The term kubernētēs occurs four times in the Greek Old Testament. In Proverbs 23:34 a drunken person is said to “lie as in the heart of the sea and like a navigator (kubernētēs)  in a large wave.” The metaphor suggests a loss of control. Ezekiel prophecies against the mighty merchant empire of Tyre (Ezekiel 27), forecasting its demise. In 27:8 the prophet refers to the pilots (kubernētēs) of its many ships and these leaders watch (27,28) in horror as Tyre “falls in the heart of the sea.” In the Jewish Greek writing IV Maccabees we read (7:1-3) of the Jewish man, Eleazaros, killed by Antiochus  for his Jewish faith. The author provides an extended metaphor describing this man’s faith:

For like a most skillful pilot (aristos kubernētēs), the reason of our father Eleazaros steered the ship of piety on the sea of passions and though buffeted by the stormings of the tyrant and overwhelmed by the mighty waves of the tortures, in no way did it turn the rudders of piety until it sailed into the haven of immortal victory.

In each case this noun represents the person officially in charge of piloting a ship, i.e. ensuring that it arrives at its destination safely. In IV Maccabees 7 pious reason is given this role as the spiritual navigator of the soul.

The cognate verb, which does not occur in the New Testament, also was used four times in the Greek Old Testament. In one case (Proverbs 12:5) we read that “the thoughts of the just are judgments, but the impious guides (kubernōsi) treachery.” In the story of Susanna the Theodotion version describes the corrupt Jewish elders as “elders who were judges, who were supposed to govern (kubernan) the people.” And then twice in Wisdom of Solomon the verb was used in reference to the experience of Noah in the ark. In Wisdom 10:4 God’s wisdom saved the earth, “piloting (kubernēsasa) the righteous man by a worthless piece of wood.” And then again in 14:6 “the hope of the world fled for refuge on a raft and, piloted (kubernētheisa) by your hand, left to the world the seed of a new generation.” The sense of direction and oversight is clearly present in these metaphorical applications of the verb. The usage in Susanna 5 with the sense “govern” is particularly interesting.

And then there are three occurrences of kubernēsis, all in Proverbs (the use of this terminology primarily in the Wisdom tradition should not be overlooked). According to Proverbs 1:5 when “the discerning” acquire “wisdom and discipline,” they will also “acquire direction (kubernēsin).” The writer of Proverbs warns that “they who have no direction (kubernēsis) fall like leaves” (11:14).  And then in 24:6 we learn that “with strategic planning (meta kubernēseōs) war is conducted.”

The use of this cluster of cognate terms in the Greek translations of the Old Testament and associated literature primarily refer to “giving direction” with the sense of directing towards a specific goal, one that often is spiritual and/or moral. The use of these terms to describe piloting a ship provided a natural application of this language to a statesman responsible for direction affairs of state. Plato for example (Euthydemus 291c) describes the practice of kingly rule as panta kubernōsa — all about directing/steering, with the sense of ruling. Frequently deity is assigned this function. For example in 3 Maccabees 6:2 Eleazaros the priest addresses God in prayer, saying “O king, dread sovereign most high, almighty God, who govern (diakubernai) all creation with compassion.” As well in Wisdom of Solomon 14:3, with reference to Noah’s ark, the author affirms that “it is your providence, Father, that pilots (diakubernai) it, because you have made a way in the sea and a safe path in the waves.” Josephus (Antiquities 10.278) criticizes the Epicureans “who exclude Providence from human life and refuse to believe that God governs its affairs or that the universe is directed (kubernasthai) by a blessed and immortal Being to the end that the whole of it may endure,…” Philo  (De Ebrietate 199) describes those who “postulate a marvellous providence, caring for the whole and each part, exerted by a deity who guides and steers (hēnichountos kai kubernōntos) it and makes safe its steps,…”

Given that deity often has the responsibility to “govern, direct, steer” the universe, it should come as no surprise that one of the “gifts” that the Holy Spirit supplies to Christ’s church would be kubernēsis, i.e. the act of serving as helmsman and piloting the church safely and carefully. Further, its association with state governance, i.e. the rule of kings, indicates that it means more than merely “administration,” i.e. management. There lies within this word a more fundamental responsibility, an equipping for governance. It should come as no surprise that this Greek term etymologically forms the basis for our English words “govern, governance.” I would suggest then that Paul in 1 Corinthians 12:28, using a plural form kubernēseis refers to acts of direction, governance, that provide careful guidance for the church, as an extension of God’s providential oversight. M. Mitchell (Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 163) adds the contextual nuance that such “steerage” is with a view to preserving harmony, unity and concord. In other words such governance is not exercised in pursuit of some personal vision, but rather with a view to a form of governance “which resounds with implications for the unity of the church community” (164). This is the opposite of anarchy. Although Paul recognizes different functions and giftings within the body, there is nevertheless a constant emphasis on unity and contribution to the good of the whole that this gift of governance is designed to support, sustain and encourage.

Whether this gifting should be expressed by every lead pastor can be debated, but certainly within then total leadership team of the congregation, this charism should and must find expression.

Implications:

      i. does your exercise of pastoral leadership within your congregation include a form of “steerage” that works to unity and concord?

    ii. if this is not your specific gifting, who within your congregation’s leadership team does exercise this gifting and how are you encouraging them in its expression?

]]> http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/122-the-gift-of-governance-kubernesis-1-corinthians-1228/feed/ 0 http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/121-redeeming-the-cursed-and-redeeming-time-exagorazein-galatians-313-45-ephesians-516-colossians-45/ http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/121-redeeming-the-cursed-and-redeeming-time-exagorazein-galatians-313-45-ephesians-516-colossians-45/#comments Mon, 02 Jan 2012 16:39:13 +0000 Dr. Larry Perkins http://moments.nbseminary.com/?p=769 Four times in his letters Paul incorporates the compound verb exagorazō – twice in Galatians and once each in Ephesians and Colossians. In his letter to the Christians in Galatia Paul used the verb to describe what the impact of the Messiah’s life and death upon “us,” i.e. those under curse (3:13), and upon those “under law” (4:5).  However, in Ephesians 5:16 and Colossians 4:5 (the verb is in the middle voice in these two contexts)the subject involved in the action are believers and the object is in both cases the word kairos, meaning time or opportune time. It is rendered in both of these instances in the NIV (2011) as “making the most of every opportunity.” In the Galatians context, however, this verb has the sense of “redeem.” The subject is the Messiah or the Son of God and the action expressed by the verb  is applied to people in certain circumstances.

The simple form of the verb agorazein occurs 30x in the New Testament. With the Gospels the writers employ it to describe the activity of buying or purchasing food (Matthew 14:15; Mark 6:36-37; Luke 9:13; John 4:8; 6:5; 13:29), property (Matthew 13:44,46; 27:7; Luke 14:18), oil for lamps (Matthew 25:9-10) animals (Luke 14:19), weapons (Luke 22:36), burial materials (Mark 15:46; 16:1). “Buying and selling” are normal aspects of human activity (Luke 17:28). Jesus expels those “buying and selling” in the temple (Matthew 21:12; Mark 11:15). “Because the time is short” Paul urges believers to adopt specific attitudes, one of which is that “those who buy something” should live “as if it were not theirs to keep; those who use the things of the world, as if not engrossed in them” (1 Corinthians 7:29-31). Similar usage occurs in Revelation, where people buy gold (Revelation 3:18) and cargoes of precious commodities (Revelation 18:11). In Revelation 13:11 people need the “mark of the beast” in order to buy and sell. This use of agorazein in all of these contexts is straightforward. The price in once instance (e.g. Mark 6:36 “two hundred denarii worth of bread”) is expressed in the genitive case.

In six contexts, however, the act of buying is attributed to God (in four cases the passive form of the verb is used (1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23; Revelation 14:3,4) and the active occurs in two contexts (2 Peter 2:1; Revelation 5:9)) and people in various senses are the commodity purchased. In 1 Corinthians 6:20 Paul warns Christians at Corinth the sexual promiscuity is not appropriate behaviour for two reasons. First, the Holy Spirit is resident within them and this makes their bodies “temples of the Holy Spirit.” Secondly, they “have been bought (ēgorasthēte)for a price,” i.e. they have become God’s slaves. He owns their bodies and this gives their bodies a new status in God’s eschatological purposes. How they use their bodies should add to God’s reputation. Paul returns to this same concept in 1 Corinthians 7:23 where he affirms “you have been bought (ēgorasthēte) for a price.” Apart from word order, the expressions are the same and Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:17-23 describes fundamental transformations that Christians experience in their salvation. Those who in society are slaves become “freedmen of the Lord” and those who have the social status of freedmen become “slaves of the Messiah.” The metaphor used here in the first instance relates to slaves whose freedom was purchased by another. This created certain 0bligations that they had to provide for the patron who had paid for their freedom so long as the patron lived. Such obligations in Roman law were regulated by the judicial system. In the second instance the purchase of the freedman (in Roman law this could be because of indebtedness, for example) made him the slave of the patron who had purchased him. Paul argues that social status for believers takes second place to their new relationship in Christ, who now “owns” by right of purchase all believers.

In Revelation 5:9 the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders sing praises to the “slain lamb” because “with your blood you  purchased ( ēgorasas) [people] for God.” In this case the purchase price explicitly is “blood of the Messiah,” a clear reference to the sacrifice of the Messiah on the cross. In some fashion this death, this blood, becomes the currency used to make people God’s possession. Such are the individuals who people God’s heaven. Several chapters later the writer describes the 144,000 who learn to “sing a new song before the throne” as “those who have been bought (ēgorasmenoi (perfect passive participle)) from the earth (14:3)….these have been bought (ēgorasthēsan) from human beings a first fruit offering for God and for the lamb.” I have provided my own translation to emphasize the repetition of this verb in these two verses. The use of the passive voice in both contexts begs the question of the price/currency or agency employed to complete the purchase. If the language of 5:9 is any indication, again we should understand that “the blood of the lamb” was the currency employed.

Finally, there is the text in 2 Peter 2:1 which introduces people who “deny the sovereign Lord who bought them (agorasanta),” i.e. false prophets who face imminent destruction. Here, as in Revelation 5:9 the active voice is used with “the sovereign Lord (despotēn)” as the subject. A despotēs is a person who has authority and control over people, often with connotations of ownership, i.e. slaves. In this case the “owner” probably is Jesus Messiah.

Paul used the simple form of this verb in 1 Corinthians 6-7, but when he comes to Galatians 3-4, he chose the compound form exagorazein. In 3:13 Paul declares that “Messiah (Christ) has purchased ( exēgorasen) us from the curse of the law” and in 4:6 God sent his son “in order that he might purchase (exagorasēi) those under law.” Although the subject of the second example may be God or the Messiah, his son, Paul identifies the Messiah explicitly as the subject in the first instance. Further, in the second example, the context has just discussed how human beings, regardless of status, become sons of God. Throughout his argument Paul has affirmed that all people are “under curse, under law, under sin.” God’s new action in the Messiah has purchased people of faith away from these powers that formerly controlled them. God chooses in this new relationship not to treat those he has purchased as a slaves, but elevates them to the position of  “adopted sons” (Galatians 4:7).

Why did Paul choose to use the compound form of this verb in Galatians? Does it carry a different nuance than that expressed by the simple form agorazein? When the preposition ek is attached as a prefix to verbs it often adds the connotation of ‘out’ or ‘from’ and in the case of this verb it might suggest ideas such as “buy back” or “purchase from.”  As well, the preposition may suggest an intensification of the verbal action, i.e. buy completely. These ideas lead to translations such as “redeem,” i.e. buy back, from slavery or from captivity in war. Whether with Deissmann (Light from the East) we should regard the practice of sacral manumission as the background for this language or as Lyonnet and Sabourin (Sin, Redemption and Sacrifice)argue the language of purchase and acquisition used in the Old Testament to describe God’s possession of Israel remains debated. However, we should note, as Lyonnet and Sabourin make clear, that the verbs agorazein and exagorazein do not occur in the inscriptions found related to sacral manumission. Further exagorazein only occurs infrequently prior to Paul’s usage in Galatians with the senses “buy from, buy up or buy back.” The compound form was not used in the Septuagint to describe practices of redemption. I wonder whether Paul in these Galatians contexts by using the compound form is expressing the intensification of the act of purchase. Aspects of “redemption” and “ransom” are expressed using other verbs in other contexts. Paul may emphasize then in Galatians the full purchase of people “from the curse of the law” or “those under law” such that former “owners” have no further claim at all upon these people. Rather God now totally is the owner of this people of faith.

