Understanding, Mind

Nous, although mostly translated mind, is, more precisely, understanding. The passages, twenty-four of them, are worth individual consideration.

There is also, once, nounechos (literally: having nous), which is used very effectively of the lawyer who “answered discreetly” (Mar 12:34) concerning the Great Commandment.

The verb noeo is straightforward enough: to understand. In Mar 8:17 it is reinforced: “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand?” (The last word there is suniemi — see below.)

The more emphatic dianoia usually gets the same translation “mind”. But there is one noteworthy phrase in Mary’s hymn of praise: “He (the Lord) hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts” (Luk 1:51). This is the more impressive when the allusion to Gen 6:5 is recognized: “And God saw…that the imagination (LXX: dianoia) of man’s heart was only evil continually.”

The associated noun noema seems to be used of human thoughts and designs only in a derogatory sense: “We are not ignorant of his (the Satan’s) devices” (2Co 2:11). “Their minds were blinded” (3:14). “So your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (11:3). So also 4:4; 10:5; Phi 4:7.

Another verb of even greater force is suniemi, with its emphasis on mental grasp of ideas and principles; as in “understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph 5:17); “then opened he their understanding (nous) that they might understand (suniemi) the scriptures” (Luk 24:45).

The number of times that this verb is used in the NT (twenty-six, along with the noun sunesis, seven, and its adjective sunetos, four) is a standing rebuke of the sloppiness of much modern religion, and is a firm justification of the Christadelphian tradition that, to the best of his ability, a man should bring his mind into constant activity in his religion.

Yet at the same time there is implicit warning against a mere academic attitude: “I (the Lord) will bring to nought the understanding (sunesis) of the prudent (sunetos)” (1Co 1:19). “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent (sunetos)” (Luk 10:21).

Untimely

“As a fig tree casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind” (Rev 6:13).

Olunthos occurs here and in Song of Sol. 2:13 only. That excellent lexicographer Edward Robinson says these figs “are such as grow under the leaves, and do not ripen at the proper season, but hang on the trees during the winter”. But this can hardly be the meaning in these verses, for “the fig tree putteth forth her green (olunthos) figs” comes in a description of springtime. And it was at Passover when Jesus cursed the fruitless fig tree because it had not even those green figs, and therefore no promise at all of fruit later in the season (Mat 21:19).

So Rev 6:13 ought to be read with regard to green figs in the spring. It is noteworthy that in AD 70 the siege of Jerusalem began at Passover, and also that the Second Coming of the Lord will probably be at Passover (see “Passover”, HAW, ch. 14). Both interpretations of the Sixth Seal are possible, but reference to the time of Constantine is a nonsense.

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).

Walk

Peripateo and pareuomai between them cover a tremendous number of passages. The first of these is always “walk” (from patos, a trodden way). Poreuomai has more the idea of a journey on foot, but this meaning cannot be insisted on. Both words are frequently employed, especially peripateo, in the Hebrew idiomatic sense of religious observance — “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”. In this sense it is one of the main words of Paul’s vocabulary.

In one place only, Paul’s quotation from Lev 26:12, LXX, uses the more elaborate emperipateo: “I will dwell in them, and walk in them (ie among them)”, the promise now being appropriated to the New Israel (2Co 6:16). This is the word that is used to describe Job’s Satan “walking up and down” in the earth (1:7; 2:2). Since the other LXX usages of emperipateo also refer to God (Deu 23:14; 2Sa 7:6) — making four out of six places — it seems fairly likely that these two in Job have a similar reference; in other words, Job’s Satan was an angel of the Lord!

The solitary occurrence of orthopodeo (Gal 2:14, home-made by Paul?) is of somewhat unusual interest: “When I perceived that they (Peter and the others) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel…” Literally, this is: “they did not straight-foot it.” The expression is the exact equivalent of the description of the cherubim: “their feet were straight feet” (Eze 1:7). The connection is this: Just as the chariot of the cherubim was regarded as the bearer of the word and power of Almighty God (cp. Psa 147:15), so also in the NT the preachers of the gospel are the Lord’s cherubim-chariot (cp. 2Th. 3:1, RV). In this duty they must be “straight-footed”, ie there must be no deviousness about the methods employed in their proclaiming of the message of Christ.

