The term gains currency in Hellenistic Greek. Within architectural discussions it describes stairs. For example, the Greek translation of 1 Sam 5:5 (1 Reigns 5:5) explains why people entering the temple of Dagon in Azotus “do not step on the step (bathmon) of the house of Dagon in Azotus to this day.” When Hezekiah falls sick and petitions Yahweh for healing, the prophet Isaiah promises that Yahweh will heal him and allow him to live fifteen more years. Hezekiah seeks a sign from Yahweh that will verify this promise. Yahweh causes the shadow close by on the steps to retreat  ten steps (deka bathmous) (2 Kings 20:9-11 (4 Reigns 20:9-11). Whether these are literal ‘steps’ or degrees marked on some instrument to measure the sun’s movement is unclear. Josephus used the same noun in his recounting of this story (Antiquities X, 28). The grandson of Sirach (Sirach 6:36) encourages people to seek the  counsel of an intelligent person “and let your foot wear out the steps (bathmous) of his doors.”

Josephus also used this noun to describe steps. When Herod built the Herodium, one of his hilltop palace/fortresses, he “provided an easy ascent by two hundred steps (bathmois) of the purest white marble” (Wars I, 420). Various sets of stairs within the Temple precinct of Jerusalem are also described as bathmoi (Wars V, 194-198). According to the dictionary composed by Hesychius the “steps” (bathmoi) of a ladder are its rungs.

In another context Josephus has Ananus, the High Priest, give a speech to the people of Jerusalem, urging them to attack the Zealots who have occupied the temple precinct. In a short history lesson he berates the people for allowing this rather small group to gain such control because they were unopposed in their previous outrageous actions. The people of Jerusalem, then, laid “each step (bathmous) for the audacity of these profane wretches to mount” (Wars IV, 171). These are not literal steps, but rather stages by which the Zealots seized power.

A different application of this idea of steps or stages occurs in Philo (De Aeternitate Mundi 58.4,8). He is discussing various ideas about human creation. He asserts that “nature has created the stages of age as a sort of steps (bathmous) by which man may be said to go up and down, up while he is growing and down in the times of his decreasing….The limit of the upward steps (bathmōn) is the culmination of youth.” Bathmos can describe various stages or steps of human development.

Within astrological treatises this noun (bathmoi) signifies the various zones or progressions of the zodiac.

The use of this noun bathmos to describe a step, stair, threshold, stage is clear. However, the sense in 1 TImothy 3:13 leans more in the direction of status or rank. Perhaps the use of this noun by Procopius (early first century A.D.) to describe military rank attained by soldiers resonates more closely with Paul’s statement. Procopius (Historia arcana, 24.4.3) describes how soldiers advance in rank (bathmos) due to the death or desertion of colleagues. In an inscription ((IG XII.243) from Mitylene (Lesbos) an official is described as performing in a manner worthy of his standings/ranks (basmois — a dialectical form of the Greek noun bathmos).

Lexical meanings are always shaped by the context in which the word occurs. At least five factors influence the sense of bathmos in 1 TImothy 3:13. First, the noun is used along with the participial phrase “serving well” which expresses the reason or cause for promise being made. Second, the noun itself is modified by the adjective kalon which adds the nuance of quality to the noun, i.e. it is “good,” “fine” or “honourable.” Thirdly the promise also includes the idea of “great confidence/boldness (parrēsian).” Fourthly, both nouns (bathmos and parrēsia) receive further definition by the phrase “in the faith which is in Messiah Jesus.” Lastly, all of this is something these individuals “are obtaining/gaining/acquiring for themselves” in the present time. Most commentators also raise the question of whether this “standing” is from God’s perspective or the congregation’s perspective.

To begin with the last question first, given that the overall context, according to the last phrase is “the faith which is in Messiah Jesus,” this suggests that the primary perspective  is godward, but this has implications for the social reality of the “diakonoi,” whether within the congregation or the larger cultural context. “Serving honourably or in a fine way” as the Messiah’s agents establishes in a very public manner their relationship with, commitment to, and ‘location’ in the Messiah Jesus and his authority. In other words people know where they “stand” in terms of their life focus and worldview. It is not a matter of achieving a certain status, e.g. military rank, but rather the acquisition of an “honourable standing” as the Messiah’s representative. This is accompanied by “great boldness or confidence” in relationship to the faith. Christian leadership places one in the position of speaking the Gospel and speaking for the Gospel. This is what Paul is encouraging Timothy to grasp and demonstrate as he serves the Ephesian church.

These Philippian believers would surely know that “humility” (tapeinōsis) was not valued as a virtue by their peers in Greco-Roman society. Humility was associated with slaves, people who had no status or rights and were regarded as non-persons. For people of any status to become Jesus followers by embracing humility required an incredible change in world-view and personal attitudes. They truly had to become “new creatures in Christ Jesus.” But Paul goes on to define at least one expression of “humble-mindedness” as “considering others as better (huperechontas)  than oneself.” It is important to clarify what “better” means in this context so that we discern the meaning of humility.

Paul used the present active participle huperechōn three times in his Philippian epistle (2:3; 3:8; 4:7). It also occurs in Romans 13.1 with a sense that Peter parallels in 1 Peter 2:13. Paul used the cognate noun huperochē which means a natural feature that protrudes and then by extension “the state of excelling” (1 Corinthians 2:1) or “the state of high official rank” (1 Timothy 2:2) (BDAG) several times as well.

We discover the same uses of this term in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septuagint) as we find in the New Testament. Usually the term describes those who possess a superior quality. When Rebecca discovers that she will have twins (Gen 25.23), Yahweh tells her that “Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples from your uterus shall be divided, and a people shall excel (huperexei) over a people, and the greater shall be subject to the lesser” (A New English Translation of the Septuagint [NETS]). Among the stories of Joseph we read of his appointment by Pharaoh to lead Egypt. When Pharaoh makes this declaration he says: “You shall be over my house, and all my people shall comply with your mouth; only with regard to the throne will I be above (huperexei) you” (Gen. 40:41 [NETS]).In his great vision recorded in Daniel 7 the fourth kingdom is said to “surpass (huperexei) all of the kingdoms” (7:23 (Theodotion) [NETS]). The quality expressed here is one of power and authority. Baltashazar’s mother reminds him of Daniel who was “prudent and wise and surpassed all the sages of Babylon, and a holy spirit is in him” (5:11-12 (Old Greek) [NETS]). Sirach urges pious people to “Glorify the Lord, and exalt him as much as you can, for he will surpass (huperexei) even still” (Sirach 43:30 [NETS]). The sense of surpass or excel or “standing out” in some sense can also be documented in Classical Greek sources (e.g. Plato, Ps-Xenophon, Cyn. 1, 11 “surpass” those around in wisdom; Demosthenes).

The use of this term to describe those who have authority or occupy a superior position is a later development.  The author of Wisdom of Solomon (first century B.C.) warns leaders that “a severe judgment falls on those in high places (en tois huperechousin)” (6:5 [NETS]). Writers in the later Hellenistic period use the term to describe superiors who exercise authority (e.g. Polybius).