Paul also used this verb in Ephesians 5:16 and Colossians 4:5. The expression in both cases is rendered idiomatically in the NIV (2011): “making (make) the most of (exagorazomenoi) every opportunity.” The only difference between them is the word order. In Ephesians the object ton kairon follows the verb whereas in Colossians it precedes. As well, both examples are in the middle voice, indicating that the implied subject is being affected in some sense by the action. Context will determine exactly how the subject’s engagement with the action should be defined.

The text that best illustrates the sense of this expression occurs in Daniel 2:8. King Nebuchadnezzar demands that his advisors both tell him what his dream was and what it meant. When they keep asking him to tell them his dream and then they will interpret it, he accuses them, saying “It is certain you are trying to buy time (kairon hymeis exagorazete).” The text is the same in both versions of Greek Daniel (Theodotion and the Old Greek/Hexaplaric). The idea seems to be to use all of the available time to some advantage. In the case of Ephesians 5:16 the subject is Christian morality and Paul urges believers to buy up opportunity to live ethically in the midst of “evil days.” The emphasis in Colossians 4:5 also rests upon “walking wisely” but the purpose in this context is directed to non-believers, “those on the outside.” Believers are urged to “buy up every opportunity” to demonstrate their commitment to the Messiah and express their faith evangelistically.

Paul’s use of exagorazein focused on two separate but related issues. First there is the reality that the Messiah through his death and resurrection has purchased completely those affected by the curse of law. The result of this purchase is a transformed relationship with God for all Messiah followers. The context of Galatians 4:6 links this transaction with ideas of slavery and adoption which result from this divine purchase. The Messiah’s death and resurrection make this purchase possible. Part at least of the background to this concept is found in Old Testament passages that speak of Israel as Yahweh’s possession, even thought this verb is never used to describe Yahweh’s activity. Second, there are some implications that arise from this new status with God. The interpretation of this compound verb form should be related to Paul’s use of the simple form agorazein in contexts such as 1 Corinthians 6-7. The other two uses of the compound form in Ephesians and Colossians define implications arising from this new relationship with the Messiah, i.e. the responsibility to live morally and evangelistically at every opportunity.

Implications:

i. the relationship of any human being with God rests upon the Messiah’s life, death and resurrection. The Messiah has purchased us completely by dying for us. He owns us, but within that relationship he chooses to elevate us from the status of slave to that of adopted son. Our responsibilities in this relationship increase accordingly;

ii. in Ephesians and Colossians exagorazein is related to the command “to walk wisely,” i.e. to live in such a way that we demonstrate our new wisdom in the Messiah. Paul urges us as believers to buy up every opportunity to display God’s wisdom in our moral decisions and our gospel communication.

This verb and noun both are related most probably to the noun chrēma “affair, business” (in financial contexts it can mean “money, wealth”). The corresponding verb has the sense “to handle a matter, to give instructions so as to deal with a matter.” In its later development it seems to become linked with the noun chrēsmos, ‘oracle’ and the verb takes on an additional meaning of “give an oracle.” At what point this occurs is uncertain. Let’s look first at the usage in the Gospel birth narratives.

The verb occurs in the birth narratives of Matthew 2:12,22 and Luke 2:26. After the birth of Jesus significant threats arise against him and his parents, primarily because of Herod the Great’s animosity. Once the wise men have completed their worship of the young child (Matthew 2:11), they receive instructions through a dream (chrēmatisthentes) to return to their country (2:12) directly and not reveal the location of the child to Herod. And then a few verses later (2:22) in the context of Egypt Joseph discovers that Herod has died he receives instructions through a dream (chrēmatistheis) to return to Galilee and settle in Nazareth. Although the New International Version renders this verb as “warned,” this nuance comes from the context, rather then being central to the meaning of the verb.

I think you will find this sense verified when we examine its use in Luke 2:26. Simeon, a pious inhabitant of Jerusalem, had been instructed by the Holy Spirit that “he would not see death until before he should see the Messiah of the Lord” (my translation). Luke used an unusual verbal structure to express this, namely an imperfect form of the verb “to be” plus the perfect passive participle kechrēmatismenon. This construction is a periphrastic formation and usually expresses some idea of duration or continuance of the action implied by the verb. The combination of these two verb forms suggests the sense “it had been instructed.” The instruction was completed in the past and the perfect verb form suggests it still had warrant (perhaps this use of the perfect participle in relation to divine revelation is similar to the common use of gegraptai (perfect passive indicative) to introduce Old Testament quotations in the New Testament with the sense “it stands written). According to Luke the agent responsible for this instruction is the Holy Spirit. In this context there is no sense of warning, but rather advance notice given in the form of instruction. In each of these the divine origin of the instruction is indicated by reference to the Holy Spirit or through the use of the medium of a dream.

Luke used this same verb in the account of Cornelius’ conversion (Acts 10). The messengers sent by Cornelius to Peter tell Peter that Cornelius “has been instructed (echrēmatisthē) by a holy messenger (aggelos)” to send for Peter in order that he might hear “matters from you.” The New International Version rendered the verb here as “told.” The author of Hebrews employed this verb similarly. He references Yahweh’s communication to Moses about the construction of the tabernacle. “According as Moses was instructed (kechrēmatistai)” introduces a quote from Exodus 25:40 where God tells Moses “to make everything according to the pattern shown to you on the mountain” (Hebrews 8:5). I am not sure why the New International Version construes this as a warning, rather than a serious, firm instruction. I think we have the same situation in Hebrews 11:7 where “by faith Noah having been instructed (chrēmatistheis) about things not yet seen” (i.e. the flood, the ark, the re-creation of humankind), built an ark. The similarity with Moses situation is interesting, namely that in both cases we have Yahweh revealing instructions for the construction of some edifice (tabernacle and ark), among other things. There is a third instance in Hebrews and this occurs in 12:25. As often is the case the writer is warning his Christian audience not to repeat the mistakes of Israel and apostasize. He accuses Israel of “refusing him who was instructing (chrēmatizonta) them on earth”  and then turns around and urges his Christian audience not “to turn away from the one who [was instructing us] from heaven.” Presumably the situation at Sinai is being compared with the new revelation from God received through the Messiah (cf. Hebrews 1:1-3).

Lastly, Paul used the cognate noun chrēmatismos Romans 11:4, describing God’s response as ho chrēmatismos, i.e. “the [official] response” which dealt with Elijah’s complaint. This noun is used in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchus (dated 253-60 AD) to describe a magistrate’s decision.[1] Often the word is associated with responses received from deities or from royal figures or their representatives. This association lends these reports a certain authority.

Two other occurrences of this verb form need consideration, because they reflect a very different sense.  This verb form can mean “how someone or something is officially described” and be used to describe a name taken or assigned to someone. For example, in Acts 11:26 Luke tells us that “the disciples first in Antioch bore the designation (chrēmatisai) ‘Christians’.” A similar usage occurs in Romans 7:3 where Paul, in the midst of his analogy of marriage, adultery and widowhood, concluded that “if the husband is living, she [i.e. his wife] bears the designation (chrēmatisei) ‘adulteress,’ if she should belong to another husband” (my translation). We find several examples of this verb used in this manner in Philo’s writing. Perhaps the most explicit is in Legatio 346 where he recounts how the emperor Gaius sought to erect his statue in the Jerusalem temple. The temple would then “bear the name (chrēmatizēi) of Gaius, ‘the new Zeus made manifest’.”

Moulton and Howard, Grammar of New Testament Greek. Vol. II. Accidence and Word Formation (265) state that in fact we have two different verbs formed from distinct words and these last two usages in Acts and Romans reflect a different verb which is a Greek homonym. Not all agree with this explanation.

In the Old Greek version of the Old Testament the verb occurs primarily in Jeremiah. However, it does occur as well in 3 Reigns (1 Kings) 18:27 where the Greek translator apparently has rendered two Hebrew clauses by one expression. Elijah is mocking the prophets of Baal and urging them to increase the volume of their appeal. The Hebrew text suggests that Baal “has wandered away or he is on a journey” (NRSV), or as the New International Version renders it “busy or traveling.” The Greek translator rendered these verbs by the single verb  chrēmatizei. The New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS)  translated this Greek text as “perhaps he is giving an oracle,” but it more likely means “he is engaging in business,” another sense of this verb not found in the New Testament, but otherwise quite common. This latter meaning would cover the sense of the Hebrew verbs more adequately perhaps.

Given the courtroom language and setting of Job 40:8 in the Old Greek translation perhaps the use of the perfect active infinitive kechrēmatikenai means “to issue judicial/official instructions/response to petitions.” This is the meaning of the verb in a number of Egyptian papyri and inscriptions, particularly in relationship to judicial decisions or government responses to petitions from citizens. Job’s interaction with Yahweh is certainly cast in the form of a petition seeking redress. Yahweh’s position, expressed in this verse to Job is “do you think that I have officially responded (kechrēmatikenai) to you in any other way than that you might appear to be right?”(my translation)[2]

As I said earlier, the majority of uses of this verb in the Old Greek Version occur in Jeremiah (8x), all in chapters 32-43 (Greek text chapter numbering). In every case the context describes Yahweh’s communication of a message to Jeremiah which he in turn is expected to convey to the appropriate audience. Other verbs such as ‘prophesy,’ ‘instruct’ and ‘write’ occur in these contexts. NETS rendered each of these occurrences as “give an oracle.” The corresponding Hebrew verb in most instances is simply dbr, speak, or in two instances shag, roar (Jeremiah 23:30, Hebrew text numbering). The contexts certainly indicate that Yahweh is communicating a message through Jeremiah, i.e. an oracle. Yet the verb in these contexts has the sense of an official response, albeit from God himself. Frequently the noun logos is the object of this verb (Jeremiah 32:30; 36:23; 37:2,4; cf. 33:2).

The Hellenistic Jewish historian Josephus also used this verb. In his Antiquities 11.37 he describes Darius, the Medean king, “taking his seat in the place where he was accustomed to give judgment (chrēmatizein).” Similarly in Antiquities 12.84 he explains that when Ptolemy ordered the construction of lavish gifts for the high priest and temple in Jerusalem in exchange for the privilege of making a translation of the Pentateuch, the king was so enamored of the craftsmanship that he “gave up attending to public affairs (chrēmatizein).” Earlier in Antiquities 8.297 he paraphrases the prophecy of Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1) that there would “not be any priest to give righteous judgement (ta dikaia chrēmatizōn).” Josephus also used this verb in the sense of “bearing the designation.” In the Jewish War 2.488 he claimed that Alexander the Great gave Jews in Alexandrian the right “to take the title of (chrēmatizein) Macedonians.” In a scene that closely resembles Matthew’s usage of this verb, Josephus tells how the Jewish high priest, Jaddus, sought direction from God in order to know how to respond to the military advances of Alexander the Great. Josephus says that “when [Jaddus] had gone to sleep after the sacrifice, God spoke oracularly (echrēmatisen) to him in his sleep, telling him to take courage….Thereupon, he rose from his sleep rejoicing greatly in himself and announced to all the revelation (to chrēmatisthen) that had been made to him…”(Antiquties 11.327-28). Josephus’ usage certainly reflects the range of meanings we find in the New Testament documents.

When used in the context of the birth of Jesus, as God gives instructions to certain people, this verb describes how involved God is in the coming of Jesus. Just as God gave instructions to Israel in the Old Testament through the prophet Jeremiah, or Moses, so now God continues his revelatory and directive ways, using the wise men, Joseph, and Simeon. Through this action God preserved the life of Jesus and also gave witness to his significance as Messiah.

Implications:

i. That God would intervene at such crucial times to give detail instructions to people so that his purposes are accomplished encourages us to believe that God similarly today is interested in our lives. How God chooses to communicate his message and guide our lives in the 21st century may be a matter of debate. That he does so is the encouragement of the biblical witness;

ii. In Matthew’s gospel these divine directives serve to thwart Satan’s designs to kill the Messiah Jesus. Later in the same gospel God allows Satan to orchestrate the execution of the Messiah. God’s purposes and God’s timing predominate, even though Satan seeks to accomplish his own agenda.

right?”

