Jeremiah takes this vision a step further. God enables him to foresee a day when God establishes a new covenant with Israel. But it is quite different from the covenant he made at Sinai. Israel did not keep that covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34). When this new covenant is implemented “they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest” (31:34) and no one will have to teach them this knowledge because God “writes it on their hearts” (31:33).

In a first century B.C. document called the Psalms of Solomon, a messianic figure is called “righteous king, taught by God (didaktos hūpo theou)” (17:32). Because of these wonderful characteristics this figure is able to restore Israel to the glory God intends. Jesus himself urged his followers to acknowledge only one instructor, the Messiah (Matthew 23:8).

It seems that Paul creates a new word in 1 Thessalonians 4:9 to celebrate the inauguration of God’s new covenant. He commends these new believers for their sincere love for one another. What is perhaps more astonishing is that he attributes this to the fact that “you yourselves are God-taught (theodidaktoi) to love one another” (4:9). There is no evidence that this word existed in Greek before Paul wrote this letter. He creates this word to mark the astonishing change that salvation in Jesus has brought to these people. It has changed fundamentally their ‘place’. When Paul visited Thessalonika, he proclaimed “the gospel of God” (2:8-9) and many in city received it as “the word of God” (2:13). The result is that these followers of Jesus now know “the will of God” because Paul and those with him gave them instructions. They know God, in contrast to “the nations” (4:5). But even more significantly God has “given his Holy Spirit to you” (4:8). All of these actions by God have generated their new status as people who are “God-taught” (theodidaktoi).

In creating this word Paul is doing more than being a clever word-smith. Underlying this term is in fact an entirely new eschatological reality . The spiritual order has changed because of God’s actions in Jesus Christ. He defines this change in 1 Thessalonians 5:5, “You are all sons of the light and sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or to the darkness.” The day that Isaiah and Jeremiah prophesied has dawned. The new covenant is now established and by his Spirit, whom He places within us, God writes his will on our hearts. The Holy Spirit generates the desire, ability and understanding necessary for the followers of Jesus to “live lives worthy of God who calls you into his kingdom and glory” (2:13).

A similar idea is probably intended in 1 Corinthians 2:13. Paul affirmed that “we received the Spirit from God.” God has given us the gift of his Spirit precisely to help us understand his wisdom. And so followers of Jesus are people who possess a wisdom expressed “in words taught from the Spirit (en didaktois pneumatos)” (2:13).

Paul used a number of adjectives formed from the word for God (theos) and some other action or attribute. For example, in Romans 1:30 he described sinful humanity as “God-haters” (theostugēs).¹ Most are familiar with his “God-breathed” (theopneustos) formulation in 2 Timothy 3:16. “God-taught” (theodidaktos) has the additional feature of being a verbal adjective, formed from the verb “to teach” (didaskein). Such adjectives often have the sense of a perfect passive participle,² i.e. describing a state or condition achieved because of a prior action. In this case the Thessalonian Christians are “God-taught” because of prior instruction provided by evangelists and teachers, such as Paul, and because of their continued reflection and application of this truth guided by God’s Holy Spirit.

The particular focus of God’s direction and their resultant obedience relates to the second great commandment that requires followers of Jesus “to love their neighbours as themselves”. The Thessalonian believers excelled at “loving one another”. The only thing that Paul can urge upon them is that they continue to “love all the brothers throughout Macedonia” (4:10; cf. 3:12). In one of his other letters Paul describes this command as the “law of the Messiah” (Galatians 6:2), bearing one another’s burdens.

How did God teach these believers? Obviously Paul acted as God’s agent in this matter, both as he shared the Gospel initially and then as he corresponded by letter. Paul compares his teaching activity among them to the way a wise father will guide and instruct his children (2:11). Some written portions of the Old Testament were probably available. We know from the account Luke wrote about the way the Gospel arrived at Thessalonika that a Jewish synagogue existed in the city. This would suggest that portions or all of the Old Testament was present in some form, so that the worship services of the synagogue could proceed. Some of the believers were Jews and some were “God-fearers”, i.e. non-Jews interested in the teachings of Judaism. Such people would have heard parts of the Old Testament read and expounded each Sabbath. They probably had some access to some of God’s revelation directly through copies of Old Testament manuscripts (whether Hebrew or Greek). Paul had dispatched Timothy to the city in order to “strengthen and encourage you in your faith” (1 Thessalonians 3:3). This suggests a teaching and equipping ministry. And then we know from 1 Thessalonians 5:12ff that the church had its own leaders, whose mandate was to provide spiritual care and nurture among them.

I am sure God used all of these resources and perhaps others to teach these believers. As God did this, He was creating his new Kingdom family. They become “imitators of the Lord” (1:6), even in the context of suffering.

Implications:

1. in what ways are you as a follower of Jesus being “God-taught”?
2. since God is teaching you, how closely are you paying attention to his lessons? What kind of student are you, if God is the teacher?
3. if one of the lessons that God teaches us is “to love one another”, how is this lesson getting applied in your life today? How committed are you to following this instruction from God?

____________________
• ¹The word can also mean “hated by God” but the context seems to require it to be active, not passive in sense.
• ²H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973): 157 (section 472).

The verb muktērizō and its related compound ekmuktērizō derive from the noun muktēr, “nose” and have the sense of wrinkling or turning up the nose to demonstrate contempt, scorn, distaste, or ridicule. The idea of mockery or derision is conveyed quite explicitly by various facial expressions, i.e. body language. The nose, for whatever reason, when contorted in certain ways, communicates in many cultures a sense of disagreement based in scorn or contempt. The person finds the message, action or very being of another completely disagreeable and by wrinkling the nose displays this contempt. Of course the reason for this ridicule or contempt needs to be defined. Hellenistic Greek used the noun muktērismos to describe “sneering” or “derision”.

We discern the contemptuous hostility expressed by the compound form of this verb when Luke uses it to describe the actions of the Jewish rulers towards the crucified Jesus. In his narrative (23:35) these rulers stood watching the proceedings and they “even sneered (exemuktērizon) at him.”¹ The following verse turns our attention to the soldiers and they “mocked (enepaixan) him” (23:36). These two verbs used in parallel define one another to some degree. Luke also used this compound verb (16:14) to describe the Pharisees’ response to Jesus’ teaching. When they hear his teaching that a person cannot serve God and ‘mammon’, according to Luke’s narrative, the Pharisees “were sneering (exemuktērizon) at him” because they “loved money.”

