Take, Receive

The normal Greek word for “take” (lambano) is strengthened by a prefix — paralambano — to convey the idea of one person taking another along with him. This is the meaning in lots of passages, as when Jesus took three apostles into the mount with him.

In describing the call of the saints, “one taken and the other left” (Luk 17:34), there is plain implication of being taken by someone (an angel: Mat 24:31). Examples like these are so common as to create the problem: Why isn’t the word always translated that way? The exceptions seem to have to do with instances where persons are not involved; eg 1Co 15:1,3: “The gospel which I also received (I took it to myself when given it by Christ)…The gospel which also ye received (they took it to themselves from Paul)”.

The meaning is intensified yet further by the acquisition of another prefix, making sumparalambano. This imparts the yet warmer idea of close fellowship, as when Paul and Barnabas “took with them John Mark”. This becomes all the more poignant when a bitter quarrel broke out over John Mark’s later defection, so that Paul “thought it not good to take him with them, who went not with them to the work” — sumparalambano again; fellowship marred (but not broken) by differing principles about the preaching to Gentiles.

Temple

Naos means the inner sanctuary of a temple. It was there where Judas threw down the thirty pieces of silver.

“Ye are the temple of God” (1Co 3:16) makes a distinction from the outer court, which is Jewry (Rev 11:2).

What is “the temple of the tabernacle of God”? The inner shrine of the Tabernacle was the Holy of Holies.

In the age to come, there is no such Holy of Holies. Instead, the Lamb (Rev 21:22).

Think, Suppose, Reckon

Nomizo is only one of many words in the think-tank. A complete study of them all would fill a book. With this particular word, the essential idea is that equivalent to the American use of “I figure that it would be best to…” — as when Paul was stoned at Iconium, the disciples came round him, “supposing that he had been dead” (Acts 14:19).

But because of the close relationship to nomos, the Law, in several passages there are overtones. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets” (Mat 5:17).

Jesus “being as was supposed (ie legally reckoned) the son of Joseph…” (Luk 3:23).

Torment, Sorrow

The first of these is the more accurate meaning, as in: “I am tormented in this flame” (the rich man in “hell”: Luk 16:24,25).

The word describes the affliction of Israel under Egyptian bondage (Exo 3:7, LXX), the nights of misery suffered by Job (7:3), and the birth-pangs of Rachel giving birth to “the son of my anguish” (Gen 35:18), pains curable only by the blessed unconsciousness of death.

And this was the only word to describe the wretchedness of saying a final farewell to the apostle Paul (Acts 20:38), and of Mary and Joseph as they “sought their boy sorrowing” (Luk 2:48). It describes the aching misery of Paul grieving over the stony-hearted unbelief of his people (Rom 9:2), an unbudgeable prejudice against Jesus which torments the New Israel not at all. Instead, they are too busy “piercing themselves through with many sorrows” (1Ti 6:10) that are of no profit at all.

Variableness

Allos is a simple word for “other”. Allosso is a verb derived from it, meaning “change”. Going a step further, parallage describes a shift from one position to another. As you move your head from one side to the other, two objects in line at different distances appear to change position in opposite directions — parallage describes this effect. A similar phenomenon is noticeable with reference to the heavenly bodies: the constellations all appear to have fixed positions relative to each other. But not so the moon which appears against a different background of stars every night. This is the moon’s parallage. In Jam 1:17 God the Creator is called “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness (parallage), neither shadow cast by turning” (RV). Here the great glory of the character of God is cpd to the sun — He is unchangeable, in contrast with the moon which, as it turns in its orbit, changes in appearance because of the casting of a shadow across its face.

Vex

The NT has an interesting variety of words for this idea. Those “vexed with unclean spirits” (Luk 6:18; Acts 5:16) were “crowded” with them (ochleo). Mat 17:15, describing the epileptic boy healed by Jesus, says he was “sore vexed”, using the very word for the sufferings of Christ (pascho). Another word (kakoo) means ‘to work harm, to do evil’; “Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church” (Acts 12:1).

Two more highly expressive words describe Lot’s distress amidst the sodomy of Sodom: “He was vexed (kataponeo, worn down as with hard labour: s.w. Acts 7:24) at the filthy way of life of the wicked…he vexed (basanizo: tormented, tortured) his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2Pe 2:7,8).

Pass By, Pass Away

There seems to be little doubt that “pass by” is the more precise meaning of parago, as in John 9:1: “And as Jesus passed by he saw…a man blind from his birth” (8:59 also). Sometimes the word is paraporeuomai, essentially the same in meaning, perhaps with the idea of “journey”. Luke 18:36 is noteworthy: “they passed through (the gate of Jericho en route for Jerusalem)”.

Yet in three places it may be questioned whether the AV “pass away” is presenting quite the right idea. Is it true that “the fashion of this world passeth away” (1Co 7:31)? Two thousand years later the world is just as much with us, isn’t it? Perhaps Paul meant: “the world passeth by”, ie it is a passing show, and you are to be content to stand aside and treat it as such.

So also in 1Jo 2:8,17. Ought not this to read: “The darkness is being made to pass you by” (present indicative passive)?

Two examples out of Paul’s second journey merit attention. The apostle and his party “came through” Mysia — the word is used from the point of view of Luke awaiting them in Troas (see “Acts”, HAW, ch. 65). And in his speech at Athens, Paul explains: “As I came through (your city)…” (Acts 17:23), thus plainly implying: ‘I had no intention to stay and run a campaign here.’

Specially, there must be examined the highly expressive word describing how priest and Levite both “passed by on the other side”, when seeing the stricken traveller (Luk 10:31,32). Parerchomai is not sufficient to express the Lord’s disgust that they “came through” on that road; they carefully “came through over against” the poor man; “passed by on the other side” is excellent translating.

Pasture

The good shepherd “goes in and out” (as a leader of the flock) to “find pasture” (nome) for his flock (John 10:9). Is the word used here in deliberate contrast to nomos, the Law? And it may be that in 2Ti 2:17 Paul had the same play on words in mind. “Their word (ie of these Judaist teachers) will eat, will have nome, as doth a canker” — this last word may mean cancer or gangrene. Again, possibly, Paul wrote with Prov 24:15 (LXX) in mind.

Perverse Disputings

Diatribo describes the action of ceaselessly rubbing away (at inflamed eyes or an itch on the skin). But the word here in 1Ti 6:5 has an extra prefix: paradiatribo, as though to suggest men who are constantly coming alongside to renew their irritating arguments.

And the word that accompanies this, translated in AV by “men of corrupt minds”, is another eloquent polysyllable: diephtharmenos — not just corrupt, but utterly corrupt. And this perfect participle seems to imply: ‘they have already become like this, and they so continue…hopeless!’

Pierce

The piercing of the side of Jesus with a spear provides the only NT occurrence. But the more intensive form of the word, katanutto or -nusso, is used in Acts 2:37: “they were pricked in their heart”, with direct allusion to John 19:34: the horror of their sin in destroying the Son of God was brought home to them. The Acts passage also seems to look back to Psalm 4:4, where the LXX is markedly different from the AV “commune”. See also Isaiah 6:5.

Preach

The NT has a bundle of words for “preach”, each with its own special emphasis. Those in most common use are the most straightforward.

Euangelizomai is, literally, to carry a message of good. A lovely word! This is what the gospel is.

Katangello intensifies the notion of one who bears a message, and consequently is well rendered in RV by “proclaim”. If anything, this translation is hardly vigorous enough. For instance, Paul’s “Him declare I unto you” really means, ‘I am here to tell you plainly about the God you say you don’t know’ (Acts 17:23, and also vv 3,13). The AV of 1Co 11:26: “ye do shew the Lord’s death (by the formal remembrance of him) till he come”, is not strong enough. “Proclaim, openly declare” would be better. But how is this done if all others are shut out?