]]> http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/120-instructed-chrematizein/feed/ 0 http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/119-the-messiahs-triumph-in-the-cross-thriambeuo-2-cor-214-col-215/ http://moments.nbseminary.com/archives/119-the-messiahs-triumph-in-the-cross-thriambeuo-2-cor-214-col-215/#comments Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:08:55 +0000 Dr. Larry Perkins http://moments.nbseminary.com/?p=716 While there is debate in the case of Col. 2:15, it seems most probable that in both the Colossians passage and 2 Cor. 2:14 God is the subject of this verb thriambeuō in Paul’s letters. These are the only contexts in the New Testament where this verb occurs. The translators and writers of the Greek Old Testament did not use this verb, probably because it was just entering into Greek discourse at the end of the first century B.C., according to the citations in Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon. Nor does it occur in the writings of the Hellenistic Jewish writer Philo. The Jewish historian Josephus, however, used it in his description of the Jewish-Roman war, which he completed towards the end of the first century A.D.

In his ‘second’ letter to the Corinthian Christians Paul says explicitly that it is “God who always leads us in triumphal procession (thriambeuonti) in Christ.” Scott Hafemann, Suffering & Ministry in the Spirit (p. 16-34) provides an excellent description of the Roman “triumph,” which celebrated the significant victory of a Roman general over a major enemy. The “triumphator” was preceded through the streets of Rome with the sacrificial animals and spoils, and then followed by the prisoners of war, who often would be executed as the climax to the parade. The customs involved with a formal “triumph” would lead us to construe Paul’s use of this verb in 2 Cor. 2:14 as describing God to be the victorious leader and Paul as one of the enemy, a prisoner of war being led to death.

However, this interpretation is rejected by many as being incompatible with the context. Some argue that the form of this verb could indicate Paul used it in a “factitive” sense, meaning “cause to triumph.” Paul’s meaning then would be that God has caused him to triumph. Unfortunately there is no lexical usage to support this sense in the kind of syntactical construction used in this passage. Further thriambeuō is a transitive verb and verbs expressing a factitive sense normally are intransitive (Hafemann, 17). Others interpret Paul to be saying that he was part of the conquering army that participated in the triumphal procession. However, this again fails to convince because the enemy led in triumph is the object of the verb and the conquering army is not usually described in that way. Other interpretations are also offered, but each in its own way does not seem to comport with the syntax and context of 2 Cor. 2:14 or with the customs associated with a triumph.

Rather in 2 Corinthians Paul numerous times used metaphors to describe his new life-task as an ambassador of the Gospel. Consider 4: 11 where Paul says that “we who are alive are always being given over to death for Jesus’ sake,” or the metaphor of a “fragrant odour” expressed in 2:14-15, which is a reference to the incense-laden fragrance produced by the offering of sacrifice. Twice Paul gives a catalogue of the hardships he has experienced as “slave of the Messiah” (6:3-10; 11:21-29). As the former enemy of God and the Gospel, Paul, through his conversion experience and by God’s grace, is now part of the triumphal procession of God generated by the victory of  Christ in the cross and resurrection. He is part of the spoils of the spiritual warfare! Yet this is not a bad thing for Paul because it has brought him into the context of God’s love, the Spirit’s wisdom and power, and the Messiah’s life. To be the slave of the Messiah is a great honour. To be part of God’s triumphal procession, even if it means death to self and sin, is a blessed thing. It may even be that Paul will have to surrender his life as a witness to the Gospel, but this, as he confesses in Philippians, only means that he goes to be with his Lord. This may be Paul’s way of living the challenge to “take up his cross daily and follow Jesus.”

Not all interpreters agree with this understanding, but it is the one that seems to give the verb thriambeuō its appropriate sense in this context, as difficult as the metaphor may appear to us.

The use of this verb in Colossians 2:15 applies to the transaction the Messiah was making at the cross. Whether God the Father or Jesus the Messiah is the subject of the action implied in the participle thriambeusas is debated. God is named as the agent responsible for the Messiah’s resurrection in v.12 and also seems to be the subject of the verb in v.12 which describes how God “made us alive together with him (i.e. the Messiah).” This in turn logically would make God the primary agent in the actions described in the nominative participle in v. 14a (“cancelling out, obliterating”) and the verb in v. 14b (“he took it away”). Similarly the main verb in v. 15 would continue with God as the subject, describing how he “boldly displayed them publicly, leading them in triumphal procession in him (i.e. the Messiah).” Another alternative is to consider the Messiah to be subject of the verb in v. 15, which would mean that the Messiah leads them in triumphal procession in the cross or in himself.

In either case the meaning of the aorist participle thriambeusas remains the same, but who leads the triumphal procession, God or his Messiah, remains uncertain. Those led as prisoners of war in the divine triumph are “the principalities and powers (tas archas kai tas exousias).” These are the powers opposed to the Messiah, who sought to destroy him at the cross. Now, however, through the resurrection of the Messiah, they are vanquished. According to the essence of this metaphor, it is probable that those led in this triumphal procession as prisoners of war eventually would be executed, particularly the leaders. So Paul’s language is not only depicting their defeat, but also implies their final destruction.

The sense of what Paul is talking about finds clear expression in Strabo’s account of the death of Adiatorix. “Caesar, after leading in triumph (thriambeusas) Adiatorix, with his wife and children, had resolved to put him to death together with the eldest of his sons” (Strabo, Geography, 12.3.35.6). The linkage between the procession of primary prisoners of war and their execution is plain. However, it is also the case that from time to time the victor would allow the vanquished to live — but this would be exceptional. Josephus (Jewish Wars, VII. 123-157) describes the triumphal procession in which Vespasian and Titus celebrated the Roman victory over the Jews. At the climax of the pageant Josephus tells us that “Simon, son of Gioras, who had just figured in the pageant among the prisoners” was led to the customary place of execution. Then the “announcement that Simon was no more” was made to the cheers of the Roman crowds.

Paul captures in his use of this verb two significant Christian themes. First, God is victorious over all powers, human and spiritual, but especially those that oppose him. He reigns and it is the execution of the Messiah through crucifixion, the most humiliating form of death, and the Messiah’s resurrection, that God’s glorious triumphal procession marches through human history. Second, believers are part of this triumphal procession, part of the plunder from Satan’s kingdom and now prisoners of war in the kingdom of grace. This gives them a status that is filled with honour, even though it may lead to death in the service of the Messiah. Both uses of this verb create audacious expressions of confidence in God’s ultimate victory at the end of the age. It is a victory already secured, but yet to be fully enjoyed.

Implications:

i. do we see ourselves as Paul did, participating in God’s triumphal procession through history, but as his prisoners, thankful that we can serve God even in this limited capacity because of his mercy? We know that being the prisoner of war of God is far better than being the prisoner of Satan.

ii. if God can obtain triumph through such a terrible thing as the cross, then nothing can prevent God from accomplishing his plans. It may mean that God’s triumph will also require suffering on my part as a follower of the Messiah.

In one context (1 Corinthians 7:11) we sense what the verb means in a non-religious context. Paul is discussing how a Christian husband and wife should act within the marital relationship when conflict occurs. If a separation[3] has happened between the couple in their Christian state, then the female Christian spouse according to Paul’s instructions should either

a) remain agamos (unmarried); or

b) be reconciled (katallagētō) to her husband.

The verb in this context defines restoration of a fractured marital relationship among two believers.[4] Wallace suggests that passive imperatives (such as katallagētō in this context) may have a causative/permissive sense, i.e. allow/permit yourself.[5] This suggests a sense in vs. 11 for katallagētō such as “allow/permit yourself to be reconciled to your husband.” Whether this means ‘tolerate’ this or ‘ask’ that it be done cannot be determined except from details in the context.

In all other contexts where this verb occurs in Paul’s letters God is the subject of the active forms and human beings the subjects of the passive forms. In other words God does not become reconciled, rather He acts to reconcile human beings to Himself. For Paul God is always the primary actor in reconciliation, making it possible for humans to experience the transformation necessary to re-engage God. In these contexts (i.e. Romans and 2 Corinthians) Paul used various terms that describe hostile relationships (echthrai, asebeis, hamartōloi) that exist between God and human beings, who live in the dominion of Satan, and that generate within God an avenging wrath. The Messiah Jesus serves as the means God uses to provide opportunity of reconciliation for people, i.e. to find rescue from his avenging wrath. It is the Messiah’s death as propitiatory and expiatory sacrifice that enables this peace and restoration of relationship in the context of new creation.

The author of 2 Maccabees, writing about a century prior to Paul, used this terminology in various religious contexts. The composition opens by citing a letter written by Jews in Jerusalem to Jews in Egypt, encouraging them to faithful obedience to the law. “May he [God] heed your prayers and be reconciled (katallageiē) to you,…” (1:5). The author explains the ability of Antiochus, the Seleucid king, to plunder the temple as due to the sins of the residents of Jerusalem (5:17) and so God did not extend his protection to the temple. However, the temple participated in the benefits of restoration when “what was forsaken in the wrath of the Almighty was restored again in all its glory when the great Lord became reconciled (katallagēi)” (5:20). The essential principle is expressed succinctly in 2 Maccabees 7:33: “And if our living Lord is angry for  a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled (katallagēsetai) with his own slaves.” Similarly we read, after Judas Maccabeus had successfully defeated the Seleucid general Nikanor in battle, that he led the Jewish forces to implore “the merciful Lord to be wholly reconciled (katallagēnai) with his slaves” (8:29). In contrast with Paul’s expression (written about a century later) the author of 2 Maccabees speaks of God as being the party that needs to be reconciled, because human action has alienated him. Sin remains the defined cause of the breach in relations and the repentant petitions of Jewish people hopefully prompt God to respond and to be willing to “be reconciled.” In Paul’s construction it is God that takes the initiative to reconcile human beings to himself, because humans had no means to generate reconciliation with God on their initiative.

Scholars suppose that Paul created the cognate, compound verb apokatallassō[6] because there are no occurrences prior to his letters or uses by non-Christian writers subsequently. The addition of the preposition apo- to the verb katallassō may add a perfective sense, i.e. thoroughly reconciled.[7] Where Paul used composite verbs incorporating two prepositions (here they are apo- and kata-), the sense of the shorter form tends to be intensified.[8] Some argue that the addition of apo- expresses the idea of “the re-establishment of a previously existing peace,”[9] but the application of this verb in Ephesians 2 to the Gentiles would eliminate this possibility because they had no previous, explicit share in the covenants, even though this was anticipated.

Paul’s expression in Ephesians 2:16 is unique in that the Messiah is the subject of the verb, but the Messiah represents God in every sense and so there is no contradiction with other contexts – reconciliation is still God’s work. Paul explicitly associates reconciliation with peace-making (poiōn eirēnēn), which explains how the Messiah “create[d] in himself one new man out of the two.” If there is an intensification of the verbal idea by the addition of apo-, then Paul may be emphasizing, to the astonishment of his readers, that the separation of Jew and Gentile mandated in the old covenant, no longer pertains because of the sacrificial work of the Messiah. Whether the enmity (echthran) mentioned in v.16 is between God and humans or between Jews and Gentiles is unclear, but probably includes both divine and human elements. Vs. 17 defines the mission of the Messiah in terms of reconciliation, because he “proclaimed as good news (euēggelisato) peace to you who were distant and peace to you who were near” and this peace, if embraced, grants both groups equal access “in one Spirit to the Father.”

Paul develops this same theme in Colossians 1:21-22. Using temporal adverbs (pote…nuni de — “at one time…but now”), he contrasts the former state of estrangement and hostility (ontas apēllotriōmenous kai echthrous) with the current situation in which the Messiah (or the subject equally could be God) “has reconciled you in his physical body through death.” The alienation arises from a sin-dominated mindset that generates evil actions. Again the integral connection between the death of the Messiah on the cross and God’s action to initiate reconciliation is unmistakable. Without the incarnate Messiah’s death there is no offer of divine reconciliation, either to Jew or to non-Jew. The result intended by this act of reconciliation is “to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation.” The verb “to present” (parastēsai) occurs in sacred contexts where sacrifices are offered, as well as in judicial or royal court proceedings where people are “presented.” The three adjectives Paul chooses to describe the new state of these reconciled people (holy, without blemish, free from accusation) seem to combine both aspects. God’s reconciled people become both acceptable sacrifice and suitable servant. Perhaps again Paul’s choice of apokatallasein (reconcile) in this context emphasizes the extent to which God has gone to secure this changed state and the enormous transformation it has generated in the lives of these non-Jewish people.

In both Ephesians 2:16 and Colossians 1:21-22 Paul speaks to the remarkable change in the status of “gentiles,” i.e. non-Jews, through the Messiah’s work. Within Jewish theology such action by God through the Messiah usually was not considered a present activity in Paul’s day. Non-Jews at some point in the eschatological future may acknowledge God’s action in the restored Jewish people and may even participate to some degree in the blessings God gives to his people, but this would only come after significant conflict with the nations. Paul affirms that God in Messiah Jesus and particularly through his crucifixion has already started this work of reconciling non-Jews to himself and inviting them into his people as full partners alongside of Jewish believers in the Messiah. This is radical stuff.

