Jesus also engaged in some comparisons with “those who are esteemed to rule the nations” (10:42).  In Matthew (20:25) they are “the rulers of the nations” and in Luke (22:25) “the kings of the nations.”  Kingdom “leadership” was to be markedly different from that exercised by such national leaders. But in what way is it to be different? The common English translation that we find in the New International Version (“lording it over”) for the verb katakurieuō used in Mark 10:42 in these comparison has the connotation of abusive power or arrogant authority. But is this what the Greek verb means? Luke in the parallel passage (22:25) used the simple form of the verb (kurieuousin) to describe these rulers, implying that they exercised authority and power, without adding any sense that they were abusing this power in their leadership. He adds that they claim to be “benefactors (euergetai),” an epithet commonly found linked with rulers in inscriptions.  Jesus may have been somewhat ironic in his use of this term.  What in fact does the verb katakureuō mean that Mark and Matthew used to describe national leaders in this section of Jesus’ teaching?

It is the case that many national leaders were arrogant and abusive. For example, Josephus describes the reputation of Herod the Great, who governed Palestine when Jesus was born, as one who grasped power tightly, killing his own family members in order to retain his position. While he was a great builder, he also ruled Palestine with an iron hand, brooking no opposition. The picture Mark presents of Herod the Tetrarch, one of Herod the Great’s son, incorporates a sense of self-indulgence, preserving power at all costs, and controlled by sinful values with little regard for the care of the people. Jesus certainly is contrasting his standard of Kingdom leadership to this kind of leadership, which certainly was not shepherding God’s people well.

The addition of the prefixed preposition kata to a simple verb can add various nuances to the verb’s meaning. For example, in Luke 6:21 the beatitude says “blessed are those who mourn now, because you shall laugh (gelasete).” However, in 8:53 the mourners at Jairus’ house “ridicule (kategelōn) him [Jesus]” because they “knew” his daughter was dead, not asleep as Jesus claimed. Note how the preposition intensifies the sense of the verb, shifting the idea of laughing for joy, to laughing in a mocking manner. A second example occurs with the verb douloun. In Galatians 4:3 Paul claims that prior to their conversion the Christians in Galatia “were in slavery (ẽmetha dedoulōmenoi) under the basic principles of the world.” This is simple description of enslavement. However, in Galatians 2:4 he describes the action of some Jewish Christians in Jerusalem to require Gentile Christians to become Jews as an attempt to “make us slaves (katadoulōsousin),” i.e. subjugate.  In these two cases the nuance probably emerges from the preposition’s sense of ‘against’ or ‘down’.

Sometimes it is not exactly clear what nuance the prepositional prefix adds. Mark used the simple verb eulogein to describe the prayers that Jesus made in asking God “to bless” food (e.g. 6:41; 8:7; 14:22). But in 10:16 he employed the compound form kateulogei to define Jesus’ response to the children, whose parents wanted him to touch them. This is the only context in the New Testament where the compound form occurs. We know from the Markan context that Jesus’ response to the children is in deliberate contradiction to attempts by his apostles to prevent this activity. Mark alone among the Synoptic Gospels provides an expanded description of Jesus’ response:  “he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.” However, did Mark deliberately use the compound form kateulogei to signify that “he really blessed them?” The detailed description suggestions some strengthening of the verbal idea is intended.

In the context of Mark 10:42 we also find the verb katexousiazousin (exercise authority over) used in parallel with katakurieusousin. The simple form of the verb exousiazein occurs in the Lukan parallel (22:25), which the New International Version translates as “exercise authority over” as it does in Mark 10:42.  We get a sense of the simple form from its use in 1 Corinthians 7:4 where Paul, in describing marital responsibilities says that “the husband does not ‘exercise authority’ over his own body”, i.e. his wife has claims on him and has authority over his body.  So why did Mark in the case of both of these verbs use the compound form, rather than, as Luke did, employ the simple forms? Are we to understand simple and compound forms as synonyms? Do the compound forms add a strengthened sense, i.e. their authority is real and applied fully? Or are the compound forms adding the nuance of abusive authority?

In Luke’s perspective Jesus is not emphasizing an abusive sense in his teaching, because the simple forms are used. Jesus defines the exercise of authority by national leaders, without commenting whether it is good or bad, and contrasts leadership in the kingdom as non-authoritative, i.e. diakonos, serving (22:26-27).

Some years ago K.W.Clarke published a short study on the meaning of katakureuō in the New Testament.¹ He contended that the “correct translation of [kata] kyrieyein” is “to rule over, exercise lordship over, to be lord of, to master, to have dominion over.”² However, there is no necessary nuance of oppression or arrogance implied. For example, in Genesis 1:28 God commands his newly created humans to “subdue (katakurieusate) the earth” and “rule (archete) the fish of the sea….” Human management of the earth at God’s command did not include arrogant or abusive authority. Rather the emphasis seems to be on complete authority or mastery over the earth.

If Clarke is correct in his analysis, then Jesus’ point as noted in Mark 10:42 is not a comparison between abusive or arrogant lordship and sanctified lordship. Rather  Jesus is contrasting absolute lordship with Kingdom leadership which has nothing at all to do with lordship, but everything to do with serving, indeed becoming the slave of the other.  Peter interprets Jesus’ teaching as leadership by example, such that the leader’s willingness to serve Christ and his body is the pathway to healthy shepherding.

Implications:

1. in your leadership role as a Kingdom agent, do you put more emphasis on exercising authority or leading by serving? Do the people within your church know your love for them, discern your passion to follow Jesus, and see you as an example to follow?
2. what about your leadership as a Kingdom agent outside the borders of the church community? Does your commitment to Jesus require the same kind of leadership to be expressed, i.e. a leadership that is serving rather than authoritarian?

____________________
• ¹K.W.Clarke, “The Meaning of [KATA]KYRIEYEIN,” in The Gentile Bias and Other Essays. Supplements to Novum Testamentum LIV (Leiden: E.J.Brill, 1980), 207-212.
• ²Ibid., 212.

In describing Epaphroditus’ serious illness and God’s merciful healing, Paul acknowledges that in antiquity threats to life came from many quarters, especially disease. We do not know the details of Epaphroditus’ sickness, but the prevalence of maladies such as malaria in first century Rome gives credence to this incident. In 2:30 Paul says that his “brother, fellow-worker, and fellow-soldier” and the Philippian church’s “messenger (apostolon) and servant (leitourgon)” (2:25) “came near to death” and in so doing put his life in grievous danger (paraboleusamenos tẽi psuchẽi). He chooses a term that occurs only once in the New Testament.