Philo provides a good example of the basic sense “exceed, surpass” when he uses this term to describe harmonic and mathematical progressions (e.g. the numbers 6, 8, and 12) (On Creation 108-110; cf. The Decalogue 21). Philo can use this participle to describe two people walking together with neither surpassing (huperechōn) the other or being surpassed (huperechomenos) (The Migration 166;  cf. Special Laws 4. 231). He can describe the portion of a tree that is above the ground as ho men hupereiche (The Worse, 107). In one context he describes cities as “swallowed up and…disappeared overwhelmed (huperschousēs) by the sea” (Eternity 140). In war soldiers hold their shields over (huperechein) their comrades to protect them from danger (On Husbandry 151). God’s hand of protection extends over (huperechousan) and shields those who trust him (On Dreams 2.265; cf. Special Laws 4. 199; The Embassy 220). He can describe the Hebrews during the plagues as “shielded by justice whose arm was extended (huperechontos) to defend them” (Moses 1.142). The priests are described as “the superior” (huperechontōn) in comparison with temple attendants (Moses 2.277). Those who demonstrate virtue should be praised, even if they are not the most successful because “they escape the envy which ever attaches itself to pre-eminence (tois huperechousin)” (On Husbandry 121). I have reviewed most of the occurrences in Philo in order to demonstrate the variety of applications this term has. It describes mathematical progressions, extensions, divine protection by an “extended arm” or shields, being overwhelmed by flood, superior position or pre-eminence. The essential ideas of excel, surpass, be superior or extend (over)  clearly find association with this verb.

Paul’s usage of this participle in Romans 13:1 expresses the idea of superior or surpassing as he describes exousiais huperechousais (superior or preeminent authorities — rendered in NIV as “governing authorities”), which he defines as archontes (rulers) in verse 3. Peter is more specific when he describe a king as huperechonti (superior, preeminent — rendered in NIV as “the supreme authority”). The use of the noun huperochē in 1 Timothy 2:2 carries the sense when Paul urges that prayers be offered on behalf of kings and all those en huperochēi (in preeminence — rendered in NIV as “in authority”).

Paul’s usage in Philippians 2:3; 3:8; 4:7 is more challenging to assess. Let’s begin with Philippians 4:7. Paul describes the gift of God’s peace as that which “surpasses (huperechousa) all understanding.” In the context he addresses their “anxiety” (v.6) and urges them to make known their requests to God in various kinds of prayers. Verse 7 follows logically as a consequence to these actions. Despite how their human understanding may attempt to deal with such “anxieties,” it will fail. Only God’s peace which surpasses or excels human understanding can deal with such anxieties with the result that it can “protect your hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.” The sense of the participle in its adjectival function is “surpass, excel” in some respect.

In Philippians 3:8 Paul is in the midst of his great passage that contrasts his pre-conversion situation with his current relationship with Messiah Jesus. He continuously regards any kind of status, wealth, understanding, authority, etc., he may have had prior to his conversion as “loss.” He then explains the reason for this, introducing it with the phrase dia to huperchon tēs gnōseōs Christou Iēsou tou kuriou mou (because of the supreme value of the knowledge of Messiah Jesus, my Lord). The participle is expressed as a neuter noun, i.e. that which surpasses, excels, is preeminent, in some way. Given the analogy of profit and loss that Paul has been using, presumably the aspect of superiority is one of value.

Finally, we come to Philippians 2:3 where Paul discusses the nature of humility and its expression. Paul has denounced attitudes and attitudes the arise from a spirit of selfish rivalry (eritheia) and empty, deluded conceit (kenodoxia), both of which occur in standard lists of vices. He contrasts this with an attitude of mind that is saturated with humbleness. These believers need to embrace a certain perspective, a careful assessment, about others, particularly those in the faith community. Spiritual and moral intelligence imbued with humility regards others as “superior to, more prominent, excelling.” The verb in this indirect discourse takes a double accusative, i.e. “regard someone as something.” So the sense is that the subject, the Christians in the Philippian church, will regard/assess and treat one another as “excelling themselves” or  “their own superiors.”

In the Christological exposition that follows (verses 5-11) Paul describes Jesus as “regarding [same verb as in verse 3] equality with God as not something to be grasped” (v.6), “taking the form of a slave” (v. 6), “humbling himself by being obedient” (v.8). Jesus takes this action first in service to God, the Father, and secondly, in service to human beings. I suggest that Paul urges the same perspective for the Philippian Christians. They are to regard one another as their own superiors because in this way they serve God and serve other humans, fulfilling the two great commands. They become servants/slaves of one another and this requires them to perceive and assess one another as worth serving, i.e. as excelling themselves and being in superior positions which deserve such service.

Mark’s account is similar, but slightly different. They are to “shake off (ektinaksate) the dust (choun) under your feet for a witness to them” (6:11). In the Lukan parallel (9:5) whoever does not receive the Twelve, when they leave that city “shake (apotinassete) off the dust (koniorton) from your feet…as a witness to them.” In his instructions to the Seventy-Two disciples, if people do not receive them, they should go into the streets and say, “Even the dust (koniorton) of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off (apomassometha) against you” (Luke 10:10-11). The subsequent reference to Sodom and Gomorrah “in that day” defines this as an acted prophetic warning of judgment.

The same expression occurs in Acts 13:51 Jewish opposition to the Gospel leads Paul and Barnabas to this action: “they shook (ektinaksamenoi) the dust (koniorton) from their feet in protest against them and went to Iconium.” Paul acts similarly in Corinth with the Jews rejected his Gospel and became abusive. “He shook out (ektinaksamenos) his clothes in protest” (Acts 18:6). In both contexts NIV has added the phrase “in protest” to clarify the action.

In Jesus’ command to the Twelve the active forms of ektinassein or apotinassein are used in Matthew, Mark and Luke. The dust is described as “of your feet” (Matthew), “under your feet” (Mark) or “from your feet” (Luke 9). In Luke 10 they are to “wipe off the dust of the town that sticks to your feet.”

The sense “shake off” finds expression in Acts 28:5 when Paul “shakes off (apotinaksas) the wild snake into the fire and suffers no ill effects.”However, the middle forms occur in Acts 13:51 and 18:6. As well the middle form of apomassesthai (wipe off) is used in Luke 10:11). The middle form would indicate the subject’s involvement in the action..

The Greek translator of Exodus used ektinassein to describe Yahweh’s victory over the Egyptians in the Red Sea. “The Lord shook off (eksetinaksen) the Egyptians in the middle of the sea” which is an excellent translation of the Hebrew verb (shake off or out). The image is of someone shaking dust or perhaps crumbs from a piece of cloth. The translator of Psalm 135(136):15 borrows this same language to tell how Yahweh “shook off (ektinaksanti) Pharao and his force into the Red Sea.”

Nehemiah criticizes those charging exorbitant interest or loans to fellow-Jews. When they cannot repay the loans, then their sons and daughters were being sold into slavery and their lands seized. Nehemiah makes the priests, nobles and officials taken an oath to secure their agreement not to charge usury (Nehemiah 5:12-13). “I also shook out (eksetinaksa) the folds of my robe and said ‘In this way my God shake out (ektinaksai) of his house and possessions every man who does not keep this promise. So may such a man be shaken out (ektetinagmenos) and emptied’” (2 Esdras 13:13). Plainly Nehemiah intends this to be a prophetic act of judgment.

The expression “shake off the dust (choun)” used in Mark 6:11 also occurs in Greek Isaiah 52:2. The prophet gives an oracle of encouragement to Jerusalem and urges the city to “shake off the dust (ektinaksai ton choun) and rise up; sit down, O Ierousalem; take off the bond from your neck, Of captive daughter Sion.” The metaphor in this context seems to describe preparation for action after a period of oppression. The city is to clean itself up and “put on its glory.” It is time to shake off the accumulated dust and dirt.The application of this metaphor then can run in several directions.

