α β γ δ

hágios [holy], hagiázō [to make holy, sanctify], hagiasmós [sanctification], hagiótēs [sanctification], hagiōsýnē [sanctification]

In biblical Greek the hag- family, which embraces the hagnós group, is most extensive and enjoys a very significant history.

hágios.

A. In Greek and Hellenlstic Writings. The old Greek term hágos denotes an object of awe, the adjective hagḗs means “clean,” and the verb házō has the sense “to shrink from.” hágios is used of sanctuaries (“sacred”) and later of gods and religious practices, though it becomes common only in the Hellenistic period.

B. The Use of Holiness in the OT. Originally Canaanitic, the root qds has a basic cultic reference. The ground around the burning bush is holy (Ex. 3:5), as are Gilgal (Josh. 5:15), the temple (Is. 64:10), days (Is. 58:13), offerings (1 Sam. 21:5–7), and tithes (Dt. 26:13). The adjective may be applied to persons and even to God; this produces an ethical association. The verb is versatile, denoting the expressing of a state of holiness (Is. 5:16), or setting in a state of holiness (Ezek. 36:23), or declaring holy (Ex. 19:10), or entering a state of holiness (Josh. 3:5), or being dedicated.

C. The History of the Term in the OT.

1. Preprophetic Period. The word comes to be connected with God’s name, which is the expression of his nature, and thus takes on a moral meaning (cf. Am. 4:2). Profaning God’s name even cultically is a sin (cf. Lev. 20:3; Am. 2:7). The name, which cultic invocation acknowledges, gives holiness a personal

dimension. But it also fuses it with divinity in contrast to creatureliness. God’s holiness expresses his divine perfection. His self-revelation is his self-sanctification (Lev. 10:3 etc.). As God, however, dwells among his people through the covenant at Sinai (Ex. 24:4ff.), Israel is to be a people holy to him (Dt. 7:6). She must shun other cults and worship God alone (Dt. 6:4), allowing no place for pagan shrines and their cultic licentiousness (Dt. 23:18). Cultic purity demands personal purity. The ark as the place of God’s presence fills the sanctuary with holiness; in connection with it God is called the “holy God” (1 Sam. 6:20). War and warriors are sanctified through the ark’s presence (Num. 10:35–36), as is the camp (Dt. 23:15).

2. Prophetic Theology.

a. The prophet Hosea develops a contrast between the holy God and sinful humanity (cf. Hos. 11:9). Israel has followed pagan cults and thus come into collision with the holy God (14:1). But by destroying false holiness the holy God gives new life (14:8) in his inconceivable love; thus love is incorporated into the divine holiness even in its opposition to unholy human nature.

b. For Isaiah the holiness of God is his secret essence. This evokes holy awe (Is. 6), a sense of moral uncleanness which must be purged (6:7). God himself effects the atonement. Its goal is that the redeemed, too, will be holy (4:3). Though Israel is in herself unholy, God has bound himself to her. He may thus be called the “Holy One of Israel.” His holiness consumes what is unholy, but in grace he establishes a remnant as his holy people.

c. In the later chapters of Isaiah the Holy One of Israel is more fully manifested as the God of redemption rather than judgment. God is incomparable (40:25). In his holiness lies his mystery (45:15). This mystery is redemption; hence salvation and holiness are now firmly related (45:18ff. etc.). God’s holy ways differ from ours, but for this very reason his holiness issues in a new creation.

3. The Postexilic Period.

a. Two intermingling streams may be seen here, the priestly-cultic and the prophetic-ethical. The law enshrines the former; it endows priests and people with cultic holiness. The Psalms belong to this sphere, but show that it could include a strong spiritual element. Israel is holy because the Holy Spirit is present within her (cf. Ps. 51:11).

b. The apocryphal writings maintain the cultic tradition with frequent references to the holy city, temple, altar, sabbath, garments, candlestick, oil, swords, books, priesthood, people, and covenant. But God, heaven, the angels, and the Spirit are also holy. The LXX translators, in choosing the Gk. hágios for the Hebrew term, seem to have tried to give it a distinctive Hebrew nuance, e.g., by using tó hágion or tá hágia for the temple and avoiding hierón.

4. Philo and Josephus. Philo adopts the cultic usage of the OT but allegorizes it. In so doing he relates holiness to alien philosophical concepts, e.g., when he calls heaven (the macrocosm), or the mind (the microcosm), or the soul “holy” (largely in the sense of “lofty”). Josephus uses hágios sparingly (e.g., in describing the cultus), applying it most often to the temple (also the land). He adopts this course out of consideration for readers to whom hágios etc. must have sounded strange. [D. PROCKSCH, I, 88–97]

D. The Concept of Holiness in Rabbinic Judaism.

a. The rabbis follow OT usage in calling the temple, priests, sacrifices, etc. holy, but with no precise definition. Sometimes systematization is attempted. In a new use the hair of Nazirites and the body can be called holy. “To dedicate to oneself a wife” is a phrase for “to marry.”

b. God is holy as Judge and King. But he is known as such by those who draw near in a trust sustained by fear. He is thus the Holy One in Sirach, Enoch, and later rabbinic texts. God’s Spirit is also called holy, but above all his name, which led to the replacement of the proper name as well as to the expression “to hallow the name” with God or Israel as subject. Hallowing the name by keeping the law became a chief motive of ethical action.

c. Scripture is holy as God’s word, especially the law, though the phrase “Holy Scripture” is infrequent. Reading Scripture is a sacred action. The scrolls, too, are sacred, and writing them is a holy task. The hands must be washed after touching the scrolls.

d. Those who keep the law, and the righteous of the OT, are also holy. Holiness consists negatively of separation, i.e., from the Gentiles, from sin, and especially from licentiousness, so that holy and chaste

came to be largely synonymous. [K. G. KUHN, I, 97–100]

E. hágios in the NT.

l. The Holiness of God. On an OT basis, holiness is here seen to be God’s innermost nature (Rev. 4:8). It embraces omnipotence, eternity, and glory, and evokes awe. In John, God is the holy Father (17:11). The holy God calls for holy people (1 Pet. 1:15–16). God’s name, i.e., his revealed but distinct person, is to be hallowed (Mt. 6:9; Lk. 11:12).

2. Jesus Christ as hágios. Jesus is seldom called holy (cf. Mk. 1:24; Lk. 1:35; Jn. 6:69; Rev. 3:7; Acts 3:14). But the description is ancient and significant. In Luke it rests on the virgin birth and his being a bearer of the Spirit, confronting evil spirits and inaugurating the pneumatic age. He is confessed as the holy one in Jn. 6:69, sanctified by God and dispensing anointing with the Spirit. In Revelation he has the same predicates of holiness and truth as God. As the holy servant in Acts he has a cultic mission as the holy sacrifice offered vicariously for others. In Hebrews he is priest as well as victim, going into the antitype of the holy of holies for us and achieving our expiatory sanctification (hagiázein) (9:25ff.; 2:11; 9:13).

3. The Holy Spirit.

a. The Spirit’s holiness is inseparable from Christ’s.

b. The Spirit is active at the birth and especially the baptism of Christ, which initiates the age of the Spirit. After the resurrection Christ imparts the Spirit to the disciples (Pentecost). The Spirit is now manifest, so that resistance is unforgivable. Baptism is now in the Spirit’s name as well as the Father’s and the Son’s.

c. Luke especially likes the phrase “holy Spirit” in both the definite and indefinite form. He wants to distinguish God’s Spirit from other spirits and stresses the charismatic rather than the cultic element.

d. Paul has a more personal emphasis and maintains but spiritualizes the cultic aspect, e.g., the church or Christians as a holy temple indwelt by the Spirit (Eph. 2:21; 1 Cor. 6:19; cf. Rom. 15:16; 2 Cor. 13:13; 1 Th. 4:8). Baptism and the eucharist (1 Cor. 12:13) are signs of the cultic community denoting its fellowship with Christ’s death and resurrection.

4. The Holiness of the ekklēsía. Again on an OT basis, the Christian fellowship is holy as a temple of the Spirit centered on Christ as the holy servant. As a holy people, Christians are to be holy (1 Pet. 2:9; 1:16). They are sanctified by Christ (1 Cor. 1:2). In him Gentiles are now numbered among the saints (Eph. 2:19). The churches as well as the church are holy (1 Cor. 14:33). Holiness is by the calling of grace in Christ (Rom. 1:6; 1 Cor. 1:24; Phil. 1:1), not by nature. The holy people has a divine inheritance (Eph. 1:18; Col. 1:12; cf. Deuteronomy).

5. The Holy Life of Christians. Christians are to offer themselves as holy sacrifices (Rom. 12:1). As a result the cultic impinges on the ethical, and purity is stressed (cf. Mt. 5:8). The mutual service of love gives expression to this (Gal. 5:13; Rom. 15:25; 16:2). The holy kiss seals it (1 Cor. 16:20). Those sanctified in Christ sanctify their family circles (1 Cor. 7:14). Holiness here has a moral content and stands opposed to impurity, especially in Gentile sexuality (Acts 10:14; Eph. 5:5). Its cultic reference keeps it from being mere morality. Holiness in this sense is a principle of judgment (1 Cor. 6:2). Believers will judge—hence faith may itself be called holy (Jude 20).

6. The Ecclesia triumphans.

a. The holy angels belong to the church triumphant (Mk. 8:38 etc.); they will return with Christ (cf. 1 Th. 3:13, though this verse may refer to, or include, departed saints, cf. 2 Th. 1:10).

b. Christians also belong to it as the saints (Rev. 14:12; 17:6). The holy will be holy still (Rev. 22:11)—not self-sanctified, but sanctified by God. Holiness is a central determination of Christians as already they worship God, reconciled by Christ’s holy offering and constituted the temples of the Holy Spirit.

hagiázō. This is mostly a biblical term and means “to consecrate” or “to sanctify.” God is asked to sanctify his name (Mt. 6:9). Jesus sanctifies himself (Jn. 17:19) and his church (Eph. 5:26)—a divine

work. The Father sanctifies Christ (Jn. 10:36; cf. 17:19) with a view to sanctifying the disciples (17:19). The latter takes place through Christ’s reconciling work (Heb. 2:11; 10:10). For Paul we are thus “the sanctified” (1 Cor. 1:2), and this is a state (1 Cor. 6:11). The sanctified have an inheritance (Acts 20:32). They are to sanctify Christ in their hearts (1 Pet. 3:15), being holy in conduct as Christ makes them holy by indwelling them (1:16).

hagiasmós. Deriving from the verb, this term means “sanctifying.” It is rare in the LXX and occurs in the NT only in the epistles. Only a holy person can “sanctify,” so divine sanctifying precedes any process of sanctifying (cf. Rev. 22:11). It is God’s will (1 Th. 4:3) and finds expression in life (4:4). The body must be yielded to sanctification (Rom. 6:19). Christ and the Spirit effect it (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Th. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:2). It implies conduct in 1 Tim. 2:15 and is a moral goal in Heb. 12:14. It is thus the moral result of Christ’s atoning work.

hagiótēs. This word denotes “sanctification.” It is an essential attribute of God that we are to share (Heb. 12:10; cf. 1 Pet. 1:15). In 2 Cor. 1:12 the link with “sincerity” causes difficulty if both refer to God; hence some prefer the reading “simplicity and sincerity,” which would confine hagiótēs to Hebrews.

hagiōsýnē. This rare word denotes sanctifying as a quality. In the NT only Paul uses it (Rom. 1:4; 2 Cor. 7:1; 1 Th. 3:13). In Rom. 1:4 it refers to a different principle of life from that of “the flesh” (v. 3), i.e., divine, not natural. In 2 Cor. 7:1 and 1 Th. 3:13 the divinely effected condition is to find completion

in moral dedication in the form of purity. [O. PROCKSCH, I, 100–115]

agnoéō [to be ignorant], agnóēma [ignorance, error], ágnoia [ignorance], agnōsía [ignorance], ágnōstos [unknown]

agnoéō, agnóēma. Used with all the nuances of knowledge, these words denote “being mistaken” or “in error” as the character of action (cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). Ignorance of self is meant in Heb. 5:2. “Not recognizing” in 1 Cor. 14:38 means rejection (“not being recognized” by God). Not knowing God is meant in Rom. 10:3, and Christ in 1 Tim. 1:13. This ignorance entails disobedience (Rom. 10:3); hence it is not just pardonable lack of information but a failure to understand that needs forgiveness.

ágnoia, agnōsía.

1. Philosophical and Legal Usage. ágnoia, while used of specific ignorance, could also denote ignorance in general as the opposite of wisdom as well as knowledge (cf. Stoicism). Ignorance of self and of God (also of evil) would be included, so that ignorance itself would then be the true evil. In legal usage ignorance of the law is the main point; cf. Lev. 22:14 in the LXX (extended to “unintentional sin” in Lev. 5:18). Philo opposes ágnoia to epistēmē (cf., e.g., On Drunkenness 154–61). ágnoia can also be equated with heathenism (Wis. 14:22; Josephus Antiquities 10.142). Among the rabbis knowledge of the law is a presupposition of piety. The legal use recurs in Hermas Similitudes 5.7.3. “In ignorance” is used in the NT only in Acts 3:17; the idea of ignorance of God may be found in Acts 17:30; cf. Eph. 4:17–18; Ignatius Ephesians 19.3; Justin Apology 61.10. ágnōsía (Job 35:16 LXX; 1 Pet. 2:15) has the same force as ágnoia.

2. The Dualistic Usage of Hellenism. Both words occur in Gnosticism for lack of the knowledge essential to salvation. We suffer from this prior to revelation and through bondage to the senses. The NT adopts this usage (cf. Acts 17:30 etc.) but with different ideas of sin and grace.

ágnōstos. Found in the NT only in Acts 17:23, this word denotes “unknown” or “unrecognized.” The phrase “unknown God” does not occur in the OT, though the heathen do not know God (Ps. 79:6) and Israel does not know other gods (Hos. 13:4). The rabbis think the Gentiles have some knowledge of God but call God’s ways unknown. Neither the Greek nor the Jewish world believes God is unknowable,

though Plato thinks he is inaccessible to the senses. An altar to the unknown God would simply imply uncertainty as to the god to which it should apply. Scepticism, of course, questions all knowledge, and Gnosticism thinks God can be known only supernaturally, but Socrates, Aristotle, and the Stoics accept God’s knowability. [R. BULTMANN, I, 115–21]

hagnós [pure], hagnízō [to purify], hagneía [purity], hagnótēs [purity], hagnismós [purification]

hagnós. Originally meaning “what awakens awe,” this word for “pure” is used cultically in the LXX (2 Macc. 13:8), though also for the inner disposition (Prov. 20:9) and for chastity (4 Macc. 18:7–8). Uncommon in the NT, it signifies “moral purity” (1 Jn. 3:3; 1 Tim. 5:22; Jms. 3:17), “innocence” (2 Cor. 7:11), and “chastity” (2 Cor. 11:2).

hagnízō. Used in the LXX for “cultic qualification,” this term occurs in Jn. 11:55 and Acts 21:24; 24:18 for cultic purifying as practiced by Jews and Jewish Christians. It can then relate to moral purifying, as in Jms. 4:8; 1 Pet. 1:22; 1 Jn. 3:3.

hagneía. This denotes cultic purity in the OT, moral purity in 1 Tim. 4:12; 5:2.

hagnótēs. This term, not used in classical Greek or the LXX, denotes moral purity in 2 Cor. 6:6. hagnismós. This word signifies cultic purification (Num. 8:7) or dedication (Num. 5:5) in connection

with a vow (Acts 21:26). [F. HAUCK, I, 122–24]

agorázō [to buy, redeem], exagorázō [to redeem]

A. The Sacral Manumission of Slaves. As on Delphic inscriptions, this is a legal form of self-manumission whereby the god purchases the slave, using the slave’s own money for the transaction. There was no sacral redemption in the OT temple, but manumission took place in the synagogue and church, and the Jewish world applied the idea of redemption religiously.

B. agorázō.

1. Meaning “to buy,” this word is used by Paul in 1 Cor. 6:20; 7:23 to signify our being redeemed (and therefore free except in relation to God). In Rev. 5:9 the Lamb has bought us for God with his blood.

2. According to Rev. 3:18 real instead of sham gold is to be bought, i.e., from Christ.

C. exagorázō.

1. Not used in the LXX, this term refers in the NT to Christ’s redeeming work, the stress now being on purchase to freedom from the law (Gal. 4:1ff.). God, of course, pays the price himself in Christ, meeting the law’s claim and thus giving true freedom through justification by faith (Gal. 3:24–25). Redemption is needed because the law is God’s holy ordinance and eternally valid. Hence in the transition to freedom sinfulness is exposed and forgiveness is experienced in Christ. Yet redemption is not a transactional “buying” of God’s favor. While Christ undoubtedly obeys and serves God, God himself acts in him on our behalf and toward us. Hence redemption is not to be severed from the “we” who by it are put back in fellowship with God by faith.

2. The word means “to buy up” in Eph. 5:16; Col. 4:5, i.e., “make the most” of the time (kairós), or

the opportunities it offers. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 124–28]
agrypnéō → egeírō, grēgoréō

agōgḗ [manner of life], parágō [to pass by], proágō [to precede], proságō [to approach], prosagōgé [access]

agōgḗ. Used only in 2 Tim. 3:10, this word denotes “orientation,” hence “manner of life.” In ordinary parlance the word came to have special reference to education or its results, i.e., breeding, behavior. This may well be the background of the use in 2 Tim. 3:10 (cf. “ways” in I Cor. 4:17).

parágō. This is found only intransitively in the NT, e.g., in Mt. 9:9, mostly with reference to Jesus “passing by” (perhaps sometimes introductory, e.g., in Mk. 1:16). The sense in 1 Cor. 7:31 (cf. 1 Jn. 2:17) is “to pass away” (cf. Mt. 5:18). The present tense shows that the great eschatological change is already taking place. If schḗma means “role,” the idea would be that its “part” is played.

proágō. Used both transitively and intransitively, this refers to Christ’s “preceding” (Mk. 10:32) and to the preceding of prophecy (1 Tim. 1:18) and the commandment (Heb. 7:18. The sense may just be chronological in the two latter cases, while Christ obviously demands “following” or discipleship. In 2 Jn. 9 “going astray” is a suggested alternative, but perhaps the opponents thought of themselves as “go-aheads” or progressives (cf. 1 Cor. 4:6).

proságō. This is used transitively three times and intransitively once. The main interest arises with the cultic use in 1 Pet. 3:18. a. A general meaning is “to offer,” “to sacrifice,” in both secular Greek and the LXX (cf. Ex. 29:20). Yet Num 8:9–10 etc. suggest the more specific sense of “presenting for dedication.” b. There is also a legal use, e.g., in Ex. 21:6; Acts 16:20 (bringing for judgment); the suggestion here is that Christ leads us to the judgment which is also grace. This merges into the ceremonial sense of “presenting” at court. c. Since God takes the initiative in all this, another idea is that God “brings” us to his side, i.e., reconciles us (cf. Num. 16:5). d. These meanings are not contradictory or artificially read in, but point to the richness of God’s saving work, which can be grasped only as different aspects are set alongside or superimposed.

prosagōgḗ. Found three times (Rom. 5:2; Eph. 2:18; 3:12), this word has the same range as proságein, but some take it transitively as “introduction,” others intransitively as “approach.” In Christ, however, this is immaterial, since we “move toward” God as we are “led.” “access” is perhaps the best rendering so

long as we recall that Christ himself is our access (the door, Jn. 10). [K. L. SCHMIDT, I, 128–34]

agón [conflict, fight], agōnízomai [to fight], antagōnízomai [to strive against], epagōnízomai [to contend], katagōnízomai [to subdue], agōnía [conflict]

This group, rare in the LXX and NT, is used frequently in relation to the stadium. agón, agōnizomai, etc.

A. Hellenistic Usage.

a. agṓn means place of assembly, then place of contest, then contest, then conflict. It is often applied figuratively to life as a struggle with a prize (Plutarch, Philo; Wis. 4:2). agōnízomai means “to carry on a conflict, contest, debate, or legal suit,” and can also be figurative.

b. The imagery of the contest also occurs in Hellenistic Judaism, e.g., in Philo On Husbandry 112; cf. the martyrs in 4 Macc. 17:10ff. and Job in Test. Job 4 and 27.

B. agṓn, agōnízomai in the NT.

a. Striving for the goal is the first thought here (Lk. 13:24). Exertion (1 Th. 2:2) and a concentration of forces (Col. 1:29; cf. 2 Tim. 4:7–8) are both necessary.

b. Striving also calls for denial (1 Cor. 9:25), the setting aside of provisional ends (1 Cor. 9:27). This is not asceticism but athletic discipline (2 Tim. 4:5). It is not contempt for the world but a right ordering of priorities.

c. Little reference is made to antagonists, but obstacles and dangers have to be faced (cf. 1 Th. 2:2; 2 Cor. 7:5; Jude 3).

d. Martyrdom is the final conflict (cf. 2 Tim. 4:6; Heb. 10ff.)

e. The goal is not just our salvation but that of others too (Col. 1:29–30). Paul struggles “for” the church (Col. 2:1–2; cf. 4:12–13). Prayer is crucial here (Col. 4; Rom. 15). So is unity in the Spirit (Phil. 1:27ff.). The gospel brings conflict to the entire Christian life, but as we pray and stand together the sign of the cross is a sign of victory.

C. agṓn, agōnízomai in the Early Church. Pauline ideas recur in 1 Clement. Barnabas summons us to conflict (4.11). 2 Clement depicts the contest in the arena (7). Martyrdom and asceticism are later the leading forms of conflict, especially martyrdom (Tertullian To the Martyrs 3).

agōnía. This word means “conflict,” “tension,” “focusing of powers.” In Lk. 22:44 it denotes concern for victory before the decisive struggle (cf. Lk. 12:49–50).

→ athléō [E. STAUFFER, I, 134–40]

Adám [Adam]

A. Early Christian Usage.

I. Adam as the First Man. 1 Tim. 2:13–14 appeals to Adam as the first man when arguing for a right man/woman relation on the grounds that Adam was made first and Eve was deceived first.

2. The NT typology Adam/Christ. Adam is Christ’s antitype in Mk. 1:13; Rom. 5:12–21; 1 Cor. 15:22, 45–49. In Mk. 1:13 Christ reverses Adam’s fall and reopens paradise (cf. the genealogy in Lk. 3:38). Paul uses the typology to show the universality of grace (Rom. 5:12–21), to establish the certainty of resurrection (1 Cor. 15:22), and to indicate that we will have spiritual bodies (1 Cor. 15:44ff.; cf. Gen. 2:7 LXX). With respect to our earthly bodies we are like the first Adam, with respect to our resurrection bodies we will be like the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:48).

B. The Origin of the Typology Adam/Christ. The rabbis do not call the Redeemer the last Adam, but the ideas occur that the first man was ideal, that the Messiah will restore the glory lost at the fall, and that the Messiah is preexistent (cf. Philo). Paul adopts these ideas but gives them an eschatological thrust: Adam is the head of this aeon, but Christ is at the head of the new aeon of God’s perfect and redeemed creation.

→ huiós toú anthrṓpou [J. JEREMIAS, I, 141–43]

adelphós [brother], adelphḗ [sister], adelphótēs [brotherhood], philádelphos [love of the brethren], philadelphía [brotherly love], pseudádelphos [false brethren]

1. Physical Brotherhood. There are references to the physical brothers of Judah in Mt. 1:2, to brothers among the disciples in Mk. 1:16, 19, to the brother of Mary and Martha in Jn. 11:2ff., to Paul’s sister in Acts 23:16, to brothers of Jesus in Mk. 3:31ff., and to various other brothers, e.g., in Mk. 12:19–20; Lk. 15:27; Lk. 16:28; Lk. 12:13; and Mk. 10:29–30.

2. Spiritual Brotherhood. adelphós also refers to fellow believers some 30 times in Acts and 130 in Paul. This usage has an OT and Jewish basis (cf. Acts 3:22; Mt. 5:22–23; Acts 2:29; 3:17, etc.). Jesus uses the term in Mt. 23:8; 25:40. Christians are his brethren (Rom. 8:29) and are to love one another as such (1 Jn. 2–3). adelphótēs denotes the brotherhood (1 Pet. 2:17) and means brotherly disposition in Hermas

(Mandates 8.10). [H. VON SODEN, I, 144–46]

hádēs [Hades]

A. hádēs in Later Judaism.

a. Used for the Hebrew Sheol, the realm of the dead, this term came to denote the place of temporary sojourn prior to resurrection (cf. Is. 26:19).

b. In this place the good were then seen to be separated from the bad (Eth. En. 22; cf. Lk. 16:23, 26).

c. The good were finally thought to be already in bliss (Lk. 16:9, 23ff.).

B. hádēs in the NT.

1. The Link with Judaism. The NT view is close to that of Judaism (cf. Lk. 16). a. There is no soul-sleep. b. One goes down into Hades (Mt. 11:23; 12:40). c. The stay is limited (Rev. 20:13). Sometimes all the dead seem to be in Hades (Acts 2:27), but elsewhere believers are in paradise (Lk. 16:9, 23ff.), or with the Lord (2 Cor. 5:8), or under the altar (Rev. 7:9). Hence Hades is sometimes just the abode of the wicked (Lk. 16:23; Rev. 20:13–14).

2. The Early Christian Reconstruction. Faith in the risen Lord gives assurance that believers are secure from Hades (Mt. 16:18) and go to be with Christ (Lk. 23:43). Jesus is the Lord of Hades (Mt. 16:18; Acts 2:31). The descent shows this. Distinctive here is that Christ preaches in Hades (1 Pet. 3: 19ff.) and that he has the keys of death and Hades (Rev. 1:18).

→ ábyssos [J. JEREMIAS, I, 146–49]

adiákritos → krínō

ádikos [unrighteous], adikía [unrighteousness], adikéō [to do wrong], adíkēma [wrongdoing]

ádikos.

A. The Development of the Concept ádikos.

1. The term means “violator of the law.” What is against custom is usually distinguished from what is impious. The rootage in law forms a link with the LXX.

2. Yet ádikos can have a religious connotation, too (Plato Laws 4.716d). The OT strengthens this aspect in the Jewish and Christian spheres (cf. Job 16:12 LXX), which makes ádikos a synonym of asebḗs.

B. The Special Use of ádikos, especially in the NT.

1. The NT adopts the OT reference to the “violation of divine law,” opposing the wicked to the righteous (cf. Mt. 5:45; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 6:1, 9; 2 Pet. 2:9).

2. The word can also mean “unjust” (rulers; God is not unjust [Rom. 3:5]), and “dishonest” (Lk. 16:10), i.e., unfaithful.

3. The reference can be to what is unlawfully gained (Lk. 16:9), or what is of purely illusory value (Lk. 16:11; used with mammon).

4. ádikos in 1 Pet. 2:19 means “unjustly”.

5. tó ádikon in the neuter is the opposite of tó díkaion or alētheia. adikía.

A. adikía outside the NT.

1. The meaning is “unrighteous action,” then “unjust act.”

2. Further definition is given by the element of lawlessness, the opposing to righteousness, and the opposing to truth or truthfulness.

3. Distinction is made from what is impious, but there is an association, and in the OT adikía is primarily “sin against God” (cf. Is. 43:24–25; Jer. 31:33), though it may be “dishonesty,” “injustice,” “unreliability,” or “apostasy.”

4. In apocalyptic the last time will be one of general adikía, “unrighteousness.”

5. adikía may be used in the genitive for an adjective (cf. Lk. 16:8; 18:6).

B. adikía in the NT.

1. Apart from 2 Cor. 12:13, the instances all give the term basic significance.

a. As the opposite of dikaioήnē, it denotes “violation of the divine law,” heading the list of vices in Rom. 1:29. It also means “legal injustice” (Rom. 9:14). It can have, too, the nuance of “unfaithfulness” (Rom. 3:5). In Rom. 6:13 it is a controlling force.

b. As the opposite of alḗtheia, it is linked with self-glory in Jn. 7:18. Delight in it is contrasted with believing the gospel (2 Th. 2:12). Love obeys the truth and hence finds no joy in adikía (1 Cor. 13:6). In it the truth is suppressed (Rom. 1:18). It involves a denial of correct doctrine (2 Tim. 2:19).

2. a. adikía is connected with asébeia in Rom. 1; it arises out of false worship, the distinction between law and religion being thus transcended.

b. It is defined as sin against God (cf. Acts 8:23; 1 Jn. 1:9; 5:17).

3. An eschatological reference may be seen in 2 Th. 2:10 and possibly Jms. 3:6; Acts 1:18; 2 Pet. 2:13, 15.

4. The genitive occurs for an adjective in Lk. 16:8; 18:6. Lk. 16:9 perhaps means, not that possessions as such are evil, but that they are gained by trickery (cf. the publicans), or that they are illusory and deceitful.

adikéō.

A. adikéō outside the NT.

1. “To do wrong,” “to be in the wrong, or mistaken,” is the general sense.

2. Relationship to God or the gods may be in view. In the LXX, then, it means “to sin against God” (e.g., 2 Sam. 24:17; 2 Chr. 26:16), sometimes synonymous with hamartánein and anomeín. Josephus has a similar usage (Antiquities 4.150; 6.151); so does Philo (On the Confusion of Tongues 9–10, 27).

3. The wrongdoing may also be toward others (cf. Gen. 42:22), but in the LXX it is still a breaking of God’s command.

4. It may be used with an accusative of object, or person, or both, or passively for suffering wrong or injury or damage.

B. adikéō in the NT.

a. The absolute use in the active occurs in 2 Cor. 7:12 (“to do wrong”) and in Acts 25:11 (“to be in the wrong”). Judgment for it is held up to view in Col. 3:25.

b. The accusative of person may be seen in Mt. 20:13 and Lk. 10:19. Acts 7:26 echoes Ex. 2:13. In 2 Cor. 7:2 it is a question of hurting in some way; cf. the power of locusts to inflict injury in Rev. 9:10.

c. Revelation often has the accusative of object for judgments on the cosmos (e.g., 7:2–3; 9:4, 19).

d. For the double accusative cf. Acts 25:10; Gal. 4:12; Phlm. 18, and perhaps Lk. 10:19.

e. Examples of the passive are Acts 7:24; 1 Cor. 6:7.

In general adikeín is not a strongly nuanced term in the NT, being largely replaced by hamartánein. adíkēma.

A. adíkēma outside the NT. The meaning is “act of wrongdoing.” Not common in the LXX, it most frequently means “breach of the law” or “sin against God” (cf. Is. 59:12; Jer. 16:17). It is more common in Josephus and Philo, usually with a sense of action against divine as well as human law.

B. adíkēma in the NT. The three examples in the NT conform to the use of adikéō. In Rev. 18:5 the plural stresses the abundance of wicked deeds. Violation of the Jewish law is meant in Acts 24:20,

criminal violation of Roman law in Acts 18:14. [G. SCHRENK, I, 149–63]
adókimos → dókimos; adýnatos, adynatéō → dýnamai

ádō [to sing], ōdḗ [song]

ádō. “To sing” is either transitive or intransitive; thus in the NT Rev. 5:9 has “sing a song” and Eph. 5:19 “sing to the Lord.” Parallels are légein in Rev. 5:13 and psállèn in Eph. 5:19.

ōdḗ (→ psalmós, hýmnos). a. “Song,” or b. “a song,” not distinguished precisely in the NT (as later) from psalmós or hýmnos.

The ode is a cultic song of the community sung in worship. It is “spiritual,” i.e., has a measure of inspiration (Eph. 5:19). Hence it is not an expression of personal feeling or experience but a “word of Christ” (Col. 3:16). It thus speaks about Christ or God’s saving acts in him. It does so for edification rather than evangelism. The “new song” of Revelation (e.g., 5:9) suggests eschatological fulfilment: God’s new work is the theme. [H. SCHLIER, I, 163–65]

ázymos → zýmē

aḗr [air]

For the Greeks the impure air extended to the moon, being then replaced by the pure ether of the starry regions. Spirits inhabited the air. Later Judaism located demons in it, and Paul could thus refer to a prince of the power of the air (Eph. 2:2). Believers will meet Christ in this middle sphere (1 Th. 4:17). “Speaking into the air” in 1 Cor. 14:9 is a proverbial expression, while “beating the air” in 1 Cor. 9:26 is either

engaging in a sham fight or striking aimlessly. [W. FOERSTER, I, 165–66]
athanasía → thánatos

athémitos [unlawful]

In extra- and post-Attic Greek, “contrary to statute,” either cultic or moral and religious. “Lawless” idolatry is a pagan evil in 1 Pet. 4:3. In Acts 10:28 Peter is shown that it is right to do what was previously “unlawful” for him as a Jew, i.e., associate with Gentiles. [A. OEPKE, I, 166]

átheos → theós

áthesmos [lawless]

Originally “illegal” or “impious,” of acts, foods, persons. In the NT it is used only as a noun and only

in 2 Pet. 2:7 (the Sodomites); 3:17 (heretical leaders). [A. OEPKE, I, 167]
athetéō → títhēmi

athléō [to strive], synathléō [to strive side by side], áthlēsis [fight]

athléō means literally “to engage in competition or conflict”; it is also used figuratively in 4 Maccabees. athléō in 2 Tim. 2:5 suggests the need for exertion, sacrifice, and discipline. synathléō in Phil. 1:27; 4:3 carries the idea of striving, suffering, and working together. áthlēsis in Heb. 10:32–33 evokes the image of public struggle in the arena. athlētēs is used by Ignatius (To Polycarp 1.3) and 1 Clement (5.1) for leaders and the apostles, while Christ is the supreme athlētḗs in Acts of Thomas 39.

→ agón [E. STAUFFER, I, 167–68]

aídios [eternal]

aídios as “everlasting” or “eternal” was common in Aristotle and important to Philo (for God). Rom. 1:20 recalls Philo (and Stoicism) when speaking of God’s “eternal” power. Jude 6 (“eternal chains”) is the only other instance in the NT. Josephus has the same word for John’s imprisonment “for life” (The Jewish War 6.434). [H. SASSE, I, 168]

aidṓs [modesty]

A. The Greek Terms for Shame and Disgrace.

a. aidós was an old term, rare in Hellenism, revived by Stoicism. It denoted reverence, e.g., for God, divine things, rulers, and parents, as well as respect for laws of hospitality, marriage and family, the state and its laws. Applied inwardly, it could then suggest a “sense of shame” but also a “sense of honor” in contrast to shamelessness or insolence.

b. Early on, it was linked with the distinct word aischýnē, “shame” at an act, or lowly birth, or humiliation, though also “disgrace” and even perhaps “ignominy.”

B. The Hellenistic Use of aidṓs. Philo has aidṓs in the Greek and later Stoic sense, but in the LXX we find it only in 3 Macc. 1:19; 4:5, though the verb aideísthai is more common (e.g., Prov. 24:23), and anaidḗs is often used for “insolent,” e.g., with face, eye, or mind.

C. The Early Christian Use of aidṓs. The only sure instance in the NT is “modest demeanor” in 1 Tim. 2:9. adeísthai does not occur at all, nor do the apostolic fathers use aidṓs. The reason for this absence of the group is that a Christian’s being is not defined by his relation to himself but by his relation to God and neighbor, and the relation to neighbor rests on the neighbor’s claim rather than a sense of the

state or cosmos. [R. BULTMANN, I, 169–71]
→ aischýnē

haíma [blood], haimatekchysía [shedding of blood]

1. The word haíma means physical “blood” (Jn. 19:34). We are made of “flesh and blood” and as such are frail (Mt. 16:17; Gal. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:50; Eph. 6:12; Heb. 2:14. The phrase “flesh and blood” is an established Jewish one (though not OT) for humanity. Blood carries the ongoing life of the species (cf. Jn. 1:13; Acts 17:26). Its use for “descent” or “family” was ancient and widespread.

2. The OT belief in the sanctity of blood underlies the ban on eating it. In sacrifice the life-bearing blood is a means of expiation (Lev. 17:11).

3. “To shed blood” is to destroy life, and the phrase can thus be used for killing (cf. Mt. 27:4, 24; Acts 5:28 [Jesus] and Mt. 23:30, 35; Lk. 11:50–51; Rev. 16:6; 17:6 [prophets, saints, witnesses]). God avenges blood (Rev. 6:10). The Western version of the apostolic decree (Acts 15:9) prohibits murder. Resisting to blood in Heb. 12:4 probably means incurring wounds rather than suffering martyrdom. According to Hebrews blood is shed to ward off the destroying angel (11:28), to institute the divine order (9:18), to consecrate the tent and cultic vessels (9:21), and to effect atonement and purification (13:11).

4. The blood of Christ is supremely significant in the NT (1 Cor. 10:16; Eph. 2:13)—not his material blood, but its shedding in violent death. This guarantees the new order (1 Cor. 11:25). This order includes forgiveness of sin (Rom. 3:25; Col. 1:20; Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 1:5). Legal and sacrificial images are used in this connection but should not be pressed too strongly. Thus Christ’s self-offering is expressed by the idea of his sacrificial blood. Hebrews compares this blood with that of animals (9:12 etc.), but the effect of Christ’s blood is ethical (9:14). Fellowship with Christ’s blood in the eucharist (1 Cor. 10:16) means union with him who died for us and does not involve blood mysticism, though there is some hint of this in Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus 2.2.19.4.

5. In apocalyptic, blood may be used for the color red, indicating eschatological terrors such as war (Acts 2:19), hail and fire (Rev. 8:7), and judgment (Rev. 14:20). Ex. 7:17ff. underlies this use. Wine is the

blood of grapes in Gen. 49:11; Dt. 32:14, etc., and the wine harvest is an eschatological image in Is. 63:3; cf. Rev. 14:19–20.

haimatekchysía. This word occurs only in Heb. 9:22 (the first instance) and refers to the shedding of blood in sacrifices, though not specifically to pouring or sprinkling. The point is that the giving of life is the necessary presupposition of forgiveness. Only prefigured in the OT, this has now been effected by

Christ. Elsewhere the term occurs only in the fathers, e.g., Tatian Address to the Greeks 23.2. [J.
BEHM, I, 172–77]

ainéō [to praise], aínos [praise]

ainéō. Of the two main senses, “to praise” and “to tell,” the former alone is important. The eight instances in the NT refer to joyful praise of God in hymn or prayer by individuals (Lk. 2:20; Acts 3:8–9), a group (Lk. 19:37), the community (Acts 2:47; Rev. 19:5), or angels (Lk. 2:13).

aínos. Meaning “story,” “resolve,” or “praise,” this word occurs twice in the NT (Mt. 21:16; Lk.

18:43) for praise in the religious sense. [H. SCHLIER, I, 177–78]

aínigma [riddle], ésoptron [mirror]

aínigma occurs only in 1 Cor. 13:12, which contrasts present and future seeing. It means “riddle” and suggests oracular utterances: God speaks to his prophets (except Moses) in riddles (Num. 12:8), which are equated with visions (12:6). ésoptron means “to see in a glass.” The rabbis speak of the prophets seeing God in nine clouded mirrors, Moses in one clear one. The point here is not that mirrors in antiquity are necessarily indistinct nor that they give only the reflection, but that this is the form of prophetic

revelation. Thus aínigma and ésoptron both refer to prophetic vision but are not tautological; the former stresses its obscure nature, the latter its general form. We see in a mirror, but only indistinctly as in a

riddle. Paul here seems to be following the Hebrew text of Num. 12:8 and rabbinic exegesis. [G.
KITTEL, I, 178–80]

hairéamai [to choose], haíresis [sect, school], hairetikós [heretical], hairetízō [to choose], diairéō [to distribute], diáresis [distribution]

hairéomai. hairéō means “to take,” “to win,” “to comprehend,” “to select” (middle). The last is the sense in the NT, e.g., selective preference in Phil. 1:22; Heb. 11:25 and God’s election of the community in 2 Th. 2:13.

haíresis.

A. haíresis in Classical Usage and Hellenism. On the basis of hairéō, the senses are “seizure” “choice” “resolve.” Choice of opinion led to the philosophical use for “teaching” “school” with the associated ideas of delimitation from other schools, the authority of the teacher, specific doctrine, and the private character of these features.

B. haíresis in the LXX and Judaism. The sense of “choice” occurs, e.g., in Lev. 22:18, but Philo uses it for philosophical schools, e.g., in On Noah‟s Work as a Planter 151, and Josephus for the Essenes and Jewish parties in The Jewish War 2.118; Life 12. The corresponding rabbinic term was first used for parties in Judaism but later only for those opposed by the rabbis (late 1st and early 2nd cent.) and then for non-Jewish groups (late 2nd cent.).

C. haíresis in the NT.

1. The usage in Acts resembles that of Josephus and the early rabbis (Acts 5:17; 24:5; 26:5).

2. Yet there is from the outset a suspicion of the haíresis within Christianity itself, not through the development of orthodoxy, but through the basic incompatibility of ekklēsía and haíresis (cf. Gal. 5:20; 1 Cor. 11:18–19). In 1 Cor. 1: 10ff. haíresis has a sifting purpose. In 2 Pet. 2:1 it affects the church’s very basis; a haíresis creates a new society alongside the ekklēsía and thus makes the ekklēsía itself a haíresis and not the comprehensive people of God. This is unacceptable.

D. haíresis in the Early Church. haíresis is still a basic threat in Ignatius Ephesians 6.2; Justin Dialogue with Trypho 51.2. The term has a technical sense, but a sense of basic hostility remains, as when it is used for philosophical schools, Jewish sects, and especially Gnostic societies. Origen, however, surrenders the distinction between ekklēsía and haíresis when he compares differences within Christianity to those in medicine and philosophy (Against Celsus 3.12).

hairetikós. This word can denote “one who can choose aright,” but in Christianity it was used always for “adherent of a heresy” (cf. Tit. 3:9–10; Didascalia 33.31).

hairetízō. Found only in Mt. 12:18, quoting Is. 42:1 and perhaps reflecting 1 Chr. 28:6; Mal. 3:17, this word means “to choose.”

diairéō, diaíresis. diairéō has five meanings: “to dissolve,” “to distinguish,” “to decide,” “to distribute,” “to apportion.” The last two are most common in the LXX (Gen. 4:7 etc.), and are the obvious meaning in the NT at Lk. 15:12 and 1 Cor. 12:11, where the Spirit allots various gifts to members of the community as he wills. diaíresis similarly means “separation,” “division,” and “distribution,” e.g., of property. The context of 1 Cor. 12:4ff. shows that the meaning there is “distribution” rather than “distinction”: the one Spirit is seen in the apportionment of spiritual gifts, the one cháris in the charísmata, diaíresis covers both the distribution and what is distributed. Later diaíresis came to be used

for the intertrinitarian distinction (cf. Origen Commentary on John 1.2.10.74). [H. SCHLIER, I, 180–85]

aírō [to lift up, carry off], epaírō [to lift up]

aíro. The meanings are “to lift from the ground,” “to lift in order to carry,” and “to carry off.”

1. The sense “to lift up” occurs for raising the hand in an oath (Rev. 10:5), raising the face in prayer (Jn. 11:41), and raising the voice in prayer (Acts 4:24).

2. “To take up and carry” in Mt. 11:29 means obeying God’s will as it is revealed in Jesus in contrast to the yoke of the Torah. Taking up the cross denotes readiness for self-denial (and even martyrdom) in following Jesus (Mk. 8:34).

3. “To carry off” is used of death in Acts 8:33; Jn. 17:15, of depriving of salvation in Mt. 21:43, of taking away knowledge in Lk. 11:52, of removing judgment in Acts 8:33, of taking away guilt by the cross in Col. 2:14, and of the expiation of sin in 1 Jn. 3:5.

Whether the sense in Jn. 1:29 is “to take up and carry,” i.e., in a vicarious bearing of penalty, or “to carry off,” i.e., to remove by expiation, is debatable. If there is a reference to the Servant of the Lord, the former is more likely, but Lamb of God favors the latter: “takes away the sin of the world” (by the atoning power of his blood; cf. 1 Jn. 1:7).

epaírō. Used most frequently in the LXX for “to set or lift up,” epaírō has 1. the religious sense of lifting up in prayer (1 Tim. 2:8; Lk. 18:13; Jn. 17:1), sometimes in a gesture of blessing (Lk. 24:50) or of hope (Lk. 21:28). It can also have 2. the figurative sense “to raise up oneself,” “oppose,” “exalt oneself,”

in arrogant assertion against God (2 Cor. 10:5) or others (2 Cor. 11:20). [J. JEREMIAS, I, 185–86]

aisthánomai [to perceive, understand], aísthēsis [insight], aisthētḗrion [sense, faculty]

A. The Linguistic Usage outside the NT. The verb has three main references: a. “sensory perception,” b. “perception” or “discernment,” and c. “intellectual understanding.” The noun follows a similar pattern, being “sense” or “organ of sense,” then “discernment,” and finally “judgment.” For Philo aísthēsis is the cause of passions, but it may be trained, and it can even be consciousness, with a hint of moral consciousness. Philo often opposes it to noús and religious awareness, but he can also say that in action noús is dependent on correct aísthēsis. aisthētḗrion is “organ of sense” in Philo (even of the psychḗ). In the LXX the group is used first for “sensory perception,” then “perception” in general (Job 23:5), and finally “judgment” or “understanding” pressing on to decision (cf. Prov. 17:10; Is. 49:26; Is. 33:11). In Prov. 1:7 aísthēsis can even be compared with wisdom and instruction.

B. The Word Group in the NT. In Lk. 9:45 aisthánomai obviously means “to understand.” In Phil. 1:9 aísthēsis means “moral discrimination.” In Heb. 5:14 aisthētḗria (plural) are organs which, when trained, are to distinguish between the good and the bad. Without developed organs of this kind the doctrine of justification (v. 13) will be misunderstood, as by Paul’s Judaizing opponents. [G. DELLING, I, 187–88]

aischýnō [to be ashamed], epaischýnō [to be ashamed], kataischýnō [to put to shame], aischýnē [shame], aischrós [shameful], aischrótēs [shame]

A. The Linguistic Usage in the LXX. Unlike the aidṓs group, this group was in common use and is thus often found in the LXX. The sense is “to shame,” “put to shame” (God mostly as subject), “be shamed or ashamed” (personally rather than publicly). The main point of aischýnē is not “feeling of shame” but “disgrace,” i.e., the shame brought by divine judgment, though sometimes with a stress on “being ashamed.”

B. The NT Usage. The same meanings are found here: “to shame” (1 Cor. 11:4–5), “to bring to shame” (1 Cor. 1:27), “to be ashamed” (Lk. 16:3), almost “disillusioned” (Phil. 1:20). aischýnē means

“disgrace” (Heb. 12:2; Jude 13), with a play on the sexual sense in Rev. 3:18. aischrós means “what is disgraceful” (1 Cor. 11:6; Eph. 5:12; Tit. 1:11). aischrótēs occurs only in Eph. 5:4 where it refers to

“shameful talk.” → aidṓs [R. BULTMANN, I, 189–91]

aitéo [to demand], aítēma [request], apaitéō [to demand back], exaitéō [to require], paraitéomai [to reject]

aitéō (aitéomai).

1. “To demand.” In the NT demands are often given a religious application (cf. Lk. 12:48). The Jews demand accrediting signs (1 Cor. 1:22). People will call us to account for our faith, i.e., demand an explanation of it (1 Pet. 3:15).

2. “To request.” Found in both the active and the middle with little distinction, the verb in this sense has both a secular and a religious use. In secular usage we may have a transaction (cf. Mk. 6:24–25) or an official request (e.g., Mk. 15:43; Acts 9:2). In religious usage prayer is the most important reference (sometimes juxtaposed with ordinary requests, Mt. 7:9ff.). Jesus never uses this word for his own prayers (cf. Jn. 16:26), perhaps because it involves requests for self, or has an element of demanding, or is less intimate than erōtáō (which is used for the disciples’ requests to Jesus and those of Jesus to God). The general use does not support distinguishing the active (for uttered requests) from the middle (for inner requests) in Jms. 4:2–3.

aítēma. “Request,” “petition,” “desire,” especially for individual petitions, with a reference to the content (Phil. 4:6; 1 Jn. 5:15).

apaitéō

1. “To demand back”—something seized (Lk. 6:30), or “to call in debts”—what is loaned (Lk. 12:48).

2. “To demand”—an account (1 Pet. 3:15).

exaitéō. “To require,” “demand the freedom of,” “demand the surrender of.” The third of these is the most likely sense in Lk. 22:31: Peter is to be handed over for sifting (cf. Job). Jesus allows this, but sustains Peter with his prayer (v. 32).

paraitéomai.

1. “To beg,” hence “to beg off” in Lk. 14:18–19 (middle and passive).

2. “To seek to turn aside by asking,” suggesting in Heb. that what was in Dt. 5:25 a justifiable request (through fear) is a sinful repudiation of divine revelation; in Acts 25:12 Paul will not try to avert punishment by entreaty.

3. “To reject or repudiate” (only in the Pastorals)—myths in 1 Tim. 4:7, controversies in 2 Tim. 2:23, widows under 60 in 1 Tim. 5:11, heretics (excommunication) in Tit. 3:10.

4. “To spurn”—used in Heb. of refusing to listen to God.

→ eúchomai [G. STÄHLIN, I, 191–95]

aichmálōtos [captive], aichmalōtízō [to lead captive], aichmalōteúō [to capture], aichmalōsía [captivity], synaichmálōtos [fellow captive]

1. Proper Use. The “prisoner of war” is a miserable person in special need of divine aid (cf. Lk. 21:24). The exile gave the term a religious reference (cf. Ps. 126:1). The messenger of Is. 61:1 proclaims freedom to captives, and Jesus accepts this as a messianic task (Lk. 4:18). Visiting prisoners is a loving duty (Mt. 25:36ff.), and working and praying for release is enjoined (cf. Phlm. 22). God himself grants liberation in Acts 5:19.

2. Figurative Use. Imprisonment may be used to denote subjection to error (2 Tim. 3:6) or sin (Rom. 7:23), but also to Christ (Eph. 4:8; 2 Cor. 10:5). Paul calls his helpers “fellow-prisoners,” probably not in a literal sense but in the sense of being similarly subject to Christ (cf. “fellow-servants,” Col. 1:7; 4:7). [G. KITTEL, I, 195–97]

aiṓn [age, aeon], aiṓnios [eternal]

aiṓn.

A. The Nonbiblical Use. Meanings are a. “vital force,” b. “lifetime,” c. “age” or “generation,” d. “time,” and e. “eternity.”

The term is used in philosophical discussions of time, usually for a span of time as distinct from time as such (chrónos), though for Plato it is timeless eternity in contrast to chrónos as its moving image in earthly time (cf. Philo). In the Hellenistic world Aiṓn becomes the name of the god of eternity.

B. aiṓn in the Sense of Prolonged Time or Eternity. I. The Formulas “from Eternity” and “to Eternity.”

a. The concepts of time and eternity merge in the use with prepositions suggesting indefinite time (Lk. 1:70; Acts 3:21; Jn. 9:32; Jude 13). Sometimes the meaning is “from a remote time” (Lk. 1:70; Jn. 9:32— “never”), but sometimes there is a strong hint of eternity (Lk. 1:55; Jn. 6:51). This is especially true of the plural (Mt. 6:13; Lk. 1:33; Rom. 1:25; Heb. 13:8; Jude 25; cf. also with a past reference 1 Cor. 2:7; Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:11). The double formula “for ever and ever” (Heb. 1:8), especially in the plural (in Paul and Revelation; cf. also Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11), is designed to stress the concept of eternity, as are constructions like that in Eph. 3:21 (“to all generations for ever and ever”).

b. The usage corresponds to that of the LXX (cf. Am. 9:11; Is. 45:17; Ps. 45:6), the only difference being intensification in the NT.

2. The Eternity of God.

a. aiṓn means eternity in the full sense when linked with God (Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; cf. Jer. 10:10).

b. In the OT this means first that God always was (Gen. 21:23) and will be (Dt. 5:23), in contrast to us mortals. By the time of Is. 40:28 this comes to mean that God is eternal, the “First and Last,” whose being is “from eternity to eternity” (Ps. 90:2). Eternity is unending time, but in later Judaism it is sometimes set in antithesis to time. The NT took over the Jewish formulas but extended eternity to Christ (Heb. 1:10ff.; Rev. 1:17–18; 2:8). Here again eternity could be seen as the opposite of cosmic time, God’s being and acts being put in terms of pre- and post- (1 Cor. 2:7; Col. 1:26; Eph. 3:9; Jn. 17:24; 1 Pet. 1:20).

C. aiṓn in the Sense of the Time of the World.

l. aiṓn as the Time of the World; the End of the aiṓn. In the plural the sense of aiōn is that of a stretch of time. In particular the word is used for the duration of the world. Thus the same term can signify both God’s eternity and the world’s duration (cf. the Parsee word zrvan). The doctrine of creation—an absolute beginning—underlay the distinction in use. aiṓn for time of the world occurs in the NT in the expression “end of the aeon” (Mt. 13:39 etc.). The plural in Heb. 9:26 and 1 Cor. 10:11 (aeons) represents no essential change; it merely indicates that the one aeon is made up of many smaller aeons, though as yet the word is not used for a particular period.

2. aiόn as World. From “time of the world” aiόn easily came to mean the “world” itself (cf. Mt. 13:22; 1 Cor. 7:33) with an equation of cosmos and aeon (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6; 3:19). The plural can mean “worlds” along the same lines (Heb. 1:2; 11:3).

3. The Present and Future aiόn.

a. If aiόn means “duration of the world,” and the plural occurs, the idea is obvious that eternity embraces a succession or recurrence of aeons (cf. Eccl. 1:9–10—though here the aeons are periods of the world, and the biblical concept of creation, and hence of the uniqueness of this aeon, ruled out the idea of an unending series).

b. Instead of recurrence the antithesis of time and eternity combined with the thought of plural aeons to produce the belief in a new and future aeon (or cosmos or kingdom) which will succeed this one but will be completely different from it. For the present and future aeons in the NT cf. Mk. 10:30; Lk. 16:8; Rom. 12:2; 1 Cor. 1:20; Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 6:17; Eph. 1:21; Heb. 6:5 (and with kairós instead of aiόn, Jn. 8:23 etc.).

c. The NT took over this concept from Jewish apocalyptic, e.g., Ethiopian Enoch. Similar ideas occur in rabbinic writings and there is hope of a future age in Vergil. In the NT, however, the new aeon is not just future. Believers are already redeemed from this aeon (Gal. 1:4) and taste the powers of the future aeon (Heb. 6:5 which Christ has initiated with his resurrection.

D. The Personification of Aiṓn. Important in Hellenistic syncretism, the personification of Aiόn is absent from the NT (except for a suggestion in Eph. 2:2).

aiṓnios. An adjective meaning “eternal,” and found in the LXX in Pss. 24; 77:5; Gen. 21:33, aiόnios in the NT is used 1. of God (Rom. 16:26), 2. of divine possessions and gifts (2 Cor. 4:18; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 5:10; 1 Tim. 6:16; 2 Th. 2:16, and 3. of the eternal kingdom (2 Pet. 1:11), inheritance (Heb. 9:15), body (2 Cor. 5:1), and even judgment (Heb. 6:2, though cf. Mt. 18:8; 2 Th. 1:9, where the sense is perhaps “unceasing”). For a more temporal use, see Rom. 16:25; Phlm. 15. [H. SASSE, I, 197–209]

akatharsía, akáthartos - katharós; akaíros - kairós; ákakos - kakós; ákarpos - karpós; akátagnōstοs - ginōskō; akatákritos - krínō; akatálytos - Ιýō; akatastasía, akatástatos - kathístēmi

akéraios [pure, innocent]

The original meanings of akéraios are a. “Unravaged,” “unharmed,” of a city, walls, country. b. “Intact,” “innocent.” c. “Pure,” e.g., of wine, or gold.

The sense is always figurative in the NT: Christians are to be innocent (Phil. 2:15); to maintain their

integrity in face of evil (Rom. 16:19). [G. KITTEL, I, 209–10]

akοΙουthéō [to follow], eχakοΙουthéō [to follow], eρakοΙουthéō [to follow], ρarakοΙουthéō [to accompany], synakοΙουthéō [to accompany]

akοΙουthéō.

A. akoloutheín and hépesthai in Greek Usage. In Greek the ordinary sense of following led to that of intellectual, moral, and religious following, though for following God, hépesthai, not used in the NT, is more common.

B. Discipleship in the OT and Judaism.

1. The Following of God by the Righteous. The more common phrase here is “to go after other gods” (Judg. 2:12; Dt. 4:3; Jer. 11:10, etc.), and this is linked with adultery in Hosea (1:2; 2:7, 13). Going after Yahweh occurs in Deuteronomy (1:36 etc.) but does not receive emphasis (except in 1 Kgs. 18:21); this is because of the association with idolatry. Even when Jer. 2:2 refers to going after Yahweh in the wilderness. (Ex. 13:21–22), the thought in view is that of marriage. “Walking in God’s ways” is the preferred expression (Dt. 5:30 etc.). The rabbis found it hard to conceive of following God, only his qualities (insofar as this is now possible). Philo adopted Greek usage, and Josephus could link akolouthía with the law in the sense of obedience to it.

2. The Following of the Disciple. Following is literal in the OT (cf. Judg. 9:4; Jer. 2:2). This applies when Elisha is said to follow Elijah in 1 Kgs. 19:20–21. The same is true of rabbis and their students; the former go on ahead, and the latter follow them, but with no suggestion of any figurative significance.

C. akoloutheín in the NT. Due to the OT inheritance and the new turn given by Christ’s presence, the NT has no reference to “going after” God. The term is reserved for being a disciple of Christ (except when the sense is very general) and is confined to the four Gospels (apart from Rev. 14:4). External following is still involved (cf. Mt. 8:19; Mk. 10:28) but with a total commitment and in an exclusive relation to one who is recognized as not just a teacher but the Messiah. This discipleship brings participation in salvation (Mk. 10:17; Lk. 9:61–62; Jn. 8:12; Rev. 14:4), but also in suffering (Mt. 8:19– 20; Mk. 8:34; Jn. 12:25–26). The strength of the figurative use may have been in the presence of sayings like Mt. 10:38, the possibility of discipleship without literally going after Jesus, and the active stress which rules out the use of a noun to express the concept. Since it is the historical Jesus that is followed, it is natural that other terms should be found in the other NT writings to describe the relation to the exalted Lord and his Spirit. Rev. 14:4 simply applies Mt. 10:38 to a particular group.

eχakοΙουthéō. This has only a figurative sense in the NT, where it occurs only in 2 Peter: following “myths” in 1:16, “licentiousness” in 2:2, “the way of Balaam” in 2:15.

eρakοΙουthéō. This, too, has a figurative sense: a. “to follow,” e.g., the signs in Mk. 16:20, sin in 1 Tim. 5:24, “in Christ’s steps” in 1 Pet. 2:21; b. “to pursue a matter” in 1 Tim. 5:10.

ρarakοΙουthéō. a. “To go along with,” “accompany,” e.g., the signs (Mk. 16:17); b. “to look into” (Lk. 1:3); c. “not to let slip,” “to follow what has been grasped” (1 Tim. 4:6).

synakοΙουthéō. “To go along” with Jesus, though only externally in Mk. 5:37; 14:51, and perhaps in Lk. 23:49. Oddly, the term does not take on the pregnant sense of the simple form akolouthéō, as one might have expected in view of its figurative senses “to understand,” “to obey,” in secular Greek (Plato Laws 1.629). [G. KITTEL, I, 210–16]

akοúō [to hear, listen], akoḗ [hearing], eisakοúō [to obey], eρakοúō [to listen], ρarakοúō [to fail to hear], parakoḗ [disobedience], hyρakοúō [to listen, obey], hypakoḗ [obedience], hypḗkoos [obedient]

akοúō (→blépo, horáō).

A. The Hearing of Man. The use of the group in the NT reflects the significance of God’s word; hearing corresponds to revelation as its form of appropriation.

l. The Hearing of Revelation outside the NT.

a. In the Greek mysteries and Gnosticism more stress is laid on apprehension of God by seeing. Hearing can lead astray, not seeing (Philo On Flight 208). If some revelation is by hearing, the true mystery is known to sight. In the Mithras liturgy the God appears. Monuments depicting religious acts show that the climax often comes with vision.

b. The OT and Judaism have a different emphasis. Even when God is said to be seen, the usage is not strict. True vision is dangerous (Gen. 19:26; Ex. 3:6) and unusual (Ex. 33:11, 20). Seeing God is eschatological (Is. 60:1ff.). Even when Moses is face to face with God, they speak (Ex. 33:11). Seeing God is a setting for his word (Is. 6:1ff.). The decisive call is to hear (Is. 1:2, 10; Am. 7:16). Hearing entails action in obedience as true seeking (Jer. 29:13; Mic. 6:8).

c. Symbols are important in apocalyptic, but usually in relation to words (Dan. 7:17ff.; 8:16ff.). For the rabbis hearing is through reading out loud the holy books. Recitation of the Shema brings out the importance of hearing, for the passages used (Dt. 6:4ff.; 11:13ff.; Num. 15:37ff.) show that we know God by studying and keeping his law. The voice from heaven rather than the vision becomes the way of direct, physical apprehension of God.

2. The Hearing of Revelation in the NT.

a. The NT revelation, too, is a word or message. We receive what Jesus did and said by hearing (cf. Mk. 4:24; Mt. 11:4; Lk. 2:20; Acts 2:33; 1 Jn. 1:1). What Jesus looked like is of no interest. Seeing is directed to his acts. Parables like that of the sower are parables of hearing. Things seen take on significance in what is heard (cf. Mk. 9:7; 2 Cor. 12:3; Acts 18:9). akoúein in the absolute can express the true hearing of appropriation (Mk. 4:9). The content of hearing corresponds to that of what is heard. It is the reception of grace and the call to repentance in response to salvation and its ethical demand. Thus faith and obedience are the marks of real hearing (cf. Rom. 1:5; 16:26): the “obedience of faith.”

b. This aspect is strong in John but also present in the other Evangelists. Note the message to the Baptist in Mt. 11:4, the blessing in Mt. 13:16, and the condemnation in Mk. 4:12. Yet since Jesus is present in work as well as word, eschatological seeing is also a factor (Mt. 11:20ff.).

B. The Hearing of God. akoúein can also refer to God’s hearing of prayers, though eisakoúō is more common in this regard. epakoúō and epḗkoos, common in Hellenism for hearing deity, are largely avoided. For instances of God or Jesus hearing cf. Jn. 11:41–42; Acts 7:34; 2 Cor. 6:2; Heb. 5:7; 1 Jn. 5:14–15.

akoḗ. This common word has the active meaning 1. “sense of hearing” and the passive one 2. “report.” In the NT it can mean “preaching” with a stress on the hearing (cf. 1 Th. 2:13; Rom. 10:16ff.; Heb. 4:2. In Gal. 3:2 the point is not “believing hearing” but “preaching of faith,” i.e., with faith as the content and goal. In the pagan world akoaí was also used 3. for the ears put on sanctuary walls to symbolize hearing deity. The singular akoḗ could also be the place of hearing mysterious voices in a temple.

eisakoúō. With the basic senses “to hear” and “consent,” this means a. “to obey” in secular Greek and the LXX, and b. “to hear,” “answer,” always passive in the NT: Lk. 1:13; Mt. 6:7; Acts 10:31; Heb. 5:7 (Christ).

epakoúō. This is the technical word for the hearing of deity, epḗkoos being a popular epiphet for pagan gods. The only NT instance is 2 Cor. 6:2 (cf. Is. 49:8 LXX). Avoidance of the term may reflect a desire to differentiate God from pagan deities.

parakoúō, parakoḗ (→ apeithéō). There are three meanings: a. “to overhear,” b. “to hear incorrectly,” and c. “to disregard.” Sense a. seems to be the point in Mk. 5:35–36, sense c. in Mt. 18:17. parakoḗ in the NT bears sense c. (cf. Acts 7:57; Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 10:6; Heb. 2:2.

hypakoúō (→ peitharchéō).

1. “To hear the door,” i.e., “open” (Acts 12:13).

2. “To obey.” The word is used in this sense for wives, children, and servants (Eph. 6:1,5; Col. 3:20, 22), for demons and nature (Mk. 1:27; 4:41), for humanity in general relative to good or evil moral powers (Acts 6:7; Rom. 6:12, 16–17; 2 Th. 1:8), and for the community (Phil. 2:12; cf. Acts 5:32). LXX usage shows how strongly the sense of hearing is present in obedience (cf. Gen. 22:18; Jer. 13:10).

hypakoḗ, hypḗkoos. Except in Phlm. 21, this word always implies religious decision (e.g., Rom. 6:16-over against hamartía in Rom. 6:16 and parakoḗ in Rom. 5:19). What is obeyed may be the truth (1 Pet. 1:22) or Christ (2 Cor. 10:5), who is himself the subject in Rom. 5:19. The denotation is not the ethical attitude but the religious act from which it derives (1 Pet. 1:14). The obedience of faith (Rom. 1:5; 16:26) implies that the message of faith issues in obedience. hypḗkoos means “obedient”—to God (Acts 7:39), to

the apostle (2 Cor. 2:9). Christ himself is hypḗkoos in fulfilling his divine mission (Phil. 2:8). [G.
KITTEL, I, 216–25]

akrobystía [foreskin]

1. The Etymology of the Word. This word, translated “foreskin,” is formed from ákros (“running to a point”) and ίήδ (“to stop up”) but may really be based on the medical akroposthía (“foreskin” or “male organ”).

2. The Occurrence of the Word. It is found only in biblical and ecclesiastical Greek with both a literal and a figurative reference and as the opposite of peritomḗ. There are 20 instances in the NT, only in Paul apart from Acts 11:3 (cf. Rom. 2:25, 26, 27; 3:30; 4:9, 10, 11, 12; 1 Cor. 7:18, 19; Gal. 2:7; 5:6; 6:15; Eph. 2:11; Col. 2:13; 3:11). Barnabas has it (quoting the OT, 9.5 and 13.7) among early Christian writers, and so do Justin and Ignatius. [K. L. SCHMIDT, I, 225–26]

→peritomḗ

akrogōniaíos → gōnía; akyróō → kyróō; ákōn→ hekṓn

alazṓn [arrogant], alazoneía [arrogance]

The alazόn is “one who makes more of himself than reality justifies,” or “promises more than he can perform,” often used of orators, philosophers, doctors, cooks, and officials. A link with pride is sometimes seen; hence in Hab. 2:5 the alazόn is one who does not trust in God. The term occurs in the lists in Rom. 1:30 and 2 Tim. 3:2 in its usual sense and with a religious nuance. This nuance is stronger in the case of alazoneía in 1 Jn. 2:16 (“thinking one can shape one’s own life apart from God‗”) and Jms. 4:16 (“thinking one controls the future”). [G. DELLING, I, 226–27]

alalázō [to wail]

Denoting extravagant expressions of emotion, alalázō is employed 1. for “lamentation” in Mk. 5:38 and 2. for the “clanging” of cymbals, as in orgiastic cults, in 1 Cor. 13:1. [E. PETERSON, I, 227–28]

hálas [salt]

Salt was significant in the ancient world of religion as a symbol of endurance and worth. It was thus used in worship (Ex. 30:35; Lev. 2:13; Ezek. 43:21) and the making of covenants (Num. 18:19). The cultic use dropped away in the NT except figuratively, e.g., disciples must be seasoned with salt like sacrifices (Mk. 9:49). Salt still denoted moral worth, e.g., of disciples (Lk. 14:34–35), or speech (Col. 4:6). The reference to loss of taste (Lk. 14:34–35 and par.) may be based on the fact that Dead Sea salt

soon acquired a stale or alkaline taste. [F. HAUCK, I, 228–29]

aleíphō [to anoint]

aleíphō is used in the LXX for Hebrew terms meaning “to anoint,” “to rub over,” “to pour an oil offering over,” though chríō is a more common rendering and carries more significance. Thus the use is for purely outward anointing in the NT, though this can have its own deeper meaning.

1. In Mt. 6:17 anointing is for bodily comfort with a suggestion of joy and festivity not normally associated with fasting.

2. In Mt. 26:7; Lk. 7:38 it is a mark of honor shown to a guest. The woman’s anointing of Jesus has the deeper proleptic sense of anointing for burial (cf. Mk. 16:1).

3. Anointing could also be used in cases of sickness, medicinally but with a magical nuance in view of the ascription of sickness to demonic influence. An instance of medical use is in Lk. 10:34. In Mk. 6:13 the disciples anointed the sick as well as preaching and expelling demons in their role as heralds of the inbreaking kingdom. In Jms. 5:14 the elders are to continue this ministry with prayer and the promise of healing and forgiveness. In the later church anointing came to be used at baptism, in exorcisms, and in cases of sickness, producing the medieval sacrament of extreme unction in the west. Ignatius (Ephesians 17.1) offers a fanciful exegesis of Mk. 14:3 whereby the ointment signifies the true knowledge with which we must be anointed to be led to immortality. [H. SCHLIER, I, 229–32]

→ chríō

alḗtheia [truth], alēthḗs [true], alēthinós [true], alētheúō [to speak the truth]

alḗtheia.

A. The OT Term for Truth.

1. The common OT word for truth appears some 126 times. It denotes a reality that is firm, solid, binding, and hence true. With reference to persons it characterizes their action, speech, or thought, and suggests integrity.

2. In law the word is used for a. the actual truth of a cause or process as shown by the facts (cf. Dt. 22:20; 1 Kgs. 10:6; Dan. 10:1). Only rarely is there a more abstract use, e.g., Gen. 4:16 (“whether it is as you say” or “whether there is any truth in you”). Normally the facts establish a matter beyond cavil, as also in the case of God’s word (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:24; Jer. 23:28). Regard for facts is indispensable for the right dispensing of justice (Zech. 7:9; 8:16). b. An extension of this usage is to more general facts which demand recognition by all people as reality, as the normal state corresponding to divine and human order.