Like peripateo, another word to describe the practical observing of God’s law is stoicheo. But here the emphasis is specially on first principles, the basic fundamentals, the spiritual ABC of the religious life.

Thus, the brethren in Jerusalem were anxious that Paul should show himself as “walking orderly”, keeping the Law (Acts 21:24). And Paul himself emphasized to his Jewish readers how necessary it is also to “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Rom 4:12). The phrase suggests a child gradually learning to walk with the stride of his so-much-more-mature father.

There is a distinct hint of reproach about Paul’s use of this word in his exhortation to backsliding Galatians: “If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk” (5:25) — as who should say: ‘Provided you are moving in the right direction I shall be content, even though you make slow progress from immaturity’ (cp. also 6:16).

Similarly, in Phi 3:15,16, the apostle makes pointed contrast between those who are “perfect” (ie spiritually grown-up) and others who “walk (stoicheo) by the same rule” of “pressing towards the Mar for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (v 14).

Warfare

The figure of a dedicated man fighting in God’s war of righteousness originated in the OT, where in half a dozen places the service of God in His sanctuary is called “warring the warfare”. See Num 8:24,25; 4:23; Exo 38:8; Isa 40:2 (see LXX); and probably Psa 148:2; and Dan 8:10-13.

Paul certainly had the same idea in mind when he exhorted Timothy to “war a good warfare” according to the prophecies concerning him (1Ti 1:18).

Wash

A perfectly straightforward word; yet its usage is rather striking and decidedly symbolic. The Pharisees washed their hands (Mat 15:2), but those in Christ wash hands and eyes and face and feet (Mat 6:17; Joh 9:7; 13:5), and indeed the whole body: “he that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet” (John 13:10) — whereupon Peter, recognizing that his Lord was enacting the consecration of a priesthood, demanded: “Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head” (13:9; Lev 8:23).

Is 1 Timothy 5:10 an allusion to the Last Supper?

Whole, Perfect Soundness

Two occurrences of this word in the LXX serve to fill out the picture it presents.

The command in Deu 27:6 that the altar shall be built of “whole stones”, ie not chiselled to size or shape (Exo 20:25), not of cracked or friable (i.e., soft sandstone) material. Such would soon disintegrate from the heat of the altar.

Isaiah’s ghastly picture of the spiritual ill-health of his nation laments that “there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores” (1:6).

Over against this is Peter’s description of the lame man healed at the temple gate: “God hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:16).

There is now a fuller meaning discernible in Paul’s concluding blessing on his Thessalonians: “I pray God your whole (perfectly sound) spirit (the new man in Christ) and soul (natural health) and body be preserved blameless (pleonasm here, surely) unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Th. 5:23).

In a similar passage James is even more pleonastic: “that ye may be perfect and entire (completely sound), wanting nothing” (1:4) — three expressions covering the same idea.

Wood, Tree

The Greek word literally means “wood”. It is also used of anything made of wood, hence the phrase: “swords and staves (pieces of wood)”.

However, the OT uses the word for “tree” in this more general sense, and this meaning also carries over into the NT, as in: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13). And also Peter (three times: Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1Pe 2:24) and Paul (once: Acts 13:29) use the word about our Lord’s crucifixion: “whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree”; yet Jesus was certainly not crucified on a living tree.

Two possible explanations offer themselves: (a) It was with allusion to Gen 22:3,6, LXX s.w., the offering of Isaac; (b) It was because the apostles saw the cross of Christ not as a tree of death (like the tree of knowledge of good and evil) but as a Tree of Life reversing the curse of Eden.

In Rev 22:2 a certain element of phony exegesis has crept into the read-ing of the words: “On either side of the river was there the tree (hardly ‘wood’!) of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits…and the leaves of the tree (wood) were for the healing of the nations.” The temptation to read here “wood” as meaning “a miniature forest” must be resisted, even though “on either side” requires the collective sense for “tree”. Here is straight quotation from Psalm 1:3. This also provides the interpretation of the trees symbol.