The other context where this verb occurs is Colossians 1:20, which of course is linked with the immediately following usage in vv. 21-22. However, Paul gives the scope of the work of reconciliation a cosmic dimension. The New International Version (2011) rendered it as “and through him to reconcile (apokatallaxai) to himself all things (ta panta), whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace (eirēnopoiēsas) through his blood, shed on the cross.”[10] The place where the act enabling reconciliation occurred is the cross and involves the Messiah’s death. Colossians 2:15 describes the significance of this event in which the Messiah disarmed the powers and authorities and “make a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” The outcome is “peacemaking.” What is extraordinary here is the scope of the reconciliation effected, i.e. the entire cosmos is affected.

One of the significant questions raised by Paul’s use of this term is this:  does God’s act of reconciliation result in the salvation of all Jews, non-Jews, and “things in heaven?” In other words are his statements grounds for belief that eventually all created beings, human and spiritual, will enjoy salvation? Does peace-making imply participation in salvation for all? Such a complex question deserves serious treatment, which we cannot provide in the scope of this brief article. However, I would suggest several perspectives that help us to grapple with this question:

1. In the human sphere when a king makes provision for peace with a hostile nation, the opponents have to decide whether or not they will embrace that peace or reject it and continue to resist by some means. Similarly, the fact that God has made complete provision for reconciliation of all things, does not mean that all beings will accept his provision. Without their acceptance of God’s offer, they will not experience this provision.
2. Within the full context of Scripture we read of Satan and his supporters being consigned to the lake of fire in the final judgment, which indicates that they have not accepted and will not accept in the future the peace that God has offered.

God makes reconciliation possible in and through the cross-work of the Messiah Jesus. The use of the aorist tense form (participle in the first instance and indicative in the second) indicates that Paul expressed God’s action as undefined, apart from additional information in the sentence. Whether reconciliation has begun, been accomplished or been applied repeatedly must be determined from other contextual factors. In v. 22 Paul says that  the Colossian Christians have already experienced reconciliation. The evidence that human beings have embraced this reconciliation is the personal presence of the Holy Spirit resident within and this is something that

The gospel presents God’s offer of reconciliation, but human beings have to repent of their sinful behaviour and ask for God’s forgiveness in Christ before they can enjoy peace with God. Paul describes the presentation of the gospel as the “ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18) which God has given to his people. The appeal in this message is for people to “be reconciled with God” (2 Corinthians 5:20). Paul’s message indicates that the work of the Messiah at Calvary that makes provision for reconciliation is not automatically applied to every human being. People have to be willing “to receive God’s grace.”

Implications:

i. how does the “ministry of reconciliation” become active in your life as a follower of Jesus?

ii. how does the language of hostility and estrangement define for us today the human condition outside of the Messiah?

iii. if God’s offer of reconciliation is based upon the Messiah’s death on the cross, what does this suggest about the significance of the cross and the meaning of the Messiah’s death?

Colossians 1:12 is part of an extended prayer (1:9-20) that Paul is offering on behalf of the believers he is addressing. In v. 12 he gives thanks “to the Father who has enabled (hikanōsanti) you to share in the inheritance of the saints in the light (NRSV).” Other commonly used translations use the equivalent “who has qualified” (ESV, NIV, NASB). In 2 Corinthians 3:6 NRSV, ESV (this translation notes “who has made us sufficient” as an alternative rendering) and NIV render the verb “who has made us competent” and the NASB has “who has made us adequate.” In the Colossians context the subject of the verb is God, designated as “the Father,” who has taken some action (described by the verb) that gives the people who are the object (the textual witnesses vary between “you (plural)” or “us”) a “share of the inheritance of the holy ones[1] in the light.”  Can we define more precisely what action Paul assigns to “the Father” in using the participle tōi hikanōsanti?

The Greek translators of the Old Testament generally used hikanoun as the equivalent of a Hebrew idiom meaning “it is sufficient” (Numbers 16:7; Deuteronomy 1:6;2:3;3:26; 1 Kings 12:28;19:4; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Ezekiel 44:6;45:9). For example, in Deuteronomy 1:6 Moses recounts how God had told Israel it had spent long enough at Sinai and it was time to complete their journey to Canaan. The NRSV renders the Hebrew text as “You have stayed long enough at this mountain.” The Greek translator used “Let it be sufficient (hikanousthō) for you to live at this mountain.” Here the sufficiency relates to length of time.

In other Old Testament contexts “what is sufficient” may be the declaration of God’s will, i.e. God’s word is a sufficient response to the matter and ends debate (e.g. in Numbers 16:7 it is the choice of those who would serve God and in Deuteronomy 3:26 God tells Moses to stop speaking about his own entry into Canaan, because he will see the land, but not enter). Sometimes human sin has reached a sufficient level of heinousness (Ezekiel 44:6;45:9). In 1 Kings 12:28 Jeroboam’s makes two golden calves which he regards as sufficient, i.e. suitable?, for the Northern Kingdom’s worship needs, so the people do not need to travel to Jerusalem. Elijah cries to God that he has done what he can to oppose the wickedness of Ahab and “it is enough,” i.e. there is nothing more I can do. He pleads with God to take his life (1 Kings 19:4). In 1 Chronicles 21:15 God declares to the angel that it has killed enough Israelites as punishment for David’s sin.

When Jacob returns to Canaan, he is afraid to confront Esau. He prays to God and acknowledges that he left Canaan with only a rod in his hand and is now returning with so much wealth that he requires two camps to house his retainers. He confesses that whatever happens “it is sufficient for me because of all the righteousness and because of all the truth that you have brought about for your servant,…” (Genesis 32:11). There is a sense of satisfaction at God’s actions on his behalf, whatever the outcome may be. The verb in the Greek translation of Song of Songs 7:9(10) also has a sense of ‘satisfy,’ i.e. be sufficiently pleasing, as the writer extols the virtues of his beloved, whose facial features are “satisfying my lips and teeth.”[2] In Malachi 3:10 God encourages Israel to bring the appropriate sacrifices and tithe as the law requires, because He will “pour out upon you my blessing until you are satisfied (heōs tou hikanōthēnai).”

The use of this verb in Paul’s letters does not seem to equate with any of these senses found in the Greek Old Testament. In both Colossians and 2 Corinthians God is the specific subject of the verb, but this usage does not occur in the Greek Old Testament. In the Septuagint translation God may cause the action that prompts the writer or human agent to declare that “it is sufficient,” but we do not find the expression “God made sufficient, or enabled, or qualified, or made competent” someone to accomplish something. Rather in the New Testament the idiom for “it is sufficient” is a neuter form of the adjective hikanon, with an implied or expressed form of the verb to be (Luke 22:38 “They said, ‘Lord, look, here are two swords.’ He replied, ‘It is enough.’”; 2 Corinthians 2:6 “This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person.”). In fact, I cannot find any usage in Greek literature prior to Paul where a divine agent occurs as subject of this verb with the sense of “making someone competent/adequate” for some task. Perhaps Paul is breaking new lexical ground here.[3]

If this is the case, then what are the precedents that may have given Paul warrant for these dramatic assertions about God’s direct involvement in the life of his people to give them the competency to participate with him in his kingdom plans?  Paul’s description of God as “the father” who (in the interpretation of Lohse, Colossians and Philemon (Hermeneia, 1971), 34) “has authorized you” to have “a share in the lot of the holy ones in light,” is also quite exceptional, at least in Jewish terms.

New Testament scholar and Septuagintalist, C. H.Dodd in his book The Bible and the Greeks (1935, 13-16) linked Paul’s usage with one of the unusual Greek renderings of the names of God in the Old Testament. The Greek translators were not sure what the meaning of the divine name “El-Shaddai (שׁדי)” meant. Sometimes it was translated as “God” (Numbers 24:16; Isaiah 13:6); sometimes it was transliterated as saddai (Exodus 10:5); sometimes it was linked with God’s heavenly dwelling (Psalms 67:15; 90:1); in Job it is translated often as kyrios (lord; 6:4,14; 22:23,26; 24:1; 31:35) or as pantokrator (all powerful one; 16 times) and once as “the one who made all things”(Job 8:3);  and in other contexts it seems to be construed to mean “the God who is mine” (Exodus 6:3). However, there are several contexts in the Greek translation of Ruth (1:20,21) and in Origin’s additions to the Greek text of Job (21:15; 31:2; 39:32) and the textual tradition of Ezekiel (1:24) where this divine name is rendered by the adjective hikanos, “the sufficient one.” For example, in the Greek rendering of Ruth 1:20-21 Naomi has returned to Bethlehem and she tells the townspeople “Call me no longer Naomi, call me Bitter for the Sufficient One (ho hikanos) was greatly embittered against me. I went away full, and the Lord has brought me back empty. Why do you call me Naomi when the Lord has abased me and the Sufficient One (ho hikanos) has maltreated me?” The parallelism in this text identifies “The Sufficient One” with Yahweh. The Greek translation[4] of Job 21:15 as revised by Origin asks “What is the Sufficient One (hikanos) that we should be subject to him…?”

In the writings of Philo, an earlier contemporary of Paul, we discover numerous places where he references this rendering of “Shaddai” as hikanos. Several times he states that “God is sufficient (heatōi hikanon) for himself.”[5] He is a self-contained being, needing no other creature, but for reasons known only to himself has in fact created other beings. C.H.Dodd presumes that Paul was also aware of this etymology and notes the repeated[6] use of these cognate terms in 2 Corinthians 3:5-6:

Not that we are competent (hikanoi) of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence (hikanotēs) is from God,   who has made us competent (hikanōsen) to be ministers of a new covenant, not of letter but of spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

In the context of 2 Corinthians[7] Paul compares and contrasts the covenant God established through Moses with the new covenant God has established through the Messiah Jesus. He notes how Moses’ face shone with God’s glory as a result of his interaction with God during these events. Despite all of Moses’ concerns about his lack of competence to serve God in this way (Exodus 3-4) and the negative reaction of Pharaoh to his demand that the king of Egypt release the Israelites (6:2-9), God made him competent both in terms of ability and authority. Note the use of El Shaddai in Exodus 6:3.  Similarly, Paul argues, God now through his Spirit, makes the followers of the Messiah competent – capable and authorized – to serve as “ministers of the new covenant.” God who is the all sufficient one makes those “in Christ” sufficient to serve him. In doing so God does not in any sense lose his all-sufficiency. 2 Corinthians was written perhaps 3 – 5 years before Paul wrote Colossians.

In Colossians 1:12 Paul describes the great transformation and new status that the Colossian believers have experienced because of God’s action in Christ. They have the potential to “be filled with the knowledge of God’s will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,” to “bear fruit in every good work,” and to “be made strong with all the strength that comes from his glorious power.” All of this enables them “to endure everything with patience.” These wonderful capacities and provisions given by God should produce thanksgiving (v.12) to God in the hearts and minds of the Colossian Christians. Just as a human father oversees the training and development of his son, such that he becomes competent in various ways and able to act in support of the household enterprises, so God, the father of each believer, can be trusted to build and develop the spiritual capacities of those in his family. The result is that such people “have a share in the lot/inheritance of the holy ones in the light.” Just as God made Israel qualified to be his covenant people and to enter into the Promised Land and occupy it in fulfilment of God’s covenant promise, so the followers of Messiah Jesus are now fully qualified to participate in the divine inheritance shared by his “holy ones.” This is contrasted with the prior state of being trapped in “the power of darkness” (1:13), from which God has rescued believers and redeemed them, forgiving their sins. The “hymn-like” passage in 1:15-20 explains why God is sufficient to make human beings qualified in Christ.

It did not matter to Paul what status these Colossian Christians possessed prior to their commitment to Jesus. Once they received the Gospel, God “qualified” them to be full participants among his people (‘the holy ones) both in this age and in the age to come. God has what it takes to do this.

Implications:

i. Regardless of whether Paul had the equation of “Shaddai = Sufficient one” in mind, Scripture certainly demonstrates that God has sufficient power and authority to be King of Kings. How does God’s sufficiency find expression in your life today?ii

ii. If God makes us qualified and competent to serve as his representatives in this world, how is this demonstrated in practical terms? How does the Spirit figure into this experience? How has God qualified you to be a “minister of reconciliation?” Does this give you confidence in your service?

