Word Studies

[Resource Manager]

Diaballomai describes the unjust steward “accused” of wasting his master’s goods (Luke 16:1). The link with the more familiar diabolos is obvious, and may give rise to the suggestion that but for someone informing on him, the steward might have got away with it.

 

Kataballo is straightforward. Paul’s phrase, “cast down, but not destroyed”, suggests that his enemies within the church were achieving a successful campaign against him (2 Corinthians 4:9). The word is also used of laying a foundation (katabole).

 

Metaballomai (cp. metabolism) indicates a sudden or dramatic change — as when the ignorant people of Malta decided that Paul was not a criminal but a god (Acts. 28:6). It describes how Israel turned their backs on their enemies (Joshua 7:8), and how later, when Ai was ablaze, they turned against their pursuers (Joshua 8:21). Isaiah 60:5 is interesting: “the wealth of the sea shall turn, or turn back, unto thee (Israel restored).”

 

Paraballo suggests putting one thing beside (para) another. Hence the word “parable”, in which a detailed similitude is put alongside a real-life situation. In most parables (all of them?) the correspondence can be worked out in detail.

 

But when the same word is used of interpretation in detail of Abraham’s offering of Isaac, the RV of Hebrews 11:19 reads “parable”. So Genesis 22 anticipates the parables of Jesus by many centuries and should be treated similarly.

 

The offering of sacrifice in the Tabernacle is also described as a parable (Hebrews 9:9). So here again exact correspondences are to be sought. In many details the redeeming work of Christ is foreshadowed. The difficulty is that only a few of these details are interpreted by the NT.  So in this field exercises in interpretation should be expressed, and received, with due diffidence.

 

There is an interesting example in the LXX of a very literal use of kataballo. Boaz bade his harvesters: “Be sure to cast beside her (Ruth) some of that which has (already) been heaped up” (Ruth 2:16). Was Ruth too ingenuous to realize what was happening?

 

Periballo (cast around) makes a highly appropriate word for putting on eastern garments, though inappropriate for clothes of western design. Thus, with only one exception, this word describes the putting on of robes or garments. That exception is the Lord’s prophecy (Luke 19:43) of Jerusalem’s fate, when “thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee.” The holy city’s winding sheet, or shroud!

 

Proballo is, very simply, “put forth” — the fig tree in the parable putting forth leaves; the Jews of Ephesus, scared by the riot, put forth Alexander as their representative.

 

Sumballo. The prefix means “together with”. The reference is usually to throwing words or ideas together, hence: “converse, discuss”.

 

The chief priests in Jerusalem “conferred among themselves” (Acts 4:15). The philosophers of Athens “encountered” Paul — they had discussion with him (Acts 17:18). Apollos, when he was come to Corinth, had a lot of talk with the brethren there (18:27) — AV: “helped them much” is rather vague. Mary “pondered” in her heart all the wonderful things associated with the birth of her baby — she was bringing together the significance of all that had transpired. Luke 14:31, AV, misses the point. It would read better: “What king going to another king to discuss concerning war...”

 

Acts 20:14 is rather problematical. AV: “when he met with us at Assos” seems to be the only possible reading, yet it is not without difficulty, for the verb is in the imperfect tense. “Met and conferred”?

[Resource Manager]

Cleanse, Purify

 

One expects, naturally enough, that in the OT these words will be specially associated with ritual cleanness and freedom from defilement, as defined in the Law of Moses. But it turns out that this is true in the NT  also, with very few exceptions.

 

There is the use of katharos with reference to leprosy: “Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” (Matthew 8:2); and to “the days of the purification” of Mary (Luke 2:22); and to food: “Lord, I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean (akathartos)” (Acts 10:14); and to “waterpots...after the manner of the purifying (katharismos) of the Jews” (John 2:6), and so on.

 

But, declared Jesus, “all things (meaning: all foods) are clean unto you” (Luke 11:41; note Luke 11:39). Paul magnificently shook off his Pharisee prejudices about forbidden foods: “There is nothing unclean (koinos, common) of itself; but to him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean ... All things indeed are pure (katharos)” (Romans 14:14,20).

 

This is also the true meaning of Titus 1:15: “To the pure (katharos) all things are pure” — contrast “Jewish fables” (Titus 1:14). This passage, which has so often been cited to prove that the pure-minded can read bad books and see bad TV programmes and stare at pornography without harm, is actually about the kind of food you may eat. If you are truly cleansed in Christ, so also is all the food you eat.

 

Much more fundamentally, the NT has some wonderfully fine assurances that those truly in Christ are truly clean: “The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (i.e. sins of commission).” But also: “He is faithful and just to ... cleanse us from all unrighteousness (sins of omission)” (1 John 1:7,9).

 

Again, “he that is bathed (in baptism) needeth not save to wash his feet (the forgiveness of day-to-day lapses), but is clean (katharos) every whit: and ye are clean, but not all” (John 13:10).

 

There is also the cleansing discipline in Christian experience: “Every branch in me (the True Vine) that beareth fruit he cleanseth it, that it may bring forth more fruit” (John 15:2). This refers, not to pruning, but to literally scrubbing the vine stem with soap and water to rid it of a fungus (see Jeremiah 2:22).

 

The disciple’s self-discipline is also called for. “As ye yielded your members servants to uncleanness (akatharsia)...even so now ...” (Romans 6:19). “Let us cleanse ourselves of all filthiness of flesh and spirit” (2 Corinthians 7:1). “Fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness (coveting a woman you have no right to), let it not be once named among you” (Ephesians 5:3).

 

James has a fine allusion to the service of the priests in the sanctuary. The laver was appointed specially that “Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat” (Exodus 30:19). But James, having established his allusion, switches quite dramatically from “feet” to “hearts”: “Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse (katharizo) your hands, ye sinners, and purify (hagnizo) your hearts, ye double-minded” (4:8).

 

This cleansing of heart and conscience is powerfully insisted on by Paul [1 Timothy 1:5; 3:9; 2 Timothy 1:3; 2:21 (ekkathairo), 22 (pure, katharos)]. But on this the most familiar passage of all is the beatitude: “Blessed are the pure (katharos) in heart, for they shall see God” (Matthew 5:8). Isaiah, in consternation at his own uncleanness, had the reverse experience: the sight of the glory of God cleansed (perikathairo) him (Isaiah 6:5,7).

 

Many other passages call for special attention. Examples:

 

Titus 2:14: “... that he might purify (katharizo) unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” Here Paul is writing with his mind on the Old Covenant made with Israel at Sinai: “Moses sanctified the people, they washed their clothes...ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me...All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exodus 19:14,5,8).