More emphatic even than this is diangello. “Suffer me first to go and bury my father,” said a disciple of sorts. “No,” said Jesus, “go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luk 9:60). Here the AV makes no difference from any other word “preach”. But here Jesus surely had his mind on the OT. For in the LXX this word comes very rarely, but three times it refers to the sounding of Jubilee trumpets (Lev 25:9; Jos 6:10), when freedom was proclaimed to those in bondage (there may be something of the same idea in Exo 9:16; Psa 2:7). Now read this idea back into Luk 9:60.

Kerusso means to fulfil the office of a herald. Hence, appropriately, it is first used with reference to John the Baptist as Messiah’s forerunner (Mat 3:1). There is always behind the use of this word the idea of one who sends the herald: “How shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?” (Rom 10:14,15).

Parrhesiazomai means “with plain or confident or bold speech”. Nearly always there is the implication of opposition or persecution or the risk of these. Saul of Tarsus, now become Paul the disciple, “preached boldly” at Damascus (Acts 9:27). Years later he besought the Ephesians to harness their prayers to his work, “that I may speak boldly as I ought to speak” (6:20). Is there a hint here that he was somewhat daunted by opposition? In Acts 18:26 there is a characteristic picture of Apollos “speaking boldly” in the synagogue concerning the work and message of John the Baptist.

Dialegomai puts the emphasis on reasoning, shaping an argument, and even disputation. It was evidently Paul’s usual mode of preaching the gospel to the Jews, for time and again he is described as “reasoning out of the Scriptures”, “reasoning in their synagogues”, etc. (Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,19; 19:8,9; 24:25). And in his discourses to the brethren also — his “long preaching” at Troas, with its calamitous result for Eutychus, was on these lines (20:7,9). The Pauline model seems to have been much left behind in modern ecclesias, both as to duration and method; Hebrews 12:5 (“speaketh”) describes tribulation and chastisement as God’s patient reasoning with His children.

Present

Parakeimai means, quite literally, “to be beside”, as when a man and a woman lie together. And evidently this was the forceful figure in Paul’s mind when he wrote: “I find then a law that when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Rom 7:21 and also v 18). This follows on remarkably well from the figure the apostle has used in vv 1-4.

Progress

“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luk 2:52). The word here translated “increased” — prokopto — is of special interest to those who find profit and pleasure in the use of lexicons and concordances. Literally it means “to cut forward”. A primary application was to the pioneer driving a track or trail through dense undergrowth. Hence it came to mean “press on, surge forward, forge ahead”. The picture is thus presented to the mind of an eager alert teen-age Jesus improving rapidly, both in physical and spiritual powers, well ahead of those his own age. A proper understanding of the verb settles here any doubt about the ambiguous word translated “stature”. The word can, of course, mean “age” also (see RV mg. and John 9:21; Heb 11:11), but here that meaning is impossible, for how could Jesus press on or forge ahead of others in age? There is here, therefore, probably the only indication Scripture contains about the physique of Jesus — he was tall well above average.

More than this, Jesus advanced beyond measure in wisdom. The reader is bidden think of him as wonderfully precocious whilst still at school, showing such a detailed knowledge of and insight into the wisdom of the Scriptures studied there, as to make all others appear pedestrian. And with increasing maturity there would come special stature at Nazareth as one who could advise and direct with a quiet sureness of judgement altogether abnormal in one of his years.

There is here yet another item of information about “the hidden years”. Not only did Jesus grow in favour with God far beyond others who cultivated godliness (that was only to be expected!); he also forged ahead of others in the good opinion of men. Thus up to the time when he left his carpenter’s shop to become a prophet and a witness to his own Messiahship, Jesus is to be thought of as the most esteemed and admired of all the rising generation in Nazareth. What a contrast with the reception his own city gave him not long afterwards (Luk 4:16-30)! So it must have been his claim rather than himself which set them against him.

It is instructive now to find the apostle Paul using the same word to describe his own early years: “And I was forging ahead in Judaism beyond many of my own age in my generation (or ‘in my own race’ — either way, the phrase appears to be redundant! Is it?).” Here is a picture of an eager precocious youth eclipsing by his brilliance all his fellow-students at the feet of Gamaliel.

And the thrill of excelling in Bible scholarship, which Saul the young rabbinist had known in his early years, he later wished for his “son” Timothy: “Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee…Be diligent in these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may be manifest to all” (1Ti 4:13-15). By such dutiful application to all aspects of godly service, Paul would fain have his young protege press forward in spiritual development so that “no man despise his youth” but rather that he become a pattern to others — “an example (type) of the believers”.

With a somewhat different emphasis Paul wished the same noteworthy progress for the church at Philippi which he loved so dearly: “And having this confidence (of acquittal when the appeal to Caesar was heard), I know that I shall abide (in the flesh) and be able to dwell with you all so that you press on ahead (of others) in your joy of faith.”

Yet even as he wrote, Paul experienced the deep satisfaction of seeing the Lord’s work make progress where he was: “My affairs have worked out rather unto the surging forward of the gospel; with the result that not only are my bonds in Christ manifest in all the Praetorium (ie the royal court) and among all the rest, but also most of the brethren who believed in the Lord through my bonds are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear” (Phi 1:12-14).

Thus in his personal friends, in some ecclesias he had founded, and in the work of preaching Paul was able to contemplate a great pressing forward.

Yet even as he wrote, the seeds of decay were beginning to germinate in the church. Shortly before he died, it became needful for Paul to issue warning against the surging advance of false ideas: “Shun profane and vain babblings, for they will make inroads and result in more ungodliness.” This irresistible progress of apostasy he likened to a cancer feeding on the wholesome tissue round about it: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.” Also, “evil men and imposters shall make inroads even worse (than the persecutors), both leading astray and being themselves misled.” All this must have been a sickening discouragement to the great apostle who now had only a few weeks to live.

As a kind of postscript, it may not be amiss to draw attention to the problem provoked by another of the varied uses of this interesting word: “Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Rom 13:11,12). Yet two thousand years later the dawn has not come! Useless to look for error in the translation; it could hardly be faulted. The solution must surely be in some other direction.

Protest

In 1Co 15:31 only: “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus”. Ne is a particle indicating an oath. The only other occurrence (?) is Gen 42:15,16: “By the life of Pharaoh”. Paul will not swear an oath: ‘by the life of Jesus’, so he dilutes it into: ‘by the rejoicing (which I have concerning you) in Christ Jesus…’

Fall

Pipto always means “fall, fall down”. It is a word marvellously free from ambiguity.

Antipipto comes once only, in Stephen’s speech: “Ye do alway resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). There can be no doubt that he had Num 27:14 in mind: “Ye rebelled against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife (antipiptein) of the congregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes.” Then Israel’s stubbornness led Moses into sin. There is perhaps a hint that Stephen feared his own indignation might lead him into a like sin. It had the makings of a parallel situation, for the Holy Spirit these men now resisted was the inspiration in himself.

Epipipto means precisely “fall upon”, in all its occurrences, except perhaps two. John 13:25: “John, falling upon Jesus’ breast…” This suggests that John had been sitting up, eager and alert. Now, in response to Peter’s gesture, he seeks a quiet intimation about the traitor from Jesus. Mar 3:10 says the crowd “fell upon” Jesus. It is a vivid description of a tremendous surge of enthusiasm.

Katapipto is “fall down”, and parapipto is “fall away from beside”. Peripipto means “to fall by chance, to happen upon” — falling into temptation (Jam 1:2), Paul’s ship happening to come into a place of raging seas (Acts 27:41), the man in the parable falling among thieves (Luk 10:30).