This action seems to be confined to Jewish practice. I could find no Greco-Roman texts pre-dating the New Testament or distinct from the Septuagint which used this verb with a noun such as “dust” to express the desire to disassociate oneself completely from the actions of another party and in this way not be contaminated by any guilt associated with that act.

In the view of some this action places the town which rejects the apostles and their message in the status of a Gentile town. However, only in later Rabbinic texts does this perception of Gentile lands as “unclean” emerge and this perception cannot be dated as early at the mid-first century A.D. T.J.Rogers (JSNT 27.2, 2004: 169-92) argues that in the Markan context the focus is on hospitality (6:10-11) and when a town refuses to offer hospitality and reject the message, the Messiah’s representatives shake off the dust from the feet which should otherwise have been washed off by those who received them as guests. The theme of hospitality certainly is present in Mark’s discourse (and Matthew’s account). However, the expression “dust which is under your feet” does not seem to dust which covers the feet from walking dusty roads and pathways. The sense seems more to be a total disassociation from such towns, even to the point of ridding oneself of dust particles that cling to the soles of sandals.

I would agree that hospitality refused precipitates this action which completely severs any relationship between such a town or household and the Messiah’s representatives. The result is judgement — it becomes “for a witness to them” of their dire circumstances in rejecting the good news of God. Luke’s use of this terminology in Acts to describe Paul’s actions would tend to a similar understanding. Matthew’s association of Sodom and Gomorrah and his specific mention of “day of judgment” creates similar understanding. I would suggest that this act characterizes the Messiah’s representatives as prophetic messengers who use symbolic actions to communicate how serious it is to reject the Messiah’s message and messengers. It is tantamount to Jesus’ warning to those who will be ashamed of “me and my words” (Mark 8:38). Conversely Jesus applauds those who “give you a cup of water in my name because you are of the Messiah” (9:41).

Philo used this verb several times. When he describes his role in the Jewish Legation appealing to the Emperor Gaius for protection from the pogroms in Alexandria, he warns that if the emperor fails to act, the Jewish community will be “first upset, then shipwrecked (vauagēsei), then sunk to the very bottom” in regards to laws and rights which currently they enjoy (Leg. 371). He continues in the same vein using words like “waterlogged,” “dragged down,” and “submerged in the depths.” In an extended discussion of the uncertainty of life, Philo used the example that “some who embarked in summer, the safe sailing season, have been shipwrecked (enauagēsan); others who sailed in winter, expecting to be capsized, have reached the harbour in security” (De Jos 139). Similarly he speaks of sudden and unexpected evils by employing this example: “For many a time and to many has it happened that they have crossed wide spaces of navigable waters and passed a long voyage in safety escorted by favourable breezes, and then in the harbour itself have suddenly been shipwrecked (enauagēsan) just when they were on the point to cast anchor” (De Somn. II. 143). He then applies this morally to humans who have lived appropriately for many years and then suddenly “at the very eventide of life they have been wrecked on the rock (nauagēsantas…peri…peri…peri) of an unlocked tongue or insatiate greed of belly, or uncontrolled lasciviousness of the lower-lying parts” (De Somn. II.147). Philo laments the common human experience of living with exuberance and confidence because of momentary prosperity, when suddenly our lusts take control and “we strike the rocks and wreck the whole bark (enauagēsōmen + dative case) of the soul” (Mut. 215). We see Philo, as Paul using the term both literally and metaphorically, particularly with respect to moral/religious behaviour.

What is helpful is that the grammatical formation used by Philo at De Somn. II.147 nauagēsantas…peri is the same one used by Paul in 1 Timothy 1:19 peri…enauagēsan. In De Somn. it is immoral activities that cause personal destruction, whereas in 1 Timothy the people are shipwrecked “on the rock of the faith.” Philo also seems to use this expression with a sense of surprise. Those who embark have no intention to experience shipwreck — it catches them by surprise. Perhaps Paul has this sense of “surprise” in mind in 1 Timothy 1:19 as well. Mounce’s translation perhaps does not take account sufficiently of the presence of the preposition peri. This verb in Greek is intransitive and does not take a direct object normally.

In Hellenistic Greek we do find a few examples of the formation vauagein…peri. For instance, in the third/second century B.C. Philo Mechanicus in his Belopoeica describes how “things perforated experienced shipwreck around the place of rocky caves” (vauagein peri ton tōn choinikidōn topon). Diogenes Laertius (3rd century A.D.) describes how someone “was shipwrecked around the Coan Sea (tou de peri tēn Kōian thalassan nauagēsantos)” (Vit. Phil.1.31.9).  Athenaeus Soph (late second century A.D.) in his writing “The Learned Banquet” (Deipnosophistai (epitome) Vol. 2.1, page 108, l.14) refers to Phorbas, her daughter and her sister who were “shipwrecked around Schedia” (nauagēsas…peri ton kaloumenon Schedian). Schedia was the name of Alexandria’s port town. Although these examples are not plentiful, they do suggest that the meaning of Paul’s expression in 1 Tim. 1:19 is that “the faith” is the element against which or around which the shipwreck occurs.

If this is a correct understanding of this expression then Hymenaeus and Alexander have experienced shipwreck, i.e. ruined their spiritual development, around or on “the faith.” It is not “the faith” that is experiencing shipwreck. The logic seems to be that these men, by altering the essential Gospel come under God’s curse and thus have destroyed their spiritual relationship with God “on the rock of the faith.” instead of “the faith” being a foundation for life and hope in God, it has become the shoal on which their false religious ideas will founder. Their false teaching has led them intentionally or unintentionally to “blaspheme” the true gospel. They will be proven wrong and God will demonstrate that he is right. All that Paul can do in this situation is “hand them over to Satan” with the hope that in some way God will act in mercy to rescue them.

The Jewish writers Philo and Josephus both used this verb frequently. We get a sense of the verb’s meaning “make a decision; direct, control” in Josephus (Antiquities 14.183) when he acknowledges that “the Deity decides (brabeuei) the changing fortunes of war.” A similar sense occurs in Josephus (Bellum 7.194) where he contends “it was, however, invariably the opportunity which, in the main, decided (ebrabeuen) the victory in favour of either side:…” The verb also is used by Josephus in contexts that describe the administration of justice. For example, in Antiquities 6.30 he describes the work of Samuel the prophet who “judged their causes and so continued for long to administer (ebrabeuen) perfect justice.” Describing the sedition of Absalom (Antiquities 7.196), Josephus says that “he won the good will of all by saying that if he himself had had this power, he would have dispensed (ebrabeusen) full and equal justice to them.” When Titus decided to build a containment wall around Jerusalem as part of his siege strategy, Josephus describes how the Roman officers and soldiers competed to win Caesar’s approval “and in the rivalry between the officers Caesar himself made the decision (ebrabeue)” (Bellum 5.503). Josephus narrates Goliath’s challenge for the conflict with Israel to be decided by duelling champions. “Give me one of your men to fight with me and the issue of the war shall be decided (brabeuthēsetai) by the single victor,..”(Antiquities 6.173). In an extended speech Moses petitions God to destroy Abiram and Datham, proving “that it is thy will that overrules (brabeuomenon) and brings everything to its end;..” (Antiquities 4.47).