3. The religious use runs parallel to the legal but is not just a figurative application of it. It often denotes a religious reality that need not be explained by the forensic use. The righteous base their attitude to God on incontestable truth and practice truthfulness as God himself is truthful (cf. Ps. 51:6). Those who are qualified to dwell on God’s hill speak truth in the heart, i.e., have their minds set on it (Ps. 15:2). Truth is linked with knowledge of God (Hos. 4:1). If it is fundamentally an attitude, the rational element in the legal use ties it to instruction in the law, i.e., Scripture (Ps. 119:160), for God’s ordinances are true (Ps. 19:9). Thus walking in the truth can be taught (Ps. 86:11). Truth can also be set in opposition to deceit (cf. Mal. 2:6; Prov. 11:8; 12:19). Poetic expressions have truth springing from the ground or falling in the street (Ps. 85:11; Is. 59:14), but when it is said to be dashed to the ground in Dan. 8:12 it seems to be equated with the true religion. Along similar lines God is said to be the true (i.e., the only) God in 2 Chr. 15:3. Yet a parallel phrase in Ps. 31:5 refers to the “reliable” God and thus adds an ethical dimension whereby God guarantees both moral and legal standards. Rich in truth (Ex. 34:6), God is worthy of trust. God does truth (Neh. 9:33), gives true laws (Neh. 9:13), gives valid commands (Ps. 111:7), swears truth (Ps. 132:11), and keeps the norm of truthfulness forever (Ps. 146:6). The element of trust, based on God’s

character, finds pregnant expression in 2 Sam. 7:28: “Thou art God, and thy words are true.” [G.
QUELL, I, 232–37]

B. The Word for Truth in Rabbinic Judaism. The rabbinic use follows that of the OT. Truth is the basis of law, but with a religious reference, since law is a religious function. God’s judgment is one of truth, but this is because God’s very being is truth, and truth has its being in God. The image of the seal symbolizes this: God’s seal is truth, truth meaning that God lives. A problem arises regarding the relationship between God’s truth and kindness when truth signifies judgment. If truth is sometimes put first, the two are both seen to be essential qualities in God. [G. KITTEL, I, 237–38]

C. The Greek and Hellenistic Use of alḗtheia. The NT usage is partly determined by the Hebrew term and partly by the nonbiblical use of alḗtheia. The two are not coincident, for the LXX had to use such words as pístis and dikaiοήnē as well as alḗtheia for the Hebrew. If it could use alḗtheia too, this is to be seen in the light of the flexible Greek usage.

1. The Original Greek Usage and Its Differentiations. Etymologically alḗtheia means “nonconcealment.” It thus denotes what is seen, indicated, expressed, or disclosed, i.e., a thing as it really is, not as it is concealed or falsified. alḗtheia is “the real state of affairs,” e.g., the truth in law, or real events in history, or true being in philosophy. Links develop with lógos, whose function it is to reveal, and pístis, since one may rely on truth and is also trustworthy when speaking it. alḗtheia can thus denote “truthfulness” as a personal quality. The philosophical question of absolute truth as distinct from relative truths, while alien to the OT, raises the similar concept of truth as a norm, which in practice yields the sense of “correct doctrine” that indicates the truth.

2. The Usage of Dualism. If in philosophy alḗtheia denotes true being, and if this is located in the world of ideas that is hidden from the senses and comprehended in thought, alḗtheia comes to mean “genuine reality” in antithesis to appearance. In Hellenism what truly is can then be equated with what is divine or eternal, in which one must share to be saved. Many circles no longer think this can be attained by thought but only by ecstasy or revelation, i.e., from the divine sphere. alḗtheia thus comes into relation with dýnamis (power) and then with the gnṓsis (knowledge) that it mediates and the zōḗ (life) and phṓs (light) that it gives. Similar connections are made with pneúma (spirit) and noús (mind) insofar as these concepts describe the divine sphere.

D. The Early Christian Use of alḗtheia.

1. alḗtheia is “that which has certainty and force”: a. as a valid norm (with a hint of what is genuine) in Eph. 4:21; Gal. 1:6; b. as judicial righteousness (in the case of alḗthinós, cf. Rev. 15:3); c. as uprightness in Jn. 3:21; 2 Jn. 4; 1 Cor. 13:6; Eph. 4:24.

2. alḗtheia is “that on which one can rely”: a. as trustworthiness (Rom. 3:3ff.; 15:8). b. as sincerity or honesty (2 Cor. 7:14. 11:10; 2 Jn. 1; 3 Jn. 1).

3. alḗtheia is “the state of affairs as disclosed” (Rom. 1:18, 25; 2:2; 1 Jn. 3:18).

4. alḗtheia is “truth of statement” used with speaking (Lk. 4:25) or teaching (Mk. 12:14).

5. alḗtheia is “true teaching or faith” (2 Cor. 13:8; 4:2; Gal. 5:7; 1 Pet. 1:22); thus the preaching of the gospel is the word of truth (2 Cor. 6:7), becoming a Christian is coming to a knowledge of truth (1 Tim. 2:4), the Christian revelation is truth (2 Th. 2:10ff.), the church is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15), and the alḗtheia is Christianity (2 Pet. 1:12).

6. alḗtheia is “authenticity,” “divine reality,” “revelation,” especially in John, where this reality, as a possibility of human existence, is out of reach through the fall but is granted to faith through revelation by the word (cf. Jn. 8:44; 1 Jn. 1:8; 2:4). Ambiguity thus arises when Jesus is said to speak the truth, for this means not only that what he says is true but also that he brings revelation in words (Jn. 8:40, 45; 18:37). As revelation, alḗtheia is known (Jn. 8:32; 2 Jn. 1). This is not just a knowledge of a complex of statements but an encounter with Christ, who is the truth (Jn. 14:6) and who sanctifies in truth (Jn. 17:17, 19). God himself is disclosed herewith, the incarnate word being “full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:14; cf. v. 17). Worship in truth is to be understood similarly, i.e., not just in pure knowledge but as determined by God’s own reality, in pneúma (Spirit), and by the revelation made in Jesus (Jn. 4:23–24). Again, the Paraclete as the Spirit of truth insures ongoing revelation in the community (Jn. 14:17; 16:13; cf. 1 Jn. 5:6), and this comes to expression in right doctrine (1 Jn. 2:21) and a right way of life (1 Jn. 1:6). Thus the church’s witness may be equated with that of truth (3 Jn. 12) and Christians are to be fellow workers in the truth (3 Jn. 8), loving one another in the truth and united in truth and love (2 Jn. 1ff.).

alēthḗs.

1. alēthḗs means a. “constant” or “valid,” as in 1 Pet. 5:12; b. “judicially righteous” (alēthinós in the NT); c. “upright” (Phil. 4:5).

2. It also means a. “trustworthy” (Rom. 3:4); b. “sincere” (Mk. 12:14; 2 Cor. 6:8; Jn. 3:33).

3. Another sense is “real” (Acts 12:9; Jn. 4:18; 1 Jn. 2:8).

4. It indicates a “true statement” (e.g., Tit. 1:13; Jn. 5:31).

5. It also indicates “correct doctrine,” but the NT does not have this sense.

6. It then means “genuine” (Jn. 6:55; probably Jn. 3:33; 7:18, i.e., he himself is not just truthful but authentic).

alēthinós.

1. This often has the same meaning as alēthḗs, e.g., “sincere” (Heb. 10:22). With reference to words it means “true” or “correct” (Jn. 4:37; 8:16), “sure and certain” (Rev. 21:5-with pistoí), “real” (Rev. 19:9); with reference to God’s ways or judgments “valid” (Rev. 15:3; 16:7; 19:2).

2. As a divine attribute it has the sense of “reliable,” “righteous,” or “real” (cf. Ex. 34:6; Is. 65:16; 1 Th. 1:9; Jn. 7:28; 1 Jn. 5:20; Rev. 3:7; 6:10); in the NT it can be used of Christ as well as God.

3. In Hellenism it also takes on the sense of “real as eternal” or “real as mediated by revelation.” Thus in Heb. 8:2 the heavenly tabernacle is “true” in contrast to the earthly, and in Heb. 9:24 the human sanctuary is a copy of the true one, which is genuine as divine, and as thus containing truth and dispensing revelation. Similarly the true light of Jn. 1:9 is the light of life of Jn. 8:12, and the true bread from heaven is the bread of life (Jn. 6:32, 35, 48), while the true God of Jn. 7:28 is he who gives revelation, and Christ’s true judgment is not merely just or trustworthy but authentic and definitive.

aΙētheúō. In Gal. 4:16 this may mean “speak the truth” but more probably means “preach the truth.”

In Eph. 4:15 (with love) it means “be sincere in love,” or perhaps “live by true faith in love.” [R.
BULTMANN, I, 238–51]

allássō [to change], antállagma [exchange], aρallássō [to release], diallássō [to exchange], kataΙΙássō [to reconcile], katallagḗ [reconciliation], aροkatallássō [to reconcile], metaΙΙássō [to exchange]

allássō. The basic sense is “to make other than it is,” used in both the active and middle for “to alter,” “to give in exchange,” “to take in exchange,” and intransitively “to change.” The NT uses only the transitive active and passive.

1. The word has the sense of “to change” in Acts 6:14; Gal. 4:20; 1 Cor. 15:51–52.

2. It means “to exchange” in Rom. 1:23.

antállagma. This means “purchase-money,” “equivalent,” “substitute.” It occurs in the NT only in Mk. 8:37 = Mt. 16:26 (based on Ps. 49:7), not to stress the infinite worth of the human soul, but to show that divine judgment is so serious that in it no exchange or equivalent for a forfeited life is possible.

apallássō. This means “to alter by removal,” “to do away,” with such nuances as “to dismiss,” “to liberate,” “to absent oneself,” “to withdraw.” In the NT it occurs in the transitive active in Heb. 2:15 for “to liberate,” and in the middle in Acts 19:12 for “to withdraw,” “leave,” and in Lk. 12:58 for “to break free,” “escape.”

diallássō. This word has such varied meanings as “to alter or exchange,” “to distinguish oneself,” and “to reconcile.” It occurs in the NT only in Mt. 5:24 in the sense “to reconcile,” i.e., to see to it that the offended brother renounces his anger.

katallássō (→ di-, apokatallássō, katallagḗ). With the thought of “change” predominating, this word can mean “to change,” “to exchange,” and “to reconcile” or “reconcile oneself.”

A. The Religious Use of katallássō outside the NT. The group plays no part in pagan expiatory rites, though it has a religious sense in Sophocles Ajax 744.

In Judaism God is said to “be reconciled” in the sense that his wrath gives way to grace, e.g., through prayer, confession, or conversion (2 Macc. 1:5; 7:33), but this use is rare. The word corresponds to rabbinic terms for “to placate,” “to reconcile oneself,” “to be reconciled,” “to reconcile,” in relations with others or with God.

B. katallássō in the NT.

1. Husband and wife. Greek marriage records have apallássesthai for marital separation and katallásesthai for reconciliation. Along these lines a separated wife is told in 1 Cor. 7:11 to “be reconciled to her husband,” the meaning being, not necessarily that she is at fault, but that she is actively to seek reconciliation.

2. God and Man.

a. In the NT only Paul uses the term for the divine-human relation. God is not reconciled, nor does he reconcile himself, but he himself reconciles us or the world to himself (2 Cor. 5:18–19), while we are reconciled to God (Rom. 5:10) or reconcile ourselves to him (2 Cor. 5:20). katallássein denotes a transformation of the state between God and us and therewith of our own state, for by it we become new creatures (2 Cor. 5:18), no longer ungodly or sinners, but justified, with God’s love shed abroad in our hearts (Rom. 5:6ff.). God has not changed; the change is in our relation to him and consequently in our whole lives.

b. Reconciliation is through the death of Jesus (Rom. 5:10). He was made sin for us and we are made God’s righteousness in him (2 Cor. 5:21). Thus reconciliation is parallel to justification (cf. “not imputing” in 2 Cor. 5:19). In it guilt is removed. Yet reconciliation also entails a change whereby the love of Christ comes to constrain us and we no longer live for ourselves (2 Cor. 5:14–15). On the basis of God’s reconciling act in Christ the call goes out: “Be reconciled to God” (2 Cor. 5:20). Reconciliation is not just a transaction but has personal effects which are known to the conscience and may be adduced in answer to opponents (2 Cor. 5:11ff.). These effects are the work of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5) who enables us, even though we are sinners, to walk in the Spirit (Rom. 8:4). By the Spirit we are thus made active in reconciliation through the word of reconciliation that comes to us as a request (2 Cor. 5:20). Yet we are active only in the sense of receiving reconciliation, not of effecting it, so that we may also be said to “be reconciled” (passive) in Rom. 5:10.

c. “We” are said to be reconciled in Rom. 5, and “the world” in 2 Cor. 5, but there is no opposition between them, for the world stands for the same thing as “we” in its widest range. Insofar as the ministry of reconciliation continues, and much of the world has still to hear the word of reconciliation, reconciliation has an ongoing aspect—not, of course, in the sense that its basis in Christ’s death is incomplete, but in the sense that people have still to be reconciled to God and thus to become new creatures in whom God’s love is shed abroad by the Spirit.

d. The hostility between God and us is not mentioned in 2 Cor. 5 and only alluded to in Rom. 5, but it obviously includes not only our enmity against God but also God’s wrath against sin (Rom. 1:18ff.) wherein divine displeasure corresponds to human disobedience (Rom. 8:7–8). Reconciliation is effected by Christ’s death inasmuch as this is not just to our advantage, or a revelation of God’s love, but a vicarious action (2 Cor. 5:20), an exchange, in which the God who judges is also the God who reconciles. Yet reconciliation is a broader term than justification, for if it embraces forgiveness (Rom. 5:9–10) it also establishes a basis for the appeal of 2 Cor. 5:20 and finds fulfilment in the loving response which this appeal evokes.

katallagḗ. The meaning is first “exchange,” then “reconciliation.” Used only by Paul, in the NT it denotes a divine dispensation. Paul’s word and work are the word and ministry of katallagḗ (2 Cor. 5:18– 19). They bring God’s reconciling action in Christ before people by an appeal which leads believers to “receive reconciliation, (Rom. 5:11). In this sense the reconciliation of the world is a continuing action through the ministry (Rom. 11:15).

apokatallássō. This word does not occur prior to the NT and is found only in Colossians and Ephesians, where it has much the same sense as katallássō. Christ is now the subject as well as God or the plērōma (Col. 1:20, 22; Eph. 2:16). Reconciliation is preceded by human enmity but enables us to stand in the judgment (Col. 1:22). It is connected with the conclusion of peace and a new creation (Eph. 2:15), not merely the removal of guilt. Reconciliation with God brings reconciliation of Jews and Gentiles (Eph. 2:16). It also embraces supraterrestrial beings (Col. 1:20) in what some exegetes see as a restoration of cosmic order, possibly through subjection to Christ (cf. Col. 2:10).

metallássō. “To change,” “to exchange.” In Rom. 1:25 God’s truth, i.e., his self-revelation (1:18ff.), is “changed” into a lie, i.e., the idolatry that sets other things in place of God. This leads in Rom. 1:26 to the “exchanging” of natural relations for unnatural; this sexual perversion is the consequence of the religious

perversion. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 251–59]

allēgoréō [to allegorize]

A. The Use of the Term. This verb, with the noun allēgoría, seems to come from the Hellenistic period, probably from Cynic—Stoic philosophy. It means “to speak or to explain allegorically.” Thus in Gal. 4:24 the story of Sarah and Hagar is said to be allegorical.

B. The Application of Allegorical Exposition.

1. Allegorizing occurs when traditions are outstripped but not discarded. Thus the Greeks found in it a way to preserve Homeric myths that they found offensive if taken literally. In method, e.g., the handling of names, Jewish and Christian treatment of the OT owed much to the Greek exposition of Homer.

2. Allegorical interpretation of the OT began in Alexandria with Aristobulus (2nd cent. B.C.), who obviously borrowed from the Greeks even though there are some allegories in the OT itself. The Epistle of Aristeas then extracted ethical wisdom from OT ritual. Philo tried to avoid both extreme literalism and extreme allegorizing, but while he did not abandon the literal validity of the text he was notable for the inventiveness of his interpretations. Essential though it was, the literal sense had for him subordinate significance and caused difficulty at points, e.g., in the area of anthropomorphism.

3. Scribal circles in Palestine adopted allegorization too, e.g., in the case of the Song of Songs. Their allegorizing is rarer and less arbitrary than that of Philo. It is narrower in range and closer to the natural sense. But it is not exceptional, and it differs from Philo’s, not in principle by retaining historical validity (which Philo also did), but in degree by being less open to Greek rationalism and its criticism of the OT. It finds it consonant with the dignity of Scripture that it should have many meanings, and with this in mind may well have been influenced by Alexandrian developments while taking some steps of its own toward allegorizing. Josephus, who had little occasion to allegorize and could criticize Greek allegorizing (Against Apion 2.255), did not hesitate to allegorize the tent and its furnishings along Alexandrian lines (Antiquities 3.179ff.).

4. Jesus did not use allegory according to the four Gospels, but Paul did in 1 Cor. 5:6ff.; 9:8ff.; 10:1ff.; Gal. 4:21ff. He followed the Palestinian model, not extracting cosmological or psychological lessons, but still allegorizing in the true sense. Distinctively, however, he did so as one living in the time of fulfilment (1 Cor. 10:11) for whom the veil had been removed (2 Cor. 3:14), so that he could now see the true sense which found its focus in Christ. Hebrews offers another example of christological

allegorizing along these lines (7:1ff.). [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 260–63]

allēlouiá [Hallelujah]

Based on the Hebrew term for “praise the Lord,” and found in the LXX as the heading or conclusion to psalms (104–06; 111–13; 115–17; 135; 146–50), allēluiá occurs in the NT only in Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6, where it introduces or merges into victory hymns and forms with amḗn (v. 4) an independent response. [H. SCHLIER, I, 264]

állos [other], allótrios [alien], apallotrióō [to alienate], allogenḗs [foreign], allóphylos [foreign]

állos. The meaning is “the other,” strictly where there are many, as distinct from héteros where there are only two, but used interchangeably with héteros or for it. In the NT héteros does not occur in the genuine Mark, 1 and 2 Peter, or Revelation, and only once in John (19:37). állos means “the other” where there are only two, e.g., in Mt. 5:39; Jn. 18:16; 19:32. The two words are interchangeable with no obvious distinction in Mt. 16:14; 1 Cor. 12:8ff.; Heb. 11:35–36. In Gal. 1:6–7 héteros is used for “another gospel” and állos for “which is not another,” i.e., which is no gospel at all but a human teaching.

allótrios. “Belonging to another,” “alien,” “unsuitable,” even “hostile.” For the most part it has the first sense in the NT (cf. Rom. 14:4; 2 Cor. 10:15; 1 Tim. 5:22; Heb.9:25. It is used as a noun in Lk. 16:12. It means “foreign” or “hostile” in Heb. 11:34, but the NT never uses it for hostile to God.

apallotrióō. “To estrange or alienate,” found in the NT only in Col. 1:21 and Eph. 2:12; 4:18 for the state prior to reconciliation. It refers only to this state insofar as it is culpable and not to its presuppositions.

allogenḗs. “Alien,” “foreign,” found only in Jewish and Christian Greek, e.g., Ex. 29:33; Ob. 11 LXX. The only NT instance is in Lk. 17:18, a reference to the Samaritan leper who returned to give thanks. Elsewhere it occurs only on the inscription on the temple barrier, which was almost certainly Jewish rather than Roman in origin, although Josephus omits the term in his accounts of the inscription, probably to avoid offending his non-Jewish readers (The Jewish War 6.125; 5.194; Antiquities 15.417).

allóphylos. “Of alien descent,” “foreign,” found from the time of Aeschylus, used in the LXX (Is. 2:6)

and Josephus (Antiquities 9.102), and adopted in Acts 10:28 to denote the Gentiles. [F. BÜSCHEL, I,
264–67]

allotriepískopos → epískopos; álogos → légō

hamartánō [to sin], hamártēma [sin], hamartía [sin]

A. Sin in the OT.

1. The Words Used in the OT.

a. The LXX with its summary use of hamartía, adikía, anomía, etc. hardly does justice to the rich and flexible Hebrew original and often misses the point, e.g., when “guilt” is in view. The Hebrew terms translated by hamartía and the like (for a full list see TDNT, I, 268–69) do not have an exclusive religious use, so that it is easy in translation either to import this or to weaken it. No uniform or self-contained concept of sin is present in the OT authors, and detailed questions of linguistic history further complicate the matter.

b. The four main roots which carry the idea of sin have the varied senses of “sin or negligence,” “rebelling,” “guilt,” and “error,” enough to show the variety of thinking about sin quite apart from the many other roots.

2. The Legal and Theological Content of the OT Concept of Sin.

a. Statistically the root ḥṭʾ (with derivatives) is the main term, and this harmonizes with the fact that it offers the best definition. It is basically metaphorical and has the sense of “missing,” e.g., the way (Prov. 19:2), what is sought (Prov. 8:36), the mark (Judg. 20:16). While predominantly used for wrong action, the word thus suggests always the idea of going astray. The legal use, of which there are many examples, strengthens the conjecture that the Hebrew term does not have the primary sense of “sin,” for what is often in view is transgression of custom, or law, or a treaty, or obligation, with the guilt that this implies (cf. Gen. 43:9).

b. The shift from the legal to the religious use is important inasmuch as it shows that the religious life, too, is seen to be ordered, i.e., that dealings with God must follow a pattern. Yet a root like the term for “to rebel” warns us that a volitional element is involved. In the secular sphere Israel revolts against David’s dynasty (1 Kgs. 12:19). As sons rebel against their fathers, so Israel revolts against God (Is. 1:2). What is denoted is a human reaction against the holy and divine. Erring has something of the same dimension, though in its mainly ritual use it describes negligence through ignorance rather than willful transgression (cf. Lev. 4:13). Yet when applied religiously (cf. Job 12:16) it carries the thought that we do not attain to God because we cannot do so. False seers in their quasi-drunken wandering are partly culpable and partly clouded in their minds by God himself (Is. 28:7–8). Seeing no way out of their error, they must suffer the pain of the divine enigma (Job 19:4). For Ps. 119 only study of the law can bring us out of error and its affliction (Ps. 119:67). This darker aspect, however, is not predominant in the OT concept of sin. From a more rational, theological standpoint, sin is what is “unclean.” If personal feeling lies behind this concept too, its essential content is failure to keep a norm. The phrase “with a high hand” (e.g., Num. 15:30) assumes that the norm is known (as it was not known, e.g., by the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen. 18:20). Thus in Ps. 32 the one who prays is led to see and confess sin through suffering, i.e., to recognize that even breaches of the ritual, which might not seem to be sin, are really sin against God.

c. The wisdom writings usually have a more intellectual than religious view of sin. By instruction we come to know what is fitting in relation to God and how to apply it to life (as distinct from the fool, Ps. 14:1). Sin is thus folly, to which the righteous are superior. A deeper view occurs in Ex. 20:5; Dt. 5:9, where resistance to God’s commands is defined as hatred, and sin is thus an inexplicable process involving such things as abomination, violence, and deception. All this tends to suggest that a theological concept of sin was a later construction. On the other hand, it was also a correct one grounded in firm categories whose validity no one in ancient Israel could contest. Censure, the assertion of guilt, and the knowledge of God’s demanding will all meet in it to offer an interpretation of human experience and destiny. If God’s will is the supreme law of life, apostasy from God has to come to expression in error, i.e., in terms of what life ought to be and digression from this norm. A connection with the covenant may be discerned at this point. Moreover, whether we regard the aberration as serious or trivial, its character as transgression is established by the concept of God and his order, to which account must be rendered. Violation of God’s norm is the substance of the knowledge of sin. In a very bold insight, sin is even seen to serve a purpose by leading to a recognition of the unconditional validity of the divine norm. Human failure is thus ruthlessly set in the divine order and given a religious interpretation as sin (Ps. 51).

d. For the OT as a whole, then, sin is a legal and theological term for what is against the norm. The theological use is prominent but not exclusive. In its rational form it is less a matter of experience than of its theological clarification. The different formulas mediate different theological insights in an attempt to express the underlying religious phenomenon. The concept has many nuances but is not without a certain unity, both being illustrated by the heaping up of synonyms (cf., e.g., Ps. 32:5; Job 34:37; Lev. 16:21). At its root is aberration from the norm, but this may be viewed as either the inner process, the act, or the resultant state. The context rather than the selected root usually shows where the accent lies. In analysis, then, we have to reckon with possibilities ranging from sober intellectual assertion to divine conviction. Yet there will always be a theoretical element which, although of pedagogical value, may tend to reduce multiple religious phenomena to a common denominator. The terms denoting aberration always have a figurative aspect, and it is perhaps the root “to rebel” that brings us closest to the heart of the matter with its stress on motive. Even this, however, imposes a certain intellectual order on the irrational experience. It is thus in prayers that the irrational problem comes out best with their vocabulary of confession or complaint. Significantly, too, the story of the fall avoids the customary terms for sin.

3. Sin and Guilt. Often the terms for sin allude to it in such a way that the translation “guilt” is justifiable or necessary. This is always so when the reference is to the resultant state. Abnormal action and abnormal state are so related that no sharp distinction of vocabulary exists between sin and guilt. The more specific words for guilt belong first to the area of sacral law and bring out its objective character.

One could incur guilt unintentionally but the resultant uncleanness (even if not recognized) would be no less a fact than in the case of sin with a high hand, and would need to be set aside by the same ritual as that employed to restore cleanness. Other terms (cf. Ps. 32:1) focus on guilt itself. Emphasis now falls on its intolerable burden (Ps. 38:4). It is the sum of the debts incurred by acts of sin and is manifested in afflictions, which are viewed as punishment for it. The rational or theological character of the OT concept of sin and guilt comes out strongly in the doctrines of expiation and retribution which rest on this basis, though the basis itself is religious.

4. The Story of the Fall (Gen. 3). This story stands aloof from legal concepts and does not influence them. Perhaps using and bending mythological materials, the author depicts the origin and results of sin with childlike force. He does not use the common terms, since these would be out of place in this portrayal of life. Apart from a few hints he lets readers draw their own conclusions, focusing on the events that the terms are meant to explain. He thus brings out far more clearly the sinister reality with which theology and cultus deal.

The basic ideas of the story are the prohibition that expresses the divine will, the clever serpent that sees the apparent disproportion between the transgression and its consequence, the question put to the woman, her readiness for scepticism, the suggestion that the warning is not serious and is only in the divine interest and against human interests, the attractiveness of the fruit, the foolish violation by the woman and the compliance of the man, and the four results: shame at nakedness, hiding from God, subterfuges to excuse the action, and punishment by God.

The stress in this chain of events lies on what is mysteriously indicated by the phrases ―being as God” and ―knowing good and evil.” ―Being as God” involves doubt that God’s rule is really in the human interest and unconditionally binding. Helped by the serpent, the man and woman see that they can transgress the divine order. Indeed, they believe that practical reason, exalting itself as lord and God, impels them to do so without bothering about religious correctives or divine judgment.

Yet the story also points out that there is no escaping divine accountability. Those who try to be as God finally stand before God like children who have been found out and are full of evasions. The author thus brings out the full absurdity of the Prometheus motif. But he does so with insight into the tragic human situation in which it seems that there is immanent justification—in the desire for culture, the work of thought, and sensual longing—for human hostility to God and the attempt to break free from the divine prohibition. The true reality of sin can be grasped only when one perceives that the divine likeness itself opens up the possibilities of deviation and the unfathomable distress which every act of deviation causes when it comes under the pitiless divine glance.

In spite of aetiological features, then, the story in its totality offers a perspective on human existence as a whole. The curses undoubtedly explain common features of human life, just as the realization of nakedness explains the general use of clothing. Nevertheless, the explanations carry weight only because they relate, not to an isolated act, but to an act that is typical of the way that all of us act toward God and incur guilt before him. The aetiology thus extends beyond details—even such momentous details as sorrow, work, shame, and death—to the reality of sin as the real force behind all human unrest and unhappiness. Incidentally, shame at nakedness serves very well to express the shame, the insecurity, and the secretiveness that result from sin, quite apart from the problem of sexuality which it also involves.

A more general aetiological explanation justifies us in building on the story a doctrine of original sin in the sense of universal sinfulness. Sin is motivated by a human impulse that is present in all of us, so that in thousands of variations we will all be tempted similarly and sin similarly. The uncontrolled intellect is in conflict with religion, and freedom of will and thought prepares the ground for sin. By making the serpent the representative of the uncontrolled intellect, the author stresses the demonic character of the thinking which derives from doubt and engages in fanatical striving. This comes over us like an outside force, strengthens existing desires, and thus overpowers uncritical obedience. Our experienced inability to resist at this point compels us to recognize the general validity of the phenomenon. Wishing and to some extent able to be wiser than God and to pierce behind his thoughts, we open up a sphere of mistrust in which we renounce our proper attitude as creatures, regard the Creator

with cynicism, and act as though we were ourselves God, responsible only to ourselves. Since reason and the power of judgment are native to us, the motive for sinning is present just as necessarily as life itself.

The author, however, is not trying to give a theological but a popular account. Piety rather than theology comes to expression in his simple presentation. An unsparing desire for truth gives it its unforgettable impress. Nowhere else in the OT do we find religious discussion that is so penetrating and yet so sustained by piety. The narrator is not spinning a theory but speaking out of the compelling experience of inner tension and trying to give his readers some sense of the serious situation which is inseparable from human existence. Why God made us thus, he does not try to say. His religion is to be found in this silence. [G. QUELL, I, 267–86]

B. Theological nuances of hamartía in the LXX. This section supplements A. and D. of this article and B. of the article on hamartōlós by pointing out some important nuances that are partly deliberate and partly due to difficulties of translation. First of all, the LXX gives greater prominence to arrogance as the chief sin by rendering arrogant as hamartōlós (Sir. 11:9). Sin is also identified with wealth (Hab 3:14). Again, it is sickness (Is. 53:4; Dt. 30:3). In Job 42 the LXX stresses the thought of forgiveness, which is only hinted at in the Hebrew, i.e., by substituting the idea of Job’s sin for God’s wrath in v. 7 and bringing in the idea of remission in v. 9. A similar replacement of God’s wrath by human transgression occurs in Judg. 1:18 (cf. Is. 57:17). Sin is equated with apostasy in 2 Chr. 12:2 (cf. 30:7). Folly or ignorance can also be rendered hamartía according to the familiar OT thought that folly is sin. The idea of sin is introduced into Is. 66:4 with its reference to the cause of punishment rather than the punishment itself (cf. 24:6). A spiritualization may be found in Ezek. 23:49. The thought of the school of suffering, which presupposes a strong sense of sin, is read into Job 15:11. The thrust of the LXX, then, is to make hamartía a general term for sin. In so doing it brings individual sins under the concept of the basic sin which separates us from God and controls us so long as we do not receive God’s saving work. For linguistic details, see TDNT, I, 286ff. [G. BERTRAM, I, 286–89]

C. The Concept of Sin in Judaism.

1. The concept of the law is determinative in Judaism. The law as a whole, legal as well as cultic and moral, reveals God’s will. Hence every transgression is sin. Two trends develop: one to level down, since even minor infringements are still sin; the other to differentiate, e.g., between flagrant misdeeds, acts of rebellion, and unwitting offenses. Based on this distinction such sins as violence, licentiousness, and especially idolatry are seen to be mortal, since to commit them is to commit every sin, whereas less serious offenses can be expiated by good works, purifications, and sufferings.

2. The tendency in Judaism is to regard sin as individual rather than collective (cf. Ezek. 18:2ff.). Sin as the individual’s transgression has individual consequences. The commandment is taken to mean that God visits the fathers’ sins on their refractory children to the third and fourth generation. Yet a sense of the general effects of even individual sins remains. The universality of sin finds no opponents. If Israelites sin by breaking the law, the Gentiles sin by breaking the Adamic and Noachic covenants, or even by refusing the law when it is offered to them. Exceptions to universal sinfulness are seen in such saints as Moses and Elijah, and avoidance of sin is possible through freedom and the gift of the law. Furthermore, it is fully expected both that the Messiah will be sinless and that sin will be set aside and sinlessness established in the messianic kingdom.

3. As for the rise of sin, it is traced to Adam and Eve, or at times to the fallen angels (Gen. 6:1ff.). More basically, sin has its origin in the evil impulse which is implanted by God, which entices to sin, and which may and must be overthrown by observance of the law. If it is not, sin brings such consequences as further sinning, separation from God, disruption of God’s gracious purpose, and the punishments of sickness, death, and eternal damnation. But in respect of all these penalties we have the opportunity to repent and return to God. We sin, but God shows us the way of conversion before we die. [G. STÄHLIN and W. GRUNDMANN, I, 289–93]

D. The Linguistic Usage and History of hamartánō, hamártēma, and hamartía before and in the NT.

1. hamartánō, meaning “not to hit,” “to miss,” occurs from Homer and is also used figuratively for “to fall short intellectually,” “to err,” or “to fall short morally,” “to do wrong.” In the LXX the moral sense is predominant.

2. hamártēma denotes the result of hamartánō, “fault,” first due to folly, later, especially in law, in the sense of “offense.” In the LXX it usually has a moral or religious sense, “sin,” or “punishment of sin.” It is rare in the NT.

3. hamartía, also used figuratively from the first, refers more to the nature of the act. It is a comprehensive term with intellectual and legal as well as ethical applications, and it can cover all wrong actions from simple errors to crimes. Aristotle defines it as missing virtue because of weakness, accident, or defective knowledge. Later, guilt is associated with it. In the LXX it is synonymous with hamártēma and carries the full sense of moral guilt and conscious opposition to God, expressing the Godward reference more clearly and fully than adikía or kakía. In the NT it stands for “offense against God with a stress on guilt” and is used a. for the individual act (e.g., Acts 2:38; 1 Tim. 5:22; Rev. 1:5; 1 Pet. 2:22; Heb. 1:3), often with the remission of sins in view (Mk. 2:5; Acts 7:60), in Paul usually only in quotations (e.g., Rom. 4:7–8, though cf. Rom. 7:5); b. for sin as human nature in its hostility to God (e.g., Jn. 9:41; 1 Jn. 3:5; 1 Cor. 15:17; Rom. 3:20; Heb. 4:15; and c. for personified sin (e.g., Rom. 5–7; Heb. 12:1. Behind the third use stands the idea of a demon “sin,” but what we have in the NT is probably poetic imagery.

[G. STÄHLIN, I, 293–96]

E. Sin and Guilt in Classical Greek and Hellenism.

1. Classical Greek does not have the thought of sin as enmity against God, but only of defect and guilt, i.e., missing the mark by error or by guilt. In view are intellectual and artistic as well as moral senses, i.e., all failures to do what is right. Other terms had to be added to express the idea of guilt.

2. Guilt arises through individual acts, ranging earlier from cultic neglect or perjury to social injustices. It is known by way of misfortunes inflicted by the gods as guardians of law and order.

3. By the sixth century the Greek world becomes aware of the riddle of human destiny and the inevitability of guilt. The mysteries express this with the ideas of original guilt (the soul’s exile in the body) and the threat of death. Guilt is now seen as a disruption of order that must be made good by suffering. Guilt is associated with human limitation (e.g., of knowledge) and is thus posited by life itself. It has to be accepted and confessed. To this unavoidable guilt is added personal guilt through failure to heed divine warnings and ultimately through ignorance. Right understanding will thus lead to right action (cf. Socrates and Greek tragedy), although understanding may come only through suffering or paradigms of suffering. Plato, however, lays a greater stress on individual choice, while Aristotle uses the hamartía group for mistakes, or for deviations from the mean, and divests it of the association with moral guilt.

4. After Aristotle rationalism destroys the serious concept of guilt. But the idea of fate remains. In the mysteries and Hellenistic mysticism the hamartía group is used for predetermined destiny which is the cause of guilt but eliminates personal responsibility, redemption being offered by the rites or by gnṓsis.

5. Phrygian and Lydian religion offers an exception with the concept of omnipotent deity willing the good and punishing transgressions such as failing to give thanks, cultic violation, and a series of moral offenses. Sickness is a penalty for sin, which consists of the act, not an inner disposition, so that expiation aims at the restoration of health or cultic normalcy. [G. STÄHLIN and W. GRUNDMANN, I, 296–302]

F. Sin in the NT.

1. The Synoptic Gospels and Acts.

a. In the Synoptics the role of the group is comparatively slight. Jesus does not speak about sin but acts in awareness of it, and is conscious of being the victor over it.

b. His mission is to proclaim the divine lordship in his word and work. This proclamation evokes a sense of distance from God and thus leads to confession and conversion (cf. Lk. 15:18, 21). Sin means guilt toward God and thus demands penitence. Knowing that he has come to call sinners to repentance (Mt. 9:13), Jesus accepts solidarity with them (Mt. 9:10), victoriously bringing forgiveness (cf. Lk. 5:8; 7:37ff.; 19:1–2). His attitude and word of forgiveness are the extraordinary, eschatological breaking in of the divine lordship, as emerges in the Lord’s Supper (cf. Mt. 26:28 and Jer. 31:31ff.). Jesus is the servant

who by his death and resurrection carries away sin (cf. Is. 53:12). Sin is unforgivable only when people recognize the mission of Jesus by the Holy Spirit but defy and resist it (Mt. 12:31–32).

c. That Jesus is the victor over sin is expressed in his name (Mt. 1:21). The mission of the Baptist prepares his way with its call for confession (Mt. 3:6) and baptism with a view to remission (Mk. 1:4). Jesus himself brings fulfilment with the word and act of forgiveness. The apostles continue his ministry with proclamation of the accomplished salvation. Unlike Jesus, who confers it by fellowship, they summon their hearers to receive it by repentance (Acts 2:38), the difference from the Baptist being that they can now declare a completed, not an awaited basis of forgiveness. The usual sense of sin here is the individual act, hence the normal use in the plural.

2. John. John, too, presents Christ as the victor over sin, more specifically by taking it away in his death (cf. 1 Jn. 3:5). This atoning work has universal significance (1 Jn. 2:2). It rests on Christ’s own sinlessness as the one who does his Father’s will (Jn. 8:46). Sin here is action that contradicts the divine ordinance (1 Jn. 3:4). It derives from ungodliness, is universal, involves sins against others, and brings guilt and separation from God (Jn. 9:31; 1 Jn. 3:8) in servitude to demonic power (Jn. 8:34). The mission of Jesus ushers in a new situation expressed in the term krísis, i.e., division and decision. Christ’s coming shows sin to be hatred of God. In face of him the decision is made that divides people (Jn. 9:41). Those who reject Christ die in sin (1 Jn. 5:16–17). But those who receive him find forgiveness (1 Jn. 1:9) as they confess their sin. The Spirit continues the sifting work of Christ (Jn. 16:8–9). Deliverance from sin is achieved in the community as believers are born of God, receive faith and knowledge, and work out the new situation in love (cf. 1 Jn. 3:6, 9). Tension naturally arises as Christians do in fact sin, but they can maintain a basic sinlessness through the advocacy of Christ (1 Jn. 2:1) and reciprocal intercession (1 Jn. 5:16). In Revelation Christ’s loving work delivers us from the sinful world order (1:5). His blood has atoning power. Our task in the end-time is to keep ourselves from the increasing power of sin (18:4–5). By a final and definitive act God will destroy the universal dominion of sin from which we are already liberated.

3. Paul.

a. Paul’s view is oriented to God’s work in Christ, which (1) comes on us in the specific reality of sin, and (2) rescues us from this reality and reshapes us.

b. Paul’s view of sin arises out of his own experience under revelation. From legal blamelessness (Phil. 3:6) he is driven to see and confess the sin of persecuting the church (1 Cor. 15:9) which resulted from attempted self-righteousness and hence from opposition to God even in zeal for his law. Sin for him is thus at its root hostility to God. It entered the world through Adam (Rom. 5) and therefore through freedom, but it subjected us to itself and brought death as its wages (Rom. 6:23). Paul thus connects sin with universal destiny, but does not depict it as a necessity of creatureliness. The act of Adam, death, and the general state of sin are interconnected. Judgment, revealed in Christ, rests on our being as such. The state of sin exists from Adam, but it is made clear only by the law, which actualizes sin and reveals its character (cf. Rom. 8:7), namely, as responsible guilt in enmity against God. Our carnal reality is sinful, not in the sense that sin is equated with the body, but in the sense that we are determined by sin in our carnal being. The law leads to individual sins by stimulating desires that oppose the divine claim. The nerve of individual sins is the failure to acknowledge God (Rom. 1:21). This gives all sins the character of guilt before God and results in sinning as the penalty of sin (Rom. 1:24ff.). Using God’s holy will to enhance its power, sin has a demonic quality (Rom. 7:13), enslaving us (7:14) and handing us over to death, so that we cannot fulfil the law (7:15ff.; cf. Eph. 2:1). The law, however, still discharges its holy function by unmasking sin.

c. The Christ event strikes us in this reality of sin. Christ comes from God to judge and destroy sin (2 Cor. 5:21). The sinless Jesus became sin in vicarious atonement through crucifixion and resurrection. Christ can represent us because of our solidarity in sin. Thus the Christ event overcomes sin for us all. Its coming to us releases us from sin and constitutes us anew. Justified by faith, we have remission of sins (cf. Eph. 1:7). By fellowship with Christ in baptism, we are dead to sin (Rom. 6:2). Having died to it, we are free from it (6:7), we are no longer under the law (6:14), we are the servants of righteousness (6:14),

and we need not continue in sin (6:1). Freedom from sin means the obedience of faith (cf. 14:23) and is expressed in love of the brethren (1 Cor. 8:12). But tension exists between the somatic life, which is given up to death, and the pneumatic life, which has overcome death (Rom. 8:10). This tension continues until Christ comes again and definitively abolishes sin and death (1 Cor. 15:26).

4. The Other NT Writings.

a. Hebrews views sin from the cultic standpoint, presenting Christ as the true and sinless high priest with the one offering for sin in contrast to human high priests with their repeated offerings for themselves and the people. Christ’s offering terminates the cultus by bringing forgiveness and initiating the messianic age (10:17–18). Believers in the present time of affliction are to resist sin (12:1) and to avoid especially the deliberate sin of apostasy (10:26).

b. James derives sin from desire, relates it to the will, and finds its end in death (1:14–15). Sin is an act (2:9) and includes failure to do good. Confession and prayer bring forgiveness (5:15–16). To rescue others from sin is a Christian ministry (5:19–20).

c. 1 Peter proclaims Christ as the victor over sin by his voluntary submission and atoning death as the servant of the Lord (2:22, 24; 3:18).

In the NT as a whole the decisive feature is the realization that Christ is victor and that the new age has dawned in and with him. His victory is a victory over sin, which is (1) a reality that determines humanity and (2) a rejection of God’s claim in human self-assertion. The victory consists of the saving action by which sin is forgiven and life is constituted anew. [W. GRUNDMANN, I, 302–16]

hamartōlós [sinner, sinful], anamártētos [without sin]

hamartōlós (→ telṓnēs, asebés, ádikos). Meaning “sinner” or “sinful,” this word can be a value judgment for a class of people (cf. Mk. 2:16) as well as a description of our natural relationship to God.

A. hamartōlós in the Greek and Hellenistic World.

1. The basic thought is “not hitting” or “missing.” It is used for a. the intellectually and b. the morally inferior.

2. On inscriptions it occurs in a sacral context but hardly seems to have the full religious sense of sinner.

3. Neither the Stoics nor Philo and Josephus use the term for the sinner.

4. It seems not to have been fully connected with hamartía in the Greek world, nor to have found much literary use, because it was a popular term with an ironical or disreputable flavor. It suggests inordinate negation of right and custom and is strongly derogatory if not an actual term of abuse.

B. harmartōlós in the LXX and Its Hebrew Equivalents.

1. In contrast, the term is common in the LXX, mostly for Heb. rāšaʾ, either as an adjective or a noun.

2. The occurrence is predominantly for the “sinners” of the Psalms, who are the opposite of the righteous, i.e., Jews boasting of the law and covenant but breaking the commandments (Ps. 10:7), proud of their folly (49:13), trusting in wealth (49:6), oppressing others, and even ignoring God. Basic to this polemical judgment is the insight that these sinners have a wrong attitude to the law and hence to the God whose will it reveals. The righteous, too, may become sinners but are not sinners in this deeper sense in which sin embraces, not just acts, but the whole attitude and the life which it produces. This usage continues in later Judaism with an even stronger emphasis on regard for the law, the study of which alone will keep us from sin, and rejection of which means separation from God. In both the OT and the rabbis the term has something of a contemptuous accent.

3. hamartōlós is obviously well adapted to express what is meant by the Hebrew term but in so doing it acquires more of a volitional character, since the law as a revelation of God’s will demands decision. It also becomes a religious term, for it now comes into relation with the concept of God.

C. The Development of the Concept of the Sinner in Later Judaism.

1. a. For the rabbis the law is a manifestation of God to Israel and to the whole of humanity. By it the holy God sanctifies his people. This means that those who have the law are by nature holy, whereas those outside it (the Gentiles) are by nature sinners.

b. Those who have and keep the law are kept from sin in an ethical and not just a legal sense, but those who are outside Israel have no similar possibility. This is due to their rejection of the law, and it comes to light in their idolatry, ritual uncleanness, lack of sexual ethics, and general misconduct.

2. This suggests that the righteous, while they may commit sins, do not think of themselves as sinners in an absolute sense. Ideas of general sinfulness and collective sin are present but the possibility of sinlessness through the law is also asserted (cf. Lk. 18:11–12; Phil. 3:6), and there is a sense of distinction from ―sinners‖ through a positive relation to the law. Even the sin of the Gentiles is not an imposed destiny but is by historical decision.

D. The New Testament.

1. The Lexical Evidence. In the NT hamartōlós, which is both an adjective and a noun, still has a derogatory nuance and is used a. for those living in conscious opposition to God’s will in the law (cf. Mt. 9:10), or the woman in Simon’s house (Lk. 7:37), in distinction from respectable people (Mt. 11:19; cf. 1 Tim. 1:9; Jms. 4:8); b. by Pharisees for those who do not keep their ordinances, i.e., most of the people, including Jesus and his disciples (cf. Mt. 9:13; 12:1ff.; 15:2); c. by the Jews for Gentiles (Mt. 26:45; Gal. 2:15), a usage avoided in Acts; d. for guilty humanity as it is yet without Christ and unreconciled (Rom. 5:8; Gal. 2:16ff.); e. for individuals who have fallen into specific guilt (Lk. 13:2; 15:7, 10; Heb. 7:26); and f. adjectivally in all the above senses. In Rom. 7:13 hamartía becomes hamartōlós beyond measure in the sense that the law gives sin self-awareness and thus brings its character to light and opens up the way to liberation from it.

2. The Attitude of Jesus.

a. Reckoning with sin’s reality, though not analyzing it, Jesus adopts current formulas (not ironically) and utilizes them in his mission. He regards those called sinners as true sinners and draws them to himself, a sense of righteousness being the real obstacle rather than a sense of unworthiness, since Jesus has come to meet the need of sin.

b. Mediating total fellowship with himself and God, he thus accepts people as they are, requiring only a confession of need, not of specific sins, opposing the idea that a right relation with God comes by legal observance, and by his kindness, holiness, and majesty inducing renunciation of self-will and readiness for absolute obedience. Only rarely is hamartōlós used in self-description (cf. Lk. 5:8; 18:13); Jesus does not demand awareness of sin to the point of abject self-contempt and self-condemnation.

c. The righteous, too, need a new relation to God. Jesus does not call their righteousness sin but judges its inner character as that which meets only human and not divine standards, and leads to complacency, pride, and cruelty, so that the righteous, too, are called to repentance. In this way Jesus transcends the distinction between righteous and sinners, but in so doing he brings a universal offer of forgiveness and of a new and submissive relation to God, the only limit to the removal of sin by Jesus being unwillingness that it should be removed.

3. The Attitude of the NT Writers. This is the same as that of Jesus except that the cross keeps the NT writers from regarding only others as sinners. Hence hamartōlós is uncommon outside the Synoptists and does not occur in Acts, while in John only the Pharisees use it. For Paul it is a strong term that he applies to himself, signifying rejection of God’s lordship. The new feature is the absence of any frontier between sinners and the righteous, the new frontier being between those who are still subject to sin and those who in Christ are rescued from sin and put in the service of God. This is a sharper frontier, but it involves no sense of superiority, since believers do not magnify themselves as righteous but magnify the grace by which they are righteous and seek to point all people to this way of grace, since it is for them too.

anamártētos. This word, found from the time of Herodotus, is common and means ―without fault,” either in a general sense or in a figurative though not necessarily moral or religious sense. It occurs three times in the LXX, in 2 Macc. 8:4 for ―guiltless before God.” Philo uses it without any Godward reference, but it has this in the one instance in Josephus The Jewish War 7.329.

The only NT example is in Jn. 8:7 where Jesus challenges those who are without fault to cast the first stone at the woman taken in adultery. The obvious meaning of anamártētos is guiltless before God, but the context seems to rule out any specific reference to sexual sin. Oddly, the word is not used for the sinlessness of Jesus, perhaps to bring out the greatness of his freedom from sin by avoiding any suggestion that it was a mere inability to sin. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 317–35]

ámemptos → mémphomai; ametanóētos → metanoéō

amḗn [Amen]

A. Amen in the OT and Judaism. The OT uses the term in relation to both individuals and the community 1. to confirm the acceptance of tasks whose performance depends on God’s will (1 Kgs. 1:36), 2. to confirm the application of divine threats or curses (Num. 5:22), and 3. to attest the praise of God in response to doxology (1 Chr. 16:36). In every case acknowledgment of what is valid or binding is implied. In Judaism Amen is widely used, e.g., in response to praises, to the Aaronic blessing of Num. 6:24ff., to vows, and to prayers. It denotes concurrence, or in the case of a vow commitment, or at the end of one’s own prayer the hope for its fulfilment. The LXX mostly renders the Hebrew term by génoito, which retains the idea of validity but weakens that of commitment to a claim.

B. amén in the NT and Early Christianity. The NT mostly takes over the Hebrew as it stands and uses it in three ways.

1. As an acclamation in worship, it signifies response (Rev. 5:14; cf. Justin Apology 65.3; Did. 10.6).

2. At the conclusion of prayers and doxologies (e.g., Gal. 1:5; Eph. 3:21; 1 Tim. 1:17; 1 Clem. 20.12 for doxologies, 1 Clem. 45.8; Mart. Pol. 14.3 for prayers), it expresses the priority of prayer and doxology. Along the same lines it can occur at the end of a prophecy (Rev. 1:7) or book (Gal. 6:18; Rev. 22:20). It can also be put at the beginning of a doxology, especially where a transition is made (Rev. 19:4). In Rev. 1:7 it is set close to the divine Yes, but Rev. 22:20 shows that it is the church’s answer to the divine Yes, which is here the basis of the eschatological petition. The sense in 2 Cor. 1:20 is the same, for God’s Yes in Christ is the firm foundation for the Amen of the community. Christ himself as the true witness can be called ―the Amen” in his own response to the divine Yes that is declared in him (Rev. 3:14).

3. When Jesus places Amen before his own sayings, both in the Synoptics and (liturgically doubled) in John, the point is to stress the truth and validity of the sayings by his own acknowledgment of them. The sayings vary in content but all relate to the history of the kingdom of God as this is bound up with his own person, so that in the Amen we have all Christology in a nutshell. Acknowledging his word, Jesus

affirms it in his life and thus makes it a claim on others. [H. SCHLIER, I, 335–38]
amíantos → miaínō

amnós, arḗn, arníon [lamb]

amnós. Attested from classical times and used in the LXX, this word occurs four times in the NT, always with reference to Jesus as the innocent lamb who suffers vicariously for others (Jn. 1:29, 36; Acts 8:32; 1 Pet. 1:19). Since Judaism does not call the Redeemer a lamb, two derivations have been sought: first, in the fact that the servant of the Lord in Is. 53:7 (cf. Acts 3:13; 4:27) is compared to a lamb (cf. Acts 8:32), and second, in that Jesus was crucified at the Passover and thus came to be seen as the paschal lamb (1 Cor. 5:7). The Aramaic might also offer a basis with its use of the same word for both “lamb” and “boy or servant.” Thus the Baptist in Jn. 1:29, 36 might have been describing Jesus as the servant of God who takes away the sin of the world in vicarious self-offering (Is. 53). But the writer, in Greek, perceives a reference to the paschal lamb (cf. Jn. 19:36) whose blood blots out sins (→ aírō) by expiation. In any case the description of Jesus as amnós expresses 1. his patience in suffering (Acts 8:32), 2. his sinlessness (1 Pet. 1:19), and 3. the efficacy of his vicarious death (Jn. 1:29; 1 Pet. 1:19), which like the Passover initiates a new age, brings redemption (from sin), and establishes the people of God (extended now to believers from all nations).

arḗn. This word for “lamb” occurs only in Lk. 10:3, where, in antithesis to wolves, it expresses 1. the dangerous position of the defenseless disciples but also 2. the certainty of divine protection.

arníon. Originally a diminutive of arts (“little lamb”), and found four times in the LXX (e.g., Jer. 11:19), this word occurs in the NT once in Jn. 21:15 and 29 times in Revelation. “My lambs” of Jn. 21:15 are members of the community as the objects of Jesus’ loving care. In Revelation Christ himself is called arníon 28 times, and antichrist as his antitype is called arníon once. It is sometimes argued that “ram” is here the correct translation in view of the references to the seven horns (5:6) and his wrath (6:16–17) and warfare (17:14). Indeed, a connection is even made with the zodiac. But Dan. 8:3 suggests the seven horns, while there is little philological justification for “ram,” and the fact that the arníon is “slain” offers a link to the idea of Jesus as the sacrificial lamb (amnós). As Redeemer and Ruler, the lamb of Revelation a. vicariously shed his blood (5:9) and bears the marks of his slaughter (5:6); b. has defeated death (5:5–6) and is omnipotent and omniscient (5:6); c. takes over divine rule, opening the book (5:8ff.), receiving adoration (5:8ff.), establishing a reign of peace (7:9), overcoming demonic powers (17:14), and judging (6:16–17; 13:8); and d. is Lord of lords and King of kings (17:14), holding his marriage feast with the

community (19:9) and sharing God’s throne in rule over his people (22:1, 3). [J. JEREMIAS, I, 338–
41]

ámpelos [vine]

Jesus compares himself with the “vine” in Jn. 15:1ff. to show the disciples’ dependence on fellowship with him and their intensive nurture by God. Jesus is the “true vine,” not as distinct from literal vines, but from others who might figuratively be called vines. The image is a common one in the OT, e.g., for Israel (Hos. 10:1) and the wife (Ps. 128:3); it is also used for wisdom (Sir. 24:17), and the Messiah (Syr. Bar. 36ff.). In later Near Eastern texts the term indicates heavenly messengers and beings from the world of light, and it may be in distinction from these that Jesus is called the “true vine.” [J. BEHM, I, 342–43]

ámōmos, amṓmētos → mṓmos; anabaínō → baínō; anangéllō → angelía; anagennáō → gennáō

anaginṓskō [to read], anágnōsis [public reading]

anaginṓskō means “to know exactly,” “to recognize,” and is mostly used to refer to (public) reading, e.g., a letter (Acts 15:31; 1 Th. 5:27) or the title on the cross (Jn. 19:20); usually the OT (Mk. 2:25, etc.), publicly in Lk. 4:16; Acts 13:27; the Daniel apocalypse (Mk. 13:14); the prophecy of Revelation (Rev. 1:3); and the NT (Justin Apology 67.3–4). anágnōsis, meaning “knowledge” or “recognition,” is also used for public reading, as of documents or the OT, and occurs in this sense in the NT (e.g., Acts 13:15; 2 Cor.

3:14; 1 Tim. 4:13) and the early church (e.g., Clement of Alexandria paedagogus 2.10.96.2). [R.
BULTMANN, I, 343–44]

anankázō [to compel], anankaíos [compelling], anánkē [compulsion]

A. anank- outside the NT. The root refers basically to compulsion and the means of compulsion. As a necessary condition of life this may be 1. a cosmic principle, first personified as the divinity of being, then rationalized as immanent necessity, then repersonified in Hellenism as the inscrutable force controlling all reality. In cosmological dualism it may also be 2. the constraint or constraints which oppose spirit, the main aim in ethical life being to subject these to reason. In the OT the Greek word is used for the Hebrew “constraint” in the sense, not of a natural condition, but of divinely imposed afflictions such as persecution or sickness. Rabbinic theology uses the equivalent for the messianic tribulation.

B. anank- in the NT. Since acknowledgment of God as Creator and Preserver of the world leaves no room for necessity, the NT, like the OT, uses the term 1. to express a situation of need, such as a. the messianic tribulation (Lk. 21:23), and b. the afflictions of Paul (2 Cor. 12:10) or the community (1 Cor. 7:26); 2. to describe the apostolic office: it is a divine constraint which Paul cannot escape, being part of God’s plan of salvation (1 Cor. 9:16); 3. to denote the divine order (Rom. 13:5; Mt. 18:7). [W. GRUNDMANN, I, 344–47]

anágnōsis - anaginṓskō; anadeíknymi - deíknymi; anazáō - zōḗ; anáthema, anathematízō, anáthēma - anatíthēmi; anakainízō, anakainóō, anakaínōsis - kainós; anakalýptō - kalýptō,; anákeimai - keímai; anakephalaióō - kephalḗ; anakrázō - krázō; analambánō, análēmpsis - lambánō; anakrínō, anákrisis - krínō

analogía [proportion]

análogos “corresponding to lógos”; hence analogía, “correspondence,” “proportion.” In Rom. 12:6 the charism of prophecy is to be in correspondence to faith, not as what is believed (cf. vv. 3, 6), but as the actual believing. There can be no exercise of gifts such as healing without faith, but there may be inauthentic exercise of prophecy (cf. 1 Cor. 12:10; 14:29). Hence the reminder that prophesying is to be in

proportion to one’s faith. [G. KITTEL, I, 347–48]

análysis, analýō — lýō; anamártētos — hamartōlós

anámnēsis [remembrance], hypómnēsis [remembrance]

anámnēsis means “remembrance” or “recollection.” In Heb. the sin offerings cannot remove sins but remind us of them (cf. Num. 5:15). In 1 Cor. 11:24 Christians are to enact the Lord’s Supper in a recollection of Jesus which has the form of active re-presentation as the action of Jesus and the disciples is repeated. hypómnésis in 2 Tim. 1:5 and 2 Pet. 1:13; 3:1 has much the same sense. [J. BEHM, I, 348–49]

ananeóō — néos; anáxios — áxios

anapaúo [to cause to rest], anápausis [rest], epanapaúō [to rest on]

anapaúō. a. “To cause to cease”; b. “to give rest,” “refresh”; c. “to rest”; d. “to remain at rest”; e. “to rest on.” In the NT the word can mean bodily rest (c), as in Mk. 6:31, but more commonly it denotes refreshment (b), as in 1 Cor. 16:18. In Revelation it has an eschatological reference, “to rest from labor” (b) in 14:13, and “to tarry,” i.e., await (d) in 6:11. God’s Spirit is the subject in 1 Pet. 4:14: “to rest on” (e). Christ’s saving work is to give rest (b) in Mt. 11:28.

anápausis. a. “Cessation,” “interruption”; b. “rest”; c. “place of rest”; d. “day of rest.” Instead of the rest given by wisdom, Jesus offers true rest (b) with the gospel (Mt. 11:28–29). Without “cessation” (a) is the sense in Rev. 4:8, “place of rest” (c) in Mt. 12:43.

epanapaúō. A late and rare word: a. “to rest on,” b. “to lean on.” Peace will rest on the house (a)

according to Lk. 10:6, while rest in possession of the law (a) is meant in Rom. 2:17. [O.
BAUERNFEIND, I, 350–51]

— katapaúō, katápausis

anaplēróō — plēróō; anástasis — anístēmi; anastauróō — staurós; anastréphō, anastrophḗ — stréphō

anatéllō [to rise], anatolḗ [rising]

anatéllō. “To cause to come forth” or (intransitive) “to come forth,” used in the NT for “to spring forth” in Heb. 7:14 (cf. Jer. 23:5) or “to shine forth” in 2 Pet. 1:19 (cf. Num. 24:17) with no precise distinction.

anatolḗ. 1. “Rising of stars”; 2. “sunrise” as a quarter of heaven, i.e., the east, either as a place of good (Rev. 7:2) or of bad (Rev. 16:12); 3. perhaps the Messiah in Lk. 1:78 (cf. Jer. 23:5; Zech. 3:8; 6:12 LXX),

or the shining of a star from heaven (cf. v. 79 and Philo On the Confusion of Tongues 14). Justin and Melito in the early church see in Christ’s advent the rising of a star (Justin Dialogue with Trypho 100.4 etc.) or the dawn of heavenly light. [H. SCHLIER, I, 351–53]

anatíthēmi [to set forth], prosanatíthēmi [to consult], anáthema [cursed], anáthēma [cursed], katáthema [accursed], anathematízō [to curse], katathematízō [to curse]

anatíthēmi (prosanatíthēmi). Used in the NT only in the middle with dative of person and accusative of object, this word means “to set forth one’s cause” (Acts 25:14) or “to expound with a request for counsel, approval, or decision” (Gal. 2:2). prosanatíthēmi has the latter sense “to submit for approval, consideration, or judgment” in Gal. 1:16 and 2:6. The rendering “to impart something” in 2:6 is linguistically insecure and does not fit the context. “To impose an added burden” is not supported by outside references (cf. Acts 15:28).

anáthema, anáthēma, katáthema. ana;thema and anáthēma are variants for a. “something dedicated to deity,” b. “something put under divine curse.”

1. The NT has the first sense only in Lk. 21:5 (temple offerings).

2. Paul uses the term for the object of a curse. Calling Jesus accursed is a self-contradiction for Christians in 1 Cor. 12:3. Handing over to God’s judicial wrath is the idea in 1 Cor. 16:22 (cf. Gal. 1:8; Rom. 9:3). Paul’s readiness for this on behalf of his people (Rom. 9:3) is a supreme instance of his devotion to the gospel and his race. katáthema, a rare word, is equivalent to anáthema (perhaps a sharper form) in Rev. 22:3: There will not be “anything accursed” in the New Jerusalem as there was in the first Paradise (Gen. 3:17ff.).

3. In Acts 23:14 the meaning is a vow or obligation whose breach brings under a curse.

anathematízō, katathematízō. “To bring under the anathema,” “to curse.” Those who plotted against Paul in Acts 23:12, 21 put themselves under a curse, or under God’s judgment, if they did not make every effort to fulfil their obligation. Peter in Mk. 14:71 puts himself under a curse if he is lying, or puts the people under a curse if they make out that he is a disciple. katathematízō has the same sense in the parallel passage in Mt. 26:74. [J. BEHM, I, 353–56]

anaphérō — phḗrō; anápsyxis — psychḗ; andrízomai — anḗr

anénklētos [blameless]

The word anénklētos means “blameless,” “guiltless,” normally in an everyday and even formal sense.

1. The NT uses it in this more general way when Titus is to see that presbyters, and Timothy that deacons, are “blameless” (Tit. 1:6; 1 Tim. 3:10).

2. The word has a more religious sense in 1 Cor. 1:8 and Col. 1:22. Christians are blameless, and will be presented as such at the judgment, on the basis of Christ’s reconciling death and resurrection (cf. Rom. 8:33–34). Presupposed are God’s help (1 Cor. 1:8) and continuation in faith (Col. 1:23). [W. GRUNDMANN, I, 356–57]

anektós - anéchō; aneleḗmōn, anéleos - éleos

anexereúnētos [inscrutable]

This postclassical word means “inscrutable” and is used in Rom. 11:33 for the mystery of God’s way of judgment with Israel that leads to grace. The term implies that the question of the meaning of this judgment cannot be given any theoretical human answer. [G. DELLING, I, 357]

anexíkakos - kakós

anexichníastos [fathomless]

The meaning “indetectable” is found only in biblical and postbiblical usage (e.g., Job 5:9; 9:10 LXX). In the NT the word occurs in Rom. 11:33 and Eph. 3:8. The parallelism in Rom. 11:33 suggests a poetic source (with a Gnostic tinge). Eph. 3:8 in context points in the same direction. Irenaeus (Against Heresies

1.10.3) quotes Rom. 11:33 in his anti-Gnostic polemic. [E. PETERSON, I, 358–59]
anepílēmptos - lambánō; ánesis - aniḗmi

anéchō [to endure], anektós [tolerable], anochḗ [forbearance]

1. “To receive,” “take up,” “bear,” “endure.” Thus one “receives” the word (Heb. 13:22; 2 Tim. 4:3), “accepts” people (2 Cor. 11:1), “puts up” with them (Mk. 9:19), “receives” or “bears” afflictions (2 Th. 1:4), and “endures” in the absolute (1 Cor. 4:12); cf. in the absolute the verbal adjective anektós (“tolerable”) in Lk. 10:12.

2. “To restrain oneself.” God does this either to our destruction (Is. 64:12 LXX) or in mercy (Is. 42:14 LXX). In Is. 63:15 LXX the sense merges into that of “to tolerate.” The noun anochḗ in Rom. 2:4 and 3:25 is God’s “restraint” in judgment (linked with his kindness and patience in 2:4 and forgiveness in 3:25). [H. SCHLIER, I, 359–60]

anḗkei [fitting]

anḗkei denotes “what is fitting or seemly,” with a suggestion of being “obligatory” in Phlm. 8. In Eph. 5:4 the idea is of “what does not belong” because believers are saints in Christ. The unsuitability may

concur with the world’s judgment, as in Col. 3:18, or run contrary to it, as in Eph. 5:4. [H. SCHLIER, I,
360]

anḗr [man, husband], andrízomai [to act manly]

A. anḗr outside the NT.

1. The word is common for “man” with adjectives or nouns denoting function.

2. It also denotes the human species a. as distinct from fabled monsters or gods and b. in the sense of the inhabitants of a place.

3. It can specifically signify the male.

4. It can also be used for husband (Ex. 21:22 LXX).

5. It may also denote an adult male as distinct from a boy.

6. It may also have the sense of full manhood as an absolutized natural force.

B. anḗr in the NT.

1. The term is most common in Luke; for sense 1. see Acts 3:14; 18:24.

2. a. This sense occurs in Lk. 5:8; Jms. 1:20; the main distinction is from spirits or animals. b. This is a common usage either for humans in general, as in Mt. 14:21, or for population of a place, as in Mt. 14:35.

3. Sexual differentiation is usually expressed differently, but cf. Lk. 1:34.

4. The use for husband occurs in Mk. 10:2, 12; Rom. 7:2–3; the household tables in Eph. 5:22ff.; Col. 3:18–19; 1 Pet. 3:1ff.; the rules for officebearers in 1 Tim. 3:2, 12; Tit. 1:6. If wives are to submit to their husbands, husbands are to show the same unselfish love as Christ. The fiance can already be called anḗr (Mt. 1:19; Rev. 21:2).

5. This sense underlies 1 Cor. 13:11. anḗr téleios in the NT is figurative (e.g., Eph. 4:13; Jms. 3:2).

6. This does not occur in a sexual sense in the NT, but Luke suggests the dignity of honorable and mature manhood in Lk. 23:50; Acts 6:3, 5; cf. 1:11. andreía is not used in the NT, but Paul has andrízomai in 1 Cor. 16:13 in the exhortation to stead-fastness in the faith. [A. OEPKE, I, 360–63]

anthomologéō → homologéō; anthrōpáreskos → aréskō

ánthrōpos [man], anthrṓpinos [human]

ánthrōpos.

1. “Man” as a species, a. as distinct from animals (Mt. 12:12), angels (1 Cor. 4:9), Christ (Gal. 1:12), and God (Mk. 11:30); b. as subject to weakness (Jms. 5:17), death (Heb. 9:27), sin (Rom. 3:4), evil (Mt. 10:17), flattery (Lk. 6:26), error (Gal. 1:1). The phrase katá ánthrōpon suggests not only analogy to the human sphere and human logic (Gal. 3:15; 1 Cor. 15:32) but also the limited nature of human thinking and conduct compared to God’s (Rom. 3:5; 1 Cor. 9:8; Gal. 1:11), with a stress sometimes on its sinful nature (1 Cor. 3:3; 1 Pet. 4:6).

2. The word is used in Semitic fashion with a genitive to suggest relationship (cf. Lk. 2:14; 2 Th. 2:3—man of sin; 1 Tim. 6:11—man of God).

3. Paul has the word in some sets of antitheses: a. the outer man (the physical side) and the inner (the Godward side) (2 Cor. 4:16; Eph. 3:16); b. the old man (unconverted and sinful) and the new (renewed in Christ) (Rom. 6:6; Eph. 4:22ff.; Col. 3:9–10). c. The physical man and the spiritual (1 Cor. 2:14–15).

4. “The man” is a messianic term for Jesus in Rom. 5:15; 1 Cor. 15:21, 47; Eph. 5:32; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:6; → huiós toú anthrṓpou. For the first and second man of 1 Cor. 15:45, 47 → Adám and huiós toú anthrṓpou.

anthrṓpinos.

1. This is used of humans as part of the created world; cf. Jms. 3:7, where humans are distinguished from animals; 1 Pet. 2:13, where the sense is more likely “human creature” than “human institution,” there being no instance of ktísis for the latter.

2. It is also used to distinguish humans from God (Acts 17:25), with a stress on limitation (Rom. 6:19; 1 Cor. 2:13; 4:3—in contrast with God’s judgment; 10:13, where the temptation is not said to derive from us, but not to be beyond our puny human strength). [J. JEREMIAS, I, 364–67]

aníēmi [to release], ánesis [rest]

The basic idea is that of “relaxation of tension.” aníēmi means “to release” or “loose” in Acts 16:16; 27:40, figuratively “to give up” in Eph. 6:9.

