Barbarian

Normally this word described one speaking an uncomprehended language: “I am debtor both to the Greeks (those speaking Greek, the universal language of the Roman empire), and to the Barbarians” (Rom 1:14). Similarly Paul refers to the one who speaks with tongues as sounding like a “barbarian” (1Co 14:11).

Hence also his insistence that “there is neither Greek nor Jew…Barbarian, Scythian…” (Col 3:11). The distinction here is between those in the empire who still kept their own tongue (as in Acts 14:11), and those who were outside the boundaries of the empire.

This may be the meaning behind the application of “barbarian” to the people of Malta (Acts 28:2,4). They spoke a Phoenician dialect.

The only occurrence of this word in LXX raises a smile (Psa 114:1). It is applied to Egypt! — a people of a strange tongue, or a people who were uncivilised? Considering that Egypt had the oldest civilisation in the world, it looks as though the Seventy, busy translating in Egypt, were getting in a neat back-hander!

Beat, strike

There are three words to consider here.

Tupto is the normal word to describe raining blows on someone. Its meaning is perfectly straightforward.

Dero means primarily “to flay” — it is connected with derma, skin, whence dermatitis. Hence it is used in LXX for the flaying of sacrifices: Lev 1:6; 2Ch 29:34; 35:11. But just like the semi-colloquial English word “tan” it has taken on the more general idea of “beating”. Cp also the English phrase: “give him a hiding” .

Rhabdizo means “to beat with a rod (rhabdos)”. Hence LXX usage is for the practice of threshing, which was often done with a flail or rod: Rth 2:17; Jdg 6:11. This word is used of the beating meted out to Paul and Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:22). But Paul’s allusion to this uses the word dero.

The only other example is 2Co 11:25: “Thrice was I beaten with rods.” The only one of these three traceable in the record is the one at Philippi.

Beckon

This word neuo and its various compounds all involve the same notion, of a motion of the head in some way or other.

When Paul appeared before Felix, the governor “gave him the nod” that he could now go ahead with his defense (Acts 24:10).

Somewhat similarly, at the Last Supper, Peter by the slightest movement of his head was able to urge John to make quiet enquiry from Jesus who the traitor was (John 13:24).

The LXX passages indicate the same idea of “turning to one side”, though not necessarily a motion of the head; eg “Let thine eyes look right on, and let thine eyelids incline to right things” (Prov 4:25; the AV is different). In the LXX the “wanton eyes” of the daughters of Zion are “slanted, beckoning” (Isa 3:16).

Kataneuo comes in Luk 5:7 only, to describe the gesture by which Simon Peter and his colleagues signalled for help with their super-catch. They couldn’t beckon in any other way because both hands were fully occupied in coping with the nets; but why didn’t Peter shout?

Similarly, dianeuo describes the gesture by which the deaf and dumb Zacharias sought to tell the people in the temple court of his astonishing experience. If he still had the censer in his hand, he would be more likely to signal to them by dramatic head movements (Luk 1:22).

It is not inappropriate to consider also here the solitary use of ekneuo in John 5:13. This variation means, literally, to slant the head so as to avoid a blow. It is, of course, used figuratively in this instance. After healing the crippled man at the pool of Bethesda, Jesus knew that excitement and official antagonism were sure to follow, so he “conveyed himself away”, dodging the attack which was sure to come. However, thanks to the man’s disloyalty (v 15), the evasion proved only temporary.

Before

The OT has an extremely common preposition for “before”, liphnei, which is, literally, “before the face of”. The NT has two equivalents of this — emprosthen and katenopion (which is, literally, “right in the eye of”).

This latter word is used only of divine scrutiny, by the Father or the Son. It comes in Jude’s doxology (v 24) to “him who is able to present us faultless before the presence of his glory” (a terrific idea). Paul similarly speaks of saints in Christ being “unreprovable in his sight” (Col 1:22), “without blame before him” (Eph 1:4). In all these places there is the notion of being subject to scrutiny and yet without shame.

Paul also uses this word to add emphasis to the intensity of declarations as to the sincerity which motivated his preaching: “in the sight of God speak we in Christ” (2Co 2:17; 12:19).

The use of emprosthen is very similar. There are a few occurrences of outstanding interest

When Jesus was hypocritically invited to a sabbath meal at the home of a Pharisee (Luk 14:1,2), there was a dropsical man set deliberately, straight in front of him at the meal table, so that the problem of “to heal or not to heal” was inescapable.

Matthew is careful to record that Jesus “was transfigured before them (the three apostles)” (17:2), thus apparently insisting that the change was witnessed by the apostles; it did not happen whilst the disciples were asleep.

There was a special bite about the Lord’s description of Pharisee hypocrisy, when he said: “Ye shut up the kingdom of heaven in men’s faces” (Mat 23:13).

The very existence of a difficulty in Mat 5:16 is often overlooked: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works…” Here emprosthen tends to make even more acute the problem of reconciling these words with the equally familiar: “Do not your alms before men” (6:1,2: emprosthen again). It is the context of 5:16 which resolves the “contradiction”. There, the context (vv 13-15) carries a series of allusions to the temple, and in particular to the candlestick in “the House”. It is in the counterpart to “the House”, the ecclesia, where good works do evoke glory to God. Those who quote these words as an assurance that beneficent acts will convert pagans to Christ are about as far from the right idea as they could get.

Paul’s phrase about “reaching forth unto those things which are before (emprosthen)” (Phi 3:13) becomes the more telling when it is seen that he is implying that they are within fairly easy reach, not at a remote distance!

Begin, Beginning

The verb archomai means, quite simply, “begin” — and this is the way it is always translated, nearly 90 times.

The corresponding noun arche swings between three different meanings: (a) the beginning of creation (9 times approx.); (b) the beginning of the ministry or preaching or the new life in Christ (about 30 times); and (c) principality, in the sense either of ruler or angel (about 14 times).

Those passages with the meaning (a) pick themselves out very easily, as: “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundations of the earth…” (Heb 1:10).

In the second group it is noteworthy that, in John’s writings, this meaning dominates, there being only two clear exceptions: John 8:44 (“a murderer from the beginning”) and 1Jo 3:8 (“the devil sinneth from the beginning”).

For many in the early church, the beginning of Christ’s ministry was The Beginning! — the only beginning of any consequence. This usage is especially emphatic in John (gospel and epistles), and points strongly to a different interpretation for John 1:1 from what is usually assigned. As in John 1:1 especially (‘In the beginning — of the ministry — was the Word — Jesus himself’), there are often overtones of comparison between the creation of Genesis 1 and the New Creation in Christ: eg Col 1:18; Heb 2:3; 3:14; 5:12; 6:1; 1Jo 1:1; Rev 3:14.

Also: “From the beginning we were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word” (Luk 1:2; cp Mar 1:1; Phi 4:15).