In the case of Philo God “governs (brabeuei) the whole heaven and earth with justice” De Providentia, Frag.2.2). Philo describes the impartiality of justice as it “pronounces a judgment and decides (brabeuei) what is just” (Legum Allegoria 1.87). Again in Legum Allegoria 3.35 Philo considers the distasteful situation in which “the mind…shall have conceived the notion that it discerns all things, and decides (brabeuein) all things.” He affirms that if he has to serve on a jury he will “in all honesty award (brabeusō) what shall appear just” (De Iosepho 72). The authority that Moses exercises is given to him by the people “with the sanction (barbeuontos) and assent of God.” He compares the actions of the governor Flaccus to that Tiberius and Augustus who in their role as judges “awarded (ebrabeuon) what they thought to be just, influenced neither by hostility nor favour, but by what actually was the truth” (In Flaccum 106). The use of this verb in Philo indicates how it describes evaluation, making decisions, and governance.

In the Septuagint the verb occurs once in Wisdom of Solomon 10:12. The writer describes the actions of “wisdom” to protect the righteous person, i.e. Jacob, guarding him from enemies and “in his arduous contest she decided (ebrabeusen) in his favour.” The reference is to his wrestling match with the angel.

The cognate noun brabeion (1 Cor. 9:24) describes the prize that the winner of an athletic contest received. The context of 1 Cor. 9:24 plainly supports this sense, given the race analogy that Paul used. The use of the verb in Wisdom of Solomon 10:12 describes the wrestling match that Jacob had with the heavenly messenger. Wisdom decides that Jacob won the contest and thus functions as the one who judges the winner. However, the extensive use of this verb in Philo and Josephus with the sense of judge, decide, determine or arbitrate suggests that the  etymological connection with the meaning “prize awarded” has lost much of its force, unless other terminology in the context draws explicit attention to this metaphorical sense (as occurs in 1 Cor. 9:24).

If this evaluation is correct, then Paul in Colossians 3:16 employs the verb to affirm that “the Messiah’s peace” should be exercising judgment and thus determining the believer’s response in all situations. There is no terminology in this context that suggests a contest of some kind is in view. The language is of “dressing” (v.12) or “taking up residence” (v.16).  If we reference the use of the compound verb katabrabeuein (disqualify) in 2:18, the language in that context is linked with “judging” (v.16). There is no explicit indication of the action of an umpire disqualifying an athlete in that context. The meaning seems quite general.

Metaphorical meaning can “die” because words become used with a more general sense and the original metaphor expressed by the word no longer dominates the usual meaning.. I suspect that this is what has occurred in the usage of brabeuein in Colossians 3:15. In my opinion Paul urges these believers to let the Messiah and his empowerment for peace to hold sway in their lives and thus guide their behaviour. However, I do not think he necessarily is visualizing the Messiah’s peace acting like an umpire in some kind of contest.

Paul also used this verb astochein in 1 Timothy 6:21 to describe those who proclaim false ideas and in this demonstrate they “have missed the mark (ēstoxēsan) about (peri + accusative) the faith.”  Again at 2 Timothy 2:18 he characterizes Hymenaeus and Philetus as ones “who have missed the mark (ēstoxēsan) about  (peri +accusative)  the truth” because they proclaim that resurrection has already occurred. Only Paul used this verb in the New Testament.

This verb is formed from the cognate verb stochazesthai meaning to aim at, to endeavour, or to survey, explore (with the accusative case) but has the letter alpha prefixed which reverses the sense so that the resultant verb (astochein) means to miss, deviate from, fail, wander, i.e. not to hit what you aim for.  Forms of stochazesthai (with the sense of survey, investigate) occur in the Septuagint. For example, at Deut. 19:3 Moses instructs Israel to establish three cities of refuge in the midst of the land and “calculate (stochasai) for yourself the distance.”  Or we find in Wisdom of Solomon 13:9 that humans are not to be pardoned if they think that created things are divine, rather than seek the Creator himself. “For if they had the power to know so much that they could investigate (stochasasthai) the world, how is it that they did not more quickly find the Sovereign Lord of these things.”

The adjective form cognate with astochein occurs as early as Plato. However, the verb does not seem to have much use until the late second century B.C. This is when we find usage of astochein in the translation of Sirach, the only usages in the Septuagint. The translator warns his readers “do not depart from (astochei) a wise and good woman” (7:19) and  “do not miss out (astochei) on the discourse of the aged” (8:9). The genitive case defines what is missed or departed from. Moulton and Geden note an occurrence in Sylloge Inscriptionum Graecarum (239) which they date to 214 B.C. and which used the verb followed by the genitive case (which may be the construction in 1 Timothy 1:5 with the genitive form of the relative pronoun initiating the clause). As well they note an occurrence in P. Par. 35(26), a papyrus dated to 163 B.C. and reading astochēsantes, followed by the genitive (with the sense “departing from one who is well”).

The verb is not used by Philo. However, Josephus employed it in his description of the Essenes (Jewish Wars II.159) to describe the ability of some Essenes to foretell the future and “seldom, if ever, do they err (astochousin) in their predictions.” Plutarch used this verb variously in his writings. For example, in his life of Marius (26.5) he describes a battle in which at attack “missed (astochēsai) the enemy” and “passed by their lines.” Plutarch also write a life of the emperor Galba, successor to Nero. Plutarch writes that “in his desire to display a great change from Nero’s immoderate and extravagant manner of giving, he was thought to fall short of (astochein) what was fitting” (Galba 16.1).

So the general sense of the verb is to miss the mark, and thus to fail, deviate from, wander from or miss. In all three cases in the Pastoral Epistles Paul used this verb to describe the actions of heretical teachers and their deviations from a pure heart, good conscience, genuine faith (1:5), faith (6:21) and the truth (2 Timothy 2:18). As its use in the translation of Sirach indicates, Paul did not create this word. Rather we discover it used quite widely in the late first and early second centuries A.D., particularly in the writings of Plutarch.

Calvin connects Paul’s of this word with the prior phrase “the goal (telos) of the command” (1 Timothy 1:4). Paul argues that their aim is wide of this mark, i.e. the teaching and practice of love (agapē) and so they fail in their attempts to hit the goal (telos), i.e. to  teach God’s will. Paul was concerned that the Gospel message preserve its true configuration and enables Timothy both to discern when people were threatening to rend its fabric and what action to take to oppose such actions. In many cases these efforts originated within the Christian community, rather than without.

Implications:

i.  How do we calibrate our teaching as pastoral leaders and elders within a congregation so that we do not deviate from a correct understanding of God’s purposes as revealed in his Word? Who keeps us on track? How does our understanding of and commitment of agapēhelp us keep on track?

ii. When another elder or pastoral leader within the congregation approaches and suggests that perhaps our interpretation of a particular passage was incomplete or misguided, do we accept such correction humbly or do we get upset and defensive?

The author of Hebrews (13:7,17,24) used this term in the plural to describe those who provide congregational leadership. In each context the NIV translated it as “leaders.” In earlier versions such as the King James translation this term was rendered as “those who have the rule,” perhaps reflecting its participial form in Greek.  This usage in its application to church leadership (apart perhaps from Acts 15:22) is unique in the New Testament. The contextual applications link this term with people “who spoke the word of God to you” (v.7) and whose faith should be imitated; the responsibility to “obey and submit to their authority” (v.17); and their definition as a recognized, distinctive group “among the saints” (v.24). Plurality of spiritual leadership seems to be the case. It may also be that the use of the aorist tense-form in 13:7 refers to a previous group of leaders who may have become martyrs and whose testimony is to be honoured and replicated, as that of the heroes of faith rehearsed in chapter 11. If this is the case, then the leaders mentioned in vv. 17,24 would be the current leaders (note the use of the present imperatives in v.17).

