IRENT Vol. III Supplement, No.

No. 1 Words, Words, and Words

Updated Feb. 7, 2020

r.3.0.6

This is one of the supplements to IRENT, a new translation of the New

Testament. The text of IRENT is open to the public and available free to all
for you to challenge and be challenged. Since 2004, the text is continually
being updated, replaced, and uploaded at http://tiny.cc/bostonreaders
until time runs out.

Please make sure get the latest revision and be kind to send your e-mail for
comments, critiques, corrections, or questions to ounbbx@gmail.com as
well as for a request to access to other related files of useful reference and
study material.

Alas, time and tomorrow do not wait for us!

 IRENT Vol. III. Supplement

WALK THROUGH THE SCRIPTURE

No. 1 Words, Words, and Words

No. 2 (Text, Translation and Translations)

No. 3A (Name, God, and Person)
No. 3B (Man, Anthropology, and Religion)
No. 3C (People and Persons)
No. 4 (Place, Things, and Numbers)
No. 5 (Time, Calendar and Chronology)
No. 6 (Passion Week Chronology)

For this supplement, see the collected files

in <Collections #1A (Words and Terms)>
and <Collection #1B (Words and Theories)>.

Words are what we, as human beings, really are.

Note: As is a PDF file or MS Word file, when a word or phrase is underlined in

blue font, it is always for hyperlink to online on the web, whether it is easily
recognizable as such by the presence of “www”, “http://”, “/”, or not.
The Vol. III of IRENT series of a new translation of NT holds several
files to serve as the Supplements and being updated continually
replaced and uploaded at tiny.cc/bostonreaders. As such, it is
only possible to be published as an online serial, not in a print book.

The purpose of these supplements is

to share it with the readers of IRENT to help
understand how and why IRENT has been created.

The supplement is for depository of my study material collected - bits of

material, often duplicated, repetitious, and poorly organized. Some are
from my own and more are from many others’ writings. Be known that not
all of what one says is true, correct and useful; but not everything is said
is wrong or incorrect, whichever their ideological and theological bent is.

May the readers be able to rescue something useful for them from this
unpolished work.

[Note: ‘Ref.’ means the reading material I have found useful, not only to solve
problems but also to find challenges. Not all things written there are relevant to
the topics under the discussion here. Not all written can be correct, right, or
accurate. The readers should exercise their own judgment to make use of them.]
 No. 1 Words, Words and Words

Not only one should know well what ‘it’ is,

but also know what ‘it’ is not – whatever this ‘it’ is,
as it is harder to unlearn.

A word is word is word? No.

Literally the word of ‘truth’ is what gives us life
and it is what challenges us
and with such we deceive ourselves and others.

'Word' and 'meaning' –

two most difficult words to pin down.
What is the meaning of them
and how to define and to get sense of them?
What a word does not mean is as important
as what it means in the context;
what the author intends with a word is more
important.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just
what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.' (Lewis Carroll)
Purpose and goal of this volume:
It is not so much to present information and my personal thoughts, but to make
available those materials and what I have gained in understanding for the readers to
see why some words and phrases are avoided and some are used in translation of NT
to stand on the sound and logical principle of linguistic and literary approach to the
Scripture, completely divorced from doctrinal approach. It is to challenge, not to
simply inform those who love and study the Scripture devoting time and effort in
reading and studying with Bibles, not with the Bible.

There is an important by-product – a rare opportunity, truly once in a life time, for
thorough re-examination of all the doctrinal arguments, be it fundamental or
controversial. When arguments meet counter arguments, it is plain that both sides
cannot be right. I have found that neither side to be right on many issues. In other
words, both sides are deficient and wrong, each with myopic sight, failing to go
beyond their narrow and fixed mindset. What we need in most such cases is dialectic,
finding synthesis in harmony with Scriptural statements, not thesis and antithesis of
arguments of sophistication and sophistry. Any statements, assertions, claims,
arguments and explanations are product of mortal human mind with limited wisdom.
Unless we remove every kind of contradiction, confusion, and conflation, and have
them judged by the whole of the Scripture, these remain useless and harmful to unity
of the Body of the Mashiah, but serves status quo of religions and religiosity with all
the harms religions have inflicted on humankind throughout human history. What
they have done is that they killed even ‘God’ in the name of God, as in the pursuit of
power and pleasure, often colluding with political powers that be. [Rm 13:2
Tyndale’s translation.]

To be true to how it is made, the title of this writing has been changed from
the original title ‘Basic Words in the Scripture’. It is my own journey, walking
through the Bible wresting with words and the Word. It would be just like so
many writings published as articles and books without much worth by itself —
unless it is to be shared with others on their own journey, exploring and
sharing paths on their pace — shared free. The only payment I would love to
receive from the reader is their challenge to me as well as to themselves.

• This cannot be to be something like a dictionary or encyclopedia for

Scriptural, Biblical, theological, religious, or other related words. It is rather
something out of personal confrontation and struggle on words, with life
continuously encounter words, phrases, and ideas. Not just words in the
Scripture and the Bibles and the related words, but also those I encounter
in the process of translation of work, my last project, of the New Testament.
I have to taste words and phrases in the literary work, as well as the
terminology in the related fields, such as linguistics and grammar,
 language learning and education, etc. It is hope to help the readers of
Bibles get the words retrieved from a wasteland in which words (terms and
jargons) are used in theological, scholarly, religious (church-related)
statements and expressions which are ideologically and doctrinally colored.
This work in the continuous process of editing and correcting to present it
to the readers so that not only they may get something out of it, but they
may be challenged to be on their own journey to the Scriptural knowledge
and truth, completed immune to the religious and worldly mindset. This
writing would need editing ‘hundred’ times over to be polished comparable
to a skillful writer, until it makes it clear, concise, and coherent. It is hoped
that the readers may put up with it, as some ideas coming up repetitiously,
taking each chunk as a bite-sized morsel to read and find useful for their
own mind. For any claim, statement, or opinion contained here the readers
should not have any mercy to treat.

What is in here is in different categories – data, information, knowledge,

author’s thought or opinion. As for collected data, such as cross-
referencing of the relevant Scripture verses or references, they are
appropriately to be placed in the End-notes. By nature, the same themes
or expressions are found here and there, more than once. Though some
may be too detailed, it is not to be encyclopedic, but rather to provide
rationale and validity of particular translation practices in the work of IRENT
online serial of an English NT translation of the Greek NT, taking a fresh
linguistic and literary approach from the viewpoints of the original intended
audiences as well as the implied audiences, including the modern readers
– all in their own Sitzen im Leben.

Many themes treated here are by themselves interlinked; some overlap or

duplication are found here and there, unavoidably so.

• Those reference resources, which have been consulted with, quoted from
and abstracted, do provide essential data and information. However, their
knowledge and thoughts (insights, ideas, and interpretations) are
something for the readers to put to test before it is ever to be accepted to
see whether they are in harmony of the whole Scriptural truth, no matter
where these are from and by whom. Beware of those articles on online
Wikipedia – some are highly bent for one’s idea and agenda (for propaganda or
promotion) as anyone can edit and then any editing can be overwritten and does
not provide a space for discussion.

• Those belonging to the category of data (e.g. concordant style Biblical text
list) are put in the end-notes (EE) within this file. [As some editing is often
made affecting typography, transliteration, etc., the quoted texts may not
be exactly as in the original.

• Regrettably it is impossible for me to show the sources of all the ideas,

expressions, and statements out there from which I have culled and plucked and
 alerted for my work. Whether I have found there or have come on my own, nothing
is really new under the sun. I do not claim any originality as I have no need of it.

• In the footnotes and end-notes of IRENT translations, this file is referred to

as BW [after its original title, Basic Words in the Scripture.]

• For a note for word search in MS Word or PDF in IRENT work in

general, see EE here.1

All which are found in this URL address are freely open to the public. It’s
available to anyone who has an access to internet and ability to download and
read the files (mostly in PDF format) with minimal proficiency to English. The
readers are free to quote for one’s own use. You may say, yes, no, or not so.
However, one thing is important – not to quote out of the context. If you are not
associated with Christianity, Christian religions, or Christian
Churches/denominations, and if your English is at beginning level, you all may
feel easy with my invitation to IRENT to share. Simply I ask you to be open-
minded to see where it may take you with surprises and some shocks.

As to accuracy of the material for data and information, you have to take what
you see here. As my own writing is continually evolving, it is prudent for the
readers to check the latest update before quoting from it.

As the word in the title of IRENT translation work of NT, all is my invitation,
open and free. It is meant not only for invitation, but also for indictment. I’m
inviting you not to comfort but conflict. It is to bring challenge to all, including
myself — to anyone who cares about things which are important in the life, of a
person or of human beings. I hear a challenge in what Yeshua said – Yeshua
came not to give peace as such, but a sword to cause them divided over the truth
of who I am. (Cf. Mt 10:34). What I prattle, ramble, and rant here and there, is
out of my brain the pouring from my heart and venting of my spleen. On what
ground people are supposed to ask their God the blessings they crave?
 This is a collection of some basic words
frequently appearing in the text of the Scripture,
which the readers need to be familiar
in order to understand the Scriptural text properly
and not misled often by presumption and presupposition.
Material is a collection which is taken off from the footnotes
to avoid duplicated treatment
as it also needs space more than footnotes should take up.

Each entry is provided with what should be essential to understand when reading
any translation work of the Scripture. A special consideration is given to explain
how a particular rendering is considered and chosen for IRENT work to touch
on translation practice and principle involved.

Difficulty words are actually not difficult to learn; many familiar

words are easy, deceptively so — easy to mislead as they are often
not what they mean. Through a language a our thoughts are 0F0F

expressed and communicated; at the same time, it affects and

alters how and what of our thoughts.

Languages can come as a great barrier and a troublesome

hindrance. With misunderstandings and misconceptions along
with faulty communication fuel is fed into conflicts between
persons and groups on the trivial level at mundane everyday life
as well as at the power struggle on the lofty ideological and
doctrinal level.

What the readers see here is: a certain amount of data which is
pulled and presented as pieces of information to be useful and
handy. A very limited tool was used to limit the quality of its result
for detail, accuracy, and precision.

Much better, abundant and detailed, scholar works than one finds
here are available and within easy reach of everyone, thanks to
the Age of Information we now live in. All these cannot be accurate
even at the source level and as they are presented here. Needed
disclaimers would overwhelm it if all were possible to put in.

Most of things here are from what have learned, unlearned,

studied, read, listened, got disgusted, got frustrated, got confused,
got inspired, got misled questioned, searched and re-searched,
and stumbled across, stumbled over, and bombarded with,

a
Language – is what makes us live; logic keeps us think clear.
encountered to find serendipities, and awed, put thought on;
admired, copied, plagiarized, altered, ‘lifted’ from others works
digested, extracted, squeezed out, condensed, corrected, changed,
altered, edited, and polished; slept on them, chased after illusive
words and slay them in dream, and, chasing them, wake with
them, – my world is wide web of words – all so that as much as I
desire to put here in as little as the space allow:

– not constrained by the number of pages which is unlimited

by the nature of electronic format, unlike the print-book format,
but the personal ‘space’ for each reader can spare in effort and
time to search through and read up – no, not to accept but to
challenge [read also as ‘incite’] it. Not only the work of mine but
also of all others, one should challenge and above all challenge
one’s own self and put it into questions. Ultimately in our life,
we have to confront our whole being, which is often called ‘soul’
and put it against the Truth, the divine reality.

Before being lured to be safe and secure, better be critical, even

be cynical; do not be fooled by the language people playing with.
Do not forget that the humanity independent from God has its
purpose in the pursuit of power and pleasure to possess, to be
possessed and to peddle. That’s how we all are ‘sinners’; we are
not sinners because we sin, but we sin because we are sinners; we
are in sin – our human nature is in sin and everything of our
humanity is in sin, including our personality and our sexuality as
well as our intelligence. SINS are only symptoms of SIN! Yeshua did NOT
die for the SINS of the world! [Jn 1:29 it is ‘sin’, not ‘sins’. He died to take away
sin nature and sin power.] a 1F1F

There is no short-cut or wide gate and open road for those who
want to hear what Yeshua told the people who flocked after Him,
either accepting or rejecting as God has in His grace bestowed
mortal human beings the precious freedom, the very freedom to
choose right and wrong, and life and death.

a
Cf. ‘all became sinners’ (Rm 5:19) – not unbiblical idea of ‘all are born sinners’.
SIN and SINS - after Jaja Azikiwe of YEN with minor editing:
(Jn 1:29) “SINS are only symptoms of SIN. … Yeshua did NOT die for the SINS of the world. …
(Jn 3:14-21) SIN is the failure to come to the Father through His Mashiah, Yeshua! If this is not done
with we remain in darkness, lawless (= living away from God’s law) and prone to committing SINS!
But don't those in the light commit sins too? Yes, the whole world does! But the SYMPTOMS OF SIN
(sins) WERE AND ARE ALL FORGIVEN!”]
 Life? It’s all about words, all with words
and all from the Word!
Nothing else we can leave to others
when our early life is done.
It’s worth to fight for and to fight with them
and honored are those called to die for the Word.
Life is free gift of God, free but costly on God Himself.
It is given but we have borrowed it.
It is to be paid back in freedom, by living fully in God.

— To unlearn is the hard part of any learning;

it’s harder if not attended at the beginning of it.
To argue for or against, everything we can collect and think of
must be laid open on the table
and be dealt with in whole, not in a piecemeal and partial
manner.

What I have written down here is now just beyond the stage of
collecting my scraps of my scripts – in need of editing, cutting out,
filtering, changing, correcting, tearing apart, stitching up,
amending, polishing, refining, redrawing, re-searching, re-
creating; is in need to be challenged, questioned, critiqued,
reprimanded, scolded, slapped on, chuckled at — with a dose of
criticism, cynicism, and sarcasm, so that I can see things not from
within myself but rather from without. What better way is to
learn than seeing from the other side? Thesis, antithesis, and
synthesis; if blessed, my foes will turn out to be truly my friends.
Lexicons; dictionaries; word lists; text bibles:

• F.W. Danker, The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (2009)
[It does not provide information on synonyms and antonyms.]

Cf. W. Bauer, W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich & F.W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon

of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD 3rd Ed. 2000)
[introduction - (http://ntresources.com/blog/documents/UsingBDAG.pdf )

• Note: James Strong (1890), Strong’s Dictionary of the Bible, Greek and
Hebrew.
– an outdated namesake dictionary of a historical merit only; it not a lexicographic
work, but a glossary of collecting the translation words in KJB2 – nothing to do with
meaning and sense of words.]
[Cf. Strong’s (or New Strong’s) Exhaustive Concordance, which is not a dictionary.]

• Kurt Aland, ed., Synopsis of the Four Gospels – Greek-English Edition of the
Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, 12th Ed. 2001.

• John J. Pilch (1999), The Cultural Dictionary of Bible

• Granger and Paquot (2012), Electronic Lexicography
See
http://termcoord.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/presentation_granger.pdf
• www.academicvocabulary.info/ Corpus of Contemporary American
English (COCA)
• Herbert Smyth (1920), A Greek Grammar for Colleges
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=TK9MAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcov
er&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP3
• Nelson's Expository Dictionary of the Old Testament (1980).
• Vines' Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1940),
www.ultimatebiblereferencelibrary.com/Vines_Expositary_Dictionary.pdf

References

[It is prudent to read several reviews on the published books or article, simply to
get acquainted and to get most of it – not all the arguments can be correct or lead
to truth – and we simply don’t have enough time in our life to read all as we wish
to.]

• Moisés Silva, Biblical Words and Their Meaning: An Introduction to Lexical

Semantics (1983; Rev. 1995)

• Moisés Silva, (1990), God, Language and Scripture – Reading the Bible in the
Light of General Linguistics.

• James Barr (1961), The Semantics of Biblical Language

• Stanley Porter and Mark Boda (2009), Translating the New Testament – Text,
Translation, Theology – [a valuable book for translators.]

• Lawrence Venuti (1995), The Translator’s Invisibility: A History of Translation.

• Ref: Schulte & Biguenet, ed. (1992), Theories of Translation – An Anthology of

Essays from Dryden to Derrida. [Not about Bible translation, but very informative
for Bible translators.]
• A Brief Guide to Better Bible Study | Grace Communion International
(www.gci.org/bible/study)

• http://english.stackexchange.com/ For English language and usage.

• www.ditext.com/runes/index.html dictionary of philosophy

Other reading materials:

• Adrian Thatcher (1990), Truly a Person, Truly God – A Post-Mythical View of

Jesus. – for the terms, words, and phrases related with the subject ‘Trinity’

• Hans Küng (1992), Credo. The Apostle’s Creed Explained for Today.
• Donald Brake (2011), A Visual History of the King James Bible
• Christopher Upward, et al, (2011), The History of English Spelling
• Denise Eide (2013), Uncovering the Logic of English: A Common-Sense Approach
to Reading, Spelling, and Literacy
• Jason David BeDuhn (2003), Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament [See Introduction (pp. xiii – xix)]3
• Rolf Furuli (1990), The Roe of Theology and Bias in Bible Translation – with a
special look at the NWT

Strong's:

S# Greek words
H# for Hebrew words

Double Strong's # - why?

Yeshua – H3442 ‫ֵׁשּוע‬
ַ ‫( י‬e.g. in Neh 8:17); H3443 ַ‫( יֵׁשּוע‬e.g. in Ezr 5:2)
YHWH – H3068 (6220x) ‫( י ְהֹוָה‬Gen 2:4; Exo 3:2, etc.); H3069 (608x)
‫ –י ְהֹוִה‬Gen 15:2; Lev 1:11, etc. – this with different vowel pointing.
 Notes on words and vocabulary in the translation

Things here written are about the words, phrases, and

expressions. This covers the biblical ones and then moves on
the nonbiblical one.

The words are what we are made of and on what we live on.
Those written or spoken often confuse us and even misled.
Something you are meandering through them in your life to
be confronted. Bits of pieces of data, information, and
knowledge are here for you find useful and feel challenged. It
is hoped that you gain some insights so that a path of your
own may be taken to find solutions for the problems some of
which may not have adequate answers. The treatment of
words and phrases cannot be comprehensive and scholarly,
but rather compendious and personal. Until it gets polished
up enough, listing of words and writing on them will remain
rather haphazard and unorganized.

Words of specialty, technical, or jargon are not too difficult to

tackle. On the other hand, simple innocuous words present
problematic, because they are not recognized as such. A prime
example of the word is ‘is’. a A word rarely has just one
meaning; it has a semantic field which may overlap in varying
degree with that of other word, and manifold usage. It is
affected by word-picture, association, or connotation each
person may carry with it. To thoroughly understand the
meaning of some words, be it common or difficult, as reflected
in their usage may need a help with lexicological study, both
synchronic and in diachronic, as well as etymological and
comparative linguistic study.

Along with 'words', there are also problems of 'idiom' - “an

expression that cannot be understood from the meanings of
its separate words but has a separate meaning of its own.” A
similar expression may be a different idiom in other languages.

In the work of translating the Greek NT and in reading English

version, it should be reminded that a large vocabulary is Greek

a
See an excellent article is by Roberts, Mary K. (2013). The Nefarious “Is”.
In K. E. Davis, R. Bergner, F. Lubuguin, & W. Schwartz (Eds.), Advances
in Descriptive Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 267-277) www.sdp.org/wp-
content/uploads/2017/12/Roberts-The-nefarious-is-261-271.pdf [A
copy is to be found in IRENT Vol. III Supplement (Collection #1).]
 translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic of words in addition to
those words transliterated, such as proper names. As a typical
example of a translated word, the word ‘theos’ (‘God) is a
translation of Hebrew word ‘Elohim’, just as the English word
‘God’ in the NT is translation of the Greek.

I have tried to show what, why, and how the words are to be treated with utmost
care and attention to be shown in the sacred space on every page of a translation
work, to be worthy of the God’s name, the name which Yeshua Himself came to
reveal when He came into the midst of our humanity as the (the truth of) Incarnate
Word of Elohim (as a metaphorical expression for ‘embodiment’) – not the
ubiquitous unbiblical idea and expression, (the myth of) ‘Incarnate God’ or ‘God
Incarnate’ (as a doctrinal metaphysical statement). A lot more to learn, digest,
think and edit! Nothing is foolish than a slogan of “Just Do It”. It should read
‘Don’t Just Do It.” Don’t just accept other’s views, even as they come in the name
of scholars and sponsors.

The words we use in every day do not actually mean same to all people, in all
places and in all the time. Especially so the words in the Scripture. They may not
carry meanings one assumes to be. The Scripture being read with such assumption
breeds new presumptions and reinforces wrong presumptions which are in the end
to bear delicious but noxious fruits of doctrines, dogmas, philosophy and ideology
to fuel religious power engines. The meaning of a word in the Scripture does not
correspond to the lexical meaning (that is listed in lexicons). It only comes a live
with the text supported with the contexts. The situation for us is much worse as
the words, phrases, and expressions are from the Bible of our translation and our
choice. Many doctrinal contentions begin at the level of a word which each one
brings the meaning of their preference.
 ‘Words, words, words!’

“Everyone can and should rely on being taught, but only so

long without actually learning to study for themselves. It is
not saying that being taught is to be done away, however
learning how to study for oneself is the only way to lead to find
truth.” We are to re-search and study for ourselves to see if
what is taught and learned is truth.

We only need to set on a journey on each own carrying

questions with an open mind – not blinded by presuppositions
and presumptions and hoodwinked by persuasive words from
knowledge-peddlers, as all we hear is something from the
minds of mortal humans – in prominent robe philosophical,
religious, political and ideological mind-control. Compare and
challenge. We have to kill the powerful God, the Sacred Self,
but should not allow others’ God(s) to take the place of the
ultimate Truth, the divine reality, as revealed in the Scripture.

From the wordsa come phrases and sentences which create a

variety of statements, arguments, claims [ — in scholarly
arguments, in propaganda or in peddling], each of which can
hardly stand logically on its own, as they are necessarily lifted
out of text context and devoid of speech setting that the
intention and agenda of speakers are not easily discernable.
One’s statements stand contradicting others, not because
they are wrong or erroneous, but they assume that things are
talked about mean same to others.

What used to be Biblical words are ‘high-jacked’ and have lost their true sense,
becoming jargons of particular churches or religions (denominations); Christian
or theological jargons. When these words are read off the Bible, different thought
lines are colluding, contradicting, and getting conflated and mixed up –
Scriptural vs. religious or secularized usage. Anachronism, eisegesis, hooked on
sensus_plenior, pick-and-choose proof-texting, and lack of understating the
Scripture text which was heard ('not read') in the original setting of language and
culture (Sitz_im_Leben), as far removed from modern, especially Westernized
and Americanized.

Unless we define words precisely to be on the common ground, it is futile to try

to resolve disputes or contentions. It is impossible to "hold two competing ideas
at the same time" (F. Scott Fitzgerald) or to see both side of every issue — that
is, unless the words used mean same consistently in the same context. As in

a
Words – vocabulary; terms. Words are learned from exposure – experience – express (out).
theological or doctrinal disputes – people make up new words; uses words in
different meaning.

There are words as seen in the various English translations,

• Some ought to let go from translation, as they have become

archaic or inaccurate, as those in KJV.
[E.g. meat for food, trump for shofar, brass for bronze, or Ghost
for Spirit]

• Some should be retained. Though they are biblical words, there

are no other words to carry the special sense and association with
the usage in the Scripture and have become church or Christian
jargons.
[E.g. tabernacle vs. tent]

• Some should be rejected, since now it has built up non-Scriptural

sense.
[E.g. hell vs. GeHinnom]

• Anachronism misleads and confuses.

E.g. cross for execution stake as a Roman execution device,
in contrast to the use of the word in the symbolic sense of
death of Yeshua.
E.g. Baptist for the Baptizer (Yohanan).
E.g. trumpet vs. shofar

• Some should not be hidden (leading to ignorance and neglect in

danger of confusing with non-Scriptural word idea, such as a
‘Cosmic God’) where the word itself is something to be revealed.
[E.g. YHWH in place of the Lord]

• Some should be re-discovered to be more appropriate in the

Scriptural text.
[E.g. 'Elohim' in place of ‘the God’ (arthrous Greek ho theos)
as English convention does not use the definite article. The
capitalized ‘God’ cannot by itself distinguish from a generic notion
of God (God, a God, a god, etc.)] [Since Heb. elohim is in several
different senses (singular as well to be applied to other than the
true God), just as Gk. theos and English God/god are, the word
used as the translation word in IRENT is akin to loanword from
Hebrew and it is a short hand for ‘Most-High Elohim’, who has
revealed Himself to be known as ‘YHWH’ as His holy name.]
[anarthrous theos is rendered mostly as 'God' when in reference
 to Elohim. (God-being). The genitive theou ('of God') is akin to
'divine'.] [See also WB #3].

• *remote article: *remote article: a noun may be separated from

the article by interposed words; should not be mistaken as
anarthrous. Especially for Gk. theos;
e.g. 1Tm 1:17 – tō (de basilei tōn aiōnōn aphthartō aoratō) monō
Theō 'alone to Elohim'); rendered as 'Elohim', not as 'God'.
e.g. Heb 9:14 eis to latreuein Theō zōnti 'in order to serve the living
Elohim'

• Some should be re-discovered to be more appropriate in the

Scriptural text.
[E.g. The two Gk. words - Temple’ for the Greek hieron; and
Mishkan for Gk. naos in place of ‘Sanctuary’.
3F3F

• H1965 hekal 'temple' Ezr 5:14; 6:5; 'palace' (Ezr 4:14; Dan
4:4); temple (of YHWH); Jer 7:4; Ezr 4:1
• H1964 hekal 'temple' 1Sam 1:9; 3:3, etc.

• H4720 miqdash sanctuary Exo 15:17; 25:8; Lev 12:4; 16: 13

(holy~), etc.
Temple – (Gk. hieron; Heb. miqdash, mikdash); Heb. meaning ‘dwelling, residence’.
[Etym. related to Qodesh – sacredness, set-apart.].
Cf. 1Co 8:10 idol's temple ░░ [S264 eidōleiōn]

• H4908 mishkan (139x) [e.g. '~ of YHWH' Num 31:30; 1Ch

16:39; 21:29]; rendered as 'tabernacle', 'dwelling place', Exo
25:9; 26:1, etc. Lev 8:10; 15:31, etc. Num 1:50, 51, etc. Jos
22:19, 29; 2Sam 7:6; 1Ch 6:32, 48, etc.
Mishkan – Heb. meaning ‘dwelling (place), residence’.
Gk. naos. In NT ‘sanctuary’ but many translate as ‘temple’ to make it difficult
to distinquish.
LXX hagion (adj). In O.T. it is usually translated as ‘tabernacle’. In NT 5x - as
‘tabernacle’ ‘tent’. [Cf. (Lake) Michigan – from Chippewa Indian word
‘meicigama’ meaning ‘great water’.] [skēnē – LXX uses it to translate four
different Hebrew words.]
[
to hagion 'a holy place' (Heb 9:24); 'the holy place' (e.g. Heb 9:1); 'the holy
places' (Heb 8:2); />> sanctuary;
S3624 oikos 'the dwelling place' Lk 11:52; 'house' Mt 9:6; Lk 1:23, 27;
S4633 skēnē 'tent' 'dwelling places' 'tabernacle' Mt 17:4; Lk 16:9, Heb 8:5; etc.
Cf. "the inner part (/inner sanctuary – HCSB) behind the veil" Heb 6:19.
 • *capitalization problem

[See '*capitalization' in the file <How to read IRENT>.]

*Capitalization of a word adds different sense – e.g. god vs. God; lord vs. Lord;
spirit vs. Spirit; * word vs. Word; etc.

The force of Greek (definite) article is in-between ‘the’ and ‘this/that’ in

English. It particularizes the word carrying a sense of 'the very ~' or 'the
abovementioned'.

Important examples:

/the Word/ a without a modifier (esp. Jn 1:1, 14). Most Bible likewise
translates Gk. ho logos as /the Word/ capitalized. However, it is not to show
that it is a person of Trinity God, but simply because it is none other than the
very Word of Elohim. Many are led to believe this refers even to a 'pre-existing
Jesus'. IRENT clarifies it by rendering as /the Word [of Elohim]/ adding the
phrase [of Elohim].

/the Spirit/. Only when it stands alone without any modifier – often in
personification (Act 8:9 etc.), it is justified to be capitalized. IRENT renders it
as /the Spirit [of Elohim].

/holy spirit/ or /the holy spirit/: the capitalized phrase /the Holy Spirit/ may be
justified only as a title phrase, not as in NT translation,

/In beginning/ – renders Jn 1:1a ‘En archē’, not as ‘In the beginning’.

a
The English word ‘*Logos’ does not fit as a translation word in NT (as in Moffatt); it is a special
technical term for religious-philosophical jargon infusing unrelated ideas and helping nothing at all but
misleading.
 • /God/ in contrast to /a god/, the latter should be reserved for a pagan
deity.a This is true also for Gk. theos (‘God’); most occurrence is ‘ho
theos’ (the God). Unfortunately, it is simply being rendered as ‘God’ in
English bibles simply following English convention. IRENT overcomes
the problem by rendering as ‘Elohim’ for the arthrous; while not arthrous
is rendered variously – ‘God’ ‘God-being’ ‘what God is’. This way,
distinction between arthrous and anarthrous is clearly shown in the
translation.

• 'from God' –
para Theou ('from God') Jn 1:6 9:16, 33;
ek tou Theou ('from Elohim') 1Jn 4:1, 2, 3, 4, 6;
cf. ho Theos ēn met' autou ('Elohim was with him') Act 10:38.

• Problem of possessive pronoun, /God's/ vs. /of God/

E.g. /grace of God/ = /God's grace/, but /fear of God/ is not /God's fear'.
E.g. 'love of God' – subjective genitive (God's love) vs. objective genitive (to
love God).

Mk 11:22 (‘have faith in God’) echete pistin theou;

Rm 10:2 (‘have for zeal’) ░░ (zēlon theou echousin) /have a zeal for God –
NASB, HCSB; /x: have a zeal of God – KJV; /are zealous for God – NIV, NET;
/xxx: deeply devoted to God – GNT; /have Godly zeal – SourceNT; /

• [See *genitive problem]:

*godly, zealous
S2205 zelos (16x) ‘zeal’ Jn 2:17; Act 1:45; Rm 10:2; 13:13, etc.
S2206 zēloō (12x) ‘be zealous’ ‘be envious’; ‘desire earnestly’ Act 7:9; 17:5; 1Co
12:31, 13:4; 14:1, etc.
S2153 eusebōs (2x) ‘godly’ /x: piously; 2Tim 3:21; Ti 2:12
S2152 eusebēs (3x) ‘pious’ ‘devout’ /x: ‘god-fearing’ Act 10:2, 7; 2Pe 2:9
S2150 eusebeia (15x) ‘godliness’/x: ‘piety’ Act 3:12; 1Tim 2:2, 3:18, etc. 2Tim 3:5;
Tit 1:1; 2Pe 1:3, etc.)
S2124 eulabeia (2x) ‘reverence’ ‘godly fear’ ‘piety’ ‘devotion’; (Heb 5:7, 12:28);
S1169 deilos (x) ‘be fearful’; (Mt 8:6 //Mk 4:4; Rev 21:8); ‘awe, fear’ (Heb 12:28);
S4576 sebō sébomai, (10x) "pay homage, revere, venerate" ‘worship’
Mt 15:9 //Mk 7:7 ‘worship me’; Act 16:14; 18:7 ‘worshiping Elohim’; Act 19:27
‘worship goddess’
Cf. ‘God-fearing’ Act 13:5, 43; 17:4, 17;
Heb 12:28 ‘serve Elohim with godly fear and awe’

a
NWT rendering of Jn 1:1c 'and the Word was a god'. Though it is grammatically not incorrect,
but very problematic. If 'the Word' is misinterpreted to refer to the pre-existing 'Jesus', it gives two
God-beings, Father and His Son.
Vocabulary and issue of readability

By the very nature of the Scripture which has a long history behind before it reaches
us, there are unfamiliar words (besides proper names). Some of which are biblical
only and carry special meaning derived from the context. However, unfamiliarity
itself does not presuppose that it means difficulty in reading. Without ongoing
continued and consistent learning process, there is no way the Word of the God can
be revealed, and the Bible itself will remain shelf books for book sellers and shelf-
help for those who buy them. Modern translations or pseudo-translations are easy
to read as far as English language goes, but they are no more than adulterated profit-
makers targeted for the gullible population with polluted messages with powdery
sugar. To choose words to translate the original words is not simple one to one
replacement as in so-called literal translation. Words in English have a semantic
field of different size. Its counterpart in the original has its own in different way.
The enemy of Scripture translation is anachronism4, jargonism5, all bordering on
smart aleck of frivolity in addition to archaism 6 (found mostly in the older
translations).

To communicate clearly and effectively, with our vocabulary the word needs to
have a definition and a semantic field. However, in everyday speech, we take the
words as they come with presumption and assumption, which may be very biased,
inaccurate, or even incorrect. Usually the context and the unspoken elements of
language resolve the ambiguity. However, when we are dealing with the written
text only, which are separated from its original setting, the problem often becomes
acute and bring people to jousting for power to get the upper hand. The power of
words is well depicted in idioms and in literary styles in various languages.7

At a difference level than text readability is visuality which concerns typography

and formatting – book, page and paragraph – to present to the eyes of the readers is
also important, to which online IRENT has given special attentions which is not
affordable as wished when the text is presented in a print-book form.

Translation from the source language A to the target language B;

At the level of words, no corresponding word (as if translation is a simple code-
conversion process) exist with a matching semantic field (/w synonyms). Each word
needs to be interpreted in the source language (meaning, idiom, usage). Then a word
be chosen from the target language which needs interpreted as used in that language.
Main problems:
(1) eisegesis (agenda driven with proof-texting. See '* Humpty-Dumpty' below);
(2) different semantic field;
(3) different milieu (Sitz im Leben) Sitz im Leben – cultural, social, religious and
historical.

Many faces of ‘things’;

The word ‘thing’ covers almost everything conceivable – tangible/intangible,
visible/invisible – even human persons for which the word can be used as a
derogative.

E.g. a matter, matter of concern, affair, state of affairs; event, circumstance; a

product, act, action, activity, work, deed, accomplishment; movement, motion,
speech; a separate and distinct individual quality, word, fact, idea, or usually entity;
object; being; a spoken or written observation or point; idea, notion, data,
information, thoughts; individual being or item; etc., etc., etc.

Many faces of flesh

'flesh' (sarx) in NT is used mostly in metaphoric sense; some uses different
English words for it.

Cf. Jn 1:14 kai ho logos sarx egeneto 'thus the Word had become as flesh' (IRENT
rendering).

What sense is 'flesh'? Few as 'literal flesh' Act 2:31 Rev 17:16; 19:18, 21; Jam
5:3, but usually figurative such as humanity or mortal being.
'flesh and blood' Mt 16:17; 'flesh-and-blood' Jn 1:13; 3:6; 17:2; Mt 24:22; Act
2:17; Heb 2:35; Rm 9:5, 9; 10:20; 1Jn 4:3; 1Pe 3:21; 'one flesh-and-body' Mt
19:5, 6; //Mk 10:8; Mt 26:41 //Mk 14:38; Act 5:7; 'flesh' Lk 3:6; Act 2:26; Heb
7:16; 10:20; Rm 1:4; 2:28; 1Jn 2:16; 2Jn 7; 1Pe 1:24; 3:9; 4:1, 2; 2Pe 2:18; Jud 7,
8, 23; 'flesh and bones' Lk 24:39;
Flesh vs. spirit Jn 6:63; 1Pe 4:6;

Yeshua's flesh – as the bread from the heaven Jn 6:51, 52;

'flesh and blood' Jn 6:53, 54, 55, 56;

What sense is 'become flesh', or rather 'become as flesh' which appears only once
here? This is metaphoric expression – easily taken up 'literally' to suit for a
doctrinal position. The meaning of the text: Yeshua is as the embodiment of the
word of Elohim. Not 'God the Word' (or 'God the Son' or 'God Jesus) became a
god-man or demigod 'Jesus'. It is corresponding to Immanuel Mt 1:23 (Elohim
acts in the person of Yeshua; not Yeshua = God).

Cf. metaphor expression ‘a thorn to the flesh’ by Paul (2Co 12:7) – something
afflicting him coming to him in his mission work; (xx: a thorn in the flesh – most
– as if it is something in his body (i.e. physical ailment or conditions).
Double-sided words

Pleasure, pride, power – either in desirable/good or bad/evil sense.

*word, *phrase; term;

lingo, parlance, jargon
notion, concept, expression; idea; statement

A word carries a meaning; a word is used in a sense according to the intention of the user
and the context. One meaning unless it is double entendres of Wordplay.
Related to ‘meaning of a word’ – figure of speech; allusion, and word association.

'Notion' 'concept' 'definition' 'meaning' 'sense' connotation denotation, semantic field of a

word or term.

Definition/meaning of 'word' 'words'.

*meaning; *definition; *sense; usage, context, metonym, referencing,

symbol, signal, code; word picture (association)

A word has one or more meanings; a meaning reflects a sense in (various) contexts the word
is used. Cf. semantic field of a word; cf. overlap of semantic fields of synonymous words.

definition; dictionary (lexical) definition; stipulative definition; Circular definition;

/Syntactic_ambiguity (amphiboly; /amphibology) [ambiguous; equivocal]

Definition of definition – see below.

Ref. Ogden & Richards (1923), The Meaning of Meaning

[http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ogden-richards-meaning-all.pdf ]
Review: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000113001095 'Ogden and
Richards’ The Meaning of Meaning and early analytic philosophy'
www.communicationtheory.org/the-meaning-of-meaning-model/
http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~johnca/spch100/4-1-ogden.htm 'What Do You Mean: A Brief
Look at Ogden and Richards’ Theory of Meaning'
meaning semantics [what is the meaning of 'meaning'?]

Confused words

Personality vs. personhood – esp. in the writings on Trinity

Deity vs. divinity (pertaining ‘God Jesus’)
to call; to designate; to label; to name; to refer; to identify; to describe; to
denominate; to entitle; to assign; '~ as'
name vs. title, proper name, place name, person name, first name, last name, family
name; title vs. appellative; label, banner; title, title - prefix or suffix for a name; book
title, section title, subtitle, supertitle, subject.

https://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/38313/all-the-singular-noun
All the + noun – singular or plural:
all the land vs. all the lands
all the world = the whole world vs. all the worlds (as in a galaxy) -
all the names; all the cars;
all the cake; all the cabbage
all the way (idiom) vs. all the ways

‘all is not all’ – does all meant that everyone is included? Rhetorical?

In the narratives, what does ‘we’ ‘you’ ‘ye’ ‘they’ refer to? Not the readers, sure!

Voc. Collection – Swinburnian (> Richard Swinburne, born 1934, British philosopher
and influential proponent of arguments for the existence of God.); force majeure -
catastrophe; egregious; presumptuous; obfuscate, obfuscation;
*definition:
Any kind of argument (esp. doctrinal and political) is useless if the words and terms are
not precisely defined and agreed upon by the discussants involved.

Given definitions may necessarily be intentionally general to facilitate a groundwork

for the comparison of each perspective. Additional detail and nuance may be needed in
order to refine understanding.

Definition of 'definition':

lexical, contextual, intentional, extensional, ostensive, operational, theoretical, circular, recursive,

stipulative, précising, or persuasive definition; definition by genus and difference;

https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/experimental-study-group/es-2h3-ancient-philosophy-and-
mathematics-fall-2009/readings/MITES_2H3F09_Definitions.pdf

Lexical definition
-- is the meaning of the word term collected from common usage in the language.

Contextual definition
-- a word’s meaning is different in different contexts, and thus it is only in context, or use, that we
can understand the meaning.

Intentional definition
-- gives the meaning of a term by giving all the properties required of something that falls under
that definition; the necessary and sufficient conditions for belonging to the set being defined.

Extensional definition
-- gives the meaning of a term by listing everything in its extension - that is, everything that falls
under that definition.

Ostensive definition
-- conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples of what is defined by it.

Operational definition
-- details the precise procedure through which we can recognize an entity; of a quantity is a
specific process whereby it is measured.

Theoretical definition
-- gives the meaning of a word in terms of the theories of a specific discipline.

Definition by genus and difference

-- is one in which a word or concept that indicates a species -- a specific type of item, not
necessarily a biological category -- is described first by a broader category, the genus, then
distinguished from other items in that category by differentia.

Circular definition
-- is one that assumes a prior understanding of the term being defined. For instance, we can define
"oak" as a tree which has catkins and grows from an acorn, and then define "acorn" as the nut
produced by an oak tree. To someone not knowing either which trees are oaks or which nuts are
acorns, the definition is fairly useless. But if you define acorn ostensively, then it’s not circular –
that is, to the degree that we rely entirely on the definition it’s useless.

Recursive definition
-- is one which defines a word in terms of itself, albeit in a useful way. For that to work, the
definition in any given case must be well founded, avoiding an infinite regress. For instance, we
could define natural number as "1 or the successor of a natural number.
 Stipulative definition
-- occurs when a new or currently-existing term is given a new meaning for the purposes of
argument or discussion in a given context.

Precising definition
-- is a definition that extends the dictionary definition (lexical definition) of a term for a specific
purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
Precising_definition

Persuasive definition
-- is a type of definition in which a term is defined in such a way as to be an argument for a
particular position (as opposed to a lexical definition, which aims to be neutral to all usages), and
is deceptive in that it has the surface form of a dictionary definition. Example: renaming the study
of politics ‘political science’.

Quote: "Definitions belong to the definers, not the defined." - Toni Morrison

The *meaning of a word is not settled until it sits in the context and in the discourse. A
lexical meaning of a word is simply one of those collected by a lexicographer who
checks how the word appears in the language in different senses and usages – hardy a
definite singular meaning for an elusive precise meaning. The worst is ‘word literalism’
– taking a word to be found one meaning which applies everywhere by everyone. (Not
to be confused with ‘literal translation’. Cf. interlinear translation.) [Cf. linguistic gloss;
glosses; glossary (from Lat. glossarium)]
[www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/resources/glossing-rules.php ]
List of glossing abbreviations [A (linguistic) gloss is a summary of the meaning of a morpheme or
word, suitable for use in interlinear text displays. www-
01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAGloss.htm ]

Ref. Michael Hancher (1981). "Humpty Dumpty and Verbal Meaning"' J. of

Aesthetics and Art Criticism 40 (1):49-58. (access through www.jstor.org/ )

Since one of the aims of IRENT is to remove from the translation words any
meaning alien to the Scripture which has accumulated since the time period of
the original text formation, it would be necessary somehow to have clear
understanding of the words for mutual communication. A few special terms are
easiest to deal with in this aspect. However, the vast majority of common words
gives a challenge. E.g. ‘god’ – does it mean ‘a mighty one’? What does it mean
by ‘mighty one’? [? transcendental; demanding worship; having control from?]
Matter of a fact the problem rises from its use both biblical and non-biblical. In
the biblical use another insidious problem is to take it as a name. It is often used
as a title, but never as a name (of someone). From its common usage in and out
of religious connotation, ‘a god-being’ or ‘a god-like being’ should be the lowest
common denominator at the core of its semantic field to keep it acceptable to all.
In other words, such simple word ‘god’ or ‘God’ is used differently by different
people in different context. [Cf. the arthrous Gk. ho theos ('the God') is rendered
as 'Elohim' in IRENT grounded in Hebrew mindset) whereas most translations
render it as 'God'. This practice did not help to clear confusion, contradiction,
and contention in the proper Scriptural understanding of John 1:1 where most
have 'God' in 1c confusingly, compared to a strange rendering as 'a god' in NWT.
[*meaning – Lexical meaning vs. grammatical meaning.]

["Words do not have meanings" is a wrong (opionated) statement (Geoffrey

Williams, English lexicographer/dictionary builder. http://asp.revues.org/1320.)
Meanings (which are inherent in a semantic field) out of a word come to the fore
when it is in the context.]

“When I use a word”, *Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,

“it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” Lewis
Carroll, Through the Looking-glass

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?
Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one. – [attributed to Abraham Lincoln]

Lexical semantics: From the summary

in http://web.stanford.edu/class/linguist1/Rdgs/JM19.pdf Jurafsky and
Martin (2007), Speech and Language Processing: An introduction to natural language
processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition.

• Lexical semantics is the study of the meaning of words, and the

systematic meaning-related connections between words.
• A word sense is the locus of word meaning; definitions and meaning
relations are defined at the level of the word sense rather than word-forms
as a whole.
• Homonymy is the relation between unrelated senses that share a form,
while polysemy is the relation between related senses that share a form.
• Synonymy holds between different words with the same meaning.
• Hyponymy relations hold between words that are in a class-inclusion
relationship.
• Semantic fields are used to capture semantic connections among groups
of lexemes drawn from a single domain.
• WordNet is a large database of lexical relations for English words.
• Semantic roles abstract away from the specifics of deep semantic roles
by generalizing over similar roles across classes of verbs.
• Thematic roles are a model of semantic roles based on a single finite
list of roles.
• Semantic selectional restrictions allow words (particularly predicates)
to post constraints on the semantic properties of their argument words.
• Primitive decomposition is another way to represent the meaning of
word, in terms of finite sets of sub-lexical primitives.

*letter, character, glyph, alphabet, writing(s)

*Letters vs. Epistles

www.sbts.edu/documents/tschreiner/3.3_article.pdf
Letters or Epistles? - How should we understand the Pauline compositions?
Adolf Deissmann early in the century argued that they should be designated as
letters rather than epistles. Epistles were artistic works, designed for a larger
audience and intended to last forever as literary compositions. Letters, on the other
hand, were addressed to specific situations, dashed off to meet the immediate needs
of readers. Paul, Adolf Deissmann insisted, did not write careful literary
compositions that were intended for posterity, which were intended to function
authoritatively in the life of the church over the years. He wrote in the ordinary
language of his day in response to situations as they arose. Deissmann, despite the
validity of some of his insights, overstated his case. … most scholars no longer see
Deissmann’s sharp cleavage between letters and epistles as credible.

IRENT adopts the term *Epistles as a special term to help differentiate from the more
common English word ‘letters’ which has different meanings, word picture and word
association. E.g. 'General Epistles' cf. 'Pauline Letters'.

*grammar; grammatical terms

Synesis, constructio ad sensum - Wiktionary

Gen 1:3 elohim way-yōmer [Elohim (plural form) – he said]

Deu 33:17 /x: the horns of unicorns – KJV; /~ of a wild ox – NASB, ESV, NIV, etc.;
https://youtu.be/rZ2qAGwilQA
https://youtu.be/DxxddtqpLkQ
https://youtu.be/ACL3PXKJyLQ

'Grammatical form'
Grammatical error - Malapropism

*sign, *symbol; signal; signifier; icons; *symbolism; *code

• sign – points to itself representing something else directly. [e.g. ‘mighty
works’ (x: ‘supernatural miracles’) to points the presence of Immanuel with
works of God.] – not 표징 in Korean
• symbol – points beyond itself to represent something else. [e.g. the * Cross
for the Christians – symbol of redemptive death of Yeshua in His self-
giving love.]
symbol – word or non-word symbol.
E.g. A God’s mighty work dunamis is not 'miracle', but serves as a sign for
people, pointing to the divine reality,
Ref. Signs and symbols - Encyclopedia.com

[vocabulary: wonders, mighty works, signs]

S1411 dunamis 'power' 'mighty work' Mt 6:13; /x: miracle
S4592 sēmeion 'sign' Mt 12:38
S2295 thauma 'wonder' 2Co 11:14
S5059 teras 'portent' 'wonder' Mt 24:24
[vocabulary: ‘type’; antitype, typology, analogy]
'sign' ░░ [H226 oth 'sign' 'token'] Gen 1:14

*Lexicon, *dictionary, *glossary (book); *thesaurus; *encyclopedia;

word list; glossary; dictionary, lexicon, thesaurus, encyclopedia.
lexicography; lexicology; lexis; vocabulary; translatology.

Interesting notes from Henri Béjoint (2000), Modern Lexicography – An Introduction

• The main object of lexicography is to define words and terms.
• The discreteness of lexical units - word, lexical item, lexical element, lexeme, vocable, etc.
is rarely questioned in linguistics. Every grapheme used in discourse is attached to a 'unit',
which is a potential candidate for inclusion as an entry-word in the dictionary.
• … how far can one say that words are units, and, supposing they are indeed, how discrete
are those units?
• In the traditional dictionary, every single lexical item has a semantic content, a meaning of
its own out of all context.
• All linguists admit the existence of word meanings, and the fact that some words have
only one (monosemy) while others have more than one (polysemy). But if one believes in
the discreteness of the word, then one may wonder what the basic unit is: is the word a
cluster of meanings, or is it the association of one form with one meaning?
• Defining a word with words that are more frequently used is a necessity if the definition is
to be accessible to the users. But this is not possible if the word to be defined is very
frequent in use, and it may not always be advisable in other cases. On the one hand, the
more frequent a word is the more polysemous it is; this is one of the problems encountered
by dictionaries that use a limited defining vocabulary. On the other hand, a rare, scientific
word is not only more precise, but it may also act as the trigger for the user to trace a
'chain' of concepts…
• A definition must not be circular.a E.g. COD defines glaze, the verb, by 'cover (pottery,
etc.) with glaze' and glaze, the noun, by 'substance used to glaze pottery'.
What's a dictionary?
— It's when the teacher doesn't know what a word means.

Cf. Dictionary of idioms and phrases, dictionary of etymology; monolingual vs.

bilingual dictionary.

“All languages make use of a lexicon and a grammar. The lexicon is a mental
dictionary containing all lexical items (such as words and fixed expressions) in a given
language. The grammar is a set of rules for the usage of these lexical items, especially
for ways of combining them with each other.”
www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/

a
Cf. Circular reasoning is common in doctrinal statements. A word is introduced without a clear
definition and it is explained by the same word, which is used not in the same sense, the fact of which
is hidden.
www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/ikos/EXFAC03-
AAS/h05/larestoff/linguistics/Chapter%202.%28H05%29.pdf

Lexicographic fallacy – Often the translators fall into a lexicographic fallacy, by

having their translation dictated by lexicographic material. A lexicon is the result
of arranging all the possible meanings or functions for a particular word which can
be found in the corpus of material they collect and into suitable categories, along
with other related date and information, such as pronunciation, spelling,
etymology, thesaurus (synonym, antonym, and related words) with or without
actual citation and history of a word. They are not meant to provide encyclopedic
information. It should be differentiated from a ‘dictionary’ and a glossary is often
erroneously titled as a dictionary, or even a lexicon (e.g. *Strong’s Lexicon). The
meaning of a word is not determined by a dictionary, not by a lexicographer. It is
only by the context and the usage as dictated by the intention/agenda of the author.

“Sir Thomas Elyot’s Latin–English Dictionary of 1538 was the first

attempt at a large-scale dictionary of English with classical, as opposed
to medieval, Latin. It was also the first English book to have Dictionary
as its title.”

Problems with common or familiar English words

Some common or familiar English words have been proven not to be suitable for
an accurate Bible translation work.

There are number of common or special words in English shown in many English
bible translations that should not remain without due and serious consideration in
the relevant books in the Bible. These should not be because of doctrinal
implications for different theological stands. These carry a lot of baggage with the
word itself from secular as well as religious usage which invariably brings them
back into the translated texts. Several factors – anachronism, archaism, modern
jargons, cultural clash, etc.

Examples:

‘Easter’a (in one place Act 12:4 in KJV which is a leftover from earlier
Tyndale translation, meaning Passover.)
‘Sunday’ (GNB, GW, CEV, ERV, NLT, AUV, MSG) or ‘day of worship’
(GW) for ‘first day of the week’;

a
‘Easter’ - In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word
Passover. In the translation by Wicliffe [Wycliffe], the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tindal
[Tyndale] and Coverdale used the word Easter,” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1798-1870,
comments on Acts 12:4). Act 12:4 is the one place where it was leftover in King James Version. In non-
English language, the liturgical Easter, which has a pagan connotation in their custom, is called
‘resurrection day’, true to the biblical sense.
 ‘preach’a for proclaim, other than in the sense of ‘preach to repent’ or
‘preach for exhortation’.
[See for 'repent' which is rendered as 'turn one's mind to God's way'
when the Gk. verb (which is intransitive) is used without an explicit or
implicit adverbial phrase such as in 'repent of something'.
‘priest' (priests)’, a religious and church jargon (Catholic, Anglican, and
pagan) is replaced with kohen (kohanim).
‘prophet(s)' – retained in IRENT, except for [Heb. Nebi’im] referring to
'the Prophets' as the collective term for the books in O.T.

Examples of proper names and titles – see under ‘*Jesus’ ‘*Christ’ for detail.
‘Jesus’ for ‘Yeshua’; ‘Christ’ for ‘Mashiah (> Messiah)’; ‘Jesus Christ’
for ‘Yeshua the Mashiah’; ‘Lord Yeshua Mashiah’ (> Lord Jesus Christ);
‘James’ for Yaakob, ‘Paul’ for ‘Paulos’; ‘Saul’ for ‘Shaul’, ‘Mark’ for
‘Markus’ etc.

That’s why it is of utmost importance to find and adopt as much as possible only
those words and phrases which are uncontaminated with extraneous non-Scriptural
ideas especially from ecclesial practices and doctrines, which all are of all human
tradition with inherent danger of being used to keep people enslaved.

(2) Concept or words alien to the Scripture and its Hebrew mindset – ‘hell’
for GeHinnom (Gehenna; Hinnom valley); ‘Holy Ghost’ (KJV) for ‘holy
spirit’. [In the vocabulary of KJV, ‘hell’ is in the same category with ‘Ghost’
– inappropriate choice for Biblical terms, having borrowed from then
current pagan ideas.]

(3) Lack of appreciation in cultural aspect – ‘have sexual relations’ (JNT,

GNB), ‘have intercourse’ (NWT); ‘make love to’ (NIrV), ‘sleep together’
(CEV) for ‘know’ which is used Semitic euphemism for sexual relation.

(3) Difficult to render specialized words – Words of Hebrew vs. Greek

mindset. E.g. ‘soul’ or ‘love’ now almost as a religious jargon are used as
translation words in both OT and NT. However, it is used in different context
and cannot be adequately translated. In NT Gk. psuchē [from which many
English words are derived – psyche, psychogenic, psychology, psychiatry,
psychoanalysis, psychic, psychosis, psycho, psychotic, psychedelic, etc.]
has been translated as ‘soul’, and is now translated as ‘life’ – but in what
sense of the English word ‘life’ as it has many different and distinct
meanings?]

(4) Jargonism – (jargon b , jargonish, jargonistic) [the term often used

4F4F

pejoratively.]
E.g. ‘communion’ (KJV) – Gk. koinōnia (‘sharing together’ e.g. in 1Co
a
See * preach. Also, the file WB #1A collection – ‘Preach or Proclaim?’
b
jargon – (1) A characteristic language of a particular group, (2) Specialized technical terminology
characteristic of a particular subject.
 10:16) is very misleading in the context, which is now a church jargon
for a liturgical practice (called ‘Eucharist’ by some). Cf. ‘fellowship’
E.g. ‘DNA’ (CEB) for ‘seed’.

Many verbal expressions (words or phrases) appearing in a translation is likely to

have a particular meaning and usage which, consciously or unconsciously, the
readers are accustomed to in the language they use. Many in fact become mixed
up with meaning and usage which are not of the Scripture. Many also become a
part of jargons – religious, cultic, ecclesiastical, scholarly.

Idiomatic phrases or expressions should follow, the original cultural and linguistic
settings closely if possible, and not be simply replaced with our own modern ones
which may not be in harmony with the culture in which the original ones live.

Examples of neologism

"Definitionnaire" -- about playing with definition of words.

'Mashian' – ‘of Mashiah’ in place of 'of Christ'.

B. For those terms related to religion, see <Walk through the Scripture #3B: Man,
Anthropology, and Religion>; Christian religions; *Christianity; Christianismsa;
*Mashianity; ‘Messianism’; 'Jesuism' = 'Jesusism'b; 'Church Christianity' which
replaced 'Jerusalem Church', 'cultural Christianity', 'syncretic Christianity',
Christendom; *Catholicismc; Religion, Religionism, Theologism, Jesus religion,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church

a
Christianism – religious systems, tenets, or practices of Christians in various forms of
denominations and cults. Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism
www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2009/11/christianity-vs-christianism-love-vs-
power/193565/
b
Ref. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuism
https://archive.org/details/nakedtruthofjesu00geor
c
On the term 'catholic': www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-meaning-definition.html
www.catholic.com/tract/what-catholic-means
www.reddit.com/r/Catholicism/comments/2ohp18/which_came_first_christianity_or_catholicis
m/ (the first recorded use of the term "Catholic" appears in Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the
Symrnaeans 8.2,
https://jp2group.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/ignatiusofantiochtothesmyrnaeans.pdf written
approximately AD 107, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as
where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." As a proto-orthodox, Ignatius uses the term
"Catholic" to refer to the universal visible church. The term developed to distinguish the Church
from fringe heretical Christian communities like the Marcionites and Ebionites.)

The word 'catholic’ in English usage. The word ‘catholic’ is in the sense of general, universal,
etc., but is now used exclusively in the reference to the Constantine Catholic Church (→ Roman
Catholic Church) and as such it is capitalized. Even noncapitalized it is of Catholic. The word
itself does not appear in the Bible; it is a coined word, is a transliteration of the Greek katholikos
which is a compound word from “kata” which means according to, and “holos” which means
whole. [The word ‘catholic’. It is etymologically unrelated to kath holēs (‘throughout’) in Act
9:31 hē ekklēsia kath holēs tēs Ioudaias ‘the ecclesia (‘church’) throughout Judea’.]
 The first known use of the phrase "the catholic church" (καθολικὴ ἐκκλησία) occurred in the
letter written about 110 CE from Saint Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans.

religion of Catholicism is based on the Nicene Creed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity
www.allaboutreligion.org/what-is-christianity.htm
“an Abrahamic monotheistic religious system of beliefs and practices based on the Old
Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the
role of Jesus as savior.”

Christianity as a religion ("Christianism"): the doctrinal religion of Christianity vs. the

denominational religions of Christianity.
Christian doctrine
'belief in true Christianity' by 'literal interpretation'???

Does not mean "follower of Christ",

Christians got the name for those in Gentile world (Antioch Act) derived from Gk. Christos …

Many faces of 'Christianity'. As a religion, it is a religion of '*Christians' who are

of diverse groups of people with different doctrines, beliefs, practices, organized
structures and history. [Cf. 'teaching', or 'the Way' (Act 9:2).]

'Christ religion' (Ko. 기독교); '*Jesus religion' a (Ko. 예수교). Cf. 'God Jesus
religion – with Jesus as the name of God; 'Jesus-God'. Note: the word Christianity
is not in one but diverse forms (cf. denominations and cults). One should not
assume that it is being used as 'biblical Christianity', which itself is not what is
meant – it is a Westernized Christianity rooted in the Roman Constantine Catholic
Church.b Here, the word 'biblical' does not mean 'based on the Bible', putting
aside what is meant by 'Bible' – which is a production of human endeavor keeping
their doctrines, faiths, and traditions brought into the text of the Scripture
translated. In reality, 'biblical' means nothing more than 'using the Bible' to fit
their ideology, philosophy, and religion – their own, not others'. The Bible is put
into an application book for their purpose.

Historically it began as Hebrew Mashian movement → Hebrew Christianity vis-

à-vis Gentile/Hellenic → Roman Constantine Christianity – break off of Eastern
Orthodox and Reformation ('Protestant') Churches – 'lais·sez-faire' competition
and contention, free for all' 'hodgepodge' churches and denominations. Though it
began in the life and death of Yeshua, he is NOT the founder of a new religion
called Christianity!

a
Cf. Jesus Religion (2008) by Louis Charles – the phrase may be of different sense.
b
E.g. Catholic Christianity is substantially different from Protestant Christianity though both are
rooted in the Roman Constantine Catholic Church. 'Protestant Christianity' is not a single entity.
Examples of translated words in IRENT vs. other translations:

In addition to transliteration of words of Hebrew/Aramaic origin of proper

names, such as Mattithyahu (> Matthew), Shimon (> Simon), Kefa (>
Cephas), etc., important words are translated in IRENT, the table below lists
those different from other translations:

IRENT vs. other English Bibles

IRENT in Other Bibles Notes
Elohim God Only for arthrous Gk. ho theos ‘the God’
YHWH Lord (LORD) equivalent to ‘Jehovah’
Mashiah Christ Gk. ‘anointed’ (as king)
Anointed one Christ
‘scribe; scribes’; /x: (Gk. grammateus)
sofer; soferim
publicans
Torah5a Law; Cf. Law of Moses (Gk. nomos b6 )
[pronounced to-rah with the last syllable accented]
Torah-sage > /x: lawyer, /law-expert’; (Gk. nomikos – Lk 7:30 etc.)
/x: expert in the law😉;
Torah-teacher /x: doctor of the law; /x: (Gk. nomodidaskaloi – Lk 5:17);
teacher of the law; /x:
expert in the law;
= only for. Books of the Prophets in O.T.;
The Nebi’im /the Prophets [it helps to remove confusion with
‘prophets’, plural of prophet.]7Fc
*shofar [H7782] > trumpet (except 1Co 15); (made of ram’s horn)
/x: trump – KJV.d
kohen, kohanim priest; priests [usage in Catholic & Anglican Church
Yehudim; [= people in the line of the Tribe of Yudah]
Jews; Jew
[cf. a Jewish, a Judaic] [Cf. an Israelite; a
Yehudite; Yehudi
Hebrew]
[IRENT avoids the word ‘Jews’ which
Kingdom reign kingdom of God.
suffers anachronism and wrong word
of Elohim
association, contrary to the real sense in the
text];

a
Torah [pronounced to-RAH with accent on –RAH.]: ‘God’s teaching, instruction, guidance’, that which
carries God’s Word in the history of Israel; not a legal system. ‘/> the Law of Moses’. (cf. ‘law of Moses’
when the word is used in a narrower sense.) In its narraw sense it is synonymous to ‘Pentateuch’ (= Five
Books of Moses. Torah (as synonym of the Five Books of Moses), Nebi'im ("Prophets") and Ketubim
("Writings") constitute the whole canon, TaNaKh. The name "Miqra" (‫)מקרא‬, meaning "that which is
read", is another Hebrew word for the TaNaKh.
b
is used in many different senses (e.g. rule, principle, etc. – See examples in Romans) and all cannot be
rendered in literal concordant manner as ‘law/Law’.
c
The Prophets vs. the prophets – In Korean two distinct words are there (예언서 vs. 예언자), though
most translations make a wrong choice of 예언자 (선지자 – in older Korean translations) (prophet).
d
Shofar vs. trumpet [4536 salpigx (11x) Mt 24:31; Heb 12:19; 1Co 14:8; 15:52; 1Th 4:16; S4537
salpizō (12x) 'blow a shofar/trumpet' Mt 6:2; 1Co 15:52, etc.]
 mighty works /x: miracles – KJV, most [It is ‘the God’, not ‘God’ of a generic
/> powerful works - NWT notion.]

Lists of words with details discussed elsewhere:

• *soul – is not something a separate part of a person (as in ‘body and soul’
similar to ‘body and mind’. (1) person per se; (2) a person’s whole being (in
mind and body with all the thoughts, feelings, sayings, and doings); life
existence and experience and, (3) biological life (also in metonymic in
reference to animals). [See *soul, anthropology in BW #3]

• *soulical [in the sense of ‘pertaining man's soul’ ‘related to soul’] vs.
*soulish (a common English word which rhymes with ‘ghoulish’ – (life)
being governed by the soul, not by the sprit. a
[English translations of the New Testament have used a bewildering number
of different words to translate Gk. adjective psuchikos: (e.g. natural, sensual,
worldly, unspiritual, worldly-minded, without the spirit, and a phrase, ‘to
follow their natural instinct’)]

• spirital (a neutral technical neologism with the sense of ‘concerning spirit’

‘related to spirit’) > spiritual (which is opp. ‘material’ -- different nuance
and usage (i.e. in spiritual style; something of spirituality).). Akin to ‘societal’
vs. ‘social’ 8 . Cf. spirituality, spiritualism, spiritism. [See for ‘problem of
adjectives; genitive problem' or *noun with corresponding adjective.]

• *supra-natural > ‘supernatural’. Of God. Actually, it belongs to that which

is beyond the nature, rather than something extraordinary within the realm of
physical nature.

• *mighty work: (dunamis S1411); This word does not appear in G-Jn.
(1) pl. 'mighty works' (Mt 7:22; 11:20; 1Co 12:29, etc.); /xxx: * miracle – most;
(2) singl. 'power' (Mt 6:13; 22:29; 1Co 15:24, 43, etc.); 'meaning' (as of word) (1Co
14:11).

• Cf. Mashian (a neologism) – ‘of Mashiah’ in place of 'of Christ'.

Gk. ekklesia ('church') is rendered in IRENT as 'Mashiah community.

‘Messianic’ or ‘Christian’ along with 'Church' is a post-New Testament

church language, a misleading translation word to be used in the New
Testament.

a
www3.telus.net/trbrooks/soulical.htm [soulical and soulish]
• *forever and ever (‘for ever and ever’- KJV), H5769 + 5703
vs. ‘forever’ H5769 /x: to time indefinite – NWT3
Adverbial phrase ‘eis ton aiōna tou aiōnos’ – an expression ‘something/someone is
forever and ever’ is nonsensical. Cf. syntax in Heb 1:8.

• *eternal, ‘from or belonging to (the realm/dimension of) eternity’, that

is, of God. Often translated as ‘everlasting’ (KJV), which is not a
biblical sense. [See *eternity' vide infra]
Used frequently with ‘life’ (44x) variously as ‘life eternal’, ‘eternal life’,
life everlasting’, /xx: 'everlasting life'; [IRENT – 'life eternal' (Life eternal = Life,
that which is eternal) vs. eternal life (in contrast to non-eternal life).
Mat 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30;
Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3;
Act 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23;
Gal 6:8; 1Ti 1:16; 6:12, 19;
Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1Jn 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jud_1:21;
Other phrases:
1. tinō olethron aiōnion (pay eternal ~) 2Th 1:9. [olethros – destruction, ruin, disaster
– 1Co 5:5 (of flesh); 1Th 5:3; 1Ti 6:9 (eis olethron kai apōleian)]
2. eis kolasin aiōnion (into eternal ~) Mt 25:46 [kolasis – punishment – 1Jn 4:18]
3. puros aiōniou (~ fire) – Jud 7
4. the eternal kingdom 2Pe 1:11
5. ~ paraklēsis (consolation) 2Th 2:16
6. Covenant Heb13:20; chain Jud 1:16; gospel Rev 14:6; (weight of) glory 2Co 4:17;
2Th 2:10; 1Pe 5:10; judgment Heb 6:2; salvation Heb 5:9; deliverance Heb 9:23;
spirit Heb 9:14; inheritance Heb 9:15
[S2222 zōē – * Life' capitalized to distinguish from the translation from other Gk.
words, such as S5590 psuchē (Mt 2:20) (soul, life, being) and S979 bios (Lk 8:14).]