The issue is this:  did Paul and Barnabas by themselves appoint these elders or was this appointment the end of a process in which they engaged congregational insight and perspective, in essence ratifying some of those qualified and presented to them by the congregations? And, should this text be considered determinative for the selection and appointment of elders today? What did Luke intend this verb to signify in this context?

Strauch appeals to the comment by F.F. Bruce that in Acts 14:23 “we are simply told that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders in the recently founded churches of South Galatia, but the verb tells us nothing about the method of appointment.”[1] Strauch interprets this then to mean that the congregations had little or no part in the process and Paul and Barnabas appointed the elders for the churches.[2] In his view “election of elders by the congregation cannot be proven from this single word” and he is correct in what he says – but not in what he omits to say, namely that the congregations could still have had some role and a very significant part in the selection of those whom Paul and Barnabas appointed.  In his view Luke’s use of this verb in Acts 14:23 (and other NT texts that he discusses) demonstrate that “the existing elders (or founding missionaries) are responsible to officially appoint elders who [sic] they and the congregation recognize for their labor, desire, and qualification.”[3] Surprisingly, Strauch seems to reverse his position on the same page when he affirms that “no one has special power to appoint elders. The truth is, Scripture gives little detail about the actual appointment of elders. Luke, for example, merely records that Paul and Barnabas appointed elders (Acts 14:23).”[4] It seems somewhat disingenuous then to argue that “existing elders…are responsible to officially appoint elders….” Perhaps Strauch considers the adverb “officially” here to signify the end of a process.

I would suggest that Strauch commits the error for which he criticizes those who argue for congregational involvement – he believes that Luke’s use in 14:23 of the verb cheirotonein defines method, i.e. appointment, when in fact it does not necessarily do that.[5] While the verb does mean “appoint,” it does not reveal exactly how the appointment was made, and so does not eliminate the possibility that people within those congregations had some and perhaps very substantial input into the decision. Luke’s use of this verb leaves the method of selection open, while asserting that Paul and Barnabas made sure that appropriately qualified people were appointed as elders.

The Hellenistic Jew, Philo, who wrote as a contemporary of Jesus, used the verb (cheirotonein) 33x, the cognate noun (cheirotonia) 9x and the cognate adjective (cheirotonētos) once. There seems little doubt that the noun in some contexts does describe selection by some voting process. For example, in On the Change of Names 151 Philo is commenting on the promise to Sarah in Genesis 17:16, whom he compares to Virtue. Regarding the phrase “and kings of nations shall be from her,” he says “for those whom she conceives and bears are all rulers, chosen not for a short time by the uncertainty of lot (ou klēroi, pragmati abebaioi) or by the votes of men (cheirotoniai) for the most part hirelings, but rulers appointed (katastathentes) for ever by Nature herself.” While Philo’s allegorizing commentary is hard for us to comprehend, the distinction between selection by lot and selection by vote is clear. These were common methods  used in Hellenistic and Jewish society for selecting a person who may be appointed leader.

Again in The Special Laws II.231 Philo used this noun as he discusses the authority that parents wield over their offspring. “That authority is not obtained by lot (kata klēron) nor voting (cheirotonian) as it is in the cities, where it may be alleged that the lot is due to a blunder of fortune in which reason has no place, and the voting to the impetuosity of the mob,…” Philo is not enamoured of either method of selection, but he does distinguish them and links voting particularly with the appointment of civic leaders.

We must also note that the noun can describe divine appointments as well. Moses, for instance, is said to have believed that Yahweh was affirming his initial call, but “he tried to refuse the appointment (cheirotonian).”[6]

In The Special Laws IV.157 Philo comments on the process Moses instituted in Deuternomy 17 for the selection and appointment of Israelite rulers. In the paragraphs preceding this section Philo noted the inadequacy of using lots as the means to select a person for public office. Then he turns his attention to Moses’ instructions and says “These things Moses, wise here as ever, considered in his soul and does not even mention appointment of rulers by lot, but determines to institute appointment by election (tas cheirotonētas)….hereby indicating that there should be free choice and an unimpeachable scrutiny of the ruler made by the whole people with the same mind.” God then adds his vote (Philo used the verb meaning” to cast a vote in addition”) to ratify the appointment. In his tract entitled On Rewards and Punishments 54 Philo comments on the appointment of Moses as Israel’s king, legislator, prophet and high priest. He says “It was God who appointed him (cheirotonētheis) him by the free judgment (hekousiōi gnōmēi)  of his subjects, God who created in them the willingness to choose (hekousion hairesin) him as their sovereign. “ Twice in this context Philo emphasizes that the people were willingly engaged in some fashion in Yahweh’s appointment of Moses as their leader.

The sense given to the verb in a particular context depends upon the authority inherent in the subject and whether the subject allows for the involvement of others in the selection and appointment. For example, Philo notes that Pharaoh selected and appointed Joseph as his viceroy (On  Joseph 248). Yahweh appointed Moses to be king in Israel (Moses  I.113,148,162,198) with verb either active or passive in form. Moses appoints Aaron’s sons to serve as priests (Moses II.142). In other contexts the appointment occurs with explicit involvement of others. For instance, in The Special Laws IV.55 Philo argues that Moses required Israelite judges whether appointed “by lot or election (cheirotonēthentas)” to possess exemplary character. In an illustrative comment (The Unchangeableness of God 112) Philo describes “magistrates chosen by lot, or it may be elected (cheirotonēthentōn) jurymen” who condemn guilty prisoners.

I have taken some time to outline some of the evidence regarding the usage of the verb cheirotonein in Philo because Strauch in footnote 4 offers extended comment upon Philo’s usage.[7]  He is correct in his comment that “Philo…uses the word without reference to voting.” He is also correct in his note that cheirotonēo  “was also used more generally to mean appoint or choose, without reference to the manner of choosing.” He concludes that “cheirotonēo can mean to elect or appoint. The context, not the etymology, determines its meaning.”[8] However, I did not find in Philo a precise parallel to the syntax that Luke used (i.e. verb + indirect object + direct object).

Let’s consider also a few contexts from the writings of Josephus, a contemporary of Luke, the author of Acts. Josephus used this verb 32 times in his extent writings, a similar proportion to what we find in Philo. There are clear instances in which the verb, followed by a double object (double accusative), expresses the action of diverse groups to select a person for a specific position. After the revolt of Absolam, some of the tribes of Israel confirm their selection of David to be king (Antiquities 7,260 “the other tribes had chosen (cheirotonēsai) David king before they did”). How exactly these tribes arrived at their selection is not specified. In Vita 341 Josephus claims that he was appointed (cheirotonēthēnai )  commander of Galiliee “by the general assembly at Jerusalem.” And then in Bellum 7,9 Titus, the Roman general, tells the Roman legions that in addition to winning the Jewish war, “a more glorious and splendid tribute to them than this was the fact that those [Vespasian, the emperor] whom they had themselves elected (cheirotonēsantōn) to be the governors and administrators of the Roman empire…were being hailed with universal satisfaction,…” However, the syntax of these examples does not match that of Acts 14:23, which has a direct and indirect object (cheirotonēsantes …autois…presbuterous) – “having appointed for them…elders.”

In Josephus, however, we do find two uses that are parallel to Acts 14:23. The first occurs in Antiquities 4,34. Josephus is recounting the story of Korah’s challenge of Aaron’s appointment to the position of high priest.  The candidate whose incense God regards as most acceptable, “this  person shall be appointed a priest [direct object] for you [indirect object] (houtos humin hiereus kecheirotonesetai).” God is the one who is involved in the appointment of Aaron as high priest. Yet, Josephus indicates just as clearly that people had to acquiesce in this divine selection (3,192). So Moses says that Aaron “holds it in virtue of your own decision (kiata tēn humeteran gnōmēn); for that which God gave, we were not wrong in supposing that he received with your goodwill also” (4,30).  “He whose sacrifice should be received with most favour by God should be declared appointed (kecheirotonēmenos)” (4,54). The passive voice indicates that the people were involved in this declaration. After Aaron’s rod produces a bud, the people “began to marvel at God’s sentence concerning them; and henceforth applauding the divine decrees they allowed Aaron to hold the priesthood with honour” (4,66).  Josephus describes Aaron’s instalment as “three times been appointed by God….” (4,66).  What I think is noteworthy here is the interplay between God’s selection of Aaron and the difficult process that eventually resulted in the willing endorsement of that appointment by the people. Josephus guards the sovereignty of God as well as gives a responsible role to the people in appointing their leaders.

The second context where this construction occurs describes the selection of a new king, the anointing of Saul. In a dream God directed Samuel to “appoint for them [indirect object] (cheirotonein autois hon) whomsoever I shall name as king [direct object]…” (Antiquities 6,39). Despite Samuel’s warnings as to the actions of such a king, the people “pressed him severely and determined to appoint (cheirotonein) now the king and take no thought for the future” (6,43). But Samuel as he anointed Saul said, “Know that you are king, appointed (kecheirotonēmenos) of God to combat the Philistines and to defend the Hebrews” (6,54). Yet Josephus describes the process in these words: “range yourselves all of you by tribes and families and cast lots” (6,61). The lot fell to the family of Saul. Once more the process is an interplay of God’s sovereignty with human activity. The people could consider, through the casting of lots, that they had selected Saul. The prior work of God was not thereby ignored, nor was the direct involvement of the people in the selection process devalued.

So we come back to Acts 14:23. Paul and Barnabas had a prominent role in determining who would fill the role of elders in these newly established Galatian congregations. Their wisdom is recognized by Luke. However, the term cheirotonein does not exclude involvement by some in the congregation in the selection process. Luke’s expression is quite constrained and condensed. The fact is that Luke is silent about the process of selection in this passage.

Are there any other passages that describe leadership selection and appointment processes in Acts that might give some indication about the process Paul and Barnabas may have used in appointing elders? In Acts 1:21-26 Peter leads the Christians in the selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot. The apostles refrain from making the appointment themselves. Rather, Peter outlines the qualifications and the believers, gathered in the upper room select Barsabbas and Matthias as their candidates and present them to Peter. They then cast lots to determine which of these should fill Judas’ place among the apostles. All of the Christians present are involved in the selection and appointment process, even as they depend upon God for guidance.

In Acts 6:1-6, when a dispute arises over the practices of the church in assisting the Hellenistic and Hebrew widows, Peter leads the Jerusalem church in selecting and appointment seven men to oversee this important ministry. Qualifications are defined by Peter, but the search for and selection of the candidates is given to the congregation to accomplish. They chose them and presented them (6:6; cf. 1:23) to apostles. The church leaders oversaw the proceedings, but they trusted the wisdom of the church in selecting the candidates.

And then in Acts 13:1-3 Luke describes how Barnabas and Paul were selected and sent by the Antioch church on the first missionary journey. This is not a selection for eldership, because Barnabas and Paul were already teachers and prophets in the Antioch church. Presumably the people mentioned in 13:1 were those involved in the selection process. Note the integration of divine direction and human affirmation in this process.

So if these prior incidents give us any insight into the methods used by early church leaders in the selection and appointment of leaders, plainly the congregations were involved to a significant degree.

We have one example in Paul’s letters of a church selecting and appointing a person to a ministry leadership role. In 2 Corinthians 8:16-21 Paul commends the brother, “who is praised by all the churches for his service to the gospel,” to this church. He states that “he was selected (cheirotonetheis) by the churches to accompany us….” Leadership is selected again through the involvement of the congregations.

So what might we conclude from all of this as to Luke’s intended meaning in Acts 14:23 and what direction might we discern from this text for the selection of leaders within churches today?

1. Paul and Barnabas appointed leaders as elders in each of the new churches (perhaps 6 – 12 months old) they established in Southern Galatia during their first missionary journey. We do not know whether they did this during other church planting missions, but the presumption would be that they did.
2. Luke is silent in this context as the process used to select such leaders.
3. Prior cases of leadership appointment in Acts involved the Christians as a community in the selection process, guided by mature, spiritual leaders. It would be reasonable to assume that Luke expects his readers to bear these prior cases in mind when reading 14:23.
4. In his letters to the churches Paul is silent about the process used in selecting and appointing elders (cf. Internet Moments Article 104 for an evaluation of Titus 1:5). We have one example in 2 Corinthians 8:16-21 of the appointment of a Christian leader and this involved the congregations.
5. This term is not used in the Pastoral Epistles where Paul gave instructions to Timothy and Titus about the character qualifications for various church leaders (e.g. no novices). He is quite silent on the process of selection, even though he expects Timothy and Titus to lead the church in affirming such leaders and making sure things are being done in an orderly fashion.
6. I do not think Acts 14:23 gives justification for the idea that today elders must appoint elders. Paul and Barnabas were in an extraordinary situation, planting new churches. We do not know what process of selection they followed. We should not use this one incident as prescriptive of the appointment of church leaders. This places on this text a weight it cannot bear.
7. This verb has nothing to do with “laying on hands.”
8. What the New Testament does indicate is that there was prayerful collaboration among the church leaders and the people in the congregation in dependence upon the Holy Spirit in the selection and appointment of spiritual leaders in the congregation.