World

There are two main words in the NT with this meaning:

1. oikoumene (where people dwell in houses), and

2. kosmos, the ordered world.

It will be convenient to deal with these separately, and to note that the same essential feature (much neglected in the books) belongs to both in Bible usage.

In its general idea, oikoumene describes the entire world where men dwell (eg Acts 17:31). Yet in practice it came to be much restricted to the Roman empire, as being the only important part of the inhabited earth (Acts 19:27; 24:5; Rev 3:10; 16:14).

This became also Jewish usage, only with reference to their (Jewish) world, as in the following: “That all the world should be taxed” (Luk 2:1: the Syrian province actually). “A dearth throughout all the world” (Acts 11:28). “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also” (Acts 17:6). “When he bringeth the first begotten into the world…” (Heb 1:6). There are doubtless several other instances besides these.

Kosmos shows clear signs of being subject to the same double usage.

In some places it undoubtedly means the civilised world (Luk 12:30). This is the meaning that the ordinary Bible reader mostly, or even always, associates with the world.

Yet, in many a place, restriction to the Jewish world is clearly intended and is necessary:

“Shew thyself unto the world” (John 7:4), jibed the brothers of Jesus, meaning: ‘Go and advertise yourself in Jerusalem.’

“I speak to the world those things which I have heard of my Father” (John 8:26).

After the triumphal entry, “Behold, the world is gone after him” (John 12:19).

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me…” (John 15:18).

“I spake openly unto the world” (John 18:20).

“…that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world” (Rom 4:13).

“The rudiments of the world…touch not, taste not, handle not…” (Col 2:20).

The foregoing are just samples. There are, almost certainly, a good many more in the same category.

Wrath, Anger

The NT distinguishes carefully between the uncontrollable explosion of anger (thumos) and the anger which is deliberate, reasoned, and sustained, the anger which a man nurses in his bosom (orge).

Thumos describes the intense wrath of Pharaoh when he heard about Moses’ attempt to free his people (Heb 11:27). Another example is the sudden explosion of anger in the synagogue at Nazareth when Jesus preached there: “they were filled with wrath” (Luk 4:28). And when “Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon” (Acts 12:20), he was “fighting mad” (thumo-macheo).

Some of the examples of orge are very instructive, and even striking. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance (orge)?” asks Paul. The Lord Jesus describes the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem as “wrath (orge) upon this people” (Luk 21:23). On the occasion of the healing of the man with a withered hand (Mar 3:5), Jesus — aware of the Pharisees’ criticism — “looked round about on them with anger (orge)”. Nor is this the only anger of the Son of God, for Rev 6:16,17 repeats its emphasis on “the wrath (orge) of the Lamb”.

But what is righteousness in Christ may be wrong in his disciple. “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (Jam 1:19,20). This establishes that Eph 4:26, AV — “Be ye angry, and sin not” —needs to be amended to read as a rhetorical question implying: ‘No, hardly ever!’

Another illuminating use of orge comes in the parable of the prodigal. The older brother “was angry, and would not go in” (Luk 15:28). This was no sudden burst of wrath, but an expression of a cherished hostility to his younger brother.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Abide, Wait, Tarry

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”. Eg “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 Joh’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” (1 Joh 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). The reader of Joh is never far away from this pregnant word. Yet Paul never uses it in this sense.

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 hear: wait, I say, on the Lord” (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). Especially 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.

Absent, Present

The antithesis presented by these two words comes three times in 2Co 5:6,8,9; and these are the only occurrences. So what is called for here is the explanation of a decidedly tricky passage.

The key to the situation lies in recognizing that here, as in 1Co 12 (often) and 1Co 10:16,17 and Eph 1:23; 2:16; 4:4,12,16; 5:23,30 and Col 1:18; 2:17,19; 3:15, “body” signifies “the body of Christ, the ecclesia”.

Then what did Paul mean by “at home in the body, and absent from the Lord”. There is here an indication of the tension which must often have existed in the mind of Paul, and which is not unknown in the experience of men a good deal smaller than Paul — the desire to go into retirement and seclusion in order the better to enjoy the spiritual stimulus and satisfaction which Bible study and the Truth in Christ can impart. In Paul’s case, it could mean more than this — the enjoyment of personal (not mystical) fellowship with Christ through the “visions and revelations of the Lord” which at times he was privileged to experience.