We catch the wider significance of Luke’s choice of terminology when we examine the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). Although both forms of this verb, as well as the noun muktērismos occur in the Septuagint, the compound verb ekmuktērizō only occurs in biblical and post-biblical literature. The sense of these terms is discerned when we see them in context. For example, when Elijah is in contest with the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, he “mocked (emuktērisen) and said, ‘Call in a loud voice! For he is a god, for prating occupies him and at same time he is perhaps giving an oracle….”² The sense of ridicule and contempt is clear. When Hezekiah consults the prophet Isaiah about what to do in response to the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, God ridicules the Assyrians through the prophet’s word:
“Virgin daughter Sion made nothing of you and sneered at (emuktērisen) you; daughter of Jerusalem shook her head at you.” (2 Kings 19:21)
The Rabshakeh, the leader of the Assyrian forces had taunted the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ridiculing their ability to resist his armies, but God says in response that Jerusalem will “sneer at” the Assyrians and their claims. That night God slays 85,000 Assyrian soldiers and Sennacherib must retreat in disarray.

Sometimes the actions of God towards his people in judgment cause their neighbours to hold them in derision. Psalm 80, a “prayer for Israel’s restoration”, declares that God has “made us a controversy to our neighbours; our enemies mocked (emuktērison) us.”³  Similarly Psalm 44(43):14(13) describes how God made Israel “a reproach” to their neighbours, “a mockery (muktērismon) and laughingstock to those around us.”⁴ While it is not certain, the content of these Psalms suggest that they are in response to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. 
Elsewhere in Proverbs 15:5 a person who “despises (muktērizei) a parent’s instruction,…” is defined as a fool.

The Psalmist is sure that God will have the last laugh. According to Psalm 2:4 “the Lord will mock (ekmuktēriei)” the insolent and contemptuous nations. His laughter echoes through eternity.

In the final section of his teaching in his letter to the churches in Galatia Paul warns them not to follow the Judaizers and accept circumcision as a necessary completion to the work of Jesus and an essential step for non-Jewish believers to possess the status of “sons of Abraham.” If Jesus is the Messiah and God has carefully and deliberately planned his death and resurrection as the basis upon which human beings can be declared innocent before God, then to reject Jesus and his Gospel is to hold God in contempt. This is the God “who sent his son” and then “sent the spirit of his son” to create the only means for salvation. To say that confident faith in the Messiah’s sacrifice is not sufficient to create peace with God makes God a liar.

People who subvert the truth of the Gospel will reap the consequences. As Paul states in Galatians 1:8-9, to proclaim as Gospel something that is not Gospel brings God’s anathema. Such people are “false brothers” and treat God with contempt. At the end of the day these individuals “will reap what they sow,” i.e. God’s just condemnation. Acting in this manner makes us enemies of God. False teachers may succeed in deceiving other human beings and ‘bewitching’ (3:1) them with clever ideas. However, they will discover that they are deceived and God will hold them in contempt.

Paul chose this kind of language deliberately. He wanted to make a deep impression upon these Galatian Christians and give a clear warning to the Judaizers who were teaching these false ideas. Strong words were necessary because the stakes were high. Paul’s whole life was devoted to God – he was a zealot for God. On the Damascus road he discovered that his persecution of the followers of Jesus made him God’s enemy, and caused him to treat Jesus, the Messiah of God, with contempt. His zeal was totally misdirected and was putting him directly in conflict with God – as Jesus challenged him, “why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4).

Our Western society constantly scorns the Lord Jesus Christ and God, the Father. Many people are religious and consider themselves spiritual, but their refusal to listen to the Good News and recognize in it God’s promise for eternal life is an act of contempt. When human beings live like this, they laugh at God, deride the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, and scorn his salvation. But God is not scorned! God will have the final word.

Implications:

1. it is easy to recognize within our Western culture the way people treat God with contempt, but do we do or say things as Christians that mock God?
2. when our confession conflicts with our ethics, do we treat God with contempt? When God urges us to be one in Christ and to love one another, but we fail to do so, is God mocked?
3. is our zeal for God rightly directed?

____________________
• ¹Luke used the imperfect verb form implying a continuous activity.
• ²New English Translation of the Septuagint.
• ³Ibid., p. 588.
• ⁴Ibid., p. 569.

The verb muktērizō and its related compound ekmuktērizō derive from the noun muktēr, “nose” and have the sense of wrinkling or turning up the nose to demonstrate contempt, scorn, distaste, or ridicule. The idea of mockery or derision is conveyed quite explicitly by various facial expressions, i.e. body language. The nose, for whatever reason, when contorted in certain ways, communicates in many cultures a sense of disagreement based in scorn or contempt. The person finds the message, action or very being of another completely disagreeable and by wrinkling the nose displays this contempt. Of course the reason for this ridicule or contempt needs to be defined. Hellenistic Greek used the noun muktērismos to describe “sneering” or “derision”.

We discern the contemptuous hostility expressed by the compound form of this verb when Luke uses it to describe the actions of the Jewish rulers towards the crucified Jesus. In his narrative (23:35) these rulers stood watching the proceedings and they “even sneered (exemuktērizon) at him.”¹ The following verse turns our attention to the soldiers and they “mocked (enepaixan) him” (23:36). These two verbs used in parallel define one another to some degree. Luke also used this compound verb (16:14) to describe the Pharisees’ response to Jesus’ teaching. When they hear his teaching that a person cannot serve God and ‘mammon’, according to Luke’s narrative, the Pharisees “were sneering (exemuktērizon) at him” because they “loved money.”

We catch the wider significance of Luke’s choice of terminology when we examine the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint). Although both forms of this verb, as well as the noun muktērismos occur in the Septuagint, the compound verb ekmuktērizō only occurs in biblical and post-biblical literature. The sense of these terms is discerned when we see them in context. For example, when Elijah is in contest with the prophets of Baal at Mount Carmel, he “mocked (emuktērisen) and said, ‘Call in a loud voice! For he is a god, for prating occupies him and at same time he is perhaps giving an oracle….”² The sense of ridicule and contempt is clear. When Hezekiah consults the prophet Isaiah about what to do in response to the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem, God ridicules the Assyrians through the prophet’s word:
“Virgin daughter Sion made nothing of you and sneered at (emuktērisen) you; daughter of Jerusalem shook her head at you.” (2 Kings 19:21)
The Rabshakeh, the leader of the Assyrian forces had taunted the inhabitants of Jerusalem, ridiculing their ability to resist his armies, but God says in response that Jerusalem will “sneer at” the Assyrians and their claims. That night God slays 85,000 Assyrian soldiers and Sennacherib must retreat in disarray.