 

“We (the apostles) are made as the filth (perikatharmia) of the world, the offscouring (peripsema) of all things” (1 Corinthians 4:13). At Athens in time of plague a worthless person was thrown into the sea with the words: “Be thou our peripsema.”  Such a person was called katharma (that which is thrown away in cleansing).

 

In Revelation 21:21; 22:1 the new Jerusalem is described as “pure (clean) gold” because sanctified to God and by His Presence. Does this phrase contrast with the uncleanness of gold in this present age?

 

Unclean spirits? No, that is a separate subject.

[Resource Manager]

Cloud

 

Out of 25 occurrences of nephele, all but three plainly mean the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory. The student should work his way through the entire list. Acts 1:9 and 1 Thessalonians 4:17 are specially instructive.

 

But there are three of the twenty-five which do not so readily conform to this general usage: In 2 Peter 2:17, false teachers are referred to as “clouds carried with a tempest”. Jude 1:12 (ref to the above) calls them “clouds without water”. In each of these instances the Shekinah Glory idea is not out of sight. Here were men claiming divine authority for their message (as Ezekiel with his Ezekiel 1), but in fact they were not borne along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:19) but by a tempest, sweeping them away to their own destruction. Differently, Jude’s “clouds without water” implies that these men brought no true Holy Spirit blessing.

 

But what is to be said about the words of Jesus?: “When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.” Besides the simple literal meaning, a commonplace experience in the Holy Land, Jesus may have meant allusion to the Holy of Holies at the western end of the sanctuary enclosure (cp Psalm 103:12) — the Shekinah Glory of God appearing there would be the certain herald of heavenly blessing: “a shower”.

 

It is important to observe that the “so great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 12:1), referring to the multitude of the faithful in Hebrews 11, uses a different word: nephos. Thus, it is not permissible to use this passage to interpret 1 Thessalonians 4:17.

 

Come Close

 

Acts 27:8,13 provides two interesting examples of an unexpected idiom. Paralegomai means literally “to speak with”. Yet is used in these two places of a ship’s close approach: “And hardly passing it (Salmone), we came unto... the Fair Havens” (Acts 27:8). Then, by and by, they “sailed close by Crete” (Acts 27:13). How has the word come to take on this kind of meaning?

 

To this day it is normal nautical parlance for one ship to “speak with” another; i.e. make a close approach. Communication between the two is not necessarily implied. So also, nearly two thousand years ago a similar idiom was in use. King James’ men recognized that they must translate so as to be intelligible to a land-lubber. Hence the AV readings here.

[Resource Manager]

Come Near

 

Paraginomai is one of the commonest words for “come” or “come near”. But in two places only it occurs with an additional very expressive prefix sun — thus implying a close association. Thus, Paul writing about his trial, and perfectly certain of an adverse verdict, wrote: “At my first answer (appearing in court), no man stood with me” (2 Timothy 4:16). No fellow-believer, certainly no one of consequence, appeared at that hearing to publicly associate with him and to testify on his behalf.

 

The same word is used very eloquently in Luke’s account of the crucifixion: “And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their breasts...” (Luke 23:48). The verb implies a close sympathetic association; and the phrase that follows confirms this. These people were, doubtless, some of those who had acclaimed the Lord’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem a few days earlier.

 

Craftiness, Guile

 

Panourgia has its roots in Eden: “as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety” (2 Corinthians 11:3). And it is appropriate to men who are the seed of the serpent. These came at Jesus seeking to entrap him, but “he perceived their craftiness” (Luke 20:23); for the Lord God “taketh the wise in their own craftiness” (1 Corinthians 3:19), and Jesus inherited his Father’s characteristics in this ability also.

 

The warnings to the early brethren to beware of the deceit of false teachers, a deliberate campaign by evil men, were common enough because necessary (2 Corinthians 11:13; 4:2; Romans 3:13 — dolos, guile, in these places; and Ephesians 4:14). Those crafty men even went so far as to use — how very hypocritically! — the same language against Paul: “being crafty (panourgos) I caught you with guile (dolos), did I?” (2 Corinthians 12:16). One is reminded of how Luther and the Pope called each other Antichrist.

 

Peter was fond, in an inverted sort of way, of this word dolos. No guile in the mouth of the Lord Jesus (alluding to Isaiah 53:9); therefore no guile in the mouths of those who are his (1 Peter 2:1,22; 3:10; and see Revelation 14:5).

 

It is no easy matter to make a distinction between the two words. Panourgia (derived from Greek for “all-work”) appears to describe the set pattern of a man’s character (it is even used in the LXX of Proverbs 1:4; 8:5, etc. for the dedicated character of a good man); whereas dolos, guile, is appropriate to the verbal expression of cunning and badness.

[Resource Manager]

D

 

Despise

 

Several words, with a diversity of flavours, all appear in the AV translated “despise”.

 

Exoutheneo means “to treat as worthless, not worth one thing” (cp. “reckoned unto nothing”: Acts 19:27, Gk.). The Pharisees deemed themselves to be “righteous, and despised others” (Luke 18:9). Jesus was “the stone which the builders set at nought” (Acts 4:11). “Why dost thou set at nought thy brother?” remonstrated Paul (Romans 14:10). The critics of Paul did just this: they declared “his speech contemptible” (2 Corinthians 10:10). “Despise not prophesyings,” he wrote to those who were losing patience over a certain over-free exercise of Holy Spirit gifts (1 Thessalonians. 5:20). But why use so strong a word when, in his going-to-law pronouncement, he bade the brethren: “Set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church”?

 

The nearest NT word to the English “despise” is kataphroneo, which is literally ‘think down’, with the idea of ‘look down on’. They “despise government,” wrote Peter (2 Peter 2:10) about those who criticized their divinely-appointed ecclesial leaders.

 

“Let no man despise thy youth,” wrote Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 4:12). This is by no means the only intimation that Timothy, though zealous and spiritual, was not a strong character. But how was he to apply this precept in practice? By asserting himself, or by quietly ignoring a slighting demeanour?

 

In the conflict between God and mammon, some “hold to the one, and despise the other” (Matthew 6:24) — and despising mammon is surely the best attitude here.

 

Atheteo mostly means ‘rejection of the authority of law’. In only one place is it translated “despise”, thus: “He that despised Moses’ law died under two or three witnesses” (Hebrews 10:28). The noun has the same idea: Hebrews 7:18 speaks of a “disannulling of the commandment”; and in 9:26 Christ “put away sin (i.e. abrogated the dominion of sin) by the sacrifice of himself”.

 

“Ye have despised the poor,” wrote James, with unvarnished censure (2:6). Atimazo means literally “dishonour”, but in normal usage it developed a stronger bite: “treat shamefully”.

 

Oligoreo means to have little care or concern. Hence: “despise not thou the chastening of the Lord” (Hebrews 12:5).