Prospipto, with one exception, describes the act of falling down before someone to seek aid. But Mat 7:25 describes how the rain, floods, and winds “fell down before” the house founded on a rock. It suggests very neatly that all this had no effect whatever.

Anapipto means “sit down to a meal”. The only place where LXX uses it is in Gen 49:9: “he stooped down, he couched as a lion.” It is tempting to associate this ancient prophecy of Messiah with Luk 11:37: “he went in, and sat down to meat” in the house of “a certain Pharisee”. It was in the character of a lion that the Lord accepted this invitation, for his table-talk was only biting invective (vv 39-44) against the palpable hypocrisy of these Pharisees.

Feeble-minded

Paul’s exhortation to “comfort the feeble-minded” (1Th. 5:14) may suggest to the modern mind a condescending attitude to the dim-witted. Not so! Oligopsuchos (literally: little of soul) is best illustrated by examples from the LXX: “Of a contrite spirit” (Isa 57:15). It describes the “anguish of spirit” of Israelites in Egyptian bondage (Exo 6:9). And NIV translates 1Th 5:14: “Encourage the timid.”

Fill, Full, Fulfil

Pleres means “full”.

Pleroo is an extremely common verb in both NT and LXX. Its simple meaning is “fill”; eg “I am filled with comfort” (2Co 7:4). “The house was filled with the odour of the ointment” (John 12:3).

Hence, also, the idea of “to complete”; eg “As John fulfilled his course” (Acts 13:25). “After these things were ended” (19:21). “When he had ended all these sayings” (Luk 7:1). So also of the joy of the Lord and his disciples being “fulfilled” (John 16:24; 17:13) in a mission fully accomplished.

An extremely common NT usage is for the fulfilment of OT Scriptures. Is it in this sense that Luk 9:31 is to be read? At the transfiguration Moses and Elias spoke to Jesus “of the exodus which he should accomplish (fulfil? — the rounding off of the type of the Exodus — or complete? — as in Acts 13:25).

One usage is of special importance. “The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exo 40:34,35). This filling of the sanctuary by the Shekinah Glory comes in plenty of passages, and leads on to Habakkuk’s great vision of “the earth (Land?) filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (2:14).

Paul picks up this usage and applies it to the Glory of Christ filling the Church. In Ephesians and Colossians he cannot get away from this idea: “That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Eph 3:19). “The fulness of him that filleth all (his ecclesias) in all (places), or by means of all (gifts)” (1:23).

Pleroma, “fulness”, is associated with this imagery a good deal. “In him (Jesus) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Col 2:9). “The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us; and we beheld his glory….full of grace and truth…and of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (John 1:14,16; on the last phrase, see Against, anti). This use of pleroma is very important.

Anapleroo: two of the six occurrences of this word are specially interesting. Quoting prophetic words about the judicial blindness inflicted on Israel, Jesus said: “In them is fulfilled the prophecy…” (Isa 6:9; Mat 13:14). The usual NT word for the fulfilling of prophecy is pleroo. But here, and here only, it is anapleroo, filled up. Then did Jesus choose this more emphatic word as an expression of his own indignation? Or was he implying: “That prophecy has had one fulfilment. Now here is another, even more significant”?

A similar word comes in Dan 9:2, LXX: “the word of the Lord by Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolation of Jerusalem”. No further fulfilment beside this which Daniel now understood! It was “filled up”.

Paul’s unexpected tirade against Jewry (1Th. 2:15,16) has the words: “to fill up their sins alway”. This is an unmistakable allusion to Gen 15:16: “For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (the Greek words are the same as in the LXX). Thus Paul writes off his own perverse nation as like the Amorites in their wickedness — indeed worse, for in Abram’s day Amorite iniquity was “not yet” full; but Israel’s rebellion is there “alway”, says Paul.

Paul learned this indignation from his Master, for it was a very angry Jesus who had blazed at the Pharisees in Jerusalem: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers!” (Mat 23:32,33).

Sumpleroo presents no problem in Luk 8:23: “they were filled up (with water)” in the storm on Galilee, the sum here being intensive, as it so often is. There is more doubt in Acts 2:1, which should probably read as RV mg.: “when the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled”. Luk’s mind, well-stocked with OT knowledge, sees here a new and better Pentecost than what Jewry emphasized. The rabbis were probably correct in their assessment that the giving of the Law at Sinai began at Pentecost. Now the same wind and noise announce a new and better theophany in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

There is real doubt in Luk 9:51, where — following the pattern of Acts 2:1 — it is perhaps correct to read: “And it came to pass as the days of his taking up (or, arrest; or, ascension) were being fulfilled…” But in that case, why “fulfilled”? If there were some suitable OT type or prophecy to point to, all would be well. But is there?

Fool

There is a wide variety of fools in this world, and also in the Bible. The NT has four words (and their cognates) for “fool”. The OT has more than this. Learned men have laboured to establish fine distinctions of meaning between these various terms, but have not been wonderfully successful. In their ordinary everyday mode of usage, do people really discriminate between…stupid, silly, ass, simpleton, dullard, blockhead, daft, nitwit? And so also in the NT So whatever distinctions may be discerned between the four expressions considered here, it would be unwise ever to insist on them in any dogmatic fashion.

Anoetos means “unintelligent”.

Asunetos is “without understanding”.

Aphron means “senseless, silly, an empty-head”.

Moros suggests folly that is perverse, a folly verging on downright badness.

The important thing above all others, about these terms, is that they are all used with a sense which implies “blameworthy” (cp the various uses of “fool” in Proverbs, where folly is mostly culpable folly).

The “foolish Galatians” (anoetos) ought not to have been led astray. The two on the way to Emmaus — “fools, slow of heart” — ought to have been able to read their Bible to better purpose. And when Jesus healed the paralytic, the deputation of learned men present there were “filled with madness” (anoia), but they shouldn’t have been. Gladness, not madness.

Asunetos is not always blameworthy lack of understanding (eg Rom 10:19), but it mostly is. “Are ye also yet without understanding?” Jesus complained to the twelve. And in his great diatribe in Romans 1, Paul twice uses this term in a way which implies a good deal more than sorrowful head-shaking.

Similarly, when Paul takes up in detail the question of resurrection — “With what body do they come?” — his first answer is: “You silly” (aphron), implying: ‘You shouldn’t be asking a question of that character (1Co 15:36). Isn’t the answer obvious?’ Accordingly, his explanation is an explanation for children, but has been turned into learned nonsense by many of his expositors.

In that tremendous catalogue of listed qualifications in Christ — both academic and practical (2Co 11) — Paul six times uses this word aphron, aphrosune: ‘I’m a chump, talking like this.’

In modern English “moron” means someone with only half a brain. In the NT this is not the emphasis. Now and then moros is slanted that way. The gospel is “unto the Greeks foolishness” (1Co 1:23). But again, more often, there is emphatic moral reprehension implied: “Ye fools and blind” (Mat 23:17,19). “Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Gehenna fire” (Mat 5:22). Perhaps in these places it is used as equivalent to the Hebrew moreh, rebel (Num 20:10; Deu 21:18,20). The foolish virgins were morai.

Forbid

This is rather strange. The lexicons all say that koluo means “hinder, prevent”, but, 17 times out of 23, King Jam’ men put “forbid”, and judging from the context they were usually right. There is a difference between the two. You can tell a child to stop its naughtiness without necessarily taking steps to prevent a continuation of his bad behaviour.

The man casting out demons was forbidden but not hindered (Mar 9:38,39). One of the accusations against Jesus was that he forbad tribute to Caesar (Luk 23:2); but this, even if true, could not refer to anything more than teaching. No man would take practical steps to stop a man from paying his income tax. “Forbidding to marry” (1Ti 4:3) likewise refers to misguided teaching, and not to active hindrance. It may be right that Peter intended reference to the ass forbidding Balaam’s madness (2Pe 2:16), but there was no literal forbidding in Numbers 22; only an uncomfortable hindering. This is the best example available of koluo signifying “prevent”.