Sometimes the actions of God towards his people in judgment cause their neighbours to hold them in derision. Psalm 80, a “prayer for Israel’s restoration”, declares that God has “made us a controversy to our neighbours; our enemies mocked (emuktērison) us.”³  Similarly Psalm 44(43):14(13) describes how God made Israel “a reproach” to their neighbours, “a mockery (muktērismon) and laughingstock to those around us.”⁴ While it is not certain, the content of these Psalms suggest that they are in response to the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. 
Elsewhere in Proverbs 15:5 a person who “despises (muktērizei) a parent’s instruction,…” is defined as a fool.

The Psalmist is sure that God will have the last laugh. According to Psalm 2:4 “the Lord will mock (ekmuktēriei)” the insolent and contemptuous nations. His laughter echoes through eternity.

In the final section of his teaching in his letter to the churches in Galatia Paul warns them not to follow the Judaizers and accept circumcision as a necessary completion to the work of Jesus and an essential step for non-Jewish believers to possess the status of “sons of Abraham.” If Jesus is the Messiah and God has carefully and deliberately planned his death and resurrection as the basis upon which human beings can be declared innocent before God, then to reject Jesus and his Gospel is to hold God in contempt. This is the God “who sent his son” and then “sent the spirit of his son” to create the only means for salvation. To say that confident faith in the Messiah’s sacrifice is not sufficient to create peace with God makes God a liar.

People who subvert the truth of the Gospel will reap the consequences. As Paul states in Galatians 1:8-9, to proclaim as Gospel something that is not Gospel brings God’s anathema. Such people are “false brothers” and treat God with contempt. At the end of the day these individuals “will reap what they sow,” i.e. God’s just condemnation. Acting in this manner makes us enemies of God. False teachers may succeed in deceiving other human beings and ‘bewitching’ (3:1) them with clever ideas. However, they will discover that they are deceived and God will hold them in contempt.

Paul chose this kind of language deliberately. He wanted to make a deep impression upon these Galatian Christians and give a clear warning to the Judaizers who were teaching these false ideas. Strong words were necessary because the stakes were high. Paul’s whole life was devoted to God – he was a zealot for God. On the Damascus road he discovered that his persecution of the followers of Jesus made him God’s enemy, and caused him to treat Jesus, the Messiah of God, with contempt. His zeal was totally misdirected and was putting him directly in conflict with God – as Jesus challenged him, “why do you persecute me?” (Acts 9:4).

Our Western society constantly scorns the Lord Jesus Christ and God, the Father. Many people are religious and consider themselves spiritual, but their refusal to listen to the Good News and recognize in it God’s promise for eternal life is an act of contempt. When human beings live like this, they laugh at God, deride the sacrifice of his Son, Jesus, and scorn his salvation. But God is not scorned! God will have the final word.

Implications:

1. it is easy to recognize within our Western culture the way people treat God with contempt, but do we do or say things as Christians that mock God?
2. when our confession conflicts with our ethics, do we treat God with contempt? When God urges us to be one in Christ and to love one another, but we fail to do so, is God mocked?
3. is our zeal for God rightly directed?

____________________
• ¹Luke used the imperfect verb form implying a continuous activity.
• ²New English Translation of the Septuagint.
• ³Ibid., p. 588.
• ⁴Ibid., p. 569.

One of the terms Paul chose to describe behaviour appropriate to a believer was euschēmonōs. It occurs in adverbial form (Romans 13:13; 1 Corinthians 14:40; 1Thessalonians 4:12), in adjectival form (euschēmōn¹ 1 Corinthians 7:35; 12: 24); and in noun form (euschēmosunē 1 Corinthians 12:23). It is also possible that a verb form occurs at 1 Corinthians 13:5, where it is a variant in the late second century AD papyrus 46 for aschēmonei (be rude). The clustering of occurrences in 1 Corinthians is worth noting.

Mark’s description of Joseph of Arimathea gives us an initial insight into the semantic range of this term. Mark introduces him as a “prominent (euschēmōn) member of the council” (15:43). A similar sense is found in Luke’s description of believers in Pisidian Antioch as including “the God-fearing women of high standing (tas euschēmonas) and the leading men of the city” (Acts 13:50). Also among female believers in Berea were “a number of prominent (tōn euschēmonōn) Greek women” (Acts 17:12). The term denotes someone who has social status, i.e. part of the upper class. Associated with this is an expected demeanour of respectability. Josephus, for example, describes one of the citizen groups in the city of Tiberias as consisting of “respectable citizens (andrōn euschēmonōn).”² As Spicq indicates, it “is used very frequently in the papyri for a special class of citizens, the most well-thought-of and well-to-do in a town or city.”³ Such people were the group from which cities would seek financial support for building public works and sponsoring public events. The notion of wealth is associated with the term.

Paul used these various cognate terms in 1 Corinthians 7-14. It is in these contexts that the connotations of good, moral, decent, appropriate behaviour gain emphasis. In Romans 13:13 Paul urges believers to “behave decently (euschēmonōs), as in the daytime” and avoid indecency, or behaviour associated with night. The kinds of behaviour inconsistent with decency (euschēmonōs) include “orgies and drunkenness,…sexual immorality and debauchery,… dissension and jealousy.” When people “clothe themselves with the Lord Jesus Christ”, their behaviour must be similarly appropriate and decent (euschēmonōs).

In Greek inscriptions and papyri before and after the time of Jesus, people were honoured because they “behaved (apestraphē) well and decently (euschēmonōs).”⁴ In IV Maccabees 6:2, Eleazar, the Jewish martyr is stripped of his clothes in preparation for torture but the author declares that “he remained adorned with the nobility (euschēmosunēi) that shines forth from piety.” When civic leaders do a good job of leading and administration, the results are described with this term. For example, public officials in Magnesia are congratulated because “they made even the residence beautiful and respectable (euschēmona) and worthy of both cities.”⁵ Proverbs 11:25 in the Greek translation declares that “an ill-tempered man is not respected (euschēmōn).”⁶ Bad behaviour is deemed inappropriate and demeans a person. In the Letter of Aristeas King Ptolemy asks one of the Jewish translators how a king should spend his leisure. The Jewish scholar responds by encouraging a king to attend plays “performed with propriety and to set before one’s eyes scenes from life presented with decency (met’ euschēmosunēs) and restraint….for even in such things there is some edification.”⁷ One further example from the first century, a papyrus whose provenance is not known, occurs in a copy of an oracle. It promises the recipient that “your livelihood will be for the better and your life will be distinguished (euschēmonōs).”⁸

Euschēmosunē becomes a virtue well-recognized and prized in Hellenistic society. It defines a respectable, decent, morally upright behaviour that society in general applauds and appreciates. When Paul urges the new Christians in the city of Thessalonica to act “so that your daily life may win the respect (euschēmonōs) of outsiders,” he wants their behaviour to win the praise of their non-Christian neighbours. Even though these people may not accept the religious ideas the Christians are embracing, they will have to acknowledge their moral decency and noble demeanour.