But as long as Paul was busy and active in the ecclesias (“at home in the Body”), such blessings were necessarily cut to a minimum. At such times especially Paul walked by faith, and not by sight (2Co 5:7).

The apostle’s own much stronger inclination was the other way — to be “absent from the Body” (in retirement from his heavy ecclesial responsibilities), and so free to be “at home (in a very real personal fashion) with the Lord”.

However, Paul accepted life as it came. He was content for Christ to decide how his life and activities should be spent. Accordingly, he made it his ambition, “whether present or absent”, for his life to be such that in the Last Day he would be “well-pleasing unto him”.

This view of the passage may be queried on the grounds that in the very next verse (v 10) the word “body” is used in a literal sense. But this is by no means obvious. Let the italics in AV be noted.

The literal reading is: “in order that each one may receive the through-the-Body things according to (?) what he did whether good or bad.” If the capital B be allowed here, the passage seems to stress the importance of a man maintaining his personal link with the Body of Christ.

But if “body” is read, then there is an altogether lop-sided emphasis on what a man has done. Yet are not words and thoughts every bit as important?

In an admittedly problematic expression, it would appear to be by no means certain that the physical body is referred to here. Certainly the notion of receiving in a resurrection body the Lord’s approbation or reprobation is not to be read here.

Absent

Seven times the AV translates apeimi as “be absent” — as in 1Co 5:3: “Absent in body, but present in spirit.” This is the straightforward meaning. Then why not exactly the same idea in Acts 17:10?: “The (Thessalonian) brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went (absented themselves!) into the synagogue of the Jews.” The implication seems to be that after the Jewish uproar in Thessalonica, the brethren from that city who accompanied them to Berea were unwilling to chance more Jewish hostility in the synagogue. So, undeterred, Paul and Silas went off to the synagogue by themselves.

Acceptable

In the NT this word means, nearly always, “acceptable to God”. Three Greek words come in this sense quite often: dektos and its more emphatic cognate euprosdektos and another not dissimilar word euarestos.

The first two are mostly equivalents of the Hebrew words ratzah, ratzon, which normally have reference to acceptable sacrifice or to one of the Jewish feasts when sacrifice was specially acceptable.

The first meaning is obvious in 1Pe 2:5: “Ye also….offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable (euprosdektos) to God by Jesus Christ.”

And in Rom 15:16 Paul uses the figure of himself as a priest ministering at an altar and offering up as a gift to God a multitude of Gentile converts: “….that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable (euprosdektos), being sanctified by the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 10:35 is interesting as being a modified quote of Pro 12:22 LXX (the Hebrew is distinctly different). But why did Peter say “he that worketh righteousness is accepted with him” (note the idea of sacrifice in v 4), when LXX has “worketh faith”? Wouldn’t this have served Peter’s purpose even better? Was he adjusting his language so as not to offend “them of the circumcision” who were with him?

This is also one of the meanings attached to euarestos. So in Phi 4:18 Paul uses two of them together for emphasis: “The things which were sent from you are an odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable (dektos) well-pleasing (euarestos) to God.”

In two places dektos is used in NT quotations of OT passages. In the synagogue at Nazareth the Lord read from Isa 61 about “the acceptable year of the Lord”, where there is one allusion after another to the Year of Jubilee. Jesus was proclaiming the time of release from sin.

Similarly, 2Co 6:2 quotes Isa 49:8: “Behold, now is the accepted time.” Again, the primary reference is to Hezekiah’s Passover and the great deliverance which took place then. But in the NT that dektos time was the Passover when Jesus died, thus inaugurating a new and continual Passover which is all deliverance.

The euarestos passages fall into two groups which seem to overlap.

As with the other two words there is often well-defined allusion to acceptable sacrifice: “….that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God…” (Rom 12:1, alluding to Lev 1:4). “God….working in you that which is wellpleasing (euarestos) in his sight” (Heb 13:21) comes immediately after an allusion to “the blood of the covenant”.