• false-gods /> pagan idols; /x: *idols [S1497 eidōlon]

[‘Guard yourselves from the false-gods.’ 1Jn 5:21] (anything or anyone in place of
the true Elohim. metonym for idol-worship, idolatry)
[objects of worship in modern English usage – ‘carved images/statures or icons. (an
image or other material object representing a deity to which religious worship is
addressed or any person or thing regarded with admiration, adoration, or devotion).
In modern colloquial English usage, the word ‘idol’ is now used in a different sense
– a person or thing that is greatly admired, loved, or revered. E.g. 'American Idol. It
has become unfit for a translation word.

Anything or anyone (including oneself) taking the place of the true Elohim is a false-
god or idol, whether human beings, ideologies, philosophies or religions.

• [God’s] Word > commandment – ‘*commandment’ now belongs to biblical

specialty vocabulary/lingo = command (as God’s). ‘Ten Commandments’ (Deu 4:13;
10:4; Exo 34:28) in Hebrew means simply ‘Ten Words’. [H1697 dabar 'word'] See *
Logos; * word; * letter;
• *religion – ‘faiths’ 'religions' – 'beliefs'; *Church

[See WB #3 – Man, Anthropology, and Religion]

• Faith

The latter is something one can acquire or build up, what one does.
‘Faith’ as a trusting relation to one’s master (Lord) –
one believes in Him because of who He is,
and one knows [experientially] who He is as He Himself revealed in the
Scripture [Cf. ‘belief’],
and one believes what He says. ‘Living faith’ in contrast to faith as a
belief.
It is not something one does exercise or claim as if a magic word or mantra.
The word is better understood as a concrete verb rather than an abstract noun.

Faith we have itself is a gift from God. In a few places, it is in the sense of
‘faith from God’ rather than ‘faith in God’.
E.g. a unique occurrence in Mk 11:22 ‘(exete) pistin theou’ – most (incl. KJV
and Bishops) renders it as ‘(have) faith in God’.
Cf. ‘faith of God’ – MKJV, LITV, YLT; (‘the faith of God’ – Geneva);
Cf. ‘God’s faith’ (in BBE) is literal and uncommitted but less ambiguous.
Here the possessive case ‘of God’ is ambiguous with the sense unclear. The
Gk. genitive anarthrous theou is adjectival (not of ‘possessive’) in sense
(such as ‘divine’ ‘god-like’) and it is better understood as ‘faith such as from
God’. IRENT has it ‘God-given faith’ (alternative; ‘faith from God’). [See
‘*Adjectival noun’] Even with the word standing alone (as an abstract noun),
it should be in that sense, e.g. 1Co 13:13 in the phrase ‘faith, hope, and love’.

• Faith vs. belief; /conviction/creed

[cf. 'teachings' 'doctrines' 'creeds']

B. Chilton (1984), A Galilean Rabbi and His Bible (p. 151) “… Faith is rather an
individual’s cri du coeur, which he may discover on reflexion [sic] is also the
confession of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Jesus and Paul. Unless a belief is both a
statement of the individual’s consciousness of himself in the world and at the same
time an expression, which is recognizably related to scriptural values, it is no evidence
for biblically based faith. …”
 • "*faith of Christ"

Gal 2:16, ek pisteōs Christou 2:20 en pistei zō tē (dative) tou huiou tou theou
Gal 3:22 ek pisteous Iesou Christou
Phi 3:9; Rom 3:22; Rev 14:12

NET Gal 2:16; Rm 3:22, 26

tn Or “faith in Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in

Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis
Cristou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 26; Gal 2:16, 20; 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9)
involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G.
Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 [1974]: 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus
Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 [1989]: 321-42).

Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a
personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Mt 9:2, 22, 29; Mk 2:5; 5:34;
10:52; Lk 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rm 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1Co 2:5;
15:14, 17; 2Co 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1Th 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2Th 1:3; Tit 1:1; Phlm 6;
1Pe 1:9, 21; 2Pe 1:5).

On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis
Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ
ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians
usually side with the objective view. [See * genitive problem]

sn ExSyn 116, which notes that the grammar is not decisive, nevertheless suggests that “the
faith/faithfulness of Christ is not a denial of faith in Christ as a Pauline concept (for the idea is
expressed in many of the same contexts, only with the verb πιστεύω rather than the noun), but
implies that the object of faith is a worthy object, for he himself is faithful.” Though Paul
elsewhere teaches justification by faith, this presupposes that the object of our faith is reliable
and worthy of such faith.

• *Faithfulness vs. Faith - www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/faith-and-

faithfulness/ [A copy in Supplement (Collection #1).]
 • *believe
believe (a thing) – take (something, sayings) as true.
believe (a person) – [as who he is, or about what he says/does]
believe in (a person) – have trust in (a person) and abide in.
put trust on/in > believe in – for the most cases of Greek phrase pisteuō
eis. [See ‘* believe into’.]
believe in (eis) ~~ Jesus - Act 19:4
believe in (epi) the Lord Jesus - Act 16:31
believe in (eis) Elohim - Jn 14:1;

believe in (eis) Elohim - 1Pe 1:21

/come to trust in God – NLT
/x: are believers in God - HCSB;
believe Elohim - Act 27:25 (dative)
x: have faith in God - ISV, ESV, NET

Cf. [S544 apeitheō (14x) '*disobey'; /xx: unbelieve] [BDAG p. 99 disobey, be

disobedient] Jn 3:36; Act 14:2 ('refuse to accept' – IRENT); Act 19:9 Rm 2:8;
10:5; 11:30, 31; 15:31; Heb 3:18; 11:31; 1Pe 2:8; 3:1, 20; 4:17. [underlined –
'believe not' in KJV]

apistian; [BDAG p. 702 oligopistita – littleness/poverty of faith Mt 17:20]

[oligopistos of little faith/trust in our lit. in the NT only in the Synoptic and only
in addressing the disciples (oligopistoi!) Mt 6:30; 8:26; 16:8; Lk 12:28; Peter
alone (oligopiste!) Mt 14:31 [QQ a little faith or little faith?]

• turn around > be converted [‘*conversion’a is, like ‘proselytize’, a highly

charged word] [Cf. Ko. 전심 전향 개선 개조 개종 개심; 후회 회심 회개].
See * repent (of something).

• fulfilled – as in ‘to fulfill the promise, the prophecy, the Scripture, the Torah
(Cf. ‘Law’), etc. - Mt 3:15; 5:17 – it is ‘to fill up (bring up) to fullness’; not
‘to finish up and be done with’.

• immersion-rite > baptism; get immersed, receive immersion-rite >

‘be baptized’.
It was a rite with simple act of ‘immersion into water’. The words ‘baptize’
and ‘baptism’ are now a very typical Biblish jargon, church word. Such
baptism is not same as what it is in the Bible and anachronistic to be used in
the translation of the Scripture.

a
Brugggemann (2001), The Bible Makes Sense (p. 55), "… Rather, conversion, as it is
understood in the Bible, is an act of entering into covenant with a new covenant partner. …"
[underline is not in original]. It is not 'being proselytized'. However, 'conversion' as an
English has ideological/political as well as religious overtone, which makes it unsuitable as
a translation word
 *execution stake vs. *cross: S4716 stauros (27x. 'stake' 'pole'') a is
rendered as 'cross' is most Bible translations. In NT, it refers to a device which
was used for execution used by the Romans for the rebels. It is rendered as
'execution stake' in IRENT. It is not a ‘torture stake’ (NWT) – a device for
torturing. It helps to avoid anachronism and reading into the text something
is not in there, but to bring out its real meaning. The noun 'cross' in English
often denotes an icon of various design or something which is found
associated with the church buildings.
Cf. S3586 xulon (‘tree’ ‘wood’ ‘wooden things’) is used for this - Act 5:30;
10:39; 13:29; Gal 3:13; 1Pe 2:24 – IRENT renders as ‘wooden-stake. Cf. />
‘cross’ – NIV, NASB; /x: tree – KJV, ESV, HCSB, NET; /stake – NWT;
[Cf. H6086 ets ‘tree’ (Gen 1:11], ‘wood’ (1Ch 29:2), ‘timber’ (2Kg 22:6);
‘log’ (1Co 14:1); ‘wooden article’ (Exo 7:19)]

In the following examples outside Gospels, when the arthrous ho stauros (commonly
rendered ‘the cross’) is often used as metonymic symbolic of the redemptive death of
Yeshua the Mashiah. As such, IRENT renders it as ‘the Crucifixion’ (capitalized) b
as the phrase ‘execution stake’ itself is difficult to carry symbolism and word picture.
Gal 5:11 the stumbling-block of the Crucifixion
Gal 6:12 for the Crucifixion of the very Mashiah
Gal 6:14 in the Crucifixion of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah,
Phi 3:18 enemies of the Crucifixion of the Mashiah,
Eph 2:16 reconcile to God through the Crucifixion
1Co 1:17 the Crucifixion of the Mashiah
1Co 1:18 the message of the Crucifixion is foolishness

• scroll > book;

The word ‘book’ (as a print book) in English translation is anachronistic. It is
a ‘scroll’, which later evolved into a ‘codex’. c 8F8F

• Hades, sheol; GeHinnom (> Gehenna) > hell, inferno;

(Gk. geenna, meaning ‘valley of Hinnom’ in Hebrew) [Note: As to the Hebrew
word she’ol which is translated into Greek (in LXX) as hades. KJV (along with

a
The word does not appear in the Acts. Another word Gk. xulon (S3586 'wooden-pole'
'wooden club' 'wood' 'tree') is used for crucifixion – rendered as 'wooden stake'. Act 5:30,
etc.
Cf. The verb form stauroō (46x. S4717) meaning 'to put on the stake to death'. It is rendered
as 'put on the stake' when used for actual process, but usually 'crucify' (from Latin; 'to put on
the cross'). Some wrongly renders as 'impale'.
b
It should not be mixed up with a Christian religion symbol itself, which is a typical church jargon –
a cross with a longer descending arm (called ‘Latin cross’) representing the cross of Jesus' crucifixion
by most Christians (Cf. various shapes of the cross used as a common Christian church icon.) Some
denominations do not use any symbol of crucifixion. Cf. ‘crucifix’ in Catholic, Orthodox, and some
Protestant traditions.
c
For the Greek biblios (scroll; book) in the title verse of Mt 1:1, see Appendix in G-Mt on
which most English translations mistake as ‘Book of Genealogy’ instead of a ‘Written-down
Life-History’.
 Geneva, Bishops, and DRB) is notable to have ‘Geh-Hinnom’ (and others) in
NT as ‘hell’, and ‘sheol’ in O.T. incorrectly rendered as ‘hell’ – which should
be better rendered as a familiar word ‘Hades’ (from Gk).
Many English translations after KJV still stick to such an incorrect and
inaccurate translation practice.

• sabbath – (Hebrew shabbat). The word in English carries a different sense,

connotation and nuance which are not there in the original word and it is now
automatically as coming on ‘Saturday’, while sabbath in the Scripture is to be
on 7th day of the lunar week and is unrelated to 'Saturday' of the Roman
planetary week.

• anoint; anointed; anointing – In IRENT it is only retained to translate

Greek chrinō which is used in special sense in which it belongs, as ‘anointing
for a king, prophet, or kohen (> priest).

[English word ‘anoint’ is used as a typical church jargon, as in ‘anointing of

the sick’, or as a figurative sense.

As to Gk. Christos IRENT renders as ‘Mashiah’ but in a few places as it is in

the sense of ‘Anointed one’ (anointed by Elohim) capitalized. (e.g. Mt 16:16
//Mk 8:29 //Lk 9:20; Jn 4:25; Act 3:18; 4:26), not at all as what is used as if
the title of Yeshua in anachronistic reading of the text – Cf. Many English
Bibles render Greek aleiphō as ‘anoint’ as well with the word used as a
religious jargon.

• Fellow brethren – The plural word ‘brothers’ outside the Gospels

usually refer to followers of the Mashiah (> Messiah) in common
fellowship. Traditionally it is simply translated as ‘brothers’. [To have it
translated as ‘brothers and sisters’ (as in NET, CEV, ERV, GW, etc.) totally
inappropriate and frivolous, flirting with 'gender neutrality'. It actually
confuses the readers with misinformation.]

• holy spirit; the holy spirit; the Holy spirit –

When the Gk. pneuma when it is anarthrous and stands alone without a
modifier (adjective or adjectival phrase) it is consistently it is rendered 'the
Spirit', capitalized. Otherwise uncapitalized throughout.
The word 'holy' is uncapitalized throughout except for the fixed Greek arthrous
phrase (e.g. to pneuma to hagion (the Holy spirit) or eis ta hagio (Heb 9:12
'into the Holy place') [cf. en topō hagiō (Mt 24:25 'in a holy place')]. It is
simply as a typographical device to tell the Gk. word for 'holy' is arthrous and
has nothing to do with the issue of 'personhood' or 'personality' of the Holy
Ghost (as rendered in KJV).
The Divine names and titles:

Elsewhere discussed in detail for problem of translation and for rationale and validity
of IRENT solution. Here is a list with brief notes.

[See Walk through the Scripture #3A Name, God, and Person.]

• *Elohim a > God [Throughout NT the translation in IRENT consistently renders the
9F9F

arthrous Greek ho theos (the God) (the true God of the Scripture) as 'Elohim', not as
‘God’. Unarthrous 'theos' – occurs often in genitive case – IRENT renders as 'God'
'God-being' when it is in reference to Elohim, YHWH. For a pagan notion, as '(a)
god'. [An exception: in Mk 12:26 //Lk 20:37 'Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of Issac,
and Elohim of Yaakob' – Cf. //Mt 22:32 'Elohim of Isaac, and Elohim of Yaakob'.]

• Meaning of ‘god’ / ‘God Problem’ – ‘Problem of God’ vs. Problem of

‘God’ – what God? Which God?

The English word ‘god’ is originally a common pagan word and used in every day
without as specific referent in mind, thereby being disconnected with the one true
God. With the word ‘Elohim’ it is placed where it belongs and this also helps clarify
in quite a number of places which are of theological contention, such as Jn 1:1c. The
anarthous noun being variously rendered.

• *YHWH vs. *Adonai > Lord; LORD

For the Gk. Kurios as a title of Elohim (the God of the Scripture) and the Yeshua
(the risen Mashiah) in the NT, most English translations inattentively render it
‘Lord’. In not a few places this leads the readers to confusion as to who is referred
to. b [IRENT takes only a linguistic and literary consideration, which is based on the
10F10F

principle of * logic and reasoning.]

a
www.myredeemerlives.com/namesofgod/adonai-elohim.html
www.messianictorah.org/en/pdf/Chapter%203.pdf
www.gci.org/God/Elohim3
www.gci.org/god/elohim4 Is Elohim a plural word?
(Elohim vs. El; - similar to Adonai vs. Adon).
b
A typical example of confusion with ‘Lord’ having two different referents: Mt 22:43-45 where David
is quoted calling the Mashiah as ‘Kurios’ (Lord or Master) and it the quoted passage has the same word
in Greek twice, one which is referred in the TaNaKh to YHWH Elohim (as in LXX) and another one to
the Mashiah for David’s.
 Thus, when the word is found to refer to the very God who has revealed His own
name in the Scripture, it is rendered not as ‘Lord’ as most English Bibles do,

(1) but as YHWH a in a small number of places, where His person-

1F1F

name b itself needs to be known. c

12F12F 13F13F

(2) in most places, as ‘Adonai’ (which is the way His name is

vocalized as in the tradition of Masoretic text of TaNaKh.
Comparable to ‘LORD’ of English translations of O.T.

Note: Used as translation words in IRENT work, two words Elohim and
Adonai are to be recognized as Hebrew loanwords for the purpose of
translation. As such, though they may be used even in everyday language.
However, in no way it suggests that they should replace the corresponding
English words (God and Lord). The use of loanwords is found to remove
much of confusion when reading English translations, some affecting vitally
important doctrines which are derived from the different Bible translations
and formulated to fit one’s dogma and traditions.

• Yeshua > Jesus (= Iesus in KJV 1611 with J used for capital I in Gothic font.)

• Master > Lord – in the Gospels.

[When the Greek word Kurios refers to Yeshua, IRENT renders it as ‘Master’
in the Gospels. The word ‘Lord’ is used only when this title is applied to the
risen Lord – in the rest of NT books. In a few places where the word is not
focused on a particular referent (Yeshua the Mashiah or Elohim the Most-
High), it is simply rendered as ‘Lord’, in the sense of Master of our life.] [Cf.
When it refers Elohim the Most-High, it is rendered as YHWH (cf. ‘LORD’ in
caps in O.T. in KJV) or Adonai.

a
YHWH (or YHVH), the so-called Tetragrammaton in the Hebrew Scripture (TaNaKh). This
is seen as kurios in LXX, though a few early mss show the Tetragrammaton in paleo-Hebrew
script). In the Old Testament of English Bibles, some renders as Jehovah (ASV, NWT,
pronounced as je-HO-vā) and as Yahweh (e.g. JB and NJB, pronounced as ya-WHE). Many
simply follow the style of LXX, rendering it as LORD (all in capitals). KJV has it as Jehovah
only in a few places.
b
The phrase ‘person-name’ in distinction to ‘personal name’, denotes a name of being
of person-in-relation; not as used for a name as of a person of such as a human person.
Elohim has a person-same, not a person name, a name which belongs to a person.

c
His name has to be known and should not be left buried in the Greek language and
thoughts. It is so, not because a translator has decided to do so. Cf. Jn 17:6, 26 – here
again it is much more than having a focus and attentions on the spelling and the
pronunciation of the name itself and how often the name should appear on religious
pages and speeches so that the name is to our satisfaction to become well known.
[The phrase ‘person name’, instead of ‘personal name’, means the name of a person,
not a human person, but a being of person-in-relation.]
 • Mashiah (> Messiah) > ‘Christ’
[The Greek Christos is translation of a Hebrew word meaning the ‘anointed
one’. To translate it as Christ, especially within the Gospels, is anachronistic,
since the word ‘Christ’ became to be equated to Yeshua himself (as his title)
and, moreover it is now burdened with too much unscriptural overtone as
acquired through the history of Christian religions. It was Yeshua who came
as the Mashiah (> the Messiah) of YHWH Elohim (‘Yahweh God’) (Lk 2:26).
The phrase 'haMashiah' (the Mashiah) itsef does not occur in O.T.

Common words and phrases often used in the Scripture with different
meaning and nuance:

The [range of] meaning of a given word is determined and comes alive in the text and
in the context. There are some words which are problematic. Aside from those
belonging to the special words of personal name, title, place name, or festival name,
there are those difficult or uncommon English words and words derived from the
original languages or transliteration. On the other hand, the readers may be unaware
of problems some familiar words may give when they appear in different sense and
nuance. For example, in all the occurrences of the word day in the Scripture it is what
begins at the sunrise. It has nothing to do with and should not be confused with a day
as a date in a calendar, which arbitrarily set to start from midnight (as in Julian and
Gregorian calendars), or from sunset (as in rabbinic Jewish calendar since Hillel II).

When Yeshua said ‘believe me’, it is not as if ‘I’m not lying’, but it is ‘I’m telling it from
the truth, with the truth and for the truth’.

Translation vs. paraphrase; metaphrase

Transliteration (vs. translation):

Since personal names and other proper names cannot be translated, and
only be transliterated. Transliteration of these should accurately and closely
reflect the original as possible and not content with modern equivalent in
English speaking culture and society. Otherwise, it would be anachronism
and bring ideas and word-pictures which are unbiblical and alien to the
Scripture.
[See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_transliteration for problem in transliterating
Hebrew words.] 'Matthew' is retained for Heb Mattithyahu.

• Praise Yah > (HalleluYah) > Hallelujah, Alleluia;

• shalom > ‘peace’ (that humans wish to have on earth);
• Eliyahu > Elijah; Yosef > Joseph; Yeshayahu > Isaiah; Yisrael > Israel
• Yaakob > Jacob; /x: James; Kayafa > Caiaphas
• Elisheba > Elizabeth; Mariam > Mary;
• Yudah for all, except one, Judas, the betrayer of his master.
• Shimon > Simon;
• Kefa > Peter; Cephas [Note – See what kind of picture the English
 Biblical names, ‘John, James, and Peter’ brings to the readers. See
how different their original names in the Scripture, ‘Yohan, Yaakob, and
Kefa’ come to the readers! As rendered so in IRENT, these names
belong to those who lived in the culture two thousand years ago, devout
Judaic— totally unrelated to Christian religions which are tied down and
buried in the modern westernized culture.]

• ‘John’ as used in most English Bibles (also a very common name in English)
is a Hebrew name – Yohanan. IRENT renders it as Yohan in most places,
except as Yohanan for three different persons of the same name –
(1) ‘Yohanan the Baptizer’ (instead of ‘John the Baptizer/Baptist’)
(2) ‘Yohanan the one called Markus’ (instead of ‘John the one
called Mark’ – Act 12:12ff – BarNabba’s cousin), and
(3) ‘Yohanan, a high priest’ (Act 4:6).

[It would be natural to have a name (spelt closely reflecting the original) be
rendered same consistently throughout any translation work. An important
exception is made in IRENT, however, to help the readers distinguish different
people with a same name.]
Note on *gender issue in language:

[<<… there is no connection between gendered language and gender

identity>> – quoted from Ben Witherington III, Biblical Views: “Spirited Discourse
About God Language in the New Testament,” in the May/June 2012 issue of Biblical
Archaeology Review.]

In our current socio-political and cultural climate in the Western nations,

where sexuality itself is confused and marriage as such of covenant and
family union is in danger of becoming downgraded to refer to some sort
of relation primarily of sexual copulation, we have so far become hyper-
sensitive and at the same time desensitized for a lot of things. Gendered
language is one of these to which people becomes hyper-sensitive. E.g.
use of the word ‘man’ in generic sense of ‘common man’ ‘human being’
becomes unseated from its place in lexicons and it by itself tends to
confuse people whether it might refer to a male person unless the context
is clear. The pronoun ‘he’ becomes to be referred to only a male person,
not to any person.

• “The use of gendered language such as ‘he’ ‘his’ ‘him’ or ‘father’

in reference to God has nothing to do with maleness of God or a
gender-biased patriarchy.” The pronouns of the third person
singular masculine are used (he, his, him) as the undisputed
historic convention followed and this simply corresponds to the
grammatical gender.

• For man (i.e. human beings), except when the context tells a male
person can be presumed safely from the context, the nominative
case ‘he’ is avoided. When ‘everyone’ ‘whosoever’ ‘anyone’ is
referred to, ‘singular they’ is adopted and ‘they’, their’, ‘them’, or
theirs’ is used in place of usual ‘he’, ‘his’, or ‘him’.

• See also ‘fellow brethren'.

• See under ‘* holy Spirit’ for the grammatical neuter gender of the
Greek word pneuma (spirit) vs. the gender of the pronouns it takes,
esp. when it is personified.

Grammatical gender is a different concept from the notion of biological

gender/sex (male-femaleness).
• 'God' is in masculine gender but does not mean to be a male entity or
element, though the customarily called as ‘He’. It is, however, in harmony
with God being Father throughout the Scripture.
• 'Spirit' is not masculine. It is misleading to have it take masculine pronouns.
• Gk. word hamartia for ‘sin’ is feminine gender.]
[Note: In our modern times, gender neutrality, gender equality, and gender inclusiveness
are becoming issues which carry a host of human sexuality problems, and show in areas
physiological, psychological, social and political, and, importantly for our task, in
linguistical area as well.

*anachronism

– placing or attributing a custom, event, or circumstance, or object to a period to which it

does not belong. The problem with this is it is often unrecognizable and it often misleads on
the facts and confuses their sense and significance and, in case of the Scripture and Bible
texts, results in wrong interpretations and unfounded doctrines and dogmas. [From
ignorance, inattention, doctrine or church tradition]

‘church’ for ekklesia [Mashian (> Messianic) congregation or community];

‘baptism’ for immersion-rite;
‘Baptist’ (as in KJV) for ‘Baptizer’/’Immerser’;
‘cross’ for ‘execution stake’ in the Gospel narratives;
‘saints’ for ‘holy people of God’; [It is customary to use to apply the Gospel
evangelists, e.g. ‘St. Matthew’s Gospel’.]
'Easter' instead of 'Passover' – KJV has a left over in Act 12:4 from Tyndale
('ester') and Coverdale ('Easter') translations. [Cf. Wycliffe has it 'paske']

‘charity’ for love (noun). [KJV in 28 places esp. 1Co 8:1 and on; from Vulgate
caritas. (Cf. Mt 24:12, etc. ‘love’ – KJV; /charity – DRB)]

Compared these with the words in their modern usage and nuance:

‘charity’ – almsgiving.
‘church’ – a building; denomination, or organization with hierarchical
power structure
‘baptism’ – an ecclesial practice in various forms.
‘Baptist’ – a member of a Baptist Church.
‘saints’ – those special people canonized in Catholic Church.
‘evangelist’
‘preach or proclaim’]
‘bless or praise’

*jargon, *jargonism; lingo

Special words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group and are
difficult for others to understand. [Often carries a derogatory tone. Cf. etym. late Middle
Engl. (‘twittering’ chattering’’ later ‘gibberish’).]

Particular jargons are found which belong to different cultures and languages, and
particularly to a different line of scholarly and ecclesiastical traditions of various Christian
religions. Church jargons, biblical jargons, religious jargons, theological jargons, etc.
Frequently used here in IRENT Supplement this word is a used as a technical term ad
should not be mistaken as in pejorative sense.

[Reading material: on http://jargonism.wordpress.com/ ]

English syntax problem

E.g. Jn 3:17 Most renders as ‘[God] did NOT send his Son into the world to’
which sounds very strange because of the placement of ‘not’ which should negate
the reason for his being sent. ‘God did send his Son into the world NOT to ~’.]

Sentence break problem

Rm 14:11a and 11b – two are not contiguous – speaker confusion

Speakers and voices

Speaker confusion:
Zec 3:2 ‘the angel of YHWH said to Satan: ‘May YHWH rebuke you, O Satan,
…’ NWT-4, (NWT-3), ERV, GNB. [Cf. Most renders as ‘the LORD said to
Satan ‘May LORD ~.]

Voices in the narrative:

• of the narrator, the editor
• of the actors
 Power of Words and Tyranny of Words

Many ‘difficult’ words are often not complicated words, but rather simple common
words within or without religion – ‘believe’ ‘be saved’ (rescued, delivered, redeemed,
healed, restored), ‘God’, ‘pray’, ‘bless’, ‘is’, ‘spirit’, ‘soul’, ‘flesh’’ ‘heaven’, ‘hell’,
‘immortality’, ‘world’, ‘wicked’ (bad?), ‘evil’, ‘church’, ‘preach’, ‘love’
‘condemn/condemnation ‘eternal’, ‘word’, ‘Lord’, ‘grace’, ‘worship’ ‘fellowship’,
‘world’, ‘mystery’, ‘Messiah’, ‘but’ (a conjunction – Gk. de)’ ‘for’ (a conjunction – Gk.
gar), etc. – differently used with different meaning, sense, connotation, and association.
Some occupy the specialty throne of religious and legal jargon.

Capitalization of a word adds different sense – e.g. god vs. God; lord vs. Lord; spirit vs.
Spirit; word vs. Word; etc. [See '*capitalization']

Simple but ambiguous with large semantic fields which overlap in synonyms. Imagine a
mountain of the Greek or Hebrew words from which these are translated.

Another mount of church, religious, or theological jargon.

When dealing with any argument or opinionated statement, meaning and definition are
often not presented, both sides being misled, intentionally or not.

[‘specialty jargon’ ‘inside language’ ‘Double-talk’ ‘Doublespeak ‘obfuscation’

‘deception’]

It is ultimately words that wield power over others – political, ideological. Many use
words of ‘God’ to gain power to control.

Ref: Dave Brunn (2013), One Bible, Many Versions – Are All Translations Created
Equal? [Ch. 4 What is in a Word? – More, And Less, Than Meets the Eye. (pp. 71-84)]

The power of words is immense and immeasurable. [‘A three-inch tongue can
relieve a debt of talent.’]. Though words are what make communication possible,
its inherent fluidity, flexibility, and limitation contributes miscommunication,
which can be disastrous by failing to convey the intention/agenda of a speaker,
clearly and fully. (Cf. Jam 3:5) Just as all the creation in God began with words.
All the evil in humanity begins with words. Words quicken Life and words also
slay. Words are dangerous things, like fire. It is not the word itself, but how it is
used. Dispute about words should be settled before dispute on each word can
safely made. (Cf. logomachy)

Examples of common words often abused or misused – ‘God’ ‘believe’ ‘love’

‘be saved’ ‘Lord’, ‘church’, etc. E.g. While there is large overlap of Hebrew
word Elohim, the Greek word theos and the English word God, there is little
semantic overlap a of ‘love’ in the Bible (translation word for Gk. word agapē)
14 F14F

and a common English word ‘love’. [Cf. KJV which renders it as ‘charity’. b] 15F15F

Every word in the Scripture must not be lightly treated; every word should be
attended before putting into the Bible translation.

No single word is bad or wrong; its usage makes it so. The common word ‘hell’
is not a wrong word, but when it is used as if it is a Scriptural word. Yes, it
appears in many English Bible translations –traditional but now inappropriate.
The word itself is a very useful – to describe aptly what one wants to as in such
expressions, ‘hell with’, ‘what the hell’, or ‘hellish’. No other word can do as it
does. Our task is to remove it from the Bible vocabulary.

For those who wants to hear the Word of God, for which the Scripture is a vessel
to hold in. Every word, phrase, and sentencesc – whether they are biblical or non-
biblical – has to be scrutinized and clearly defined according to reason of logic
and linguistics, to be stripped off humpty-dumpty language which is well
employed.

Translated ones are not always accurate – from wrong interpretation or eisegesis.
The hidden intention and agenda of those in power who formulated them have
be dished out and critically examined and kept re-examined from the perspective
of the Scripture from Genesis to Revelation covering into the Apostolic period.
The hidden agendas and intentions of those in power who put out creedal
formulation has to be scrutinized because all may be true only for those who
claim and believe it true – not related to the Scriptural teaching. [See * doctrine]

a
[A Venn diagram may be drawn to show sematic overlap of related words – between synonymous
words (synchronic or diachronic), or between two languages of translation words] [Cf. Euler
diagrams]

b
*charity instead of love in KJV: (x 28 in 24 vv.)
1Co 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; 14:1; 16:14; Col 3:14; 1Th 3:6; 2Th 1:3; 1Ti 1:5; 2:15; 4:12;
2Ti 2:22; 3:10; Tit 2:2; 1Pe 4:8; 5:14; 2Pe 1:7; 3Jn 6; Jud 1:12; Rev 2:19.
c
We often come to realized what we say ‘God’ is not God of the Scriputure. Likewise, when we
say ‘Jesus’ is not same as the one in the NT – Yeshua. The word ‘Bible’ itself is not in the Bible;
often confused with the word ‘Scripture’ in the Bible actually refers to TaNaKh (Hebrew)
Scripture (= ‘Old Testament’). The word graphē means that which is written – a writing. he
graphē the scripture = the scripture passage; ai grahai ‘the scriputers’ – pl. (rendered as ‘the
Scripture’ in IRENT as a collective noun, to avoid a wrong sense ‘many Scriptures’
*word; ‘the Word; Problems of 'word'; *meaning of a word'

H1697 dabar

‘the *word of God’

The word of the LORD < The word of YHWH = the Logos (Jn 1:1)
Jer 7:2; Hos 1:1; 4:1; 1Sam 3:1, 21; Zec 1:1; 4:6; 9:1; 12:1; Ezk 1:3; Zep 1:1;
Mal 1:1; Mic 1:1; Jonah 1:1; Isa 66:5

Jn 1:1 Word ░░ ['word' S3056 logos = 'concrete spoken word’, not ‘abstract written word of a Greek
philosophical term. It is word of ‘utterances' (S4487 rhēma Jn 3:34)’. There is nothing more powerful
than the word. Not message/speech/communication.
the Word (ho logos) in Jn 1:1 (//1Jn 5:7b v.l.) is the very word of Elohim (hence, it is capitalized)
expressing His will & thoughts into acts as it was in His creation fiat. It is not a person, but in v. 3
personified as the agent of Creation → 'the Word of Elohim' (used as a title in Rev 19:13 for the risen
Yeshua the Mashiah). [= H1697 dabar (memra in Aramaic) – 'the word of YHWH' (Psa 33:6; Isa 66:5).
Cf. Heb. hokma ‘wisdom’ as a personified God's agent (Pro 3:19; 8:22)] [= 'the Word of the Life' (1Jn
1:1) → 'the bread out of the heaven' Jn 6:33 = 'the bread of the Life' Jn 6:35, 48 = figurative 'flesh' of
Yeshua Jn 6:51, 53]; [Trinitarian eisegesis takes ‘the Word’ here as 'God the Son', ‘eternal Son of
God’, 'Cosmic Christ', 'pre-existent Christ', ‘pre-human Jesus’, etc.]

/the Word – most; /the word – Tyndale, Wycliffe, REV; /x: the Logos – Moffatt; /xxx: the Expressed
Concept – fn. ONT; /

Definition of ‘word’:

a single unit of language that has meaning and can be spoken or written.

Orthographic (written) vs. philological (spoken) word vs. lexical item;

Ref.
• What Is a Word?
• http://youtu.be/Vu3eDf4p0r0 What Even Is a Word?
• What is a word? - SIL International ;

Cf. sentence > phrase > word > syllable

Cf. ‘term’, 'lingo', 'jargon' (specialty word); vocabulary, ‘terminology’, etc.

Cf. ‘meaning of meaning’ http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ogden-richards-

meaning-all.pdf
Cf. ‘definition of definition’

It is one of few things important in our life to be clear and precise in use of words
and phrases. A ‘word’ comes alive only with all the ‘meaning’, ‘sense’, ‘nuance’,
 ‘connotation’ ‘usage’ as well as ‘intention/agenda’ of the speaker/writer. Caveat: a
word remains no longer same; it keeps changing in time slowly or abruptly,
unconsciously or intentionally [Cf. gobbledygook; double-talk; Orwellian
doublespeak, newspeak; humpty dumpty language, jargon, etc.; cf. words of
‘politically incorrect’ expression or nuance]. At a given time period a word cannot
mean exactly same to everyone. It is simply unconscionable and logically
impossible to translate a word – as literally as one wants – and be content with. A
lexical meaning is simply a make-believe and is good enough only for a dead
language. ‘working definition’, ‘stipulative definition’, ‘circular definition’;
obfuscation, word play, rhetoric, poetic license, euphemism, *circumlocution,
merism, periphrasis, metaphor, etc. circular reasoning; shoehorning, proof-texting;
assumption of the conclusion; presumption; inconsistent; incoherent;

A poem begins with “A rose is a rose is a rose”. What about words? Can we say,
“A Word is a word is a word”? Not really. The fact is, ‘word (which I say) is not
the word (which you say) is not the word (which others say). A word is not a word
is not a word (as a person may think so understand). [E.g. ‘holy’ is not holy all the
time. – See *holiness] [Christians are not Christians; unless specified it may lead
nowhere – e.g. Catholics, Protestants (from Catholicism keeping its major
doctrines), Mormons, Charismatics (- all called themselves Christians – they are
not same and cannot be same. They live different and think different; they know
what their God is, different from others’.] (Note: the Baptist Church tradition is not
from the Catholic Church.)

Even within the Bible text a word does not mean same as people presume, even a
word well known and unambiguous.

For example, the word 'Christ' which simply is as a translation word in the NT for most Bible
translations but it fails to reflect the biblical meaning and usage. Instead it is used as the title or
even his last name for 'Jesus'.

The basic sense of Christos (the Gk. translation word for Heb. Mashiaḥ) is 'an anointed one';
with anointing to inaugurate into the service of Elohim as a Davidic king, as a prophet like Moses
(Deu 18:15-10) or a priest (in the line of Malki-Tzedek Psa 110:4; Heb 7:17). Only the context
tells what it is meant and whom it is referred to. Especially in the Gospels, it refers simply to a
God's anointed one who was promised to come for Israel.

Gk. phrase ‘Iesous Christos’a occurs 5x in the Gospels Mt 1:1, 18 v.l.; Mk 1:1; Jn 1:17; 17:3.
Not in G-Lk. Here IRENT renders as 'Yeshua as Mashiah'; Yeshua was shown to come as a
Mashiah, and as a Mashiah king (Mt 27:11, 22) He was to be put to death.];

It is mostly outside the Gospels (Acts to Revelation); IRENT renders it as ''Yeshua the Mashiah'.
The words 'as' and 'the' are put in italics (smaller gray font) to indicate that these do not have
corresponding words in Greek NT text.

Unless people realize this, much of endless and useless arguments and conflicts from every
day conversation to doctrinal and theological heated debates results from the tyranny

a
Cf. Gk. phrase 'Christos Iesous' (Mashiah Yeshua; > 'Christ Jesus') is a Pauline expression
 played by words we use. While each word has it meaning ‘obvious’ in the context, what
one is thinking is not same as what one writes from it. What a person reads is not same as
what is written. An interpretation is further away from what one reads. It is remarkable
how communication with language is still possible without much difficulty when there is
such inherent ambiguity. However, when one makes a truth claim, it is the reader’s duty to
be a word inspector as well as a fruit inspector. a A word may have only a functional role
18F18F

but not meaning. The meaning of word is just one element it has. Depending on how it is
used in the context, it is affected also with association, allusion, echoes, connotation, word
Collocation, word play, sound-effects, and word picture (imagery) b. 19F19F

A word, when it is written down, is only a poor representation of a spoken word which
carries tone and mood (not in grammatical sense, but in literary sense), such as cynicism,
sarcasm, rhetoric, gloom, exasperation, combative, jocularity, etc. Translation has to bring
out vividness, force, tone, etc. "A question brewing another question"; /maieutic

Examples,
“God is God is God"? No? It cannot be. 'God' is not 'God' is not 'God'.
God (you say), God (I say), God (others say).

To save, to deliver, to redeem, to rescue, to atone – what is the context these are used?
You say, “I’m saved”. – So? What does it mean by 'be saved'? saved from what? saved to
what? And then? How does it get connected to ‘all to be saved’ (1Tm 2:4)? The Gk. sozō
– save; preserve, heal, make whole. What sense is covered by the English word ‘be saved’?

“Soul is soul”? No, if the word is used as in ‘*immortal soul’ of Greek philosophy. 'soul
of a machine'. (AI – artificial intelligence). It is NOT same as the word ‘soul’ translated in
the Bible. Yes, anyone can believe ‘immortal soul’, but it has nothing to the Biblical ideas.
‘Resurrection of soul?’ ‘resurrection of the body’? ‘soul sleep’?

“God (you say) is God (others say) is God (in the Bibles)”? No.
Is Jesus 'Jesus'? – which Jesus? Whose Jesus? Jesus of the Religion that cannot be same
as Yeshua of the Gospels.

“The holy spirit is the holy spirit is the holy spirit”? No, it is possible to say ‘holy spirit is
holy spirit is holy spirit’, [What the phrase ‘holy spirit’ or ‘the holy spirit’ means is solely
determined in a local as well as a larger context. See its full discussion under ‘* holy spirit’
in BW #3.]

This simple observation is also applicable even to the words which are found in the Bibles:

a
Cf. ‘You are to recognize them by their fruit’ (Mt 7:20) not only what they say or write but
also what they do and what they are especially when they wield power with position, pride
and pomp, placating and pleasing themselves.
b
word imagery – what kind of imagery would the readers to form in their mind when the text says ‘they
were fishers’ (- KJV. ‘fishermen’ – ESV; Mt 4:18; //Mk 1:16)? Would it be like outdoor men with
fishing as a hobby, anglers? Or fishers on a idyllic fishing village, or, on a commercial fishing ship? Or
rugged and rough, uneducated, rough-and-tumble, sweaty? What about ‘they will be made fishers of
men’ (Mt 4:19; Mk 1:17)? In some culture, ‘fishing men’ means ‘baiting men with a hook’. The ‘boat’
they were riding on? A pleasure rowing boat? There is no way to translate them ‘literally’ or ‘in formal
equivalence’ (whatever the pompous technical word means) without distorting what the Scripture says.
E.g. ‘welcome, accept, receive, take someone in, etc.’
 “Truth is not truth is not truth.” Same for ‘spirit’, ‘love’ a, ‘faith’, ‘soul’ b, etc. – in fact
20F20F 21F21F

every word that has some weight on it. What is definition of 'to love' – giving and sharing
one's personal 'space'. What is 'space' used here?

All this is not from our relativistic way of thinking. Every word used is in such linguistic
and logical dilemma. Each of us has different exposure, experience, and experiment with
words during entire period of our life to make us burdened with presumptions and
assumptions, to bring up different associations and word pictures.

As human beings live in language and with language, this is the ultimate source of
animosity between people. Simply we don’t have common ground to stand to effectively
communicate each other. It has become a tool or means for the pursuit of power and
pleasure. “God is God is God.” Is it? Or, rather should we say “God is not God; God is not
God, God is not God”? That is, “God (who I say it) is not God (who you say) is not God
(who others say).” [The statement ‘everyone believes in God’ is correct, as far as it goes,
since God (for someone) is not God (for others). The focus is ‘who God is’.]

God is God is a god; god is God. Only with ‘the God’ we can see the word is intended to
be understood differently, until the true Elohim is known by the very name. [The Hebrew
word HaShem (lit. "the name") which is used to refer to Elohim when avoiding
God's more formal title in Hebrew, Adonai (lit. "My Master") – use to translate the
Tetragrammaton in English translations of the Hebrew Scripture.

God is God. It seems that the main problem besetting our humanity is whether one believe
in God or not believe. A truth is that one does not come to the Bible to ‘believe in God’,
because everyone does believe in a God. The problem is who God is. The Scripture does
not tell that people should believe in ‘God’ they can understand and accept, but it reveals
who God is, that is, the God of Scripture – the very Elohim of Abraham, Elohim of
Yitzchak (> Isaac), Elohim of Yaakob (Mt 22:32, etc.) whom Yeshua called ‘Abba,
Father’. When we utter the word ‘God’ in our everyday language, most of time it does not
have or require a connection to the God of the Scripture, Elohim whose revealed name is
YHWH.

Most difficult word in terms of logic is the verb ‘is’. ‘A is A’ does not mean ‘A=A’ in
mathematical language. In literary, both A may mean different things, refer to different
things originating from different spheres. Thus, while A = A if only in logical argument
with A being well defined.

When we hear the statement as simply as ‘A is B’, we should not put A=B (same, equal,
identical, as if = is same as ≡ sign), but always take it as ‘A is as B’, telling that A and B
are somehow interrelated, but it is not a statement of identity. We can see it is the problem
of the verb ‘is’ is at the root of all the conflicts and contentions (resulting in battle, wars,
killings) in human endeavor at a higher level (intellectual, ideological, scholarly, etc.).

a
‘love’ – the word ‘love’ in common English usage has little to do with the notion of the word in the
Scripture, a pale shadow. [Cf. giving out and sharing one's space.] E.g. ‘sexual love’ – sex has nothing
to do with ‘love’ itself.
b
‘soul’ – it is used as a translation word in many English Bibles and only so much overlap in the semantic
field. Hence ideas of ‘soul immortality’ and ‘soul sleep’ (the expression not found in the Bible) are
concocted, being infected with common pagan beliefs. Can someone first explain what is meant by ‘soul’
anyway? We have to start at where words, all the words especially weighty words, are being used in our
everyday language, not from agenda-driven mindset craving for doctrines and theologies.
God is God, because God is as God. That Yeshua is the Word of Elohim purports the fact
of that ‘Yeshua is as the Logos’. The reverse is not true – the Logos is not Yeshua, nor God
the Son.

Ref. The Burden of Proof ; Evidence of absence -

‘Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence’
https://youtu.be/MFBjCM0mZHg “negative evidence is not same as absence of
evidence.”

vocabularies: *logic, proof, inference, premises, preposition, presupposition, bias,

tautology, * arguments, statements, contradiction, contingency, paradox; inductive
reasoning vs. deductive reasoning; hypothesis, theories, syllogism, logical
equivalents, symbolic; fallacies, rhetoric; literal-metaphorical-allegorical
interpretation;

logic, proofs www.math.northwestern.edu/~mlerma/courses/cs310-05s/notes/dm-logic.pdf

A list of fallacies - http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/
www.triviumeducation.com/trivium/

Prof. Junhyong Kim, https://omnia.sas.upenn.edu/story/digital-deluge -- he cites

the Trivium model from Ancient Greece and the Middle Ages, which encompasses
grammar, logic, and rhetoric. “The Trivium can be interpreted in scientific and
technological term. Grammar defines rules, patterns, and objects of interest, which
relates closely how we track and catalog data, as well as methods like machine
leaning. Logic determines rules for inherence and meaning, and can be tied to how
we use various data inference models including graphical model of genetic
relations, causal models of disease, and so on. Finally, rhetoric uses grammar and
logic to tell a story – or in more scientific terms, a theory. Theory involves not
only quantitative models but a conceptual framework for guiding the deployment
of models – that is, the theater for the scientific story”

Most nefarious word → ‘is’ (See below * Nefarious ‘Is’.)

Most precarious word → ‘* all’
Most confusing word → ‘we’ and ‘they’ – which we? Are we the ‘we’ in the text?
‘*crowd’ – how big should it be?
A: "I believe God."
B: "I don't believe God."

Both are not conflicting or contentious, but a contrast or a counterpart.

A useful statement needs to be logically clear. If not, it remains dubious

until every word in the statement is well-defined by showing in what
sense is and how it is used. [definition, meaning sense]

a word may be uses as a title, metonymic, rhetoric.

'thing' - (1) non-tangible or non-perceptible things - i.e. ideas, abstractions

'things - (2) inanimate things
'things - (3) animate, living thing, incl. animals
'persons - living human beings, cf. 'dead' persons.
god - things or persons
God - God-being; cf. the God

Statement A: "A rose is a rose" - not nonsensical. not contradictory, not

illogical.
Statement B: "A rose is not a rose" - It is nonsensical, is it?
Yes or no. It all depends how the words are defined. Rose the first word
may not be same/identical to rose the second word. If graphically
presented it is obvious: "Rose is not rose." Common convention which is
without color font, is to put words in quotation marks: 'Rose' is not 'rose'

Same way:
Statement A: God is God.
Statement B: 'God is not God'.
Statement C: 'God' is not God.

Unlike Statement B, Statement C is less confusing.

John Beekman and John Callow (1974) give an elaborate footnote in their book
Translating the Word of God (p. 68) about the historical use and varying terminology
for these classes of lexical symbols:

Probably the earliest analysis in terms of such classes is found in George Campbell’s The
Philosophy of Rhetoric, first published in 1776. A recent edition (1963) has been edited by
Lloyd Bitzer and published by the Southern Illinois University Press. On page 385,
 Campbell labels the four semantic classes as (1) things, (2) operations, (3) attributes, and
(4) connectives. [an acronym – TEAR]

Gustaf Stern (1931), in his Meaning and Change of Meaning (p. 19), says, “Words are
signs which name that for which they are signs: table is the name of an object, red of a
quality, run of an activity, over of a relation.”

Wilbur Urban (1939), Susanne K. Langer (1942), and Edward Sapir (1944), each proposed
a set of labels to represent these basic classes of semantic elements.

More recently, E. A. Nida (1964), in Toward a Science of Translating (p. 62) speaks of
four principal functional classes of lexical symbols, which he labels as object words, event
words, abstracts and relationals.

From www.edah.org/backend/JournalArticle/1_2_intro.pdf (2001)

… Contemporary thinkers from diverse fields have taught us that language does more than
describe the objective universe around us: Words shape our understanding of reality and
how we relate to the world. The logos creates, as it were, our universe. The Torah considers
names crucial, expressing and perhaps determining the character and destiny of their
bearers. If this is true about persons in space and time, it is true a fortiori about how we
understand God, who has no independent empirical character. Halakhah’s insistence on the
careful use of the divine Name reflects this philosophic awareness. That sanctifying God is
conceived of as ‘qiddush Ha-Shem’ — sanctifying God’s Name — is no coincidence.

Noun and articles.

Bound nouns, * countable nouns, * uncountable nouns, mass nouns, collective nouns.
Articles –indefinite (in English) vs. definite → anarthrous vs. arthrous noun in Gk.
What does it mean to say 'a word is definite'?
[Jn 1:1c presents linguistic and theological issue involving translation/interpretation problems.
'Colwell's rule' http://ntresources.com/documents/colwell.pdf (Decker)
www.onenesspentecostal.com/colwell.htm (Arnold, Colwell's Rule and Jon 1:1)] ['a noun is
qualitative' vs. 'a noun is in adjectival use'.]

Cf. demonstrative pronoun – a pronoun that is used to point to something specific within a sentence:
this, that, these, and those, as in “This is an apple,” “Those are boys,” or “Take these to the clerk.” The
same words are used as demonstrative adjectives when they modify nouns or pronouns: “this apple,”
“those boys.”
‘particularization’ vs. categorization

E.g. a man, the man, man, Man, that/this man (here man as human, not as male)
E.g. a god; God, the God, gods (Heb. elohim)
*meaning; *definition; translation

[Meaning, usage, nuance, word picture, word association] [characterization,

categorization, specification]

A word a is alive only when it is placed discriminatory and clear in the text,
2F2F

unless with intentional and literary device with ambiguity, word play, rhetoric b, 23F23F

ellipsis, paradox, etc.

[*Literary devices: literary elements and literary techniques. E.g. /double-
entendre/ - see www.literarydevices.com/ ]

The semantic field of a word overlaps with the fields of other synonymous words
in varying degree. We have to deal with this not only for English words, but also
the Greek words. A word with most accurate meaning is not necessarily the right
word to be in the text. An idiom cannot be simply put into other languages, unless
the whole context – linguistic and cultural setting9 is considered.

There is no such thing as literal c translation of a word into different language;

24F24F

what it means by that is nothing more than putting words into glosses. Literal
translation (also called metaphrase) of the text is not possible except in the sense
of translation with concordant principle (a word or phrase is rendered to another
language always same throughout the text), which by itself is a linguistical and
literary absurdity. It should not be confused with a principle of consistency – the
same word appearing in the same context should be rendered same. All
translation work should be ‘dynamic’. It is also ‘paraphrase’, putting a phrase
into a different phrase simply because it’s into another language. However, when
the term ‘paraphrase’ is applied to Bible translation work, it actually points to
free style rendering without much restriction or rules to fit the translator’s agenda
(something which is at stake) and ideas, be it literary (e.g. easy reading, modern
English style, spoken English style, etc.) or doctrinal, importing in varying
degree into the text which is a frivolous with personal fanciful stupefying
blarneying, penchant, useless, alien and foreign to the Scripture, and often
contradictory to the original text itself.

a
‘word’ vs. ‘*term’ - Often the word ‘term’ is used where ‘word’ is simple and
appropriate. Cf. '
b
Ref. C. Clifton Black (2001), The Rhetoric of the Gospel – Theological Artistry in the
Gospels and Acts. – a must reader for translator as well as readers. “… rhetoric generally
bears on those distinctive properties of human discourse, especially its artistry and
argument, by which the authors of biblical literature have endeavored to convince others
of the truth of their beliefs.” (p. 2) Related words – ‘rhetorical criticism”
c
‘literal translation’ – [A literal translation is a good choice for literal reading of the Bible
to lead to literalism and legalism – totally dissociate from what the Scripture says.]
[Ref. Vincent Crapanzano (2000), Serving the Word – Literalism in America from the Pulpit to the
Bench. (pp. xv-xxvi, Preface; pp. 1-28, Introduction.) The main part of the book covers the relevance
of literalism on American religious (esp. of fundamentalism) and judicial landscape.]
Words have meanings and carry senses as well as functional roles. Only within
a sentence these begin to surface up and its semantic field becomes narrowed
down. Words, however significant they may be with thematic weights, are just
building blocks for a whole structure and are steps to a long journey, which is
what the readers are drawn into – that is, words are there to contribute the entire
discourse, not to draw the reader’s attention to themselves. Only viewed from
the whole, each word is found to be there alive interacting each other. A Greek
word may be rendered in different English words (or even phrases). An English
word may be used to render more than one Greek words (or phrases). The same
English word may be of different grammatical unit (e.g. noun vs. verb vs.
adjective, etc.). Thus, searching a word is not simple task, if more than looking
up a collection of words in style of a thesaurus. When a concordance is used,
it has its own limitation - it is not possible to be exhaustive to include all the
words in the Scripture and at the same time clearly categorizing. Each Bible
translation needs a concordance on its own. For this one solution would be to
have the main entries under Greek words and phrases, complemented by a cross-
reference index or hyperlink. As to translation work, a word in the original
language in the Scripture is impossible to be put in the target language as exact
and precise representation. A word in the translation text may for the readers
have a meaning different from what the translator intended. Such ambiguity of
meaning of words is unavoidable. Arguing with words often gets mired, simply
because words mean differently to different people in different mindset. When
this happens on issues and interpretative and doctrinal issues, its consequence is
enormous, often resulting in divisiveness, seeing parting away into different
versions of theology separated from each other with lost common ground and
broken communication – even in what is supposed to be on faith in God!

From the level of words, moving to the phrase, to the sentence, and to the large
segment of the text, at each level, meaning and sense are developed to tell the
readers what the author intended to express and deliver – in harmony with the
whole Scripture. a25F25 F

What is the meaning of ‘meaning’ anyway? Sense? Or the meaning or definition

of ‘definition’?

What is the meaning of a word? Or perhaps better, how does one determined
the meaning of a word? – quoting from Daniel Fabricatore (2010), Form of
God, Form of Servant – An Examination for the Greek Noun morpē in Phi
2:6-7. p.1)

a
[Ref.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/the_profit_of_employing_the_biblical_
languages_scriptural_and_historic ]
 Chilton and Neusner (2004), Classical Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism - Comparing
Theologies

p. 15 To do theology is to think philosophically about the revealed truth that a religion puts
forth. To think philosophically is to address systematic questions of definition, logic, cogency,
coherence, and proportion. A theological system emerges from the answers to those questions.
An analogy then presents itself: theology is to religion as language is to experience and
perception. Theology constitutes the language of religious faith, knowledge and experience,
defining its vocabulary (category-formations), laying out its grammar, setting forth its syntax.
Just as language turns inchoate experience into propositions subject to general intelligibility in
public discourse, so theology expresses in appropriate language the attitudes and feelings and
intangible but very real perceptions of religion. It puts them into intellectually accessible terms
and categories, subject to generalization and systematization. Transforming what is private and
inherently individual into something that is public and intentionally shared, theology does for
religion what language does for experience and perception.

Problem of dealing with *statements, *arguments, and *claims

Any of these can be right, but only within the paradigm. Without precise definition of
terms and words, the end will be an unending pile of confusion, contradictions, and
contentions. People keep creating their own new jargon and new meanings to convince
others that they are right, better, and true, without realizing everything man can come
up is relative. [Cf. authoritarianism; Orwellian doublethink, newspeak, doublespeak,
etc.; mind control, brain washing, etc.] [Exceptional case is found in dealing with the
logics and mathematics. Contrasted is artistic or poetic license. Cf. double talk; word
play; rhetoric]
*is, *as, 'is as', 'so'

*so
The word 'so' should be used at the beginning of a 'proper' response to any kind
of claim, especially a truth claim.
e.g. 'I believe God' → ‘So?’ ‘So ↝’‘So then?’ ‘So what?’
e.g. 'I am a Christian' 'Jesus is risen' – so?

Next important response is a question: 'what does God mean? 'what God?
Which God? Whose God? What does 'believe' mean?

*As; *is
[cf. 'as if', 'pretend', 'assume']

The beast and the beauty of 'as' and 'is':

Other than /A/ is /A/, 'is' of the copula 'be' is not easy to digest.

What does it mean by 'is' when we say /A/ is /B/, for example, esp. when /B/ is unarthrous
noun?

Ref. Goulder, ed. (1970), Incarnation and Myth: The Debate Continued
[in Ch. 3 "Is the Doctrine of the Incarnation Logically Coherent?" by Don Cuppitt,
A. Jesus and the Meaning of 'God' p. 36, (1) 'Jesus', (2) 'God', (3) 'Is'.]

[A copy in the zip file <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3A.1 - God, Yeshua, & Names)>]

In majority it is a part of figurative speech.

Problem expressions – 'is' 'similar' 'equal' – not 'same' or 'identical'

E.g. Jn 5:18 stand equal to Elohim ░░ [equal (in some aspects), but not identical, or same, nor similar. /x: ‘I
am God’.] /> equal with God – most;

– Jn 10:30 "Father and Son are as one"

– Jn 14:28 “Father is greater than I”
– Phi 2:6 "being equal to a God-being" > /equality with God – most; /x: (try to remain) equal
with God – GNB; /to be equal with God – KJV; /(he was) the equal with God – Aramaic in
Plain English;
• 'is' followed by anarthrous noun in predicate, i.e. 'indefinite'
Jn 4:24 – Elohim is as spirit
Jn 1:1c – And as what God is, the Word is
1Jn 4:8, 16b – Elohim is as love
1Jn 1:5 – Elohim is the Light.
[here, the is required not to confuse the word 'light' as an adjective]
• with arthrous noun in predicate, i.e. 'definite'.
2Co 3:17 – The Adonai (> Lord) is the spirit.
*as, *like, just as; as if; similar; likened to;

'just as'; 'as'; 'like' – Gk. ōs

Problem texts for translation:

ōs kleptēs en nukti – 1Th 5:2, 4; 2Pe 3:10; Rev 3:3; 16:15 related to the coming of the Lord. Most
renders as ‘like a thief in the night’ (KJV etc.) or ‘as a thief in the night’ (NET etc.) with a strange
word connection ‘Lord’ and ‘thief’. The phrase should be rendered as a verbal phrase ‘just as a
bandit (> thief) would come at night’

The nefarious ‘IS’. A statement in the form of ‘A is B’. The copula verb ‘be’ in third
person singular (‘is’) is used rarely in the sense of ‘to be same, identical, or equal’, but
‘to be as’. Cf. figure of speech; analogy; simile. Another problem with 'is' is whether it
denotes timeless gnomic or time-bound being at the present, in contrast to the past or
the future. E.g. 'so-and-so is King' – does it mean he was not but now he is? or he is
always as a king?

[Note: significant difference between ‘as’ and ‘like’]

E.g. ‘God is like (noun)’ vs. ‘God is as (noun)’. ‘God is as a person’ vs. ‘God is a
person’. vs. ‘God is spirit’ vs. ‘God is as spirit’ / ‘As spirit is, God is’
When we say ‘God is a person’, such as the one who exists alone, what we actually
say is no more than ‘God is as a person who comes to us’ – a relational God; not as an
isolated person. Cf. ‘personable’.

'*be' (a *copula)

The verb 'be' is a typical copular verb (also called 'linking verb').
A (sentence) clause = a subject + a predicate.
A predicate = a verb + Predicative expression.

Some of these elements in a clause may be in ellipsis which is to be found in the context.

It is important to recognize that the copula 'be' does not have a sense of 'to exist' or 'to be
present'. Such a sense may be supplied with an adverbial phrase expressing where and when.

It is often used for making comparisons: *similes vs. *metaphors:

similes use the words like to compare things — “Life is like a box of chocolates.”
metaphors directly state a comparison — “Love is a battlefield.”
*similar, like, as; *equal; *identical; *same; *as if; '*being one'

When we say 'same', it may not be obvious that 'same' is not 'same'. Even 'ideational' is not
identical. Without specifying in what aspect something is to be same or identical, the claim
that something is same or identical is ambiguous. The same hold true for the word 'equal'.
That Yeshua was accused for having claimed to 'make himself be equal to Elohim' (Jn 5:18 -
IRENT). It is 'Elohim', not just 'God'; 'to be equal' means not to be identical but to stand
equal.

"same thing" – Does it mean of same (if not similar) brand/model/type? the very thing being
referred?

The expression 'being one' does not mean same/identical.

hōsei God’s spirit descends as a dove does Mt 3:16

homoiōō hōsper pray like the hypocrites Mt 6:5, 8;
homois (estin) kingdom reign of the heavens is like Mt 11:16; 13:33

hōs
Mt 20:14 give also as to you hounai hōs kai soi

isos
Jn 5:18 he makes himself equal to Elohim
Phi 2:6 he should be equal to God-being (to einai isa theō ‘to be equal to God-being’)
Rev 21:16 (measurements) are equal.
Mt 20:12 made (i.e. treat) them equal to us
Mk 14:56, 59 testimonies were not equal (/x: identical). (i.e. not in agreement; do not agree)

kathōs
2Co 11:12 (heuriskō kathōs being found as we are (/x: equal to us) in the things about which
they boast.

isotēs
2Co 8:13-14 – ‘equality’ in the context of ‘sharing’ equally.
Col 4:1 give to your slaves what is just and equal [as of sharing]

isotimos
2Pe 1:1 equally-honored
isaggelos
Lk 20:36 /like angels; x/: equal to angels
Power of 'as': Notion of sameness:

*as:

Unlike the word 'like', however, the word '*as' provides not much of comparison but of
relational qualification. (cf. '*as if'a)
'to worship YHWH as Elohim (God)'
'to worship 'Jesus' as God', but not 'God = Jesus'.
'to pray to 'Jesus' – as the Son of God, not as 'God Jesus'.

E.g. in the Bile text in IRENT

'and as what God is, the word was' (Jn 1:1c)
'The God's Word became as flesh' (Jn 1:14)
'Yeshua as Mashiah' (Mt 1:1; Jn 17:3)
'Yoů, yoů all are as the light in the world' (Mt 5:16)
'they are no longer two, but as one flesh-and-body'(Lk 10:8)
'nor the Son as the Son-of-man' (Mt 13:33)
'yoů shall be as sons of Most High (Mt 6:35)
'I and Father – we are as one' [Jn 10:30]
'That one was as a manslayer right from the start' (Jn 8:44)
'yoů [judges] are [to rule] as gods' (Jn 10:34)
'they shall be as one' (Jn 17:11, 21, 22)
'both are [working] as one' (1Co 3:8)
'yoů-all in Corinth are as a God's field and as a God's building' (1Co 3:9).
'yoů [all together] are as God's divine habitation [1Co 3:17]

Here lies the very bottom of communication problems leading into conflict and contention
(ideological and power). When we assert a certain position, we ignore the simple reality
that we are not talking about same thing, thus not talking same thing itself. E.g. ‘My God’
which is what I say is most likely not same as the one by others. Same for the word ‘Jesus’;
each has different Jesus in mind: What Jesus? Which Jesus? Whose Jesus?

With clear consistent agreed-upon definition, a word is like a dulled blade which cannot
cut things – leading to contradiction, ambiguity, and falsity.

"/A/ is /A/" is "/A/ is same as /A/" only in mathematical notion. In the speech, "/A/ is
/A/" is always in the sense of '/A/ is as /A/'. It is easy to recognize in a figurative
speech, such as 'YHWH (the LORD) is my shepherd' (Psa 23:1). Here it is 'as my
shepherd'. The same also hold true in a 'literal' expression (i.e. not metaphoric). E.g.
'Elohim [is] spirit' (Jn 4:24 > 'God is spirit' /x: 'God is a Spirit' – KJV). Here it is 'as
spirit' we come to know and experience Him. E.g. Jn 1:1c 'as what God was, the word
was' (IRENT).], 'the Word was God' (most translation) or 'the Word was a god'
(NWT).

Even with the common titles –

• 'Elohim [the] Father' (2Jn 1:3 > 'God the Father'), It is 'Elohim as Father' (as 'father-
figure').
• 'Son of Elohim' is not that He = the Son', but 'He is as the Son'. [One of major
misunderstanding on the part of Muslims, claiming that how God can have a son.

a
Ref. Hans Vaihinger (1911), The Philosophy of As If. See collections in <Philosophy of As If> in <
IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #1B - Words and Theories)>.
In other than mathematical language, 'is' is not 'is'. In other words when we say 'is' as in
'/A/ is /B/', the 'is' is actually 'is as'. E.g. 'I am your father', even if it's in the biological
sense, is not much more than seeing 'I am as your father. 'Lincoln is our President', even
if it is a fact, is not much more than seeing 'Lincoln is as our President'. This is more
pertinent in case of God-being. 'YHWH is Elohim' (YHWH is God) is trying to say
'YHWH is as Elohim – we worship Him as Elohim. It does not say the word Elohim is
something of His identity or reality. It is a mere title.

'*son of': The common Hebrew idiom, /A/ is son of /B/, does not saying /A/ = (same as;
identical with) the son of /B/. E.g. Mk 3:17 'sons of thunder'.

"/A/ is Son of God" (cf. the Son of Elohim) does not anyway to say "/A/ = son of God',
but rather /A/ is a person with such character reflecting God. Such anthropomorphic
expression is a stumbling block to Muslims who says how God can have son, as if God
is a human father. No, we all have to understand the word 'is' not a word with
mathematical precision but with common usage: when we say "/A/ is /B/", we mean
"/A/ is as /B/". What we have in mind in such expression is not about 'identity' between
the two, but relationality between them. YHWH Elohim – YHWH is the only Elohim
He wants to worship – worship as the only Elohim, YHWH alone. Yeshua is worshiped
as He is. He is to be 'worshiped' as God [Phi 2:10-11], not as Elohim; nor we should be
worshiping 'God Jesus' of Christian Church religions. Though He is God to them, but it
should mean 'He is as God', because He is not 'the God' (Elohim).

"God is God" or "God is God is God."a Yes or no. The statement ‘God is God’ cannot
negate its opposite ‘God is not God’, as both can be true. What is meant by the word
/God/ is determined by the context of any statement without which the statement itself
remains ambiguous and cannot be subjected to any logical analysis or argument. This
hold same for any word when it is used outside common, ordinary and plain statements
– a word has become a 'term' or a 'lingo'.