Even more specialized is the use of arche for “principality”. Here it is important to recognize both human and angelic powers:

1. Human rulers: Luk 12:11; 20:20; 1Co 15:24(?); Tit 3:1; Jude 6.
2. Angelic rulers: Eph 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10,15; Rom 8:38; Acts 10:11; 1Co 15:24(?).

There are cognate words which all have the same idea of “beginning” or “priority”.

Archegos means “prince”, one who has the lead (Acts 3:15; 5:31).

Archos is always a ruler or magistrate; and the verb archo means “to rule”.

Archaios is an adjective meaning “old time”. For example, “Mnason of Cyprus was a disciple, an old-timer” (Acts 21:16). “God spared not the old-time world” (2Pe 2:5).

Archomai has also two, not very important children enarchomai (Gal 3:3; Phi 1:6) and proenarchomai (2Co 8:6,10), both of which are more emphatic ways of saying “make a beginning”.

Bid Farewell

This is the normal and obvious NT meaning of apotassomai. Then, in Mar 6:46: “When he (Jesus) had sent them (the disciples) away”, is there just a suggestion of reluctance, as though he were sorry to see them go, notwithstanding that the work of the gospel lay before them? There is much more than a hint of reluctance in Luk 22:41, when in Gethsemane Jesus “was withdrawn” from the apostles. Here apospao means “dragged away”. The same word describes Paul’s — oh, so reluctant — farewell to his brethren from Ephesus (Acts 21:1).

Bind

There is a general word for “bind” (deo) which covers a nice diversity of shades of meaning: Satan bound 1,000 years (Rev 20:2); but angels bound at the Euphrates are only held back, not locked up (9:14); Peter is bound with two chains (Acts 12:6); Lazarus is bound hand and foot with grave clothes (Joh 11:44); the colt for Jesus is tied by the door (Mar 11:4); Peter’s great sheet is “knit at the four corners” (this could be “gripped by four angels”!); a wife is bound to her husband (1Co 7:39); Paul is bound in the Spirit (Acts 20:22).

But Paul was also bound (this time proteino, for flogging: Acts 22:25). This word means “stretched out” — arms and legs at full stretch to facilitate the grisly process.

How different the “binding up” of the victim’s wounds by the Samaritan in the parable (Luk 10:34). Where English idiom says “bind up”, Greek usage says “bind down” (katadeo).

How different also hupodeomai, which simply means “tie your shoe laces” — Bible phrase: “bind on thy sandals” (Acts 12:8; Mar 6:9; Eph 6:15).

There remains desmeno, to shackle as with chains. It describes how Saul the persecutor treated his victims (Acts 22:4). It was also used by the Lord with intentional venom against the Pharisees who tied up the people hand and foot with all the rules and regulations they piled on top of the Law of Moses (Mat 23:4).

Bite

Rather remarkably, this word comes only once in the NT: “But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another” (Gal 5:15).

In LXX most occurrences refer to the sting of a serpent; eg Gen 49:17; Deu 8:15; Ecc 10:8,11; Amos 5:19. So it seems not unlikely that this Galatians passage is an allusion back to the fiery serpents in Num 21:6-9, where the context (ch. 20) is the death of Aaron (the end of the Law) and the lust of the flesh against the Spirit. Not inappropriate! Paul’s Biblical allusions never are.

Born, Begotten

With one exception the little group of words under consideration here is simple and straightforward.

Gennao means, quite simply, “to be born”, or when used transitively, “the begetting of a son by a father”. All the occurrences of the word have this meaning.

Similarly, Peter’s anagennao means, just as obviously, “born again” (1Pe 1:3,23). The first of these is a very moving allusion to the apostle’s own new birth through the knowledge that his Lord was risen from the dead (Mar 16:7; Luk 24:34).

Tikto means “to bear a child” — thus, in every occurrence of the word teknon means “a child, a baby”.

Special interest centers in the solitary NT passage using ektroma, by which Paul describes his own sight of the risen Jesus and his resulting conversion as “one born out of due time” (1Co 15:8). This translation is not accurate, for it implies a premature birth. But ektroma means “an abortion, one who is born dead”. So the problem arises: How to fit this idea to Paul’s use of the word?

The best solution appears to be on these lines: There are several hints (really calling for a separate study; see The Christadelphian, 1953, p. 49) that Paul saw Jesus in Jerusalem in the course of the Lord’s ministry. This was the time when he should have been new-born in Christ. But evidently, judging from Acts 7,8, and 9, growing conviction was stifled by a savage burst of persecution, so that instead of new-birth there was ektroma, an abortion. Thus the marvel almost to be heard in Paul’s voice in 1Co 15:8, was that one in whom new spiritual life had come to nought should be, so to speak, conceived and born afresh.

There is no other NT use of ektroma, but the OT occurrences bear out the usage already insisted on.

Aaron pleaded for Miriam in her leprosy: “Let her not be as one dead, of whom the flesh is half consumed when he cometh out of his mother’s womb” (Num 12:12). And, in the LXX, Job 3:16 uses the identical Greek words (which passage is alluding to which?).

LXX does not use ektroma in Psa 58:8, but all the other Greek versions of the OT do. Here is a description of the wicked adversaries of God’s faithful (eg Saul of Tarsus, the persecutor): “Let (them be) like the untimely birth of a woman, that they may not see the sun.” Here, again, the idea is not possibly that of a premature or belated birth, but of one who is born dead. When Paul used the word ektroma he must have had his eye either on this passage or on Num 12:12 (himself saved from his own unworthiness by the intercession of Priest and Prophet).

Breathe, Breath, Blow

The word which the NT consistently uses for the wind blowing is pneo. It is this word which lies at the root of pneuma, spirit; but there are very few occurrences of pneuma where this connection is maintained. John 3:6 is perhaps the only one, and even there the use of pneo is dictated by the allusion back to Isa 40:7.

The corresponding noun pnoe describes the wind or any other movement of air. Hence its use in Gen 2:7, LXX: “God breathed (emphusao) into his face the breath (pnoe) of life.” It was, doubtless, with allusion to this place that Paul told the Athenians that the Unknown God “giveth to all life, and breath, and all things” (Acts 17:25).

A connection of a different kind with Gen 2:7 in the other NT occurrence: “A sound as of a rushing mighty wind” (Acts 2:2) with the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost — it was the beginning of God’s New Creation.

By contrast, the same verb, only more intensive (empueo) describes Saul’s “breathing out threatenings and slaughter” against the early church. The counterpoise to this is the use of the same word in a Messianic psalm’s prophecy of the earthquake when Jesus was crucified: “Then…the foundations of the world were discovered at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast (empueusis) of the breath of thy nostrils” (Psa 18:15).

Ekpneo — “give up the ghost” — is dealt with separately.

There is also one solitary occurrence of emphusao (from Gen 2:7, see above) in John 20:22: “he breathed on them, and said, Ye are receiving the Holy Spirit.” Here is another suggestion of a New Creation.

Brightness

Jesus is the “brightness” (apangasma) of the Glory of God (Heb 1:3). The allusion is, of course, to the radiance of the divine Presence as described in Ezekiel 1, Daniel 7, etc.

