The parable talks about whom God considers “righteous” regardless of human opinion or evaluation. The person we despise may indeed be classified by God as “righteous” and ready for the age to come, whereas those we regard as “righteous” may be quite different in God’s estimation. Significant debates raged in first century Judaism about which group God considered righteous and which ones he did not. For example, it seems that the Essenes withdrew from participating in the Temple rituals because they regarded administration of the Sadducees to be corrupt and mandating wrong religious practices. Those in charge of the Temple in their view were not “righteous” in God’s eyes. Non-Jews by and large were not and could not be righteous. Those who did not keep the law in accord with the oral traditions taught by the Pharisees were classed as “sinners.” Tax collectors were generally classified as “sinners” and this tax collector admits his own spiritual status (v.13).

Of course, the way Jesus ends the parable gives it a very subversive twist. No one listening would have suspected God would “declare righteous” the tax collector as opposed to the Pharisee. Luke emphasizes the tax collector’s religious status by using the perfect passive participle dedikaiōmenos, which certainly gives the participle syntactical prominence, as well as emphasizing the current condition of the tax collector based upon a prior action. Being passive, it probably indicates that God is the agent without further elaboration. As well, Jesus used a comparative form to contrast these two characters in terms of their spiritual condition — the tax collector was declared righteous “rather than” the Pharisee. The use of the phrase par’ ekeinoi to express this comparison probably suggests that the difference in the comparison is so great that the Pharisee was not “declared righteous” at all.

One of the key issues in this parable concerns the actual “prayer” offered by the tax collector. Jesus does not specifically name this utterance a prayer, as he did with the Pharisee’s petition (v.11), although in the narrative both “went up to the Temple to pray” (v.10). It may be that they went at the time of the daily sacrifice, which seemed to be a more favoured occasion for prayer. The NIV translates the tax collector’s petition as “God, have mercy (hilasthēti) on me, a sinner” (v.13). This verb generally does not have the specific sense of “extend mercy.” Its sense is more “be favourably inclined, propitiate, conciliate” and then people used it in petitions to request that the person addressed act in a conciliatory manner towards the petitioner. Mercy may be one of the elements requested or desired by the petitioner. Because God is the one addressed and the person making this request is “a sinner,” presumably the “favourable inclination” would emerge from God’s mercy and grace.

This is the only place in Luke-Acts where this verb occurs (with only one other use in the entire New Testament — Hebrews 2:17). Recently Dirk Buchner published an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (129(2010)) entitled “Ἐξιλάσασθαι: Appeasing God in the Septuagint Pentateuch.” He argued that in the case of the simple verb hilaskesthai “the result of the verb’s action is achieved through propitiation, not through purification” (255). He then cites with approval the two definitions offered by Muraoka (A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 340) “(1) to be forgiving and (2) to be favorably disposed.” In his lexicon Muraoka refers to Luke 18:13 as an example of the first meaning “to be forgiving,” comparing it with the Greek translation of Daniel (Theodotion) 9:19 and Lamentations 3:42. In other words it seems that the thrust of the tax collector’s petition is that God would extend forgiveness to him based upon some act of propitiation. Luke does not identify what this propitious action would be, but given the Temple context, the daily sacrifice may be that act.

The reason then that the tax collector returns to his house in a state of “declared righteousness” rests upon an action that God takes, not upon anything that the tax collector has done. If God is going to be appeased in his case, it must be because God has taken action to bring this about. The problem with the Pharisee, as Jesus intimates in v. 9 is that he “trusted in himself” that he was in a righteous condition, rather than saw his spiritual status as God’s gift based upon God’s propitious action. That he “despised the rest” indicates his lack of spiritual perception and understanding of “righteousness.”

Implications:

i.  as followers of Jesus do we seek our spiritual relationship with God grounded in his propitious work or do we act as if our actions somehow enhance our “righteous” status?

ii. as followers of Jesus how do we view those who do not yet enjoy “peace with God”? Do we “despise” them? God expects his gracious act in Jesus to provide us with salvation to produce in us a similar graciousness towards others.

This verb used by Mark  means to rob, despoil, defraud in Classical Greek. Xenophon, for example, can speak of being robbed (apesterēntai) of horses (Institutio Cyri 6.1.12). The sense of “defraud” occurs in his Anabasis 7.6.9. Sophocles used the verb in the sense of detaching oneself or withdrawing from a person or thing (Oedipus Tyrannus 138). The simple verb form sterein has the sense “deprive, bereave, rob.” For example, in Greek Genesis Jacob responds angrily to Rachel’s demand that he give her children by denying that he is a god “who has deprived (esterēsen) you with respect to the fruit of the womb” (Genesis 30:2).