In the literature there is dispute as to whether Paul has coined this word for this occasion or whether it was already in use. A.Deissmann refers to an inscription found on the coast of the Black Sea, which he dates to second century A.D. It describes a person named Carzoasus who “in the interests of friendship…had exposed himself to dangers (kindunous…paraboleusamenos) as an advocate in (legal) strife (by taking his clients’ causes even) up to emperors.”¹ He also mentions an earlier inscription dated to c. 48 A.D. from the same geographical context. This evidence indicates that Paul was not creating a new term in this context. Further , there is a cognate noun (parabolanoi) which describes people who “risk their lives to nurse those sick with plague.”²

A parallel to the idiom Paul used occurs as early as Homer’s Iliad.³ The verb paraballesthai (“expose onself to danger”) can be used in the sense absolutely, or followed by a noun in the dative (indicating in what respect one is exposed to danger) or in the accusative (indicating what is put at risk). For example, Polybius (third-second century B.C.) describes an armed force from Gaul that attacked Italy. When the Roman armies counter-attacked, the Gallic leaders had to decide whether to give battle and “risk the fortune of their whole enterprise (paraballesthai tois holois)” or return home with their rich plunder.⁴ Later in the same publication he describes interaction between Fabius, a Roman general, and Hannibal, indicating that Fabius did not want “to hazard a general engagement (paraballesthai tois holois).”⁵ A century or so later Diodorus Siculus (first century BC), a cultural historian, used the idiom to describe the capturing of a large snake for the second Ptolemy. Those engaged in this escapade “decided to hazard their lives (parabalesthai tais psuchais) and to capture one of the huge snakes and bring it alive to Ptolemy at Alexandria.”⁶ In 2 Maccabees 14:38 a Jewish man named Razis, an elder in Jerusalem, is said to have “been accused of Judaism, and he had risked body and life for Judaism (kai sōma kai psuchẽn huper tou Ioudaismou parabeblẽmenos) with all possible zeal.” The story ends with Razis committing suicide as his enemies were about to arrest him for execution.

Within Jewish tradition to risk one’s life for the cause of Judaism was an honourable thing to do. Within the general Hellenistic tradition one ventured life and limb in war, in commercial enterprise, in protecting clients. In Romans 5:7-8 Paul writes that the Messiah risked his life and actually died so that he might reconcile rebellious, sinful human beings to God. Jesus himself indicated that he willingly surrendered his life “as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). The expectation in the New Testament is that Jesus’ followers would be willing to risk life for Jesus, as well as for one another. This is a very high standard that Jesus sets for discipleship. Paul indicates the Epaphroditus willingly embraced the dangers associated with representing Jesus and the Philippian church in order that he might bring comfort and help to another believer, namely Paul himself. Whether Epaphroditus understood the extent of the risk he was engaging by being the Philippians’ emissary to Paul is not clear. However, to identify with a prisoner of the empire took courage. By choosing the language he did in Philippians 2:30, Paul emphasizes the extent to which Epaphroditus was willing to hazard his life for the sake of the Gospel and God’s people. This is how in practical terms he demonstrated a real, tested faith.

Implications:

1. what are we prepared to risk for the sake of Jesus? If suffering is such a significant aspect of a disciple’s obedience, then risks of various kinds must be endemic to a believer’s experience. What would we dare to risk for the sake of another believer?
2. in North American evangelicalism we study how to live ‘balanced’ lives so that experience little risk for Jesus. I wonder what advice today Epaphroditus might receive from Christian leaders for his actions? Would he be celebrated and honoured, or chastised for being too fanatical?

____________________
• ¹Adolf Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East, translated by L.R.M.Strachan (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1978), 88.
• ²Entry in Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966), 1305. How early this noun occurs is uncertain.
• ³Two different verb forms express this idiom. One is parabolouomai followed by the dative case and the other is paraballesthai followed by the accusative case (Homer’s usage, et al). According to Liddell and Scott the simple form boleō is an earlier, alternative form of ballō.
• ⁴Polybius, The Histories II.26.6. It seems that Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon in the entry for paraboleuomai mistakenly list this reference as II.26.3.
• ⁵Ibid., III. 94.4.
• ⁶Diodorus Siculus, III.36.4.

Mark used two verbs in 14:33 that describe a change in Jesus’ perspective at this point in the narrative. One verb is peculiar to this Gospel (ekthambeisthai ; cf. Mark 1:27; 9:15; 10:(24 simplex form),32; 16:5-6) and has the sense of being “overwhelmed to the point of disarray” because of something observed or anticipated. The other verb is adẽmonein which suggests a deep concern for someone. In Philippians 2:26 Paul used this word to describe the concern that Epaphroditus felt for his friends at Philippi because they knew about his serious illness. So these two words in combination suggest that Jesus began to be overwhelmed and deeply concerned about what soon would transpire.

The following verse (14:34) describes Jesus’ message to the three apostles and is translated in the New International Version as “my soul is overwhelmed with sorrow (perilupos) to the point of death (heōs thanatou).” Mark used the adjective perilupos to describe Herod Antipas’ response (“was greatly distressed”) to Herodias’ request for the head of John the Baptist (Mark 6:26). Despite his internal distress Herod still gave the order for John’s execution. In the case of Jesus we still do not know at this point in Mark’s narrative what is generating such “distress” in Jesus. The use of the term in the Herod story shows that the cause of the distress does not have to be something that directly happens to the person who is experiencing this emotion. John will be executed, not Herod, but it is Herod’s action that leads to John’s untimely and unseemly execution. In some of the Psalms this word describes a deep sadness (Psalm 42:5,11; 43:5)¹ because of harassment.

The second part of the description in 14:34 is the phrase “to the point of death” (heōs thanatou). Various interpretations are suggested. Some link this phrase to the Psalmist’s sense of anxiety, but the phrase is not used in these contexts. Others point to Jonah 4:8-9 and the prophet’s sadness to the point of death, i.e. he craves death because of Nineveh’s escape from God’s wrath. But we have no sense in Mark’s narrative that Jesus is expressing a wish to die. Another suggestion is that this phrase defines the deepest kind of sorrow, with an intensity that matches death itself. If this is the meaning, it is not clear again what generates this distress on the part of Jesus. That he feels intense sadness seems to be without dispute.

Jesus continues to pray that “the hour might pass by” and “the cup be taken away” (14:35-36). The Markan narrator expresses the first by indirect discourse and the second he iterates in a direct statement. In two other Markan contexts “cup” refers to Jesus’ death (10:38ff; 14:23-24). It seems odd that in 14:23-24 Jesus “gives thanks for the cup” which symbolizes his imminent, sacrificial death, but a few verses latter is asking that he be preserved from this experience because of personal distress and anxiety. The other term “hour” has eschatological connotations in 13:32. Jesus has prophesied at least four times in Mark 8-10 that he will be rejected, executed and resurrected. In Mark 10:32-34 Jesus is explicit that his death will occur shortly in Jerusalem. If this “hour” only has reference to his death as a personal experience, then it again seems strange that he would pray that God “save him” and stop the process. His whole mission has led to this very event.

I would suggest that the grief that Jesus experiences is not only focused upon himself nor is his desire that the cup be taken away expressed for personal benefit. Rather, Jesus knows that his death will mark his rejection by Israel. But this in turn will bring God’s judgment and the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, as he has prophesied in Mark 13.  The Synoptic Gospels describe two occasions when Jesus expresses his grief for Jerusalem. At the end of Matthew 23 Jesus laments Jerusalem’s unwillingness to accept him. He prophesies that “your house is left to you desolate” (23:37-39). Again in Luke 19:41-44 when Jesus is approaching Jerusalem “he wept over it” because they refused God’s offer of peace and “did not recognize the time of God’s coming.”