There are one or two instances where the AV suggests “hinder”, but where the other meaning might be more happy. Paul wanted to get to Rome, “but was let hitherto” (Rom 1:13). Was he hindered by circumstances? or forbidden by the Holy Spirit? (Cp Acts 16:6.) Peter, telling about his vision of the great sheet, comments: “Who was I that I should withstand God?” (Acts 11:17) — or was he saying that he could not forbid God sending out the gospel to Gentiles? The case of the Ethiopian eunuch is interesting. He was, of course, not a Negro but a Jew domiciled in Ethiopia. His worship in the temple had been hindered, his participation in sacrifice and the service forbidden by his physical disability (Deu 23:1). Now, learning of forgiveness of sins in Christ, his immediate apprehensive reaction is: “What doth hinder me to be baptised?” In other words, “Does my disability forbid me this salvation as it forbad me sacrifice in Jerusalem? Is there a Scripture which forbids baptism to such as I?”

At Jordan, John’s forbidding of Jesus was specially emphatic and strenuous. Mat 3:14 uses the intensive diakoluo. But of course John did not actively try to stop Jesus from going into the water.

Despise

Several words, with a diversity of flavours, all appear in the AV translated “despise”.

Exoutheneo means “to treat as worthless, not worth one thing” (cp. “reckoned unto nothing”: Acts 19:27, Gk.). The Pharisees deemed themselves to be “righteous, and despised others” (Luk 18:9). Jesus was “the stone which the builders set at nought” (Acts 4:11). “Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” remonstrated Paul (Rom 14:10). The critics of Paul did just this: they declared “his speech contemptible” (2Co 10:10). “Despise not prophesyings,” he wrote to those who were losing patience over a certain over-free exercise of Holy Spirit gifts (1Th. 5:20). But why use so strong a word when, in his going-to-law pronouncement, he bade the brethren: “Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church”?

The nearest NT word to the English “despise” is kataphroneo, which is literally ‘think down’, with the idea of ‘look down on’. They “despise government,” wrote Peter (2Pe 2:10) about those who criticized their divinely-appointed ecclesial leaders.

“Let no man despise thy youth,” wrote Paul to Timothy (1Ti 4:12). This is by no means the only intimation that Timothy, though zealous and spiritual, was not a strong character. But how was he to apply this precept in practice? By asserting himself, or by quietly ignoring a slighting demeanour?

In the conflict between God and mammon, some “hold to the one, and despise the other” (Mat 6:24) — and despising mammon is surely the best attitude here.

Atheteo mostly means ‘rejection of the authority of law’. In only one place is it translated “despise”, thus: “He that despised Moses’ law died under two or three witnesses” (Heb 10:28). The noun has the same idea: Heb 7:18 speaks of a “disannulling of the commandment”; and in 9:26 Christ “put away sin (ie abrogated the dominion of sin) by the sacrifice of himself”.

“Ye have despised the poor,” wrote Jam, with unvarnished censure (2:6). Atimazo means literally “dishonour”, but in normal usage it developed a stronger bite: “treat shamefully”.

Oligoreo means to have little care or concern. Hence: “despise not thou the chastening of the Lord” (Heb 12:5).

Destroy

Luo means quite simply: “to unloose”. But now and then King James’ men thought a stronger reading to be necessary, as in the words of Jesus: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again” (John 2:19) — and thus they destroyed the main idea, for Jesus was alluding to the taking down of the Tabernacle (Num 10:33-36). On this, see “Gospels”, ch. 22.

So also in Peter’s graphic prophecy of the final dissolution of human civilisation: “the elements shall melt (be unloosed) with fervent heat…all these things shall be dissolved…” (2Pe 3:10-12).

Holothreus, and its noun holothreutes (destruction) seem to be used so emphatically of angelic judgment [Heb 11:28; 1Co 10:10; 2Th. 1:9; 1Th. 5:3; Obad. 13 (3 times); Acts 3:23 (quoting Lev 23:29)], as to suggest the likelihood of this meaning in other places also: the excommunication of the depraved offender in 1Co 5:5; and of the rich (1Ti 6:9).

The chief NT word for ‘destroy’ — apollumi — means just that. In an abundance of places this is the meaning which shouts from the text:

• “Lord, save us, we perish” (Mat 8:25).
• “They (his enemies) sought to destroy him” (Mar 3:6; etc.).
• “He will come and will destroy those wicked servants” (Mat 21:41).
• “The bottles are marred (ie spoiled beyond further use)” (Mar 2:22).
• “…that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever- lasting life” (John 3:15,16).
• Jesus used the word about those who perished in the Flood (so also 2Pe 3:6) and in the judgment on Sodom (Luk 17:27,29).
• God causes the wisdom of the wise to perish (1Co 1:19).
• In the wilderness faithless Israelites were “destroyed of serpents” (1Co 10:9).

In just one or two places the word is used hyperbolically where utter destruction is not spoken of. In each case the exaggeration is both pardonable and effective:

• The lost sheep, and the lost coin (Luk 15:4,8).
• “Gather up the fragments that nothing be lost” (John 6:12).

One example — Mat 10:28 — is specially instructive: “Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” It needs only the asking of one simple question, and this is clear at a glance: Where is the body destroyed? Answer: In the grave. Thus “hell” is defined; and it is there where the “soul” dies also.

There are no less than ten other Greek words which are all translated “destroy”, twelve or thirteen when cognates are included in the reckoning. Each has its own special meaning.

One of the most important of these is: katargeo — bring to nought, put out of action: “Why doth it (the fruitless fig tree) cumber the ground?” (Luk 13:7). “Do we then make void the Law?” (Rom 3:31). This is the meaning in many a passage. Then what of Heb 2:14: “…that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil”? In the context, phrase after phrase alludes to the Passover: “the children…partakers… flesh and blood…took part…deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage”. The verbal contacts with Exo 12 (LXX) are unmistakable. Then who was the “devil” who was “brought to nought”? Exo 12:23, with its emphasis on “the destroyer”, the Almighty’s angel of death, provides the answer. This is probably the meaning in 1Co 15:26.

Another interesting example is 2Th. 2:8: “The man of sin…whom the Lord shall bring to nought with the brightness of his coming.”

Phtheiro means ‘to cause to corrupt’, as in “the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Eph 4:22).

This is the obvious meaning in nearly every occurrence, eg “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (1Co 15:33). “If any man corrupt the temple of God, him shall God cause to corrupt” (1Co 3:13).

The intensive form of the word — diaphthera — is used only about the corruption of the grave, as in: “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:31). And there are the grim words of Rev 11:18: God will “destroy them that destroy the earth.”

Kathaireo is a verb only once translated “destroy”: “When he (God) had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan” (Acts 13:19). Its normal meaning is “to take down”. Then was Paul here implying that the Canaanites were subjugated, and not destroyed? The noun kathairesis is used with this sense: “Mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2Co 10:4 — one of a running series of allusions here to the conquest of the Land under Joshua). In the same chapter Paul speaks of his apostolic authority “for edification, and not for your destruction” (2Co 10:8) — a building up, not a pulling down.

Portheo describes devastation, as of the laying waste of a city or countryside, hence the name Parthians. It is in just this sense that it is used with regard to Saul’s persecution of the early church: Acts 9:21; Gal 1:13. It serves as well as a long drawn-out description to depict the savagery and ruthlessness which the early brethren were called upon to endure.

The noun suntrimma occurs in Rom 3:16 only. Its verb suntribo always means to break or bruise.