But how reMarable that the same word, made rather less emphatic by being shorn of its prefix, is used no less than nine times in Lev 13 LXX with reference to the whiteness of the disease of leprosy.

Very unexpected!

Bring

Out of the group of words which mean “bring”, with various shades of meaning, the most simple and uncomplicated one is phero. They bring sick and blind people to Jesus (Mat 17:17; Mar 7:32; 8:22; 9:17). Timothy is to bring the books and parchments to Paul (2Ti 4:13). Oxen and garlands were brought to honour Paul and Barnabas (Acts 14:13).

But, more often than not, there is also the idea of “carrying”. The head of John the Baptist was brought on a dish (Mat 14:11). Ananias carried to Peter the portion of the sale-money which he could spare (Acts 5:2). The women brought spices for the embalming of the body of Jesus (Luk 24:1). It has even been suggested than when “they bring Jesus to Golgotha” (Mar 15:22) there was need to carry him because of physical collapse. However, this idea cannot be insisted on.

There is one specialised meaning of phero which calls for careful attention. The word was evidently used in the early church in a semi-technical sense for inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the bringing of the divine message from God to men. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2Pe 1:21). Here some like to insist on the notion of “being forcibly driven along” (as in Acts 27:17), but this idea is not inherent in the word. Three times in 2 Peter (1:17,18,21) the same phero is inadequately translated “came”, but in all three places there is implied a divine voice or inspiration.

The same is true in 1Pe 1:13. After allusion to the Spirit’s message in the OT prophets and NT apostles, Peter continues: “Set your hope perfectly on the grace that is being brought unto you in an apocalypse of Jesus Christ”. Here “grace” refers, as in so many places, to an activity of the Holy Spirit. Peter is referring to the publication of the Apocalypse.

The same specialised use of phero is traceable in several other passages: “If any man (a wandering preacher) come unto you, and bring not this (true) doctrine, receive him not…” (2Jo 1: 10). These were false claimants to Holy Spirit gifts (cp. 1Jo 4:1).

“Let us go on (be borne forward) unto perfection” is the exhortation in Hebrews (6:1), in a context which stresses the Spirit’s guidance of the early ecclesias (6:4,5; 5:12).

And the mention of “a rushing (phero) mighty wind” at Pentecost suggests the identical idea. So also Heb 1:3: “upholding (again, phero) all things by the word of his power”.

The same idiom has been missed completely in AV of Rom 9:22: “What if God…endured (phero) with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction.” Here the true idea is that God brought His revelation even to Israelite vessels of dishonour, unworthy of their high privilege.

Phero also comes no less than seven times in the Lord’s parable of the True Vine “bearing fruit”. It may be the identical idea here.

In four out of the five occurrences of epiphero there is a technical meaning of a different kind — that of bringing a charge, as in a court of law. This is very obvious in Acts 25:18 and Jude 9, slightly less obvious in Rom 3:5, and calls for thought in Phi 1:16 — where those who “preach Christ of contention” think to “add (epiphero) affliction to my bonds” — in other words, make more difficult Paul’s defence in the trial which awaited him.

This legal meaning is certainly not present in Acts 19:12: from Paul “were brought to the sick handkerchiefs or aprons, and the diseases departed from them…” Here the prefix in epiphero is used to impart emphasis.

With a different prefix, phero becomes prosphero — “bring unto” — and this is the straightforward meaning of the word in many a place. But again there are copious examples of an idiomatic meaning: “to offer sacrifice”. In this sense the word comes no less than 19 times in Hebrews, and the corresponding noun prosphora (“offering”), 5 times.

But what of the seeming exception? “If ye endure chastening, God dealeth (prosphero) with you as with sons” (Heb 12:7). The idea is just the same. Here is an allusion to Abraham’s offering of Isaac, a “parable” (11:19) of the sacrifice of Christ. But this Rom 8:32 passage generalises the idea to include those in Christ, who accordingly are referred to in Rev 6:9,11 as “souls under the altar”.

There are other examples of this sacrificial meaning. The wise men “presented” their gifts to the child Jesus (Mat 2:11). In the parable the servant who had received five talents “brought” other five also (Mat 25:20). The mothers “brought” their young children to Jesus (Mar 10:13) — it is the same idea. And Jesus warned his disciples: “He that killeth you will think that he doeth God service” (John 16:2); ie your corpses will be like sacrifices laid by your enemies on God’s altar!

Now it is time to turn to the verb ago. The associated idea here is not that of carrying but rather of leading or driving. “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter” (Acts 8:32). They “led him unto Pilate” (Luk 23:1). The disciples “brought the ass and the colt” to Jesus (Mat 21:7).

In nearly all the many occurrences of this word there is a suggestion of compulsion — even in the words of Jesus in Gethsemane: “Rise, let us be going” (Mat 26:46). Herod’s birthday was “kept” (Mat 14:6) — it was a state occasion not to be omitted. The idea is there even in Luk 24:21: “Today is (ago) the third day since these things were done” — this third day is driving on to its close, is the meaning. And when the town clerk of Ephesus declared to the mob “The law is open” , he meant “the court is now sitting, so make use of its legal facilities” (Acts 19:38).

Following this word ago makes a good concordance exercise. In one place after another that slight suggestion of pressure or compulsion is discernible.

So also with the solitary passage which has the noun agoge, which Paul uses to describe his “manner of life”, that is, the “drive” that was there at the back of all his unflagging activities (2Ti 3:10). Or did he refer to the guidance or leading by Christ which was always his?

In prosago, the prefix suggests “bringing into the presence of” someone. Paul and Silas are “brought” to the magistrates (Acts 16:20). Christ suffered for sins, “that he might bring us to God” (1Pe 3:18). The epileptic boy was brought to Jesus (Luk 9:41).

There is one example of a nautical use of this term. Before the shipwreck on Malta the sailors were able to tell that “some country drew near to them” (Acts 27:27). This idiom is rather like the modern phrase for a landmark “coming in sight” — the landmark doesn’t really move, but relative to the observer it does.

Burden, Heavy

A small family of NT words are all compounded with bar- , yet not once is any one of them used literally.

Eyes are heavy with sleep (Mat 26:43; Luk 9:32), ears are heavy (dull) of hearing (Mat 13:15; Acts 28:27), there are burdens of spiritual responsibility to be borne (Rev 2:24; 2Co 1:8; 5:4); but the Lord’s commandments are not burdensome, although many of his disciples in these days would persuade themselves that they are (1Jo 5:3). Paul’s letters were weighty and powerful (2Co 10:10), but so also were the many and grievous (weighty) complaints laid against him by his enemies (Acts 25:7). Jesus warned against having hearts weighed down with surfeiting and drunkenness and the cares of this life (Luk 21:34); and Paul warned against grievous wolves who would ravage the flock (Acts 20:29).