There is also another clear-cut meaning which has been largely lost sight of. Euarestos is used in LXX as equivalent to Hebrew hithhalek, walking with God. This word is used with reference to Enoch (Gen 5:22), and in LXX and Heb 11:5 it becomes: “he pleased (euarestos) God”. LXX treats Gen 17:1; 6:9; Psa 56:13; 116:9 in the same way (but, strangely enough, not Isa 38:3). So it may be taken as fairly certain that the idea of “walking with God” was in Paul’s mind when he wrote Rom 14:18; 2Co 5:9; Eph 5:10; and Tit 2:9. And this may well be true of Rom 12:2; Col 3:20; and Heb 12:28; but it is in these three places where the two ideas of acceptable sacrifice and walking with God seem to overlap.

“This is good and acceptable before God” comes twice in 1Ti (1Ti 2:3; 5:4). This word means “welcome”. The verb (apodechomai — 6 times) and the noun (apodoche — twice) always carry this meaning. But the adjective, apodektos, is marvellously like the word for paying tithes. Then was Paul deliberately making a play on words here? — suggesting that prayers for those in authority (1Ti 2:3) and care for aged parents (1Ti 5:4) are a fine form of tithe-paying for those not under the Law of Moses.

Adversary

The word dike means a decision in a court case, but only one of its four NT occurrences carries precisely that meaning — the chief priest pressing Festus for a decision against Paul in Jerusalem (Acts 25:15). In the other instances the reference is to God’s judgment against wickedness — Sodom and Gomorrha suffering the “vengeance” of eternal fire (Jude 1:7), the enemies of the faithful being “punished” (suffering judgment) with everlasting destruction from the Lord’s presence (2Th 1:9), and the pagan assessment of Paul with a viper fastening on his wrist: “vengeance (of the gods) suffers him not to live” (Acts 28:4).

Antidikos means the other fellow in the court case. Hence, in the parable, “agree with thine adversary quickly, lest the judge….” (Mat 5:25; Luk 12:58). And, in another parable, the widow appeals persistently to the unprincipled judge: “Avenge me of mine adversary” (Luk 18:3).

But now what about 1Pe 5:8?: “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, goeth about seeking whom he may devour.” JWs and such are put in rather a fix to explain what court-case the devil they believe in might want to prosecute. The word suggests very pointedly the activities of malicious accusers (Jews?) laying information against Christians, hoping to get them thrown to the lions in Nero’s persecution. Read in this way, the word antidikos makes sense; otherwise, not.

Affliction, Suffering

Pathema means so obviously this, that there is only one verse where it is differently translated; and that one place does present a problem: “the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members” (Rom 7:5). Here, NIV, as much baffled as King James’ men, attempts a paraphrase: “the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies”. Perhaps Paul was using a genitive of origin or cause here, meaning: ‘the mental afflictions and struggles provoked by our sins’. This is a fairly likely meaning; but how to translate it adequately by one word is no easy matter.

A closely related Greek word occurs in Acts 26:23: “that Christ should suffer (pathetos)” is intended to stress that the Christ foretold by the prophets was to be one capable of, or subject to, suffering.

One would expect that pathos would also have a close association with suffering, yet in fact it has a distinctly different idea behind it, as the three examples clearly show:

• “God gave them up unto vile affections” (Rom 1:26).
• “Inordinate affection” (Col 3:5).
• “The lust of concupiscence” (1Th 4:5).

Again, From Above

When Jesus told Nicodemus he must be “born again”, did he really mean that, or did he mean “born from above”? The word anothen is ambiguous, and can be read either way. From the Pharisee’s reply it is evident that he chose to understand “born again”. There can be little doubt, however, that the Lord was emphasizing a new birth “from above”. His words about being “born of the Spirit” surely settle that. Indeed, it is not a little doubtful whether anothen means “again” in any NT passage. There is no missing the meaning in some places. The seamless robe of Jesus was “woven from the top throughout” (Joh 19:23). The veil of the temple was rent “from the top to the bottom” (Mat 27:51). “Every good and every perfect gift is from above” (Jam 1:17; and so also in Jam 3:15,17).