[Resource Manager]

Destroy

 

Luo means quite simply: “to unloose”. But now and then King James’ men thought a stronger reading to be necessary, as in the words of Jesus: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it again” (John 2:19) — and thus they destroyed the main idea, for Jesus was alluding to the taking down of the Tabernacle (Numbers 10:33-36). On this, see “Gospels”, ch. 22.

 

So also in Peter’s graphic prophecy of the final dissolution of human civilisation: “the elements shall melt (be unloosed) with fervent heat...all these things shall be dissolved...” (2 Peter 3:10-12).

 

Holothreus, and its noun holothreutes (destruction) seem to be used so emphatically of angelic judgment [Hebrews 11:28; 1 Corinthians 10:10; 2 Thessalonians. 1:9; 1 Thessalonians. 5:3; Obad. 13 (3 times); Acts 3:23 (quoting Leviticus 23:29)], as to suggest the likelihood of this meaning in other places also: the excommunication of the depraved offender in 1 Corinthians 5:5; and of the rich (1 Timothy 6:9).

 

The chief NT word for ‘destroy’ — apollumi — means just that. In an abundance of places this is the meaning which shouts from the text:

• ­ “Lord, save us, we perish” (Matthew 8:25).
• ­ “They (his enemies) sought to destroy him” (Mark 3:6; etc.).
• ­ “He will come and will destroy those wicked servants” (Matthew 21:41).
• ­ “The bottles are marred (i.e. spoiled beyond further use)” (Mark 2:22).
• ­ “...that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have ever-lasting life” (John 3:15,16).
• ­ Jesus used the word about those who perished in the Flood (so also 2 Peter 3:6) and in the judgment on Sodom (Luke 17:27,29).
• ­ God causes the wisdom of the wise to perish (1 Corinthians 1:19).
• ­ In the wilderness faithless Israelites were “destroyed of serpents” (1 Corinthians 10:9).

In just one or two places the word is used hyperbolically where utter destruction is not spoken of. In each case the exaggeration is both pardonable and effective:

• The lost sheep, and the lost coin (Luke 15:4,8).
• “Gather up the fragments that nothing be lost” (John 6:12).

One example — Matthew 10:28 — is specially instructive: “Fear him that is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.” It needs only the asking of one simple question, and this is clear at a glance: Where is the body destroyed? Answer: In the grave. Thus “hell” is defined; and it is there where the “soul” dies also.

 

There are no less than ten other Greek words which are all translated “destroy”, twelve or thirteen when cognates are included in the reckoning. Each has its own special meaning.

 

One of the most important of these is: katargeo — bring to nought, put out of action: “Why doth it (the fruitless fig tree) cumber the ground?” (Luke 13:7). “Do we then make void the Law?” (Romans 3:31). This is the meaning in many a passage. Then what of Hebrews 2:14: “...that through death he might destroy him that hath the power of death, that is, the devil”? In the context, phrase after phrase alludes to the Passover: “the children...partakers... flesh and blood...took part...deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage”. The verbal contacts with Exodus 12 (LXX) are unmistakable. Then who was the “devil” who was “brought to nought”? Exodus 12:23, with its emphasis on “the destroyer”, the Almighty’s angel of death, provides the answer. This is probably the meaning in 1 Corinthians 15:26.

 

Another interesting example is 2 Thessalonians. 2:8: “The man of sin...whom the Lord shall bring to nought with the brightness of his coming.”

[Resource Manager]

Phtheiro means ‘to cause to corrupt’, as in “the old man which is corrupt according to the deceitful lusts” (Ephesians 4:22).

 

This is the obvious meaning in nearly every occurrence, e.g. “Evil communications corrupt good manners” (1 Corinthians 15:33). “If any man corrupt the temple of God, him shall God cause to corrupt” (1 Corinthians 3:13).

 

The intensive form of the word — diaphthera — is used only about the corruption of the grave, as in: “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption” (Acts 2:31). And there are the grim words of Revelation 11:18: God will “destroy them that destroy the earth.”

 

Kathaireo is a verb only once translated “destroy”: “When he (God) had destroyed seven nations in the land of Canaan” (Acts 13:19). Its normal meaning is “to take down”. Then was Paul here implying that the Canaanites were subjugated, and not destroyed? The noun kathairesis is used with this sense: “Mighty through God to the pulling down of strongholds” (2 Corinthians 10:4 — one of a running series of allusions here to the conquest of the Land under Joshua). In the same chapter Paul speaks of his apostolic authority “for edification, and not for your destruction”  (2 Corinthians 10:8) — a building up, not a pulling down.

 

Portheo describes devastation, as of the laying waste of a city or countryside, hence the name Parthians. It is in just this sense that it is used with regard to Saul’s persecution of the early church: Acts 9:21; Galatians 1:13. It serves as well as a long drawn-out description to depict the savagery and ruthlessness which the early brethren were called upon to endure.

 

The noun suntrimma occurs in Romans 3:16 only. Its verb suntribo always means to break or bruise.

[Resource Manager]

Determine, Appoint

 

Horizo is a word describing demarcation, Maring out distinctly. The horizon is the line which plainly separates sea and sky. Horia is the normal NT word for a boundary between two countries. In the NT the word intimates God’s purposeful pre-appointing of people and events. The birth and work and death and future kingship of Jesus are all covered by this expressive word (Romans 1:4; Acts 2:22; 10:42; 17:31). The same word, with elucidating prefix apo — aphorizo — is used three times about the pre-determined work of Paul (Galatians 1:15; Romans 1:1; Acts 13:2).

 

All the occurrences of horizo are used with respect to the wisdom or work of God. Only one passage does not immediately fall into this category. In Acts 11:29 the brethren “determined to send relief” to believers in Judaea suffering from famine. It is surely arguable that by the use of horizo here Luke     was neatly intimating that this decision was reached under direct divine guidance.

 

Similarly there are only two uses of aphorizo where divine action seems at first to be excluded. Jesus spake of men “separating you (the believers) from their company” (Luke 6:22). Perhaps he meant to imply that they would adopt this policy as under a mandate from heaven (the old bogey of block disfellowship), thinking they were doing God service. But what of Galatians 2:12? At Antioch Peter, influenced by the Judaists, “withdrew and separated himself” from the Gentile believers. It is conceivable that in this instance, happily corrected later on, Peter was influenced by the use of the same word applied in Exodus 19:12, LXX, to the exclusion of Israel before God brought them into His covenant (Exodus 24).

[Resource Manager]

Double Negatives

 

In modern English the double negative is a hallmark of poor education: “I didn’t do nothin’ ”. Not so in NT Greek, where it is particularly common in the gospels, thus:

 

Matthew	2.
Mark	9.
Luke	6  (and Acts 8:39; 26:26).
John	11  (and 1 John 1:5; Revelation 7:16).