King Jam’ men did a lovely bit of translating when they gave us “a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory” (2Co 4:17). There can be little doubt that here Paul was thinking in Hebrew, even though he was writing in Greek; for in Hebrew kabed means (a) to be heavy, and (b) to be glorious.

There is another word phortion (phortizo, phortos) which was the technical term for the freight of a ship. However, it came to be used in a more general sense: “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden (phortizo)…for my yoke is easy, and my burden (phortion) is light” (Mat 11:28,30). Here the figure is of two animals yoked together. Pulling plough or cart is easy enough when Jesus is the workfellow. But the Law forbade yoking two different animals to the same task (Deu 22:10). So there is implicit here the fundamental idea that the burden is light only when one is Christ-like. What a contrast with Psa 38:4, LXX: “My transgressions are gone over my head; as a heavy (barus) burden (phortion) they weigh me down (baruno).”

Both words come together in two significant passages. “The scribes and Pharisees…bind heavy (barus) burdens (phortion) and grievous to be borne…” (Mat 23:4). Thus Jesus expressed his contempt for the finicky rules and regulations which these men multiplied.

“Bear ye one another’s burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ” (Gal 6:2). The context indicates that here the “burdens” (baros) are personal problems. A brother in difficulties is not to be roundly condemned, but helped. Paul seems to have had the LXX of Rth 2:16 in mind (little resemblance to the English text); and apparently in vv 7-10 his mind is still running on Ruth’s experience.

But in v 5, “every man shall bear his own burden (phortion)” has a vastly different meaning. Here the all-important future tense takes the mind forward to the Day of Judgment, as in 5:10: “he that troubleth you shall bear his own judgment, whosoever he be.”

This is an exercise in kite-flying.

Those who have any flair for the study of New Testament words will hardly need to be reminded that here is a vast field of instruction and fascinating interest.

Unhappily the standard works in this field (Vine, Moulton, et al) are a very odd lot. The less thorough surveys offered here are content to cover main ideas and to direct attention to details of special interest.

If these unsystematic pages are appreciated, there are lots more where these came from.

H.A.W.

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.

FOREWORD

This is an exercise in kite-flying.

Those who have any flair for the study of New Testament words will hardly need to be reminded that here is a vast field of instruction and fascinating interest.

Unhappily the standard works in this field (Vine, Moulton, et al) are a very odd lot. The less thorough surveys offered here are content to cover main ideas and to direct attention to details of special interest.

If these unsystematic pages are appreciated, there are lots more where these came from.

H.A.W.

1	Runs on from ch.10. Yet contrast 11:1 and 10:1. This suggests reading “strengthen thee”, and then allusion to 9:1.
2	There shall stand up (after Cyrus; 10:1) three kings—Cambyses 529-522, Pseudo-Smerdis (a few months), Darius Hystaspes 522-485, Xerxes 485-465. Xerxes was the richest. Against Grecia. Salamis 489.
3	There comes a big historic gap of about 50 years. Why? Mighty king Alexander 336-323. See 8.21. Great dominion. His empire, from Macedonia to India. This passage was shown to Alexander by the high priest, and gained his favour for the Jews.
4	His kingdom broken: i.e. empire broken up as soon as established; 8.8. Four winds of heaven. The four parts of Alexander’s empire divided to his four generals. Not to his posterity. His two sons were assassinated.
5-39.	All about the Seleucids (king of the north, ruling Syria to India)? And the Ptolemies (king of the south, ruling Egypt, Israel and Arabia).
5	King of the south: Ptolemy I RVm. But one of his (king of the north’s?) princes shall be strong. Seleucus helped by Ptolemy to gain Syria, and then became greater than Ptolemy.
6	End of Years: Antiochus I (280-261) omitted. Why? Join together: Ptolemy 11 and Antiochus 11 in alliance Daughter of king of the south: Berenice, married Antiochus 11. Not retain power: She was divorced. Neither shall he stand: Poisoned by Laodice, his first wife, who also had Berenice murdered. Read: he whom she begat (her son) and he that strengthened her (her father).
7	Out of the branch of her roots: Ptolemy III was the brother of Berenice. The fortress Selcucia. The empire of Seleucus III was almost captured.
8	Their gods: i.e. Egyptian gods, which Cambyses had seized 280 years earlier. RV: refrain some years from the king of the north.
9	RV: he shall come into the realm of the king of the south but he shall return. Seleucus II failed in an invasion of Egypt.
10	His son’s—Seleucus III and Antiochus III. And he (Antiochus III) shall come on. His invasion of Palestine. His fortress. Gaza captured.
11	King of the south. Ptolemy IV and he. Antiochus III Multitude given into his hand. Ptolemy’s. Antiochus III invasion of Egypt failed.
12	His (Ptolemy’s) heart lifted up…But he shall not be strengthened by it. Ptolemy did not push his advantage.
13	Antiochus III, the Great, was now very strong, and invaded Ptolemy V. His campaign made only limited gains.
14	Many: Philip of Macedonia and others helped Antiochus III. The robbers of thy people.. Jewish gangsters also joined in.
15	Antiochus III had a successful campaign in Palestine, and captured Jerusalem (RV).
16	But he (Antiochus) that cometh against him (Ptolemy)…which by his hand shall be consumed. Antiochus spared the temple, but the Land was plundered.
17	Give him the daughter of women. Because of the growing power of Rome, Antiochus sought friendship with Egypt, and married his daughter Cleopatra to Ptolemy. “But it (the alliance) shall not stand.”
18	Antiochus expanded into the coasts and islands of Asia Minor and Greece. A prince. Rome repulsed this expansion. Battle of Magnesia 190 ended the greatness of Antiochus III.
19	Final defeat of Antiochus by Rome.
20	Seleucus IV sent his minion to plunder the temple treasury. This man turned against him and had him poisoned.
21	A vile person. Vile in every respect, insane, persecutor of the Jews. Had no right to the throne. By flatteries. Insincere friendship was one of his stock methods.
22	They swept away. RV—the opposers of Antiochus IV succession. The prince of the covenant. Probably Ptolemy VI.
23	Work deceitfully. Ptolemy taken in by insincere friendship. Strong with a small people. Strong from weak beginnings.
24	Describes extraordinary generosity of Antiochus IV to his army, people, and Egypt. Against the strongholds (of Egypt). He held Pelusium for quite a while.
25	Two campaigns against Egypt 170, 169. He shall not stand i.e. Ptolemy VI.
26	Plots against Ptolemy VI. Result: Physcon joined him in rule over Egypt.
27	Antiochus IV and Ptolemy VI both pretended to believe each other, but each was set on deceiving the other.
28	Return with great riches. Much spoil from Egypt. Antiochus then defiled the temple in Jerusalem, plundered temple treasury, and massacred many Jews.
29	His third Egyptian expedition. Not as the former—not so successful.
30	Ships of Chittim. LXX: And the Romans shall come. Indignation against holy covenant. Worse persecution of Jewry. From this point on, Daniel 11 is closely parallel to the record in 1 Maccabees. Them that forsake the holy covenant, accepting his Hellenising of Jewry.
31	Temple defiled (altar to Zeus): Jewish religion forbidden.
32	Flatteries. Cajolery and deceitful promises used to persuade Jews to forsake their religion. But Mattathias and his 5 sons (called the Maccabees) resisted and fought for independence.
33-35	A very tough struggle against Antiochus IV, led by Judas and Simon Maccabeus.
36	Antiochus claimed to be God—Epiphanes. (In Eureka 3.70 Dr. Thomas applies v.36-39 either to the Pope or to Constantine. Very obscure!). Against the God of gods. Antiochus campaign against the religion of Israel.
37	The desire of women—probably the worship of Adonis.
38	A god whom his fathers knew not—Zeus.
39	RV: And he shall deal with the strongest fortresses by the help (people?) of a strange god. His use of mercenaries in Jerusalem?
40-45	40-45. These verses seem to re-capitulate the events covered already.
40	Same king of north and king of south. Chariots and horsemen and many ships—echoes 1 Mac. 1.17 description of Antiochus’s invasion of Egypt.
41	The glorious land. Threatened by the Romans, Antiochus broke off his Egyptian campaign, and took it out of the Jews instead. Many people (not, countries) overthrown Edom, Moab, Ammon escape, because these joined in hostility to Israel.
42	Egypt not escape.
43	Precious things of Egypt. Plenty of plunder in Egyptian cities before the retreat. 1 Mac.1.19.
44	Tidings—of defeats suffered by his army operating against Maccabees. 2 Mac.9.3. Great fury. 2 Mac.9.4.
45	Tabernacles of his palace. Ancient city of David re-fortified as, Syrian headquarters, for a long time. Come to his end. Antiochus hoped to restore his fortunes with a great campaign in Persia. It failed. He went (more) mad, and no respite from his malady. He died.