The textual evidence for Mark’s narrative indicates that this wording is absent in a significant proportion of the manuscripts, but arguments supporting its originality seem to outweigh those suggesting these words are a later scribal comment. We do find this verb used elsewhere in the New Testament by Paul (1 Corinthians 6:7-8; 7:5; 1 Timothy 6:5) and once in James’ epistle (5:4).

In 1 Corinthians 6:7-8 Paul criticizes some Corinthian believers for initiating legal action against one another. Paul asks “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated (apostereisthe)? Instead you yourselves cheat (apostereite) and do wrong and you do this to your brothers.” NRSV translates the verb in this context as “defraud.” Paul does not reveal the exact nature of the lawsuit so we do not know whether it is financial in nature or not. So perhaps a more neutral term such as “rob” or “despoil” might be more appropriate.

Paul used this verb in the following chapter of 1 Corinthians where he applies it to marital relations. Neither husband nor wife should “deprive one another (apostereite)” (1 Corinthians 7:5). Paul urges the husband to “repay the debt” to his spouse (v.3). He casts the withdrawal of intimate relationship by either spouse as a kind of “robbery.” This usage is similar to that found in Greek Exodus 21:10 where a man takes a second wife and is commanded not to “withhold (aposterēsei) … necessities and clothing and marital rights” from the first spouse.

Paul also used the verb in 1 Timothy 6:5 as he addressed false teachers and describes them as “people of corrupt mind and deprived/robbed (aposterēmenōn) of truth.” He does not indicate who might be the “robber” in this instance.

And then there is the usage in James 5:4. It is a warning passage for the wealthy person who has “failed to pay (ho apesterēmenos)” the wages of workmen. NRSV renders as “which you have kept back by fraud.” The Lord Almighty has observed this injustice and holds the wealthy accountable. The financial context is clear. This sounds very similar to one textual reading of Greek Deuteronomy 24:14: “you shall not [defraud/rob (aposterēseis)] the wages of a needy and indigent person from your brothers….” The same prohibition occurs in Sirach 4:1 which warns “do not defraud (aposterēsēis) the life of the poor.” He also warns that “bread is life for the poor when they are destitute; he who withholds (ho aposterōn) it is a person of blood….one who pours out blood is he who deprives (ho aposterōn) the wages of a hired worker” (Sirach 34(31):26-27). Robbing the poor and withholding justly earned wages in both cases is compared to murder. God also condemns this in Malachi 3:5: “I will be a swift witness…against those who defraud (tous aposterountas) the hired worker of his wages and those who oppress the widow….” The passage in James has considerable affinity with Malachi 3:5 (as does James 1:27). Josephus in Antiquities IV.285 is explaining the Jewish law of deposits (Exodus 22:7) and commands the person entrusted with a neighbour’s funds: “let none venture to defraud (aposterēsai) him that entrusted it to him, neither man nor woman,…” Shortly after he notes that “one must not deprive (aposterēteon) a poor man of his wages, knowing that this…is the portion which God has granted him” (Antiquities IV.288).

We should note as well that whereas the Hebrew text of Malachi 3:8 accuses the sons of Jacob of robbing God, the Greek translator used the verb pternizein, which seems to connote treacherous action. The later Greek translators Aquila and Symmachus (second century AD) chose the verb aposterein, to rob, despoil, defraud, as their preferred rendering in this context.

Philo (De Vita Mosis I. 142) considers the Israelite spoiling of the Egyptians as a just claim for payment “kept back through reluctance (apesterounto) to pay what was due.”  He condemns those who expose an infant to death because as the guardians of these children they “cut them off (aposterountes) from these blessings,” i.e. the blessings of life (De Specialibus Legibus III.112). The year of Jubilee is instituted because God did not “think it right that the original holders should be deprived (apostereisthai) of their own for ever,…” (De Virtutibus 100). Philo praises the provisions of Israelite law that forbid cutting down trees to ravage enemy territory because it is short-sighted. The enemies of today may become the friends of tomorrow and it would be myopic “to deprive (aposterein) them of the necessities of life” (De Virtutibus 152). In his essay against Flaccus, the prefect of Alexandria and Egypt, Philo warns that if the Jews “lose (apesterounto) their meeting-houses” they would have no means “to show reverence to their benefactors” (In Flaccum 48). At the end of that essay Philo concludes that the fate of Flaccus is “proof that the help which God can give was not withdrawn (apesterēsthai) from the nation of the Jews” (In Flaccum 191). The sense of this verb in Philo’s works seems to be upon improper deprivation of something that rightfully should be given.