 

Paul has two double negatives (1 Corinthians 8:2; 2 Corinthians 11:9). The rest of the NT not at all.

 

In three passages there are triple negatives: ‘You don’t know nothin’ no time!’ But the gospels can hardly be accused of crudity in this respect:

 

“There shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world, to this time, no nor ever shall be” (Matthew 24:21) — oud' ou me genetai.

 

“And nothing shall by any means hurt you” (Luke 10:19) — ouden...ou me.

 

Joseph’s tomb, “wherein never man before was laid” (Luke 23:53) — ouk... oudeis oupo.

[Resource Manager]

Dry, Wither

 

Xeros basically means “dry”, and hence “withered”. It has passed into poetic English: “the sere and yellow leaf”.

 

Simple examples of the first meaning: Israel came “through the Red Sea as by dry land” (Hebrews 11:29). “Ye (Pharisees) compass sea and land (literally: the dry) to make one proselyte” (Matthew 23:15).

 

The meaning “withered” is actually more common: e.g. with regard to the cursed fig tree withering away (Matthew 21:19,20). The seed in stony places has no root and withers away (Matthew 13:6).

 

The man with a withered hand (Mark 3:1) presents an interesting problem. This was no commonplace dermatitis, but the dry gangrene which can be a killer, and mostly was in those days; hence the Lord’s expostulation to his critics: “On the sabbath day is it lawful to do good or to do evil, to save life or to kill?” Healing that withered hand would save his life; refraining from an exercise of healing power would, in effect, sentence him to death — hence the strong language: “to do evil ... to kill”.

 

The Apocalypse in two interesting places uses the verb. In the Sixth Vial the water of Euphrates is “dried up” (Revelation 16:12). This seems to imply the river’s disappearance, and not its being reduced to a rivulet. Does this affect the interpretation of the symbolism?

 

Also, in 14:15 the harvest of the earth (or, of the Land) is to be gathered because it is dried up (AV: ripe). What does this imply about those whom this symbol represents?

[Resource Manager]

Dull, Slothful

 

“Seeing ye are dull of hearing (i.e. of understanding the gist of a valuable scripture)” (Hebrews 5:11). One lexicographer even translates it: “stupid”. The same word comes in one other place, a few verses further on. “That ye be not slothful, but followers of them that through faith and patience inherit the promises” (6:12). This shows that spiritual insight, and not merely academic cleverness, is the essential meaning. This throws a useful light on Proverbs 22:29, LXX: “The man diligent in his business...shall stand (in honour) before kings; he shall not stand (in humility) before mean men.” Few greater humiliations for an intelligent industrious man that to have to serve those who are stupid.

[Resource Manager]

E

 

Entirely, Certainly

 

Here the first of the meanings of pantos is closer to the right idea of wholly, utterly, by any means; e.g. “that I might by all means save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22). “Ye will surely (the whole lot of you) say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself” (Luke 4:23). “For sure (no doubt) this man (Paul) is a murderer” (Acts 28:4).

 

With the negative the idea is “certainly not” or “not at all”. Thus: “Are we (Jews) better than they (Gentiles)? No, in no wise (not at all!)” (Romans 3:9).

Eye Service

 

Opththalmodulos occurs only in two virtually identical passages: Ephesians 6:6; Colossians 3:22. It expresses in an eloquent polysyllable the attitude of a slave who knows his master’s eye is on him; and then, and only then, does he apply himself conscientiously.

[Resource Manager]

F

 

Fall

 

Pipto always means “fall, fall down”. It is a word marvellously free from ambiguity.

 

Antipipto comes once only, in Stephen’s speech: “Ye do alway resist the Holy Spirit” (Acts 7:51). There can be no doubt that he had Numbers 27:14 in mind: “Ye rebelled against my commandment in the desert of Zin, in the strife (antipiptein) of the congregation, to sanctify me at the water before their eyes.” Then Israel’s stubbornness led Moses into sin. There is perhaps a hint that Stephen feared his own indignation might lead him into a like sin. It had the makings of a parallel situation, for the Holy Spirit these men now resisted was the inspiration in himself.

 

Epipipto means precisely “fall upon”, in all its occurrences, except perhaps two. John 13:25: “John, falling upon Jesus’ breast...” This suggests that John had been sitting up, eager and alert. Now, in response to Peter’s gesture, he seeks a quiet intimation about the traitor from Jesus. Mark 3:10 says the crowd “fell upon” Jesus. It is a vivid description of a tremendous surge of enthusiasm.

 

Katapipto is “fall down”, and parapipto is “fall away from beside”. Peripipto means “to fall by chance, to happen upon” — falling into temptation (James 1:2), Paul’s ship happening to come into a place of raging seas (Acts 27:41), the man in the parable falling among thieves (Luke 10:30).

 

Prospipto, with one exception, describes the act of falling down before someone to seek aid. But Matthew 7:25 describes how the rain, floods, and winds “fell down before” the house founded on a rock. It suggests very neatly that all this had no effect whatever.

 

Anapipto means “sit down to a meal”. The only place where LXX uses it is in Genesis 49:9: “he stooped down, he couched as a lion.” It is tempting to associate this ancient prophecy of Messiah with Luke 11:37: “he went in, and sat down to meat” in the house of “a certain Pharisee”. It was in the character of a lion that the Lord accepted this invitation, for his table-talk was only biting invective (vv 39-44) against the palpable hypocrisy of these Pharisees.

 

Feeble-minded

 

Paul’s exhortation to “comfort the feeble-minded” (1 Thessalonians. 5:14) may suggest to the modern mind a condescending attitude to the dim-witted. Not so! Oligopsuchos (literally: little of soul) is best illustrated by examples from the LXX: “Of a contrite spirit” (Isaiah 57:15). It describes the “anguish of spirit” of Israelites in Egyptian bondage (Exodus 6:9). And NIV translates 1 Thessalonians 5:14: “Encourage the timid.”

[Resource Manager]

Fill, Full, Fulfil

 

Pleres means “full”.

 

Pleroo is an extremely common verb in both NT and LXX. Its simple meaning is “fill”; e.g. “I am filled with comfort” (2 Corinthians 7:4). “The house was filled with the odour of the ointment” (John 12:3).

 

Hence, also, the idea of “to complete”; e.g. “As John fulfilled his course” (Acts 13:25). “After these things were ended” (19:21). “When he had ended all these sayings” (Luke 7:1). So also of the joy of the Lord and his disciples being “fulfilled” (John 16:24; 17:13) in a mission fully accomplished.