It is the wording of 13:17 that raises most questions with respect to the nature of leadership within a congregation. We probably should not at this early stage be construing these leaders as full-time paid pastors, professionally trained, as is common in many congregations today, but  voluntary leaders of house churches. What are the meaning and implications of the commands to “obey your leaders and submit?” For denominations which follow a congregational polity, these injunctions prove difficult to embrace and process. For those who believe that the New Testament teaches “elder rule”such texts provide key support for their perspective.

Let’s consider first the basis for the “authority” of the original leaders in v.7. They are described as ones “who spoke to you the message of God.” Whatever “authority” they possessed seems to arise from their proclamation of God’s message. The description in 2:3-4 may outline how their ministry proceeded and may imply that some had heard Jesus directly. Regardless, their ability to transmit and expound the biblical revelation, as well as the new Gospel of Jesus, accompanied by miracles, gave them great credibility, as did their personal endurance. Response to their teaching will be the imitation of their faith (cf. 6:12). This Gospel, as v.8 indicates, remains true and trustworthy because Jesus remains the same.

When we come to v.17 the writer has spent considerable time and energy warning the believers about “various strange teachings” (v.9). The good teaching leadership of the original leaders is being threatened by these “strange teachings.” The writer urges these believers to give loyal attention to the teaching of their current leaders who exercise constant and careful vigilance for these believers. This is a call for the believers then to attend to the teaching of their current leaders because they are threatened by false teaching. The call for respectful adherence to the leaders is directly related to the threat created by the “strange teaching” and the accountability of these leaders to God for the spiritual welfare of the believers. If they must give account to God for their spiritual leadership and care for these people, this implies God’s involvement in their leadership. God enables these people to express his word to protect and guide his people.

The initial command in v. 17 is the verb “be persuaded, obey (peithesthe).” Note that in the very next verse the form peithometha describes how sure the writer is that he has a clear conscience. In several New Testament contexts we find the present middle tense-form followed by a dative noun or pronoun with the sense “believe or be persuaded by.” For example, in Acts 5:36 the adherents of the false messiah, Theudas, are described as “all his followers (pantes hosoi epeithonto autōi (dative singular).” At the end of Gamaliel’s speech (Acts 5:39) Luke tells us that “the speech persuaded them (epeisthēsan de autōi (dative singular).” Paul’s nephew reveals to the Roman commander the plot to kill Paul and the nephew urges the commander “don’t give in to them (su oun mē peisthēis autois))” (Acts 23:21). And then in Acts 27:11 the Roman centurion “followed the advice of the pilot (tōi nauklērōi mallon epeitheto)).” In each of these cases we find the same syntactical construction that occurs in Hebrews 13:17 (peithesthe tois hēgoumenois humōn) middle verb form + dative noun with the sense be persuaded by someone, take someone’s advice, follow. So perhaps the writer here is urging the believers to “follow your leaders, take your leader’s advice.” This might make even make more sense given the false teaching that has just been the focus of the discussion in vv. 8-16.

The writer added a second command (hupeikete) and this verb has the sense “yield to someone’s authority, give way, submit. This is the only time it occurs in the New Testament. Paul uses the simple form of the verb in Galatians 2:5 where he reveals that he “did not yield even for a moment” to those trying to restrict the freedom of non-Jewish believers in Jesus. The compound verb indicates that a something is yielding to the force, authority, or direction of someone or something else. For example, Philo claims that each of the natural elements obeyed Moses and “yielded (hupeikon)to his commands” (De Vita Mosis I.156). He claims that speech “deals more gently with those who yield  (tous hupeikontas), but more drastically with the rebellious” (Specialibus Legibus I.343). Philo claims that fathers have the right to admonish their children, punishing them “if they do not submit (hupeikousi) to threats” (Specialibus Legibus II.232). He also describes the power that pleasure wields because all creatures “submit (hupeikei) to her orders” (Specialibus Legibus III.8).  According to the author of 4 Maccabees 6:35 (a text contemporary with Hebrews) reason overcomes agonies and pleasures and “in no respect yields (hupeikein) to them.”

I would suggest then that the writer of Hebrews is urging believers to “follow their leaders and comply or yield” because of their God-given responsibility to provide spiritual care. Their teaching should be heeded and their advice taken. There is no necessity to read in Hebrews 13:17 the idea that congregants have to “to obey their leaders and submit.” In other words congregational leadership in the perspective of this writer is not a matter of dominating authority which has to obeyed. The writer of this letter is more nuanced, I think, affirming the spiritual relationship that exists among believers and how those entrusted with leadership have obligation to care and believers under their care have responsibility to heed their advice and yield to their teaching. The response of believers to congregational leaders is respectful with a disposition to follow because they have entrusted their qualified leaders with these spiritual responsibilities. As the leaders teach God’s truth and demonstrate their personal commitment to it with persevering and obedient faith, believers are motivated to imitate their example and yield to their teaching.

Implications:

1. Much debate swirls around the nature of congregational leadership today. The profile of such leadership in Hebrews 13 emphasizes a type of leadership that is consistent with God’s truth and rich with care for God’s people because of the spiritual deceit that is rampant in the world. How are you measuring up to this challenge?
2. Congregational leaders often get frustrated because they think church folk should obey and submit, based upon their reading of Hebrews 13:17. However, if this verse speaks describes heeding advice and following it, then the nature of the leadership being described is not hierarchical or authoritarian, but based upon the careful, patient exposition of God’s truth and its consistent personal expression in the life of the leaders.

The metaphor of shepherding defines political and divine leadership in Greek and Israelite literature (as well as Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian literature). In the Homeric epics the human ruler is “shepherd of peoples (ποιμὴν λαῶν).” Plato also described the rulers in his ideal “republic” as those who shepherd the city (Respublica IV, 440d). Within Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions to shepherd people is to rule them (TDNT VI, 486). The deceased Egyptian Pharaoh in the guise of Osiris tends the flock, i.e. his people (TDNT VI, 486). So we are not surprised to read in the Hebrew scriptures that Yahweh shepherds Israel (Isaiah 40:11), leading, feeding, protecting (Psalm 23). A primary Israelite confession is that “we are his (Yahweh’s) people, the sheep of his pasture” (Psalm 100:3). However, as Jeremias notes the Israelite king as ruler is never designated the “shepherd of Israel,” even though occasionally the Hebrew scriptures describe David as “tending” Israel (2 Samuel 5:2; Psalm 78:71f) and Israel is his flock (2 Samuel 24:17).

Jeremiah’s invective against the political and religious rulers of Israel accuses them of being “shepherds [who] rebelled against me [Yahweh]” (2:8); “shepherds [who] are senseless and do not inquire of the Lord; so they do not prosper and all their flock is scattered” (10:21); Yahweh announces “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying and scattering the sheep of my pasture!” (23:1). But conversely Yahweh promised through Jeremiah that he “would give you shepherds after my own heart who will lead you with knowledge and understanding” (3:15). Ezekiel picks up this motif and in an extended prophecy (chapter 34) Yahweh promises to gather his scattered flock (because of the exile) and “place over them one shepherd, my servant David and he will tend them; he will tend them and be their shepherd” (34:23). Jesus’ discourse in John 10 about “the good shepherd” undoubtedly reflects the fulfillment of these diving promises.

Jesus was not the first one to link the role of Messiah with the shepherding motif. Members of the Qumran community regarded their leader as the one who “shall have pity on them like a father on his sons, and will heal all the strays (?) like a shepherd his flock” (CD XIII.9). The Psalms of Solomon (c. 50 B.C.) compares the Messiah to one who “shepherds the flock of the Lord in faithfulness and righteousness” (17:40).