ánesis has the sense of “mitigation of imprisonment” in Acts 24:23, but elsewhere has the figurative sense of “rest” or “refreshment” (cf. 2 Cor. 2:13; 7:5; 8:13; 2 Th. 1:7; with an eschatological reference, cf. anápsyxis in Acts 3:20). ánesis is not used in the NT for “remission,” nor in the fairly common Greek

sense of “license,” “self-abandonment.” [R. BULTMANN, I, 367]
ánitos → níptō

anístēmi [to raise, arise], exanístēmi [to raise, arise], anástasis [resurrection], exanástasis [resurrection]

anístēmi, exanístēmi.

A. Meanings of anistánai and exanistánai. In the Bible the words have the general senses a. “to raise up,” “awaken,” “institute,” “deport,” “set up,” “repair,” and intransitively b. “to rise up,” “waken,” “recover,” “rise up” (e.g., to speak, or in enmity).

The words also have the special senses a. “to begin an action,” b. “to raise up seed,” c. “to introduce” (a personage in history), and d. “to raise up, or rise, from the dead.”

B. Resurrection in the Greek World. Apart from transmigration, the Greeks speak of resurrection only a. as an impossibility, or b. as an isolated miracle of resuscitation. They have no concept of a general resurrection; the hearers in Acts 17:18 seem to think anástasis is a proper name (cf. 17:31–32).

C. Resurrection in the OT and Judaism. The OT recounts individual restorations to life (1 Kgs.
17:17ff.) and prepares the ground for the hope of a general eschatological resurrection (cf. Ezek. 37:1 ff.;

Is. 53:10; Job 19:25ff.; Ps. 73), but this becomes specific only in, e.g., Is. 26:19; Dan. 12:2. The Samaritans and Sadducees rejected the hope but it was solidly established in later Judaism, being spiritualized by Josephus (immortality) and Philo (mystical liberation), though neither uses the word anástasis.

D. Resurrection in the NT.

1. The NT recounts individual restorations to life (Mk. 5:42; Acts 9:40). The stories are marked by sobriety and solemnity, and the awakenings are not just isolated miracles but messianic signs (Mt. 11:5; Jn. 11:25–26; Mt. 27:53).

2. Jesus predicts his own resurrection (Mk. 8:31; 9:9; 10:34), and his raising is described as the work of the Father exalting the crucified Lord to messianic glory (Acts 1:22; 2:24; Rom. 1:4; 1 Cor. 15:1ff.). On the significance of the resurrection for the kerygma - egeírō, syzáō.

3. The resurrection of Jesus is the firstfruits of general resurrection (1 Cor. 15:20; Col. 1:18). The logic of faith is toward resurrection to life (1 Cor. 15:22; Rom. 8:11; Jn. 6:39–40). Yet there is a double resurrection, believers being raised first (perhaps Lk. 14:14; Rev. 20:5–6; possibly 1 Cor. 15:23–24, especially if télos means “the rest” rather than “the end”; 1 Th. 4:16–17, though cf. Rom. 2:16; 2 Th. 1:9– 10; 1 Cor. 4:5). New life is a present possession but is still the goal of resurrection hope and striving (Phil. 3:11—the only NT instance of exanástasis). 2 Tim. 2:18 refutes the Gnostic error that resurrection has already taken place, and 1 Cor. 15 combats denial of the resurrection, possibly as too materialistic.

anástasis, exanástasis. The words are equivalent: a. “erection” of statues, dams, etc.; b. “expulsion” from one’s dwelling, then (intransitively) a. “arising,” e.g., from bed, or sleep; b. “rising up” or “departure”; c. “resurrection.”

In the NT 2. a. occurs in Lk. 2:34: “fall and rising,” i.e., judgment and salvation. Elsewhere the terms are used only for Christ’s resurrection (e.g., Mk. 2:18; Jn. 5:29; Rom. 1:4; Heb. 6:2 Phil. 3:11). [A. OEPKE, I, 368–72]

- egeírō, zōḗ

ánoia - noús; anomía, ánomos - nómos; anósios - hósios; anochḗ - anéchō; antagōnízomai - agṓn; antállagma - allássō; antanaplēróō - plēróō; antapodídōmi, antapódoma, antapódosis - dídōmi; antapokrínomai - krínō; antéchō - échō

antí [in place of]

A preposition from the Hellenistic period, antí does not have the sense “over against” in the NT but is used for a. “in place of” to denote a replacement or equivalent (Rom. 12:17; 1 Th. 5:15; 1 Pet. 3:9; Heb. 12:16, or a similarity (1 Cor. 11:15). From this develop the senses b. “on behalf of” in Mt. 17:27 or “to the account of” and c. “for the sake of” or “for this cause” (Eph. 5:31), “because” (2 Th. 2:10—antí toútou). In Mk. 10:45 the position of anti pollōn (“for many”) shows that it goes with lýtron rather than doúnai and thus has sense a.: The sacrificed life of Jesus is a sufficient price to redeem many. Even if we put it with doúnai and give it sense b., it still carries a vicarious significance, for Jesus is then giving his

life “on behalf of” the forfeited life of the many. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 372–73]

antídikos [opponent]

A. antídikos outside the NT.

1. The basic meaning is “the opponent at law,” whether individual or collective (cf. Prov. 18:17 LXX).

2. Figuratively the term then means “the opponent in a dispute” (cf. Jer. 27:34 LXX). 3. The word then simply means “opponent” (Esth. 8:11 LXX).

B. antídikos in the NT. The NT never uses the term in the direct sense 1. Sense 2. occurs in Mt. 5:25, which is not just prudent advice, since the antídikos is the brother and the background is eschatological. Lk. 12:58 makes the same point with the same background, but the relation to God rather than to the neighbor is more prominent here.

The usage in 1 Pet. 5:8 hovers between 2. and 3. The image of a court action is abandoned, but the idea of Satan as the accuser (Job 1:6ff.; Zech. 3:1; Rev. 12:10) is still present to give color to the expression. Sense 3. is the obvious meaning in Lk. 18:3, since the widow is not pleading in court. [G. SCHRENK, I, 373–75]

antilambánomai [help], antílēmpsis [helpful], synantilambánomai [to support]

The main idea is that of “taking up” or “grasping,” but with such extensions as “to help,” “to import,” and in the LXX “to keep to” (Is. 26:3), “to enter into alliance with” (Mic. 6:6) as well as, predominantly, “to help.”

In the NT antilambánomai has the first sense in Acts 20:35 (“take up the cause of”) and the sense of divine “help” in Lk. 1:54 LXX.

antilēmpsis in 1 Cor. 12:28 does not refer to assuming office but to “help” in the general sense, i.e., not of miracles, but of loving action (cf. Acts 6:1ff.).

synantilambánomai means “to take in hand with,” and has a general sense in Lk. 10:40 (Martha and Mary) and a more specific sense in Rom. 8:26, where the Spirit joins with us in intercession to fashion pneumatic prayers that surpass human comprehension but are searched out by God, who knows the mind of the Spirit. [G. DELLING, I, 375–76]

antílytron - lýō; antimisthía - misthós; antítyp os - týpos; antíchristos - Christós; anypókritos - hypokrínō; anypótaktos - tássō

ánō [above], anṓteron [above], ánōthen [from above]

1. As an adverb of place ánō means “above” (or “earlier”) and is used of land, mountains, atmosphere, and heaven, heaven in the NT usually in either a material (Jn. 11:41) or a religious sense (cf. tá ánō in Jn. 8:23; Phil. 3:14). The above-below distinction was important in the rabbis, with a measure of parallelism between what happens above and what happens below.

2. In Philo the distinction between God and the world is linked with the cosmological distinction between an upper and a lower world, God being at the head and matter at the foot (cf. Gnosticism). Judaism and the NT do not divide the cosmos in this way, since God is its Creator and Lord, and God is thus above and the whole world as his creation is below. Thus the ánō klḗsis in Phil. 3:14 is God’s call in Christ, the tá ánō of Col. 3:1–2 refers to where Christ is at God’s right hand, and the Father, not “that world,” is the opposite of “this world” in Jn. 8:23; 13:1. Similarly, the Jerusalem that is above in Gal. 4:26 is described in religious terms, with “the present Jerusalem,” not that which is below, as its counterpart. The NT does offer descriptions of the world to come in Revelation, making use of the idea of a world above and a world below for this purpose, but its basic distinction is not between two worlds but between God as holy and eternal on the one side and the world as sinful and transitory on the other.

ánōthen. Both outside and in the NT ánōthen is an adverb a. of place “from above” (Mt. 27:51) and b. of time “from an earlier period” (Acts 26:5). Further senses are then c. “from the first” (Lk. 1:3) and d. “anew” (Gal. 4:9). In Jn. 3:3, 7 the original usage inclines in favor of “from above,” which alone links with Job 3:4 and Jms. 1:17 to suggest “of God.” John uses ánōthen elsewhere in sense a. (3:31; 19:11, 23) and always describes birth in terms of origin (1:13; 1 Jn. 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:18; Jn. 3:5–6). Sense d. helps to make the obtuseness of Nicodemus a little more intelligible and is considered by Origen and Chrysostom, though they both lean heavily toward a. The versions vacillate between a. and d. The suggestion that both a. and d. are meant cannot be proved. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 376–78]

áxios [worthy], anáxios [unworthy], axióō [to consider worthy], kataxióō [to consider worthy]

áxios, anáxios. Strictly “bringing into balance,” hence “equivalent” (e.g., Rom. 8:18), with such extensions as “being appropriate” (1 Cor. 16:4), “deserving” (Mt. 10:10), “worth,” e.g., considering or accepting (1 Tim. 1:15), or praising (Rev. 4:11), “worthy” almost in the sense of “in a position to” (Rev. 5:2), and “corresponding to” (Mt. 3:8).

In the NT the thought of merit is excluded; we are worthy of the gospel only as we receive it (cf. Mt. 10:11, 13; 22:8; Acts 13:46; Heb. 11:38; Rev. 3:4).

In many expressions a genitive or infinitive is put with áxios to denote the sphere of correspondence (cf. Rom. 16:2). Paul admonishes his readers to walk worthy of the gospel, their calling, and the Lord (1 Th. 2:12; Phil. 1:27; Col. 1:10; Eph. 4:1; cf. 3 Jn. 6), thus linking the motive and goal of Christian action, the motivating power residing in God’s prior action. Hence the warning not to receive the Lord’s Supper unworthily (anáxios ) does not refer legalistically to a moral quality but to an attitude determined by the gospel.

axióō, kataxióō.

1. “To make worthy”—the sense in 2 Th. 1:11.

2. “To regard as worthy,” “to value.” The NT use of the compound kataxióō (Lk. 20:35; Acts 5:41; 2 Th. 1:5) helps to bring out the fact that in ourselves we are not worthy of the divine gift of grace.

3. “To regard as right” (Acts 15:38). [W. FOERSTER, I, 379–80]

aóratos → horáō; apangéllō → angelía; apaídeutos → paideúō; apaitéō → aitéō; apallássō → allássō; apallotrióō → állos

apántēsis [meeting]

In 1 Th. 4:17 there will be, at the Lord’s return, a rapture of his people to meet him. The word apántēsis was used for the public welcome accorded to important visitors. Similary Christians will

welcome Christ, acclaiming him as Lord. [E. PETERSON, I, 380–81]

hápax [once, once for all], ephápax [at once, once for all]

hápax.

1. “Once,” a. as a strictly numerical concept, used in the NT for Christ’s unique and unrepeatable work (Heb. 9:25–26), with added emphasis through (1) the reference to the last time, (2) the double repetition in vv. 27–28, and (3) the application in v. 28, where Christ is the one offering as well as the one high priest. The term then takes on significance for Christ’s second coming as well as the first (Heb. 12:26 “once more,” i.e., “for the last time.” b. “Once” as an indefinite concept of time, “when,” “after,” etc., in the NT only in one reading of 1 Pet. 3:20 and perhaps Heb. 6:4; 10:2.

2. “Once for all,” used in the NT for the definitive Christian state and the one baptism (Heb. 6:4). “Once ... tasted” suggests a proverbial saying similar to “having once tasted blood”; it is unnatural to let the gift go again. In Heb. 10:2 the point is that there was no once-for-all cleansing by the old offerings. Jude refers to the definitive nature of Christian teaching (“the faith”) by which we know all that is needed for salvation and which we are thus to hold fast.

ephápax.

1. “At once,” “together,” in the NT (1 Cor. 15:6).

2. “Once for all,” with reference to the uniqueness of Christ’s death (Rom. 6:10), by which sin and Christ are quits, so that in him we can die to sin in an irreversible turning to God. Heb. 7:27 expresses the same thought in sacrificial language; Christ offered himself once for all in contrast to the high priests with their daily sacrifices, and he thus accomplished a once-for-all cleansing (Heb. 10:10), our sanctification

having the same definitiveness as the sacrifice. [G. STÄHLIN, I, 381–84]
aparábatos → parabaínō; aparnéomai → arnéomai; aparchḗ → árchō

apatáō [to deceive], exapatáō [to deceive], apátē [deception]

apatáō, exapatáō. Common from Homer, also in the LXX, for “to deceive or entice” (e.g., Judg. 14:15; Jer. 4:10; Gen. 3:10; Job 31:27).

The chief sense in the NT is that of enticing to sin (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14; Rom. 7:11). Eph. 5:6 warns against “deception,” and 1 Cor. 3:18 refers to sinful “self-deception.”

apátē. a. “Deception or enticement,” b. “pleasant illusion,” “pleasure.” Meaning a. is found in the NT in Col. 2:8; Heb. 3:13; 2 Th. 2:10, while b. is most likely in Mk. 4:19; 2 Pet. 2: 13; and perhaps Eph. 4:22,

but always with a stress on the evil aspects. It is thus strongly influenced by a. [A. OEPKE, I, 384–85]

apátór — patēr; apaúgasma — augázó; apeítheia, apeithéó, apeithḗs — peíthó; apeírastos — peirázó; apekdéchomai — déchomai; apékdysis, apekdÿó — dÿó; apeleútheros — eleútheros; apelpízó — elpízó; aperítmētos — peritomē; apéchó — échó; apistéó, apistía, ápostos — pisteúó

haploús [simple], haplótēs [simplicity]

haploús. a. “Simple,” then b. “open,” “with no ulterior motive,” then c. “simple” in the negative sense. In the NT, as in Judaism, “simple” is mostly either neutral or positive.

In Mt. 6:22 the meaning might be “healthy,” but if there is an ethical reference (cf. the “evil eye” as the possible opposite) “pure” is the meaning (cf. haplótēs d.). In Jms. 1:5 “kind” is possible, but “wholehearted” is more likely.

haplótēs. a. “Simplicity,” b. “noble simplicity,” as of heroes, c. “purity,” “singleness of heart,” and d. “generosity.”

The usual NT sense is c. (Eph. 6:5; Col. 3:22; 2 Cor. 11:3), but d. “liberality” occurs in Rom. 12:8; 2

Cor. 8:2; 9:11, 13. [O. BAUERNFEIND, I, 386–87]

apogígnomai — gígnomai; apódektos, apodéchomai — déchomai,; apodídómi — dídómi; apodokimázó — dókimos; apodochḗ — déchomai; apothnḗskó — thánatos

apokathístēmi [to restore], apokatástasis [restoration] [IN FULL KITTEL]

apokathístēmi. “To restore,” then 1. “to return” (e.g., something borrowed), 2. “to restore” a. buildings etc., b. middle “to heal,” e.g., lepers in Ex. 4:7, c. “to renew the world,” d. “to reconstitute,” e.g., a kingdom.

The biblical and messianic usage derives from 2 d. (and c.). The term is used for God’s restoring of Israel to its land (Jer. 16:15; Hos. 11:11). This comes to be understood messianically and eschatologically, but inner restitution is also required (Am. 5:15), effected by the returning Elijah (Mal. 4:5). From the Aramaic for effecting a turn, or returning, the Samaritan Messiah derives the name Taheb. The originally political sense of the term may be seen in the disciples’ question in Acts 1:6. The answer accepts the expectation but denies its political significance. Elsewhere in the NT the verb relates to the forerunner (the Baptist) rather than the Messiah (cf. Mk. 9:12; 8:28; Mt. 11:10; Jn. 1:21). The “all things” of Mk. 9:12 is to be interpreted in terms of the Baptist’s mission.

apokatástasis.

A. apokatástasis in Secular Usage. Found in the NT only in Acts 3:20–21, this word basically means “restoration,” and then has special applications 1. in medicine, 2. in law, and 3. in politics. 4. It is also used in astronomy for the return of the constellations, the shining again of the sun or moon, the restitution of the cosmic cycle, and the periods of the phoenix, with the corresponding ideas of eternal recurrence and new creation (as in Stoicism). 5. It is used, too, of individual souls, e.g., when entering again the cycle of generations, and in the Hermetic writings in connection with the release from matter.

B. apokatástasis in Judaism. The LXX does not have the term, and it is rare in Judaism with little technical input. Josephus uses it for the return from exile, and Philo for the exodus and mystically for the soul. Surrounding cosmological speculation had hardly any influence.

C. apokatástasis in the NT. The reference in Acts 3:20–21 is strictly to the restitution of that of which the prophets have spoken, or the establishment of what they have spoken. Grammatically the conversion of persons cannot be intended. The relations of which the prophets spoke are restored to the integrity of creation while their promise is itself fulfilled. The times of refreshing mark the beginning of the transformation through the messianic work of Jesus. The text has no bearing on the question of universalism with which it is often linked. Judaism holds out no such hope, and if Paul stresses the comprehensive work of the second Adam (Rom. 5:18; 1 Cor. 15:22; Col. 1:20) he also says that judgment will have a twofold outcome (Rom. 2:7ff.), while God’s being all in all will be through the overthrow of opposition (1 Cor. 15:25ff.).

D. apokatástasis in the History of the Church. From Origen’s day the word has often been used for the restoration of all created beings. Irenaeus does not take this view, and Clement of Alexandria only hints at it, but Origen equates beginning and end and hence looks for the ultimate removal of all hostility to God, relying mainly on 1 Cor. 15:25ff. and Jn. 17:11 but taking his term from Acts 3:21 in the medical and political senses rather than the astronomical. His followers include many eastern theologians and such westerners as Scotus Erigena, Hans Denck, J. A. Bengel, and F. D. E. Schleiermacher. [A. OEPKE, I, 387–93]

aροkaΙýρtō, aροkáΙyρsis - kaΙýρtō

apokaradokía [eager expectation]

Made up of kára and dékomai, apokaradokía denotes stretching the head, e.g., to spy on, or to pay attention. It is linked with hope in the NT (Phil. 1:20) and thus denotes “confident expectation.” The same applies in Rom. 8:19, where creation is straining forward, i.e., waiting with eager longing under the stress of conflict.

[G. DELLING, I, 393]

aροkataΙΙássō - aΙΙássō; apokatástasís - aροkathístēmi; apókeimai - keímai; aροkóρtō - kóρtō; aρókrima, aροkrínō, aρókrisis - krínō; aροkrýρtō, aρókryρsοs - krýρtō

apóllymi [to destroy], apṓleia [destruction], ΑροΙΙýōn [Destroyer]

apóllymi.

A. The Literal Use. a. “To destroy,” “kill,” in battle or prison; b. “to suffer loss or lose”; c. “to perish”; d. “to be lost” (cf. Lk. 15), not sharply distinguished from c.

B. The Figurative Use.

1. In Mk. 8:35 etc., with b. and d. as a background, the soul is an object of value which is not just lost but which we actively lose in trying to save or secure our lives, like the rich fool of Lk. 12: 16ff. The ambivalent concept of life gives the sayings their profundity. In Lk. 15 the three parables are told from

God’s standpoint. The lost sheep has Ezek. 34:4 as a basis, with the idea of wandering and perishing in view. Jesus must seek what is lost and will not lose what the Father has given him (Jn. 6:39).

2. A specific NT usage with sense a. or c. as the basis occurs in 1 Cor. 8:11; Rom. 2:12; 1 Cor. 1:18; 2 Th. 2:10; 1 Cor. 15:18; Jn. 10:28, etc. The meaning is “to be lost,” or, more likely, “to perish,” active “to destroy” with a human or demonic destroyer (Rom. 14:15), or someone divinely commissioned (Mk. 1:24), or God himself as subject (cf. 1 Cor. 1:19; Jude 5; Jms. 4:12). In view is not just physical destruction but a hopeless destiny of eternal death.

apṓleia. Rare in secular Greek, this means a. “destruction,” “ruin,” b. “perishing,” c. “loss.” It is common in the LXX in sense b. (cf. Job 26:6). In the NT the curse of Acts 8:20 has an OT ring. Eternal destruction is signified in Mt. 7:13; Rom. 9:22; Phil. 1:28; 2 Th. 2:3; Jn. 17:12; 2 Pet. 2:1; Rev. 17:8, 11.

Apollýōn. In Rev. 9:11 Apollýōn is a translation and personification of the Hebrew and means Destroyer (usually seen as a play on Apollo, the god of pestilence, who was regarded as the god of the empire and had the locust as his creature). [A. OEPKE, I, 394–97]

apoloúō — loúō; apolýtrōsis — lýō; aposkíasma — skiá; apostasía — aphístēmi

apostéllō [to send out], (pémpō ) [to send], exapostéllō [to send out], apóstolos [apostle], pseudapóstolos [false apostle], apostolḗ [apostleship]

apostéllō (pémpō ).

A. apostéllō and pémpō in Secular Greek.

1. apostéllō is a strengthening compound of stéllō and is common in Greek for “to send forth,” differing from pémpō, which stresses the fact of sending, by its relating of sender and sent and its consequent implication of a commission, especially in Hellenistic Greek.

2. It thus carries the further thought of authorization, e.g., in the case of official envoys, but also divinely sent teachers. It is used in the latter sense by the Cynics and Stoics, by Irenaeus (with reference to Menander), and by Philo.

B. apostéllō and pémpō in the LXX (OT) with Judaism.

1. apostéllō occurs over 700 times in the LXX, mostly for the root šlḥ; pémpō only some 26 times, six with no Hebrew original. apostéllō/šlḥ are mostly used where there is commissioning with a message or task. Alone they denote the sending of a special messenger with emphasis on the sender (cf. Is. 6:8), so that the messenger is a kind of plenipotentiary. The message and the one sent are of interest only as they embody the sender, no matter who the sender or the sent may be. Even those who are sent realize that the stress is on the sender (cf. Gen. 24:1ff.).

2. The LXX pursues this thought consistently, even using apostéllō for šlḥ contrary to the literal sense in order to bring out the authoritative element in the action and the position of the one who acts. The features of the verb in secular Greek are thus taken up and merged with what the OT equivalent contributes. Even in relation to the prophets the use is not just religious; the situation itself gives the religious flavor. Nor does the term denotes self-awareness, as in the case of the Cynic, for there is no place for this alongside unconditional subjection to the will of the sender.

3. Rabbinic Judaism keeps within the sphere delineated by šlḥ. Josephus has apostéllō some 75 times, more or less synonymously with pémpō in some cases, elsewhere to denote official missions or sending by God. Philo has an absolute use similar to that of Cynics and Stoics and not affected by šlḥ.

C. apostéllō and pémpō in the NT.

1. apostéllō occurs some 135 times in the NT, mostly in the Gospels and Acts. pémpō occurs some 80 times, 33 in John, five in Revelation, 22 in Luke/Acts, only four in Matthew, and one in Mark. Apart from

the special use of pémpō in John, the Lucan material predominates; it prefers apοstéΙΙō, yet like Josephus can use pémpō as a synonym and has less sense of the specific nature of apοstéΙΙō. The religious character of the NT material explains the general predominance of apοstéΙΙō, and in the NT as a whole pémpō seems to be used when the stress is on the sending, apοstéΙΙō when it is on the commission, and especially (in the Synoptists) when it is God who sends.

2. In John, Jesus uses apostéΙΙō to denote his full authority, i.e., to ground his mission in God as the One who is responsible for his words and works. But he uses pémpō, e.g., in the phrase ―the Father sent me,” so as to state God’s participation in his work by the act of sending. There is a slight parallel here to Cynic usage but with the distinction that the Cynics stress responsibility to God alone, whereas the point in John is the unity of will and action between Jesus and the Father. The terms as such do not shape Johannine Christology, for they are not basically or essentially theological terms. They are given their specific meaning in John by the context. The mission of Jesus acquires its significance and force from the fact that he is the Son, not from its description in terms of apοstéΙΙō.

3. In the NT apοstéΙΙō certainly begins to be a theological word for ―sending forth to serve God with God’s own authority,” but only in context and not with any radical departure from its normal sense.

exapostéllō. This has essentially the same meaning as apοstéΙΙō, with which it is interchangeable in the LXX and Philo. It occurs 13 times in the NT, eleven in Luke, and two in Paul. The idea that in Gal. 4:4 the ex- denotes a prior presence with the sender (Zahn) finds no support. Here, too, the term derives it christological flavor only from the context, and the emphasis is on God as the sender.

apóstolos (→ dṓdeka, mathētḗs ).

A. The Word and Concept apóstolos in Classical Greek and Hellenism.

l. The Greek Usage. In older Greek the term is a nautical one denoting a freighter or a naval force with no sense of initiative or authorization. Hence it does not become a term for envoy as in the NT, nor do the LXX, Josephus, or Philo form a link at this point to the distinctive and unusual NT usage.

2. Religious Messengers in Hellenism.

a. Material contacts between the NT apostolate and the Greek world are also slight. The Greek prophḗtai serve as mouthpieces for deity, but they do so as anonymous intermediaries, totally subject to the deity and with no specific sense of mission or authority.

b. The Cynics are something of an exception with their awareness of sending, and their use not only of apostéllō but also of such words as ángelos, kḗryx, and katáskopos to describe their work as messengers, heralds, and observers (with a view to helping). The Cynics have an active attitude with a strong sense of commitment to their message and of responsibility both for humanity and toward Zeus, to whom they are ultimately bound and from whom they derive their boldness of speech. In particular the term katáskopos offers in their case something of a parallel to the NT apóstolos, at least in the formal sense. Their mode of life is also similar, since they move about with their message, dependent on well-wishers for support. They express their awareness of mission by a certain arrogance and by their claim to be ―divine men” (a phrase especially used by the Stoics). This claim, however, involves a certain tension with its approximation to the impersonality of the Greek prophḗtai. The unlimited claim goes hand in hand with a renunciation of personal significance which does not leave room for development of the concept of the apóstolos. The relation of the messenger to the deity does not have the character of an unconditional appointment, there is no clear concept of God or certainty about the revelation of his will, and the

message can thus make no claim to absoluteness. For this reason the legal aspect plays little or no role.

B. apóstolos/ šālî(a)ḥ (šālû[a]ḥ)in Judaism.

1. apóstolos among the Greek Jews. In Greek Judaism the term does not occur much, since the Jews were not a seafaring people. Josephus has it once for the sending of envoys to Rome (involving a journey by sea, but with some influence of apοstéΙΙō ). The LXX has it only in 1 Kgs. 14 to describe Ahijah’s commission to give a divine message to the king’s wife.

2. The Later Jewish Institution of the šāΙû(a)ḥ. Judaism takes us a step forward with the term šāΙî(a)ḥ, which is recognized, e.g., by Jerome, to bear some kinship to the NT apóstolos.

a. The legal institution of the šālû(a)ḥ, which is ancient but takes shape in the first century, involves commissioning with specific tasks and stresses authorization. The legal element of giving and obeying orders is decisive. The person sent represents the sender, e.g., in betrothal, divorce, or purchase. Full adherence to the commission is presupposed. The applicable law is that of the messenger, whose honoring or shaming is an honoring or shaming of the sender (1 Sam. 25:40–41; 2 Sam. 10:1–2). The person sent is as the person who sends.

b. The šālî(a)ḥ, however, may represent a group as well as an individual, e.g., a congregation, or the community. It is in this sense that rabbis regulate the calendar in the dispersion, or the high priest acts for the people, or rabbis make a collection for the Palestinian scribes after A.D. 70, or Paul goes to Damascus in Acts 9:1ff. Laying on of hands for such tasks confers a religious as well as an official character. Jewish missionaries, however, are not called by this term (not even by Justin in Dialogue with Trypho 108), since they do not have the authorization of the community. Thus the bearers of the office are better called “authorized representatives” than “apostles,” since the latter term, in view of NT usage, would give a wrong impression of the missionaries of Judaism, who were backed by groups rather than the people as such.

c. The term does, of course, carry the idea of divine authorization, e.g., in the case of the priest or of such personages as Moses and Elijah, who are commissioned by God, not the community. The prophets, however, are never given this designation, perhaps because, although they speak about God in God’s name, they do not actively represent God, especially as they are for later Judaism instruments of the Spirit.

C. The Use of apóstolos in the NT.

1. Statistical Findings. There are 79 instances plus some secondary readings: one each in Matthew, Mark, and John; 29 in Paul plus five in the Pastorals; 34 in Luke/Acts; one each in Hebrews, 1 Peter, and Jude; two in 2 Peter; and three in Revelation-hence 80 percent in the Pauline and Lucan material. The term stands at the head of epistles some eleven times-six in Paul, three in the Pastorals, and one each in 1 Peter and 2 Peter.

2. The Meaning.

a. The NT contains no trace of the common nonbiblical use for the act of sending or, figuratively, the object. Always signified is the person sent with full authority. The Greek gives only the form, the Hebrew the content. The legal element entails that the reference is only to males, although by the course of things women might have been apostles too (see D.2.).

b. There is full identity between apóstolos and šālî(a)ḥ in Jn. 13:16, where apóstolos denotes one who is legally charged to represent the person and cause of another (cf. the juxtaposition of doúlos and kýrios, apóstolos and pémpsas).

c. apóstolos can refer to the commissioned representative of a congregation, as in 2 Cor. 8:23 or Phil. 2:25 (Epaphroditus).

d. apóstolos also denotes bearers of the NT message, first the twelve (Acts 1:26) sent out by Jesus himself (cf. Mt. 10:2; Mk. 6:30), with Peter their head and Jerusalem their center (Acts 8:1); then the first Christian missionaries, as in Acts 14:4, 14 (Paul and Barnabas), Gal. 1:19 (James), Rom. 16:7 (Junias and Andronicus), and 1 Cor. 15:7 (a wider circle). Paul and Barnabas are sent by the congregation at Antioch (Acts 13:1ff.), but the apostle is properly an apostle of Jesus Christ, and this larger group shares with the twelve the common basis of a meeting with the risen Lord and commissioning by him personally. Hence Apollos and Timothy are not called apostles, but Paul’s apostleship is accepted at Jerusalem (Acts 15; Gal. 2:9; cf. 1 Cor. 15:8ff.). Apostles, then, are not officials of the church but officers of Christ for its upbuilding, and in this sense they are comparable to the OT prophets (Eph. 2:20; 3:5). “In the church” in 1 Cor. 12:28 refers to the whole body whose head is Christ (cf. Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18; Eph. 4:11), not to the local congregation.

e. Heb.3:1 calls Jesus himself an apostle, obviously in the sense that the definitive revelation of God has taken place in him. Absence of the article before high priest shows that the phrase “apostle and high priest” is a unity. For the church Christ is the Son in whom God has finally spoken and who has made

final expiation. Where the Son speaks and acts, God speaks and acts (as it was God who spoke and acted through the OT priest). The confession has absolute authority on the basis of his absolute authorization for word (apóstolos) and work (archiereús). Another possibility is that the two terms contrast Jesus with Moses and Aaron in virtue of his unique divine sending, but this would involve an unusual NT sense and isolating two terms (apóstolos and archiereús) which the author is concerned to relate.

D. The Rise and Nature of the Apostolate in the NT.

I. Jesus and the First Circle of Disciples.

a. The rise of the apostolate begins with the first group of disciples. Externally this group resembles similar groups around other leaders. The difference lies in its genesis and outcome. It originates on the initiative of Jesus. The disciples accept his call, listen to him, and learn obedience from his revelation of God as Holy One and Father. The apostles cannot later become mere officebearers because they are under God’s orders and acknowledge the supremacy of the rule of love. Only true disciples can have this authoritative part in the work of Jesus. Thus all apostles must be disciples, though not all disciples need be apostles. The phrase “twelve apostles” can be used quite early (Mt. 10:2), yet it does not imply an exclusive equation of “the twelve” and “the apostles.”

b. The disciples begin their apostolic work when Jesus makes them co-workers. No reason for this is given. Jesus simply calls the twelve and sends them out (apostéllein in Mark) with authority (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Here, then, is authoritative sending in the sense of full delegation, followed by a later return and report. To question the historicity of the sending creates more problems than it solves, but the derivation of the apostolate from Jesus does not depend on this sending in view of Mk. 9:38ff., where the basis of John’s complaint about the exorcist is that only the disciples are authorized to use the power of Jesus, and Mt. 10:40ff., where the identification of sender and sent presupposes authorization (the one sent is as the one who sends, and what is done to the former is done to the latter). As the disciples are shown and perceive, their authorization is linked with the person of Jesus. Yet the correction of John in the first passage rules out any claim based on the authorization. If the disciples have full power to speak and act as Jesus does, this does not confer rights but implies the duty of service. The second passage is to the same effect: commissioning by Jesus means humiliation rather than exaltation. Service and humility purge the apostolate of the claims which might accompany its legal authorization. They make it a commission rather than an office. This is also illustrated by the sending out of the seventy (Lk. 10:1) and the fact that when the disciples return to Jesus they do not continue their work but become hearers and ministers again (Lk. 9:49–50). Apostleship as such has no religious character but is just a form. The apostles receive their religious impress from him who commissions them, and in such a way that the commission itself is the main thing, not its bearers.

c. The use of the terms “apostles” and “disciples” in Matthew and Mark supports this. When commissioned, the disciples of Mt. 10:1 become the apostles of 10:2 (cf. Mk. 6:30). But on their return they become disciples again throughout the rest of these Gospels. The situation is a little more complex in Luke, where “apostles” is a fixed term for the first disciples in 22:14; 24:10 but elsewhere is used in connection with actual mission, e.g., 6:12–13; 9:10. In 6:12–13 Jesus himself would use the Aramaic term, which does not have the suggestion of office that later came to attach to the Greek word. Hence it is reasonable enough to believe that the term is not a later assimilation or intrusion so long as we understand that apóstolos is simply an objective word to denote a fully accredited representative with a specific commission. Lk. 6:12–13 corresponds to Mk. 3: 13ff., though in both cases the true appointment as apostles comes later (Lk. 9:1; Mk. 6:7). The disciples are chosen with a view to their later sending. The apostleship, then, derives from Jesus, and in Aramaic the word itself is also his, not in terms of office, but in terms of authoritative commissioning.

d. Significant, too, is the linking of the apostles with the proclaiming of the word. In Mk. 3:14; Lk. 9:2 the disciples are sent out to preach (cf. Mt. 10:7–8). An objective element, the message, thus becomes the content of apostolate. Full and obedient dedication to the task is demanded. Action accompanies speech in demonstration of authentic commissioning. The works are not a subject of boasting or evaluation but of a joy that expresses a complete ignoring of the person and absorption in the task (Lk. 10:17). The success of

the apostles is the success of Jesus himself, and in the report it crowds out any reference to difficulties in the discharge of the task (about which Jesus gives clear warning in, e.g., Mk. 6:11).

2. The Early Christian Apostolate as a Gift of the Risen Lord.

a. The first commission to preach the kingdom is for a limited period. The death of Jesus leaves the disciples at a loss, but the risen Lord constitutes them a community and renews the commission. The apostles are now witnesses of the resurrection. On the other hand, not all such witnesses are apostles. Thus women are not included, although women are in fact the first witnesses and the church includes women prophets. Again, not all the ―more than 500‖ seem to have been apostles. Personal commissioning by the risen Lord, as well as personal meeting with him, is the basis of the apostolate. This applies primarily to the twelve (Matthias replacing Judas), who have been prepared for the task but have now to preach Christ as the fulfilment of OT prophecy. They become his authoritative representatives, but the very nature of their commission means that they are now also missionaries. A number of others join with the twelve in receiving and executing this commission (cf. Acts 15:1 ff.). The missionary aspect is something new compared to the Jewish šālî(a)ḥ institution. The new commission is also of a more lasting character, applying to the whole period between the ascension and the return. Yet there is only one appointment, so that we can hardly think of the apostolate as a continuing office. It is still marked by an endowment with authority and the duty of rendering an account; Paul is a classical example. The Spirit is indispensable, for in the Spirit (Pentecost) the apostles receive assurance of Christ’s presence and power and also a standard of what is to be done as the apostles dedicate themselves to God’s will and aim at faith in the hearers rather than personal achievement as preachers or healers. The accompanying works are displays of Christ’s power which validate the divine message as fact and not just theory. They are indispensable, not to the messengers, but to the message. To dismiss them as legendary accretions is to disclaim the apostolate as a basic religious institution, reducing it to a legal office. The thinking relating to these apostolic signs finds its model in Moses as the divine messenger endorsed by signs (Ex. 3:12). To be sure, Christ as the risen Lord works in the whole community, not just in the apostles. Yet the apostles have special significance as leaders who enjoy the full accreditation of the Lord with a universal commission to what is to be a universal community. The Lord is still behind what they say and do. He himself is the subject of their message. In this new commissioning, however, this is an ongoing message to the world.

b. John’s Gospel confirms these findings while not using the term apostle. In it the Easter stories show how the Lord united the disciples to himself and gave them full authority (cf. Thomas in 20:24ff.; Peter in 21:1ff.). Here again obedience and service are the issue, not personal achievement. Believers are Christ’s sheep and Peter is to feed them, not rule over them. Commitment and responsibility go with the commission. Only with the Spirit can it be discharged (20:21ff.). The use of apostéllō and pémpō in 20:21 shows that the work is ultimately Christ’s own work in which he gives the disciples a share as he sends them (pémpō). The messengers’ authorization is subsidiary to that of Jesus. By the same token, however, it is he who sustains them in their office; hence the importance of the paráklētos whom he sends (pémpō) (14:26; 15:26). Probably the focus on Christ as the one who works with the Father from first to last is what causes John to avoid the term apóstolos while not denying that the disciples were fully accredited representatives.

c. It was perhaps in Antioch that apóstolos first came to be used for šālî(a)ḥ in the first instance for the mission, then for the missionaries. Paul might have had a hand in it, for he is the first clearly to use it for the individual messenger of Jesus. It could be adopted only because of an existing relation between apostéllein and šālaḥ. A problem is that of distinguishing between apóstoloi in the absolute and the apóstoloi of the churches (cf. Acts 13:1), but since Jesus is the principle of the churches’ action, since the Spirit has the initiative, since only Paul and Barnabas are sent, and since apostéllein is not used for what the church at Antioch does, Paul and Barnabas are obviously apostles of Christ, not of the Christians at Antioch.

d. While the chief basis of the apostolate is the will and commission of Christ under the direction of the Spirit, the election of Matthias shows that eyewitness is also a qualification. The new commissioning

is thus a continuation of the old, and the history of Jesus is regarded as supremely important. Paul is inferior in this regard and hence seeks a further basis for his apostolate while entering at the same time into the full stream of the historical tradition (1 Cor. 11:23ff.; 15:1 ff.).

3. The Classical Form of the Apostolate in the Person of Paul. Paul offers the classical case of an apostle because of the information he leaves, his unusual position, his special labors, his strong sense of calling and office, and his need to vindicate his apostolate against objections.

a. Paul’s entry on the apostolate involves a sharp break in his life which he can trace only to the eternal will and special action of God. His apostolic sense is determined by his meeting with Jesus on the Damascus road. His response to this is one, not of vacillation, but of sudden and resolute commitment to the Jesus he had formerly persecuted. For Paul this meeting is not a visionary experience but an objective act of God speaking through Jesus. He thus becomes an apostle of Jesus Christ, but by the will of God (1 Cor. 1:1; 2 Cor. 1:1; Eph. 1:1). Being an apostle means being “set apart for the gospel” (Rom. 1:1) “before he was born” (Gal. 1:15). The apostolate is thus a sign of divine grace leading to obedient subjection (1 Cor. 15:10). In this regard Paul links up with the OT prophets, especially Jeremiah, in whom we see complete devotion to the message, the predominance of the concept of God, elimination of the ecstatic element, a developed prophetic self-awareness, a determinative union with God, the embracing of his whole life by his calling, and a powerful restriction to the word. Whether or not Paul consciously follows Jeremiah in his sense of mission, he does so in his evaluation of suffering as an element in apostolic life, his concentration on the word, his rejection of any ecstatic basis for the apostolate (cf. 2 Cor. 12:1ff., where Paul can in fact boast of ecstatic experiences but refuses to link them with his apostolate lest grace should be obscured), and his parallel depreciation of apostolic signs (2 Cor. 12:12, where he mentions them only to show the justice of his cause, not the significance of his person). It is in the service of his message (the word of the cross, 1 Cor. 1:18; of reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5:19) that Paul stresses his apostolic authorization. The apostle, like the prophet, is a bearer of divine revelation. Since this revelation is fulfilled in Christ, a new term is needed in place of “prophet”-a term which corresponds to the new situation but still refers to the divine commission. The NT prophets, of course, do not correspond to those of the OT, though they are held in high regard. It is the apostle who has in the new situation the function of the prophet in the old.

b. If the special position of Paul is primarily determined by his calling to be a messenger, one of the reasons that gives him a more developed sense of calling similar to that of the prophets is the objection that he does not have the status or dignity of the other apostles (Gal. 1). But this goes hand in hand with his experience of Jesus and his recognition of the importance of the Spirit. These lead him to see himself as an envoy of Christ (2 Cor. 5:20) working together with him (2 Cor. 6:1). The God who worked in Jesus works through Paul as one who serves God and thus shares in God’s own work (1 Cor. 3:8, 11ff.). This is true, however, only on the basis of his commission, not his person. As the servant of this Lord, conscious of God’s overruling all history, he can insist with joy on his apostolic responsibility even though the close bond with the Lord imposes present poverty and suffering (2 Cor. 12:10).

E. Jesus as the One Who Was Sent.

1. Only once is Jesus called apóstolos (Heb. 3:1), but in John especially the thing itself seems to be present; cf. the use of apostéllō. The question arises whether redeemer myths have an influence here with their talk of the messenger, the sending, the ambassador of light, and the imparting of truth. An important point is that spatial movement (from above) rather than authorization is the main issue in such circles.

2. In John, however, the sending brings out the significance of the person of Christ and of what is done in him, namely, that the Father speaks and acts by him. a. In the signs God manifests Jesus as the promised one and himself as the one who works in and through him. b. The destiny of those who meet Jesus is decided by their attitude to him rather than by his doctrine: Jesus represents the Father in person.

c. The death of Jesus is inseparable from his word, and his crucifixion and glorification constitute a unity. Thus Jesus is more than the Gnostic ambassadors. If the idea of sending plays a role, it is colored by John’s Christology rather than shaping it. For John the whole complex is linked with prophetic sending

and acquires its stamp from the fact that this ambassador is not a man, not even primal or preexistent man, but the Son in whom the Father manifests his presence and offers salvation or judgment.

pseudapóstolos. This word occurs only in the NT, and in the NT only in 2 Cor. 11:13, where Paul himself defines it: “disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.” These false apostles are not authorized by Christ, as is shown by their lack of exclusive commitment to God or Christ. Their description as “superlative apostles” (11:5) is full of irony, for an apostle already has an incomparable position as such, and yet is marked by humility. Paul has in view his Judaizing opponents who contest his apostleship (cf. Gal. 1:1). Christians, perhaps Paul himself, probably coined the term, which supports the thesis that apóstolos in its distinctive sense is also of Christian provenance. For the same idea, though not the word, cf. Rev. 2:2: “who call themselves apostles but are not.”

apostolḗ. A fairly common word for a. “dispatch of ships,” b. any kind of “sending,” also active “separation,” “entombment” (of a mummy). In the Jewish sphere it can have such varied senses as “tribute,” “present,” “dispatch of a gift,” or simple “sending.”

In the NT it is used with diakonía in Acts 1:25, cháris in Rom. 1:5, alone in 1 Cor. 9:2 and Gal. 2:8, always with reference to the office of the apóstolos of Jesus, being fully controlled now by apóstolos in its NT sense. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 398–447]

aροstréρhō - stréρhō; aροsynágōgοs - synagōgḗ; aροtássō - tássō

apophthéngomai [to declare]

“To speak out loudly and clearly, or with emphasis” (of philosophers, ecstatics, singers, and prophets), sometimes in a bad sense. It is used in a good sense in Acts of those who, filled with the Spirit, speak ecstatically (Acts 2:4) or prophetically (Acts 2:14; 26:25). [J. BEHM, I, 447]

aρορsýchō - psychḗ; apróskopos - kóρtō; aρrοsōροΙḗmρtōs - ρrοsōροΙēmρsía

aρōthéō [to reject]

Used from Homer for “to repel,” “to reject,” this word occurs in the NT only in the rhetorical question of Rom. 11:1 and the negative answer it demands (v. 2). Israel is God’s people, hence he cannot repudiate them. [K. L. SCHMIDT, I, 448]

apṓleia - apóllymi

ará [curse], kataráomai [to curse], katára [curse], epikatáratos [cursed], epáratos [accursed]

ará. Originally “wish,” “petition,” but used for “curse” from Homer’s time, and found in the NT only at Rom. 3:14.

kataráomai. “To curse,” so Lk. 6:28; Jms. 3:9 with accusative of person (mostly dative in nonbiblical Greek).

katára (→ exagorázō). Derived from katarásthai, “to enchant,” katára means “curse.” l. Curse (and Blessing). Curses, found in almost all religious history, are utterances that are designed to bring harm by supernatural operation. They are made by priests, chiefs, the dying, etc. They often involve special formulas and rites. Sometimes they are linked with prayers. They demand belief in their fulfilment. They play a role in law, e.g., self-cursing for breaches of oaths. Jesus forbade his disciples to curse (Lk. 6:28), giving authority only to withhold remission (Jn. 20:23). God’s curse, e.g., through the prophets, reveals his judgment in such a way as to initiate it (cf. Gal. 3:10, 13), the emphasis being on the ineluctability of the consequences of sin.

2. Gal. 3:13. This is the curse of the law, since the law expresses it (Dt. 27:26), but as such it is God’s curse. It applies to everybody, not just to the Jew or Jewish Christian. To be a sinner is to stand under God’s wrath and condemnation. Release comes because Jesus became a curse on our behalf (hypér) in a vicarious action which is not relativized but also not merely objectivized as though it were a legal transaction apart from us. Jesus’ vicarious work effectively establishes a new fellowship between God and us, so that redemption is ours through Christ’s becoming a curse (v. 13), as reconciliation is ours through his being made sin (2 Cor. 5:17ff.). His being made a curse means that he enters our alienation in order to bring us out of it. Why this is necessary, Paul does not say. He simply accepts the fact. But he also sees that the curse of the law initiates the punishment of sin, so that new fellowship is in fact possible only by Christ’s vicarious bearing of the penalty.

epikatáratos, epáratos. epikatáratos occurs in the NT only in Gal. 3:13 and means “cursed.” epáratos in Jn. 7:49 (on the basis of Dt. 27:26) expresses the scorn of the scribes for the unlearned; not knowing the law, they are “cursed.” [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 448–51]

argós [idle], argéō [to be idle],katargéō [to render inoperative]

argós, argéō. argós means a. “indolent,” “useless,” “unemployed,” and b. “incapable of action.” It occurs in the NT in the secular sense in Mt. 20:3 (“unemployed”), Mt. 20:6 (“inactive”), and Tit. 1:12 (“idle”). It also has a religious sense in 2 Pet. 1:8, namely, “ineffective,” i.e., without works that express faith and hence “unserviceable” or “worthless” (parallel ákarpos, “unfruitful”). argéō, used in the LXX for “to rest,” is used in the negative in 2 Pet. 2:3 to express the latent activity of judgment; it is “not idle.”

katargéō. In the NT this word has the secular meanings “to condemn to inactivity” (Lk. 13:7), “to destroy” (1 Cor. 13:11), and “to take out of the sphere of activity” (Rom. 7:2).

1. Religiously Paul uses it for “to make inoperative.”

a. When God or Christ is the subject, the effect is beneficial. A transvaluation of values is effected in 1 Cor. 1:28: God “brings to nothing” things that are. In Eph. 2:15 he “destroys” the law of commandments; Christ’s work frees us from the legalistic requirements of the law (while not invalidating its ethical demands; cf. Rom. 3:31). God also “robs” this age and its rulers “of their power” (1 Cor. 2:6), including death, and, as Hebrews puts it (2:14), the devil. The body of sin, i.e., our form in subjection to sin, is thus “negated,” although our new life has not yet taken on its definitive form, and thus includes things which will be ended, e.g., prophecy and our present knowledge (1 Cor. 13:8). For with the coming of the perfect, the imperfect “loses its point” (v. 10).

b. When we are the subject, the effect is harmful, for by a Judaizing approach to the law we can nullify faith and make the promise void (Rom. 4:14), or by insisting on circumcision we “remove” the offense of the cross (Gal. 5:11).

2. The provisional disarming of demonic powers will issue in their complete destruction at the return of Christ (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Th. 2:8; 1 Cor. 6:13).

3. The sense in Rom. 7:6 and Gal. 5:4 is “taken out of the sphere of operation,” i.e., of the law in the first verse, of Christ in the second.

4. In 2 Cor. 3 vv. 7 and 13 seem to be instances of 2. (“transitory,” “evanescent”). The same might apply in v. 14 if the point is that the illusion that the glory of the law remains is “destroyed” in Christ; but if the old covenant is taken to be the subject, the meaning is that it is “devalued” by Christ, having only a borrowed glory and not its own, and thus losing its relative value when the true glory comes with Christ.

[G. DELLING, I, 451–54]

aréskō [to please], anthrōpáreskos [man-pleasing], areskeía [desire to please], arestós [pleasing], euárestos [well-pleasing], euarestéō [to be well-pleasing]

aréskō. aréskō originally meant “to set up a positive relation,” hence “to make peace,” then aesthetically “to please,” with such nuances as a. “to be well disposed,” b. “to take a pleasant attitude,” and c. “to please.”

In the NT the word means “to please” in Mk. 6:22; Acts 6:5, “to please oneself” in Rom. 15:1ff., “to please” in expression of an attitude or approach in 1 Th. 2:4; Gal. 1:10; Rom. 8:8; 1 Th. 2:15; 4:1.

anthrōpáreskos. The opposite of an incipient theáreskos, this word in Col. 3:22; Eph. 6:6 denotes the norm of those who, out of fear, try to please their superiors. Paul in contrast bases true service to others on service to God.

areskeía. This word denotes the attitude of an áreskos; hence the meaning in Col. 1:10 is “every kind of pleasing attitude,” toward whom being only implied.

arestós. Meaning “acceptable” or “pleasing,” and denoting in the LXX what God (or a person) accepts as pleasing, this word is used for “pleasing” to God in Jn. 8:29; Acts 6:2; to the Jews in Acts 12:3; “things pleasing to God” (par. commandments) in 1 Jn. 3:22.

euárestos, euarestéō. Meaning “well-pleasing,” “acceptable,” euárestos in the NT always (except in Tit. 2:9) refers to God, and is never an evaluation (except in Phil. 4:18, describing the Philippians’ gifts) but always the goal of the Christian life (e.g., Rom. 12:1–2; 14:18; Col. 3:20), so that we are constantly to test what is euáreston (Eph. 5:10). Of the three senses of euarestéō, a. “to be well-pleasing,” b. “to take pleasure in,” and c. “to walk as is well-pleasing,” b. occurs in Heb.13:16 and c. in Heb. 11:5–6 [W. FOERSTER, I, 455–57]

aretḗ [virtue, excellence]

A. aretḗ outside the NT. This word has many senses but primarily means a. “eminence” in either achievement or endowment or both, b. “martial valor,” c. “merit,” d. in philosophy “virtue,” which in

Hellenistic Judaism (though not in Philo) can approximate righteousness, e. “self-declaration” on the part of the gods, and finally f. “fame” (its exclusive nuance in the Greek translation of the OT).

B. aretḗ in the NT. It is important here that the LXX finds no use for the Greek idea of “virtue” and hence has the term only in the sense of “excellence” or “fame.” Not surprisingly, then, it is extremely rare in the NT. In Phil. 4:8 Paul puts it next to “praise” in a series with “what is true” etc., and if the series has mainly a religious ring, what he has in mind is the excellence that the righteous are to maintain in life and death. The same applies in 2 Pet. 1:5 (in spite of a secular parallel that might suggest “virtue”) while in the only other verse (1 Pet. 1:9) the context suggests either “self declaration” (e.) or “fame” (f.) [O. BAUERNFEIND, I, 457–60]

arḗn → amnós

arithméō [to count], arithmós [number]

1. These words are often used in the literal senses “to count” and “sum” or “number” (Mt. 10:30; Acts 11:21; Rom. 9:27), but in Rev. 13:17–18 aríthmós has a special sense which raises the question of sacred numbers. The mystery of regularity seems to have led to the investing of numbers with potency. In the NT new content is given them by events, the inherited symbolism is refashioned, and the symbolism is mainly formal and stylized, 7, 10, and 12 being especially prominent in Revelation.

2. As for Rev. 13:18 the riddle is that of numerical values ascribed to letters, with the added complications that the alphabet might be either Greek or Hebrew, and that 616 is an alternative reading to 666. The various solutions proposed, e.g., Titus, Nero, the Roman empire as such, or simply antichrist, are all unsatisfactory, and it may be that the divine was writing only for initiates of his own day, or that the passage is pure eschatology in the sense that the meaning will be clear only when the mystery is already

present. [O. RÜHLE, I, 461–64]

arkéō [to be sufficient], arketós [sufficient], autárkeia [contentment], autárkēs [content]

arkéō, arketós.

1. In religion these terms, which at first simply express “contentment,” can become an ethical demand for contentment with what we have, either out of prudence, or freedom relative to external goods, or (in the NT) confidence in God’s adequate provision (cf. Heb 13:5, 1 Tim. 6:8; also Mt. 6:32ff.; Lk. 3:14).

2. A warning may also be issued against the security of illusory sufficiency (though the NT does not usually have the arkéō group for this).

3. Contentment is related by some philosophers to the supreme good, e.g., fashioning life according to nature. In the OT contentment is associated with moderation in 1 Kgs. 3:6ff., and the sense of God’s guidance and the readiness for obedience in Ps. 73. Rabbinic exegesis finds religious satisfaction in God in his answer to Moses in Dt. 3:26 (cf. the paraphrase of Gen. 17:1). In Jn. 14:8 being shown the Father confers supreme contentment. In 2 Cor. 12:9 participation in grace is all-sufficient for Paul.

autárkeia, autárkēs.

1. The philosophical sense among the Cynics and Stoics is that of “self-sufficiency” or “self-reliance,” while the ordinary meaning is “competence” or “sufficient quantity.”

2. In the NT the word is given a new dimension as part of godliness (1 Tim. 6:6). Thus Paul’s apparently philosophical contentment in Phil. 4:11ff. finds its center in “him who strengthens me” (v. 13). “Enough” also means having something to give to others too (2 Cor. 9:8).

3. On the basis of the divine name, rabbinic exegesis transfers the ideal of the autárkēs to God either in his self-sufficiency, his infinitude relative to the world, his satisfaction with creation, or his saying

“Enough” to human suffering. [G. KITTEL, I, 464–67]

Hár Magedṓn [Armageddon]

This is the name given for the site of the final decisive battle (Rev. 16:13ff.) and world judgment (19:19ff.). The use of Hebrew and absence of interpretation are in the style of apocalyptic. Two explanations have been advanced: a. a link with Megiddo, and b. a Greek rendering of the mount of assembly in Is. 14:13. The problem with a. is that there is no Mt. Megiddo, that Megiddo is not given eschatological significance, and the earliest exegesis does not mention it. The problem with b., which would make Hár Magedṓn the demonic counterpart of the mountain of God (cf. Heb 12:22ff.), is that it is not an exact transliteration of the Hebrew of Isaiah. [J. JEREMIAS, I, 468]

arnéomai [to deny, refuse]

a. “To say no” in answer to a question; b. “to refuse” in relation to a claim or demand.

1. In the NT we find a. in Lk. 8:45; Acts 4:16; Jn. 1:20; Mk. 14:68; Jn. 18:25; 1 Jn. 2:22: “to deny.” Examples of b. are Heb.11:24, Tit. 2:12; Acts 3:13: “to refuse.”

2. The main thrust in the NT, however, is that of denying a person, as in Acts 3:13; Jn. 1:20; Mk. 14:68. This contains four elements: a. denial of a person rather than a thing (Jesus in Jn. 13:38; the Master in 2 Pet. 2:11; the Son in 1 Jn. 2:22–23; the name or faith representing the person in Rev. 2:13; 3:8; perhaps that which gives power to godliness in 2 Tim. 3:5); b. prior acknowledgment and commitment (cf. 2 Tim. 2:12; Rev. 3:8); c. unfaithfulness in the three forms of not meeting the claim for confession (Mt. 10:33; Mk. 8:38), not meeting the claims of neighbors (2 Tim. 2:11ff.), and not acknowledging Christ in sound teaching (2 Pet. 2:1ff.; 1 Jn. 2:22); d. a failure of the whole person in respect of total truth before God (Mt. 10:33; 2 Tim. 2:12; 1 Jn. 2:23).

3. The person denied may be the self. Thus God cannot deny himself (2 Tim. 2:13), but the disciples must deny the self (Mk. 8:34) in a radical renunciation, an acceptance of the cross, and the finding of true life in Christ.

aparnéomai. The compound has no greater intensity in the NT but has the same sense as arnéomai, as is shown by their interchangeability (Lk. 9:23 and Mk. 8:34), their alternate use in the same passage (Lk. 12:9), and the textual variants (Lk. 9:23; Jn. 13:38). [H. SCHLIER, I, 469–71]

arníon → amnós

harpázō [to seize], harpagmós [something to be grasped]

harpázō. a. “To steal” b. “to capture” c. “to snatch,” d. “to seize,” e.”to take by force,” f. “to catch away” (in visions).

Three possibilities exist in Mt. 11:12: a. that the kingdom is taken away and closed; b. that violent people culpably snatch it; c. that people take it forcibly in a good sense. The first has some support in the wording and context, the third is likely because of the irruption of the kingdom with the Baptist and the need for resoluteness to enter it. The second is intrinsically improbable.

harpagmós. Used in the NT only in Phil. 2:6, this word means a. “the act of seizing,” b. “what is seized,” and c. “something regarded as gain or utilized.” In Phil. 2:6 sense a. is impossible due to a lack of object, while sense b. is hardly intelligible. We are thus left with c.: “He did not regard equality with God as a gain, either as not to be let slip, or as to be utilized.” Those who favor the former nuance here refer to the temptation of Jesus, but the reference seems to be pretemporal and therefore it is best to translate: “He did not regard it as a gain to be equal with God,” the reference being, not to resistance to temptation, but

to a free (if unexpected) act of self-abnegation. [W. FOERSTER, I, 472–74]

arrabṓn [deposit, guarantee]

arrabṓn is a commercial loanword from the Semitic signifying “pledge” or “deposit.” Paul uses it in 2 Cor. 1:22 and Eph. 1:14 for the Spirit who is for us the guarantee of full future possession of salvation. [J. BEHM, I, 475]

arrḗtos → erṓ; artigénnētos → gennáō

ártios [suitable], exartízō [to equip], katartízō [to prepare], katartismós [equipment], katártisis [improvement]

The meanings of ártios are a. “suitable,” b. “correct” or “normal,” and c. “even” (in mathematics). katartízō has the senses a. “to regulate” and b. “to equip.” In 2 Tim. 3:17 ártios means “what is proper or becoming.” exartizō in 2 Tim. 3:17 means “to equip” and in Acts 21:5 “to end as prescribed.” katartízō means a. “to order” (the aeons in Heb.11:3 to destruction in Rom. 9:22), and b. “to confirm” (in unity, 1 Cor. 1:10; the fallen, Gal. 6:1; in everything good, Heb.13:21, confirmation being a mutual task (2 Cor. 13:11) but finally God’s work (1 Pet. 5:10). katartismós in Eph. 4:12 denotes equipment for the work of the ministry, while katártisis is the inner strength of the organic relationship of the community, or of the

character of its members (2 Cor. 13:9). [G. DELLING, I, 475–76]

ártos [bread]

1. This word signifies literal bread in passages like Lk. 24:30; Acts 27:35; Jn. 6:11 (at the Last Supper, Mk. 14:22; the showbread, Mk. 2:26).

2. It then stands for nourishment in general (Lk. 7:33; Jn. 13:18; 2 Th. 3:12).

3. The idea of participation in eternal bliss underlies Lk. 14:15 and Christ as the true bread or bread of

life in Jn. 6:31ff. [J. BEHM, I, 477–78]

archángelos → ángelos; archiereús → hiereús; archipoimḗn → poimḗn; archisynágogos → synagōgḗ

árchō [to rule, begin], archḗ [beginning, ruler], aparchḗ [firstfruits], archaíos [old, ancient], archēgós [founder, leader], árchōn [ruler]

árchō. Active a. “to rule,” b. “to begin”; middle “to begin.”

1. The active occurs in the NT only in Mk. 10:42; Rom. 15:12 and means “to rule.” Jesus relativizes all earthly rule, finding true power only in God.

2. The middle is more common, especially in Luke, usually as a kind of auxiliary verb signifying “indeed” or “moreover,” but sometimes in a more pregnant sense, as in Jn. 13:5; 2 Cor. 3:1 (the only instance in Paul); 1 Pet. 4:17.

archḗ.

A. The General and Philosophical Use of archḗ. The meaning is “primacy,” whether in time or rank.

1. In time it denotes the point of a new beginning in a temporal sequence. The relativity of the time sequence is implied, as in the religious statement that God is beginning and end. In philosophy it is used at first for the original material out of which everything evolves, then for the basic laws controlling all evolution. Stoicism views both God and matter (which God permeates) as archaí; God is identical with archḗ (and télos) as lógos and noús. Philo calls the four elements archaí, as he does the atoms, but the number 1 is also archḗ, and so is the lógos and God.

2. In rank the senses are a. “dominion,” b. “realm,” and c. “authorities.”

B. archḗ in the LXX.

1. The usual sense is “temporal beginning,” sometimes “primeval time.”

2. Fairly frequently archḗ signifies “dominion,” “power,” “position of power,” “person of influence.” In Dan. 7:27 all archaí shall serve God’s saints; these are earthly kingdoms but with a hint of supraterrestrial powers (ch. 10).

C. archḗ in the NT.

1. archḗ as “beginning” is used in the NT a. in the formula “from the beginning,” e.g., of creation (Heb.1:10), of Christ’s appearing (Lk. 1:2), of being a Christian (1 Jn. 2:24), indeterminately of our election (2 Th. 2:13), with the devil as subject (“from all ages,” though not in the sense of eternal, Jn. 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8). 1 John has the phrases “that which was from the beginning” (1:1) and “he who was from the beginning” (2:13–14) for the Logos who has become perceptible to the disciples but is eternally preexistent, since it is God himself who here gives himself to us.

b. “In the beginning” in Jn. 1:1 says this specifically of the Logos; the Logos is before all time, so that no temporal statements can be made about him. Eternal preexistence is plainly implied. Elsewhere “in the

beginning” refers to Paul’s first evangelistic work in Phil. 4:15 and the early days of the Jerusalem church in Acts 11:15.

c. tḗn archḗn is used adverbially in Jn. 8:25 for “all the time.”

d. archḗ may also denote the first occurrence in a series, as in Mt. 24:8; Heb. 5:12 (the beginning of Christian instruction); Heb. 3:14 (of the confidence of faith); 2:3 (of Christ’s own preaching of salvation). In the negative the saying that Christ has no beginning (or end) puts him beyond time (Heb. 7:3).

2. archḗ as “power” means a. “dominion” or “power,” e.g., Lk. 12:11 for the secular or spiritual authorities, and 20:20 for the power of the Roman procurator (always with exousía except in Jude 6); b. (plural) supraterrestrial forces (cf. Daniel) which seem to be hostile to God (Eph. 1:21), which have an overlord (Eph. 2:2), which govern different spheres, e.g., religious (1 Cor. 8:5), sexual (1 Cor. 6: 15ff.), vital (1 Cor. 15:26), and social (cf. Eph. 6), which are spiritual (Eph. 6:12), related to angels (Rom. 8:38), and originally meant to be good (Col. 1:16), which are now confined to the lowest heaven (Eph. 3:10), which have been robbed of their power by the cross (Col. 2:15) and are now subject to Christ (Col. 2:15) their Lord (Col. 2:10, 16), but which still engage in conflict with Christians (Eph. 6:12) even though they cannot finally separate them from God (Rom. 8:38) and will ultimately lose all their influence (1 Cor. 15:24).

3. In Col. 1:18 Christ himself is archḗ as the image of God and the firstborn of all creation “before” all else. As archḗ he is the norm for creation by and for which all things were made (cf. 1:16b). He is also archḗ as the firstborn from the dead. Rev. 3:14 probably calls him archḗ in much the same sense (cf. 21:6; 22:13). Eschatology with its relativizing of history brought some kinship in philosophical usage: Christ on the throne is pre- and posttemporal (→ AŌ).

aparchḗ.

A. aparchḗ outside the NT. This means a. “firstfruits,” then b. “proportionate gift” from earnings and the like, e.g., as a thank offering, then c. “offering” to the deity or sanctuary (cf. the temple tax in Josephus Antiquities 16.172). The offering may sometimes be of humans, e.g., for colonization or for temple service. The LXX uses the term for a. “firstfruits,” b. “regular offerings,” and c. “special gifts,” almost always with a cultic reference (“portion” in Dt. 33:21 and “firstborn” in Ps. 78:51 are exceptions).

B. aparchḗ in the NT.

1. In Rom. 11:16 Paul uses the firstfruits of dough as a comparison to show that Israel’s election continues in spite of present apostasy.

2. In 1 Cor. 1:16 the household of Stephanas is called the firstfruits of Achaia either in the sense that they are the first converts, or in the sense that they are Achaia’s offering to Christ. Jms. 1:18 has a similar use: God shows his constancy by giving believers new birth so that they are a firstfruits of humanity offered to God. In Rev. 14:4 the 144,000 have become God’s both by (temple) redemption and as firstfruits. They are thus the cultic personnel of the heavenly Jerusalem who are always in the Lamb’s presence and alone learn the new song.

3. In Rom. 8:23 the relation is reversed, for now it is God who gives us the Spirit as a firstfruits, to be followed by adoption and the spiritual body.

archaíos. This means “from the beginning,” then “past” or “old,” often with a reference to origins and with something of the dignity of “ancient.” In the LXX it can sometimes have the sense of pretemporal, as in Is. 37:26.

In the NT the “ancient world” of 2 Pet. 2:5 is the world before the flood. In Mt. 5:21 the “ancients” are forefathers or predecessors. In Lk. 9:8 the “ancient prophets” are those of repute. In Acts 15:21 the reference is to a “long past,” whereas the “early days” of the community are at issue in 15:7. In 2 Cor. 5:17 preresurrection religious relations and attitudes are in view (e.g., to Christ, v. 16). In Rev. 12:9; 20:2 Satan is the,”ancient serpent” (cf. Gen. 3).

archēgós. a. The “hero” of a city, its founder or guardian; b. the “originator” or “author” (e.g., Zeus of nature or Apollo of piety); c. “captain.” Philo uses the term for Abraham, and once for God, while the LXX mostly has it for “military leader.” In the NT Christ is archēgós in Acts 5:31: we bear his name and he both looks after us and gives us a share of his glory, especially his life (3:15) and salvation (Heb.

2:10); he is also the archēgós of our faith both as its founder and as the first example when in his death he practiced his faith in God’s love and its overcoming of the barrier of human sin (Heb. 12:2).

árchōn. The term denotes a “high official,” mostly in civil life, rarely in the religious sphere, though Neh. 12:7 refers to archons of priests and Dan. 10 to celestial beings guarding and representing individual states.

The NT uses the term 1. for Roman and Jewish officials of various kinds; 2. for Christ in Rev. 1:5, and 3. for the demonic prince (Beelzebul) who, the Pharisees allege, is behind the exorcisms of Jesus (Mt. 12:24), but whose power is broken (Jn. 12:31), who cannot touch the sinless Christ (Jn. 14:30), and who has already come under judgment (Jn. 16:11); along the same lines Paul speaks of the árchōn that works in non-Christians (Eph. 2:2) and of several powers of this age that have lost their force by ignorantly trying to make the Lord of glory their prey (1 Cor. 2:6, 8). [G. DELLING, I, 478–90]

asébeia, asebḗs, asebéō → sébomai

asélgeia [licentiousness]

“License,” mostly physical, figuratively spiritual. “Debauchery” or “licentiousness” is the sense in 2 Pet. 2:7 (Sodom and Gomorrah) and Eph. 4:19 (the pagan world). Sexual excess is probably meant in Gal. 5:19 and certainly so in Rom. 13:13; 2 Cor. 12:21; 2 Pet. 2:2, 18. [O. BAUERNFEIND, I, 490]

asthenḗs [weak], asthéneia [weakness], asthenéō [to be weak],asthénēma [weakness]

A. Linguistic Data. This group denotes “weakness” of various kinds, often used for kšl in the LXX.

B. Material Data.

1. The first reference is to physical weakness, but in the NT weakness a. extends to the whole person, e.g., the “weaker” sex in 1 Pet. 3:7, Paul’s “unimpressive” appearance in 1 Cor. 2:3, the “weakness of the flesh” in Mt. 26:41; Rom. 6:19. It may then be b. a mark of the Christian (in contrast to God’s strength): God has chosen the weak (1 Cor. 1:26); Christ himself became weak (2 Cor. 13:3–4; cf. Heb. 5:2); weakness is a reason for joyful boasting (2 Cor. 11:30); God’s power is made perfect in our weakness (2 Cor. 12:10). Yet weakness can be c. something that must be overcome, as in the case of the “weak in faith” of Rom. 14:1 and 1 Cor. 8:9, who are certainly to be protected by the “strong” (Rom. 15:1: the terms are perhaps party slogans), but who are still deficient in knowledge (1 Cor. 8:7), not having fully freed themselves from their pre-Christian past. Weakness also has d. almost the sense of “sin” in Heb. 4:15; 7:28; Rom. 5:6 (the “helpless” here being parallel to the “sinners” of v. 8).