Jesus knows what his death will precipitate for the inhabitants of Jerusalem. He longs for their rescue and redemption and laments on different occasions the consequences of their lack of repentance. I would suggest that this reality, if not the major cause of Jesus’ sorrow in Gethsemane, at least is a significant contributor to his distress. His injunction to the three apostles who accompany him to watch and pray connects with the same instruction that ends Mark 13. Their failure demonstrates that not even his most intimate associates have the spiritual discernment to understand what is happening.

Implications:

1. what are the occasions in Scripture when God weeps? What causes the Holy Spirit to grieve? Does God’s grief ever affect us?
2. is there something you are doing that you know causes God grief? Why do you persist? Is God’s joy important to you?

____________________
• ¹Greek translation is numbered Psalm 41:6,12; 42:5.

Perhaps even more remarkable is that Mark only twice says that Jesus has a spirit (pneuma 2:8; 8:12). Now Mark primarily used the term pneuma in two ways. First, God, the Holy Spirit, is referenced by this noun (1:8,10,12; 3:29; 12:36; 13:11). In each context it is quite clear that the Spirit of God is being described. Secondly, Mark frequently describes demons as “unclean spirits” (akatharta pneumata) (1:23,26,27; 3:11,30; 5:2,8,13; 6:7; 7:25; 9:17,20,25(2x)). In his anthropology “spirit” is not a normal component of human constitution. Rather, these are spiritual beings, either good or evil , which influence human beings. Only in two cases do we read in Mark about a person’s pneuma, and in both cases it refers to Jesus (2:8; 8:12). Mark 14:38 may be an exception: “The S/spirit is willing but the flesh is weak.”

So what then did Mark intend his readers to understand in these two passages about Jesus’ spirit? We know from Mark 1:10, 12 that the Holy Spirit “descended” upon Jesus after his baptism and “thrust him out into the wilderness.” John prophesied that Jesus would be able to “baptise in the Holy Spirit (en pneumatic hagiōi)” (1:8), which again indicates that God’s Spirit is present with Jesus in a special way. In 3:29 Jesus warned the Jewish religious leaders about the dangerous consequences of attributing the works he was doing by the Spirit’s power to demonic forces. Those who persisted in this perspective “profaned the Holy Spirit” and “did not have forgiveness forever but were guilty of an eternal sin.” Again the Spirit is identified significantly with Jesus’ teachings and miraculous activities. We can only conclude that God’s Holy Spirit integrally works in concert with Jesus.

According to Mark 2:8 Jesus is able to discern what the Jewish religious leaders around him are “disputing in their hearts/themselves (en tais kardiais autōn/en heautois)” (2:6,8). Mark says that “Jesus, knowing in/by his spirit (tōi pneumati autou)” what they are thinking, interrogates them. What does Mark mean by this phrase and reference to “spirit?” Should we translate this as “his spirit” or “the Spirit that belongs to him,” i.e. the Holy Spirit? In other words is it Jesus himself that discerns their thoughts or is it the Holy Spirit within him that empowers or aids him to do this? The same verb occurs with Jesus as subject in 5:30 and there the expression is “knowing in himself (en hautōi)”, with the preposition present.

We discover a similar situation in Mark 8:12. Again Jesus is entangled in controversy with Jewish religious leaders. They have approached him to demand some extraordinary sign, “testing him” (8:11). In response Mark says that Jesus is “dismayed in/by his spirit (tōi pneumati autou).” This is exactly the same phrase Mark used in 2:8. So is this the Holy Spirit in Jesus who is dismayed at the religious leaders’ continued refusal to accept Jesus as Messiah, because He knows that this stubbornness is leading to terrible judgment? Or is this Jesus’ spirit, i.e. himself, expressing this dismay?

If these are to be taken as references to the Holy Spirit, then how are we to understand the meaning of dative case in which these phrases are written? A frequent use of the dative case is to define means or instrument. If this is the intended sense, then in 2:8 Jesus “knows by means of the Spirit which he has” what the religious leaders are thinking. And in the case of 8:12 the dismay that Jesus experiences arises “by means of the Spirit which he has.” Another usage, just as common, is the dative of manner, i.e. defining how something occurs. If this is the sense that Mark intended, then we would translate 2:8 as “recognizing in his S/spirit” and 8:12 “dismayed in his S/spirit.” Whether this would refer to the Holy Spirit or his own spirit (i.e. as we would refer to a human being’s spirit) is unclear. The entry defining pneuma in the New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, Volume 3 says that the usage in Mark 2:8 and 8:12 describe “that area of human awareness most sensitive to matters of the spiritual realm.” However, it provides no specific justification for defining the usage in these Markan passages in this manner.

At this point I am not sure how to read these two verses in Mark’s Gospel. I am inclined to see references to the Holy Spirit. However, in doing this I have no desire either to diminish Jesus’ humanity or his deity. The entire Gospel of Mark demonstrates without doubt the real humanity of Jesus — he eats, sleeps, weeps, gets angry, is compassionate, etc. Simultaneously Mark expresses the involvement of God and the Holy Spirit with Jesus in his incarnational work. In these two contexts I would sense that Mark conveys the harmonious working of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Incarnation, but this is not “Spirit Christology.” Jesus is Son of God in his own right. Obviously some mystery exists in this and its expression. Conversely, I can find no evidence in Mark’s Gospel that would support a usage of pneuma with reference to the human spirit, unless it might be in 14:38, but the meaning of pneuma is not exactly clear in that context either. Perhaps the lack of such a usage in Mark’s Gospel is a coincidence and not intentional. Regardless, such a usage is not present.

1. the early church struggled to understand how Jesus was both fully human and fully divine, as we do today. There is mystery in this. We affirm both as essential for our salvation. Is this affirmation a fundamental part of your faith?
2. Mark describes Jesus in terms that show he is the same as other humans, but different. How in your worship today will you praise God for sending Jesus as the divine-human saviour?

The cognate verb (apokalupsein) occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Initially (in the Pentateuch) its use matches the usual sense found in non-biblical sources, namely to uncover or reveal something. Often the sense is to reveal something shameful, i.e. human nakedness. In Exodus 20:26 Yahweh commands the priests not to climb up on an altar “so that you do not reveal (apokalupsēis) your shame on it.” The forbidden incestuous and other sexual relations discussed in Leviticus 18 and 20 are translated as “revealing shame.” God uncovers (apekalupse) the eyes of Balaam so that he sees what his donkey sees (Numbers 22:31). The spies sent to Jericho require Rachab to swear an oath that she will not disclose (apokalupsēi) their presence (Joshua 2:20). When David dances before the ark of God, Michael his wife scorns the fact that he has uncovered (apekaluphthē) himself in the eyes of his own slaves (2 Samuel 6:20-22).The use of the noun in 1 Samuel 20:30 aligns with these meanings.

Another frequent sense is to disclose the secrets of a person. In Sirach 27:16 we are told that “he who reveals (ho apokaluptōn) secrets (mustēria) has destroyed trust and will never find a friend for his soul.” This is how the cognate noun is used as well, warning against revealing the secrets of another person (Sirach 22:22; 42:1).

So in many contexts when humans are involved, the verb and the cognate noun have a decidedly negative connotation – disclosing something that should not be seen or known, and doing it for the wrong reasons.