*sons of God – most, NWT; God's sons; (huioi theou) ≠ children of God
– Mt 5:9; Gal 3:26; Lk 20:36 (x: God's children – NWT); Rm 8:14 (God's sons – NWT);
'my Son' as to Yeshua [not 'God the Son'] – Mt 3:17; 17:5 //Mk 9:7 //Lk 9:35; Heb 1:5; 5:5;
Act 12:33; Cf. Psa 2:7
the sons of Elohim – Rm 8:19; (Gal 4:6);
sons of Elohim – (Heb 12:7)

(S5043 teknon – child) God's children (tekna theou) Jn 1:12; Rm 8:16;

Cf. children of God – NWT (1Jn 3:1, 2; Phi 2:15).

[Note: anarthrous 'theos' - rendered as ‘God’ ‘God-being’ ‘what God is’, ‘a god’ (for
pagan deities) in IRENT – e.g. Jn 1:1c; 1:18. In case of subjective genitive as /God's/
(or /by God/). cf. The arthrous 'ho theos' is consistently rendered as /Elohim/. e.g. Jn
1:1b and 2Co 4:4]

a
It is coined after the well-quoted phrase 'Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose' in the poem 'Sacred Emily' by
Gertrude Stein (1922). www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/15900.html for the full text of the poem and the
meaning and origin of the phrase. [A copy in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #1B - Words
and Theories)>]
*Nefarious 'Is' – Problem with 'is':

[See the file in the Collection <The Nefarious "IS">] See ‘Nefarious IS’ in the
Supplement collection.]

[See an article in <IRENT Vol. III Supplement - IRENT Vol. III - Supplement
(Collections #1B - words and theories)> –<The Nefarious "Is"> by Mary Roberts]

Nefarious “Is”, in K. E. Davis, R. Bergner, F. Lubuguin, & W. Schwartz

(Eds.), Advances in Descriptive Psychology, (Vol. 10, pp. 267-277)
www.sdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Roberts-The-nefarious-is-261-271.pdf

In all written or spoken statements ‘is’ is a problematic. It is not at all comparable to a

mathematical notion ≡ or = (equal sign). It should be understood rather as → (pointing
to something) or ← (being described by).

/mathematical symbols Convention dictates meaning of symbols

-- ∴ ∵ ∃ ⊥ ∧∐
/(mathematical) Equivalence relation

E.g. ‘Someone A is a father’ does not say ‘A = father’, but ‘A is as a father’. E.g. The
statement ‘God is a person’ remains incomplete without a qualifier or modifier for the
word ‘person’. However, the statement ‘God is as a person’ is semantically complete.
God is as a person to us; we come to God as a person – not as a thing or an abstract
notion. All because of limitation of communication by means of our imperfect language,
which is hardly logical.

The problem is not only with the word ‘IS’, but the other [religious] words or terms: e.g.
‘Jesus is the Christ’a – Who is Jesus, the name that does not appear in the Scripture?
Which sort of Jesus? What does ‘Christ’ mean? What is the sense of this statement? In
fact, it behooves us to treat every statement out of human thought as a suspect when is
claimed to be true. Especially with religious and ecclesiastical jargon, concepts, ideas,
words, and terms.

In reading the Scripture one of the most difficult words is ‘is’. b E.g. what does ‘is’
16F16F

mean in such sentences? ‘is’ is ‘is same’ ‘is equal’ ‘is identical’ ‘stands for’ ‘is like’?

a
‘Jesus is the Christ’, a typical English sentence in westernized Christian language, is almost tautological
and non-sensical. What does it mean? How far is it from the expression ‘Yeshua is as the anointed one
by Elohim’ – anointed to be a king, a prophet, and a kohen (priest)?
b
See a file in Collections #1 “The Nefarious “Is”. Roberts, M. K. (2013). The nefarious
“is”. In K. E. Davis, R. Bergner, F. Lubuguin, & W. Schwartz (Eds.), Advances in
Descriptive Psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 267-277)
Cf. Bill Clinton “… It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."
Cf. K.C. Cole wrote: Words, after all, are only what we make them. And remake them. So
it isn't all that surprising that we sometimes can't agree on what the proper meaning is.
How does it relate (or connect) the subject to the predicate? a Everything stands
relative in the realm of language — like everyone is given an instrument for music,
all out of tune with different pitch. There, who can say others are playing wrong,
when the instrument, that is, language is the culprit.

• ‘YHWH is my shepherd’ (Psa 23:1) is not literal but metaphoric (as in a poem).
• ‘and the Word was God’ Jn 1:1c (KJV and most others) – Here is the problem
with ‘God’ as a translation word for anarthrous theos is problematic as it is in
the text contrasted to arthrous ho theos in 1:1b which almost universally
rendered simply as 'God'. NWT rendering as 'a god' is a poor translation as it
implies one of many others including pagan ones. 'and What God is, the Word
was.' – IRENT.
• ‘and Elohim (the God) is spirit’ Jn 4:24 – problem with ‘spirit’. What spirit,
which spirit? ‘Elohim is as spirit’ – IRENT; 'What spirit is Elohim is'. [Cf.
/xxx: God is a spirit – KJV; /xxx: God is a Spirit – NWT3/4; /xx: God is Spirit
– many] [Note: The Greek verb is in ellipsis.]
• ‘Elohim (the God) is love’ (1Jn 4:8).
• ‘the enemy … is the devil’ (Mt 13:39). ‘one of you is a devil’ (Jn 6:70) – ‘a
devil’ meaning ‘someone like the devil’?
• ‘Your throne is the God’ Heb 1:8 [literal translation with ‘the God’ = Elohim;
the absent verb supplied]? How does it differ from reading it ‘God is your
throne’ (as in NWT)? Is the reverse statement correct, always? If the statement
‘the Word is God’ is true, its reverse ‘God is the Word’ can be true? If not,
why not?

*If A = B, does it mean A = B?

A simple statement with the verb ‘is’ (third person singular) is not simple as it
seems. When A and B both are nominative and B is not b (adjective) and when
A is a person noun (pronoun), the verb ‘is’ does not mean A ≡ B with such
mathematical precision and logical definition. In the literary work like the
Scripture, it is invariably in the sense of “A is as B” (or “A is as B is”) –
descriptive and explanatory. To take ‘is’ literally is same as reading it as ‘is equal

Or even what "mean" means, or "is" is.

http://articles.latimes.com/2001/may/14/news/mn-63298
a
www.kissgrammar.org/ED498/IM/SVC.htm
SVC sentence pattern [Subject / Verb / Complement]
Complements – zero complements; predicate adjective, predicate noun; (indirect and/or direct)
object.
www.kissgrammar.org/ED498/IM/Nexus.htm (a copy in <Collection #1B – Words and Theories>)
• grammatical term 'nexus' = relationship between the parts of the sentence pattern
<Subject / Finite Verb / (Optional) Complement>.
• a verb = a finite verb or a 'verbal'; When the verb in a nexal pattern cannot stand as a
separate sentence), it is referred as a "verbal".
1. Nexal (S/V/C) patterns form the core of English sentence structure.
2. The words in those patterns are usually modified by adjectives and/or adverbs.
3. Nexal patterns (clauses or verbals) can be embedded in other nexal patterns, either in noun slots,
or as modifiers.
to’ – similar to reductio ad absurdum. [Cf. A is B; A is as B; A is like B; A stands
for B, etc. Cf. analogical, metonymic, metaphoric (figurative), rhetoric use.

E.g. ‘Elohim is Love’ – (1Jn 4:8, 16) – in the sense of ‘Elohim is as Love’
Here Elohim ('the God'; ‘God’a) is not equated with an abstract noun ‘love’. Also,
the reverse ‘love is Elohim’ is not true. Similar examples are ‘Elohim is spirit’
(Jn 4:24 – ‘God is spirit’ - KJV mistranslates: ‘God is a spirit’.
E.g. “This is my body” (Mt 26:26; Mk 14:22; Lk 22:19). This (= the bread)
cannot be equated as Yeshua’s body. The sense is that the bread is as His body
– symbolizing it.
E.g. ‘kai theos ho logos’ (Jn 1:1c – most translates as ‘and the Word was God’
– it is nonsensical linguistically and literarily when the same word ‘God’ is used
to translate ho theos ‘the God’ in v. 1b.) It is also true when it is rendered in both
occurrences as Elohim.
E.g. ‘Yeshua the Son of Elohim’ – at the literary level, it means ‘Yeshua is as
the Son of Elohim’. The words ‘son’ and ‘father’ simply bring out dynamic
relationality of Yeshua and Elohim, only in anthropomorphic usage of the words.
E.g. ‘YHWH is my shepherd’ (Psa 23:1), ‘I am the Way’ (Jn 14:6), etc.
E.g. ‘Left-over waste is a sin' – 'is' in the sense of 'constitutes'
(cf. 'Laziness and greed are the seeds of evil.')

a
The English word God is a countable noun, but ‘the God’ (Elohim) in the text is not. Elohim
(‘the God’) of the Scripture is not a countable noun, neither He is a person, nor a being, but
the Ultimate Reality).
 On Words and Phrases

[A list of rundown suitable for a quick glance is here to be completed in

suitable order, thematic vs. alphabetic.]

*word problem; problem of words

['A rose is a rose is a rose'a it may be, but a word is not a word. How it is used
and by whom it is used and in what context, the word does not remain same.
This is a fundamental linguistic/literary cause of all ideological and doctrinal
contentions – especially dealing with the biblical texts.]
The following phrase is found at the beginning of a well-known poem - (Ref)
www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/15900.html

Gertrude Stein's poem Sacred Emily, written in 1913

[Note. A word is bracketed as /word/ when it is as written, heard, read, spoken

or quoted – different from presenting it as 'word', "word" or word. E.g. /Jesus/ is
presented differently by different Christology ('Who he is'); he is not same as
Yeshua in the New Testament ('Who he was').

Words and loanwords; Hebrew and Koine Greek vs. English – vocabulary and
synonyms – meaning, nuance, word image, word-play, allusions and echoes;
associations and idioms. Contemporary, vulgar, literary words, slang, street-
words, expletive;

Semantics; problem of meaning and definition; word vs. term; [boundaries of

related words are often blurred; in the given context it may be in place of other.
E.g. <…his recent visit to our nation “touched not only our nation’s soul but also
the world’s...>; e.g. spirit vs mind – Spirit of St Louis’; e.g. ‘a spirit’ vs. ‘a ghost’
vs. a (disembodied) soul; etc.]

Example 1 - *God problem

[It is the problem of the word ‘God’, not about theological or religious concern. See in
IRENT Vol III. Supplement – Walk through the Scripture 3A – Name, God, and Person]

The single word at the core of the Scripture is ‘God’, which has its own ‘God
problem’ – not about who, but about what is meant when we say God, which is
a pagan loan word used for translating Gk. theos and Heb. Elohim. Different
languages and societies come up with their own one (sometimes more than one

a
The phrase is at the beginning of a well-known poem Sacred Emily written in 1913 by Gertrude
Stein www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/15900.html
word and occasionally in competition because of different sense and significance
as well as word history).

When we say ‘God’, read ‘God’, or even think ‘God’ it comes not surprisingly
to say that God may be ‘God’. It is also not contradictory to say that God is not
God. Everyone has different ideas on God and its notion. To say, ‘I believe God’
would not have much substance to discuss about. We simply do not have a
definition of the God; and there cannot be a definition unless restricted in the
contexts. It is remarkable that we can communicate so well even without having
clear meaning of words in our mind.

Example 2 - *Jews

'Jews' as a common NT translation word is not Jews as used in English. Identity and
characteristics are different. With connotation associated with Christian anti-Semitism, it is
unfit and misleading. IRENT renders it as 'Yehudim'. It is not same as Judeans, Jewish
people, Israelites, etc. (See the word on *Jews, Jewish, Jewishness in BW#3)

*words; *phrase; *clause; *sentence

The basic unit of communication to be dealt with language is a ‘phrase’. Phrase

is to word as molecule is to atom. As all chemical reaction is with molecules, so
is all language communication is with phrases. In IRENT work the word phrase
is used is in the sense of as a grammatical term “a sequence of two or more words
arranged in a grammatical construction and acting as a unit in a sentence” –
strongly corresponding to its sense as a rhetorical term “a word or group of
spoken words that the mind focuses on momentarily as a meaningful unit and is
preceded and followed by pauses”.

Phrase vs. clause - Grammatically defined -

• Phrase – a group of related words which does not contain both a subject and
a predicate. A predicate consists of a verb + (1) objects, (2) a predicatives
('predicactive expressions', e.g. predicative adjectives, predicative nominals,
etc.) and adjuncts.
• Clause – a group of related that contains a subject-verb combination. Every
statement must contain at least one clause. The subject may be either a
single word or a group of words; so are the verbal phrase.

[The term phrase used for IRENT work is not in its grammatical sense (which is
in contrast to another term ‘clause’. Here the concept of ‘phrase’ is to be taken
as the basic element of the translated text formatting with ‘phrase-based format’
being reflected in the line breaks.
Superficially, this practice of formatting is in contrast to right-margin justified
paragraph format (usually with right-margin justified). Any group of words is
treated as a phrase when it carries a smallest unit of meaning and serves as a
smallest unit of a breath group. 10
*double meaning
double entendre; duplicity

the word apprehend can mean both to catch & seize, or also to understand;
the word grasp can mean to catch and seize, or also to understand; the English
verb, to master, can mean both to overcome, or also to understand.
The Greek verb is S2638 katalambanō (Jn 1:5) There is a double meaning to the
Greek word. It conveys both the idea of to understand, and to overpower and
seize.

*word, *Logos, sayings, utterance, voice, sound; *wisdom

[See capitalization of the Word vs. the word]

logos ‘word’ – spoken word (e.g. Jn 1:1 the word of Elohim); some renders as
‘utterance’ in 1Co 1:5; 12:8; 2Co 8:7; Eph 6:19;
[Col 4:3 – idiom phrase anoigō thuran tou logou ‘open a door for the word to go out’;

phtheggomai – speak out, speak, make utterance Act 4:18; 2Pe 2:16;
phōnē – voice, sound – Act 24:21; /utterance – NWT3; /thing that I cried out –
NWT4, ERV, GNB; /voice /statement – EMTV
stoma – ‘mouth’ – figurative use in Lk 21:15 (/mouth – most; /utterance –
WNT; /words – GW; /ability to speak – ISV)

Jn 1:1 the Word ░░ [capitalized as 'the Word of God'] /the word – REV; /the logos – Moffatt;
[Here specifically, utterance of God expressing His will and thoughts. //1Jn 1:1; 5:7 v.l.] [←
H1697 dabar (Psa 33:6); Aramaic memra. Cf. Heb. hokma ‘wisdom’, personified agent Pro
3:19; 8:22-31] [It does not refer to ‘God the Son’, ‘eternal Son of God’, ‘Christ’, nor 'Jesus'.]
[Also in titles, e.g. 'the Word of Elohim' (Rev 19:13), 'the Word of the Life' (1Jn 1:1).];

Jn 1:1c as what God is, the Word was ░░ [Gk. theos – anarthrous 'God-being' = 1:18; 10:33];
[i.e. not ‘was the God’ (Elohim v.1b), but 'of God'] /> the Word was God – most; /x: the logos
was divine – Moffatt; /> what God was, the Word was – NEB; /what God was, the word was –
REV; /xx: the Word was a god – NWT;
https://restitutio.org/2019/06/13/theology-19-conversion/#_ftn1
Understanding the “Word” – NT
• God’s command in the law
“thus making void the word of God by your tradition…” Mk 7:13
• typically it refers to the message or gospel
“word of the kingdom” Mt 13:19 (shortened to “the word” in vv. 20, 21, 22, 23)
the word (v. 4) = Christ (v. 5) = the good news about the kingdom of God and
the name of Jesus Christ (v. 12) = word of God (v. 14) = word of the Lord (v. 25) =
the gospel (v. 25) Act 8:4, 5, 12, 14, 25
can’t be scriptures b/c in Berea they checked Paul’s word against the scriptures
to see if was true Act 17:11
born again through the living and enduring word of God…this is the word
which was preached as gospel to you 1Pe 1:23
• God’s activity in the word to search people’s hearts and find out the truth
“11 Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, so that no one may fall by the same
sort of disobedience. 12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any
two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of
marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And no creature
is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom
we must give account.” Heb 4:11-13

Understanding the “Word” – O.T.

Cf. H1697 dabar 'word'. See * Commandment.

• God’s activity in the world

o “By the word of YHWH the heavens were made, and by the breath of his mouth
all their host” (Psa 33:6)
o “he sent his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions”
Psa 107:20; cf. Psa 147:15, 18-19; Isa 55:10-11
o “The three (spirit, wisdom, and word) are simply alternative ways of speaking
about the effective power of God in His active relationship with His world and its
inhabitants.” [James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making, (1980), 219.]
• God’s message spoken by the prophet
o “And the word of YHWH came to Elijah the Tishbite saying, ‘Have you seen how
Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before
me, I will not bring the disaster in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring
disaster upon his house.’” 1Kg 21:28-29
• a synonym for the law
o v.16 “I will delight in your statutes; I will not forget your word. v.17 Deal
bountifully with your servant, that I may live and keep your word.” Psa 119:16-17

*wisdom (personified) H2451 chokmah Prob 8:1, 12; Prob 8:22-31 ('me').
problem of *articles of grammar in English and Greek grammar;

[While some languages lack articles, notably Latin. a ] Greek lacks indefinite
article.]

/Article_(grammar) /Determiner

The [definite] article in Greek particularizes, connect to referents and identifies.

It is much more so than the definite article English, carrying a sense of 'the very
~' or 'the aforementioned'. Often the sense is significantly altered. It appears as
if deliberately done so to change ‘holy spirit’ into ‘the Holy Spirit’ so as to color
into a picture of it being a Person (Cf. an equivalent to ‘Mr. Holy Spirit’ in a
Korean translation. [Anarthrous noun often takes an adjectival function.] [e.g.
‘spirit’ ‘holy spirit’, ‘sin’, ‘evil’, ‘god’, ‘God’, etc.]

[Cf. ‘evil’ in English ≈ Gk. ‘the evil’ (not ‘the evil ones’). Gk. ‘(the) Satan’. The
presence of definite article in Gk. significantly affects the meaning and sense of
a word. E.g. 'the God' and 'God' in GNT are rendered in wholesale fashion as
'God' in most English Bible translations as this is English convention –was it
influenced by Vulgate where the Latin language has no articles? In a few
examples it causes unnecessary theological and doctrinal contentions. E.g. Jn 1:1
the text has 'the God' and 'God'. Most renders both as 'God'; NWT has 'God' and
'a god'. A few renders 'the God' for the arthrous theos throughout in NT (e.g.
www.nazarene-friends.org/nazcomm/ - he capitalizes two words as 'The
God'.).[See for How to translate Gk. theos and ho theos in the file >Walk through
the Scripture #3A - Name, Person, and God>.

a
Many languages lack articles, e.g. Korean, Japanese, Chinese, etc.
 Ref. ((For WB#1A )) Harner – Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns – Mk
15.30 & Jn 1:1c [See in the Supplement (Collections #1A).]

'Countable nouns' – any noun is 'countable'; all and every that which is represented by a word
is countable. It is simply whether it is used as countable or not. E.g. 'water', 'spirit'. When
such a word is used as countable it may denote something different.
e.g. 'water' as a substance, but 'a water' as a body of water (e.g. a lake, a pool).

When a noun is used uncountable it is singular (but anarthrous); may take the
definite article.

rose faith Religion

rose faith religion
a rose* faiths a religion
roses a faith religions
the rose; the faith the religion
the roses the religions

king God:
king The word /God/ as a noun is countable, but 'God' in
King the Bible, that is, 'the God' (ho theos) is singular
but not countable. [Convention of * capitalization
a king* for the word 'God/god' complicates its linguistic
kings and literary problem.]
the king
the King • a god [This brings up an idea of more than one.]
• a God ('a God of ~~', or 'a God who ~~')
• gods
The Son of King is King
• God
= the Son of King is as King. • the God
(not as 'a king' and not as 'the • Cf. 'God-being'
King').
Cf. See below on how to translate ho theos
(the God) vs. theos (God) (e.g. in Jn 1:1)
Spirit Evil Sin

a spirit the evil one/thing a sin

spirits the evil ones/things sins
the spirit evil (notion of evil) sin
holy spirit Evil (? abstract noun) the sin
a holy spirit evilness
the holy spirit wicked a sinner
the spirit of the holiness bad outcast sinners
the Holy Ghost
the Holy Spirit cf. trespass
transgression
unclean spirit
man's spirit
demonic S1141 daimoniōdēs
(Jam 3:15); diabolic,
devilish,
no Gk. adj. for 'Satanic'

*Life

Life,
life,
a life
the life
lives

Note: IRENT uses capitalized ‘Life’ (of/from God) for S2222 zōē. It is primarily to distinguish
from 'life' uncapitalized as a translation word for other Gk. words such as S5590 psuchē (Mt
2:20) and S979 bios (Lk 8:14) – of human and other biological existence.

https://www.academia.edu/1978414/ [Meaning of “Life” in G-John] – a copy in the collection.

S25 agapaō (143x)

S26 agapē (64x) *love (noun)

the love hē agapē

Mt 24:12; Lk 11:43; Jn 5:42; 17:26; Heb 6:10; Rm 5:5; 8:35, 39; 12:9; 13:10; 15:30;
1Co 4:21; 8:1; 13:4, 8; 14:1; 16:24; 2Co 2:4; 5:14; 13:14; Eph 1:15; 2:4; Phi 1:9; 2:1; Col 1:4, 8;
3:14; 1Th 3:6, 12; 2Th 1:3; 2:10; 3:5; Phm 1:5, 9; 2Pe 1:7; 1Jn 3:16; 4:16; Rev 2:4, 19;

My/his love Jn 15:9; 10

love
Gal 5:6, 22; Phi 1:16; 2:1; Heb 10:24;
Jn 13:35; Rm 14:15; 1Co 13:1, 2, 3, 13; 16:14; 2Co 2:8; 6:6; 8:7; Eph 1:4; 3:17, 19 (of the
Mashiah); 4:2, 15, 16; 5:2; 6:23; 1Tm 1:14; 6:11; 2Tim 1:7; 2:22; Col 2:2; 1Th 5:8, 13;
1Jn 3:1; 1Pe 4:8; 5:14;

'the love-feasts' agapais (1x) Jud 1:12

Cf. *charity (KJV 23x) 1Co 8:1; 13:1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 13; 14:1; 16:14; 1Pe 4:8; 5:14; 2Pe 1:7; 3Jn 1:6;
Jud 1:12; Col 3:14; 1Th 3:6; 2Th 1:3; 1Tm 2:15; 4:12; 2Tim 2:22; 3:10; Tit 2:2; Rev 2:19;
*Adjective problem: adjectives derived from noun; *adjective
corresponding to noun
[see ‘* genitive problem’]
[Cf. https://youtu.be/nb0YoRMXIY0 Dord.] – collateral adjectives

Derivative adjectives from nouns, such as nature – natural; These are usually not
same as ‘of’ or ‘concerning’ [noun thing]

E.g.
history – historical;
person – personal
beauty – ‘of beauty’ vs. ‘beautiful’
e.g. nature – ‘natural’ does not mean ‘of/concerning nature’. Cf. ‘natural law’ is not
law which is natural, but law concerning the nature. Natural tendency is not ‘tendency
of nature’
e.g. music – 'musical' is not always 'of/about music'
e.g. benefit – ‘beneficial’ is not ‘of/about benefit’
e.g. reference – 'referential' (having reference; containing a reference; used for
reference).
e.g. spirit – ‘spiritual’ is usually not ‘of/about/concerning spirit’, for which
‘*spirital’ (a *neologism) is used in IRENT. The noun itself may be used adjectival –
e.g. 'spirit nature' 'spirit being' – entirely different from 'spiritual nature' 'spiritual
being'

'of devil' vs. 'devilish'

'of demon' vs. 'demonic'
'of Satan' 'of Satan' vs. 'satanic' – ‘someone is a Satan’ vs. 'someone as Satan' vs.
‘someone is satanic’. [capitalization as 'Satan' is by convention – its purpose?
Other than as a label/title 'Satan',

adjectival genitive (‘of something’ in English) vs. adjective from the noun: An adjectival
form derived from the noun takes on different sense from adjectival genitive.

God →'*God's' (genitive case; subjective); cf. 'of God' (genitive case, objective as in
'fear of God', 'of God', 'of god', 'of a god' vs. ‘godly’ [which itself is unrelated to God itself.
Spirit → ‘of spirit’ ‘pertaining to spirit’ vs. ‘spirital’ vs. ‘spiritual’
beauty → of beauty vs. beautiful
nature → ‘of nature’ vs. ‘natural’ [Cf. 'the law of the nature', ≠ 'the natural law'.]
music → ‘of music’ vs. ‘musical, (Cf. music theory, not musical theory)
person → ‘of person’ ‘belonging to the person class’ vs. ‘personal’ (‘private’)
[e.g. ‘personal name’ vs. ‘person-name’]
*genitive problem; genitive issue

Subjective genitive, objective genitive, partitive, genitive of source

https://youtu.be/vQrKiSi0aVc (Objective and Subjective Genitive);
https://youtu.be/11gp2HOV8DI https://youtu.be/eMAEK9ZluUM (objective genitive)

‘to obedience of faith’ eis hupakoēn pisteōs Rm 1:5

adjectival genitive (‘of something’ in English) vs. adjective from the noun: An
adjectival form derived from the noun carries different sense from adjectival genitive.

God →'of God', 'God's' (genitive case)

Spirit → ‘of spirit’ ‘pertaining to spirit’ vs. ‘spirital’ [a neologism] vs. ‘spiritual’
beauty → of beauty vs. beautiful
nature → ‘of nature’ vs. ‘natural’
music → ‘of music’ vs. ‘musical, (Cf. music theory, not musical theory)
person → ‘of person’ ‘belonging to the person class’ vs. ‘personal’ (‘private’)
[e.g. ‘personal name’ vs. ‘person-name’]
Forschungsgeschichte Ger. – 'research history' or 'history of research'

Ref. http://andygoodliff.typepad.com/my_weblog/pistis-christou-debate-
timeline.html

[E.g. ‘love of God’ – ‘God’s love for us or ‘our love for God’:

Both in Gk. and English, the genitive case (possessive case) carries diverse
meaning and sense. E.g. subjective vs. objective genitive.

‘Love of God’ – God loves? Loves God? Love from God; Love belongs to God
(divine love).

We say, ‘God loves you’. So? What God is, which God? What does it mean to
love? What does it mean ‘God loves’?

Objective vs. subjective genitive. A common phrase ‘love of God’ (cf. God’s love) is
in the sense of ‘love from/by God’ and also ‘love for/to God’. Sometimes the context
carries both senses.
Subjective genitive - 1Jn 4:9 (Cf. 1Jn 4:20 to love God); 1Jn 2:5; Tit 3:4; Rm 8:39; 2Co
13:14; Jud 1:21; 2Th 3:5 “the love of (< from) Elohim and the steadfastness of the
Mashiah”
Objective genitive –
1Jn 5:3 Love for God (hē agapē tou Theou)
Lk 2:30 to sōtērion sou your (promised) deliverance. (> ‘your salvation’ – ‘of God’) –
(he delivers you).
 Eph 1:13 (the Gospel) of your salvation to euaggelion tēs sōtērias humōn – objective
Mk 14:9 ‘remembering what she has really done’ ░░ [= remembering hers (objective
genitive –of possessive pronoun); = her deed of foresight on what was waiting for
Him]; /x: in memory of her – most; /xxx: for a *memorial of her – KJV; /
Jn 2:21 ‘speaking of the Mishkan as the body of his’ ░░ /> his body; [‘his’ –
substantive possessive pronoun. ‘body’ – metaphoric for the corporate body of his
followers, rather than his physical body, which his Father would raise from the dead,
not he himself.]

'faith in Yeshua' vs. 'faith of Yeshua' vs. 'faithfulness of Yeshua'

Genitive:
• righteousness of Elohim through faith* of Yeshua the Mashiah - Rm 3:22;
• is 'justified' (dikaioutai) through (dia) faith* of Mashiah – Gal 2:16a
• may come to be 'justified' (dikaiōthōmen) by (ek) faith* of Mashiah – Gal 2:16b
• not my own righteousness which is by law-keeping but that which is through [dia]
faith* of Mashiah, the very righteousness which is from Elohim based on [epi] the
faith* [/x: Christ's faithfulness – NET]– Phi 3:9;

• promise by faith* of Yeshua the Mashiah – Gal 3:22;

• by [en] faith* I'm living, which is of the Son of Elohim – Gal 2:20
• keeping ~ the faith of Yeshua [/faithfulness in – ISV; /faithful to – GNB] – Rev 14:12

your faith in Mashiah Yeshua – Col 1:4;

their faith in Mashiah Yeshua – 1Tm 3:13
your faith toward the Lord Yeshua – Phm 1:5
Concerning the faith into (eis) Mashiah Yeshua – Act 24:24;
by the faith in the name of Yeshua – Act 3:16

*rendered as 'faithfulness' – NET, ISV, JNT – See on word study 'faith' vs. 'faithfulness' esp. in
reference to 'righteousness' and 'justification'

E.g. ‘deceptions of the saints’ – (objective or subjective genitive)

(1) being deceived or (2) deceiving by.

Appositive genitive
- *Mystery of God 1Co 2:1 v.l. (God’s mystery) = mystery, that is, the
God [common appositive use of genitive]
- (proclaim) the mystery of the Mashiah (Col 4:3) /the mystery of
Christ – most; /the secret about the Messiah – ISV; /?: mysterious plan
concerning Christ – NLT;

Genitive of source

• Gal 3:10 '*curse of the law' is misleading – "curse by the Law".

• Mk 11:22 echete pistin theo ‘(have) faith from God’ – IRENT; ‘faith in
God’ – most; ‘x: faith of God – KJV)
• Mt 5:14; Jn 8:12; 9:5‘light to the world’ > ‘light of the world’; Cf. Act
13:37; Isa 49:6 ‘a light to the nations (> gentiles)’
• Jn 1:4 'light to mankind' (IRENT)'; /> light of mankind – NET; />> ‘light
of men’ – most;

Rm 1:5 obedience in faith ░░ [14:26 (=16:26)] (eis hupakoēn pisteōs – genitive) /(to call all the
gentiles to) faith and obedience – NIV; promoting trust-grounded obedience – JNT; /obed. to
faith and obedience – TNIV; /obedience through faith – ARJ; /to the obedience that is
associated with faith; /(Jesus was kind to me and chose me to be an apostle,) so that people
of all nations would obey and have faith. – CEV; / in order to lead people of all nations to believe
and obey. – GNB; /obedience to the faith –Cass, PNT, KJV++;

/xx: obedience of faith – TNIV, ASV, etc.; /xx: for the obedience of faith – TransLine (i.e. to
bring about); /xx: to bring about obedience of faith – NET, HCSB; /xx: (in order that there
might be) obedience of faith – NWT ( cf. ‘~ by faith’ in 16:26);
[TransLine fn: For ‘obedience of faith’ See 16:26 fn – “Some think Paul means the obedience
‘which consists of faith’, others ‘which comes from faith’; others, the ‘faith kind of obedience’;
others, the obedience ‘to the fiath’. Same phrase in 1:5 and 16:26. Thus he opens and closes the
book with this thought. On ‘faith’ see Eph 2:18]

[Bill Mounce http://zondervan.typepad.com/koinonia www.billmounce.com/blog/topic/genitive

– (1) appositive genitive (‘that is, faith’); (2) source or subjective genitive (‘from faith’). … Our
changed lives of obedience show the reality of the heart changed through faith….

This is the obedience of faith. It is an obedience that first shows itself in a response of faith, and an
obedience that necessarily moves into a life of ever-increasing faithful obedience.]

NET tn The phrase ὑπακοὴ πίστεως has been variously understood as

(1) an objective genitive (a reference to the Christian faith, "obedience to [the] faith");
(2) a subjective genitive ("the obedience faith produces [or requires]");
(3) an attributive genitive ("believing obedience"); or
(4) as a genitive of apposition ("obedience, [namely] faith") in which "faith" further defines
"obedience."
These options are discussed by C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans (ICC), 1:66. Others take the phrase as
deliberately ambiguous; see D. B. Garlington, "The Obedience of Faith in the Letter to the Romans:
Part I: The Meaning of ὑπακοὴ πίστεως (Rm_1:5; Rm_16:26)," WTJ 52 (1990): 201-24.

{Apr 10, 2006 [b-trans] Re: Rom 1:5: obedience and faith}
HH: You should be able to gain clarity by looking at the references to the word "obedience" in
Romans, especially the same phrase in 16:26:
Rm 1:5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all
nations, for his name:
Rm 5:19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.
Rm 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are
to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
 Rm 15:18 For I will not dare to speak of any of those things which Christ hath not wrought by
me, to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed,
Rm 16:19 For your obedience is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on your behalf:
but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good, and simple concerning evil.
Rm 16:26 But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, acc’ to the
commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:

HH: Use of the cognate verb is also significant, esxpecially at 6:17 and 10:16.
Rm 6:12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts
thereof.
Rm 6:16 Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are
to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
Rm 6:17 But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the
heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you.
Rm 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed
our report?
HH: Since the subject of Rom 1:1-4 is the gospel, and Rom 1:5 reminds me of the great commission,
and later references seem to use the word family of a believing response to the gospel, I tend to
interpret the phrase "obedience of faith" in line with NET's option of a genitive of apposition, the
obedience that consists of faith. If evangelism is the topic, it can make the difference between NET's
last three options miniscule. One obeys the gospel by trusting Christ as one's Savior from sin.

One point favoring this idea is that Paul mentions how the "obedience" of the Romans has "reached"
all men (Rom 16:19, in the context of the same phrase "obedience of faith" in 16:26) (the NIV has:
"Everyone has heard about your obedience . . . ."). Paul earlier says that the "faith" of the Romans
was spoken of throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8). The two verses seem to use "obedience" and
"faith" similarly. - Harold Holmyard

Cf. Mt 26:13 remembering what she has really done ░░ eis mnēmosunon autēs [= //Mk
14:9] [= 'hers' (substantive possessive pronoun or *absolute pronoun); = her deed of foresight
on what was waiting for Him]; /xx: in memory of her – most; /xxx: for a *memorial of her –
KJV; / Cf. 'remembered by hers (her deed)'
(English ‘of her’ vs. ‘of hers’, compared to Greek) [‘remembrance of hers’, that is, her deed,
rather than ‘remembrance of her’) (substantive or absolute pronoun – Similar to Act 15:21
‘proclaim his’ (not ‘proclaim him (Moses) but Moses’ teaching) [x: (ablative genitive)
‘remember me from her’] [‘/xx: as her own remembering me’]
*pronoun problems; pronoun confusion

Reading the text of the Bible, the readers inadvertently let the pronouns include
themselves (for interpretation or application).

Problem of singular vs. plural second person pronouns – you (cf. thou in archaic)
‘We’ – what is it exactly referred to? Which group of people? Certainly, not the
readers of the Bibles.

Occasionally the referent for the first-person singular pronoun (I, my, mine) is
not easy to find, same as for the third person singular masculine (he, his, him)
esp. in the quoted texts.

E.g. Mt 22:43-45
v. 43 He [Yeshua] said to them [the Pharisees],
"How is it then that David, in spirit (/x: Spirit), calls him Lord, saying,
v. 44 "'The LORD [< YHWH] said to my [whose?] Lord [< Master],
"Sit at my right, until I put your enemies under your feet"'?
[a song sung by Levites? Or from the lips of David himself]
v. 45 If then David calls him [whom?] Lord,
how is he [who? My lord?] his son [David’s]?"

When the singular masculine third pronouns occur more than once in a sentence
or paragraph, it is difficult to figure out what each refers among several different
persons (incl. ‘God’), some of which may be in ellipsis in Gk. and the referent
may not be easy to locate within the immediate text. [e.g. 1Jn 5:10, 16, etc.]

Grammatical gender; determining the referent;

E.g. 1Jn 4:3 this is that spirit of antichrist, which (< whom) you heard was coming
and now is already in the world.
E.g. Jn 14:6, 26; 15:26; 16:7 the Helper (parkletos – masc.) – grammatical gender is
unrelated to the personhood of something – not to be confused with personification.
possessive pronoun problem

Problem of usage of English possessive pronouns (mine, yours, his, hers, its,
theirs) - substantive Possessive pronoun.

• ‘a follower of me’ (i.e. my follower; one who follows me) vs. ‘a follower
of mine’ (e.g. a follower of my idea or plan, etc.)
E.g. Mt 26:13 //Mk 14:9 /remembering hers; /xx: for a *memorial of
her’ (KJV); /x: in memory of her (ESV); /x: will remember her – ERV;
/will remember what she has done – CEV!!
E.g. Jn 2:22 ‘the body of his’
• double possessive pronoun problems:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_possessive#Double_genitive idioms -
Why 'a friend of mine' is not 'my friend's friend ... Why do you say "friend of
mine" instead of "friend of me"?

E.g. a friend of mine; one of my friends; my friend; a friend of a friend of

mine.
[‘of + object pronoun’ – e.g. a friend of me – in the sense of the friend
belonging to me?]. [Cf. an idiom ‘a friend of a friend’]

[who is remembering whom and of what]

• (eis tēn emēn anamnēsin Lk 22:19; //1Co 11:24, 25); /in remembering
me; /> in remembrance of me – most (? as in *memorial); /xxx: for the
commemoration of me – DRB;
• (eis mnēmosunon autēs Mt 26:13; //Mar 14:9); [See EE in Mt 26:13]
/remembering her (deed); /xxx: for a memorial of her – KJV, ASV;
/xxx: as a memorial to her – EMTV; /in remembrance of her – most; /x:
in memory of her – ESV, NET, GNB, LEB; /xx: for her memory –
DRB; /will remember her – GNB; /(omit) – CEV;

Proof text; text read for application and for doctrinal positions – what sounds like a
biblical statement, but actually with no biblical support.

[E.g. Following Peter’s confession that he was the anointed one (> Christ),
someone writes: “… we are all anointed too, since all of us are spirit.” The
problems: who are we? What is ‘anointed’? What is ‘spirit’? What does it mean to
say ‘we (human beings) are spirit’? – p.78 Louis Charles (2008), Jesus Religion.]
 On *statements, arguments, claims, assertion, proposition

Logic; rhetoric; literary device; linguistic – semantics, discourse analysis

Statements, propositions, premises;

For any opionated statements (arguments, propositions, etc.), written or

spoken, appropriate timely responses should be - ‘So?’ ‘So ↝’ ‘So then?’ ‘So
what?’ ‘Why?’ ‘You say that? Not others? ‘How? ‘In your own opinion?’
‘quoting but in your interpretation?’, etc.

/Socratic_questioning
/Socratic_method
/Eisegesis –mindset, motives (agenda-driven), and method (proof-texting)

/*Proof-texting –

E.g. for Trinity doctrine. [Cf. Holy Triad; triadic, Trinity, Trinitarian doctrine, Trinity God,
Trinitarianism, Trinitarian formula]; the focus is rather for Binitarianism [dyadic. Concerned about
'Jesus' is 'God'.] [Quotation marks indicates it is about the word itself, not that which is meant by the
word.]

[See the article The Nebulous ‘I’.]

An example of “/A/ is ~”:

“/A/ is same as ~
“/A/ is equal as ~
“/A/ is identical ~
“/A/ is as ~

Statements (arguments, rhetoric, narrative, factual) - everyone does not stand alone by
itself, since it has to sit within the text context and to speak in the speech setting of the
author.

Can a statement logically standalone by itself – with any disclaimer, premises, is in ellipsis
in the text?

A Socratic argument: that which is done with logic and language and reasoning. Not
ideology or philosophy. [See examples in *God problem in <Walk through the Scripture
#3A – Name, Person, and God><IRENT Vol. III Supplement>]
Any statement/argument, unless intentionally made to be false, cannot be labeled as true or
false. What does it mean to be true? Or false?
‘God is God’ ‘God is not God’– what does it mean by ‘God’ or what is intended to mean by
‘God’?
‘Father is God’ ‘Son is God’ ‘Father is not Son’; ‘Son is not Father’ – These statements
which are devoid of meaning. They are dealing God, different from each case. ‘But there is
one God’ – what does this God mean? Triune God? Godhead?

What does it mean by ‘Father’ and by ‘Son’ – theological construct with no precise
definition!
*logic; logical; *reason; *reasonable; reasoning; intelligible, truth

S2138 eupeithes Jam 3:17 - hapax in NT – (from S2095 eu + S3982 peithō)]

/yieldable – ARJ; /ready-to-obey -NWT; /persuasive –ONT;
/x: reasonable - SourceNT;

S3050 logikos (2x) – 'in harmony with the word of God' Rm 12:1 logikēn latian humōn
(/xx: reasonable service – KJV, NET; /xx: spiritual worship – ESV, HCSB; /xx: spiritual
service of worship – NASB; /true worship – GNT, CSB; /xx: logical service – Aramaic
Bible in Plain Eng.; /appropriate for you – GW; /); 1Pe 2:2 (milk of the word - NASB, KJV;
/xx: spiritual milk – NIV, HCSB, NET;

[statement, proposition, premises, concept, terms, notions, definitions, etc.]

What would make a statement a logical statement? What statements are there
to constitute the * Trinitarian doctrine? What makes some of its statements
illogical?

Laws of thought, traditionally, that is,

(1) for all propositions p, it is impossible for both p and not p to be true, or
symbolically ∼ (p ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and means “and”;
(2) either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition
between them, or symbolically p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or”; and
(3) if a propositional function F is true of an individual ... (100 of 447 words) Cf.
His work Organon.

Aristotle’s Laws of Thoughta

1. The Law of Identity - A is A
Everything is the same as itself; or a statement cannot not remain the same and change its
truth value.
2. The Law of Non-Contradiction - NOT (A and not A)
Nothing can both exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect; or no
statement is both true and false.
3. The Law of Excluded Middle - Either (A or not A)
Something either exists or does not exist; or every statement is either true or false.

from http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Aristotle/aristotle_laws_of_thought.html
from www.britannica.com/topic/laws-of-thought#ref180925 (1) For all propositions p, it is
impossible for both p and not p to be true, or symbolically ∼(p · ∼p), in which ∼ means “not” and ·
means “and”; (2) either p or ∼p must be true, there being no third or middle true proposition
between them, or symbolically p ∨ ∼p, in which ∨ means “or”; and (3) if a propositional function
F is true of an individual ...

a
Here, the term ‘principle’ may be preferred to ‘law’. Cf. ‘Laws of Thoughts’ is not to be confused
with the political term ‘Rule of Law’.
Cf. www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.php Aristotle’s Law of Association: law of contiguity,
law of similarity, and law of contrast.]

https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com/dissertation/chapter-3-literature-review-2/the-
behavioral-perspective/associationism-aristotle-%E2%80%93-350-b-c-e/ Associationism (Aristotle
– 350 B.C.E)

These laws, summarized by Olson and Hergenhahn (1982, p. 35), are as follows:

Law of Similarity – the experience or recall of one object will elicit the recall of things
similar to that object.
Law of Contrast – the experience or recall of one object will elicit the recall of opposite
things.
Law of Contiguity – the experience or recall of one object will elicit the recall of things
that were originally experienced along with that object.
Law of Frequency – the more frequently two things are experienced together, the more
likely it will be that the experience or recall of one will stimulate the recall of the second.

However, in our everyday life with words, speech, and languages, we have come to realize
the dire need of settle in dealing with proposition before developing our particular line of
thinking, without becoming enslaved into confusion, contradiction, and contention. In the
beginning of thinking process here is something

Proposition [X = ‘A’ is ‘A’]

Proposition [Y = ‘A’ is not ‘A’]

Can the Proposition X be ‘always’ true?

Does the Proposition Y contradict the Proposition X? Yes, or no.

The situation here we are in quandary is because the term ‘A’ occurring four places, each may
not be meant or intended to be same. Without a clear definition limited (which varies in
deferent context) it is almost impossible for us to come up with conclusion taking up common
grounds, mutually compatible. Here ‘A’ is anything that can be presented in words, whether
concrete or abstract (e.g. god, faith, true, three, unity, etc.). E.g. when we hear or say ‘God’ or
when we read the word ‘God’ in the Bible pages, all these cannot be same – meaning, sense,
referent and significance.

Another compounding issue is the word ‘is’ itself. What does ‘is’ mean? Same, equal, similar,
or identical? See * Nefarious "Is" elsewhere.

IF we take a mathematical statement 1=1, it is truly 1=1 – a self-evident premise beyond need
of proof.

Then 1 – 1 should be 0. However, 1 – 1 = 0 only if both are of same unit (if of measurement)
and on the same dimension [x: of a same dimension]. If they are on different dimensions, the
statement itself becomes unmanageable. With a statement A = A, we are not taking about
same thing, if both are understood and perceived differently, as if they are on different
dimensions. Beyond statements with 'is', the problem is hidden but still present. The statements
'I Believe God', 'God is dead', etc. are not something to be refuted but to be deciphered – not
only does the notion 'God', but also meaning of 'believe' or 'be dead' is ambiguous. In addition,
the intent of such statements is in questions. The response, 'so?' 'then?' should come first before
any argument can be made. Otherwise, arguments will ride on a hamster wheel.
Everything and every way we think and say should be upon firm foundation of
logic and reason - pertains to ‘faith’, not just science. It is not enough to be
‘reasonable’.

It is not enough to be ‘harmonious’, ‘in balance’ or ‘going with the flow’; it has
to be with truth in harmony and in harmony with truth.

For our life to be meaningful, it needs intellect. One, however, does not have to
be ‘intellectual’. To have intelligence does not mean one to belong to
intelligentsia (from Latin intellegentia).

Reading material: Deist John Toland Was Right! Even Religion Must Be Intelligible

*Being vs. *doing;

Relational basis of ‘being’ (in the sense of 'being existing', not something or some
that exist) and ‘doing’: Such words like ‘righteousness’ ‘love’ ‘faith’ ‘prayer’
‘salvation’ ‘sanctification’ ‘justification’, do not represent abstract concepts, nor
they as ‘things’ to have/acquire/pursue, but reflect relationship. ‘Doing’ is only a
corollary; ‘becoming’ is only a consequence. [Cf. ontology]

[Cf. Gk. words for the participle ‘being’: (1) ōn; (2) huaprchōn

*form –

(1) schema – eternal appearance (whether or not it corresponds exactly to the

inner reality;
(2) morphe – (Phi 2:6) the outer form which gives precise expression to the inner
reality.

*model (vs. reality); typology

identity, being identical, to be same, to be equal to; to make identical to; one
and same; another vs. different; unique, only-begotten (only-and-one) (Gk.
monogenēs)

type, antitype, prototype, copy, image, imitation (‘fakeness’ vs. ‘being modeled
after’), ‘form’ (morphē);

Portrait (1) artistic visual presentation of a person in which the face with its expression
is dominant – in images, photos, paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc. [This is not
without problems of icon; icon worship; idol; idolatry]; (2) figuratively a descriptive
verbal picture of characterization, usually of a person.

A portrait goes beyond the outer appearance to probe the emotional depth of the human
soul. In a portrait, a true artist tries “to capture what the person is really about."
 Words and Terms (special)

Many words and terms of general or special meaning are not

found in the Scripture.
At the same time, to a great confusion for the readers,
many words in the Scripture
which are common in our speech outside the Scripture
often do not mean exactly same. (See *semantic field)

Note: The word entities below are in random order. Since the words are grouped
according to a common theme, simple alphabetical ordering is not possible. An
index (with hyperlinking in HTML) a is worthy to be added.
26F26F

Technical words; special (biblical) words;

Related words and terms:

• word, gloss, vocabulary;
• argument, opinionated argument, debate, discussion; explanation,
interpretation;
• word, term; idea; notion; concept; conception (misconception), construct;
phrase, *idiom (words, phrases, expressions. Cf. ‘dialect’ ‘jargon’);, ‘nuance’;
usage, context, intention/agenda; description, designation, referent vs.
indexical, connotation vs. denotation, association, usage (common, idiom,
and literary, wordplay, paradox; logical paradox (www.iep.utm.edu/par-log/) ,
ambiguity, double entendre, equivocal, vagueness, pun, quibble, euphemism,
minced oath, circumlocution, b 'periphrasis, solecism; ipsissima verba (the
very words) c, ipsissima vox (the very voice); etymology, neologism; loan-
28 F28F

word; synonym, antonym, homonym, homophone; sound, rhyme, cadence,

echoes, tone, accents, emphasis, focus, prominence, discriminatory power;
multiword expressions (MWEs); phraseology; phraseme vs. semi-phraseme

a
HTML format – As for Bible translation, now common HTML format is full of potential and promised
with its sheer versatility. Hyperlinking would spare the readers spending unnecessary time and effort in
looking up footnotes, cross-references, and endnotes, as well as external reference sources, without
having trouble to continue reading the text. In the interlinear text, the sublines of English glosses can be
hidden until needed. Setting of the right margin does not have to be fixed.
b
Circumlocution or metaphor – 'heaven' 'holy One' 'breath of God' wisdom of God' glory of God'
'power of God'
c
ipsissima verba – Often a question is raised ‘which represents the words actually spoken by our
Savior?’ as with an example of Mt 28:19 vs. Mk 16:15]. Such a question misses its point, since all we
read in the Scripture was written, collected, and edited by many hands, out of from the memory of the
disciples, not from a recorded verbatim off Yeshua’s utterances, to be copied, distributed and transmitted.
 vs. idioms; proverbs; text segmentation; (word segmentation; topic analysis.
Cf. speech segmentation); rhetoric, rhetorical device, rhetorical question,
rhetorical hyperbole, figure of speech (or rhetorical figure locution: idiom,
metaphor (What Is a Metaphor?), hendiadys a (cf. apposition.); simile,
hyperbole, personification, or synecdocheb, zeugma, zeugma and syllepsis c 29F29F

etc. Epideictic rhetoric. Sprachgefühl (essential character of a language). Lexis (the

set of all words and phrases in a particular language, the artifact of which is known
as a lexicon). collocations; phraseology. Phrasal verbs; light verb constructions
(Light verb - Wiki; Light verbs; Light Verbs); Phrasal verb - Wiki; (200 Phrasal Verbs
List ); auxiliary verbs;

• *definition; ‘definition of definition’

A term can be defined anyway one wants. However, in order to be effective
in communicating ideas following logic and reason, it has to have
something essential, necessary and sufficient. Without it, it cannot stay
consistent throughout one’s own argument; a working definition can only
go so far. When someone writes about something, to check definitions is
the first thing the readers to do before delving into it deeper. As said,
though we may think word is a word and is a word, in reality, word is not
a word and not a word. No one cannot say anything with presumptions and
premises, which often are hidden, especially when the argument or
proposal is agenda-driven. d cf. Lexical definition;
30F30F

• *meaning e 11 vs. *sense – semantics f ; semantic field; lexical meaning;

31F31F

*meaning of meaning'g; * definition – technical or textual (definition needs

a
E.g. ‘with power and spirit’ (Act 10:38); ‘in spirit and power’ (Lk 1:17) vs. ‘in the power of the Spirit’
(Lk 4:14)
b
Synechoche - pars pro toto (a part is used to describe the whole), opposite of totum pro parte.
c
Garner's Usage Tip of the Day: Although commentators have historically tried to distinguish between
zeugma and syllepsis, the distinctions have been confusing and contradictory: "even today agreement on
definitions in the rhetorical handbooks is virtually nil." The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and
Poetics 1383 (Alex Preminger & T.V.F. Brogan eds., 1993). We're better off using "zeugma" in its
broadest sense and not confusing matters by introducing "syllepsis", a little-known term whose meaning
not even the experts agree on.
d
Ref. Bejoint (1994), Modern Lexicography – An Introduction (6.2.6 Word meaning are
discrete; 6.2.7 Each word is a unit which is represented by a lemma; 6.2.8. Words can be
defined; 6.2.9 The analytic definition is always best; 6.2.12 Definitions must not be circular;
pp.190-204)
e
[Reading material: www.fb10.uni-bremen.de/homepages/wildgen/pdf/Meaning and
Reality.pdf
f
Ref. Stephen Ullmann (1962), Semantics – An Introduction to the Science of Meaning.
g
C. K Ogden & I. A. Richards (1923), Meaning of Meaning, http://s-f-
walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ogden-richards-meaning-all.pdf [Not to be confused as is
'The Meaning of 'Meaning' which is about the meaning of 'existence' or 'meaning for life'
https://philosophynow.org/issues/88/The_Meaning_of_Meaning
 to be established within the whole of the Scripture); change of meaning as
the word or phrase is being used (- ‘quantum jump’ where the meaning of
quantum changes opposite to what it is, a smallest thing to deal with; etc.)

https://youtu.be/47-BWQcqh0s Does a word have a "literal"

meaning? [Bill Mounce]

My comment: What does it mean by 'literal'? There is no literal meaning

of 'literal' ;-) A word has one or more meanings in different usages with
a more or less identifiable semantic field. A 'literal word' is the word as
appears in the written or spoken text to which it is referred. A word is
used 'literally', meaning it is used as it would be understood naturally.
Not figuratively, metaphorically, allegorically, etc. A word cannot be
translated 'literally', it can be literally transcribed (transliterated). A
literal translation of the text (such as the Scripture) is that which comes
close to the original in several areas (grammatical, syntactical, idiom) in
such a way that, when back-translated, it is as close to the original as
possible. … 'God is God' but you shall also know that 'God is not God',
it all depends on what is meant by any word by whom.

• *usage of a word, context, and intention/agenda

Since the semantic field of a word may be large, it is often necessary to

categorize when we discuss its meanings, definitions, usage. “A word is not a
word and is not a word – by itself.” In reality, we have ‘word problems’ which
lies at the root of our mental activity of different langue. One example is ‘God
problem’, when no one tries to define the word ‘God’ so that people
understands what it is meant unambiguously. Each use a word by each person
is to make it become a babel, not just to result in confusion, but
misunderstanding and conflicts [and even theological, dogmatic, religious, and
political wars – including pogroms.]

Context; levels of context

Text context – within the text; extratextual context – beyond the text, e.g.
historical (geographic, locative, temporal), cultural, socio-linguistic contexts.

Usage of a word – rhetoric, polemic, Orwellian, pejorative, different senses,

word pictures or associations; sematic field overlap; tongue in cheek; intention
or agenda (hidden) (ideological or personal); gobbledygook; chimericala (use
of a word or term);

a
‘chimerical’ – unreal; imaginary; widely fanciful.
 • study of the verbal system – tense, aspect, mood, modality (- esp. for Hebrew
language); telicity vs. perfectivity; transivity; subject, object, agent, patient.
Present tense – gnomic, habitual, historical, literary present; tense shift;
stative vs. dynamic verbs.

• *genre; *Narrativea, *Discourse, history, historiography, biography; semantic

field; figure of speech, *metonym, metonymic shift, synecdoche; metaphoric;
allusion; analogical; poetic; word picture; locution; parlance; construal;
context; word or phrase collocation; Semitism, Hebraism, Aramaism;
referral, referring expression, referent; anaphora vs. cataphora; endophora vs.
exophora; deixis (time or space deixis); parataxis; asyndeton; causus
pendens; genitive absolute; speech acts, locutionary act, illocutionary act,
perlocutionary act; prose, poem, epic, fiction, Maxims or Proverbs;
euphemism, (dramatic license, poetic license, etc.), "controversy’s sake";
controversy; dialectic; discourse,; rationality; discourse analysis;
disagreement, argument, debate, dispute, debate, discussion; apologetics;
polemics; hullabaloo, fuss, commotion, hue and cry, uproar, outcry, clamor,
storm, furor, hubbub, ruckus, brouhaha, blah, blah blah blah; rambling, long-
winded, verbose, wordy, prolix; digressive, maundering, roundabout,
circuitous, tortuous, circumlocutory; disconnected, disjointed, incoherent;
exaggeration, Hyperbole; Figures of Reasoning; Cf. literalness; literal
reading; literal translation; literalism (one of most insidious noxiousness,
regarding literature and scriptures – a major source of all kinds of arguments
and conflicts – be it denominational as well as religious, philosophical-
ideological, historical, and political-legal arguments); Anthropomorphism
[Ref. http://facstaff.bloomu.edu/jtomlins/rhetorical_devices.htm
www.literarydevices.com/rhetoric/ http://rhetoric.byu.edu/

a
The "narrative" is the text (the signifier, the discourse, or the "how") which convey the "story" (the
signified, the content, or the "what"). Narrative time may then be distinguished from story time. …
[Gerard Genette, Narrative Discourse – quoted in Culpepper (1983), The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel
- A Study in Literary Design (p. 184)]
 • Example of metonyms
Heavens for ‘Elohim’ (G-Mt)
Sabbath for ‘sabbath day’ 'sabbath-rest'
Sin for ‘sin sacrifice’
'Passover' for 'Passover sacrifice'a; Passover Memorial' 'Passover day (Abib 14)',
‘Passover Festival’ (= Matzah Festival – from Abib 15 for 7 days). Cf. not for
'the Passover meal’ [it is not a festive meal, but the meal for memorial).

• *editing, emendation (cf. amendment), conflation, *midrash (rabbinic,

Pauline, Gospel Evangelists’, Christian, Church ~), bricolage;
/Intertextuality; textual corruption;

• linguistics; philology; phonology vs. phonetics; morphology, grammar,

solecism; phraseology; discourse analysis; literary criticism; stylistics;
semiotics b (syntax, semantics or semasiology, pragmatics); Sapir–Whorf
32F32F

hypothesis

‘Handbook of International Phonetic Association’

International Phonetic Alphabet
Unicode ; ASCII;

• *logic c , *rhetoric, irony, figure of speech, metonyms; ‘argument from

3F3F

silence’; logical fallacies d; 34F34 F

Statement vs. proposition; *argument; propositional variables; negation (‘not’ ┐), disjunction
(‘or’ ∨), conjunction (‘and’ ∧); paradox; contradiction; connotation; detonation; poetic
license; artistic license (e.g. portraits of Jesus)

a
As in the verbal phrase 'to slaughter the Passover' or 'to sacrifice the Passover'. [H7819 shachat 'kill' 'slay'
Gen 22:10; 37:31, etc. S2380 thuō Mk 14:12; Mt 22:4; etc.] The exact Hebrew or Greek phrase
corresponding to 'Passover sacrifice' or 'Passover lamb' is not found in OT or NT text.
Cf. ‘the Lamb [S721 arnion] that was slaughtered [S4969 sphazō]’ (Rev 13:8). Cf. ‘an ewe [H7353
rachel (not 'sheep') to slaughter’ (Isa 53:7). Cf. 'kill a sheep' [H7716 seh sheep] Exo 22:1.
b
On semiotics – study of signs http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/Documents/S4B/sem02.html
c
logic – essential ingredient of any statement which carries meaning, not only for apologetics, but
hermeneutics. Reading, understanding, interpreting, and translating (all interwoven) would be
meaningless and usefulness without logic and reason. Several reading materials:
(1) Vern S. Poythress (2013), Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western
Thought
(2) Jason Lisle (2011), Logic & Faith: Discerning Truth in Logical Arguments
(3) K. Scott Oliphint (2013), Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our
Faith.
d
logical fallacies – grammatical, lexicographical, etc. e.g. etymological fallacy – Gk. musterion –
revelation vs. mystery.
 www.math.toronto.edu/preparing-for-calculus/3_logic/we_3_negation.html

www.cs.utexas.edu/~eberlein/cs301k/propLogic.pdf
An argument consists of a sequence of statements called premises and a
statement called a conclusion. An argument is valid if the conclusion is true
whenever the premises are all true.

*jargon, *lingo (biblical, theological, religious and ecclesiastical jargon, etc.).

‘Biblish’, ‘Christianese’; ‘translese’; jargonism; translation, interpretation,
exposition, *exegesis, eisegesis; midrasha, *pesherb; /Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis) ;
rendering, paraphrase; metaphrase; transcription vs. transliteration;
amplification; ellipsis; (read) between-the-lines; anachronism, prolepsis
(flashforward); /hysterologia (“the events which took place later); * hermeneutics;
proof texting; unspoken and unwritten communication c; 35F35F

Copied from WB#2 (Text, Translation and Translations)

The term *hermeneutics covers both art and theory of understanding and interpretation
of linguistic and non-linguistic expressions.d It is the study of the principles that should
guide work of interpretation. Not about reading the present significance of a text (and
not only with its original meaning), nor a specific approach to interpretation (as in “the
new hermeneutic”). Nor it is explaining away nor finding application of the text to
bring to the readers’ life. Even The doctrine of so-called biblical inerrancy entails
certain interpretive positions. [Ref. Silva (1987), Has the Church Misread the Bible?]
Ref.: The Bible Translator, Vols. 21 - 30 (1970 - 1979)
https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/articles_bible-translator_03.php#vol26

a
The term midrash (Hebrew– midrāš; pl. midrāšîm) means 'inquiry', 'examination' or 'commentary'.
[derived from the verb dāraš which means “to search” (i.e. for an answer)] Ezra 7:10 is the first use
where a written text is the object of dāraš. It is used to designate a type of literature, oral or written,
which has its starting point in a fixed canonical text, considered the revealed word of God by the
midrashist and his audience, and in which this original verse is explicitly cited or clearly alluded to.
The main use at Quman is to denote Scriptural interpretation'.
b
The term pesher (Hebrew noun) means 'solution', 'interpretation'. (found only once in OT Eccl 8:1)
-- "a form of Bible exegesis which seeks to determine the significance of an already existing prophetic
text by pointing to its fulfillment in persons and events belonging to the age of the interpreter".
c
Unspoken and unwritten communications: how do we see such things in the text of the Scripture and
make it reflected on translation?
Quotation of the Day: (Bryian Garner of Modern American Usage) "To say, 'Leave the
room', is less expressive than to point to the door. Placing a finger on the lips is more forcible
than whispering, 'Do not speak.' A beck of the hand is better than, 'Come here.' No phrase
can convey the idea of surprise so vividly as opening the eyes and raising the eyebrows. A
shrug of the shoulders would lose much by translation into words." Herbert Spencer,
Philosophy of Style 17-18 ([1871]; repr. 1959).
d
especially the interpretation of biblical texts, wisdom literature, and philosophical
texts.
 Ref: www.angelfire.com/ks2/fallacies/falltext.htm
(Textual interpretation methodology errors, e.g. theological language fallacy 12)

• translation principles and philosophy; agenda-driven; ideology-driven;

theology-driven.
• literalness; principle of concordance vs. principle of consistency;
interlinear translation.
• text, variants, manuscripts, exemplar; versions; translations; autograph;
papyri, parchment; scroll; codex; (book, booklet); majuscule, minuscule,
uncials, cursive; lectionaries; autographs.

• ‘Bible’ (as translation literary work - Cf. Christian Bible, Hebrew Bible);
Scripture; Word of Elohim;

• New Testament vs. *Old Testament (< Hebrew term ‘TaNaKh’). Cf.
Apocrypha.
Cf. Hebrew and Greek Scriptures – the latter label having a problem with
the LXX (Greek O.T.)
Difference in the Tanakh and Christian O.T. – number of books and names
and divisions.

[Ref. Where did the terms “Old Testament” - Standing on Shoulders

The first recorded time this kind of designation was used was by Melito of Sardis in the
late second century (recorded in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 4.26.14 - available
online at www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.ix.xxvi.html. In his listing of the books
of the Hebrew Scriptures, the first such list among the extant Christian writings, he called
the group of writings the “Old Testament’ Covenant (Greek: palaia diatheke). The Greek
word for “covenant” (diatheke) was translated by Jerome in the fifth century into the
Latin Vulgate as testamentum. Since the Latin Vulgate was widely used throughout the
Middle Ages, it greatly influenced later translations into vernacular languages. Thus, for
example, one of the first English translations of the Bible, made by John Wyclif in the
fourteenth century (1382), translated it as “testament,” following the Latin testamentum.
William Tyndale’s sixteenth-century English translation followed suit (1524), along
with the Geneva Bible (1557), as did the translators of the 1611 King James Bible. Thus,
today the two divisions of the Christian Bible are known as the Old and New Testaments
[in English], although in the English text diatheke is usually translated as “covenant.”
The two words are therefore regarded as basically synonymous.
<a comment> Erasmus who helped popularize the term “Testament.” His
first edition of the “Greek New Testament” published in 1516 was titled
“Novum instrumentum” (containing a purified Greek text with notes
together with a Latin translation altering sections of the Vulgate). But by
 the time his second edition was published, it was entitled “Novum
Testamentum.”
<The entire New Testament is simply the story of how Israel struggled in
transitioning from serving God under the Mosaic Law (‘Former
Covenant’ > ‘Old Covenant’) to the New. It was the addition of the
Gentiles which complicated things to make us think God now had a new
people and a new ecclesia. Even a new, gentler, kinder God. We miss that
we who are not Jewish have been grafted into their tree (Romans 11) –
which is the ecclesia of Abraham. Again – it’s one ecclesia (congregation)
of chosen offspring in Messiah from Genesis to Revelation. We are all
one family heading for a great big reunion.]

• dictionary (words, idioms, reverse dictionary; mono-lingual vs. bilingual),

glossary, lexicon; thesaurus; word-stock; corpora; concordance;
collocations, multiword units (MWUs); lexicography; calques; hapax
(legomenon/legomena)
Eisegesis refers to interpreting a text or portion of text in such a way
that it introduces one's own presuppositions, agendas, or biases into and
onto the text. (It is formed from the Greek preposition eis "into" and the
ending from the English word ‘exegesis’, which in turn is derived from
eksēgesthai "to lead out".) It often compounds the effect of exegesis
into translation of the Scripture.
Transcription, in its linguistic sense, has been defined as the process of
recording the phonological and/or morphological elements of a
language in terms of a specific writing system, as distinct from
transliteration, which is the process of recording the graphic symbols
of one writing system in terms of the corresponding graphic symbols of
a second writing system. Transcription, in other words, is writing down
a language in a way that does not depend on the prior existence of a
writing system, whereas transliteration does.
Notation - Alphabetical Notations: Roman and Non-Roman
http://ccil.org/~cowan/temp/phon-hist.pdf A Kemp, (2006) “Phonetic
Transcription: History”
• *Vocabulary, glossary, gloss;
terminology, nomenclature, classification

• Biblical languages

Ref. James W. Voelz (1992), “The Linguistic Milieu of the Early Church”, Concordia Theol.
Quarterly Vol. 56, No. 2-3, pp. 81-98
Ref. Robert Gundry, "The Language Milieu of First Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the
Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition", Journal of Biblical Literature, 83 (1964), pp. 404-408.