In other places the meaning is not quite so clear. The leaders of the Jews knew Paul “from the beginning (anothen)” (Acts 26:5). Is this a correct translation? Or did Paul mean that Jews from the highest rank (from above) knew him as full of promise?

Gal 4:9 is inadequately translated: “How turn ye to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye again desire to be in bondage from above (palin anothen)?” — that is, under religion imposed from above by external authority, the Judaists.

In the introduction to his gospel, Luk asserts that he had “perfect understanding of all things from the very first” (Luk 1:3). Did he mean that he had been in contact with Jesus from the earliest days? Or did he mean that his information came from the highest authorities (eg Luk 1,2 from Mary herself)? Or was he claiming direct guidance and inspiration from heaven, ie from above?

Against

The preposition anti can be easily misunderstood — for the simple reason that it has come over into modern English with a somewhat altered meaning. “Antipathy” and “Anti-Evolution Society” suggest opposition, but this is not implicit in the word. We in the United Kingdom are not against those kindly New Zealanders (God forbid!) just because they live in the Antipodes. And there is no quarrel at all between logs and anti-logs. They help each other.

The correct notion is rather that of one thing in the presence of and yet over against another. The people across the road are anti-you, but not against you (so one hopes). Anti-Christ is not necessarily hostile to Christ, but is there set over against Christ, the false in the presence of the true.

It is easy, then, to see how anti has as its commonest meaning the idea of “instead of”. “Archelaus reigned in the room of his father Herod” (Mat 2:22). “An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth” — in retribution.

“Of his fulness have all we received, and grace for (anti) grace” (Joh 1:16). There can now be an end of vagueness here. The word “fulness” steers the mind to the Glory of God in the Tabernacle (v 14). One of the dominant uses of “grace” in the NT is for “forgiveness of sins”. Thus “grace anti grace” means: the true and full forgiveness in Christ, as against the typical forgiveness which the Mosaic system foreshadowed so fully. Hence v 17: “The law was given through Moses, but true grace came by Jesus Christ.”

Misunderstanding is also to be avoided in such passages as Mar 10:45: “The Son of man came….to give his life a ransom for (anti) many.” The mistaken notion usually read into these words is: “a ransom on behalf of many” — this in an attempt to avoid the idea of substitution: “one dying instead of many”. Instead of this, try: “one sacrifice instead of many (sacrifices — as under the Law)”. There is now no difficulty.

Almighty

Pantokrator means literally: the One who rules or governs all. This is the LXX equivalent for Shaddai and for Sabaoth. The first of these throughout Genesis means the God of fruitfulness and blessing (from shad, breast). Hence it is there associated with the Promises. There are many impressive examples. In the NT, “the Lord God omnipotent reigneth” (Rev 19:6) celebrates Promises fulfilled. Hence this title in 2Co 6:18, referring back to the Promise to David (2Sa 7:11).

But through most of the rest of the OT, Shaddai (Pantokrator) is clearly used in the sense of God the Destroyer, the Judge (from shadad, destroy). This in Job and Psalms especially. But see also Joel 1:15. Hence also in the NT: “The wrath of Almighty God” (Rev 19:15) and “Armageddon….the great day of God Almighty” (Rev 16:14).

Also the frequent divine title Lord of hosts is turned into Greek as Ho Kurios pantokrator — the hosts of angels, the hosts of Israel, the hosts of the redeemed, all of these.

Out of this summary, which suggested meaning is to be seen in Rev 21:22?

Altar

Thusiasterion is that on which one offers a thusia, a sacrifice or offering. Accordingly, it may describe either the altar of burnt offering or the altar of incense.

But in the only place where the NT refers to a pagan altar — “I found an altar with this inscription: To the Unknown God”(Acts 17:23) — a different word, bomos (that to which one ascends), is employed. The LXX is not consistent in this distinction.

Amazed, Astonished

There are three very expressive Greek words which are very difficult to differentiate.

Ekplesso seems to carry the idea of bewilderment (“foolish”: Ecc 7:17).

Existemi suggests wits paralysed. It is the word used by the family of Jesus to describe his eccentric behaviour: “he is beside himself” (Mar 3:21).