When God is the subject of this verb, it describes the way He disclosed (apokaluphtheis apekaluphthēn) himself to Israel in Egypt (1 Samuel 2:27), but there is no specificity as to the method of disclosure used in that context. In the course of Samuel’s call to be a prophet, he does not know what is happening because “it was before Samuel knew God and a word of the Lord had been revealed (apokaluphthēnai) to him” (1 Samuel 3:7). Samuel’s relationship with God as prophet rests upon the fact that “the Lord had revealed (apekaluphthē) himself to Samuel” (1 Samuel 3:21). The idiom “uncover the ear” describes the disclosure of secrets (God to David 2 Samuel 7:27; people to other people (1 Samuel 20, 22)). The Psalmist prays that God will “uncover (apokalupson) my eyes” so he can study God’s laws (Psalm 118(119):18). God “has revealed (apekalupse)¹ his righteousness” before the nations (Psalm 97(98):2). What God does for Israel becomes evident to the surrounding nations.

God also discloses the shameful sin of his people to the nations (Hosea 2:10; 7:1; Nahum 3:7(8); Micah 1:6). This particularly is the usage in Ezekiel (16:36-37; 23:10,18,29). But in the midst of these occurrences we also discover that God “reveals (apokalupsēi) his instructions to his slaves the prophets” (Amos 3:7). And in Isaiah 52:10 Yahweh promises that he “shall reveal (apokalupsei) his holy arm before all the nations” and they will know that salvation has its source in him alone (cf. Isaiah 53:1). So there are occasions when the verb describes God’s disclosure of his power, his just actions, and his plans – sometimes for salvation and sometimes for judgment. Normally these disclosures are transmitted through prophets. However, anyone can study the law of God and to that person God will disclose wisdom through his law. But God also uncovers human sin and evil so that people see it for what is truly is. When God does this, usually it presages his judgment.

In the Greek translation of Daniel (the one attributed to “Theodotion”), the verb describes how God discloses to Daniel “deep and hidden things” (2:19) and “mysteries” (mustēria) (2:19,28,29,30,40) and in each case the accompanying verb is apokalupsein.² All of these occurrences in Daniel occur in the story where Nebuchadnezzar demands that the Babylonian wisemen tell him what his dream was and its significance, upon threat of death. God discloses the dream and its significance to Daniel in a vision at night (2:19). For Daniel this is a sign of God’s favour and praises God in 2:22 because He “discloses deep and hidden things.” In 2:28,29,30 Daniel reports to the king how God disclosed these secrets to Daniel, “things that must happen.” In response Nebuchadnezzar acknowledges that God is “God of gods and Lord of kings and a discloser of secret things” (2:47).³ The same verb is used once more in Daniel 10:1 to describe how “a word was disclosed to Daniel by God” in a vision.

In several contexts the disclosures, particularly those from God, come as a surprise. Consider the experience of Samuel to whom God disclosed himself and how it took some time for Samuel figure out what was happening. Prophets sometimes become the disclosers of these divine surprises, but in other cases God does this directly. In the case of Paul, his experience on the Damascus Road certainly fits the category of surprise! He had no sense that God was about to disclose this “mystery” that Jesus is Messiah to him in this remarkable way. One question that arises is whether Paul viewed this disclosure as God’s assignment to him of a prophetic role, as was the case with Samuel and other Old Testament prophets.

There is one Old Testament passage where the cognate verb does occur and which Paul cites, at least partially. As we noted above, Isaiah 53:1 asks to whom God “shall reveal (apekaluphthē) his holy arm?” This seems to echo the assertion in Isaiah 52:10 that “the Lord shall reveal (apokalupsei) his holy arm before all the nations and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation that comes from God.” Paul quotes the first part of Isaiah 53:1 in Romans 10:16, which indicates that he was aware of this text. Further, in Romans 15:21 Paul quotes Isaiah 52:15, which also talks about God’s use of the servant to enable the nations to see and understand the ways of God. And Paul used this text to ground his mission in the program of the Messiah. It is probable that Paul saw his conversion and call to ministry in connection with the mission of the Messiah, the Suffering Servant. Paul was one of those to whom God “disclosed his arm” and demonstrated that Jesus Messiah is the one through whom God was bringing salvation to all nations. Both the method of disclosure and the content of the disclosure by God to Paul was a complete surprise.

It is also the case that Paul talks about his conversion in terms similar to those used in Daniel 2. For example in Ephesians 3:3-6 he wrote:

“…that is, the mystery (to mustērion) made known to me by revelation (kata apokalupsin)….In reading this, then you will be able to understand my insight into the mystery (en tōi mustēriōi) of Christ which was not made known to men in other generations as it has now been revealed (apekaluphthē) by the Spirit….This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel….”

Similarly in Romans 16:25 he affirms that his gospel incorporates “the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery (kata apokalupsin mustēriou) hidden in long ages past but now revealed (phanerōthentos) and made known (gnōristhentos)…so that all nations might believe and obey him….” While it cannot be proven that Paul is dependent upon the Daniel narrative for this language, it is interesting that only in Daniel 2 do we find the expression “disclose the mysteries” in connection with a disclosure from God (the expression occurs in Sirach but in reference to human beings disclosing secrets). In the Daniel narrative God chooses to disclose his purposes to a Gentile monarch, Nebuchadnezzar and then uses a Jewish leader to explain what this disclosure means, with the result that the king acknowledges Yahweh as “God of gods and Lord of kings.” The possible parallel with Paul’s mission is interesting.

So in Galatians 1-2, when Paul describes his conversion, his calling, and his action to confer with the leaders of the Jerusalem church about the Gospel, he attributes it all to God’s disclosures (1:12,16; 2:2). The use of the verb in Galatians 3:23 describes the disclosure of “the faith” to those “who are locked up” and “walled about by law”. Paul characterizes the way of faith as surprise disclosure by and from God for human salvation. Galatians 4:4-5 demonstrates how God’s plan and timing were perfect, but from the human standpoint, these disclosures of the Messiah came as an astonishing surprise.

The use of this noun and verb by Peter (1 Peter 1:7,13; 4:13), most likely with reference to the second coming of the Messiah, similarly emphasizes the sense of a surprising disclosure by God of secret things. Jesus emphasized that he would return, but indicated that time and context were unknown, except to God the Father. Peter’s choice of this language expresses the same spirit of uncertainty as to the timing of God’s next disclosure of the Messiah.

Implications:

1. God has secrets, some of which he has disclosed to humans, but others he keeps to Himself. We live in between two of these disclosures, namely the incarnation of the Messiah and his second coming. Salvation in Christ is only possible because God decided to disclose this Messianic secret. When one of your friends has secrets that he or she will not share, how does that make you feel? How does the fact that God has secrets, some of which He has not disclosed, shape your relationship with Him?
2. Why does God keep some things secret? Is it in the very nature of deity that God  must know things that humans do not, otherwise He would cease to be God? When we get to heaven will God disclose all of his secrets to his people or will He still keep some things to himself?
3. If the presence of the Spirit give us access to “the mind of Christ” (1 Corinthian 2:16) and “God’s secret wisdom” (2:7), what does this mean in practical terms?

• ¹In this verse it is used in parallel with a verb meaning “make known.”
• ²The alternative Greek translation of Daniel used ekphainō (2:19,30,47) which means “bring to light, disclose, reveal” or anakaluptō (2:22,28,29) a similar verb meaning “uncover, expose, make bare.”
• ³In these contexts in Daniel the Greek verb is rendering the same Aramaic verb which means to uncover, reveal.