2. A special form of weakness is “sickness,” and the group is often used for this in the NT, e.g., in Jn. 5:5 (cf. Acts 28:9); Lk. 10:9; Mt. 10:8. Sickness is seen as a. the work of demons (Mt. 17:18; Lk. 13:11) or b. a punishment for sin (1 Cor. 11:30); Mk. 2:5–6; cf. Jms. 5:16; also Jn. 11:4 and 1 Jn. 5:16). The mighty works of Jesus include healings of sickness (Jn. 6:2; Mt. 8:17, quoting Is. 53:4). So do those of the apostles (Mt. 10:8; Acts 28:9), and later we find the laying on of handkerchiefs (Acts 19:12) and anointing with oil (and prayer) (Jms. 5:14, 16).

3. Figuratively weakness can also have the form of “inner poverty” or “incapacity.” Thus we read of the beggarly elemental spirits of Gal. 4:9, the inability of the law to save in Rom. 8:3, and the apparent insignificance of some parts of the body in 1 Cor. 12:22.

4. The weakness may finally be economic, i.e., “poverty,” as in Acts 20:35. [G. STÄHLIN, I, 491– 93]

askéō [to exercise]

askéō occurs in the NT only in Acts 24:16: “I exercise or exert myself.” The term is used by Homer for artistic endeavor but is then applied spiritually from Herodotus and Pindar and occurs in the Stoics for taming the passions, exercise in virtue, and thought control. Philo finds in Jacob the model askētḗs on the basis of Gen. 32:24ff. Later fathers like Clement and Origen adopt the same usage and example. Paul has the term only in Acts 24:16, but his self-discipline as he describes it in 1 Cor. 9:25ff. resembles the askeín of the spiritual athlete. In Acts 24:16 he devotes much concern or works hard at having a conscience void of offense. It is surprising, but perhaps purely accidental, that the askéō group, which is so common in Jewish Hellenism and later Christian literature, is not used more often in the NT (especially in view of the

parallel in 1 Tim. 4:7–8). [H. WINDISCH, I, 494–96]

aspázomai [to greet], apaspázomai [to bid farewell], aspasmós [greeting]

A. aspázesthai and aspasmós outside the NT. aspázesthai means to effect aspasmós, “to proffer a greeting,” e.g., on the street, or when entering a house, or when parting. aspasmós includes embracing, kissing, offering the hand, and even proskynesis, as well as words of greeting. Homage paid to an overlord is a special form of aspasmós, whether a. by paying a ceremonious call, or b. by acclamation. aspasmós may also be the greeting in a letter; such greetings were more common in the Near East and less common in the Graeco-Roman sphere in the pre-Christian period. The basic sense seems to be “to embrace” and derived senses are then a. “to like someone,” “to pay respects to someone,” “to agree with someone,” and b. “to give oneself to something,” “to welcome something.” In the LXX aspázesthai occurs only in Ex. 18:7 for “to ask about the welfare” (in greeting); it is more common in the Apocrypha. aspasmós does not occur at all.

B. In the NT.

1. Jesus‟ Rules of Greeting. Greetings were important for the Jews (cf. Mk. 12:18). Once (Mk. 9:15) the crowd greets Jesus himself. (More often we read of the more respectful proskyneín.) There is also a mock greeting at the trial (Mk. 15:18–19). Gentiles, too, greet their brethren as a sign of fellowship (Mt. 5:47). Jesus, however, requires his disciples to greet enemies as well as brethren. That he takes greeting very seriously is shown by his command to the disciples, when he sends them out, that they should greet a strange house on entering it, and that the peace of the greeting will either rest on the house or return to them (Mt. 10:12–13). The greeting of the apostles is thus endued with authority. On the other hand, the disciples must not let their time be wasted by casual greetings on the way (Lk. 10:4).

2. The aspasmós in Religious Narrative. In Lk. 1:29 Mary is puzzled by the angelic greeting. In Lk. 1:40ff. her own greeting of Elizabeth causes the child to leap in the womb and leads Elizabeth herself to cry in the Spirit: “Blessed are you among women.”,

3. The Greeting of the Apostle. In Acts an apostle greets a church on arrival and at parting (cf. 18:22; 21:7, 19). This may simply indicate a visit in 18:22 but receives emphasis in 21:7, 19. In 20:1 it comes at the end of an exhortation and in 21:6 it involves a moving ceremony that no doubt included embracing, kissing, and the wishing of peace.

4. The aspasmós in the Epistles. aspázesthai is the most common form of greeting in letters (47 times). It occurs in all the epistles except Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Timothy, James, 2 Peter, Jude, and 1 John. Paul seems to have regarded the greeting as very important as an expression of affection. In the imperative the writer may a. ask his readers to present greetings from a distance (Rom. 16:3ff.), b. greet all the members of the church (Phil. 4:21), c. tell the members to greet one another (1 Cor. 10:20; 1 Th. 5:26, which implies that the greeting would include embracing), or d. pass on a greeting to friends (2 Tim. 4:19). In the indicative a. absent individual Christians deliver greetings (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:21ff.: the scribe), b. groups in the church send greetings where there is a special relation (Phil. 4:22; Heb. 13:24), c. the whole church sends greetings, having no doubt asked the apostle to do this (2 Cor. 13:12; Phil. 4:22),

d. a general ecumenical greeting is sent (1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:16), and e. a special greeting is sent in the apostle’s own hand (2 Th. 3:17; 1 Cor. 16:21; Col. 4:18), this being both personal and a mark of authenticity (2 Th. 3:17), but surprisingly not occurring in all of Paul’s letters (though without the aspasmós formula it is perhaps to be found in Gal. 6:11ff.; Rom. 16:17ff.). [H. WINDISCH, I, 496–502]

áspilos [without spot]

1. “Without spot,” “blameless,” cultically “unblemished.” In 1 Pet. 1:19 the figure of speech obviously implies that Jesus is an unblemished offering because he is sinless.

2. “Morally pure”: this is a biblical usage (Job 15:15) and occurs in the NT in Jms. 1:27; 2 Pet 3:14; 1 Tim 6:14. Moral content is thus given to a cultic concept. [A. OEPKE, I, 502]

astatéō [to be unsteady]

“To be unsteady,” “restless”; a. active of a flickering glance, an unreliable person, fickle fortune; b. passive “to be set in commotion”; c. either active or passive “to wander around unsteadily” (rare in secular usage). In 1 Cor. 4: 11 Paul lists kaí astatoúmen as an apostolic burden: “we have no fixed

abode,” though with no specific stress on “wandering” (cf. 2 Cor. 5:8). [A. OEPKE, I, 503]

astḗr, ástron [star]

astḗr denotes a star, ástron a star or a constellation. The ancients regarded stars as “beings” and even deities, but in the OT they execute God’s command and declare his glory (Is. 40:26; Ps. 19:1), although in so doing they are living creatures (with angels set over them in the pseudepigrapha) (cf. 1 Cor. 15:40ff.). Apocalyptic speaks of stars falling from heaven (Mk. 13:25; Rev. 6:13) or being obscured (Rev. 8:12). A falling star may have destructive effects (Rev. 8:10–11). The seven stars of Rev. 1:16, 20; 2:1;, 3:1 may be the planets or the stars of the Great or Little Bear but are more probably related to the lampstands (cf. Josephus and the rabbis), just as the angels are parallel to the churches (1:20). The twelve stars have been connected with the zodiac but more likely refer to the twelve tribes. The morning star of Rev. 2:28 has been understood to be the Holy Spirit, the chief stellar angel, or the dawn of salvation; in 22:16 it seems to be Christ himself. The star which appeared to the Wise Men accords with messianic expectation on the basis of Num. 24:17, but what star it was, and how the wise men interpreted it, we cannot say for certain.

[W. FOERSTER, I, 503–05]

astrapḗ [lightning, beam of light]

astrapḗ is often used as a comparison in the NT (the Easter angel in Mt. 28:3; the suddenness of the divine working in Lk. 10:18; the visibility and suddenness of the coming in Mt. 24:27). In Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19; 16:18 lightning is linked with OT theophanies, with echoes of the plagues in the last three passages. With thunder, lightning climaxes the series of plagues that display God’s supremacy, but it does not occur in the final judgment of 20:11ff. [W. FOERSTER, I, 505]

ástron → astḗr; asýnetos → syníēmi

aspháleia [certainty], asphalḗs [sure], asphalṓs [securely], asphalízō [to safeguard]

These words all suggest “firmness” or “certainty.” The idea in Lk. 1:4 is the “reliability” of the teachings, in Acts 21:34; 22:30; 25:26 “the truth” (i.e., the facts, the real reason, something definite), in Acts 2:36 “sure knowledge,” and in 1 Th. 5:3 “security” (with eirḗnē, “peace and security”) in the sense

of false security in an eschatological situation. [K. L. SCHMIDT, I, 506]

ásōtos [dissolute], asōtía [debauchery]

The original sense is “incurable”; then we have the ideas of dissipation, gluttony, voluptuousness, and indiscipline. The only OT instances are Prov. 7:11 and 28:7. The reference in Lk. 15:7 is to the prodigal’s life of dissipation, and in Eph. 5:18; Tit. 1:6; 1 Pet. 4:4 to a disorderly life (rather than voluptuousness). [W. FOERSTER, I, 506–07]

ataktéō, átaktos → tássō

augázō [to shine], apaúgasma [radiance]

augázō. augḗ means “radiance” and can be rendered “dawn” in its only occurrence in the NT (Acts 20:11). augázō means a. “to shine forth,” b. “to illuminate,” and c. “to see.” In 2 Cor. 4:4 b. is impossible, and while older translations and variants favor a., the parallel in 3:13 strongly supports c. (“that they should not see”).

apaúgasma. a. “Effulgence,” b. “reflection,” used by the LXX of wisdom’s relation to eternal light (a.), by Philo of its relation to the world (b.), of our relation to God (a.), and of the relation of the human spirit to the divine lógos (a.). In Heb. 1:3 (of Christ) both senses are possible, but patristic consensus favors a.: Christ is the effulgence of the glory of God as sunshine is of the sun or light of light. [G. KITTEL, I, 507–08]

authádēs [self-willed]

a. “Self-satisfied,” b. “arbitrary,” c. “morose,” d. “shameless.” In Tit. 1:7 (bishops) the related adjectives favor b., while in 2 Pet. 2:10 (heretics) the context suggests d. [O. BAUERNFEIND, I, 508–09]

autárkeia, autárkēs → arkéō; autóptēs → horáō; autokatákritos → krínō;aphtharsía, áphthartos → phtheírō

aphíēmi [to let go pardon] áphesis [forgiveness], paríēmi [to leave], páresis [forgiveness]

A. The Greek Usage. aphiénai, “to send off,” can have such varied nuances as “to release,” “to hurl,” “to let be,” “to pardon.” áphesis, which is less common, is used for “release” (from office, obligation, debt, penalty). paríēmi means “to send by” with such nuances as “to leave behind,” “leave off,” “let be,” “give up,” “remit.”

B. The Use of aphíēmi, áphesis in the LXX. In the LXX aphiénai is used for a whole series of words denoting a. “to release,” “to leave (in peace),” and b. “to remit” (with God as subject, unlike Greek

usage). áphesis accordingly means “release” (eschatological in Is. 58:6; 61:1), “exemption” (from taxation) (Esth. 2:18), and “forgiveness” (Lev. 16:26).

C. The NT Usage.

1. aphiénai means “to let go,” “to leave” (Mk. 1:20; 10:28–29; Jn. 4:3; 16:28; 1 Cor. 7:11ff.; Rom. 1:27; Rev. 2:4), or “to leave behind” (Mk. 1:18; Mt. 5:24; Jn. 4:28; Heb. 6:1), or “to let alone” (Mk. 11:6; 14:6; Mt. 3:15; Lk. 13:8; Jn. 11:48; Acts 14:17), or “to allow” (Mk. 1:34; 5:19; cf. the formula in Mk. 7:27; Mt. 3:14; 7:4).

2. aphiénai can also mean “to remit,” “to forgive” in a secular (Mt. 18:27) or more often a religious sense, e.g., sins (Mk. 2:5ff.), trespasses (Mt. 6:14), iniquities (Rom. 4:7), and the intent of the heart (Acts 8:22). The noun áphesis almost always means “forgiveness,” usually of sins (Mk. 1:4; Mt. 26:28; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43; Col. 1:14), but of trespasses in Eph. 1:7. páresis has the same meaning in its one use in Rom. 3:25. The forgiveness denoted is almost always that of God. It is constantly needed, and is granted when requested so long as there is a readiness to forgive others. Its basis is the saving act of Christ, so that Christ may be said to dispense it (Mk. 2:5ff.) or the community through him (Col. 1:14; Eph. 1:7), through his name (Lk. 24:47; Acts 10:43), or on his commission (Jn. 20:23), especially in baptism (Acts 2:38; Heb. 6:1ff.) and the Lord’s Supper (Mt. 26:28). As the community is the holy community of the end-time, forgiveness is an eschatological blessing (Lk. 1:77). Though forgiveness is fundamental, it is not strongly developed conceptually (as the infrequency of aphiēnai etc. in Paul and John shows). But related concepts make it plain a. that responsibility is maintained to God as Judge, b. that forgiveness is known as his act, not as a theoretical deduction, c. that as an eschatological event forgiveness means total renewal, and d. that forgiveness is received when God’s judgment is affirmed in the confession of sins (1 Jn. 1:9; Jms. 5:16; Acts 19:18), penitence (Lk. 24:47; Acts 2:38; Heb. 6:1, and faith (in Paul and John).

[R. BULTMANN, I, 509–12]

aphilágathos → agathós

aphístēmi [to fall away], apostasía [apostasy], dichostasía [dissension]

aphístēmi. Transitive “to remove” either spatially or within a relationship, “to win over,” “to seduce,” middle “to remove oneself,” “to resign,” “desist,” “fall away.” Only the personal use is important theologically, and in the LXX the term becomes almost a technical one for religious apostasy (Dt. 32:15; Jer. 3:14; Is. 30:1), usually from God or the Lord, and leading to idolatry and immorality.

In the NT this sense occurs in Acts 5:37; 15:38; 19:9. Decline from God is the meaning in Heb. 3:12. In 1 Tim. 4:1 apostasy involves capitulation to heretical beliefs as an eschatological phenomenon. An absolute use is found in Lk. 8:13 and cf. Rev. 3:8.

apostasía. Based on apostátēs (politically a “rebel,” religiously an “apostate”), this term signifies the state (not the act) of apostasy. Paul is accused of apostasy against the law in Acts 21:21. Eschatological apostasy is the issue in 2 Th. 2:3, either with or prior to the man of lawlessness. Resting on Jewish tradition, this will be the decline of Christians into error and sin in the last days (cf. Mt. 24:11–12).

dichostasía. This word for “division” or “dissension” is used for objective disunity in the church in Rom. 16:17, in some readings of 1 Cor. 3:3, and in Gal. 5:20 (probably a reference to party strife within

the community). [H. SCHLIER, I, 512–14]
aphomoióō → hómoios; aphorízō → hóros

β b

Babylṓn [Babylon]

1. Apart from references to the captivity in Mt. 1:11, 12, 17 and Acts 7:43, and the single mention in 1 Pet. 5:13, the term Babylṓn occurs only in Revelation, where it denotes the ungodly power of the end-time (14:8; 16:19; 17:5, 18; 18:2, 10, 21). Its destruction is announced in 14:8. When it will fall is shown in 16:19. Seven visions depict the fall in 17:1–19:10. It is presented as a harlot (17:1; 19:2), the abomination of the earth (17:5), sitting on the beast in striking array, with her name on her forehead and drunk with the blood of saints (17:3ff.). God will judge it, to the joy of heaven and sorrow of earth (17:17; ch. 18). The main features in this presentation, including Babylon as a symbol, are taken from the OT (cf. Tyre as a harlot in Is. 23:15ff. and the image of the beast in Dan. 7). But the sayings of Jesus have also had an impact (cf. Mt. 23:25; 24:15ff.). The author, however, weaves the various elements into a totality, perhaps with reference to a city already present (17:18), namely, Rome as the city on seven hills which was often called Babel (as representing ungodly power) in later Judaism.

2. In 1 Pet. 5:13 the greeting is almost certainly from Rome; this is supported by almost all early exegesis and the tradition of Peter’s work in Rome. If we accept the identification we must infer that Peter and the churches apply the prophecies against Babylon to Rome and thus expect its destruction. [K. G. KUHN, I, 514–17]

báthos [depth]

báthos means “depth” as a. the depth of a stratum and b. depth as a dimension, also used figuratively for greatness or inscrutability. Its use in the NT is figurative in relation to God or the world: God’s riches etc. in Rom. 11:32 in the sense of unfathomability, his work in 1 Cor. 2:10 as it is accessible only through the Spirit, and the heavenly inheritance in Eph. 3:18 in its comprehensiveness and universality; then depth as a creaturely power in Rom. 8:39, and as immorality in Rev. 2:24 (the “deep things of Satan”). It may be noted that unlike Gnosticism (in which there are analogies), the NT never calls God himself depth.

[H. SCHLIER, I, 517–18]

→ hýpsos

(baínō) [to go away], anabaínō [to go up, ascend], katabaínō [to go down, descend], metabaínō [to change one’s place]

(baínō). Not used in the NT or Philo, and used only twice in Josephus and four times in the LXX, this word is mostly intransitive in classical Greek and means “to go,” “to stride,” then “to go away,” “to go on before,” “to come.”

anabaínō.

1. The primary sense is spatial, “to rise up,” e.g., to mount a horse or ship, or to climb a hill, or move from the coast inland, or go to an upper story, or to mount a rostrum, or to rise to address the court. Thus in the NT Jesus climbs a hill (Mt. 5:1; 14:23) or climbs into a boat (Mt. 14:22) or goes up to Jerusalem (Mt. 20:17–18); Joseph goes up from Galilee (Lk. 2:4), the men with the sick of the palsy go up on the roof (Lk. 5:19), and Zacchaeus climbs the tree (Lk. 19:4). anabaínein is also used intransitively of the seed springing up in Mt. 13:7 and parallels.

2. More important in the NT is the cultic use (based on the IT and LXX). Jesus’ going up from baptism acquires significance through the descent of the Spirit (Mt. 3:16). Going up to the sanctuary or Jerusalem is a stock phrase (Lk. 18:10; Jn. 2:13; 5:1; 7:8, 10, 14; 12:20). For Paul this means not only going to a place but to the mother community (cf. Acts 18:22). Actual ascent is indicated (since the holy city is on a hill) but going to worship is implied, as also in pagan usage due to the common situation of shrines on eminences.

3. The culminating religious use of the term is for ascent to heaven. In Acts 2:34 the claim is made, perhaps against a nonmessianic understanding of Ps. 110:1, that Jesus alone fulfils the prophecy by his ascension and session (possibly also in repudiation of other ascensions depicted in apocalyptic). John’s Gospel gives an important role to anabaínein. As Jesus has come from heaven, and knows heavenly things, he will go back to heaven (6:62), or to the Father (20:17). Angels ascending and descending keep him in touch with the heavenly world (1:51; cf. Eph. 4:8ff.). In Rom. 10:6–7, which is based on Dt. 30:11ff., the point seems to be that we are not asked to do the impossible, to ascend to heaven or descend to the depths to bring Christ down or raise him up, because through the word of faith he is already present, having himself come down and risen up again. In Rev. 4:1 the command to come up through the open door and see the heavenly throne room denotes prophetic rapture. In Acts 10:4 the prayers of Cornelius have mounted up to God. The odd expression in Acts 7:23 (“it came into his heart”) is modeled on the Hebrew (cf. Lk. 24:38: “Why do questionings rise in your hearts?”).

katabaínō.

1. This is the spatial, geographical, and cultic opposite of anabaínō, used of leaving Jerusalem (also in the absolute), and of rain falling from heaven.

2. Religiously it often occurs with anabaínō (cf. Jn. 3:13; 6:33ff.). Jesus has come down to do his Father’s will (Jn. 6:38). He is the bread from heaven (6:41–42). This bread comes down from heaven and gives life to the world (6:33). Every good gift comes down from God (Jms. 1:17). The Spirit comes down on Jesus at his baptism (Jn. 1:32). In baptism one goes down into the water (Acts 8:38). Descending angels keep Jesus in touch with heaven (Jn. 1:51). Christ descends to earth (not Hades), according to Eph. 4:9–10 (though katábasis is a term for descent to the underworld).

3. Eschatological events (cf. the parousia in 1 Th. 4:16 and the new Jerusalem in Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10) start in heaven and come down.

4. Philosophically souls are said to come down into bodies, and Philo speaks of the Spirit and joy descending from heaven.

5. Commercially the term is used for a decline in the value of money.

metabaínō. The usual meaning is “to change place,” but the term also denotes change of topic or state. It is mostly topographical in the NT but figurative in John, e.g., for the change from death to life in Jn. 5:24; 1 Jn. 3:14 (which takes place by acceptance of the divine word), or Jesus’ transition to his preexistent glory with the Father in Jn. 13:1. [J. SCHNEIDER, I, 518–23]

Balaám [Balaam]

1. The OT shows Balaam as an instrument of blessing in Num. 22–24 and of seduction and consequent immorality and apostasy in Num. 31:16.

2. Later Judaism tended to interpret the first story in the light of the second, so that Balaam is presented as a wrongdoer (except in Josephus).

3. The NT accepts the Jewish assessment (2 Pet. 2:15; Jude 11; Rev. 2:14). Balaam is the model of the licentious Gnostics who lead the people into apostasy (Rev. 2:14), doing so for gain (Jude 11), and thereby showing his hostility to God. [K. G. KUHN, I, 524–25]

ballántion [purse]

Sometimes spelled balántion, this word means “pocket” or “purse,” especially for money. It occurs six times in the LXX and is used in later Judaism for money bag. All four NT instances are in Luke (10:4; 12:33; 22:35–36). The point in 10:4 (cf. Mt. 10:9; Mk. 6:8) is that money is not to be taken for the journey, but while Matthew and Mark think of tying coins in the girdle, Luke has in mind a special purse. Hence renunciation of the security of settled life is demanded, as also in 12:33. The situation changes, however, with the death of Jesus (Lk. 22:35–36).

→ pḗra [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 525–26]

bállō [to throw], ekbállō [to throw out], epibállō [to lay on]

bállō. a. Transitive “to throw, propel,” “cast oneself down”; b. “to lay down,” “pour in,‗” “lay up (in the heart)”; c. intransitive “to cast oneself on,” “sink into (sleep).” We find the sense “to throw” in the NT in Mt. 4:18 etc.; “to cast off” fruit in Rev. 6:13. In connection with judgment we find “to cast” into the fire (Mt. 3:10) or hell (Mt. 5:29) and “to throw out” (Mt. 5:13). “To throw off,” i.e., that which causes sin, is the sense in Mt. 18:9. In Mt. 8:6 we find the passive for “to lie” (the sick servant). Other NT senses are “to put in,” as wine in wineskins (Mk. 2:22); the finger in the ears (Jn. 20:25); a thought in the heart (Jn. 13:2). There is an intransitive use in Acts 27:4.

ekbállō. a. “To throw out,” “expel,” “repel”; b. “to send forth,” “lead forth,” “leave aside.” In the NT it is used especially for the expelling or repelling of demons (Mk. 1:34; 3:15, etc.). Judaism had a series of formulas to effect exorcisms, though a word of command might also be enough. Jesus simply uses the word (Mt. 8:16) and has full power over demons (Mk. 1:27; Lk. 11:20). This displays his sovereignty but is also a mark of the inauguration of the kingdom (Mt. 12:28) and accompanies his preaching as such. Jesus commissions his messengers to cast out demons too (Mt. 10:1, 8). He regards the charge that he expels demons by means of demons as a blasphemous misrepresentation (Mt. 12:24). If he himself casts out demons in God’s name, they can also be cast out in his own name (Mk. 9:38).

The NT also uses ekbállein for expelling a wife (Gal. 4:30), plucking out the eye (Mk. 9:47),

expulsion from the Jewish community (Jn. 9:34–44) and the church (by Diotrephes, 3 Jn. 10), the casting

out of the name of believers (Lk. 6:22), and the unwillingness of Jesus to “cast out” any who come to him (Jn. 6:22). Other meanings are “to send out” in Mt. 9:38, “to let go” in Acts 16:37, “to lead out” in Mk. 1:12.

epibállō. a. Transitive “to throw over,” “lay on”; b. “to cast oneself on,” “dedicate oneself to,” “break in,” “follow,” “belong to”; c. middle “earnestly to desire.” The term occurs in the NT with the meanings “to lay upon” in 1 Cor. 7:35, “to seize” in Mk. 14:36 (cf. Jn. 7:30, 44: Jesus cannot be seized until his hour comes), “to put one’s hand to work” in Lk. 9:62, “to put on” a patch in Mt. 9:16, “to throw oneself on” in Mk. 4:37, “to burst out” (crying) in Mk. 14:72, “to accrue to” in Lk. 15:12. [F. HAUCK, I, 526–29]

báptō [to dip] baptízō [to baptize], baptismós [baptizing], báptisma [baptism], baptistḗs [Baptist, Baptizer]

A. The Meaning of báptō and baptízō. báptō, “to dip in or under,” “to dye,” “to immerse,” “to sink,” “to drown,” “to bathe,” “wash.” The NT uses báptō only in the literal sense, e.g., “to dip” (Lk. 16:24), “to dye” (Rev. 19:13), and baptízō only in a cultic sense, mostly “to baptize.”

B. Religious Washings in Hellenism.

1. The General Facts. Sacral baths are found in the Eleusinian cults, in Egyptian religion, in Isis worship, and in the mysteries. Baptisms of blood are post-Christian.

2. baptízein in Sacral and Similar Contexts. This usage is rare; it may be found in some papyri, Plutarch, and the Hermetic writings, but not in any technical sense.

3. The Meaning of the Rites. One underlying theme is that of washing and cleansing. Various liquids, including water, may be used to wash away uncleanness before God. Water, however, gives life, and hence another theme is vivification by way of symbolic drowning, e.g., in the Nile; the drowning connects one who drowns with the god and thus confers divinity. Yet the idea of purification is predominant, though this is cultic, not moral, and thus comes under criticism, e.g., from Plato, Philo, and Josephus. It must be stressed, of course, that the term baptízein itself has no great cultic significance.

C. bapt(íz)ein in the OT and Judaism. In the LXX báptein (baptízein occurs only in 2 Kgs. 5:14) is used for “to dip” in Judg. 2:14; Josh. 3:15; Lev. 4:6; 11:32. Naaman’s dipping in the Jordan in 2 Kgs. 5:14 possibly has some sacramental significance. Later, baptízein becomes a technical term for lustrations (cf. Jdt. 12:7). It then comes to be used for the washing of proselytes, though it is hard to say when this practice originated; it seems intrinsically unlikely that it would have started after Christian baptism. Like other lustrations it is a continuation of the OT rites of purification, which are cultic but not magical, having the legal goal of ritual purity. A proselyte is put in a new position and from this point must keep the law. There is no thought here of death and regeneration, and the Hebrew term (ṭbl) behind baptízein does not signify sinking, drowning, or perishing.

D. The Baptism of John. This baptism (Mk. 1:4ff.; Jn. 1:25ff.; Acts 1:5; 11:16, etc.) is a powerful messianic awakening from which Christianity springs. As presented in the Gospels it does not seem to be a child of Near Eastern syncretism. The nearest analogies are in Judaism, especially proselyte baptism. Like this, John’s baptism makes great demands on the elect people. Unlike it, it has a more urgent ethical and eschatological thrust. John is preparing the people for God’s imminent coming. His baptism is an initiatory rite for the gathering of the messianic community. He himself actively baptizes, so that the passive use of baptízein now becomes more common than the middle found elsewhere. Cleansing, connected with repentance, is the main point, with a suggestion of purification for the coming aeon. The contrast with the baptism of the Spirit and fire shows that there is at least some influence of the idea of life-giving inundation, but the eschatological dimension rules out individualistic death and regeneration.

E. Christian Baptism.

1. Jesus lets himself be baptized but does not himself baptize (cf. Jn. 3:22; Jn. 4:2). The sinlessness of Jesus does not exclude his baptism (Mt. 3:14–15) since his concept of messiahship includes identification with sinners (cf. Jn. 1:29). If Jesus does not personally baptize, he endorses John’s baptism (Mk. 11:30) but with a focus on his own death as a “being baptized” (Mk. 10:38–39) (cf. the OT figure in Pss. 42:7; 69:1; Is. 43:2; Cant. 8:7).

2. Christian baptism is practiced from the very first (Acts 2:38ff.). This is not just because John’s disciples come into the church. It plainly rests on a command of the risen Lord irrespective of critical objections to Mt. 28:18, 20.

3. Syntactically baptízein is linked with báptisma in Acts 19:4. The means is expressed by the dative (Mk. 1:8: water; Mk. 1:8: the Holy Spirit, or en, “in” (Mt. 3:11 etc.), and once eis (Mk. 1:9). The goal is normally expressed by eis, “unto” (i.e., “for”) or “into,” as in Mt. 3:11; Gal. 3:27, etc. “Into” Christ, or the triune name, is not mystical but has a more legal flavor (cf. the commercial use of “in the name” for “to the account” and the invocation and confession of Christ’s name in baptism [Acts 22:16; cf. 19:3]).

4. The Saving Significance of Baptism into Christ. The goal of baptism is eternal life, but not primarily by way of vivification. In spite of 1 Pet. 3:20–21; Jn. 3:5–6; Tit. 3:5, the thought of the cleansing bath is more fundamental (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:22). Biblical piety rules out magical evaluations of religious objects and actions. Hence baptism has no purely external efficacy and in itself is unimportant (1 Cor. 1:17; Heb. 9:9–10; 1 Pet. 3:21). As the action of God or Christ, it derives its force from God’s reconciling work or Christ’s atoning death (1 Cor. 6:11; Eph. 5:25–26; Tit. 3:4–5). It places us objectively in Christ and removes us from the sphere of death (Adam). Imputed righteousness impels us to ethical renewal, for forensic justification (in Paul) leads on to spiritual fellowship with Christ; only a distinction of thought, but no real leap or transition is demanded. Baptism is participation in Christ’s death and resurrection which effects a transition to the new creation, though translation into the reality of the present aeon is still a task. Paul may well have taken over the current terminology of the mysteries here, but the content, i.e., the historical relationship, the eschatological new creation, and nonmystical justification, is different. With Christ’s death, baptism has a once-for-all character. What we have is more a Christ metaphysics than a Christ mysticism, and if there are spiritual connections there is no magical transformation of human nature. 1 Cor. 10:1 ff. combats a materialistic (as distinct from an objective) view, and while 1 Cor. 15:29 seems to suggest a baptism for the dead, this is probably a tactical argument, or even an allusion to some non-Christian practice in the mysteries. The close connection with Christ’s death and resurrection is mostly found in Paul, but the connection with the gift of the Spirit is common to Christian thinking. The Spirit may be given prior to baptism (Acts 10:44–45), but more often at or after baptism. The link with forgiveness and the ethical element remain, as in John’s relating of baptism to regeneration (Jn. 3:5; cf. Tit. 3:5), since this still stresses faith and retains the connection with salvation history. Infant baptism, which cannot be supported from NT examples, makes sense within this objective interpretation but represents a departure from apostolic Christianity when linked with the later hyperphysical rather than eschatological-christological views.

F. Baptism as a Syncretistic Mystery. After NT days the eschatological context ceased to be a leaven and was treated as an appendage. In consequence baptism tended to become a syncretistic mystery with a primary stress on the matter (Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertullian), the rite (Didache, Hermas), the institutional ministry (Ignatius, Tertullian), the timing (either postponement or in earliest infancy), and the question of second repentance for serious postbaptismal sin.

baptismós, báptisma. “Immersion” or “baptism”; baptismós denotes only the act, báptisma (not found outside the NT) the institution. baptismoí in Mk. 7:4 are Levitical purifications and in Heb. 6:2 all kinds of lustrations. báptisma is the specific term for John’s baptism (Mt. 3:7; Mk. 11:30; Lk. 7:29; Acts 1:22; 10:37), which is a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins (Mk. 1:4); it is also a term for Christian baptism, which is connected with Christ’s death in Rom. 6:4 and with the atonement in 1 Pet. 3:21, and is a basis of unity in Eph. 4:5. Christ’s death is itself his báptisma in Mk. 10:38–39; Lk. 12:50. As a special term, perhaps coined in the NT, báptisma shows us that Christian baptism is regarded as new and unique.

baptistḗs. The nickname for John in Mt. 3:1; Mk. 6:25; Lk. 7:20, etc., apparently coined for him, and thus showing that his appearing as the messianic precursor was unique, a baptizer being indispensable for a baptism to which the word gives its content. (Josephus uses the term for John; the mysteries speak of

baptisms by gods and priests, but rabbinic disciples at proselyte baptisms are only witnesses.) [A.
OEPKE, I, 529–46]

bárbaros [barbarous, barbarian]

A. The Greek Usage.

1. The basic meaning is “stammering,” “stuttering.”

2. This gives the sense “of a strange speech,” i.e., other than Greek.

3. The next development is “of a strange race,” i.e., non-Greek. Alexander’s conquests, however, helped to remove the ethnic distinction with extensive Hellenization, and hence to give the term more of a cultural nuance.

4. We thus find a further sense “wild,” “crude,” “fierce,” “uncivilized.”

5. The term takes on a positive sense when used of some barbarians (rulers and philosophers) who are highly estimated (cf. the use in the Apologists).

B. bárbaros in the LXX, Jewish Hellenism, and the Rabbis. In the LXX bárbaros occurs only in Ps. 114:1 (sense 1.) and Ezek. 21:31 (sense 4.). Sense 4. is the most common one in the Apocrypha. Philo follows Greek usage, as does Josephus (who does not reckon the Jews as bárbaroi). As a loanword it is used by the rabbis for the Jews as other nations see them, for non-Jewish peoples, and for the uncultured.

C. bárbaros in the NT. The term occurs only four times. In 1 Cor. 14:11 Paul has it in sense 1. In Acts 28:2, 4 the reference is to non-Greeks speaking their own language (in Malta). In Rom. 1:14–15 Paul is describing the universality of his apostolic commitment (cf. 1:5); he is to preach to barbarians as well as Hellenes. He includes the Romans among the Hellenes but describes the whole non-Jewish world by the formula. In 1:16 we find the different division “Jews and Hellenes,” so that we have finally a three-pronged grouping of Jews, Hellenes, and barbarians. There are hints of this in Col. 3:11 with its reference to Jews and Hellenes, or circumcision and uncircumcision from the biblical standpoint, and barbarians and Scythians. Paul, then, does not include Jews among the bárbaroi but by way of the gospel is leading all the groups into a new totality in Christ. [H. WINDISCH, I, 546–53]

báros [weight, burden], barýs [heavy, burdensome], baréō [to burden, weigh down]

báros. Originally “weight,” then figuratively “suffering,” “power.” A. In the Greek and Hellenistic World.

1. From physical weight the meaning is first extended to “tone” or “stress” in speech.

2. The next development is to “thrust,” with a nuance of force or violence.

3. A rather different use is for “fullness,” “plenitude,” “maturity.”

4. The next meaning is “oppressive suffering,” e.g., illness, depression, and burdensome taxation.

5. Finally we have a common use for “weight” in the sense of “dignity or power,” e.g., personal appearance or influence, the power of a state, or the power of arms.

B. The NT Usage.

1. Faith carries with it a changed attitude to affliction and power which is expressed in the changed use of báros. Christians are still under the burden of the world’s suffering, as in Mt. 20:12; 2 Cor. 4:17; Rom. 8:18, but this is not to be compared with the weight of glory (Rom. 8:18). There is here no thought of merit as in Mandaean parallels. The new glory in affliction is solidly based on grace in Christ (2 Cor. 4:17), in contrast to the Hellenistic viewing of life as a misfortune or the mystical attempt to achieve ascetic or ecstatic liberation.

2. Suffering offers a chance to show love by bearing others’ burdens (Gal. 6:2). If the primary reference in Galatians is to moral lapses, the implications are broader (“fulfilling the law of Christ”). As distinct from Stoic altruism, this bearing of burdens finds focus in the community.

3. A distinctive NT use is for the burden of the law from which Christians are freed (Acts 15:28; Rev. 2:24) as they accept the easy yoke of Christ (Mt. 11:29–30).

4. When báros denotes earthly influence or power in the NT, it is something to be opposed. This rather than “financial burden” is probably what Paul has in view in 1 Th. 2:6–7; he does not support his authority by external power or appearance.

barýs. This is parallel to báros, being used for “heavy,” “deep (in tone),” then “forceful,” then “mature,” and finally “oppressive” and “significant.” The sense “oppressive” is most important in the NT, especially in relation to the law. a. In Mt. 23:4 Jesus accuses the Pharisees of laying “heavy burdens” on the people. b. In 1 Jn. 5:3 we are told in contrast that Christ’s commandments are not demanding or burdensome, not so much in the sense that they do not ask too much, but rather in the sense that in keeping them we can draw on Christ’s perfect triumph. The sense of “significant” occurs in Mt. 23:23 with reference to the more important commands. “Violent” is the meaning in Acts 20:29.

baréō.

1. The meaning is purely physical in Mt. 26:43; Mk. 14:40. On the other hand, Lk. 21:34 refers to the pressure of desires and cares on the heart.

2. a. The figurative sense of “affliction” occurs in 2 Corinthians. In 2 Cor. 1:8 the troubles in Asia are unbearably severe, so that trust has to be placed in God (v. 9) who gives the necessary strength to endure. In 2 Cor. 5:4 suffering is shown to be under God an expression of our earthly existence as one of hope. Sighing at mortality is a symptom of life in the Spirit. It is unlikely that the sighing is at the prospect of being unclothed. The burden is that of death itself, and the Spirit is the only guarantee of perfection.

b. In spite of similarities with Wisdom, Philo, and Epictetus, which stress the cleavage between body and soul and the consequent burdening of the soul (to be rejected according to Epictetus), Paul accepts the full severity of the burden but in faith and hope focuses on the new life which is provisionally linked with the present mortal body.

3. In 1 Tim. 5:16 the reference is to financial burdens. [G. SCHRENK, I, 553–61]

básanos [torment], basanízō [to torment], basanismós [torment], basanístḗs [tormentor]

1. The básanos was originally used by inspectors of coins, then the word became a commercial term for checking calculations, later it was used figuratively for testing, and finally it came to signify putting to the test by torture.

2. The group is rare in the LXX, being used mainly a. for “testing afflictions” and b. for “judicial sufferings.” basanízein occasionally means “to test” but mostly “to torment.”

3. In the NT básanoi means “pains” in Mt. 4:24 and “torments” (of hell) in Lk. 16:23. basanízein means “to plague, torment” in Mt. 8:6 (the servant) and Mt. 8:29 (the demons). The boat is “battered” by the waves in Mt. 14:24. The reference in Rev. 12:2 is to “birth pangs.” Lot’s “torment” at the sight of wickedness is the point in 2 Pet. 2:8. basanismós occurs only in Revelation, and is actively the “torment” that comes on the race in 9:5 and passively the “suffering” of Babylon in 18:7ff. basanistḗs is used in Mt. 18:34, not for “tester,” but for “tormentor.” [J. SCHNEIDER, I, 561–63]

basileús [king], basileía [kingdom], basílissa [queen], basileúō [to rule], symbasileúō [to rule with someone], basíleios [royal], basilikós [royal]

A. basileús in the Greek World. basileús denotes the lawful king (usually hereditary, later distinguished from the týrannos, “usurper”). The king’s power derives from Zeus and ideally he is inspired by the Muses. For Plato knowledge of the ideas is a royal art. Plato also depicts the benevolent ruler who knows only his own will as law. This ideal king fuses with the god-king of the Near East to produce the Hellenistic concept of divine kingship. [H. KLEINKNECHT, I, 564–65]

B. meleḵ and malḵûṯ in the OT.

1. The word meleḵ denotes first the king of Israel. Saul arose as a charismatic leader. David, his successor, first ruled over Judah, then the united kingdom. He established a dynasty under covenant with Yahweh (2 Sam. 7; 23:1ff.). The Davidic dynasty lasted some 400 years in Judah, but after the disruption only short-lived dynasties, designated by Yahweh, ruled in Israel. The monarchy was not basic in Israel’s religion but came into secondary relation with it and was thus subject to criticism by Yahwism. The stock titles and styles of address of Near Eastern courts were adopted in Israel but incorporated into Yahwistic ideas, as in the Royal Psalms (cf. 2; 20–21; 45; 72; 110; 132).

2. The word can also denote the Redeemer King. Court language forms a bridge to faith in the

Messiah. Ideas associated with the king form the soil for messianic expectation. The person of David and the Davidic covenant (the promise of a house for David) are the starting point. Other motifs (e.g., from Gen. 49:8ff.) add their quota to produce the hope of a new aeon of righteousness and peace (Is. 9; 11; Mic. 5:1ff.; Jer. 23:5–6; Ezek. 17:22ff.; 34:23–24); this is projected on Cyrus in Is. 45:1ff. and Zerubbabel in Zech. 6:9ff. Notions of preexistence and paradisal fertility (which may have mythical roots) fill out the picture.

3. Another concept is that of Yahweh as king, which is more prominent than that of the messianic king and hard to relate to it. God as king extends protection and demands obedience (cf. Num. 33:21; Dt. 33:5; 1 Kgs. 22:19). His kingship is eternal (Ex. 15:18; 1 Sam. 12:12; Ps. 145:11ff.). Not being fully visible now, it has an eschatological dimension (Is. 24:23; Zeph. 3:15; Zech. 14:16–17). Yet it is a present kingship. This is perhaps expressed in the so-called Coronation Psalms (47; 93; 96; 99). Messianic beliefs see the coming messianic king as ruling in Yahweh’s kingdom (see 1 Chr. 17:14; 28:5; 29:23; 2 Chr. 9:8). Before the exile Yahweh is mostly the king of Israel, bringing peace to his chosen people. Later he is called King of the World, enthroned in Jerusalem and magnified by all nations. But Yahweh can equally well be called Shepherd (Mic. 5:3) or Creator and Redeemer (Is. 43:14–15), so that his kingship has no very specific content.

4. The noun malḵúṯ is one of the few older Hebrew abstract terms and denotes “kingdom” or “kingship.” It usually means a political kingdom (1 Sam. 20:31). David’s kingdom, however, merges into that of Yahweh (1 Chr. 29:23; 2 Chr. 9:8). In apocalyptic, with its sharper distinction between the aeons,

God’s kingdom is then more precisely delineated as the final and eternal kingdom of the saints (Dan. 7:16ff.; more strongly nationalistic in later apocalyptic, Eth. En. 84:2; Ass. Mos. 10:1ff.). [G. VON RAD, I, 565–71]

C. The Kingdom of Heaven in Rabbinic Literature.

1. This term, equivalent to “kingdom of God,” owes its origin to the tendency of later Judaism to avoid direct statements about God or use of the divine name. Heaven here is not the territory ruled by God. The phrase simply denotes the fact that God is king, i.e., the divine kingship, just as “kingdom” in secular usage implies “rule” or “government” (though “kingdom of heaven” is not merely a religious application of this usage but is an abstract construction of “God is king”).

2. The term is comparatively rare but occurs in two important expressions: “accepting the yoke of the kingdom,” i.e., confessing by a free decision that the one God is king, and the “manifesting of the kingdom,” which points to the future when the time for decision for or against the kingdom will be past.

3. Israel as a people plays little role here. The decision is individual, though rabbinic theology stresses also Israel’s privileges, describes God as king of Israel, and finds Abraham the first to confess God as king. The two concepts of individuality and nationality both derive from the OT, and the rabbis see no need to harmonize them. In the case of the kingdom the main stress is individual.

4. The rabbinic kingdom of heaven tends to be more purely eschatological in contrast to the idea of a future messianic kingdom which is a hope for the end of the age. The messianic kingdom is the kingdom of the people of Israel as the goal of God’s saving purpose; the kingdom of heaven is the true éschaton when God is all in all and the link with Israel is no longer of special significance. The two ideas exist together but are not inwardly related. [K. G. KUHN, I, 571–74]

D. basileía (toú theoú) in Hellenistic Judaism. Where there is a Hebrew original the LXX follows it closely. Elsewhere the kingdom is linked with wisdom (Wis. 10:10 etc.) or ethicized (4 Macc. 2:23). In Philo basileía means kingship or lordship, but basileía constitutes a chapter in his moral teaching (the true king is the wise person) and is not for him an eschatological entity. Josephus never speaks of God’s kingdom, mentioning basileía in connection with God only in Antiquities 6.60. In general he prefers the hēgemṓn group to the basileús group, e.g., the hēgemonía of the Roman emperor.

E. The Word Group basileús in the NT. basileús.

1. a. A first use in the NT is for earthly kings, in contrast or subordination to God, e.g., Pharaoh in Acts 7:10, 18; Heb. 11:23; Herod the Great in Mt. 2:1 etc.; Herod Antipas in Mt. 14:9; Herod Agrippa I in Acts 12:1; Herod Agrippa II in Acts 25:13; Aretas in 2 Cor. 11:32. All earthly rulers are kings (1 Tim. 2:2; 1 Pet. 2:13; Mt. 17:25; Acts 4:26; Rev. 1:5, etc.). Kings are not divine: God is king of the nations (Rev. 15:3) and the Messiah is King of kings (Rev. 19:16). Children of the kingdom are set above earthly kings, though they will be haled before them (Mt. 10:18). Kings wear soft clothing (Mt. 11:8) but do not know what the children of the kingdom do (Lk. 10:24). They make war, but must hear the gospel (Lk. 14:31; Acts 9:15). The kings of the east will cause havoc in the end-time but will then be destroyed (Rev. 16:12 etc.). The kings of the earth will bring their glory into the holy city (Rev. 21:24).

b. Abaddon, an intermediary being, is no more and no less than an earthly king (Rev. 9:11).

c. David and Melchizedek are kings by divine appointment, the former an ancestor (Mt. 1:6) and the latter a type of Christ (Heb. 7:1–2).

2. a. Christ is king in the NT. He is first “king of the Jews” (Mt. 3:2; Mk. 15:2, etc.), accused as such (Lk. 23:2–3), but also treated as a pretender (Jn. 19:12). The people want him as king in a political sense; hence he resists their pressure (Jn. 6:15). Yet in a true sense he is indeed the promised “king of Israel” (Mt. 27:42; Mk. 15:32). He enters Jerusalem as such (Zech. 9:9; Mt. 21:5), and as such will conduct the last judgment (Mt. 25:34). Outside the Gospels the NT seldom refers to Christ as king of the Jews or of Israel (though cf. Acts 17:7). John offers a christological definition of the kingdom in 18:37, and Revelation gives the royal title a cosmological dimension. 1 Tim. 6:16 gives Christ the same title as Revelation: “King of kings and Lord of lords.” 1 Cor. 15:24 implies the kingship of Christ when it speaks of the subjection of all other rule, authority, and power until at last the kingdom is handed to the Father.

b. As noted, God the Father receives the kingdom in 1 Cor. 15:24. That God is king is plainly stated in 1 Tim. 1:17: “King of the ages.” Matthew, too, describes God as “the great King” (5:35), and many of the parables, especially in Matthew, are parables of the kingdom in which God exercises various kingly functions (Mt. 14:9; 18:23; 22:2, 7, 11, 13).

c. In some readings of Rev. 1:6; 5:10 Christians are called basileís; they are certainly said to reign, or reign with Christ, in other passages.

basileía. This term refers to the being or nature or state of a king, i.e., his dignity, and secondarily the expression of this in the territory he governs. The sense of dignity is primary in the LXX, Philo, and the NT.

1. The Earthly basileía.

a. Earthly kingdoms correspond to earthly kings. Sometimes the reference is plainly to kingly dignity, as in Lk. 19:12, 15; Rev. 17:12, sometimes to territory, as in Mt. 4:8; 12:25; 24:7; Mk. 6:23. Earthly basileíai are subject to God or even opposed to him (Rev. 11:15). The devil claims a kingdom by seducing the basileíai.

b. Hence a kingdom of the devil arises as either reign or realm (Mt. 12:26).

c. There is also a basileía of God’s chosen people. David represents this (Mk. 11:10). This basileía rightly belongs to Israel (cf. Acts 1:6).

2. The basileía of Christ. Christ, too, has a kingdom. The angels will gather wrongdoers out of this (Mt. 13:41). Some will see the Son of Man come in his kingdom (Mt. 16:28). This kingdom will have no end (Lk. 1:33). The disciples will eat and drink in it (Lk. 22:30). The thief asks to be remembered when Jesus comes into it (Lk. 23:42). It is not of this world (Jn. 18:36). It is linked with Christ’s appearing (2 Tim. 4:1), and we are to be saved for it (2 Tim. 4:16). Entrance into this eternal kingdom is given to Christians (2 Pet. 1:11). Christ’s basileía is also God’s. Sinners have no inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God (Eph. 5:5). The kingdom of the world will become that of our Lord and his Christ (Rev. 11:15). Yet a distinction can also be made. God has handed the kingdom to Christ (Lk. 22:29). God has put us in the kingdom of his Son (Col. 1:13). Having received the kingdom from the Father, Christ will finally hand it back to him (1 Cor. 15:24).

3. The basileía of God.

a. In usage, we should note (1) the alternative “kingdom of heaven,” found only in Matthew apart from the textually uncertain Jn. 3:5. Matthew also uses “kingdom of God,” but the expressions seem to be interchangeable. The nuance “of heaven” suggests that the essential meaning is “reign” and that this kingship does not arise by human effort. “Kingdom of the Father” (Mt. 13:43; 26:29 [cf. 6:10]; 25:34; Lk. 12:32) has essentially the same meaning. basileía also occurs sometimes (2) in the absolute (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 13:19; 24:14; Heb. 11:33; 12:28; Jms. 2:5; perhaps Acts 20:25), but in all these verses the reference is plainly to God’s kingdom. Few attributes (apart from “of God” or “of heaven”) are supplied (3) to identify or describe the kingdom. It is unshakable in Heb. 12:28; heavenly in 2 Tim. 4:18, and eternal in 2 Pet. 1:11. It belongs to the poor in spirit in Mt. 5:3 and the persecuted in Mt. 5:10. Many synonyms (4) help to bring out its richness. It is related to righteousness in Mt. 6:33, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit in Rom. 14:17, palingenesía in Mt. 19:28, tribulation and patient endurance in Rev. 1:9, power in Mk. 9:1; 1 Cor. 4:20, glory in 1 Th. 2:12; Mk. 10:37, promise in Jms. 2:5 (alternative reading), life in Mt. 18:9 (par. Mk. 9:47), and knowledge in Lk. 11:52 (par. Mt. 22:13). These synonyms all show the kingdom to be soteriological.

b. The kingdom is implied in the whole message of Christ and the apostles. The gospel is that of the kingdom (Mk. 1:14; cf. Mt. 4:23; Lk. 4:43; Acts 8:12). Words like kerýssein (Mt. 4:23), diamartýresthai (Acts 28:23), peíthein (Acts 19:8), laleín (Lk. 9:11), and légein (Acts 1:3) all refer to the kingdom. The mystery is that of the kingdom (Mt. 13:11), and so is the lógos (Mt. 13:19). The kingdom also brings with it healings (Lk. 9:2) and exorcisms (Mt. 12:28); the work of the kingdom accompanies its word.

c. The concept of the kingdom was already present when John and Jesus proclaimed it to be near. This concept may be found in the OT and apocalyptic, in the LXX, and in Philo and Josephus.

d. That the kingdom is primarily God’s kingly rule emerges in the dominant statement that it is near, or comes, or will come (Mt. 3:2; Mk. 1:15; Lk. 10:9–10; 21:31; 17:20; Mt. 12:28; Lk. 11:20; 19:11; Mt. 6:10; 11:2). Negatively, the kingdom is different, miraculous, not a human product. We cannot arrogantly bring it in but have to wait for it patiently (1 Th. 5:8, 19) like those who sow seed (cf. Mk. 4:26ff.); cf. also the parables of the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31–32), the leaven (Mt. 13:33), and less obviously the wheat and tares (Mt. 13:24ff.), the treasure and pearl (Mt. 13:44–45), the dragnet (Mt. 13:47ff.), the wicked servant (Mt. 18:23ff.), the laborers (Mt. 20:1ff.), the marriage feast (Mt. 22:2ff.), and the virgins (Mt. 25:1ff.). Everywhere the kingdom is shown to be different as it is now overwhelmingly present in the signs given in the ministry of Jesus. In this regard the kingdom is the cosmic catastrophe of apocalyptic (Mk. 13; 14:25), though Jesus refuses to depict the last things, rejects as irrelevant the scorn of the Sadducees (Mk. 12:25–26), and will not give the signs that people ask for (Lk. 17:20–21: the kingdom does not come with signs to be observed but is “among” and “in the midst of” us). With the kingdom, Jesus does not promise political glory for Israel but salvation for the world. There is still some privilege for Israel (Mt. 19:28), but Jews have no particular claim (cf. Rom. 2). The kingdom is not achieved by individualistic ethical achievement but by membership in the community, which stands under the promise. On the other hand, access to the kingdom does not come along Greek lines with spiritual training, ecstasy, or asceticism. Anthropomorphic descriptions do less violence to God’s supraterrestrial majesty than the presentation of the kingdom as human self-evolution. The negative point that the kingdom is totally distinct from the world is the most positive thing that can be said about it. The actualization of God’s rule is future, but this future determines our present. Setting us before God and his rule, it calls for conversion. A response in faith puts us in touch with this kingdom which comes apart from us, and the gospel is thus glad tidings for us.

e. Many terms describe our dealings with the kingdom. God gives it as a gift (Lk. 12:32). It is taken from some and given to others (Mt. 21:43). Christ gives Peter its keys (Mt. 16:19). He appoints it for us as the Father did for him (Lk. 22:29). God calls us to it (1 Th. 2:12), has set us in it (Col. 1:13), makes us worthy of it (2 Th. 1:5), saves us for it (2 Tim. 4:18), and has promised it (Jms. 2:5). He does not shut it like the Pharisees (Mt. 23:13). We for our part receive it like children (Mk. 10:15; cf. Heb. 12:28), inherit it (Mt. 25:34; cf. 1 Cor. 6:9–10; Gal. 5:21; Eph. 5:5; Jms. 2:5), see it (Mk. 9:1; Jn. 3:3), enter it (Mt. 5:20; 7:21, etc.), or go into it (Mt. 21:31). We are to be its children (Mt. 8:12). We may be “not far from it” (Mk. 12:34), or “trained for it” (Mt. 13:52). As we decide for God we are fit for it (Lk. 9:62). It demands effort; we are to be fellow workers for it (not of it! Col. 4:11), to fight for it (Heb. 11:33), to seek it earnestly (Mt. 6:33). It is destined for the poor (Mt. 5:3), the persecuted (Mt. 5:10), and children (Mt. 19:14). Hence God’s invitation demands metánoia (conversion). Various parables bring out the sharpness of the decision (cf. Mt. 22:1ff.; 13:44ff.). We must cut out eye or hand (Mt. 5:29–30) or even make ourselves eunuchs (Mt. 19:12) for the kingdom’s sake. The latter saying does not demand self-emasculation or even voluntary celibacy but is designed to illustrate the drastic nature of the decision that must be made. Many will be weeded out (Mt. 22:14). Temporary enthusiasm is not enough (Lk. 9:62). The cost must be counted (Lk. 14:28ff.). Hearing without doing will not suffice (Mt. 7:21, 24ff.). Supreme readiness for sacrifice is required (Mt. 10:37).

f. Jesus alone truly fulfils the demands of the kingdom. Hence the kingdom of God is especially linked to Christ. It is in Christ that the kingdom of David comes (Mt. 21:9 par. Mk. 11:10). “For the kingdom’s sake” in Lk. 18:29 means “for my sake and the gospel’s” in Mk. 10:29 and “for my name’s sake” in Mt. 19:29. The kingdom of God in Mk. 9:1 is the same as the Son of Man and his kingdom in Mt. 16:28. For Jesus the invading kingdom of God has come in his person. This equation accounts for the once-for-allness of the mission of the Messiah. Origen’s term autobasileía aptly sums up the equation, which also explains why the later NT does not refer so much to the kingdom, the phrase “the Lord Jesus Christ” being in itself an adequate substitute.

4. In view of the autobasileía the NT refers only once to believers as the kingdom (Rev. 1:6), and the implication here is plain that they are so only in a derivative sense, i.e., as linked to Christ.

basílissa. In Mt. 12:42; Lk. 11:31 we read of the “queen” of the south who will confront impenitent Jews because she came to hear Solomon’s wisdom. Acts 8:27 speaks of the Ethiopian queen Candace. In Rev. 18:7 the harlot Babylon sits as a queen and is judged.

basileúō. This word, meaning “to be king,” “to reign,” is used of Jesus Christ in Lk. 1:33, of God in 1 Cor. 15:25, and of God and his Christ in Rev. 11:5. The called will reign with God (Rev. 5:10) or Christ (20:4, 6) to all eternity (22:5). This reigning with Christ stands behind Paul’s ironical statement in 1 Cor. 4:8 (cf. v. 8b). We reign with Christ because we reign through him (Rom. 5:17). By his gift grace reigns (Rom. 5:21) when the usurpers sin and death are destroyed. References to human reigns occur in Mt. 2:22. 1 Tim. 6:15 (cf. Lk. 19:14,27).

symbasileúō. Christians reign with Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 4:8). This rule implies service, obedience, and patience (2 Tim. 2:12).

basíleios. This word, meaning “royal,” occurs in Lk. 7:25 (“palaces”). The “royal priesthood” of 1 Pet. 2:9 (Ex. 19:6 LXX) may refer to its royal dignity, or its being the priesthood of God the King, or its being royal in the same way as royal service, but in any case it is royal, not by inherent quality, but by the calling of God, and by Christ through whom the call comes.

basilikós. This less common word, also meaning “royal,” is fairly common in the NT. In Jms. 2:8 (“royal law”) the reference is to law as it is given by the king, and thus having royal dignity, rather than to preeminent law. The probable sense in Jn. 4:46, 49 is “royal official.”

F. basileía (toú theoú) in the Early Church. Quotations and original references show that the usage is much the same as in the NT. The kingdom is eternal. It is equated with Christ’s promise. We receive it as a gift. We meet, see, and inherit it; we dwell and are glorified in it. It will finally come with Christ’s return. In contrast to the NT, however, there is more stress on the need for the sacrament and good works. A degree of ascetic ethicizing may be noted. Sometimes, too, the kingdom is not clearly distinguished from the church. The Apologists make little original use of the concept since they lay more stress on the need for virtuous living with its claim to reward. Quotations, however, prevent the gospel from being transmuted into religious philosophy. In the Alexandrians belief in individual moral progress tends to replace the biblical idea of the kingdom (in spite of Origen’s autobasileía), while Latin theology thinks

increasingly in terms of the active realization of the kingdom on earth. [K. L. SCHMIDT, I, 574–93]

baskaínō [to bewitch]

From báskanos, baskaínō means “to hurt by words,” then a. “to bewitch,” b. “to revile,” and c. “to envy.” To a. is added the thought of harming by looks (the evil eye), though sometimes this might be unintentional. In the LXX the sense is “to be unfavorably disposed to.” The only NT instance is in Gal. 3:1 (“to bewitch”). The use is figurative, but not without some realism insofar as the power of falsehood stands behind magic. In yielding to these “magicians” the Galatians have come under the power of

untruth. [G. DELLING, I, 594–95]

bastázō [to bear]

Rare in the LXX, bastázō occurs 27 times in the NT for “to lift up” (Jn. 10:31), “to bear away” (Jn. 20:15), and “to pilfer” (Jn. 12:6). External carrying of the cross (Jn. 19:17) symbolizes discipleship (Lk. 14:27). Paul carries the marks in Gal. 6:17 (cf. Rev. 7:2; 9:14, etc.: bearing the seal or name of God, Christ, or antichrist). Carrying the name in Acts 9:15 denotes confession of Christ in missionary service; there is no idea of a burden. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 596]

battalogéō [to babble]

Used only in Mt. 6:7, battalogéō means “to babble” in the sense of trying to achieve success in prayer by heaping up repetitions. The etymology is much disputed; the word was perhaps formed in analogy to

battarízō, “to stammer.” [G. DELLING, I, 597]

bdelýssomai [to abhor], bdélygma [abomination], bdelyktós [abominable]

The basic stem means “to cause abhorrence” and the group is often used for an improper or shameless attitude. bdelýssomai in the middle passive with the accusative means “to abhor” or “to censure” and is common in the LXX; in the active it means “to make abhorrent” and in the perfect passive “to be abhorrent.” bdélygma denotes a subject of abhorrence and bdelyktós means abhorrent. The biblical point is that God finds some things abominable, e.g., idols (Ezek. 5:9, 11; 6:9) or wickedness (Prov. 8:7; 11:1, etc.). Even when an aesthetic nuance may be discerned, e.g., in respect of unclean animals or incest, what is abhorrent to God is basic. Israel is under obligation to separate herself from everything pagan in her life. In the NT Rom. 2:22 refers to paganism. Pagan abominations are obviously at issue in Rev. 17:4–5; 21:8, 27. The reference is more general in Tit. 1:16. Jesus sounds a strong prophetic note in Lk. 16:15: the holy God abhors what we esteem. The bdélygma of Mk. 13:14 is based on Dan. 12:1–2, which refers to

the desecration of the temple. In view is the antichrist (cf. 2 Th. 2:3–4). [W. FOERSTER, I, 598–600]

bébaios [firm], bebaióō [to establish], bebaíōsis [confirmation]

A. bébaios etc. outside the NT. bébaios means “firm,” “steadfast,” “steady,” “reliable,” “certain.” bebaioún has the sense “to make firm,” “to confirm,” “to keep truth” (absolute), “to assure for oneself” (middle). In the LXX bébaios is rare. It does not occur with lógos (a common combination in secular speech), but cf. bebaioún in Ps. 119:28.

B. bébaios etc. in the NT.

a. The ordinary meaning occurs in Heb. 6:19; 2 Pet. 1:10 (making our present election sure); 2 Cor. 1:7 (unwavering hope); Rom. 4:16 (the sure and valid promise). The same applies to bebaioún in Col.

2:6–7 (established in faith); 1 Cor. 1:8 (sustained by Christ); Rom. 15:8 (the validation of the promises); 2 Pet. 1:19 (the prophetic word validated by its enactment); Heb. 2:2 (the angelic message shown to be valid by its efficacy).

b. The group then has the special nuance (taken from the commercial world) of what is legally guaranteed. We find this in Heb. 6:16 (confirmation by an oath); Phil. 1:7 (confirmation as valid witness); Heb. 2:2 (of legal force); Mk. 16:20 (the valid lógos takes effect in the signs); 1 Cor. 1:6 (the legal force of the witness is displayed in the charísmata); possibly 2 Cor. 1:21 (in connection with arrabōn, but in a

more baptismal context). [H. SCHLIER, I, 600–603]

bébēlos [profane], bebēlóō [to desecrate]

bébēlos.This means “accessible,” then “what may be said publicly,” then in the LXX “what may be used freely,” then “of a profane disposition” in Philo, also “ravished.” It occurs in the NT only four times in the Pastorals and once in Hebrews.

1. Gnostic myths and chatter (1 Tim. 4:7; 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:16) are “profane”; they claim to offer otherwise inaccessible truth but are in fact remote from God.

2. Certain persons (Heb. 12:16; 1 Tim. 1:9) are profane, i.e., far from God in their immorality and irreligion. As in Judaism, Esau typifies such people.

bebēlóō. “To desecrate,” used in the LXX of God (Ezek. 13:19), his name (Lev. 18:21), his day (Neh. 13:17–18), his land (Jer. 16:18), his covenant (Ps. 55:20), and the name of the priest (Lev. 21:9; used also here of a virgin). The only NT instances are in Mt. 12:5 for desecration of the sabbath and in Acts 24:6 for

that of the temple, both involving the OT concept of holiness. [F. HAUCK, I, 604–05]

Beelzeboúl [Beelzebub (Beelzebul)]

Used by the Pharisees in Mk. 3:22; Mt. 12:27; Lk. 11:18, this is a name for the prince of demons (cf. Mt. 10:25). Jesus is accused of casting out demons in his name. In his reply Jesus substitutes the name Satan, using Beelzeboúl only in Mt. 10:25. Beezeboúl and Beelzeboúb are alternative forms. The meaning is unimportant in the NT. The god of Ekron possibly underlies the term. There was no necessary equation with Satan (the accuser) in contemporary Judaism. [W. FOERSTER, I, 605–06]

→ daímōn

Belíar [Belial]

A name for the devil found only in 2 Cor. 6:15 (originally perhaps a god of the underworld; cf. 2 Sam. 22:5; Ps. 18:4). Why Paul should choose the term is uncertain; possibly, but not very probably, he has

antichrist in view. [W. FOERSTER, I, 607]
→ diábolos

bélos [arrow]

“Pointed weapon,” “javelin,” “arrow,” used also for lightning, rays of the sun, moon, or fire. Greek and Semitic gods are armed with both bows and arrows. In the OT the rainbow is God’s bow (Gen. 9:13), lightning is his burning arrow (Ps. 7:13), and the arrows of the sun cause drought and sunstroke (Ps. 90). God shoots the wicked with his arrows (Lam. 3:12; Job 6:4). God’s servant is an arrow in Is. 42:9, and Is. 59:17 speaks of ethical and spiritual armament. In the NT bélos occurs in Eph. 6:16. The righteous are armed as God’s warriors (cf. Is. 59:17). They are attacked by the flaming darts of the evil one but they can

parry this assault with the shield of faith, which gives union with God. [F. HAUCK, I, 608–09]

biázomai [to use force, suffer violence], biastḗs [violent man]

biázomai.

A. biázomai in Ordinary Greek. The reference of the term is always to “forced” as distinct from voluntary acts. The middle means “to compel,” “overpower” (sometimes sexually), the passive “to be constrained.” All kinds of compulsion may be at issue.

B. biázomai in the NT.

1. In Mt. 11:12 the word occurs in the context of sayings relating to John the Baptist: his position relative to Jesus’ works (vv. 1–6); his character (vv. 7–8); his place in God’s economy (vv. 9–15); his reception (vv. 16–19). Stress is put on his greatness as the forerunner (v. 10). But he does not belong to the age when the kingdom comes in full power (v. 11). It is in this regard that biázomai occurs. a. A first possibility is to take biázetai as an intransitive middle: “the rule of God breaks in with power” (cf. the mighty works of Jesus). But this does not go well with the second part of the verse (cf. biastaí), which seems to be interpreting the first half. b. To translate “the kingdom of heaven compels” (middle) is no more help in this regard. c. The passive raises other difficulties if taken in a good sense, i.e., that people are pressing into the kingdom, since Mt. 11:1–24 seems to suggest the very opposite (cf. also Mk. 10:17ff.; Mt. 5:3ff. on entry into the kingdom; the striving of Lk. 13:24 is hardly the same as the forcible seizure denoted by biázetai and biastaí:). d. Nor does the rendering “The kingdom is forcibly advanced by God” solve the problem of the second half. e. Another possibility is that the reference is to unprincipled enthusiasts trying to establish the kingdom on their own, but this seems to have no relevance to the general context. f. A final possibility is that Jesus is referring to contentious opponents who attack or hamper the kingdom and snatch it away from others (cf. 13:19). This has the merit of agreement with the fact that John himself is under constraint and that both he and Jesus have met with widespread opposition (cf. 11:2, 16ff., 20ff.).

2. The other instance of the term in Lk. 16:16 has as its context the righteousness of the Pharisees and the validity of the law. John is put in the age of law, while the present age is that of preaching the good news. The subject of biázetai here is not the kingdom, but “everyone.” Of the various possibilities under 1., f. does not fit the context very well, b. is possible but artificial (“everyone is pressed in”), and a middle active offers the best sense (“everyone presses in”), agreeing with the missionary impulse in Luke and the impression of an ardent and jostling response to the new message. The point of agreement in Matthew and Luke is that with John the Baptist the old age ends and the new begins; Jesus inaugurates the kingdom.

3. Implicit in both uses of the term, then, is the fact that the divine rule, whether present or future, is already here in Jesus, so that all that precedes him is now transcended (cf. Paul’s saying in Rom. 10:4; also John’s in 1:17). In face of the kingdom, however, opposition intensifies; it has to meet acts of hostility and violence. Nevertheless, the true characteristic of the new age is that people are pressing into the kingdom as in the Lucan saying. If persecution arises, old barriers are also broken down. We thus have both negative and positive signs of the one reality of forceful and decisive change.

biastḗs. biastás occurs as an adjective for “strong” or “brave,” and we also find words like biastéon, biazómenos, and bíaioi denoting violence, but biastḗs (“violent man,”) seems to occur for the first time in Mt. 11:12, where it refers most naturally to those who violently assault the divine rule and snatch it away from others. [G. SCHRENK, I, 609–14]

bíblos [book], biblíon [book, scroll]

bíblos.