Paul used the same term to define appropriate behaviour when Christians met together to worship. He concluded his extensive discussion in 1 Corinthians 12-14 about the appropriate use of the gifts of prophecy and languages with the admonition that “all things should be done in a fitting (euschēmonōs) and orderly way.” Presumably this would contribute to God’s reputation, because the congregation would act decently and respectably. As well, it would defuse external criticism regarding Christian behaviour.

In his discussion about the followers of Jesus in 1 Corinthians 12 and his use of the body analogy, Paul employs this terminology in a slightly different way. He notes the human habit of clothing the less honourable parts of the body, which he concludes is an attempt to give them “special honour” (1 Corinthians 12:23). “The parts that are unpresentable (ta aschēmona) are treated with special modesty (euschēmosunēn), while our presentable parts (ta…euschēmona) need no special treatment” (1 Corinthians 12:23-24). The term “presentable” suggests that something has been adorned so as to be respectable and publicly decent. Paul turns the analogy in this direction in order to emphasize how God creates his body, i.e. the Church, employing diverse gifts and abilities, but He values every part and one part cannot consider itself more special to God than any other part.

Our behaviour as believers, both within the community of faith and also in general society, is extremely important. If people are to recognize Christ in us, then this requires believers to live and conduct themselves with the morale decency, the right living that characterized Jesus himself. To do any less dishonours God, disrupts the church, and harms the Gospel witness.

Implications:

1. Reflect carefully on 1 Thessalonians 4:11. Is it your “ambition” to conduct your life so that your behaviour “wins the respect of outsiders?” Is this currently the reality? Does anything need to change?
2. Paul condemns “night life” in Romans 13:13 and urges a respectable, decent, almost noble behaviour. What would this look like in your context?
3. How does your conduct within your community of faith contribute to a body life that is morally decent and well-ordered?

____________________
• 1  Also found in Mark 15:43; Acts 13:50; 17:12.
• 2  Josephus, Vita 32.
• 3 C. Spicq. Theological Lexicon of the New Testament. Volume II (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994):141.
• 4 Inscription at Delphi dated 150/149 BC in honour of a man named Athanadas of Rhegion. G.H.R. Horsley. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2 (Macquarie University, 1982):86.
• 5 G. Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Volume II (Grand Rapids: W.B.Eerdmans Pub.Co., 1964):771.
• 6 This is the only occurrence of the adjective in the Greek Old Testament. The noun, as we have seen, is used in IV Maccabees 6:2.
• 7 Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), translated by Moses Hadas (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1974):212-213, section 284.
• 8 G.H.R. Horsley, op.cit., page 37.

Holotelēs is used once in the entire New Testament and holoklēros only occurs elsewhere in the New Testament in James 1:4. Luke used the cognate noun holoklēria in Acts 3:16 to describe the complete healing of a lame man. Benedictions such as 5:23-24 tend to summarize arguments made previously in a letter. And then to discover two singular terms in the benediction, both related to the eschatological reality that a Christian possesses, indicates how heavily Paul emphasized the idea of “wholeness, completeness and indivisibility”.¹

Paul used holotelēs as part of his final prayer-wish that God “would sanctify you through and through (holotelēs)”, as the New International Version renders it. The word functions as a predicate adjective, modifying the pronoun “you” and defining in this context how God works to make these believers thoroughly holy, i.e. holy enough to be eternally in God’s personal presence. We have no earlier occurrence of this word in Greek literature, but there is one instance in a contemporary inscription. At the Isthmian games of 67 AD a decree cites Nero’s declaration in which he gave “complete (holotelē) exemption from taxes” for all Greeks. Danker suggests the nuance of completion or perfection but in accordance with a high standard.² Earlier in 1 Thess. 4:3  Paul had affirmed their sanctification to be God’s will. At the end of the letter he expresses his confidence that God will in fact perform this in a way that is quite perfect. Expressed negatively, such believers are “without blame” at the Second Coming of Jesus.

The other adjective holoklēros also is a predicate adjective, and even though it is singular, it modifies the three following nouns “your spirit and soul and body”. In James 1:4 it is bound with teleios to describe followers of Jesus who are “mature and complete (holoklēroi) not lacking anything.” This condition results from the exercise of faith in the midst of difficult circumstances and suggests something that occurs over time but whose outcome brings complete wholeness. This term occurs frequently outside of the New Testament.

In the Greek Old Testament holoklēros described the “seven whole (holoklērous) weeks” (Lev. 23:15) that separate the feast of firstfruits from the feast of weeks. After Israel crossed the Jordan, Moses commanded that they construct an altar from stones that have no tool marks, i.e. remain unhewn (holoklērous) (Deut. 27:6).³  Philo explains that Jewish priests must “be perfectly sound throughout (pantelē kai holoklēron)”.⁴  When he defines the standards related to sacrificial animals, he is even more specific. They must be “perfect (holoklēra)…scathless throughout (hola di’ holōn asinē).”⁵ When Josephus described (Jewish Antiquities III. 278-279) the standards for Jewish priests (reflecting passages such as Leviticus 21-22), he emphasized they must be “wholly free of defect (holoklēron)”. Similarly, the sacrificial animals must be “entirely perfect (holoklēra) and free from all mutilation.”

In the papyri holoklēros often seems synonymous with hugies, i.e. healthy. Votive inscriptions in various temples give testimony to the healing various people believe they received by the intervention of a specific god or goddess. In each case they used holoklēros or its cognate noun to show their thankfulness for “wholeness” (holoklēria).⁶ Horsley claims that in all of these contexts it is the equivalent of sōtēria, physical health and safety.⁷ It is this sense that Luke employs in Acts 3:16 when he recounts the miraculous healing of the lame man: “Faith in him [Jesus] gave him this wholeness (i.e. complete healing — holoklērian) before you all.”

This term can also express a moral completeness. For example the writer of the Wisdom of Solomon 15:3 describes the merits of worshipping God. He claims that knowing God is “complete (holoklēros) righteousness.” The account of the Maccabean martyrs given in 4th Maccabees (written around mid first century AD) describes the faith demonstrated by the mother as she saw her seven sons martyred because of their loyalty to God, as “perfect (holoklēron) religion”(15:17). In such cases what is emphasized is the entirety of something – there is nothing more to be added (cf. James 1:4).