The Michael who had earlier joined forces with the angel Gabriel (10:20,21) to ensure a prompt response to Daniel’s pleading, appears in a dramatic scene in the Last Days going into action (behind the scenes, as formerly) on behalf of Israel. The Scriptures which associate him as specially concerned with the Ministry of Israelitish Affairs are few but impressive (Ex. 23:20f; Josh. 5:14; Zech. 3:1 with Jude 9; Rev. 12:7). The reasons for equating this Michael with the Lord Jesus are quite inadequate, and (in 10:21) would involve a strange concept of personal pre-existence. That Michael means Who-is-like-God proves little, for paripassu Gabriel means God’s-Strong-One and, coupled with Psalm 80:17 would equally refer to the Messiah.

This prophecy speaks of a time when the powers of heaven are shaken, so that it- needs the strong action of this archangel of God to save His people in their final crisis (1 Th. 4:16?). This, it may be fairly safely surmised, will be when the final “overturning” of the nation takes place. It will be “a time of trouble such as never was.” “Alas, for that day is great, so that there is none like it—it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it” (Jer. 30:7). Daniel has the same explicit detail: “a time of trouble such as never was since there was a Gentile (goi—in the Land, adds LXX) even to that same time.” This is surely Zechariah 13:9; “I will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call upon my name, and I will hear them.”—”Thy people shall be delivered, every one that is found written in the book” (v.1; cp. Rev. 5:4 and Eur.1.12). So also Joel 2:2,3 and the sad ominous words of Jesus in Matthew 24:21.

The idea of a heavenly roll of honour, the Lamb’s Book of Life, is constantly before the mind of the observant reader of Holy Scripture: Ex. 32:32; Ps. 56:8; 69:28; Is. 4:3; Ez. 13:9; Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Rev. 3:5; 13:8).

The living and the dead are alike to be called to account—but not all: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth”; literally: “many from those who sleep…”, thus indicating even more pointedly that many that “understand not are like the beasts that perish”.

A judicial process for living and dead is implied (v. ld, 2), and—remarkably— here is the only Old Testament occurrence of “everlasting life. “ The only alternative for those found unfit for the Messianic kingdom is “shame” (great shame—the Hebrew has an intensive plural) and “contempt” (s.w. Is. 66:24).

But what a contrast with those who are glorified! “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.” There is a palpable allusion here to the surpassing brightness of the sun, as the equivalent saying of Jesus makes evident: “Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father” (Mt. 13:43). But Daniel’s “shine” and “brightness” involve a repetition of a remarkable double-meaning Hebrew word which also means “warn”, thus hinting at an impressive parallelism with what follows: “they that turn many to righteousness . . .”

“As the stars” perhaps echoes the great Promise to Abraham (Gen. 22:17) of an earthly seed “as the sand of the seashore,” and a spiritual seed “as the stars of heaven.” The context here mentions only the latter. Compare also the force of 1 Cor. 15:41,42.

This discrimination between the blessed and the rejected is repeated here again and again. In response to the almost agonized enquiry: “O my lord, what shall be the end of these things?” there comes first of all an assurance: “Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end,” a declaration difficult to reconcile with the view that the visions seen by Daniel present a conspectus of continuously unfolding history from Daniel’s time right through to the day of resurrection.

But the “sheep and goats” separation is insisted on in almost blunt terms:

“Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand” (v.10).

This antithesis between wise understanding and doing wickedly is rather startling, for modern thinking hardly at all treats lack of understanding as akin to wickedness. Consider the Lord’s parable of the two builders (Mt. 7:24ff).

By contrast, “many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.” The tendencies to isolate these words, and treat them as a vivid anticipation of the ease and rapidity of modern travel borders on the grotesque. Rather, let the Biblical idiom behind the word “run” be recognized, and a very different idea emerges:

“I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran” (Jer. 23:21).

“Write the vision upon tables, that he may run that readeth it” (Hab. 2:2).

And many others: Ez. 1:18,20; 2 Th. 3:1RV; 1 Kgs. 18:46; Ps. 147:15; 2 Chr. 16:9; Zech. 4:10; Rev 5:6; Gal. 2:2; Is. 55:5; Jude 11; Phil. 2:16.

Or, there could be here an allusion to the people of Israel gathering the manna of God (Num. 11:8 Heb.).

Yet another possibility is that, by the smallest emendation imaginable (the frequent confusion between Hebrew ‘R’ and ‘D’), the words may read: “Many shall turn aside, and evils shall be increased.”

The picture of angels by the waters of the river (which river?) is extremely puzzling. Is the reader intended to visualise an angel on either bank and also a third upon or over (LXX epano) the waters? If so, Daniel was being reminded of how his people left Egyptian captivity behind and entered into their inheritance across the river Jordan, for at that time the Glory of the Lord, represented by the Ark of the Covenant borne by priests stood in the midst whilst the people crossed over. Now is declared the solemn divine oath that “the end of the scattering of the holy people” is at hand. There remains only the fulfilment of a final time-period of “a time, times and a half”. Then, “all these things shall be finished.”