• *Hebrew language
www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/History/history.html
Periods of Hebrew – Scholars of ten divide the Hebrew language into four basic periods:
1. Biblical Hebrew - aka Classical Hebrew; by the time of Jesus, Aramaic was the common
language, but Hebrew was used in synagogues and in Temple worship. Jesus knew and spoke
Biblical Hebrew.
2. Mishnaic Hebrew - aka Rabbinic Hebrew; Talmud and Midrash; 2nd century CE. Note that
the grammar and vocabulary of this Hebrew is very different than Biblical Hebrew.
3. Medieval Hebrew - Used to translate Arabic works into Hebrew, e.g., Maimonides and other
medievalists.
4. Modern Hebrew - 19th century to present. Eliezar Ben Yehuda (1858 - 1922) led the rebirth
of Hebrew as a spoken language. After immigrating to Israel in 1881, he began promoting the
use of Hebrew at home and in the schools.

• Languages spoken by Jesus: Q on “Aramaic priority”

• Greek language of NT: Koine Greek (koine dialectos).

• Languages - English
Old English (5th centucy-c.1150)
Middle English (c.1150-c.1476)
Early Modern English (c.1476-c.1660) – KJV!
Modern English (c.1476-present)

• Hellenization of the words

www.teleiosministries.com/pdfs/Doctrines_of_Men/hellenization_of_the_word.pdf

Hellenization is defined as “the giving of a Greek character to anything.”

The Greek, Latin and English cultures have played major roles in
corrupting our Father’s Revelation to mankind and especially to His
children. This Word, which Yahweh has magnified above His name, has
been Hellenized, which results in the clouding of His revelation to us. …
• Verbs [See *I Am (Gk. egō emi) in WB#3A]

The verb phrase is the main verb plus the complement, object, and/or adverbial.
/Predicative_expression

a linking verb requires a /Subject_complement to complete the sentence.

Reading material: Copular clauses - Linguistics

http://philpapers.org/rec/CORALS

Predicate (grammar)
zero_copula (= copula deletion) (in various languages)
subject complement (‘predicate nominative’) vs. Predicative Adjective (‘subject
complement’) [e.g. ‘I feel good’ vs. ‘I feel well’ -
http://grammar.about.com/od/alightersideofwriting/a/Good-And-Well.htm ]
Inverse copular constructions

copula (= linking Verb ) equational sentence ("Mary is the boss"), an ascriptive

sentence ("Mary is happy") Double Copula
Stative Verb (= Verb of Being) – Although in English most being verbs are
forms of to be (am, are, is, was, were, will be, being, been), other verbs (such as
become, seem, appear, own) can also function as verbs of being. vs. dynamic
verb

• get-Passive
• Aspect
• Aphorism

Six Ways to Use the Present Tense in English

• Simple Present
• Gnomic Present
• Habitual Present
• Historical Present (in narration)
• Literary Present
• Future

Ten Quick Questions and Answers About Verbs and Verbals

Ten Types of Verbs

Auxiliary Verbs and Lexical Verbs

Dynamic Verbs and Stative Verbs
Finite Verbs and Nonfinite Verbs
 Transitive Verbs and Intransitive Verbs
Regular Verbs and Irregular Verbs
Causative verbs, Catenative verbs join with other verbs to form a
chain or series. Copular verbs performative verbs, prepositional
verbs, iteratives, reporting verbs. passive or subjunctive.

Existential verb http://goo.gl/SCMjRe

http://lingweb.eva.mpg.de/apics/index.php/
‘there is’ as identical to ‘(to) have’.
Existential, locative, possessive verbs

www.englishpage.com/gerunds/verb_location_ing.htm

• Hyperbaton
• Inversion
• What Is a Sentence? sentence,

Cleft Sentences
→ IT sentence patterns and WH sentence patterns.
[Cleft It-Cleft and Wh-Clause]
Cf. Anticipatory It and Dummy It

*word order or *phrase order

Cf. /word-order-in-english sentence structure and word-order – 'S+V+O'– in

different patterns of sentence – positive, negative, question,

cf. 'modifiers' (to be placed as close as possible), 'adverb,' 'prepositional phrase' –

placement may change meaning.

Word order for emphasis: \emphasis

E.g., "We should pray to God" – what is in focus (emphatic)?

vs. 'To God we should pray'; 'Pray we should to God'.

E.g. ''In God We Trust' vs. 'We trust in God'.

E.g. Jn 1:1c 'and what God is, the Word was' (IRENT); vs. 'and the Word
was what God is'. Cf. 'and the Word was God' – most; /'and what God was,
the Word was' NEB.

###
[Ref. A book by the linguist Beth Levin classifies three thousand English verbs
into about eighty-five classes based on the constructions they appear in; its subtitle
is A Preliminary Investigation. (Stephen Pinker, The Stuff of Thought, 2007).]

http://grammar.about.com/od/terms/

Ref:
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/35285/is-there-a-word-for-a-verb-
which-requires-an-adverb-or-prep-phrase-in-order-to To get all linguistics about it,
we can talk about the generalization of how verbs work. In traditional grammar,
we talk about verbs having subjects and objects and whether they are transitive or
intransitive. If we generalize this, we can talk about verbs being a kind of function
that takes arguments, where subjects and objects are examples of kinds of
argument verbs can take. The number of arguments a verb takes is called its
valency. Intransitive verbs are monovalent, taking just one argument, the subject.
Transitive verbs are divalent, taking two arguments, the subject and the object.
There are more esoteric types like avalent verbs like rain which really take no
argument (that is, the dummy pronoun it in “it’s raining” doesn’t refer to anything
and so is not an argument, and is just the way English syntax forces all verbs to
have a subject even if they are avalent). And put, the word from the original
question, is trivalent, requiring not just a subject and an object, but also a location.

The different kinds of arguments a verb takes are called thematic relations, and
have names like agent, experiencer, theme, patient, and location (see the
Wikipedia article for definitions of all the different kinds of relations). Many verbs
can take many different kinds of thematic relations as arguments, and the different
combinations of arguments that a verb can take are called its subcategorization
frame. The specific thematic relations that a particular verb requires in its
subcategorization frames are called its theta roles, and verbs are said to assign
theta roles. The verb put is exceptional in that its subcategorization frame assign
three theta roles, including a location argument.

• 'Singular they':

https://www.dictionary.com/e/they-is-a-singular-pronoun/ [It’s OK To Use “They” To

Describe One Person: Here’s Why]

From words to sentences

For the meaning at the level of *sentences formed by phrases, the basic triad is
here, slightly modified from François Recanati (2004), Literal Meaning:
[http://jeannicod.ccsd.cnrs.fr/ijn_00000290/en/ ] [See below the Appendix –
'Literal meaning']
(1) what is stated (> ‘sentence meaning’), vs.
(2) what is said, vs.
 (3) what is implicated.
When we move to the level of a discourse, the translator and the readers of the
Scripture have to be concerned with the intention and the purpose by the
author.

In the syntax there are two which present unexpected difficulty in translation.
Since it is not a mathematic level relation, effect of rhetoric or figurative usage
has to be considered:
I. A phrase with genitive case – the sense of genitive case varies and it
need to be found in the context;
II. A statement in the form of ‘A is B’, where A and B both are arthrous or
nominative – the verb is for identity or being identical;
III. A statement in the form of ‘A is b’, where ‘b’ is nominative anarthrous
noun – ‘b’ is used as adjectival and descriptive. [Cf. ‘b’ is the form of a
clause, such as a that-clause].
Examples:
• For the category I – E.g. Mt 26:13 /x: (memorial of) her – KJV;
• For the categories II – E.g. 'You are the light' Mt 5:14 < ‘you are as the
light’ – a figurative speech, since it is difficult to read as you = light. ‘I am
Light to the world’ rather than ‘light of the world’ (Jn 8:12; 9:5). Cf. You
are as the light - the literary force of the sentence is subtly affected; the
original sentence comes to the readers without ambiguity.
• For the categories III – E.g. 'Elohim is as spirit' (Jn 4:24 ‘is’ in ellipsis.
Note: in this verse ‘spirit’ is not ‘a spirit’ ‘a Spirit’ nor ‘Spirit’); ‘Elohim
is Love’ (1Jn 4:8, 16) (Here, Greek is ho theos ‘the God’, or ‘the very God’)
 Some points in English language use:
(1) Problem of plural you vs. singular you, without using KJV English words (thou and ye).
(2) Problem of overuse of pronouns (3rd person singular) in a given sentence or a short
paragraph with multiple referents.
(3) Possessive pronouns (my, your, his, their) when translating similar Gk. genitive.
Subjective? Objective? Source?
(4) Predicate: “To know what God’s will is” vs. “To know what God’s will is” (Rm 12:2).
(5) Word *collocation and collusion problem – phrase order and phrase break. e.g.
2Co 5:19 ['Through Mashiah, God was reconciling' (IRENT), 'in Christ, God was reconciling'
(CSB); /x: 'God was in Christ, reconciling' (KJV)]
Lk 2:16 "/x: found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger."(KJV) (even a comma
after 'babe' is not enough); /"~~ who was lying in the feeding trough – HCSB; / ~~ as He lay in
the manger – NASB;

* Bibles vs. the Bible vs. *Scripture ('scriptures') vs. the Word of God; God's
Word; * Torah, *torah, New Testament, Old Testament, Hebrew Scripture
(TaNaKh),
[https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Injil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam]
Words related to Translation; 'book', ‘scroll’; texts and manuscripts; Canon;

'a bible', 'the bible', 'the Bible', 'Bibles'; e.g. 'The Hunters Bible'

*biblical – related to the Bible; covering the Bible; restricted the Bible; 'based on the bible
(texts)'; affected by the Bible. Cf. '*scriptural' – related to the Scripture or related to
Scripture texts; based on the Scripture. E.g. scriptural authority, teachings, examples, etc.

• *unbiblical –contrary to what the Bible says. = necessarily nonbiblical and

*unscriptural
• *nonbiblical – not appearing in what the Bible says. = necessarily unscriptural.

Textural history and criticism

Manuscripts (mss), Papyrus, Parchment; Scroll; Codex,
text variants (v.l.); Versions; Editions;
Various texts of New and Old Testaments – Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and other languages.
Various translations into vernacular languages
*Translation; *interpretation, *exegesis, *eisegesis, hermeneutics; paraphrase;
metaphrase; rewriting; pesher; midrash; crux interpretum (e.g. Lk 23:42; Tit 2:13; 2Pe
1:1; 1Pe 3:19); *proof-texting; /Pardes_(Jewish_exegesis)
confirmation_bias

"pick and choose; mix and cook-up; ever revised" to create doctrines ever useful for their
use.
*context [Cf. www.yashanet.com/studies/matstudy/mat2.htm ]
Literary and linguistic
Cultural – incl. religious and economical
Historical – incl. political
'Text without context is pretext'
'The text being read without the context becomes Pawn for Pretext and Proof-text.'
'When reading the text, do not read a verse thinking you can understand the text.'
"Anything turns into a nose-ring by putting it on the nose. For dogs, all they snip and
find and go wild over, are bones they are after – it is called proof-texting and
eisegesis." The words that they are enamored of and fascinated by.
'*anachronism' – words read as if they are of modern usage. Words used to translate
to carry the meanings in modern usage (esp. religious). Such are undercurrents of all the
doctrines. All the doctrines are men-made. There are no 'doctrines' in the Bible. What they
see 'doctrines' in the Bible is their own mirage.

https://theologicaldebates.blogspot.com/2015/01/exegesis-eisegesis-and-eisejesus-is.html

[See in the file <Walk through the Scripture #2 - Text, Translation, and Translations> on
'interpretation', 'translation', orality and literacy.]
*Scriptures; *Scripture; *Bible

a bible; bibles; the Bible; the Bibles;

The Bible; the Holy Bible; the Scripture; the scriptures (pl.) – The word ‘Bible’
itself does not appear in the Bible. ‘Bible’ is that which is a canon of the Church,
an ‘authorized’ translation approved for use.

'The Bible' is not same as 'the Scripture(s)'. It is a vernacular translation work of

the Scripture – men's work. 'Bible is not Bible' – which Bible, what Bible, and
Whose Bible – Hebrew Bible vs. OT; Christian Bible vs. Catholic Bible, etc.
[See * canon]

The Bible is not 'the Word of God'. What is called the Word God is actually an
elaborate interpretation of their Bible to fit the doctrines and theologies.
The Scripture is a vessel holding the Word of God, which one can hear only 'in
spirit'.

The Bible is all about the Word of God for the readers; not a source book of
'application'.
'*biblical' (also ‘Biblical) - 'related to the Bible' (e.g. biblical words); also
'attributing to the Bible' (e.g. ‘biblical doctrine’).
‘*Scriptural’ is not same as 'biblical'.
'Biblical authority'? – authority of the Bible? Authority relying on the Bible?
'Biblical inerrancy'? – 'inerrancy of God's Word'?
Gk. S1124 graphē (51x); ‘the Scriptures’. (in the NT, it refers to TaNaKh, the Hebrew Scripture
[Outside the Bible, it is 'the Scripture' as a technical term for the original text from which many
'Bibles' came as translation works.
hai graphai 'the Scriptures' (arthrous, plural); [IRENT renders as 'the TaNaKh Scriptures';
Mt 21:42; 22:29, 26:54, 56; Mk 12:24; 14:49; Lk 24:27, 32, 45; Jn 5:39; Act 17:2, 11;
18:24, 28; Rm 5:4; 16:26; 1Co 15:3, 4
[except – 2Pe 3:16 tas loipas graphas 'the other scriptures' (uncapitalized)]
he graphē (singular arthrous)
'the scripture' Gal 3:8, 22;
'the scripture [passage]; Mk 12:10, 15:28; Lk 4:21; Jn 2:22; 7:38, 42; 10:35; 13:18;
17:12; 19:24, 28, 36, 37; 20:9; Act 1:16; 8:32, 34; Gal 4:30; Rm 4:3; 9:17; 10:10; 11:2;
1Tim 5:18; Jam 2:23; 4:5;
en graphais hagiais Rm 1:2 'in the holy Scriptures'
pas graph 'every scripture passage'; 2Tim 3:16 a
kata tēn graphēn Jam2:8
en graphē 1Pe 2:6; ('in a scripture passage')
graphēs (genitive) 2Pe 1:20 'scriptural prophecies'

The expression '*according to the Scriptures' (< in accordance with the TaNaKh Scripture) kata tas
graphas – pl. 1Co 15:3, 4. 'Died' and 'raised' in accordance with the Scriptures; 'on the *third day' is
not construed with this phrase.
Cf. kata tēn graphēn – Jam 2:8 (keep the royal law) according to the scripture passage.

a – a much discussed text for the issue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy. [Cf. ‘Biblicism’ – See WB #2]
 3:16
As for every scripture passage [in TaNaKh] [being read aloud]
it is as God-breathed
and beneficial [as you sure find]
 for teachinga [the truth] [– what is right],
 for reproving [what is not right],
 for correcting [to get right],
 for training [for life] in righteousness [how to stay right].

2Tm 3:16 every scripture passage ░░ (pasa graphē) [in singl. = ‘that which is written
down’). See BW #2] [The word ‘Scriptures’ (Gk. plural) in NT refers to the Hebrew Scripture
(TaNaKh), as NT was yet to form. ‘Scripture’ ≠ ‘Bible’ (a translation product).] /xx: all
scripture – KJV; /xx: all Scripture – NASB, HCSB; /every scripture – NET;

2Tm 3:16 God-breathed ░░ [theopneustos] [i.e. God breathed life into it] – NIV; /xx: inspired by
God – NASB, NET, HCSB; /xx: by inspiration of God – KJV; [not about God’s inspiration to write
'the Bible' or about inerrancy of the Bible.]

2Tm 3:16 teaching ░░ (S1319 didaskalia /21x) /xxx: doctrine – KJV; /xx: instruction –
Berean;

*book, *scroll; *Book of Life

• ‘the scroll was opened which is of the Life Rev 20:12;

• ‘names ~~ written in the scroll of the Life; Rev 3:5; 17:8*; 20:15;
• ‘names ~~ written in the scroll of the Life belonging to the Lamb Rev 13:8*;
21:27 [cf. the Lamb’s book of life vs. the book of Lamb’s life]
• [Phi 4:3; the scroll of Life]
[* all names are already “written in the scroll from founding of the world”; not
being added later.]
Greek word biblos, from which the English word Bible came, is ‘scroll’, which later
evolved into a codex (similar to a modern printed book). Since it does not have a sense
of the English word ‘book’ as such to use it as a translation word in the Bible is
anachronistic. It is something that is ‘written-down’ (‘biblos’, is equivalent to ktb in
Semitic languages.) It does not connote something the readers can hold in their hands.

Note. This is the first word in the Gospel of Matthews and should not be read as ‘book
or record’ (as of genealogy). See the entry. ‘life history’ vs ‘geneology’ on BW 1a.

Cf. Texts, manuscripts; textual criticism; pericope;

Cf. Papyrus, parchment, codex; versions and translations (i.e. Bibles);

a 2Tm 3:16 teaching ░░ (S1319 didaskalia /221x) /xxx: doctrine – KJV; /xx: instruction – Bearean;
 “To read the Bibles → to study the Scripture → to hear what God says so
that the Spirit of Elohim may quicken our spirit with His Life.”

Bibles are human work through Biblical scholarly interpretation. Often

contaminated by theological and doctrine interpretation.

Literary Genre;
History; Hagiography; Biography
Emendation; ‘Corruption’ (as to in copying process); conflation;
Canon; canonical; canonization (‘making it included into the biblical canon’, not
‘declaring someone died as church saints’);

Application interpretation – (cf. eisegesis) – the text is read, interpreted, translated for
application to fit one’s agenda. One can application from the biblical text, but that does
not change the meaning and usage of the text in the Greek.[E.g. Mounce Archive 17 –
Translating Father (and Mother?) reading ‘fathers’ as ‘parents’ Eph 6:4] hoi pateres
(the fathers) is used here, without anything tied to the concept of mothers.]

*Torah;

The first occurrence of the word “Torah” in the Torah, in Exodus 12, says, “You shall
have one Torah for the citizen and the alien. https://reformjudaism.org/exodus-not-fiction
-
Singular – H8451 torah (219x) Exo 12:49 (one law); 13:9 (law of YHWH); 16:4 (walk
in my law);

Cf. plural – Gen 26:5 (my laws); Exo 16:28 (my laws); Exo 18:20 (the laws);

[S3551 nomos ('law' 'rule') is rendered in IRENT depending on the context. E.g. ‘Torah’ (Five
Books of Moses), ‘the Law (of Moses)’, 'torah', etc.] e.g. Gal 6:2 the torah of the Mashiah
░░ → H8451 torah (instruction, teaching, law) – Exo 16:4, 28; 18:16; Prov 1:8; 3:1; 28:4];
/>> law – most;
See WB #2
*sermon; 'preaching'; expounding

Preach vs. proclaim

[Related words: S1256 dialegomai (13x) Mk 9:34; Act 17:2; Heb 12:5; Jud 1:9;]
S2605 kataggellō (18x) 'proclaim' Act 3:24; Rm 1:8c; 1Co 2:1; Phi 1:17; Col
1:28;
S2784 kērussō (61x) 'proclaim', (KJV – rarely you 'proclaim'); many renders it
as 'preach', but only in 2x places it is in that sense – Mk 6:12 (preach 'to repent');
Rm 2:21 (preach 'not to steal'). A problem verse 1Pe 1:13.

The very common word 'sermon' does not appear in the Bible a. The Sermon on 51F51F

the Mount in G-Mt and its parallel in G-Lk are collections of Yeshua’s teachings,
not ‘sermons’ as such; hence they are titled in IRENT as ‘so-called Sermon’.
Peter's speech after Shavuot (> Pentecost) in Acts 2:14-40 is labelled as a
‘sermon’, but it is rather what is called ‘preaching’.

‘sermon’ [from Latin sermo ‘discourse’] as a church jargon is the essential

component of public worship service in the Protestant churches [contrasting to
Catholic Mass]. In actual practice, one can see it range from expositional
teaching of the Scripture to a selling of political and other agenda, and, more
often, entertainment shows with downright unbiblical group hypnosis. [Cf. the
word is also used pejoratively in secular language to refer to a lengthy or tedious
speech delivered with great passion, by any person, to an uninterested audience.]
Cf. sermonette

Reading material: Are Sermons Too Few or Too Many?

from www.reclaimingthemind.org

a
The word ‘sermon’ appearing as a mistranslationin a few old English Bibles:
(Bishops) mistranslation of 'words' – Jer 1:1; 25:1, 2; 36:27, 28, 32; 45:1; 51:60;
(JUB) Ecc 12:13; (the word not in the Heb. text)
(NET) Lk 6:17 (in a title not in the text)
(WNT) Act 14:9 (replacing ‘speak’); 1Co 14:26 (replacing ‘teaching’);
*doctrine, *dogma; *creed; *beliefs; teaching; catechism;

doctrine – [fr. Lat. doctrina (teaching) > docere (teach)]

dogma – [fr. Gk. dogma (decree, resolution; opinion) > dokeō (think, decide)]
creed – [fr. Latin credo (I believe)]

S1319 didaskalia (21x) 'teaching' 'what is taught'. Only in 2 places, Mt 15:9 //Mk
7:7, it may carry the sense of '(man's) doctrines'. NWT renders it as 'doctrine(s)' in
Mt 15:9 //Mk 7:7; 1Ti 1:3; 6:3; Heb 6:1] [cf. KJV Mt 15:9 //Mk 7:7; Eph 4:1 15:4;
Eph 4:14; Col 2:22; 1Tim 1:10; 4:1 (teachings of devil!!); Tit 1:9; 2:1, 7, 10.]
[e.g. Rm 12:7 – teaching; Rm 15:4; teaching > instruction; /x: learning - KJV];
[e.g. 2Tm 3:16 teaching ░░ /xxx: doctrine – KJV; /xx: instruction – Berean]
S1321 didaskō 'teach' 'direct' 'admonish' – Mt 4:23; 5:2, etc.
S1322 didachē (30x) 'teaching' 'what is taught'
(teaching) Mt 7:28; Jn 7:16 (‘My teaching is not my own' /xx: my doctrine’ (KJV, Douay, Darby);
/xx: 'my message' (NLT).

S1320 didaskalos 'teacher'

S2085 heterodidaskaleō 'teach different doctrine' 1Tm 1:3; 6:3
S1778 entalama (3x) [precept; ordnance; injunction; /x: commandment] Mt 15:9 //Mk 7:7; Col
2:22;
S1785 entolē (67x) ‘commandment’ Mt 5:19; 15:3)
S2003 epitage 'command' 'order' 'injunction' Rm 16:22; 1Co 7:6]
S1297 diatagma 'edict' 'decree' Heb 11:23;

*sound teaching Tit 1:9; 2:1; 1Tm 1:10; 2Tm 4:3;

*fine teaching 1Tm 4:6

*Doctrines

[from Latin docere ‘teach’]: [Ref. wiki Doctrine]

[Many D words are dangerous words – 'Danger' 'Disease' 'Disaster' 'Demons' 'Devil'
'Downfall', etc. The words 'doctrine' and 'dogma' are dangerous words.
All doctrines are man-made. [Superficially great sounding, but like a house of cards.] Every
doctrine, like all theories and hypotheses, whether it is religious, ideological, or scientific,
is man-made. It is created and developed – conceived, contrived, and concocted – (often
'interpretation' is man's interpretation which actually is eisegesis) (other descriptive words
→ hokum, absurd, non-sensical, deluded); – becoming refined and elaborated to meet the
need of the authorities in power, such as 'church' with the notion of 'church' itself being
evolved (e.g. denominations, sects, and movements). Most are syncretic influenced or
infected with pagan traditions. Some are demonic in disguise. ['Demon' does not mean
something spooky or ghost-like, but human with demonic spirit.] We should not see much
more than primitive ideas related to the well-matured church doctrines within the biblical
texts. All the doctrines, whether political, scientific, or philosophical, are born of
human mind. The same is particularly true for ideological or religious doctrines –
which tends to be dangerous to enslave and human minds and lives. The Bible is not
a book of doctrines. Many read the Bible to fish out something they can cook up
doctrines. Proof texts are their treasure, second to something they can find useful for
application purpose (the Bible as an application or application source book).
Something that is not agreeable for their ideology and doctrines are distorted or
discarded and kept buried. They are made/changed continuous through the centuries for
the need of Church modified by the culture and language as well as prevailing religions (e.g.
shamanism) and philosophies. Supportive, plausible and useful texts are their pet proof texts
which are diligently dug out ('pick and choose') and effectively utilized for mixture of pesher,
eisegesis, and erudite re-rendering – all instead of exegesis. Words, phrases, expressions,
sentences, and verses are read out of the original historical and literary context. The
Scripture does not give 'doctrines'; Bible translations by themselves are affected by the
doctrines to suit for their theological/ecclesiastical purpose.a

The term doctrine is in distinction from its etymological meaning ‘teachings’. now a
theological and religious lingo and, in that sense, it is not a genuine biblical word.
All the doctrines are human doctrines (including anti-doctrines). Of course, this holds same
for 'teachings', 'practices' and 'beliefs' – all decorated with the Bible, which is literally their
own interpretation of the cherry-picked bible passage. Unlike the word 'teaching' the high-
sounding word 'doctrine'b, as appearing as a translation word in NT, is about men's doctrine;
also so-called 'Biblical doctrine' is men's product – the goal being 'power' to control mind
and life of people. They are fundamentally product of human thoughts and minds;
ostentatiously having come out from the Bible. There is no doctrine which is from God or
from the Scripture. They are picked from the Bibles and interpreted to formulate (fallible)
religious and church doctrines. Thus, when two opposing doctrines are eventually found
both to be inaccurate or insufficient. So-called ‘biblical doctrine’ does not bible-based.
They are nothing more than doctrines of a religion or a church, are based on their
own interpretation [idias epilyseōs S1955 - 2Pe 1:20] with proof texting. It is true
also when it refers to doctrines about the Bible. [e.g. 'the Bible is the Word of God'.
No, it is not. A Bible is a translated work from the Scripture, which is as the vessel
of the Word of Elohim to be heard and listened.
Much of doctrinal conflicts are colored by (ecclesial) power-struggle rather than
(scriptural) truth-seeking. What we call Biblical doctrines are our products of human
minds from the Scriptural truths, simply pronounced. The Scripture is not where we find
elaboration to form a doctrine; it simply states and pronounces the truth of it. We should
not need a ‘doctrine’ to point to a truth. Notice, the Greek word for ‘doctrine’ (as in KJV)

a
A blatant and unforgivable example is found in practice of translation of OT. Supposedly
translating from the original Hebrew text, instead, most of Bible translations do conveniently adopt
LXX Greek text for the name of their God. The name YHWH is replaced by 'the Lord', a title
(anarthrous Gk. kurios). Only handfuls (such as ASV, Jerusalem Bible, NWT, Korean Bibles, etc.)
do not follow this modernizing path of making the Name out of sight, hidden, buried and discarded,
whereas countless places in the Bible emphasizes the name of Elohim ('God').
b
S1319 didaskalia (21x 'teaching' 'doctrine' Rm 12:7; 1Tm 1:10, etc. Cf. S1322 didachē (30x) (.>
S1321 didaskō 'teach' Mt 7:28) Rm 16:17; 1Co 14:26, etc.
means simply ‘teaching’. Once truths are labeled as doctrines, its character changes and
becomes to serve a particular need in theology.

All doctrines are man’s doctrines

– doctrines of religions and ideologies.
The Scripture has only statements, no doctrines.
Man, continually devises doctrines from the Bibles.

A plethora of religious doctrines like secular doctrines (such as scientific, political, etc.)
would remain as man-made, being not genuine as to the truth claim of the Scripture, as
prerogatives of particular religion-sects, as long as they fail to prove (without convoluted
circular and self-serving arguments) to be clearly and concisely in harmony with the
tradition of Apostolic a Biblical Community (Gk. ekklesia; in contrast to 'Church' the
50F50F

power organization), which had become replaced by a religious and quasi-political entity
of Constantine Catholic Church tradition. Historically there have been traditions
independent of this, a Protestant tradition broken off from it, as well reactive traditions of
diverse doctrines and dogmas. All the doctrines are from human minds and thoughts. No
doctrine (however lofty it might be regarded) is a revealed one from God. [It is
presumptuous and blasphemous to claim that the Trinity Doctrine is a revelation, a
revealed truth.]

One of the characteristics of doctrines of human tradition as shown in the Church history
is that, as they are product of human minds, the longer (elaborate, extensive, complicated
and sophisticated) their statements with expounding and apologetics are, the further they
are away from the Scripture itself and fall into the arena of into rhetoric and philosophical
competition. They become tools in struggle for power – religious and religious-political,
and pride and praise – self-righteousness apart from God’s. All and every doctrine which
belong to man’s spirit are to be put test to determine whether they are in harmony with
God’s truth. (Cf. 1Jn 4:1).

So-called Biblical doctrines (not 'doctrines about the Bible') are not doctrines of the Bible
(or 'doctrines in the Bible'), but are religious doctrines claimed to be found in the Bible, if
not written down verbatim. There is only 'teaching', but not 'doctrines' one can use in the
Bible. The term Scriptural doctrines itself is a poor term as if it is something of ‘doctrines
to look for in the Scripture’. What we have is ‘teachings from the Scripture’, though the
word ‘doctrine’ itself is derived from the same Greek. Religious doctrines serve religious
powers (churches, denomination, and sects) for indoctrinating people in the religious
system. The Scripture simply states and proclaims and reveals; there to help to articulate
the faith once delivered by the Apostles. They are there to provide boundaries so as to
prevent misleading by human thoughts and efforts, either religious or secular. They by
themselves are sufficient just as they are found in the Scripture; they are understandable
with human intelligence and reasoning, without tomes (tombs?) of writing. They are in
harmony with the Scripture in its totality. They would come short, concise and clear –
unmixed with all the mumbo-jumbo of non-biblical and, worse, unbiblical concepts.

a
‘Apostolic’ – the word itself is a church lingo, associated with the non-biblical doctrine of apostolic
succession, esp. in Catholic tradition with Peter being their first Pope.
www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html
As originally proclaimed by Yeshua and His disciples, the Way (the very teaching which
we call Christianity) is very much in term of its particular time and place. Thus, “the
development of doctrines is due partly to the need to translate what is
expressed in terms of one cultural background into terms intelligible to
another; … But it is partly due to another fact. Men vary not only in their
cultural backgrounds, but in the extent of their intellectual development.
The primitive mind thinks pictorially and symbolically; it lacks the capacity
to reflect on its own processes and is a stranger to the niceties of logic and
scientific method.” [Quoting from One God in Trinity, Ed. Toon and Spiceland (1980)
(Ch. 7. Bernard Lonergan by Hugo Meynell, p. 96).] However limited and inadequate they
may be, the doctrines, including anti-doctrines, are here with us, by us, and for us – serving
us at intellectual level for polemical, apologetical, and evangelical needs. A doctrine is
not something popped up once in a while but is in continuous development when they are
put on the considerable time span of our history – to be challenged and refined. After all,
doctrines are not fundamentals but are derivatives which come out of reading the Bible,
being affected by eisegesis, presumptions, constrains, traditions and agenda. The
fundamentals we have to care for are that which are plainly proclaimed in the Scripture.

Reading material: www.therecapitulator.com/doctrine-divides-of-course-it-does-that-is-

precisely-what-doctrine-is-supposed-to-do/

Examples: [Note that all these religious or church creeds as well as doctrines, ‘beliefs’,
and ideologies (‘isms’) – everything is a fertile product of human mind. Whether they are
in harmony with revelations and proclamations in the Scripture is totally different matter,
as argued by their fierce proponents or antagonists.]

• The Athanasian Creed (Quicumque vult in Latin)

The so-called Athanasian Creed, not authored by Athanasius, but by

an anonymous medieval author [hence pseudo-Athanasian Creed]
gives a long summary of Augustinian trinitarian dogma. It was not
the product of, nor received the official sanction of, any of the
supposed ‘7 ecumenical councils’. (samples:)
• the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
• He therefore that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.
• For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.

• Nicene Creed www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

• Apostles Creed

*catechism (> Lat. catechismus > Gk. katēkhizein)

• A set of religious teachings/doctrines in the form of questions and
answers (used for religious instruction);
• A series of fixed questions, answers, or precepts used for instruction.
‘Statement of Faith’; mindset of people of religions

Pertaining to the people belonging to the Mashiah, it is a way of telling other

people what they believe of the truth revealed in the Scripture from the Most-
High Elohim. Such examples of various Christianisms and their organizations
are easily found on the web. It covers host of topics, including ‘God’, ‘Jesus’
[sic], the Holy Spirit, Humanity, the Bible, Church, Kingdom of God, and such
concern as ‘Salvation’ ‘Justification’ ‘Sanctification’ ‘Resurrection’ ‘Parousia
of the Messiah, the purpose of their organization, the Church practices (rites,
rituals, liturgy) and other themes – hidden agenda is not shown obviously. [One
may have one’s own personal statement of ‘faith’ – more as a confession to
others – which include some of his personal history and religious experience.]

Some important doctrinal elements are not stated, as if they desire them kept
under the rug – smacks of their being a ‘cult’. In some Christianisms, their
church traditions are more decisive than what the Scripture tells though they
claim the Bible is the word of God, but the Bible is what they read in their
translation, not the Scripture – usually read in pick- and choose fashion for
‘application’ mode, rather that hearing what God is saying – different and
conflicting interpretations galore being expert in eisegesis and having their
vocabulary of lingo and jargon painted with anachronism – as if they actually
making their Jesus a Christian and mistaking the teaching and the mission of
Him as Christianity.

*Protestantism carries on a lot of baggage of the Roman Catholic traditions and practices
(doctrines, creeds, theologies; rituals, rites, routines).

www.uu.edu/journals/renewingminds/2/RM_Issue2_Nov2012_BookReview_
Morgan.pdf

*fundamentalism – [often used as a derogatory term]

*evangelical; *evangelicalism; evangelicals;
[See in the Collection <RENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3B&C -
Anthropology, 'Person', Religion)>]

www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/06/the-origins-of-
fundamentalism/397238/
Kevin Bauder and Robert Delnay (2014) One in Hope and Doctrine: Origins of Baptist
Fundamentalism, 1870–1950.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/evangelicals-defined-history-american-
evangelicalism_n_1277352.html

www.patheos.com/blogs/anxiousbench/2018/05/the-reinvention-of-evangelical-in-
american-history-a-linguistic-analysis/ terms: biblicism, activism, crucicentrism, and
conversionism. “the meaning (and the use) of “evangelical” has changed over time. …”
*creeds; Church Councils
Robber’s Council
http://bookofconcord.org/

creedal theology /dogmatic theology

'formulation of doctrines'

*Creeds

"https://studyhippo.com/the-history-of-the-creedalism-theology-religion-essay-4551/
A credo is a statement that describes or narrates beliefs shared by a spiritual
community. For centuries church leaders and bookmans have debated the
necessity and even value of credos within Christian divinities and patterns.
Historic credos have themselves frequently arisen out contentions environing
assorted theological philosophies or positions. Two of the best known and most
widely used credos in Christianity are the Nicene Creed (325 CE) and the
Apostles' Creed (developed between the 2nd and 9th centuries). …"

/Creed
"A creed (also known as a confession, symbol, or statement of faith) is a
statement of the shared beliefs of a religious community in the form of a fixed
formula summarizing core tenets. …"

https://youtu.be/h_SGQa1yA_8 <Is Your Creed in the Bible? J. Dan Gill>

Essential Christian DOCTRINE

Acronym: *DOCTRINE – D.O.C.T.R.I.N.E.

Hank Hanegraaff What Is Essential Christian D-O-C-T-R-I-N-E?

Memorable Keys to Essential Christian D-O-C-T-R-I-N-E (flipchart) or The Complete Bible
Answer Book

[The article was written from the position of the Trinitarian doctrine. (Correction of the original is
in purple)]

Divine fullness in Mashiah (/x: DEITY OF CHRIST)

Origin of sin (i.e. beginning of sin; /x: original sin; < Adam’s primal sin; not ‘born sinners’)
Crucifixion (> Cross; /Canon)
Truth (x: Trinity)
Resurrection
 Immanuel and Incarnate Word (> Logos Incarnate; not ‘God incarnate’)
New creation with ‘a New Heaven and a New Earth’ in Yeshua the Mashiah
Eschaton = the Mashiah (x: eschatology)

Hank Hanegraaff:
Essential Christian doctrine is [not 'is, but is made] the foundation [of 'Jesus religion'] which the
gospel of Jesus Christ rests. From His deity to the eschatological certainty that He will appear a
second time to judge the living and the dead, essential Christian doctrine is foundational to the
gospel. All other religions compromise, confuse, or contradict these essentials. Muslims, for
example, dogmatically denounce the doctrine of Christ's unique deity as the unforgivable sin of
shirk. They readily affirm the sinlessness of Christ, but they adamantly deny His sacrifice upon
the cross and His subsequent resurrection as the only hope of salvation.

Deity of Christ. [deity, god, god-being, divineness, etc. Cf. Godhead – head of God family,
chief God of three Persons (God 1, God 2, and God 3)?? Cf. ‘deity’ vs. ‘divinity (= divine
essence) of Jesus’ vs. ‘Jesus has deity’] The NT shows 'divineness' in the human person, not
'deity' 'god-ness', 'being God', 'being god-man' of Yeshua.

[‘Christ’ itself means ‘anointed’ (by God) to be a king. Then how do say ‘Christ is God? What
does it mean by ‘God’ which does not sound different at all from ‘god’?] [Deity of someone or
something cannot make him/it ‘God’. An example is not the evidence.] The biblical witness is
clear and convincing that Jesus Christ is the eternal Creator God (Jn 1; Col 1; Heb 1; Rev 1).
Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus claimed to be God in word and deed (Mk 14:61–62; Jn
5:18, 20; 8:58; 10:30–33) and vindicated His claims to deity by living a sinless life (Jn 8:46; 2Co
5:21; Heb 4:15; 1Jn 3:5; 1Pe 2:22), by manifesting His power over nature (Mk 4:39), over fallen
angels (Lk 4:35), over sickness (Mt 4:23), and even over death itself (Jn 4:50; 11:43–44; 1Co 15),
and by accurately prophesying God's judgment on Jerusalem through the destruction of the Temple
that occurred in CE 70 (Mt 24:1–2, 32–35).

God: "I am the Alpha and the Omega" (Revelation 1:8)

Christ: "I am the First and the Last" (1:17)
God: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End" (21:6)
Christ: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and
the End" (22:13)

*Trinity. Though the word "Trinity" is found nowhere in the Bible, it aptly codifies the essential
Trinitarian belief (biblical truths) claiming that (1) there is only one God (Deu 6:4; Isa 43:10) [No,
there are many. In Judeo-Christian faith, only one Elohim to worship – YHWH (Yahueh >Yahweh,
etc. That is monaltry (or henotheism), not monotheism.)]; (2) the Father is God, the Son is God, and
the Holy Spirit is God (1Co 8:6; Heb 1:8; Acts 5:3–4) [this is not based on the Scripture, but of
Greek philosophical idea.]; and (3) Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct (Mt 28:19; Jn
15:26; 17:1–26). [So, what does it mean, other than three distinct Gods? What and who is Father?
What and who is Son? What is Holy Spirit? How it should be a person? What is 'person'?]

The basic statements of the Trinity Doctrine are incoherent. Statement I: A is God, B is God and C
is God, then Statement II: A and B and C should be three Gods. How it is one God? What is
definition of God in the statement I and the statement II? Both are to be same or are different? If
same, it should be three Gods; if different then we have four 'Gods' – Father = God, Son = God,
Spirit = God, Trinity = God.

It is important to note that when Trinitarians speak of one God, they are referring to the nature or
essence of God. [Actually, they are talking about ‘Trinity God’ and by ‘God’ meaning Godhead
(God household or Head of God or Head of God family)]. Moreover, when they speak of persons,
 [what is meaning of ‘person’? – It is translation from Latin which is translation from Greek
theological jargons, which have nothing to do with the English word ‘person’ people use], they are
referring to personal self–distinctions within the Godhead. [Christian religious jargon ‘Godhead’ –
how is different from ‘deity’ ‘god’?] Put another way, Trinitarians believe in one What and three
Who's. [The Bible does not say so.]
"As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened,
and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him. And a voice from heaven
said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." Matthew 3:16–17 NIV [Holy Spirit
is simply the Spirit of God, not God the Spirit. With capitalized words and the article, the Holy
Spirit, would not turn into a person. Same for ‘God’ – God is beyond the concept of person, but
‘supra-personal’ – Hans Küng), not a ‘person’. He is the Ultimate Reality. With personification and
anthropomorphism, to bring down ‘God’ to the level of human mind.]
Canon. The thirty–nine books of the Hebrew Scripture along with the twenty–seven books of the
Greek New Testament are divine rather than merely human in origin and constitute the entire
Christian canon (meaning "standard of measurement"). In addition to the internal testimony of the
Bible about itself (2Tm 3:16), the divine inspiration and preservation of the Bible can be
demonstrated by the early dating and consistency of the many available manuscripts, the
corroboration of archaeology, and the fulfillment of predictive prophecy.

2Tm 3:16–17
—"Every scripture passage (> all Scripture) is God-breathed (x: God-inspired) and is useful for
teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work."
Jn 17:17
—"Your word is Truth"

Resurrection. All four canonical gospels record the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the
dead. The immutable fact of Jesus' resurrection is the cornerstone of Christian faith, because it not
only vindicates Jesus' claims to deity but also ensures the future bodily resurrection unto eternal life
of all who believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and proclaim Him as Lord (1Co 15; 1The 4:13–
18). The historical reality of the resurrection can be demonstrated through the fatal torment of Jesus
on the cross; the empty tomb––early Christianity could not have survived an identifiable tomb
containing the corpse of Christ; the post–resurrection appearances of Jesus; and the transformation
of believers throughout the ages whose lives have been radically altered upon experiencing the
resurrected Lord.
"What I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according
to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,
and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five
hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some
have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared
to me also, as to one abnormally born."
— the Apostle Paul, in 1Co 15:3–8 NIV

*birth; *born; *begotten; * '*virgin birth';

*birth;
*Procreation,
*conception (←fertilization + implantation) = 'onset of pregnancy'; impregnation ('make pregnant');
reproduction (biology)a ovulation; gestation (= pregnancy); child birth;

a
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02105.x [a copy in <Supplement III
(Collection) #3B&C – Anthropology, 'Person', Religion>]
embryology
www.britannica.com/biography/Karl-Ernst-Ritter-von-Baer-Edler-von-Huthorn
Karl Ernst von Baer – the discovery of the mammalian ovum (egg) 1827 in his De Ovi Mammalium
et Hominis Genesi (“On the Mammalian Egg and the Origin of Man”)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2012.02105.x
M Cobb, "An Amazing 10 Years: The Discovery of Egg and Sperm in the 17th Century"

De Generatione Animalium (On the generation of animals) (William Harvey 1651).

Reinier De Graaf 1672
Leeuwenhoek – sperm 1678-9

Karl Ernst von Baer and Charles Donald O'Malley, "On the Genesis of the Ovum of Mammals
and of Man", Isis Vol. 47, No. 2 (Jun., 1956), pp. 117-153
www.jstor.org/stable/227335?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

To Procreate – to bring forth off-springs;

To *beget [begat, begotten] –
1. to bring forth (procreate, generate in progeny) as from the father; bring (a child) into
existence by the process of reproduction;
2. To cause, bring about, produce as an effect or outgrowth.
To bear [bore, *born/borne] – (1) to bring forth (young) as from the mother; give birth to: [e.g. to
bear a child.] (2) to carry;
To conceive
'be born' (past participle – passive voice) – 'be brought forth by (or as if by) birth.
Born or Borne?
E.g. ref. http://grammarist.com/spelling/borne-born/
"A star was born." "A born loser"
"The brunt of the evening’s jokes was borne by the President.
"His prediction was not borne out in reality”
"food-borne'
"Our plan has borne fruit" even though the word comes perilously close to birth in this sense.

[The 17th century discovery of the role of egg and sperm in reproduction can be traced to two letters,
written 7 years apart: by Thévenot (1665) and Henry Oldenburg (c.1615–77) → Leeuwenhoek (1677)
-- the observation of spermatozoa under microscope. The term 'reproduction' introduced by Buffon
1749. The notion that 'egg' was fundamental to 'generation' – William Harvey (1651). Empirical proof
'egg theory' Swammerdam (1669) and Francesco Redi (1664) with insects. 'Ovary' by Steno (1668)
with fish. De Graaf (1671, 1672).
S1080 gennaō (97x) ('beget; bring forth') – Jn 1:13; 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8; 8:41; 9:2, 19, 20, 32, 34; 16:21;
18:37, etc.

IRENT renders it
as (1) 'bring forth' or 'be brought forth' ('beget' – male paternal principle –– not just sons but also
descendants - Mt 1:8c, 11] [egennēsen 'begot' - paternal; (Mt 1:2-16a); gegennētai gennēsanta (1Jn 5:1)
as (2) 'be born' (from female maternal principle only – Mt 1:16b; 2:1; 19:12, Jn 3:3, Jn 16:21, etc.)
[egennēthē 'was born' Mt 1:16b]

The word 'begotten', common in KJV, now archaic, is used in IRENT:

(1) Mt 1:20 – 'has been begotten in her' – YLT, Darby, NWT3; /formed – Delitzsch; /'has been
conceived' – most, NWT4; [Cf. a different Gk. word for 'to conceive' sullambanō Lk 1:24, 31, 36; 2:21;
Jam 1:15, etc.)
(2) and in a fixed English phrase 'only-begotten' for S3439 monogenē '*only-begotten' when used
in reference to Yeshua; /x: 'only one brought forth'; /xx: 'only-and-one'; /x: 'one-and-only. [See
below.]

Cf. S1096 ginomai - Gal 4:4 ‘born of a woman’. (~ ek gunaikos) (Not ‘born of a virgin’ – the phrase
which does not exist in NT)
Cf. S4416 prōtotokos 'firstborn' (8x – Lk 2:7; Rm 8:29; Col 1:15, 18; Heb 1:6; 11:28; 12:23; Rev
1:5) – not to be thematically confused with S4409 prōteuō be pre-eminent (1x – Col 1:18); /> have
preeminence; /x: hold the highest rank in a group – BDAG; /> have first place - NASB; /be first (in
all things) – NWT;
Cf. S5088 tiktō give a birth to (Mt 1:23; Lk 1:31; Jn 16:21a)

[S3439 monogenēs (9x) (1) Johannine use for Yeshua – Jn 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9 (2) other than
Yeshua – Lk 7:12; 8:42; 9:38; Heb 11:17)] /
/only begotten – KJV, NASB, NWT; /one and only – NET; NIV, HCSB; /only– ESV;

[IRENT renders monogenēs as ‘only’ as to an only child of a family, but keeps “only begotten” (KJV
etc.) though the word is archaic when it is used in reference to Yeshua; there is no better rendering
without altering the basic meaning of the Greek word. ‘one and only’ – NET; NIV, HCSB; ‘only’ –
ESV; ‘unique’ – all do not cut.]

*life vs. Life (rendered differently in IRENT)

My life vs. my Life; Our life 생명 vs. our lives 일생– different meaning of 'life'
Doctrine of Virgin birth of Jesus

The doctrine of the Virgin Birth appears in the Apostles' Creed.a (390 CE)

Latin Greek English

Credo ... Πιστεύω … I believe
et in Iesum Christum, Καὶ (εἰς) Ἰησοῦν Χριστòν, in Jesus Christ,
Filium Eius unicum, υἱὸν αὐτοῦ τòν μονογενῆ, God's only Son,
Dominum nostrum, τòν κύριον ἡμῶν, our Lord,
qui conceptus est τòν συλληφθέντα who was conceived
de Spiritu Sancto, ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου, by the Holy Spirit,
natus ex Maria Virgine, γεννηθέντα ἐκ Μαρίας τῆς παρθένου born of the Virgin Mary,

Nicene_Creed (325 CE)

"… Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made
man"

Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed (381 CE)

"… who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the
Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"

a
Apostles' Creed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_Faith#Second_century_usage
(regula fidei)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_Symbol
'Symbolum' in the middle of 3rd c. in a letter of St. Cyprian and St. Firmilia
The title 'Apostles' Creed' (Symbolum Apostolicum) in a letter (prob. by Ambrose in about
390 CE.
*Trinity, Trinitarianism, *Trinitarian Doctrine, Trinity God, Unitarianism
binitarianism

What would make a statement a logical statement? What statements are there to
constitute the Trinitarian doctrine? What makes some of its statements illogical?

Examples: 'person' 'God' 'Father' 'Son' 'Spirit'.

… www.cbcg.org/defining-oneness.html " According to the Trinitarian
statement of belief, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all divine
“Persons,” but each is “less than a separate individuality.” In other words, these
“Persons” are not actually individuals. This statement is confusing and
contradictory because it is expressing philosophical concepts that were
deliberately intended to be interpreted in different ways. … These philosophic
constructs have always been ambiguous statements of belief. A word or phrase
used in these statements may be given a variety of philosophic definitions. The
result is that more than one meaning can be drawn from the same statement. "

When we read such statements, we should be aware that the problem in

understanding them is not due to our own lack of intellect but to the ambiguous
construction of the statements themselves. This type of grammatical structure is
known as “amphiboly”. Statements which are worded in an amphibolous
manner allow room for a variety of interpretations. Amphiboly has long been a
favorite tool of philosophers and politicians. “Amphibolously worded
predictions [and philosophic constructs] have long been exploited by
astrologers [ancient Magi/Chaldean philosophers], tea-leaf readers, political
columnists, and even ancient oracles [demonically inspired mediums]”
(Rescher, Introduction to Logic, p. 75).

To add to the confusion, the names used in philosophical statements are often
vacuous; i.e., the names as they are used actually designate nothing! Names are
properly used to designate a thing or entity or to describe an aspect of a thing or
entity—a quality that the entity has or a relationship it bears to something else.

Names that do not represent such actual things or entities are vacuous—empty
and meaningless. Here is a warning against being misled by such names: “A
name that literally designates nothing [the “One” or the “Hypostases” of
philosophy] is called a vacuous name. Because of vacuous names, care must be
taken when some name is presented to avoid the conclusion that there
necessarily exists a thing which answers to this name. A subtle but important
line of separation must be drawn between names with fictitious or imaginary
designations [such as characters in plays, novels or movies] and vacuous
names. This distinction is sometimes obscured by the fact that one and the
same name may fall into either category, depending upon how it is understood”
(Ibid., p. 23).
 The names “One,” Hypostases, Father, Son, Holy Spirit, God, Person and
Being can be categorized either as authentic names or as vacuous names,
depending on how they are used. These terms are vacuous as used in
philosophic statements about the Trinity. These names are not vacuous when
we understand them in the light of God’s Word. To define these terms solely in
the artificial framework of philosophic constructs and then attempt to
superimpose this philosophy upon Scripture makes these names vacuous and
meaningless.

Those who profess allegiance to the God of the Bible and then proceed to
distort God’s Word, elevating the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle above His
Word, are not Christian but pagan. The paganism of ancient and modern
philosophers is not compatible with the Holy Scriptures. As the pagan
philosopher Mortimer J. Adler so forcefully and honestly wrote in How to
Think About God: A Guide for the 20thCentury Pagan: “The God that is the
object of pagan philosophical thought is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob, or of Moses, [or] Jesus ...” (p. 28)

Trinitarian doctrine, Trinitarian belief, Trinitarian statements, Trinitarian formula.

Definition of the term or notion of 'trinity' – which trinity? 'the Trinity'? 'Holy
Trinity'

What are the necessary and sufficient statements for the Trinitarian doctrine?

What 'Holy Trinity'? What does it mean by 'Father is God'? Is it a logically

sufficient statement? What is meant by Father? What is meant by God? What is
meant by [A] is [a]? What is the sense of the copula 'be'? Same for 'Son'; for 'Holy
Spirit'. What does it mean by 'holy'? by 'spirit'? or by 'Spirit'? Any difference btw
'Holy' vs. 'holy'; spirit vs. Spirit? Any difference btw 'Holy Spirit' and 'God's
spirit'?

Three; triple; threefold (Lat. trinus); 'triad' (group or set of three; Lat. 'trinitas');
triune; tri-unity. [e.g. a dilatectical -- 'triadic movement' from theses to anthithesis
to syntheses.]

Trinitarian formulas; Trinitarian discourse; Trinitarian doctrine;

Problem of the terms -- notion and definition – 'God' 'Person' 'Father' 'Son' 'Spirit'. What are
these terms – notion, idea, or some reality? What is meant by each term? What does it mean
by 'Trinity God'?
The notion of 'one' 'oneness' 'unity': – what do they mean?
Statement: 'three are one' – what does it mean?

trinity (n.)
www.etymonline.com/word/trinity
 early 13c., "the Father, Son and Holy Spirit," constituting one God in prevailing Christian doctrine,
from Old French trinite "Holy Trinity" (11c.), from Late Latin trinitatem (nominative trinitas)
"Trinity, triad" (Tertullian), from Latin trinus "threefold, triple," from plural of trini "three at a time,
threefold," related to tres (neuter tria) "three" (see three).

The Latin word was widely borrowed in European languages with the spread of Christianity (Irish
trionnoid, Welsh trindod, German trinität). Old English used þrines as a loan-translation of Latin
trinitas. Related: Trinitarian.

triune (adj.)
"three in one," 1630s, from tri- + Latin unus "one". …Related: Triunity.

Cf. 'unholy trinity' (< unholy triad) - a religious jargon (in Revelation Ch. 22 & 23).

Divine person; divine essence; divine being; divine man; supranatural being; cf.
spiritual man.

Divine Triad – Father Elohim, Son of Elohim (not 'God the Son'), Holy Spirit of Elohim (not
'God the Holy Ghost'. [cf. 'the Holy Ghost' is a KJV jargon for '(the) holy spirit'.]

The triadic formulas of the Divine Triad in the NT are not Trinitarian and it should have
nothing to do with the Trinity of the Trinitarian doctrine:
E.g.
Mt 28:16 '… baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit, …';
1Jn 5:7 v.l. ' … the Father, the Word, and the holy spirit, and these three are one [in
bearing witness]

*believe, *believe into; 'put faith on', 'put trust on;

pisteuō ‘believe’ (+ dative) – believe what (things, God)?

e.g. Jn 20:8;
e.g. Act 27:25 believe Elohim – (dative) x: have faith in God - ISV, ESV, NET
e.g. Jam 2:19 'even demons also believe that too [that God is one] and tremble with fear
e.g. 1Jn 3:21 put our trust on the name ░ (pisteuō tō onomati) [name =the very person and what
He stands for]; /believe in the name- ASV; /believe on the name – KJV;

pisteuō en ‘believe in’ (a person/thing) Mk 1:15 'believe in the Good-News'

pisteuō epi 'put faith on' 'put trust on'
– Rm 4:5 [~ Elohim] - put faith in – NWT; /believe on – KJV, HCSB; /xx: trust (God)
– NIV; /believes in – NASB, NET;
– Act 16:31 believe in (epi) the Lord Yeshua –

pisteuō eis (+ Him, his name) ‘put faith in’, 'come and believe in'; ['put trust
in'?] different nuance from ‘believe in' [This distinctly Johannine expression
is a major Johannine theme (Cf. in Johannine Epistles – only once in 1Jn
5:13)
(believe in (eis) the only-begotten Son of Elohim – Jn 3:16)
(Yeshua – Mt 27:42; Act 19:4; 22:19) (Elohim – Jn 14:1; 1Pe 1:21) (the Son –
Jn 3:36) (His name – Jn 1:12; 3:18)

1Pe 1:21 /come to trust in God – NLT; /x: are believers in God - HCSB;
Cf. English vocabulary: 'believe', 'trust', 'have faith in' (something, someone, or
someone’s teaching or dogma); 'put faith in'; 'have a religion'; 'keep a religion'
Some are tautological (between 'believe' and 'faith' – of different etymology)
[Cf. 'believe a religion' Ko. with no different expressions 'believe' and 'believe
in'.
[Cf. Ko. '= not in the sense of 'believe' but 'have'] [

(1) believe (something) –

a. accept (something) as true; take to be true. Syn. 'be convinced of'
b. have faith, esp. religious faith
• (기독교,불교~ 천주교~를 믿다'.
c. hold (something) as an opinion; thing or suppose;
d. be confidence about (something to which is to be expected of). (~ in)
• 일기예보 ~; 미래 ~
e. credit with veracity / accuracy
• Do you believe her story? It sounds fishy to me.

(2) believe (someone)

a. accept someone's word true; regards someone as who is to be.
• I believe her. She is always honest.
b. (believe in ~) – put trust on, have faith in;
• 부처 ~; 모하멛~; 대통령 ~;

(3) believe in (someone) (something), idea of "trusting in something or

someone. Cf. 'to trust' 'put trust in/on' is much narrow sematic field than
'to believe (in)'.
• Many people in the world believe in God.
• Do you believe in ghosts?

[H982 batach (120x) 'put trust'] + [H413 el 'toward' 'to' 'into']

2Kg 18:5, 22 put trust in YHWH Elohim.
2Kg 28:52 put trust in YHWH
Psa 9:10 put trust in You [=YHWH]

[H539 aman (108x) 'confirm' 'support'; 'trust; 'make firm sure lasting']
Gen 15:6 "Abraham believed' YHWH" (Cf. //Rm 4:3 pisteuō + Abraam to Theō)
[H540 aman (3x) trust, believe]; Dan 6:23 "Daniel believed his God".
'trust', '*faith', '*belief', 'unbelief'.
'faith as belief' and 'faith as trust' – book chapters in 'Sin Boldly!: Justifying Faith for Fragile
Broken Souls' (Ted Peters 2015)

Faith is not same as belief. Beliefs are often held with fidelity, loyalty, trust, and it is
understandable that the term faith gets carelessly used where belief is the proper word. But the
carelessness is regrettable, and the resulting confusion has caused too much needless pain, loss,
and even death. Faith is no more identical with belief than loyalty is identical with opinion. (p.
16)

Belief (adopted from p. 18-20) – it has a few common senses (1) as in which we say "I believe
that ... "- what is said is true or convincing, etc., and (2) in which we say "I believe in
(something or someone)." Here it is a question of trusting or valuing the object, in a way that
can probably be turned into "belief that" propositions that will describe what the trusted or
valued item can be counted on to be or to do. The word may sometimes be used simply as an
acknowledgment that you are firmly committed or entrusted to something or someone without
necessarily being clear about what will result – but under prodding, I guess that the one using
it thus will acknowledge that it should either be explicable by "belief that" statements or
replaced by a less misleading expression, such as "I heartily approve of," or "I've taken up," or
"I'm into."
Belief is, or should be, concerned with truth (and/or facts). … Belief is a stance that is not
inevitable, a judgment that is not simply compelled by what is given. Belief differs from
knowledge, though both are ways of taking a stand on what is true. … Belief is not, however,
a matter of choice or of feeling, though it is often confused with both.

Religious belief. …What guarantees the truth of these beliefs? …. Beliefs differ in some
significant ways among varying Christian denominations, to say nothing of the differences
between Christian and non-Christian traditions. If beliefs are our way of making a contact with
truths of the utmost importance, then we must be concerned about discriminating true beliefs
from false ones. It is possible to claim that our beliefs happen all to be true, through God's
mercy or our fidelity or whatever, while many of theirs are false; but what such a claim says
about us, about them, and about God does not have an obvious ring of plausibility-and if it is,
however implausible, true, then there is every reason to subject our beliefs to the kind of closer
examination that will undoubtedly vindicate them, strengthen our confidence, glorify God, and
provide illumination for those who are in error. And if, by chance, some false beliefs have
managed to creep into our tradition, then surely, they should be discerned and corrected. To
avoid applying tough critical scrutiny to our beliefs, protecting them by taking refuge in a
notion of faith that makes them self-validating, is impious, disloyal, and potentially dangerous.

Beliefs must stand critical trial, precisely in the name of faith. The critical examination of a
belief may confirm it and overturn the beliefs that oppose it, sometimes surprisingly, …
[with some adjustment from John Meagher (1990), The Truing of Christianity
*Theology

*theology

Paul Badham, “What Is Theology?” Theology, Vol. 99 No. 788, page(s): 101-106

Theology literally means 'thinking about God'. In practice it usually means studying the
sources of Christian belief like the Bible and the Creeds, and exploring the meaning of
Christianity for today. In universities and colleges, a course in 'Theology' means a course
in Christianity, while a course labelled 'Religious Studies' usually means a course on world
religions. One classic definition of theology was given by St Anselm. He called it 'faith
seeking understanding' and for many this is the true function of Christian theology.
However, another view was expressed by Peter Abelard who put things the other way
around and said 'I must understand before I can believe'. Theologians tend to fall into these
two categories. Some are studying theology because they wish to move from faith to a
fuller understanding of that faith. Others are studying theology because they want to
understand what it is that Christians believe. …

Some Christians do not like the idea of theology because it seems to place faith in a
relationship with human reason. And they question the desirability of this. In this context
it is interesting to compare the classic Old Testament understanding of faith with that of
Jesus. According to the Old Testament the most fundamental law was 'to love the Lord
your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength' (Deut. 6.5).
Jesus agreed with this, but added 'and with all your mind' (Mark 12.29). That is what a
Christian theologian seeks to do if trying to move from faith to understanding. But likewise,
one who seeks understanding prior to any question of commitment is also in this position.
For both categories of people would ideally like their thinking and their believing to be in
harmony. A course in theology will normally include a substantial study of the Bible and
of Christian doctrine. This is basically because Christians believe that God has revealed
himself through the Bible and supremely through the life of Christ, and that his Spirit
remains at work within the Church. U this is true, then a Christian will wish to understand
the Bible and the teaching of the Church properly in order to perceive God's message. From
a secular position the same conclusion is reached about the subject matter of theology.
Historically it is clear that Christianity is derived from the teaching of the Bible, and
continues in being through the life of the Church, and that Jesus Christ matters to
Christians. …

https://bible.org/assets/powerpoint/theology_studentnotes.pdf

What is theology:
"Rational discussion respecting the deity.” — Augustine
"The science of God, and of the relation between God and the Universe.” — A.H. Strong
“The study of Science of God.” — Millard Erickson
"Thinking about God and expressing those thoughts in some way. … Theology is for
everyone. Indeed, everyone needs to be a theologian. In reality, everyone is a
theologian — of one sort or another. And therein lies the problem. There is nothing
wrong with being an amateur theologian or a professional theologian, but there is
everything wrong with being an ignorant or sloppy theologian." — Charles Ryrie
*Confession; *

C-Alliterates – confession, contrite, conversion, correction/compensation;

commitment;

Cf. *Penance – Catholic-Lutheran-Orthodox lingo associated with 'repentance'.

*reformation; Protestant Reformation; *Five Solas; Restorationism (Christian

primitivism)

The ‘Five Solas’, the five pillars of Reformation, are five Latin phrases (or
slogans) that emerged from the Protestant Reformation intended to summarize
the Reformers' basic theological principles in contrast to certain teachings of the
Roman Catholic Church of the day. "Sola" is Latin meaning "alone" or "only"
and the corresponding phrases are:

Sola Fide, by faith alone for God’s taking us righteous to His name.
(‘justification’) (Rm)
Sola Gratia, saved by grace alone, not by merits. – (Eph 2:7 grace and faith)
Sola Scriptura, by Scripture alone for the authority overriding traditions of
human organizations, religions, and theologies. (2Pe 2:20; Rm 15:4; 2Tm 2:16)

[does not mean to read the Bible of one’s choice (‘my Bible’) and read the
Bible alone – to read apart from other people. The Scripture as the whole
(not some books or some verses of pick-choose-mix), not the interpretation
personal (“alone” “private”) of a person or a group, is authoritative and
leads to the ultimate authority, God Himself. All interpretations and
doctrines/dogmas are products out of mortal human minds which cannot be
outside sin nature – in pursuit of one’s own power and pleasure, instead of
God’s glory and honor.

Solus Christus, we come to Most-High Elohim through Mashiah Yeshua alone,

because He is who He is. (Col 1:15; 1Tm 1:5; 1Jn 1:1; Heb 7:25; Rm 8:34; Acts
4:12; Heb 7:23; Jn 1:1; Jn 14:6)
Soli Deo Gloria, we live for the glory of God alone, in life of Spirit’s
sanctification (1Co 10:31)

The popular delineation of these Five Solas is not a Reformation idea but a
modern one. That is to say, if the Reformers were told to list their core doctrines
they might as readily have spoken about salvation by the Holy Spirit [sic] alone
in the church alone (Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 23.1 [2005]: 119).
From two solas 1554, three solas, and five solas in mid-20th century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_solae
*facts; *evidence; *proof; *premise; *truths (cf. ‘the Truth’)

Cf. www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-facts-and-evidence/ -
Note: ‘facts can be disputed too’.
www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-facts-and-truths/ Note: truths
that are momentary are just ‘truths claimed’, not ‘the truth’.

*mission; *career, *job (*vocation, occupation, trade, work, labor, skill);

http://youtu.be/BjCVq97JIw0 http://youtu.be/H82CqOIEiKs *calling

*Alliteration
h-alliteration ‘heaven, home, and hope'.
d-alliteration 'discouragement, deception and doubt'
decay, destruction, death, demonic, "demnocratic", "damncratic", demeaning,
degrading, demagogue, demo-freaks,

mindset, motives, and method (www.recoveringgrace.org/2012/07/the-subtle-power-of-

spiritual-abuse-chapter-7-abuse-and-scripture )
 Vocabulary: religious & theological

Questioning basic religious lingo:

1. religion vs. religions. Is Christianity 'religion' or 'a religion'?