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament the phrase “man of God” does describe Moses (Joshua 14:6). It also occurs in Judges 13:6,8 to describe the angel who appeared to Manoah and his wife. A prophet, “a man of God,” delivers a message to Eli in 1 Samuel 2:27. Saul seeks help from “a man of God”, a prophet, in order to locate his father’s lost donkeys (1 Samuel 9:7-10). In 1 Kings 12:22 Shemaiah, Rehoboam’s advisor, is defined as “the man of God.”¹ David is given this epithet in 2 Chronicles 8:14 (cf. Nehemiah 12:24,36). The phrase in terms of Old Testament usage describes a person, normally a male, who has received a special mandate from God to represent Him as leader or prophet, able to express in life and deed the way of the Lord. Occasionally it describes an angelic messenger. This is a Jewish expression and not a phrase found in Greco-Roman literature.

In Jewish writers of the Second Temple period, this phrase comes to apply to all Jews. For example, in the Letter to Aristeas (c. 150 B.C.) Eleazar, the Jewish High Priest explains the Jewish law to the ambassadors from Ptolemy’s court. In the course of his response he claims that “the priests who are the guides of the Egyptians, have looked closely into many things and are conversant with affairs” and “ have named us ‘men of God’ (anthrōpous theou), a title applicable to none others but only to him who reveres the true God.”² Philo, when commenting on the accounts in Genesis of “Giants” states that there are three classes of human beings: earth-born, heaven-born, and God-born.³ And then he indicates that “the men of God (theou de anthrōpoi) are priests and prophets…”⁴ who reject worldly passions. In another context Philo argues that a peaceful person is “God’s man (anthrōpon theou), who being the Word of the Eternal must needs himself be immortal.”⁵ We discern the gradual extension of this phrase in Hellenistic Judaism from describing only key leaders and spokespersons for God, to its application to every Jewish person who is living in covenant obedience. As Marshall observes “for Philo the phrase has become a description of those who are truly the people of God.”⁶

In the context of 1 Timothy Paul is encouraging his protégé, Timothy, to attend to his spiritual life and ministry leadership responsibilities well. Yet in the midst of these personal instructions, there are also many admonitions addressed to diverse groups of Christians – widows, slaves, elders, false teachers, the wealthy, etc. He intersperses this spiritual advice with specific instruction for Timothy. This is the pattern we discover in 1 Timothy 6:6-19. He urges believers to be content and not lust for wealth (6:8-10). This is particularly important for Timothy as a ministry leader, “man of God (anthrōpe theou)” (6:11-16). He then shifts again to addressing wealthy Christians and the attitude they must cultivate towards their wealth so that they truly serve God. When we compare Paul’s instructions to Timothy, “the man of God” in 6:11-16 with his instructions to rich Christians in 6:17-19, we discover that he repeats most of his advice, but emphasizes in the case of Timothy the importance of a good witness and perseverance in the truth – qualities important for a Christian leader. So while the phrase “man of God” may be used by Paul to identify a Christian leader, the piety and ethics of that leader are the same essentially as that expected from all Christians.

Further in this context there may be reference to Timothy’s baptism – “when you made your good confession before many witnesses” (1 Timothy 6:12). Paul advises Timothy to continue to “flee” from sin and “pursue” spirituality. These spiritual experiences and responsibilities are necessary for every sincere believer.

With respect to 2 Timothy 3:10-17 Paul rehearses for Timothy the nature of his piety and what ministry has meant for him (vv.10-11). A general statement follows reminding us that “everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted…” (v.12). Paul then shifts focus to Timothy, whom he regards as one of these godly people and urges him to hold fast to the faith commitments he has learned from his family, Paul and the Scriptures. “The man of God”, i.e. the one who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus, will have constant recourse to the Scriptures because in them he will find everything he needs to serve God well. Again what Paul says specifically about Timothy, he also applies in general terms to all believers. As Marshall writes with reference to 1 Timothy 6:11, “Timothy is being addressed as a typical believer (2 Tim 3.12) rather than as a church leader.”⁷

Christian leaders must be “men of God” in every sense of the word. However, every believer in the New Testament because the Holy Spirit is resident within, is similarly representing God in this world. The other metaphors that Paul, for instance, used to identify believers, i.e. temple of the Holy Spirit, instrument of righteousness, servant of God, all point to this same reality. This phrase “man of God” used in the Old Testament to describe prophets, priests and kings, is applied to an emerging Christian leader such as Timothy. But in doing so Paul is not creating two classes of Christians. Rather, he emphasizes the standard of holy living that Christian leaders must commit to, if they are to serve God and Christ well. But at the same time, the same spirituality and ethics expected of Christian leaders are also urged for every believer. The Scriptures are beneficial for every believer and their preparation to serve God, not just church leaders. There are not two standards of spirituality in the Kingdom. We confess one faith; we serve One Christ; we possess One Spirit; we pursue one mission. We are all together “the holy ones of God.”

Implications:

1. are you conscious of your role as “man of God” today? What are you doing intentionally to equip yourself for this role?
2. if you serve in a specific capacity of ministry leadership, are you modeling the holy living that God desires?
3. the second part of this phrase, i.e. “of God”, can mean possession and/or representation. When you think about being God’s representative, God’s servant, how does this shape your identity, your decisions, your priorities?

• ¹Many other examples of this usage occur in 1 Kings 13,14,17; 2 Kings 1,4,8,23
• ²Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter of Aristeas), section 140. In the Wisdom of Solomon 18:13 the writer says that the Egyptians, when God destroyed their firstborn, acknowledged “your people to be God’s son (theou huion laon),” a commentary on Exodus 12:31.
• ³Philo, De Gigantibus, 60.
• ⁴Ibid., 61.
• ⁵Philo, De Confusione Linguarum, 41-43.
• ⁶I.Howard Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles (London: T & T Clark, 1999), 656.
• ⁷I.H.Marshall, The Pastoral Epistles, 657.

The Apostle Paul

One of the intriguing questions about the early church is the nature of the relationship between Paul and Peter. Without doubt both men, committed Christian leaders, made a huge impact upon the shape of the Christian church. Their writings document this clearly. Yet, their pathway into faith and leadership in the church are very different – Peter, the Galilean fisherman and Paul, the rising Jewish scholar and leader. One followed Jesus from the beginning; the other became a follower of Jesus only after seeking to destroy the memory and mission of Jesus following his death and resurrection.

Paul provides the most detailed information about their relationship in the first two chapters of his letter to the Galatian churches. Luke complements what Paul provides in Acts 9-15. In his second letter Peter does mention Paul and the value of his writings in the church, even though they contain things hard to grasp (2 Peter 3:15-16), but he regards him as “a beloved brother.” Luke makes it clear in the early chapters of Acts that Peter became the de facto leader of the church immediately following Pentecost. However, when he was forced to leave Jerusalem because of threat of death, James, the brother of Jesus, steps into that role. So it is that in Galatians 1-2 Peter and James along with John, and Paul in his partnership with Barnabas, form the two primary leadership teams in the early church, around 50 AD.