We also find holoklēros used to describe the spiritual or psychological state of a person. When Philo describes types of the human soul, one of them is “the perfect man (ho teleios) who is “complete (holoklēros) from the first.”⁸ We see some distinction between these two terms, with holoklēros describing a quantitative completeness, i.e. nothing is deficient, whereas teleios suggests maturity, perfection. Plato several centuries earlier had defined the human condition before evil had marred it as “whole (holoklēros) and without experience of evil things.”⁹

Coming again to 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Paul prayed that “your spirit and soul and body be preserved completely whole (holoklēron), without blame, at the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” He is expecting that the entire person, however it may be described or categorized, will participate as a whole being in the salvation God provides when Jesus returns. Regardless of whether a believer has died and the physical body has deteriorated or whether a believer is still alive, when Jesus comes, the entire person will participate – spirit, soul and body – not just some parts. This final prayer was designed to bring great encouragement and induce correct understanding among the Thessalonian Christians. Despite what Greek philosophies or religious cults might have proclaimed, followers of Jesus can be confident that a Christian as a whole being will participate in God’s salvation.

Not only will a believer be present as a complete person, but during the earthly experience, God is in the process of making that believer perfectly holy, preparing each believer for God’s presence. Paul affirms that we can have full confidence in God’s ability, desire, and action to complete His work.

Implications:

1. the work of sanctification in a Christian’s life depends on the constant action of God, as well as the self-control, obedience, and continual perseverance of the believer. As Christians we engage in this spiritual discipline whole-heartedly because we have confidence in the outcome – God has the ability to make us perfectly holy. What is your commitment today towards this continuing process?
2. God created every aspect of our being and has taken action to preserve it whole. So in this life we have obligation to devote all parts of our being to God and His service – body, soul and spirit.

____________________
• 1  Robert Jewett, The Thessalonian Correspondence (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986):107.
• 2  F.W. Danker, rev. & ed., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd edition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000):704. Some refer to an occurrence of this adjective in Aristotle, but its authenticity is questionable.
• 3  Cf. Joshua 8:31 (9:2).
• 4  Philo, De Specialibus Legibus I.80.
• 5  Ibid., I.166. The last expression means “completely undamaged in every respect.”
• 6  A list of such inscriptions is provided by C. Spicq, Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Volume 2 (Peabody, MA.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994): 579.
• 7  G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 4 (Macquarrie University, 1987):162.
• 8  Philo, De Abrahamo 47.
• 9  Plato, Phaedrus 250c.

Paul used his example of hard, laborious toil to affirm his great love for these believers. In v.7 he describes his response to them as ēpios, “gentle”.¹ This adjective is only found one other time in the New Testament (2 Timothy 2:24), where Paul tells Timothy that a spiritual leader must not be quarrelsome, but “gentle (ēpion) to all”, i.e. exercising a “motherly goodness and tenderness” among God’s people. Most frequently this word describes a divine quality, whether applied to pagan gods or to Yahweh. According to Philo, the Jewish writer contemporary with Jesus, when God revealed Himself to Moses at the burning bush, He promises to help Israel because “I am of a kindly nature (ēpios) and gracious to true suppliants.”² Philo also indicates that God’s Law urges masters to show “gentleness (ēpiotēta) and kindness” towards their slaves.³ Similarly the Greek god, Zeus, is said to be “the most gentle (ēpios) god toward humans.”⁴ Hesiod says that the Greek goddess, Leto, is “endlessly mild (ēpios) towards humans and toward the immortal gods….”⁵ This adjective defines a person who is good-natured, kindly disposed towards others.

We also find it used to characterize royal figures. In the Greek Old Testament Ahasuerus displayed this virtue (Esther 3:13). In the Greek version the King says that he was “not elated by the confidence of power, but ever conducting myself with great moderation and with gentleness (ēpiotētos)” with reference to his subjects. When Josephus, quoting Hecataeus, narrates the victory of Ptolemy over Syria, he says that “many of the inhabitants, when they learned of his gentleness (ēpiotēta) and humaneness wanted to leave with him for Egypt.”⁶ Philodemus of Gadara writing in the first century BC on the duties of kings urges them to be mild in judgment and loved for gentleness (ēpiotēs).⁷ E. A. Judge⁸ suggests that this virtue of gentleness derives from self-restraint and moderation in the Hellenistic tradition. However, its use in Christian tradition arises from a deep concern for the weak, those in a situation of need. We see this in 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8 as Paul’s gentleness is linked explicitly with his deep love for them (he calls them agapētoi, “beloved”) at the end of v.8.

Connected with this term is the participle (v.8) homeiromenoi,⁹ which the New International Version translates “because you had become so dear [to us].” This is the only occurrence of this term in the New Testament. When Job wonders “why is light given to those in misery,…to those who long for (homeirontai) death that does not come,” the Greek translator used this verb to express the Hebrew verb ḥakah, to wait for, tarry. The second century A.D. Greek translator of the Psalms, Symmachus, used homeiromai in Psalm 62(63):2 to describe the early morning approach of the Psalmist to God (“O God, my God, early I approach you”), indicating something of poet’s yearning to meet with God. There is one other occurrence in a fourth century A.D. tomb inscription where parents express how they “greatly desire (homeiromeno[i]) their son.”¹⁰

Using various analogies of paternal and maternal care, Paul affirms his deep affection for the people in Thessalonika, which in turn motivated him to serve them with gentle kindness and to share the Gospel among them. As he writes to those who responded to the Gospel, he rehearses how his love led him “to share [his] own life” with them. Acts 17 gives us more details about the response of people in this city. It must have been significant, including “some of the Jews” and “a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women.” Many had some acquaintance with Jewish teaching (being termed “God-fearing Greeks”), but they responded to the news that Jesus was the Messiah in large numbers and abandoned their idolatry. They must have sensed Paul’s deep sincerity and discerned the truthfulness of his message, despite the slanderous criticisms made against him. This is probably why Paul has to defend his evangelistic methods so vigorously in 1 Thessalonians 2:1-12.

The language Paul used here is unusual. It is designed to make an impression, incorporating apparently both rare and elevated language. Obviously Paul wants to communicate very clearly his affection for these believers. Later in this chapter he will affirm how strongly he wants to return and visit with them, “but Satan has hindered him.”

Paul’s testimony invites us to reflect on the passion with which we serve others by sharing Christ’s Gospel. As people respond to the message and become part of the faith community our love for one another should blossom, encouraging us to give “of our very selves” so that other followers of Jesus might be encouraged and challenged “to walk worthy of God.” Our contemporary Western culture does not lend itself to the development and nurture of such affection. The push for individualism and independence interferes with the body life that the Spirit wants to engender among believers. Self-interest gets in the way too often and the cost of such service is deemed too great. The result is a shallow, anemic Christian community, rather than the robust, agape-drenched, Kingdom people God’s Spirit desires us to become.