Philo in some of  his commentaries describes human reason as a shepherd who rules over the bodily passions (De Sacrificiis 45-51). Similarly he argues that “when the protector, or governor, or father, or whatever we like to call him, of our complex being, namely right reason, has gone off leaving to itself the flock within us, the flock itself being left unheeded perishes, and great loss is entailed upon its owner” (De Posteritate 67-69).  Philo distinguishes between the term “cattle-rearer” and “shepherd”  by arguing that when human reason “this ruler of the flock is called a ‘cattle-rearer’…he is a bad ruler, but, when a good and sterling one, he receives the name of shepherd” (De Agricultura 27-29). Shepherds are those who supply sheep with the necessities of life, exercise forethought for the good of the flock, keep the flock from scattering, acting in beneficial ways (De Agricultura 39-40). He devotes considerable attention to Moses’ prayer in Numbers 27:16) that “the congregation of the Lord shall not be as sheep that have no shepherd.” Finally, Philo compares God’s care of his creation to shepherding: “this hallowed flock He leads in accordance with right and law, setting over it His true Word and Firstborn Son Who shall take upon Him its government like some viceroy of a great king….Let therefore even the whole universe, that greatest and most perfect flock of the God who IS, say, ‘The Lord shepherds me, and nothing shall fail me’”(De Agricultura 51-52).

Josephus generally used this terminology when recounting biblical narratives that described Israelite heroes who were real shepherds, e.g. Jacob, Moses, and David, before they became leaders within Israel. Occasionally he refers to prophetic oracles that describe Israel as “sheep scattered on the hillsides.” In one context, again referencing a Greek form of material in 2 Samuel 24:17, Josephus describes David’s repentance at ordering the census of Israel which resulted in severe judgment. David pleads that “it was he, the shepherd, who was rightly to be punished, but the flock which had committed no sin, should be saved” (Antiquities VII, 328). However, Josephus does not use this language generally to describe the political and religious leadership within Israel. Within Contra Apionem I, 80ff, Josephus offers an extended argument in which he seeks to identify the Hyksos invaders of Egypt with the Israelites in Egypt. In I.103 Josephus wrote: “Such is Manetho’s account; and if the years which he enumerates are summed up, it is clear that the so-called shepherds, our ancestors, left Egypt and settled in our country….” Lastly, in one context Josephus scoffs at the Greeks who portray their gods and goddesses in various human guises, one of which is as shepherd (Contra Apionem II, 247).

The New Testament writers undoubtedly were familiar with shepherding functions, given the ubiquity of this industry in antiquity. As well, they would be aware of the metaphorical application of this language to Israel’s political and religious leaders in the Jewish scriptures. How aware they were of the Essenes’ application of this language to describe their primary community leaders or applications by intertestamental writers to Messianic descriptions cannot be determined. However, they certainly knew that Jesus had applied this terminology to his role, both as fulfillment of prophecy (e.g. Zechariah 13:7 cited in Mark 14:27) and general description of the Messiah’s mode of leadership (e.g. John 10) in contrast to contemporary political leaders (e.g. Mark 6, where Jesus is compared to Herod Antipas).

Peter used shepherding language to describe the Lord Jesus, calling him “chief shepherd” (archipoimenos) (1 Peter 5:4). When human beings repent and accept Jesus as Saviour, they “have turned to the shepherd (poimena) and overseer of their souls” (1 Peter 2:25). This is another instance in which Peter took language applied in the Jewish Scriptures to Israel and applied it to those who followed Jesus. Peter also applied this shepherding language to those entrusted with care and leadership of “the saints” (1 Peter 5:1-4). The elders are to “shepherd the flock (poimanate to en humin poimnion) of God among you” (1 Peter 5:2). It is clear, however, that this “shepherding” is a delegation from the “chief shepherd” for the care of his flock, i.e. the people of God, with specific accountability. This language covers the entirety of the leadership responsibilities undertaken by the elders within the house churches.

Paul employed the same metaphorical language in Acts 20:28-30 in his address to the “elders of the church” at Ephesus. They are to exercise watchful care for themselves “and all the flock (poimniōi)” and to “shepherd (poimainein) the church of God” (20:28). Here as in 1 Peter 5 this injunction is closely linked with the terms episkopos and episkopein.

I think that our contemporary interpretation of this language looks to the application of this leadership metaphor to God in the Gospels (e.g Matthew 18:10-14). Jesus used several parables in which God is compared to the shepherd who searches sacrificially for the lost sheep, finds it and returns rejoicing. We tend then to perceive “shepherding” primarily in terms of spiritual care, i.e. counseling, admonition, preaching.One example of this are the comments by Stephen Maachia (Becoming A Healthy Team, 150).  He first defines how Jesus functioned as the Good Shepherd, which included his willingness to sacrifice himself so that his disciples, the sheep, might “flourish under his loving care.” He then concludes that “the shepherd leader’s number one priority is the flourishing nature of each sheep” (150). He quotes from another author who says that a shepherd is concerned that the sheep “are contented, well fed, safe, and flourishing.” When you think through what these outcomes entail, the administrative and organizational roles they entail become apparent. However, when we hear the words “loving care” defining the work of a spiritual shepherd, the administrative and organizational components that support such ministry rarely get recognized.

When Jesus tells Peter to “feed (boske) my lambs” (John 21:15) and immediately follows it by the injunctions “tend (poimaine) my sheep” (20:16) and “feed (boske) my sheep” (20:17), the action implied seems to focus on caring for the flock, i.e. providing spiritual nurture, protection and guidance. Don Carson in his commentary on John’s Gospel notes, however, that this language invokes the tension between the appropriate exercise of pastoral authority and its application with a spirit of exemplary meekness.

When we come then to Ephesians 4:11 which speaks about the “shepherds and teachers (tous de poimenas kai didaskalous),” in what sense in this term “shepherd” being employed? That it occurs in a list of people gifted by God to enable the church to grow (apostles, prophets, evangelists) indicates that it includes a communication function related to the revelation of God in the Jewish Scriptures and the Messiah. The use of a single article in reference to both nouns indicates that Paul was thinking of shepherd and teacher in some integrated way, not two separate roles. The suggestion that “shepherd/teacher” implies a kind of chaplaincy or merely sustaining ministry focus, rather than a dynamic exercise of kingdom leadership seems misguided. There is no implied contrast in this list among these roles, as if the first are missional and kingdom-expanding and the latter merely “tend the flock.” Rather the role of Jesus himself, I would suggest, is being recalled, the one who functioned in exemplary fashion as shepherd/teacher, forming the initial Messianic assembly in his work with the Twelve and others who followed him. This work included direction, management oversight (e.g. providing food, directing the ministry itinerary, discerning and training emerging leaders, organizing the Twelve, etc.), teaching, interpretation of Scripture in the light of the Messianic mission, protecting the group from false teaching, etc.

Almost all of the terms used in the New Testament to describe leaders within the emerging church were also used in secular contexts and included managerial functions, as well as guiding and protecting responsibilities. The term “shepherd” is no exception. To be a “pastor” or “shepherd/teacher” in New Testament terms requires such leaders to embrace organizational responsibilities, as well as caring and teaching roles, because it all involves tending the flock of God.

Implications:

i. if you are a “pastor/teacher” in a local church, does your understanding of this role reflect its several, varied dimensions as expressed in the canonical context?

ii. the work of “restoring the saints” or “equipping” as it often is rendered, cannot be restricted simply to a preaching or teaching function. It is the total work of enabling a faith community grow and develop as Christ intended.