Determine, Appoint

Horizo is a word describing demarcation, Maring out distinctly. The horizon is the line which plainly separates sea and sky. Horia is the normal NT word for a boundary between two countries. In the NT the word intimates God’s purposeful pre-appointing of people and events. The birth and work and death and future kingship of Jesus are all covered by this expressive word (Rom 1:4; Acts 2:22; 10:42; 17:31). The same word, with elucidating prefix apo — aphorizo — is used three times about the pre-determined work of Paul (Gal 1:15; Rom 1:1; Acts 13:2).

All the occurrences of horizo are used with respect to the wisdom or work of God. Only one passage does not immediately fall into this category. In Acts 11:29 the brethren “determined to send relief” to believers in Judaea suffering from famine. It is surely arguable that by the use of horizo here Luk was neatly intimating that this decision was reached under direct divine guidance.

Similarly there are only two uses of aphorizo where divine action seems at first to be excluded. Jesus spake of men “separating you (the believers) from their company” (Luk 6:22). Perhaps he meant to imply that they would adopt this policy as under a mandate from heaven (the old bogey of block disfellowship), thinking they were doing God service. But what of Gal 2:12? At Antioch Peter, influenced by the Judaists, “withdrew and separated himself” from the Gentile believers. It is conceivable that in this instance, happily corrected later on, Peter was influenced by the use of the same word applied in Exo 19:12, LXX, to the exclusion of Israel before God brought them into His covenant (Exo 24).

Double Negatives

In modern English the double negative is a hallmark of poor education: “I didn’t do nothin’ ”. Not so in NT Greek, where it is particularly common in the gospels, thus:

Paul has two double negatives (1Co 8:2; 2Co 11:9). The rest of the NT not at all.

In three passages there are triple negatives: ‘You don’t know nothin’ no time!’ But the gospels can hardly be accused of crudity in this respect:

“There shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time, no nor ever shall be” (Mat 24:21) — oud’ ou me genetai.

“And nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luk 10:19) — ouden…ou me.

Joseph’s tomb, “wherein never man before was laid” (Luk 23:53) — ouk… oudeis oupo.

Dry, Wither

Xeros basically means “dry”, and hence “withered”. It has passed into poetic English: “the sere and yellow leaf”.

Simple examples of the first meaning: Israel came “through the Red Sea as by dry land” (Heb 11:29). “Ye (Pharisees) compass sea and land (literally: the dry) to make one proselyte” (Mat 23:15).

The meaning “withered” is actually more common: eg with regard to the cursed fig tree withering away (Mat 21:19,20). The seed in stony places has no root and withers away (Mat 13:6).

The man with a withered hand (Mar 3:1) presents an interesting problem. This was no commonplace dermatitis, but the dry gangrene which can be a killer, and mostly was in those days; hence the Lord’s expostulation to his critics: “On the sabbath day is it lawful to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” Healing that withered hand would save his life; refraining from an exercise of healing power would, in effect, sentence him to death — hence the strong language: “to do evil….to kill”.

The Apocalypse in two interesting places uses the verb. In the Sixth Vial the water of Euphrates is “dried up” (Rev 16:12). This seems to imply the river’s disappearance, and not its being reduced to a rivulet. Does this affect the interpretation of the symbolism?

Also, in 14:15 the harvest of the earth (or, of the Land) is to be gathered because it is dried up (AV: ripe). What does this imply about those whom this symbol represents?

Dull, Slothful

“Seeing ye are dull of hearing (ie of understanding the gist of a valuable scripture)” (Heb 5:11). One lexicographer even translates it: “stupid”. The same word comes in one other place, a few verses further on. “That ye be not slothful, but followers of them that through faith and patience inherit the promises” (6:12). This shows that spiritual insight, and not merely academic cleverness, is the essential meaning. This throws a useful light on Prov 22:29, LXX: “The man diligent in his business…shall stand (in honour) before kings; he shall not stand (in humility) before mean men.” Few greater humiliations for an intelligent industrious man that to have to serve those who are stupid.

Give Up the Ghost

There is a perhaps excusable practice of substituting “Holy Spirit” for “Holy Ghost” when reading the King Jam Bible. In its turn this has brought about a similar switch from “gave up the ghost” to “gave up the spirit”, which is not so defensible. Ekpneo is, quite simply, “breath out”, ie “to breathe one’s last (breath)”. “Expire” is the exact (Latin) equivalent. Ekpsucho is, literally, “to out-soul” or “out-life”. To turn this into “give up the spirit” is both inexact and misleading. This practice should stop. Either let us have the good old English, which no congregation misunderstands, or else “expire” (this is perhaps best), or the plain unvarnished “die”.

Gnashing of Teeth

This expressive phrase comes 9 times in the NT and in 8 of them is coup-led with “weeping”. So this is usually taken as an intensive for irremediable uncontrollable sorrow. But no! The one place where “gnashing of teeth” occurs by itself (Acts 7:54) it describes the violent inexpressible anger for and hatred of Stephen shown by his Sanhedrin judges. Then this must be the meaning in the eight gospel descriptions of the anguish of those rejected in the Day of Judgment. “Weeping” certainly means intense sorrow. And in that Day “gnashing of teeth” means anger — with whom? and why? The only pos-sible explanation is: anger with oneself, for having been such a fool as to have within one’s grasp or attainment the “blessed hope” of eternal redemption in Christ. To come so near to this and wilfully to reject it is the most arrant folly a human being is capable of. So here is the nearest that the teaching of Jesus comes to the mediaeval notion of everlasting torment in hell — only, mercifully, it will not be everlasting, for then “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” No fate worse than that? (See Psa 112:10.)

The original of Acts 7:54 is almost certainly the eloquent Psalm 37:12 (but see also Job 16:9).

Groan

Stenos means “narrow”. It describes a pass shut in between cliffs, or a slim isthmus of land, or an ocean strait (the straits of Gibraltar) joining larger pieces of water. This idea of being shut in has passed into the English words “straitened” and “constraint”. Hence “the strait gate” (Mat 7:13,14).

Similarly, in Greek, stenos has begotten stenazo, groan, and stenagmos, groaning. Always the idea is that of being shut in, under pressure or constraint.

The idea comes out excellently in the angel’s words to Moses: “I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel” (Exo 6:5; Acts 7:34).

Paul appropriates this word to describe his own aspirations to be rid of the spiritual cramping which the “earthly house of this tabernacle” necessarily imposes on the new man in Christ: “For in this (tabernacle) we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon (more completely) with our house which is from heaven (the new creature)” (2Co 5:1,2).

“Groan” becomes a key word in a passage of similar import in Romans 8, where Paul has written about the New Creation waiting expectantly and looking earnestly for “the manifestation of the sons of God”. “The whole (new) creation groaneth and travaileth until now. And not only they (the brethren in general), but ourselves also (the leaders and elders of the ecclesias), which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves.” He goes on to emphasize this: “For we (the leaders) know not what we should pray for (on behalf of others) as is needful (or, necessary): but the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities (these deficiencies of wisdom and spiritual power), making intercession (for our brethren: ‘for us’ is not in the Greek text here) with groanings which it is not possible to utter (apart from the Spirit’s help)” (8:19,23,26).

Read this way, the passage comes down to earth. It is an allusion to the ecclesial leaders having the deficiencies of their mortality, in the guidance of the ecclesias, being made good by Holy Spirit power. Today, although the same inspiration does not operate, the duty to pray for the brethren as individuals is still there, but in general it goes shamefully ignored.

This word “groan” has exactly the same context in Heb 13:17: “…them that have the rule over you…for they watch for your souls…that they may do it with joy, and not with groaning”.