We might also consider how Paul’s language defines the essence of ministry leadership within the Christian community.

Implications:

1. Is your ministry leadership today characterized by kind gentleness, or is it defined by harshness and a critical spirit? What needs to change?
2. Do you have a deep affection for the followers of Jesus in your faith community? How do you express this? How does it shape the way you share the Gospel and serve others?

____________________
• 1  There is a variant nēpios, “infant”, but this seems to be the result of scribal error, adding the final “n” of the preceding verb to the beginning of the noun ēpioi, “gentle” that followed. The term “infant” would add a confusing metaphor into the mix, because immediately after this statement, Paul compares his actions to that of a “nursing mother feeding her own children”. To describe himself first as an “infant” among them and then turn around and compare himself to a “nursing mother”, seems to be a rather awkward mix of metaphors. Conversely, the adjective “gentle” would fit perfectly well. It also contrasts more suitably with his concern not to be a burden upon them, expressed in the first part of v.7.
• 2   Philo, Moses I.72.
• 3   Philo, Decalogue 167.
• 4   Euripedes, Bacchus 861.
• 5   Hesiod, Theogonia 407.
• 6   Josephus, Against Apion I.186.
• 7   Philodemus, Good King, 7:13-14.
• 8   New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 4, pages 69-70.
• 9   R. Funk, F. Blass and A. Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961), p. 53, section 101, are not sure whether the verb has smooth breathing (omeiromai) or rough breathing (homeiromai). They are not sure whether this verb is a variant of himeiromai. In their view this has not been proven.
• 10 C. Spicq, in an article published in the Revue Biblique 64(1957), page 193 says that homeiromai is a synonym for epipothein and signifies “desirer impatiemment, languir”, but also expresses paternal or maternal love.

In 1 Timothy 3:1 Paul writes that “if anyone sets his heart on [aspires to] (oregetai) the overseer role, he desires (epithumei) a noble task.” He uses two different words to describe strong motivations that urge a person to accept the trust of ministry leadership. At this point he does not comment on the source of such desire or aspiration, but he does applaud it and encourage it. So he believes that God’s calling does align, in many cases, with the desires of our hearts. Perhaps it is because God’s Spirit generates such desire in the first place.

The first word (oregein) occurs infrequently in the New Testament, but always in the middle form followed by a noun in the genitive case (as it does in 1 Timothy 3:1). This usage has the literal sense of reaching to or grasping at something. In certain contexts it carries the sense of yearn for or aspire to. Paul only used it in 1 Timothy. Once (6:10) it has negative connotations, describing an “eagerness or striving (oregomenoi) for money” that leads some disciples away from the faith. In the previous verse Paul describes how desire for wealth is a “temptation and a trap”, leading people “into foolish desires (epithumias)” which bring “ruin and destruction”. Context determines whether oregomai describes a good or bad desire. At 3:1 it has a more positive sense, i.e. aspire to a certain position or duty.

Its other use in the New Testament at Hebrews 11:16 describes the yearning (oregontai) that the patriarchs – Abraham, Noah, Enoch, Abel – had “for a better country – a heavenly one.” In this case their aspiration is based on God’s promise, a function of their faith. So in the midst of difficult and risky circumstances their faith-filled aspiration, fueled by prior experiences with God, sustained them.  Paul also used the cognate noun orexis at Romans 1:27 to describe the sexual lust that men expressed for other men. In the Wisdom of Solomon this noun describes “the desire (orexis) for financial gain” (14:2) that motivates people to risk their lives in ocean commerce. This usage expresses the potent nature of the yearning or aspiration defined by the verb. It is a yearning that leads people to give up other things so that they can gain something else.

Philo used these same two verbs (which Paul has in 1 Timothy 3:1) to describe men “who desire (epithumountas) and long for (oregomenous) opportunities of wrongdoing and cannot get them” (Allegorical Interpretations III.211). When commenting on Exodus 33:13, Philo says that Moses “yearns (oregetai) to see God and to be seen by Him,” imploring God to reveal Himself (Posterity 13). In this same essay Philo talks about “the soul just beginning to crave (oregomenēn) after instruction, and now to some extent engaged in learning” (Posterity 131). When he wrestles with Abraham’s actions to sacrifice Isaac, Philo condemns those who “throw away a son or a daughter through desire (oregomenos) for glory” (Abraham 187). Whether Philo in these instances is using the term in the sense found in Stoic philosophers is debated. The Stoics used this word to define a desire that builds upon a “decision of the will guided by human reason.”¹ Few interpreters would ascribe this Stoic philosophical sense to Paul’s usage of this verb in 1 Timothy 3:1.

Josephus also used this verb to describe certain kinds of aspirations. When he defends his actions in the city of Gischala, he criticizes a man named John because “he was eager (oregomenon) for revolution and ambitious (epithumian) of obtaining command” (Life 70).  The author of the so-called Aristeas to Philocrates (c. 130 BC)² describes a purported series of interactions between Jewish scholars and Ptolemy Philadelphus. The Egyptian king asks one Jewish scholar (section 211) “What is the essence of kingship?” The man concludes his reply with these words “do not reach after (oregou) many things, but only such as are sufficient for kingship.” Earlier he had warned the king not to be consumed by wealth, fame or extravagant desires (epithumēsai).

So as we consider the interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:1 in the light of this data, we conclude that Paul, in using the verb oregein wants to emphasize the strong nature of the aspiration or eager striving for the oversight role (episkopēs) in the church. His use of the phrase “this is a trustworthy saying” to introduce this statement underscores its importance. For some reason Paul must encourage and assure people that this role is a “good task” and something that Christians should yearn to engage. He does not at this point give a position description for this role, but it seems to incorporate elements of sincere care, good management, and Gospel guidance so that the faith community is nurtured and protected. Whether Paul intended to use this verb in its Stoic sense, i.e. an aspiration or strong yearning based upon careful discernment and rational evaluation, will continue to be debated. However, the context suggests that a person would strive eagerly for this role because he has thoughtfully and prayerfully counted the cost, considered its significance, and willingly embraced the sacrifices that this role might require. It is a “good work” that one should desire. To discern in this context a sense of “ambition” in this verb probably stretches its connotations inappropriately.

It would seem from this passage that Paul discerns a linkage between God’s calling and personal aspiration. This is not a failsafe mechanism because we know that our discernment can be distorted by many causes. Yet, if we sincerely examine our hearts before God and discern within ourselves an aspiration, tested in various ways, for a serving role within the church, then we should embrace it and pursue it. God is probably giving us some direction.