 

An extremely common NT usage is for the fulfilment of OT Scriptures. Is it in this sense that Luke 9:31 is to be read? At the transfiguration Moses and Elias spoke to Jesus “of the exodus which he should accomplish (fulfil? — the rounding off of the type of the Exodus — or complete? — as in Acts 13:25).

 

One usage is of special importance. “The glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle” (Exodus 40:34,35). This filling of the sanctuary by the Shekinah Glory comes in plenty of passages, and leads on to Habakkuk’s great vision of “the earth (Land?) filled with the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (2:14).

 

Paul picks up this usage and applies it to the Glory of Christ filling the Church. In Ephesians and Colossians he cannot get away from this idea: “That ye might be filled with all the fulness of God” (Ephesians 3:19). “The fulness of him that filleth all (his ecclesias) in all (places), or by means of all (gifts)” (1:23).

 

Pleroma, “fulness”, is associated with this imagery a good deal. “In him (Jesus) dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9). “The Word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us; and we beheld his glory ... full of grace and truth...and of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace” (John 1:14,16; on the last phrase, see Against, anti). This use of pleroma is very important.

 

Anapleroo: two of the six occurrences of this word are specially interesting. Quoting prophetic words about the judicial blindness inflicted on Israel, Jesus said: “In them is fulfilled the prophecy...” (Isaiah 6:9; Matthew 13:14). The usual NT word for the fulfilling of prophecy is pleroo. But here, and here only, it is anapleroo, filled up. Then did Jesus choose this more emphatic word as an expression of his own indignation? Or was he implying: “That prophecy has had one fulfilment. Now here is another, even more significant”?

 

A similar word comes in Daniel 9:2, LXX: “the word of the Lord by Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolation of Jerusalem”. No further fulfilment beside this which Daniel now understood! It was “filled up”.

 

Paul’s unexpected tirade against Jewry (1 Thessalonians. 2:15,16) has the words: “to fill up their sins alway”. This is an unmistakable allusion to Genesis 15:16: “For the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full” (the Greek words are the same as in the LXX). Thus Paul writes off his own perverse nation as like the Amorites in their wickedness — indeed worse, for in Abram’s day Amorite iniquity was “not yet” full; but Israel’s rebellion is there “alway”, says Paul.

 

Paul learned this indignation from his Master, for it was a very angry Jesus who had blazed at the Pharisees in Jerusalem: “Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers!” (Matthew 23:32,33).

 

Sumpleroo presents no problem in Luke 8:23: “they were filled up (with water)” in the storm on Galilee, the sum here being intensive, as it so often is. There is more doubt in Acts 2:1, which should probably read as RV mg.: “when the day of Pentecost was being fulfilled”. Luke’s mind, well-stocked with OT knowledge, sees here a new and better Pentecost than what Jewry emphasized. The rabbis were probably correct in their assessment that the giving of the Law at Sinai began at Pentecost. Now the same wind and noise announce a new and better theophany in the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

 

There is real doubt in Luke 9:51, where — following the pattern of Acts 2:1 — it is perhaps correct to read: “And it came to pass as the days of his taking up (or, arrest; or, ascension) were being fulfilled...” But in that case, why “fulfilled”? If there were some suitable OT type or prophecy to point to, all would be well. But is there?

[Resource Manager]

Fool

 

There is a wide variety of fools in this world, and also in the Bible. The NT has four words (and their cognates) for “fool”. The OT has more than this. Learned men have laboured to establish fine distinctions of meaning between these various terms, but have not been wonderfully successful. In their ordinary everyday mode of usage, do people really discriminate between...stupid, silly, ass, simpleton, dullard, blockhead, daft, nitwit? And so also in the NT So whatever distinctions may be discerned between the four expressions considered here, it would be unwise ever to insist on them in any dogmatic fashion.

 

Anoetos means “unintelligent”.

 

Asunetos is “without understanding”.

 

Aphron means “senseless, silly, an empty-head”.

 

Moros suggests folly that is perverse, a folly verging on downright badness.

 

The important thing above all others, about these terms, is that they are all used with a sense which implies “blameworthy” (cp the various uses of “fool” in Proverbs, where folly is mostly culpable folly).

 

The “foolish Galatians” (anoetos) ought not to have been led astray. The two on the way to Emmaus — “fools, slow of heart” — ought to have been able to read their Bible to better purpose. And when Jesus healed the paralytic, the deputation of learned men present there were “filled with madness” (anoia), but they shouldn’t have been. Gladness, not madness.

 

Asunetos is not always blameworthy lack of understanding (e.g. Romans 10:19), but it mostly is. “Are ye also yet without understanding?” Jesus complained to the twelve. And in his great diatribe in Romans 1, Paul twice uses this term in a way which implies a good deal more than sorrowful head-shaking.

 

Similarly, when Paul takes up in detail the question of resurrection — “With what body do they come?” — his first answer is: “You silly” (aphron), implying: ‘You shouldn’t be asking a question of that character (1 Corinthians 15:36). Isn’t the answer obvious?’ Accordingly, his explanation is an explanation for children, but has been turned into learned nonsense by many of his expositors.

 

In that tremendous catalogue of listed qualifications in Christ — both academic and practical (2 Corinthians 11) — Paul six times uses this word aphron, aphrosune: ‘I’m a chump, talking like this.’

 

In modern English “moron” means someone with only half a brain. In the NT this is not the emphasis. Now and then moros is slanted that way. The gospel is “unto the Greeks foolishness” (1 Corinthians 1:23). But again, more often, there is emphatic moral reprehension implied: “Ye fools and blind” (Matthew 23:17,19). “Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of Gehenna fire” (Matthew 5:22). Perhaps in these places it is used as equivalent to the Hebrew moreh, rebel (Numbers 20:10; Deuteronomy 21:18,20). The foolish virgins were morai.

[Resource Manager]

Forbid

 

This is rather strange. The lexicons all say that koluo means “hinder, prevent”, but, 17 times out of 23, King James’ men put “forbid”, and judging from the context they were usually right. There is a difference between the two. You can tell a child to stop its naughtiness without necessarily taking steps to prevent a continuation of his bad behaviour.

 

The man casting out demons was forbidden but not hindered (Mark 9:38,39). One of the accusations against Jesus was that he forbad tribute to Caesar (Luke 23:2); but this, even if true, could not refer to anything more than teaching. No man would take practical steps to stop a man from paying his income tax. “Forbidding to marry” (1 Timothy 4:3) likewise refers to misguided teaching, and not to active hindrance. It may be right that Peter intended reference to the ass forbidding Balaam’s madness (2 Peter 2:16), but there was no literal forbidding in Numbers 22; only an uncomfortable hindering. This is the best example available of koluo signifying “prevent”.