When Jesus addressed this man, who had significant possessions, and required him to “sell what you have and give to the poor,” the man was shocked and quite sad (v.22). He had no difficulty apparently keeping God’s commandments, but he seems uncertain as to whether he should obey Jesus’ command. His desire for eternal life does not seem strong enough to enable him to suffer penury in this life for Jesus’ sake. Perhaps the social issue reflected in James 5:4 lies behind the matter Jesus focuses upon with this person. His some of his wealth may have its source in defrauding labourers and thus creating deprivation for the poor. Others have speculated that Jesus’ reordering of the commands in vv. 18-19, the insertion of the prohibition against fraud, and the inclusion of the command to “honour father and mother” at the end of the list reflect Jesus’ earlier debate with the Jewish religious leaders over hand-washing (Mark 7). Their placement of funds under “Corban” as a means of avoiding responsibilities to aging parents comes under attack. Whether Jesus or Mark intends us to infer that this man engaged in the same “fraud” cannot be determined finally. What is clear is that Jesus is challenging this man to give up the possession of his “whole world” in order to preserve his own soul (Mark 8:36). The “deceitfulness of wealth” seems to be operating in this man’s life (Mark 4:19), choking the sprouting interest in Jesus.

Implications:

     i. what has Jesus asked you to “lose” in order to become his follower? How do you deal with that “loss” today? Do you begrudge it or resent it or has your experience with Jesus removed any sense of loss at all?

    ii. as Jesus indicates in Matthew 5 God’s standards of right and justice are far more intense and consistent than ours. How can this man possibly claim to have kept all of the commands “from my youth,” unless his definition of goodness is so lax as to be essentially non-existent. Do we similarly define “goodness” or “holiness” or “love” in such a way that it costs us nothing to claim we possess such qualities?

Paul is the only New Testament writer to use this noun. Other occurrences are found in Romans 12:8 (giving generously) and 2 Corinthians 1:12 (sincerity); 8:2 (generosity); 9:11 (generosity),13 (generosity); 11:3 (sincere). In one of Jesus’ teachings expressed both in Matthew (6:22) and Luke (11:34) the cognate adjective describes “eyes” that are “good” (haplous). As well James used the cognate adjective to describe God as one who “gives generously (haplōs),” encouraging people to petition God for wisdom. Within the NIV this noun and its cognates are associated with ideas of generosity, sincerity and goodness.

In Classical Greek the word signified singleness, simplicity, frankness. It is the opposite of diplous, i.e. double, twofold.  However, the moral dimension which this word group conveys in the New Testament is only infrequently evident in Classical Greek usage. Aristophanes, for example (Plutus 1158) used the adjective haplous in contrast with dolos (guile), to give the sense of “simple, open, frank” (Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (new edition, repr. 1966), 190). The historian Xenophon (Cyropaideia 1.4.3) employed the noun haplotēs to describe “simplicity, frankness, sincerity” (Liddell and Scott, 191). Aristophanes and Xenophon lived c. 400 B.C.

We have to turn to the use of this terminology in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, to discern more clearly its linkage to moral issues. In one context (2 Samuel 15:11)  haplotēs translates the Hebrew noun tom (completeness, innocence, integrity). Absalom was conspiring to seize the throne from his father David. He invites two hundred leaders from Jerusalem to join him at Hebron. The text says “they had been invited as guests and went quite innocently (tēi haplotēti).” The obvious sense is that they had no awareness of Absalom’s intentions and took his invitation at face value being ignorant of Absalom’s guile. The other usage occurs in David’s psalm of praise to God spoken at the dedication of the temple (1 Chronicles 29:17, but in this context the Hebrew word is yosher (straightness, uprightness). David declares that God tests “the heart and is pleased with integrity….All these things have I given willingly and with honest intent (en haplotēti kardias).” Again the implication seems to be that David has given his treasure to God without guile or duplicitous motivation. Note that this Greek wording is the same as that used by Paul in Colossians and Ephesians.

The initial verse of Wisdom of Solomon urges those “who judge the earth” to seek the Lord “with sincerity of heart” (en haplotēti kardias). This attitude is linked with righteousness and goodness, but contrasted with testing God, distrust, crooked thoughts, plotting evil, involvement in sin, deceit, senseless thoughts, and unrighteousness. This response enables wisdom to take up residence in the soul. The author of 1 Maccabees tells how pious Jews rebelling against Antiochus were slaughtered because they refused to fight on the Sabbath. They say, “Let us all die in our simplicity (en tēi haplotēti hēmōn). Heaven and earth bear witness to us that you destroy us unjustly” (1 Maccabees 2:37). Some translations render the noun here as “innocence.” The Jewish rebels would not allow the attackers to force them to violate their consciences regarding Sabbath observance. A few verses later the last words of Mattathias are recounted as he dies. He reminds his sons, the Maccabees, how “Daniel, by his simplicity (en tēi haplotēti autou), was rescued from the mouth of lions” (1 Maccabees 2:60). Other translations for this term in this context are “guiltlessness” or “innocence.” The sense of “generosity” emerges in 3 Maccabees 3:21 as Ptolemy claims that despite the “innumerable matters that have so generously (meta haplotētos) been entrusted” to the Jewish people, they have with “native malice” turned down the offers of citizenship. Here the contrast is between generosity of spirit and malicious suspicion.