Implications:

1. take a few moments and reflect upon your sense of calling. Do you discern a relationship between your personal aspiration and the role in which you currently find yourself?
2. what do Christians do when they discover their aspiration for a serving role disappears once they begin to fulfill it? Will our aspiration always be present? Can it be recovered if it wanes?
3. Peter discusses these same issues in 1 Peter 5:1-4. He outlines some key tests that help us evaluate our aspirations, to make sure they are properly motivated. Consider the final one, the eschatological test – i.e. what will Jesus say when he appears?

____________________
• 1 Colin Brown, ed., The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology Vol.1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1975): 460.
• 2 Date proposed by Moses Hadas in Aristeas to Philocrates (New York: KTAV Publishing House, 1973):54.

Undoubtedly the contrast with the verb “might live” (zēsōmen), the main verb in this clause, has led translators to understand this distancing from sin as a kind of death. However, the verb essentially means “to be away, to depart.” Since 1 Peter 2:24 is the only occurrence of this verb in the New Testament and there are no usages in the Greek Old Testament, we have to gain a sense of its meaning from non-biblical contexts.

In Classical Greek texts this verb plainly can mean “to die, depart”. For example, Herodotus the Greek Historian writing in the fifth century B.C. used this verb to describe the burial customs employed by the Spartans when a king dies (“continually declaring that the king who just died (ton…apogenomenon) was the best they ever had”).² Thucydides, another Greek historian from the same period, used this verb similarly (2.34; 2.51). It has the sense of “the departed one”, the one who has gone away. We find the same sense occurring in inscriptions and papyri that come from periods before and after the New Testament writings. Moulton and Milligan, for instance, report an occurrence in the Ryland Papyrus II.65 (c. 60 B.C.) where this verb describes “several corpses (apogegonota pleiona sōmata)”.³ In a Christian letter dated to the III/IV century AD the request is made by the writer to his recipient to “come to us since our mother died (apegeneto).”⁴

The verb can also have the sense of “be away from, have no part in”. That from which one is to be separated is normally expressed by a noun or pronoun in the genitive case, sometimes with a prepositional modifier. For example, Thucydides warns ___________ to “have no part in (apogenomenoi) failures/faults” [1:39.3].Josephus, writing towards the end of the first century AD used this word in a speech by a Roman Senator upon the death of the emperor Gaius to describe this assassination as freedom from tyranny, an act by which “you have rid yourselves of such evils (kakōn apogegonotes⁵)”.

The rather unique element in the construction in 1 Peter 2:24 is that the participle apogenomenoi is modified by a noun in the dative (tais hamartiais), rather than a genitive construction. Liddell and Scott provide no examples of this verb modified by a dative of reference. It is probable that Peter employs the dative here to create closer parallelism with the following expression (tēi dikaiosunēi zēsōmen) “that…we might/should live with respect to righteousness.” But does Peter want us to read this text in a Pauline sense (e.g. Romans 6), i.e. “having become dead with respect to sinful activities we might/should live with respect to righteousness”, or is Peter’s emphasis more on the idea of separating oneself from evil or wicked behaviour and adopting good and holy conduct?

I think that Peter’s usage would suggest that he wants to emphasize the idea of separation. Consider his exhortation in 2:11 “to abstain (apechesthai) from flesh-based desires which war against the soul,” or his wording in 1:14 that urges his audience “not to be conformed (suschēmatizomenoi) to your former, ignorant desires, but to be holy in all behaviour.” Then in 2:1 he has affirmed that believers “put off (apothemenoi)all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander.” He tells believers (4:1) that “those who have suffered in the flesh have finished (pepautai)with sin.” They should realize that they no longer “live for the rest of their earthly life by human desires, but by the will of God” (4:2). This language of separation, non-conformity, cessation and abstention emphasizes the immense ethical and behavioural change the new birth has initiated. Instead of “doing evil”, their lives are characterized by “doing good”, something only possible because of their participation in God’s salvation.

Peter, however, seems to avoid using the analogy of death⁶ to describe the believer’s change from darkness to light. There is new birth and new life, but this does not come about through death. Rather, this language seems to emphasize their translation into God’s family through a spiritual birthing process. Believers have shifted masters, becoming “slaves of God” through the redemptive work of Jesus (1:18-21; 2:16). God is building them into a new spiritual edifice and they have the ability to offer Him acceptable sacrifices. Satan, their adversary, seeks to consume them, but they have strength, generated through faith, to resist his efforts. They have become resident aliens in their social context, obedient to God and following the path blazed by the Messiah.

These emphases in Peter’s letter would lead me to support the translation proposed by Karen Jobes for 2:24. The believer “has no part in sinful activities” or, as Elliott⁷ proposes he has “abandoned wrongdoing”, because he is “living in righteousness”. The New Revised Standard Version translates “so that free from sins, we might live for righteousness.”

Implications:

1. Peter emphasizes the believer’s firm, deliberate and continuing abandonment of sinful activities and the embrace of what is right in God’s eyes. How is this significant change evident in your life today? What sinful activity are you abandoning? What right thing are you choosing to embrace?
2. There is cost attached to this radical departure. What is the cost to Jesus Christ/ What is the potential cost to the believer? How is this cost being expressed in your life today?
3. In 2:25 Peter uses the language of Isaiah 53 to describe the believer’s life-change – no longer straying sheep, but rather obedient sheep following the Shepherd. How does this analogy speak to you today? What is the Shepherd and Guardian of your soul saying to you? Where does He want you to follow?

____________________
• 1 Karen Jobes, 1 Peter. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005): 197.
• 2 Herodotus, The Histories, transl. Aubrey de Selincourt (Baltimore, Maryland; Penguin Books Ltd., 1954): 380 [Book 6.58].
• 3 James Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament (Hodder & Stoughton Ltd., repr.1972):59.
• 4 G.H.R. Horsley, New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, 2 (Macquarie University: The Ancient Document Research Centre, North Ryde, N.S.W., Australia, 1982): 174-175.
• 5 Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 19.178.
• 6 While the language of death does occur in 1 Peter, it is associated primarily with the death of Christ for redemptive purposes. In three contexts the textual tradition is divided as to whether the emphasis is upon Christ’s sufferings or Christ’s death (2:21;3:18; 4:1). Of course his sufferings include his death and his death include his sufferings.
• 7 J.H. Elliott, I Peter. The Anchor Bible (Toronto: Doubleday, 2000): 535.