 

There are one or two instances where the AV suggests “hinder”, but where the other meaning might be more happy. Paul wanted to get to Rome, “but was let hitherto” (Romans 1:13). Was he hindered by circumstances? or forbidden by the Holy Spirit? (Cp Acts 16:6.) Peter, telling about his vision of the great sheet, comments: “Who was I that I should withstand God?” (Acts 11:17) — or was he saying that he could not forbid God sending out the gospel to Gentiles? The case of the Ethiopian eunuch is interesting. He was, of course, not a Negro but a Jew domiciled in Ethiopia. His worship in the temple had been hindered, his participation in sacrifice and the service forbidden by his physical disability (Deuteronomy 23:1). Now, learning of forgiveness of sins in Christ, his immediate apprehensive reaction is: “What doth hinder me to be baptised?” In other words, “Does my disability forbid me this salvation as it forbad me sacrifice in Jerusalem? Is there a Scripture which forbids baptism to such as I?”

 

At Jordan, John’s forbidding of Jesus was specially emphatic and strenuous. Matthew 3:14 uses the intensive diakoluo. But of course John did not actively try to stop Jesus from going into the water.

[Resource Manager]

G

 

Give Up the Ghost

 

There is a perhaps excusable practice of substituting “Holy Spirit” for “Holy Ghost” when reading the King James Bible. In its turn this has brought about a similar switch from “gave up the ghost” to “gave up the spirit”, which is not so defensible. Ekpneo is, quite simply, “breath out”, i.e. “to breathe one’s last (breath)”. “Expire” is the exact (Latin) equivalent. Ekpsucho is, literally, “to out-soul” or “out-life”. To turn this into “give up the spirit” is both inexact and misleading. This practice should stop. Either let us have the good old English, which no congregation misunderstands, or else “expire” (this is perhaps best), or the plain unvarnished “die”.

Gnashing of Teeth

 

This expressive phrase comes 9 times in the NT and in 8 of them is coup-led with “weeping”. So this is usually taken as an intensive for irremediable uncontrollable sorrow. But no! The one place where “gnashing of teeth” occurs by itself (Acts 7:54) it describes the violent inexpressible anger for and hatred of Stephen shown by his Sanhedrin judges. Then this must be the meaning in the eight gospel descriptions of the anguish of those rejected in the Day of Judgment. “Weeping” certainly means intense sorrow. And in that Day “gnashing of teeth” means anger — with whom? and why? The only possible explanation is: anger with oneself, for having been such a fool as to have within one’s grasp or attainment the “blessed hope” of eternal redemption in Christ. To come so near to this and wilfully to reject it is the most arrant folly a human being is capable of. So here is the nearest that the teaching of Jesus comes to the mediaeval notion of everlasting torment in hell — only, mercifully, it will not be everlasting, for then “the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed.” No fate worse than that? (See Psalm 112:10.)

 

The original of Acts 7:54 is almost certainly the eloquent Psalm 37:12 (but see also Job 16:9).

[Resource Manager]

Groan

 

Stenos means “narrow”. It describes a pass shut in between cliffs, or a slim isthmus of land, or an ocean strait (the straits of Gibraltar) joining larger pieces of water. This idea of being shut in has passed into the English words “straitened” and “constraint”. Hence “the strait gate” (Matthew 7:13,14).

 

Similarly, in Greek, stenos has begotten stenazo, groan, and stenagmos, groaning. Always the idea is that of being shut in, under pressure or constraint.

 

The idea comes out excellently in the angel’s words to Moses: “I have heard the groaning of the children of Israel” (Exodus 6:5; Acts 7:34).

 

Paul appropriates this word to describe his own aspirations to be rid of the spiritual cramping which the “earthly house of this tabernacle” necessarily imposes on the new man in Christ: “For in this (tabernacle) we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon (more completely) with our house which is from heaven (the new creature)” (2 Corinthians 5:1,2).

 

“Groan” becomes a key word in a passage of similar import in Romans 8, where Paul has written about the New Creation waiting expectantly and looking earnestly for “the manifestation of the sons of God”. “The whole (new) creation groaneth and travaileth until now. And not only they (the brethren in general), but ourselves also (the leaders and elders of the ecclesias), which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves.” He goes on to emphasize this: “For we (the leaders) know not what we should pray for (on behalf of others) as is needful (or, necessary): but the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities (these deficiencies of wisdom and spiritual power), making intercession (for our brethren: ‘for us’ is not in the Greek text here) with groanings which it is not possible to utter (apart from the Spirit’s help)” (8:19,23,26).

 

Read this way, the passage comes down to earth. It is an allusion to the ecclesial leaders having the deficiencies of their mortality, in the guidance of the ecclesias, being made good by Holy Spirit power. Today, although the same inspiration does not operate, the duty to pray for the brethren as individuals is still there, but in general it goes shamefully ignored.

 

This word “groan” has exactly the same context in Hebrews 13:17: “...them that have the rule over you...for they watch for your souls...that they may do it with joy, and not with groaning”.

 

James’ exhortation is in contrast with this: “Grudge (groan) not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned” (5:9). Not this, but “groaning” in prayer on behalf of one another.

 

The one occasion when this word is used about Jesus is in his healing of the man who was deaf and almost dumb (Mark 7:34). In this miracle, and on hardly any other occasion, Jesus looked up to heaven and “sighed”, groaned. This doubtless was the offering of a special prayer. But why in this miracle and not in so many others? Because the Lord saw this deaf and dumb man as a figure of his chosen disciples who were spiritually like that, and making little progress. So the prayer was not just for the man, but also for a miracle of hearing and speech to be wrought on his disciples. From this point of view the miracle makes sense. It was an acted parable.

[Resource Manager]

In the next chapter a more intensive form of this word is used regarding Jesus (8:12). Pharisees pressed him for a sign from heaven. They knew they had a good attacking gambit here: “You say John was the promised Elijah prophet of Malachi 4 and yourself the Messiah? But when the first Elijah handed over to his greater successor there was a sign from heaven — the cherubim of glory. Then to prove your claims, give us the same sign! We’ve had enough of these trifling miracles of healing. Let the chariots of Israel appear, with the horsemen thereof.”

 

And indeed at a word Jesus could have given the sign they demanded. But instead he offered a heart-felt prayer for patience with these soul-less faithless men (lit.: he up-groaned in his spirit), and then abruptly he left them.

 

There is another word twice translated “groan”, in the account of the raising of Lazarus. “Jesus groaned in his spirit, and was troubled” (John 11:33); “therefore again groaning in himself Jesus cometh to the grave” (v 38). Clearly the translators have read these two passages as expressions of the intense grief of Jesus because of the death of Lazarus and the bereavement suffered by Martha and Mary.