In the frequent occurrences in Paul’s writings, the majority of cases refer to the powerful and effective activity that God (one of the persons of the Trinity) exercises.

Energein ⁵ (verb)⁶ God: 1 Cor 12:6; Gal 2:8(2x):3:5; 5:6(?); Eph. 1:11,20; Phil. 2:13(2x); 1 Thess. 2:13 (or God’s word); Spirit: 1 Cor 12:11 ⁷

Energeia (noun) God: Eph. 1:19;3:7; Col. 1:29; 2 Thess.2:11; Christ: Phil. 3:21; Uncertain: Eph 4:16⁸

Energēma (noun) God: 1 Cor 12:6; Spirit: 1 Cor 12:10

Energēs (adjective) (none in Pauline correspondence).⁹

Sometimes God’s capabilities are operating in the Messiah (Eph 1:19; Col 2:12) in connection with his resurrection and ascension, with the point made that this same powerful capability is now operating within believers. In other contexts God’s powerful activity occurs in humans for salvation (Eph 3:7; Phil 2:13; Gal 3:5) and sometimes for service (Col 1:29; 1 Cor 12:6,10-11; 1 Thess 2:!3; Gal 2:8; perhaps Eph 4:16). In Paul’s writings God is not the only “personality” that effectively works. In 2 Thess 2:9 energeia refers to Satan’s activities, as it does in Eph 2:2. Perhaps as Robinson suggests, this is intended to parody the Messiah’s work.¹

The fact that God engages in energeia in time and history, but also directly in the lives of people, contrasts the Gospel emphatically with pagan idolatry and philosophies. Idols do no work and cannot by definition work. Rather humans do everything for them. Epicurus taught that while gods existed, they had no interest in human affairs and so gods had no effective activity in human lives. Stoics taught self-discipline and self-dependency. If the gods acted, often it was to human detriment and certainly with no perceived plan or positive outcome for the most part. People within the context of Hellenistic religions tended to frame their lives in terms of Fate and magic – powers active in their world but ones that had little interest in their personal good. Magic rituals were used to control the gods’ actions so that they were less harmful and might be bent towards personal gain. Within the Gospel message the Messiah now exercises control over these deviant and capricious powers. God’s Holy Spirit takes up residence in the life of the Christian to deliver, to provide divine wisdom, to embed one’s whole life in God’s work.

When nouns not referring to personal agents are subjects of the verb, the form used is passive (cf. comments in footnote 5). “Comfort” (2 Cor 1:6); “death” (2 Cor 4:12); “faith” (Gal 5:6) “sinful passions” (Rom 7:5); “mystery” (2 Thess 2:7); “power” (Eph 3:20); “effective activity” (Col 1:29); “Word of God” (1 Thess 2:13), all occur as subjects of passive forms. With a passive form there is always agency related to the action, i.e. the person or personality who actually is doing the action. In some cases Satan probably is the implied agent (Rom 7:5; 2 Thess 2:13). In all other cases it is one of the members of the Trinity. Kenneth Clarke¹¹ argues that all usages of the verb energein in the passive voice have the sense either “to be infused with supernatural spirit” (as in Matt 14:2; Mk 6:14), or “to be made supernaturally operative” (the other eight occurrences mentioned in this paragraph).

The implications of this for a passage such as Gal 5:6 suggest a translation that makes faith the product of God’s supernatural work in the life of a person (i.e. faith is being made operative) because of God’s love for them. In 1 Thess 2:13 this principle would indicate that “word” (logos) is the referent of the relative pronoun and it is this “word of God which is being made supernaturally active (energeitai) by God in you who believe.”

Perhaps as Clarke suggests this understanding of the passive forms of energein gives insight into its usage in James 5:16 where prayer is linked with energoumenē. He proposes the sense that “the prayer of an upright person is very powerful when it is set in operation by supernatural force (energoumenē).”¹² So the focus is not upon human fervency but rather on God’s willingness to be supernaturally active in response to that prayer.

In those cases where sin functions as the subject, then the supernatural agent behind that effective activity is Satan.

At times in the Greek translation of the Old Testament this verb is associated with God. For example in Isaiah 41:4 God claims that he “has wrought (enērgēsen) and done these things,” i.e. established righteousness and preserved Israel. In v.10 the prophet says that God is the one who has strengthened (enischusas ) Israel, his servant. No antagonist will prevail. During the Maccabean period God’s action to strike down Heliodorus, the agent of Antiochus, when he sought to plunder the temple treasury is described as “the dominance (dunasteian) of God” and his “divine intervention (theian energeian)” (2 Maccabees 3:28-29). Again in 3 Macc 4:21; 5:12, 28 the noun energeia describes the miraculous intervention of God’s power to save his people by hindering the actions of pagan rulers. The noun describes divine wisdom in Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 as “a reflection of eternal light and a spotless mirror of the activity of God (tēs tou theou energeias).”¹³

It should be noted that the verb and cognate noun do not in and of themselves denote supernatural activity without some specific indication in the context. We find examples of humans as subjects of active forms in the Greek translation of Numbers 8:24 (variant reading) or 1 Esdras 2:18(20) or Proverbs 21:6, as well as many contexts external to the biblical canon.

Kenneth Clarke¹⁴ notes that in the eleven usages of the verb in the active voice, it is “associated twice with [dunamis] (once as subject and once as object), three times with cognates of [energeia] and [energēma ], and once with the [kratos tēs ischuos] of God.”¹⁵ He argues that this verb and its cognates in such contexts have a supernatural connotation and that whether it is God or Satan who is the subject and whose power is involved, these are supernatural sources of power. The texts in Ephesians 1:19-20 are particular emphatic in this regard, where the term is used in a context where supernatural powers are subjected to the Messiah. Even in the case of the noun energēmata in 1 Cor 12:6-11, these are provided by God and thus are supernatural powers whose source is in God who “works all of them in all people” (ho energōn ta panta en pasin ). So he argues for the meaning “infuse with supernatural spirit.”¹⁶ Similar associations occur in literary contexts external to the NT. For example one of the Jewish scholars in the Letter of Aristeas 266 states that “it is by the working of God (energeia theou ] that persuasion succeeds.” Bertram notes that “in the pap[yri] it [energein] often denotes magical power….”¹⁷

The use of the verb in Matthew 14:2 and the parallel in Mark 6:14 is active in voice and the subject in both cases is hai dunameis . Whether we should render this term as “miracles” or “powers” is debated. NIV and ESV render this noun as “miraculous powers” which “are at work in him,” i.e. Jesus. The New Revised Standard Version translates it as “these powers” in both contexts. Herod attributes Jesus’ power to perform miracles to powers that are not associated with Yahweh.¹⁸ The translation decision will depend upon contextual factors, but if the reference is to “powers”, i.e. supernatural forces, then we have another example of the verb energein used to describe the activity of supernatural forces within human beings. In this case the powers are not those of Yahweh, according to Herod.

Paul’s usage of this word group suggests that he has a very real sense that Yahweh himself is directly active in his life and that of other believers, enabling them to experience salvation and participate effectively with God in his Kingdom agenda. In Gal 2:8 Paul asserts that God has been actively working with respect to him so that he can fulfill the role of apostle to the Gentiles, in a way that parallels God work with respect to Peter’s apostolic ministry. God himself through the saving work of Messiah Jesus now will involve himself in the lives of non-Jewish people and make them part of the people of God.

Genesis 2:2 indicated that on the seventh day of creation God rested “from all his works. However, God continues to be effectively active, to be working energetically in the world and the lives of people to fulfill his plans. As Phil 2:13 says:

For it is God who works in you (ho energōn en humin ) to will and act (to energein ) according to his good purpose.

Paul in Eph 4:16 seems to say that Christ provides power to each member of the body so that it can contribute to the growth of the body.

By dint of the transformation that occurs in the conversion process and the endowment of the Holy Spirit, God himself actively operates within the believer. Thus our human activity becomes an extension of the divine activity. As Paul says, all of this is in accord with God’s eudokia (Phil 2:13), i.e. good pleasure, good will, desire. God’s activity within us enables us to experience his goodness and give expression to it simultaneously. Thus we can legitimately claim to be God’s “fellowworkers (sunergoi)” (1 Cor 3:9).

The believers’ lives are now set within the boundaries of God’s family; their being is empowered by the Holy Spirit to accomplish and contribute to the will of God; they possess “gifts” which enable them to live out God’s calling in Christ, no matter how God may direct and in whatever context that person is located. As kingdom agents of the Messiah, believers in their life activities energetically seek to “present every one perfect in Christ” and wrestles “with all God’s energy which so powerfully works (kata tēn energeian autou en emoi en dunamei)” (Col 1:29) within to accomplish this. Paul applies this to his calling in Christ being fulfilled in the role of apostle. What is true of Paul should also be true of other believers. Peter affirms in his First Letter that believers possess God’s calling and the potential to align their behaviour in ways that will accomplish God’s will, not the counsel of the nations (4:1-3).

God’s effective activity in my life pertains to the spiritual, physical, emotional and intellectual realms, because I am an integrated being and God has saved all of me in Christ. So in the words of Rom 12:1-2, I yield this body to God as an instrument to live out and display his righteousness. This applies to my activity in the household, in the marketplace, in the visible church, and in the civic arena – wherever I am, whatever I am doing, and whenever I am doing it. This is the truth, I believe, of Paul’s statement in Gal 2:20 that he is no longer alive, but it is the Messiah living through him. Whether he was making canvas implements in the Corinth Agora, waiting for trial in Rome under house arrest, or working in the church at Antioch, in Paul’s view all of this was God’s work, because the Spirit was actively operating within him.

Implications:

i. If God personally is working actively and effectively in your life, where does the become recognizable for you? Do you thank God for his effective activity in your life?

ii. Because God is at work in our lives all of the time as followers of Jesus, this elevates the meaning of our decisions and conduct to a missional focus. All of life becomes the canvas upon which God is portraying his Good News.

¹ 1x in Matt; 1x in Mk; 18x in Paul: Rom., 1&2 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1&2 Thess.; 1x James

² 8x in Eph., Phil., Col., 2 Thess.

³ 2x in 1 Cor.

⁴ 2x in 1 Cor and Philemon; 1x in Hebrews.

⁵ There is considerable debate in the literature as to whether energeisthai should be construed as a middle form (semantically equivalent to the active voice in meaning; cf. J.B. Lightfoot, Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (London: MacMillan and Co., 1905), 204-05), G. Bertram, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, Mi: Eerdmans, 1974), 652-54; H. Hoehner, Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002), 493) or passive (as argued by J. Armitage Robinson, Commentary on the Ephesians. Exposition of the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 1979), 245-46 and Kenneth Clarke, “The Meaning of ἘΝΕΡΓÉΩ and ΚΑΤΑΡΓÉΩ in the New Testament,” in The Gentile Bias and Other Essays (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1980), 188; Markus Barth, Ephesians 1-3 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Co.,1974), 375), in which case there would be some agent exerting influence or power upon the subject.

⁶ In this article I side with those who read energeisthai as passive. All of the “passive” forms (apart from James 5:16) are in Paul’s letters (1 Thess 2:13; 2 Thess. 2:7; 2 Cor. 1:6; 4:12; Gal 5:6; Rom 7:5; Col 1:29; Eph 3:20. In none of these cases is the subject a person, whereas in the case of the active form, the subject, I would argue, is regarded as a personal agent of some sort. Robinson (Commentary on Ephesians, 246) notes that outside of Scripture we only have the aorist passive form, not the aorist middle formation. He then argues that the passive forms “serve to remind us that the operation is not self-originated” (247). “The powers ‘work’ indeed; but they ‘are made to work’” (247).