According to Greek Proverbs 11:25 “every totally sincere (haplē) person is blessed, but an ill-tempered man is not respected.” The Hebrew form of this proverb speaks about a “generous person” who is compared to a person who gives water. So perhaps the Greek text similarly expresses a sense of “generosity” in contrast to the “ill-tempered” person who refuses to help. The surrounding verses seem to be commending those who express generosity.

We see the same range of meanings in the Greek translation of the Old Testament which Paul expressed in his writings.

Philo used the noun twice (and the adjective frequently). In De Opificio Mundi (On the Account of the World’s Creation) 156 Philo comments on the Eve and Adam’s action in Genesis 3 and says that when they ate of the fruit, “this instantly brought them out of a state of simplicity (akakias) and innocence (haplotētos) into one of wickedness (panourgian);…”This usage parallels Paul’s concern in 2 Corinthians 11:3. He is afraid “that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent’s cunning (panourgiai), your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere (haplotētos and pure devotion to Christ.” Paul just used the analogy of marriage to describe his role in the Corinthian believers’ conversion. They were presented “as a pure virgin to him” (11:2). Paul anticipates their complete loyalty and devotion to the Messiah will continue, despite Satan’s attempts to entice them to act in a duplicitous manner.

When the escaping Israelites are camped by the shores of the Red Sea, they hear the approaching Egyptian army. According to Philo at that moment they complain to Moses (De Vita Mosis I. 172), “Did you not know our [simplicity (haplotēta)], and the bitterness and savage temper of the Egyptians?” Exactly what the point of the comparison is has been debated. He also used the adjective in his discussion of what it means for God to be “one” or a “unity.” According to Philo (Legum Allegoria  II.2) God’s “nature is simple (haplē) not composite” in distinction from humans who are “soul and body.”

In the Jewish Hellenistic Testament literature (e.g. Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs) the writers frequently urge their readers to “walk in haplotēs according to the law” or “in simplicity (haplotēti) of heart” (e.g. T.Issachar 4:1; 7:7). The person who has “singleness of heart” waits only to do the will of God and is immune to deceit. The patriarchs voice the fear that their descendants will “forsake singleness…and leaving guilelessness will draw near to malice” (T. Issachar 6:1). As Spicq (Theological Lexicon of the New Testament, Vol.1, page 170) notes, “In the first  century BC, haplotēs, so exalted in the Wisdom writings, is considered the supreme virtue of the patriarchs.” There was no divided loyalty in their hearts when it came to serving Yahweh.

One inscription dated to the 2-3rd century A.D. found at Sounion (Greece) describes the actions of a slave to establish a temple to the cult of Men Tyrannos. Once in this inscription there is the prayer “may the god be very merciful to those who serve in simpleness (haplēi) of soul.” A second prayer is offered at the end: “And may the god be very merciful to those who approach in simplicity (haplōs).” There seems to be some relationship in this usage to the concept of purity. These two occurrences, though appearing at least a century after Paul’s letters, indicate that this terminology was in use in Koine Greek with a moral sense, parallel to the usage we have observed in Jewish Greek sources.

In conclusion let us review the uses by Paul of the noun in Ephesians 6:5, Colossians 3:22 and 2 Corinthians 11:3. We suggested that in 2 Corinthians 11:3 the noun expressed “genuine loyalty” to the Messiah. No other Lord had stolen their devotion. In both the Ephesians and Colossians contexts Paul addresses Christian slaves. The essential command is to “obey your earthly masters (kuriois) in everything;…with sincerity (en haplotēti kardias) of heart,  out of reverent fear for the Lord (kurion).” The phrase translated in NIV as “with sincerity of heart” describes the manner of Christian slaves’ obedience to their human owners. This kind of service is contrasted with a service that obeys only when the owners are watching or just to please them (presumably to escape punishment or to gain special favour). These slaves are first and foremost “slaves of Messiah” (Ephesians 6:6), performing God’s will “from their innermost being” and “serving with goodwill.” Regardless of human masters’ attitudes and expectations, Christian slaves are serving the Messiah first and so their obedience to their human masters is offered primarily as an act of worship to the Messiah, being done in a way that demonstrates their pure loyalty to the Messiah.

Implications:

      i.  if Christian slaves were to serve their human masters as an act of worship demonstrating their pure loyalty to the Messiah, how are Christians today to do their “work” as employees of secular or Christian organizations?  Do Christians work “when the owners are watching” or just “to please the boss”? Or is there a deeper sense of life’s purpose and centredness in the will of God as they do their work?

     ii.  how does Satan work in the minds and hearts of Christians so that they abandon their “pure loyalty” to the Messiah? When has this happened in your life and how did the Holy Spirit wrestle with you for restoration?

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 that 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 obligations 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 though 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.