1. General Use. As a loanword from the Egyptian, this first denotes the papyrus. Then, as papyrus replaces wooden tablets for writing, it comes to mean the inscribed paper, the scroll, other writing materials, and finally the writing as book, letter, record, or statute. The form biblíon is more common in the LXX.

2. bíbloi hieraí. “Sacred writings” can be used in general for hieratic books (cf. bíbloi in Acts 19:19), but in Philo and Josephus they come to denote especially and very frequently the books of Moses and the rest of the OT.

3. bíblos can also be used for individual books of the canon. It can cover the whole law, as in Mk. 12:26. We also read of the book of Psalms in Acts 1:20, the book of the sayings of Isaiah in Lk. 3:4, and the book of the prophets in Acts 7:42.

4. bíblos genéseōs. This phrase in Mt. 1:1 is based on Gen. 5:1; it relates only to the genealogy that follows, not to the whole infancy story.

biblíon.

1. General Use. This diminutive form first means the same as bíblos but then is more especially used for a scroll or writing, for nonbiblical writings, for libraries, archives, and chronicles, also for epistles and documents (cf. the bill of divorce in Mk. 10:4).

2. biblíon and biblía for the Canon. With reference to the OT, tó biblíon first denotes the law (Gal. 3:10; Heb. 9:19. On the basis of Josephus’ use of biblía for the law or canon, 2 Tim. 4:13 might mean the OT scrolls. The use of tá biblía for the whole canon (for Christians including the NT) follows the same usage. biblíon for a single book occurs in Lk. 4:17 (a scroll, as we see from ptýxas in v. 20). In Jn. 20:30 the author calls his work a biblíon, but this is not in itself a formal claim to canonical authority.

3. The Apocalyptic Use and the Other NT Passages concerning the Book of Life. The word has a special sense in Revelation as a term for the divine secret and as a symbol of God’s impregnable purpose. Five nuances may be discerned.

a. The unsealed biblíon (22:10) of the Revelation itself contains prophetic sayings and is to be sent to the churches (1:11). b. The biblíon with seven seals, which is again a scroll, relates to all the judicial acts that unfold from ch. 6 onward. It is the book of God’s purposes of judgment, sealed at first (i.e., hidden from us), but coming into effect as the seals are opened by the only one who is worthy to open them. This is the crucified Lamb who is now enthroned as the Lion, so that the cross is shown to be the basis of divine rule. c. The biblarídion which the divine has to swallow (10:9–10) contains visions of the temple and the witnesses, i.e., of God’s dealings with Israel in the end-time. d. The biblíon tḗs zōḗs in Rev. 13:8; 17:8; 20:12; 21:27, as well as the bíblos tḗs zōḗs in 3:5; 13:8; 20:15, is based on the OT truth that the righteous are written in God’s book (cf. also Lk. 10:20; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:23). The metaphor may be based on family lists, though the common idea of books of destiny may also have played a role (cf. Ps. 56:8). In the NT the idea expresses assurance of salvation (cf. 2 Tim. 2:19). The book is that of the crucified Lamb (Rev. 13:8). God’s eternal purpose lies behind his reconciling work; hence the names are written from the foundation of the world. But there must be a human will to persevere if the names are not to be erased (3:5). Abomination and falsehood are to be shunned (21:27), worship of the beast refused (13:8), and obedience rendered. The books of judgment are the opposite of the book of life (20:12). e. These books of judgment-the phrase goes back to Dan 7:10 (cf. also Is. 65:6; Jer. 22:30; Mal. 3:16)-contain all works, both good and bad, but perdition awaits those who are not written in the book of life

(20:15). [G. SCHRENK, I, 615–20]
bíos → zōḗ

blasphēméō [to blaspheme], blasphēmía [blasphemy], blásphēmos [blasphemous]

A. blasphēmía in Greek Literature. The word means a. “abusive speech,” b. “personal mockery,” c. “blasphemy.”

B. blasphēmía in the LXX and Judaism. In the LXX blasphēmía has no fixed Hebrew original. It always has reference to God, e.g., disputing his power (2 Kgs. 19:4), desecrating his name (Is. 52:5), violating his glory (Ezek. 35:12), wicked speech (Is. 66:3), or human arrogance (Lev. 24:11). The religious sense is predominant in Philo. For the rabbis speaking impudently about the law, idolatry, and shaming God’s name are blasphemy.

C. blasphēmía in the NT.

1. Blasphemy is violation of God’s power and majesty. It may be directly against God (Rev. 13:6), his name (Rom. 2:24), the word (Tit. 2:5), Moses (Acts 6:11), or angelic beings (Jude 8–10; 2 Pet. 2:10–12). The concept is a Jewish one; hence Jesus seems to be blaspheming when he forgives sins (Mk. 2:7), or claims to be the Messiah (Mk. 14:64), thus making himself equal to God (Jn. 10:33ff.).

2. For Christians blasphemy includes doubting the claim of Jesus or deriding him (cf. Lk. 22:64–65; Mk. 15:29; Lk. 23:39). Persecuting Christians is also blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:13). The community has to suffer blasphemy (Rev. 2:9; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4). Opposition to Paul’s message is necessarily blasphemy (Acts 13:45) because it attacks its basic content.

3. Christians may give cause for blasphemy if they deny Christ, if the weak eat idol meats (1 Cor. 10:30), or if they do not love (Rom. 14:15–16). A bad action is blasphemy either because it resists God’s will or brings Christianity into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1; Jms. 2:7; Rom. 2:24; Tit. 2:5). Yet only blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven, i.e., the willful and wicked rejection of God’s saving power and grace (Mt. 12:32). For this the only remedy is to hand the blasphemer over to Satan (1 Tim. 1:20). The opposition of the beast (Rev. 13:1) and the harlot (17:3) in the last days is blasphemy. The lists of offenses in Mk. 7:22; Mt. 15:19; Eph. 4:31;, Col. 3:8; 1 Tim. 6:4; 2 Tim. 3:2 contain the blasphēm- group.

D. blasphēmía in the Early Church. The different NT nuances recur in the fathers. Tertullian takes a very serious view of blasphemy. In dogmatic debates opposing views are stigmatized as blasphemy. The

exposition of Mt. 12:32 causes considerable difficulty. [H. W. BEYER, I, 621–25]
blépō → horáō

boáō [to cry, call]

“To cry,” “to call” in such senses as a. “to exult,” b. “to proclaim,” c. “to call to or call out,” d. “to raise an outcry,” e. “to utter a cry” (demons in Acts 8:7).

boáō as Crying in Need to God. The most significant theological use is for crying out in need, e.g., in the LXX the crying of the oppressed (Judg. 10:10), of innocent blood (Gen. 4:10), of workers (Dt. 24:15), of the field (Job 31:38). God will swiftly answer such cries (cf. Ex. 22:21ff.). The NT contains the same thought in Jms. 5 and Lk. 18: God will redress the wrongs of those who cry to him (cf. Lk. 18:8). On the cross, however, Jesus cries out from the lowest depths of need in dereliction (Mk. 15:34). Biblical crying finds its deepest expression in prayer for God himself, and this leads to a new relationship with God. Prayer is elemental crying. It does not ring out in the void. This mortal cry of the old being is also the first cry of the new being that comes to life with the death of God’s Son (cf. 2 Cor. 13:4; Gal. 4:4ff.;

Rom. 8:16, 26). [E. STAUFFER, I, 625–28]

boēthéō [to help], boēthós [helper], boḗtheia [help]

boēthéō. The basic meaning is “to run to help,” then “to help.” The word is often used of doctors. In the NT see Acts 21:28; Mk. 9:22; Acts 16:9; Rev. 12:16; of God, only 2 Cor. 6:2; for help in religious need, Mk. 9:24; Heb. 2:18.

boēthós. The only NT instance is Heb. 13:6 (quoting Ps. 118:6–7): God is the helper of the righteous.

boḗtheia. “Help,” used in the NT only in Acts 27:17 (a nautical term) and Heb. 4:16 (God’s help). The sparing use of the group in the NT differentiates it from rational piety with its common references to divine help. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 628–29]

boúlomai [to desire], boulḗ [counsel], boúlēma [purpose]

boúlomai

A. boúlomai outside the NT. In distinguishing boúlomai and (e)thélō, a. some find more rational as distinct from more impulsive desire, but b. others refer ethélō to resolution of spirit and boúlomai to inclination of soul. “To prefer,” suggesting volition, seems to be the original sense, then “to wish,” “to

purpose,” or, more weakly, “to think.” In the LXX boúlomai is slightly more common than ethélō, with little difference of sense. It means variously “to will,” “to resolve,” “to desire,” “to want,” “to purpose,” “to seek,” even “to be inclined.” Josephus has it for “to prefer” but mostly “to desire” or “to resolve.” The idea of wishing or intending is to the fore in Philo, especially in connection with God’s will or goal.

B. boúlomai in the NT. In the contest between boúlomai and ethélō, the latter has won out by NT days so that little of boúlomai remains. a. Mostly it simply means “to wish, desire, intend.” b. Three times it is used of apostolic ordering. c. It can still denote the will of God, the Son, or the Spirit (seven times). Thus it expresses God’s eternal purpose in Heb. 6:17, his will to save in 2 Pet. 3:9, his will to give new life in Jms. 1:18, his sovereign counsel in Lk. 22:42. Christ’s own will (in execution of God’s counsel) is the issue in Mt. 11:27 (Lk. 10:22). The Spirit controls the distribution of gifts, according to 1 Cor. 12:11.

boulḗ.

A. boulḗ outside the NT.

1. boulḗ means first the “process of deliberation” (Prov. 2:11; 8:12), “deliberation” itself (Dt. 32:28), or simply “thought” (Is. 55:7).

2. It then denotes the result: a. “resolve”; b. “intention,” “purpose”; c. “plan” (Is. 8:10; 30:1; 44:6); d. “counsel” given to others (Gen. 49:6; 2 Sam. 15:31; 1 Kgs. 12:8; Ps. 1:1).

3. It can also mean the machinery of counsel and resolution: a. the process in general (1 Chr. 12:19); b. the “council” of a city; c. a resolution of state.

4. boulḗ may also be “divine counsel” (Job 38:2; Prov. 19:18; Is. 5:19; 14:26; 46:10; Jer. 29:21), or the counsel of wisdom (Prov. 1:25). In Hellenistic mysticism the divine boulḗ (or thélēma) is important as representing God’s transcendence; it is linked with lógos as parent or creator of the cosmos, and is sometimes depicted as a goddess separate from God.

B. boulḗ in the NT. In 1 Cor. 4:5 the meaning hovers between the weaker “desires” and the stronger “purposes”; “intents” (inward intentions) seems to fit best.

Sense 3.a. is demanded in Acts 27:12, 42: consultation leading to a plan.

In the NT, however, the divine counsel is the main issue, especially in Luke’s writings. David died by God’s counsel in Acts 13:36. The Pharisees rejected God’s counsel in opposing the Baptist (Lk. 7:30). Jesus was delivered up by God’s definite plan (Acts 2:23). God’s boulḗ is the content of the apostolic message (Acts 20:27). Eph. 1:1ff. climaxes in the statement that God does all things according to the counsel of his will, which overarches the choosing and destining of vv. 4–5, and sets in motion the whole grace present in Christ and granted to the church as the reality of salvation. boulḗ here strengthens thélēma; all God’s economy is linked with it (cf. Acts 20:27). God’s oath in Heb. 6:17 confirms the unbreakable and unchangeable nature of this counsel.

boúlēma.

1. This rare term denotes the will as “plan” or “purpose” or “intention,” with such different nuances as “last will” in the papyri and “preference” in 4 Macc. 8:18.

2. “Purpose” rather than “resolve” seems to be at issue when the reference is to God’s boúlēma (Josephus Antiquities 1.232; Philo On the Life of Moses 1.95).

3. The NT follows the common usage. In Acts 27:43 the captain frustrates the design of the soldiers. In 1 Pet. 4:3 Christians used to follow the direction of the Gentiles in ungodly living. In Rom. 9:19 no one can resist the purpose of God, which is described in v. 18 as his twofold will of mercy and severity. [G. SCHRENK, I, 629–37]

brabeúō [to rule], brabeíon [prize]

brabeúō. This term describes the work of an umpire at the games, then comes to mean “to order” or “control.” Paul uses it of the peace which settles strife in the church and maintains its unity (cf. phrourḗsai in Phil. 4:7).

brabeíon. This means “prize” in a contest (also used figuratively). Paul has it in 1 Cor. 9:24ff. and Phil. 3:13–14 for the prize of eternal life that we can win only if we throw in all that we have, although only because God first calls us and sets the goal. On the basis of God’s call we must break with all that is behind us (Phil. 3:7ff.) and bend all our efforts to attain the end (note the sevenfold “that” in 1 Cor.

9:19ff.), integrating our will into God’s (1 Cor. 9:17). [E. STAUFFER, I, 637–39]

brachíōn [arm]

brachíōn occurs in the NT only for God’s “arm” and in quotations from the LXX or similar expressions (Lk. 1:51; Jn. 12:38; Acts 13:17). In the OT God’s arm signifies his power (Is. 62:8; 63:5), which may be exerted on behalf of the righteous (2 Chr. 6:32) but is seen especially in creation (Is. 51:9), the exodus (Dt. 4:34), the preservation of Israel (Dt. 33:27), and the bringing of eschatological salvation (Is. 40:10). In the NT this arm shows its power in the birth of the promised Messiah (Lk. 1:51) and the

signs that are done by Jesus before the people (Jn. 12:37–38). → cheír [H. SCHLIER, I, 639–40]

brontḗ [thunder]

Translated “thunder,” brontḗ is used for a powerful voice in Jn. 12:29; Rev. 6:1; 14:2; 19:6, and mentioned with other natural phenomena in Rev. 4:5; 8:5; 11:19,; 16:18. In the LXX it denotes God’s terrifying revelation. The sons of Zebedee are called “sons of thunder” in Mk. 3:17, but there is debate as to the orthography of the Aramaic and its meaning. [W. FOERSTER, I, 640–41]

brýchō [to gnash], brygmós [gnashing]

brýchō. In the LXX this complex term comes to be used for “to gnash (with the teeth),” as in Lam. 2:16; Ps. 35:16 (in hatred). The only NT instance (Acts 7:54) is in line with LXX usage: Stephen’s opponents ground their teeth in rage.

brygmós. This word, used for “chattering of the teeth,” “groaning,” and “gnashing,‗’ occurs in the phrase “weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Mt. 8:12; 13:42, 50; 22:13; Lk. 13:28). The reference is not to despairing rage, nor to a physical reaction, but to the remorse of those who are shut out of the kingdom

even though called to it. This special use, which is almost peculiar to Matthew, derives its meaning from the context. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 641–42]

brṓma [food], brṓsis [eating]

l. “Food” in the Strict Sense. The crowds need food in Mt. 14:15; we are to share food in Lk. 3:11; distinctions of food are done away in Mk. 7:19. Food is not significant in the relation to God (1 Cor. 8; Rom. 14), though regard for the weak requires voluntary renunciation of some foods (1 Cor. 8:13; Rom. 14:15). Rules about food have lost their validity in the new covenant (Heb. 9:10). Foods cannot strengthen the heart (Heb. 13:9). All food is God’s gift and is thus to be received with thanksgiving (contra false asceticism) (1 Tim. 4:3).

2. “Food” in the Figurative Sense.

a. The term denotes miraculous food from heaven in 1 Cor. 10:3 (cf. Ex. 16). b. It is used for spiritual food in 1 Cor. 3:2; milk is the first presentation of the gospel, solid food (Heb. 5:12ff) is the interpretation. For Jesus, doing God’s will is his inner nourishment (Jn. 4:34). Jesus also grants spiritual food to others as he fed the multitude (Jn. 6:27). This food nourishes to eternal life and is received by faith in him (6:35ff.), i.e., by the reception of Christ himself (6:51ff.). [J. BEHM, I, 642–45]

γ g

gála [milk]

1. In 1 Cor. 3:1–2 ―milk‖ signifies the basic gospel. In Heb. 12ff. it is used similarly for the rudiments of Christian teaching (cf. 6:1–2). It is contrasted with the solid food suitable for mature believers.

2. In 1 Pet. 2:2 pure, spiritual milk will help newborn babes to grow up to salvation. The figure of speech may rest on a mythical, magical, or eschatological conception but more probably derives from LXX usage, for in the OT milk is a characteristic of the promised land (Ex. 3:8), is a general mark of blessing (Job 29:6), and has eschatological significance (Joel 3:18). Thus the use of the term in 1 Pet. 2:2 undoubtedly indicates the character of the gospel as mystery or sacrament, but the content of the gospel distinguishes it from the mysteries that used similar terminology. [H. SCHLIER, I, 645–47]

gaméō [to marry], gámos [marriage, wedding]

1. Marriage Customs in the NT. The LXX has gámos only in Gen. 29:22; Esth. 2:18; 9:22. Jewish marriages lasted several days and were celebrated far into the night (Lk. 12:36; 14:8; Jn. 2:1ff.).

2. The New Ideal of Early Christianity. Gen. 2:24, which speaks of the union of man and wife, forms the starting point. Continued here is the work of creation in Gen. 1:28. For Jesus marriage is the original form of human fellowship. It has its basis in creation, has a history which divides into three periods, and will end with this aeon. Full union is the original state (Mk. 10:6ff.). Sin causes the disruption which leads to the bill of divorce allowed by Moses. Jesus inaugurates a new period marked by a new law of divorce, a deepened ideal, and a fourfold reservation (Mk. 10:9–10). According to this realistic view, dissolution may take place, but not a new marriage, for replacement of one spouse by another is adultery and affects the original union. The cause of marital failure is hardness of heart; hence the need is for a new heart (5:27–28). Inward as well as outward union is demanded. Copulation without communion is fornication. Free love and double standards are both ruled out here, though the initiative of the husband in the conclusion and direction of a marriage is assumed in Lk. 17:27. The four reservations are as follows: (1) In some ages marrying and giving in marriage may be frivolous and irresponsible (Lk. 17:27); (2) marrying may sometimes hamper our readiness for God’s call (Lk. 14:20); (3) some people have the gift of celibacy (Mt. 19:12); (4) there will be no more marrying in the new aeon (Mk. 12:25). Though Jesus himself does not marry, and marriage belongs to the passing aeon, Jesus does not warn against marriage or enjoin celibacy, but endorses the institution found in Gen. 2:24. Paul develops the same motifs. In 1 Cor. 6:16–17 he shows how the union of Gen. 2:24 rules out fornication. In 1 Cor. 7 he quotes Jesus in rejection of remarriage after divorce (7:10–11). Once contracted, marriage must be fully carried out with only brief periods of withdrawal (7:3ff.). Paul, however, presses more strongly the fourfold reservation of Jesus. Marriage may hinder true dedication to God (7:5, 32ff.) and is not consonant with the hour (7:26, 28–29). If ascetic experimentation is not approved, and widows are free to remarry (7:39–40), he could wish that all had the gift of celibacy as he himself had for the sake of his unique commission (7:1–2, 7–8; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5, 12, 15ff.). Later, although the ideal is that widows should remain unmarried, young widows are exhorted to remarry rather than engage in questionable activities (1 Tim. 4:3; 5:5ff., 11, 14). Marriage is to be honored according to Heb. 13:4, and if celibacy is also extolled in the case of the 144,000 of Rev. 14:4, this is on account of their special calling. In general, building on the foundation laid by Jesus, the NT finds in agápē rather than érōs the force that creates and sustains marital fellowship. The ground and measure of human agápē lie in the love of God as this comes to expression in Christ’s love for his community (Ephesians).

3. The Messianic Wedding and Christian Marriage. gámos acquires its deepest meaning when it is used for God’s fellowship with us. Ancient religion often speaks about the intercourse of gods with humans or sacred marriages among the gods. Plato thinks that heavenly marriage, as an idea, gives form and meaning to earthly marriage. Israel, too, speaks about the marriage of God and his people, but only as a symbol of the covenant (Hos. 2:19; Is. 54:4ff.; Ezek. 16:7ff.). If Philo allegorizes the concept, the rabbis extol the Sinaitic covenant as God’s marriage with Israel, and they look forward to the marriage feast when the covenant will be renewed in the days of the Messiah. Jesus takes up this idea of the messianic wedding in the parable of the virgins (Mt. 25: 10ff.) and also when he calls himself the Bridegroom (Mk. 2:19; Jn. 3:29). He himself is now the son for whom the king holds the great feast (Mt. 22:1–2), and the kingdom itself is compared to the feast to which those who are first invited refuse to come, leaving the door open for others (Mt. 22:3ff.). Who is the bride? The covenant people in OT thought, but in the parables the disciples seem to be guests. Yet soon the new covenant people is presented as the bride (cf. 1 Cor. 6: 14ff.; Rom. 7:4; 2 Cor. 11:2; Jn. 3:29). This idea is most vividly depicted in Revelation, where the bride waits with longing (22:17) and the day of consummation is at hand (19:7ff.) when the new Jerusalem will descend as a bride adorned for her husband (21:2). The teaching on marriage in Eph. 5:22ff. is based on the normative union of Christ and the church with overriding love on the one side and self-giving on the other in a relationship that resolves all tensions as the wife is entrusted to the husband and the husband takes responsibility for the wife in mutual service in Christ. In later developments NT teaching conflicts with Hellenistic motifs as Gnostics talk about heavenly syzygies, mystics dwell on the images of Canticles, ascetics despise the body, and ecstatics focus on spiritual union with the heavenly Bridegroom. [E. STAUFFER, I, 648–57]

→ nymphaíos

géenna [Gehenna]

1. géenna is the Greek form of the Hebrew name for the Wadi er-Rababi. This acquired a bad reputation because of the sacrifices offered to Moloch there (2 Kgs. 16:3). Judgment was pronounced on it (Jer. 7:32), and it thus came to be equated with the hell of the last judgment (Eth. En. 90:26). Later it was also used for the place where the wicked are punished in the intermediate state. The LXX, Philo, and Josephus do not have the term; Philo has tártaros instead.

2. The NT distinguishes between hádēs and géenna: a. the former is temporary, the latter definitive (cf. Mk. 9:43, 48); b. the former is for the soul alone, the latter for the reunited body and soul (Mk. 9:43ff.; Mt. 10:28). géenna is preexistent (Mt. 25:41). It is manifested as a fiery abyss (Mk. 9:43) after the general resurrection. Those who fall victim to divine judgment (Mt. 5:22; 23:33) will be destroyed there with eternal fire. The ungodly are sons of géenna (Mt. 23:15). They go to it with Satan and the demons (Mt. 25:41; cf. Rev. 19:20; 20:10–11). The threat of géenna in the NT is used to show the seriousness of sin and to awaken the conscience to fear of the divine anger (Mt. 10:28; 23:33). Even contemptuous words must be avoided (Mt. 5:22); no sacrifice is too costly in the war against sin (Mk. 9:43ff.). [J. JEREMIAS, I, 657–58]

→ aiṓnios, pýr

gélaō [to laugh], katageláō [to laugh at], gélōs [laughter]

1. The Word Group Applied to Men. The group is common for joyous or scornful laughter, or for its occasion. The note of scorn is stronger in the LXX (cf. Sarah in Gen. 18:12, the enemies in Lam. 1:7). The NT follows OT usage when the people in Jairus’ house laugh at Jesus (Mt. 9:24), when a Woe in pronounced on those who laugh (Lk. 6:25) and they are equated with the wealthy who find satisfaction in this aeon, and when James (4:9) demands that laughter should give place to humility before God.

2. The Word Group Applied to the Deity. For the Greeks merry laughter characterizes the gods. In the OT, however, God laughs only because of his superiority over his opponents (Pss. 2:4; 37:13; 59:8; Prov. 1:26). Hence the point of laughter in Ps. 126:2 is really that of victory, although the LXX imports the sense of joy in God by translating the Hebrew as chará instead of gélōs. This may have a bearing on the eschatological laughter that is promised in Lk. 6:21, which was probably based on Ps. 126:2 unless Luke chose gelán with the Greek sense in mind (―joy)‖ and in order to keep the parallelism with 6:25. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 658–62]

geneá [descent], genealogía [genealogy], genealogéō [to trace one’s descent], agenealógētos [without genealogy]

geneá. This means a. “birth,” “descent,” b. “progeny,” c. “race,” and d. “generation.‗’ In the NT it is common in the Synoptics, rare in Paul, and absent from John. It mostly means “generation” and is often qualified: “adulterous” (Mk. 8:38), “evil” (Mt. 12:45), “unbelieving and corrupt” (Mt. 17:17); the formula “this generation” is very common (Mk. 8:12 etc.). “Crooked generation” in Acts 2:40; Phil. 2:15 is based on Dt. 32:5 (cf. Mt. 17:17 and Dt. 32:20). The use of “generation” by Jesus expresses his comprehensive purpose: he aims at the whole people and is conscious of their solidarity in sin. geneá has the sense of “age” in Mt. 1:17; Acts 13:36; Eph. 3:5; Col. 1:26, and of “manner” in Lk. 16:8. In Acts 8:33 there is an allusion to Is. 53:8 in a literal rendering of the obscure original.

genealogía. “Genealogical tree.” The only NT instances are in 1 Tim. 1:4 and Tit. 3:9. The meaning here is contested. The texts link the term with (Jewish) myths and therefore with Jewish Gnostics who claim to be teachers of the law (1 Tim. 1:7) but who do not truly keep the law (1:8), teaching human commandments instead (Tit. 1:14). The genealogies, then, are probably human ones taken from the OT and the reference in the phrase “myths and genealogies” is to the biblical history enriched by interpretations and additions.

genealogéō. This derives from genealógos, “one who draws up a genealogy.” It occurs in the LXX only in 1 Chr. 5:1 and in the NT only in Heb. 7:6: Melchizedek does not “derive his descent” from the descendants of Levi.

agenealógētos. This occurs only in Heb. 7:3 where Melchizedek is said to be “without genealogy.”

Unlike the Aaronic priests, he was no traceable descent. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 662–65]

gennáō [to bear, beget], génnēma [born], gennētos [begotten, born], artigénnētos [newborn], anagennáō [to be born again]

gennáō.

A. ―Begetting‖ as an Image of the Relationship of Master and Disciple. In the LXX and NT, as well as Greek in general, gennáō means “to beget” (father) or “to bear” (mother). Already in the OT teacher and disciple are depicted as father and son (2 Kgs. 2:12). The rabbis adopt this usage to express the supremacy of the teacher and the respect of the pupil, but with no thought of actual begetting (cf. Mt. 23:8ff.). Paul actually uses the term gennán for the relation in Gal. 4:19, but since he begets through the word (1 Cor. 4:15; cf. Philem. 10), he is obviously not thinking in mystical terms but simply expressing more forcefully the common rabbinic concept. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 665–66]

B. The Idea of New Birth by Conversion to the True Religion in Later Judaism. This idea is common in the rabbis. Bringing people to Judaism is like creating them, and proselytes are like newborn children. Winning converts fulfils the command to be fruitful and multiply. This is, of course, only a comparison. Proselytes come from mere existence to true life by conversion. They do so by coming into the holy people; the terms “new” and “holy” are parallel. Regeneration, then, has a forensic rather than a mystical character. Old relations are dissolved; a new relationship begins. Here is the context of Paul’s statement in 2 Cor. 5:17. As there is a strong connection between rabbinic and NT holiness, so rabbinic ideas of new birth influence the gennēthḗnai of Christians (Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor. 4:15; Phlm. 10). If there is a difference, it is not because of intrusion from the mysteries but because Christ replaces the law, his perfect sanctification subsumes our imperfect strivings, and relation to him supersedes the more forensic element. Living by the gospel (1 Cor. 4:15) is a new being in grateful response to the divine action in Christ. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 666–68]

C. Generation by the Deity.

l. Generation from God in the OT and Judaism. God is rarely said to “beget” in the OT, but the instances are significant. He begets the king in Pss. 2; 110; wisdom in Prov. 8:25. Generation of the king is perhaps a stereotyped formula for institution as heir, though rabbinic exegesis sees in it either affection or new creation out of troubles. What Proverbs says of wisdom is transferred to the law in Sir. 24:6. Philo calls creation a begetting but he does not think of the righteous, or of Israel, as begotten by God.

2. Generation or Adoption in the Mysteries. Sexual images are important in the mysteries but adoption rather then generation applies to initiates (in spite of attempts to prove the contrary).

3. Ps. 2:7 in the NT. This verse is much used in the NT. Its “today” is referred to the resurrection of Jesus in Acts 13:33. On one reading of Lk. 3:22 it applies to his baptism. No point of time is given in Heb. 1:5; 5:5. The birth stories do not quote it (though cf. Lk. 1:35), but on the basis of the resurrection and impartation of the Spirit Jesus is for the church more than a superior human being. The new aeon comes with him. In him we see true generation from God. In faith in him believers are assured of the resurrection and have the pledge of the Spirit. Hence they also see themselves as born of God.

4. gennēthḗnai in John. John always gives the point of origin of gennēthḗnai God in 1 Jn. 2:29; Jn. 1:13, the Spirit in Jn. 3:5, water in Jn. 3:5, the flesh in Jn. 3:6, the will in Jn. 1:13. The seed of 1 Jn. 3:9 is the Spirit rather than the word. Birth from God or the Spirit is a reality but also a mystery. Statements about it are not based on experience but are made in faith and are true in virtue of the believer’s fellowship with God (1 Jn. 1:3, 6ff.; 3:9). This birth results in doing righteousness (1 Jn. 2:29), in not sinning (3:7ff.), in love (4:7), in overcoming the world (5:4), in faith in Jesus as the Christ (5:1). Birth from above belongs first to Jesus himself (5:18) and then to believers who, as members of the new aeon, have a share in the Spirit and are thus united to Christ, passing from death to life (3:14; 5:24). This concept of divine gennán has little in common with what may be found in the mysteries; the view of piety is totally different.

génnēma. “What is born,” “fruit,” common in the LXX and Philo, but found in the NT only in the phrase “brood of vipers” in Mt. 3:7; 12:34; 23:33.

gennētós. Common in Philo, this occurs in the NT only in the phrase “those born of woman” (Mt. 11:11) to denote humans as distinct from God or angels.

artigénnētos (→ neóphytos). “Newborn,” found in the NT only in 1 Pet. 2:2: “newborn babes,” the reference being to the newly converted or possibly the newly baptized if the epistle, or 1:3–4:11, is a baptismal address.

anagennáō (→ palingenesía).

A. The Nonbiblical Usage. This term is usually connected with the mysteries, but attestation is rare and late. Philo does not use it, although he has anagénnēsis for Stoic rejuvenation, and Josephus uses the verb in a general sense.

B. anagennáō in 1 Peter. In 1 Peter regeneration is God’s act (1:3). It is effected by Christ’s resurrection (1:3) or the word (1:23). The result is a living hope (1:3). Regeneration is not a state or experience or power. Believers are posited on faith. They are given a nonmystical new beginning which sharpens the tension between present and future as they hope for an inheritance and live in fear of God (1:17). Regeneration is not cultically or sacramentally mediated; baptism is an act of faith in which one is cleansed by prayer for the good conscience received on the basis of Christ’s resurrection. It is this resurrection that enables us to speak of regeneration, giving it an eschatological character as a matter of faith (2:6; 1:5; 5:9), hope (1:3; 3:15), and fear of God (1:17; 2:18; 3:2, 15). The background is Jewish, i.e., hope for a new life rather than inner experience. Yet after Christ’s resurrection the new aeon has begun

and regeneration is also a present reality, though grasped as yet only in faith. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 668–
75]

geúomai [to taste, experience]

1. Strictly “to taste,” “enjoy”; 2. figuratively “to come to feel,” “to learn by experience” (both good things and bad). “To taste death” is a common Semitic expression; cf. also “to taste something of the world to come.” In the NT we find 1. “to taste” in Mt. 27:34, “to enjoy” or “to eat” in Acts 10:10; 20:11. In Acts 23:14 the conspirators vow not to eat, while in Col. 2:21 Christians are to ignore taboos about food. The figurative use 2. occurs in 1 Pet. 2:3: we are to desire the word as those who have already tasted the goodness of Christ. Similar is Heb. 6:4–5, which refers to the tasting of the heavenly gift, the word of God, and the powers of the future aeon, by initial participation in the Spirit. “To taste death” occurs in Mk. 9:1; Jn. 8:52; Heb. 2:9; it expresses very vividly the harsh reality of dying. [J. BEHM, I, 675–77]

gḗ [earth], epígeios [earthly]

gḗ.

1. The Earth, Land, as a Dwelling Place of Man. a. “Land” (in the geographical sense), as in Mt. 9:26; Mk. 15:33; Acts 7:3, 4 (Palestine); named in Mt. 2:6: Judah; Acts 7:29: Midian; Acts 13:19: Canaan; Acts 7:36: Egypt etc.; b. the “land of promise” (Acts 7:3; Heb. 11:9, and in an eschatological sense Mt. 5:5); c. the “inhabited earth” (Rev. 3:10; 14:6; Acts 22:22); d. the earth as the theater of history: the past (Rev. 16:18); the work of Jesus (Mk. 2:10; Mt. 10:34; Jn. 17:4-this concept merges into that of the human world); eschatological history (Lk. 18:8; 21:23, and many passages in Revelation).

2. The Earth as Part of the World. The ancient phrase “heaven and earth” for the cosmos is common in the NT (cf. Mk. 13:31; Heb. 1:10–11; 2 Pet. 3:7, and for the new heaven and earth 2 Pet. 3:7; Rev. 21:1). Since “sea” is a third component, earth denotes dry land (cf. Acts 4:24; Heb. 11:29; Rev. 8:7ff.). In another triad earth comes between heaven and what is under the earth (Rev. 5:3). There is, however, no consistent cosmology, and cosmological ideas, even in Revelation, are wholly subordinate to theological. Interesting phrases are “from the ends of the earth” for “from abroad” in Mt. 12:42, “to the ends of the earth” for “everywhere” in Acts 1:8, “four corners of the earth” in Rev. 20:8, and “from the margin of earth to the margin of heaven” (i.e., one end of the world to the other) in Mk. 13:27. An echo of personification may be caught in Rev. 12:16.

3. The Earth in Its Relation to God. Created by God (Acts 4:24 etc.), the earth shares the world’s relation to him as creation. It exists by his will, has a beginning and end, and is his possession (1 Cor. 10:26). God is its Lord (Mt. 11:25), as he is of heaven, although with differentiation, for if things may be valid in both earth and heaven (cf. Mt. 16:19; 18:18–19) and earthly things copy heavenly things (Heb. 8:5), the earth is the place of what is imperfect (Mk. 9:3) and transitory (Mt. 6:19), of sin (Mk. 2:10) and death (1 Cor. 15:47). Christ, then, is not of earth (Jn. 3:31; 1 Cor. 15:47). He comes down and is lifted up again (cf. Eph. 4:9). In contrast to redeemer myths, however, the NT has the incarnation in view and makes no final metaphysical distinction between heaven and earth, since both are God’s. The real difference is that the earth is the theater of sin. The Son of Man comes to it to forgive sins (Mk. 2:10), and it is because of the fall that believers are “strangers and pilgrims on earth” (Heb. 11:13) and are “ransomed from the earth” (Rev. 14:3), being exhorted not to “set their mind on what is on the earth” but to mortify their “earthly members” (Col. 3:2, 5).

epígeios. a. “Existing on, belonging to, earth,” b. “earthly” (in contrast to heavenly). In Phil. 2:10 the totality of being includes the heavenly, the earthly (not just human), and those under the earth. 2 Cor. 5 refers to the earthly body as distinct from the heavenly; cf. 1 Cor. 15:40ff., where perishable, inglorious, weak, and physical are parallels. Since the earth is the place of sin, “earthly” may have a subsidiary moral sense as in “earthly minded” (Phil. 3:19) and “earthly wisdom” (Jms. 3:15). In Jn. 3:12 the contrast is perhaps between earthly parables and direct instruction on heavenly things (cf. 16:25). [H. SASSE, I,
677–81]

gínomai [to be born], génesis [birth], génos [kind, family], génēma [fruit], apogínomai [to die], palingenesía [rebirth, renewal]

gínomai. This word has little theological interest in the NT apart from the distinction between gínesthai and eínai in Jn. 8:58. The common Synoptic expression (kaí) egéneto (as in Lk. 5:12, 17) seems to be consciously based on the style of the OT.

génesis.

1. “Birth,” “genesis” (Mt. 1:18. Lk. 1:14), with such derived senses as a. “what has come into being” and b. “life” (cf. perhaps Jms. 1:23).

2. bíblos genéseos for Genealogy in Mt. 1:1. This phrase goes back to the OT (Gen. 2:4; 5:1, etc.). The use in the OT varies, and genealogies are named after ancestors, so that one cannot deduce from the OT whether the reference is only to vv. 2–17 or to the whole book. The heading is undoubtedly needed to introduce vv. 2–17 (cf. v. 2 and v. 17).

3. ho trochós tēs genéseōs as the Wheel of Life in Jms. 3:6. This phrase is a technical one in Orphic teaching (cf. also Philo), but there the idea is that of the recurrence of birth and death. The saying in James is closer to the popular idea of the inversion of things which can even be said to bring burning pain. Judaism also speaks about the world as a wheel, although this saying, which is probably the source of the statement in James, itself seems to have been taken from popular Greek sayings about the uncertainty of fortune. The Buddhist idea of the wheel of rotation, becoming and time, which is set on fire by self-consciousness, is too speculative to explain Jms. 3:6. The author is simply adapting a popular expression to a practical end.

génos.

1. “Posterity,” “family,” as in Acts 17:28 (all are related to God) and, individually, in Rev. 22:16 (descendant, not representative).

2. “People,” e.g., the Jewish people in Gal. 1:14; Phil. 3:5, Christians in 1 Pet. 2:9 (quoting Is. 43:20).

3. “Kind,” e.g., species of animals or plants, but also tongues (1 Cor. 12:10, 28).

génēma. “Product,” “fruit (of the earth),” common in the LXX (to be distinguished from génnēma, from gennán, for the offspring of humans or animals). In the NT 2 Cor. 9:10 (“harvest of well-doing”) follows Hos. 10:12, while Mk. 14:25 is parallel to the blessing of the paschal cup in contemporary Judaism.

apogínomai. This rare term occurs in the NT only in 1 Pet. 2:24, where the reference is to the goal of Christ’s saving act, namely, that we might “die” to sin and live to righteousness. The death and resurrection of Christ are thus interpreted in terms of the Jewish concept of destruction and renewal. The goal is at issue rather than an inner or sacramental experience.

palingenesía.

A. The Usage outside the NT. Deriving from pálin and génesis, and thus meaning either a. “return to existence” or b. “renewal to higher existence,” this word takes its distinctive impress from Stoicism with a cosmic and then an individual sense. It then spreads to educated circles with a more general reference, and occurs later in the mysteries, though not in Orphic or Pythagorean writings. Philo has it for restoration of life and the reconstitution of the world after the flood, and Josephus for the reestablishment of the people after the exile, but the only LXX instance is in Job 14:14. In Judaism existence in the new aeon is not just a repetition of this life but an existence in righteousness following the definitive crisis of the last judgment.

B. palingenesía in the NT.

1. In Mt. 19:28 the reference is to individual resurrection and cosmic renewal in the Jewish sense (cf. Lk. 22:30: the kingdom; Mk. 10:30: the age to come).

2. In Tit. 3:5 the term embraces both moral renewal and new life, but with a stress on the latter (cf. v. 7). The grace of God works here by instruction and personal fellowship, not by magical incantation; hence the origin of the use is to be found in the Jewish adaptation of Stoicism, not in the mysteries. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 681–89]

ginṓskō [to know, understand], gnṓsis [knowledge] epiginṓskō [to know, recognize], epígnōsis [knowledge, recognition], kataginṓskō [to condemn], akatágnōstos [not condemned], proginṓskō [to foreknow], prógnōsis [foreknowledge], syngnṓmē [forbearance], gnṓmē [intention, opinion], gnōrízō [to make known, to know], gnōstós [known]

ginṓskō, gnṓsis, epiginṓskō, epígnōsis.

A. The Greek Usage. The ordinary use is for intelligent comprehension (“to perceive,” “to understand,” “to know”), at first with a stress on the act. As distinct from aisthánesthai, ginṓskō emphasizes understanding rather than sensory perception, and as distinct from dokeín it is a perception of things as they are, not an opinion about them. Related to epistḗmē, gnōsis needs an objective genitive and suggests the act of knowing rather than knowledge as such. This act embraces every organ and mode of knowledge, e.g., by seeing, hearing, investigation, or experience, and of people as well as things. Supremely, however, knowledge implies verification by the eye; hence the dominant concept is that of knowledge by objective observation. This is related to the Greek view of reality. Reality consist of forms and figures, or of the elements and principles that shape them. The truly real is timeless reality that is constant in every change. Those who see or know this possess and control it. Hence knowledge of what really is constitutes the supreme possibility in life. Those who know participate in the eternal. They are thus capable, as Plato thinks, of right political action, or may achieve the ideal, as Aristotle thinks, of disinterested scientific contemplation.

B. The Gnostic Usage. Hellenistic and Gnostic usage follows the classical development yet also draws on the belief of the mysteries that a secret knowledge may be mediated that leads to salvation. In this area gnṓsis a. means knowledge as such as well as the act, with a primary stress on knowledge of God. God is the self-evident object of gnṓsis and distinct from all becoming, so that he can be known only by turning away from the world, i.e., by a special kind of knowledge. This knowledge, then, is not b. an activity of the noús but a chárisma, i.e., illumination by ecstatic or mystical vision. This knowledge cannot be possessed, although knowledge achieved on the way to it may. In true Gnosticism, however, this preparatory knowledge is an esoteric knowledge acquired by initiatory training, so that the prerequisite is the hearing of faith rather than scientific inquiry. The knowledge that is thus imparted by sacred tradition guarantees the ascent of the soul after death. Its content embraces cosmology and anthropology but always with a view to the knowledge of the self that leads to salvation, i.e., of the self as a soul that comes from the world of light, is entangled in matter, and must return to its true home by turning aside from the physical world. Gnostic knowledge carries with it c. investiture with the divine nature. It is a divine power that drives out death, working almost like a magical fluid identical with light or life, and constituting a mysterious quality of the soul which is made secure by an ascetic mode of life.

C. The OT Usage.

1. The OT view of knowledge comes out most clearly in the use of yādι ‘ (normally rendered ginόskein or eidénai). Perception is an integral part of knowledge here too, i.e., coming to know in various ways. Implied are comprehension, ability, and a grasp of what needs to be done. Yet the Hebrew term is broader than the Greek word ginόskein and embraces objects such as blows (1 Sam. 14:12), childlessness (Is. 47:8), and sickness (Is. 53:3) that sound odd in Greek. Sexual intercourse may also be denoted (Gen. 4:1 etc.), and while the element of information can be stressed (Ps. 94:11), more attention is paid to the knowing subject, hearing is more important than seeing, and events (as divine or human acts) constitute the reality of knowledge rather than the timeless principles behind things. God himself is not so much that which always is; he is the will that has a specific goal in either claiming, blessing, or judging. Knowledge of God, then, is acknowledgment of his grace, power, and demand, so that we have knowledge, not as mere information or mystical contemplation, but only in its exercise. A movement of will is involved which means that ignorance is guilty. Knowledge is acknowledgment of God’s acts (Dt. 11:20), recognition that Yahweh is God (Dt. 4:39), and the honoring of his name and doing of his will (1 Sam. 2:12; Is. 1:3, etc.). Hence knowledge of God is much the same as fear of God (Hos. 4:6). Similarly “known” people are respected people (Dt. 1:13). In the case of God, to know, being an act of will, means to make an object of concern and thus carries the nuance “to elect” (Gen. 18:19; Ex. 33:12, etc.).

2. Among special LXX nuances, ginόskein means to know sin in Leviticus, to know something by revelation in Is. 8:9, to know the power of God’s wrath in Is. 26:11, and to know God by his self-revelation in Ex. 29:42–43, while in the negative it denotes ignorance of God in Zech. 7:14 and his unknowability in Is. 40:13. When God is said to know us, the sense may be that of standing the test (Gen. 22:12), of election (Num. 16:5; Hos. 5:3), or of God’s omniscience in love or mercy. The noun gnόsis is rarer than the verb and often denotes a revealed knowledge whose author is the God of knowledge (1 Chr. 4:10), which is a possession of the righteous (Prov. 24:26), and which is taught by the sage or servant of the Lord (Is. 53:11). Sinners, apostates, and idolaters do not have this knowledge (cf. Prov. 13:19; 19:20, etc.). It may be insight into God’s plan (Dan. 12:4), and while it surpasses human comprehension (Ps. 139:6), all creation proclaims it to believers (Ps. 19:2). (For details cf. TDNT, I, 698–701.)

D. The Jewish Usage.

1. The OT understanding continues in Judaism. For the rabbis knowledge is knowledge of the law, and while the term may denote a thinking, gifted, or learned person, the law and tradition are the basis and theme of instruction. Obedience is regulative in this regard, although liturgically God is still praised for the endowment of knowledge. Hellenistic Judaism finds in knowledge the recognition of God’s acts and perception of his ways, but with a special stress now on the confession that there is only one God. In more Hellenic fashion the issue of the possibility of knowledge of God is raised in this field (cf. 2 Macc. 7:28).

2. Philo’s use of the group is strongly Hellenistic. He can speak of knowledge of the one God, but this involves only knowledge of the existence or power of God; direct vision that is divinely given is needed to know God’s nature. A similar blend of philosophical, Gnostic, and OT views occurs in Philo’s thinking about self-knowledge.

E. The Early Christian Usage.

1. Popular Usage. In a general sense ginόskein can have such varied meanings as “to detect” (Mk. 5:29), “to note” (Mk. 8:17), “to recognize” (Lk. 7:39), “to learn”, (Mk. 5:43), and “to confirm” (Mk. 6:38), with the suggestion of awareness (Mt. 24:50), acquaintance (Mt. 25:24), or understanding (Lk. 18:34). The idea of mastery occurs in Mt. 18:3 and familiarity in Rom. 7:7. epiginόskein is often used instead of ginόskein with no distinction of sense (cf. Mk. 2:8 and 8:17; Mk. 5:30 and Lk. 8:46). Its general meaning is “to perceive” but it may also mean “to learn” (Lk. 7:37), “to understand” (2 Cor. 1:13–14), or “to know” (Acts 25:10). It should not be pressed too narrowly in the antithesis of 2 Cor. 6:9.

2. The OT and Jewish Usage and Its Influence. The OT view may be seen when a movement of will is required in the phrase: “Be told” (Mt. 24:43; Lk. 10:11; Eph. 5:5; cf. Jms. 1:3; 2 Tim. 3:1; 2 Pet. 1:20). It

is clearer still when insight into God’s will is at issue, so that knowledge is acknowledgment or obedient submission (cf. Rom. 3:17 [quoting Is. 59:8]; Heb. 3:10 [Ps. 95:10]; Lk. 19:42, 44; Rom. 10:19). Knowledge of God along these lines is the point in Rev. 2:23. Since, however, the Christian message goes out to pagans, knowledge may precede acknowledgment, though the two are linked (Rom. 1: 18ff.; cf. 1 Cor. 1:21; Gal. 4:8–9). This knowledge is not speculative (Rom. 11:34). It is a service of God (1 Th. 1:9). The theoretical element is included but is not decisive (1 Cor. 8:4ff.; Jn. 1:10); it becomes more prominent in the apostolic fathers (cf. 2 Clem. 3.1), though not to the exclusion of the practical side (1 Clem. 59.3; Did. 5.2). Another use along IT lines is for God’s electing (2 Tim. 2:19). The noun denotes obedient acknowledgment of God’s will in Rom. 2:20 (with a suggestion of monotheism). For a liturgical nuance cf. 2 Cor. 2:14; Lk. 1:77. God is the subject in Rom. 11:33; the reference is to his gracious will in the direction of history. The compound epígnōsis can take on almost a technical sense for conversion to Christianity, and epiginōskein has the same nuance in 1 Tim. 2:4;, Tit. 1:1; 2 Tim. 2:25, though not in Rom. 1:28. Strict differentiation from gnṓsis, however, is hardly possible. In general, the Christian view of knowledge follows closely that of the OT. It involves obedient acknowledgment. It is not a fixed possession. It is a gift of grace that marks the Christian life (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8:7). Practical interests are always implied. Edification rather than learning is the main point (Rom. 15:14; 1 Cor. 14:6). Reflective inquiry must be grounded in love and lead to right action (Phil. 1:9–10; Phlm. 6; Col. 1:9–10; 1 Pet. 3:7). Yet theological knowledge on a biblical basis may also be at issue (Gal. 3:7; Jms. 2:20; cf. 1 Clem. 32.1; 40.1; Barn. 7.1; 14.7). Faith implies knowledge of the mysteries of the kingdom (Mt. 13:1). We know the significance of baptism according to Rom. 6:6. Faith should bring us knowledge of the mystery of Christ (Col. 2:2).

3. The Influence of Gnostic Usage.

a. Christianity developed its view of knowledge in conflict with both polytheism and pagan Gnosticism. It thus ran the risk of permeation by Gnostic ideas, as we see from Jude, 2 Peter, 1 John, Rev. 2:24, the Pastorals, Colossians, Ephesians, and even 1 and 2 Corinthians, where the desire for speculative wisdom, the grounding of authority in knowledge, the ascetic trends, and the denial of bodily resurrection suggest that the opponents of Paul were Gnostics. In answer Paul uses some of their own terms, e.g., gnṓsis in the absolute in 1 Cor. 8:1 etc. But while he grants that Christians have a special knowledge of the divine plan, he also states that it is knowledge of the plan of salvation and that it demands walking by the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:12; 3:1ff.). As 1 Cor. 8:1ff. shows, this knowledge is not theoretical. It must go hand in hand with a love that is not just a mystical relation to God but finds expression in love of others. It is also grounded in God’s knowledge of us (cf. Gal. 4:9). Again, the knowledge of faith in 1 Cor. 13 may be a spiritual capacity (v. 8), but it is set under love and shown to be purely provisional in contrast to faith, hope, and love. Even when Paul uses epignṓsomai for a future relationship, he robs it of its Gnostic significance by qualifying it, as in 1 Cor. 8:3 or Gal. 4:9. Paul follows a similar course in 2 Corinthians by putting objective genitives with gnṓsis (cf. 2:14; 4:6; 10:5). In Phil. 3:8ff. he calls the knowledge of Christ a mark of the Christian, but this knowledge means renouncing confidence in the flesh (v. 4), involves confessing Christ as Lord (v. 8), and needs constant renewal (v. 12). It is not withdrawal from the world but a being found in Christ and an experience of the power of his resurrection (vv. 9–10).

b. ginṓskein plays a bigger role in John and 1 John. It denotes personal fellowship with God or Christ. The relation between Father and Son is a knowing, and so is that between Jesus and his disciples (Jn. 10:14–15, 27). Because the Father and the Son have life, to know them is to have eternal life (5:26; 17:3). Knowing God also means being determined by love (1 Jn. 4:7–8). Love governs the relation between both Father and Son (Jn. 3:35 etc.) and Jesus and his disciples (13:1 etc.). Thus knowledge is neither observation nor mystical vision; it comes to expression in acts. Observing the commandments is a criterion of knowledge (1 Jn. 2:3ff.). Also involved is an awareness of being loved as the basis of loving (cf. Jn. 15:9; 13:34). Thus ginṓskein means the recognition and reception of love, i.e., faith. It is not direct knowledge of God (Jn. 1:18) but knowledge through the revelation in Christ, so that all knowledge is tested by Christ’s claim. Knowing Christ is more than having information about his life (6:42; 7:28). It is a knowledge of his unity with the Father (10:38), of his obedience and love as the one whom God has sent (14:31 etc.). This knowledge is imparted by the church’s proclamation (1 Jn. 4:6). It is the church also that knows the Paraclete (14:17). Johannine ginṓskein thus corresponds to the OT view of knowledge but with four distinctive nuances: (1) ginṓskein can be combined with verbs of seeing (Jn. 14:7ff. etc.); (2) historical revelation involves the dogmatic knowledge expressed in “that” statements (10:38; 14:20, etc.); (3) obedience is a criterion of knowledge, not knowledge itself; and (4) pisteúein and ginṓskein are interrelated in such a way that the former is the first and indispensable step (cf. Jn. 5:24; 6:60ff.) and the latter the full and true relation (as of Father and Son), although ginṓskein is an element in pisteúein and can give it new power (16:30; 17:7–8).

c. In Mt. 11:27, which is unique in the Synoptists, the relation between Father and Son is described as in John and hence the view of knowledge is necessarily the same.

F. The Later Developments of the Usage. The Apologists follow popular usage, using the group for knowledge of God or Christ or the truth, for knowledge attained from Scripture, and for theological knowledge. The Alexandrians find in gnṓsis a higher stage of Christian achievement than that of pístis, although the latter is never without the former nor vice versa.

kataginṓskō, akatágnōstos. The verb means “to note,” “to see something in someone,” “to know to be guilty,” “to judge,” “to take a low view of.” It is rare in the LXX, where it means “to condemn” (Dt. 25:1) and “to scorn” (Prov. 28:11). Condemnatory self-knowledge is the point in 1 Jn. 3:20–21. “Detected” (or “condemned”) is the meaning in Gal. 2:11. akatágnōstos means “one against whom no fault can be alleged or accusation sustained”; it occurs in the NT only in Tit. 2:8.

proginṓskō, prógnōsis. The verb means “to know in advance,” and in the NT it refers to God’s foreknowledge as election of his people (Rom. 8:29; 11:2) or of Christ (1 Pet. 1:20), or to the advance knowledge that believers have by prophecy (2 Pet. 3:17). Another possible meaning is “to know before the time of speaking,” as in Acts 26:5. The noun is used by the LXX in Jdt. 9:6 for God’s predeterminative foreknowledge and in Jdt. 11:19 for prophetic foreknowledge; Justin uses it similarly in Dialogue with Trypho 92.5; 39.2.

syngnṓmē. This word has such various senses as “agreement,” “forbearance,” and “pardon.” In 1 Cor. 7:6 “forbearance” or “concession” is obviously meant. The context might support “opinion,” but no instances of this exist.

gnṓmē.1. A first meaning is “disposition,” “will,” “mind,” as in 1 Cor. 1:10; Phil. 2:2; Rev. 17:13. 2. “Resolve,” “decision” is a second meaning; this is perhaps the point in Rev. 17:17. 3. “Counsel,” “opinion” is the meaning in 1 Cor. 7:25; 2 Cor. 8:10.

gnōrízō.

1. “To make known.” As in the LXX the priest or prophet makes things known (cf. 1 Kgs. 6:2 etc.), or God makes known his power or will, or grants secret knowledge (Jer. 11:18), so in the NT the word can be used of God’s disclosure of his power (Rom. 9:22–23) or secret counsel (Col. 1:27) and also of the declaration of his acts in preaching (Rom. 16:26; 2 Pet. 1:16). Jesus is the subject in Jn. 15:15; 17:26. Rather different is the making known of our requests to God in Phil. 4:6. For a purely secular use cf. Col. 4:7, 9.

2. “To perceive,” “to know.” This sense, common in the LXX, Philo, and Josephus, occurs in the NT only in Phil. 1:22, where Paul does not know (or cannot tell?) which to choose when faced by going to be with Christ or remaining in the flesh.

gnōstós. This term means “knowable,” “known,” “made known” (e.g., Is. 19:21 LXX). The sense seems to be “recognizable” in Acts 4:16, and this is certainly the meaning in Rom. 1:19, though whether the genitive “of God” yields the sense “what may be known about God” or “God in his knowability” (cf.

“his invisible nature” in v. 20) may be debated. [R. BULTMANN, I, 689–719]

glṓssa [tongue, language, speech], heteróglōssos [of a strange tongue]

glṓssa.

A. The General Use of glṓssa.

1. The physical organ “tongue” is the first meaning.

2. We then have “speech,” or “manner of speech,” or “language.”

3. “An expression which is strange or obscure and needs explanation” is a third sense.

B. The Use of glṓssa in the NT.

1. “Tongue” occurs in the NT in Lk. 16:24; 1:64; Mk. 7:35. Sins of the tongue are given prominence in Jms. 3:1–12. A similar stress may be found in Job, Psalms, Jeremiah, and Sirach, where the bent is practical but the sins are ultimately against God. Figuratively, the tongue can also rejoice (Acts 2:26) and praise (Phil. 2:11). Tongues as of fire symbolize God’s descending power at Pentecost (Acts 2:3).

2. “Language” is the meaning in Acts 2:11; “language” is also used figuratively for “nation” in Rev. 5:9; 7:9; 10:11, etc.

3. Glossolalia.

a. Speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 12–14; cf. Mk. 16:17; Acts 2:4) is a gift (1 Cor. 14:2). This speaking is primarily to God (14:2, 28) in the form of prayer, praise, or thanksgiving (14:2, 14–17). Its benefit is for the individual rather than the community (14:4ff.). In it the noús is absorbed so that the words are obscure (14:2, 9, 11, 15–16). Since the sounds are not articulated, the impression of a foreign language is left (14:7–8, 10–11), and uncontrolled use might suggest that the community is composed of mad people (14:23, 27). Yet tongues are a sign of God’s power (14:22). To make them useful either the speaker or someone else must interpret (14:5, 13, 27–28; 12:10, 30). If parallels may be found in other religions, Paul discerns a difference in the religious content (1 Cor. 12:2–3). He can thus accept and even claim the charisma (1 Cor. 14:18, 39) but demands that it be subject to edification, order, limitation, and testing (1 Cor. 14:26ff.). Prophecy is superior to it, and above all the gifts is love (1 Cor. 13).

b. It should be noted that, while there are Hellenistic parallels for tongues, there is also an OT basis. Thus the seers of 1 Sam. 10:5ff. seem to be robbed of their individuality, and their fervor finds expression in broken cries and unintelligible speech (cf. 2 Kgs. 9:11). Drunkards mock Isaiah’s babbling speech (Is. 28:10–11). The later literatare, e.g., Eth. En. 71:11, gives similar examples of ecstatic speech (not necessarily speaking in tongues).

c. The event recorded in Acts 2 belongs to this context. Like the speaking in tongues depicted by Paul, it is a gift of the Spirit (v. 4) which causes astonishment (v. 7) and raises the charge of drunkenness (v. 13). But in this case the hearers detect their own languages (vv. 8, 11). Since they are all Jews (v. 9) and an impression of confused babbling is given, it is not wholly clear what this implies. Perhaps there is a reflection of the Jewish tradition that at Sinai the law was given to the nations in seventy languages. In any case, the orderly proclamation of Peter quickly follows (vv. 14ff.).

d. Why glṓssa came to be used for this phenomenon is debatable. Speaking (only) with the physical tongue is a most unlikely explanation in view of Paul’s génē glōssṓn in 1 Cor. 12:10 and the plural in 14:5. Nor is it likely that the phrase “tongues as of fire” of Acts 2:3 underlies the usage. The meaning “unintelligible sound” might seem to fit the case, but Paul sharply criticizes this aspect and glōssa is for him more than an isolated oracle (1 Cor. 14:2, 9, 11, 26). It seems, then, that “language” is the basic meaning; here is a miraculous “language of the Spirit” such as is used by angels (1 Cor. 13:1) and which we, too, may use as we are seized by the Spirit and caught up to heaven (2 Cor. 12:2ff.; cf. 1 Cor. 14:2, 13ff. as well as the stress on the heavenly origin of the phenomenon in Acts 2:2ff.).

heteróglōssos. a. “Speaking another language,” “of an alien tongue”; b. “speaking different languages.” The only NT use is in 1 Cor. 14:21, where Paul applies Is. 28:11–12 (originally spoken of the Assyrians) in his teaching about the use of tongues in the community: As God will speak to Israel by the Assyrians, so he will give the sign of tongues to unbelievers. Paul offers us here an instructive example, paralleled in the rabbis, of his use of the OT. [J. BEHM, I, 719–27]

gnḗsios [genuine, legitimate]

Deriving from gnētós (“born”), not génos, this word means “true born” as distinct from adopted or
illegitimate; figuratively it is used for “regular” or “genuine.” In the NT, Phil. 4:3 has it for a “true” fellow
worker and 1 Tim. 1:2 and Tit. 1:4 describe Timothy and Titus as “genuine” sons of Paul because of their

faith. “Genuine” is also the sense in 2 Cor. 8:8 and Phil. 2:20. [F. BÜSCHEL, I, 727]

gongýzō [to grumble, murmur], diagongýzō [to murmur], gongysmōs [grumbling, complaining], gongystḗs [grumbler]

gongýzō.

A. The Greek Usage.

1. The early instances yield the sense “to be dissatisfied,” “to grumble because of disappointed hopes.”

2. The idea is that a supposedly legitimate claim is not met. What is denoted is a strong personal attitude. The word is thus well adapted to describe Israe1’s reactions in certain circumstances.

B. gongýzō among Greek Jews.

1. gongýzō occurs 15 times in the LXX and diagongýzō ten times. Behind the use stands the thought of grumbling based on guilty unbelief and disobedience.

2. The chief root translated by the gongýzō group is lûn, which means “to murmur” and which is used when the people, discontented after the deliverance from Egypt, murmurs against Moses (Ex. 15:24), Moses and Aaron (Ex. 16:2), and God (cf. Ex. 16:7–8). There are always some grounds for grumbling, e.g., lack of water or the apparent unattainability of the promised land. The fault is that the people is making grace into a claim and then complaining because justice is not done to the claim. God is thus robbed of his sovereignty, and the murmuring is rightly called a tempting (Ex. 17:2) or scorning (Num. 14:11) of God. The basic sense of gongýzō is thus maintained but a theological orientation is given.

3. While the term is often avoided, the rabbis, Philo, and Josephus agree with the LXX as to its connotation. a. The rabbis cannot avoid seeing the attitude of Israel as it is depicted in the law but in their exegesis try to soften it by selecting other terms, or to mitigate the guilt by calling it a murmuring before God rather than against him. b. Philo and Josephus not only avoid the word but in their apologetic efforts to present Israel as favorably as possible give a different twist to the actual events. Thus for Josephus the murmuring at Marah is a call for help (Antiquities 3.11) and in other instances the complaint is simply against Moses and not against God. Philo construes the murmuring of Num. 14:1ff. as cowardice and restricts it to a majority of the people rather than the totality (On the Life of Moses 1.233–34).

C. gongýzō in the NT.

1. In Mt. 20:11 the grumbling is simply the ordinary grumbling of workers over their pay. The grumbling of the religious leaders at Jesus’ dealings with sinners in Lk. 5:30 is again normal dissatisfaction (cf. diagongýzō in Lk. 15:2; 19:7).

2. 1 Cor. 10:10 recalls the guilty murmuring of the people in the desert and transfers at least the possibility of similar murmuring to the church. Paul consistently carries through here the thought of the church as the covenant people and pinpoints the danger of substituting its own expectations for God’s promises.

3. a. In Jn. 6:61 gongýzō is used for the scepticism of the disciples regarding the hard saying of Jesus about eating and drinking his flesh and blood to eternal life. At issue is the point that they are measuring Jesus by their own expectations and are disappointed. Since, however, Jesus is the Son of Man (v. 62), their criticism is also criticism of God. The situation is a decisive one, for if the murmuring does not yield to confession, the result is parting from Jesus (vv. 66ff.).

b. In Jn. 6:41, 43 the Jews, repeating their former history, reject Jesus because he does not measure up to their own ideas and desires. The people are in fact mostly Galileans but they represent Israel at a point of crisis similar to that in the desert, not accepting God as God but complaining because he is not the God of their own opinions and hopes. Perhaps because of the repetition of the wilderness situation the term “Jews” is chosen for those who either treat Jesus with scepticism or openly reject him.

c. Jn. 7:32 probably carries the same sense rather than the weaker one of mere discussion. The crowd is vacillating, and while the Pharisees are afraid that the decision might go against them, vacillation is still not acceptance and comes under the judgment of unbelief.

diagongýzō. In the NT this occurs only in Lk. 15:2; 19:7, where it denotes simple dissatisfaction.

gongysmós. The noun corresponds to the verb and has a similar history in secular writings, the LXX, and the rabbis. a. In the NT it occurs in Jn. 7:12 for the vacillation of the people (cf. gongýzō in 7:32). b. In Acts 6:1 and 1 Pet. 4:9 it has the ordinary sense of grumbling, i.e., that the claims of Hellenist widows are not met, or that hospitality imposes too burdensome demands. c. In Phil. 2:14 the apostle has general dissatisfaction in view but with a suggestion of the grumbling of desert Israel and a consequent summons to full committal in faith and obedience.

gongystḗs. This word, found only in the LXX and NT, is used by Jude 16 for the false teachers who

are discontented with their lot and with God as they follow their own passions. [K. H. RENGSTORF, I, 728–37]

góēs [sorcerer]

a. In the strict sense góēs means “magician,” especially one working with verbal formulas. The góēs is a lower practitioner than the mágos. b. The term then means “false magician.” c. Finally it can denote any “charlatan” (cf. the figurative use in Philo for the confusion and delusion of idolatry or hypocritical and sensual conduct). The only NT instance is in 2 Tim. 3:13, where the sense is the figurative one for the

person who entices others to impious action by pious words (cf. vv. 6–7). → mágos [G. DELLING, I,
737–38]

góny [knee], gonypetéō [to bow the knee]

A. Genuflection in the NT. Except in Heb. 12:12, góny is used in the NT only in connection with genuflection. We have tithénai tá gónata in Mk. 15:19; Lk. 22:41; Acts 7:60, etc., and kámptein tá gónata in Rom. 11:4; 14:11; Eph. 3:14; Phil. 2:10. Kneeling is linked to prayer in Lk. 22:41; Acts 7:60, etc., to requests to the Lord in Mt. 17:14, to a greeting in Mk. 10:17, to homage in Mt. 27:29, to idolatry in Rom. 11:4, and to acknowledgment of God in Rom. 14:10–11 and the Lord in Phil. 2:10. The gesture expresses supplication, abasement, worship, and subjection.

B. Genuflection outside the NT. The history of the term goes hand in hand with that of proskyneín, especially since there is not usually any distinction between genuflection and full prostration. We find genuflections of slaves before their masters and of devotees before the gods (although not in the official cult). In the LXX it is a sign of humility in prayer (e.g., 1 Chr. 29:20), or of acknowledgment and homage before God (e.g., Is. 45:23), the king (e.g., 1 Chr. 29:20), or the man of God (2 Kgs. 1:13). In prayer standing is more common (e.g., Gen. 18:22; 19:27; 1 Sam. 1:26). Among the rabbis different words are used for brief falling on the knees, falling on the face, and prostration with outstretched hands and feet. A distinction is also made between inclining, bowing, prostrating oneself, and kneeling. In the early church kneeling becomes customary for individual and public prayer. It expresses subjection, abasement, and petition. Standing, however, is enjoined on the Lord’s Day and between Easter and Pentecost. In

synagogue worship some place is also found for genuflection and prostration. [H. SCHLIER, I, 738–40]
→ proskynéō

grammateús [scribe]

1. Scribes in the NT Period. Once in the NT (Acts 19:35) grammateús is used for a higher official in the city of Ephesus (the town clerk). This accords with the early use of the Hebrew word s p ēr for royal secretary. But elsewhere in the NT the term denotes the rabbinic scholar or theologian, as the Hebrew does in Nehemiah, 1 Chronicles, and Sirach (although Philo and Josephus do not have grammateús in this sense and the rabbis distinguish between themselves and scholars of an earlier time). As we see from the NT, the rabbis are a closed order of qualified scholars who have received the spirit of Moses by succession (Mt. 23:2). They enjoy a high reputation (Mk. 12:38–39) as those who know the law and proclaim God’s will by their teaching, preaching, and judgments. As scholars they question Jesus on his message and breaking of tradition, and as members of the Sanhedrin they help to prosecute and condemn him.

2. The Judgment of Jesus on the Scribes. To understand this judgment, we must distinguish between the scribes and the Pharisees, who were not scholars. The accusations against the scribes are kept distinct in Luke (11:46–52; 20:46), and have particular reference to their learning and resultant social claims and privileges. In Mt. 5:21–48 the theologians are again singled out after a common attack in 5:20. The main charges are their lack of humility (Mt. 23:5ff.), unselfishness (Mk. 12:40a), and sincerity (Mk. 12:40b), and their failure to practice what they preach (Lk. 11:46). In doctrine their casuistry defeats God’s true will as it is contained in the law of love (cf. Mk. 7:9ff.). Jesus brings out the seriousness of God’s true will in the antitheses of Mt. 5:21ff.

3. Paul‟s Judgment. Himself an ordained scribe, Paul finds in the scribes’ rejection of the cross a fulfilment of Is. 33:18 (cf. 1 Cor. 1:20).

4. The Christian Scribe. There is reference to a Christian grammateús in Mt. 13:52 (cf. 5:19; 16:19; 18:18; 23:8ff.). Matthew is an example of such a scribe at work, e.g., in his proofs from Scripture. [J. JEREMIAS, I, 740–42]

gráphō [to write], graphḗ [writing, Scripture] grámma [letter], engráphō [to record, write in], prográphō [to write beforehand, set forth publicly], hypogrammós [example]

grápho.

A. The General Use of graphṓ.

1. The original sense seems to be “to carve,” “to engrave” (cf. the carved figures of 1 Kgs. 6:28, the hewn-out chamber of Is. 22:16, and the engraving on stones in Dt. 27:3 in the LXX, and the engraving on wax in Lk. 1:63 and engraving on the ground in Jn. 8:6 in the NT).

2. A further meaning is “to draw,” “to paint.”

3. We then find the word more generally for “to write” (e.g., in Rom. 16:22; 2 Th. 3:17); this includes writing by dictation (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14; 14:37; Jn. 21:24 [?]), or earlier writing (1 Cor. 5:9; 7:1; 9:15).