No amount of juggling with 1260 years can produce a convincing fit into Jewish history. It is a failure, which has driven the last nail in the coffin of the year-for-a-day theory. Much more surely the student should look for a final period of literally 3½ years (as in 7:25; Rev. 11:2; 12:14; 13:5).

It has often been pointed out that all computations about the Last Day are doomed to failure, for two insuperable reasons:

1. The Lord Jesus himself declared: “Of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father only” (Mk. 13:32).
2. Jesus had all the time-periods of Daniel as much at his finger-tips as any modern student of prophecy, and—it may be safely assumed—a much greater insight and expertise; nevertheless he too was in ignorance regarding this: “neither the Son”.

It is passing strange that over the years there has been so little inclination to equate this “time, times, and an half” with the “times of the Gentiles” (Lk. 21:24) during which Jerusalem is to be “trodden down of the Gentiles.” Those who talk blithely about this period having been finally fulfilled in the Six Days’ War of 1967 have a rude shock awaiting them, (after all, is not the temple site still “trodden down by Gentiles”?).

On this issue, the final decisive detail is one, which has gone badly neglected: this keyword “times” (Hebrew: mo’ed) is one normally restricted to Jewish religious feasts. Thus, “time, times, and a half” must be 3½ literal years, to be measured off, from start to finish, by the feasts of Israel. Is not this to be expected since the prophecy is about “the scattering of the holy people”?

It so transpires that the two outstanding Jewish holy days are exactly six months apart, so that the period under consideration may be expected to begin at the Feast of Tabernacles and end at Passover, or to begin at Passover and end at Tabernacles.

In “Passover”, HAW, ch.14, attention has been drawn to the evidence that the Second Coming may be looked for at Passover. In which case, the first of the two alternatives just mentioned seems to be indicated.

Then what is the special association intended to be suggested by the 1290 and the 1335 days?

The first of these runs on another month past the end of the 3½ years, either to suggest a “Little Passover” for those not already included in this deliverance period (see Num. 9:11); or alternatively, to allow for the inclusion of an intercalary month because the years of 360 days and 365¼ days get out of step in the course of 3½ years. In that case, the extra 45 days called for in the 1335 days would run on to the Feast of Pentecost, the time of the outpouring of the Spirit on God’s people in Jerusalem.

Daniel had been reduced to perplexity and even wretchedness more than once by the revelations made to him, but none so much as this: “O my lord, what shall be the end of these (times)?” But further detail was not vouchsafed to him. Instead:

“Go thy way, Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Neither you nor any other will really grasp these things until fulfilment knocks at the door.

“Thou, Daniel, shall rest and shall stand in thy lot (in the Promised Land) at the end of the days.” Not for nothing was his name Daniel: God is my Judge. He was one of those whose glorious destiny was made known long before the Day of Judgment (Rev. 20:4; Mt. 19:28).

“Blessed is he that waiteth…” A quite surprising number of Bible passages (by all means see concordance on this) use this pregnant word about “waiting on or for the Lord” (e.g. Is. 25:9; Hab. 2:3).

Before this prophecy is examined in detail, several important preliminaries call for attention.

1. The occasion of the prophecy.

   The Babylonian regime was over, and immediately Daniel began to study his Bible prophecies to learn about the restoration of his people. He ‘understood by the books’ (obviously, Jer. 29:10,12) the duration of the captivity. It is possible to ascertain from the allusions in the rest of chapter 9 that Daniel had in his Bible: Jeremiah, Isaiah, Psalms, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Kings—at least, these, and almost certainly Ezekiel.

2. Had Daniel been a good twentieth century Christadelphian his reaction would have been: God has fixed the date on His calendar, and now that date is here, so all I have to do is sit back and wait for things to happen. Instead, he prayed, and in such fashion as to shame his modern brethren.

3. The ‘seventy weeks’ prophecy is usually regarded as the classic instance of ‘a year for a day’ in the understanding of prophetic time-periods. It is nothing of the sort, for the original phrase is not ‘seventy weeks’, but ‘seventy sevens’, the unit of time not being specified. (By contrast, Dan. 10:2 has the literal word: ‘weeks’).

4. Seven sevens are assigned to the re-building of Jerusalem. This requires forty nine years. No other unit of time will serve.

5. The usual understanding of this prophecy may be summarised thus: B.C. 457 (Ezra 7:8) plus 486½ = A.D. 30½ (the crucifixion). When this is considered critically, all kinds of unexplained difficulties come to light:
   1. Is the prophecy so approximate as to leave an unexplained margin of 3½ years?
   2. ‘Finish transgression, make an end of sins (or sin offering), to seal up the vision and prophecy (i.e. to complete its usefulness).’ Were all these achieved in the death of Christ?
   3. The prophecy runs ‘unto Messiah the Prince.’ This surely calls for further reference long after the crucifixion.
   4. “After three score and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off.” The normal meaning of these words would require the crucifixion at the end of the 69th week.
   5. What has the ‘destruction of city and sanctuary and the desolation of Jerusalem’ (v.26) got to do with the crucifixion?
   6. For the unused 3½ years, it is customary to point to the death of Stephen. After such a rich prophecy about Messiah, is not this something of an anticlimax, great man though Stephen was?
   7. Which is the “one-week” for which the covenant is confirmed (v.27)?
   8. Why should the abomination of desolation (v.27), forty years after the crucifixion, come into a prophecy which runs only to the death of Christ?

These are not the only difficulties, but they are surely enough to raise doubts about the validity of the traditional explanation.

Enough of negatives. It is high time to attempt something more positive and more loyal to the details of the prophecy.

Two plain and clear facts must not be lost sight of:

1. Messiah is cut off at the end of the 69th week.
2. The seventy weeks culminate in “Messiah the Prince.”

It needs to be remembered that almost all the visions in Daniel include in their sequence an interruption of the continuity. In chapter 2, there is necessarily a hiatus between the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay. The vision of the four beasts (ch.7) likewise has a break where the ten horns come into the interpretation. In chapter 8 the explanation makes a sudden leap to the Last Days after verse 17. And it is generally agreed that chapter 11 has a sudden switch from P.C. to the Last Days either at verse 40 or at the junction with 12:1.

The details (a), (b), mentioned above, prepare the mind for the same phenomenon in chapter 9.

The clear anticipations of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple (v.26, 27) seem to demand a gap of forty years after the time when “Messiah is cut off.” But, more than this, the culmination in “Messiah the Prince” (v.25) seems to require the Kingdom at the completion of the seventy weeks.

These main ideas can only be satisfied by the following synthesis:

AB = the re-building of Jerusalem

BC = the long wait: 62 x 7.

CD = A.D. 30-67.

D = the Roman War, A.D. 67-70.

E = an Elijah prophet (3½ years), and the anointing of the most Holy One.

Here are appended a few brief notes to help elucidation of some of the less obvious phrases:

1. The details of verse 24 all seem to require reference to the final consummation:
   1. to finish the transgression (of Jerusalem).
   2. to make an end of (the nation’s) sin.
   3. to make reconciliation for (Israel’s) iniquity.
   4. everlasting righteousness.
   5. to seal up (i.e. conclude the usefulness of) the vision and prophecy.
2. “The people of the prince that shall come to destroy city and sanctuary” and “war and desolations” must be the Romans in A.D.70—who else?