 

But embrimaomai suggests indignation and even anger. It is a word to describe the snorting of a horse (very onomatopoetic!) or the roaring of a lion. This is certainly the idea when disciples “murmured” at Mary for her anointing of Jesus (Mark 14:5). No grief here, but only indignation. And in the only LXX occurrences (Lamentations 2:6; Daniel 11:30) this is certainly the meaning. So also in quite a few places in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus: e.g. Jeremiah 10:10; 15:17; Psalm 76:7.

 

Then why should Jesus be filled with indignation at the graveside of his friend. The context suggests anger at the hypocrisy of the Jewish leaders who “wept” along with the two sisters, and in the next moment indulged in sarcasm and criticism: “Behold how he loved him!...Could not this man...have caused that even this man (one so sick) should not have died?” (John 11:36,37). Jesus did well to be angry!

 

So also in connection with two other miracles. With both the leper (Mark 1:43) and the two blind men (Matthew 9:30) Jesus “straitly charged” (embrimaomai) that no one should be told. There is an intriguing picture here of the compassion of the Lord fighting a battle with his mistrust of human nature. Against his better judgment he healed them, and paid for it, for in both instances he was flagrantly disobeyed. The question as to why Jesus was so anxious in these instances to avoid publicity is another problem, not to be entered on here.

[Resource Manager]

H

 

Heretic, Heresy

 

These English words are simply transliterated Greek: hairetikos, hairesis, which in turn derive from a verb meaning “choose” (as in 2 Thessalonians. 2:13; Matthew 12:18). Hence, the essential idea is that of a “select group”. In the NT, “the sect of the Sadducees” (Acts 5:17), “the sect of the Pharisees...the straitest sect of our religion” (15:5; 26:5). The early believers were at first deemed to be just such another special group: “this sect...everywhere spoken against” (28:22).

 

The idea of false doctrine was not inherent in these words originally, but simply the notion of a separatist group. Thus, “the Way, which they call heresy” (24:14) is misleading; “which they regard as just another Jewish sect” would be nearer the right idea.

 

It was the influence of the great age of theological disputation, the fourth century, which changed the word “heresy” to its modern, highly denigratory, meaning. So the apostles’ references to “damnable heresies”, etc. (2 Peter 2:1; 1 Corinthians 11:19; Galatians 5:20) have been rightly rendered by the RV: “factions”. What Peter and Paul were denouncing were separatist splits in the church. Thus “the man that is an heretic” (Titus 3:10) is one who leads a faction in or out of the church. Strange that those who go in for this kind of thing assert stoutly that they are rejecting heresy and separating themselves from its defiling influence! In fact, such a faction leader is “condemned of himself" by his own overt act of separatism (but the man who gives loyalty to a false doctrine does not condemn himself — he is sure he is right!).

[Resource Manager]

I

 

Instruct, Chastise

 

Pais (Genesis: paidos) means a boy or lad, and paidion means a little child. So, fairly obviously, paideuo is the word for “teach, instruct”. Thus: “Moses was learned, instructed, in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). And Saul the Pharisee was “taught according to the perfect manner of the fathers (the rabbis)” (Acts 22:3).

 

But since in every generation except this sloppy 20th-century thorough education has necessarily had to be accompanied or enforced by discipline — paideuo also has as a distinct meaning: “chastise”. In this sense it is used a good deal in the NT, especially in Hebrews: “Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth” (12:6,7,10). “As many as I love I rebuke and chasten” (Revelation 3:19).

 

But what foolishness it would be to carry this meaning through to 2 Timothy 2:25: “In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves”. Not by any stretch of imagination could ‘chastising’ be substituted here.

 

Another intriguing, and horrifying, example is Pilate’s repeated: “I will therefore chastise him (Jesus), and let him go” (Luke 23:16,22). Evidently the governor meant: ‘Just to teach him a lesson that he is to keep out of trouble, I will set him free after he has had a beating.’ And what a beating, with the dreaded Roman flagellum tearing his back to shreds!

Instruments, Weapons, Armour

 

Hopla is Greek for a piece of equipment. In the Bible it is used only in the plural for war-equipment, i.e. weapons or armour. Complete equipment is indicated in Ephesians 6:11,13 and Luke 11:22 for all weapons and defensive armour (pan-oplia): “the whole armour of God”.

 

In most places hopla is used in a sense easy to understand. Peter has an eloquent variant of it. Using the verb, he exhorts: “Arm yourselves with the same mind (as Christ was equipped with in his sufferings)” (1 Peter 4:1), but it is a mental armour: “the same mind”. Similarly, Paul urges: “Neither yield ye your members as weapons to fight an unrighteous war for that evil cap-tain Sin, but yield your members as weapons of righteousness under God’s own leadership” (Romans 6:13).

 

In every occurrence the NT use of this figure is both easy to perceive and vivid. (See also on Warfare.)

[Resource Manager]

L

 

Light, Lightness

 

The word elaphros probably derives from the Greek word for “deer”. Certainly one of its usages is that of light, nimble movement like that of a deer.

 

Here, then, is one of the sayings of Christ which few of his disciples really believe: “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matthew 11:30). And Paul insists that “our light affliction is but for a moment” (2 Corinthians 4:17). These two passages put the service of Christ in a different perspective.

 

And perhaps all the more emphatically when it is realised that in both places there may be an allusion to the cherubim-chariot of the Lord, as described in Ezekiel 1; for there the same word comes (in LXX) in an expression which has no counterpart in AV: “and their feet were winged, and sparks like gleaming brass, and their wings were light” (v 7).

 

Jesus appealed: “Take my yoke upon you...for I am meek and lowly in heart...my yoke is easy...”, using the figure of two labouring oxen. But the cherubim figures in Ezekiel 1 are essentially winged oxen (“straight feet... a calf’s foot”; and Ezekiel 10:14 uses “cherub” instead of “ox”). Thus, “my  burden is light” is seen to have a double meaning — with allusion also to the burden of prophecy, for this is the function of the cherubim chariot, to convey the word of the Lord with power: “His word runneth very swiftly” (Psalm 147:15).

 

So also Paul in 2 Corinthians 4:17, where he links “light affliction” with “an eternal weight of glory...the things that are not seen (by ordinary men)”. Again, the word “weight” suggests the burden of prophecy or preaching.

 

These are some possibilities of exposition opened up by the word elaphros, which occurs hardly anywhere else.

[Resource Manager]

Look, See, Behold

 

There are four main words of fairly common (or very common) usage in this category. Besides these, there is a large collection of odds and ends, each with its own particular meaning.

 

The most frequently used word is blepo and its cognates. This is just the ordinary word for “see”. Not a few times it is used with specific reference to the eyes. “Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Revelation 3:18). “When his (Saul’s) eyes were opened, he saw no man” (Acts 9:8). It is used five times of the blind man who was sent to Siloam to get his sight (John 9).