2. faith vs. religion vs. creed
3. believe – cf. 'to trust'; what does it mean to believe - 'believe what' and 'believed whom';
'believe God' vs. 'believe in God'
believe God vs. believe Jesus;
4. saved; salvation
5. 'worship' vs. 'worship service'– what is it? In Gk. and Hebrew, and in Latin. What does
it mean to worship? How? Why?
6. 'to preach' vs. 'to give a sermon'; hell-fire preaching;
7. 'church', 'churches', 'Church' – denomination, power organization of a religion,
building,
8. 'God' 'god' 'the God' – what is it? A god-being? A deity? Divine thing? Divine man?
'Idols'? What God? which God? For whom and for what? how many Gods? How many
gods? Nameless God – Islam, most Christians. God was a man like a Mormon –
Mormonism; God's name is Jesus – most Christians (religion of God Jesus).
9. natural, supernatural, supranatural
10. person, Person, human person, non-human person, divine person, vs. human being,
non-human being, divine being.
11. name, person name, epithet, title, descriptor, nickname, alias, proper name, label,
12. 'theology' 'theologies' 'systemic theology' 'doctrines' 'creeds' 'confessions' 'faith
statements' 'church catechism'

*Passover

[See for detail in <Walk through the Scripture #5A - Festival, Feast and Passover>
and <Walk through the Scripture #6 - Passion Week Chronology<

The word 'Passover' is originated in the 'passover' event in Exodus history. The
word is used metonymically as
(1) Passover memorial (not 'feast') and day (Abib 14) – Mt 26:2; Mk 14:1; Jn 19:14;
(2) Passover Festival (= Festival of the Matzah; Abib 15-21) – Lk 22:1; Jn 13:1;
(Mt 26:18, 19; Lk 22:8, 13; Jn 11:55; 12:1; Jn 13:29; 18:39)
(3) and Passover sacrifice – 1Co 5:7

Cf. 'the Easter' Act 12:4 in KJV is a single leftover from Tyndale vocabulary
['ester', 'esterlambe' (Mt 26:19), for 'Passover'].
Cf. 'paske' in Wycliffe. – Geneva]

*throne

S2362 thronos (63x)

Often metonymic for authority to rule as a king

'(sit S2523 kathizō) on the throne'

en tō thronō Rev 3:21
epi thronou Mt 19:28; Lk 22:30; Act 2:30;
epi ton thronon – Rev 4:2, 4 (pl);
Heb 1:8
Heb 8:1; 12:2 at the right hand of the throne …

https://youtu.be/-AV0tOSaD-w <Why Angels bow down to Jesus>

Eph 1:20-21 (cf. Phi 2:9-11)
*Messiah, Mashiah; 'Christ'; Christ of Church lingo.

Ref. Shirley Lucass (2011), The Concept of the Messiah in the Scriptures of Judaism and
Christianity

Shirley Lucass looks directly at the concept of messiah from an historical perspective and
examines its roots in ancient Jewish literature, and its development within the Christian
tradition, aiming not only to trace the biblical and extra-biblical developments of the
concept, but to outline a platform for religious dialogue. She begins with a survey of
methodological approaches, and then moves on to consider the origins of the messiah
concept in ancient near eastern kingship, the 'anointed' in the Second Temple period and the
messiah as outlined in the New Testament and in post 70 CE Messianism. She contends that
the New Testament concept of messiah is not inconsistent with, nor incompatible with the
Jewish antecedent traditions, and it is this conclusion which enables her to present a valuable
chapter on the implications of this study for inter-religious dialogue.

Messiah (Mashiah) (the anointed one by Elohim for a king, prophet, and priest). Gk.
christos → Yeshua was believed as Mashiah → Yeshua HaMashiah – 'Jesus Christ' →
'Christ Jesus' → 'Jesus' ≡ 'Christ' → Cosmic Christ – preexisting eternal Jesus [Second
Person of Trinity God] before being put into the womb of (Ever) Virgin Mary; this
father is literally God (God the Father or God the Holy Ghost).
S5547 Christos (538x) 'the Mashiah', (e.g. the Mashiah of Elohim Lk 9:20; 23:35; the
Mashiah, the son of Elohim Jn 20:31); except
'called a Mashiah' Mt 1:16; 27:22; Mk 1:34; Jn 4:25;
'him to be a Mashiah' Jn 9:22
'a Mashiah, a king' Lk 23:2
'of a Mashiah' Mk 9:41
'Mashiah, Master' Lk 2:11
'the Mashiah, Master' Lk 2:26
'Mashiah!' (vocative Mt 26:68)
'Yeshua Mashiah'
'the Lord Yeshua Mashiah' – Act 11:17; 28:31
'our Lord Yeshua Mashiah' – Act 15:26
'our Lord Mashiah' – Rm 16:18
'our Yeshua Mashiah' – Act 20:21
'the Mashiah Yeshua' – Act 5:42
'Mashiah' – Rm 5:8; 6:8, 9; 8:10; 10:4, 6, 7; 14:9, 15; 15:8, 18, 20; 16:5, 7; 1Co 1:17; 1:23,
24; 3:23; 4:10; 5:7; 8:11, 12; 15:3, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23; 2Co 5:16, 18; 6:15;12:10; Gal
2:17, 20, 21; 3:13, 16, 24, 27, 29; 4:19; 5:1, 2, 3;
'with Mashiah' – Rm 8:17; Gal 2:20
'of Mashiah' – Rm 8:35; 10:17; 15:29; 1Co 1:12; 2:16; 4:1; 6:15; 7:22; 9:21; 11:1; 1Co
12:27; 2Co 1:5; 2:10, 15; 3:3; 2Co 5:20; 8:23; 10:7; 11:10, 13, 23; 13:3; Gal 1:6, 10;
'in Mashiah' – Rm 9:1; 12:5; 16:9, 10; 1Co 3:1; 4:10, 15, 17; 15:18; 19, 31; 2Co 2:14, 17;
3:14; 5:17, 19; 12:2, 19; Gal 1:22; 2:16, 17;
'Mashiah Yeshua' – Act 3:20; Mt 8:1, 2; 'the Yeshua Mashiah' – Act 8:37;
 'Mashiah Yeshua our Lord – Rm 6:23
'means 'Anointed' – Jn 1:41
'both Lord and Mashiah' – Act 2:36
'(the spirit) of mashie – Rm 8:9

*Christian; *Christians;

[Ref. https://yrm.org/new-testament-really-christian/ a copy in collections IRENT

Vol. III.]

The Greek word Christianos is not a vocabulary of the Gospelsa. This appears in
Act 11:26 (in plural 'Christians') [also in singular 'a Christian' in Act 26:28b; (in
pejorative tone), 1Pe 4:16].c The English word 'Christian(s)' is etymologically and
historically traced back to this. d

Cf. ‘Nazarenes’ (Act 24:5), Cf. /Messianic Messianism,

[See *Christians in <Walk through the Scripture #3C – People and Person>

Note: Though used in most English translations of the New Testament the word Christ, , is
not same as Mashiah in the Scripture as the word has accrued its meaning, usage, and
connotation from the religious tradition through the Church history. The English word
'Christ' is a transliterate of Christos which is a Greek translation of Hebrew word Mashiah
– the one anointed (by God).

The English word ‘Christian’ in the setting of the westernized society and culturee
is quite distinct from whatever word which may correspond to the word in the
Scripture. The word 'Christ' carries different sense, significance and usage from of
a
The Gospels is antecedent to ‘New Testament dispensation’ - only after the coming of holy Spirit
at Shavuot (Act 2:1- not Christian ‘Pentecost’) and it narrates about people and its history under then
current Temple-based ‘Judaism’ (which was revived as the rabbinic Judaism after the Fall of
Yerusalem 70 CE).
b
The king was not using the word as we use it.
c
It was a label applied by the outsiders to those Gentile who were following the 'Way' (see below),
of (believers in Christos Iesous). They were steeped in Greek culture with Greek mindset alien
from Hebrew mindset). It was in the setting of Gentile Hellenized Christianity, moving away from
the Apostolic faith in Yeshua Mashiah.
d
Even for those who are not Christians do use it, e.g. Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian. It
goes without saying that he would not understand what ‘Christian’ really means, other than what he
could know. It is difficult to define a Christian. About questions such as ‘Who is a Christian?’, ‘What
is a Christian?’, or ‘Who or what is a true Christian?’ has been written volumes after volumes. Before
an answer can be tried, one thing is clear: it is difficult to tell someone claiming to be a Christian is
truly a Christian, but it is fairly is to tell when they actually are not. Such is the burden of carrying a
label ‘Christian’! Even with a label ‘Messiahn (?)' or ‘Messianist’.
Cf. Loyal Ringenberg (1974), Who is a Christian? (48 Theses Derived from Deductive Study of the
First Letter of John).
e
Of course, the Twelve Apostles and Paul as well as a host of followers of Yeshua as the Mashiah
in the New Testament were NOT Christians; they did not create a new religion. Yeshua Himself was
not a Christian, nor he was a founder of the brand-new religion. Cf. Wellhausen’s dictum (1911):
‘Jesus was not a Christian but a Jew’.
the original Hebrew word 'Mashiah'. It has much different significance, connotation,
nuance, and referencing as well as usage. To use it as a translation word in NT is in
a danger of anachronism, since the word carries what is not in the Scripture text. It
misleads the readers to superimpose the image of Christians in our time.

In everyday English usage a ‘Christian’ means a person belonging to a certain

Christian religion (Christianism) or a 'Christian' church. a It does not carry the sense
of a ‘Christ person’ (Christ follower), the one who believes in 'Christ'. To be 'a
follower (Yeshua Mashiah)' (Mt 9:9) as in the Gospel is not same as 'to be a
Christian'. A true definition of 'Mashiah followers' is those taken out of the world
by Yeshua and kept in the very name, YHWH, the very name that He himself
revealed as in the Scripture [Cf. Jn 17:11-12] – the one who confesses that it is not
himself but Mashiah that lives in.

Who were not Christians? – Yeshua, all disciples/apostles of Yeshua. Apostle

Paul was not a ‘Christian’ b and did not become one. Peter, who was
posthumously the first Catholic pope, was not a Christian, nor a Catholic. They
were Judaic believers.

The word associated with it is S5537 chrematizō in Act 11:26 – this has nothing to with a sense
of ‘divinely called’ (as if it is used in the same context as in Lk 2:26; Heb 12:25; Mt 2:12, 22;
Act 10:22; Heb 8:5; 11:7) or ‘pejoratively labeled’ (Cf. Moffatt – ‘coined by the pagan slang’ of
the citizens of Antioch, 1906, p 316), but simply ‘go by the title/name/label of’ (Rm 7:3). [Danker,
p. 384]

*Christian (adj.)

The word 'Christian' used as an adjective simply means ‘of Christians' (the label
which came to be put on the gentile believers in him as 'Christ', not 'Mashiah' of
OT).

It is not an adjective of ‘Christ’ It does NOT carry any sense of ‘relating to Christ’,
‘of Christ’, or ‘belonging to Christ’, to which there is no corresponding adjectival
word. c Only such expressions as religion(s), churches, traditions, beliefs, works,

a
of Christendom, with their sets of beliefs, creeds and traditions (from the time of Constantine
Catholic Church 4th century CE). The word Christian(s) is not a Biblical term, but a religious jargon.
In the time of NT such power organization did not exist.
b
www.westernseminary.edu/transformedblog/2014/02/03/paul-was-not-a-christian-book-
review/ on Pamela Eisenbaum (2009).Paul was not a Christian
c
[It is similar to the case when we have no adjectival word which corresponds to the phrase
‘concerning/of beauty’, quite different from the word ‘beautiful’. E.g. ‘Christian Bible’ does not
mean ‘Bible of belonging to, concerned with Christ’, but simply Bible which Christians use in their
translations. ‘Christian theology, approach, attitude, principles, etc. – denotes those taken by
Christians or those by Christian religions, but not ‘of Christ’. The expression ‘Christian New
Testament’ is logically inaccurate. It may be on the lips of non-Christians, but NT is nothing to do
with Christians, unless it meant Christianized in translation and interpretation.
practices, teachings, principles, doctrines or mindset can be labeled as 'Christian
(stuff); these are those ‘of Christians’, not ‘of Christ’, nor ‘concerned with Christ’. a

No suitable adjective word is in English which carries the sense of ‘of Mashiah’
‘related to Mashiah’ or ‘belonging to Mashiah’. b The noun itself may be use as
adjectival. Use of the common word ‘*Messianic’ carries a different nuance of
something of various Messianic movements or ‘Messianic Jewish’, c etc., making it
unfit in the translation text of the NT [e.g. 'Messianic community' for 'church' as in
JNT. In IRENT, simply as 'Mashiah community'. The word ‘messianic’ does not
belong to the NT text itself, as used in common usage, e.g. as a technical term.]

*Christianity; Christianisms (=Christian religions)

The teaching of Yeshua is not Christian teaching. It was simply called ‘the Way’d. It was not
‘Christianity’, which is the term covering of all the Christian religions/faiths (Christianisms)
from the 2nd century on, as it moved from the original setting of Yehudahisme (the Second
Temple Judaism – 515 BC to 70 CE – before the rabbinic Judaism to Hellenistic Christianity
which became overshadowed by Roman Catholic Church. The Biblical faith in Elohim and
His Mashiah is not a religion of Christianity.

the Way’ (Act 9:2; 19:9, 23; 24:14, 22) (cf. ‘the way of the Adonai’ Act 18:25; ‘the way
of Elohim’ Act 18:26) (cf. ‘I am the Way’ Jn 14:6).

Denominations, sects, cults, movements;

Thus, 'Christianity'f may be defined as a collective term of various forms of Christian religions
('Christianisms'; cf. denominations) from 2nd century CE. The term Christianity is best understood
as a religion of Christians; not something of the teachings of ‘Christ’. "… It is a highly eclectic belief
system …"g and has become a religion of 'God Jesus', detached from where the Scripture (both NT
and OT) stand.

Yeshua (aka Jesus) himself is not the 'founder' of Christianity in place of Judaism. He with those
who followed Him, i.e. His family, the Apostles, and all those connected to do the so-called

a
(meaning of 'Christian') see https://yrm.org/new-testament-really-christian/ 'Christian NT' means NT
used by Christians or Christian religions/church. NT itself is not 'Christian'. Gospel in the NT is Gospel
of Yeshua, not 'Christian Gospel' which is offered by Christian religion/church.
b
A neologism ‘Mashian’ or Mashiahn.
c
The word ‘Jewish’ means 'of Jews (Jewish people)' – an ethnic term. It is different from ‘Judaic’
(‘of Judaism). E.g. Jewish history, religion, tradition and practice, etc. ‘Hebrew’ is a term related to
people and language. ‘Semitic’ (instead of ‘Semitic’) is much more than Jews, as is used in an
expression (anti-Semitism).
d
‘the Way’ (Act 9:2; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22); ‘the Way the Lord (Act 18:25); ‘the Way of Elohim
(Act 18:26)
e
‘Yehudahism’ from Yehudah (Judah) in the manner of ‘Judahism’ which appears as coined in
Akenson (1998), Surpassing Wonder (p. 28)
f
[Christianity – those of 'Christians' in Act vs. 'God Jesus religion' Cf. neologism ‘Mashiahnity’ vs.
Churchianity vs. in BW #1]
g
Quoted from https://yrm.org/new-testament-really-christian/
 'Jerusalem Church' were NOT Christians.

With rising of Constantine Catholic Church into a power organization of the world with elaboration
of the doctrines of Trinity and Virgin Birth, it became de facto 'Jesus Religion' (i.e. Worshiping 'God
Jesus'). The term 'Christ' which is a translation word Gk. Christos for Heb. Mashiah (Messiah) is
being lost of the original meaning but became the substitute name for him. The statement 'Jesus is
Christ' is now tautological and meaningless. In all accounts the Mashiah figure in the OT and Judaism
has not much common with the notion of Christ as used in the Church since the Roman Constantine
Catholic Church time. With rise of Westernized Christianity, it became more so.

Agnosticism

Agnostic theism (= theistic agnosticism); Christian agnosticism; Agnostic Christians’;

www.net4truthusa.com/christianagnostic.htm
http://community.beliefnet.com/go/thread/view/44061/13952817/Christian_agnosticism “Christian
agnosticism means being a Christian despite uncertainty about whether Christian teachings are true.
It is not an oxymoron because the two terms refer to different things - agnosticism to knowledge, and
Christianity to belief.”]

*icon,
(latreia);
adore venerate; worship; revere

icon
Icon veneration
iconoclasm
[ Theodore_the_Studite 8th c. CE, Three Refutations of the Iconoclasts]

iconophile, iconoclast, icons, theology of images, second commandment, aniconic and

iconic worship, Iconoclastic Controversy,

Anita Strezova, “Overview on Iconophile And Iconoclastic Attitudes Toward

Images in Early Christianity and Late Antiquity” – J. for the Study of Religions
and Ideologies, vol. 12, issue 36 (Winter 2013): 228-258 www.academia.edu

*lex talionis
- not retaliation/revenge but retribution/redress [See Mt 5:38 quoting 'Eye for eye,
tooth for tooth']
Exo 21:24
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
Deu 19:21
"Thus you shall not show pity: life for life,
eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
Lev 24:19 If anyone injures his neighbor,
as he has done it shall be done to him,
Lev 24:20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth;
whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
*New Israel'

'New Israel' – a church jargon used as a self-claimed title for their (Christian)
Church. If the notion is feasible, Church would belong to it.
Related – Replacement Theology vs. Dispensational theology; Christian anti-
Semitism;
www.gotquestions.org/New-Israel.html
https://catholicexchange.com/church-new-israel (as Catechism of the Catholic Church 877)
bds-boycott-divestment-sanctions-movement
Boycott,_Divestment_and_Sanctions

*Will – n. & v.
[not legal term syn. with 'testament']

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/will
2. : desire, wish: such as
a : disposition, inclination where there's a will there's a way
b : appetite, passion
c : choice, determination
3 : the act, process, or experience of willing : volition
4a : mental powers manifested as wishing, choosing, desiring, or intending
b : a disposition to act according to principles or ends
c : the collective desire of a group the will of the people
5 : the power of control over one's own actions or emotions a man of iron will
6a : something desired especially : a choice or determination of one having authority or
power
B (1) [ from the phrase our will is which introduces it] : the part of a summons expressing a
royal command
(2) archaic : request, command

www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/will_2
1. [countable/uncountable] someone’s determination to do what is necessary to achieve what
they want
a. [singular] what someone wants to happen
2. [countable] legal a legal document that explains what you want to happen to your money
and possessions after you die. This is often more formally called a last will and testament
www.etymonline.com/word/will
will (n.)
Old English will, willa "mind, determination, purpose; desire, wish, request; joy, delight,"
from Proto-Germanic *wiljon- (source also of Old Saxon willio, Old Norse vili, Old Frisian
willa, Dutch wil, Old High German willio, German Wille, Gothic wilja "will"), related to
*willan "to wish" (see will (v.1)). The meaning "written document expressing a person's
wishes about disposition of property after death" is first recorded late 14c.

Concupiscence, lust, strong desire;

Longing; wish; hope

What is 'human will' in contrast to 'divine will'? What does it mean by 'divine will' –
the very 'will' God has? Or a will a human may have?
*Rock; rock-mass, stone; stone-block

S204 akrogōniaios (2x) – corner-stone – Eph2:20; 1Pe 2:6

S3037 lithos – Mt 3:9
S3038 Lithostrōton Cf. S1042 Gabbatha – Jn 19:13

S4073 petra – rock-mass Mt 7:24; 16:18

S4074 petros – stone; mostly 'Peter' (Mt 4:18 etc.);
• the Rock’ – Mt 16:18a; 1Co 10:4; 1Pe 2:8;
• the cornerstone (S204 akrogōniaios 1Pe 2:6; Eph 2:20). Cf. Mt 7:24 (bedrock, foundation rock);
Rm 9:33. Cf. Isa 28:16 LXX];
• YHWH as the Rock (H6697 tsur) - Deu 32:4; 1Sam 2:2; Psa 18:2; 28:1.
• YHWH as the rock-cliff Psa 18:2 (H5553 sela)]

"bad, mad, or God"

"a liar, a lunatic or a Lord"

[what is meant by 'lord'?]
[liar or lunatic about what?]
"bad, mad, or divine"

a
Cf. Mt 16:18b this rock ░░ [S4073 petra (15x) rock-mass] [Here, the word 'this' pointing to Yeshua himself
(cf. 'destroy this temple Mk 14:58'), not to Peter, the alleged first pope of Catholic Church. 'You are Kefa'; Yeshua
did not say 'you are the rock', but 'I'll give you the keys'] [Coming into their view on the way to Caesarea Philippi
with its famous massive rock cliff in; below it there existed a temple for Greek god Pan and another one for
Caesar.]
<*religion> <*faith>

See <WB#3b – Man, Anthropology, and Religion>

‘faith’ ‘belief’ ‘creed’ ‘religion’

*rite ≠ 'ritual' (recurrent, habitual)

*World view; *mindset

• Tim Hegg, Having a Biblical World View (DVD)
www.torahresource.com/shop/video-audio-teachings/having-a-biblical-
worldview/
Hebraic vs. Greek mindset (which Constantine Catholic Church took in) vs.
Western mindset related to the Scripture and Christianity – creating the current
doctrines and beliefs.
• www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-mind/
• https://edgeinducedcohesion.blog/2010/12/22/on-the-difference-between-greek-
thought-and-hebrew-thought/
• www.godward.org/hebrew%20roots/hebrew_mind_vs__the_western_mind.htm

*Good-News; good news; *Gospel;

Cf. 'evangelism' vs. 'Evangelicalism'; Evangelicals; 'evangelical' – church lingo.
S2098 euaggelion (76x) – 'good-news' 'Gospel' – It does not appear in Johannine
writings.a [Cf. Rev 14:6 ‘a message of eternal good new’ – with a different sense]

In the Gospels IRENT uses the word 'Gospel' as 'gospel-book' only as in the
title of the Four Gospels. 'Gospel according to ~~'. Mk 1:1 'Beginning of the
Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah'
As a noun, it renders as usually 'Good-News', also as 'gospel' (the content of the
good-news, or = 'gospel book'):
(A) 'the good-news' – Mt 26:13; Mk 1:15; 8:25; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9; 16:15; Act
15:7; 20:24; Rm 1:16; 10:16; 11:18; 1Co 4:15; 9:14 (2x), 18, 23; 15:1; 2Co 8:18;
Gal 1:11; 2:2, 5, 6, 14; Eph 1:13 (~ of your salvation); 6:15 (~ of the shalom);

a
Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [TDNT] vol. II, translated by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley (1964), pp. 707-737. There, Gerhard Friedrich states that the omission “is
probably in keeping with the whole character of John’s gospel. The dramatic, dynamic proclamation of
the time of salvation as this takes place by [announcing the good news] does not fit the realized
eschatology of the Gospel of John. … In this connection we may also mention the polemic against
John the Baptist which seems to make it advisable to avoid using [announcing the good news] on the
lips of Jesus. [in Gary Sneller, The Strange Absence of ‘gospel’ in the Gospel of John – from
www.academia.edu .]
Eph 6:19; Phi 1:5, 7, 12, 16, 27; 2:22; 4:3, 15; Col 1:15, 23; 1Th 1:5; 1Tm 1:11;
2Tm 1:8, 10; Phl 1:13;

'the Good-News of the Kingdom' – Mt 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; Mk 1:14; Rm 1:1;

(B) Of Elohim:
'the good-news of Elohim' – Rm 15:16; 1Th 2:8, 9;
'the God's good-news' – 2Co 11:7; 1Pe 4:17
'the good-news of the glory of Elohim –1Tim 1:11
(C) Of Mashiah:
'the good-news of His Son – Rm 1:9;
'the good-news of the Mashiah' – Rm 15:19; 1Co 9:12; 2Co 2:12; 9:13; 10:14;
Gal 1:7; Phi 1:27; 1Th 3:2;
'the good-news of our Lord' – 2Th 1:8;
'the good-news of the glory of the Mashiah' – 2Co 4:4;
'the good-news I'm proclaiming' – Rm 2:16; 16:25; 2Tm 2:8 (/x: my gospel);
'our Gospel' – [i.e. the very Gospel we have received and are proclaiming] 2Co
4:3; 2Th 2:14;
'a different gospel' – 2Co 11:4; Gal 1:6;
'a [message of] eternal good news' – Rev 14:6
https://youtu.be/w3ApBWT5IpY <The need to define the Gospel correctly> Anthony Buzzard

Verbs
a verbal phrase kēroussōn to evanglion – Mt 4:23; 9:35; 26:13; Mk 1:14; 13:10;
14:9; 16:15;
S2097 euaggelizō (54x) 'proclaim good news' 'bring good news'; /, etc.– Mt 11:5;
Lk 1:19 (10x); Act (15x) 5:42; Rm 10:54, etc.;
/x: preach the gospel – KJV, many; /preach the Good News – NLT – Act 8:25; 1Co
9:16, etc.]
S2605 kataggellō (18x) 'proclaim good news' 'bring good news' – Act (x11) 3:24;
26:23; Rm 1:8; 1Co 2:1; 9:14 11:26; Phi 1:17, 18; Col 1:28.

'day of Adonai' 'the day of the Lord'

[of Yeshua]
1Co 5:5 en tē hēmera Kurio 'on the day of the Lord' vs. 'in the day of the Lord'
1Co 1:8 on the day of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah
2Co 1:14 in the day of our Lord Yeshua
2Th 2:2 hē hēmera tou Kuriou the day of the Lord

[of YHWH]
Act 2:20 [← Joel 2:31]; -- the great and glorious day of Adonai
1Th 5:2; 2Pet 3:10 – hēmera Kuriou – Adonai's day

Cf. 'the day' Heb 10:25; 1Th 5:4

Cf. 'day of judgment' 1Co 3:13; 1Jn 4:14

'Day of YHWH' in OT /Day of Jehovah - NWT

• 'day of YHWH 's anger/wrath' – Zep 2:2, 3

• 'the great day of YHWH' – Zep 1:14
• 'day of YHWH' – Zep 1:7, 14; Amo 5:18; Ezk 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:31; Oba 1:15

*gift;
So-called 'gift of tongues' – see '* tongues'
*Name, *Title vs. *Epithet
proper name, personal name (family name /surname);
surname
family name – 'ben-' (Hebrew) or 'bar-' (Aramaic)
Nickname – e.g. 'sons of thunder' (Mk 3:17)
Epithet – a word or phrase used to express a quality or characteristics of a
person or thing. ( https://youtu.be/27GkODkTx9s )
Examples of 'epithet' – 'Immanuel' (Mt 1:23); 'Prince of peace' (Isa 9:6)

[See WB #3A]

The name of a person represents the full character of a person

Confusingly, titles of someone is often called 'names'.

Many are written with such a title as ‘Many names of God’ ‘Many names of
Jesus’ [sic]. These names are not names, but titles, *epithets, alias, descriptives,
referents, even false names). More than one name is not a name. One name
suffices.

Name – a word to designate a person, place, or tangible or intangible object. In

the Scripture it is person’s name that concerns us. Heb. sem; Gk. onoma a 57F57F

Q: What is name? (rather than ‘what is a name?’ b) 58 F58F

Q: What does it mean by ‘name’ – (should not be confused with titles or

calling-names)
Q: What is in a name?
Q: Does a name tell something about the person carrying it?
Q: Does or how does a name influence a person's character? c. 59F59F

[Related terms: label, epithet; title, calling name; symbol, designator, identifier;
pointer. Many synonyms and related words. d] 60F60F

a
NAME (Heb. sem; Gk. onoma) - The designation of a person or place. Names carry more value and
importance in biblical than in modern usage. Not only may a name identify, but it frequently expresses
the essential nature of its bearer; to know the name is to know the person (cf. Psa 9: 10 [MT 11]). –
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (1987)
b
what is a name - www.jimwegryn.com/Names/What%20is%20a%20name.htm
c
person’s name analysis (as in kabalarian style – a common practice in the oriental society.
d
Synonyms and related words for ‘name’:
nomen, moniker, appellation, epithet, personal name, cognomen, nickname, byname, sobriquet,
agnomen; last name, surname, family name’ birth name, first name, forename, Christian name, given
name, maiden name, married name; anthroponym, autonym, patronym, matronym, hypocorism, pet
name, pseudonym, noms de guerre, alias, code name, cover, pen name, stage name, nom de plume,
brand, trade name; signature, demonyn, handle, sign, mark, econym, icon, symbol, badge, tag, place
name, toponym, label, title, classification, designation, rubric, eponym, common name; genus,
denomination, class, species, type; anonym.
 Note: the English word 'God' as a translation word in the Bible is NOT a name.
It is often used as a title.

See WB#3 for idiomatic phrases, such as ‘in (someone’s) name’ ‘into the name
of’ ‘[based] upon the name of’ – e.g. associated with verbs, such as ‘baptize’,
‘pray’ etc.

‘to call’ ‘to name’ ‘to describe’

The phrase ‘to call someone something’ – (a) as a title, (b) as a name or (c) epithet.
To call someone God does not mean that that someone is ‘God’.

Cf. to call out; to cry (out).

Cf. 'to call on the name of'.

The title (descriptive appellation of a person) signifies what the person is (as a term to
denote person’s role, ‘mask’, or function with which to relate with others). With
descriptive expressive content, it is of referent function only. Not to say the
named person being identical to the title. Often used as a ‘calling name’, a term
used in anthropology and linguistics as the name by which a person is normally
identified in addressing or conversation. Some titles are divine titles (e.g. the
Savior). That a person is given divine titles does not mean that he is a God. [E.g.
'our Savior' as to Elohim as well as Yeshua - Cf. examples of crux interpretum
– Tit 2:13; 2Pe 1:1]

One may carry several titles. E.g. the titles which are carried by Yeshua are many and
some of them are same as the titles for Elohim Himself. Here these titles should not be
confused as ‘name’, thus erroneous conclusion that the two (YHWH and Yeshua) are the
same and identical person, a linguistic absurdity and sophistry, throwing the title ‘Son of
God’ completely out of their mind.

The person name of a person (person name belonging to a person), on the other
hand, is not same as title, but it is who the person is – the identity. Thus, the
name is not simply a word, but IS the very person. It is of identity and essential
reality. A title is not for identity. A same title is shared by many and does not
make them same/identical/equal.

It is by way of the name as well as the face that a person presents the whole
being of one's self in its existence ('soul') to others. Names are essential and
called upon for identificationa (to tell who one is). However, most commonly,
the word ‘name’ is used not substitute of the name spelt, written and inscribed,

a
‘identification’ is not same as ‘identity’.
 but as what it stands for and what it carries with (as to authority and reality of
the person) – in a figure of speech. The central role that names play in biblical
narratives and histories (as often in literature) cannot be overemphasized. The
meaning of a person has its own significance (especially in Hebrew names).

English word ‘name’ has a very broad usage and extended meanings. Hebrew
word ‘shem’ may carry various senses – a person’s character, fame/refutation,
glory, and memorial. The name for a person is a totally different concept from
names used to designate things or ideas. The name of a person is not confused
with titles, a number of which can be attached to a person. All the names of
human persons are given by someone else. Many names of God (or rather ‘God-
being’) are given by men and are not personal proper names but labels,
descriptives, or epithets, and sometimes titles (calling-names).a

In Judaic practice, the expression ‘the Name’ (HaShem) is for designation of

God and used in place of His personal name. In the Scripture, as throughout the
Semitic world, a name carries significance beyond that of its meaning or its use
as a title.13

What could be the most important word or words in the Scripture (aside from
‘proper names’)? Would it be ‘love’, ‘life’, ‘light’, ‘spirit’, ‘faith’, ‘grace’, ‘law’,
‘justice’, ‘judgment’, ‘salvation’, ‘creation’? All of these are essential. However,
the most fundamental word on which all these are woven together is ‘name’.
This is the single most important thematic word in the whole Scripture. Without
the name nothing can come out of the Scripture. The divine person-name (>
‘personal name’) is not only for referencing, representation and identification
but more importantly for revelation of who He is. Without God’s name revealed
no truth can be true. [Such name itself cannot be something to be worshiped.]b
So prevalent and fervent among the People of the Book, all the dissensions and
divisions, dogmatism, doctrinarism, as well as sectarianism, heresies, and
political contentions can in fact be traced from their ignorance on the revealed
name and from their sheer ignoring the significance of the name with only lip
service on the name as shown in their religious tradition. It is not difficult to
ultimately see that they find themselves disconnected from the very root of all –
Hebraic root of their Bible and their faith.c

a
E.g. God, Gott (German), theos (Greek), 천주 (Ko. Catholic) = 天主 (Tīanzhǔ - Chinese;
‘Lord of Heaven’; cf. 上帝 상제); かみ (kami, 神- Japanese), Allah (Islam), Brahman
(Hinduism) – all are titles.
b
or used as a mantra to invoke to tap power from. Cf. so-called Sacred Name Movement.
c
We all are in urgent need to get back and keep coming back, not just ‘back to the Bible’,
but, through the Bibles, back to the Scripture itself. It should not be read as something
written in Church language, but in the original language to the original audience. A danger
still lurks for us to be carried away and read it the way we want, not to hear what the
Scripture says. [Tony Evans, http://youtu.be/HmfFW0gPuyE (Jesus Through the Bible)]
 Nothing is important for a person other than the name belongs to him. To honor
someone is to keep the name honored. Honoring God’s name a is the single
guideline we have for the life of every soul as made in the image of Elohim. The
first stone-tablet of the Ten Commandments (Exo 20:1-11; //Deu 5:4-15) is the
beginning of all the teaching, instruction, and guidance (= ‘Torah’ in its basic
sense) and lies in one theme – ‘Honor His name as He himself has revealed’.
This exactly corresponds to the first in the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9 //Lk 11:2 in
the sense of ‘Our Heavenly Father¡ Your name shall be honored’ rather than
‘You name should be made special, sacred, sanctified, or hallowed’, if we ever
understand whatever these English phrases, modern and archaic, might mean.).
This is exactly. When martyrs die it is to keep God’s name honored, not so much
to keep his ‘faith’, as if ‘faith’ is something precious and valuable. When one
follows the commands, it is done in the very name – to keep the name honored
and with the authority granted from Him. God’s name is not what we pray.b

To honor the name is far beyond having concern of how it should be spelt and
of how it should be properly pronounced. It is not about how to keep it ‘safely’
from uttering it in a manner unworthy to the name (‘taking up in vain’). Not to
keep the name honored means to be meticulous in keep uttering and putting
down on the writing on every occasion, everywhere and on every place. Both
cannot escape to be seen as affront to His name.

The name is a pointer to what the name stands for, that is, the identity and reality
signified by the name. To ‘know’ experientially the revealed Name is the
beginning of faith in the One whom the revealed name points to.c
If we take a common example of father-son relation, ‘father’ (a male parent) is used a title; it is
not a name. His name = the person Father. That he is the father is far more than that he has a
name to be identified with, but he comes as father in such special relation. Would anyone call
one’s own father by his name – as he thinks to honor him by doing that whenever, everywhere,
to everyone?

The name when put on one’s lips or in letter is to refer to the reality behind, but not to call out
or apply to whatever one can think of. The same position holds as well for attempt to use God’s
personal name as a translation word in the Bible vis-à-vis His titles, Lord or God.

Noteworthy is the word 'God', meaning a deity. It is infrequently used in the

sense of 'a god-being', but is mostly used as a title in the English Bible. It is only

a
On honoring the name of Elohim: In the Scripture things are good or not (i.e. worthy or
not) only so simply by whether the name of Elohim is honored or dishonored. (Cf. Mt 6:9
//Lk 11:2; Cf. Exo 20:7.)
See elsewhere here for ‘good things vs. *unworthy things’.
b
‘Praying the names of God’ is a title of a book. Probably misnamed (or rather title). We do not pray
or chant God’s name; we pray to Elohim whose name is YHWH.
c
‘to know the name’ is frighteningly important in our life where one can only exist to other –
engaging in dynamic interaction. In any human society it is the beginning of a relationship in which
even ‘love’ shows its existence. [E.g. to go by “on a first name basis” in the Western culture is sourly
missing in the oriental culture.]
 a title and is not a name. As such it is a broad-spectrum generic term and is not
capable of individual identification. Capitalizing the word does not change that.
[See 'God problem' <Walk through the Scripture #3A – Name, God, and Person> in IRENT
Vol. III – Supplement.]

A common expression in the writings by biblical scholars and writers, ‘God has
many names’a the word ‘name’ does not really mean ‘name’ but epithet or title.
The God of the Scripture ('Elohim') has only one name, the name which He
himself revealed, that is, YHWH.

" … The obvious purpose of a name is to distinguish one individual from another. That should
go without saying, yet how many think about that simple fact when it comes to their Heavenly
Father? They have been taught to call Him by a generic label, which He Himself says is
unacceptable. It is amazing that all religions are known by the name of the one worshiped …
except Christianity …" (from https://yrm.org/your-fathers-name/ - a copy in Supplement
Collection)

In this line, it is not incorrect to say <EVERYONE BELIEVES 'GOD'> whether

it is God who is dead (for Friedrich Nietzsche 1882)b or God who does not exist
(for atheists).

God itself is a title, not a name, nor an identity – not much different from
'God-being'. The word God in common usage is not same as 'God' in the Bible
which is a translation word.

*born; *begotten; generated; 'born again'; only begotten

'I am who I am?' I am not born this way! I'm to be born again by the grace of God'
See '* original sin'

[See 'sarx' in <Walk through the Scripture 3A - Name, God, and Person>

S3439 monogenes; (9x) Latin unigenitus (Jerome's Vulgate)

Jn 1:18 the only-begotten Son ░░ (ho monogenēs huios) /the one-and-only Son; /the only begotten
Son – KJV; /the only Son brought forth – ARJ; [{/mss} See EE for text variants -- /the only God –
ESV; / the only one, himself God – NET; / the only begotten god – NWT]; [= ‘the Son of Elohim’ –

a
‘God has many names’ – Google search shows almost a half million hits. There are quite a number
of books written on the theme. What is seen in a book by John Hick (1982), God has many names, is
the God (=Elohim), mistaken having many names, is to be replaced by a nameless God [s.v.] of
religious pluralism. Note the term ‘name’ [of a person] is often not discriminated from ‘titles’ or
epithets' of that person, including of ‘God’.
b
www.age-of-the-sage.org/philosophy/friedrich_nietzsche_quotes.html [Note: The God who is dead
is his own God.]
Reading material https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/what-nietzsche-really-meant-by-god-is-dead
 Jn 1:34.]

End-note:

the one-and-only Son [of Elohim] ░░ (see = 3:16, 3:18; 1Jn 4:9; Heb 11:17) [See Appendix: Jn
1:18 monogenēs theos for full discussion of mss variants and exegesis] {/mss} {/the only Son}; {/the
only one} {/the only God} {/only God}; [Only some from Alexandrian family of mss read as ‘God’.
Church Fathers used mss with ‘Son’.] https://youtu.be/W_BGX28er9Y

[IRENT renders monogenēs (Cf. 1:18; also 3:16, 18; 1Jn 4:9) as ‘only’ as to a child. “only-begotten”
(KJV etc.) or ‘only begotten’ is archaic biblical jargon.]
/> the only brought-forth Son – ARJ; /xxx: This one-of-a-kind God-Expression, – MSG (-
baloney);
1 ὁ μονογενὴς {/the only brought-forth One}:/No one has ever seen God. God’s Only-Begotten –
ONT;
1 ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς {/the only brought-forth Son}: - this is the only expression elsewhere - /the
only Son – BBE; /The only-begotten [or, unique] Son – ALT; /the only-begotten son – Diag, KJV++;
/The only Son – RSV; /the only brought-forth Son – ISR; /The One and Only Son- HCSB; /the
one and only Son- HNV /the only and unique Son - JNT; /God's only Son- GW; /it is his only Son,
who rests on – Cass; /
1-a ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ /the only brought forth Son of the God:
2 ὁ μονογενὴς τοῦ θεοῦ /the only brought forth of the God: -mss?
3-a x: μονογενὴς θεὸς /only begotten God’; (? two anarthrous expressions as appositive titles):
3-b x: ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς /the only begotten God;

A /the only begotten God – NASB, CLV, AMP, Murdock, Noyes, Murdock; /the one-begotten God
– Etheridge; /God the only Son – NRSV, TCNT; /the only-begotten god – NWT; /God, the one and
only Son – NIrV; /God the One and Only – NIV; /xxx: the One and only Son, who is himself God
– NIV (what year revision?); /xx: God, the only conceived [and eventually born Son] – AUV; /an
Only Begotten God – Rhm; /
B /The only one, himself God, - NET; /the only God – ESV; /The only Son, who is the same as God
- GNB; /The only Son, who is truly God – CEV; /The unique God – ISV; /the unique One, who is
Himself God – NLT; /the divine One, the only Son – Mft; /God uniquely-begotten – Wuest; /the
divine Only Son- GSNT; /the divine and only Son – PNT; /

Resurrection – (to be raised to Life);

*be raised, *be risen (> ageirō),

‘to arise’ ‘to rise up’ (anistēmi – Mt 17:9; 20:19)
Cf’. apo tōn nekrōn ‘(out of) from the dead ones’; /from the dead – most; /??: from
death – GNB, CEV; /come back to life- GW; /from the dead – HKJV; LITV;
x: be risen again (KJV).

*meditate, *meditation, *contemplation; *reflection; ‘

 … Reflection has a rich history in educational literature. For modern educational literature (if
not always practice), many take Dewey as a starting point for so-called reflective teaching
(Valli, 1997). Dewey gives a somewhat nuanced view of reflection. For Dewey, reflection is
not merely a form of thought; it is also an expression of an individual’s character. According to
Dewey (1933), the reflective individual possesses three personality traits: open-mindedness,
wholeheartedness, and responsibility.
He defines reflective thought as “active, persistent, and careful consideration of any belief or
supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further
conclusions to which it tends” (as cited in Valli, 1997, p. 68). Dewey contrasts reflective
thinking with habits of thinking that are unsystematic, lacking evidence, based on false beliefs,
or conform to authority or tradition. Dewey sees such thinking as offering the prospect of
liberation, as he states, “It emancipates us from merely impulsive and merely routine activity...
enables us to direct our activities with foresight and to plan according to ends-in-view...it
converts action that is merely appetitive, blind, and impulsive into intelligent action” (as cited
in Valli, 1997, p. 69, italics in the original). This is the main function of education in Dewey’s
estimation. [Copied from Christopher Miller, “The Effect of Videoed Teacher Performance on
Reflection in Reflective Practice Sessions” Korea TESOL Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1 (p. 45)

*Passion

[‘the Passion’ (capitalized; usually with the definite article); a special religious
jargon for suffering and death of Yeshua]; [Fr. Latin ‘pati’ (to suffer; to endure)
– same as for patient, patience. Not related to a common English word ‘passion’
with something to do with ‘emotion’ ‘feeling’ ‘desire’ – which is from Latin
passio, related to Gk. pathos.]

*Gospel, *good news; *good-news; 'my Gospel'

euaggelion S2098 (76x)
anarthous noun – 'a good-news'. How to translate to euaggelion? the Gospel; the gospel; the
good news; the Good-News; the Good News? If 'the good-news', what good news?

'the Gospel' is in the sense of 'Gospel-book' and is used used in IRENT to

translate only for the book title – Mk 1:1; [Cf. 'Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah'
– by/from – not 'about'.]

'elsewhere it is rendered as 'the good-news'.

In the Gosples, it is of 'the kingdom reign of Elohim' (cf. 'the Kindom reign of
the heavens' in G-Mt).
In Acts and Epistles, it comprises also the proclamation of (concerning of)
Yeshua the Mashiah.

http://glcg.net/bible-studies/what-is-the-gospel/
In the Four Gospels the good-news by itself is not about ‘Jesus Christ’. It is of the Kingdom reign of
Elohim from/by/of Yeshua – text is usually in the specific phrase or implicit.
 Different nuance in the Gospels and in the Epistles. It is used in the specific sense in the Epistles as
the very Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah. Even with a qualifier such as 'of Elohim' 'of Mashiah', 'the
good-news' may not be adequate fit for a translation phrase in the Epistles. E.g. Rm 1:1 a good-
news of Elohim; 1:9 the Good-News of His Son; 15:19 the Good-News of the Mashiah; Rm 1:15,
16 'the Good-News.'
‘my gospel’ - ‘according to my gospel’ (Pauline letters Rm 2:16; 16:25; 2Ti 2:8) /the gospel I
bring; /the good news I preach – NWT; /the Good News I preach – GNB; [The ‘gospel’ with
whatever sense can hardly be ‘the Pauline Gospel’ of a Pauline religion – ‘Gospel of Paul, about
him, from him’, but the very Gospel of Yeshua the Mashiah which Paul took on to proclaim to the
Gentiles. /according to the Gospel that which I received and am proclaiming about the Lord Yeshua
Mashiah.]
*ethical, moral, social gospel, etc. – non-biblical lingo.

'*bring good news'

S20975 euaggeliozō (54x) ‘bring good news’ /x: declare good news - NWT;
S2605 katanggelō (18x) ‘bring and announce’ 'proclaim' 'announce' (Act 3:24; 1Co 9:14);
kerussō ‘proclaim’- Concordance list:

• Greek verb euaggeliozō ‘bring good news (to people)’ [from which the English
word ‘evangelize’ is derived] [basic idea is ‘bring it to people’. All other translation
words such as announce, declare, publish, etc. are secondary and often distorts the
meaning.] (Mt 11:5; Lk 1:19; 2:10; 3:18; 4:18, 43; 7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 16:16; 20:1; Act
8:4, 12, 35; 10:36; 11:20; 13:32; 14:7; Rm 1:15; 15:20; 1Co 1:17; 9:16, 18; 2Co
11:7; Gal 1:8; Eph 3:8; 1Pt 1:23; 1Th 3:6; Rev 10:7; 14:6; Gal 1:8)

Lk 1:19 /bring – ESV, ASV; /> announce (something as good news? Cf. nuance of
‘announce’ coming over public address system or broadcasting); /> proclaim (- that
it is really good news?); /> declare – NWT-4 ( - as if a document or legal edict?); />>
give – BBE; /show – Bishops; /x: tell – GNB, CEV ( for what??); /x: preach (- preach
Gospel?? or preach someone on something related to Gospel??); /x: publish (- a
NWT-3 jargon - as if a publication??);

/good news; glad tidings; the gospel; the Gospel; the good news
Danker p. 152.

euaggeliozō (S2097) [eu + aggeliozō ('announce'); 'bring/announce good news', such as a

military victory] [basic sense is ‘bring good news to (people)’. / >announce the glad tidings –
Darby; /x: declare the good news - NWT; /preach the gospel – KJV+; /x: proclaim the gospel –
NET, LITV, MKJV, LEB, Cass, etc.; /x: show the good news; /x: tell the good news – ISV,
CEV; /x: tell the Good News – ERV; /x: spread the good news]
[IRENT consistently renders as ‘bring good news’, with a few exception as ‘announce good
news’ (e.g. Act 5:42, 14:15). Rm 10:15; bring glad tiding (Rm 10:15).] [Cf. see below * preach
vs. proclaim (e.g. proclaim the Kingdom reign of Elohim’) with the verb kērussō (proclaim,
herald).]

-1. 'pass on information that spells good tidings to the recipient', bring/announce good news Lk
1:19; 2:10; 1Th 3:6; Rv 10:7; 14:6. A transition is readily made to
-2. 'spread good tidings of God's beneficial concern'
(a) publish good news/tidings, of proclamation by John the Baptist Lk 3:18; by Jesus 4:18, 43;
7:22; 8:1; 9:6; 20:1; by unspecified parties 16:16.
 (b) specifically of proclamation w. focus on God's saving action, explicit or implicit, in
connection w. Jesus: publish the good news, publish the gospel Ac 8:4 (eu. ton logon), 12, 35;
10:36; 11:20; 13:32; Rm 1:15; 2Co 11:7; Gal 1:8; Eph 3:8; 1Pt 1:12; abs. Lk 9:6; Ac 14:7; Rm
15:20; 1Co 1:17; 9:16, 18.

euaggelion [eu, aggelō; 'reward for good tidings'] in NT only in the specific sense 'God's good
news to humans', good news
(a) as content of proclamation by Jesus Mt 4:23; 9:35; Mk 1:14f.
(b) as content of apostolic proclamation, with focus on God's action in connection with Jesus
Mk 8:35; 10:29; 13:10; 14:9 (cp. Mt 24:14; 26:13); Ac 15:7; 20:24; Ro 1:1 and oft. in Paul's
writings; 1 Pt 4:17; Rv 14:6.

euaggelistēs 'one who publishes/proclaims God's good news', evangelist Ac 21 :8; Eph 4:11;
2Ti 4:5.

S312anaggellō (14x). declare, announce, bring back word, report.

1Pe 1:12 /announced – HCSB, NET, ESV, NWT-4, Berean Study; /reported – KJV; /proclaimed
– Berean Literal; /

Act 19:18 – exomologoumenoi kai anangellontes tas praxeis autōn 'and confessed openly
admitting what they had been doing'

[Cf. The Gospel has nothing to do with ‘good news of prosperity, power, peace, ‘paradise’
on earth in a new world, 'to go to heaven after death', 'not to go to hell'. The joyful tiding
is proclaimed to the oppressed people for the * kingdom reign of Elohim to challenge
those powers in status quo – political, religious, and ideological.]

*preach vs. *proclaim

 preach vs. proclaim

Relevant words: announce, declare, herald; bring (news);a

S2097 euaggelizō '* bring good-news' [See the entry above]

S2044 ereugomai (1x) Mt 3:35 /utter - most; /announce - NET; /x: declare - HCSB; /publish -
NWT3; /proclaim - NWT4;
S2783 kērux (3x)
'a herald' (1Tm 2:7; 2Tm 1:11);
'a preacher of God's righteous judgment' (2Pe 2:5).
S2784 kērussō; 'proclaim, announce, herald; rarely 'preach'

S2784 E.g. Mk 1:45 "The man [leper] … began to talk openly a lot [to everyone about what
had happened]" /proclaim - HCSB, NWT; /proclaim freely – NASB, NKJV; /xx: talk freely about it –
NIV; /xx: publish – KJV; /x: talk about – CEV; /x: announce it publicly – NET;
E.g.– both verbs. S2784 + S2027
Lk 8:1 proclaiming to bring good-news of the Kingdom reign of Elohim ░░ \kērussōn kai
euaggelizomenos tēn basileian tou theou; [Cf. Lk 9:2 ‘proclaiming the Kingdom reign of God’];

Cf. an interpretation/translation problem text:  1Pe 3:19

"[after having been brought to life], in spirit also He went on forth
to make proclamation (proclaim /announce /publish) vs. 'preach'
[thrown down] to the spirits in prison – fallen angels". [translation in IRENT]

Conclusion of 'preach' vs. 'proclaim': The majority of the word 'preach' in KJV
should be replaced with ‘proclaim’. [See the file ‘Preach or Proclaim’ in Word Study
collection.] The word ‘preach’ is found to be appropriate as an English translation
word only in 5x places:
Mt 12:42; Lk 11:32 'at the preaching of Yonah' -
Mk 6:12 '(Yeshua) preach to repent'
Lk 24:47 'repentance into receiving forgiveness of sins will preached'
Act 17:30 'preaches to people ~~that they must repent'

Lexical meaning of 'preach' of common English vocabulary: – a religious lingo:

• deliver a sermon or religious address to an assembled group of people, typically
in church. [synonyms: give/deliver a sermon, sermonize], E.g. "preached to a
large congregation" "I ain't got no use for your preaching"
• publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief). [synonyms: proclaim,
teach, spread, propagate, expound] E.g. "preach the gospel' 'preach the Bible'
• earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action). [Synonyms: advocate,
recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel] "preached toleration and moderation"

a
/publish is unsuitable for a translation word since its basic meaning 'to make generally known' is
not much commonly used than 'to prepare and issue a work for publication.
*blasphemy;

Blasphemy against Elohim and His spirit, dishonoring His name – not only by
(abusive) speech, but also by action – dishonoring the name of Elohim – out of
one’s mind from thoughts out to expression and attitude into one’s action, behavior
and conduct. [It is shown in their entertaining shows on puppet (? pulpit) stages in
mass mania, peddling of God’s words, degraded behavior, cleaning out others’
wallets collecting in the name of their Gods.]
Reading material. www.patheos.com/blogs/christiancrier/2018/10/12/is-it-possible-christians-can-
blaspheme-gods-name/ OMG, OMFG

Blasphemy against the holy spirit

Background (Mt 12:24; //Mk 3:22; //Lk 11:15)
Mt 12:24
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said,
“No wonder, it is only
by the power of Beelzebul , chief of the demon, [9:34]
30F

that this fellow is casting out demon.”

Mt 12:31-32
12:31
In view of this [v. 30], I must say to yoů,
every sin and blasphemy [people commit and utter]
shall be forgiven of men;
but whosoever blasphemes against the Spirit, [v. 24, 31]
they shall not be forgiven.
12:32
Yes, whosoever utters a word against me, the Son-of-man,
shall be forgiven;
but whosoever speaks against the Holy spirit,
shall not be forgiven,
neither in this present world-order, nor in the one coming.

//Mk 3:28-30
3:28
Yes! I say to yoů, all things will be forgiven
to the sons of mortal men
whatever sins they commit
and blasphemies they blaspheme;
3:29
But whosoever blasphemes against the Holy spirit [+],
has no receiving of forgiveness forever,
but, is accountable to an eternal judgment.”
//Lk 12:10.
12:10
And everyone who is to speak a word
against the Son-of-man [+ dishonoring him],
shall come to be forgiven for it:
but the one who blasphemes against the Holy spirit
shall not be forgiven for it.
‘blasphemy against the holy spirit’ ░░ [+ rejecting God’s testimony
the Spirit gives on the Son-of-man, ascribing His work to demonic spirit]
[as to who He is (Jn 15:26) and plans of God.]

[The holy spirit is none other than the very God acting/creating in power,
not a separate ‘being’, ‘Force’, or ‘person’. Blasphemy against the holy
Spirit is blasphemy against God Himself who reaches out and exerts in
power to carry out His will. The holy spirit, the Power of God, and the
Love of God are not separable concepts and are to be seen as different
aspects of God’s will.

[‘not come to be forgiven’ vs. ‘not be forgiven’; Cf. Can the sin of those
who refuse to accept forgiveness be forgiven?]

Not able to receive forgiveness God is giving. God’s forgiveness is

unconditional and uninterrupted ever since Adam’s fall, but it is on their
part that makes impossible to receive forgiveness God has already given.
There is no such thing as “ASKING FOR FORGIVENESS”, for those
belonging to the local (not universal, 'catholic') corporate body of the
Mashiah (Mashian Community) were and are already forgiven from the
work of the Mashiah on the Cross. They ALREADY possess forgiveness.

cf. Heb 6:4-8; 10:26-29

/eternal sin; [see also * forgiveness]

/*Unforgivable sin; /unpardonable sin; - the specific sin of the
blasphemy against the Spirit of Elohim by ascribing the work of Yeshua
to the Devil.

https://youtu.be/XeIjxbqC12o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_sin

Copied: From commentaries on Mt 12:31-32: Needs editing and condensing:

(1) Not be forgiven: Because it refuses to be forgiven

(2) attacking on the son of man when manifestly wielding the power of the Spirit – an
attack upon the Spirit Himself – CCHS]
[One comes out and takes a stand against H.S.; something decisive about what and how
one does. …]
[When one resists the working of the Spirit of God when He speaks to, there is no
forgiveness because one is rejecting salvation made real to him by the H.S. – McGee]
[the unpardonable sin is the deliberate refusal to acknowledge God’s power in Christ. It
indicates deliberate and irreversible hardness of heart. … Whosoever rejects the
prompting of the Holy Spirit removes himself or herself from the only force that can
lead him or her to repentance and restoration to God. – LASB]

[The sin against H.S., by virtue of its seriousness, is not merely a particular act; rather
to blaspheme the spirit reflects an attitude that is decidedly against God and his nature
(cf. vv. 34, 35). The harsh term ‘blasphemy’ connotes a deliberate and godless rejection
of the saving power and grace of God. The Pharisees were well on their way towards
having this attitude as is indicated by their assertion that Yeshua had joined forces with
the devil. ¶The reason the sin against the HS will not be forgiven is not because god is
unwilling or unable to forgive; instead, those who persist in this godless attitude
stubbornly refuse to repent. They do not want to receive forgiveness and prefer to
continue in their slander of God’s servant. ¶Mk 3:29, 30 gives an additional thought, for
it can be translated, “but whosoever shall blaspheme against the HS has no forgiveness
forever but is guilty of an eternal sin. Because they kept saying, ‘He has an unclean
spirit’.” The Pharisees who called the HS in Yeshua an unclean spirit were rejecting the
Spirit’s witness to Yeshua as Messiah and Savior. Thus, they were rejecting the only
salvation and forgiveness god has provided. (see Jn 16:8) – CBL Matthew, p. 245]
*apocalypse

http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Apoc_Def.htm

In popular terminology today, an "apocalypse" is a catastrophic event (e.g., nuclear

holocaust).

In biblical terminology, an "apocalypse" is not an (apocalyptic) event, but a "revelation" that

is recorded in written form:
• it is a piece of crisis literature that "reveals" truths about the past, present, and/or future
in highly symbolic terms;
• the revelation often comes in dreams or visions, and usually needs to be interpreted
with the help of an angel;
• it is usually intended to provide hope and encouragement for people in the midst of
severe trials and tribulations.

Cf. 1: "The Apocalypse” is an alternate name (used especially by Protestants) for the "Book
of Revelation" in the NT.
Cf. 2: "The Little Apocalypse" or "The Apocalyptic Discourse" is the name sometimes given
to G-Mark 13 (and parallel passages in Matt 24 and Luke 21), containing the teachings of
Jesus about the future of Jerusalem and the end of the world.

Related terminology: apocalyptic, apocalypticism, * eschatology /eschatological;

prophecy/prophetic; Revelation; Day of the LORD; Judgment Day; Parousia; unbiblical
rapturism with secret rapture’; Tribulation; Dispensationalism; Armageddon; Preterisma;
Millennium/millennial/millennia/millennialism/millenialist;

• Not every Apocalypse is purely eschatological (they may also interpret past or present
events, not just the future).
• Not all Eschatology is apocalyptic (some look forward to a future that is peaceful, not
violent).

a
Ref. www.amatteroftruth.com/what-is-preterism www.amatteroftruth.com/preterism-true-or-
false www.amatteroftruth.com/why-preterism-is-a-false-teaching
*witness, witness person; *testimony;
• S3144 martus (35x) (witness person) Mt 18:16; 26:65, etc.
• S3141 marturia (37x) (testimony, witness, witness person) Mk 14:55;
Jn 1:7; 5:34; Jn 3:28 (pl.)
• S3142 marturion (19x) 'testimony' 'witness' – 1Co 2:1 (about Elohim);
1Co 1:6 (about the Mashiah)
• S3140 martureō (76x) Jn 1:7; Rm 3:21
• pseudomartureō Mt 19:18; Mk 10:19; 14:56, 57; Lk 18:20;
• pseudomarturia Mt 15:19; false testimony (witness)
[‘seek false testimony’ Mt 26:59 - how they would seek ‘false ones’?
Cf. // Mk 14:55]
• pseudomartus (false witness) Mt 26:60 – false-witnesses

A witness to a fact → to hold truth → to 'deny oneself' (Mt 16:24; //Mk 8:34 //Lk
9:23);'lose one's soul' (Mt 16:25 //Mk 8:35 //Lk 9:24) → to a place of a martyr for
the sake of truth.

'you/we are witnesses' – Lk 11:48; 24:48; Act 1:8; 2:32; 3:15; 10:39;
Isa 43:10; Jos 24:22; Ruth 4:9; [H5707 ed (70x) Gen 31:44; Deu 19:15, etc.]

*pure; *purity; *purification; *spiritual poverty?

S2513 katharos (27x) 'pure' 'clean'

S185 akeraios (3x) lit. 'unmixed'; 'innocent' Mt 10:16; Rm 16:19; Phi 2:15;
S283 amiantos (4x) 'undefiled' Heb 7:26; Jam 1:27, etc.
S1506 eilikrinēs (2x) 'pure' 'sincere' Phi 1:10; 2Pe 3:1
S55 hagnōs (1x) with pure motive Phi 1:17;
S53 hagnos (8x) 'uncontaminated' '(ritually) pure' 2Co 7:11; 11:2; Phi 4:8; etc.
S40 hagios 'holy'
S97 adolos (1x) pure, unadulterated 1Pe 2:2;
S4101 pistikos (2x) genuine

(of a person) (pure, purity) Mt 5:8; 2Co 6:6; Jas 3:17; 1Ti 1:5; 3:9; 4:12; 5:2, 22; 2Ti 2:22;
1Pe 1:22; 2Pe 3:1; 1Jn 3:3;

purification – Jn 2:6; 3:25 (Judaic custom – physical aspect; ritual washing); Heb
1:3;

Purity is what God wants to see on His people, not righteousness which is what Elohim grants
and which is attempted in Judaism by keeping the Mosaic law.

Cf. Concept of purity, impurity, and purification in Judaism; Mikvah (ritual immersion pool)
www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3424502542/purification-purification-judaism.html
www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/1542/jewish/On-the-Essence-of-Ritual-Impurity.htm
www.jerusalemperspective.com/2646/
www.stephanielandsem.com/2013/10/what-was-ritual-purity-in-first-century-judaism/
*unclean; *common, *defiled;
Act 11:8 " … anything 'common' or ritually unclean enter into my mouth"
common ░░ (S2839 koinos) /treif – JNT (Yiddish - non-kosher food); /x: unholy –
NASB; /x: defiled – NET, NWT; /
unclean ░░ [S169 akathartos]

Ritually *unclean in OT.

• by food (Lev 11:1-47);
• by childbirth (Lev 12:1-8.);
• by the leprosy (Lev 13:1-59; 14:1-57);
• by bodily discharge (zob H2101 'issue' - KJV) (Lev 15:1-33).

*image, *icon, *portrait; (carved) idol; stature;

English word 'image' – dictionary entry:
(1) visible representation of a person, animal, or thing (photographed, painted, sculptured,
or otherwise made visible). Cf. 'icon', 'iconography', 'iconoclast', 'icon veneration' (cf.
Vatican Council II)
(2) an optical counterpart or appearance of an object [as is produced by reflection from a
mirror, refraction by a lens, or the passage of luminous rays through a small aperture and
their reception on a surface.]
(3) a mental representation; mental perception of something or a person.
(4) form; appearance;
(5) semblance counterpart; copy
(6) cf. symbol, emblem; idea; conception.
(7) Rhetoric. a figure of speech, especially a metaphor or a simile.
(8) Mathematics. the point or set of points in the range corresponding to a designated point
in the domain of a given function.
(9) Archaic. an illusion or apparition.

S1501 eikōn (23x) image; visible representation, visual expression; likeness; replica;
imprint;
Mt 22:20 //Mk 12:16 //Lk 20:14 image [of the Caesar]
Rm 1:23 image of a mortal [S5349 phthartos] man [S444 anthrōpos]
Rm 8:29 the image of His Son [the Son of Elohim]
1Co 11:7 A man [S435 aner] is the image of Elohim
1Co 15:49 ~ of the earthly being and ~ of the heaven being
2Co 3:18 the glory of Adonai ~~ the very image [of Adonai]
Heb 10:1 the very image of the realities [S4229 pragma] themselves
Rev 13:14, 15 (3x); 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4 image of the beast
2Co 4:4
Col 1:15 [the Son] is a visible-impression of Elohim, the One who is invisible.
Col 3:10 after visible-expression of the One who created it
Gen 1:27 LXX Kai peoiēsen ho theos on anthrōpon; kat' eikona theo epoiēsen
auton 'And the God made man; in God's image He made him'.

[The translated phrase 'image of God' is ambiguous in meaning. Cf. 'visible-

expression of Elohim' in IRENT.]
*fate; *destiny; destination; predestination; fortune, luck; bad and evil

What does the Bible say about fate / destiny?

bad and evil [See below ‘* Satan’ ‘Devil’]

Norman L. Geisler (2011), If God, Why Evil? – A New Way to Think About the
Question
[‘If no evil, why then God?’. God created man; man created evil. Evil
should be understood as something internal, not external to a human being.
God did not create ‘evil’; God provides explanation of evil. - ARJ]

Rabbi Harold Kushner (2004), When Bad Things Happen to Good People

http://mindpowerindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/MP024_Bad-Things-
Good-People.pdf
www.aish.com/sp/ph/why_harold_kushner_is_wrong.html

'*predestination' – religious jargon. 'destiny'? 'fate'? 'before we were born'??

S4309 proorizō (6x) (Act 4:28; Rm 8:29, 30; 1Co 2:7; Eph 1:5, 11)
/determine beforehand – IRENT (Act 4:28); /mark out before – IRENT (for the
rest), Jubilee2k (Eph 1:5, Rm 8:30); /determine before – NET (1Co 2:7), KJV
(Act 4:28); />> to predetermine; /xx: foreordain – ASV, SENT (Rm 8:29, 30;
Act 4:28); NWT; /xx: ordain before – KJV (1Co 2:7); /xxx: predestine –
NASB, KJV; /xx: destine before – NIV, /know beforehand – Jubilee2k (Rm
8:29); /x: fore-appoint – YLT; /x: choose ahead of time – SENT (Eph 1:5, 11);
/already decided before – SENT (1Co 2:7); /already chosen before – TEV(1Co
2:7); /decide before – NIV (Act 4:28); /decide beforehand – NET (Act 4:28);

*reward; reward and *punishment; *wage; repay; pay back; recompense,

respond, return, render, *prize, cf. requisite

‘punishment’ ‘disciple’ ‘torture’ ‘guidance’ ‘education’

• opsōnion wage, pay Rm 6:23

• brabeion prize Phi 3:14
• misthos reward, payment, wage Mt 5:12. Mt 6:1-8 ‘reward from the
Father’ (what reward?)

verbs – reward, render, respond, return, recompense (n., v.), repay

• apodidōmi render Mt 16:27

[cf. reward/treasure heavenly vs. in (the) heaven(s)]

*eternal, *everlasting, *forever and ever

aiōn – noun ‘age’ ‘eon’ [ eis ton aiōna’ – Jn 12:34; forever; for ever (KJV); without end (BBE);
/x: to the age – LITV, YLT] [eis tou aiōnas tōn aiōnōn – Php 4:20; Heb 1:8; (forever and ever)]
[Cf. tō basilei tōn aiōnōn to the King of the age (the eternal King)]

aiōnios S166 – adj. ‘everlasting’ (KJV) – of indefinite duration; vs. ‘eternal’ – beyond temporal
dimension, which is usually the case most of time [Cf. ‘before eternal times’ 2Ti 1:9] when used
with such expressions life, fire, dwelling, sin, punishment, destruction (2Th 1:19), God, dominion,
redemption, weight of glory, house (home), purpose, comfort, power, etc. (culled from ESV NT)
In no place it ever means ‘unending’. Hence the KJV rendering ‘everlasting’ is a relic of the past,
though it still sounds poetic.