4. Another sense is “to set down” or “draw up” (cf. Mk. 10:4; Lk. 16:6–7; Jn. 19:19, 21–22—the title on the cross). This leads to such senses as “to accuse,” “to inventory,” and “to characterize,” not found in the NT.

5. Composition of a Writing or Inscription in a Scroll or Book. In the OT writing down is an important mark of revelation. God writes down in Ex. 24:12 etc., Moses in Ex. 24:4, Joshua in Josh. 24:26, Samuel in 1 Sam. 10:25. The king must have God’s law written down (Dt. 27:18). The people must write it on the doorposts (Dt. 6:9). The NT endorses the significance of the writing of the OT (cf. Paul’s use of egráphē in 1 Cor. 9:10; 10:11; Rom. 4:23; 15:4). Jesus himself did not write down revelation, nor cause others to write it (apart from Revelation). Yet writing serves the gospel (Lk. 1:3). It is undertaken with great responsibility (Gal. 1:20). Its goal in Jn. 20:30–31 is that people might believe. Writing is witness (Jn. 21:24). If not all that Jesus did can be written down, what is written is of supreme importance. The things written are gegramména—gegramménon being also the term used in John to introduce OT quotations. In Revelation the writing is by divine direction (1:11, 19). Those who keep what is written are blessed (1:3). The author is commanded to write to the churches (2:1ff.). A similar command occurs in 14:13; 19:9; 21:5, a prohibition in 10:4. There is also a scroll in heaven (5:1), names are written in the book of life, a new name is engraved on the stone (2:17), and the holy name is written on the foreheads of the victor (3:12) and the 144,000 (14:1). In such ways the divine revelation comes to expression in writing.

6. gráphein in Legislative Activity. Another meaning of gráphein is “to prescribe,” “to decree,” used also for God’s decrees in the LXX and Philo. The NT refers to what Moses wrote in Mk. 10:5; 12:9; Rom. 10:5. (In Jn. 1:45; 5:46 not law but prophesying of the Messiah is the issue.) A Christian counterpart is 1 Jn. 2:7–8: “I am writing you no new commandment,” and for legislation written on the heart cf. Rom. 2:15.

B. The Special Use of gégraptai and gegramménon. graptós is “what is fixed in writing” and tá gegramména is a stock expression for written laws. When used in the OT (cf. also gégraptai) this term denotes the absolute validity of what is written, both legally and religiously. Behind it stands the binding authority of Yahweh as King and Lawgiver. This is first true of the law and then by extension of the prophets and the writings.

1. The Specific Use of gégraptai.

a. The simple use as in Mt. 4:4ff.; Lk. 4:8 corresponds to 2 Esdr. 5:7 and to parallel phrases in Philo, Josephus, and the rabbis.

b. The confirmatory kathṓs gégraptai (Mk. 1:2; Acts 7:42; ten times in Romans and four in 1 Corinthians) is based on 2 Chr. 23:18 etc. and rabbinic parallels.

c. For hóti gégraptai in Gal. 3:13 there are parallels in the papyri.

d. hós gégraptai in Mk. 7:6; Lk. 3:4; Acts 13:33 is also based on the LXX and finds parallels in the papyri.

e. katháper gégraptai in Rom. 3:4; 9:13, etc. is paralleled in the papyri.

f. hoútos gégraptai in Mt. 2:5 finds rabbinic parallels.

g. gégraptai hóti in Mt. 4:6; Mk. 11:17 is also found in Philo.

h. gégraptai gár in Mt. 4:10; Acts 1:20; Rom. 12:19; 14:11; 1 Cor. 1:19; Gal. 3:10 finds parallels in Philo and the rabbis.

i. perí hoú gégraptai in Mt. 11:10; Mk. 14:21; Mt. 26:24 has rabbinic parallels.

2. The Specific Use of gegramménon. There are classical instances of tá gegramména for “written laws,” and the term is often used in the LXX for the OT itself, as also in Josephus. The NT has it for Scripture mostly in Luke and John (only twice in Paul). Luke stresses that Christ fulfils all Scripture (Lk. 18:31; 21:22; 24:44; Acts 13:29; 24:14). John has the term in Jn. 6:45; 10:34; 15:25 (éstin gegramménon); 6:31; 12:14 (with preceding kathṓs); and 2:17 (with preceding hóti). Paul has it only in 1 Cor. 15:54 and 2 Cor. 4:13. Sometimes a reference is made to Jesus by means of a dative or epí (cf. Lk. 18:31; Jn. 12:16; Mk. 9:12–13). At issue is what is written concerning Jesus.

graphḗ.

A. graphḗ in Secular Greek.

1. The first meaning is “writing,” “written characters,” or, more broadly, the “art of writing.”

2. A second sense is “copy,” “drawing,” “picture,” “art.”

3. We then find “written statement,” such as a. “letter,” b. “piece of writing,” c. “record” or “document” (e.g., genealogy or contract), d. “list,” e. “decree,” f. “accusation.”

4. A further meaning is “published work” in the literary sense.

5. Then we have “written law,” “statute,” sometimes in the LXX with the suggestion of “holy scripture” (1 Chr. 15:15; 2 Chr. 30:5).

B. graphḗ as Holy Scripture.

1. graphaí for the (Holy) Scriptures, or the Collection of Individual Books. The rabbis and Philo speak of the Holy Scriptures, but not the OT itself. The NT seldom refers to Scripture as holy. Paul has graphaís hagíais (not hieraís) in Rom. 1:2. He also calls the law hágios in Rom. 7:12. Only 2 Tim. 3:15 has hierós in relation to graphaí. The plural for the OT as a whole is common in Philo and the rabbis. The NT follows this usage (cf. Mt. 26:54). In Mt. 21:42; 22:29 the reference might be to individual passages, but normally the whole collection is in view (cf. Jn. 5:39; Acts 17:2, 11;, 18:24, 28; Rom. 15:4; 16:26; 1 Cor. 15:3–4).

2. graphē for Individual Passages of Scripture. hḗ graphḗ in the Synoptics, Acts, and John can denote an individual statement, as in Mk. 12:10; Acts 1:16; 8:32, 35, and often perhaps when a quotation follows, as in Jn. 7:38; 13:18; 19:24. In Paul all Scripture is at issue in Gal. 3:8, 22, but in Gal. 4:30; Rom. 4:3; 9:17; 10:11 individual texts are in view, and perhaps also in 11:2, though Paul himself may not have made any clear-cut distinction. Jms. 2:23 obviously has a single passage in view, as does Jms. 2:8.

3. graphē for a Single Book. There are no NT instances except perhaps 2 Tim. 3:16, though contemporary parallels suggest that this means “every passage.”

4. graphē Emphasizing the Unity of Scripture: the Totality of OT Scripture. The use of the singular for all Scripture does not occur in Philo or Josephus and is perhaps based on rabbinic use. Paul has it in the personification in Gal. 3:8 (where the obvious point is that God himself speaks through Scripture), John in 2:22; 10:35; 17:12; 20:9, and Peter in 1 Pet. 2:6; 2 Pet. 1:20. The early church embraced this usage and included the NT canon as well.

C. The Question of Scripture.

1. The Judaistic View of Scripture. According to this view Scripture is sacred, authoritative, and normative. It is God’s dictate given by the Spirit. This applied first to the law, then to the prophets and writings. The authors spoke or wrote by a direct inspiration which in Alexandria was construed along the lines of Greek ecstaticism. The concern of rabbinic exegesis was to rediscover and establish the tradition of Scripture by minute examination; it had a tendency to become legal, syllogistic, and scholastic. Alexandrian exegesis took a freer view but surrendered the more easily to Hellenistic allegorizing.

2. The Early Christian Canon. Establishment of the canon accompanied the attempt to consolidate an authoritative tradition. The NT sheds light on this with the reference to Chronicles in Mt. 23:34, the mention of the threefold division in Lk. 24:44, the quotations of Jesus from the prophets, Psalms, and Deuteronomy, the quotations of Paul (older versions of the LXX) from Isaiah, the Psalms, and the law (especially Genesis and Deuteronomy), and the paucity of apocryphal quotations (Jude 14ff. and possibly Lk. 11:49; Jn. 7:38; 1 Cor. 2:9; 9:10; Eph. 5:14; Jms. 4:5). 2 Pet. 3:16 calls Paul’s epistles graphaí. 3. The Belief of the Early Church regarding Scripture.

a. Inspiration. The early church follows Judaism in searching Scripture to find eternal life (Jn. 5:39). While accepting the Judaic view of inspiration and to some degree the same line of exegesis, it does not attach the same importance to tradition. It modifies OT authority by giving the Lord’s sayings equal authority (cf. “I say unto you” in the Sermon on the Mount and 1 Cor. 7:10; 9:14; 11:23). The graphaí express God’s will, and the authors speak by the Spirit (e.g., David in Mt. 22:43 etc.; the prophets in Acts 18:25; 1 Pet. 1:11; 2 Pet. 1:21; cf. also Heb. 3:7; 9:8; 10:15). 2 Tim. 3:16 formulates inspiration more expressly, but the same conviction underlies Eph. 6:12, as do all the statements that God (Mk. 12:26; Mt. 15:4; 19:5) or the Lord (Mt. 1:22; 2:15; 1 Cor. 14:21; 2 Cor. 6:17) speaks in Scripture. The role of the Spirit, who will bring to mind what Jesus said (Jn. 14:26), presupposes that the words are spirit and life (Jn. 6:63). If there is here more regard for the human authors (cf. Mt. 2:5, 17, 23; 3:3; 4:14, etc.), it is still assumed that God is the true author and this explains why Paul handles the text quite freely (though not capriciously as Josephus does). Paul can also allegorize in rabbinic fashion (cf. Gal. 4:24ff.), but the literal text has far greater importance for him than for Philo, and allegorizing is not his chief mode of exposition. Other rabbinic features in Paul are his combining of quotations from the three groups and his use of catenae.

b. The Thought of Fulfilment as the Heart of the Early Christian Understanding. All the NT books are convinced that OT Scripture is fulfilled in and by Christ. The Gospels find messianic prophecy in the OT (cf. Mk. 14:49; Mt. 26:54; Lk. 4:21; Jn. 17:12, 19:24, 28, 36; also Acts 1:16). The risen Christ himself shows how his work fulfils and confirms the great message of Scripture (Lk. 24:27, 32, 45). Paul follows this up in Acts 17:2; 28:23, and cf. Apollos in Acts 18:28. It applies not merely to specific predictions but to the OT as a whole, which is thus adopted as Christian Scripture (Rom. 15:4), so that all its teachings may be applied in different ways (cf. Rom. 4:23; 1 Cor. 10:11; 1 Cor. 9:10). John, too, refers all Scripture to Christ (5:39, 47); Abraham may be called his prophet (8:56) and Moses may be said to write about him (5:46–47). Not only his cross and resurrection are prefigured (19:37; 20:9) but also his sabbath freedom (7:22) and his sonship (10:34ff.). Hebrews works out the same thought typologically by showing how Christ both fulfils and transcends the work of Moses and Aaron and the function of the OT cultus, and also by claiming the great heroes of OT faith as Christian witnesses. Revelation takes its symbolism from the OT, so that here, too, the event of Christ sheds a new light on Scripture. In sum, the NT no longer has Scripture without Christ. The fact of Christ is regulative for its use of Scripture. In keeping with this is the truth that while we are to believe Scripture or the prophets (Jn. 2:22; Acts 26:27), we do not believe in Scripture.

c. The Twofold Attitude to Scripture in Early Christianity. If Scripture is fulfilled, it no longer exists alone, yet its authority remains (Jn. 10:35). Tension thus arises, for while Jesus finds God’s will in the law (cf. Mt. 5:18), he does not hesitate to assert his own authority (cf. Mt. 5:21ff., 31ff.). In Paul we find the same tension, for if we are to live according to Scripture (1 Cor. 4:6), it is by Christ and the Spirit that the nómos and grámma are given their true validity, as Scripture itself shows us by its permanent soteriological, ethical, and eschatological teaching. Hebrews, too, finds continuity with the OT even as it presents the superiority of Christ. Scripture, then, is not just what is written but God’s dynamic

declaration climaxing in Christ and the Spirit. Scripture serves Christ but finds its true force only in the revelation of Christ and the Spirit that is more than what is written.

grámma.

A. grámma in Greek and Hellenistic Usage. Like graphē, grámma has such meanings as 1. “inscription,” 2. “picture,” 3. “symbol” as a. writing in letters, b. individual letter, c. letters of a book, d. handwritten character, and e. language, 4. “what is written,” 5. “grammar” or “academic discipline,” 6. “written piece” as a. letter, b. record, c. official report, and d. decree, 7. “written law,” and 8. “literature.” It is then used 9. for the sacred Scriptures of the OT and NT. In this instance the addition of hierá is not

necessary but tá hierá grámmata is the most common formula, e.g., in Philo and Josephus, then in Origen (who also has theía grámmata). Like graphē, grámma can also be used for a specific reference.

B. grámma in NT Usage.

1. In Lk. 23:38 grámmata are written characters, as also in Gal. 6:11: they represent letters in Paul’s hand.

2. The meaning in Jn. 7:15 is “learning,” the point being that Jesus is not qualified to teach. Paul’s learning is what is disparaged by Festus in Acts 26:24.

3. The meaning in Acts 8:31 is “communication by letter” and in Lk. 16:6–7 “bill of indebtedness.”

4. In Jn. 5:47 the reference is to the law (the writings of Moses). Since this bears witness to Christ (v. 46), those who do not believe it will not believe the words (rhḗmata) of Christ.

5. grámma/pneúma. Paul often draws an antithesis between grámma and pneúma. In Rom. 2:27 grámma is the law as what is demonstrably written. Like the demonstrable sign of circumcision, this does not guarantee observance. Through it (not in spite of it), the Jews are transgressors. grámma in this context means more than letter; it has the sense of prescription. The circumcision of the heart or spiritual circumcision is needed (vv. 28–29) to make a true Jew, i.e., one who fulfils the law. The opposing pairs sárx and kardía, en tṓ phanerṓ and en kryptṓ, correspond to the distinction between circumcision en grámmati (by the letter of the law) and en pneúmati (by a decisive invasion of the personal life). The grámma cannot do what the pneúma does. The basic antithesis is not between Scripture and the Spirit, but between law as a purely written prescription and the Spirit. Rom. 7:6 makes this point clear. As mere grámma, which does not rule in the heart, the law does not enable us to serve. We have to be dead to the law in this sense. Without Christ and the Spirit it is ineffective. But this does not have to mean that there is an absolute antithesis between grámma and pneúma. It simply means that in and by itself what is written cannot give new life. 2 Cor. 3:6–7 sheds further light on the relation. Here grámma is linked with the old covenant and pneúma with the new. On the basis of Jer. 31:33 what Paul has in mind is that the law that is merely written can only condemn us, but the law that God writes on the heart by the Spirit gives life. This is by divine purpose and not simply due to a false use of Scripture. God gave Scripture as law with a view to judgment, and he has now given the Spirit with a view to life. In v. 7 grámmata (plural) means letters carved on stone and obviously refers to the tables of the law. The letters again point us to the law, so that Paul is not just opposing letter to spirit, or inadequate writing to true meaning, but the older phase of revelation, which is a ministry of death, to the new phase, which through Christ and the Spirit is a ministry of life. The divine purpose behind the old dispensation can be seen, of course, only when Christ removes the veil (vv. 14, 16). It is hidden when he is obstinately rejected (v. 14).

6. grámma/graphḗ. Paul’s distinction between grámma and pneúma is not meant to disparage Scripture as such. grámma characterizes the law as a written law, while graphē is Paul’s term when he is stressing the positive aspect of Scripture. The word that is near us (Rom. 10:8) is not grámma but Scripture self-attested through the Spirit of Christ. Although we are not to focus on the mere letter of the law, we are still under the authority of Scripture as this is regulated by Christ and the Spirit. The new covenant gives life by the Spirit, not because unwritten law now replaces written law, but because the Spirit gives power to fulfil the inner intention of what is written.

engráphō.

1. Lk. 10:20. The references of engráphein are to a. “writing in a letter or petition,” b. “entering in a document,” c. “inscribing on a list,” d. “inscribing the divine words in the Bible,” and e. “entering in the book of life” (Dan. 12:1 LXX). The Lord’s saying in Lk. 10:20 carries the thought that those who belong to Christ are enrolled as citizens of the eternal politeía.

2. 2 Cor 3:2–3. What Paul is saying here is that the Corinthians are letters “inscribed” on his heart. The idea of inscribing on the heart or soul is a common one in antiquity, but Paul is probably influenced more by Jer. 31:33; Prov. 3:3; also Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 34:1; Ezek. 11:19; 36:26.

prográphō.

1. Eph. 3:3: “As I have written above,” a common use (e.g., when referring to a heading).

2. Rom. 15:4. “What was written previously, in earlier times.

3. Gal. 3:1. The reference here may be a. to public proclamation, e.g., on placards, or b. to vivid depiction. The latter is less likely both because there is no attestation for this sense and a heart-rending description of the cross is less in keeping with apostolic preaching than its public promulgation.

4. Jude 4. The idea here is that of public proscription; the false teachers have been long since listed for condemnation.

hypogrammós (hypográphō). The term hypográphō originally means a. “to draw lines for children learning to write,” then b. “to show,” “depict,” “denote,” “signify,” c. “to demand,” d. “to dazzle,” e. “to paint” (under the eyes), and f. “to write below,” “subscribe.” In 1 Pet. 1:21 the rare hypogrammós (only biblical and post-Christian Greek) refers to the tracks that Christ has left as examples for us to follow, not in imitation, but in commitment to his way of suffering. This passage influences the Christian use of the term, e.g., in 1 Clem. 5.7; 16.17 and Clement of Alexandria Paedagogus 1.9.84.2. [G. SCHRENK, I, 742– 73]

grēgoréō → egeírō

gymnós [naked], gymnótēs [nakedness], gymnázō [to exercise naked], gymnasía [exercise]

gymnós.

1. “Naked” in the literal sense of a. “unclothed,” b. “badly clothed,” c. “stripped by force,” or d. “without an upper garment,” “partly clothed.”

2. “Naked” in the figurative sense of a. “unconcealed,” “manifest” (Heb. 4:13), b. “without bodily form.” In 1 Cor. 15:37ff. Paul contrasts the bare seed with the future plant or flower in illustration of the transition from the present body to the resurrection body. It should be noted that what is planted is not the naked soul but the present body (which also bears our individuality), so that the bare seed does not simply represent a nonbodily “soul” but that which has not yet received its future form. In 2 Cor. 5:3 a question arises whether Paul is referring to a nonbodily state prior to the parousia of Christ or to the final destiny of the reprobate who will not be clothed with the glorious resurrection body. The latter seems more likely. c. A final figurative sense is “inwardly unprepared,” as in Rev. 3:17; 16:15.

gymnótēs. Rare in secular Greek, this term means “nakedness,” “poverty,” as in Rom. 8:35; 11:27; it is used figuratively in Rev. 3:18.

gymnázō. The literal sense is “to exercise naked.” It is used only figuratively in the NT, e.g., for concentration on godliness (as distinct from dualistic asceticism) in 1 Tim. 4:7 (cf. 1 Cor. 9:24ff.; Phil. 2:12); for training in discernment in Heb. 5:24 and in righteousness in Heb. 12:11; for training in greed (perhaps sarcastically) in 2 Pet. 2:14.

gymnasía. “Exercise,” also used figuratively (e.g., for “martyrdom” in 4 Macc. 11:20). The term is meant literally in 1 Tim. 4:8, but the context shows that the reference is not to ordinary bodily exercise

but to dualistic asceticism (cf. 4:3; 5:23). [A. OEPKE, I, 774–76]

gynḗ [woman, wife]

In general gynḗ denotes a. “the female” (as distinct from the male), b. “wife” (Dt. 13:6; Mal. 2:14; Lk. 1:5; 1 Cor. 7:2, 27; Eph. 5:22–23; Col. 3:18–19, etc.). By Semitic law a fianceée is already called gynḗ (cf. Gen. 29:21; Dt. 22:24; Rev. 21:9; Mt. 1:20). gynḗ chḗra means “widow” in 1 Kgs. 17:9; Lk. 4:26.

A. Woman in the Contemporary NT World. The disparagement of women in antiquity finds expression in the common male saying, backed up by anecdotes, that it is a matter of thanksgiving not to be an unbeliever or barbarian, a slave, or a woman. The proverb undoubtedly originated in the Near East.

1. The Greek World and Hellenism. Athenian women were of inferior status, often guarded by dogs, treated as fickle, contentious, and uncultured in comedy, liable to be oppressed if not under male protection. The Doric world gave them more freedom and influence. A high ideal of womanhood persisted even in the Attic world. Plato could demand equality for women, and capable individual women made a surprising impact in both private and public life. Marriage was the rule, but concubinage was common. No laws existed against bigamy but monogamy ruled in practice. Married couples were often affectionate but divorce was common either by consent, by declaration before a judge or third party, or by the unilateral action of the husband. Repeated divorces constituted a form of polygamy. No obstacle existed to remarriage after the death of a partner, though remaining single was sometimes praised, especially on the part of widows. Menander treated marriage cynically, and Neo-Platonism and the mysteries promoted asceticism in the form of total or temporary sexual abstinence, but the older Stoicism valued marriage highly.

2. Rome. In Rome housewives enjoyed a relatively high status. Women were not confined to the home, and Roman Stoicism advocated equal education for them. Many noble as well as reprobate women figured in Roman history. Sexual intercourse prior to marriage was frowned on, and Roman marriage was strictly monogamous, although this did not exclude intercourse with slaves or harlots. Various ceremonies of marriage were practiced. Divorce was relatively easy for all kinds of reasons and even by mutual repudiation. As in Greece, successive divorces and remarriages became common later, but widows who remained unmarried were highly respected.

3. Women in the OT. In spite of traces of an older matriarchate, women in the OT had few rights. They passed from the protection of one male to another. In Levirate marriage they had no legal choice as the males did (Dt. 25:5ff.). Wives could not claim the sabbath rest (Ex. 20:8ff., though cf. 2 Kgs. 4:22ff.). They depended heavily on their husbands’ decisions (cf. 1 Sam. 1:5). Polygamy was a heavy burden for them (1 Sam. 1:5ff.). Stricter fidelity was demanded from them. Yet women could appear in public life (Gen. 24:13ff.). Daughters could inherit property (Num. 27:8). Their wishes were to be consulted in marriage (Gen. 24:39, 58). They could have enormous influence for good or bad (cf. Sarah, Rebekah, Abigail, and Jezebel), and in a few instances played public roles as prophetesses or national leaders (Deborah). The creation stories accord them a high position as helpmeets and lay a firm basis for the close relationship of the one man and the one woman even if they do also show woman to be secondary and focus on her role in the fall.

4. Women in Judaism. The rabbinic writings gave an unflattering picture of women, portraying them as greedy, inquisitive, vain, and frivolous. Their rights and religious duties were restricted and they were assigned a special place in the synagogues. Hellenistic and Palestinian Judaism differed little in this regard. Yet notes of praise are heard too. Women are said to be an adornment to their husbands and to have equal promise with them before God. Some women could be extolled for their learning or piety. Marriage was a duty for loyal Jews. Polygamy was legal but for various reasons (usually financial) was not common. Divorce, however, was rampant, and successive divorces produced a successive form of polygamy. Ascetic ideas were largely alien to Judaism but extramarital intercourse was firmly opposed. Great stress was laid on the physical side of marriage (though not for reasons of carnal desire), yet the personal aspects of the marriage relationship were also valued (cf. Philo). As regards divorce, the initiative lay with the husband, but there was debate whether the main ground (“something scandalous”) covered only licentiousness or many other matters, some of them extremely trivial.

B. Woman in Christianity. Two important factors underlie Christian thinking in this area: (1) the establishment of monogamous marriage by creation, and (2) the removal of differentiation of sex by the divine lordship. Yet these principles are not worked out with revolutionary vigor. Christianity is often conservative in practice. Its main advantage is a new adaptability.

1. Jesus. Jesus is no radical social reformer but he comes impartially to help all who are in need. He gives women a role in some of the parables (Mt. 13:33; Lk. 15:8ff.). If he observes Jewish proprieties (cf. Mk. 5:40), he can also break them to speak with a woman (Jn. 4:27), to teach one (Lk. 10:39), or to speak on behalf of women (Mk. 12:40ff.). He also acts decisively to heal sick women (Lk. 13:10ff.; Mk. 1:31). He accepts the ministrations of a band of women (Lk. 8:2–3) who stay with him in his passion (Mk. 15:40–41) and share in his exaltation (Mk. 16:1ff.). Even at a distance he evokes a response from women (cf. Lk. 11:27). He never speaks a derogatory word about women, and by offering them equal salvation he sets them at the side of men as no less the children of God.

2. The Community. Women belong fully to the first Christian community (Acts 1:14). The Christian mission wins them along with men (Acts 16:13–14). As the men are brothers in the family of faith, the women are sisters (Rom. 16:1).

a. A certain tension may be discerned in Paul. By creation woman is a stage further from God (1 Cor. 11:3, 7), and Eve was seduced first (2 Cor. 11:3); on the other hand, differences are transcended in the new aeon (Gal. 3:28). Thus wives are still subject to their husbands (Col. 3:18; Eph. 5:21–22), but husbands are to exercise their leadership unselfishly in a loving service modeled on that of Christ.

b. The same tension may be seen in later writings. The role of Eve in the fall is stressed in 1 Tim. 2:13–14, but 1 Pet. 3:7 demands full recognition of women as joint heirs of life. There is little trace of the ascetic ideals that would emerge strongly in the apocryphal Acts.

C. Sacral and Social Functions of Women.

1. In non-Christian antiquity women take part in worship and the mysteries. Some feasts are for them alone, but they are excluded from other rites. They function as priestesses and sibyls (cf. Delphi).

2. The OT. The OT knows no priestesses, but women are part of the religious community and take part in festivals, sacred dances (Judg. 21:21), sacrificial mea1s (1 Sam. 1:4), and temple service (Ex. 38:8) as well as having a prophetic ministry (Miriam, Huldah). With children and aliens, they belong, like men, to the covenant people.

3. Judaism. Women have only a restricted role here, being confined to the women’s court in the temple, having a special place in the synagogue, not being required to say the Shema or to observe the whole law, and being discouraged from saying grace publicly or publicly reading the law in the synagogue. Destruction of the temple made their earlier participation in festivals impossible, but they were still members of the covenant people with the duty, e.g., of daily prayer.

4. The NT.

a. Jesus has women followers but appoints no women among the twelve.

b. The NT churches include ministering women (Acts 9:36ff.), many of whom are commended for their zeal (Rom. 16:6, 12–13 and cf. Lydia). Phoebe is described as a diákonos (probably an office, Rom. 16:1). Women also help in evangelism (Acts 18:26; Rom. 16:3; Phil. 4:2–3). Prophetically gifted women may address the community (1 Cor. 11:3ff.) but only by way of exception (1 Cor. 14:34ff.).

c. As the charismatic element becomes less prominent, women’s work may sometimes have to be resisted as heretical (Rev. 2:20), but it can also be given a regular form as older women minister to younger ones (1 Tim. 3:11) as counterparts of the deacons. The relation of these to the widows of 1 Tim. 5:3ff. is complex; the latter are older women who are supported by the church and may have fulfilled some of the duties listed in Tit. 2:3ff. The qualification ―wife of one husband‖ may refer to nonremarriage after the death of the spouse, but in view of the right to such remarriage in Rom. 7:1ff., the commendation of it for younger widows (1 Tim. 5:14), and the general approval of a married clergy (1 Tim. 3), it seems more likely that the reference is to remarriage after divorce (as in 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). The prṓtē pístis of v. 12 is undoubtedly loyalty to Christ rather than fidelity to the first husband.

5. Further Developments in the Church. Women teachers are found mostly in sectarian circles, e.g., the Gnostics and Montanists. We sometimes read of women’s choirs in worship. Women engage in charitable service and visitation. Younger unmarried women come to be supported by the church and are

reckoned as officebearers, although not ordained by laying on of hands. Deaconesses have a more distinct function, especially in the east, and assist at baptisms, in the visitation of women, and in the presentation of the elements at communion. The right of women to give emergency baptism is debated, and they are not ordained as presbyters. Later they find a new sphere of service in and through monasticism; the abbess is called a deaconess. [A. OEPKE, I, 776–89]

Gṓg kaí Magṓg [Gog and Magog]

This phrase occurs in the NT only in Rev. 20:8–9 as the name of the host that after the millennial period wages war against God’s people and is destroyed by God. The name is taken from Ezek. 38–39 and the sequences in Ezekiel and Revelation are similar: messianic reign, Gog and Magog and their destruction, the new Jerusalem (in Revelation the resurrection in 20:11ff. followed by the new heaven and earth and the new Jerusalem in 21:1ff.). Some of the rabbis have a similar sequence, although Gog and Magog can precede the messianic reign where this is seen to be the period of absolute consummation. Some apocalyptic works, however, do not mention Gog and Magog at all. One big difference between Ezekiel and Revelation is that Ezekiel is more strictly prophetic whereas Revelation paints a broader eschatological picture. Again, in Ezekiel Gog is the prince (1 Chr. 5:4) and Magog the territorial name (Gen. 10:2), but in Revelation the two form a sinister double-name for the hostile host, as in some rabbinic works and Sibylline Oracles 3.319; 3.512. [K. G. KUHN, I, 789–91]

gōnía [corner], akrogōniaíos [cornerstone, capstone], kephalḗ gōnías [cornerstone, capstone]

gōnía. “Corner” (Mt. 6:5; Acts 26:26), hence the four corners of the earth (Rev. 7:1; 20:8; cf. the four winds and four angels) from which destructive winds blow and the hostile nations come to attack the centrally located holy city (Rev. 20:8–9).

akrogōniaíos (→ kephalḗ gōnías). The “final stone” in a building, probably over the gate; used with reference to Christ in 1 Pet. 2:6 and Eph. 2:20. The idea is that the church is a temple, the prophets and apostles are the foundation, and Christ completes the building.

kephalḗ gōnías. This is a Hebraism referring to the final stone in a building and consistently referring to Christ on the basis of Ps. 118:22. In Mk. 12:10 Jesus calls himself the rejected stone which becomes the head of the corner in the new sanctuary (of which he is also the builder, Mk. 14:58; cf. Mt. 16:18). He is thus above the earthly temple (Mt. 12:6). Acts 4:11 finds in Ps. 118:22 a prophecy of the death of Christ (the rejection) and his resurrection (being made the chief cornerstone). 1 Pet. 2:7 relates Ps. 118:22 to Is. 8:14; the kephalē gōnías is a sharp stone at the corner; against it some stumble and fall in their failure to believe that the rejected stone can be the head of the corner. [J. JEREMIAS, I, 791–93]

δ d

daímōn [demon, divinity], daimónion [demonic], daimonízomai [to be demon-possessed], daimoniōdes [demonic], deisidaímōn [religion], deisidaimonía [fear of divinity]

daímōn, daimónion.

A. daímōn in the Greek and Hellenistic World.

1. A persistent animism, which even educated circles had to recognize, underlay the daímōn concept in the Greek world. The daímōn can be a deity or minor deity but may also be given a philosophical sense. The etymology and original meaning of the term daímōn are uncertain.

2. daímōn as a Term for Gods and Divine Powers. Various senses may be noted in this field: a. “god” b. “lesser deity” c. “unknown superhuman factor,” d. “what overtakes us” e.g. death, or good or evil fortune, e. “protective deity,” and in Stoicism f. “the divinely related element in us,” e.g., noús or conscience. Stars can also be called daímones.

3. The Influence of Popular Religion on the Philosophical Systems. While philosophy interpreted daímō as general divine power, it also introduced daímones as personal intermediaries. Heroes and daímones are akin, and daímones also serve as messengers, supervisors, and mediators. Under the influence of popular belief they are related especially to magic, to misfortune, and to possession. They are also regarded as spatial (especially evil daímones ), and have a place on the great ladder from God to us as beings that are superior but still imperfect, their wickedness being due to their association with matter.

4. daímōn in Popular Greek Belief. In popular belief daímones are a. spirits of the departed, b. shades which appear especially in lonely places at night. They cause all kinds of mischances, are responsible for illness and madness, bear special names, and may be warded off or conjured up by magic.

5. Demon Terminology in the Greek and Hellenistic World. daímōn is the more usual term, while daímonion (the neuter of the adjective daimónios) has the more indefinite sense of “the divine,” especially fate. Parallel terms are hḗrōs, eídōlon, and psychḗ, and later under Judaic influence ángelos and pneúma.

6. daímōn in Josephus and Philo. Even linguistically Philo follows the Greek. He uses daímōn for destiny, a protective spirit, the spirit of a murdered wife, and intermediary beings in the air. Josephus moves in the same world but he approximates the rabbis in speaking of a daimónion pneúma and in the main he uses daimónia (not daímones) for demons.

B. The OT and Later Jewish View of Demons.

1. Belief in Spirits and Demons in the OT. Traces of a belief in spirits occur in the OT in 1 Sam. 28:13 (the witch of Endor) and Is. 8:19. But those who conjured up the dead were to be expelled (Dt. 18:10; 1 Sam. 15:23a; cf. Num. 23:23). Thus the demonic appears only on the margin. Spirits are mentioned to depict the destruction of Babylon and Edom (cf. Is. 34:14; 13:21). Spirits are possibly linked to idolatry in Dt. 32:17; 2 Chr. 11:17. Only once in Ps. 91:6 LXX is there a possible reference to protection against demons. A special word ángelos replaces daímōn for God’s messengers, and God himself is the source of all that happens, including retributive or educative evils. In the main the LXX uses daimónion for Heb. šēḏ, but can also use eídōlon and mátaia as equivalents, thus showing that daimónion is a contemptuous term for pagan gods. Tob. 6:8ff. offers an example of an evil spirit attacking and destroying humans. But daimónia rather than daímones is preferred for such spirits, perhaps because it is closer to popular belief and avoids the positive aspects of daímōn.

2. Tannaitic Judaism. Here we find a widespread belief in spirits, many of which are named, e.g., Lilith, Bath Chorin; also group names. They have wings and enjoy special knowledge but have sensual needs. Magicians contact them. As spirits of defilement they are in complete antithesis to the Holy Spirit. They are ubiquitous and harmful, and precautions must be taken to avoid them (e.g., at night or in ruined places). They also cause sickness and acts as seducers. They are not connected with Satan. God and his angels can protect against them, as can study of the law, but external precautions are also to be taken. Unlike angels, they are not God’s intermediaries, but angels could become hostile demonic powers and there can thus be reference to the angels of Satan in a historical fusion that does not erase the fundamental distinction between angels and demons.

3. Pseudepigraphal Judaism. Linguistically this stands between the OT and rabbinic Judaism as regards demons. We find the idea of fallen angels, and Satan’s angels are called demons. We also read of evil or unclean spirits or spirits of Beliar, and of unclean demons in Jub. 10:1 (though daímones is seldom used). Only rarely here are demons capricious and hurtful. Their main work is to tempt into witchcraft, idolatry, war, bloodshed, and prying into mysteries. Pagans pray to them when seduced into idolatry. They are in opposition to God and owe their position to a fall which implies sin and guilt. They are depicted sometimes as related or subordinate to Satan, but not consistently so. In general the link with the souls of the dead is broken, and there is no bridge between evil spirits and good. Demonology is adopted because there is found in us a will that resists observance of the law; this evil will is ascribed to demonic influence, and a relation to Satan is thereby suggested.

C. The View of Demons in the NT.

1. The NT usage is similar to that of later Judaism. Daímōn occurs only once, in Mt. 8:31. daimónion is used elsewhere, as are pneúma, pneúma akátharton, pneúma ponērón, pneúma álalon, pneúma astheneías, and pneúma pýthōn. Mark is most faithful to Jewish usage, and Luke follows. The Athenians use daimónion in Acts 17:18, and Paul has it four times; cf. also pneúma in Eph. 2:2 and 1 Timothy. References to Satan’s angels are found in Mt. 25:41 etc., and to bad angels in 1 Cor. 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; and Rev. 9:11.

2. In the main the NT follows the OT. There is no reference to the spirits of the dead. daímōn, which suggests a divine intermediary, is avoided. Angels and demons are basically antithetical. There are few references to demons except in the case of demon possession. Paul does not refer to perils from demons (2 Cor. 11:23ff.), and if he finds in his ―thorn‖ the work of an angel of Satan (2 Cor. 12:7), God overrules this hindrance for good. Because of faith in God, the fear of demons is expelled. Yet Paul regards witchcraft as meddling with demons (cf. the warning in Gal. 5:20), and pagan sacrifices are offerings to demons (1 Cor. 10:20–21). Demonic activity is perhaps alluded to in 1 Cor. 12:2. Revelation also refers to demon worship, in 9:20. A surge of demonic activity is expected in the end-time (1 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 16:13– 14). The demonic activity denoted by the swarm of locusts in Rev. 9:1ff. may be eschatological, but it may also be past or even present. We are to arm against spiritual foes in Eph. 6:12, and cf. the devilish wisdom of Jms. 3:15 and the admonition of 1 Jn. 4:1. Demonic powers are reserved for judgment (Mt. 25:41; cf. 1 Cor. 6:3; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6). Demons are subject to Satan (Eph. 2:2) in a kingdom that opposes God’s kingdom. They are thus the instruments of Satan (cf. the reply of Jesus in Mk. 3:20ff.). The conflict with demons is for this reason a mortal one, but the main attention focuses, not on demons as such, but on their head. Evil thoughts do not come from seducing spirits but from the heart (Mt. 15:19). Because people do not honor God, he gives them up to a base mind (Rom. 1:28). Sin and the flesh act as evil forces but they are not external to us; they express the sinful self.

3. As regards demon possession in the Synoptics and Acts, it should be noted (1) that while not all sicknesses are said to come from demons, they are all in a sense Satan’s work (cf. Lk. 13:11ff.); (2) that the main issue in possession is the distortion of the divine likeness or the impairment of the center of personality (Mk. 5:5) which Jesus comes to remedy (Mt. 12:28); and (3) that demons have a knowledge about Jesus (and their own fate, Mt. 8:29; Jms. 2:19) which they impulsively utter but which is not the confession that Jesus seeks.

4. In John the people accuse Jesus of having a daimónion, this implies total rejection and dishonoring, and Jesus replies to it firmly (Jn. 8:49). When Paul in Acts 17:18 is called a preacher of foreign damónia, this might carry an allusion to the charge against Socrates. OT usage recurs when Babylon is called the abode of daimonía in Rev. 18:2. The NT resists Greek divinizing of demons and dispels fear of the demonic, yet it retains a sense of the sinister activity of spirits as they attack us spiritually and physically in the service of Satan. The demonic characterizes the old aeon, but Jesus has gained a decisive victory over it and will keep his people until the final consummation of the new aeon that he has already inaugurated.

daimonízomai. “To be possessed by a daímōn,” originally used in all the senses of daímōn, not used in the LXX, and found in the NT with relatively the greatest frequency in Matthew.

daimoniṓdes. “Demonic,” used in the NT only in Jms. 3:15, which contrasts devilish wisdom with the wisdom from above.

deisidaímōn, deisidaimonía. Made up of deídō, “to fear,” and daímōn, this term normally denotes piety either as religion or (sometimes) as excessive fear of the gods. Since daímōn in the Greek world can mean any supernatural power, it is a good neutral expression for religion, and has this sense in Acts 25:19 (Festus) and (the adjective) in Acts 17:22 (Paul of the Athenians). [W. FOERSTER, II, 1–20]

dáktylos [finger]

The only significant NT use is in Lk. 11:20, where Jesus says that he expels demons with the finger of God (denoting God’s direct activity). In the OT a. the heavens are the work of God’s fingers (Ps. 8:3), b. the tables of the law are written with God’s finger (Ex. 31:18), and c. God’s finger works miracles (Ex. 8:19). [H. SCHLIER, II, 20–21]

déēsis → déomai

deí; [it must be], déon estí [it is necessary]

Most common as deí (with infinitive) or déon estí, this term denotes the element of necessity in an event. It is most precise when linked with the compulsive power, but usually has a weaker sense. In philosophy it expresses logical or scientific necessity. It can also denote ethical or religious obligations backed sometimes by statute). In the LXX the law must be done as God’s will (Lev. 5:17; cf. in the NT Lk. 13:14; 22:7; also Christian duties, 1 Th. 4:1; 1 Tim. 3:2; Tit. 1:7). Fate may often be viewed as the power behind necessity, but the term can also denote the compulsion of magic or the presuppositions essential to its success. In Greek and Hellenistic usage what is expressed is an idea of neutral deity which does not sit well with the OT and rabbinic concept of the personal will of God overruling history and issuing a personal summons to us. The LXX, Josephus, and even the NT adopt the term, but in so doing, while suffering some tension, make it plain that it relates to God’s personal will rather than a neutral fate.

2. Lucan usage is important in this regard. Of the 102 NT instances, 41 are in Lucan writings. The usage varies. Sometimes the term expresses God’s will in the law (Lk. 11:42; Acts 15:5), with which Jesus may clash as he follows the deí of God’s will as he himself knows it (Lk. 13:6). The deí thus

represents for Jesus a rule of life (Lk. 15:32). It is the deí of the divine lordship which governs his work (Lk. 4:43) and leads him to suffering and glory (Lk. 9:22; 17:25; cf. Acts 1:16; 3:21; 17:3). Its basis is God’s will as laid down in Scripture (Lk. 22:37). His disciples and the church stand under the same deí (Lk. 12:12; Acts 9:6, 16; 14:22, etc.). The will of this deí is a saving will, so that its demand is a demand for obedient faith in every situation of life.

3. As used by Luke, the term expresses the necessity of the eschatological event. It is well adapted to do this, since the event is known only by revelation and sets us before the inconceivable ineluctability of a historical act that is grounded in God’s will. Faith in God’s eternal if mysterious plan formulates it. The necessity derives from the very nature of the God who has committed himself to this plan. Daniel stated this already in Dan. 2:28 LXX; Revelation repeats the thought (1:1; cf. 4:1), as does Jesus in Mt. 24:6; Mk. 13:10. The imperative of eschatology is to both judgment and salvation. Everything stands under it from the predicted return of Elijah fulfilled in the Baptist (Mt. 17:10ff.). The messianic age has come; hence the passion and resurrection are under the divine deí (Mt. 16:21) of this age. Jesus does not just preach eschatology; his history is eschatology. The gospel confirms this by showing that his work is the fulfilment of Scripture (Mt. 26:54; Lk. 22:37; Jn. 3:14; 20:9) and will necessarily, for Paul, issue in Christ’s reign (1 Cor. 15:25), the judgment (2 Cor. 5:10), and the resurrection transformation (1 Cor. 15:53).

4. As the divine deí shapes Christ’s history, it also controls God’s work in us, e.g., in the new birth of Jn. 3:7, the need to call on Christ’s name in Acts 4:12, the necessity of faith in Christ to salvation in Acts 16:30–31 (cf. Heb. 11:6).

5. Another use of deí is for the necessity of prayer in the Christian life. As Jesus taught us, we ought always to pray (Lk. 18:1). The Spirit helps us because we cannot pray as we ought (Rom. 8:26). Worship ought to be in spirit and truth (Jn. 4:20ff.); the divine Spirit sets us in the truth by relating us to Christ who is the truth. [W. GRUNDMANN, II, 21–25]

deíknymi [to point out, reveal], anadeíknymi [to show, appoint], anádeixis [manifestation, installation], deigmatízō [to expose], paradeigmatízō [to hold up for contempt], hypódeigma [example, copy]

deíknymi.

Α. The Usage outside John’s Gospel.

1. In Mt. 4:8 and parallels the sense is “to point to something,” though with little distinction from “to show,” “to exhibit,” as in Lk. 24:40 (cf. Mt. 8:4 and par.). There are many parallels for this in pagan authors, the LXX, Josephus, and the early fathers.

2. Another nuance is “to point out” (e.g., Mk. 14:15), or even “to bring to pass” in the sense of “to manifest” (1 Tim. 6:15).

3. “To indicate verbally” is another nuance, leading to the sense “to teach,” “to explain,” “to demonstrate” (cf. 1 Cor. 12:31b; Acts 10:28; Mt. 16:21).

B. The Usage in the Johannine Writings.

1. The term is used in John to show that the works of Jesus are signs; it thus takes on the sense “to reveal,” “to disclose” (Jn. 10:32). The Father is shown in Jesus (cf. Philip’s request and Jesus’ reply in 14:10–11). The unity of Father and Son means that the Father shows all his works to the Son and thus assigns the Son his own actions (5:20). To the showing of the works corresponds a teaching of the things to say (8:28; 12:49).

2. In Rev. 1:1ff. the words of the prophecy represent a revelation of Jesus Christ; God gave him this revelation to show future things to his servants by the mediation of the author, who saw and bears witness to it. Hence deíknymi here signifies a. a divine declaration in the form of revelation, b. divine revelation of the future, and c. a fusion of intimation and symbolism. Seeing (v. 2) is the response to the showing (cf. 4:1; 17:1; 21:9–10; 22:1). The general root of this usage is the sense “to cause to see,” “to manifest,” but instances may also be found, e.g., in 1 Clem. 26:1, of the meaning “to intimate in advance,” or, in the LXX, of the theological sense “to reveal” (in 82 of 119 instances, in many of which the LXX itself imports the idea of revelation). In apocalyptic writing, too, we find the senses “to disclose,” “to prophesy,” and “to refer to mysteriously.”

anadeíknymi.

1. In Lk. 10:1 the idea is “to appoint,” “to institute,” with some vacillation between the idea of ordaining for a task and legally instituting. The word is taken from the political sphere and suggests an official action.

2. In Acts 1:24 the idea is different, for while an appointment is at issue, what is asked is that God will “disclose” or “show” whom he has chosen.

anádeixis. The meaning in Lk. 1:80 is uncertain. Lk. 3:1ff. and 10:1 suggest “installation,” as in secular usage relating to official institution. But the meaning might also be “manifestation,” which carries the thought that John’s appearance is part of revelation.

deigmatízō. This rare word means “to exhibit,” “make public,” “bring to public notice.” In Mt. 1:19 Joseph does not want to expose Mary by having her appear publicly. In Col. 2:15 Christ makes a public exhibition of the vanquished forces, not just by proclamation, but by public display, as in a triumphal procession.

paradeigmatízō. This stronger term, which is more common than deigmatízō, means “to expose to public obloquy.” It occurs in the LXX in Num. 25:4 (public hanging), in Jer. 13:22 (Heb. “suffer violence”), and in Ezek. 28:17 (“to pillory”). Apart from a variant in Mt. 1:19, the only NT instance is in Heb. 6:6. By apostasy Christ is crucified again and “publicly shamed.”

hypódeigma. In Hellenistic Greek this alternative to parádeigma means “example” as well as “document” or “proof.” The LXX has it (with parádeigma) for “model” and “copy.” The use for “copy” shows what is at issue in Heb. 8:5 and 9:23–24. What Moses sees on the mountain is the original, and the constructed tent etc. are the copy which reflects the original, yet also the model which points to it. The term “image” is perhaps the best suited to bring out this twofold sense. The OT cultus has a typical character when it is seen in the light of Christ. In this light it points to heavenly things, but it can do so only as a reflection of them. Elsewhere in the NT the term has the sense of “example.” The prophets are an example in Jms. 5:10. Jesus offers a prototype of mutual service in Jn. 13:15. The warning of a bad

example is offered in 2 Pet. 2:6 and Heb. 4:11. [H. SCHLIER, II, 25–33]

deípnon [meal, Lord’s Supper], deipnéō [to eat, dine]

This word, which ordinarily means “meal,” “chief meal,” “feast,” takes on theological significance in the NT when used 1. for the meal consecrated to the Lord (1 Cor. 11:20); the church’s table fellowship constitutes divine service. The word also has significance 2. as an eschatological image; the heavenly banquet represents perfect fellowship with God and Christ (cf. Lk. 14:24; Rev. 19:9; 3:20, and the parallel marriage-feast, Mt. 22:2ff. etc.). The terrible counterpart of this feast is “the great supper” of Rev. 19:17 (based on Ezek. 39:17ff.; cf. Mt. 24:28). The use for a cultic meal is common in Hellenistic religion. The

idea of an eschatological banquet occurs in the OT (cf. Is. 34:6ff.) and apocalyptic and rabbinic writings. [J. BEHM, II, 34–35]

deisidaimonía, deisidaímōn → daímōn

déka [ten]

The number ten, linked originally to reckoning by the fingers, is a favorite round figure in the OT, e.g., the Ten Commandments, the ten plagues, the ten patriarchs before the flood, the tenth as an offering to God, and ten as a measurement in relation to the ark, tent, and temple (Ex. 26–27; 1 Kgs. 6:7). The number is also common in rabbinic Judaism, e.g., the ten temptations of Abraham, the ten divine words at creation, the ten needed to constitute true worship. In apocalyptic, too, we read of the ten epochs of the world, of which the tenth is that of the Messiah. In the NT, ten plays a lesser role. It is a round number, e.g., in Lk. 19:13; Mt. 25:1; Rev. 2:10. Jesus displays his messiahship by ten miracles in Mt. 8 and 9. The genealogy in Mt. 1:1ff. fits into a ten-period schema. The ten horns in Revelation represent a totality of power (as in Dan. 7:20). In Rom. 8:38–39 ten powers are unable to separate us from God, and in 1 Cor. 6:9–10 ten vices exclude from the kingdom of God. On Gnostic speculations about the number cf. Irenaeus in Migne Patrologia Graeca 1.17.1; 18.3. [F. HAUCK, II, 36–37]

dektós → déchomai

dexiós [right (hand, side)]

From the stem dek-, this means ―right‖ a. as the opposite of left; b. as a noun (hē dexiá) for God’s right hand as a symbol of his power; c. for the favorable or honored side, e.g., birds on the right as a good omen in Greece, the worthy walking on the right, or the law on God’s right hand in the OT and rabbis; d. for what is eminent or good, e.g., studying the law on the right hand for proper application to it; and e. in connection with treaties or compacts (on the basis of giving the right hand when concluding agreements).

1. In the NT, Jesus in the parable of judgment says that the sheep will be set at God’s right hand and the goats at his left; the right side is that of favor or salvation, as in Plato and the rabbis.

2. The NT depicts Christ himself as exalted to God’s right hand. In Acts 2:34 Peter refers to the session at God’s right hand, and in 5:31 he says that God exalted Jesus to his right hand. This is a fulfilment of the royal psalm 110 messianically interpreted; cf. Mt. 22:41ff., where Jesus himself shows that Davidic sonship does not exhaust his messiahship but becomes a riddle in view of the greater glory which goes far beyond a mere restoration of David’s throne and kingdom. Jesus belongs at God’s right hand because he is Lord of the world as well as King of Israel. Throughout the NT his exaltation to God’s right hand comes to expression (cf. Rom. 8:34; Eph. 1:20; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22). What follows his death vindicates his claim to a place of honor alongside God. In fulfilment of his claim, he has been declared Christ and Lord, the messianic age has dawned, and he shares God’s glory and deity, as manifested by his sending the Spirit. Older rabbinic writings refer Psalm 110 to Abraham or David, but later exegesis adopts again a messianic interpretation. Another rabbinic view sets the law at

God’s right hand but sees the Christ replacing it in the messianic age. [W. GRUNDMANN, II, 37–40]

déomai [to ask, pray], dMēsis [prayer], prosdéomai [to need]

dMomai, dMēsis.

1. The original meaning of déomai is “to lack,” “to need,” and of déēsis, “lack.” But there are few traces of this in the LXX and none in the NT.

2. The NT sense is, according to context, “to ask” or “to seek.” Formally, in Acts 21:39 and 8:34, it means “please” (déomaí sou). A fuller sense occurs when requests are made to Jesus for help or healing, as in Lk. 5:12; 9:38; cf. also 8:28. Paul uses it in an earnest admonition in 2 Cor. 5:20 (cf. 10:2; Gal. 4:12). Apart from Mt. 9:38 it is exclusive to Luke and Paul.

3. It then comes to be used for “to pray.” Jesus prays for Peter in Lk. 22:32 (cf. Heb. 5:7. Paul prays about his plans in Rom. 1:10; 1 Th. 3:10. In Acts 4:31 the reference is to the prayer of vv. 24ff. déēsis is intercession in Rom. 10:1, but the element of petition is less strong in Lk. 5:33; Phil. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:1. Prayer in general seems to be the issue in Acts 10:2; Lk. 2:37; 1 Tim. 5:5. If the answer is uncertain, an ei clause is used (Rom. 1:10). The content is denoted by a hópōs or hína clause, while intercession for someone is hypér or perí tinos.

prosdéomai. In his address in Acts 17:22ff. Paul says that God does not want worship as though he “had need of something (more).” The pros- strengthens an element that is already present in déomai, since “to need” carries the thought of something to be added. The real point, of course, is that God does not need anything; Paul is continuing the polemic of the OT (also Stoicism) against anthropomorphic ideas of deity and against the idolatry which worships images that have to be propped up and carried (Is. 40:20 etc.). For Paul the stoicheía, too, are weak and ineffectual; the Galatians must not subject themselves to

them now that they know the true Lord (Gal. 4:8–9). [H. GREEVEN, II, 40–42]
→ erōtáō, eúchomai

déos → phóbos

desmós [imprisonment], désmios [prisoner]

Paul’s imprisonment (literally “fetter”) has special religious significance in phrases like désmios Christoú Iesoú (Eph. 3:1; Phlm. 1:9), désmion autoú (2 Tim. 1:8), désmios en kyríō (Eph. 4:1), and cf. Phlm. 13 and Phil. 1:13. Actual imprisonment underlies the usage, but the real bondage is to Christ for whose sake it is suffered and to whom self-will is offered in sacrifice. In answer to the idea that Paul borrows here from the concept in the mysteries that katochḗ precedes the final dedication, it should be noted that Paul nowhere calls imprisonment a penultimate stage prior to being with Christ (Phil. 1:23). Imprisonment symbolizes his whole life and ministry.

→ aichmálōtos [G. KITTEL, II, 43]

despótēs [owner, master], oikodespótēs [master of the household], oikodespotMō [to rule one’s household]

despótēs.

A. despótēs outside the NT.

1. Greek Usage. The first meaning is the domestic one of “owner.” This extends to the political sphere when an alien people takes over a land. The word thus acquires such varied nuances as a. master of the house, b. master as distinct from slave, c. absolute ruler (equivalent to týrannos in Plato), d. powerful divine being, e. the Roman emperor, and f. (astrologically) planet. While the term expresses social rank or position, it is not one of status; hence the Jews can not only follow normal Greek usage but also link the term with God. In the Greek Bible, while strongly subordinate to kýrios, it appears some 56 times (25 times in direct address to God with a special emphasis on his omnipotence). God is kýrios because he is desρótēs of all things (cf. Job 5:8ff.). Elsewhere in the LXX we find all the other nuances except a. and f., but these are less prominent compared to that for God.

2. The Reason for the Paucity of desρótēs in the LXX. The distribution of desρótēs in the LXX is striking. In the law it occurs only in Gen. 15:2, 8 (déspota kýrie), in the history books only in Josh. 5:14, in Isaiah in 1:24; 3:1; 10:33 (ho despótēs kýrios [or kýrios ho desρótēs] sabaṓth), and in Jeremiah in 1:6; 4:10; 14:13; 15:11, but it occurs more frequently in Wisdom, Maccabees, and Sirach, and still more in other renderings. The reason for this paucity is probably that the term has acquired too abstract a character in its use for absolute power. The God of Israel, however, is the Creator and Lord of all things who is known to his people through acts in history. His omnipotence, then, is a concrete reality and is more suitably expressed by kýrios. This explains three characteristics of the use of desρótēs in the LXX: (a) additions such as “of all things, all creation, heaven and earth” are often made; (b) it occurs more often in later works which display Hellenistic intrusion; (c) in Gen. 15:2, 8 Abraham is appealing to God’s omnipotence in a unique way which no doubt suggested the term to the translator.

B. despótēs in the NT.

l. Secular Usage. In four of the ten instances the reference is to the master as distinct from slaves, e.g., 1 Tim. 6:1; 1 Pet. 2:18. “Master of the house” is the sense in 2 Tim. 2:21.

2. God as desρótēs. Simeon addresses God as déspota in Lk. 2:29, and so does the Christian group in Acts 4:24. God is also meant in Rev. 6:10.

3. Jesus as desρótēs. A new feature is the description of Jesus as desρótēs in Jude 4; 2 Pet. 2:1. In 2 Pet. 2:1 the heretics may be known by their rejection of Jesus as desρótēs. In Jude 4 a double denial, first of one desρótēs, then of Jesus, might be intended, but this is unlikely in view of 2 Pet. 2:1. The use of agorázein in 2 Pet. 2:1 might lead one to expect kýrios rather than desρótēs, but the latter expresses very well Christ’s right to his people in virtue of his saving act. It is less likely that the intention is to equate Jesus with God as the Almighty.

oikodespótēs, oikodespotéō. These are not classical words, but occur in astrology and everyday life. In the NT oikodesρótēs occurs 12 times (especially in Matthew, e.g., 10:25; 13:27, 52, etc.; cf. Lk. 13:25; Mk. 14:14). The meaning is “master of the house” (sometimes with the emphatic addition ánthrōρos, Mt. 13:27 etc.). The parables illustrate God’s action by that of the householder. The only instance of the verb is in 1 Tim. 5:14: younger widows are to marry and “rule their households,” an example of the family virtues that are stressed in the Pastorals.

→ kýrios [K. H. RENGSTORF, II, 44–49]

déchomai [to accept, receive], dochḗ [receiving (a guest)], apodéchomai [to welcome], apodochḗ [acceptance], ekdéchomai [to accept, await], apekdéchomai [to accept, await], eisdéchomai [to receive, welcome], prosdéchomai [to accept, await], dektós [acceptable], apódektos [acceptable], euprósdektos [acceptable]

déchomai.

A. déchomai outside the NT.

a. The first sense is “to accept,” e.g., letters, gifts, payments, even the body by the soul. In pagan religion prophecy is received through, e.g., flights of birds, and offerings are accepted by the gods. In the OT Zephaniah demands an acceptance of God’s dealings in punishment and correction (3:7); cf. the cup of wrath in Jer. 25:28. A special use in this regard is for the “bearing away” of sin (Gen. 50:17); punishment for sin is “received,” however, in Is. 40:2.

b. “To receive,” in the sense “to welcome,” “to extend hospitality,” is a further use which is common in the NT (cf. Lk. 9:53; Gal. 4:12; 2 Cor. 7:15).

c. “To receive, hear, or understand what someone is saying” is another usage, found in relation to divine commands in the OT, with a volitional as well as an intellectual component.

d. A cultic use in the LXX is for “to receive favorably,” e.g., prayer or sacrifice. This adds a theocentric element where the Hebrew equivalent is “to find favor.”

B. déchomai in the NT.

1. In Mt. 10:40ff. special importance is attached to receiving the disciples, for since they are the envoys of Jesus, receiving them is receiving him, and therefore God. Through the disciples Jesus himself knocks at the heart’s door. They are the bearers of Christ. Christ is present in them; they continue and extend his mission. More than simple hospitality is involved, and therefore the love expended on them will bring a special reward. The same applies to receiving a child in Christ’s name (Mt. 18:5–6), for Christ himself comes in the person of the child, and what is done for the child is done for him. This gives even such an unassuming act a unique significance.

2. In a related sense the NT speaks about receiving the gospel or the Word of God (Acts 8:14; 11:1; 17:11; cf. Jms. 1:21; 1 Th. 1:6; 2:13). One may also receive its content, i.e., the kingdom of God (Mk. 10:15), the grace of God (2 Cor. 6:1), or love of the truth (2 Th. 2:10). In this sense déchomai is

equivalent to faith. It brings out the fact that in relation to God we can only receive. In hearing the gospel, however, we are liberated for it. By the Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), the understanding is opened and we are set in the freedom of decision in which God’s grace or kingdom may be ours.

dochḗ. From “receiving a guest,” this word comes to denote the “meal” or “feast” that is linked with hospitality. Only Luke uses it in the NT, for the great feast that Levi holds in 5:29, and for the feast to which the poor and needy are to be asked according to Jesus in 14:13. It may be noted that as Jesus accepts hospitality from tax collectors (15:1), he demands that table fellowship be extended to the outcast and needy.

apodéchomai. This compound has much the same sense as the simple form. In the NT it occurs only in Luke, for the welcome that Jesus gives the crowd in 9:11, for the crowd’s welcoming of Jesus in 8:40, for the reception of Paul in Acts 18:27; 21:17, and for Paul’s welcoming of all who come to him in Acts 28:30.

apodochḗ. The meaning is “acceptance” with a sense of approval and appreciation. In the NT two sayings which sum up the gospel are said to be sure and worthy of full acceptance or approval, namely, that Christ came into the world to save sinners (1:15), and that godliness has promise both for this life and for the life to come, since it builds on the living God and Savior (4:8ff.).

ek-, apekdéchomai. ekdéchomai means a. “to accept” and b. “to await.” apekdéchomai is also used for “to await,” but also means “to deduce (wrongly).” In the NT Paul has apekdéchomai for expectation of the end (Rom. 8:25). This expectation is focused on the transformation when the adoption enjoyed by faith will be manifested with the resurrection (8:14, 23) and creation will reach the goal for which it, too, is waiting (8:19). This consummation will come with Christ’s return, so that Christ himself is the content of expectation (Phil. 3:20). He is so as the hope of righteousness (Gal. 5:5). On the basis of the gospel that is already received (cf. déchomai), apekdéchomai thus characterizes Christian life as one of expectation of the great climax which gives not only this life but also the whole of creation its meaning. Hebrews uses ekdéchomai as well as apekdéchomai for the same eschatological expectation (10:13; 9:28). Jms. 5:7 has

the former in the comparison in Jms. 5:7 and 1 Peter, the latter in the reference to God’s patient waiting in Noah’s day.

eisdéchomai. This means “to receive someone” either to a place or into a circle. The LXX has it for reception of the people into fellowship with God (Mic. 4:6 etc.). In the NT the only instance is in 2 Cor. 6:17 (based on Is. 52:11 and Zeph. 3:20): In the new covenant God’s people everywhere are received into fellowship with God, so that the promise of the prophets is fulfilled without national restriction.

prosdéchomai. This has the two senses a. “to receive someone” or “accept something,” and b. “to await.” The latter is the main sense in the NT.

1. It is used for those who await God’s kingdom: Joseph in Mk. 15:43, Simeon in Lk. 2:38. The gospel is that the Messiah has come and waiting is over.

2. It is also used for Christian expectation of the resurrection (Acts 24:15), eternal glory (Tit. 2:13), and Christ’s mercy in the judgment (Jude 21). Jesus tells his disciples to be as those who wait for their master (Lk. 12:36).

dektós, apo-, euprósdektos. dektós means “what one can accept,” hence in the LXX “acceptable,” “pleasing.” apo- and euprósdektos have the same meaning.

1. In the LXX the terms have a cultic reference. Sacrifices that are pleasing to God are effectual (Lev. 1:3), but when the people backslide their offerings are not acceptable (Jer. 6:20) and will become so only in the last time of conversion (Is. 56:7). The acts and prayers of the righteous are also acceptable in Prov. 16:7; so are the righteous themselves (11:20). In the NT Paul says that his ministry is an acceptable sacrifice (Phil. 4:20). So is the fruit of his ministry (Rom. 15:16). The Christian community is a holy priesthood offering acceptable spiritual sacrifices to God through Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). With no cultic association, all who do right are acceptable to God (Acts 10:35). On the other hand, prophets are not acceptable in their own country (Lk. 4:24). What is acceptable is equated with what is good in 1 Tim. 2:3.

2. The word has a messianic sense in Is. 61:2: The messianic age is the time chosen by God as the time of the divine presence and salvation. This time comes with Jesus (Lk. 4:18ff.). The acceptable time of divine election and presence is that of Christ’s coming. This is for Paul the time of God’s hearing and

helping (Is. 48:8ff.), i.e., the acceptable time, the day of salvation (2 Cor. 6:2). [W. GRUNDMANN, II,
50–59]

déδ [to bind, tie], (Ιjδ [to untie, set free])

1. déō is common in the NT for “to bind” or “bind together” (e.g., Mt. 13:30), “to wrap” (Jn. 11:44), “to chain” (Mk. 5:3–4), and hence “to imprison” (Mk. 6:17 etc.). It expresses supernatural binding in Lk. 13:16; Acts 20:22; cf. the chaining of Satan in Rev. 20:2. It is also used figuratively for the marriage bond (Rom. 7:2; 1 Cor. 7:26, 39). God’s word is not bound (2 Tim. 2:9).

2. Behind the deín and lýein of Mt. 16:19; 18:18 there is no idea of magic, but the rabbinic terminology for declaring forbidden or permitted, and hence for removing or imposing an obligation. On the other hand, the disciples are not to be rabbis (Mt. 23:8), and another if less common use of the rabbinic terms is for imposing or removing a ban. This fits in with Mt. 18:17, offers a parallel to Jn.

20:23, and is the almost unanimous interpretation of the fathers. [F. BÜSCHEL, II, 60–61]

dēlóō [to show, declare]

delóō is the common Greek word for “to show, declare, impart, demonstrate.” It can be used for the communication of cultic mysteries and revelation by dreams and visions. In the LXX God declares his name, plans, secrets, and demands (Ex. 6:3; 33:12; Dan. 2:28–29; 1 Kgs. 8:36). It can also indicate the divine act of revelation in judgment and grace (Jer. 16:21). In the NT it denotes the (future) divine act of revelation only in 1 Cor. 3:13, when the day of testing will show the quality of our work. More often it refers to the instruction given by the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:11) or the Lord (2 Pet. 1:14). Yet one cannot make any sharp distinction from apokalýptein (cf. Mt. 11:26 and par.; 1 Cor 14:30; 1 Pet. 1:12). In the Stoics, Josephus, and the fathers we find the sense “to interpret” (the allegorical interpretation of the OT in Barn.

9.8, and the elucidation of puzzling symbols in Hermas Similitudes 5.4.1ff.). [R. BULTMANN, II, 61–
62]

dēmiourgós [builder, maker]

Strictly “one who pursues public affairs,” then “builder, artisan,” then “architect of the world.” It has only a secular sense in the LXX, and the only NT instance is in Heb. 11:10 where God is the builder and

“maker” of the eternal city. For the relation to ktístēs, see ktízō. [W. FOERSTER, II, 62]
→ ktízō

dḗmos [people], ekdēméō [to be abroad], endēméō [to be at home], parepídēmos [sojourner]

dḗmos. Originally “portion,” then a. “district,” b. “territory,” c. “people” of a land or city (sometimes, but not always, derogatory: “mob”). In the LXX it first means “race,” “family,” later “people.” In the NT it means the “people” of a place; cf. Acts 12:22 (Jerusalem), 17:5 (Thessalonica), 19:30, 33 (Ephesus).

ekdēméō, endēméō. These two terms denote being abroad and staying at home. Not used in the LXX, they occur in the NT in 2 Cor. 5:6ff. to express the thoughts (1) that bodily existence is absence from the Lord, and (2) that full fellowship with the Lord is possible only apart from this existence. We and the Lord are in separate spheres. Faith overcomes the separation (v. 7) but is not the final reality. We thus desire to be out of the present sphere and at home with the Lord so as to enjoy the full fellowship of sight. Nevertheless, even in the present sphere the desire to please the Lord gives direction to life (v. 9).

parepídēmos. This rare term has the sense of “one who is (temporarily) a resident alien.” It occurs in the NT in 1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11: Christians are only temporary residents on earth and must not let their lives be shaped by its interests. They are a Christian diaspora whose true home is the place of their election. Heb. 11:13 applies the same term to the OT examples of faith. Hellenistic thought has a similar idea of earthly life as a sojourn but with a dualistic nuance. [W. GRUNDMANN, II, 63–65]

diá [through, during, with, etc.]

A. diá with Genitive.

1. Spatial “through” or “through ... to” (Mt. 7:13; Mk. 10:25; Jn. 10:1; Rom. 15:28).

2. Temporal a. “through a whole period” (Lk. 5:5) b. “during part of a period” (Acts 5:19, 16:9) c. “after a time” (Mk 2:1. Gal. 2:1). “Within” occurs in Mk. 14:38.

3 Modal a of manner “through” “in” “with” (Lk. 8:4. Jn. 19:23; Rom. 8:25), b. of accompanying circumstance “with,” “among,” “in spite of” (Acts 14:22; 2 Cor. 2:4; Rom. 2:27); the reference in 1 Jn. 5:6 seems to be neither to Christ’s baptism and death, nor to baptism and the eucharist, but to baptism as a sprinkling with Christ’s blood (cf. 1 Pet. 1:2). There is a personal genitive in 2 Tim. 2:2.

4. Instrumental a. with genitive of cause “by means of,” “with,” “through” (Rom. 3:27, the law; 3:22, faith; Acts 15:11, grace; Rom. 5:10; Col. 1:20, Christ’s death; perhaps 1 Tim. 2:15, childbearing; possibly too Mk. 6:2, Christ’s hands; Acts 11:28, the Spirit), b. with genitive of person “through the mediation of” (Mt. 1:22, the prophet; Gal. 3:19, angels; references such as Jn. 1:3; Acts 10:36; Col. 1:20, etc. in which Christ mediates God’s action in creation, miracles, judgment, etc., and also Jn. 10:9; 14:6; Heb. 7:25; Rom. 5:2 in which he is a Mediator for us, although not in the sense that it is we who set him in motion; cf. also believing through him in Jn. 1:7; Acts 3:16; 1 Pet. 1:21).

