonship” in our love for one another? If there is a lesson in the “nativity,” it is this: the preeminence of love. We love Him, because He first loved us. For, after all, “sonship” is not what we do, but what we receive. Not what we earn, but a gift.

“Behold the amazing gift of love The Father hath bestowed, On us, the sinful sons of men, To call us sons of God.”

“Meno” is a word of very frequent occurrence. Its simple meaning is “abide” in the sense of “dwell, or stay, in a house”. It is commonly used in this sense in the gospels. “Zaccheus, today I must abide at thine house” (Luk 19:5). “The servant abideth not in the house for ever” (Joh 8:35). And so on — lots of them.

From here the meaning moves on to the idea of “remaining, or continuing an existing condition”. For example, “Labour for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life” (Joh 6:27). “Let her remain unmarried” (1Co 7:11). “Let brotherly love continue” (Heb 13:1).

From these simple ideas there springs the deep spiritual meaning which makes “abide” one of the key words in John’s gospel and epistles: “close spiritual fellowship”, the result of being in the same “house” with the Father and the Son and the brethren. It is a fellowship which has an abiding, lasting quality — it goes on and on, world without end, Amen.

“Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God… God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him” (1Jo 4:15,16). “As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me” (Joh 15:4).

“Meno” has got itself augmented with nearly every preposition in the language; in some cases the new meanings are particularly interesting.

Hupomeno means “to continue in hardship or suffering”. Mostly, the AV very beautifully translates “endure”. This is usually just right. “He that shall endure to the end, the same shall be saved” (Mat 24:13). “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons” (Heb 12:7). The translation, twice in 1Pe 2:20, “take it patiently”, hardly conveys the right idea.

When Jews from Thessalonica stirred up opposition in Berea also, the brethren, anxious for Paul’s safety, sent him on to Athens, “but Silas and Timotheus abode (hupomeno) there still”, putting up with the trouble, enduring the persecution, but the narrative does not indicate by one word what they had to put up with.

Somewhat surprisingly, the same word comes in the story of the boy Jesus at Jerusalem for his first Passover: “he tarried behind in Jerusalem” (Luk 2:43). Here the idea probably is: “he hung on”, unwilling to leave the holy city, with its wonderful associations and spiritual opportunities.

Another instance calls for slight correction. “If we suffer, we shall also reign with him” (2Ti 2:12). But it is not suffering which guarantees reward, but the right enduring of suffering. The noun which goes with hupomeno — hupomone — is all but once translated “patience”. But in modern English this word presents a picture of placid waiting and tranquil inactivity, whereas hupomone really suggests the notion of tenacious hanging on and grim clenched-teeth endurance. Every occurrence of the word needs re-scrutinizing from this point of view.

The modern idea of patience is more in evidence in anameno, the one occurrence of which speaks of “waiting for his Son from heaven” (1Th 1:10). But even here there is something of endurance, as the two occurrences in LXX show. “Thou art the God of my salvation; on thee do I wait all the day” (Psa 25:5). “Wait on the Lord: be of good courage, and he shall strengthen thine heart: wait, I say, on the Lord” (Psa 27:14).

Epimeno means, quite literally, “stay upon”, and accordingly in the AV appears as “continue, abide” and especially “tarry”. All the 18 occurrences are straightforward except perhaps Phi 1:23,24: “I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart (ie go away into retirement for the study of Scripture and the experience of “revelations from the Lord”) and (so) to be with Christ: which is far better. Nevertheless to abide in the flesh (ie continue a personal active presence in the ecclesias) is more needful for you.” So Paul, the aged, who would dearly have loved to “retire” (as everyone does nowadays as a matter of course), hung on, giving his converts assurance of his continuing care: “I know that I shall abide (meno) and continue (parameno — prolong my stay) with you all” (v 25).

There is a terribly important lesson to be learned from the next word in this family: emmeno. AV translates it rather tamely “continue”, but “stay in” gives the idea more exactly. “They continued not in my covenant” (Heb 8:9). Esp Acts 14:22: “exhorting them (the new disciples) to continue in the faith”, ie to stay on regardless of all discouragements. This is also the idea in most of the LXX passages, where it is used on confirming a vow (Jer 44:25) or standing firm in an undertaking (Dan 12:12; Deu 27:26).

It is not easy to see why Jesus, bidding his apostles “wait for the promise of the Father (the Holy Spirit)” in Jerusalem (Acts 1:4), should use another meno compound: perimeno, “wait around”, when meno itself or one of the others already discussed would appear to be as good. The solitary OT occurrence of perimeno in Jacob’s prophecies to his sons (Gen 49:18) doesn’t help much: “I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord”. The apostles’ obedience to their Lord’s command is neatly indicated by mention of how they “stayed put” (katameno) in the house of the upper room (Acts 1:13).

Parameno seems to carry the idea of prolonging a stay or visit — as in Phi 1:25, already cited. This is certainly the idea in 1Co 16:6, where Paul considers the possibility of spending the approaching winter in Corinth.

There is a nice emphasis about James’ use of parameno in his figure of the mirror: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and so continueth (ie instead of a casual glance, a protracted gaze) — this man shall be blessed in his doing” (Jam 1:25).

In prosmeno the prefix very neatly implies abiding for the sake of continuing face to face with someone. Jesus insisted that the multitude must be fed because they had “stuck to him” into the third day (Mat 15:32). When Barnabas encountered the first Gentile converts in Antioch, he exhorted them to “stick to the Lord” (Acts 11:23) — this, whatever else.

In 1Ti 5:5 Paul picks out one of the essential characteristics of a true widow in Christ as one who “continueth in supplications and prayers” — sticking to her person-to-person contact with the Lord.

But in 1Ti 1:3 Paul had a different kind of person-to-person contact in mind. “I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus — that thou mightest charge certain not to teach a different doctrine.” And timid Timothy needed the exhortation, for prolonged encounters of this kind were not at all what he relished.

Diameno sometimes emphasizes continuance without end: “They (the heavens and the earth) shall perish, but Thou remainest” (Heb 1:11). And similarly in several of the psalms: “His name shall continue as long as the sun” (Psa 72:17). “The fear of the Lord endureth for ever” (Psa 19:9). Those who mock the promise of Christ’s return confidently assert that “all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2Pe 3:4). Such people need reminding that “the foolish shall not stand in thy sight” (Psa 5:5).

In a more limited sense, diameno describes an experience more long-lasting than might have been expected. “Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations,” Jesus said to the eleven (Luk 22:28). And the deaf and dumb Zacharias beckoning and “remaining (continuing) speechless” provides a vivid picture of the old man’s desperate and persistent attempts to communicate.