The Apostle Peter

But how did Paul first meet Peter and what was the purpose of this meeting? We only have Paul’s account of this, found in Galatians 1:18.¹ According to his recollection his first encounter with Peter happened in Jerusalem, three years after his dramatic conversion. Paul emphasizes the time factor because he is establishing that he “did not even receive it [the Gospel] from a human person, nor was I taught, but through revelation of Jesus Messiah” (Galatians 1:12). His first contact with the apostles of Jesus and Peter in particular occurred three years after the Damascus Road revelation of Jesus as risen Lord to Paul. The point is that Paul’s understanding of the Gospel comes directly from Jesus, as the apostles’ full understanding of that same Gospel came directly from post-resurrection encounters with the risen Lord. When the three leading Jerusalem apostles “add nothing” to Paul’s grasp of the Gospel (Galatians 2:6), they agreed that Paul too “was entrusted with the Gospel” (Galatians 2:7).

Paul says that his initial interaction with Peter came upon his own initiative. He “went up to Jerusalem to inquire (historēsai) of Cephas” “(Galatians 1:17) and visited with him for fourteen days. What exactly happened during those exchanges is confined to our interpretation of this verb historēsai, variously interpreted as “visit” (NRSV), “get acquainted with” (NIV), “get to know” (NLT). Paul’s use of this word indicates that his visit was more than a social call. But can we be any more specific?

The verb has various uses. People used it to describe their desire “to enquire” of the gods some direction or desired outcome. For example, in a IV/III B.C. inscription a woman named Nikokrateia “enquires (historei), to which of the gods she should sacrifice in order to be better and stronger and cease from her illness.”² Herodotus (5^th century B.C.) used the cognate noun to mean “presentation of research (historiēs apodexis).”³ It takes on the sense of a “narrative” presentation that is based upon enquiries a person has made. This probably the meaning of the verb in 1 Esdras 1:31 (CHASAOT) where it says that the actions of King Josiah “have been recorded (historētai) in the book of the kings of Israel and Ioudas.”⁴ A narrative account of Josiah’s reign is provided in that document, according to the author of 1 Esdras. The writer of 2 Maccabees notes the challenge of figures and details that face a person who composes “narratives of history (tēs historias)” (2:24), using the noun.⁵

Moulton and Milligan reference several inscriptions that were made by people who visited (historein) a specific site or region and because of what they observed and discerned they express amazement (thaumazein).⁶

A third sense can be traced in writings contemporaneous with that of Paul’s letter to the Galatians, namely “to visit for the purpose of making someone’s acquaintance. Josephus says that he “became acquainted (historēsa) during the war” with Julianus, a Bithynian centurion in the Roman army.⁷ When he retells the story of Lot’s escape from Sodom, Josephus says he “has visited and become acquainted (historēsa) with this pillar which remains to this day.”⁸ The sense of the verb is that Josephus was acting almost like a tourist, visiting ancient remains, but his intent probably was somewhat more serious.

It seems that we have at least two options to consider when seeking to define this verb’s usage in Galatians 1:18. On the one hand, Paul could be saying that he visited Peter with the intent of becoming acquainted with him and his experience in the Gospel. On the other hand, Paul may be saying that he went to give an account to Peter of what his own experience in the Gospel had been. Given that this was their first meeting, perhaps a bit of both occurred during this encounter. Paul uses this verb to express the personal discoveries and interchange of information that both enjoyed during this fourteen day visit. We might calculate, based on the information Paul shares in Galatians 1-2 that this initial meeting occurred around 37-38 AD.

The information we have about the interactions among the early Christian leaders is very meager. So we must consider every piece of data that we possess in order to define these relationships as accurately as possible. Paul considered it important to establish a relationship with Peter and probably James, leaders in the new Christian community.

Implications:

1. it is important for Christian leaders to share their faith stories with one another. Such interactions have potential to generate trust, strengthen faith, and encourage perseverance;
2. it may be going too far in the particular instance of Galatians 1:18 to suggest that Paul was developing something of an accountability relationship with Peter in his visit to Jerusalem. While his opponents sought to use this visit as a point of weakness and inferiority, for Paul it was an opportunity to learn, confirm his own experience in the faith, and receive the support and encouragement of a key Christian leader. What accountability relationship have you established to keep your Christian walk on track and your leadership suffused with integrity?

• ¹ Luke makes general reference to various visits that Paul makes to Jerusalem (Acts 9:26-30; 11:27-30), but only in chapter 15 does he explicitly mention Peter’s engagement.
• ² G.H.R. Horsley, ed. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity, Volume 4 (Macquarie University, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, 1987), 135. However, he is quick to assert that this is “not the way it is employed in the NT at Gal.1.18.
• ³ Herodotus, I.1.1; II.118, 1; 119.3
• ⁴ A. Pietersma and B.Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 394. The verb is used twice in this verse. A further usage comes in 1:40 where the actions of Nebchadnezzar are described as “the things recorded (ta…historēthenta) about him.”
• ⁵ Additional usages occur at 2Maccabees 2:32 where the writer says he will shorten his preface because he wants to devote most of the space to his “narrative” (tēn historian). The author of 4 Maccabees states that his purpose is to provide “a narrative demonstration (epi tēn apodeixin tēs historias) of temperate reason” (3:19). Note that this is the same phrase found in Herodotus, five centuries earlier.
• ⁶ J. Moulton and G. Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London; Hodder and Stoughton Ltd., 1972 repr.), 308. For example, a man named Hermogenes writes a graffiti on the tomb of the late New Kingdom Ramses VI and says that when he toured it (historēsas), he was completely astounded (hyperethaumasa).
• ⁷ Jewish Wars VI.81.
• ⁸ Antiquities, I.203. The Loeb edition translates this verb here as “have seen.”

Hawthorne states that Paul has coined this terminology (summorphizō) for his own purposes.¹ However, in doing this Paul probably is reflecting his prior use of the phrases morphē theou (“in very nature God” Phil.2:6) and morphē doulou (“the very nature of a servant” Phil. 2:7) by which he seems to define the pre-existent nature of Jesus as Son of God and his incarnational existence.²

The usage in 3:10 occurs in an extended sentence that covers verses 8-11. While it is not possible to be dogmatic, the verbal form summorphizomenos in v.10, probably modifies the action of the verb in verse 8: “I consider them rubbish…(v.10) in order to know him and the power of his resurrection and fellowship of his sufferings, becoming like him in his death…”(NIV). If this is the correct understanding of Paul’s statement, then this shaping of life such that it embraces the scandal of the cross shows the value that he places on his relationship with Jesus Christ in comparison to his former way of life.

The reference to the Messiah’s death in connection with summorphizomenos in v.10 also expands in some sense what Paul means by the expression “in order to know…the fellowship (koinōnian) of his sufferings.” To share in something and to become like something are related ideas. The Messiah’s suffering and death are also related concepts. What does the suffering and death of the Messiah represent? It is the context in which “righteousness” for Paul and the rest of believing humanity was won. It brought “the righteousness of God” into reach for sinful humanity through “faith in the Messiah.”