Ekstasis (related to the preceding) is a trance (Acts 10:10; 11:5; 22:17). Thus it pictures those who are “pop-eyed” with astonishment.

All of these are used with reference to the amazement provoked by Jesus. It is, of course, to be expected that people’s surprise at witnessing his miracles should call for vigorous dramatic description. But it is itself sur-prising that the teaching of Jesus should have created as big a sensation as his wonderful works.

His parents were amazed to find their twelve-year-old boy talking without embarrassment with learned doctors of the law (Luk 2:48). The multitude who heard the Sermon on the Mount, the crowd in the synagogue at Capernaum, and his townsfolk in the synagogue at Nazareth (Mar 1:22; 6:2), the Passover pilgrims hearing his disputation with scribes and Pharisees (Mat 22:33) — all of these listened and stared with astonishment. There is one special example of shock to the Twelve by what the Lord taught — “how hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom of heaven…. easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle” (Luk 18:24,25).

When it is considered how sensational so many of the Lord’s miracles were, one is left wondering why the astonishment of the beholders is mentioned in certain particular instances: the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at Capernaum (Mar 1:27: these people at Capernaum were always being surprised, but not converted); the palsied man let down through the roof (Luk 5:26: the same synagogue); the raising of Jairus’ daughter (Mar 5:42: Capernaum again); the blind and dumb man (Mat 12:22: Capernaum!). The fisher apostles were just as flabbergasted by the miraculous draught of fishes (Luk 5:9: at Bethsaida-Capernaum), as they were later at their Lord’s walking on the water and stilling the storm (Mar 6:51). Two other miracles creating outstanding bewilderment were the healing of the epileptic boy (Luk 9:43) and that of the deaf and dumb man (Mar 7:37). Last of all there was the final cleansing of the temple — or was it the Lord’s stout proclamation of a temple thrown open to all nations (Mar 11:18)?

The resurrection of Jesus was the supreme occasion for astonishment, yet this is mentioned only twice. The women encountering the angels “trembled and were amazed” (Mar 16:8). And the two on the way to Emmaus told how infectious this amazement was: “Yea, and certain women also of our company made us astonished, which were early at the sepulchre….” (Luk 24:22).

Another group of correlated words still has to be considered: thambos, thambeomai, ekthambeomai. The last of these, more emphatic than the others, very often implies fear — the women at sight of angels at the tomb (Mar 16:5,6), and, probably, the people beholding the glory in the face of Jesus (Mar 9:15); cp. also Dan 7:7, LXX. Then what of Mar 14:33: Jesus “sore amazed” in Gethsemane? This cannot be fear. The use of ekthambos to describe the amazement of the crowd seeing the lame man leaping and cavorting in the temple court (Acts 3:11) shows that fright is not a necessary ingredient of this word. But what was it which made Jesus “sore amazed”? This is one of the lesser unexplained mysteries of the gospels.

Thambos and its verb are always associated with fear in LXX, and also, certainly, in the account of Saul’s conversion: “he trembling and astonished” (Acts 9:6), but there is nothing of this in any of the other examples. Indeed in several instances the synoptists take their choice between these and the words considered earlier.

Anoint, Blot out

There are two main words, with their compounds, for “anoint”.

Classically, chrio has the idea of “smear” or “daub”. This comes out in the use of epichrio for the Lord’s smearing of mud on the eyes of the blind man (Joh 9:6,11). The same idea is there in the exhortation to Laodicea to “anoint thine eyes with eyesalve that thou mayest see” (Rev 3:18), an allusion back to the blind man just mentioned? — only here the word is enchrio, suggesting that the ointment be rubbed well in.

However, in the Bible, chrio and its highly important derivative christos lose the idea of smearing, and take on the notion of anointing for some holy office. In the OT (LXX) it is used often for the anointing of priests especially and the dedication of the equipment of the sanctuary, less often of the anointing of kings (eg Saul, David, Solomon) and on at least one occasion regarding the office of prophet: “The spirit of the Lord is upon me because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek….” (Isa 61:1). Cp. also Elisha: 1Ki 19:16.

In all these OT examples the Hebrew original is mashiach, whence Messiah.