3. “The overspreading of abominations” = Mt. 24:15.
4. Gabriel made reference to the prophecy he communicated to Daniel when he said to Zacharias, immediately after allusion to Malachi’s Elijah prophecy, “thou shalt be dumb…because thou believedst not my words which shall be fulfilled unto their time” (Lk. 1:20).

5. Revelation 11:2 does not foretell a long drawn-out period of Jerusalem’s desolation; it describes the final 3½ years down-treading in the Last Days (see “Revelation”, HAW, on this).

The prophet was fasting in the first month. There is some ambiguity about this, for; reckoning Nisan (Passover) as the first month, the civil year came in in the seventh month—Rosh Hashanah, in modern Jewish observance.

This latter is probably the correct identification, for it began with the Feast of Trumpets, it included the fast of the Day of Atonement (the 10th), and also there was the great annual holiday, the Feast of Tabernacles. Thus, it seems likely that Daniel’s fast began immediately after the Feast of Trumpets and included the entire Tabernacles celebration. Whilst his fellow-Jews in captivity were, no doubt, enjoying the holiday, Daniel afflicted his soul. Evidently a vision had already been made known to him, and the details of it written down (“the scripture of truth”), and in his eagerness to learn the meaning of it all, he bombarded heaven with his prayers and reinforced his pleas with this rigorous fasting.

It is commonly assumed that the mysterious vision elucidated for him was the long detailed complexity of chapter 11. This is an unlikely conclusion for the angelic appearance was “to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days” (v.14). Put chapter 11 is mostly about Egypt and Syria and the squabbles of the fragments of the Greek empire, and very little about the well-being of Daniel’s people. Nor is chapter 11 about “the latter days” (except, possibly its last few verses). Nor is there anything in ch. 11, 12 to indicate, “the time was long” (10:1).

The angel was almost certainly Gabriel, for as in ch. 9:23 Gabriel was sent as soon as Daniel began his prayer, so here also: “from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand…thy words were heard (this was his prayer for fuller comprehension), and I am come for thy words” (v.12). Also, in v.16-19 there is such emphatic repetition as to make the Gabriel identification virtually certain: “I retained no strength…no strength…he strengthened me…be strong, yea, be strong…I was strengthened…thou hast strengthened me.” Does not this language tell the reader that the angel was Gabriel, the Strong One of God?

There follows an elaborate explanation as to why it took this angel of glory three weeks to achieve manifestation to this man “greatly beloved”. Paraphrased, the message intimated that behind the scenes a great tussle had been going on because of the conflicting activities of various angels charged with the responsibility of shaping the affairs of the nations involved.

The princes of Persia and Greece, that is, the angels controlling these international affairs had apparently made things difficult for Gabriel to work out the most suitable answer to Daniel’s prayer. It had needed the “reinforcement” of Michael, the “chief prince”, i.e. archangel, who had special charge of the heavenly ministry of Israelitish affairs, before ever Gabriel could achieve a proper response.

In the awe-inspiring description of these behind-the-scenes activities there is no doubt a certain “accommodation” of language to the limitations of human comprehension, but even so certain essential, if bewildering, ideas stand out in this remarkable chapter:

1. Michael is the “watcher” over Israel. This is his special work (12:1; 10:21).
2. The angels, although immortal sinless servants of God, are limited in their physical and intellectual powers. A great number of Scriptures state or imply these truths: Mt. 24:36; 1 Peter 1:12; Ex. 23:20ff; 31:17; Lk. 19:38; Gen. 32:24, 26; 22:12; 18:21.

When incredulity has given way to believing the truth of this Bible witness, it becomes the more impressive, and bewildering, to read the detailed description of Gabriel; “girt with fine gold, his body as a beryl, his countenance like lightning, his limbs like burnished brass, his voice as the voice of a multitude” (v.5, 6).

That last characteristic especially seems to have exercised a fatal fascination over many readers. The voice, like the voice of a multitude, has imparted to this phrase the dogmatic notion that here is a symbolic representation of a multitudinous Christ. However, in this instance, vox populi vox non dei. For otherwise there is the decidedly awkward concept of a Christ-multitude somehow dispensing wisdom to a prophet of the Lord some five centuries or more before there ever was a Christ. Ezekiel 1:24 have been accorded the same slovenly treatment. Yet the identical imagery in Rev. 1:15 describes the glorious Being who walks in the midst of the candlesticks. Does the multitudinous Christ do that? The rainbowed angel of Revelation 10:1-3 has suffered from similar uncritical treatment. He — an angel, and certainly not a multitude — “cries with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth”. The Greek word for “roareth” means literally “he mooed or lowed like a cow.” Are not all these variant phrases different ways of conveying the idea of a loud impressive voice? (so also in Rev. 19:6).

Daniel’s “deep sleep” before the angel of the Lord is rightly seen as suggesting the appropriate fate of mortal man when in the presence of Immortal Power. Put again there has to be caution against pressing the symbolism of death and resurrection too far. Death and resurrection — yes! (See the passages cited on Dan. 8:18). Put is one at liberty to infer from v.9-11 that in the great Day when the dead hear the voice of the Son of God the saints will pass by stages from death to Life? The idea needs reinforcement from plainer Scriptures than this.

In no other vision revealed to Daniel is there anything to compare with the emphatic repetition here; ‘a vision appeared…appeared…and I saw…and I saw…’ The six-fold repetition underlines the impressiveness and importance of what is now recorded.

The contest between the ram and the he-goat is explicitly expounded in v.20, 21: the two horns of the ram are the kings of Media and Persia; the rough goat is the king of Greece, and its prominent horn is Alexander, the builder of that empire; the four ‘notable horns’ that came up in his place clearly represent the four-fold division of Alexander’s empire (see on 7:6).

So far the interpretation is simple, almost obvious. Put, in verse 9, uncertainties begin to arise. Here there is the appearance of another little horn, which expands its greatness ‘towards the south (Egypt) and the east (Syria) and towards the pleasant Land (of Israel)’.

Here interpretation hesitates between identification with Antiochus Epiphanes, the mad Syrian persecutor of the Jews, and the unexpected expansion of Roman aggrandizement as far east as the Euphrates. The modernists are

stoutly in favour of the first of these (assuming, for their own convenience, a third century B.C. date for the composition of ‘Daniel’).

The details of verse 10 are not decisive; ‘it waxed great even to the host of heaven (see Is. 14:13), and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground (see v.13d here), and stamped upon them.’

However, the details of verse 11 are much more pointed: ‘Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down’. This was ‘by reason of transgression…it cast down the truth to the ground’ (v.12).