Jam’ exhortation is in contrast with this: “Grudge (groan) not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned” (5:9). Not this, but “groaning” in prayer on behalf of one another.

The one occasion when this word is used about Jesus is in his healing of the man who was deaf and almost dumb (Mar 7:34). In this miracle, and on hardly any other occasion, Jesus looked up to heaven and “sighed”, groaned. This doubtless was the offering of a special prayer. But why in this miracle and not in so many others? Because the Lord saw this deaf and dumb man as a figure of his chosen disciples who were spiritually like that, and making little progress. So the prayer was not just for the man, but also for a miracle of hearing and speech to be wrought on his disciples. From this point of view the miracle makes sense. It was an acted parable.

In the next chapter a more intensive form of this word is used regarding Jesus (8:12). Pharisees pressed him for a sign from heaven. They knew they had a good attacking gambit here: “You say John was the promised Elijah prophet of Malachi 4 and yourself the Messiah? But when the first Elijah handed over to his greater successor there was a sign from heaven — the cherubim of glory. Then to prove your claims, give us the same sign! We’ve had enough of these trifling miracles of healing. Let the chariots of Israel appear, with the horsemen thereof.”

And indeed at a word Jesus could have given the sign they demanded. But instead he offered a heart-felt prayer for patience with these soul-less faithless men (lit.: he up-groaned in his spirit), and then abruptly he left them.

There is another word twice translated “groan”, in the account of the raising of Lazarus. “Jesus groaned in his spirit, and was troubled” (John 11:33); “therefore again groaning in himself Jesus cometh to the grave” (v 38). Clearly the translators have read these two passages as expressions of the intense grief of Jesus because of the death of Lazarus and the bereavement suffered by Martha and Mary.

But embrimaomai suggests indignation and even anger. It is a word to describe the snorting of a horse (very onomatopoetic!) or the roaring of a lion. This is certainly the idea when disciples “murmured” at Mary for her anointing of Jesus (Mar 14:5). No grief here, but only indignation. And in the only LXX occurrences (Lam 2:6; Dan 11:30) this is certainly the meaning. So also in quite a few places in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus: eg Jer 10:10; 15:17; Psa 76:7.

Then why should Jesus be filled with indignation at the graveside of his friend. The context suggests anger at the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders who “wept” along with the two sisters, and in the next moment indulged in sarcasm and criticism: “Behold how he loved him!…Could not this man…have caused that even this man (one so sick) should not have died?” (John 11:36,37). Jesus did well to be angry!

So also in connection with two other miracles. With both the leper (Mar 1:43) and the two blind men (Mat 9:30) Jesus “straitly charged” (embrimaomai) that no one should be told. There is an intriguing picture here of the compassion of the Lord fighting a battle with his mistrust of human nature. Against his better judgment he healed them, and paid for it, for in both instances he was flagrantly disobeyed. The question as to why Jesus was so anxious in these instances to avoid publicity is another problem, not to be entered on here.

Entirely, Certainly

Here the first of the meanings of pantos is closer to the right idea of wholly, utterly, by any means; eg “that I might by all means save some” (1Co 9:22). “Ye will surely (the whole lot of you) say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself” (Luk 4:23). “For sure (no doubt) this man (Paul) is a murderer” (Acts 28:4).

With the negative the idea is “certainly not” or “not at all”. Thus: “Are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise (not at all!)” (Rom 3:9).

Eye Service

Opththalmodulos occurs only in two virtually identical passages: Eph 6:6; Col 3:22. It expresses in an eloquent polysyllable the attitude of a slave who knows his master’s eye is on him; and then, and only then, does he apply himself conscientiously.

Heretic, Heresy

These English words are simply transliterated Greek: hairetikos, hairesis, which in turn derive from a verb meaning “choose” (as in 2Th. 2:13; Mat 12:18). Hence, the essential idea is that of a “select group”. In the NT, “the sect of the Sadducees” (Acts 5:17), “the sect of the Pharisees…the straitest sect of our religion” (15:5; 26:5). The early believers were at first deemed to be just such another special group: “this sect…everywhere spoken against” (28:22).

The idea of false doctrine was not inherent in these words originally, but simply the notion of a separatist group. Thus, “the Way, which they call heresy” (24:14) is misleading; “which they regard as just another Jewish sect” would be nearer the right idea.

It was the influence of the great age of theological disputation, the fourth century, which changed the word “heresy” to its modern, highly denigratory, meaning. So the apostles’ references to “damnable heresies”, etc. (2Pe 2:1; 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20) have been rightly rendered by the RV: “factions”. What Peter and Paul were denouncing were separatist splits in the church. Thus “the man that is an heretic” (Tit 3:10) is one who leads a faction in or out of the church. Strange that those who go in for this kind of thing assert stoutly that they are rejecting heresy and separating themselves from its defiling influence! In fact, such a faction leader is “condemned of himself” by his own overt act of separatism (but the man who gives loyalty to a false doctrine does not condemn himself — he is sure he is right!).

Instruct, Chastise

Pais (Gen: paidos) means a boy or lad, and paidion means a little child. So, fairly obviously, paideuo is the word for “teach, instruct”. Thus: “Moses was learned, instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). And Saul the Pharisee was “taught according to the perfect manner of the fathers (the rabbis)” (Acts 22:3).

But since in every generation except this sloppy 20th-century thorough education has necessarily had to be accompanied or enforced by discipline — paideuo also has as a distinct meaning: “chastise”. In this sense it is used a good deal in the NT, especially in Hebrews: “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6,7,10). “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten” (Rev 3:19).

But what foolishness it would be to carry this meaning through to 2Ti 2:25: “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves”. Not by any stretch of imagination could ‘chastising’ be substituted here.

Another intriguing, and horrifying, example is Pilate’s repeated: “I will therefore chastise him (Jesus), and let him go” (Luk 23:16,22). Evidently the governor meant: ‘Just to teach him a lesson that he is to keep out of trouble, I will set him free after he has had a beating.’ And what a beating, with the dreaded Roman flagellum tearing his back to shreds!

Instruments, Weapons, Armour

Hopla is Greek for a piece of equipment. In the Bible it is used only in the plural for war-equipment, ie weapons or armour. Complete equipment is indicated in Eph 6:11,13 and Luk 11:22 for all weapons and defensive armour (pan-oplia): “the whole armour of God”.

In most places hopla is used in a sense easy to understand. Peter has an eloquent variant of it. Using the verb, he exhorts: “Arm yourselves with the same mind (as Christ was equipped with in his sufferings)” (1Pe 4:1), but it is a mental armour: “the same mind”. Similarly, Paul urges: “Neither yield ye your members as weapons to fight an unrighteous war for that evil cap-tain Sin, but yield your members as weapons of righteousness under God’s own leadership” (Rom 6:13).

In every occurrence the NT use of this figure is both easy to perceive and vivid. (See also on Warfare.)

Call

Kaleo is the ancestor of our English verb “call”, and carries almost exactly the same set of meanings: “to give a name to”, “to invite”, “to summon”, and especially in the epistles “to bring the gospel to someone”. Three easy examples are all that is necessary here.

• “The street which is called Straight” (Acts 9:11).
• “None of those men which were bidden shall taste of my supper” (Luk 14:24).
• “Him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2Pe 1:3).

This kaleo also takes on prefixes galore.

Antikaleo (Luk 14:12 only) is, quite simply, an invitation in return for one received.

Epikaleo, “call upon”, has as its simplest and most obvious meaning the addition of an extra name, as “Judas surnamed Iscariot”.

An important extension of this idea is “having the name of Christ called upon oneself” — as in Jam 2:7: “that worthy name which was called upon you” (RV mg.). This is straight from the OT; eg Jacob’s blessing on the sons of Joseph: “Let my name be named on them” (Gen 48:16). Thus they were reckoned as his sons, and were given inheritance in the Land along with his sons.