5. Causal a. “in consequence of,” “on account of,” “on the basis of” (Rom. 8:3, the flesh; 2 Cor. 9:13, the proof of the service; 1 Cor. 1:1, the will of God; Rom. 12:1, the mercies of God; 15:30, Christ and the love of the Spirit; 2 Cor. 10:1, the meekness and gentleness of Christ), b. “by,” “for the sake of” with a personal reference (Mk. 14:21; Acts 12:9, etc.), and many references to Christ in which Christ is the author of authority (Rom. 1:5), fruit (Phil. 1:11), comfort (2 Cor. 1:5), peace with God (Rom. 5:1), triumph (Rom. 8:37), acceptance with God (Heb. 13:21, resurrection life (1 Cor. 15:21), final deliverance (1 Th. 5:9); cf. also Rom. 1:8; 2 Cor. 1:20; 1 Pet. 4:11; Heb. 13:15 in which the initiative lies with Christ, so that we never find verbs of asking with the formula “through Christ”; it expresses the constitutive significance of Christ for Christians.

B. diá with Accusative.

1. Spatially “through ... to” (cf. Lk. 17:11, though in view of the order [Samaria and Galilee] “through the borders,” i.e., “between,” seems more likely here).

2. Modally, Gal. 4:13: “in” bodily infirmity. The genitive would be more correct for this, hence the translation “because of” is sometimes preferred, but it yields no real sense.

3. Causally “on account of,” “for the sake of,” with a certain final element when the accusative of person is used (e.g., Mk. 2:27; 1 Cor. 8:11), and sometimes the accusative of thing (e.g., Mt. 15:3, 6; 1 Cor. 9:23; Phil. 2:30). The double diá in Rom. 4:25 offers some difficulty in view of the tension between a purely causal rendering of the first half and the parallelism of the statement. The point is perhaps that Christ died “because of our sins and in order to expiate them” (cf. 1 Tim. 1:16). In Rom. 11:28 the Jews are enemies in order that salvation may come to the Gentiles but beloved on account of the fathers; the parallelism here is purely rhetorical. [A. OEPKE, II, 65–70]

diabállō [to accuse], diábolos [the devil, Satan]

diabállō. The basic sense is “to separate from,” “to be set in opposition,” “to be hated” (passive), “to accuse,” “to repudiate,” “to give false information.” The only NT instance is with reference to the unjust steward in Lk. 16:1: “accused.”

diábolos.

A. Linguistic.

1. The main use is for complaint or calumniation, i.e., “calumniator,” “talebearer.”

2. Josephus has diabolḗ for calumniation or accusation, but not diábolos.

3. The LXX, too, has diabolḗ for calumniation, enmity, and diábolos for accuser, and it also uses

diábolos for the devil as the accuser, adversary, or seducer (1 Chr. 21:1; Job 1; Zech. 3:1ff.). [W.

FOERSTER, II, 71–73]

B. The OT View of Satan.

1. The ś’t’n is basically the enemy (cf. 1 Sam. 29:4; Ps. 71:13), but specifically the legal accuser (Zech. 3:1) who is placed at the right hand of the accused (cf. Ps. 109:6). Ezek. 21:28–29; 29:16 express the same concept in another term (cf. 1 Kgs. 17:18). On the prophetic view the enemies that God raises up against Israel are also accusers on God’s behalf (cf. 1 Kgs. 11:14ff.).

2. Job offers the picture of a heavenly accuser—not a demonic being, but an official prosecutor who comes before God at special times and is part of his entourage. This accuser can act against Job only with God’s approval and on God’s behalf. A sinister element enters in, however, with his power to use natural disasters and sickness. In Zech. 3:1ff. we again have the accuser at a trial, although here grace overrules law and the accusation is quashed. The OT references to ś’t’n are infrequent and the concept is not central. Only in 1 Chr. 21:1 (and possibly 1 Kgs. 22:19ff.) does the idea of a tempter occur. The legal element is still present in 1 Chr. 21:1 but Satan (now a proper name) is hostile and harmful. As distinct from Persian dualism, Satan is still under God and the event recorded is not removed from the divine plan of salvation. The OT Satan embodies a threat from God’s world, whether as divine prosecutor or as destructive principle. In postcanonical works we find an absolutizing tendency in which Satan is the chief of a hostile kingdom and an absolute principle of evil. Behind this are many motifs, e.g., the ancient dragon, the serpent of paradise, and marriage with angels, in addition to the impact of Persian ideas.

[G. VON RAD, II, 73–75]

C. The Later Jewish View of Satan. The few OT references undergo considerable development in pre-NT Judaism. The following points may be noted: a. Azazel and his hosts are subjugated to Satan; b. demons are autonomous; c. the main function of Satan is still that of prosecutor; and d. there is no fall of Satan from heaven. In the main, Satan aims to disrupt the relation between God and humanity, or Israel, by temptation (e.g., of Abraham or David), by accusation before God, and by interference in Israel’s history. Satan may be resisted by good decisions, human merit or suffering, external aid (Moses, Michael, or the angels), and even by God himself. Satan is not the lord of this world, and although he is sometimes linked with the evil impulse, this is not a force that enslaves us. In some works Satan does not occur at all, being replaced by, e.g., angelic witnesses or several satans. Since all these ideas are fluid, Satan can sometimes be depicted as an exalted angel expelled from heaven, linked with legends about demons and the evil impulse, and even related in Gnostic fashion to the material world, but these are deviations from the main tradition. In this context one should consider names like Sammael and Azazel.

D. The NT View of Satan. As regards names, we find Belíar in 2 Cor. 6:15, Satanás and diábolos in Revelation, and such terms as ho ponērós, árchōn toú kósmou toútou, theós toú aiṓnos toútou, árchōn tḗs exousías toú aéros, as well as drákōn and óphis. Satanás is perhaps closer to Palestinian usage than diábolos; the two alternate in John and Revelation, while Paul usually has Satanás but diábolos occurs in Ephesians and the Pastorals. The two main features of the NT concept are the antithesis between God and Satan and the presence of God’s kingdom in Christ. In opposition to God Satan is prince or even god of this world (Lk. 4:6; 2 Cor. 4:4), claiming the honor that belongs to God. The unredeemed are under his lordship (Mt. 6:13; Mk. 3:27; Acts 26:18; Col. 1:13). They belong to him (Jn. 6:70; 8:44; 1 Jn. 3:8; Acts 13:10). Their works are works of the diábolos (1 Jn. 3:8). His aim is to separate from God. A murderer (Jn. 8:44) and liar (1 Jn. 3:8), he uses various hurtful processes (Mk. 3:23ff.; Lk. 13:11, etc.). The demons are subject to him. His ultimate weapon is death (Heb. 2:14). He is behind paganism and magic (Acts 13:10). If he is still the accuser, the whole of this aeon is finally his. Nevertheless, with Christ the

kingdom of God destroys the devil’s kingdom, and Satan is cast from heaven (Rev. 12; Jn. 12:31; Lk. 10:18), so that he loses the right of accusation. This does not happen without a struggle against Christ, as at the temptation (Mt. 4:1ff.), and at the end (Lk. 22:31). Conflict continues with the community (cf. Acts 5:3, and the warnings of Rom. 16:20; 1 Cor. 7:5; 1 Th. 2:18; Eph. 4:27, etc.). Satan especially desires to snatch away the seed that is sown (Mk. 4:15). But the battle has been won (1 Jn. 2:13), and the church may thus resist with confidence (Eph. 6:10ff.). In the end-time Satan will summon up antichrist and enjoy some temporary success (Rev. 13:2; 2 Th. 2:9–10), but he will then be bound for the millennial period and after another brief interlude destroyed. While Satan is given certain powers by God, and can prevent journeys (1 Th. 2:18) or tempt believers (1 Tim. 5:15), the community is so secure in faith that the blows of his angel (2 Cor. 12:7) and delivering up to Satan (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20) can come within God’s gracious operation. In 1 Tim. 3:11 and 2 Tim. 3:3 the meaning is “calumniator.” “Devil,” however, is the more probable sense in Jn. 6:70 and Eph. 4:26–27. This is also suggested by the use of the article and the singular in 1 Tim. 3:6–7, although “calumniator” is also possible here.

→ Satanás [W. FOERSTER, II, 75–81]

diangéllō → angéllō; diagongýzō → gongýzō; diathḗkē → diatithēmi; diairéō, diaíresis → hairéomai

diakonéō [to serve], díakonía [service], diákonos [servant, deacon]

diakonéō. This word for service, as distinct from douleúō (to serve as a slave), therapeúō (to serve willingly), latreúō (to serve for wages), and leitourgéō (to do public service), carries the basic nuance of personal service.

A. diakonéō outside the NT.

1. The concrete sense is basic: a. “to wait at table,” b. “to care for,” and c. (comprehensively) “to serve.” For the Greeks service is undignified; we are born to rule, not to serve. Service acquires value only when it promotes individual development, or the development of the whole as service of the state (or ultimately as service of God). If this demands some renunciation, the idea of self-sacrificial service finds little place.

2. In Judaism, service is not thought to be unworthy; hence a deeper understanding of it develops. The LXX does not use diakoneín, but has leitourgeín, latreúein, and even douleúein. Philo has diakoneín for “to serve” with an echo of waiting at table. Josephus has it for “to wait at table,” “to obey,” and even “to render priestly service”. The commandment to love one’s neighbor offers a solid basis for sacrificial service, but in later Judaism tends to be weakened by the distinction between the righteous and the unrighteous and the construing of service as meritorious rather than sacrificial.

B. diakoneín in the NT. By exalting service and relating it to love of God, Jesus both sets forth a completely different view from that of the Greeks and purifies the Jewish concept.

1. The sense “to wait at table” occurs in Lk. 17:8; Jn. 12:2. An astonishing reversal takes place when the returning master rewards his servants by waiting on them (Lk. 12:37). Jesus himself is similarly present as one who serves (Lk. 22:27). Hence when he asks who is greater, the one who sits at table or the one who serves, the obvious answer that the Greeks would give is wrong. Yet Jesus does not substitute an answer that is theoretically opposite. Instead he points to himself, for as the Son of Man who is also Lord of the kingdom, he institutes a new pattern of human relationships which extends even to waiting at table or washing the feet (Jn. 13:4ff.). In Acts 6:2 diakoneín means “to supervise the meal,” i.e., its whole provision, preparation, and organization. This diakoneín as love in action is set in tension with the diakonía toú lógou as the proclamation of love. Most likely what was involved was not just the

distribution of portions to those in need but the arranging of common meals, and the radical issue might well have been that of table fellowship rather than wrangling about the better portions; if so, the appointment of the Hellenistic Seven takes on added significance. diakoneín is also used for Martha’s serving in Lk. 10:40 (cf. Jn. 12:2) and that of Peter’s mother-in-law in Mk. 1:31. When the angels serve Jesus in Mk. 1:13; Mt. 4:11, they, too, are probably bringing him food after the period of fasting.

2. The wider sense “to serve” reflects the same transvaluation of values as the narrower meaning. Waiting at table may well be included in Lk. 8:3, but the term covers many activities in Mt. 25:42ff. Here service of others is service of Christ and involves personal commitment. Worldly rulers lord it over their subjects but the concern of the disciples is with God’s kingdom, the way to which leads through suffering and death that has service as its point. Hence the only path of greatness for Christians is to become the servants and even the slaves of all (Mk. 9:35; 10:44). More than table service is now involved; all kinds of sacrificial activity on behalf of others, as exemplified by Christ’s own self-offering, are required. Service of others is service of God, and it may entail service even to the point of death itself (Jn. 12:25–26).

3. The life of the community is thus a life of serving. Every chárisma is given (1 Pet. 4:10) in stewardship, and the charísmata comprise gifts of word and gifts of action, the latter especially being described as diakoneín. Timothy, Erastas, Onesimus, and Onesiphorus (Acts 19:22; Phlm. 13; 2 Tim. 1:18) offer examples. The prophets rendered an advance service (1 Pet. 1:10ff.), and the apostles also do service (cf. 2 Cor. 3:3: “a letter diakonētheísa by us”). This service cannot be proud, self-righteous service; it is discharged only by God’s power and to his glory.

4. A particular service of Paul’s is the collection for Jerusalem (2 Cor. 8:19). Thus he uses diakonṓn when he says that he goes to Jerusalem with help for the saints (Rom. 15:25). This is a single instance of the more general service of the saints which is commended in Heb. 6:10

5. In 1 Tim. 3:10, 13 diakoneín has the official sense “to serve as a deacon.” diakonía.

1. In the NT this first means “waiting at table,” “providing for physical sustenance”, or “supervising meals” (Lk. 10:40; Acts 6:1).

2. A wider meaning is “the discharge of a loving service.” The diakonía of Stephanas is an example (1 Cor. 16:15). It is linked with works, faith, love, and patience in Rev. 2:19. All that edifies is covered in Eph. 4:11–12. There are various ministries (1 Cor. 12:4ff.), but all are rendered to the Lord. Acts of care must have been included (1 Cor. 12:28). diakonía comes between prophēteía and didaskalía in Rom. 12:7, but preaching is itself diakonía in Acts 6:4, i.e., the offering of the gospel as the bread of life. Preachers, then, have a ministry of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18–19). The angels are a model (Heb. 1:14). If trying to live by the law is a ministry of death, faith in the gospel is a ministry of the Spirit or of righteousness (2 Cor. 3:7ff.).

3. A more specific sense is “the discharge of certain obligations,” e.g., by the apostles (Rom. 11:13; 2 Cor. 4:1), evangelists (2 Tim. 4:5), or assistants such as Mark (2 Tim. 4:11). Activity in office is the point in Col. 4:17, though whether Archippus is a deacon or not is uncertain.

4. The collection is a diakonía (Rom. 15:31; 2 Cor. 8:1ff.; cf. Acts 11:29–30); it is no incidental matter, but a true act of Christian love.

diákonos.

A. General Uses of diákonos.

1. “Waiter at a meal” (Jn. 2:5, 9).

2. “Servant of a master” (Mt. 22:13). Christians are servants of Christ (Jn. 12:26), but as such must serve one another (Mk. 9:35; Mt. 20:26).

3. Figuratively “servant of a spiritual power” (2 Cor. 11:14–15; Eph. 3:6–7; Gal. 2:17). In Rom. 15:8 the point is that Christ is a servant of Israel. In Gal. 2:17 the idea might be “promoter” (by allowing table fellowship with Gentiles, Christ is extending the realm of lawbreakers), but “servant” is possible if the thought is that of Christ indwelling the believer who is found a sinner.

4. As a diákonos of the gospel, the apostle is a servant of Christ (2 Cor. 11:23) or of God in a special way and with special cares and responsibilities (2 Cor. 6:3ff.). Paul often uses doúlos in this connection (Rom. 1:1 etc.; Tit. 1:1).

5. By his ministry Timothy, too, is a servant of God (1 Th. 3:1ff.) or of Christ (1 Tim. 4:6). Epaphras is a fellow servant (Col. 1:7), and Tychicus a servant in the Lord (Eph. 6:1).

6. Pagan authorities are servants of God appointed to maintain order (Rom. 13:1 ff.).

7. Paul calls himself a diákonos of the church (Col. 1:25) because of his divine commission. He and Apollos are servants of God and the church as they use their gifts to bring people to faith (1 Cor. 3:5). B. The Deacon as a Church Official.

1. Sometimes diákonos is used for the bearer of a specific office (translated diaconus, not minister, in the Vulgate) (cf. Phil. 1:1; 1 Tim. 3:8, 12). In Phil. 1:1 deacons are mentioned along with bishops. It is unlikely that these are two terms for the same people, but we are not told what the offices involve. Deacons are also found alongside bishops in 1 Tim. 3, which tells us that they are to be blameless, temperate, with one wife, ruling their houses well, not double-tongued or avaricious, holding the faith with a clear conscience. That their duties were those of administration and service may be deduced from the title, the qualities demanded, their relation to bishops, and the use of diakonía in the NT. That they took their origin from the Seven of Acts 6 is unlikely in view of the work of the Seven in evangelizing and preaching, but there may be an indirect connection. Two offices perhaps arose on the model of the archisynágōgos and hypērétēs in the synagogue, although these served only in worship, and direction of the synagogue was in the hands of the elders. The terms, unlike the parallel presbýteros, were taken from the Gentile world, being adapted from a mainly secular use to describe developing functions in the churches. In the secular world diákonos could be used to describe such varied people as messengers, stewards, bakers, assistant helmsmen, and even statesmen. The use in the LXX was also secular, as in Prov. 10:4. Josephus, however, calls himself a diákonos of God, and for Epictetus the Cynic is a servant of God. Cultic connections can also be seen on inscriptions, but usually with some reference to the serving of food. In the church this original sense persists, since providing food is a model of practical service and a common meal stands at the heart of worship. Like bishops, deacons emerge fully with the passing of the first apostles, prophets, and teachers (cf. 1 Clem. 42.1ff. and its use of Is. 60:17; also Did. 15.1; Hermas Visions 3.5.1). With the development of a single bishop, deacons become more subordinate to the bishop, and a threefold structure is worked out, with more explicit directions for the work of deacons, and in Rome, e.g., the allocation of seven districts to the seven deacons.

2. An order of deaconesses also arises. Phoebe is a diákonos in Rom. 16:1; the reference is probably to an office, although some see more general service. In 1 Tim. 3:11 we may have either deaconesses or the wives of deacons. Later an order has in fact developed in which widows play a special part, and in some places virgins. This order was never strong in the west, and decayed in the Middle Ages. [H. W. BEYER, II, 81–93]

diakrínō, diákrisis → krínō; diallássō → allássō

dialégomai [to converse], dialogízomai [to ponder, discuss], dialogismós [discussion, doubt]

dialégomai. From the basic sense “to converse,” we go to a. “to negotiate,” b. “to address,” c. “to speak.” The LXX uses the word for a. “to speak” (Is. 63:1), and b. “to treat with” (Ex. 6:27) or even “contend with” (Judg. 8:1). In Josephus dialégomai means a. “to discuss,” b. “to make a statement,” and c. “to treat of something.” In Philo it refers either to conversation or to divine or human speech.

Discussion is not at issue in the NT, where 1. Heb. 12:25 has in view God’s address, 2. Acts 17:2; 18:4, 19 the public lectures Paul gave, and 3. Mt. 9:34 and Jude 9 disputing—in the former case that of the disciples among themselves, in the latter the dispute between Michael and the devil about the body of Moses.

dialogízomai.

A. dialogízomai in the Greek and Hellenistic World. The following are the main senses: 1. “to balance accounts,” 2. “to ponder,” and 3. “to discuss” (sometimes technically for “to hold a convention” for administrative or judicial purposes).

B. dialogízomai in the NT.

1. The first meaning is “to ponder” (Mark and Luke). The addition en taís kardíais makes this clear in Mk. 2:6. Lk. 3:15; it is unnecessary in Lk. 1:29; 12:17.

2. The second meaning is “to converse, discuss” (e.g., Mk. 8: 16; 11:31; Lk. 20:14). The absence of en taís kardíais shows that this is the probable sense in Lk. 5:21; in v. 22 Jesus traces back the external utterance to the internal source.

dialogismós.

A. dialogismós in the Greek and Hellenistic World. The meanings are 1. “reckoning,” 2.

“deliberation,” with the nuances “thought” and “plan,” 3. “discussion,” 4. “convention,” and 5. “judicial inquiry.”

B. dialogismós in the NT.

1. “Evil thoughts” is the predominant sense in the NT (Lk. 2:35; Mk. 7:21; Lk. 9:47; Rom. 1:21). In view of the more flexible LXX use, we see here how deep is the NT conviction that our sinful nature extends to our thinking and our very heart.

2. Sometimes the term denotes “anxious reflection” or “doubt” (Lk. 24:38: torturing doubts; Rom. 14:1: worrying about trifles; Phil. 2:14: murmuring; 1 Tim. 2:8: probably questioning rather than contention).

3. “Discussion” or “argument” is probably the sense in Lk. 9:46.

4. “Bad decisions” rather than deliberations or thoughts fits best in Jms. 2:4. [G. SCHRENK, II, 93– 98]

diamartýromai → martyréō; dianóēma, diánoia → noéō

diasporá [dispersion]

A. diasporá outside the NT.

1. Outside the biblical sphere the only use seems to be for the dispersion that we are to leave behind in a movement toward divine harmony.

2. The LXX uses the term for the dispersion of Israel among the Gentiles (Dt. 30:4; Neh. 1:9), or for the people as thus dispersed. There is no technical Hebrew term corresponding to the technical use of the Greek diasporá; such varied expressions occur as leading away, deportation, and exile.

3. The milder Greek term probably developed because passage of time softened the harsh experience, voluntary emigration took place, and the final benefits mitigated the idea of divine judgment (Is. 35:8; Jer. 23:24). Jews are recorded in some 150 places outside Palestine, are enabled to gain new adherents, and thus regain a sense of pride. Only with the loss of a national center after A.D. 70 does the wound of expatriation become more severe again in spite of the attempts of Josephus to gloss over its significance.

4. Philo in his one use of the term seems to be psychologizing the actual situation (as he does Abraham’s migration from Ur); he divests the idea of eschatological significance and understands it in an ethical sense.

B. diasporá in the NT.

1. The NT has the customary use in Jn. 7:35, when it is asked whether Jesus will go to the dispersion and teach the Greeks (either Hellenistic Jews or Greeks among whom the Jews of the dispersion reside).

2. In Jms. 1:1 and 1 Pet. 1:1 a question arises whether the authors have in mind Christian Jews, in which case the sense is literal, or Gentile Christians, or Christians in general, in which case it is probably figurative. In Jms. 1:1 the “twelve tribes” are most likely Christians, who are now the people of God with the heavenly Jerusalem as their true home, so that at present they, too, are dispersed among the nations. If this is the reference, the recipients are simply Christians, both Jews and Gentiles. In 1 Pet. 1:1 the nature of the genitive (without article) causes some difficulty; it may be partitive if Jewish Christians are being singled out, or epexegetical or qualitative if the reference is to all Christians. In any case, the deeper meaning is probably theological, as in Jms. 1:1. “Exiles” and “dispersion” are not tautological; the one word looks to the land in which the recipients are strangers, the other to the land which is their true home.

[K. L. SCHMIDT, II, 98–104]

diastolḗ → stéllomai; diastréphō → stréphō; diatagē, diatássō → tássō

diatíthēmi [to control, arrange], diathḗkē [testament, covenant]

diatíthēmi. This word has such varied meanings as “to distribute,” “to establish,” “to dispose,” “to handle,” “to put up for sale,” “to expound,” “to lecture.” The only senses that are important in relation to the NT are a. “to control by free choice,” b. “to make a testamentary disposition,” and c. “to make an arrangement.” The LXX mainly has sense c. but with a clear suggestion of disposing (cf. Gen. 9:17).

1. In the NT we find “to determine,” “appoint” in the eschatological promise of Lk. 22:29. No idea of making a will is present. As the Father by free resolve has ordained a kingdom for Jesus, so by a similar free resolve he has ordained that the disciples should reign with him. Elsewhere the term is used with diathēkē (Acts 3:25; Heb. 8:10) to denote God’s sovereign disposition in salvation history.

2. In Heb. 9:16,17 ho diathémenos means “the testator.” [J. BEHM, II, 104–06] diathḗkē.

A. The OT Term b^erîṯ.

1. Equivalents to the LXX diathēkē. The LXX mostly uses diathḗkē (270 times) for Heb. b^erîṯ and only occasionally for other words, normally where there is the implication of a legal relationship (cf. “testimony” in Ex. 27:21, or “law” in Josh. 4:16).

2. Etymology and Terminology of b^erîṯ Attempts to establish the etymology have been unsuccessful. A connection has been seen with bārâ, “to eat bread with,” but in actual usage no connection with meals can be established. Nor is there much support for a basis in a similar dubiously attested root meaning “to perceive” or “to determine” (1 Sam. 17:8). The Akkadian birītu (“bond”) calls for consideration but has no sure backing. Nor does the usage offer much help. “Cutting” suggests a sacrifice. The covenant may be “with” or “between.” Terms such as “to be in,” “to break,” “to transgress” are common but are too colorless to bring out the local sense, and “to establish,” “to keep,” and “to maintain” show merely that we have something fixed and valid.

3. The Concept of the Covenant in the OT. Two main groups of statements call for discussion, those in which the covenant is between God and humans, and those in which it is between humans. There are also some figurative instances. In view of the two types of covenant, it is tempting to see a distinction between

religious and secular covenants, but since the former follow the same legal pattern as the latter, and the latter have sacral assurances, it is better to seek the distinction in the purpose and the resultant nature of the covenants. When humans alone are concerned, the covenant is legally determined; when God is a participant, the legal notion is used to clarify a theological situation. We thus have a legal covenant on the one hand and a theological covenant on the other (although also with a legal aspect). The point of the theological covenant, however, is not merely to bring legal order into religion; to the extent that it does this, it still expresses a genuine insight of faith. Analysis of the covenant leads us to the living basis of OT religion, since it raises the question of our standing with God. The covenant alone, of course, does not answer this question, nor should we use it as a kind of common denominator of Israel’s history. Yet it is a distinctive concept, much used by those who, like Ezekiel, have legal interests, less so by the preexilic prophets. Its prominence is due to its simplicity as a concept which crystallizes decisive historical experiences and preserves the truth in them.

4. The Covenant as a Legal Institution. As regards human covenants, the example of David and Jonathan is instructive. When Jonathan covenanted “with” David, he placed under legal guarantee a spontaneous love which seemed to demand self-commitment for its definitive confirmation. The legal concept thus supports the deep friendship. While simply giving recognition and confirmation to it, it also makes it a legal fellowship with sacral guarantees. It is thus contracted in the presence of Yahweh and with the taking of a mutual oath. Personal exchange precedes it (1 Sam. 18:4), so that David becomes as Jonathan himself. In many instances, of course, the element of affection is less strong and hence the legal aspect is the more prominent. Thus Laban proposes a covenant with Jacob because of the mutual lack of trust (Gen. 31:44ff.). A cairn is built to record the event. An appeal is also made to God as witness or judge. An oath is taken, and relatives are invited to a sacral meal. The following points are important: a. the use of the word “to cut”; b. the divine attestation; c. details of the agreement; d. the oath; e. the sacrifice; and f. the sharing of a common meal. There might be variations in individual cases, but solemn agreements would always follow a similar pattern. The social significance of the covenant is high, since it was in virtue of it that the tribes came together and the monarchy was established. Blood relationship is the first bond, but this is extended by the legal fellowship embodied in the written covenant. Where blood relationship is plain, the legal bond exists already; where it is less plain or absent, an analogous legal relationship is set up by the covenant, which makes the participants brothers and sisters with a totality no less valid than that of blood relationship. Hence no firmer guarantee of peace, security, and loyalty can be established, especially since regard for the covenant is also a religious duty (cf. Am. 1:9). The significance of blood in the ritual may be connected with kinship (cf. Ex. 24:8; Zech. 9:11). The ritual of Gen. 15:8ff. seems to support this. Here Yahweh himself makes covenant with Abraham to allay the latter’s insecurity, but the procedure is similar to that which was probably followed in a human covenant (cf. Jer. 34:18b, where the judgment for falsity to the covenant corresponds to the cutting up of the calf in the ceremony). Whether or not sacrifice is involved here may be debated, but in time the ritual is less important; the covenant itself becomes the true heart of the matter as relations become more complex. The covenant with Assyria in Hos. 12:1 represents an international extension which weakens the original significance, since different divine authorities are appealed to and the responsibility of the participants is consequently diminished. The emergence of the covenantal aspect brings to light the fact that usually the participants are not equals; the granting or guaranteeing of security plays an important part, and this means that there is often an initiative on the one side whereby an imposition of will takes place. This is especially important when we come to the theological covenant.

5. The Theological Covenant. This arises when God is one of the participants and not merely a guarantor. Parallels to the OT exist wherever a family relationship with the deity is discerned (cf. a phrase like “Baal of the covenant” in Judg. 8:33, and also the national or social compacts between kings and gods), but nowhere except in the OT does this ordering of the relation between God and his people become a comprehensive system with ultimately universal implications. The concept arises early, for the confederation that was liberated from Egypt seems to have derived its strength from the idea of a theological covenant with Yahweh with its fixed promises and obligations. Such an idea presupposes an

actual event whereby God elected Israel, and Israel in return elected God (cf. Ex. 24:8; 34:10; Josh. 24). If in Josh. 24 it is Joshua rather than God who takes the initiative, he does so only because God is already the God of Israel who brought Abraham out of Ur, freed the tribes from Egypt, and gave them the promised land. Israel is thus bound to acknowledge Yahweh. When it does so, a covenant is made “with” the people, the terms are written in a book, and a stone is erected in witness. Since God is king, this covenant has all the poetry of kingship, the theocracy is legally recognized, and yet at the same time, since it is God who is king, the divine initiative and legal obligation have an added force. The transcendent events attending the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai express the added solemnity even though the meal that is held in the divine presence preserves the thought that close fellowship with God is instituted and confirmed. The narrative in Ex. 24 admirably expresses the fact that something new is introduced which runs quite contrary to ordinary religious experience. The basic thought is that God is willing to act to give his people shalom. God gives Israel the assurance that he will be her God if she walks in his ways, and Israel declares that she will be his people, and keep his laws, on the understanding that he will set her high above all nations (Dt. 26:17–18). If a pedagogic element seems to be present here, which almost assumes the parity of the partners, we also find a healthy stress on the knowledge of God that accepts his will and sees that its aim is fellowship, so that God’s dealings are not incalculable, and the impulse to approach God is freed from paralysis and referred to the norm of the command. What is echoed here is the experience of Judg. 6:24: The Lord is shalom. This is presupposed even when Hosea transfers the concept to the more emotional sphere of marriage, when Amos questions the privileges of a disobedient Israel, and when Jeremiah (30–31), seeing the danger of clinging to God purely on the ground of legal obligation, looks forward to the new covenant in which the law is written on the heart and its

observance is thus self-evident. [G. QUELL, II, 106–24]

B. The Greek Term diathéké

1. This word is used in classical and Hellenistic Greek for “order,” “institution.”

2. It is also a technical term in law for “last will and testament”; in the Hellenistic period the testator has full powers and his orders are binding.

3. Aristophanes uses the term once for “agreement” or “treaty.”

4. Dubiously attested is “ordinance” or “disposition,” but there are hints that this was a common sense before it narrowed down to “last will and testament.”

C. The Transition from b^erît to diathéké in the LXX and Jewish Literature.

1. In using diathḗkē for b^erîṯ the LXX has a covenant or legal compact in view. It seldom uses the real Greek word for “treaty,” i.e., synthḗkē. When God is the author of a diathḗkē, a treaty relationship is at issue, but the link with such words as nómos, entolaí, and krímata shows that an “ordinance” is often what is really meant. Even when a treaty relationship is suggested, God’s disposing is the dominant factor. This is due in part to the meaning of the Greek word, but also to the fact that the translators see that the Hebrew term itself goes beyond the idea of a contract and conveys the idea of a binding expression of the divine will. To be sure, diathḗkē brings out this element more strongly, so that the new covenant of Jer. 31:31ff. can be conceived of only as a divine gift of grace, a declaration of God’s saving will in relation to which Israel can be only a recipient. We thus have a significant development of the Hebrew term even though its essential content is preserved.

2. The apocrypha and pseudepigrapha present a similar picture, relating diathḗkē to the law, using synthḗkē for “treaty,” construing the holy covenant as God’s revealed will, and finding its content in the promised salvation. Thus a combination of legalism and eschatological hope marks the use of b^erîṯ in the Damascus Document.

3. Philo uses synthḗkē for “treaty” and reserves diathḗkē for the divine “disposing.” In his allegorizing he imports the Greek sense of “last will and testament,” but he realizes that this is not the true sense in the LXX, and the LXX concept of God’s gracious will (revealed in history) shines through the enveloping imagery.

4. Rabbinic Judaism maintains the legal side, considers the many covenants, relates the covenant to circumcision, reflects on the blood of the covenant, and in connection with Jer. 31:31ff. stresses the writing of the law on the heart.

D. The NT term diathḗké

1. diathéké in Paul. Of the 33 NT instances nine are in Paul. (Seventeen of the others are in Hebrews, four in the Synoptics, two in Acts, and one in Revelation.) In Gal. 3:15ff. the legal language shows that Paul is borrowing an illustration from Hellenistic law; as a valid will cannot be contested or altered, so God’s original “testament” cannot be changed by the law. The point is not that God’s diathéké is like a human will, simply that it has the same inviolability. In Rom. 11:27 God’s saving disposition in history is obviously the meaning. The covenants of Rom. 9:4 are the declarations of God’s will in the OT with their promises and commands. In Eph. 2:12, again, the covenants are covenants of promise. In 2 Cor. 3:6 the new covenant of which Paul is a minister is related to the gospel and marked by the Spirit, so that we are reminded of Jer. 31:31ff. The old covenant, too, is God’s. Hence it has its own glory and has been transcended only because its provisional conditions cannot be met. The same comparison occurs in the typology of Gal. 4:24ff.: the slave Hagar represents the Sinai covenant which reduces to bondage, the free Sarah the heavenly covenant which grants liberation. Both are orders in the divine history; they are distinguished only by the different conditions prevailing in them. In Paul, then, the covenant is understood strongly in terms of divine operation and unconditional validity. The one divine will governs salvation history and climaxes in Christ who is both the télos nómou (Rom. 10:4) and the fulfilment of every promise (2 Cor. 1:20).

2. diathéké in Hebrews. In Hebrews the situation is much the same as in Paul. With other legal terms, diathéké is used by way of illustration in the popular sense of “last will and testament” in 9:16–17. Yet even here the new covenant of which Christ is a mediator bears the distinctive OT sense, for it involves redemption from the sins committed under the first covenant. The idea of a will is introduced only as a comparison to show why the death of Christ is necessary for the fulfilment of the covenant. Obviously the comparison cannot be pressed, and it certainly does not fix the meaning of diathéké elsewhere, e.g., in 8:8ff.; 9:15; 12:24. The central concept in Hebrews is that of the new covenant. This replaces the old covenant which was given at Sinai (9:20), was linked to the cultus (9:14), and involved transgressions (9:15). It carries the gifts of salvation whose guarantor is Christ. His blood, then, is the blood of the covenant (10:29; cf. Ex. 24:6). By his heavenly priesthood he fulfils the first and imperfect covenant. The two declarations of God’s saving will, in their relationship and distinction, are typologically construed.

3. diathéké in the Synoptists. Only Luke (including Acts) uses diathéké to any extent. In Lk. 1:72 the context shows that the reference, as in the OT, is to the declaration of God’s will in promise, salvation, and self-commitment. The age of salvation means mercy in remembrance of the diathéké, and thus testifies to God’s rule over time and history. The use in Acts 3:25 is similar; God’s saving will is a reality in Jesus. Acts 7:8 bears a reference to circumcision (Gen. 17:10). In Mk. 14:24 (cf. Mt. 26:28; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25) Jesus calls the wine at the Lord’s Supper the blood of the diathéké, or the new diathéké in his blood. The point is that the blood, or death, of Jesus establishes the new diathéké and the wine represents it. The saying is based on Jer. 31:31ff. (and possibly Is. 42:6; 49:8). There is no idea of a last will and testament. Jesus by his death effects God’s saving will. The new covenant is correlative to the kingdom. As the kingdom expresses God’s lordship, the covenant expresses the saving will of God that constitutes its goal and insures its validity. In both form and content, then, the NT use of diathéké follows the OT use except that we now pass from prophecy to fulfilment. The diathéké is God’s disposing, the mighty declaration of his will in history, by which he orders the relation between himself and us

according to his saving purpose, and which carries with it the authority of the divine ordering. [J.
BEHM, II, 124–34]

diaphérō — phérō; diaphtheírō, diaphthorá — phtheírō

didáskō [to teach], didáskalos [teacher], nomodidáskalos [teacher of the law], kalodidáskalos [teacher of what is good], pseudodidáskalos [false teacher], didaskalía [teaching], heterodidaskaléō [to teach strange doctrine], didachḗ [teaching], didaktós [taught], didaktikós [able to teach]

didáskō.

A. didáskō outside the NT.

1. Common from Homer, this word denotes teaching and learning in the wide sense of imparting theoretical and practical knowledge with the highest possible development of the pupil as the goal. There is little religious use, and the term has a strong intellectual and authoritative bearing. Thus it can also mean “to demonstrate.” When used in connection with choral training, it comes almost to have the sense “to perform.”

2. It occurs some 100 times in the LXX (mostly for the root lmd). While various kinds of instruction can be meant (cf. 2 Sam. 22:35; Dt. 31:19), God’s will is the special object, with a volitional as well as an intellectual reference. God himself, the head of a house, or the righteous may do the teaching. As distinct from secular usage, where the aim is to develop talents, the OT relates teaching to the totality of the person.

3. In later Judaism teaching signifies instruction in the law for the right ordering of the relation to God and neighbor. The secular use may still be found (e.g., teaching a trade), but to give teaching in the law, or even to give a scholarly exegetical opinion, is the predominant sense.

B. didáskō in the NT. Of some 95 instances, almost two thirds are in the Gospels and Acts (and only ten in Paul). The unambiguous meaning is “to teach.”

1. The didáskein of Jesus according to the Synoptists.

a. didáskein is one of the main functions of Jesus (Mt. 4:23; 9:35; 11:1). He teaches in the synagogues (Mt. 9:35) and the temple (Mk. 12:35) as well as outside.

b. The form of his teaching is that of a typical teacher of the age. At Nazareth he reads Scripture, seats himself, and expounds the passage (Lk. 4:16ff.). He also sits to teach in Mt. 5:1ff.; Mk. 9:35; Lk. 5:3.

c. The material of Jesus is also traditional. He starts from Scripture in Lk. 4:16ff.; Mt. 5:21ff. Yet he does not stop at the law and opposes casuistic exposition. He aims to order all life in relation to God and neighbor (Mt. 22:37ff.), appeals to the will, and calls for decision for or against God. Like the rabbis, he finds a revelation of God’s will in Scripture (cf. Mt. 5:17–18). The main difference lies in his own self-awareness as the Son. It is in virtue of his person that his teaching causes astonishment (Mk. 1:22; Mt. 7:28–29). Thus, while he will not absolutize the law, he follows its true line of teaching by claiming the whole person with a view to education and reformation. In this sense he is the end of the law (Rom. 10:4), and the Gospels can refer to teaching in the absolute when they speak of the teaching ministry of Jesus. While this is the common rabbinic use, it would sound odd to Greek ears. Yet even Luke has it, for the connection with Jesus himself gives his teaching an absolute sense.

d. A novel feature in the Gospels is the absence of the intellectual emphasis which is common everywhere else among Greek writers (classical, postclassical, Hellenistic, and even Jewish Hellenistic), and which develops in rabbinic exegesis in an effort to check the disintegrating force of Hellenism, so that in some circles studying the law can be ranked higher than doing it. In this respect Jesus with his total claim represents what is perhaps a truer fulfilment of the OT concept.

2. didáskein in the Johannine Writings.

a. Many of the passages here follow the same pattern of use as in the Synoptic Gospels. There are, however, some distinctive verses. In Jn. 9:34 the idea that the man born blind might teach them is indignantly rejected by the opponents of Jesus. In Rev. 2:14, 20 the reference is to the teaching of Balaam and Jezebel. Other verses, which need separate treatment, deal with the teaching of God and the Spirit.

b. In Jn. 8:28; 14:26; 1 Jn. 2:27 the use of didáskein suggests the presence of direct inspiration or revelation. No Hellenistic models have been found for this; it is best to understand it in the light of the

teaching of Jesus. Thus the idea in Jn. 8:28 is that of the unity of will of the Father and the Son. In 14:26 the disciples are given a share in this as they continue the ministry of Jesus. In 1 Jn 2:27 this teaching by anointing (the Spirit) offers a safeguard against false teachers who also raise total claims. If the meaning in these verses verges on “to reveal,” it is because the subject of teaching is Jesus himself. Similarly in Lk. 11:1 didáskein expresses the thought of a readiness for total subjection to the direction of Jesus and is thus parallel to the confession in Mt. 16:13ff. and Jn. 6:60ff.

3. The didáskein of Early Christianity.

a. Even during the life of Jesus, the disciples, too, begin to teach (Mk. 6:30). It becomes part of their commission in Mt. 28:20 as a presupposition of either baptízein or mathēteúein and with Jesus’ own didachḗ as its content. In Acts 4 the apostles teach in the name of Jesus (v. 18), proclaiming resurrection (v. 2). If this involves OT interpretation, it culminates in a call to repentance. In outward form, they, too, follow Jewish practice (cf. Acts 5:25). Exegesis and exhortation form the main body of teaching, even at times to the point of instruction in the law (Rom. 2:21; Acts 15:1). In this respect a new beginning has to be made in view of the fulfilment of the law in Jesus (Heb. 5:12).

b. Christian teaching, then, aims primarily to show from Scripture that Jesus is the promised Messiah. In this sense it is “teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ” (Acts 8:31). The combination with kērýssein here gives a comprehensive picture of the apostles’ work. They impart facts, but in such a way that one must either accept them or reject Scripture. Opponents, of course, saw here a teaching contrary to Moses and the law (Acts 21:21, 28). The word of God that Paul taught in Acts 18:11 probably has the same sense, not of the general message of salvation, but of the message of salvation on the basis and in the light of OT Scripture.

c. If Paul uses the term didáskein infrequently, this is probably because he worked in circles where the OT was less known. For him, therefore, teaching is the instruction that is given to churches at their founding (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21) so as to strengthen them against Jewish attacks. In Rom. 12:7 the setting is edification and thus the reference is probably to those who give directions for Christian life. In Col. 1:28; 3:16 didáskein occurs with noutheteín in a pastoral and ethical connection. It is used similarly in 1 Tim. 4:11; 6:2; 2 Tim. 2:2; Tit. 1:11 except that now there are official teachers. Tit. 1:11 shows that the link with Scripture is still intact. If Paul does not seem to make the OT a book of ethical instruction, he obviously uses it in his own teaching (cf. Rom. 3:31). But he seeks to base his didáskein primarily on that of Jesus (cf. Gal. 5:14), on his love and self-sacrifice even to the death of the cross (Phil. 2:1ff.). In this way he prevents disruption through the interposition of particular teachers (cf. Mt. 23:8).

didáskalos (→ rhabbí).

A. The Usage and Character of didáskalos among the Greeks.

1. The Usage. This word is attested from the Homeric hymns, the feminine also occurring. It means “instructor” as a. “schoolmaster” or b. “chorus master.” Since dramatists often acted as players and directors, it also came to have the sense of “poet.”

2. The Character of the Word. The rational and technical element is strong from the outset. The teaching of skills and development of aptitudes is especially included. The word is apposite wherever systematic instruction is given. Thus Philo can apply it to a priest giving instructions about leprosy, and for him God, too, is the teacher of the wise, with a strongly intellectualistic bias.

3. The Consequences of the Character of the Word for the Use of didáskalos. The character of the word enables us to see why Socrates rejects the term, Epictetus adopts it, and the LXX for the most part avoids it.

a. Socrates in Plato Apologia 33ab will not be called a didáskalos because he does not want his statements to be made into a binding system. He does not disparage the intellectual, but aims to carry the person beyond this to moral action. He also seeks to do this for everyone, and thus resists the formation of schools.

b. In contrast Epictetus is proud to be called a didáskalos, for as the teacher of a system he is helping to bring his followers to perfection (Dissertationes 1.9.12).

c. The LXX has didáskalos only in Esth. 6:1 and 2 Macc. 1:10. In Esther the use is the regular Greek one, but in Maccabees Aristobulus is called didáskalos as an expositor of the law, so that the word has a special meaning (parallel to didáskōn) as one who gives direction in the way of God. The general use for paid or official teachers worked against its more widespread adoption in this sense.

B. didáskalos in the NT.

1. The Usage.

a. The term occurs 58 times in the NT. 48 instances are in the Gospels, 41 refer to Jesus (29 in direct address), one to the Baptist, one to Nicodemus, one to the teachers among whom the boy Jesus sat, two to the teacher in relation to the disciple. Elsewhere there are references to didáskaloi as a group in the churches (Acts 13:1; 1 Cor. 12:28–29; Eph. 4:11). The author calls himself a didáskalos in 1 Tim. 2:7,; 2 Tim. 1:11. In Rom. 2:20; 2 Tim. 4:3; Heb. 5:12 the context gives us the sense.

b. The usage shows that when Jesus is addressed as didáskalos, the term, unlike kyrios, does not denote any special respect. The relation between teacher and disciple as set forth in Mt. 10:24–25 is in accord with the usual rabbinic pattern. The teacher here is one who expounds the divine will as laid down in Scripture. When the term is applied to others such as the Baptist or Nicodemus, it consistently means a person who indicates the way of God from the law.

2. Jesus as didáskalos.

a. The addressing of Jesus as didáskalos shows that outwardly he fits the picture of a rabbinic teacher. He teaches as the latter does, and has a similar band of students around him. The parallel use of rhabbí in Jn. 1:38; Mt. 26:25; Jn. 3:2 helps to confirm this. So does the performance by the disciples of many of the duties of disciples, e.g., rowing the boat (Mk. 4:35ff.), handing out food (Mk. 5:37ff.), procuring the donkey (Mk. 11:1ff.), and preparing the Passover (Mt. 26:17ff.). Others, too, honor Jesus as a teacher, e.g., Peter’s mother-in-law (Mt. 8:15), Martha (Lk. 10:40), and the ministering women (Lk. 8:3).

b. Jesus, then, does not arouse hostility by his manner or by what he teaches, for even scribal circles recognize that he teaches God’s way in truth (Mt. 22:16). To be sure, he has not received official instruction, but he might still have founded a school, debated his opinions, and been widely tolerated. He does not do this, and consequently stirs up violent opposition, because he raises an absolute claim, and does this, not just as a prophet, but in his own name, associating himself directly with God as the responsible bearer of his will who is one with him. He offers himself both as the one who fulfils the law and as the way to its fulfilment (Mt. 5:17, 20).

c. The person of Jesus gives didáskalos a new weight. It stamps him as the new Moses who gives the law a universal sweep. This explains why he can simply be called ho didáskaos (Mt. 26:18), and why the term is not appropriated by the disciple. Acceptance of the rule of Mt. 23:8 is not just a formality. It is a recognition that salvation is only in Jesus, that he is the absolute didáskalos, and that Moses finds himself fulfilled in him (Jn. 5:45–46). If the term plays little part in primitive Christian proclamation, it is because an event (the crucifixion and resurrection) is the central thing rather than a body of teachings.

3. The didáskaloi of the Early Christian Community.

a. The references to Christian didáskaloi in Acts and the epistles are in keeping with Jewish and early Christian usage. Thus in Jms. 3:1, especially if the letter is early or derives from rabbinic Judaism, the meaning is the expositor of the law who makes a right fulfilment possible.

b. In 1 Cor. 12:28–29, Eph. 4:1, and Acts 13:1 didáskaloi are mentioned after or with (apostles and) prophets. Again they are expositors who edify by their clearer understanding. The order is material, not hierarchical. The apostles are giving way to pastors and the evangelists to teachers. Similarly in 1 Tim. 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:11 the work of teaching constitutes a part of Paul’s apostleship which the teachers will continue.

c. A change takes place in the early church when in Alexandria, e.g., a new intellectualization takes place with the invasion of Greek wisdom and the teacher is the one who represents an intellectual Christianity and gives instruction in it.

nomodidáskalos (→ nomikós). This word, not found in secular Greek, the LXX, Josephus, or Philo, occurs three times in the NT. The scribes are ―teachers of the law‖ in Lk. 5:17; so is Gamaliel in Acts

5:34; the term is then used ironically in 1 Tim. 1:7 for legalists who do not know what the law is all about and hence are not really called to teach it.

kalodidáskalos. Not attested outside the NT, this term occurs only in Tit. 2:3; the older women are to be “teachers of what is good,” especially to younger women.

pseudodidáskalos. Not found prior to the NT, this occurs only in 2 Pet. 2:1, with pseudoprophḗtai. The “pseudo-” suggests that both their claim and their teaching are false, as is shown by their rejection of Christ’s dominion over their lives.

didaskalía.

A. didaskalía outside the NT.

1. The word is common for “teaching,” “teaching activity,” “rehearsing,” and even “drama”; it has a strongly intellectual character.

2. Philo often has the term for objective teaching.

3. In three instances (Prov. 2:17; Sir. 24:33; 39:8) the LXX uses the word for divine instruction; once in the plural (Is. 29:13) it denotes human teachings that have no claim to absoluteness. (In Prov. 2:17 the LXX misreads the Hebrew.)

B. didaskalía in the NT.

1. The plural occurs in Mt. 15:9; Mk. 7:7 when Jesus quotes Is. 29:13 against the Pharisees and scribes. Col. 2:22 and 1 Tim. 4:1 also use the plural for other than divine teachings (i.e., human or demonic).

2. The singular occurs when God’s revealed will lies behind the teaching. Thus “teaching” (the activity) serves the community in Rom. 12:7. Scripture was written for our “instruction,” according to Rom. 15:4. The point in Eph. 4:14 is that we must be on guard against every variable wind which claims to be teaching, and hence to be God’s will. Doctrine here is not the individual error as such.

3. didaskalía is common in the Pastorals (15 of the 21 NT instances). The relation to God’s historical revelation (attested in Scripture and fulfilled in Christ) is plain in 1 Tim. 4:13; 2 Tim. 3:16 (possibly Tit. 2:10). “Sound doctrine” in 1 Tim. 1:10 etc. also means the teaching that relates to God’s saving acts and thus leads to salvation. “Good doctrine” in 1 Tim. 4:6 has the same sense but with a greater stress on content and practical effect. In general didaskalía is not a suitable word in Judaism and the NT, since the didáskalos has no didaskalía of his own. But it fits well in the Pastorals, where the readers tend to reject the didáskalos for false teachers and thus to reject the didáskalia which he is commissioned to proclaim and from which he cannot be separated.

4. In the early church the word comes to mean the “sum of teaching” which has come down from the apostles. The kerygma thus tends to ossify into dogma.

heterodidaskaléō. This word, which implies a heterodidáskalos (cf. Gal. 1:9), occurs only in 1 Tim. 1:3; 6:3 with reference to those who disseminate a different teaching, making peripheral matters the main issue (1:4ff.) and with a Judaizing stress on the law (v. 7).

didachḗ. This word means “teaching,” “instruction” as a fact. Its only LXX use is in the title of Ps. 60. In the NT it refers to the whole didáskein of Jesus in Mt. 7:28 etc., i.e., his proclaiming God’s will in both form and content. This is also the meaning in Jn. 7:16–17. The same applies when the didachē of the Pharisees and Sadducees is at issue in Mt. 16:12, of the apostles in Acts 5:28, of those who taught the Roman church in Rom. 6:17; 16:17, and of Paul in 1 Cor. 14:6. 2 Jn. 9–10 follows the same pattern, as does Revelation when speaking of the didachē of Balaam, the Nicolaitans, and Jezebel in 2:14, 15, 24. In Heb. 6:2, however, didachē means an established and formulated doctrine, and in 13:4 (plural) specific errors against which a warning is issued. The post-apostolic fathers build on this sense, but in the main the NT stress is on God’s teaching through Jesus and the apostles, with a consequent enhancing of the Christian sense of mission in its teaching ministry.

didaktós. This word has three senses: a. “taught,” b. “learned,” and c. “teachable.” It is used in the absolute in Jn. 6:45 (quoting Is. 54:13): “taught by God.” In 1 Cor. 2:13 the repeated didaktós (not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit) shows that Paul relates his distinctiveness to the source of his teaching.

didaktikós. Outside the NT, this term occurs only in Philo with reference to the learning of Abraham. In 1 Tim. 3:2; 2 Tim. 2:24 it is one of the requirements in a bishop. At a time when false teachers are arising, they must be “able to teach.” [K. H. RENGSTORF, H, 135–65]

dídōmi [to give], dṓron [gift], dōréomai [to give], dṓrēma [gift], dōreá [gift], dōreán [in vain], apodídōmi [to give back], antapodídōmi [to repay], antapódosis [retribution], antapódoma [repayment], paradídōmi [to hand over], paradosis [tradition]

dídōmi. Since love is depicted as a gift in the NT, dídōmi is a common term, especially in John. Jesus is what he is by God’s gift. God gives him his works (5:36), disciples (6:37), name (17:11), all things (3:35). Jesus himself gives his life (Mk. 10:45), himself (Gal. 1:4), his body (Lk. 22:19).

dōron, dōréomai, dṓrēma, dōreá. Philo regards this group as more lofty than dóma, dósis, but while the latter are rare in the NT, the distinction is fluid; cf. dóma for the divine gift in Eph. 4:8. dṓron is used for human gifts (Mt. 2:11), sacrifices (Mt. 5:33), money gifts (Lk. 21:1), and God’s gifts (Eph. 2:8). dōréomai means,”to give” (cf. Mk. 15:45; 2 Pet. 1:3). dṓrēma means “what is given” and describes God’s gifts in Rom. 5:16; Jms. 1:17. dōreá also means “gift” but with a legal nuance. It denotes God’s gifts in the NT, e.g., the Spirit in Acts 2:38; 8:20, etc.; Heb. 6:4, or more generally the gifts of God or Christ in Rom. 5:15; 2 Cor. 9:15; Eph. 3:7, but always with an implication of grace.

dōreán. “In vain.”, The basic sense is “for nothing” (Mt. 10:8; Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 11:7; 2 Th. 3:8; Rev. 21:6). Other meanings are “without cause” (Jn. 15:25) and “to no effect” (Gal. 2:21).

apodídomi.

1.a. “To give or do something in fulfilment of an obligation or expectation,” e.g., Mt. 20:8 (reward), 21:41 (fruits), Mk. 12:17 (taxes), Mt. 27:58 (Jesus’ body), Heb. 12:11 (fruit). b. “To repay as reward or punishment”: divine retribution in Mt. 6:4; Rom. 2:6; Rev. 22:12; human retribution in 1 Tim. 5:4. c. “To give back what has been received or kept” (Lk. 4:20 etc.). d. “To sell” (Acts 5:8; 7:9; Heb. 12:16.

2. The thought of divine retribution in the NT sets us impressively under threat and promise. This retribution is future and carries the promise of love and forgiveness as well as judgment. It brings out the personal nature of the relation with God. We do not do good for good’s sake but out of love of God and in recognition that we are his. It thus belongs to our very being to be subject to retribution. It is love that posits a creature that is under retribution. Only because of sin does retribution work against us. But since the root is in love, forgiveness is not incompatible with retribution. How God conjoins the two is the secret of his majesty, with which faith enjoys fellowship, but only in subjection to its holiness.

antapodídōmi, antapódosis, antapódoma. The antí- here strengthens the idea of recompense (cf. rendering thanks in 1 Th. 3:9, repaying love in Lk. 14:14, divine repayment in Rom. 12:19; Heb. 10:30). The derived noun antapódosis denotes the final divine retribution in Col. 3:24, while antapódoma is used for God’s repayment in the quotation in Rom. 11:9.

paradídomi.

1. This word is common in the passion story for the handing over of Jesus, e.g., by Judas in Mk. 14:10, by the Sanhedrin to Pilate in Mk. 15:1, by Pilate to the people’s will in Lk. 23:25 and to the soldiers for execution in Mk. 15:15. There are parallels in other trials (cf. Mt. 10:17; Acts 12:4).

2. The word has a similar sense in the formula “to hand over to Satan” in 1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20. Paul probably adopted this phrase; the idea that Satan executes divine judgment is in accord with Jewish belief.

3. The term also occurs for God’s judgment on sinners in Rom. 1:24ff.; Acts 7:42; cf. Eph. 4:19.

4. “To give up one’s spirit, body, or self” (Jn. 19:30; 1 Cor. 13:3; Gal. 2:20; cf. Rom. 8:32; 4:25) expresses willingness to die, or sacrificial love. The apostles are also “given up to death” (2 Cor. 4:11), though this is never said of Jesus.

5. In Mt. 11:27; Lk. 10:22 the word expresses the authoritative position of Jesus as Messiah or Son of God. All things (not just knowledge) are delivered to him by the Father; recognition of this is what is hidden from the wise and revealed to babes. Conversely, Christ hands back the kingdom to the Father according to 1 Cor. 15:24.

6. paradoúnai is a technical term when the object is teaching, e.g., tradition in Acts 6:14 (cf. Mk. 7:13), Christian tradition in Rom. 6:17; 1 Cor. 11:2, the holy commandments in 2 Pet. 2:21, the faith in Jude 3, the matter of the gospel in Lk. 1:2, the commands of the council in Acts 16:4. This paradoúnai is oral.

7. The sense “to commend to” occurs in Acts 14:26 (grace) and 1 Pet. 2:23 (the Judge). parádosis.

1. This word for “tradition” means “what is transmitted” rather than “transmission” in the NT. It has an unfavorable sense when used of the tradition that is added to the law, e.g., that of the elders in Mk. 7:3, 5, or of men in Mk. 7:8. Jesus rejects the validity of additions to the divine law. The use is more comprehensive in Gal. 1:14, embracing written as well as unwritten traditions.

2. Christian teaching is also tradition in 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15. It must be adhered to by the churches (1 Cor. 15:2). To be valid it must be handed down (1 Cor. 15:3) and must derive from the Lord (11:23), i.e., it must have divine authority. One may see from 1 Cor. 15:3ff. and 11:23ff. that it is older than Paul

and is already acquiring a fixed form in his day. [F. BÜSCHEL, II, 166–73]
diermēneutḗs, -neúō, -neía → hermēneúō

díkē [justice], díkaios [just, righteous], dikaiosýnē [justification, righteousness], dikaióō [to justify], dikaíōma [regulation], dikaíōsis [justification], dikaiokrisía [righteous judgment]

The Concept of Law in the OT. This concept influenced all social relationships so strongly that it affected theological reflection on the fellowship between God and man. Law is the basis of the OT view of God, and the religious use of legal concepts helps in turn to ethicize the law. Many terms are used to express the relations between God and man, and the conduct governed by these relations.

1. The richness of the Hebrew usage is well expressed by the díkē group, especially dikaioήnē and díkaios. (For the relevant Hebrew terms, the statistical distribution, and the equivalents, see TDNT, II, 174–75.)

2. It is a basic tenet in the OT that God posits law and is bound to it. Recognition of this is a unifying factor in Israel’s faith. All law comes from God, and hence God’s authority extends to all Israel’s historical relationships. God’s law is an order of life that cannot be changed or challenged. It is righteous because he is righteous. His ways are right; they thus give us life and security. He is a righteous ruler and judge, as shown already in the victory celebrated in Judg. 5:11. His righteousness extends to other nations, so that order is seen in the world. The righteous can thus appeal to him with confidence when they are the victims of hostility and oppression (Ps. 5:8).

3. God’s righteousness is not just static but dynamic. He establishes as righteous those who seek his righteousness. The righteous, then, are those who show fidelity to God’s command (Hab 2:4) and whom God vindicates against their enemies. This vindication may not be synonymous with success. Misfortunes suggest at times that God’s judgment means condemnation. Refuge must then be sought in God. But even

from this place of refuge a sense of right may be discerned in God (Ps. 62:7ff.). The torment of doubting God’s righteousness constitutes the grief of Job. We have to be able to take God’s right for granted in his dealings with us, even if it must sometimes be projected into a higher sphere than that of human understanding. [G. QUELL, II, 174–78]

díkē.

A. The Idea of Law in the Classical and Hellenlstic Greek World. Law, religious, political, and ethical, forms the basis and center of Greek thought and society. The starting point is the goddess Dikē. This goddess then becomes the divine, universal, and triumphant principle of law in Solon. With Theognis righteousness transcends mere justice and comprehends all political and ethical norms. The etymology of díkē, while much debated, seems to support this broader usage. The root means “to give direction,” “to indicate,” “to posit,” “to establish.” Hence díkē itself has the sense both of indicating and of what is indicated or established. We thus have the following development. 1. What is established becomes a state or manner, so that díkē means a. what is customary, b. what is proper, and c. what has to be. 2. Legally, what is established is what is laid down by law as a. law, b. legal case or plea or decision, and c. punishment.

B. díkē in the NT. Apart from the variant in Acts 25:15, díkē occurs only three times in the NT, always for punishment. It is retributive justice (even perhaps Dikē) in Acts 28:4, and eternal judgment in 2 Th. 1:9 and Jude 7.

díkaios.

A. díkaios in the Greek and Hellenistic World.

1. General Usage and Meaning. Linked with díkē, díkaios suggests a. conforming to custom, b. fulfilling obligations, and c. observing legal norms. There is also d. an ethical use whereby díkaios, having significance for the whole of life, relates to the four cardinal virtues. The use here is static; even in Plato it ultimately refers to inner order. In Josephus díkaios means virtuous (with a hint of faithfulness to the law). In Philo the righteous have achieved a healing righteousness and are the true prop of the human race. Both Josephus and Philo use díkaios to describe the OT saints, and they can both say (Josephus less frequently) that God himself is díkaios. In the further development of the concept e. comparatives and superlatives become common. The word is also often used f. to describe things as “good,” “right,” “legal,” or “exact,” “correct” (weights etc.), and even “fertile” (the earth). g. We also find a neuter use tó díkaion or tá díkaia for “what is lawful or right” (e.g., what is due, or retribution, or duty). Along these lines the term may characterize OT law, or law in general, or natural law. h. díkaios may be used with several verbs in such phrases as speaking or doing what is right. i. díkaión estin is a common phrase for “it is right, or fitting, or meritorious.”

2. díkaios in the LXX. While the usage here is similar to that elsewhere, OT motifs also exercise a strong influence. The díkaios is the person who fulfils obligations to God and the theocratic society. We have a righteous cause before God only as we meet the demands of God. In the background, God himself is righteous; he is consistent in himself and unswervingly faithful to his covenant promises. He does not merely dispense justice as the righteous God; he also grants salvation (Ps. 116:5).

B. The Righteous in the Synagogue.

1. The Righteous. A distinction is made here between the righteous and the ungodly which serves the concept of rewards and counts on human ability to keep the law. The righteous are those whose merits outweigh their faults. A more detailed division lists those who keep the law fully, those who do more bad than good, those who do equal good and bad, and finally the penitent. The patriarchs are put in the first class, and many teachers are listed among the righteous. The prayers of the righteous turn God’s thoughts from severity to mercy.

2. The Messiah as the Righteous. The Messiah is righteous because his whole nature and action conform to God’s will. He is often called “our righteousness.” Applied to him are Jer. 23:5; 33:15; Zech. 9:9, and only later Is. 53:11b. The messianic age will be an age of righteousness (Eth. En. 38:2). Revelation in the coming time of salvation will be particularly for the righteous.

C. díkaios in the NT. NT use draws on the OT and differs sharply from the Greek use (based on the idea of virtue) except in customary or traditional modes of expression which are not closely connected in any case with the Greek conception.

1. Greek and Hellenistic Contacts. When Pilate’s wife calls Jesus díkaios in Mt. 27:19, she probably means no more than “innocent” or “morally righteous.” The same applies to Pilate’s saying in Mt. 27:4, that of the centurion in Lk. 23:47, and Herod’s saying in Mk. 6:20. Formally Paul echoes Greek terminology in Phil. 4:8 but obviously he has in mind action in accordance with God’s will. The same is true in Tit. 2:12. Everyday usage may be found in 2 Pet. 1:13; Lk. 12:57; Mt. 20:4; Phil. 1:7, but added depth is given by “in the sight of God” in Acts 4:19 (cf. 2 Th. 1:6).

2. The Dependence on the OT and Its Supersession.

a. In content the NT draws largely on the OT. Thus God is díkaios in his judgments (cf. Rev. 16:5; 1 Pet. 2:23; Jn. 17:25). Hence his law is also just (Rom. 7:12). But his justice is shown above all in the atoning death of Jesus (Rom. 3:26). God is thus righteous as he who both judges and saves (cf. also 1 Jn. 1:9). This thought rests on the OT but with Christ’s sacrifice as the new factor.

b. When applied to Christ as Messiah, díkaios refers first to his fulfilment of God’s will (Acts 3:13– 14; 7:52). But again his innocent death is supremely in view (cf. Mt. 27:4; cf. Acts 22:14). The vicarious nature of this death (“the just for the unjust”) comes out in 1 Pet. 3:18 (cf. 1 Jn. 2:1). Yet those who belong to this righteous one must themselves do right (1 Jn. 2:29). Seeking only God’s will, he pronounces just judgment, not going only by appearance (Jn. 5:30; 7:24; cf. 2 Tim. 4:8).

c. díkaios can be used for the patriarchs (Mt. 23:35), the OT saints (2 Pet. 2:7), and the prophets (Mt. 13:17); cf. the innocent blood of the martyrs (Mt. 23:35). Fidelity to the law is often at issue, but with a stress on the relationship with God in the parents of the Baptist (Lk. 1:6), Simeon (Lk. 2:25), and Cornelius (Acts 10:22). Joseph deals righteously with Mary in Mt. 1:19. The NT adopts the distinction between the díkaios and hamartōlós (or ádikos) but gives it an ironical twist, since all are called to conversion, and while righteous zeal finds recognition (cf. Rom. 5:7), there is a stern rejection of mere appearance or complacency (Mt. 23:28; Lk. 20:20; 18:9). There will be a resurrection of the just (Lk. 14:14), but the context shows that love constitutes the díkaios.

d. díkaios sometimes denotes the disciple as a person who truly keeps the law or does God’s will. One who receives the righteous receives the reward of the righteous (Mt. 10:41). The díkaioi will be separated from the ponēroí (Mt. 13:49). The díkaioi at the last judgment are those who have practiced love (Mt. 25:37). James has disciples in mind when he says that the righteous are oppressed by the rich (5:6) and that their prayers have great power (5:16). What is said about the OT saints is similarly transferred to Christians in 1 Pet. 3:12; Heb. 12:23; Rev. 22:11. It is Paul who tells us how they become díkaioi.

e. Paul can accept the distinction between the righteous and the wicked. The díkaios is one who as a doer of the law will be vindicated by God’s sentence (Rom. 2:13). On the other hand, no one is righteous by doing the law, for all are under sin (3:10). One becomes díkaios by receiving God’s dikaioήnē as the power and salvation of God. This reception is by faith. In support Paul adduces Hab 2:4 (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). Only the díkaios will attain to life; but life can be attained only by faith, hence the díkaios is the one who is justified by faith. Rom. 5:19 looks ahead to the judgment, when sinners will be presented or made righteous by God’s sentence. In 1 Th. 2:10, however, present conduct is the theme; we are righteous as we act according to divine law. In 1 Tim. 1:9, in contrast to a false use of the law, Christians are díkaioi because they use their freedom in a way that comports with the divine norm. The bishop must be díkaios (Tit. 1:8) in the same sense, unless the point is that he should reach just decisions.

dikaiosýnē.

A. Secular and General Religious Usage.

1. dikaioήnē in Greek Ethics. Words with -ήnē develop with abstract thought, and dikaioήnē, closely related to the Greek sense of law, occurs commonly as a virtue. It denotes a. the civic virtue of observance of law and fulfilment of duty, b. virtue as such, c. one of the cardinal virtues, and d., in mysticism, the power of virtue with which the initiate is invested.

2. The Legal View of the Term. The idea in law is that of distributive justice, i.e., allotting what is due.

3. dikaioήnē in Josephus and Philo.

a. Josephus has the term for divine justice and human virtue (as a part of piety).

b. Philo speaks of the righteousness of God in the sense of his revelation when he inquires into what is right. He has a highly developed ethical conception in which dikaioήnē is the chief cardinal virtue which originates in the soul when its three parts achieve harmony, and whose work is healing, peace, and joy. It is meritorious, although in the last resort God himself gives it.

B. Righteousness in the LXX.

1. The Righteousness of God. How far does dikaioήnē do justice to the Hebrew concept of ṣeḏeq with its strong legal and covenantal component? In the later chapters of Isaiah the idea of a legal dispute is present; God intervenes judicially for the oppressed, so that salvation is closely linked with righteousness. God’s righteousness in his judicial reign means that in covenant faithfulness he saves his people. On the whole the LXX expresses this well with its use of dikaioήnē, while also relating it to divine judgment.

2. The Righteousness of Man. The meaning here is observance of God’s will (Is. 5:7). There is a close link with truth, e.g., in Wis. 5:6.

C. Righteousness in the Synagogue.

1. The Righteousness of God. The rabbis do not speak about God’s righteousness along the lines of Rom. 3:21. (Dt. 33:21 is construed differently.) The Messiah is called righteousness with a connotation of mercy.

2. Righteousness as Human Action. For the rabbis this is especially almsgiving or benevolence, which is one of the most meritorious of works.

3. The Basis of the Rabbinic View. The underlying idea, discernible in the LXX, is that every observance of the law is meritorious. Standing before God depends on whether the good or bad predominates. Alms and works of charity are especially helpful. The last judgment decides whether merit or transgression is greater.

4. The Relation of the Justice of God to His Mercy. In Psalms of Solomon, Jubilees, and the like God’s righteousness and mercy are related. God may exercise unexpected mercy in virtue of his righteousness. The rabbis, too, state that the measure of mercy is greater than that of strict justice. Righteousness, then, is thought of as mercy. As mercy is better than legal rigidity even in human justice, so it is with God. Yet uncertainty remains when divine justice and mercy are balanced against one another, for in the first instance the two are sharply contrasted.

D. dikaiosýnē in the Non-Pauline writings of the NT.

1. dikaioήnē as Just Judgment and Rule. The word can sometimes denote God’s just judgment at Christ’s return (Acts 17:31; Rev. 19:11; cf. Mk. 16). In 2 Pet. 1:1 it has the sense of God’s just rule in guiding the community. The justice of rulers is the point in Heb. 11:33. An odd use is in Heb. 5:13, which seems to indicate that a child cannot understand correct speech.