In this passage the following details are to be noted:

1. The word ‘place’ means ‘a holy place, the sanctuary.’ This is a very common usage.

2. The prince of the host is Michael the archangel to whom was specially committed the direction of the affairs of Israel (see 12: 1; 10: 13,21; Josh. 5: 14; Ex. 23:20ff).

3. ‘Truth’ refers to the Covenants of Promise, set aside with the casting-off of Israel.

4. The sanctuary was not trodden under foot (see Lk. 21:24) until A.D.70.

5. This destroying power is called ‘the transgression of desolation’; Jesus himself identified this when foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem: ‘When ye see the abomination of desolation stand in the holy place…’ (Mt. 24:15).

All these details are linked with a mysterious time-period: ‘How long…to give both the sanctuary and the host (temple and people) to be trodden under foot?… ‘Unto two thousand and three hundred days, and (thus) shall the sanctuary be cleansed’ (v.13, 14).

As one man the commentators have made a sorry mess of their understanding of this time period—through failure to give full value to two important details:

1. ‘Days’ is at best only a paraphrase of ‘evening-mornings’, the daily sacrifices (two in every 24 hours).
2. The reading: ‘two thousand…’ depends entirely on the Hebrew pointing inserted by the scribes long centuries after the time of Daniel. They arbitrarily chose to read the key word ‘thousands’ as AL’PaIM, the dual form (= two thousand), instead of AL’PIM, the indefinite plural (thousands).

With this valid, and almost certainly correct, alternative, the time-period now reads: ‘unto thousands (unspecified) and one hundred and fifty days (two sacrifices, in every 24 hours), i.e. a long indeterminate period concluding with a very special five months.

Then can it be regarded as a remarkable coincidence that Josephus, with no understanding of Daniel 8, records that the A.D.70 siege of Jerusalem lasted exactly five months from the Passover when it began? And before that Jewish War started, the Book of Revelation already had this detail in one of its prophecies: Rev. 9:5,10 (see ‘Revelation’, HAW, ch.20).

But this is only half the story.

In the explanation given to Daniel, it was made clear that the prophecy belongs to ‘the last end of the indignation…the time of the end’ (v.17,19); and this was emphasized by the prophet being cast into ‘a deep sleep’ (a fairly obvious figure of death and resurrection: Gen. 15:12; 2:21; Jer. 31:26; Lk. 9:32; Rev. 1:17).

Indeed, the expanded explanation now added reaches well beyond any reference to the Roman destruction: ‘a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences (what does this mean?), shall stand up. And his power shall be mighty but not by his own power (cp. Rev. 17:13)…he shall destroy the mighty and the holy people…by peace he shall destroy many; he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes (the Messiah), but he shall be broken without hand (i.e. by divine power; v.23, 25. Rev. 17:14).’

So, as is stated explicitly in verse 26, ‘the vision of the evening-mornings…shall be for many days.’ This (and the details of v.23-25 just quoted) requires a further fulfilment of the time-period in the Last Days. Accordingly, the Fifth Trumpet (Revelation 9:5,10) repeats its ‘five months’ declaration of judgment against Israel in a context even more relevant to the Last Days than it was to A.D.70.

It is called (v.19) ‘the time appointed’. This Hebrew word mo’ed always refers to one of the outstanding Jewish religious festivals—here, either to Passover or the Feast of Tabernacles (see ‘Passover’, HAW, Ch.14).

Even such considerations as these can hardly be treated as ‘cast-iron’, for there is the assurance of the Lord Jesus that ‘for the elect’s sake those days shall be shortened’ (Mt. 24:22). How, or why? He did not explain, but 2 Peter 3:11,12 will be relevant here, if only the elect rise to their spiritual responsibilities with prayers of conviction (Is. 62:6,7).

One other highly important detail bears on what has just been said: the explanation vouchsafed to Daniel was imparted to him by the angel Gabriel (v.16). This was granted because he ‘sought for the meaning’, praying about it. A case of no small impressiveness can be made for believing that, for outstanding saints of God, Gabriel is the angel of answered prayer (Lk. 1:26, 30, 13; 22:43, 44; Dan. 9:21; 10:12; 6:11, 22; Acts 10:30, 31; Jer. 32:16,18—‘Gabriel’ means God’s Mighty One’).

The comments to be offered here will be very brief, and—in the judgement of some readers—not very satisfactory.

This prophecy presents a problem the like of which occurs nowhere else in the Bible. In its detail it is too exact, too specific—and apparently too pointless. Verses 3-39, and possibly to the end of the chapter, read for the entire world like a history written in the language of prophecy. For a short and otherwise unimportant period in Bible history, it deals with the inter-relations of the kings of the south (the Ptolemys of Egypt) and the kings of the north (the Seleucids of Syria), with only very slight mention of the consequent sufferings of the attenuated Judaean state.

Some say these features present no problem. They are content to believe that God had some special purpose in foretelling in such a “programmatic” fashion the events of that era. Put the explanation goes no further than that.

The modernists assert: Here is history, written after the event, not true prophecy-written before it. Here, they declare, is the final proof that the Book of Daniel was not written by Daniel, but was written in his name several hundred years later. But even if this could be established for ch. 11, it would prove nothing about the rest of the book.

There is another view, which has been advanced by conservative scholars like C.H.H. Wright and C. Boutflower. This suggests the possibility that a Jewish Targum has replaced this part of Daniel’s prophecy.

These Targums were popular paraphrases of sections of Scripture, and were much used in certain synagogues. Thus, it is suggested, a short prophecy following on 11:2 was blown up by some imaginative commentator into a marvellous relevance to recent or current events. Some Christadelphian attempts at elucidation of Last Day prophecies have been known to yield to the same sort of temptation!

Those who believe that the text of the Old Testament has come down to us in immaculate form will feel outraged at the idea that such a distortion has overtaken a part, albeit a small part, of Holy Scripture. Yet there is no lack of evidence that, whilst the Old Testament text is in general thoroughly dependable, there are places where distortions have crept in. The Jews were not always as careful of their Holy Scriptures as they have been in less ancient days.

It would be possible, but too tedious, and long-winded, to set out in parallel columns the otherwise uncanny correspondence in detail after detail between the text of Daniel 11 and the events preserved in the histories of Josephus and Maccabees. Always the question recurs: Why? Why this photographic exactness? This Targum theory may supply an explanation. One cannot be sure.

A further question is this: Where, then, does the genuine prophecy of Daniel resume?

Mesmerised by the opening phrase of verse 40: “And at the time of the end…”, some would insist on the verbal inspiration of the last six verses, and are even inclined to accord verbal inspiration to their own personal understanding of those verses. Yet even from this standpoint there are at least three competing interpretations, and none of them free from difficulty. It may be that these verses also are an extension of the main part of the chapter, detailing some of the activities of the infamous Antiochus Epiphanes. But the student and commentator can certainly resume with confidence his detailed work at chapter 12, verse 1.

In the Appendix (at the end of this book) an outline is supplied of the uncanny correspondences in detail after detail between Daniel 11 and the narratives preserved in Maccabees.