In Ephesians 2 Paul explains some of the consequences of Jesus’ death and resurrection. In particular he argues that a primary purpose for this sacrifice was “our peace,” enabling Jew and non-Jew become one people of God, “creating in himself one new man out of the two” (Ephesians 2:15). However, to accomplish this required Jesus to “destroy the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations (en dogmasin).” Literally Paul says that Jesus has nullified “the law of commandments in  regulations or decrees.”  The genitive “of commandments” defines the content of the law. The prepositional phrase “in regulations or decrees” probably describes what these commandments consist of, namely God’s decrees or ordinances revealed through Moses to Israel.

Paul’s other usage in Colossians 2:14 occurs with the discussion of similar ideas, namely what Jesus accomplished through his death. The NIV translates “He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations (tois dogmasin), that was against us….” The “written code” presumably refers to the Mosaic law and the noun tois dogmasin defines its contents, i.e. regulations. Believers no longer live under this regime of regulations or ordinances that God gave to Israel. Jesus has taken it away by nailing it to the cross. In both of these contexts Paul seems to use the noun dogma to describe specific regulations within the Law of Moses, regulations that God have given to Israel.

Luke used the noun three times. Luke 2:1 says that “Caesar Augustus issued a decree (dogma)  that a census should be taken….” This was in imperial edict, a law that all had to obey. Similarly in Acts 17:7 the Jews of Thessalonica claim that Paul and his friends are “defying the decrees (apenanti tōn dogmatōn) of Caesar, saying that there is  another king, one called Jesus.”  Once again the word refers to edicts or imperial Roman decrees issued by Caesar.

When Paul and Silas engage a second journey to encourage the churches and take the Gospel to new regions, Luke says that they “delivered the decisions (ta dogmata) reached by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4). This is a very interesting usage because the term in this context has been translated as “decrees, which had been decided upon by the apostles…” in the New American Standard Bible, which carries a strong connotation of authority. Rendering it as “decisions” lessens the sense of authority somewhat. When the apostles and elders drafted the letter to the Gentile believers, they used the expression “it seemed good (edoxen) to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28). The verb dokein is cognate to the noun dogma. The noun can mean “opinion or belief,” similar to the sense of the verb, i.e. “what seemed to be right.” So we may be justified in rendering the sense of the noun at 16:4 as “the opinions/beliefs discerned and expressed by the apostles and elders” about certain matters. Or it could have the sense of the “resolution” achieved by the gathering in Jerusalem which included apostles, elders and the Jerusalem church. Given that this is not a context in which government or imperial issues are being discussed, we probably should not use the term “decree” in this context. Perhaps this usage most closely aligns with its use by Josephus to describe the community rules followed by the Essenes.

Within the Greek translation of the Old Testament the noun occurs primarily in Daniel (Theodotion edition) and the Maccabean literature. In Daniel it renders the Aramaic noun dath  (a loan word from Persian) which means decree or law. The close relationship between this noun and the cognate verb is illustrated in the two Greek versions of Daniel. In Daniel 2:13 where the Theodotion edition reads “and the edict (dogma) went forth” the Old Greek translation reads “and it was decreed (edogmatisthē).” In this context it was the Babylonian king issuing commands. It also translates the Aramaic noun ṭʽm meaning law or decree (Daniel 3:10; 6:12(13)). The Theodotionic version renders the context at 3:10 as “”you, O King, made a decree (dogma)” but the Old Greek edition chose “you have ordered (prosetaxas).” The renderings are quite similar in meaning even though different terms were chosen. Again this terminology occurs in a royal context. In 3 Maccabees 1:3 Dositheus, an apostate Jew, is described as “changing his ancestral beliefs (tōn…dogmatōn).” In that context the reference undoubtedly is to the Jewish law. The writer of 4 Maccabees 4:26 tells us that “his [Antiochus Epiphanes] decrees (ta dogmata autou) were despised by the people [Jewish people].” These would be edicts of the king, Antiochus.

Philo used the noun frequently, usually with reference to the Jewish law. He also used the adjective dogmatikos, but did not use the cognate verb. For example, when he discusses the character of the human being “made in the image of God,” this first being created by God becomes tenacious in “the retention of the holy precepts (tōn hagiōn  dogmatōn)” (Leg. All. I, 55). The other, later human being who is moulded and shaped is “only introduced to the truths (ta dogmata)  by the rich bounty of God” (Leg. All.I, 54). In this usage Philo seems to following the employment of this term by the earlier Greek philosophers who used it to describe their  philosophical principles. Philo argues that the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews also communicate “principles” but these are divine in origin. In the pious person “the high priest Reason, though he has the power to dwell in unbroken leisure amid the sacred doctrines (tois hagiois dogmasi), has received free license to resort to them at every season, but barely once a year (Lev. xvi.2 and 34)” (Gig.52). He refers specifically to the matters revealed by God to Moses.

The noun also finds use in Greek Philosophical writings (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, later philosophers) to describe their ideas and arguments, “things that seemed right to them.” According to Josephus the Greek philosophers held view about God that were similar to those taught by Moses in the Jewish Scriptures. Greek philosophers only taught their ideas to the few “and did no venture to divulge their true beliefs (tēn alētheian tou dogmatos) to the masses” in contrast to Moses (Contra Apionem II.169). The Jewish Scriptures contain the “decrees of God (theou dogmata)” (Contra Apionem I.42). The principles or rule by which the Essenes live are termed dogmata (Bellum II. 142). Finally, Josephus seems to describe Jewish prophets and priests as “messengers sent by God” through whom the Jews have learned “the noblest of our doctrines (tōn dogmatōn) and the holiest of our laws” (Ant. XV.136). Josephus seems to play the word from both ends when he applies it to God’s commands. He favourably compares the Jewish principles with Greek philosophical principles, but also reserves the divine kingship of Yahweh by using this term which can also mean royal edict or decree.

Within his letter to the Colossians Paul warns the believers about the “philosophies and empty deceit” which depend on “human tradition and the basic principles of this world” (Colossians 2:8). In Colossians 2:20 Paul argues that Christians are no longer alive to “the basic principles of this world” and so he questions why they “are submitting to its rules (dogmatizesthe).”  However, it is important to remember that Paul has just used the cognate noun dogma (Colossians 2:14) to refer to the Jewish religious regulations incorporated in the Law. Note in these contexts the connection between human philosophy, certain principles connected with “the world,” the Jewish Law, and the verbal action of being ruled by these principles.

The verbal form dogmatizesthe Paul chose is second person plural, present indicative, suggesting a current reality attributed to his audience. However, it is difficult to know whether Paul intends it to be interpreted as a middle or passive form. If it is middle, the sense might be “you are subjecting yourself to regulations;”  the passive form would  convey “you are being regulated.” The middle voice, if this was Paul’s intent, would emphasize their willing compliance to this situation. Liddell and Scott (1966, page 441) identify its use in Colossians 2:20 as a passive form. In the latest edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament…(2000, page 254) it is classified as a “permissive pass…= permit yourselves to be put under….”