"aionios" the adjective form clearly means a period of indeterminate TIME, CANNOT mean,
"forever and ever, eternal, everlasting, eternity, etc." or other words which connote timelessness or
unending ages. www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html

aidios – adj. Rm 1:20 (hē adidios autou dunamis kai theiotēs)

*punishment (*punish); *cut-off; *immortality
Mt 25:46 (‘into eternal cut-off ~ into eternal life’ eis kolasin aiōnion vs. eis zōēn aiōnion) –
the only occurrence of the phrase ‘eternal cut-off’ (/>> ‘eternal punishment’; /xx: ‘everlasting
punishment’ – KJV). Attention should be given not only to kolasis but also to aiōnios for the
proper understanding of their meaning and usage within the Biblical text.
[Ref. www.forananswer.org/Matthew/Mt25_46.htm ]

kolasis – how punishment is meted out is not in the word itself. It should not be confused with
or mixed up with ‘*torture’ a [basinos]. This sort of unfortunate word association is
127F127F

subconsciously working in the minds of those who follow a common unbiblical idea as in
‘hell fire preaching’ along with pagan soul immortality as well as those who are against such
traditional view of ‘hell’ (which itself is not in the Scripture). [Some translate it (by reading
into the word) as ‘cutting off’. This is (1) an example par excellence of diachronic
etymological fallacy and (2) reflects how the text is read from their exegetical and doctrinal
approach, rather than linguist and literary approach, thus ignoring how English word works.
As a translation word within the text what supposedly simple English works against clarity
and accuracy – what does it mean by ‘cutting off’? ‘Cutting off’ of what? There is no clue to
the readers of what it means (is it a person’s relation to God that is being cut-off?). It does not
improve over the traditional rendering ‘punishment’ at all.
[Cf. two examples of the expression in NT are for ‘cutting off branches’ and ‘cutting off the
foreskin’]

kolazō – [Danker, p. 204 < ‘with a part lopped off’> punish Act 4:21 (/x: lop off – KIT); 1Pe
2:20 v.l.; 2Pe 2:9] (by God)]
[Cf. kathaireō ‘prune (as of tree) – Jn 15:2] [Cf. katharizō <purify ceremonially> ‘cleanse’]
[Cf. Lk 23:22 paideuō - ‘give a lesson; give a teaching’ is often translated as ‘punish’, here it
means ‘flogging’ from Pilate to be inflicted on Yeshua in the context.]

timōria – [Danker p. 353. < ‘reciprocity for wrongdoing’> punishment’ Heb 10:29;
timōreō – [Danker, < ‘on alert for sake of honor’, hence assoc. w. vengeance> ‘exact
reciprocity for wrongdoing’ punish Act 22:5; 26:11]

Cf. lop off - ekklaō Rm 11:19 (cf. ekkoptō – Rm 11:24);

www.revisedenglishversion.com/Appendix/5/Annihilation_in_the_Lake_of_Fire
The following words are what have been used in the Scripture; there is no “eternal torment”.
1. Apōleia (#684). “the destruction that one experiences; *annihilation” (BDAG). (Mt 7:13, 14;
Phi 3:19 and 2Pe 3:7; Rom 9:22; Heb 10:39 To contrast apōleia with other words that mean
destruction or total destruction, perhaps “annihilation” would be a clear translation.
2. Apollumi (#622). “to cause or experience destruction” (BDAG). (Mt 10:28), Jn 3:16. Rom 2:12
“perish”.
3. Esthiō (#2068 cf. phagō, #5315). “eat,” and by extension it also came to mean “to do away with
completely; consume; devour” (BDAG). Jam 5:3 Heb 10:27 [Cf. Heb 12:29 katanaliskō (#2654),
which means “consume” (BDAG), to do away with completely.

a
A definition of torture - The U.N. convention defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or
suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person" to obtain information, to
punish or coerce and is inflicted with the "consent or acquiescence" of a public official.
www.un.org/documents/ga/res/39/a39r046.htm “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment” (1984) (commonly known as the United Nations Convention
against Torture) Part I Article I.
 4. Exolethreuō (#1842) ←olethros (2The 1:9) "destroy completely". Acts 3:23 (← Deu 18:15; Cf.
Psa 37:9)
5. Katastrophē (#2692). 2Pe 2:6 says that God reduced Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes as an
example of what would happen to ungodly people. Some Greek texts include the word katastrophē,
which means “condition of total destruction” (BDAG), “Extinction”.
6. Olethros (#3639). “a state of destruction, destruction, ruin, death” (BDAG). 2Th 1:9 “complete
destruction”
7. Phthora (#5356,). Phthora means the “total destruction of an entity” (BDAG). 2Pe 2:12; Gal
6:8
8. Thanatos (#2288). Thanatos means “death; the termination of physical life” (BDAG). Rom
6:23. Revelation (2:11; 20:6, 14; and 21:8) mentions 'the second death' – with figure hyperbole,
exaggeration.
Cf. Gehenna” was, and no one expected the garbage to burn forever. Gehenna Mt 5:22
is a Greek word that is a transliteration from the Hebrew ge Hinnom, which is the name
of a valley (the Hebrew word ge means “valley,” and Hinnom was the name of the man
who owned the valley), used as garbage dump site, south of Jerusalem In OT it is
known both as the Valley of Hinnom (Ge Hinnom; Neh 11:30; and some Hebrew texts
of Jos 15:8) and also as the “valley of the sons of Hinnom” (Ge ben Hinnom; Jos 18:16;
2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31).

Rx: flog vs. scourge (as noun and verb). Lat. "flagrum" or "flagellum" – the
Roman whip for punishment.

www.frugalsites.net/jesus/scourging.htm
After scourging [Mt 27:26; //Mk 15:15; //Jn 19:1; (Cf. Lk 23:16, 22)], his physical
condition would be nay impossible to set out on the road to Golgotha and to undergo the
crucifixion. A crucifixion is not just of execution to death, but with prolonged torture.]

Rx: Google search: “punishment and discipline” a

The word ‘punishment’ should not be taken lightly in conjunction with a church
jargon, ‘eternal punishment’, in Mt 25:46 kolasin aionion (mistranslated as
‘everlasting punishment’ in KJV). Hell-preaching theology compounds this phrase
by mixing and confusing with other biblical words and phrases, such as ‘Lake of
Fire’ (Rev 20:10); ‘tormented with fire’ (Rev 14:10); ‘eternal fire’ (Mt 25:41);
‘eternal judgment’ (Heb 6:2); ‘eternal destruction’ (2Th 1:19); ‘resurrection of
judgment’ (Jn 5:29); gehenna (Mt 5:22; 25:30; Mk 9:44-48). Punishment clearly
implies awareness; however, any awareness ends with death.

[The translation word ‘eternal’ itself is barely acceptable, as it tends to carry a

sense of time duration which is unending. It is also true for ‘eternal life’ which is
much improved than ‘everlasting life’ (KJV).]

a
For a taste of the word which entails various tortures, see Michel Faucalt (1995)
Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison
http://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birt
h_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
https://zulfahmed.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/disciplineandpunish.pdf 349 pages.
[‘crucifixion’ (- biblical and technical term); ‘amende honorable’ (in Britain and
France history; ‘능지처참 陵遲處斬’ vs. 車裂刑’] [For various Chinese practices -
www.frugalsites.net/jesus/crucifixion.htm
[Note: history of crucifixion
- www.thenazareneway.com/details_history_of_crucifixion.htm
www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/crucifixion.html

Persia and Alexander

Crucifixion probably originated with ancient Persians. There is evidence, that captured pirates
were crucified in the port of Athens in the 7th century BC. Alexander the Great introduced the
practice throughout his empire. He once crucified a general who disagreed with his campaign
plans.

Roman Empire
Romans adopted the custom from Carthage and used it for slaves, rebels, and especially
despised enemies and criminals. Condemned Roman citizens were usually exempt from
crucifixion except for high crimes against the state, such as treason. The Romans used it during
the Spartacus rebellion, during the Roman Civil War, and the destruction of Jerusalem.
Crucifixion was considered an ignominious way to die.

A common prelude was scourging, which would cause the victim to lose a large amount of
blood, and approach a state of shock. The prisoner then usually had to carry the horizontal
beam (patibulum in Latin) to the place of execution, not necessarily the whole cross.
Crucifixion was typically carried out by specialized teams, consisting of a commanding
centurion and four soldiers. When it was done in an established place of execution, the vertical
beam (stipes) was sometimes permanently embedded in the ground. The victim was usually
stripped naked. The "nails" were tapered iron spikes approximately 5 to 7 in (13 to 18 cm) long
with a square shaft 3/8 in (1 cm) across.

The Romans often broke the prisoner's legs to hasten death. Burial afterwards was not usually
permitted. In some cases, the nails were gathered afterwards and used as healing amulets.

Emperor Constantine abolished crucifixion in the Roman Empire, when Christianity became
the state religion.
*gift; *charisma

charisma [Greek as well as Gk. loanword in English as a church jargon];

Cf. grace

Derived words from this often come as pejorative - charismatic (adj);

charismatics – a church jargon; E.g. Mogens Müller, “… the Jesus of
history, not as a mythic figure but as a charismatic interpreter of the will of
God.” [in Pauline Epistles] – [from
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/is-this-not-the-carpenter ] What
does it mean by ‘charismatic’ in religious jargon?

Gift – a thing or a doing; favor. Can a person be a gift? Vs. presence of a

person with us. E.g. ‘Jesus was the greatest gift’?

Church jargons – charism, charismatic, charismatics – for glossalists (‘tongue-

speakers’) as in various Pentecostal sects.

[“Art is a gift – curious, troublesome and awful” - Harry Belafonte]

*merciful, compassionate, forgiving, have pity

• oiktirmōn Lk 6:36; Jam 5:11 compassionate, pitying, > merciful
• eleēmōn Mt 5:7
• hileōs 1Tm 1:2; Heb 8:12 /merciful
• hilaskomai Lk 18:13 forgiving in mercy> merciful; [NET fn The prayer is
a humble call for forgiveness. The term for mercy (ἱλάσκομαι, hilaskomai)
is associated with the concept of a request for atonement (BDAG 473-74
s.v. 1; Ps 51:1, 3; 25:11; 34:6, 18).]
• eusplagchnos Eph 4:32
• polusplagchnos Jam 5:11
• chrēstos Eph 4:32

*at-onement;
[from Dale Cannon (1996), Six Was of Being Religious.]

at-onement The state of being at-one with ultimate reality. It encompasses in its range of
meaning "reconciled with", "in right or appropriate relation with", "in rapport with", "in
agreement with", "in harmony with", "in conformity to", and "in union with"-with the
understanding that the precise characterization of this state of at-onement will differ from one
tradition to another.
*grace; *mercy; *compassion; *pity;

Zec 7:9
Administer [H8199 shaphat 'execute, give out'] + justice [H4941 mishpat]

Show [H6213 asu] +[H2617 checed ] /loving-kindness /x: kindness – NASB; /x:
royal love – NWT4; /x: faithful love – HCSB; /xxx: brotherhood – NET; /mercy
- KJV
+ [H7356 racham ] /compassion - NIV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, NET; /mercy – YLT,
NWT4;

Jer 31:20
[H7355 racham 'have compassion'] – /have mercy – KJV, NKJV, ESV, ASV; /have
compassion – NIV, HCSB, NET; /pity – Douay;

Deu 13:17

[H7356 racham + H7355 racham ] –

/give [H5414 nathan 'give'] compassion and have-compassion;
/grant you mercy and have compassion – HCSB;
/show mercy and have compassion – NIV, ESV, NASB, (KJV), NKJV;
/show compassion and have mercy – NET;

[English meaning and usage of the word 'grace']

[Cf. grace; gracefulness; graciousness; charming, virtue, elegance; benevolence,
mercy, love, /x: (God's) favor.]

[Acrostic: *GRACE –
"God’s Riches At Christ’s Expense” - Lew Phelps – quoted in Personal Update – New Journal
of Koinonia House (Jan 2008 p.14)
"God's Radical And Complete Embrace" (David Burchett)

[<< … grace (gratia), which he did not see like the medieval notion of gratia
infusa, the infusion of some qualities by means of the sacraments, but as divine
favor, the goodwill of God towards us. Justification consists of the forgiveness and
the remission of sins and is the outcome of the acceptance of the Gospel by
faith….>> from Corneliu C. Simuƫ The Development Of The Doctrine of
Justification in the Theology of Philip Melanchthon: A Brief Historical Survey
www.emanuel.ro/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/P-1.2-2003-Corneliu-C.-Simut-The-Development-
of-the-Doctrine-of-Justification.pdf ]

From Danker

charis
- 1. 'a disposition marked by inclination to generosity', freq. unmotivated by
worth of the recipient, gener. in the context of divine beneficence favor Lk 1:30;
2:40, 52; Jn 1:16; Ac 2:47; 4:33; 11:23; 13:43 (as exhibited in deed vs. 41);
15:11, 40; 18:27; Rm 1:7; 3:24; 4:4; 5:21; 6:14; 11:5; 12:6; 1Co 16:23; 2Co 8:1;
 Hb 10:29; Jam 4:6; 1Pe 4:10. Freq. w. focus on a kind and generous message
marked by favor, grace Lk 4:22; Jn 1:14; Act 14:3; 20:32; Col 4:6.
- 2. 'a benefit conferred freely as expression of good will', favor, grace,
beneficence, blessing Act 24:27; 1Co 16:3; 2Co 1:15; in contrast to unedifying
expression Eph 4:29.
W focus on special endowment as divine gift of empowerment or personal
enrichment Act 6:8; 7:10; 1Co 15:10; 2Co 1:12; 9:8; 2Pt 3:18; of God's gift of
apostleship Ro 1:5; 12:3; 15:15; 2Co 12:9; Gal 2:9; Eph 3:2; 4:7; Phi 1:7.
- 3. 'response to display of generosity', expression of requital, thanks Rm 6:17;
7:25; 1Co 10:30; 15:57; Col 3:16. The compressed use in Lk 6:32-34 indicates
that the reciprocity cited is not one that merits the status of favor with
expectation of congratulation; contrast 1Pt 2:19f, where ch.·as expression of
approval is in order.
charisma
'that which results from the activity of generosity', in NT always in connection with
divine generosity bestowed on believers, divine gift
- a. in general Rm 1:11; 5:15f; 6:23; 11:29.
- b. in ref. to corporate welfare Rm 12:6; 1Co 1:7; 7:7; 12:4, 9, 28, 30f; 2Co
1:11; 1Ti 4:14; 2Ti 1:6; 1Pt 4:10.
charitoō
'cause to be recipient of a favor', show kindness/favor to Eph 1:6; kecharitōmenh
favored one Lk 1:28.

Cf. charin acc. of charis; functioning as prep. w. gen.

- a. accounting for an observation
in view of, because of Lk 7:47; 1Jn 3:12. In Eph 3:1, 14 Paul makes a
connection, that's why, with a preceding observation (in vs. 1 with delayed
resolution expressed in vs. 8) and at the same time has in mind an objective that
would fall under
- b. indicating an objective in the interest of, so as to secure/bring about Gal
3:19; 1Ti 5:14; Tit 1:5, 11; Jd 16.
• charis – grace, undeserved kindness (NWT) - as from God. As for a
translation word, ‘underserved kindness’ (as in NWT), which is less of
religious jargon, is preferable. It is not 'favor' (as translated in
HalleluYah Bible.
• eleos Mt 9:13 mercy
• dōrea gift w. focus on liberality Jn 4:10; Ac 8:20; Rm 5:15; 2Co 9:15; Eph
4:7; Hb 6:4.
• dōrēma gift Rm 5:16; Jam 1:17.
• dōron gift - a. in general Mt 2:11; Rv 11:10 (of gift exchange).
- b. sacrificial donation/offering Mt 5:23; 8:4; Mk 7:11; Lk 21:4 (the widow
cast her gift, ta dōra, onto the others previously put into the offering chest);
Hb 5:1.
- c. divine gift Eph 2:8.
• dōreomai give Mk 15:45; perh. with a nuance of formality present, bestow
2Pt 1:3, 4.
• dōrean adv. – 1 'being freely given/without charge', freely = the positive aspect
for nothing Mt 10:8; Rm 3:24; 2Co 11:7; 2Th 3:8; Rv 21:6; 22:17.
– 2. ‘being without purpose’, in vain = the neg. aspect for nothing Gal 2:21.
– 3. ‘being underserved’, without cause Jn 15:25
 Grace – giving freely what we don’t deserve.
Mercy – not giving what we deserve.
Love – (Cf. human love)
Grace – when we are under God’s grace that does not mean we can sin
all we desire (without consequences). But we are washed now;
sanctified and made alive by and in truth in the name of Yeshua! Our
relationship with the Father has changed. …
Rm 7:4-6. ‘release from the law of death’ → atonement for sin – It has
been taken care of by the sacrifice of Yeshua in the Crucifixion. All
we have to do is to receive this by the revelation that comes from, by
and through truth. 1Jn 1:5 Elohim is Light – in Him there is no
darkness at all.

The Gospel of the Kingdom

The Gospel of the Cross
The Gospel of the Grace

Word Study on 'grace" -

1Co 16:3; 2Co 1:15; Act 24:27; 25:9
Lk 6:3 'thank'
1Pe 2:19
Rm 5:2; 4:16 faith by grace
Rm 5:2 into grace by faith
Jam 4:6 – give grace unto the humble
Lk 18:12-13
Eph 3:7 – the gift of the grace of Elohim;
Tit 2:11 – the grace of Elohim that bring salvation – teach us how to live …
Tit 3:4, 5
By the grace – Heb 2:9 Yeshua die for everyone; Eph 2:5; Tit 3:5 (saved); 2Co
1:12 (live in the world); 1Co 1:15 (I am what I am);
 [Contra to the infamous archaic unbiblical TULIP of Calvinism tradition
and mindset http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canons_of_Dort ], PROOF, an
acronym that summarizes five key facets of God's amazing grace,
reminds us of five different ways in which we experience the grace of
God at work in our lives
Before time began, God mapped out the plan of
Planned Grace salvation from first to last. God planned to adopt chosen
P (> particular) people as His own children; Christ offered
vs. Limited
himself as a sacrifice for these people's sins and as a
Atonement substitute who satisfied God's righteous requirements in
their place.
(Jn 10:11-18; Eph 1:4-12).
Everyone is born spiritually dead. Left to ourselves, we
Resurrection Grace will never choose God's way. God enables people to
R respond freely to His grace by giving them spiritual life
vs. Total Depravity
through the power of Christ’s resurrection.
(Jn 5:21; Eph 2:1- 7).
Outrageous Grace God chose people to be saved on the basis of His own
O vs. Unconditional sovereign will. He didn’t base His choice to give us
grace on anything that we did or might do. (Jn 15:16;
Election Eph 2:8- 9)
God works in the lives of His chosen people to
Overcoming Grace transform O their rebellion into surrender so that they
O
vs. Irresistible Grace freely repent and recognize Christ as the risen King.
(Jn 6:44, 65; Eph 2:4- 10).
Forever Grace God seals his people with his holy Spirit so that they are
F vs. Perseverance of preserved and persevere in faith until the final
restoration of God's kingdom on the earth.
the Saints (Jn 10:27-29; Eph 1: 13-14; 4:30).
Source:
Daniel Montgomery and Timothy Paul Jones (2014), PROOF: Finding
Freedom through the Intoxicating Joy of Irresistible Grace

TULIP Is So 20th Century: PROOF Is New Framework for Canons of

Dort at www.koinoniablog.net/

Note: ‘Perseverance of the saints’ (what does it mean by ‘persevere’? persevere

what, in what, and for what and how? Cf. Eph Ch. 1); ‘unconditional or
condition eternal security of the believer’? "Once saved, always saved"?
https://ebible.com/questions/2327-what-is-perseverance-of-the-saints-and-is-it-
biblical
- ‘forgiveness of sins’ and ‘salvation’ are accomplished facts in the Crucifixion.
Receiving it does not depend on what a person would do, but on how one claims it
by putting the trust on the Savior. It is an event but only together with a process of
sanctification by the power of God’s Spirit (Eph 1:13-14; Phi 1:6) in one’s on-
going personal relationship to Elohim through the Mashiah. (Act 5:32 ‘obedience’;
Rm 8:28-39; Jn 10:27-30; 6:37-47; 5:24; Jud 24).
*law; law of nature;

A fundamental of the notion of law] Anyone can do anything anyway he/she wants
to do. But one has to pay to him/herself - body, mind, and spirit - and will surely pay
duly. Pay as well as to other people and society. And ultimately to 'God' who will
have everything due be paid duly. -my comment in https://youtu.be/qAAygcL3NoQ.

Law of Nature - ‘natural law’ is an ambiguous term.

Quotation from Nancy Cartwright (1983), How the Laws of Physics Lie, p. 22
[Italics not in the original. Note: the word ‘lie’ in the title is a pun – ‘to be in a specified
state’ vs. ‘to tell untruth’]
p.1
Philosophers distinguish phenomenological from theoretical laws.
Phenomenological laws are about appearances; theoretical ones are about the reality
behind the appearances. The distinction is rooted in epistemology. Phenomenological
laws are about things which we can at least in principle observe directly, whereas
theoretical laws can be known only by indirect inference. Normally for philosophers
‘phenomenological’ and ‘theoretical’ mark the distinction between the observable
and the unobservable.
Physicists also use the terms ‘theoretical’ and ‘phenomenological’. But their
usage makes a different distinction. Physicists contrast ‘phenomenological’ with
‘fundamental’. For example, a … Dictionary of Physics says, ‘A phenomenological
theory relates observed phenomena by postulating certain equations but does not
enquire too deeply into their fundamental significance.’
The dictionary mentions observed phenomena. But do not be misled. These
phenomenological equations are not about direct observables that contrast with the
theoretical entities of the philosopher. …

p. 21
There are at least two kinds of laws of nature: laws of association and causal
laws. Laws of association are the familiar laws with which philosophers usually deal.
These laws tell how often two qualities or quantities are co-associated. They may be
either deterministic – the association is universal – or probabilistic. The equations of
physics are a good example: whenever the force on a classical particle of mass m is f
the acceleration is f/m. Laws of association may be time indexed, as in the
probabilistic laws of Mendelian genetics, but, apart from the asymmetries imposed
by time indexing, these laws are causally neutral. They tell how often two qualities
co-occur; but they provide no account of what makes things happen.
Causal laws, by contrast, have the word 'cause' -- or some causal surrogate --
right in them. … for an example from physics, force causes change in motion: to
quote Einstein and Infeld, 'The action of an external force changes the velocity ...
such a force either increases or decreases the velocity according to whether it acts in
the direction of motion or in the opposite direction.'
… Causal principles cannot be reduced to laws of association; but they cannot
be done away with.
*Law; law; *Torah; *Commandments; *commands;

ordinances, statues, orders, instructions, injunctions, rules, regulations, Legal

codes, principles;

Gen 26:5 (my charge H4931 mishmereth,

my commands H4687 mitsvah,
my statues H2708 chuqqah,
Exo 18:20 (the statues H2706 choq);

Mitzvot (commandments) -- 613 found in the Torah that please God. There are
positive and negative commandments. The list was first development by Maimonides.
The full list can be found at www.jewfaq.org/613.htm.

'Higher law → lower laws → regulations and rules → requirements and routines.

Torah, torah teacher (sofer > 'scribe' – KJV); vs. rabbi [cf. preacher, pastor/priest]

Vocabulary

law vs. law system, rules, laws, regulations; restrictions; decree, laws: the
law of Elohim (God's Law) (torah/teaching/guide) as is shown in "Ten
Words" (Ten Commandments), which is not same as Mosaic Law (system).

commandment vs. command?

the Law of Elohim; "Law of the kingdom"?

‘obey the law’, ‘keep the law’, ‘know the law’, ‘follow the rules’.
• sanction (1) penalty, punishment, deterrent; (2) authorization,
consent, leave, permission;
• injunction; judicial order, ruling, directive, admonition
• command,
• instruction;

The Greek word which is translated in the NT as ‘law’ is more than ‘law’. Rule,
principle, etc.
Rm 8:2 ‘law of the spirit of Life in Mashiah’

Rm 8:2 ‘the principle governing sin and death’ (death which sin has brought);
/x: the law of sin and death – most (- very misleading translation); [not ‘law’,
such as Mosaic Law, Ten Commandments, etc.] [See Rm 7:10b]
 www.2001translation.com/Laws.html
www.preparingforeternity.com/mosevs10.htm

The word ‘law’ in the Bible is not same as ‘law’ in English usage and is used in different
sense. Gk. nomos needs to be differently translated – a principle, a rule, a law, a law
system. All the laws (related to religion, esp.) is laws of men. God’s Law (Torah) as
shown in Ten Commandments is different from the Mosaic Law System.

cf. lawless, lawlessness, not-keeping laws; living away from laws of God,
unlawful, illegal.
[S3845 parabainō (3x) break, violate, transgress; /x: disobey - Act 1:25
[S3847 parabasis (7x) 'transgression' 'breaking' Rm 4:15; 5:14; Gal 3:19; 1Tm 2:14;
Heb 2:2; 9:15;]
[S3876 parakoē (3x) *disobedience Heb 2:2]
[S458 anomia – (singl. 13x) 'lawlessness' – 1Jn 3:4 ("the sin is lawlessness"a);
2Co 6:14 'righteousness and lawlessness'; (pl. 2x) 'iniquities' Rm 4:7; Heb
10:17]

Principles are the basis for God's laws… they are the reasons behind His
laws. .... Whereas principles are general guidelines, His laws are the dividing
lines,
Self-righteous religion - guilty of turning the principles into and churning out
laws - laws of men, of church, of religions. All the religious laws of men's law.
Rm 6:14 - not under Law - that is, 'under the system of laws of men' - legalism,
life based on 'keeping laws'?

Biblical laws - laws found in the Bible

Gk. nomos;
(1) Torah = [God’s] guiding, instruction, and teaching; Strong’s #H8451 ‫( ; ּתו ָֹרה‬e.g.
‘walk in the Torah of YHWH’ Psa 119:1b /x: in the law of the LORD). (Cf. #6680
‘to command’ tsavah; Cf. #H2706 choq – statute, ordinance; #6490 piqqud precept).
Torah is gift of Elohim (Jn 1:17; 1Co 9:8). It is the central concept72F72Fb in the Judaism
and its foundation.
[Father’s Word ‘Torah’ (with His commandments) does not mean law, ordinances,
precepts or statues. It is Father’s loving instructions and teachings to children.] 73F73Fc
Its extended meanings are the Pentateuch (first five books), the entire TaNaKh (Hebrew
Scripture; Old Testament), and the whole body of Judaic law74F74Fd and teachings.

a
'lawlessness' – not that they have no law, but in the sense of 'away from God's law'. KJV has it
'transgression', a wrong translation. Cf. Act 1:25 'by transgression' in KJV is a verb [parebē > S3845
parabainō].
b
Torah as the central concept: Cf. ‘God’ is not a concept but the ultimate reality in Judaism.
c
Thoughts on ‘Torah’ - halakha: http://youtu.be/6kWk6MYwyZM
d
Cf. halakha: a set of religious obligations and civil laws in Judaism
 (2) The Law = Pentateuch = Five Books of Moses. (as in the English translation phrase
‘the Law and the Prophets’75F75Fa < ‘the Torah and the Nebiim’) – this is what presents
Torah in broad sense. [Received by Moses on the Mount Sinai.]76F76Fb
(3) In the sense of ‘law’, –‘the Law of Moses (‘Mosaic Law’) (Lk 2:22; 24:44; Jn 7:19,
23; Act 13:39; 15:5; 28:23; 1Co 9:9; Heb 10:28); ‘Law of the Mashiah’ (Gal 6:2);
‘law of Adonai’ (Lk 2:24); ‘the Law of Elohim’ (Rm 8:7); ‘law of commandments’
(Eph 2:15); ‘law of commandment concerning physical descent’ (Heb 7:16); ‘law
of freedom’ (Jam 1:25; 2:12); ‘law of righteousness’ (Rm 9:31); ‘life-giving law of
the Spirit’ (Rm 8:2); ‘God’s law’ (Rm 7:22, 25); the law belongs to the Judaic people
(> Yehudim) (Act 25:8); [Laws, commands, and regulations - it is given by Moses.
(4) ‘principle’ ‘rule’. ‘law (/principle) of works’ (Rm 3:27).

a
The usual phrase ‘the Law and the Prophets’ is rendered as ‘the Torah and the Nebiim’ in
IRENT.
b
Cf. mitzvot (mitzvah – singl.)– In its primary meaning the Hebrew word refers to precepts
and commandments as commanded by God. The word is used in Judaism to refer to 613
commandments (as recorded in Talmud Makkot 23b). In its secondary meaning it refers to a
moral deed performed as a religious duty. As such, the term mitzvah has also come to express
an act of human kindness. The tertiary meaning of mitzvah also refers to the fulfillment of a
mitzvah.
Related Words: Gk. exesti

[Danker – p. 133. lit. ‘it is out/open’, hence it is allowable/permitted/right Mt 12:2; 14:4;

22:17; Jn 5:10; Act 8:37 v.l.; 16:21; 21:37; 1Co 6:12; 10:23. The ptc. exon w. or without estin
= exesti Mt 12:4; Act 2:29; 2Co 12:4]

1Co 6:12 /permissible – HCSB, NIV, ISV, AUV; /permissible (allowable and lawful) – AMP;
/x: permitted – ISR, NIrV, MRC, 許されたことです (JSS); /> allowable – TCNT, WNT,
Rhm; /x: allowed – CLV, GW, GNB, ERV, NLT, 가하나 (KRV); /xxx: lawful – KJV++, ASV,
NET, ESV trio, NASB, ALT, NWT, HNV, Diagl, Mft; /적법하나 (KKJV); /xx: I have the
right to do anything, you say – TNIV; /xx: We can do anything we want to – CEV; /xx: I may
do anything I please – GSNT; /xx: As a Christian I may do anything – PNT; /xx: Cf. Just
because something is technically legal doesn't mean that it's spiritually appropriate. – MSG (-
baloney); /xxx: All (food) is lawful to me – Etheridge; /xx: Every thing is in my power –
Murdock; /licent – Vulgate; /xx: All things are under my power of choice to be doing – Wuest;
/

Gk. entolē; (noun): command; commandment.

(v.) entellomai (command, order, charge) (Mt 15:4; Jn 8:5; 10:18, etc.)
Cf. prostassō (to order, enjoin, direct; prescribe, appoint; > to command) (Mt 8:4 etc.)
Cf. keleuō (to command, order, tell to do) (Mt 14:9, 19, etc.)

[Related words:
diatagma; decree – Heb 11:23; Gk.
dogma – Lk 2:2; Col 2:14.]
paradosis - tradition [‘the tradition of the Elders’ (~ presbuteros) Mt 15:2; Mk 7:3, 5]

As a translation word for entolē; ‘commandment’ is too specific to get

automatically associated with ‘Ten Commandments’, while ‘command’ is too non-
specific and requires to be clarify, e.g. as ‘God’s command’, etc.

E.g. Lk 23:56b in obedience to the Ten Words of Elohim ░░ Gk. kata tēn
entolēn; /as the (of Moses) commanded; /

E.g. Jn 13:34 (new) command ░░ /command – JNT, NIV trio, ISR, CEV,
ERV, Mft, GSNT, MSG, /commandment – YLT;

• The Ten Commandments (Heb. aseret hadevarim ‘the Ten Words’)

• Commandment of Christ = Law (torah) of the Mashiah – Gal 6:2
 A command by Yeshua is only one. ‘Be a follower of me’.

- follow Him picking up one’s own cross to deny one’s own self, which is lording
over and becomes one’s Master.

There is not much ‘command to do things’ from His lips. Only this – ‘be a person
who …’. Not ‘love your neighbor’, but rather ‘be you loving your neighbor’, that
is, you are to become a person who loves the neighbor. Not ‘thank’, ‘pray’, but
be a person thanking in everything, a person praying unceasingly.
[For some examples for rendering *imperatives: See EE here.14]

*Ten Commandments

[Exo 29 Exo 20:2-17; Deu 5:6-21] the commandments are not numbered.
Decalogue; 'the ten commandments' – KJV, ESV, NET, etc. ['not much
commandments, but affirmations in future tense …'a]
The Hebrew expression is 'the Ten Words' - In Exo 34:28; Deu 10:4 Heb. aseret ha-d'varîm,
[H1697 dabar 'word'] in Gk. LXX tous deka logous.

Cf. Exo 34:10-28 <Covenant obligation>

Cf. Mt 22:36-40 //Mk 12:28:34 (Cf. Lk 10:25-28)

https://thetorah.com/what-did-god-write-on-the-tablets-of-stone/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments different traditions of the list:
• LXX: Septuagint, generally followed by Orthodox Christians.
Reformed Christians follow John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, which follows
the Septuagint.
Philo, same as the Septuagint, but with the prohibitions on killing and adultery reversed.
Samaritan Pentateuch, with an additional commandment about Mount Gerizim as 10th.
• T: Jewish Talmud, makes the "prologue" the first "saying" or "matter" and combines the
prohibition on worshiping deities other than Yahweh with the prohibition on idolatry.
• A: Augustine follows the Talmud in combining verses 3–6, but omits the prologue as a
commandment and divides the prohibition on coveting in two and following the word order of
Deu 5:21 rather than Exo 20:17.
• C: Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely follows Augustine
• L: Lutherans follow Luther's Large Catechism, which follows Augustine but omits the
prohibition of images and uses the word order of Exo 20:17 rather than Deu 5:21 for the ninth
and tenth commandments.

a
Ref: reading material – David Klinghoffer (2007), Shattered Tablets: Why We Ignore the Ten
Commandments at Our Peril.
…I have called the commandments “statements” because the verses in Hebrew aren’t
literally phrased as commandments, but as affirmations in the future tense. "You will not
recognize the gods of of others", ...
 Ten Commandments
Exo 20:1-17 //Deu 5:5b-21
Exo Deu Text RO T C
Prologue
Exo 20:1-2 //Deu 5:5b-6 [Cf. Num 15:41]
Exo 20:1 Elohim spoke these words: Deu 5:5b "And [YHWH] said:

20:2 5:6 I am YHWH your Elohim, who have brought you out of the 1 1
land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

The first division: toward Elohim

Exo 20:3-7 //Deu 5:7-11
20:3 5:7 You shall have no other godsa before me. 1
b
4. Thou shalt not make for yourselves any carved image ,
1
20:4-6 5:8-10 or likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is 2
on earth below, … 2
5. You shall not bow down to them or servec them …

20:7 5:11 Thou shall not take the name of YHWH your Elohim 3 3 2
unworthily.d

Sabbath – Gift of Elohim

Exo 20:8-11 //Deu 5:12-15
20:8-11 5:12-15 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. … 4 4 3

The second division: Towards others

Exo 20:12-17 //Deu 5:16-21
20:12 5:16 Honor your father and your mother so that … 5 5 4
20:13 5:17 You shall not put other's life to death 6 6 5
20:14 5:18 You shall not commit adultery 7 7 6
20:15 5:19 You shall not steal 8 8 7
20:16 5:20 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor 9 9 8
20:17 5:21 You shall not covet your neighbor's house. 10
You shall not cover your neighbor's wife 10 10 9
or … anything that belongs to your neighbor.
10
R: Reformed; O: Orthodox; T: Talmudic Judaism; C: Catholic

a 'gods' – [> ‘mighty ones’ – ISR]; [Cf. Mt 4:10; 22:37] [Cf. Deu 6:4 //Mk 12:29 in ‘Shema Yisrael’.]
b ‘carved image’ – [i.e. man-made image]; – ESV, NET; /x: an idol – LXX, ISV; /any graven image – KJV; / a graven
image – ASV; /idols; /graven thing – DRB; [Cf. 1Jn 5:21; Acts 17:29] [Cf. ‘the god of this world’ – 2Co 4:4]
c serve – vs. worship
d ‘take ~ unworthily' /> take ~ useless; />> take ~ in vain – most; /x: misuse; /x: idly utter – Darby; /use for evil

purpose – GNB; /x: 망령되이 일컫다 – Ko; [Cf. 1Tm 6:1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments
Traditions:
• LXX: Septuagint, generally followed by Orthodox Christians.
Reformed Christians follow John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion, which follows
the Septuagint.
Philo, same as the Septuagint, but with the prohibitions on killing and adultery reversed.
Samaritan Pentateuch, with an additional commandment about Mount Gerizim as 10th.
• T: Jewish Talmud, makes the "prologue" the first "saying" or "matter" and combines the
prohibition on worshiping deities other than Yahweh with the prohibition on idolatry.
• A: Augustine follows the Talmud in combining verses 3–6, but omits the prologue as a
commandment and divides the prohibition on coveting in two and following the word order of
Deu 5:21 rather than Exo 20:17.
• C: Catechism of the Catholic Church, largely follows Augustine
• L: Lutherans follow Luther's Large Catechism, which follows Augustine but omits the
prohibition of images and uses the word order of Exo 20:17 rather than Deu 5:21 for the ninth
and tenth commandments.

*command’ ‘commandment’ ‘order’ ‘tradition’ 'precept'

Tradition of the Elders ░░ [i.e. unwritten oral Law in Judaism] [Mk 7:3, 5, 8; Mt
15:2]

*commission; commend; appoint

S2525 kathistēmi (22x); Mt 24:45 ('put in charge'); Lk 12:14; Act 6:3; Heb 8:3
(/x: ordain) ('appoint'); Act 17:15 ('escort');

*canon of the Bible – Hebrew Bible; Old and New Testament; Apocrypha;

Catholic vs. Protestant Bible.

Antilegomena

refers to written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed. These were

widely read in the Early Church and included the Hebrews, James, Jude, 2
Peter, 2 and 3 John, and the Apocalypse of John which are in the final list
of the NT canon, as well as those not made into the canon.

[Note: From his faulty and theologically-biased understanding of the

Scripture, Luther had a negative view on the four books (Hebrews, James,
Jude, and the Revelation). These were put at the end of his original
translation 1522. Jacob Lucius published in 1596 a Bible at Hamburg which
labeled Luther's four as "Apocrypha".
www.bible-researcher.com/antilegomena.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther%27s_canon ]

https://bible.org/seriespage/7-bible-holy-canon-scripture
Canonicity of the New Testament

Factors Leading to the Recognition of the New Testament Canon

What were the factors that led to the recognition of a New Testament canon as we
have it today? For almost twenty years after the ascension of Christ none of the
books of the New Testament were even written and about sixty-five years elapsed
before the last New Testament book was written. James was undoubtedly the first,
being written between 45-50 CE, and Revelation was most surely the last, being
written about 90 CE. But several things began to happen that promoted the
formation of the New Testament canon. Enns summarizes these:

(1) Spurious writings as well as attacks on genuine writings were a factor.

Marcion, for example, rejected the Old Testament and New Testament
writings apart from the Pauline letters (he altered Luke’s gospel to suit his
doctrine).
(2) The content of the New Testament writings testified to their authenticity
and they naturally were collected, being recognized as canonical.
(3) Apostolic writings were used in public worship; hence, it was necessary
to determine which of those writings were canonical.
(4) Ultimately, the edict by Emperor Diocletian in CE 303, demanding that
all sacred books be burned, resulted in the New Testament collection.

The Process of Recognition of the New Testament Canon

(1) In the Apostolic Era.

Since the books were inspired when they were written, they were already canonical
and possessed authority as being a part of God’s Word. The responsibility of the
church was simply to attest to the fact of their inspiration. This process began
immediately with the writers recognizing that their own writings were the Word of
God (Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 4:15). But they also recognized that other writings of the
New Testament were Scripture and on a par with the Old Testament. In 1 Timothy
5:18 Paul quoted Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7 and referred to both passages
as Scripture. Peter likewise attested to Paul’s writings as Scripture in 2 Peter 3:15-
16. Furthermore, the New Testament epistles were being read and circulated
among the churches as authoritative revelation from God (cf. Col. 4:16; 1 Thess.
5:27).

(2) In the Post-Apostolic Era.

Clement of Rome (c. CE 95) mentioned at least eight New Testament books in a
letter; Ignatius of Antioch (c. CE 115) also acknowledged about seven books;
Polycarp, a disciple of John, (c. CE 108), acknowledged fifteen letters. That is not
to say these men did not recognize more letters as canonical, but these are ones
they mentioned in their correspondence. Later Irenaeus wrote (c. CE 185),
acknowledging twenty-one books. Hippolytus (CE 170-235) recognized twenty-
two books. The problematic books at this time were Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, and
2 and 3 John.

Even more important was the witness of the Muratorian Canon (CE 170), which
was a compilation of books recognized as canonical at that early date by the
 church. The Muratorian Canon included all the New Testament books except
Hebrews, James, and 3John.

In the fourth century there was also prominent recognition of a New Testament
canon. When Athanasius wrote in CE 367 he cited the twenty-seven books of the
New Testament as being the only true books. In CE 363 the Council of Laodicea
stated that only the Old Testament and the twenty-seven books of the New
Testament were to be read in the churches. The Council of Hippo (CE 393)
recognized the twenty-seven books, and the Council of Carthage (CE 397)
affirmed that only those canonical books were to be read in the churches.70

Ryrie has an important note in connection with Martin Luther’s opinion of the
epistle of James.

Sometimes it is claimed that Martin Luther rejected the Book of James as being
canonical. This is not so. Here’s what he wrote in his preface to the New Testament
in which he ascribes to the several books of the New Testament different degrees
of doctrinal value. “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles,
especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle —
these are the books which show to thee Christ and teach everything that is
necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any
other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle
compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus, Luther
was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.

www.compellingtruth.org/canon-Bible.html
The process for recognizing and collecting the books of the New Testament
began in the first centuries of the Christian church. Very early on, some of
the New Testament books were recognized as inspired. Paul considered
Luke's writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1Ti 5:18; see
also Deu 25:4 and Lk 10:7). Peter referred to Paul's writings as Scripture
(2Pe 3:15-16).

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (CE 95).
Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (CE 115). Polycarp,
a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (CE 108). Later,
Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (CE 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books
(CE 170-235).

The first "canon" was the Muratorian Canon, compiled in CE 170, which
included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and
3John. The Council of Laodicea (CE 363) concluded that only the Old
Testament (along with the Apocrypha) and the 27 books of the New
Testament were to be read in the churches. The Councils of Hippo (CE 393)
and Carthage (CE 397) reaffirmed the same 27 books as authoritative.

www.catholic.com/quickquestions/was-the-canon-of-scripture-determined-
before-the-church-councils-that-decided-it
The Muratorian Fragment (so-called because it represents only a portion
of the actual second-century document discovered in 1740 by Lodovico
Antonio Muratori), is the oldest extant listing of New Testament-era
books revered by early Christians. It was written sometime between 155
and 200. Patristic scholars believe the unknown author originally wrote
the list in Greek (since the Latin is very poor), but the oldest copy
available is an eighth-century Latin manuscript.

Although the Muratorian Fragment is important in studying how the

early Church developed the New Testament canon, it doesn't give
exactly the same list of books that was later adopted as canonical at the
councils of Hippo and Carthage. The Muratorian Fragment is just that:
a fragment of a larger list of books which were considered canonical or
quasi-canonical during the second century.

The Fragment itself provides us with a good, though incomplete idea of

this early canon. Virtually the entire New Testament canon as we know
it is represented: the Gospels of Luke and John (preceded by what seems
to be an allusion to the Gospel of Mark), Acts, 1 & 2 Corinthians,
Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2
Thessalonians, Philemon, Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy, Jude, two letters of
John (since the fragment simply says "the two ascribed to John", we
don't know which two of his three letters are meant), and Revelation.

The unknown author adds other non-canonical books to this line- up:
the so-called Pauline Epistles to the Laodiceans and to the Alexandrians
(about which the Fragment's author expresses his conviction that they
were not authored by Paul), the Wisdom Written by the Friends of
Solomon in His Honor, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Shepherd (written
by Hermas). The Fragment's list is cut short abruptly with a final,
enigmatic phrase which may indicate that the author had gone on to
include still other non-inspired writings: "Those also who wrote the new
book of psalms for Marcion, together with Basilides, the founder of the
Asian Cataphrygians." Although the Muratorian Fragment lists most of
the New Testament books, it's missing a few (e.g. Matthew, James, 3
John), and it adds several works which are not inspired. These facts
demonstrate that, although the Fragment came close, it did not represent
the actual canon of inspired Scripture. Further, there is no internal
evidence in the document that it sought to represent any kind of official
canon that was regarded by the Church as binding.

In the first four centuries of the Church many books, such as the seven
letters of Ignatius, the Letter of Clement [the fourth Pope] to the
Corinthians, the Didache, and The Shepherd were revered by many
Christians as inspired but were later shown to be non-inspired.
It was not until the Councils of Hippo and Carthage that the Catholic
Church defined which books did and which didn’t make it into the New
Testament. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete)
Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the
books in question themselves, but it was not until these councils that the
Church officially settled the issue.

The plain fact of the matter is that the canon of the Bible was not settled
in the first years of the Church. It was settled only after repeated (and
perhaps heated) discussions, and the final listing was determined by
Catholic bishops.
*Testament vs. *Covenant; *Renewed Covenant; /*New Covenant

[Capitalized in the phrases, 'New Testament' and 'Old Testament' - two divisions of
the Christian Bibles, in the sense of covenant.

S1285 berith (284x)

(1) btw men 'alliance' 'agreement' – Gen 14:13; Hos 10:4;
(2) btw God and man – Gen 6:28; 9:9; Exo 19:5; Jer 31:31; Psa 25:14; 6:18;
Btw God and Israel Exo 24:8; Zec 9:11; Jer 31:31; Isa 59:21
S1242 diathēkē (31x)
(1) a covenant (Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 1:7, etc.
(2) a will, testament (- KJV); /xx: covenant – NASB, YLT; – (only 2x) Heb 9:16, 17.

[English word 'testament' is used only as a technical term – New Testament (NT) and
Old Testament (OT); not used in the text of IRENT.]

Lk 22:20 //1Co 1:25 'the new covenant'; [anew in Yeshua the Mashiah; not a
new one placing an old] [2Co 3:16; Heb 8:8 (//Jer 31:31); 9:15; 12:24]
[S2537 kainos] [S341 anakainoō (2x) 'to renew' 2Co 4:16; Col 3:10] [S340
anakainizō (1x) 'to renew' Heb 6:6]
Cf. Mt 26:28 //Mk 14:24 'the covenant' (/xxx: the new testament – KJV; /xx:
new covenant – NKJV)];

'the first covenant' Heb 8:13; 9:1, 14 > 'the former covenant'; [S4413 prōtos]
'the former covenant' 2Co 3:14 [S3820 palaios] /x: the old covenant – most;
/xxx: the Old Testament – NKJV; /xxx: the old testament – KJV;

Cf. Hebraic Root Movement

[See WB #2 for *Old and New Testaments’]

J. Kline, A. Spears (2007),

Lost in the translation Vol. I: Rediscovering the Hebrew Roots of our Faith
(pp. 35-38)

https://books.google.com/books?id=-
KCV30tm3YkC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Ch. 2 Covenant
…
A covenant is not a testament
As the Trumbull book demonstrated for all time, covenant is a huge subject. It's also an ancient
subject, a ubiquitous subject (meaning that it shows up somewhere in almost every civilization
that ever existed), and a very serious subject that has been on the minds of men far longer than
anyone can remember. It's also a subject that few modem Bible students seem to understand.

For example, many of us confuse covenant and testament. In fact, as was true of both the Greek
and the Roman cultures, some dictionaries even today seem barely able to differentiate between
 the two. And yet, in ancient Hebrew society (the context in which the Bible was written), those
two words never meant the same thing.

A testament is a Greek legal document that defines the lawful rights of all those to whom it
applies. A Last Will and Testament, in which someone details his wishes for the disposition of
his property after his death, is a prime example. In such a case, the Greek practice of giving
greatest weight to the most recent such "testament" makes good sense. Legally, any new
testament makes null and void any previous (i.e., "old") testament by the same party. A newer
Will always supersedesa an older Will.

By contrast, the word covenant defines an ongoing relationship with no appointed end. Rather
than being a legal document, a covenant is a commitment to develop a certain kind of continuing
relationship. By its very existence it implies a dynamic interaction between partners, a growing
organic process.

So forget the “new” concept. The Hebrew name for the Gospels and the books that follow (i.e.,
from Matthew through Revelation) is B'rit Hadashah (Jer 31:31-34). The Hebrew word B'rit
means "covenant"b, which is further defined as "to eat together, to share food, to prepare a
banquet".
…
B'rit also means "to cleanse or make pure", and "a son of the sign".c When God called Abraham
into a deeper relationship, He asked him to circumcise himself as a sign of the covenant
relationship between them (Gen 17:11). Circumcision was also an outward sign of the purity
(i.e., the holiness) that God imputed to Abraham at that time. Thus, Abraham and his
descendants became "sons of the sign".

In Hebrew, hadashah means "renewed" or "a cycle of restoration", or "to return to a previous
state".d The same word is also used in reference to the lunar cycle, meaning that we don't get a
new moon every month- the old one just gets restored to a previous condition. The same thing
is true of B'rit Hadashah, meaning that somewhere in the history of covenant we've been here
before!

Therefore, a more accurate title for the New Testament would be "Renewed Covenant", or
"Renewed Relationship", not "New Covenant" as the original Hebrew in Jer 31:31 (31-34) is
commonly mistranslated: … …

Again, this means something entirely different from what we imply when we call the last 24
books of the Bible by their Greek-based title, "The New Testament". For unlike a testament, in
which the legal aspects of contract are everything, a covenant’s contractual elements play only
a small part. [Cf. personal relation]

Our arbitrary attempts at organizing Scripture into two halves also have no real significance
whatsoever. From God's perspective there is no such thing as what we call the Old Testament
and the New Testament. He created Scripture to define His all-inclusive, all-encompassing plan
of redemption as an ongoing covenant between Himself and us. The defining document for that
single, unified, divine plan is the Holy Bible. Period!

God's plan unveiled

In the Scripture, the unveiling of God's plan begins with the first chapter of Genesis and ends
with the last chapter of Revelation. Nothing supersedes or eliminates anything else as the plan

a
'supercede' – spelling regarded as an error for 'supersede'.
b
Gesenius, p. 141.
c
Gesenius, p. 142.
d
Ibid., p. 263; this word also means to "polish a sword" or "to restore".
 unfolds. "Contractual legalities" are few and far between. Therefore, the Bible is not in any
significant sense whatsoever a Greek testament. It’s not Greek; again, the terms "Old
Testament" and "New Testament" simply do not apply.

Those terms were imposed on the Bible in the second century by the early church fathers. At
that point, most of them were converted Greek philosophers with no Hebraic roots. Apparently,
they also had precious little understanding of where "their" Bible came from.

The Old and New Testament labels were unfortunate distractions from God's plan. They have
created ongoing misunderstandings that have now persevered for almost two thousand years.
They imply that the Old Testament became less important, or was even "cancelled" the moment
the New Testament joined the "canon"…

(from Alexander and Baker (2003), Dictionary of the OT – Pentateuch

6.1. Covenant. Already in the Noah narrative the concept of covenant was introduced. God
solemnly committed himself never to destroy the world with water again. This kind of voluntary
self-limitation of a god for the sake of humans was strange enough, but the developments that
followed were stranger still. In Genesis 15 God’s response to Abraham’s belief was again a
solemn oath to keep his promises to Abraham. But in this case the divine commitment was
solemnized in a ceremony in which the deity condemned himself to death should he break his
word. Again, such a thing was unheard of in the ancient world. The normal pattern was directly
overturned. Instead of a human being required to make such a fearsome commitment to his god,
while the god accepted no obligation whatsoever, here the deity put himself under the doom of
death, while requiring nothing from the worshiper! Only in Genesis 17 is the first covenant
obligation put upon Abraham, and it is the apparently rather innocuous one of *circumcision,
marking oneself as a devotee of God.

In all of this God was carefully preparing the way for what would appear in Exodus 19 and
following. Sin had done three things: it had made it impossible for the “face” (the presence of
God) to dwell with humans in unbroken fellowship; it had led humans into a willful ignorance
of the holy character and nature of God; and it had made them incapable of reproducing the
divine character in their life in God’s world. Genesis had shown that the prerequisites for
coming back into God’s presence were trust, belief and obedience. But the fundamental issues
described above remained to be addressed. The Sinai covenant was the means of addressing
them, of showing how they would ultimately be addressed. …

Note: the covenant of YHWH in Yeshua the Mashiah is ‘new’ when the term is
used to refer to a covenant made with His 'blood' (which is a metaphor for his
self-giving death – not 'shed blood'. Lk 22:20 //Mt 26:28; //Mk 14:24).

<< … it is often said, Novum Testamentum in Vetere latet, Vetus in Novo patet! (The New
Testament lies hidden in the Old, and the Old is opened up in the New!) … the question
remains, Quomodo latet et quomodo patet? (How is it hidden and how is it opened
up?)>> p. 7 The One Who Is to Come.
(Vetus et Novum Testamentum in Veteri Testamento latet nouo reuelato).

"You speak to us, and do not let God speak to us lest we perchance die" (Exodus
20:19). This passage signifies a great and lasting truth: that fear pertains to the
Old Testament just as love does to the New — even though the New lies hidden
in the Old Testament, and the Old Testament is opened up in the New.
*typology and allegory

*Old Testament; *Hebrew Scripture; *TaNaKh; *New Testament;

The Hebrew Scripture is not a ‘Jewish’ Bible. The Jewish people take it as their
canon. (See the word on *Jews in BW#3)

TaNaKh: ‫תַּ נַּ"ְך‬

• Torah (‫ )תורה‬meaning "Instruction" or "Law." Also called the
Chumash ‫ חומש‬meaning: "The five"; "The five books of Moses."
Also called the "Pentateuch".
• Nevi'im (‫ )נביאים‬meaning "Prophets"
• Khetuvim (‫ )כתובים‬meaning "Writings"

27 books. (OT and NT 66 books with OT 39 books in Protestant Bible) (3x9 =27) [OT
for Catholicism has 46 books for OT; Eastern Orthodox has 51 books.]

[Note: it is 24 books in TaNaKh – Hebrew Scripture (5 Torah + 8 Nebiim + 11 Writings

– (1) 1Kg and 2Kg as one; 1Sam and 1Sam as one; The Twelve minor prophets counted
as one in which 1Ch and 2Ch as one book; Ezra and Nehemiah as one] [Nebiim - Joshua;
Judges; Samuel; Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; The Twelve] [Psalms; Proverbs; Job;
Song of Songs; Ruth; Lamentations; Ecclesiastes; Esther; Daniel; Ezra/Nehemiah;
Chronicles - Writings] – different names in Hebrew and different divisions.

[Torah is a Hebrew word meaning teaching or instruction. It is also the term for the
first 5 books of the Bible.]

It was NOT written to ‘Christians’. [See *Christians] Almost all that was written was
with the ‘Jewishness’, not with ‘Christian-ness’, which was gradually developed,
absorbing the pagan ideas and practices of the world (esp. Hellenistic and European).
The Gospels were from within the framework of Judaism at the start before it began
move beyond the ethnic and religious boundaries of Israel. The original Mashiah-
followers (rather than ‘Christians’) were all Judaic people (‘Jews’).

Yeshua the Nazarene (known as Yeshua the Mashiah; /x: Jesus Christ) Himself was born
as one of them and He was a Torah-abiding rabbi for His last three years of His life. His
good-news to people was the good news of the Kingdom reign of Elohim (‘the God’)
which was to usher in His own person, as the Mashiah of YHWH Elohim. He Himself
was not a Christian. He was not the founder of a new religion (‘Christianity’, if counted
as a religion) or any of Christian religions. These religions grew out of man’s religiosity,
taking much from the Apostolic tradition and transforming into something they can
wield.

The text for the Scripture we have is in Koine Greek. [Some claims that G-Mt was
initially written in Hebrew.]

The Four Gospels by themselves do not belong to the New Testament dispensation. They
are at the junction to move from the OT (Judaic) dispensation to the New Testament one.
It is like a giant dam being opened to let the living water rush down. The rest of the New
Testament is to clarify the renewed covenant in the life of the Mashiah followers. Yeshua
Himself is the new covenant. At the transition from the Gospels is the Pauline Epistle to
the Hebrews a , which tells how the Former Covenant is connected to the Renewed
Covenant, not ‘new’ or ‘another’ covenant.

Quite a number of important words and terms in use by people now (of Christendom) do
have origin in the words in the Bibles. However often they are quite different sense,
connotation, association, and usage. To keep these in the Bible translations is in danger
of anachronism which leads people to read the Scripture after their own mindset. It is
used by those in power to control over others in terms of knowledge, doctrines and
ecclesiastical practices.

One would want have glimpse of several fields as much as interested:

1. Textual criticism – transmission, canonization, and biblical authority;
2. History of Bible translations;
3. Biblical languages and Bible translation (history, theory, principle, and practice, and
problem); TaNaKh, Judaic Oral Torah and Judaic Writings (Talmud, Mishnah,
Gemara, Midrash, etc.)
4. History of Church, denominations, and sects along with relation between the Church
and the State;
5. Conflict btw Church vs. secular power and culture;
6. History of early Mashiah Community vis-à-vis Judaism, history of the Constantine
Catholic Church and Judaism of Diaspora, anti-Semitism; and
7. Development of doctrines and interaction with secular power and culture.

‘Testament’ for a technical term of the Book in the Scripture – so-call Old
Testament and New Testament; it was from Latin into an archaic translation word
in KJV for what should be rendered as ‘covenant’.b As such, the term ‘Old
Testament’ is retained as a commonly accepted technical term when it refers to
the Hebrew Scripture (of Judaism). The TaNaKh Hebrew Scripture is the ‘Books
of Old Covenant’ with the word ‘old’ in the sense of the former covenant (not
‘worn-out’ or ‘abrogated’ ‘obsolete’) in contrast to the renewed one.]

‘new’ vs. ‘*renewed’

Even the Greek kainē is in the sense of ‘renewed’ ‘refreshed’, in contrast to neos (new as
something in replacement).c The Covenant of YHWH in Yeshua the Mashiah is not ‘neos’
but kainē; not replacement but refreshed; not fixed up but renewed. In this sense it is ‘new’
in Yeshua the Mashiah (Lk 22:20); but it is a ‘renewed’ covenant of YHWH to Israel – Jer
31:31-34.] [Cf. Ref. www.tms.edu/m/tmsj10q.pdf ]

A biblical word covenant (‫ ברית‬berith – Heb; /diathēkē – Gk) is similar

to a human contract but with significant difference: Whereas a human
contract is a bilateral one to be effected upon mutual agreement, a biblical
covenant is, on the other hand, though being between two parties,

a
http://youtu.be/UcVKQgAySz4 The fifth Gospel [on the Epistle to the Hebrews.]
b
KJV has it rendered correctly as ‘covenant’ – Heb 8:6 – 9:4.
c
Cf. palaios ‘old’; heteros ‘different’; allos ‘another’.
 completely unilateral with God Himself initiating and with no counter-
amendments on the part of man. It was given as a God’s grace-gift to His
own elect people to have His will (desire, intent, and purpose) carried out.
Agreement itself does not constitute a covenant. The divine covenant then
is not just of binding terms, but also of promises and pledges. To translate
it as ‘agreement’ (in CEV, ERV, AUV, and GSNT) and ‘promise’ (in
GW) shows the translator’s lack of scholarly sophistication in the name
of ‘easy to read and understand the God’s Word. KJV and others
translated this as ‘testament’ which is obsolete and archaic for its original
sense of ‘covenant’ and now used to mean a will of formal declaration in
conjunction with a person’s death, and chiefly used in phrase ‘last will
and testament’.

The word ‘testament’ comes come from Latin testamentum, the word by
which the Latin ecclesiastical writers translated the Greek diathēkē. It is
not used in English in this sense other than in the particular phrase ‘New
Testament’ (abbr. N.T., or NT) (Gk. Ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Hē Kainē
Diathēkē; Heb. Brit Chadashah /B′rit Hadasha – cf. Jer 31:31). The term
*New Testament; does not appear in the Bible. It is a technical term to
designate the whole of 27 books of the canonical collection and should not
be confused with ‘the New Covenant’ (‘Renewed Covenant’). a
The term ‘Old Testament’ does not belong to the Bible; the expression Hē
Palaia Diathēkē is found for the first time in Melito of Sardis, towards 170
CE.

The New Testament is not same as the Gospel or ‘the Kingdom Message’.

The Old Testament is a collective technical term for the whole 39 books
of Christian canonical books b. It connotes the translation of the text from
78F78F

the original language. Hence, TaNaKh c is a more appropriate term to use

79 F79F

when we refer to it especially we are talking about the New Testament, as

NT itself does not make any reference to the term ‘Old Testament’ per se.

a
‘The Christian New Testament’ is a somewhat misleading expression linguistically and
rhetorically. ‘New Testament’ itself is called so by Christians and in their core of life. E.g. in
Feld and Avraham (2008), Jewish Secrets hidden in the New Testament, p. xv.
b
Cf. Deuterocanonical books – regarded as canonical in Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox
tradition.
c
Cf. TaNaKh (or Hebrew Bible) vs. OT: TaNaKh (/TaNaKh) was written primarily in Hebrew (a few
short passages in Aramaic). Major differences from Old Testament are (1) the foundational texts, (2) the
total number of biblical books, (3) the arrangement of the categories (divisions) of books, (4) the
categorization of some books, and (5) the titles of some of the books are different. http://catholic-
resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm
[Quote from Sabbath in Christ]

A covenant is simply an agreement or promise between two parties. One party

is the suzerain, or ruling party. The other is the vassal, or ruled party. The
suzerain-God in the case with Israel -- was the one who dictated the terms of
the covenant. Usually these terms were written out in duplicate so each party
to the covenant had an identical copy much the way a bank contract is made
today. The covenant documents contained the promise made by the suzerain
to the ruled party and the requirements, or obligations, of the ruled party to
the suzerain. The covenant documents contained an outline of what would
happen if the ruled party did not abide by the covenant obligations: blessings
if they kept the covenant; and cursings if they did not. Each covenant had a
sign which was arbitrarily assigned by the suzerain and placed in the very
center of the covenant document and was unique to that covenant agreement.
The ruled party was to keep or display the sign of the covenant as a symbol
of their obedience to the covenant stipulations. Failure to do so would be
considered by the suzerain a sign of rebellion and called for drastic
consequences.

We see, then, that there are five main parts of each covenant:
(1) the promise from the suzerain to the ruled party,
(2) the requirements of the ruled party to the suzerain and
(3) the sign of the covenant.
(4) A list of the blessings that would occur if they were obedient to the
covenant and
(5) a list of the cursings that would come upon them for disobedience to
the covenant stipulations.
All of these were detailed in two identical covenant documents; one for the
suzerain and one for the ruled party.

‘*Renewed Covenant in Messiah’ > *New Covenant [vs. ‘the Former Covenant’ >
‘the Old Covenant’]

B’rit Chadasha in Hebrew Jer 31:31.

Hē Kaine Diathēkē in Greek Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24;
[Cf. Heb 8:13]

The meaning of the New Covenant can become clear only from out of the Torah of
TaNaKh (not as ‘Old Testament’), not from within the New Testament itself. The
Gospels themselves do not belong to the NT Dispensation, which was ushered only
after the coming of God’s spirit poured on during the Shavuot (again, not ‘Christian
Pentecost’) in Acts Ch. 2.

[For the meaning of the words (renewed; covenant) and Scriptural basis of
understanding the Covenant. See Appendix ‘On Covenant’.]
Covenant – old, former/first; new, renewed,
old covenant - 2Co_3:14;
better covenant – Heb 7:22;
first one (covenant) – Heb 8:7; 9:1, 18
first one ~~ grown old - Heb 8:13 [/x: become obsolete; out of date; etc.]
new covenant - 2Co 3:6; Heb 9:1, 4, 15; 12:24
renewed covenant – Heb 8:8
(as) new (one) - Heb 8:13;
first covenant – Heb 9:15,
eternal covenant – Heb 13:20;

covenant – agreement btw two party; in the Scripture it is always enacted

unilaterally by God in behalf of people.

Cf. Covenants in OT www.gotquestions.org/Bible-covenants.html

• The Adamic Covenant (Gen 3:16-19) with Edenic Covenant (Gen

1:26-30; 2:16-17)
• The Noahic Covenant (Gen 9:8-17)
• The Davidic Covenant (2 Samuel 7:8-16).
• The Abrahamic Covenant (cf. Act 3:25; 7:8; Gal 3:16-18)
• The Mosaic Covenant (aka Sinai Covenant) (Exo 19-24; Deu 11);
• cf. a renewed covenant (Jer 31:31-34)

The ‘new’ of the New Testament and of the New Covenant means new in
Yeshua the Mashiah. It is not another one replacing old one (Mosaic
Covenant), but the renewed one (Cf. Jer 31:31ff; Heb 8:8).
[the words ‘covenant’ and ‘blood (of Yeshua) – Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk
22:20; 1Co 11:25; Heb 10:29; 12:24; 13:20.

(Concept of Covenant and blood in OT setting - Heb 9:18, 20)

• a covenant previously ratified by God – Gal 3:17

• the newed covenant (2Co 3:6) vs. the former (/x: old) covenant
(2Co 3:14)
• the first covenant vs. second one – Heb 8:7;
• the blood of the covenant (of Yeshua) – Mt 26:28; Mk 14:24;
• ‘the renewed covenant in my blood’ (of Yeshua) – Lk 22:20; 1Co
11:25;
• the ark of the covenant (of God) – Rev 11:29.

contract – legally binding arrangement between two or more parties (Gal 3:15)
 testament (1) last will and testament (in legal sense); (2) covenant – archaic;
the English as extra-biblical word lives on in the name of the books – ‘the Old
Testament-’ and the ‘New Testaments’ – the technical terms to refer those
books, but not in the sense of ‘covenant’.