But Paul seems to take these ideas at least one step further.  If we do not become like the Messiah in his death, then we will not be able to share in the resurrection from the dead. Verse 11 seems to presuppose this similarity with the death of the Messiah. Our identification with the Messiah in this present life brings us the privilege of experiencing resurrection in the future. The participle summorphizomenos is a present form, indicating a current, continuing activity or condition. This ‘conforming’ is a process that extends throughout the rest of Paul’s life and gives the context for explaining the various things that he is encountering. While he is spiritually “becoming like” the Messiah, it is the Messiah in his incarnational role as morphē doulou in which death expresses the Messiah’s obedience to God the Father, enabling God to provide righteousness for humanity. As his life is embedded in the life of the Messiah Paul realizes that circumstances such as imprisonment for Jesus’ sake are part of this “conforming in his death.” Perhaps Paul here references some of Jesus’ teaching about discipleship in which “taking up one’s cross” is the paramount expression of faithfulness. Death for the Messiah defined his rejection and Paul’s suffering similarly defines his rejection in the Greco-Roman and Jewish worlds because of his loyalty to the Messiah.

Present conformity in death engenders assurance of future conformity in resurrection, when the Lord Jesus Christ “will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like (summorphon) his glorious body” (v.21). Paul does not pause here to explain more fully what this transformation means for Christians. It is accomplished by the hard-at-work powerful activity of the Messiah and includes us in the Messiah’s glory, a glory that God himself grants to the Messiah (2:9-11). So while our current likeness to the Messiah may be shaped by suffering and humiliation, even as we experience “the power of his resurrection” (v.10), the future will be far more wonderful than anything we can imagine currently.

I think Paul wants the Philippian Christians to understand that the pattern of the Messiah’s “form/nature (morphē)” (Phil.2:6-7), finds replication in the experience of the believer now, “becoming like him in his death” (Phil. 3:10) , but whose future life “will be like his glorious body” (Phil. 3:21), when the Messiah returns. It is this reality that generates within him peace, contentment and confidence and presses him to an evangelistic and ethical lifestyle.

Implications:

1. in what ways is your current life circumstance as a believer expressing “a likeness to  the Messiah’s death,” i.e.  pressure and suffering that results from loyalty to the Messiah in the midst of a culture that is God-rejecting? Do you accept this reality as a sign of your partnership with the Messiah and does this generate joy or resentment within you?
2. how eagerly are you awaiting Jesus Christ’s return? Does your confidence in future “conformity to the Messiah’s glorious body” empower you today to live  “in conformity with the Messiah’s death?” How does this shape your daily ethical decisions?

• ¹Gerald Hawthorne, Philippians. Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 43 (Waco, TX: Word Books, Pub., 1983), 145. “Paul creates a new word….”
• ²I commented on this usage in Internet Moments with God’s Word # 23

The first chapter of Philippians is filled with contrasts. Shame or greatness (v.20); living or dying (v.21); preaching the Gospel out of rivalry or out of love (vv.15-17); striving well or being intimidated (vv.27-28). While Paul has much to say about his own inner wrestlings as he endures imprisonment, his primary concern is with these Philippian believers, with whom he has a special bond of friendship. The initial clause of v.27 summarizes the entire message of his letter: “whatever happens, conduct yourselves [tNIV reads “as citizens of heaven live (politeuesthe)”; cf. 3:20] in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” The way they do this is defined in the remainder of vv. 27-28.

Paul used two present participles to describe how they were to “stand firm in one [S]pirit”, something necessarily arising from their new status as citizens of God’s kingdom. The first participle, “contending (sunathlountes),” is linked explicitly with their commitment to the Gospel (“for the faith of the Gospel”). Paul emphasizes their collective engagement with the phrase “as one man” (tNIV reads “with one accord”)  and the use of this compound verbal form sunathleō, whose prefix indicates joint effort. This verb only occurs in the New Testament here and in Phil. 4:3, where again Paul links it with partnership in the Gospel (“women who have contended (sunēthlēsan) at my side in the cause of the gospel…whose names are in the book of life”). In 1:30 Paul summarizes their life in Christ as “the same struggle (agōna)” which he himself is contesting.

In the literature you discover that some read this term in the context of athletic contests, others set the contention in military contexts, and still others see little, specific referential meaning associated with the word and just consider its sense to be “working together”. This last sense is how Louw and Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, Volume 1, understand its meaning, linking it with other words that imply work or toil, but adding the nuance of doing this together in the face of opposition or competition.¹ The simple form of the verb athleō (2 Timothy 2:5) and its cognate noun athlēsis (Hebrews 10:32) convey a sense of athletic context when used in the New Testament. In 2 Timothy 2:5 the picture is of an athlete striving in a contest and winning the competition. Similarly in Hebrew 10:32 we should place this term alongside the metaphor of athletic competition that comes in Hebrew 12:1 (“let us run with patience the race that is set before us”). However, in Philippians 1 Paul presents few clues that define the nature of the competition or contention. The mention of citizenship and his concern that they “stand together in one spirit” might suggest more of a military context, where the citizens act together to defend their city. However, we also have the juridicial context of Paul’s imprisonment and it is just as likely that Paul is encouraging them to defend themselves against false accusations, just as he is doing. This compound term occurs very infrequently and so we have little evidence, apart from the Philippian context, to help us define its specific nuance. Perhaps the fact that Paul links the same ideas of citizenship, standing firm, and struggle in Philippians 3:20-4:3 should be noted. In that context we have the additional phrase “names in the book of life” which supports the concept of citizenship as the primary context for these terms.

In IV Maccabees this terminology defines Jewish resistance to Seleucid pressure to abandon their religious practices, a writing that is roughly contemporaneous with Paul and probably written by a Jew living outside of Palestine (the same context in which Paul is operating). In particular this writing describes in graphic terms the martyrdom of Eleazar, his wife, and their seven sons by Antiochus Epiphanes. For example, Eleazar, as he dies is compared to an athlete:

But he bore the pains and scorned the punishments and endured the tortures. Like a noble athlete the old man, while being beaten, was victorious over his torturers;…(6:9-10).

As the writer reflects on their perseverance, he exclaims:

Reverence for God was victor and gave the crown to its own athletes. Who did not admire the athletes of the divine legislation? Who were not amazed? (17:15-16)

Whether Paul’s use of cognate terms to describe how the Philippian believers must contend for the Gospel had similar overtones of potential martyrdom is a debated question. However, we can say that Paul’s language in Philippians does indicate the seriousness of the religious contest in which these believers were engaging.

The other participle Paul used in this context, “being frightened (pturomenoi)”, similarly occurs rarely in Greek literature before or during his time. The entry in Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, notes that it describes a horse shying at a noise or a person alarmed at death. Since it is passive in most of its occurrences, some suggest a kind of permissive sense might be appropriate, i.e. “do not let yourself be intimidated by, alarmed at, scared.” Something in the context of a person has potential to scare or intimidate. If this is the notion Paul is expressing, then in Philippians 1:28 he would be encouraging these believers not to let themselves be intimidated by the opposition they experience because of their Christian commitments. When they embraced the Gospel, they entered a serious, extended struggle and elements in that struggle had potential to alarm or scare the believers such they might give up or abandon the struggle. Thus Paul’s exhortation to “stand” and not let anything scare them from pursuing “the goal to win the prize for which God has called [us] heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Philippians 3:14).

Whether these threats of intimidation arise from within the Christian movement or outside of that community, Paul clearly desires the Philippians believers to maintain their loyalty towards the Gospel. God has set them on their faith journey and He will see them finish well. He used the phrase “in nothing” to define the comprehensiveness of his desire. There is nothing that should deter them from their struggle, no matter who the opposition might be. Paul sees a positive outcome to all of this as the struggle and its intimidation becomes a “demonstration or proof (endeixis) of their deliverance or salvation (sōtēria)”(1:28).