⁷ Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:14 – reference to hai dunameis (the powers); James 5:16 – prayer. The word implies that something possesses life because it is active (cf. Wisdom of Sol. 15:11. This verb means literally “to be at work, to work” (intrans.) and is the antonym of argein (“to be idle”). When it takes an object, the object defines the result of the activity. In the NT the intransitive sense occurs at Mk 6:14 and Mt. 14:2 (cf. Mk 16:20 sunergountos (“working with”); Acts 14:3; 15:12; Heb 2:4) as well as Gal 2:8 (cf. 2 Cor. 12:11f and the connection with miraculous activity in the use of the compound kateirgasthē); Eph 2:2 (reference to Satan); Phil 2:13 (exceptionally applied to human activity). Transitive usage is found in Phil 2:13; Gal 3:5; 1 Cor. 12:6-11; Eph 1:11,19.

⁸ Galen, the Greek medical writer in De Natural. Facultt. i.2,4,5, makes a distinction between ergon ‘result’; energeia ‘action productive of ergon’, and dunamis ‘force productive of energeia’ (cf. J. Armitage Robinson, Ephesians, 242).

⁹ Hebrews 4:12 – the word of God is said to be “active (energēs).”

¹ J. Armitage Robinson, Commentary on the Ephesians, 241.

¹¹ Kenneth Clarke, “The Meaning of ἘΝΕΡΓÉΩ and ΚΑΤΑΡΓÉΩ in the New Testament,” 188.

¹² Ibid., 189.

¹³ In Wisdom of Solomon 15:11 the writer describes a human being as one “infused…with an active soul (psyche energousan)” by the Creator.

¹⁴ Kenneth Clarke, “The Meaning of ἙΝΕΡΓΈΩ and ΚΑΤΑΡΓΈΩ in the New Testament,” 183-91.

¹⁵ Ibid., 185. These terms mean “power”, “state of being active,” “having capability to be active,” and “the mighty power.”

¹⁶ Ibid.,

¹⁷ G. Bertram, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 652.

¹⁸ Whether the people of Nazareth do (cf. the wording of Mark 6:2) also attribute his miraculous acts to “powers” is disputed.

Is Bell’s exegesis and lexical interpretation of the noun kolasis in the context of Matthew 25:46 possible? Is it probable? Does it fit what we know of the meaning and use of this noun and its cognate verb? Although the question of the fate of the unsaved does not hinge on the solution to this question, this text does have significant implications because of its location in the teaching of Jesus.

Both the noun and verb occur in Classical Greek material as well as in the materials produced within the Hellenistic Jewish community. The basic sense of the word describes the action of cutting off, maiming. The Greek Classical Dictionary edited by Liddell and Scott lists one usage in several writings of the 4th-3rd Century BC Greek author Theophrastus in which these terms describe “a drastic method of checking the growth of the almond-tree.”² While other authors may employ this verb and noun similarly, the writings of Theophrastus are the only example cited for this application of the word. So it would seem that Bell is correct in saying that the noun can mean pruning. However, the fact that the noun and verb can be used in horticultural contexts to describe various methods of pruning does not determine the meaning of the noun in Matthew 25:46. Context has a large say in discerning the significance of a particular word. Nothing in Jesus’ teaching about the final judgment in Mathew 25:31-46 as far as I can see makes any comparison with pruning. Rather the context has to do with a shepherd’s action of separating sheep from goats, as a metaphor of judgment. Once segregated, the “goats” are required to “depart into eternal punishment” (apeleusontai eis kolasin aiōnion), in contrast to the “sheep” who depart “into eternal life” (zōēn aiōnion).

The noun and verb far more frequently have the sense of chastise, punish, or suffer the loss of something.³ It may be as J. Schneider suggests⁴ that the maiming of slaves as a punishment is the connection between the action of cutting off and punishment. Whatever the explanation, the verb and noun in their figurative sense, i.e. non-literal meaning, come to signify the activity of punishment and chastisement. In Classical Greek usage the noun kolasis describes punishment that may be to the benefit of the one being punished.⁵ However, a few centuries later the sense that such punishment is temporary and corrective is no longer dominant. For example, Josephus speaks about Herod’s experience of being on trial and in danger of being sentenced to death, but through the intervention of Hyrcanus, the high priest, he was saved “from that danger and punishment (kolaseōs),”⁶ certainly not a reference to a temporary kind of punishment.

The nature of the punishment depends upon who is the subject, the reason for the action, and who is the recipient. Context then determines these elements. When applied to a tree, the action of cutting expressed in this verb becomes pruning, as an extended meaning. However, for the meaning of “pruning” to be considered the primary sense in Matthew 25:46, in my view, the context would have to indicate this clearly in some fashion. Otherwise the more usual idea of punishment or chastisement would prevail. Given the prior directive by the Son of Man in v.41, “Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire (eis to pur to aiōnion) prepared for the devil and his angels,” the context certainly suggests the idea of punishment with lasting consequences and administered by a divine agent.

Within the Greek translation of the Hebrew canon, the noun kolasis only occurs in Jeremiah and Ezekiel and the cognate verb occurs once in Daniel 6:12(13). Jeremiah (18:20) complains to God about the plots being made against him. “Is evil a recompense for good that together they spoke utterances against my soul and hid their punishment (kolasin) for me?”⁷ In Ezekiel this noun represents the Hebrew noun mikshol, which means a stumbling block generated in most cases by idolatry and leading to punishment for such iniquity (14:3,4,7; 18:30; 44:12). In the Supplement to Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon the use of this noun in Greek Ezekiel is rendered as “that which brings about punishment, stumbling block.”⁸ In Ezekiel 14 and 18 the punishment that Yahweh brings upon Israel for its idolatry is death; in 44:12 Yahweh punishes the Levites for their participation in idolatry by never allowing them to act as priests in the new temple. It also occurs in Ezekiel 43:11 with the sense “receive their punishment” applied to Israel and describing Yahweh’s response to their sin. The prophet describes such punishment in 43:8 as “I wiped them out in my fury and by murder.” The emphasis seems to be upon a punishment that is fatal or results in permanent change, and administered by Yahweh, as divine agent, because of sinful action. The use of the verb in LXX Daniel 6:12a describes the punishment Daniel receives for praying to Yahweh, rather than to Darius, and his punishment is to be executed by confinement in a den of lions.

Schneider notes that “the idea of divine punishment and chastisement is widespread in antiquity” and that kolazein and kolasis “were fixed terms in sacral jurisprudence.”⁹ He notes in this regard inscriptions found on Phrygian and Lydian monuments dated to the imperial period (beginning with Augustus) in which god is the subject who punishes various individuals for impious acts. This perspective is similar to the sense found in other literature contemporary with the New Testament. In 2 Maccabees 4:38 the author recounts how Antiochus, the Seleucid emperor executed Andronicus, his deputy who had murdered Onias, the Jewish high priest. He concludes that “the Lord thus repaid him with the punishment (kolasin) he deserved.” According to the story in 3 Maccabees 7:10 the Jews, upon their miraculous rescue from attempts to by Ptolemy Philopator to annihilate them, were granted permission “that those from the race of the Judeans who had freely disobeyed the holy God and God’s law should obtain their deserved punishment (kolaseōs) through them,…” The result is that three hundred Jewish men are slain.

The verb and noun were used extensively in Wisdom of Solomon. The consistent theme is that Yahweh punishes those who commit idolatry by using the very animals that they worship in their idolatry as the means of their punishment. For example, in 16:1 the writer claims that “they were deservedly punished (ekolasthēsan) through similar creatures” because “they worship the most detestable animals” (15:18). God uses his creation “for punishment (kolasin) against the unrighteous” (16:24). In the case of “the impious and their impiety” the writer is sure that “what was done will be punished (kolasthēsetai) together with the one who did it” (14:10) and this is said in relationship to idolatry. He is also concerned that such punishments might lead people to accuse God of being unjust and so states that no king or prince can “look you in the face concerning those whom you have punished (ekolasas). But being righteous, you manage all things righteously considering it alien to your power to condemn anyone who does not deserve to be punished (kolasthēnai)” (12:14-15). Note in particular that God exercises appropriate judgment using such punishments and often they are fatal or extremely catastrophic (i.e. plagues in Egypt, including the killing of the firstborn).

Josephus, when commenting upon the various beliefs of the Pharisees, notes that they teach that “the soul of the good alone passes into another body, while the souls of the wicked suffer eternal punishments (aidiōi timōriai¹⁰ kolazesthai).”¹¹ The term aidios means “eternal, everlasting.” Josephus himself was a Pharisee and so knew intimately their religious perspective.

Finally, a few examples from Philo, the Jewish expositor of the Pentateuch and a contemporary of Jesus. His usage of this terminology is too frequent for me to cite every case and so I focus on some of his usage in De Vita Mosis I & II. When commenting upon the plague of gnats, he describes it as “a chastisement (kolazontos) sent by God” (I.108). When God applies the plagues solely to the Egyptians, Philo observes in the case of the frogs, that it was as “though it knew how to distinguish who should be punished (kolazesthai) and who should not” (I.144). When commenting on the story of the Edomites and their refusal to allow the Israelites to pass through their territory (Numbers 20:14ff), Philo has Moses address Israel and dissuade them from seeking vengeance, because even though “some particular persons deserve to be punished (kolasteoi)” Israel may not be the right party to exact such punishment” (I.244). Philo comments on the contents of the books that Moses wrote and says that in these writings he describes how “the impious were chastised (kolazesthai)  with the said punishments (timōriais)¹²” (II.57), as part of a larger motif which demonstrates “the punishment (kolaseōs) of the impious” and “the honouring of the just” (II.47). One other example occurs in Philo’s commentary on the story of the man who violates the Sabbath command (Numbers 15:32-36). Some Israelites arrested the man but did not execute him on the spot lest they take “upon themselves the ruler’s duty of punishment (kolazein).” So they arraigned him before Moses who, after consulting Yahweh, declared that the man should die. This becomes another example of the “punishment (timōrias) of the impious” (II. 214-29). These examples define punishment that results from sinful action and originating primarily with a divine agent. The punishments often are drastic and deadly. The punishment of evildoers is the responsibility of rulers who act for justice under God’s direction.

In the New Testament the verb occurs in Acts 4:21 and 2 Peter 2:9, while the noun is used in 1 John 4:18.¹³ In Acts 4 the Sanhedrin has held a trial for Peter and John because they are proclaiming Jesus as Messiah and doing miracles in his name. They cannot decide what to do so they threaten the apostles and do not punish (kolasōntai) them. What punishment might have been assigned is not stated, but it could have involved execution (as happened to Stephen a few chapters later in Acts 7). In 2 Peter 2:9 the writer declares that “the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment (kolazomenous).” Between the present and the future day of judgment the impious experience God’s punishment, perhaps in the light of their final destiny. As the review of usage demonstrates, the use of this verb in 2 Peter conforms to what we have discerned. The more difficult text to fathom is John’s statement in 1 John 4:18 that “there is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment (kolasin). The one who fears is not made perfect in love.” The previous verse assures that “we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him.” Raymond Brown comments that “To be afraid of God is already to be suffering the punishment of a negative judgment.”¹⁴ Plainly John is describing a consequence of present behaviour that is serious and only avoidable in a proper love of God.

To conclude, the claim that Matthew’s use of kolasis in 25:46 describes a temporary punishment that is designed to be corrective, i.e. a kind of pruning to stimulate a more appropriate response, does not seem to be borne out by the evidence of usage in the century before and after Jesus, given the context of Jesus’ teaching in that section of Matthew’s Gospel. The noun and verb both are used to describe divine punishments meted in accord with God’s judicial sense and in response to human impiety, both in this life and in the life to come. The usage in Wisdom of Solomon, Philo and Josephus is particularly telling, along with the Phrygian and Lydian inscriptions, I would suggest. Further the context of Matthew 25:31-46 is a judgment scene in which a divine figure, the Son of Man, from his “throne of glory” delivers divine justice to the righteous and the sinful. This context suits well the employment of kolasis in v.46. Lastly, the event described by Jesus seems rather climactic. Once the judgment is rendered, the outcomes proceed without any sense of re-ordering in the future. This may be an argument from silence, but it does recognize that Jesus in this story gives us no hint at future reversal of the judgment once given.

In my view Bell’s attempt to exegete this phrase and its context in Matthew 25 do not take into account the evidence of current usage in Jesus’ or Matthew’s day, nor the sense of the context and thus does not convince. Jesus’ message is clear – those who live in the category of “goats” will “go away to eternal punishment,” as harsh and difficult as this teaching might be to our ears. Thanks be to God that “goats” can become “sheep” through the atonement, grace and hope displayed in the cross and resurrection, if they will accept Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

See also Dr. Perkins’ review of Rob Bells book, “Love Wins”.