Cf. As the translation word – ‘agreement’ is not enough to give to be the special
sense the word ‘covenant’ has.
Cf. treaty – e.g. in Dan 9:27 – the ‘prince’ (ruler) making it with many’.]

*circumcision; Heb. *brit-milah

brit-milah > circumcision

S4061 peritomnō; peritomē; ‘

S203 akrobustia *uncircumcision’

Brit-milah – A circumcision-rite in Judaic practice performed on a boy at age 8 day.

IRENT renders Greek expression with this Hebrew word.

It serves as one of the few ethnic boundary markers for Israelites (along with sabbath
keeping on 7th day of the lunar week).

To translate simply as ‘circumcise’ and ‘circumcision’ is problematic since the

English word is a term for a minor surgical procedure, which gives a totally different
word picture and association. IRENT renders it as 'brit-milah' (Hebrew word).
Often rhetorically used in Pauline Epistles are the term ‘circumcision’ which is in
the sense of 'being (of people) of brit-milah', and ‘uncircumcision’ which is in the
sense of 'being (people) outside brit-milah' [Rm 2:25, 26, 27, 28, 29; 3:1; 4:10, 11;
12; 1Co 7:18, 19; Gal 5:6, 11; 6:15; Eph 2:11; Phi 3:3; Col 2:11; 3:11; Tit 1:10].
*memory, *remember, remembrance; memory; recall; *memorial
The English word 'memorial' in the Bible is only applicable to a few, such as 'Passover
memorial'. It is about bygone or dead. It is misused in most Bible translations for several
Hebrew words and one Greek word (S3422 mnēmosunon – Mt 26:13 //Mk 14:9. Act
10:4)
H2146 zikkaron – Exo 12:14; 13:19, etc.
H2143 zeker 'memory', 'remembrance', /x: memorial
The name of God – YHWH – is not a memorial name, but the eternal name to be
remembered (Exo 3:15; Psa 102:12; Hos 12:5)
H234 azkara 'representative portion of offering' – NLT; 'token of' – GNT; /x: 'memorial
offering' Lev 2:2; Num 5:26, etc.
H2142 zakar 'to remember' Gen 8:1; Exo 13:3, etc.

• [H2146 zikkaron / remembering - CJB; [f/reminder – NASB; /xxx: memorial – KJV, ESV, NET, ISV;
/commemoration – HCSB] Lev 23:24; Exo 28:12; Zec 6:14;

Lev 23:24 "Speak to the sons of Israel, saying,

<'In the seventh month, on the first of the month,
there should occur for yoů a sabbath-rest
for reminder by the shofar blowing, a holy gathering.
• [H234 azkara – Lev 2:2, 9; 5:12, etc.] /reminder-portion – Fox; /reminder portion – CJB;
/reminder – CEV; /representative portion – NLT; /xx: memorial portion – KJV, NASB, HCSB,
NIV, most;

S3422 mnēmosunon /xxx: memorial /remembering; /remembrance,

Act 10:4; eis mnēmosunon /to be remembered – IRENT; /xxx: as a memorial offering – NIV;
/xxx: as a memorial – NASV, ESV, NET; /as a reminder – ISV; /for a remebrance – Aramaic
Bible in Plain English;

Mt 26:3 //Mk 14:9 ‘in remembering what she has really done’ ░░ eis mnēmosunon autēs [=
remembering hers (objective genitive –of possessive pronoun); = her deed of foresight on what
was waiting for Him]; /in remembrance of her – Weymouth; /> in memory of her – NASB, NET,
HCSB; /xxx: for a memorial of her – KJV, ASV, ESV, YLT; /

Cf. H3419 mnēmeion /memorial-tomb – NWT; /tomb – most;

Forget, forgettable,

We forget that we have forgotten. The (walking) dead do not know they are dead.
We often don’t remember who we really are. Do we know who we really are?
Do we know where we are?

Amnesia –
https://youtu.be/ipD_G7U2FcM (Clive Wearing Living without Memory) TV
documentary ‘Equinox: Prisoner of Consciousness’ (1986). Directed by
Jonathan Miller.
https://youtu.be/LX8xJAmL0GI (The Man with the 7 Second Memory ITV1) (a
follow up. 2005) Deborah Wearing (2005), Forever Today – A memoir of love
and amnesia
*tempt, *temptation’ *test; put to test’; *trial

English vocabulary:

(vt.) To test, to put to test, to examine/check – whether good or bad, right or wrong, true or false,
strong or weak, etc., assess, evaluate, appraise, judge, examine– to what purpose? – ‘be refined’ ‘be
challenged’.

(vi.) To undergo trials of hardship/suffering

(n.) tests, testings, proving out, cf. temptations (vs. seduction, inducement, entice, entrapment; cf.
lure, allure, bait), vs. trials of hardship (vs. ‘judicial trial’), tryout (experiment, test out).

Gk. verb peirazō (38x in NT S3985) to put someone on test; to bring oneself put to
testing. To test with trials of hardship; to challenge; to prove trustworthiness, being
put on test. E.g.– Jam 1:12-16 (being tested with desires; with evil things); 1Co 7:5
(by Satan); Gen 22:1 LXX (nasah H5254) (Elohim testing Abraham);
Gk. verb ekpeirazō (S1598) (4x) (to put someone to testing; to provoke): Mt 4:7 //Lk
4:12 (Adonai - LORD); Lk 19:25 (Yeshua); 1Co 10:9b (the Mashiah);

Temptation (Eddisson, Key Words, p. 115)

Until the 17th Century, the English word 'temptation' had a neutral flavor, and
could be used to describe any test, whether the purpose was good or evil. Thus,
in the AV we read that 'God did tempt Abraham' (Gen 22:1) in the matter of
sacrificing Isaac, meaning that he put him to the test; and the Greek word
translated 'tempt' in the New Testament is also translated 'prove' (Jn 6:6 AV) and
'examine' (2Co 13:5), on both occasions in a favorable sense. Again, the NEB
translation of 'Lead us not into temptation' is, more correctly, rendered, 'Do not
bring us to the test' (Mt 6:13), because God cannot entice people to do evil (Jam
1:13).

Therefore, although the word has developed this more sinister meaning, and is
now always used in connection with some form of inducement to do evil, it still
contains the idea of testing or proving, because although perpetrated by Satan,
it is allowed by God for our good, and that is why Christians are actually told to
rejoice in it (Jam 1:2) as well as endure it (Jam 1:12).

Sometimes the confrontation (< challenge) will be direct and personal, as it was
between Eve and the serpent (Genesis 3) and between Jesus and the Devil (Mt
4:1-1l). At other times the temptation will come through a third person. It was
in that way that Adam fell, and again Jesus recognized the voice of Satan in the
suggestion of one of his closest friends (Mt 16:22.23). On other occasions the
temptation comes from within, from our own baser desires (Jam 1:13-15).
Sometimes we are tempted by the Devil himself, sometimes by the world, and
sometimes by the flesh.

It is important to remember that temptation is not sin, or else Jesus himself would
not have been tempted (Heb 4: 15); but giving way to it is sin; that the temptation
itself can actually be beneficial, strengthening and preparing us for great
responsibilities (1Pe l:6, 7); and that God will never allow it to become stronger
than we can bear but will always provide a way or escape (1Co 10:13) for those
who will watch and pray (Mt 26:4 1).

[Note: the word 'to tempt' and 'temptation' have become unsuitable as
translations words in almost all places throughout the NT and are to be without
difficulty with the word group of 'to test' 'to put to test' and 'being put to test'.
'temptation' inside our heart is the result of 'being put test' and have failed with
it – ARJ]
 ‘temptation’ ‘trial’ ‘testing’: See: <Appendix on 'peirasmos'>

Greek noun peirasmos is the sense of a testing, not temptation which most English
bibles translate.

The English word 'temptation' is that which is from within our desires; 'tempting'
or 'being tempted'. = seduction, enticement, allurement or entrapping to entice into
sin, evil. (After OED)15. e.g. 'succumb to temptations'; 'fall into temptation', etc.

(1) Mt 4:1; //Mk 1:13; //Lk 4:2; //Lk 4:13. In the well-known pericope of the so-
called <Temptation of Jesus>a Satan comes to bring a challenge to Yeshua, put
Yeshua to test to prove who He is. It has nothing to do with ‘temptation’ (an
inducement to sin as such), but to bring a testing to face a challenge as to prove
who He was.
(2) Lk 22:40 eiserchomai eis peirasmon (enter into a testing)
2Pe 2:9 ek peirasmōn ruesthai ‘to rescue from testing in their trials’]
Mt 6:13 (//Lk 11:4) 'Not let us brought into a place of testing Your
faithfulness'. As a noun in the *Lord’s Prayer most English Bibles keeps
it as ‘temptation’, the sense of which the text itself does not carry. IRENT
renders it ‘Let us not into a [place of] testing’ in which the verbal phrase
‘let in; let into’ is preferred to ‘bring us not into’. Here in the context it is
a testing of God's faithfulness. This way it avoids misleading word picture
of ‘God himself does bring us into ‘temptation’. The sense of 'lead' (e.g.
as in leadership) is not in the Greek word.

(3) Jam 1:12 ‘Blessed is the one who hold out a testing through their trials
(‘hupomenō peirasmon’ – also in Jam 1:2-3) – it is not ‘endure temptation’!
(KJV, NKJV, ASV, NET, NRSV). Cf. ‘trial(s)’ – ESV, RSV, NASB, HCSB,
NWT, NIV, WNT, etc. In v. 13 it is used in the sense of putting someone on test
with bad things and with one’s own desires.
(4) 1Tm 6:9 ‘empiptō eis peirasmon’ 'fall into a testing from temptation' > /fall
into temptation – most.
Cf. ‘trials of hardship’ (in contrast to ‘judicial trials’) - experiencing an affliction,
hardship, or persecution.

Cf. Jam 4:7b "Stand up against (> resist) the devil and it will flee from you."

a
The well-known phrase – not temptation (seduction or entrapment). It is his bringing himself to be
tested of his obedience to God’s word, as God’s son. It is not the only Jesus’ temptation – there are many
(but not in the sense of seduction or inducement, but testing and challenging. See Jeffery Gibson (1995),
The Temptations of Jesus in Early Christianity.
As a verb:
• peirazō 'put to a testing'; not 'to tempt': Gal 6:1; Jam1:2, [the idea of
getting tempted’ is a part of ‘being tested’ – ARJ] [Cf. S1383 dokimion
'test and prove' Jam 1:3]
• ho peirazōn ['the one who put into a testing'; /the tempter – most]
1Th 3:5; Mt 4:1; Lk 4:2 [= 'the devil']; Mk 1:13 ['the Satan']

See below how Danker’s Lexicon treats it without due attention to the current
English usage of ‘tempt’ and ‘temptation’.

Danker p. 277

peirasmos – 1. ‘a means to determine quality or performance’, testing, trial – 1Pt 4:12;

Heb 3:8; (‘trial’ in non-legal sense - ARJ)
2. ‘exposure to possibility of wrongdoing’ temptation 1Ti 6:9;
temptation Mt 6:13 //Lk 11:4; Mk 14:38; Lk 4:13; 22:28; Act 20:19; 1Co 10:13; Gal
4:14; Jam 1:2, 12; 2Pt 2:9; Rev 3:10; [all these are examples that should have been
under 1. - ARJ]

peirazō – 1 ‘make an effort to do something in the face of uncertainty about the

outcome’, try, attempt Act 9:26; 16:7; 24:6
2. ‘make trial of the quality or state of someone’s character or claims’ – a. of inducing
a damaging statement or action test Mt 16:1; 22:18, 35; Mk 10:2; Jn 6:6; 1Co 10:13;
2Co 13:5; Hb 2:18; 11:17; Rev 2:2 – b. of inducement to sin tempt Mt 4:1, 3; //Mk
1:13; //Lk 4:2; Gal 6:1; 1Th 3:5; Jam 1:13, 14; Rev 2:10 – 3 ‘act in a manner that
amounts to defiance of another’s resources for retribution’, test tempt Act 5:9; 15:10;
1Co 10:9; Heb 3:9;

Cf. dokimazō evaluate, discern, appraise, inspect, examine, test (of quality),
determine Lk_12:56; 14:19; 1Co 11:28; 2Co 8:8; 13:5; Gal 6:4; Eph 5:10; 1Th 2:4b;
5:21; 1Ti 3:10; 1Pt 1:7; Rm 1:28; 2:18; Phi 1:10 (approve); Rm 12:2; 14:22; Co 3:13;
16:3; 2Co 8:2; 1Th 2:4a.

Jam 1:12 proven through testing ░░ (dokimos genomai); /

[cf. ‘overcome/be victorious/conquer’ (nikaō) Rev 2:7ff; 21:7]
*stumble and Other related expressions:

/proskoptō – stumble - Jn 11:9; Rm 14:20

/skandalizō -Cause (someone) to stumble; /make stumble; /x: cause to sin – NET
(also in Danker. ‘sin’ is by interpretation, not in the meaning of the word); /xx:
causes to lose faith – GNB, CEV; / Mt 5:29, 30; 11:6; 13:21, 57; 15:12; 17:27;
18:6, 8, 9; 24:10; 26:31,33; Mk 4:17; 6:3; 9:42, 43, 47; 14:27, 29; Lk 7:23; 17:2;

/ptaiō (stumble) Rm 11:11; 14:20, 21; Jam 3:2 (x,)

/proskomma – n. stumbling-block; Rm 9:32, 33; 14:20; 1Pe 2:8; 1Co 8:9;
/proskopē – 2Co 6:3
/skandalon – stumbling-block > stumbling block; hindrance, /x: offense; /x: snare
– NET (Rm 11:9); /x: obstacle – NET (Rm 14:13); Mt 16:23; 18:7; Lk 17:1; Rm
9:32; 11:9; 14:3; 1Co 1:23; 1Pe 2:8; 1Jn 2:10; Rev 2:14;
/paraptōma (violation, trespass) Mt 6:14; Mk 11:25; Rm 4:25, 11:12 (often in the
Pauline letters (/x: stumbling - Etheridge).

Mt 18:6 causes to stumble ░░ (skandalizō); /put a stumbling block before - NRSV; /causes to
stumble- NASB, ISR, TNIV!; /cause to fall into sin – NLT; />> causes to sin – NET, ESV, CEV,
ERV, ISV, NIrV, NIV, NKJV; /> leads astray – PNT; /> causes to be led astray – AUV! (i.e. ‘to
lose faith in me’); /causes to stumble and sin – AMP; /is a hindrance to – Mft; /x: occasion to
fall off – WNT; /xx: is a cause of trouble – BBE; /xx: offend – KJV+; /x: causes the downfall
of – HCSB; /x: stumbles – NWT, Murdock; /xx: ensnares – JNT; /x: afford scandal to –
Whiston; /x: put a snare in the way of – TCNT; /x: provides an occasion for sinning to – Cass;
/>> (than to) do anything to cause (one of these little ones who believe in me) to sin – Barclay;
/xxx: causes ~ to lose faith – GW, GNB; /
[Problem of word collocation: /x: (causes ~) believe in me to sin – NET, ESV duo; /~ believes in
me to stumble – ALT; cf. ‘causes to stumble who believe in me’.] [Who is alluded to ‘whosoever
put a stumbling block’ with similar phrase in //Mk 9:42. Cf. //Lk 17:1 as a singular.] [It is far more
than committing a sin – those in power (priestly, scholarly) with various titles, such as ‘rabbi’
‘leader’ ‘father’ ‘teacher’ – Mt 23:8-10 – had better remind themselves about a mill-stone
accompanying their position.]

Jam 1:14 lured and enticed ░░ - ALT, NET, RSV trio, NASB, HSCB; JNT; /lured and baited –
ARJ; /; /x: being drawn out and being entrapped – Diagl; /(by his own passions --) allured and
enticed by them – TCNT; /drawn away and allured – DRB; /drawn away (thy his own desires)
and trapped – ISR; /
[In contrast to ‘testing’ for the Gk. word peirasmos, the word ‘temptation’ is more with ‘seduction’
‘enticement’ – to fall into; dragged into; to succumb.] [Gen 22:1 ‘testing faith of Abraham’; not
‘allure to sin’. Rm 13:14; 1Co 6:9-10, 18; 1Tm 6:9-11; fleeing from, avoid, make no ‘provision’
for it; not resisting; flesh itself is weak.)

1Tim 5:13-15; 1Jn 2:14-17

'*Temptations of Jesus'

Mt 4:1-11 {//Mk 1:12-13; //Lk 4:1-13} The

so-called '*Temptation of Jesus' (Wilderness Temptation)

Often misread as a solicitation to sin (as to seduce, entice or entrap) by the devil (Satan in Mk
1:12).

The setting is Himself putting on test. Here, Yeshua, being a mortal human ('son of man'), is
confronted and challenged to prove who He himself is.]

The list below is adapted on Jeffrey Gibson (1995), The Temptations of Jesus in Early
Christianity. pp. 21-22]

1. 'Temptation' in the wilderness (following the immersion of Yeshua by Yohanan). (Mk

1:12-13; Mt 4:1-11). (Lk 4:1-13).
2. experience of being 'tempted' when confronted with a demand for a 'sign from heaven' (Mk
8:1-13). (Mt 12:38-39 //Lk 11:16, 29-32). (Mt 16:1-2a, 4).
3. Experience of being 'tempted' at Caesarea Philippi (Mk 8:27-33). (Mt 16:13-23).
4. Being 'tempted' when asked about the legitimacy of divorce (Mk 10.1 -12) (Mt 19:1-12).
5. Being 'tempted' when asked about the legitimacy of paying taxes to the Roman Emperor
(Mk 12:13-17) (Mt 22:15-22; Lk 20:20-26). Egerton Papyrus (Fragment 2 recto).
6. Being 'tempted' when confronted with the question of the 'greatest commandment' (Mt
22:34-40; Mk 12:28-34)).
7. experience of being 'tempted' when confronted with a question on the requirements of
inheriting eternal life (Lk 10:25-26)
8. 'Temptation' in Gethsemane (Mk 14:32-42). (Lk 22:40-46). (Mt 26:36-46).
9. Testimony that his ministry was conducted in the face of 'temptations' (Lk 22:28).
10. Being 'tempted' when confronted with the question on stoning a woman caught in the act
of adultery (Jn 7:53-8.11).
*sin; *sins; *transgression; * forgive; * judge

Cf. ‘evil’ (noun)

Ref. M. Shuster (2004), The Fall and Sin – What We Have Become as Sinners

‘sin’ vs. ‘a sin’

‘sin’ vs. ‘the Fall’ vs. ‘original sin’ vs. ‘free will’
‘born a sinner’? ‘born in sin’?

What is ‘sin’? – [as a translation word, it should be used in the sense of ‘sin
against God’ or ‘sin against the word of God (i.e. Torah)’. /x: ‘sin against
other’.] [‘to sin against God with something (e.g. blasphemy

[S264 hamartanō] [S265 hamartēma] [S266 hamartia]

[S4258 proamartanō (2x) ‘sin before’ 2Co 12:21]
Cf. [S987 blasphēmeō Mt 9:3] [S988 blasphēmia a slander, blasphemy Mt
12:31] [S989 blasphēmos (adj) Act 6:11; a blasphemer 1Tim 1:13]
Cf.
[S2632. katakrinō – ‘bring judgment’ ‘*condemn’ Mt 12:41; Lk 13:14]
[≈S2613 katadikazō Mt 12:7; Lk 6:37]
[S2919 krinō ‘*judge down’ Mt 7:1; Lk 6:37]

A sin – a wrong doing? A harm? A debt?

sin against God vs. ‘transgression of the law’ (Cf. 1Jn 3:4 S458 anomia) ‘the
lawlessness’ /x: ‘the transgression of the law’ – KJV)
iniquities, guilt

A sin against God?

‘to sin (vs. to do wrongdoing; to do grave wrong) to others (Mt 18:21)

‘forgive sins’ – what does mean by ‘forgive’? Absolve? Pardon? Cover?

* Atonement?
‘God forgives sins’; Only God forgives sins? No. [Yeshua forgave sins against
God – not because he was God, but he was the embodiment of the Word; taken
authority from Father.

Yeshua forgives sins. What sins?

Psalm 32:1
Blessed is the one whose transgression is forgiven
and whose sin is covered
Psalm 32:2
Blessed is a man whom YHWH does not charge with guilt
 and in whose spirit there is no deceit.

31:1 [H6588 pesha /xx: disobedience – NLT; WEB]; [H5375 nasah /forgiven – most; /x:
pardoned - NWT]; [H2401 chataah ‘sin’] [3680 kasah ‘to cover’]
32:2 [H2803 chashab /charge – NWT; /impute - most]; [H5771 avon – guilt, iniquity];
/impute iniquity – NASB; KJV; /xx: charge with sin – HCSB; /punish ~~wrongdoing –
NET] [H7423 rmiyah /guile]
Notion, concept, meaning of 'sin' in Hebrew and Greek.

(from Alexander and Baker (2003), Dictionary of the OT – Pentateuch

Sin is understood as any offense against life as God designed it. It is to miss the target that God
designed for humanity, whether intentionally or unintentionally (hatta't “sin”); it is the expression
of an inner twistedness ('awon, “iniquity,” “guilt”); it is finally to step over the bounds God has
defined for humanity (pesa', “transgression,” “rebellion”). In paganism, offenses against the gods
were largely confined to trespassing, often unconsciously, into some area of life the gods had
reserved for themselves.

While there is considerable attention given to dealing with the effects of unintentional sin (cf. Lev
1—7; 16), it is made clear at the outset that the distinctive feature of the human behavior that
separates them from their Creator is willful disobedience of his known will (Gen 2—3). In
particular, it is the attempt to define for oneself what is “good” and what is “bad.” It is the refusal
to admit transcendence. Humans will be God in their lives (cf. Num 15:30-36). The result is the
one discussed above: a perverted way of thinking in which on any issue people tend away from
submission to God and obedience to his will. No longer must they be told, as Eve did, that God
cannot be trusted. Humans believe it instinctively. Thus, the Pentateuch shows the amazing but all-
too-familiar picture of people who have experienced God’s fatherly care for them again and again
but who are convinced in every new crisis that God means to do them harm. As a result of this
condition, humanity has fallen into theological darkness, ignorant of God’s purposes and ways,
with the ensuing result that even when they are enabled not to transgress God’s ways intentionally,
they constantly fall short of his best and are rendered spiritually unclean. Sin has become not
merely certain actions but an attitude toward God. The Pentateuch addresses all of these conditions
in very concrete but also very profound ways.

Vocab: sins, a sin, sin, Sin, the sin, 'original sin'

Related words and phrases:

law, laws, the Law, Torah, injunction, command, commandment;
H6588 pesha (93x) 'transgression' Gen 31:36, Lev 16:16, Dan 9:24; etc.
S3847 parabasis (7x) transgression – Rm 2:23; 4:15; 5:14; Gal 3:19, etc.
S3900 paraptōma (21x), trespass – Mt 6:16; Mk 11:251 Rm 4:25 (9x) [KJV renders Rm 6:15 as
‘offence’
trespasses, wrong-doings; lawlessness
S458 anomia (15x) lawlessness ('not having law' but 'living without law-keeping' – ignore,
disregard, abandon law) – Mt 7:23; Rm 4:7; 2Co 6:14; 2Th 2:3; Heb 1:9; 1Jn 3:4 (2x – KJV made
serious errors by rendering as 'transgression of the law'!!); 불법 < 무법, 무질서.
S495 anomos (10x) – lawless – Mk 15:28; Luk 22:37, etc;
S460 anomōs (2x) – lawlessly - Rm 2:12
S113 athesmos (2x - 2Pe 2:17; 3:17); S111 athemitos (2x – Act 10:28; 1Pe 4:3)
unprincipled; /> lawless; /> unlawful, /x: wicked – KJV;
S266 hamartia (173x) 'sin' – Mt 1:21; 3:6, etc.

S677 aproskopos – blameless - Act 24:16

S4348 proskomma (6x) – stumbling-block – Rm 9:32 (4x), 1Co 8:9; 1Pe 2:8;
S4349 proskopē (1x) a cause of stumbling - 2Co 6:3
 = S4625 skandalon (15x) – stumbling-block; /x: offence – KJV; Mt 13:41 (5x); Lk 17:1;
Rm 9:33, etc.; ['offence' – what is the meaning to be used in the NT as in KJV? Cf.
'defense' in English]

Cf. poieō hamartian 'live out sins' (/xx; commit sin – KJV; /practice sin – NASB, NEW,
/x: continue to sin – NIV; /make a practice of sinning – ESV; /(to) sin – HCSB; /) [See
1Jn 3:9ff]

Other related words – 'forgiveness' 'salvation', deliverance, atonement, propitiation

vs. expatiation;

[Quote: "People to whom sin is just a matter of words, to them salvation is just
words too." - William Faulkner]

[Note: concept of ‘sin’ and ‘atonement’ in OT is not same as that of Christian

thought. There is a doctrinal difference btw Judaism and Christianism is
biblically inherent. Different ideas and claims elaborated on these and related
issues (salvation,a forgiveness, sacrifice, worship) have developed in Church
theology (full of man-made doctrines and creeds). As such it should be read in
the line of Pauline midrashb.]

a sin – an act which brings dishonor to God’s name; doing against God's will.; not
specifically breaking a law or transgressing God's commandments (Cf. 1Jn 3:4 /x: 'the
transgression of the law' – KJV)
sin – the state of the human creature of being alienated from the Creator God.

[Ref. E.P. Sanders (1991), Paul (pp. 35-38)

Sin – what is definition of sin? Or of a sin (sins)? Where is the English word from?

a
‘Saved from’ is ‘delivered/rescued’ [out of enemies' hands for God’s people, Israel, esp. in OT Mt 1:21
‘save His (i.e. God’s) people (laos) in their sins’ – not sins of Godless people in the world.] [Note it is ‘saved
from punishment of sin through faith’ we read in Eph 2:8, not ‘saved from our sins’.] [Gal 1:4 He gave
Himself for our sins to rescue (/deliver exaireō) out of the present evil age.]
[Related questions: (1) ‘how does the death (or the blood) of Jesus save me? (2) Did He come to save us in
our sins? Or from our sins? (3) He saves, but how does He save? (4) He saves, but whom doe He save? (5)
Who saves? God or the Son of God? (6) God forgives our sins. What does it mean ‘Jesus gives’? (7) Was it
His self-giving in obedience to His Father, or His death, or His mystical/mysterious ‘blood’? (8) what makes
for people to come up with man-made atonement doctrine, saying His death or blood was for the payment
for? A ransom to pay off the Satan? (9) Has God figured out how to take up His salvation plan and work only
after Adam’s fall (in the legal setting), or only after He appointed Yeshua to offer the solution of the problem?
Is the idea of ‘propitiation in His blood’ in Rm 3:25 a Pauline midrash? Where was the blood itself involved
in the death of Yeshua? Cf. 1Jn 2:1 ‘Yeshua the Mashiah … is the propitiation (hilasmos) (or is it
‘atonement’) for our sins’. Is it an after-thought interpretation of what happened, or God is the vindictive
One, who demands appeasement, payment, in need of receiving sacrifice from mortal beings, just as with
pagan gods, etc.? Cf. ‘mercy seat’ Heb 9:5 (hilastērion)]
b
It is not unlike the Gospels (esp. G-Matthew) which show a number of the Gospel writers’ own midrash on
the OT texts.
As a biblical word, it is that which provokes God’s wrath – wrath of God who
is life, light, and love. Sin is not 'sin'; the words are a prior not defined. What
sin, whose sin, against what?

1Jn 3:4 - Transgression of the law? KJV). Lawlessness? 'sin' or 'the sin' (hē hamartia)

Who can forgive sins, Elohim alone (eis S1520? – Lk 5:21; Mk 2:7)
Authority to forgive sins – on Yeshua (Mk 2:10; Mt 9:6; Lk 5:24); not because he is
a God or god-man. What sins? What sins cannot be forgiven? How so? Mk 3:28-30,
Mt 12:31-32; Lk 12:10.

Cf. Etymology of it as ‘missing a mark’ (as to perfection as if perfection is the goal

of life). A sense of missing a mark is not in the word ‘sin’ in the NT. [related to
‘salvation by works’?]. Cf. Rm 3:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the glory
of Elohim”. Coming short of the glory is not the sin; it is the consequence of sin - not
‘achieving glory’ but ‘coming to the presence of God’s glory’.

1Co 15:22 Indeed, just as it is in Adam that all [who die now] die

Sin can be sin as to something against others and things, but only if it is something
to provoke God’s wrath though it covers a related field of wrong-doings, faults,
stumbles, etc. [Cf. In Aramaic, the word covers also ‘debt’ (Cf. Mt 6:12 ‘debts’
parallel //Lk 11:4 ‘sins’)

Cf. IRENT renders the verb hamartanō (‘to sin’) ‘do a grave wrong’ in the three
places, where 'to sin' (the expression which is something done against God and God's
name) does not fit in the context. e.g.
• “… does not do a grave wrong if marry …” (1Co_7:28, 36);
• “… doing a grave wrong to the fellow brethren” (1Co 8:12).

Cf. ‘’ (1Jn 3:4) poieō tēn hamartian (‘do the work of sin’ /commit sin; /xx: practice
sin). [Cf. ‘(the) sin – does the definite article for particularization or for abstraction?
(Cf. Mt 6:13 – with an adjective ‘the evil’ – the evil one/thing? Or ‘evil/evilness’?).
QQ: a study on the (definite) article in Gk. – sense and nuance – in between ‘the’ and
‘that’ in English. E.g. ‘the very one’; ‘the aforementioned one’, etc.]

Related words –
‘flesh’ (referring to the state of humanity when it opposes God)
‘death’ ‘law’

Transgression –

Isa 53:8 “… fur the transgressions of my people [the gentile nations] they [the
Yehudim] were stricken.”
1Jn 3:4 “Whosoever committed sin transgressed also the law: for sin is the
transgression of the law.” [KJV – inaccurately rendered.] [A transgression of
the law is ‘a sin’, but not ‘sin’.] [See Appendix on 1Jn 3.4]
 Three forms of sin: Sensuousness, selfishness, godlessness
[Walter Rauschenbusch (1917), A Theology of the Social Gospel (p. 50) -- quoted
in p. 146 Hans Schwarz (2005), Theology in Global Context (p. 146)]
• Sensuousness → pleasure-pursuit;
• Selfishness → pursuit of power, self-centered with the Self as God;
• Godlessness → ‘lawlessness’ Gk. anomia (e.g. 1Jn 3:4 ‘living away from
God’s law)] [See below ‘unforgivable sin’.]
• “… the kingdom of God, which is itself the social gospel (p. 131).” “…
the kingdom of evil -- human sinfulness and the evils of this world…”

‘Unforgivable sin’ [the expression not in the Bible]

Eternal sin: Catholic doctrine of ‘original sin’ (after Augustine of Hippo).
What does it mean 'original'? 'prototype'? 'the first one becoming 'inherited', to infect all the
humanity born or to be bone. Why God make human being to be like that? God as cause of human
evilness?

‘blasphemy against the Sprit’ (Mt 12:31)

‘blaspheme against the Sprit’ (//Lk 12:10);
‘blaspheme against the holy Spirit’ (//Mk 3:29):

(1) what is blasphemy against the Spirit? How different from blasphemy
against Elohim? against the Son-of-man?
(2) in what setting? in the work of Yeshua?
(3) will not be forgiven – how so? so then? [Cf. for those who believe in Him
and confess sins – all sins are forgiven (Jn 14:6; Act 4:12; Acts 13:39; Tit
2:14; 1Jn 1:9).]

[Cf. Act 7:51 (resist the holy Spirit); 1Jn 5:16 (sin unto death)]

Metonymic use of ‘sin’ (not ‘sins) – 'sin' as 'state of being in sin'

(Esp. in Pauline Epistle to the Romans – Ref. Watchman Nee)

Sin nature
Sin power
Sin guilt
Sin sacrifice (2Co 5:21 ‘as sin sacrifice’ – analogical ‘A is as B’, not ‘A =
B’ – same with ‘the Lamb of Elohim’ Jn 1:29 – ‘as the Lamb of Elohim’)

Sin phrases in Romans: (sin in metonymic use; personified) ‘Sin entered into
the world’ (5:1); ‘sin reigned in death’ (5:21); ‘sin may reign in one’s mortal
body’ (6:12); sin may reign dominion over one (6:14); sin … wrought in me all
kinds of covetousness (7:8); it revived (7:9); also 7:11, 13). Sin as power may
be served (6:16-18), and thus it enslaves (6:20)
Doctrine of sin – a western mindset for ‘right vs. wrong; my rights’. Cf. ‘doctrine
of original sin’ (after St. Augustine) – unbiblical.

vs. concept of Han a (experience of pain by the victims of sin), conscious and
unconscious.
sin, shame, (dishonor), guilt; wound, grief, trauma; brokenness; healing of wound

[reality of sin and evil – “Non-Christian worldviews seek to locate the origin of sin
and evil somewhere within the created order; even so in Christianism – Satan,
Devil, demons. Cf. ‘devil made me do it’. True, but this devil is the Alter Ego of the
self. The very source of sin is my Self (soul; self-identity) and the initial step is in
denial of sin.] [Cf. Janus. Cf. double mindedness; Cf. multiple personality]

Sin, sin guilt, sin nature (vs. divine nature), human nature,
righteousness, (human) evil, God’s justice; sin atonement
Innocent (= free of guilt)

What sin does constitute ‘sin’? 'Eternal sin'? 'original sin'? – in the Bible at all?

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sin [In biblical Hebrew there are about 20 different words which
denote "sin". It may be inferred, therefore, that the ancient Israelites had more concepts
expressing various nuances of sin than Western thought and theology. A study of the biblical
concept of sin, therefore, cannot disregard the diversity of words denoting sin. These words
must be examined in their context, i.e., in the formulas and literary units in which they occur.
An analytic study of the three most commonly used terms – ḥeṭʾ, peshaʿ and avon (ʿawon) – has
been undertaken by R. Knierim. As these are often found together (Ex. 34:7; Lev. 16:21; Num.
14:18; Isa. 59:12; Jer. 33:8; Ezek. 21:29; Micah 7:18–19; Ps. 32:1, 5; 51:3–7; 59:4–5; Job 7:20–
21; 13:23; Dan. 9:24; cf. Isa. 1:2, 4; Ezek. 33:10, 12), even in poetic parallelism, there cannot be
an appreciable difference of meaning among them, yet they are not simply synonymous.
The root ḥṭʾ occurs in the Bible 459 times. The original meaning of the verb ḥaṭaʾ is "to miss"
something, "to fail", as can be seen from Genesis 31:39; Leviticus 5:15–16; Numbers 14:40;
Judges 20:16; Psalms 25:8; Proverbs 8:36; 19:2; and Job 5:24, which indicates that sin as
denoted by ḥṭʾ was originally viewed as a failure, a lack of perfection in carrying out a duty.
The root ḥṭʾ signifies a failure of mutual relations and corresponds, then, to the modern idea of
"offense" rather than to that of "sin," which is a theological concept. One who fulfills the claims
of a relation or an agreement is righteous, ẓaddik (ẓaddiq); one who does not, offends (ḥṭʾ l-) his
partner.
…
The root pshʿ occurs in the Bible 136 times, and it too is found in early texts as Genesis 31:36;
50:17; Exodus 22:8; I Samuel 24:11; II Kings 8:20, 22; Amos 1–2; Micah 3:8; and Proverbs
28:24. Its basic meaning is that of "breach". (.. breach of a covenant)
…
The verb ʿawah, found in the Bible 17 times, basically expresses the idea of crookedness, and
thus means "to wrong" (Lam. 3:9), and in the passive form (nifʿal), "to become bent" (Ps. 38:7).
The noun ʿawon, from the same root, is found 227 (229) times, and designates "crookedness."
The use of these words in a figurative sense to denote the transgression, the guilt incurred by it,

a
Ref. Andrew Sung Park (1993), The Wounded Heart of God – The Asian Concept of Han and the
Christian Doctrine of Sin. (Introduction pp. 9-14.) << … Sin is the volitional act of sinners (oppressors);
*han is the [experienced] pain of the victim of [human] sin [and evil] …>> cf. minjung (민중 民衆
‘people’; Gk. ‘laos’) = people of Han. Cf. minjung theology (cf. liberation theology).
https://youtu.be/dXN3h0TIXts (after 7:00 time-marker)
 or the punishment, is of popular origin. The metaphor does not belong to the juridical
terminology, but was assumed by the theological language. Isaiah 59:2, for example, says that
the ʿawonot set up a wall between the Lord and the sinner.

The nouns ḥeṭʾ, haṭaʾah or ḥaṭṭaʾt, peshaʾ, and ʿawon, and also the corresponding verbs, denote
a "sin" in the theological sense of the word when they characterize a human deed as a "failure",
a "breach", or a "crooked" action with reference to prescriptions that proceed finally from the
stipulations of the Covenant. It is not the external nature of the act that makes it sinful. In
biblical thought, the relation that creates the right to God's protection also creates the sin. There
would be no sin if there were no covenantal law. The sinner is one who has failed in his relation
to God, insofar as he has not fulfilled his obligation to God. In other words, it is a "sin" to
violate, or to break, the Covenant (cf. Jer. 14:20–21).
…
In a certain sense, every sin may be regarded as "deadly"; for, if all people die, it is because all
have sinned, and not in consequence of "the original sin". That the sinner must die is stated or
assumed by many texts (Exo 32:33; Lev. 20:20; 22:9; 24:15–17; Num. 9:13; 16:26; 17:3; 18:22,
32; I Sam. 15:18; I Kings 13:34; 14:11–18; 15:29–30; 16:12–13, 18–19; Isa. 13:9; 38:17;
43:27–28; 64:4–5; Jer. 8:14; Ezk. 3:20; 18:24; Amos 9:8, 10; Ps. 104:34). Stereotyped formulas
say even that "each man shall die because of his sin" (ḥṭʾ: Num. 27:3; Deu 24:16; II Kings 14:6)
or "because of his transgression" (ʿawon: Josh. 22:20; Ezk. 4:17; 7:13, 16; 18:17, 20; 33:6, 8, 9;
cf. Gen. 19:15). The sinner must indeed "bear (nsʾ) his sin."

The formula of the individual's confession of sins, ex-pressed by the verb ḥaṭaʾti ("I have sinned"),
is found in the Bible 30 times.
…
The formula of the national confession of sins is expressed by the verb ḥaṭaʾnu ("we have
sinned"). This verbal form occurs in the Bible 24 times,
…
When God "forgives" one's sin, He "covers" or "hides" it (Micah 7:18; Ps. 32:1, 5; 85:3; Prov.
10:12; 17:9; 19:11; 28:13; Job 31:33), He "does not remember [i.e., that He overlooks]" it (Isa.
64:8; Ps. 25:7), He "bears" it Himself (Ex. 32:32; 34:7; Num. 14:18; Josh. 24:19; Hos. 14:3;
Micah 7:18; Ps. 25:18; 32:1, 5; 85:3).
Though it is merely said that the sin is forgotten, covered, not imputed to the sinner, God's
forgiveness of sins is identical with the curing of the man and with the regeneration of his strength.
It means, indeed, that God will not take him away "in the middle of his days" (Jer. 17:11; Ps.
55:24; 102:25), but will permit him to spend on earth the full span of human life, i.e., "70 years"
(Isa. 23:15; Ps. 90:10). Then He will cut him off by death, for "there is no righteous man on earth
who does good and never sins" (Eccles. 7:20).

sin – Concept, notion & doctrine of:

"Sin is the desire, the imagination ‘to be like God’-the refusal to be human, to be creaturely-that
causes us to disobey. Sin is an inward, spiritual breach of trust in God’s character and his word
that results in active disobedience." [Bruce Waltke (2007), An Old Testament Theology. p.
262.]
 • Sin, sins (e.g. transgression of commandments and the God’s law),
• Sinful – having sin nature or having committed sins? [Cf. wicked, evil, bad,
crooked]
• Guilty; guiltiness
• Sinless – having not committed sins or having no sin nature?
• 'lawlessness (hē anomia) is sin committed – 1Jn 3:4.

• “Righteous before God” – is not about ‘sinlessness’. E.g. Lk 1:6 (Zekharyah

and Elisheba). [Cf. Torah-based religion often mistakes righteousness equal
sinlessness.]
• “Righteous before man”.
• “Righteousness from God” – ‘justification’

• sinner; outcast sinners. Cf. so-called sinner’s prayer

Needs to distinguish ‘sin’ ‘a sin’ (sins).

(Sin continues as part of the punishment and the ground for it)
U (sin; the sin) one’ state of broken relation to God. 'sin' is the condition in which
man is – being separated and alienated from Elohim. [Cf. Gen 2:9 – See * good
and evil]
C (a sin; sins) (sinning) – act;’

a thought or act which breaks or hampers relation to God (in one’s

action/thought). [Most hideous ones are that which are done in the name of God
(of their image). [In NT a few places the sense is not sin as such, but rather a
grave wrong done to others. Rendering it as ‘sin(s)’ and ‘to commit a sin’ in such
cases is misleading – E.g. Mt 18:21; //Lk 17:3, 4; 1Co 7:28, 36; cf. Eph 4:26.]
rebellion, disobedience, blasphemy – dishonoring, transgression of the torah
(God’s Word = commandments), deserting (from God’s people), etc.

Cf. 'sin guilt'

Cf. 'guilt' 'guilty feeling' [S156 aitia 'cause' Mt 19:10;. S154 aiteō 'demand' 'request'
Mt 5:42]

sins; a sin ░░ [cf. 'sin' – anarthrous; cf. 'the sin']

Mk 2:5, 7 your sins are forgiven ░░ [of breaking God’s Torah] [concept of sins in
Judaic society needs to be explained and specified for the modern readers.]; /sins [against
God’s Law]. Cf. ‘sins against the heaven – Lk 15:18); cf. ‘sins against God’. [Note, ‘Law’
is not same as ‘Torah’.]

Mt 1:21 deliver out of their sins ░░ [As used in a concrete sense in Judaism and O.T,
the word sins refers to what is done contrary to God’s will (such as revealed in the Law of
Moses), primarily those by the people, rather than by an individual.
 Cf. ‘Transgression of the Law is a sin’ but not ‘the sin is the transgression of the law’ (1Jn
3:4 - KJV)
Cf. seven deadly sins (or seven cardinal sins) - Pride Envy Gluttony Lust Anger Greed
(Avarice or Covetousness) Sloth
Cf. ‘mortal sin’ ‘unforgivable sin’; ‘greater sin’ (Jn 19:11); ‘blasphemy against the holy
Spirit’ (Mt 12:32 //Mk 3:29 //Lk 12:10); ‘[sin] guilt remains’ (Jn 9:41),
failure to "honor the name of God the Father" (Mt 6:9); cf. Mk 12:29b (Shema Israel)
failure to keep the commandments of Elohim.

‘sin’ ░░ from 'act' to its 'consequence'. As an abstract notion, it is (1) any act/attitude
resulting in disruption/breakage of one’s relation to God, (2) sin as failure or as debt, and
(3) the condition/state of separation and alienation (with ‘sin guilt’) which one finds true
as a consequence of act from not listening to God into dishonoring His name. (e.g. Jn 9:41
– "yoůr sin remains").

The true fellowship with the Father and with His Son Yeshua the Mashiah (1Jn 1:3; cf. Ps
27:8; cf. Jn 17:24) is broken. Even in the sense of (1), it is not to be picture as an act or
event, but rather an activity, a process stretching from the cause to the effect with the self-
turned to darkness. Not a point of time act or a static state but an active movement of one’
soul with turning and moving away from Light, Life, Love and Learning.

Sins of commission vs. sins of omission a, moral indifference, or avoid involvement. Cf.
93F93F

Jam 4:7).

In addition to ‘*sin guilt’ b, it is used metonymically also as ‘sin reality’, ‘sin power’, ‘sin
94F94F

nature’ (esp. in the Pauline Epistle to the Romans e.g. Rm 3:9; 7:14 ‘under the power of
sin’ > ‘under sin’), and even as ‘sin offering (sacrifice) – 2Co 5:21 (//Isa 53:10).
['sin nature'? 'sinful nature'? human nature itself is sinful? What does it mean by 'sinful'?
or 'sinful nature'? “Man is not a sinner because he sins; he sins because he is a sinner” But,
what does it mean for man to be sinners? What happened to man made in God’s own
image? (Rm 3:23 – ever since humanity made a decision to acquire power to the knowledge
to enable him what he wants – to decide what is right and wrong independent of the Creator.
(Gen 2:17; Gen 3:4-5) The result of Adam and Eve’s action was ‘death’ – broken relation
to God leading to death in spirit. Adam’s earthly life itself is a ‘hellish’ life, that is, without
receiving life-giving spirit and love. It is not about waiting to ‘go to hell’ until after death.
[Our sins are not what is removed, but sin guilt. We do not become sinless when we repent,
or are saved, or are baptized, etc. but are forgiven of sins standing btw God and us and are
taken to be worthy to His name (‘righteous’).]

*Adam’s Fall – Fall of humanity from God’s presence – is the result of man’s exercising
his freedom as given to him when they were made after God’s image. What is the main
crux of God and Man? – restored personal relation with God’s promise in His covenant; it
is in His Love. God’s will and power is in His Kingdom reign, not legal judicial relation
of the judge and the accused; appeasement, redeeming for evil, atonement, salvation, etc.

a
Cf. Dennis Ford (1990), Sins of Omission: A Primer on Moral Indifference.
b
Sin guilt – as in ‘washed our sins’; ‘covered our sins’ (cf. mercy-seat) [to forgive sins is not ‘to
expose’ but to cover over so as not to bring shame. Cf. ‘covering up’];
Cf. ‘conviction of sin’ – a Biblical jargon. [Not bring up guilty conscience or shame over
sins as related to a person. Jn 16:8 – not convict the world of sin, but expose and confront
for the matter of sin, unrighteousness, and judgment.]

sin – sinners – sinning

Gk. hamartia means at bottom a failure of aim, a missing of the mark and appears
to have fewer connotations, religious or secular than the English word sin, as a
religious jargon.

A sin may be a ‘wrong’ ‘error’ or 'debt', but the reverse is not true. We cannot say
‘a wrong is a sin.’ Thus, it is frivolous to render the Greek word as ‘wrong’ in
wholesale fashion as Reynold Price (1996) did in his Three Gospels which includes
his translation of G-Mk and G-Jn in addition to his own Gospel (story). [See below
‘*to sin’, how IRENT judiciously renders it (noun and verb) as other than ‘sin’.]

‘to sin’ (verb) S264 hamartanō –

(1) against the rules, the authority; against God;
(2) against the names (shame; dishonoring) – 'blaspheme'
(3) harming others and the creation – ‘doing grave wrongs’ 1Co 7:28; 8:12; Mt 18:15, 21; //Lk
17:3, 4 – (here 'to sin' is a religious jargon).

e.g. ‘have sinned against the Heaven and before you’ (Lk 15:18) – much more than
doing things wrong or breaking the law, etc., but bringing dishonor to the name of
Elohim and bringing shame to one’s father.

Sin and death;

[cf. ‘death’ vs. ‘Death’]

‘die to sin’ Rm 6:10 apothnēskō

‘be dead to sin’ Rm 6:11 nekrous einai
‘be done away as to sins’ – 1Pe 2:24 apoginomai – NT hapax;

‘the wages of sin is Death’ – Rm 6:23 τὰ γὰρ ὀψώνια τῆς ἁμαρτίας θάνατος, [spirital
Death eternal, not biological death]
• No one can say 'I have not sinned'. (Jer 2:35)
• None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him.
Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. (Ezk 18:22)
• If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin,
he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die. (Ezk 18:26)
‘*sinful’ ‘sinfulness’ ‘be sinful’ vs. ‘be in sin’; sin nature; *sinless

‘*sinful’ ‘sinfulness’ ‘be sinful’ vs. ‘be in sin’; sin nature

Humanity or human nature is not sin – an illogical statement.
‘sinful human nature’ is an ambiguous expression to raise questions such as ‘is
there human nature not sinful?’, or ‘was it once not sinful?’ – the only clear
statement is ‘human nature is in sin’ (that is, under the power of reality of sin).
We are sinners. ‘We are in sin’, rather than ‘we are sinful’. Our action, however
good or evil it is, is sinful when it does not honor the name of God.

1. [“People are not born sinners; they are born and become sinners.” [It is
necessary to have clear definition of ‘sin’ and ‘sinner’.] More than Adam’s primal
sin as the typology, it is unbiblical to invoke a doctrine of original sin to blame
Adam for human sins.]

2. It is sin (not ‘sins’) that is the issue, not ‘original sin’. A person – human being
– “When he sins it proves he is a sinner”, rather than “he is a sinner because he
sins”; he sins because he is a sinner. Here, what is 'sin' anyway and what does it
mean by 'sinner'?!
There is no such thing as predestination of who to be saved or not.
www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs07.htm Are Men Born Sinners?
www.evangelicaloutreach.org/original_sin.htm Original Sin (Total Depravity) is FALSE
https://youtu.be/DYBcwSKVBTw

The expression ‘born sinners’ (a religious jargon, e.g. ‘born again’) is not found in the Bible:
– Misreading of (1) Rm 5:12; and
(2) Psa 51:5 ‘In sin did my mother conceived’ is used for unbiblical proof-texting of the doctrine
of the original sin’ - ignoring Psa 119:73; 139:13; 100:3.

https://religionnews.com/2017/01/13/author-jesus-didnt-believe-in-original-sin-
and-neither-should-we/ BookReview on Danielle Shroyer (2016) "Original
Blessing: Putting Sin in Its Rightful Place".
*original sin - Concept, doctrine, myth, and history
[from: Jonathan C. Langley (2104), "Original Sin: A Brief Comparison of
Perspectives"]
Original sin – "inherited, inevitable, not genetic". [cf. the notion of sin nature at
its origin – ARJ]

Original sin, a common term, is not 'the first sin'. Satan committed the original
sin by in its rebellion against God, so Adam and Eve technically committed a
copy of the original. … sin existed outside of man, and did not originate inside of
the nature of man. … sin is an external influence that gained entry into humanity
through Adam's first sin in the garden, continues in the form of corrupt human
nature, and gained a familial foothold in the broader lineage of human beings.
While the leading historical perspectives will be observed in their neatly defined
categories, the final conclusion is a unique collection of elements from various
theological viewpoints.

Sin is effectively defined by Wayne Grudem as "any failure to conform to the

moral law of God in act, attitude, or nature."
Original sin is one aspect of the broad scope of "sin". William Ames, in The
Marrow of Theology, provides the following definition: "Original sin is a
habitual deviation of the whole nature of man, or a turning aside from the law of
God."
Four views on Original Sin:
• Pelagian: [man cannot be held guilty for sin if it does not proceed from a
free will]
• semi-Pelagian, (Arminian): (Aquinas and Catholics) "human freedom and
moral pollution". "Original righteousness" was lost by Adam and his
descendants. Pollution, not guilt' from Adam's sin that leads them
inevitably to their own sin.
• Augustinian, [All men were seminally present in Adam's sin and thus as a
result of Adam's sin, all men are tainted and guilty.] [Rm 5:12 used as a
proof-text]
• Reformation – Calvinism ('Total deprivation')
Related terms:
• Imputed sin: Sin that was committed by one person being counted against
another person.
• Imputed guilt: The resulting guilt and liability of one person's sin being
counted against another person.
• Pollution/corruption: A marred or tainted state of being as a result of sin.
• Pervasive sin: Sin that spreads throughout a person, community, or state of
existence.
 Sin nature of man. Man under power of sin. All about sin of man has no meaning
if man is born a sinner from the 'original sin' of Catholic doctrine (Cf. St.
Augustus). That the savior comes from the God would not have any substance.

None of the biblical texts which are listed under the question: 'What Does the
Bible say About Original Sin? The answer is 'zilt'.
www.openbible.info/topics/original_sin

Rm 2:14-15; 3:10-18; 5:12; 6:12; 7:5, 9-11, 12-14, 18-19, 23; 8:7; 1Jn 1:8-10;
Jam 1:13, 14-15; Eph 2:1-3, 5, 12; 4:18; 5:8; 1Pe 1:18-19; 2Pe 2:11-14; Jn 3:6;
8:7; Gal 5:19-21; Mt 15:18-19; 19:14; 1Co 1:18; 2Co 12:14; Mk 7:20-23;
Psa 14:2-3; 51:5; 58:3; Gen 2:17; 3:1-19, 22; 6:5; 8:21; Ezk 18:4, 20; Deu
1:39; Isa 59:1-2; Ecc 7:29; 9:3; Jer 17:9; Job 15:14-16; 31:18; Pro 22:17;

Cf. Jn 9:34 ' you, you were born utterly in sins' (en hamartias su egennēthēs holos)
-- does not have anything to do with 'born sinners' (i.e. 'original sin')

Adam’s Fall – what does it tell without a doctrine of Original Sin?

Adam’s sin. Adam’s guilt. Adamic human nature.

"'first appearance of sin in the Garden of Eden" – what was the sin? What was the
nature? What was the meaning?

Adam’s sin is something to be inherited to infect all the human beings, born or yet
to be born? What sense is ‘inheritance’? Of human nature changed?
Human free will. Human evil.

Augustine of Hippo A.D. 354-430

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin#Augustine

Rm 3:3

https://youtu.be/ZoilftjtNV8

‘infant baptism’; 'limbo'; Purgatory

‘born sinners’ – Calvinism; cf. '* born again'

www.gospeltruth.net/menbornsinners/mbs03.htm Are Men Born Sinner?

Is There "Original Sin"? James Turck

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene1.htm

http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2008/09/original-sin-and-inherited-guilt.html
"The doctrine of Original Sin isn't about inheriting guilt for Adam's specific sin. It's
about inheriting, as Adam's offspring, a corrupted nature.
 Orthodox/historical Christian Biblically-founded doctrine on this is *not* that we are
sinners because we commit sins (*), but rather that we cannot not sin, because we are
sinners."

… the sin-which-is-killing-us is in our nature, rather than in our acts (however sinful
specific acts may be). So, there is nothing we can do, no act we can undertake, no effort
me can make to repair the brokenness inherent in us.
“… might be helpful to interact with Romans 5:12-20. The comparison of the effect of
Adam's sin to the effect of Christ's death leads to this idea of "inherited guilt." The
better theological term is "imputed guilt."
ARJ; “our nature determines our acts; not the other way around. Our acts do change our
nature at some level.” What is ‘nature’ in the expression ‘human nature’?

sin, a sin (act), the sin; ‘doctrine of original sin’;

From p. 227 Crisp (2009), A reader in Contemporary Philosophical Theology

• Adam’s primal sin, which began the corruption of human nature;
• The original sin, which is morally vitiated condition passed down from
Adam to his progeny; unbiblical - (not to be confused with man's sin
nature)
• original guilt, which is the guilt associated with this condition.

Problem with ‘original sin’ vs. ‘doctrine of original sin’:

Adam’s Primal Sin– defined as ‘Adam’s disobedience by listening to his alter

ego to go opposite to God’s way.
vs. “Original sin” – doctrinal elaboration – St. Augustine – on sin of humanity –
unbiblical Calvin’s ‘Total Deprivation of man’ (where does God’s grace come
in?) and ‘predestination’ (only some are destined to be saved??). It negates God-
given human freedom.

The unbiblical Augustinian '*Original Sin' and concept of Sina (esp. in OT)
'we sin because we are sinners'!!
'we are born sinners' –, but not 'Jesus by virgin birth'!! (Maybe also
'Mary' in Catholic).
'Even infants are born 'evil''!!
‘*Original Sin’. The concept and the phrase cover: (incl. ‘sinlessness of Yeshua’)

Problem of the so-called Original Sin – history, Catholic teaching of 'purgatory' and now-discarded
'limbo'

What does it mean 'Yeshua is sinless' 'Jesus with sin'?

Two nature problem (human and divine nature in Yeshua).
'sinlessness of Jesus' was because he was born of a virgin with

a
Ref. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/sin
 (1) Adams’ Fall
(2) Sin nature and reality of human beings. Are they guilty because of Adam’s sin? ‘Born
sinner’?
(3) Various doctrines, incl. original Augustinian ‘doctrine of original sin’, unbiblical
pesher on Adam's Fall]

Here, ‘sin’ is not just murder, rape, or robbery (as in ‘sins’ ‘a sin’). "Sin" is a word of concept that
describes any thought, word, deed, or state of being that fails to meet God's standard of holiness and
perfection. The Bible unambiguously proclaims that "all have sinned and fall short of the glory of
God" (Romans 3:23). While the notion of generational curses and spirits is foreign to the text of
Scripture, there is a sense in which all people are cursed as a result of an ancestor's sin. Adam's
rebellion brought death to us all and tainted every aspect of our being (Genesis 3; 1 Corinthians
15:21–22; cf. Ephesians 2:3). God, however, has provided redemption through the atoning work of
the "last Adam," Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 15:22, 45–49; Cf. Romans 5:12–21).

"Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in
'justification' [biblical lingo] and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of the one
man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be
made righteous." —Romans 5:18–19
*adoption:

S5206 huiothesia (5x) (Rm 8:15, 23; 9:4; Eph 1:5; Gal 4:5) –

(from S5207 /huio, "son" and S5087 tithēmi, "to place") – properly, sonship (legally made a son);
adoption.

most renders it as 'adoption (to sonship)' – the word 'adoption' is a human socio-legal technical term;
as such it is misleading as a translation word for relation btw God and human - 'God's taking us as
his children'.

E.g. Rm 8:15 /adoption – NET; />> adoption to sonship – NIV; /adopted as his own children
– NLT; /adoption as sons – ESV, NASB; /xx: become his children – CEV; / makes you
God's children – GNT; /xx: God's adopted children – GW.
Eph 1:5 "having marked us out beforehand for adoption as children to become His own"

huioi theou 'sons of God' Gal 3:26)

ta tekna tou theou ('the children of Elohim' Jn 11:52; Rm 8:21; 9:8);
tekna theou ('children of God' Jn 1:12).

Cf. 'the Son of Elohim' 'only-begotten Son'

That believers become sons of God means not that they are sons, but they are [treated] as sons --
there is no notion of 'adoption'.

Cf. adoptionism -a nonbiblical Christological jargon. Often put together with the so-called
unbiblical 'virgin birth' of 'Jesus' of Church, in conjunction with the nonbiblical 'God Incarnate'
[contra the biblical 'Logos Incarnate'] in the Trinitarian idea.

http://thesowermagazine.com/a-response-to-the-doctrine-of-adoptionism-part-1/ adoptionism vs.

‘virgin birth’ vs. ‘original sin’

[S5206 huiothesia
Danker – p .360 ‘Condition of one who is adopted as a son’ with nuance of special status, adoption,
in NT gender non-specific w. focus on gift of special relationship w. God Rm 8:1, 23; 9:4; Gal 4:5;
Eph1:5]

SounceNT fn: hUIOQESIA, “adoption”, non-gender specific language (see below), cf. Rm 8:15, 23;
9:4; Eph 1:5. This is a use of a technical adoption term from Greek law. F. Lyall, JBL 88 (1969) 458-
66 argued that Paul’s use of adoption terminology was a reference to Roman law, but this has later
been shown to be a reference to Greek law. See discussion in NDIEC 3.17. hUIOS is a reference to
both males and females. See … The non-gender specific word TEKNOQEIA occurs first in P. Oxy.
3271, referring to an adopted daughter. (Note, Source NT consistently renders both hUOIS and
TEKNA as ‘children’ throughout at least in Rm.)]
Rm 5:12 based on the fact that they all sinned [+ after the manner of Adam] ░░ (See Rm 3:10-
12, 23; 5:19)  /?: [+ in and through Adam] - ARJ; (/sin – sin reality and sin nature – is ‘collective
participatory’ and for humanity – nothing to do with the unbiblical teaching of man being born as a
sinner, unless being born of a virgin (without father) who happens to be not a sinner!

[Transgression of the law may be a sin committed, but sin cannot be defined as ‘transgression of
the law’ –as KJV rendered inadequately 1Jn 3:4b “for sin is the transgression of the law”.]

[Cf.  The idea (fact) of * Original Sin stands by itself, since it all depends on simple definition -
Fall of Adam as Original Sin (which should be corrected as ‘the Primal Sin’, not as the origin or
cause of sin of humanity. However, the Doctrine of Original Sin elaborates much more. The sin
should not be seen as ‘corruption’ which is to follow after. Should not have the expression
‘inherited’ as if sin is subject of inheritance, be it biological or metaphoric. Cf. unbiblical doctrine
of ‘Total Depravity’ of Calvin’s doctrine of TULIP. Adam’s original sin, which was consequent of
his disobedience in his exercise of freedom against God’s desire/will, requires restitution/
restoration/ redemption (salvation) by Elohim, not ‘punishment’. To say "Adam sinned, so you are
going to pay for it" is simply not grounded in the biblical truth. ‘Punishment’, whatever it may be,
is simply all which humanity is to experience as the consequence of its acts. Here conceptually sin
should be differentiated from ‘a sin’ or ‘sins’. OT sacrifice for sin is for sins; not for sin reality (in
humanity and in human nature) in estranged relation to God. (Cf. Rm 6:10; Heb 10:18)

"We are not born sinners/evil; we become sinners/evil. Augustinian Original Sin is a heresy.
"Are we sinners because we sin, or do we sin because we are sinners?"

www.douglashamp.com/are-we-sinners-because-we-sin-or-do-we-sin-because-we-are-sinners/

Are we sinners because we sin OR do we sin because we are sinners? Your answer will determine
how much you think like Augustine, Father of the Catholic Church.
Consider the question with a word substitution based on 1John 3:4 (sin=transgression of the law)

Are we lawbreakers because we break the law, or do we break the law because we are lawbreakers?

When we substitute the synonym for sin then the answer becomes very apparent… we are sinners
because we sin. We are lawbreakers because we break the law.
I thought I should share this because someone made the following comment recently:
>> "We are not sinners because we sin. We sin because we are sinners." <<

— I completely disagree with the statement. It is a very Augustinian view wherein we poor humans
really have no say in whether we sin or not.
“Sin” isn’t some super powerful force that we can’t really overcome…it isn’t that “we just can’t
help ourselves” and so we are slaves to commit sin. Paul wasn’t saying that in Roman’s 7 we were
slaves to the bondage that comes with breaking the law. Once people see that Paul was referring
back to the divorce that took place in Jer 3:8 between God and the House of Israel then the solution
appears: God divorced the House of Israel…which meant that they were in bondage with no hope
because of the broken relationship. Even if they lived righteously, which they COULD do (see
Zechariah and Elizabeth – Luke 1:6 And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the
commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.)

If you think that you sin because you were born a sinner then you will forever be a victim and will
not be the overcomer that Jesus wants you to be. However, once you realize that you are a sinner
because you sin (transgress the law) then you will do as Jesus commanded – go and sin no more. It
is possible to overcome sin. It is possible to be like Zechariah and Elizabeth and to be blameless
before God. It is possible to be like Cornelius or Job or Daniel, Enoch, or Noah. Once you realize
 that you can decide to not label yourself as a sinner then you can begin taking responsibility for
your actions and yearn to live for righteousness.
I pray you will do that.

*apologetics – [defense of one’s faith – 1Pe 3:15; Jud 3]; from Greek, apologia,
meaning "a reasoned defense". Not to be confused with 'making apologies'.
Note: on the terms, theology and Christology – (1) study of God/Christ; (2)
doctrines of God/Christ.

*to sin;

The word ‘to sin’ as such is mostly used in the sense of sin against God. However,
a few places in NT its sense in different context is ‘to do a grave wrong’. E.g. Lk
17:3, 4; //Mt 18:15, 21. Also 1Co 7:28; 8:12.
• hamartanō ‘to distance away from God’; ‘to miss a mark’ (refuse God’s love;
no response to; and to be blind to it); ‘fall short of what God wants’; ‘fall into
sin’;
‘to sin (as against God)’ ‘do sin’ ‘commit sin’ – 1Jn 2:1; 3:4, 6, 9
‘do grave wrongs’ 1Co 7:28, 36; 8:12; Mt 18:15, 21; //Lk 17:3, 4;
• hamartian poieō (1Pe 2:22) ‘live out sin’; ‘be sinning’ ‘live and do as a
sinner); /x: practice sin - NWT
• mē hamartanō 1Jn 2:1; ‘forsake sin’ > ‘do not sin’
• ergazomai hamartia – (commit a sin) e.g. Jam 2:9;
• hamartanō hamartia – (to sin a sin) e.g. 1Jn 5:16;

‘*guilt’;

Noun - guilt: [cf. 'blame'; 'sin guilt']

1.the fact or state of having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially
against moral or penal law; culpability: He admitted his guilt.
2. [= guilty feeling] a feeling of responsibility or remorse for some offense, crime, wrong,
etc., whether real or imagined.
3. conduct involving the commission of such crimes, wrongs, etc.: to live a life of guilt.

Adjective – *guilty
1.having committed an offense, crime, violation, or wrong, especially against moral or
penal law; justly subject to a certain accusation or penalty; culpable: The jury found her
guilty of murder. Guilty until proven otherwise.
2.characterized by, connected with, or involving guilt: guilty intent.
3.having or showing a sense of guilt, whether real or imagined: a guilty conscience.

Adj - guiltless; Cf. blameless; spotless; unstained

*repent; *repentance; *transformation
'repent' vs. 'regret'. Cf. 'remorse';
'repentance' vs. /xx: 'penance' (a Catholic lingo)
(S3340 metanoeō vs. S3338 metamelomai
BDAG p. 640 1 change ones’ mind – no NT citation. 2 feel remorse, repent, be converted -
many citations. (~ apo tinos) repent and turn away from someth.

S3340 metanoeō (34x) [Not in G-Jn]

English 'repent' is transitive. (E.g. 'repent something'). Its object may be implicit in the
context. Gk. is intransitive; its expression is not ‘repent something (– sins, errors, wrongs),
but 'repent of something' as indicated when followed by an adverbial phrase:
• [by context] Lk 17:4 (of sin); Mt 11:20, 21, 41; Mk 6:12; Lk 5:32; 10:13; 11:32; 13:3, 5;
15:10; 16:30; 17:3, 4; Act 2:38; 17:30; Rev 2:5, 16; 3:3, 19; 16:9;
• together with S1994 epistrephō ['turn back' ~ apo 'from']a
Act 3:19 turn yoůr mind to God's way and turn back (x: be converted – KJV)
Act 26:20 turn yoůr mind and turn back to Elohim, doing in keeping with repentance’
• (~ apo) Act 8:22 (~ tēs kakias); (of badness, wickedness)
• (~ epi) 2Co 12:21 (~ tē akatharsia) (of impureness, uncleanness)
• (~ ek) Rev 2:21 (~ tēs porneias) (of sexual immorality), 2:22; 9:20a; 16:11 (~ tōn ergon)
(of their doings); 9:21 (~ of their murders, sorceries, sexual immorality, and stealing).
• Act 2:38 turn yoůr mind to God's way and ~~ get immersed ~~ into forgiveness of sins
This intransitive verb when it is followed by nothing to suggest '~ of something' in the
context is rendered in IRENT as 'turn one's mind to God's way', in its basic sense of the
word: Mt 3:2; 4:17; Mk 1:15; Lk 3:3; Act 20:21; Rm 2:4.