Out of five passages, chrio is four times used of the anointing of Jesus. In each of these the emphasis is on declaring him to be Christ (Luk 4:18; Acts 4:27; 10:38; Heb 1:9).

How daring, then, for Paul to use this word with reference to himself and his fellow-preachers! But he does so only because he recognizes Christ at work and themselves as humble instruments in that work: “He which stablisheth us with you in Christ, and hath anointed us, is God” (2Co 1:21: a link with Luk 4:18 — “anointed to preach” — is not difficult). In the next verse Paul alludes to the gift of the Spirit as the anointing oil (only he changes the figure): “Who hath also sealed us, and given us the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.”

Similarly the apostle John twice refers to the gift of the Spirit as an “anointing” (chrisma: 1Jo 2:20,27). Here the allusion (see context in both places) may be to Spirit gifts of interpretation and “discerning of spirits”, or it may be to the Spirit’s guidance given them through the apostles; it is difficult to be sure.

Aleipho is used where the anointing does not signify an appointing to office as prophet, priest or king. Hence it is used of the anointing of Jesus (Luk 7:38,46; Joh 12:3), and of the anointing of the sick by the apostles (Mar 6:13; Jam 5:14).

The more emphatic exaleipho is the equivalent of OT machah, used of wiping a dish (2Ki 21:13), euphemistically of the appetite of a whore (Prov 30:20) and of the blotting out of a man’s name from remembrance (Exo 17:14; 32:32; cp. Rev 3:5). But in the NT there is significant use of this word not with respect to a man’s sins but to the “handwriting of ordinances” (Col 2:14) which makes his sin evident!

Specially important is the use of exaleipho with reference to the “anointing out” of the sins of Israel on the Day of Atonement through the splashing of sin-offering blood on the mercy seat: “I am he that blotteth out thy transgressions” (Isa 43:25; 44:22; and cp Jer 18:23; Psa 69:28). This, for certain, is the allusion in Acts 3:19: “Repent ye therefore….that your sins may be blotted out, and that there may come seasons of refreshing from the presence of the Lord (reference to the high priest returning from the Holy of Holies to bless the people).” There is a long list of reasons why it should be concluded that the healing of the lame man and this ensuing discourse should be regarded as taking place on the Day of Atonement.

That sordid imprecation uttered against David: “Let not the sin of his mother be blotted out” (Psa 109:14), was probably spoken with reference to the trial of jealousy detailed in Num 5: “The priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall blot them out with the bitter water” (v 23). The suggestion that has been made, that there was some truth in this beastly insinuation regarding the mother of David (and Jesus), does not deserve a moment’s consideration, any more than the other imprecations spoken in that psalm against the Lord’s anointed.

Not only the anointing out of sins is signified, but also of the misery which is the outcome of those sins: “God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.” The Lord found this worth repeating twice from Isa 25:8 (Rev 7:17; 21:4).

There is just one occurrence of the word murizo (from muron, myrrh). Whereas John’s records uses aleipho (Joh 12:3) for the anointing of Jesus, the Lord himself preferred murizo because of its associations with the embalming of a corpse: “She is come aforehand to anoint my body to the burying” (Mar 14:8).

Answer

The NT’s standard word for “answer” is apokrinomai. Occasionally this is intensified with another prefix, giving it a somewhat hostile flavour: “answer back”. Appropriately four out of five of its OT occurrences come in the book of Job!

In the NT Rom 9:20 is interesting. In the middle of the exposition of Paul’s doctrine of election comes the objection “Why then doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will?” To this Paul’s main reply is: “Nay but, O man, who art thou that art answering God back?” Who are you, to argue against God? He is the potter, you and Pharaoh are only clay.

Arm

In the three NT occurrences it is always the arm of the Lord, meaning, of course, His open dramatic effective action in bringing help to those in need. And in each place there is allusion back to some OT passage:

In many places in psalms and prophets the same idea, of divine intervention on behalf of His people, is very evident.

Ask

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 Joh 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 Maredly different from punthanomai below.

• 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.
• 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).
• 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 flavour 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.

• 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).
• 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.

Avenge, Vengeance

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 A.D. 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 Luke 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 (sic) 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) long-suffering (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.