In later Rabbinic materials a similar expression occurs. For example, in a rabbinic commentary on Exodus, Israelites who gathered more than enough manna for one day, contrary to God’s instructions, are defined as people “of little faith”. “He who has bread in his basket and says: ‘What shall I eat tomorrow?’ is a man of little faith” is another example of a rabbinic saying. Because these materials were written much later than Jesus’ time, we do not know whether they represent ideas contemporary with him. However, they do provide some evidence that this concept was known in Judaism. The fact that we find no use of these Greek terms before Matthew’s Gospel suggests that they reflect Jewish religious ideas.

All examples in the New Testament occur in sayings of Jesus addressed to his disciples. At first sight this fact seems surprising. We tend to think of the disciples as being people who had faith in Jesus and expressed this by following him. When we look at each case, however, it becomes clear that oligopistos/oligopistia define a faith that is broken and not working properly. For some reason the faith principle operating in such people has proven impotent at a point of crisis.

This sense of oligopistos emerges in two Galilean storm scenes. In Matthew 8:26 (parallel in Mark 4:40) the disciples are crossing the Galilean Sea in a boat with Jesus. He has fallen asleep and a vicious storm suddenly has arisen, threatening to swamp the boat and drown the occupants. Terrified, the disciples rouse Jesus. Turning to his disciples, he asks them, “Why are you afraid, little faith ones (oligopistoi)?”¹ He then makes the storm desist by uttering a simple command. They in turn are totally amazed. They have responded to Jesus’ call to follow him, heard his teaching and observed some of his miracles. So they have expressed some faith. Yet at this point of crisis, facing imminent death, their confidence in Jesus fails. But Jesus acts to restore it and instill new faith.

The second example occurs in Matthew 14:31. After feeding the five thousand men, Jesus sends his disciples across Galilee in a boat at night. A storm arises and Jesus, having finished his private prayer session with his Father, walks across the stormy waters, intending to meet the disciples on the other side. As he is walking by them on the water, they see him, but do not immediately recognize him. Peter challenges him to demonstrate that this ghostly figure is indeed Jesus by commanding him to walk to him on the stormy water. Jesus tells him to come. Peter responds, but almost immediately realizes what is happening, loses his confidence in Jesus and begins to sink. In terror he cries out for Jesus to save him. Jesus does, but asks him “Little faith guy (oligopiste), why did you doubt?” When they get into the boat, all the disciples worship Jesus, affirming “Truly you are the Son of God!”

Mark retells the basic story, but does not have the section about Peter’s watery excursion. At the end of the story Mark attributes the failure of the disciples to recognize Jesus to their “hardened hearts”, terms that Matthew does not have in his account.

Once again we have a situation where followers of Jesus at a point of crisis could exercise faith in Jesus, but fail in some way to do so. Jesus defines this failure as expressing “little faith”. The verb “doubt or hesitate²” that Matthew uses in the question (14:31) suggests what lies behind this failure of faith.

A third example of failure due to ‘little faith’ is recounted by Matthew in 17:20. Mark (8) and Luke (9) have a similar story, but define the failure of the disciples differently. A father has brought his demon-possessed son to the disciples and asked them to deliver him from this demonic assault. Jesus previously gave them such power (Matthew 10), but for some reason they are impotent and can do nothing to help this boy. When Jesus joins them, the father complains and Jesus has to step in and heal the child. Afterwards the disciples want to know why they could not help the family. Jesus says:

Because you have so little faith (oligopistia)….If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there’, and it will move and nothing will be impossible for you.

Since the mustard seed was regarded as the smallest seed, Jesus is saying that they were operating virtually without faith. In v.17 he named them an “unbelieving and perverse generation.” Jesus in Mark’s account tells them that prayer is essential for such spiritual work. Luke makes no comment on the reason for their impotence. The failure of faith again disables the disciples.

The last example in this series comes at Matthew 16:8. Jesus is warning his disciples about the unbelief exhibited by the Pharisees and Sadducees. Because he uses the metaphor of leaven and they have just witnessed the feeding of four thousand men, they debate whether Jesus is referring to their failure to bring bread with them for the boat trip. Jesus rebukes them, naming them “little faith ones” (oligopistoi). However, for Jesus their problem is a lack of understanding, which in turn reflects a lack of faith. Jesus is challenging them to make the connections between his feeding of the multitudes and his parabolic description of the religious leaders’ deceptive teaching about him as leaven. Again Mark in the parallel passage (8:17) attributes their lack of understanding to “hearts in a hardened condition.”

In these four contexts Jesus uses these two terms to define a faith that fails to grasp the opportunity for expression. It breaks down and needs fixing and restoration. Yet such failure can only happen, ironically, because these people have faith in Jesus. These words cannot apply to the Jewish religious leaders because they do not have any faith in Jesus at all. His disciples, conversely, have followed him and will continue to do so, even though they do not understand everything and often fail to exhibit the confidence and trust in Jesus that he deserves and desires.

The other context where Matthew has this term is in the Sermon on the Mount (6:30; paralleled in Luke 12:28). Here the issue is confidence in God Himself. If people accept Jesus’ message and enter the Kingdom, will God’s care for them prove constant and sufficient? If people pursue God’s agenda and obey His will, Jesus says that they should have no anxiety about their other human needs – food, clothing, housing. Feelings of anxiety about these things indicate that such disciples are in a crisis of faith – people of little faith.

In Matthew’s Gospel oligopistos/oligopistia describe sincere followers of Jesus. From time to time their faith is challenged. Faith comes under pressure. They must act with confidence – that Jesus’ is with them, that God will provide for them, that the Holy Spirit will help them understand what God is doing, that Jesus will provide them with the spiritual power necessary to represent the Gospel. Often they fail at critical points because their faith breaks and has to be repaired. Mark in his Gospel attributes such breakdowns to ‘hardness of heart’, a believers continual battle to understand and then fully accept the power and reality of Jesus.

How does Jesus respond in such cases? He demonstrates his presence, he shows his power, and he encourages them to restore their confidence in him. The fact that this cycle of opportunity for faith, failure in faith, and restoration of faith happens again and again should be noted. Perhaps this is the spiritual reality of our discipleship as well. We should not be depressed by this, but understand how challenging it is for us to walk by faith. Jesus realizes our struggles and continues to walk with us in the person of the Holy Spirit to keep our faith resurging.

___________________
• 1.  Mark 4:40 reads “Why are you afraid? Do you not yet have faith?” The text tradition in Mark 4:40, however, is quite varied. Also, Mark sets the question of Jesus after he has stilled the storm.
• 2.  For further information on this verb, please refer to Internet Moments With God’s Word #62. You can access this at www.nbseminary.com through the “Internet Moments” page.