 

In this ordinary sense of seeing, blepo is used over and over again.

 

But it also goes beyond that, to cover mental contemplation or discernment. “Ye see your calling, brethren...” (1 Corinthians 1:26). “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind” (Romans 7:23). “Behold Israel after the flesh” (1 Corinthians 10:18).

 

At times this meaning becomes even stronger. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief” (Hebrews 3:12). “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Colossians 2:8).

 

Anablepo is used almost entirely (20 times) of a man receiving his physical sight. In these cases the translation sometimes attempted: “he looked up”, is over-literal. The prefix is simply intensive. The only exceptions to this are when Jesus is spoken of as looking up to heaven in prayer (Mark 7:34; 8:24), or looking up into the tree to speak to Zacchaeus (Luke 19:5). Luke 21:1 is certainly intensive: “Jesus looked up (i.e. took special note of the fact), and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.” The same is probably true in Mark 16:4: “When they (the women) looked (anablepo), they saw (theoreo) that the stone was rolled away.” Or is Mark intending to suggest here that they were like blind persons receiving their sight? Or were they at the foot of a slope, looking up to the site of the tomb?

 

Diablepo comes in only one place: “Then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5).

 

Emblepo means to “look intently”. Perhaps “study” is a good translation here. “Behold the fowls of the air” (Matthew 6:26) means: ‘Study the life of the birds.’ So also: “Jesus beholding him (studying his face intently) loved him” (Mark 10:21). And after Peter’s denials, “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (Luke 22:61). Here a better translation would be the strictly literal: “looked into Peter”. At the ascension, the disciples stood “gazing up into heaven” (emblepo again). Saul, confronted with the glory of Christ, peered intently in his effort to make out more detail (Acts 22:11).

 

All the dozen occurrences of emblepo are worth “emblepping”!

 

There is also periblepo which means, quite literally, “look round about”. In all its seven occurrences it is translated in precisely this way.

 

Next come two related words, theaomai and theoreo. Basically, they both mean “to gaze at a spectacle”. Here is the origin of the English word “theatre”. When the Ephesian mob rushed into the “theatre”, the Greek word is theatron. Its other occurrence is in 1 Corinthians 4:9: “we (apostles) are made a spectacle unto the world”. Cp also the use of the verb theatrizomai in Hebrews 10:33: “Ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions.”

[Resource Manager]

All the occurrences of theaomai and theoreo are worth tracking down. In one after another there is the idea of staring intently at something of special interest or unusual character. “Which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life” (1 John 1:1) — here is an allusion to disciples staring at Christ crucified, and handling him risen from the dead. At the trial of the adulterous woman, Jesus stared when he found that all her accusers had gone (John 8:10). Before the Lord called Levi the publican, he stood for a while and watched him at his work (Luke 5:27). “Now consider (take a good look at the circumstances regarding) how great this man, Melchizedek, was...” (Hebrews 7:4). The natives of Malta stared in amazement when Paul suffered no harm from snake bite (Acts 28:6). There are many more such examples.

 

There is also another specialised meaning of these two words in classical Greek, and this creeps into NT usage here and there — it is the idea of an official deputation to inspect the Greek games or to make enquiry at an oracle. Neither of these is to be expected in the NT, yet something remarkably close is to be traced in certain passages.

 

The use of theoreo in Matthew 28:1 suggests that the women went to “see the sepulchre” of Jesus by formal arrangement with the disciples. The same word in John 12:19, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing?”, probably implies that the Pharisees at the triumphal entry of Jesus were officially deputed to keep an eye on him. Similarly, Luke recounts how the chief priests “saw the boldness of Peter and John” (Acts 4:13), the emphasis is on the fact that it was an official enquiry (so also in 3:16). “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see?” challenged Jesus concerning the investigation about John the Baptist. Again the word is precisely right, referring to an official deputation.

 

In the parable of the wedding garment, “the king came in to see the guests” (Matthew 22:11). Here once more is the idea of an official inspection (and it foreshadows the day of judgement). Similarly Paul when he wrote to the Romans: “I trust to see you in my journey” (Romans 15:24). When Paul’s adversaries “saw him in the temple” and raised a riot, the word implies that they had been posted there officially for that very purpose.

 

The two related but distinct meanings of these words can make a detailed concordance study really fruitful.

[Resource Manager]

Anatheoreo, in Acts 17:23, intensifies the idea of Paul’s staring (in disgust, indignation, pity?) at the altars of Athens, or, in Hebrews 13:7, of sustained contemplation of the fine example set by good men.

 

Another very common word for “see” is horao, with its related optomai from which comes our “optic”. The first and obvious meaning here is that of seeing with the naked eye. This is so simple and straightforward that it hardly needs to be illustrated. But this word is appropriated very often in the NT to describe the seeing of a vision granted by God. In an astonishing number of instances there is a divine element about the experience. In  John’s writings there is no exception to this.

 

Out of sixty passages, there are (it is believed) only four which do not obviously have this specialised meaning. The following three are worth further scrutiny.

 

Gallio contemptuously chasing Paul’s Jewish adversaries from his judgement seat: “If it be a question of words and names and of your law, see ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:15). Gallio was cleverly and sarcastically telling them: ‘This is beyond me; go and get a divine revelation about this question.’

 

When Paul was bidding farewell to the elders at Ephesus: “...and now I know that ye shall see my face no more” (Acts 20:25).

 

Hebrews 13:23: “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom if he come shortly, I will see you.” What a neat way of implying: ‘Your visit, with him, will be as good a tonic as an angelic visitation.’

 

Two other seeming exceptions to the usual meaning of “divine vision” meet the reader in Matthew 27. Pilate washed his hands of further decision about the Nazarene. The AV: “see ye (to it)” would imply again the same idea. But the literal reading is: “ye shall see,” surely implying: ‘You, and not I, will have to face a divine judgment for this’ (v 24). And the same idea, sardonically expressed, is probably there in v 4 also.

According to instructions, the three disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration “told no man any of those things which they had seen” (Luke 9:36). The same word describes the shipmasters and the rest seeing the smoke of the burning of “Babylon” (Revelation 18:18) — appropriately because the judgement is from God (17:17). “Ye see,” says James concerning Abraham’s offering of Isaac, because he has been directing attention to the inspired record (James 2:24). So also Hebrews 8:5: “See...that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount” — again the word has been well chosen.

 

There is also the fairly obvious use of this word where physical sight is not involved. “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Matthew 16:6). “See that none render evil for evil” (1 Thessalonians. 5:15). Paul refers to “as many as have not seen my face” at Colosse (2:1).