2. dikaioήnē as Right Conduct before God. Except in Paul’s formula dikaioήnē theoú, the main use is for right conduct that accords with God’s will and is pleasing to him. The fact that the relation to God is in view brings this into line with OT thinking.

a. Matthew. This is the consistent usage in Matthew. Jesus is baptized so as to do what is right with God (3:15). The hungering and thirsting of 5:6 is for a right state before God. Yet this righteousness is God’s gift (6:33). It is to be sought with his kingdom. It brings persecution (5:10). It includes the practice of piety (6:1). The way in which the Baptist came is that of right conduct (21:32).

b. Luke. The word has the same sense in Luke. Holiness and righteousness are conjoined in the messianic expectation of 1:75. In Acts God seeks and recognizes uprightness, i.e., what is pleasing to him, even among pagans (13:10; 24:25), although this doing of righteousness does not avail to salvation.

c. Peter. The picture is similar here. Forgiveness is the presupposition of a life of uprightness (2:24). Suffering comes for the sake of this (3:14). Noah represents it (2 Pet. 2:5). The libertines leave the way of righteousness (2:21), but the new world will be governed by it (3:13).

d. Hebrews. The same applies here. Christ’s exaltation rewards his righteousness in 1:9. Melchizedek is devoted to righteousness in 7:2 (and thus typifies Christ). Noah inherits righteousness, i.e., an

acceptable life as the fruit of faith, in 11:7. Conformity to God’s will results from training, according to 12:11.

e. John. The main difference in John is a more consistent christological understanding; all righteousness is linked to Christ the díkaios (cf. Jn. 16:8, 10). Doing right in 1 Jn. 2:29 demonstrates what Christ embodies as díkaios. Its main content is love for one another (3:10). Thus, as Matthew finds in righteousness a gift of God, and Peter bases it on forgiveness, John finds it to be possible only through commitment to Christ.

3. dikaioήnē in James. In Jms. 1:20 the righteousness of God is right conduct that is given its distinctive form by God. Life in agreement with God’s will is viewed as a fruit in 3:18. How we can be righteous before God is dealt with in 2:23–24. The concern here is to combat a dead orthodoxy that divides faith and works. The works that justify are not legalistic observances but the works of loving obedience that Paul calls the fruit of the Spirit. Abraham was justified by a faith which found fulfilment in works. If Paul could hardly have stated the matter in this way, we have to remember that this formulation is more popular in character, and that the practical concern, namely, that the only valid faith is one that produces works, is very much in line with the total proclamation of the NT, including that of Paul himself.

E. dikaioήnē in Paul.

1. Origin and Presupposition of the Pauline Message of Justification. Legal righteousness forms the starting point. The law is a law of righteousness because it demands righteousness (Rom. 9:30). Those who do righteousness live by it (10:5). But this is impossible except for the relative blamelessness of Phil. 3:6. dikaioήnē cannot be achieved by way of law (Gal. 2:21). Salvation is by divine mercy, not in virtue of deeds that we have done in righteousness (Tit. 3:5). In the struggle to understand this, which leads him into conflict with a legalistic Judaism, Paul comes to a new and comprehensive concept of the righteousness of God which offers a new insight into the relation of the law and Christ. The roots are to be found in the OT teaching concerning the judgment of God, the sinful bondage of humanity, the collapse of synagogue piety, and the dependence on God’s gracious intervention in Christ if there are to be righteous people who enter into true fellowship with God.

2. The Meaning of the Pauline Use of dikaioήnē theoú and the Main Elements in the Doctrine of Justification. As used by Paul, the theoú in the term dikaioήnē theoú is a subjective genitive. This is God’s righteousness, into which we are set. It is a conjunction of judgment and grace which God demonstrates by showing righteousness, imparting it as forgiveness, and drawing us into his kingdom, as the last judgment will fully manifest.

a. The Whole of Humanity. This righteousness of God is not just an individual experience; it is a universal happening in Christ on behalf of the whole race.

b. The Divine Action. It is not just an attribute but shows God at work with an efficacy no less than that of his wrath (cf. 1:17; 3:5, 17, 25–26).

c. The Center in the Cross. It is in the cross that the saving action takes place. But the resurrection is closely associated with the crucifixion, so that justification is not just a declaration, but has a historical core. For this reason Christ may be called our dikaioήnē (1 Cor. 1:30; cf. Rom. 10:4).

d. God Both Is and Demonstrates Righteousness. God is righteous (Rom. 3:25), but his righteousness is an expression of grace that also displays his justice in the concrete form of an act of atonement (Gal. 3:13; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 8:3). Thus justice and grace are actively united for all time and at the deepest level. This means that antinomian laxity is excluded, for forgiveness is an act of judgment which

expresses God’s uncompromising No to sin. God’s righteousness is judicial and gracious at the same time in the one act of salvation in Christ.

e. Forensic Justification. God’s righteousness means justification. Righteousness is forensically ascribed to believers. God’s judgment achieves this by remission. The justification is no mere “as if,” for God’s sentence is sovereign. Nor is it the attainment of moral rectitude. The justified are “right” before God. The forensic element, of course, is only a figure, for we are not in the sphere of human justice, but are dealing with the divine Judge who is also unlimited King. We have thus to transpose the legal aspect into the divine key. An act of grace replaces ordinary legal procedure. But this grace, as the legal concept

shows, is not capricious. It conforms to true right. The image of God as Judge is tenable inasmuch as human law does to some extent express imperishable divine norms. But it must be understood in terms of the divine act that strictly finds no human parallel.

f. The Relationship to the Term áphesis, the dōreá Now Imparted, and the State of Justification. Paul sometimes uses words like aphiénai or katallássein (Rom. 4:7; 5:9–10), but he uses dikaioήnē to show that forgiveness has its basis in the divine right. dikaioήnē is also given and imparted now (Rom. 3:24– 25; 5:1; 8:30; 9:30; 1 Cor. 6:11), so that it is God’s action as radical deliverance. It is dōreá both imparted and received (Rom. 5:17). This imparting governs the whole life of faith; hence one can call justification a state (Phil. 3:9). At the same time, God’s righteousness is always that which he displays as well as that which he imparts. Multiplicity in the use of the phrase is justified because the righteousness is always finally and exclusively God’s.

g. dikaioήnē and pístis. We are drawn into this righteousness by faith. This is the individual side, though it is not individualistic, for individuals become members of the body, and everything depends on the objective divine act. Thus believers are justified when they are washed and receive the Spirit (1 Cor. 6:11), yet not magically (1 Cor. 1:17), for dikaioήnē precedes the sacrament (Rom. 4:11). God’s pardoning dikaioήnē issues an authoritative summons which does not make the divine act dependent on the human response but which means that the divine objectivity of salvation is that of a saving relationship, so that “by faith” is used adverbially to define it (Rom. 3:21; cf. 3:26–27). This faith, of course, is not itself to be set in isolation as a psychological force or a virtue or a meritorious work. It is related to its object and is a gift of divine grace, so that logízesthai (“to reckon”) implies the very opposite of merit.

h. dikaioήnē as the Object of Hope. Present salvation also implies future salvation. Justification is here already, declared in history and grasped in faith as a present reality. Yet its promise transcends time, so that here and now it has an interim character. Faith, then, involves a hope that looks forward confidently to the final sentence but also impels to resolute action. dikaioήnē is an object of hope in Gal. 5:5, and the verb dikaióō is often in the future tense (cf. Gal. 2:16; Rom. 3:20; 5:19), or carries a reference to the last judgment (Rom. 5:19; cf. also 10:4ff.). For Paul a last judgment by works does not contradict justification by faith. Judgment has for him a radical depth as the essential background of justification. He can thus preserve a tension between solid confidence and false security. Justification brings us up against the full seriousness of God as this is expressed at the cross. The absolute norms attested by the last judgment both give the cross its validity and impel us to obedience, thus offering full protection against any antinomian perversion.

i. Justification and Mysticism. Justification and the pneúma are closely linked in 1 Cor. 6:11; Rom. 10:8–9; Gal. 5:5; cf. also Gal. 3:2, 5 and Rom. 3:28. Justifying faith is also closely linked with union with Christ (Gal. 2:16ff.; cf. 2 Cor. 5:21), where in virtue of Christ’s vicarious work we are God’s righteousness “in him.” Justification, however, safeguards us against any idea of mystical union with God. The expressions are figurative, like the legal phrases; the linking of legal and mystical phraseology shows us that only pneumatology can fulfil the work of justification.

j.dikaioήnē as the Power of the New Life. God’s justifying action is not quietistic. It leads to the rule of grace (Rom. 5:12ff.), which is the rule of righteousness. Believers are drawn into the movement of God’s righteous rule. This is a movement toward eternal life, so that dikaioήnē and life are interwoven (Rom. 5:17, 21). Through the Spirit, our spirits are alive on account of righteousness (Rom. 8:10–11). For Paul the process of salvation is not a closed one. There is an obedience that leads to righteousness (Rom. 6:16). The pardoning righteousness that is given commits us to righteousness as a living power that breaks the bondage of sin. Hence, while righteousness is not a state or quality, it becomes right action in Rom. 6:16; cf. 2 Cor. 6:7, 14, the fruit of righteousness in Phil. 1:11, righteousness as the substance of the fruit of light in Eph. 5:9, the breastplate of righteousness in Eph. 6:14, training in righteousness in 2 Tim. 3:16, and the crown of righteousness in 2 Tim. 4:8. Justification means subjection to the living power of the creative divine righteousness.

k. The Relation of dikaioήnē to aretē in Pauline Writings. The Hellenistic concept of virtue does not occur in the NT, but with the stress on éthos as opposed to gnōsis the Pastorals bring out the element of truth in it when they list dikaioήnē with such exercises as faith, love, peace, and patience (cf. 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:22). Faith and love, however, show the difference of content.

dikaióō.

A. dikaióō in Greek and Hellenistic writings (including Josephus and Philo).

1. A first meaning (from Pindar) is “to validate,” “to establish as right.”

2. We then find the more general meaning “to regard as right,” with such nuances as “to judge,” “to grant,” “to agree,” “to desire,” “to demand.”

3. Another sense is “to treat someone rightly,” “to secure justice for someone,” either negatively as in “to pass sentence,” “to condemn or punish,” “to pass sentence of death,” or positively as in “to represent someone’s cause.”

4. In mysticism, we find the sense “to become sinless.”

B. dikaióō in the LXX, Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and the Synagogue. In the LXX the use is forensic but mostly in the positive sense “to pronounce righteous,” “to vindicate.” Thus we find 1. “to acquit,” “to prove innocent,” “to champion someone’s cause,” and occasionally “to make pure.” We also find 2. a use for divine or human vindication. Intransitively in the passive the meaning in Gen. 44:16 is 3. “to justify oneself.” (For details see TDNT, II, 212–14.)

C. dikaióō in the NT. In general we almost always find a legal connection here. 1. An unusual meaning in Rev. 22:11 is “to exercise righteousness.”

2. Divine vindication is a common reference (Lk. 7:29; Mt. 11:19; Rom. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:16).

3. “To justify oneself” occurs in Lk. 10:29 (a weaker application) and Lk. 16:15.

4. “Acquitted” or “declared righteous” is the meaning in Lk. 18:4, and with a clear reference to the last judgment in Mt. 12:37.

5. In Paul we first find a. a legal use. The wicked are justified by faith on the basis of God’s gracious action in Christ. This justifying is a saving acquittal which takes place in the present. It has the objectivity of relationship, enacted at the cross and apprehended in faith. The sense in Gal. 2:16–17 is that of being righteous in God’s eyes. The idea of judgment is always present, but dikaioún is a present act of grace through Christ. Yet Paul’s use of the term b. also makes a contribution to the question of experience (cf. Gal. 3:8, 11; Rom. 3:24). Once-for-all justification at the cross and personal justification in faith go together. Justification is a finished work of grace, yet the term “by faith” (cf. Gal. 2:16; 3:8, 11) shows that it is also a continuing present, so that we cannot sever the objective act and subjective apprehension. As regards the last judgment, Paul relates dikaioún c. to a sentence that is passed in our favor on the whole of our life’s work (cf. 1 Cor. 4:4). Whether or not this is always meant when the future is used is by no means certain. The reference is undoubtedly to the last judgment in Rom. 2:13, but in context the point here is that no one can stand before God as the righteous Judge. Rom. 5:19 probably has an eschatological reference, but here the divine justification enacted at the cross and known as a continuing gift will be consummated in definitive acquittal (cf. Rom. 8:24, 33). With apó, d., the verb has the sense of liberation from, as in Acts 13:38–39 (where forensic justification is again the issue). Paul has this usage in Rom. 6:7: crucifixion with Christ means liberation from sin. The basis here is the rabbinic idea of expiation through death. This shows how closely Paul links justification and atonement. The new feature is that this liberating death is that of identification with Christ in his vicarious death.

6. dikaióō in James. James speaks three times about being justified by works. The reference is to present justification. Abraham is a righteous man whose works are recognized. This is not said in polemic against Paulinism but in order to stress that true faith is not idle but active (Jms. 2:21ff.).

dikaíōma.

A. dikaíōma outside the NT. This term has such varied (legal) senses as a. “ground or claim,” b. “written proof,” “document,” “validation,” c. “decree,” “statute,” “ordinance,” d. “sentence,” “punishment,” and e. “right action” (sometimes as “restitution”).

B. dikaíōma in the NT.

1. The most common sense in the NT is “statute,” “ordinance,” especially the divine ordinances in Lk. 1:6; Rom. 2:26; Heb. 9:1 (cultic regulations), or God’s moral decree in Rom. 1:32, or the whole law of God in Rom. 8:4.

2. The word is then used for a “right action” in fulfilment of a legal requirement.

a. With reference to Christ it occurs in this sense in Rom. 5:18 (materially cf. Phil. 2:8). The idea that the meaning here is “sentence of justification” (as in v. 16) hardly meets the parallelism and would entail a subjectivizing of dikaíōsis zōḗs.

b. The reference in Rev. 15:4 is to God: his “righteous acts” (or judgments).

c. The “righteous deeds” of the saints are meant in Rev. 19:8.

3. What is at issue in Rom. 5:16 is the “sentence of justification” (katákrima being the opposite). Paul can easily change the sense in v. 18, and thus show that Christ’s righteous life underlies our justification, because of the different antonym.

dikaíōsis.

A. dikaíōsis in Greek Generally. This rare word denotes the validation of the legal norm by punishment, defense, or demand, or it may denote the execution of personal preference. We thus find it for a. “punishment,” b. “vindication,” c. “demand,” d. “arbitrary judgment,” and e. “statute.”

B. dikaíōsis in the NT. In Rom. 4:25 it has the sense of justification by divine acquittal. The second diá here denotes the goal. The point is not that the resurrection is needed to actualize justification. For Paul Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection are indissolubly united, so that the parallelism of the statement corresponds to the parallelism of the matter. The death is on account of our sins, the resurrection with a view to our justification. In Rom. 5:18 the sentence of justification is again at issue. It is once more related to life as its goal. This life begins here and now, but carries a forward look to the consummation (just as sin will finally result in condemnation).

dikaiokrisía. This rare and late term denotes “righteous judgment,” whether as a quality or with reference to the last judgment. In the NT it occurs only in Rom. 2:5, where it refers very definitely to the day of wrath when God, in contrast to those who do the evils they condemn, will judge righteously. 2 Th. 1:5 has dikaías kríseōs as two words. That God’s judgment is righteous will be revealed in that the persecuted will be granted rest but their persecutors will receive appropriate retribution. [G. SCHRENK, II, 178–225]

diórthōsis → orthós; dikostasía → aphístēmi

dichotoméō [to cut in two]

In Mt. 24:51 the reference is obviously to punishment. Behind the term, which means “to cleave,” is the ancient penalty of cutting in two with the sword or saw. [H. SCHLIER, II, 225–26]

dipsáō [to be thirsty, long for], dípsos [thirst, longing]

1. Literally “thirsting.” “I thirst” in Jn. 19:28 realistically depicts Jesus’ desire for refreshment on the cross. We are to help the thirsty (Rom. 12:20). The apostles suffer thirst (1 Cor. 4:11). In heaven there will be no more thirst (Rev. 7:16).

2. Figuratively “passionate longing for a spiritual good” (Mt. 5:6), especially salvation (Jn. 7:37). This longing is met in Christ (Jn. 4:14; 6:35).

The idea that giving drink to the thirsty is an act that is pleasing to God is common in the ancient Near East. For a figurative use in the OT cf. Am. 8:11; Ps. 42:2. [J. BEHM, II, 226–27]

Additional Note: dipsáō and cognates in the LXX.

1. The LXX formulates the idea of yearning for salvation. The typology of God’s supply of water in the desert (a thirsty land) is important here.

2. Thirst as a figure for the longing for salvation also occurs in Is. 41:18 etc. with a transition to the idea of eating and drinking in God’s kingdom (Lk. 22:30).

3. Thirst also depicts the torments of the damned (cf. Lk. 16:24) on the basis of the idea that thirst, and death from it, is a divine punishment. [G. BERTRAM, II, 227–29]

dípsychos → psychḗ

diṓkō [to impel, follow zealously]

1. “To impel” as a. “to set in motion” (intransitive “to ride,” “march,” “row,” or, generally, “hasten”) and b. “to persecute,” “expel,” in the papyri “to accuse,” common in the Psalms for religious persecution. In the NT we find 1.a. in Lk. 17:23: “Do not run after them,” and Phil. 3:12: “I hasten toward the goal.” But 1.b. is more common for religious persecution (e.g., Mt. 10:23; 23:34; Jn. 5:16; Acts 7:52). Persecution is a test (Mt. 5:44) and a privilege (Mt. 5:10 etc.).

2. “To follow zealously” as a. “to attach oneself to a person” or b. “to pursue or promote a cause.” Only 2.b. occurs in the NT. In Rom. 9:30–31 the Jews, unlike the Gentiles, pursue righteousness. Elsewhere Christians are to pursue righteousness (1 Tim. 6:11), the good (1 Th. 5:15), peace (1 Pet. 3:11),

love (1 Cor. 14:1), and hospitality (Rom. 12:13). [A. OEPKE, II, 229–30]

dógma [decree doctrine] dogmatízō [to decree]

The basic meaning is “what seems to be right”: a. “opinion,” b. “principle,” c. “resolution,” d.

“decree,” and e. “the law.” The verb means “to affirm an opinion,” “to establish a decree,” “to publish an edict.”

1. In the NT sense d. occurs in Lk. 2:1; Acts 17:7; Heb. 11:23.

2. In Col. 2:14 the reference might be to the new edict of God but in 2:20 we definitely have legal ordinances (sense e.), so that the real point in 2:14 is that Christ has canceled these. Eph. 2:15 carries a similar reference to the ordinances of the law.

3. In Acts 16:4 the term is used for the resolutions of the apostolic council. The apostolic fathers then

adopt the term for the teachings of Jesus. [G. KITTEL, II, 230–32]

dokéδ [to believe, seem], dóxa [glory], doxázδ [to glorify], syndoxázδ [to share in glory], éndoxos [glorious], endoxázδ [to be glorified], parádoxos [wonderful, contrary to belief]

The problem with this group in the LXX and NT is that dokéδ retains the Greek sense but the noun takes on a specific religious sense shared by the verb doxázδ.

dokéδ.

1. The first sense is “to believe,” “to think.”

2. We then find “to appear,” “to have the appearance” (Acts 17:18) (cf. “it seems to me,” as in Lk. 1:3; Acts 15:22ff.). dokeín is contrasted with eínai in Greek thought.

3. A further sense is “to count for something,” “to be of repute” (cf. Mk. 10:42; Gal. 2:2, 6b—perhaps here a slogan of Paul’s opponents).

dóxa.

A. The Greek Use of dóxa.

1. This means “opinion” as a. what I think, and b. what others think of me. As a. it may imply expectation or be a philosophical opinion or tenet, though it can also be a mere conjecture. As b. it usually denotes good standing or reputation, although an unfavorable adjective may change this. Dóxa as a name has sometimes been linked with light or radiance (cf. the LXX and NT), but it most likely signifies one who stands in good repute.

2. In Josephus and Philo the word has the senses a. “opinion or tenet,” b. “honor or glory,” c. “splendor,” and d. “divine radiance.”

B. The NT Use of dóxa, I. Here sense a. (“opinion”) has disappeared. Sense b. (“repute”) occurs, as in Lk. 14:10; 1 Cor. 11:15; 1 Th. 2:6. Sense c. (“splendor”) may be found in Mt. 4:8; 6:29; Rev. 21:24; cf. 1 Pet. 1:24; 1 Cor. 15:40–41. We also find the meaning “reflection” or “image” in 1 Cor. 11:7. [G. KITTEL, II, 232–37]

C. kāḇôḏ in the OT.

1. The Hebrew term kābôḏ has the root sense of something weighty which gives importance, e.g., wealth (Gen. 13:2; 31:1) or honor (Gen. 45:13).

2. In relation to God it denotes that which makes God impressive. Since God is invisible, it necessarily carries a reference to his self-manifestation.

a. This may be in natural phenomena (cf. Ps. 97:1ff.; Ezek. 1:1ff.; Ps. 29). Yet God cannot be equated with these as though he were, e.g., the God of thunder and every thunderstorm manifested his glory.

b. Ps. 19 makes it plain that God’s kābôḏ belongs to the higher regions of heaven. Yet if God dwells in heaven, he comes down to the tent of meeting. Thus in Ex. 40:34ff. a cloud covers the tent and God’s kābôḏ fills its interior as a kind of radiant substance from which emanates the fire that consumes the sacrifice. In Ex. 24:15ff. God’s kābôḏ is also like a devouring fire (on the mountain), and Moses’ face is radiant after speaking with God.

c. Ezekiel has personal visions of the divine kābôḏ in which it is accompanied by the cherubim, rides on a throne, has human shape, bears very strongly the character of light, and both leaves the first temple and returns to the second.

d. In some passages the kābôḏ of God has the more general sense of “honor,” as in Pss. 24:8; 138:5; 66:2. Often God’s glory is linked to his name or there is a demand to give God the glory that is his due, i.e., to recognize the import of his deity. God will not give his glory to another. God’s glory is also a theme of hope, as in Pss. 72:19; 57:5, 11; Is. 66:18–19. In this regard God’s glory is connected with his act of salvation (Is. 40:3ff.). In this act God will be glory for Israel (Zech. 2:8–9) and Israel will be to God’s glory (Is. 43:7). [G. VON RAD, II, 238–42]

D. dóxa in the LXX and Hellenistic Apocrypha. In this area dóxa is a common word. It represents 25 Hebrew terms, but predominantly kābôḏ. It becomes identical with kābôḏ and hence does not bear the ordinary senses of dóxa in secular Greek usage.

a. In the OT the only possible instance of “opinion” is in Eccl. 10:1. In the apocrypha the only examples, apart from Sir. 8:14, are in 4 Maccabees.

b. “Honor” or “reputation” is also rare in the OT; indeed, it is used less in this sense than k’bôd. The few instances are in Proverbs (cf. also Wisdom, Sirach, Maccabees).

c. We find some instances of the meaning “splendor” (which merges into “honor” as in Is. 17:4) and the use of dóxa for other Hebrew words for God’s power (cf. Is. 30:30; 40:26). The glory of God’s majesty is a well-known refrain in Is. 2:10, 19, 21; cf. also Ex. 33:22; Ps. 102:15.

d. The primary sense, then, is the divine glory which comes to expression in God’s acts in creation and history. dóxa is the divine nature in its invisibility or its perceptible manifestation, as at the giving of the law, or in the tent or temple. God is the God or King of glory (Pss. 24:7ff.; 29:3). To give him glory is not to impart something he does not have but to acknowledge the honor that is his due (Is. 42). A term that was initially subjective (“opinion”) is thus adapted to express something that is absolutely objective, the reality of God.

e. In the apocrypha, LXX usage is followed except for a slight regression in favor of the sense of human honor or magnificence (as in Proverbs).

E. kāḇôḏ in Palestinian Judaism.

1. The Targums translate k’bôd by y^eq’r’ , and often have it to avoid anthropomorphisms.

2. k’bôd is important in rabbinic Judaism for either human or divine honor. God recognizes true human honor. In God’s case, his glory is his nature. Moses has a share of this, and imparts a lesser share to Joshua. The glory that God grants to rulers or to those who fear him is no more than power or dignity. Yet the first man had a part in God’s glory, and if this was lost at the fall, its restoration is the goal of salvation history (cf. expositions of Dan. 12:3). The Messiah in particular will be invested with God’s glory and will restore the radiance lost with the fall. On the other hand, eternal bliss is more commonly depicted as contemplation of the divine glory than participation in it.

3. These various ideas are all particularly strong in apocalyptic: alienation from God’s glory, the manifestation of this glory at the judgment, the bliss of contemplating it, the seating of the Messiah on the throne of glory, and the final glory of the righteous.

F. The NT Use of dóxa, II.

1. dóxa as the Divine Mode of Being. While the term can denote “reputation” or “power,” its main use in the NT is shaped by the OT; it thus becomes a biblical term rather than a Greek one. While individual nuances may embrace divine honor, splendor, power, or radiance, what is always expressed is the divine mode of being, although with varying stress on the element of visible manifestation (cf. Lk. 2:9; 9:31–32; Acts 22:11; Rev. 15:8; 21:23). In the NT again, giving God glory means acknowledging (Acts 12:23) or extolling (Lk. 2:14) what is already a reality. NT doxologies, then, presuppose an estin (Gal. 1:5; 1 Pet. 4:11). A peculiarity in John is the almost naive juxtaposition of the use for God’s glory and a use for the honor or praise that may be given either by men or God (12:41, 43).

2. The dóxa of Jesus. The NT takes a decisive step by relating dóxa to Christ in the same way as to God. dóxa then reflects all the dynamism of the relation of God and Christ. Thus Christ is raised by the glory of the Father (Rom. 6:4). He is taken up into glory (1 Tim. 3:16). He is at the right hand of glory (Acts 7:55). Glory is ascribed to him as to God (cf. Lk. 2:14 and Heb. 13:21). He is the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8; Jms. 2:1). The eschatological hope (cf. Is. 40:5) is the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Tit. 2:13). Most of these references are to the risen Christ, but the revelation of glory at his birth points already to his coming from above (Lk. 2:9). In John, faith also sees the glory of the incarnate Christ (1:14; 2:11; 11:40). This dóxa of Christ is not visible in itself. He has to be glorified (Jn. 7:39; cf. 12:23; 13:31; 16:14; the prayer in 17:1, 5). The entry into glory is at the cross (13:31), where God’s dóxa is acknowledged, but there is also participation in it. It is in the light of the passion that believers, by the Spirit, see Christ’s glory.

3. The Believer and dóxa. In the OT the stress lies on seeing the divine dóxa (Lev. 9:6; Is. 6:1; 35:2). For the rabbis, too, eternal felicity is contemplation of God’s glory. In the NT, however, the emphasis shifts to participation. The righteous will shine, as in Dan. 12:3 (Mt. 13:43). The body is transformed in

the resurrection into a body of glory (Phil. 3:21). We are glorified together with Christ (Rom. 8:17; Col. 1:27; 3:4). This is part of the parallelism of Christ’s resurrection and ours. Participation in dóxa is by participation in Christ. Eternal glory is the goal of our calling (1 Pet. 5:10). In this sinful aeon we fall short of God’s glory (Rom. 3:23). But glory is to be revealed to us, and we are to enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom. 8:18, 21). What is sown in dishonor is raised in glory (1 Cor. 15:43). Yet the future glory has its roots in the divine purpose and action, so that we may be said to be already glorified (Rom. 8:29–30; 1 Cor. 2:7). The Spirit is the pledge of the new thing that brings glory (cf. Eph. 3:16; 1 Pet. 4:14). This is especially clear in 2 Cor. 3:7ff., which a. contrasts the glory of Moses with the new and greater glory of Christ and b. shows how, beholding the glory of the Lord, believers are changed from glory to glory. The movement here is from present glory to an eschatological consummation of glory. It is effected by the ministry of the gospel as this gives the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (4:6). Along the same lines, Jn. 17 says that the disciples will see the glory of Christ (v. 24), that he is glorified in them (v. 10), and that he gives to them the glory the Father has given to him (v. 22).

4. The dóxa of the Angels. As the cherubim bear the divine glory in Ezek. 9:3 etc., and Judaism ascribes glory to the angels, so Heb. 9:5 refers to the cherubim of glory, Rev. 18:1 mentions the glory of the angel, and Jude 8 and 2 Pet. 2:10 call the angelic powers dóxai (“glorious ones”).

G. Hellenistic Gnosticism. The magical papyri and similar writings also use dóxa in a special way for “power” or “radiance.” That there is a connection between this and biblical usage is most probable, but the later dating of these texts suggests that they depend on Jewish influence (probably in Egypt) rather than vice versa. The same applies to Mandaean and Manichean works. If some Iranian influence may be detected in the whole usage, it will have to be sought in the distinctive OT use of kāḇôḏ, which is the unquestionable source of the NT view of dóxa.

doxázō, syndoxázō. The verb shares the linguistic history of the noun. Outside the Bible it means a. “to have an opinion,” “to believe,” “to suspect,” and b. “to praise,” “to value,” “to honor.” Sense a. does not occur in the LXX, but sense b. is common. The same applies in the NT, where “to honor” occurs in Mt. 5:16; 6:2. But the verb then has the special biblical sense “to give or have a share in the divine glory” (cf. Rom. 8:17, 30; 2 Cor. 3:10; Jn. 17).

éndoxos, endoxázomai. In secular Greek éndoxos means a. “according to the customary opinion,” a sense which does not occur in the Greek Bible, and b. “honored,” “renowned,” “magnificent,” in which it is used in different ways for honorable people, the glories of Jerusalem, the wonderful acts of God, praise of God, the name of God, and God himself. The verb endoxázomai, which is peculiar to the Bible, can refer to human distinction but denotes mainly the magnifying of God’s majesty either in those who serve him or in his acts of retribution (Is. 49:3; Ex. 14:4). In the NT the adjective always has the common sense of “honorable” or “magnificent” or “glorious” (clothing in Lk. 7:25; the works of Jesus in Lk. 13:17; the Corinthians in 1 Cor. 4:10; the church in Eph. 5:27). The verb occurs in the NT only in 2 Th. 1, which adapts OT formulas to Christ when it says in v. 10 that Christ will be glorified in his saints and entreats in v. 12 that the name of the Lord Jesus may be glorified in them.

parádoxos. This word, which is common in secular Greek for “an unusual event contrary to belief or expectation,” occurs in the NT only in Lk. 5:26, in the ordinary sense, to denote the unusual element in

the works done by Jesus. [G. KITTEL, II, 242–55]

dókimos [tested, precious], adókimos [inauthentic], dokimḗ [testing], dokímion [tested], dokimázō [to test], apodokimázō [to reject], dokimasía [testing]

From the stem word dokḗ (“watching”), dókimos means “tested,” and thus a. “reliable,” and b. “esteemed,” “valuable” (whether persons or things). adókimos is the opposite, used of persons. The rare dokimḗ means “testing.” dokímion has the sense of “tested,” “genuine,” dokimázein means “to test,” apodokimázein “to throw out in the test,” and dokimasía “testing.” The NT gives the group a special application in view of the situation of Christians. Set between salvation on the one side and judgment on the other, they seek attestation.

1. Human life stands under a divine testing which climaxes in the judgment (1 Cor. 3:13; Jms. 1:12). The judgment, however, gathers up the divine testing in history (1 Th. 2:4). The background of this view of testing is to be found in the OT, the last judgment in, e.g., Jer. 11:20, present testing in, e.g., Pss. 17:3; 26:2.

2. The future judgment and the present divine scrutiny fashion a corresponding mode of life. a. Attestation is an urgent question in 1 and 2 Corinthians. The Corinthians do not find in Paul the proof of power that they seek (2 Cor. 13:3). He reminds them that what counts is not human but divine commendation (2 Cor. 10:18). This gives added point to the question of attestation. b. Attestation will be manifested in affliction, i.e., the pressure put on the church in this period when it does not yet see salvation and is exposed to assault from secular and demonic powers. Suffering produces endurance, endurance dokimḗ, and dokimḗ hope (Rom. 5:3–4). The Macedonians remain joyous and generous in a severe dokimḗ of affliction (2 Cor. 8:2). Cf. also Jms. 1:2–3; 1 Pet. 1:6–7: in the former tó dokímion is probably “testing,” while in the latter it has the more likely sense of “genuineness,” but the thought is essentially the same in both. The testing sifts out the dókimoi (1 Cor. 11:19), i.e., authentic believers who shun factions, glorify God by obedience (2 Cor. 9:13), attest their love in the collection (2 Cor. 8:8), and, even though the apostle himself may seem to have failed, meet the test themselves by doing good (2 Cor. 13:5ff.). c. The presupposition here is that only believers can meet the test of judgment. Apart from Christ, people are given up to a mind that is adókimos (Rom. 1:28), i.e., to an outlook which, since they themselves did not see fit to acknowledge God (edokímasan), is unattested or inauthentic.

3. Set under God’s searching eye, Christians come under the twofold testing denoted by the verb dokimázein. a. They must learn the will of God by testing (cf. Rom. 12:2; Eph. 5:9–10; Phil. 1:10; 1 Th. 5:21). This protects them from caprice and brings them seriously under God’s will for their lives. In the same way they are to test the spirits (1 Jn. 4:1). b. At the same time, they are to test themselves (2 Cor. 13:5). In particular, the disorderly Corinthians are to examine themselves when they come to the Lord’s table (1 Cor. 11:28). c. Jesus also demands that his followers should test the times, reproaching the people because they can interpret material phenomena but not detect the signs of God’s direction of history (Lk. 12:56).

4. In Mt. 21:42 and parallels, quoting Ps. 118:22, Jesus describes himself as the “rejected” stone which has become the head of the corner (cf. 1 Pet. 2:4, 7). We are now exposed to human testing, but what finally counts is the divine test. [W. GRUNDMANN, II, 255–60]

doúlos [slave], sýndoulos [fellow slave], doúlē [female slave], douleúō [to be a slave], douleía [slavery], doulóō [to enslave], katadoulóō [to enslave], doulagōgéō [to enslave], ophthalmodoulía [eye-service]

doúlos, sýndoulos, doúlē, douleúō, douleía. All these words have to do with slavery. In distinction from parallel groups, they denote compulsory service. oikétēs comes closest, but it stresses the social position of the slave, while doúlos stresses dependence on the lord.

A. The Word Group among the Greeks.

1. Greeks have a strong sense of freedom. Personal dignity consists of freedom. There is thus a violent aversion to bondage. Service may be rendered to the state, but by free choice. Slavery is scorned and rejected. This explains the fierceness with which the Greeks fought for political independence. The only slavery Plato will allow is to the laws. The laws, however, represent the goal of humanity, so that slavery to law is in no way derogatory. Aristotle shows a similar scorn for slavery; for him slaves have no part in the state or true service to it. The Stoics have a broader view of service. Zeus himself summons us to it, so that, while free in relation to all people, we are unconditionally bound to all. Yet the Stoic would never call himself the doúlos theoú; he moves through the world as basileús and despótēs, the very opposite of the doúlos. This is the characteristic of the wise. Those who are not wise are slaves, no matter what the form of their bondage (cf. Epictetus, Plutarch, and Philo).

2. This survey shows that the group has no religious significance for the Greeks. It acquires this as Near Eastern religions win new adherents and in so doing change the Greek view of God and our relationship to him. The only apparent exceptions are in Euripides, but these are special instances, e.g., the need to yield to Dionysus, or Orestes’ evasion of responsibility by claiming that he is enslaved to the gods. In Greek religion the relationship to the gods is in general a family relationship in which Zeus is father of both gods and humans. Kneeling is no part of religious ceremonial for the Greeks except before chthonic deities, and here only for the sake of proximity. The worshipper is phílos rather than doúlos, so that it makes no sense to describe service of the gods, or life under the eyes of the gods, as douleía.

B. The Word Group on Jewish Soil. In the Greek Bible, however, the group very largely crowds out the various parallels. The reason lies in its use for the root bd.

1. The relation to this root shows that doúlos emphatically denotes the slave and the status of slavery. Thus país is used for this root when the normal relationship of a slave is at issue, but doúlos when the thought is that of the illegality and unreason of the service. The group then denotes Israel’s bondage in Egypt (Ex. 13:3; 14:5; Lev. 26:45, etc.). Jacob accepts the state of a doúlos with Laban (Gen. 29:18). When one people falls subject to another, douleúein is the proper word to describe it (Judg. 3:8; 1 Sam. 17:9). In contrast, país is the proper word in Is. 53 (The Servant of the Lord), since this service is rendered on the basis of an essential relation in the household.

2. Since the group denotes restrictive service, it is the proper term for the relation of ruler and subjects, for it expresses both the power demanded on the one side and the subjection and bondage experienced on the other. Saul’s courtiers are his doúloi in 1 Sam. 18:5, Joab is David’s doúlos in 2 Sam. 14:9–10, and the whole people douleúei the king in 1 Kgs. 12:7 (where Rehoboam himself is advised to be a doúlos to the people in order the more surely to win their douleía). An interesting point is that while subordinates use the terms about themselves, rulers do not describe the relationship by the group. An element of decision, whether voluntary or compulsory, is thus assumed.

3. The climax of development is reached when the group comes to be used for the relationship to God. This also involves the sharpest antithesis to Greek and Hellenistic thought. douleúein in the LXX is the most common term for the service of God, not just in isolated acts, but in total commitment. The group may also be used for service of Baalim or other gods (Judg. 10:6, 13), but the only right thing for the elect people is exclusive service of the Lord (Judg. 10:16; Ps. 2:11, etc.). For this reason doúloi is a title of honor when conferred on such outstanding figures as Moses (Josh. 14:7), Joshua (Judg. 2:8) Abraham (Ps. 105:42) David (Ps. 89:3), and Jacob (representing Israel, Is. 48:20). The opposite of douleúein is disobedience.

4. The Jewish world shares this view of divine service with other Near Eastern peoples, among all of whom the concept of God is one of absolute majesty and supremacy. The uniqueness of Israel is that its whole history is a revelation of God’s total claim on the people and on each of its members in virtue of a special status. If the mystery religions also have a concept of slavery to the gods, this is entered into only by the appropriate rituals. Philo adopts the OT view except that for him the use is figurative, the self-sufficiency of God is stressed, and exaltation through the service of God becomes an important factor; the opposite of this service is dependence on creation and a corresponding lack of any spiritual relationship.

C. The Word Group in the NT.

1. Secular Usage.

a. Apart from some instances in the parables, in which the use is hardly a strict one, the word occurs in the ordinary sense only when the position of slaves is at issue, e.g., in Col. 3:22ff.; Eph. 6:8–9. The usage here falls wholly within the contemporary social framework. In the parables this is also true, but the total commitment of doúloi and the total claim of the kýrios serve here to illustrate the unconditional lordship of God and the unconditional responsibility of believers to him. Thus if slaves have two masters, as might happen, they cannot show the same commitment to both. Similarly, one cannot be a true doúlos of God without throwing off mammon (Mt. 6:24).

b. While the NT offers the typical picture of the doúlos, it does not hint at scorn or disparagement. It differs in this regard not only from the Greek world but also from Judaism, which tends to accept the lower social, cultic, and ethical status of slaves, to put slaves wholly under the control of their masters, and to regard the term ―slave‖ as a deadly insult.

c. Slaves, then, are fully integrated into the community. If they have the chance of freedom, they are to take it (1 Cor. 7:21). But in any case they come with all believers under the common law of love which in the long run, if applied, necessarily means the end of slavery among Christians. If there is no campaign to abolish slavery, this is not due to otherworldiness, or a situation of eschatological tension, but rather to the fact that redemption, like sin, takes place within existing social structures, so that the first priority is not to change the structures but to achieve a life which is conformable to that of Jesus. Such a life will in due time break down the structures, because the fellowship of a common participation in Christ relativizes social distinctions. Thus Paul points out that Philemon and Onesimus are now brothers (v. 16). He also stresses that the relation to God takes precedence over the mutual relations of slaves and masters (Eph. 6:5ff.; Col. 3:22ff.; 1 Tim. 6:1; Tit. 2:9). Christians lie under this obligation even when their masters (or slaves) are not believers. The overriding freedom of faith that this expresses bears a superficial resemblance to the Stoic’s independence of external circumstances, but differs from it in three ways: a. there is no sense of superiority; b. it rests on an act which makes slave and master brothers; and c. this act is the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ for both.

2. Christians as doúloi of God and Christ.

a. The formula doúlos theoú is rare in the NT; Christians are mostly called the doúloi of Christ. Where used, as in Lk. 1:38 (doúlē); Acts 2:18; Revelation (cf. 10:7; 15:3), it usually has an OT basis. This applies in Acts 16:17 and probably also in 1 Pet. 2:16, since Christians are thought of here as the Israel of God. Jms. 1:1 and Tit. 1:1 are perhaps adopting a prophetic designation rather than describing absolute commitment to God, since in the usage of Judaism the phrase normally covers only outstanding figures (apart from the whole people). doúlos theoú becomes more popular in the early church with the development of the idea that the church is the true Israel and a desire to distinguish between Christ as Son and believers as servants, but ideas of merit tend to arise as the phrase comes to denote specially

dedicated people.

b. More common is the belief that Christians are the doúloi of Christ; Paul in particular represents this conviction. They are already doúloi of a sort prior to conversion, i.e., doúloi to sin etc. (Rom. 6:6ff., 19; Gal. 4:3, 8, 9), and even to the law (Rom. 7:1ff.). The meaning is that they have totally lost their freedom and are dominated by these forces. Jesus by his saving work rescues them from this douleía in a work of liberation (Gal. 3:13; 4:4–5). They thus achieve the freedom of sonship (Gal. 4:5ff.; Rom. 8:15, 23). But sonship does not mean autonomy; it means a new relationship with God. The result is a new service. With his work of redemption Christ has made believers his own possession and now gives them the goals that shape their lives. This new commitment, which is a commitment to righteousness (Rom. 6:19), holiness (1 Th. 3:13), and newness of life (Rom. 6:4), finds expression in the description of Christians as Christ’s doúloi (1 Cor. 7:22; Eph. 6:6). This entails confession of what Christ has done and acceptance of its practical consequences. It is also a recognition of the freedom which can come only with commitment to Christ, so that there is no contradiction when John speaks of the freedom which the Son brings (Jn. 8:34ff.), or when he has Jesus say that he calls his disciples, not doúloi, but friends, for these are friends who do what he commands them (Jn. 15:14–15).

c. The phrase doúlos Christoú has a special position when used as a designation, e.g., in the salutations of Paul, James, Jude, and Peter, and also in relation to Epaphras in Col. 4:12. The basis, of course, is the common commitment to Christ, so that the writers, being integrated into the community in subordination to the claim of Christ, cannot seek to dominate it. Yet in this context the term also suggests a specific office (cf. Jms. 1:1; Gal. 1:10) which carries with it the authority of the master himself. In Paul’s case (and cf. 2 Pet. 1:1), doúlos Iēsoú Christoú runs parallel to apóstolos Iēsoú Christoú; the latter describes the outward relation, the former the inner relation which underlies it.

3. Jesus Christ as doúlos.

a. When Jesus washes his disciples’ feet, he shows that it is his office, too, to serve, not to seek power or glory, for washing the feet is a servile duty (Jn. 13:1ff.). He also shows, of course, what will be the point of the disciples’ own lives as his apostles, for a doúlos is not greater than his kýrios, nor an apóstolos than the one who sends him (Jn. 13:16). Paul gives this lesson a more general application when he tells the Galatians that, just because they are called to freedom, they are to serve (douleúein) one another in love (Gal. 5:13).

b. In Phil. 2:7 Jesus is said to take the form of a doúlos. The phrase stands in contrast to the form of God in v. 6 and the title kýrios in v. 11. It thus shows what the incarnation means for Christ in relation to his inherent glory. It represents the low point on his way of kénōsis (cf. Jn. 13:1ff.). There is no necessary allusion to Is. 53 (where país theoú would be the accepted rendering of the Hebrew). Nor do the terms humility (v. 3) and obedience (v. 8) fully encompass what is involved, for being a doúlos involves a new situation (not just an attitude) which is inconceivably different from the prior situation and which carries with it subjection to the death of the cross (v. 8). Paul’s exhortation in vv. 1–5 is thus given a kerygmatic basis in vv. 6ff. This servant form is, of course, the scandal of the gospel, but in God’s wisdom it is also its glory (vv. 9–11).

doulóō, katadoulóō. These terms are common from Herodotus and occur in the LXX in the sense “to enslave” both literally and figuratively. Except in Acts 7:6 (quoting Gen. 15:13), the NT use is always figurative. Not “bound” in marriage is the point in 1 Cor. 7:15. A definition of slavery is offered in 2 Pet. 2:19: What overcomes us, enslaves us. Though free, Paul has voluntarily forgone his rights for his work’s sake in 1 Cor. 9:9. Commitment to God (or his opponents) is at issue in Rom. 6:18 and Gal. 4:3. Judaizers are trying to enslave believers to their legalistic code in 2 Cor. 11:20. In contrast to being enslaved, Christians are freed by Christ to be responsible doúloi of God.

doulagōgéō. This rare word means “to cause to live the life of a slave.” Paul uses it in 1 Cor. 9:27 to show that he subordinates his sṓma to his office and will not allow it to be a hindrance to him in discharging this office.

ophthalmodoulía. Not found outside the NT, this term refers in Eph. 6:6 to a douleía of slaves which is outwardly satisfactory but does not express an inner obligation for the sake of God and Christ, so that the eyes of the master are deceived. It also occurs in the plural in Col. 3:22 for the actions that make up this deceitful service. [K. H. RENGSTORF, H, 261–80]

dochḗ → déchomai

drákōn [dragon, serpent]

drákōn means “serpent,” “dragon,” or “sea-monster,” and is used for Satan in Rev. 12:3 etc. Serpents were commonly regarded as demonic in ancient mythology. They represented the power of chaos as that which opposes God at the beginning or end of things. In the Greek world serpents were also sacred animals. Revelation, however, does not simply appropriate ancient myth. The drákōn is the key image for

Satan throughout the book, and there is a link with the story of the serpent in Gen. 3. Note: The Greek OT sometimes uses drákōn in passages which owe their imagery to the myth of a contest between God and the dragon of chaos, e.g., Job 3:8; Ps. 74:13; Ezek. 29:3; Is. 27:1 (partly perhaps under the influence of

Gen. 3:15). Cf. especially Job 26:13 LXX [G. Bertram]. [W. FOERSTER, II, 281–83]
échidna, óphis, Satanás

drómos → tréchō

dýnamai [to be able], dynatós [able], dynatéō [to be able], adýnatos [unable], adynatéō [to be unable], dýnamis [ability, power], dynástēs [ruler], dynamóō [to give power], endynamóō [to give power]

Words of this stem all have the basic sense of ability or capability. dýnamai means a. “to be able” in a general sense, b. “to be able” with reference to the attitude that makes one able, hence sometimes “to will,” and c. (of things) “to be equivalent to,” “to count as,” “to signify.” dynatós means “one who has ability or power,” “one who is powerful”; the neuter adjective signifies “what is possible or practicable.” dynatéō means “to have great ability.” adýnatos means “one who has no ability or strength”; the noun tó adýnaton signifies “impossibility” and adýnatón esti “to be impossible.” adynatéō means “not to be able.” dýnamis, the most important word in the group, means “ability,” then “possibility,” then “power” both physical and intellectual or spiritual. dýnastēs has the sense of “one who can do something” and was early used for “ruler” (including God as ruler). dynamóō and endynamóō both mean “to give power,” “to make strong,” “to strengthen.”

A. The Concepts of Power in the Greek and Hellenistic World. The term dýnamis shows that all life in the cosmos is viewed dynamically. dýnamis is a cosmic principle. In Pythagorean teaching number is filled with effective force. Plato calls dýnamis the absolute mark of being. The Stoics refer to a self-originating and self-moving force. noús still underlies dýnamis in Aristotle and the Stoics, but dýnamis is the basic principle in Poseidonius. In Greek philosophy the cosmic principle is the same thing as God. There is thus little reference to the power of God, for God himself is power. The individual gods are dynámeis of the universal force; they personify the capabilities of a neutral deity. In Hellenism the world is a manifestation of the forces that work in and by and on it. To do anything one must know these forces and share in them. Magic is an application of this principle. It seeks contact, not with deity, but with the demonic natural and cosmic forces that stand under deity. Knowing these forces, the magician can mediate them for the good or ill of others. Yet the gods might also intervene directly to help or to heal. This may be seen in the healing miracles of Epidaurus, which are called dymámeis (“acts of power”). Acts of divine punishment bear the same name. Humans are outside the forces that rule the cosmos and have to attain to participation in them, especially with a view to salvation from mortality, or from the bondage of matter. The mystery religions are designed to provide the power of salvation in various forms, e.g., by an initiation which will make it possible to be taken up into the cosmic system of forces. The fundamental concept in the Greek sphere, then, is that of a natural force which, imparted in different ways, controls, moves, and governs the cosmos.

B. The Idea of Power in the OT. The decisive difference in the OT is that the power of a personal God replaces the neutral force of nature that is equated with deity. Traces of a neutral idea of power may be found in the OT (cf. the power of the ark), but unlike the nature gods, Yahweh is a God of history, so that originally naturalistic elements are all subsumed. Nor is power itself the main thing, but the will which it must execute and serve. The exodus is thus the supreme example of divine power (cf. Ex. 15:6, 13; 32:11; Dt. 9:26, etc.). Dt. 3:24 gives classical expression to the significance of the exodus. God’s

power is demonstrated in this decisive act at the heart of OT faith and worship. This power is to be declared to the nations, and Israel is to be God’s people and to obey and serve him. In time of need, she can confidently seek a further deployment of the same power (cf. Neh. 1:10; Is. 10:33). The description of God as the ―lord of hosts‖ (dynámeis is sometimes used for hosts in the LXX) echoes the historical distinctiveness of the OT concept of God and his power, for God is Lord of all the powers, and worship of the powers in the form of astral deities is forbidden (2 Kgs. 17:16; cf. the sharp contrast in Dt. 4:19 and 4:20). To be sure, God manifests himself in the volcano or the storm (Ps. 29), but he does so as the God of history; nature is the theater of his acts and has its origin in his will (cf. Is. 40:26). The same power as fashions history creates and sustains the world (cf. Jer. 27:5; 32:17). It also affects individual destiny. God’s superior power (Job 12:13, 16) effects and controls all things, so that in individual need one must look to him for help and draw strength from him (Pss. 46:1; 86:16; cf. Dt. 8:17–18; Is. 41:10). The power of God is not capricious, for it expresses his will and is thus determined by his righteousness (Is. 5:16). Having the inner energy of holiness, it is effective as the power of judgment and grace, and it serves the manifestation and magnification of his glory (Ps. 24:8). All ideas of magic are thus excluded. We are brought into the sphere of a relationship in which obedience, prayer, and sacrifice replace incantations and rituals. The uniqueness of the OT concept of God and his power issues in doxologies which have parallels in other religions but which are distinguished by their reference to the mighty acts of God in history and by the glow of joy in God, of passion, and of experience of God. For examples cf. 1 Chr. 29:10ff.; Pss. 21:13; 59:16; 2 Chr. 20:6; Dan. 3:27–28.

C. Ideas of Power in Rabbinical and Hellenistic Judaism.

1.a. Awareness of the demonstration of God’s power in the exodus persists and indeed is heightened by the Maccabean deliverance. God’s greatness is seen in creation and his power in the exodus. Yet creation, too, is the work of the word as an instrument of God’s power. Individuals may also rely on God’s power.

b. An emphasis develops, however, on the eschatological deployment of God’s power. This has an OT basis, as in Is. 2:19; Ezek. 20:33. Many things take place now that are against God’s will and are due to subjection to other powers. There is thus hope and longing for a decisive manifestation of God’s power in a final conflict. The hostile forces which now lie between God and us are thought of as demons and are sometimes called dynámeis, perhaps on the basis of the heavenly hosts of the OT as these are seen in detachment from God. These powers seem to be natural forces personified as angels, i.e., as intermediate beings ruling the realm between heaven and earth. Some are good and magnify God, but others belong to Beliar or Satan, who rules humanity through them. The human race is thus a battlefield of good and bad forces, and paganism worships these intermediate creatures instead of the true and living God. Some influence of Hellenism may be seen in the development of these ideas of demonic dynámei.

c. Yet the supremacy of God remains. God’s essence is found in his power, so that when the name of God is avoided, power can be used as a designation, as in Mt. 26:64. This is not a hypostatization, but a paraphrase of the divine name. As regards the saving power of God, it is found in the law. The strength that God gives his people is none other than the law. By the law he creates the world, directs his people, and gives sanctification and power to those who obey it. The law is thus saving power as the revelation of God’s will.

2. Philo tends more toward Hellenism by viewing God as pure being and thus making a hypostasis of his power. God is the supreme power, but the powers are independent of God, though they belong to his eternal world and are linked to his lógos and names. Deriving from the OT an ethical view of God, Philo ascribes ethical functions to the powers. They have their source in God’s holiness and they serve the one goal of overcoming human pollution. In Philo, then, the Hellenistic view of power unites with the OT view of God.

D. The Concept of Power in the NT.

1. The Fact of Christ. Like all NT concepts, the NT concept of power receives its decisive impress from the fact of Christ. This fact is obviously linked with the OT view of the Messiah, who is consistently related to the strength of God (cf. Is. 9:5; 11:2. Ps. 110:2; Mic. 5:5). This strength is primarily kingly, but

prophetic power is also involved (cf. Mic. 3:8; Acts 7:22 [Moses]; Lk. 1:17 [the Baptist]). The prophetic aspect achieves greater prominence in the NT (cf. Lk. 24:19). Yet Christ is more than a prophet endowed with power; his whole being is a unique one that is peculiarly determined by the power of God. This comes to expression in the parallelism of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Most High in the story of the virgin conception. No attempt is made to describe the mode; the incarnation begins with a conception that transcends normal processes of generation. At the birth of Christ a special and unique act of power rightly gives him the title Son of God (Lk. 1:35). On this basis, Christ is the bearer of the special power of the Spirit in his ministry (Lk. 4:14, 36). As God’s essence is power, endowment with power is linked to the gift of the Spirit, and this gift confers on Christ his authority (exousía)—an authority which he has the power (dýmamis) to exercise in expelling demons or healing the sick (cf. Lk. 5:17; 6:19; 8:46). For this reason the witness of his disciples is that God anointed Jesus with the Holy Spirit and with power (Acts 10:38). The works he does can also be called dynámeis (cf. Mt. 11:10ff.; Mk. 6:2; Lk. 19:37; also Acts 2:22). These works differ from similar acts of power in the contemporary world in three ways: a. they have no connection with magic; b. they are done by the word, which is the word of the omnipotent God whose kingdom here enters history and overthrows the rule of hostile forces; c. they presuppose faith both in him who does the work and in those on whose behalf they are done, so that a personal relation is demanded (cf. Mt. 13:58; Mk. 9:14ff.). In faith, all things are possible; there is power (Mk. 9:23). For in faith we share God’s rule. The mighty works evoke astonishment and praise (Mt. 13:54; Lk. 19:37), and in Herod, perhaps, an uneasy conscience (Mt. 14:2). John’s Gospel does not use dynámeis, but with exousía and sēmeíon employs the verb dýnasthai, which shifts the emphasis from the act to the capability (cf. Jn. 3:2). The sēmeia, performed in the fullness of messianic power, are unique acts. Jesus can do them only because God is with him, i.e., he has the power of God in fellowship with the Father. In Jn. 9 the blind man, when cured, testifies to the divine dýnasthai of Jesus (9:33), and some of the Pharisees agree (9:16). Similarly in Jn. 11, when it is asked whether Jesus could not have healed Lazarus (11:37), he shows his unlimited dýnasthai by raising him. It is only in fellowship with Jesus that his disciples also can do things (15:5), but he recognizes at the same time that his own dýnasthai has its source in God (5:19, 30). The special features in John are a. that we have in this dýnasthai the unique Christ event, and b. that the power in this event is the power of God initiating the new aeon. This power finds particular demonstration in the crucifixion and resurrection. Christ’s own resurrection backs up his saying in Mt. 22:29. Peter in Acts 2:24 puts this resurrection power very strikingly in the negative: Christ cannot be held by death. The power of death is broken. As God’s power empowered Jesus for acts of power, it empowers him for new life. Paul makes this point in 1 Cor. 6:14 and 2 Cor. 13:4. Christ is declared God’s Son in power by his resurrection (Rom. 1:4). We thus preach Christ as God’s power (1 Cor. 1:24). The resurrection does not make Christ the Son of God, or give him power as such; what he has by it is sonship in full power in contrast with the apparent weakness of the incarnation (2 Cor. 13:4). If Christ is called God’s power in the absolute, it is not because he personifies power, but because in him the power of God works victoriously in history and brings it to its goal. In Hebrews this power is called the power of an indestructible life; it is beyond the reach of mortality. With this power the Son is set at God’s right hand where he rules the world (1:3). In Revelation this power is identical with glory (1:16). The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power (5:12). Christ’s people await his coming in power (Mk. 9:1) which will complete his work and establish God’s perfect rule with the subjection of every other force (Phil. 3:21). This coming will be a visible one, and Christ will be accompanied by his mighty angels (2 Th. 1:7).

2. The Power of God, Demonic powers, and the Power of Salvation.

a. The Christ event sheds light on the power of God. Christ’s power is God’s, so that it is depicted as endowment. Christ shares this power by personal fellowship with God. His power is thus the historical power of an eschatological event, as in the IT. God’s omnipotence is manifested in the Christ event (Heb. 11:19; cf. Mt. 22:29). God is the dynatós in virtue of his omnipotent rule (Lk. 1:49). All things are possible for him (Mt. 19:26). As faith perceives, all things manifestly declare his eternal power and deity (Rom. 1:20). The NT can thus adopt the OT doxology, as in Mt. 6:13; Rev. 4:11, etc. The doxologies of

Rev. 11:17–18 and 12:10 imply acknowledgment that God’s power will destroy hostile forces and bring the world to perfection, as the power in the Christ event has already shown.

b. The Christ event also sheds a new light on demonic powers. The NT recognizes these (cf. Mt. 24:29). These are cosmic but also angelic powers. They have lost their force with the resurrection of Christ and will be publicly stripped of it at his return. Between these two events, there is tension. The powers are disarmed, for the new life of believers derives from God and is set under his rule (Eph. 1:20– 21; Rom. 8:38–39). Yet they still fight (Rev. 13:2) and have to be brought to submission (1 Cor. 15:24). The antichrist will come with power and spread deception; only Christ’s coming again will finally destroy him (2 Th. 2:9).

c. Christ’s work also gives a new answer to the question of the power of salvation. When the disciples ask who can be saved, Christ replies that there is no human power to save, only God’s omnipotent power (Mt. 19:26). Paul sharply stresses human inability in Rom. 8. Due to our weakness, even the law cannot save from sin and death (v. 3). Hebrews finds the same inability in the cultus (10:1, 4, 11). As Jn. 3:3 says, unless there is a new birth, we cannot see God’s kingdom. Of ourselves we cannot bear to hear God’s word (Jn. 8:43). No one can come to God unless the Father draws him (6:44). Only God has the power to save, and he puts forth his power in Jesus (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 1:18). This power is not that of mystical initiation or of a mere direction to salvation; it is the power of the word of the cross. It grants salvation by liberating us from the power of darkness and putting us in the kingdom of God’s dear Son. It is grounded in the saving act of the Christ event, i.e., in God’s mighty work in history. Only in 2 Pet. 1:3– 4 do we have a hint of a substantial rather than a dynamic conception when it is said that God’s power grants us the things pertaining to life and godliness with a view to our escaping corruption and becoming partakers of the divine nature.

3. The power of the Disciple. As the dýnamis of God, preaching continues Christ’s saving work, and the apostles, representing Christ, are endowed with his power. Jesus equips the disciples with power when he sends them out in Lk. 9:1. This power overmatches demonic power (Lk. 10:19). The disciples have it only in faith (Mk. 9:14ff.). It is the power of Christ’s own presence by the Spirit (cf. Lk. 24:48ff.; Acts 1:8). A special endowment of power takes place at Pentecost which leads to healing as well as preaching in power (Acts 4:7ff., 33; 6:8, 10). Paul’s ministry is effective by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:19). dynámeis are a mark of the apostolate (Gal. 3:5; 1 Th. 1:5). But the power is that of the Spirit as the mode both of Christ’s presence and of the believer’s existence. Apostles themselves are witnesses of the cross; they preach in outward weakness but in demonstration of the Spirit and power, so that the faith of their hearers rests in the power of God (1 Cor. 2:1ff.). dýnamis relates to the content of the message, not the form. The goal of preaching is the exhibition of Christ’s presence by the Spirit and therefore the exhibition of God’s saving power in Christ. It is by the same power that Paul is made a minister (Eph. 3:7). In the interests of the community, the power of Christ can also be judicial, as in 1 Cor. 5:3ff. It should be noted here that Satan can have no power over the believer unless the latter is handed over to him, and that even then the purpose is still one of salvation. In the apostle’s own life and ministry, the power of Christ means a continual strengthening (Phil. 4:13; 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 4:17). This strengthening takes the form of support, and is thus to be construed, not in terms of mana, but in terms of a personal relation between Christ and his servant.

4. The Community. A community that rests in God’s saving power is the goal (1 Cor. 2:1ff.). Believers may be strong as they are ―in the Lord‖ (Eph. 6:10). Rescued from Satan’s power, yet still beset by perils, they know the power of Christ to protect and preserve. They are guarded by God’s power through faith (1 Pet. 1:5). The apostle’s prayer is that they may enjoy the greatness of God’s power (Eph. 1:19), or that they may be strengthened with all power (Col. 1:11). This power, grounded in Christ’s resurrection, creates the hope of their calling and a glorious inheritance. Christians are to know this power with a view to endurance and patience. It is a power that transforms as well as preserves. By the power of the Spirit they abound in hope (Rom. 15:13). Strengthened with might by the Spirit in the inner man, they grow in fellowship with Christ, in comprehension, and in love of Christ (Eph. 3:14ff.). Born of God, they cannot sin (1 Jn. 3:9), but have a new capacity for love (1 Jn. 4:7). Every good resolve and work of faith may be

fulfilled by the power of God (2 Th. 1:11). Members of the community may also have the spiritual gift of performing dynámeis (1 Cor. 12:10). Furthermore, the power at work in the community is ultimately resurrection power (cf. 2 Cor. 13:3ff.). God raised up the Lord and will raise us up by his power (1 Cor. 6:14). The changing of the body of humiliation into a body of glory is grounded in God’s omnipotence (Phil. 3:21). No one can snatch believers out of Christ’s hand (Jn. 10:28–29). Paul can give up all things to know Christ and the power of his resurrection-the mighty act which creates new and eternal life for his people. This is the source of real dýnamis.

5. Power and Weakness. God’s power operates in the weak and corruptible sphere of human existence. It is thus visible only to faith, but for this very reason it is known as divine, not human power. Concealment in apparent weakness is the law of the cross (2 Cor. 13:4). But God’s weakness is stronger than men (1 Cor. 1:25), as Paul comes to realize in all the weakness of his apostolic ministry (2 Cor. 12:9–10; cf. Phil. 4:13). The transcendent power belongs to God (2 Cor. 4:7), who gives a spirit, not of timidity, but of power and love and self-control (2 Tim. 1:7). Weakness is the presupposition of the working of divine power. It is the pledge of Christ’s presence in which Paul finds freedom from self and reliance on God. By the law of strength in weakness, the resurrection power of God is more abundantly exerted, whether in ministers of the gospel or in the Christian community as a whole. “By the power of

God” expresses the reality of faith for the apostolate and all Christian life (2 Cor. 6:7). [W.
GRUNDMANN, II, 284–317]

dýō [to go down, arm oneself], ekdýō [to strip], apekdýō [to put off], endýō [to put on], ependýō [to put on in addition], apékdysis [putting off]

dýō. “To submerge,” also intransitive “to plunge,” “go down” (the sun in Mk. 1:32; 4:40), figurative “to arm oneself.”

ekdýō. a. “To strip” (cf. Mt. 27:28), b. “to divest oneself,” “to take off.” In the NT we find ekdýō in 2 Cor. 5:4, where it can hardly mean that Paul wants to avoid the nakedness of the intermediate state (cf. v. 5; Phil. 1:23), but perhaps refers to the loss of the earthly body when there is no hope of a heavenly body.

apekdýō. In the NT this occurs only in Col. 3:9, where it has the strong sense “fully to put off” with no possible return to the old state, and Col. 2:15, where it does not mean “to divest oneself of,” but “to disarm” (opposite of dýō, “to arm oneself”).

endýō. a. “To draw on,” b. “to put on,” “clothe oneself with.”

1. In the NT it occurs literally in Mt. 6:25; Mk. 6:9; Acts 12:21; Rev. 19:14.

2. Figuratively we find it in 2 Cor. 5:3; where Paul desires to be clothed with the heavenly body. We also find it with reference to Christian armor in Rom. 13:12; 1 Th. 5:8; Eph. 6:8, 11, investing with qualities in Col. 3:12, and investing with incorruptibility in 1 Cor. 15:53–54. The object is personal in Gal. 3:27: “We have put on Christ,” or, as an imperative, in Rom. 13:14: “Put on Christ” (cf. also Col. 3:10: “Seeing ... you have put on the new man”). Behind this usage stands the concept of Christ as the second Adam.

ependýō. “To put on over.” The only NT use is in 2 Cor. 5:2,4 for investiture with the heavenly body at the parousia.

apékdysis. This occurs only in Col. 2:11, where the sense is figurative (cf. Rom. 6:2–3; Gal. 2:19). [A. OEPKE, II, 318–21]

dṓdeka means “twelve,” a number which was highly esteemed due to the division of the year into twelve months, and in Israel due to the existence of twelve tribes in the sacral union, which is of theological significance even after the disappearance of some tribes and the fusion of the others into a political society.

1. Twelve is a round number in Mt. 9:20; Acts 19:7; 24:11, and perhaps Mt. 14:20, though here the point might be a basket for each of the twelve disciples. It is of interest that in Mk. 5 the woman has been ill twelve years (v. 25) and Jairus’ daughter is twelve years old (v. 42), since the two stories are interwoven.

2. In Lk. 2:42 Jesus is twelve years old when he goes to the Passover; the point of the journey seems to have been to familiarize him with the obligations of the feast, since the obligation to keep it came only at the age of thirteen.

4. The use of twelve in Revelation is linked to the OT concept of the twelve tribes as comprising God’s people. Thus the twelve stars of 12:1 characterize the woman as a symbol of the daughter of Zion. Twelve also plays an important role in the measurements of the new Jerusalem in ch. 21. Again, in 7:4ff. twelve thousand are sealed from each of the twelve tribes; the figure “twelve” stresses the continuity of the underlying saving will of God, the “thousands” emphasize the size of the community, and the number as a whole brings out the element of order and perfection as God pursues and fulfils his divine way of salvation. These are not just Jewish believers, for the author alters the customary list, leaving out Dan. Interest focuses on the teleology of salvation history as God in faithfulness to himself and his people achieves his purpose in the community as the spiritual Israel. The numbers 12,000 and 144,000 occur in a cosmic sense among the Mandaeans and Manicheans, but if there is a connection, it is more likely that these took the numbers from Revelation, not vice versa.

5. The classical use of dṓdeka is in relation to the innermost group of Jesus’ followers: the twelve disciples in Mt. 10:1 etc., the twelve apostles in Mt. 10:2; Lk. 22:14, and the Twelve in Mt. 26:14 etc. These are the same people, but while all apostles would be disciples, not all disciples are apostles, only those who are expressly appointed to be such by Jesus. Jesus himself freely chooses these twelve (Mk. 3:13–14; Lk. 6:12–13; cf. Jn. 6:70). To question the historicity of this selection is to make the existence of the Twelve inexplicable, especially as the inclusion of Judas does not fit well with the theory of their emergence after the resurrection, with Paul’s reference to them as the first witnesses of the resurrection (1 Cor. 15:5), or with the reference to the eleven in Mt. 28:16; Mk. 16:14; Lk. 24:9. The choice of the number accords with the divine plan of salvation and the preparation of the community as its goal. It looks back to the ancient constitution of Israel and ahead to the final form of the messianic community. In the Twelve Jesus claims all Israel, so that the Twelve have no independent place but serve as the link between Christ and his people. Except as the first witnesses of the resurrection, they then play no special role as a group. The silence of Paul is important in this regard, and their only joint action in Acts is in the advice they give for the selection of the Seven in Acts 6. When James is put to death, they make no attempt to fill his place, mainly because the emphasis has now shifted to Gentile work in which others participate (cf. Acts 8:5ff.), and the time for the Jewish people to make a decision in relation to them has passed, so that they have thus become representatives of judgment upon it (cf. 19:28). The simple form “the Twelve” shows that a special task is at issue rather than a special dignity. It occurs almost always when the group is tested, when a close relationship to Jesus is stressed, or when there is a combination of the two, as in Mt. 20:17. Their function, of course, is finally a positive one, for in Rev. 21:14 the foundation stones of the city bear their names. The Israel that is gathered from all nations is in fact inconceivable without them, so that even if the claim that Jesus makes through them is initially resisted, it comes to a higher fulfilment with the expanded concept of God’s people, and they have a vital function in the church’s understanding of herself in relation to God’s total plan. [K. H. RENGSTORF, II, 321–28]
- apóstolos, Israḗl

hebdomḗkonta - heptá; Hebraíos - Israḗl; engízō - engýs; engráphō – gráphō

xcxxcxxc F ” “ This Webpage was created for a workshop held at Saint Andrew's Abbey, Valyermo, California in 1990....x.... ’ “”.