This idiom crops up in several places. There is the ringing exhortation of Ananias to Saul of Tarsus: “And now, why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, calling the name of the Lord upon thyself” (Acts 22:16; and so also in 2:21).

On a more mundane level, epikaleo makes appeal to Caesar (6 times in Acts). But a much more important usage is to make appeal to God. In Rom 10:13,14 Paul moves from one idea to the other: “For whosoever shall call the name of the Lord upon himself shall be saved. How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed?” Here now is the lovely OT theme of the divine rescue: “I called upon the Lord in distress: the Lord answered me” (Psa 118:5).

Metakaleomai means “summon”.

Parakaleo, “call to one’s side”, is a word the NT could not do without. All its occurrences are covered by “beseech, exhort, comfort”. Sometimes when taking on a somewhat stronger intent, it means “exhort”, but more usually the other gentler meanings dominate.

Thus the noun paraklesis is nearly always “comfort, consolation”, with only one or two instances of the slightly more austere meaning, as in “Suffer the word of exhortation” (Heb 13:22).

There has been a lot of discussion about how the Holy Spirit passages in John should translate parakletos. It is true that ordinary Greek used this word of a legal aid or representative, but none of the four passages in John’s gospel take kindly to this meaning. “Helper” seems to be the best reading here (John 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7).

Then what of 1Jo 2:1? “If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.” The legal idea goes well enough here, and is encouraged by the translations. Yet such a reading seems out of character with the apostle John. Also, since the four passages just mentioned have no legal flavour at all, is it likely that John would introduce it here? Isn’t the idea rather this?: ‘If we sin, we have Jesus as our helper in heaven, just as we have the Holy Spirit as our helper here’ (2:20).

Prokaleo, “call forth”, expresses a challenge. Hence Gal 5:26: “provoking one another” describes a spirit of rivalry which Paul so strongly deprecates in that place.

Proskaleomai is “to call others to oneself”. Always this is the idea. There are no complications. Thus: “as many as the Lord our God shall call” (Acts 2:39) means “call to Himself”.

Sunkaleo is, just as simply, “call together”.

Cast

Ballo is, quite simply, “to throw, cast”. There are a few places out of more than 130 occurrences where it comes away somewhat from precisely this meaning, but always it preserves something of the vigour associated with the basic idea.

“Put up (ballo) thy sword into the sheath” (John 18:11) suggests a decisive end to violence. “Except I put (ballo) my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust (ballo) my hand into his side, I will in no wise believe,” declared Thomas, showing his emphatic resolution by the strength of his language (John 20:25). Sick people are spoken of as lying (ballo) on a bed” (Mat 8:6,14; 9:2). “Laid low” would probably be a good modern equivalent.

The real interest in this word is in the astonishing tribe of compound words which it has spawned, all of them showing something of the vigour and energy of their forebear. There seems to be hardly a preposition in the language that ballo has no affinity for.

Anaballomai (Acts 24:22 only) describes how Felix “deferred” the Jews after the first hearing of the case against Paul. There is an evident sug-gestion of impatience about this word (“cast them back”), which crystallizes out further when reference is made to Psa 78:21; 89:38, LXX, where this is used.

Antiballo (Luk 24:17) is specially interesting: “What communications are these which ye have (weak translation!) one to another?” Ideas and arguments, hopes and guesses, speculations and objections were being thrown backwards and forwards by these two on the way to Emmaus. This is what antiballo says to the reader of the Greek NT (“Gospels”, HAW, ch. 247; “He is risen indeed”, HAW, ch. 11).

Epiballo has for its commonest rendering: “laid hands on” (eg Luk 20:19; 21:12). But occasionally it goes off in a different direction.

“This I speak for your own profit,” writes Paul, “not that I may cast a snare (noose) upon you.” Paul was no bronco buster seeking to lasso his converts. By all means see Prov 6:5, where the same word is used.

Mar 14:72, concerning Peter’s repentance, is decidedly difficult. AV: “when he thought thereon, he wept” really imports nothing of the idea of epiballo. Godet translates: “hurrying forth”. There is support in the papyri for reading it: “he burst into tears”. Souter: “he set to and wept” (and kept on weeping).

Ekballo is used a lot for the casting out of demons. It is also appropriate to energetic action wherever persons are concerned; eg excommunication — “Diotrephes casteth them out of the church” (3Jo 1: 10). “Dost thou teach us?” said the rulers to the (blind) man in his staunch loyalty to Jesus, “and they cast him out.” Rev 11:2 must be read the same way (“Revelation”, HAW, p. 146).

This vigorous word is used also of sending labourers into the vineyard (Luk 10:2), of removing both beam and mote from the eye (Mat 7:4,5), of the Spirit driving Jesus into the wilderness (Mar 1:12), and even of the well-instructed enthusiastic scribe casting forth things new and old out of his treasury (Mat 13:52) — a marvellous picture of the eagerness of a good Bible student to share his findings.

Diaballomai describes the unjust steward “accused” of wasting his master’s goods (Luk 16:1). The link with the more familiar diabolos is obvious, and may give rise to the suggestion that but for someone informing on him, the steward might have got away with it.

Kataballo is straightforward. Paul’s phrase, “cast down, but not destroyed”, suggests that his enemies within the church were achieving a successful campaign against him (2Co 4:9). The word is also used of laying a foundation (katabole).

Metaballomai (cp. metabolism) indicates a sudden or dramatic change — as when the ignorant people of Malta decided that Paul was not a criminal but a god (Acts. 28:6). It describes how Israel turned their backs on their enemies (Jos 7:8), and how later, when Ai was ablaze, they turned against their pursuers (8:21). Isa 60:5 is interesting: “the wealth of the sea shall turn, or turn back, unto thee (Israel restored).”

Paraballo suggests putting one thing beside (para) another. Hence the word “parable”, in which a detailed similitude is put alongside a real-life situation. In most parables (all of them?) the correspondence can be worked out in detail.

But when the same word is used of interpretation in detail of Abraham’s offering of Isaac, the RV of Heb 11:19 reads “parable”. So Gen 22 anticipates the parables of Jesus by many centuries and should be treated similarly.

The offering of sacrifice in the Tabernacle is also described as a parable (Heb 9:9). So here again exact correspondences are to be sought. In many details the redeeming work of Christ is foreshadowed. The difficulty is that only a few of these details are interpreted by the NT. So in this field exercises in interpretation should be expressed, and received, with due diffidence.

There is an interesting example in the LXX of a very literal use of kataballo. Boaz bade his harvesters: “Be sure to cast beside her (Rth) some of that which has (already) been heaped up” (Rth 2:16). Was Rth too ingenuous to realize what was happening?

Periballo (cast around) makes a highly appropriate word for putting on eastern garments, though inappropriate for clothes of western design. Thus, with only one exception, this word describes the putting on of robes or garments. That exception is the Lord’s prophecy (Luk 19:43) of Jerusalem’s fate, when “thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee.” The holy city’s winding sheet, or shroud!

Proballo is, very simply, “put forth” — the fig tree in the parable putting forth leaves; the Jews of Ephesus, scared by the riot, put forth Alexander as their representative.

Sumballo. The prefix means “together with”. The reference is usually to throwing words or ideas together, hence: “converse, discuss”.

The chief priests in Jerusalem “conferred among themselves” (Acts 4:15). The philosophers of Athens “encountered” Paul — they had discussion with him (17:18). Apollos, when he was come to Corinth, had a lot of talk with the brethren there (18:27) — AV: “helped them much” is rather vague. Mary “pondered” in her heart all the wonderful things associated with the birth of her baby — she was bringing together the significance of all that had transpired. Luk 14:31, AV, misses the point. It would read better: “What king going to another king to discuss concerning war…”

Acts 20:14 is rather problematical. AV: “when he met with us at Assos” seems to be the only possible reading, yet it is not without difficulty, for the verb is in the imperfect tense. “Met and conferred”?