Implications:

1. Paul’s instruction to the Philippians reminds us of the serious nature of our faith relationship with Jesus. How do you experience this contention for the faith of the Gospel in your life?
2. The corporate nature of this struggle seems to be important for victory. In what ways are you contending “in one [S]pirit”? Whether “spirit” here refers to the Holy Spirit or a human attitude is unclear, but Paul certainly recognizes the importance of unity in successful perseverance.
3. Where do you discern the greatest points of intimidation? What strategies have you discovered that help you face and defeat these forces of fear?

____________________
• ¹Johannes P. Louw and Eugene A. Nida, editors, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament based on Semantic Domains, Volume I (New York, NY: United Bible Societies, 1989, second edition), 515.

The adjective bebaios defines something as solid, firm, steady. Etymologically it is related to the verb bainō, which in the perfect form means “stand or be in place, established.” When applied to friendship, it signifies constancy; if used in connection with an oath, it means it is inviolable; when found in reference to divine words, it can mean immutable. For example, when Philo describes the Law of God given to Moses he declares it to be superior to all other human institutions because it is “firm (bebaia), unshaken (asaleuta), immovable (akradanta),…”¹ Similarly Josephus in his response to the attacks of Apion declares that Moses “prepared the [framework of the law] to be preserved most securely (babaiotatēn) for ever.”² The term confirms that a law or institution or promise/oath is secure and certain. In Romans 4:16 Paul argues that God has made faith the basis of human response to himself “in order that the promise might be secure/firm/guaranteed (bebaian) for all the seed…to those who are of the faith of Abraham.” The writer of Hebrews compares our hope in God to an anchor “firm (asphalē) and secure (bebaian),” embedded in the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus now serves as our High Priest.  Philo used these two expressions to describe God himself:

The sure (asphalēs) God is the support and stay, the firmness and stability (bebaiotēs) of all things, imparting as with the impress of a seal to whom He will the power of remaining unshaken.³

Philo was a contemporary of Paul, a Hellenistic Jew living in Alexandria. It is interesting to note how similarly they use this terminology of security, steadfastness and sealing to encourage human confidence in God’s provisions for salvation.

God’s wisdom is “steadfast (bebaiov) and unfailing (asphalēs).”⁴ Those who pursue wisdom and demonstrate this by keeping wisdom’s laws are assured that “attention to the law is a surety (bebaiōsis) of immortality.”⁵ When his soul experiences exhaustion, the Psalmist asks God to “keep me steady/established (bebaiōson) in your words.”⁶

The writer to the Hebrews picks up this sense of God’s total trustworthiness in 6:16. God swore an oath to Abraham that He would bless him (Genesis 22:17). God used Himself as the guarantor for this oath. In doing this God, just like a human person, used an oath to “confirm (eis bebaiōsin) what is said and put an end to all argument.”

The author of 2 Peter 1:16-19 refers to the Transfiguration of Jesus as an event that demonstrates the validity of Jesus and his message, as well as the prior prophecies, as Elijah and Moses joined with Jesus in that extraordinary event. So he rejoices that “we have the word of the prophets made more certain (bebaioteron).” The writer includes himself among the eyewitnesses of this event, seeing the change, observing Elijah and Moses, and hearing God’s voice directly from heaven. This confirms for him that Jesus is truly the one prophesied.

This terminology also has a long history of usage in commercial, taxation, and legal settings. For example, when individuals in the Roman Empire bid for the right to collect taxes, they had to provide some surety to the government that they would reach their quota. Sometimes those who won the auction entered into private agreements with other individuals who served as guarantors (bebaiōtai).⁷ Twice in Greek Leviticus this terminology is used in this commercial/legal sense. In Leviticus 25:23 Israel is reminded that while they might sell their land, they really have no right to do so because “the land shall not be sold irrevocably (eis bebaiōsis) for the land is mine [Yahweh].” Any such sale cannot be definitive, absolute, or legally guaranteed, because the Israelites were only tenants, not land-owners in Palestine. When one buys a house in a walled city, the prior owner has a year within which to redeem it. After the year has elapsed, “the house that is in a city that has a wall shall be confirmed irrevocably (bebaiōs) to belong to its purchaser, throughout his generations,…”

To what degree this commercial/legal referential sense of ‘guarantee’ should be read in New Testament passages is disputed and must be determined on contextual grounds. For example in the text cited from Wisdom 6:18, is attention to the law a “guarantee” of immorality such that no agent can rob such a person of this treasure? Or in the case of Hebrew 6:16 is God’s oath to be construed as a guarantee, proof against any accusation? When the Psalmist appeals to God for help in the face of his opponents (Psalm 40(41):12) he confesses that God has “secured (ebebaiōsas) me forever.” God will ensure that the Psalmist wins his case and is declared innocent.

When we come to Paul’s letters, we discover him using these terms frequently in various ways. For example, in 1 Corinthians 1:6 he claims that “the witness of Christ has been confirmed (ebebaiōthē) in you.” Presumably this refers to the apostle’s presentation of the Gospel, whose power has been established in the conversion of these people and their formation into the body of Christ. And then two verses later Paul writes (1:8) that Christ himself is the one “who also will keep you secure (bebaiōsei) to the end, free from any charge in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I think the use of the legal term anegklētous, free from any charge, adds judicial colour to the context. God-in-Christ will confirm our status as innocent in the final judgment. No charge will stick because we are in Christ.

Similarly in the initial chapter of 2 Corinthians Paul again incorporates this language. In v.21 God himself is the one “who makes us together with you secure (bebaiōn) unto Christ and anoints us, who also sets his seal of ownership on us and gives us his Spirit as the guaranteed deposit in our hearts.” God is the agent here, doing all of these things to assure us of our position in Christ. Notice how Paul piles up the terms here that focus our attention on this certain, secure status. This is why his hope for them is secure and firm (bebaia) (1:7). God stands as the guarantor for it all.

Paul also used the noun in Philippians 1:7. He links together his imprisonment, his defense, and the validation of the Gospel, i.e. warranty that the Gospel is valid. I do not think it going too far to suggest that Paul’s successful appeal of the charges can be seen as a legal validation, formal confirmation of the Gospel. He is an apostle, a witness of the Gospel and so how God works through him becomes a confirmation of the Gospel. To the extent that the Philippine believers participate with him, they too contribute to this work of Gospel validation.

Implications:

1. If God is the One Who “affirms” our place in his family, how does He do that?
2. If you are struggling with your position in the family of God, then perhaps a text like 2 Corinthians 1:21 can be of great encouragement.
3. Is our testimony for Jesus part of the warranty that demonstrates the reality of the Gospel?

____________________
• ¹Philo, De Vita Mosis, II.14
• ²Josephus, Contra Apionem, II.156
• ³Philo, De Somniis, I. 158
• ⁴Wisdom of Solomon 7:23
• ⁵Wisdom of Solomon 6:18
• ⁶Psalm 118(119):28
• ⁷S.R. Llewelyn, editor. New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity. Volume Eight (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 50-51 (specifically footnote 19).