Implications:

1. We have only touched upon one small exegetical detail in the great debate about the meaning of Hell in the teaching of Jesus. While Jesus is not fixated on the topic, he does teach its reality and warn people that gaining the world is insufficient compensation for losing one’s life in eternity. It is a tough message to communicate with care, respect, and integrity, but the Gospel is incomplete without it. How do you deal with the urgency that Jesus’ teaching expresses about this reality?
2. There is mystery in the character and actions of God that we cannot grasp. How mercy and justice find resolution in the grotesqueness of the crucifixion is a wonder created by God’s love. Is the idea of eternal punishment inconsistent with God’s love and God’s justice? How can we say this when Jesus, the God-man himself affirms a Gospel in which eternal life and eternal death are fundamental principles?

Footnotes:

• ¹Bell treats the noun phrase kolasin aiōnion in a rather unusual fashion, i.e. “an aion of kolazo” in which he combines the noun aion with the first person singular indicative verb form kolazo. He then wants to interpret the adjective aiōnion in the sense of “age” or “period of time” or some idea of “intensity of experience.” He says that “the phrase (sic) ‘aion of kolazo’ gets translated as ‘eternal punishment.’” Now Matthew did not use that un-Greek ‘phrase’ and so Bell’s criticism of this usual translation becomes suspect.
• ²Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1966), 971.
• ³J. Schneider, “κολάζω,” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Volume III edited by Gerhard Kittel (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1965), 814, indicates the verb essentially means “maiming, cutting off.”
• ⁴Ibid.
• ⁵Richard Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1973), 24-26.
• ⁶Josephus, Antiquities XV,16.
• ⁷This is the translation provided in A New English Translation of the Septuagint. The Greek text is somewhat different from the Hebrew text in this verse. However, the sense of “punishment” for this noun seems warranted from the context.
• ⁸H.Liddell and R. Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 2083.
• ⁹J. Schneider, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. III, 814.
• ¹⁰The noun timōria describes retribution or vengeance.
• ¹¹Josephus, Bellum II.163.
• ¹²Note the same conjunction of terms here as in Josephus, Bellum II.163 cited above.
• ¹³There is a variant reading in 1 Peter 2:20 where in some manuscripts kolaphizomenoi (being beaten) is replaced by kolazomenoi (being punished). Both make sense in the passage. The advantage of the first is that it links back to Jesus’ experience of being beaten at his crucifixion. While supported by papyrus 72, the alternative reading is probably due to misreading, i.e. the omission of the two Greek letters ‘phi and iota’.
• ¹⁴Raymond Brown, The Epistles of John (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, 1982), 562.

Jesus’ statement raises several questions. First, what is the meaning of the noun “the spirit?” Is Jesus referring to the Holy Spirit or the human spirit? Second, does the corresponding noun “the flesh” refer to the human sphere of existence (in contrast to the realm of the Holy Spirit) or does it refer to the material aspect of a human being (in contrast to the non-material spirit or soul of a person)? Third, what meaning does promuthos have in relation to “the s(S)irit?”

The adjective promuthos only occurs in the New Testament here in Mark and Matthew’s Gospel and in Romans 1:15. Peter used the corresponding adverb promuthōs once in 1 Peter 5:2. Paul employed the cognate noun promuthia particularly in 2 Corinthians 8:11,12,19; 9:2 and Luke also used the noun to describe how the Berean Christians “welcomed the message very eagerly (meta pasēs prothumias )” (Acts 17:11).

The verb prothumeisthai, noun prothumia, and adjective prothumos all occur frequently in Classical Greek authors such as the philosopher Plato and the historians Herodotus and  Xenophen, signifying an eager willingness, normally voluntarily and bordering on zeal, passionate ardour, and tending to resoluteness, to become involved in some action, whether it is study, war, or some other venture.  They also can describe the eager welcome expressed to an important visitor, petition, or relief force.  Normally these terms define divine or human action by which  intention becomes effective, often to the benefit of others.

The use of this vocabulary in the Septuagint aligns with prior usage. For example, in 2 Maccabees 11:7 Judas Maccabeus arms himself to defend Jerusalem from an attack by Lysias and rallies others who “eagerly (prothumōs) rushed off together”¹ to do battle. Similarly, at the end of 2 Maccabees (15:9-10) Judas arrays Jewish forces against the Seleucid leader, Nikanor, and appealing to previous accounts of Yahweh’s victories, “made them the more eager (prothumoterous)” to do battle. The nuance of voluntary initiative based upon keen ardour is certainly clear in these usages.

It is also used to describe the willing and eager response of the Israelites to donate their skills and resources to building Solomon’s temple (1 Chronicles 28:21 “every willing person (pas prothumos) with skill in every craft.” David details the resources that he has prepared for this great project and urges the gathered Israelites also to participate with the question: “Now who is zealous (ho prothumoumenos) to fill his hands today for the Lord”(1 Chronicles 29:7)?  Note how the sense of ardent eagerness overlaps with the idea of religious zeal. In this case they demonstrated their zeal by giving thousands of gold talents. As a result “the people were glad at the zeal that was shown (prothumēthēnai), because they had shown zeal (proethumēthēsan) for the Lord with a full heart,… “ (1 Chronicles 29:9). David then thanks God for the opportunity in which “In simplicity of heart I have shown zeal (prothumēthēn) for all these things and now I have seen your people found here showing zeal (prothumēthenta) for you with gladness” (1 Chronicles 29:17).

One other reference is instructive. In Sirach 45:23 the author praises Phinehas, son of Eleazor because “he was zealous (zēlōsai) in the fear of the Lord and since he stood firm in the turning of the people, in the goodness of the eagerness (prothumias ) of his soul;…” Here again we see a strong connection between zeal and the active ardour of a person willing to risk all in willing service to God. Eleazor, a scribe who resists Antiochus’ attempts to convert the Temple of Jerusalem into a pagan shrine, willingly gives his life “and leave to the young a noble example of how to die a good death willingly (prothumōs) and nobly for the revered and holy laws” (2 Maccabees 6:28). Whether the translation “willingly” in this passage has sufficient force is open to debate, given the issues at play.

Philo, the Jewish philosopher contemporary with Jesus, used this terminology frequently. He lauds Moses for his attention to duty, “showing an eager and unprompted zeal (prothumiai) wherever it was needed….”² It is this diligence that enables him to increase the flocks of Jethro.  Philo noted the zealousness (prothumiais) of the Israelites in their attack upon the king of Arad.³ Moses chastises the two tribes who desire to enjoy their spoils east of Jordan before Israel has crossed the Jordan and taken possession of Canaan. He is concerned that they will “upset the ardent resolution (tas prothumias) of those who are fully disposed to manliness, whose spirits you paralyse and unnerve.”⁴ When describing the gifts Israelites contributed to the construction of the tabernacle, Philo says that the women donated their mirrors “with spontaneous ardour (prothumiai).”⁵ The Levites’ involvement in the punishment of Israel for the Golden Calf apostasy demonstrates “their zeal (prothumian) and the keenness of the inward feelings which urged them to piety.”⁶ Finally, we note that Philo urged the pursuit of wisdom “with utmost zest and keenness (prothumias), until we can come to the enjoyment of the things that we are seeking and longing for.”⁷ Josephus by and large echoes the usage we find in Philo.

So we come then to consider the usage of these terms in the New Testament. Paul in Romans 1:15 tells his audience that he is eager (prothumon) to discharge his apostolic responsibility with respect to the Gospel mission among them also.  We should not discount the ardour that lies behind Paul’s desire to fulfill his apostolic calling.

The most significant concentration of this language occurs in 2 Corinthians 8:11,12,19; 9:2. Each usage relates to the involvement of the Corinthian Christians in the financial gift Paul is collecting for the aid of the Jerusalem church. In 8:11-12 Paul affirms their willing eagerness to complete the gift and strong desire for this outcome (“so that your eager (hē prothumia) willingness⁸ may be matched by your completion of it….For if the willing (hē prothumia) is there, the gift is acceptable….”). Paul emphasizes the willing ardour that motivates the gift, rather than the amount of the gift. In v.19 he sees the election of “the brother” (not identified by Paul) by the churches to help him complete the collection as something that will result in “our eagerness (prothumian)”(8:19). Exactly how this appointment aids or enhances Paul’s eager enthusiasm for this project again remains unstated. Perhaps with this appointment Paul considered he now had the help necessary to actually complete the project, which he was beginning to despair would ever reach its goal. Paul then affirms in 2 Corinthians 9:2 that “I know your eagerness  (prothumian)to help.” Here Paul used this noun in parallel with “your zeal (zēlos).” He considers their enthusiastic involvement in this project a display of religious zeal for the mission of God.

Two other occurrences deserve quick comment. In Acts 17:11 the Jews in Berea “received the message with great eagerness (meta pasēs prothumias) and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” Their zealous enthusiasm to discern God’s intent and obey it finds expression in their work to compare Paul’s teachings with the promises expressed in the Jewish Scriptures. And then Peter used the adverb once in 1 Peter 5:2 as he warns the elders to care for God’s flock with oversight motivated not by greed for money, but prothumōs, a zealous enthusiasm voluntarily to serve God in this way.

And so we come to Jesus’ words in Mark 14:38/Matthew 26:41. It should be somewhat clear that Jesus intends to describe an eager, ardent, enthusiastic willingness  when he says that “the S(s)pirit is willing (prothumon),…” in contrast to the any human ability or motive, i.e. “the flesh” which is weak. We should be careful not to import the Pauline distinction between Spirit and flesh too quickly as the frame of reference for Jesus statement (cf. Galatians 5, Romans 8). The first question we need to ask is what is the “spirit” to which Jesus refers? Is this some aspect of human personality (i.e. body, soul and spirit)? I tend to think this is not Jesus’ meaning because we do not normally find in Mark’s narrative the use of spirit/pneuma to refer to some aspect of the human psyche. Some might argue that Mark 2:8 and 8:12 are examples of such, but both of these instances refer to Jesus and it is not clear whether Mark is referring to the Holy Spirit or some aspect of Jesus’ human condition in those texts. So I would suggest that the reference is to the Holy Spirit, unless we find good reason to propose another referent.

Second, Jesus is urging his three companions to “watch and pray so that you will not fall into testing/temptation, for the Spirit is enthusiastic….” The connection of prayer with the Spirit’s activity in the human context integrates well with biblical perspectives. We prayer for the Spirit’s wisdom and guidance, empowerment and gifting.  To pray in the hour of testing for the Spirit’s assistance because the Spirit is willingly eager to assist God’s people makes sense.

Third, we cannot say whether Jesus is giving this explanation only for the sake of these three companions or as explanation as well for his urgent prayers as he anticipates the cross. His request that “Abba’s” will be done would find expression in the ardent zeal of the Holy Spirit to move God’s program forward. It is this Spirit which initially “drives” Jesus into the deserted areas of Judea to his encounter and trial with Satan (Mark 1:12-13). It is this same Spirit which is involved in some way in his dynamic ability to command all evil spirits (Mark 3:28-30). Further, this same Spirit, Jesus promises, will enable persecuted disciples to express the Gospel courageously (Mark 13:11).  What Jesus does promises indirectly in this text is that the same Spirit at work in him, the Son of God, is also eager to work in the lives of Messianic followers to enable them to persevere in the most difficult trials.

However we interpret Jesus’ words in Mark 14:38/Matthew 26:41, we can be sure that God will answer our prayers for help in dire circumstances, strengthening our resolve to follow God’s will. If as I propose, Jesus is making a statement about the enthusiastic zeal of the Holy Spirit to accomplish God’s purposes and his willingness to assist us in this as well, then the sense of prothumos here is not a statement about the unflagging desire of the human spirit which tends to be hindered and squelched by mortal fear. No, this is Jesus’ own statement about the way in which he, true God and true man, was able to approach the cross in full confidence. He was aided by the Spirit’s zeal for God’s will to be done.

Implications:

1. When we find ourselves in difficult situations, do we believe that the Spirit ardently desires to come and help us accomplish God’s will, no matter if the threat is mortal?
2. Will you avail yourself of this divine resource, the very Spirit of God, to help you adhere to God’s will when the tough stuff happens?

• ¹All translations of the Septuagint are taken from A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford, 2007).
• ²Philo, De Vita Mosis I.63.
• ³Ibid., I.251.
• ⁴Philo, De Vita Mosis, I.325. Their eagerness is also described in I.333.
• ⁵Ibid., II.137.
• ⁶Ibid., II.170.
• ⁷Philo, De Migratione Abrahami 218.
• ⁸Perhaps “zeal towards willingness”. Cf. M.E. Thrall, 2 Corinthians 8-13, International Critical Commentary, 537-538.