Cleanse, Purify

One expects, naturally enough, that in the OT these words will be specially associated with ritual cleanness and freedom from defilement, as defined in the Law of Moses. But it turns out that this is true in the NT also, with very few exceptions.

There is the use of katharos with reference to leprosy: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” (Mat 8:2); and to “the days of the purification” of Mary (Luk 2:22); and to food: “Lord, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean (akathartos)” (Acts 10:14); and to “waterpots…after the manner of the purifying (katharismos) of the Jews” (John 2:6), and so on.

But, declared Jesus, “all things (meaning: all foods) are clean unto you” (Luk 11:41; note v 39). Paul magnificently shook off his Pharisee prejudices about forbidden foods: “There is nothing unclean (koinos, common) of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean… All things indeed are pure (katharos)” (Rom 14:14,20).

This is also the true meaning of Tit 1:15: “To the pure (katharos) all things are pure” — contrast “Jewish fables” (v 14). This passage, which has so often been cited to prove that the pure-minded can read bad books and see bad TV programmes and stare at pornography without harm, is actually about the kind of food you may eat. If you are truly cleansed in Christ, so also is all the food you eat.

Much more fundamentally, the NT has some wonderfully fine assurances that those truly in Christ are truly clean: “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (ie sins of commission).” But also: “He is faithful and just to…cleanse us from all unrighteousness (sins of omission)” (1Jo 1:7,9).

Again, “he that is bathed (in baptism) needeth not save to wash his feet (the forgiveness of day-to-day lapses), but is clean (katharos) every whit: and ye are clean, but not all” (John 13:10).

There is also the cleansing discipline in Christian experience: “Every branch in me (the True Vine) that beareth fruit he cleanseth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:2). This refers, not to pruning, but to literally scrubbing the vine stem with soap and water to rid it of a fungus (see Jer 2:22).

The disciple’s self-discipline is also called for. “As ye yielded your members servants to uncleanness (akatharsia)…even so now…” (Rom 6:19). “Let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2Co 7:1). “Fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness (coveting a woman you have no right to), let it not be once named among you” (Eph 5:3).

Jam has a fine allusion to the service of the priests in the sanctuary. The laver was appointed specially that “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat” (Exo 30:19). But Jam, having established his allusion, switches quite dramatically from “feet” to “hearts”: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse (katharizo) your hands, ye sinners, and purify (hagnizo) your hearts, ye double-minded” (4:8).

This cleansing of heart and conscience is powerfully insisted on by Paul [1Ti 1:5; 3:9; 2Ti 1:3; 2:21 (ekkathairo), 22 (pure, katharos)]. But on this the most familiar passage of all is the beatitude: “Blessed are the pure (katharos) in heart, for they shall see God” (Mat 5:8). Isaiah, in consternation at his own uncleanness, had the reverse experience: the sight of the glory of God cleansed (perikathairo) him (Isa 6:5,7).

Many other passages call for special attention. Examples:

Tit 2:14: “…that he might purify (katharizo) unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Here Paul is writing with his mind on the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai: “Moses sanctified the people, they washed their clothes…ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me…All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exo 19:14,5,8).

“We (the apostles) are made as the filth (perikatharmia) of the world, the offscouring (peripsema) of all things” (1Co 4:13). At Athens in time of plague a worthless person was thrown into the sea with the words: “Be thou our peripsema.” Such a person was called katharma (that which is thrown away in cleansing).

In Rev 21:21; 22:1 the new Jerusalem is described as “pure (clean) gold” because sanctified to God and by His Presence. Does this phrase contrast with the uncleanness of gold in this present age?

Unclean spirits? No, that is a separate subject.

Cloud

Out of 25 occurrences of nephele, all but three plainly mean the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory. The student should work his way through the entire list. Acts 1:9 and 1Th 4:17 are specially instructive.

But there are three of the twenty-five which do not so readily conform to this general usage: In 2Pe 2:17, false teachers are referred to as “clouds carried with a tempest”. Jud 1:12 (ref to the above) calls them “clouds without water”. In each of these instances the Shekinah Glory idea is not out of sight. Here were men claiming divine authority for their message (as Ezekiel with his Eze 1), but in fact they were not borne along by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:19) but by a tempest, sweeping them away to their own destruction. Differently, Jude’s “clouds without water” implies that these men brought no true Holy Spirit blessing.

But what is to be said about the words of Jesus?: “When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.” Besides the simple literal meaning, a commonplace experience in the Holy Land, Jesus may have meant allusion to the Holy of Holies at the western end of the sanctuary enclosure (cp Psa 103:12) — the Shekinah Glory of God appearing there would be the certain herald of heavenly blessing: “a shower”.

It is important to observe that the “so great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1), referring to the multitude of the faithful in Heb 11, uses a different word: nephos. Thus, it is not permissible to use this passage to interpret 1Th 4:17.

Come Close

Acts 27:8,13 provides two interesting examples of an unexpected idiom. Paralegomai means literally “to speak with”. Yet is used in these two places of a ship’s close approach: “And hardly passing it (Salmone), we came unto… the Fair Havens” (27:8). Then, by and by, they “sailed close by Crete” (27:13). How has the word come to take on this kind of meaning?

To this day it is normal nautical parlance for one ship to “speak with” another; ie make a close approach. Communication between the two is not necessarily implied. So also, nearly two thousand years ago a similar idiom was in use. King Jam’ men recognized that they must translate so as to be intelligible to a land-lubber. Hence the AV readings here.

Come Near

Paraginomai is one of the commonest words for “come” or “come near”. But in two places only it occurs with an additional very expressive prefix sun — thus implying a close association. Thus, Paul writing about his trial, and perfectly certain of an adverse verdict, wrote: “At my first answer (appearing in court), no man stood with me” (2Ti 4:16). No fellow-believer, certainly no one of consequence, appeared at that hearing to publicly associate with him and to testify on his behalf.

The same word is used very eloquently in Luke’s account of the crucifixion: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their breasts…” (23:48). The verb implies a close sympathetic association; and the phrase that follows confirms this. These people were, doubtless, some of those who had acclaimed the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days earlier.

Craftiness, Guile

Panourgia has its roots in Eden: “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2Co 11:3). And it is appropriate to men who are the seed of the serpent. These came at Jesus seeking to entrap him, but “he perceived their craftiness” (Luk 20:23); for the Lord God “taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1Co 3:19), and Jesus inherited his Father’s characteristics in this ability also.

The warnings to the early brethren to beware of the deceit of false teachers, a deliberate campaign by evil men, were common enough because necessary (2Co 11:13; 4:2; Rom 3:13 — dolos, guile, in these places; and Eph 4:14). Those crafty men even went so far as to use — how very hypocritically! — the same language against Paul: “being crafty (panourgos) I caught you with guile (dolos), did I?” (2Co 12:16). One is reminded of how Luther and the Pope called each other Antichrist.

Peter was fond, in an inverted sort of way, of this word dolos. No guile in the mouth of the Lord Jesus (alluding to Isa 53:9); therefore no guile in the mouths of those who are his (1Pe 2:1,22; 3:10; and see Rev 14:5).

It is no easy matter to make a distinction between the two words. Panourgia (derived from Greek for “all-work”) appears to describe the set pattern of a man’s character (it is even used in the LXX of Prov 1:4; 8:5, etc. for the dedicated character of a good man); whereas dolos, guile, is appropriate to the verbal expression of cunning and badness.