The verb dogmatizesthai seems to be a first century B.C. formation. Josephus (late first century A.D.) employed to describe decrees or laws passed by the Roman Senate (edogmatisen hē sugklētos Ant. XIV. 249-251). However, a first century B.C. writer named Diodorus Siculus used the same construction (Bib. Hist. 31.23.1.4). Within the Septuagint the verb occurs twice in 2 Maccabees. When Maccabeus and his followers recapture Jerusalem, they “decreed (edogmatisan) by public ordinance and by vote that the whole nation of the Judeans should observe these days every year” (10:8). Again, a few chapters later Judas Maccabeus defeats Nikanor, the Seleucid general. As a result “they all decreed by public vote never to let this day go unobserved…” (15:36). In these contexts the decree is affirmed by the vote of the people. It concerns the establishment of a religious festival in God’s honour. According to 3 Maccabees the Egyptian Ptolemy decreed (dedogmastismenon)  or ordered that the Jews rounded up in his persecution be put in the hippodrome at Schedia  (4:11). We find similar uses in Daniel 2:13 (edogmatisthē) and Esther 3:9 (Old Greek edition: dogmatisatō). In both cases the verb expresses the decision and command of a pagan king.

It would seem that Paul, referencing previous discussions in the Colossian letter to Greco-Roman philosophy and religious regulations and practices, as well as Jewish religious commands, used this verb dogmatizesthai to warn these believers about adopting religious regulations from either source and regarding them as mandates for Christians. These practices found in other religious systems are categorized by Paul as “the basic principles of the world” (cf. Galatians 4:1-8). When people identify with Jesus Messiah in salvation, such regulations no longer exercise claims over them. They now live by “keeping in step with the Spirit” of the Messiah. Their focus is on the things above (3:1-2) because their living is now defined by the Lord Jesus.

Implications:

i. Paul frequently warns believers  not to add things to the Gospel (cf. Galatians). Here in Colossians he does the same. What believers today being tempted to add to the Gospel and thus distort and even destroy its message?

     ii. What are the implications from Paul’s statements in Colossians 2:20 for understanding the relationship between the Old and New Testaments?

According to Büchsel (TDNT, vol. 1, 260) the verb allēgorein first appears in the writings of the Jewish authors Philo and Josephus. The cognate noun similarly is used in first century A.D. Greek writers. The kind of interpretation defined by these terms was practiced for many centuries previously, but was referred to by the noun huponoia, indicating something that was hinted at, a suggestion. Within Stoicism particularly this method of interpretation was applied to the writings of Homer and the stories in Greek mythology to derive moral and cosmological meanings from the immoral and selfish antics of the gods.

So Paul did not invent either the Greek verb allēgorein or the method of interpreting essential, cultural/religious documents, such as Homer’s Illiad and The Odyssey. However, the terms seem to be coming into vogue at the time he was writing. In the centuries before Jesus appeared, Greek scholars and philosophers struggled with the characterization and escapades applied to the Greek pantheon. Some, such as Plato, went so far to urge the banning of Homer’s material from the education of youth because he refused to acknowledge it as the fountain of Greek knowledge about human and divine matters or medicine or warfare or politics or law. However, others were much more keen to rehabilitate and use the Homeric materials. Their apologetic for this was the practice of “allegory.” According to Folker Siegert (“Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style” — chapter four of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament. The History o f Its Interpretation. Volume I. From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages (until 1300), edited by Magne Sæbo) they argued that Homer did know and express more information than his poetic expressions proposed, but one had to interpret his “enigmatic expression” (133). Many Greek writers considered Homer as a poet be inspired by the gods. The verb allēgorein means “to say one thing but mean another. Heraclitus wrote a work in the first century A.D. about Homeric allegory. In it he defines allegory as “the trope which consists in speaking about one thing, but which in fact refers to another thing different from the one mentioned.” He regards Homer as a “theologian” who expresses religious, ethical and cosmological ideas through his poetry, but these ideas are conveyed by the story. The wise person presses behind these stories of human endeavour and heroism to discern Homer’s true intent. He wrote that “Homer is pitilessly charged with lack of respect towards divinity: all of his stories would be irreverent, unless we interpret them as allegories.” This interpretative tradition regarding the Homeric materials stretches back to the 5th or 6th century B.C.

When we come to the Jewish tradition, Philo represents the most advanced and sophisticated use of this Greek method of interpretation. However, we find examples in prior writings by Aristobulus and in the Epistle of Aristeas, both of which date to the mid-second century B.C. Philo applies this method specifically to the Mosaic corpus in his commentaries on the Pentateuch. He used both the verb and its cognate noun frequently. He wrote three treatises on Genesis entitled “Allegorical Interpretation.” In Legum Allegoria III.4 we find a good example of the way Philo used this interpretative technique. He comments on the text “Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God…” (Genesis 3:8). He says that “were one not to take the language as figurative (allēgorēseie), it would be impossible to accept the statement, for God fills and penetrates all things and has left no spot void or empty of His presence.” Philo used allegorical interpretation to make sense of what otherwise in his view would be nonsense given Yahweh’s nature. Obviously Moses must have been communicating another message than what the literal language implies. So Philo says “it is possible to take it in this way. In the bad man the true opinion concerning God is hidden in obscurity, for he is full of darkness…” (III.7).  In using this method Philo does not deny the reality of the text, but presumes that the writer intends to provoke the reader to deeper thought, “that you may think and interpret (allēgorēs)” (III.238).

Josephus both criticizes allegorical methods and employs them to his own advantage. He calls critics of Judaism such as Apollonius Monon who use allegorization to defend the actions of the Greek gods,  “crazy fools” (Against Apion 2, 255). True Greek philosophers did not use “the worthless shifts to which the allegorists have resort.” He cites as proof Plato’s refusal to allow Homer’s epics to be studied in his proposed “republic.” In the introduction to his Jewish Antiquities (1.24-25) he admits that Moses, the lawgiver, “shrewdly veils in enigmas” some things, and “others he sets forth in solemn allegory (allēgorountos),” but “wherever straightforward speech was expedient, there he makes his meaning absolutely plain.” He resorts to allegory in his determination to defend the nature of the tabernacle’s construction, furniture, and priestly garb. “Every one of these objects is intended to recall and represent the universe” (Jewish Antiquities 3, 180). Note the parallels between Josephus’ characterization of Moses and Herclitus’ characterization of Homer.

When Paul incorporates the story of Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Hagar and Ishmael and interprets it as “allegory” in his argument, he is not denying the literal reality of these events. Abraham was an historical figure, he married Sarah and Hagar was his concubine, these women had sons by Abraham, and Ishmael was Isaac’s senior. Paul also regarded Moses as a prophet and the Genesis narrative was Holy Scripture, inspired by God’s Spirit. Important though the literal story might be to the understanding of Israel’s history, Moses intended to communicate more than these historical events, otherwise why would Moses have included these incidents in Scripture? There must be another message than what the literal language implies — as I noted earlier. Paul accesses this other meaning by applying his general knowledge of God’s purposes in the Messiah Jesus to this Genesis text. He invites the Galatian audience to discern this other meaning with him and affirm its truth.

In using allegorical interpretation Paul assumes that Jews and non-Jews in his audience would be familiar with this mode of discerning meaning in a religious, literary text. Educated non-Jews would be introduced to this method of literary interpretation in their studies of Homer. Presumably educated Jews would have been introduced to this method of interpretation in their study of the Torah. So when Paul used this method in Galatians 4, he would be viewed as employing a valid, honoured and sophisticated means for interpreting sacred scripture. In fact he may have used it to earn more respect from those who opposed him, by demonstrating his grasp of Moses’ intent, an intent which others did not perceive or understand. Not only had Yahweh spoken about the Messiah and his mission in his specific promises to Abraham (cf. Galatians 3). Yahweh also had indicated the shift in covenants through the narrative of Sarah and Hagar and Abraham’s two sons.