We confess sins (Mt 3:6). With forgiveness, it is God who changes our heart. It is we who turn our
mind to God's way, being confronted by God’s goodness and grace. Not that we change our mind.
• It is not that one (can) change one’s mind – totally different sense and usage; Cf. ‘flip-flop’;
• It is not about ‘remorse’. See below for metamelomai ‘to feel remorse or deep sorrow
about’.
• It is not to regret-and-repair (correcting/fixing)’, which is equivalent to Ko. 회개 (悔改 =
to regret and correct).
• It is not about 'be converted' (religious or ideological).
/> change your thinking – ARJ (- ‘thinking’ - too abstract);
/>> turn one's heart – (English word heart is a metonym for a seat of feeling); /Let your hearts be turned
from sin- BBE; /change your hearts and lives – ERV; /change your hearts – SENT;
/Get yoů all turned around and be repenting – ARJ;

/get repented; /repent – most; /be repenting – ALT; /repent of your sins and turn to God – NLT;
/be repentant – NWT-3; /You must repent [i.e., change your hearts and lives], - AUV;
/turn from your sins to God – JNT; /xx: turn away from your sins – NIrV, GNB; /

/Turn to God and change the way you think and act, - GW; /turn back to God – CEV; /Repent (think
differently; change your mind, regretting your sins and changing your conduct), - AMP; /Be having a
change of mind which issues in regret and a change of conduct – Wuest; /xxx: Change your life. – MSG;
/xxx: Reform – YLT; /

a
Cf.– Ezk 18:30 [the same verb (H7725 shub) is repeated. Most renders 'Repent and turn from you
sins.]
 E.g. Mt 3:2 /repent – most; /get turned around and be repenting - ARJ; /> change your thinking –
ARJ (- too abstract); /get repented; /> repent – most; /be repenting – ALT; /repent of your sins and
turn to God – NLT; /turn from your sins to God – JNT; /x: turn away from your sins – NIrV, GNB; /x: Let
your hearts be turned from sin- BBE; /change your hearts and lives – ERV; /change your hearts – SENT;
/Turn to God and change the way you think and act, - GW; /turn back to God – CEV; /Repent (think
differently; change your mind, regretting your sins and changing your conduct), - AMP; /You must repent
[i.e., change your hearts and lives], - AUV; /xx: Change your life. – MSG; /xxx: Reform – YLT (- religious
jargon); /Be having a change of mind which issues in regret and a change of conduct – Wuest; /

S3338 metamelomai (6x) ('regret' 'feel remorse') - Mt 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2Co 7:8; /xx:
repent – KJV; (cf. Ezk 14:6 turn and return from epistraphēte kai apostrepsate apo)

BDAG p. 639
1 to have regrets about someth., in the snse that one wishes it could be undone, be very
sorry, regret Mt 27:3; 2Co 7:8ab – Mt 21:29, 32 prob. fit better under 2. 2 to change
one’s mind about someth., without focus on regret, change one’s mind, have second
thoughts Mt 21:29, 32; Hb 7:21.

Heb 7:21 regret - NWT, CLV, ISR; /x: change his mind – most; /x: change – TCNT, GSNT; /x:
take back – BBE, MSG; /x: recall – WNT; /x: break His vow – NLT; /regret it or change His
mind – AMP; /xx: repent – KJV+, Bishops, Geneva, YLT, DRB, RNKJV, Etheridge]

BDAG metanoia - prim. ‘a change of mind’ repentance, turning about,

conversion (many citations)

Noun: S3341metanoia (22x) ‘repentance’ (> S1271 dianoia ‘mind’ Mt 22:37): [cf. S3563
nous Lk 24:45; Rm 7:23; cf. S2307 thelēma 'will' Mt 6:10; cf. S5427 phronēma 'mind' 'thought' Rm
8:6]
• (~ apo) 'from dead works' (Heb 6:1);
• (~ eis) 'for the forgiveness' (Mt 1:4; //Lk 3:3; 24:47); 'to Elohim' (Act 20:21); 'into
the knowledge of truth' (2Tim 2:25);
• 'to lead into repentance' – 'to lead you turning your heart to God's way' Rm 2:4;
'bring to ~' – Act 5:31; 'calling for ~' Act 19:4;
• (eis ~) 2Co 7:9,
Changing in mindset; not ‘willingness to change’. (“get confronted by God’s grace and
goodness and get convicted → change one’s thinking and mindset → turn from wrongs/sins
→ turn to God”) → to receive God’s forgiveness → Broken relation restored (sin burden
removed and sin guilt covered-over) → fruit of repentance.] [‘change in mind’, not ‘change-
of-mind’] [Not ‘repentance of sin’, but ‘repentance for forgiveness’ Mk 1:4]

Note: in the concept of ‘turning’, not only totally absent is a notion of 'regret' or 'remorse' over one's
actions in the past. Nor it is about fixing, re-do, repair, or restore which may be implied by the word
'repent' as it is used. It is the spiritual tension in our present life. Turning is not something which
hangs on our ability but which is from above as a precious gift. Thus, it leads to ‘transformation’.
In that sense, we can say our understanding (지성 知性) is dependent not on our intellect (지능
知能) but on our faith. 'Repentance' is based on the reality of the coming Kingdom; it is not a
 byproduct of one's feeing or emotion. It tells us that understanding on the real source of healing is
intimately connected to our bearing on life.

Though the notion of 'turn around' may be thought of personal conversion, the ‘conversion’ is now
is a religious political lingo as it carries a sense of proselytizing from one religion, belief, ideology,
or opinion to another. [in Korean word 전향 轉向, cf. 개종 改宗 – of religion].

For the word ‘transformation’, see www.covenanteyes.com/2016/12/09/its-not-about-restraint-

but-transformation/.

Cf. ‘because of your unrepentant heart’ (Rm 2:5 ametanoēton kardian).

Cf. [“Does God repent?” 1Sm 15:11, 29, 35 H5162 nacham (108x) ‘be sorry’ ‘comfort
oneself’ ‘change one’s mind’]; /> “I regret that I have made Saul king, …” (most); /xx: It
repented me that I have sent up Saul to be king – KJV, ASV; /It grieves me that I have set up
Saul to be king – WEB, KJ2k, Jubilee 2k;
[repent’ is wrong translation in KJV for ‘regret’.
Cf. www.askelm.com/doctrine/d170901.PDF www.askelm.com/newsletter/l201709.pdf - his notion of
‘repentance’ is not just something of sin. Hence, ‘God does repent’.] – ‘

Rm 12:2
by God's renewing of yoůr mind ░░ [S342 anakainōsis] [> S341 anakainoō]
get transformed ░░ [S3339 metamorphoō] [not ‘transformed by yourselves’]
[Gk. metamorphosis – radical change in one’s mindset] [‘reformation’ ‘revival’ –
religious jargon; the Scripture tells only “transformation + continual renewal”.]

Tit 3:5
having put us through bathing for regeneration, [S3824 paliggenesia]
yes, through renewing in holy spirit
S1994 epistrephō 'turn back'(to turn, turn around, turn to’ of direction or conduct) [+ from (apo)].
[BDAG p. 382];
Act 14:15 ‘away from these worthless things [apo toutōn tōn mataiōn] ~ turn back to the
living Elohim’;
Act 15:19 ‘turn to Elohim’;
Lk 1:17 'turn the hearts of fathers to their children'

S4762 strephō (18x) 'turn' 'turn away' Mt 16:23; Act 7:42); 'return' (Mt 27:3); 'be converted' (Mt
18:3; Jn 12:40);

See next for * forgiveness and * conversion. See a related term ‘*perversion’, which is
conceptually opposite to ‘repentance’.
*God vs. Elohim

‘God’ is not God -- what God; which God; whose God? What does the word
‘God’ ‘god’ mean? The word is not a being, but a translation word in English
bible – it refers to a deity (god-being), but, in most cases, a title. ‘what God is’;
‘who God is’;

gods; deities; divine beings; a god; a God, a God-being; God; the God; the god;
demigod; God-man;
God galore! – God the Creator; God the Son; God the Father; God the Holy
Ghost; Trinity God;

*forgive; *forgiveness of sins; *atone; *atonement, *sacrifice, *expiation,

*propitiation, *redemption, '*redeem, 'redeemer; to judge’; ‘to condemn’

"Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (Lk 5:21 //Mk 2:7) – sins of breaking God's
law.
Yeshua – he forgave our sins. Not because he is God, a God, a demigod, a God-
man, God the Son, but he was a man Elohim the Father bestowed His authority on
His Son (Lk 5:24). [Trinitarians worship God Jesus, not worship Jesus as God.
Their Jesus cannot possibly forgive sins if he were other than 'God' (not 'god'). To
forgive sins, he has to be God. To be God he has to be born of a virgin. He is fully
God and fully man; he is God-man, demigod, but not a god. It's a Trinitarian
reincarnation, not Incarnate Logos.]

H1350 gaal (1) redeem something Lev 25:25, 26; or someone Gen 48:16, Exo 6:6; (2) act as
kinsman Lev 25:48; Num 5:8; (3) (blood) avenge Num 35:12, etc.
S3084 lutroō (3x) to ransom Lk 24:21; Tit 2:14; 1Pe 1:18
S3085 lutrōsis (3x) redemption Lk 1:68; 2:38; Heb 9:12
S1805 exagorazō (4x) to redeem someone Gal 3:13; 4:5; to redeem (time) Eph 5:16; Col 4:5.
S629 apolutrōsis (10x) redemption Lk 21:28; Rm 3:24; 8:23; 1Co 1:13; Eph 1:7, 14; 4:30;
Col 1:14; Heb 9:25; 11:35.
S59 agorazō (x30) purchase, buy – figurative 'buy someone' (not 'buy back' 'redeem') 1Co
6:20; 7:23; 2Pe 2:1
S4046 peripoieō (3x) to preserve for oneself Lk 17:33; to get for oneself – (x: purchase) Act
20:28; acquire 1Tm 3:13;

atonement, propitiation, expiation, ‘adoption as sons’; ‘redemption’; sin-

offering for atonement; New birth; re-creation; new creation; regeneration;
S4990 sōtēr 'deliverer' 'savior' Lk 2:11]
S3085 lutrōsis (3x) 'redemption' Lk 1:16; 2:38; Heb 9:12
S3083 lutron (2x) 'ransom' Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45;
S3086 lutrōtēs (1x) 'redeemer, deliverer' Act 7:35
[S3084 lutroō (3x) 'redeem' Lk 24:21 (the one destined to set Yisrael free); Tit 2:14; 1Pe 1:18.
/redemption
ransom
/expiation-and-propitiation
/Substitutionary atonement, (vicarious atonement)

Related words and phrases for Forgiveness vs. salvation;

• ‘sin’ – used also metonymic for penalty from guilt of sin; power of sin;
sin nature; sin sacrifice;
• * atonementa (H3725 kippur Exo 30:13; Num 5:8); ransom; blood
sacrifice;
• * expiation; *propitiation; ‘mercy-seat’ of the Ark of Covenant (Exo 25:17-
22) [see under a separated heading]
• redemption, reconciliation;
• forgiveness; ‘forgiving a sinner’ – ‘you are forgiven of sin’ vs. ‘your sin
is forgiven’
• put away sins (2Sa 12:13); ‘scapegoat’ b; ‘cover over sins’ (Rm 4:7)
95F95 F

• 1Co 15.3 [died over our sin]; Heb 1:1-4; [purification of the sins]; 1Jn 2.2; [sins
forgiven] 4.10)

Yeshua and ‘our sins’: [See * doctrines of atonement]c

• 1Co 15:3 ‘He died ford (huper) our sins’ [Cf. Rm 5:8 ‘Mashiah died for us’; 2Co 5:15
‘he died for all; 1Th 5:10 ‘he died for us’. – ‘in behalf of us’ ‘in our place’?] [Cf. Rm
4:25 ‘from our trespasses’]

a
Cf. 1Jn 2:2; 4:10 “Yes, He, in His own person, is as atonement for our sins [to be taken away] — not
for our sins only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”] [not He is for atonement, but as atonement]
[/expiation; /propitiation – KJV; /‘mercy-seat’ (Heb. kphrth)]
b
‘scapegoat’ – KJV translation word for Heb. Azazel which occurs in regulation pertaining to the Day
of Atonement [4x in the Scripture, Lev 16:8, 10 (2x), 26]. Some entertain an unbiblical fanciful
conjecture that it might mean a (desert) demon (e.g. ‘demon Azazel’ CEV Lev 16:8). The prob. meaning
is from ez (H5975 ‘goat’ as Lev 16:5) + ′azol (‘go away’) = ‘a goat to be sent away’ is in line with the
ritual practice narrated in the text. Parallel to the expression ‘put away sins’ (2Sam 12:13).
c
www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vicarious.html
“…The word ‘*for’ or the Greek words anti, hyper, dia, peri of which it is the translation,
admitting different senses, may of course be differently applied, according to the nature of the
subject, and yet the doctrine remains unchanged.… Thus, it might be proper to say that Christ
suffered instead of us (anti hēmōn), although it would be absurd to say that he suffered instead
of our offenses (anti tōn hamartēmatōn hēmōn). It is sufficient if the different applications of
the word carry a consistent meaning. To die “instead of us” and to die “on account of our
offenses” perfectly agree. But this change of the expression necessarily arises from the change
of the subject. And, accordingly, the same difficulty will be found to attach to the exposition
proposed by these writers (Sykes and H. Taylor): since the word for, interpreted “on account
of”, i.e., “for the benefit of,” cannot be applied in the same sense in all the texts. For although
dying “for our benefit” is perfectly intelligible, dying “for the benefit of our offenses” is no less
absurd than dying “instead of our offenses”.
d
‘*in behalf of’ ‘vs. ‘on behalf of’; ‘for the sake of’ ‘*because of’ ‘from (something), ‘for (something)’:
E.g. ‘died for our sins’ (‘stemmed from’. ‘to deal with’? ‘to atone for’ ???) vs. ‘died because of our sins’
(to take way sin guilt??). ‘Christ died for us’ (in behalf of; on our place?) [See EE in Rm 4:25.]
• Gal 1:4 ‘He gave himself for (huper) our sins’
• 1Jn 2:2; 4:10 ‘He is the propitiation for (peri) our sins’
• 1Pe 3:18; ‘He died {/suffered} to deal with sins (peri) />> for sins – most;
[Cf. 1Pe 2:24; ‘He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree’; Rev 1:5; ‘freed us
from our sins by his blood’]
• Rm 6:19 "yoů were bought out with such a great price"

• 'God alone can forgive sins':

Yeshua of the Gospels was never called 'God', never He was. He was called the Son of
Elohim ('the God') and was believed so. The Son of Elohim does and can do anything
and everything Elohim does in following the will of Father – including 'forgiving sins
(against God)' [Lk 5:21, 24; //Mk 2:7, 10; //Mt 9:6) – Yeshua was forgiving sins which
Elohim alone can, not because he was 'God', but he does and can as God, because he
was the Son of Elohim (not as unbiblical 'God the Son'). He receives all the authority
and power from his heavenly Father; not authority on his own from his being 'God'.
[See ‘*God Problem’ in Walk through the Scripture 3A – Name, God, and Person in
the zip file <IRENT Vol. III Supplement>.]

1Co 15:3 ░░ ‘died for our sins’ \(Christos apethanen) huper tōn hamartiōn hēmōn [this phrase
‘died over our sins’ occurs only once here in NT; Cf. ‘gave Himself over our sins’ huper tōn
hamartiōn hēmōn in Gal 1:4.]
/over our sins – ARJ; /for atonement of our sins – ARJ 9- interpretative jargon); /x:
because of our sins – ARJ; /> to deal with – ARJ; />> for our sins – PNT, Cass ( - what is the
nuance of ‘for’ here?); /x: on behalf of our sins – ALT, Diagl; />> to take away (our sins) –
GW; /(underwent) death for our sins - BBE; /x: 죄를 위하여 ( – ‘for benefit of’); /x: 죄
때문에 ( - ‘caused by’ ‘because of’); /죄들로 인하여; /[to take them away to forgive us and to
save us from penalty of sins and bring out of the power of sin] [?: “in full payment for our sins”
upon the cross – from Christ Died For Our Sins]

1Pe 3:18 ░░ (died {/suffered}) to deal with sins ‘peri hamartiōn (epathen suffered)’
(‘concerning sins’ ‘to deal with sins’), where a concept of judicial picture such as ‘atone’
‘ransom’ ‘paying for’ is lacking.]; /> for sins – most; /x: for sin - YLT; /x: for our sins – NLT,
Aramaic, GW, DRB; /
[cf. a different phrasing in Jn 10:11 ‘the good shepherd does lay down His soul in behalf of the
sheep (huper tōn probatōn)] [huper hēmōn over/for us – Rm 5:8];

- only God Himself can forgive sins which are against God (and God’s law).
- God’s forgiveness is not something conditional (e.g. He forgives when one pays for the
guilt, or when one asks for forgiveness). Instead, God is a forgiving God, that is, He is the
One who is forgiving from the beginning to the last, ever since Adam’s fall. That He
forgives is the person is taking in His forgiveness – ‘get forgiven’, not ‘be forgiven’.

*Unforgivable sin – see *blasphemy against the holy Spirit

Mk 2:5 Who can forgive sins except God alone ░░ [Here, the soferim (= teachers of
Torah in Lk. Lk also includes Pharisees) said, knowingly or unknowingly, a profoundly true
statement smack on the target. The remark raised directly the issue of the nature of Yeshua’s
ministry and His divinity. No mere mortal man can forgive ‘sin’ (not just ‘debts’
‘wrongdoings’ as in Mt 6:12, 16) which affects the very relation of human beings to God.]
 cf. forgiving (or, letting go of) debts – (Mt 6:12) – Aramaic word means ‘sins, debts’

cf. Isa 43:25 ‘your sins I will not remember’ – remember in the sense of ‘bring it
out’.

[‘forgive sins (i.e. against God)’ → ‘remove guilt’; ‘cover over wound (‘Han’)’;
‘sins are taken away’ (2Sam 12:13); Cf. ‘scape goat’ ‘a – Azazel’ Lev 16:6-10]

'forgive' – forgive whom, what, of what. Cf. 'let go of'. Cf. 'forgive' and 'forget'

About a common expression 'forgive yourself'? Is it possible to forgive onself?

Similarly, 'love oneself'. In these examples, such are not biblical phrases in the
biblical sense of 'love' and 'forgive'.

A false unbiblical doctrine of conditional forgiveness finds it support from misreading of

1Jn 1:9 as ‘if we confess’ (as in most translations do incorrectly) instead of ‘when we
confess’. (Cf. http://wp.me/pNzdT-2aI)

God’s forgiveness has already forgiven at Adam’s fall; it is for the repentant to receive
through Mashiah Yeshua. In a sense, it IS conditional, however, not dependent on whether
God would forgive or not; whether we do this or that (e.g. you review all of your sins, etc.),
but dependent on whether we receive or not God’s grace.

'forgive' – whom and what; 'let go'; 'forgive and forget'

'forgive sins' (Lk 11:4) Cf. 'forgive debts' (Mt 6:12)
Mk 2:7; //Lk 5:21 (Mt Ø) 'who can forgive sins but Elohim alone'

judge, condemn,
love; forgive
Different kinds of a problem - (1) Houston, we have a problem; mathematical
problem, (2) personal/interpersonal problems.

a
‘scape-goat’ (i.e. ‘escaping goat’). [Lev 16:26 – /goat to go to Azazel – ESV; /goat of departure – YLT; /goat for
the scapegoat – KJV; /goat as the scapegoat – NASB] in contrast to ‘goat for sin offering’ v. 27.
Hartman Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd Rev. Ed. 1954-57 (A translation by Woordenboek,
1969) Azazel is mentioned in correction with the ritual for the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:8, 10, 26) as
the name of a certain evil spirit in the desert (Cf. Isa 13:32; 34:14; Mt 12:43). The harm which he was
thought capable of inflicting on the people was to be averted by ending out to him in the desert a goat on
which all the sins of the people were symbolically laid (Lev 16:20 ff). The age of origin of this strange
custom remain obscure, and even the meaning of the name is unknown. Vg. following LXX, wrongly
translated wrongly the phrase ‘goat for Azazel’ as ‘caper emmissarius’; hence the term ‘emissary goat’
(Douay V.) and the term ‘scape-goat’ (i.e. ‘escaping goat’) in AV.
The elements of the problem involving personal and interpersonal – ‘right
and wrong’ - (a) problem itself (clear or undefined); (b) root of the problem;
(c) persons/parties involved; (d) proper solvers and (d) aftermath.

a problem of problem solving is that the very problem to be solved is getting

superimposed on the persons whom the solution is for. The problem is
attacked on; and the person is just as well attacked on. (It's like arrow-
shooting of an apple without concern about the head on which it is placed.)

Solution is possible only on the principle of love (Mt 18:22; Lk 17:4):

(1) the problem is to be confronted, defined, focused, and judged;
(2) the person is to be protected and restored with the root exposed;
(3) the person who did wrong is to be led to repent or to come to the One who
can solve (for those outside the community of believers). It is those who do not
repent that is the very ones who get themselves condemned.
(4) the approach is needs tact, kindness, acceptance, and honesty. One’s face
has to be kept and restored. The solution should be not just ‘fixing’ but personal
maturity and interpersonal bonding.

Proper washing of clothes involves not just washing, with eyes to achieve the goal
to restore and to preserve to put back it to use (i.e. know the purpose of what one
has to do); ‘washed well but got ruined. The surgery was successful but the patient
died. Fixing the problem itself is not the solution; it’s only a part of it and there
the party may go remaining as a problem source.

Consequences of ‘not forgiving’ – enslavement in anger, feeling hurt, bitterness,

complaints, paradoxical enjoyment of unhappiness, living off all the negative energy;
capacity of love is simply being lost with cutting of being connected to other person and
also with God. Getting devoid of ‘rest’ – soulical and spiritual. Experience of constriction
rather than expansion; path to destruction rather than creation, of death rather than life.
(cf. Mt 18:23-35 ‘Parable of the Unforgiving Servant’)

Our forgiveness is all about solving problems of personal or interpersonal wrongs vs.
rights. Not about the powers or those in powers.

While it is the problem which needs to solve, it is the person which needs to save (∵
love). To forgive, one has to willing to confront the reality/problem, not condone;
forgiveness is not approval, getting away, denial/ignoring of the reality/problem, taking
light of, or covering-up, being blind to our blindness to see things as they are.

To a question ‘Is there anything we cannot/should not forgive?’ the answer may come
easy if we differentiate ‘forgiving a person’ vs. ‘forgiving something (sin, wrongs, harms,
hurts, etc.)’ and our basis of forgiving is Moreover, the basis of our forgiving is love (as
received from God).]
[To forgive anyone, they have to be properly judged with what they have done has to be
discerned through the eyes of the Lord. To forgive is then the other route than to condemn.
To judge them and then they become get condemned is in the hands of the Lord. Thou
shall not condemn, curse, grudge, … cf. Mt 7:1 ‘Judge not’ as erroneously rendered in
KJV, etc.
Mt 18:35 if you – I mean, each one of you – don’t forgive ones’ brother from your
very heart ░░ [ean mē – ‘unless’ is too conditional for the act of forgiving. Same in
Mt 6:15]; /unless each you forgive ~ - JNT (- note: plural nouns and pronouns put
into singular); /unless each one of you forgives your brothers from your hearts –
Cass; /x: if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart – NASB,
HCSB (x: ~ from his heart); /
[Cf. Mt 6:12, 14-15]

[Joseph Tkach www.wcg.org/av/SpOL/spol166.htm

… But the truth is, we find it far easier to forgive ourselves for just about anything than
to forgive the same mistakes in others. [along with blaming and excusing – ARJ]
Jesus highlights this all too human tendency in Matthew 18:33-35:
It might be easy to assume from this statement that God forgives us on the basis of our
forgiveness of others, a simple transaction – if we forgive others then God will forgive
us. But that would be a false assumption. God forgives us on the basis of Jesus’ perfect
sacrifice in our behalf and in our place, and on no other basis.
In such statements, Jesus is not prescribing a new form of legalism; he is describing the
nature of hearts that trust in him. For example, when we trust in Christ, we no longer
have anything to hide from him. That isn’t because we are suddenly sinless. It’s because
we trust him to love us unconditionally and to forgive our sins, sins that we are no
longer afraid to show him.
Because we trust Christ, we can commit our fears and anxieties to him, which frees us
from the need to get even or get back at others. In other words, we know that others,
like us, are measured by Christ’s love and grace, and that takes the starch out of our
natural tendency to condemn others.
Whether it’s in traffic, at the courthouse or around the dinner table, we’re no longer
slaves to our raw impulses to condemn others—we are free to forgive others as God,
for Christ’s sake, forgave us.
Matthew 18:35 is a condemnation only to those who don’t trust Christ—their selfish
measuring rod is the only standard they know – and the only one they understand. But
for those who trust the Redeemer, there is only one measure—the ever-unfolding height
and depth of the love of Christ.
NT Wright Evil and the Justice of God, p. 159: … the faculty we have for receiving
forgiveness and the faculty we have for granting forgiveness are one and the same
… If we open the one, we shall open the other. … God is not being arbitrary. …
(forgiveness:) it releases not only the person who I s being forgiven but the person
who is doing the forgiving. (ARJ – process and effect are ‘reciprocal’ not
‘conditional’. Mt 6:12; 14-15)
*Love (*agape; agape); love; *charity; *affection

God's love is self-giving other-oriented love; not 'self-sacrificing'

Love is to let live, help live and share life.

The word 'charity' – archaic sense – often used as a translation word in Douay,
KJV (1Co 13:1, 13; 1Pe 4:8, etc.)

Cf. 'good works' – ergōn agathōn Act 9:36

S5387 philostorgos (1x) 'having tender-affection' Rm 12:10;

S5360 philadelphia (6x) 'brotherly love' Rm 12:10; 1Th 4:9, etc.

[Concept – a state of relation or an act. Sharing one’s own space to have spaces
expand in creating work. Not related to ‘Attraction’ ‘Affection’ ‘Admiration’
‘Attachment’ (cf. addiction), such as in male-female relation. God’s love is for
creation and care with mercy and justice.] (A-alliteration)

[Cf. 'grace' 'mercy' 'compassion' 'affection'

Cf. S5363 philanthrōpia (2x) Act 28:2 [extraordinary kindness]; Tit 3:4
[loving kindness] [variously rendered as 'love (of God our Savior) toward man'
(KJV), 'His love to man' (Weymouth), 'his love toward man' (ASV), 'the love to
men of God' (YLT). Most now render as 'love for mankind' 'tender love toward
mankind – ARJ;– etymological fallacy? vs. 'love' (NIV); 'loving kindness'
(ESV) – single instance in NT translations (cf. in OT).

Gk. agapē (n.) agapaō (v).

This is a book-length topic. The word ‘love’ (noun) itself is a difficult word to
define. The word in Scripture as a translation word is different from the word
used in everyday English, which has a diverse range of meaning. The semantic
fields of 'agape' and 'love' have very little to overlap. What appears to be 'overlapping' is
actually a projection – each one's field residing on different levels. 'Agape' is self-
giving love (/x: self-sacrificing love). Even in unadulterated sense, love in the
realm of human is a pale shadow of it. God’ Love and human love belongs to
different dimension/levels; the latter may reflect a shadow of God’s Love to point
back the source. a 80F80F

In IRENT, the noun is capitalized as 'Love' for that which has its origin in
Elohim; 'love' as uncapitalized is used in IRENT as the noun for human love and
as the verb.

A working definition of 'love' – a will unto action to give power to the other and
to open one’s space for invitation to share life and for works of creation. [Yeshua
a
http://atpreston.wordpress.com/2013/05/18/speaking-the-truth-in-l-o-v-e/
(Speaking the Truth in L.O.V.E.) Acronym – L.O.V.E. (Listen; Observe; View; Encourage)
 put aside His power, but to give it to man] [Not ‘empowerment’.] When one’s
(personal) space opens up, paradoxically the space does not become shrinking,
but it widens and enlarges to more capacity for love. A principle of life; [My
personal comment on www.koinoniablog.net "The Most Excellent Way": Ajith
Fernando Exegetes Paul's Love Passage in 1 Cor. 13:1-14 ]

In the relational perspective, love is that which is between two persons – this
excludes all non-person, such as animals, things, ideas, etc. It is something to do
desire and satisfaction within our ‘hearts’, which is the sacrosanct place
(analogically comparable to the Most Holy Place of the Mishkan (‘Temple’ of
‘God’). That which takes its place there is the object of our love, whether ‘God’
or ‘mammon’. To love God means God occupies the deepest place of our self –
in position of power.

Love (capitalized) is unidirectional; like a stream it runs from high to low and it
flows over any blockage in the way, not return to flow back to the source. Self-
giving love does not require a return.

The foremost commandment is in (1) Mt 22:37; //Mk 12:30 – upon a

question brought on about greatest commandments, and (2) //Lk 10:27 –
upon a question about eternal life.
“You shall love YHWH your Elohim with all your heart and with all your
soul and with all your mind and with all your strength” (with the
phrases in italics quoted from Deu 6:5).

The often-heard phrase ‘Love your God’ as such is not in the Bible. a What 81F81F

does it mean to love ‘God’? What does it mean to ‘love God’? Does God
expect, need or demand it in return since ‘God is love’?

Love coming from God is to be received – it simply nudges us to respond

(resonate in spirit) – to let it flow through to others, not to hinder or hold. A
gift one receives free and freely; and with the hand kept open it is let flow
out toward others so that the hand can filled continually. That’s why to love
God is impossible without the second one, “You shall love your neighbor as
yourself” b. (as in most translations) – in Mt 22:39 //Mk 12:31; Lk 10:27b –

a
i.e. in contrast to 'Love YHWH your Elohim. ‘to love God’; ‘to love your God’ – It is not ‘God’ of a
generic expression, but ‘Elohim’. Exo 20:7 “I am YHWH your Elohim. You shall have no other gods.
You shall not take the name of YHWH your Elohim in a manner unworthy for it.” – (1) YHWH’s
Renewed Covenant in Yeshua the Mashiah – inscribed on one’s heart – mind and thought; (2) YHWH’s
Torah (Commandments) to keep; (3) YHWH’s name be honored in our life.
b
Problem of self-love – what is definition? Does it belong to the sematic field of self-giving love? The
popular word *self-love, a pop psychology mantra, which is totally foreign to the Scripture. Neither is the
catch phrase ‘God loves you, so do I’ as someone is fond of to tell from the pulpit. How can we love others
as God loves them!? – the way and to the degree? One may use the word ‘love’ for non-person things in
the sense of ‘treat nicely’ ‘not drive to hard’ ‘take care of’. This is not love which is something in person
relation. Doing that to others is not love itself, though it would flow from love. Doing that to oneself is not
 quoting from Lev 19:18. It should be properly understood as 'love your
neighbor [as a person] as your very self, [who is loved by Elohim]’.

No Love can come out of human heart. The love on human level which is
by nature bi-directional a is a pale shadow of God’s Love. It can be described
83 F83F

by alliteration – attraction, affection, attachment, addiction for acceptance.

Though Love opens ones’ self to receive it when returned, the Love that
expects return is not love which the Scripture portrays. To love requiring to
be loved back in return is conditional. God’s love is unconditional – self-
yielding and self-opening Love b. 84F84F

Only when one receives Love from God, one is able to love others. (See also
Mt 7:12 ‘Golden Rule’ c). The command from Yeshua is 'love each other'd
85F85F

(Jn 13:34a; 15:12, 17) It is possible only because "Elohim is Love" (1Jn 4:8,
16) and Yeshua loved first (Jn 13:34b). [Love in the Scripture refers to that
which is from Elohim as we receive; not human love which is of attraction,
affection, acquisition, attachment, and addiction with ‘loveless ≈ hateful’.]

It is more than ‘concept’ or ‘ideal’, or something to do with what a person feels.

It’s not affection or that sort. It’s more than attitude or action itself. It’s not
opposite of ‘*hate’ neither e. What Paul wrote in 1Co 13: is not about ‘hymn of
86F86F

love’ (or, an ode to love). It does not give a definition, but a picture of a person
in their life filled with God’s Love. It is for a polemic indictment to the Corinthian
believers who were infected with pagan religions (shamanism, spiritism,
spiritualism – e.g. tongue-babbling and prophecy-peddlers and charisma-freaks).

The opposite of human love is not hate, but self-love (self-assertion; self-pride;
self-esteem). But what is opposite to divine Love is our existential indifference
to human predicament, atrocity, and perversion (of truth). A real example of it
opposite: ‘I have nothing to do with the other person’, ‘I don’t care about you’,

something called ‘love oneself’ in the biblical sense of ‘love’. [The opposite of love is self-love, not hate.]
[Cf. 'forgiving oneself'] The love commandments do tell how to take care of one's self.
a
Cf. ‘one-way love’? 'one-sided love'? (? Ko. 짝사랑).
b
self-yielding ░░ [opening up and sharing one’s personal (psychological) ‘space’.] [> self-giving; not
‘self-sacrificing’. The expression ‘sacrificial love’ (of God) has a wrong connotation of a religious concept
of ‘sacrifice’.
c
So-called Golden Rule ░░ [The basis of this (Mt 7:12) is as important as what is said – the phrase “since
that is the case” at the beginning which refers to the preceding paragraph. As a corollary – ‘do not expect
others do for you before you would do to others first.] This is a positive form of a common saying in
various religions. Its negative form is called Silver rule, that is, ‘do not do to others what others don’t want
to be done to them’. See Mt 19:19b - Ten Commandments applicable to one’s action against others do
equally apply to one’s self.
d
'love each other' – ofter understood of interpersonal ('I and another person whom I have vested interest
with'). However, if love does not reach out to other people, who are underprivileged in low postion with
less power and who are of a different faith or life outlook, it cannot be love at all.
e
love and hate are concepts on a different level, not necessarily mutually exclusive. Cf. common
expression ‘love and hate’, also ‘love against hate’ (Karl Menninger, 1959).
 ‘going through with motion’, ‘be tolerant’ a, ‘just do it’ b, ‘go with flow’, etc. [See
87F87F 8F8F

sins of omission c]. Is it possible to hate if there is no love at all? Not to love is
89F89F

not allowing other to come into one’s living and psychological space to share on
a common ground. Love goes out to find common ground and to be on life of
creation to enjoy in God’s grace, coming across things of unexpected hidden
beauty.

The Love of Elohim (God's Love) is the foundation of the whole of God’s Word
in the Scripture. The word ‘Love’ (Gk. agapē) in the Bible is one the major themes of
Johannine writings. Love is not what God’s essence is. (It may be said God is where the
essence of Love is.) It is not an abstract noun of noble virtue, but a verbal noun – action
in power of spirit as He relates and radiates for creation, care, and consummation.

Like the sun shines to all His love is indiscriminate, not conditional. [Mt 5:45; Cf. Jn
3:16] God simply loves – keep on loving. That’s what and how He does what He wills.
However, not all are willing to receive His love. Instead, they rather put a shield to cover
from sunlight, and resort to their pity self-love. Does God love every one? No.

[In G-Jn the word ‘Love’ appears mostly as a verb for the first time in Jn 3:16. (God
loves, and His Love was shown through the Life of His Son.) Less frequently appears
as a noun (as ‘Love for God’ in Jn 5:48 and as ‘Yeshua’s Love’ in Jn 15:9, 10, 13;
‘God’s Love of His Son’ in Jn 17:26)] [Cf. A modern heresy telling that Love is the
essence of God with a phrase ‘Love is God’.] [Cf. Sin is there when God’s Love is
refused; no response to; and to be blind to it – 1Jn 3:4]

Listening is where Love is, not talking to. Love requires discernment to see
whether the other is in listening status. One is not possible to talk to the other
unless ready. Life in Love begins in finding and building common grounds to
share life through interaction and conflict-resolution.

'*love God': What does it mean by '(we) love God'? Does God love everyone?
(Cf. 'God hates …')

What is meant by the word 'love'? Worship Him? (what is 'worship'?) As long as
a person loved God, would everything else work out? What is meant by 'God' –
what God, which God, whose God?

Where do we find the basic biblical definition of 'love'? –

Cf. 1Jn 4:7 – 'Such love is from Elohim'

a
tolerance in a medical parlance is opposite of ‘hypersensitivity’, such as allergy. It may be even
devastating to the body when they fail to recognize something as foreign so that it can reject. An example
is AIDS caused by virus by which the important defense mechanism of immunity of the bay becomes
powerless. Cf. 'intolerance of the intolerant'.
b
‘just do it’ – No, to live, we should not ‘just do it’.
c
Negligence, ignoring, indifference, 'don't bother', etc. Cf. Dennis Ford (1990), Sins of Omission: A
Primer on Moral Indifference.
 Cf. 1Jn 4:8, 16 – 'Elohim is love' (>> 'God is love')
Cf. 1Jn 5:2-3 – 'to love Elohim'

Mk 12:30 love ░░ (Love YHWH your Elohim; /Love the Lord your God – most;) //[To love God is
only possible when one has received love from God, as God loves all the time, like sun rises on people,
good or bad. – Mt 5:45 – our love of Elohim is in response to His love), and it reciprocates in resonance
to love God and love we receive overflows to others. To love cannot be a ‘command’ or ‘commandment’
as such as stipulated in Deuteronomy (love your Lord God) – See 1Jn 2:3ff (old and new
commandments) and compare Jn 10:18ff and 12:49ff – rather than commands, but the ‘Words from His
desire for us to follow’ because He loved us first (1Jn 4:19).] [The command is ‘to love’, not ‘to
worship’. *love’ the Bible – simply unidirectional without regard to response –has semantic overlap
only partially with English word.]

Cf. problem with 'as they love their own bodies'' Eph 5:28 'love their wives [as
precious] as their own body

Eph 5:28 (love his wives as) [caring for as precious] as his own body ░░ \hōs ta hautōn
sōmata; (counter example ‘singular they’; the wording in singular is much more natural);

['love your body'?? – 'not to cremate'?] [= ‘self’ in metaphoric use. Echoing with the ‘Body’
v. 23. Note in other examples ‘as being worthy as’ oneself/yourself in v. 33; Mt 19:19, etc.
The comparison ‘hōs’ as about ‘how one loves’, not the comparison btw wife and his body
(or himself/yourself)];

/as they love their own bodies – Barclay, Cass; /as [being in a sense] their own bodies
– AMP; /(his wife) as he loves himself - CEV; /(their wives) as their own bodies – most,
KJV++; /cf. The love a man gives his wife is the extending of his love for himself to
enfold her. Nobody ever hates or neglects his own body; he feeds and looks after it.
And that is what Christ does for his body, the Church. – PNT; /

Moved from IRENT Johannine Epistles

The word ‘Love’ (agapē) in the Bible is one the major themes of Johannine
writings. The essence of Elohim is Love (not ‘love). What Love is, Elohim is.
It is not an abstract noun of noble virtue, but a verbal noun - action in power of
spirit as He relates and radiates for creation, care, and consummation. It has a
limited semantic overlap with the common English word ‘love’.
 [In G-Jn the word ‘Love’ appears mostly as a verb for the first time in Jn 3:16.
(God loves, and His Love was shown through the Life of His Son.) Less
frequently appears as a noun (as ‘Love for God’ in Jn 5:48 and as ‘Yeshua’s
Love’ in Jn 15:9, 10, 13; ‘God’s Love of His Son’ in Jn 17:26)] [Cf. Sin is to
refuse God’s love; no response to; and to be blind to it – 1Jn 3:4]

*Space, *personal space, and Love:

One’s personal (psychological) space is God’s gift to human endowed with
freedom. It is sacrosanct. Even God cannot invade (after all, He is much ‘bigger’).
In that space resides the image of one’s own self – now as acting like a God – since
Adam took the idea offered by the Serpent. In fact, that image is made after Satan.
The Devil exerts its own power to this spirit in man. Unless one dies with the
Mashiah so that He is the One who lives ‘in’ us, we remain enslaved in sin –
separation, alienation, isolation, and independence from the very God what has
created us.

Love is in opening-up of one’s own space, which let the space expand, so that there
is room for other’s space come in, at the same time, making oneself vulnerable. To
love is to live in God’s grace – to share each other’s space, to give and to give
power, and to care and create and to let create. It is with contact, being connected,
finding common ground, communicating, and creating – creating life to share and
have delight together (> joie de vivre, but together).
• space – physical
• space – soulical, psychological
• space – spirital (not ‘spiritual’) – space under the power spirit
Sharing space - invite for something of what one thinks and does; to be together to in
appreciation, affection, adoration admiration (respect for what the other is who he/she
is) – ‘dignity’ and ‘respect’.

In G-Jn, the word ‘love’ appears mostly as a verb (agapaō), for the first time in
3:16. ‘God loves’, here, His Love was shown through the Life of His Son.
Less frequently is as a noun ‘Love’ (agapē). E.g. as ‘Love for God’ in Jn 5:48 and
as ‘Yeshua’s Love’ in Jn 15:9, 10, 13; ‘God’s Love of His Son’ in 17:26.
The word is one of the major themes of Johannine writings. E.g. 1Jn 4:8, 16
‘Elohim (the God) is Love’, where Gk. ho theos (‘the God’) is not God of generic
notion. The (divine) Love is the essence of Elohim. It is not an abstract noun of
noble virtue, but a verbal noun - action in power of spirit as He relates and radiates
for creation, care, and consummation.
Love the world:
world - Gk. *kosmos (ordered system); cf. aiōn (period of time; age)
• “… in that way Elohim has loved the world …” (Jn 3:16) [the world = created world,
esp. humanity]
 • “Love not the world …’ 1Jn 2:15 [here world is metonymic for the spiritual,
religious, political, philosophical system with all of man's powers, purposes,
pursuits, pleasures, practices, and places where God is not wanted, under control of
the spirit which is against God].

*Love –

There are quite a few words for which common translation fails to bring out its true
sense and picture as in the Scripture. One example is ‘love’ - this is usually confused
with something of human experience, which is something one receives at start, and
which is only a pale shadow of it.

‘Love’ in the Scripture (/x: ‘charity’ in KJV) has nothing much common with the
same word as used in everyday English, which often connotes feeling associated with
pleasure and even sex. It is the source of creative power; what Love does is to create,
which anyone involved work of creation in daily life, whether they are artists or not,
would understand intuitively and naturally. In IRENT the word is expanded in a few
places. E.g. 1Co 13:1, 2, 3, 4 a, also Eph 4:15 ‘Love from God’]
90F90 F

God is love. Or, rather, ‘Elohim (= the God = YHWH) is Love’. That is, ‘God is of
love’; not ‘love is God’. If we love God, it is because He loved us first (1Jn 4:19). At
the core, love is toward truth and goodness, and is something (- hard to define)
between two persons. Originated from God, powerful is love but it can be blocked
easy (darkness), just as the light can be blocked from the Sun, the source of all the
energy on Earth. Love on the part of God is a verbal noun. It’s action, not an abstract
concept of some noble virtue. Everything God does is love; God does everything in
love. Everything from God springs from God’s love. It is how human beings respond
to that determines how we are going to experience. Note: KJV (like DRB, Bishops,
Geneva (Gk. agapē is rendered by Vulgate mostly as dilectio, but caritas outside the
Gospels and Acts. Wycliffe and the Rheims version regularly rendered the Vulgate
by ‘love’, caritas by ‘*charity’. – Also in KJV and DRB in several places, but not in
Geneva or Bishops). However, the word charity has become to carry different sense,
nuance, and usage in modern English.

God’s Love – (1) creation work; (2) care of creation; (3) blessing; (4) mercy; (5) justice and
vengeance (= Love of justice expressed).

a
So-called love chapter (1Co 13) is not about ‘love’ Paul was writing as a hymn for love or an ode
for love; it is the very love from Elohim, which the Corinthians lacked when they were in pagan
mindset – addicted with ‘charisma’ (gifts) of the Spirit – proud and self-praising (Ch. 12. & Ch.
14). Most readers of the Bibles do not have clear idea of what God’s love is, distinct from ‘love’
in their vocabulary.]
Love – not to be confused of ‘love’ in English language which is something between each
other of human beings. Divine Love in the Scripture is something we cannot bring to others;
it is only possible when we receive it from God and let it overflow to others. The central
point of the Good News of the Kingdom reign of God, which Yeshua brought, is that Yeshua
Himself was the manifestation of this Love – freely given when we don’t deserve since we
have lost the very image of God in which we are created. It is self-giving Love. Human love,
however, will exhaust itself when it is possible to be truly self-giving. Only God can, as His
love inexhaustible from out of Father and Son in dynamic relation, the power of which is
emanates, processes, and radiates in the holy Spirit.

1Jn 4:19 it is because God Himself first loved us, ░░ \ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς;
[+ because Elohim is love; on His own free initiative; to show us His divine love and, from this
fountain to shower down the true self-giving love — once beyond our capability, but now a real
possibility.] [To love others is only possible since we are loved – it is flowing out through us.]

[It’s not just about precedence (as if ‘first He did’ and ‘next we did’), it’s about the source of our
capability of such love.] [Note the different btw ‘He first loved us’ and ‘He loved us first’. The
latter, which is a wrong translation’ suggests a logic that ‘loved us first; then we now (ought to)
love Him’ – a subtle conditional demand from God’s side. The former has a sense of ‘Him taking
own initiative’ and we respond to such love.] [Some may or may not capitalize ‘he/He’.] [Refers
to God’s love in Jn 3:16. Cf. God’s love for His people – Deu 4:37; 7:7-8; 10:15; 33:3] [‘He first
loved us’, thus our love for Him is a response to His love for us. Our love for Him is basically
‘receiving fully and keep receiving’ by letting it overflow from out of our hand to others as rain
we catch with our hands overflows out – naturally flows out to others, it cannot be something out
of duty.]

‘love others?

There is no '[you shall] love others' in the Bible. Only 'love your neighbor [S4139 –
plēsion (17x)]'

*chesed
= Hebrew equivalent to the Greek agape.”
Exo 34:6 "YHWH, YHWH El,
merciful and gracious, slow to angera
and abundant in loveb and faithfulnessc,
https://restitutio.org/2019/03/30/gods-chesed/

‘loving self?’ *self-love; *self-love

a
slow to anger – most; /longsuffering - KJV, [H750 arek + H693 aph 'nose' 'face' 'anger']
b
love – H2617 checed /love – NIV, /steadfast love – ESV; /lovingkindness – NASB; /faithful love –
HCSB; /great love – CEV, GNB; /gracious love – ISV; /royal love – NET; /goodness – KJV;
c
faithfulness – H571 emeth /faithfulness – NIV, ESV; /truthfulness; /> truth – NASB, KJV, HCSB; /
 Related word:
*Gk. phileō – affectionate love on the human level

Mt 10:37; 1Co 16:22; Tit 3:15; Rev 3:19

Jn 5 5:20; 11:3, 36; 16:27; 20:2; 21:15-17a
Mt 6:5; 26:48; Jn 12:25; Rev 22:15
Mt 26:48; Mk 14:44; Lk 22:47

[Cf. S5367 philautos 'loving oneself' (1x) 2Tim 3:2 – listed as one of ungodly
characters.]

[love; self-love; self-worth; self-esteem; selfism]

[self-love is non-biblical idea; a result of ‘Love’ being idolized, spiritualized, and

ritualized. There are an untold number of youtubes on ‘how to love yourself’.
http://youtu.be/ELkK2G0wd9o All are in line with prosperity gospel peddled by mega-
churches. They all seems mixed up with self-care, self-respect, and self-esteem, etc.]

Cf. problem with 'love yourself' – cf. Mt 19:19

"agapēseis ton plēsion sou hōs eauton" – you shall love your neighbor [as a person]
as yourself. [It should not be read as 'as you love yourself'.] [Cf. S5367 philautos
'loving oneself' (1x) 2Tim 3:2 – listed as one of ungodly characters.]

[problem of ‘self-love’ – (1) it cannot be something to provide a foundation for the love of
others. Cf. ‘husband and wife becoming in one flesh-and-blood in marriage – to love one’s
spouse is to love the self because of this oneness? Cf. The ‘Goldern Rule’ Mt 7:12. (2)
Without relationship with God throughout life, one’s innate self-centerdness makes one give
little thought to ‘loving others as a way of life, Without God, life becomes all about the self
– worshipping Self. The world established by and built upon selfish human nature, contiuese
to feed its self-absorbed inclinations and desires. – cf. John W. Ritenbaugh: Ephesians
5:28-33 from The Christian Fight (Part Two)
"A baby is not born evil. [cf. we are born with sin nature, but we are not born as sinners
('born sinners'). Cf. unbiblical Augustinian doctrine of 'original sin'.] It is most certainly
born with a measure of self-centeredness that God pronounced as very good in Genesis
1:31, for some small measure of self-centeredness enables a person to take care of the
self.
Understood and controlled, a right measure of self-love provides a foundation for the
love of others, which proves beneficial for the giver as well as the receiver. This is
especially true in marriage because husband and wife become one flesh; to love one's
spouse is to love the self because of this oneness."

[Cf. Eric Fromm (1990), Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics.
<… the capacity to love others is “conjunctive with” the capacity to love humanity on

a
In Jn 21:15-17 phileō is contrasted to agapaō in the dialogue btw Yeshua and Kefa (>
Peter). Greek synonyms should not be rendered in a single English word or expression
to obscure different shades and senses of the two words.
one’s own person. This self-love in the form of self-acceptance is healthy, while
egocentrism is pathological. …> in Song, The Wounded Heart of God (infra., p. 105).]

“… as your Self [is being loved by God] ░░ [Mt 19:19; 22:39; //Mk 12:31;
//Lk 10:27] /> yourself;

“… as [God loves] your Self”

“… as your Self [is being loved by God]”
“… as your Self [is all being loved by God – you and your neighbors]”
“… as your Self [as being loved by God]”

(/> ‘is loved by God’; /> ‘God loves you’) ‘is being loved by God’ is the reason,
basis, and norm for us to love others. [Neighbor as God sees yourself worthy] [See
‘who is a neighbor to me?’ – Good Samaritan’s parable]

[/xx: ‘~ neighbor, as you love yourself’.] [Cf. Eph 5:30 ‘wife [as being worthy] as
himself]; [QQ: How come the first set of the Ten Commandment is skipped in all
three Synoptic Gospels?] [‘(your neighbor) as yourself – Gk. hōs seauton; Heb.
kmuk][‘love your neighbor as yourself’ – Mt 19:19; 22:39; Mk 12:31, 33; Lk 10:27;
Rm 13:9; Gal 5:14; Jas 2:8 - all quoting Lev 19:18] [cf. (love aliens, foreigners) as
yourself – Lev 19:34; Eph 5:33 hōs eauton (love your wife) as yourself] [Comparison
by ‘hōs’ is ‘how’, not ‘what’ as the object of the verb love. See Eph 5:28 ‘love his
wife [as precious] as his own body’]
[Usually misread as ‘love them as you love yourself’ as some
translations/paraphrases render it.]; [2Tim 3:2 lists ‘lover of self’ (filautos) along with
‘loving-money’ (filarguros)’ and (v. 3) ‘unloving (astorgos)’ ‘no love for goodness
afilargos’, and (v.4) ‘pleasure-loving filhēdonos’. In contrast – Mt 7:12; 2Tim 3:3
God-loving (filotheos)] [? If loving (fileō) self is such, would loving (agapaō) be
different and honorable?] [‘Loving-Christ’ rather than ‘loving-self’ – 2Co 5:14-15;
Eph 1:3-4; Rm 8:33; 2Co 5:19-20; 1Co 6:19]; [Cf. Rm 13:10; Gal 5:14; cf. 2Ti 3:2]]
[Only when one receives Love from God, one is not only able to love others, but also
able to be loved by others. – it becomes possible only one comes to death of one self,
participating death of the Mashiah.]

[It should be correctly read as ‘love your neighbor as … yourself’, rather than ‘as you
love yourself’. Problem of ‘love oneself’ – preserving and sanctifying with due regard
to the dignity of our own being – welfare and care of soul and body (modified for
Henry’s)] [‘Thou shall love thyself’ as such is nowhere in the Bible and cannot be a
command. Love of God (from/by God) – enables us to love Him; and enable us to
care for our soul and body; and enables us to love others. Cf. ‘Golden Rule’ Mt 7:12.
God’s Love ought to be found in our Love of others – consists of ‘forgiving’
‘thanking’ ‘rejoicing together’ ‘finding common ground’ ‘sharing life’ ‘drink up
together God’s message of Love’. The written command ‘love others as yourself’ in
the Mosaic Law as such properly belongs to the Old Covenant; in the Renewed
Covenant, the command of our Lord is the very voice of Him: ‘love as I have loved
you’.] [Literary logical absurdity if the text is read as ‘love your neighbor as you love
yourself’ – as little as you love yourself or as much as? The degree you love yourself
cannot be a basis on which you are to love your neighbor. Cf. Mt 5:48 – unbounded
love as Father so loves; also Mt 7:9-12.] [Love of Elohim – in creation and care – is
Justice + Mercy] [Cf. related expression – grace (unmerited gift)]
[Cf. ‘divine impassibility’ www.gotquestions.org/impassibility-of-God.html - A God
who does not suffer is not the biblical God (‘Elohim is Love’ 1Jn 4:8).]
[‘anthropomorphism’, ‘literary license’ http://hubpages.com/literature/What-is-
Poetic-License-Definition-and-Examples ]

[Repeat: Problem of ‘self-love’ – (1) it cannot be something to provide a fount for

the Love of others. Cf. ‘husband and wife becoming in one flesh-and-blood in
marriage – to love one’s spouse is to love the self because of this oneness? Cf. the
‘Golden Rule’ Mt 7:12. (2) Without relationship with God throughout life, one’s
innate self-centeredness makes one give little thought to ‘loving others as a way of
life, Without God, life becomes all about the self – worshipping Self. The world
established by and built upon selfish human nature, continues to feed its self-absorbed
inclinations and desires. – diverging from the opinion of John W. Ritenbaugh
Ephesians 5:28-33 from The Christian Fight (Part Two) ] [If ‘self-love’, how would
the text say – is it ‘as much as you love your self’, or ‘in the same way as you love
it’? Or even ‘as little as you love yourself, if you don’t love it more than a smidgen’?
How it can ever serve as a basis of loving others?]

[Cf. the meaning of ‘neighbors’ - fellow countrymen in OT with a wider connotation

given by Yeshua] [In the Mosaic economy, it was someone who belongs to our part
of society or neighborhood as in the Mosaic Law (Mt 5:33 ‘You shall love your
neighbor and hate your enemy’).] [It was not our modern abstract ‘fellow human
being’.]
[cf. Phi 2:3 regard others worthier than yourselves. To love is (a) see in others
perfectibility (b) regard worthy (c) give power]
[Problem of ‘love oneself’ vs. selfishness. Problem of ‘love oneself’ vs. ‘feeling good
about oneself’ in the modern psychological therapeutic movements] [/x: 자기 몸을
사랑 (= nothing more than ‘자기 몸 아끼는것’; love is only btw two ‘persons’
인격체). Problem in Korean: 自身 = 자신 vs. ‘ (etymologically same) 자기 몸’ –
here 몸身 is used metonymic.]
/as [being worthy as] yourself – ARJ; /as [God sees] yourself [being worthy] – ARJ (i.e.
‘self-worth’ - oneself being worthy as God sees’. Not ‘self-esteem’, a verbal
noun – esteeming oneself as seen by others.); /[as being worthy] as yourself – ARJ;
/> [treated] as yourself – ARJ; /
1 /as yourself – most, PNT, Barclay, TNT; / 2 /x: as for yourself – BBE; /x: as thou dost
thyself. – TCNT; /x: as [you do] yourself – AMP; /x: as you do yourself – GSNT, Wuest,
MSG (Mt 19:19); / 3 /xx: as you love yourself – NIrV, GW, GNB, CEV, ERV, MSG (Mt
22:39), AUV, GSNT, Cass; /xx: the same way that you love yourself – AUV;

/as thyself – KJV+, /xx: as thou dost thyself - TCNT; /x: ~ like yourself; /thy fellow man
as much as thyself – WNT; /(shall love with a divine and self-sacrificial love your)
neighbor in the same manner as yourself – Wuest; /xx: the same way you love yourself –
NTPE; //
4 /ko. x: 네 몸같이; - KRV (- also Lev 19:18, but not 19:34); /네 자신과 같이 – KKJV;
 Jn 15:13
meizona tautēs agapēn oudeis echei,
hina tis tēn psuchēn autou thē huper tōn pdilōn autou.
‘No one has love greater than this
– [as I do] to lay down one’s own self.’ - IRENT
psuchē – not ‘life (목숨, 命)
greater; /x: greatest
one; /anyone; /x: a man; /> someone; /
/someone should surrender his soul (- NWT3; /life – NWT-2013)
/a man lay down his life – KJV; /
/one lays down his life – NET; /x: one dies willingly – NETfn; /xx: gives up his life –
BBE; /one should lay down his life – Darby; /a man bestowe his life- Bishops; /any man
bestoweth his life for – Geneva; /a man lay down his life – ASV; /
/xx: The greatest way to show love for friends is to die for them – CEV; /
/xx: The greatest love people can show is to die for their friends – ERV;
/xx: The greatest love you can have for your friends is to give your life for them – GNB;

*love

It is to share one’s personal space of life with others and to have them come in,
now and here, taking them worthy of ‘*respect’ and treating with ‘*dignity’. [Cf.
upholding their dignity].

[1Jn 4:16] “Elohim, the very God, is love.’

Jn 3:16.
Jn 3:14 And just as in the desert-wilderness ☼Moses lifted up high 95F95F95F

the molten image of snake [mounted on a pole],

thus it is necessary for this very son-of-man
to be lifted up [on a stake]
96F96F96F

3:15
so that everyone putting faith in him
may have life eternal . 97 F97F97F

3:16
— yes, it was in that way Elohim has loved the world ,69F9F9F9F 10F10F10F

as He gave the only-begotten Son {of His own}

so that everyone who put his faith in this Son
10F10F10F

is not to get perished, but to have life eternal.

3:17
The fact is, Elohim sent forth the Son {of His own} into the world
not to bring down judgment on the world ; 102F102F102F

on the contrary, to have the world saved

through the Son [in his love and obedience to God].

*self-love and sin

Self-love as essence of sin – self-righteousness – in pursuit of power and
pleasure. Self-pride, self-esteem, and self-pleasure. [It is opposite of ‘self-care’
and ‘self-respect’.] Evil manifests in self-love. [Cf. Rm 1:29-32]

Where self-love is, sin is; where sin is, self-love. Without self-love, no sin can be
there.

Cf. self-love as antithesis of love; root of sin] [cf. 'Love yourself' – BTS song theme – the word
‘love’ is not same ]

Where does self-love from? From one’s alter ego, ‘god’. – [Gen 3:4 ‘you shall
be like God’]

<You shall love your neighbor as yourself [is loved by God]>

Lev 19:18 [Mt 19:19b; 22:39] [Mk 12:31, 33; Lk 10:27b; Gal 5:14; Rm 13:10; cf. 2Ti 3:2; Jam 2:8]
[Not ‘loving self’. Not ‘as you love yourself’. Not about ‘love yourself’ vs. ‘love your neighbor’]; [cf. Mt 5:43]
*righteous vs. just, upright; *righteousness; *justify; *justification; cf. *justice
[Related words - worthy (axios); sanctification, * atonement; * salvation; * judgment]

Rm 5:15 trespass ░░ (paraptōma; cf. parabias ‘transgression’ v. 14; cf. hamartia v. 12);
/x: offense – KJV; [that which is against God’s injunction; ‘sin’ is its result – his alienated
status from God.]/
Rm 5:15, 16, 17 free gift ░░ (dōrea) (cf. dōron Mt 2:11 etc.)
Rm 3:28; 5:16 judgment ░░ (krima)
Rm 5:16, 18 judgment-pronouncement ░░ (katakrima); /x: condemnation– most (biblical
jargon);
Rm 5:16 God’s righteous act to acquit ░░ (dikaiōma Rm 5:16, 18, etc.) /xx: justification -
most (got confused with dikaiōsis 4:25; 5:18];
Rm 5:18 righteous act ░░ (dikaiōma Rm 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4);

The word ‘righteousness’ in the Scripture is, like the word ‘love’, a relational noun
(‘being righteous’), not an abstract concept, idea, ideal to achieve, character, essence,
etc. This word ‘to be righteous’ deserves to be freshly re-defined away from the
traditional understanding it in a judicial or evaluative sense – as ‘being worthy to God’s
standard’, i.e. ‘worthy to the very name of Elohim.

'Righteous before God' – worthy before God, not because it is useful to God, or is
‘justified before God’, but to be worthy to the very name of Elohim (YHWH) – all
because of His name – to keep honored and not to take it in an unworthy manner (/ ‘*in
vain’).

It is one of the reasons that, ‘name’ lies on the top among all the weighty words in the
Bible. It is in the name, for the name, by the name that God acts and relates to the world.
The Name is what carries His Spirit of divine power and love.

S1343 dikaiosunē – (92x) 'righteousness' [= 'being righteous' – usually either before

others' (Mt 5:20) or 'before God' (Rm 1:17)]; >> 'justice' – used in a few places by a
few bible translations.]

Mt 3:15; 5:6, 10, 20; 6:1, 33; 21:32 – ‘righteousness’ ‘(state of) being [proven]
righteous’ (‘proven’ – not ‘to prove’, but ‘get proven’ or ‘be declared’)
Mt 6:1 – ‘act of your righteousness’
Mt 3:15; – ‘all righteousness' (= all that is for being righteous), with ‘being
righteous’ meaning ‘worthy to the name’; honorable to ones’ name.

www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/righteousness/

God’s righteousness ░░ \dikaiosunē theou

• God’s (anarthrous – ‘before God’ /x: /x: from God; /xx: ‘in possession by God’]
• righteousness (anarthrous) - ‘state of being righteous before God’ (e.g. Jam 1:20)]
[not ‘God is (a) just (person)’, nor ‘God is righteous’; not God’s attribute or essence,
something God has.] /x: justice.
 Rm 1:17; 3:21, 22 it is ‘God’s righteousness’ – not ‘the righteousness of God’,
nor ‘righteousness of Elohim (the God’), that which God has or that which belongs
to God. a [not God’s being righteous, but righteousness which is from Him as He
16F16F

takes us as righteous]
[Cf. Rm 10:3 ‘the (aforementioned) righteousness from Elohim’ tēn tou theou
dikaiosunēn (genitive of source), but not in the sense ‘belongs to Elohim’. [e.g.
God's love (Love from God)]

a
‘God is righteous’ ‘God is this’ ‘God is that’? Truth is, He, the Reality, is not. It is only how He is as
our human mind sees how God is. (Linguistic anthropomorphism and literary rhetoricism)
 S1341 dikaiokrisia (1x) Rm 2:5 'righteous judgment'.
S1345 dikaiōma (10x) Lk 1:6 (ordinance); Rm 1:32 (righteous requirement); Heb 9:1
(righteous regulation; ordinance); Rm 5:18; Rev 15:4 (righteous act)
S1345 dikaiōsis (2x) Rm 4:25; 5:18 'justification' [(God's) declaring to be righteous
(towards God')]

S1344 dikaioō (Danker p. 97 dikaioō)

– 1. ‘verify to be in the right’ justify Mt 11:29; 12:37; Lk 7:29, 35; 10:29; 18:14; Rm
2:13; 3:4, 20; 4:2; 1Co 4:4; Gal 5:4; 1Ti 3:16; Jam 2:21, 24f
– 2 ‘put into a condition or state of uprightness’, justify, set right Act 13:38f (in connection
with forgiveness of sins mediated through Jesus); Rm 3:24, 26, 28, 30; 4:5; 5:1, 9; 8:30;
1Co 6:11; Gal 2:16f; 3:8; Tit 3:7

/take as righteous; /declare righteous; /prove someone righteous (Mt 12:37); /be
declared righteous; /x: 'justify'; /x: make right; /x: be made righteous (cf. 'be
sanctified';

Lk 7:29 – ‘acknowledge Elohim to be God of righteousness.

Cf. related words – to vindicate (‘show or prove to be right, reasonable, or

justified’ et.); to be accepted; to be acceptable

‘*justify’ in very different sense often used – ‘be/give a good reason for’ etc.
Richard K Moore, "An Unresolved Dilemma in English Bible Translation:
How to English Paul’s Use of the Δικαι-Family"
–
www.academia.edu/38445142/1._An_Unresolved_Dilemma_in_English_
Bible_Translation_How_to_English_Pauls_Use_of_the_Dikai-FamIly
At the heart of Paul’s doctrine is a family of six words which share
the stem δικαι-: δικαιοσύνη, δικαιοῦν, δίκαιος, δικαίωμα, δικαίωσις,
δικαιοκρισία.

[English word 'justification' is a legal term. ‘righteous’ carries a mora and legal
nuance. As a translation word for Gk. dikaiōsis (Rm 4:25; 5:18), it has become a
theological jargon along with the verb 'to justify'. It is not about ‘justifying something
with some excuses', 'not being wrong’ or ‘fixing wrong’, but to be or to stand ‘right
to the measure’ – ‘to be worthy [or having come to be worthy] to the standard (God’s
or mans’) – not ‘worthy (enough)’ or ‘acceptable (enough). [See below on *Salvation,
Righteousness, Justification and Sanctification’]
Lk 1:6; ‘righteous before Elohim’; 1:6; ‘righteousness before Elohim’

Rm 3:10 no one is righteous before God ░░ [i.e. cannot claim to be righteous on his own.] [It does
not mean all are born ‘depraved’- Cf. unbiblical ‘Total Depravity’ in ‘TULIP’ of Calvinism.]

Jam 2:21ff
• ‘be [proven] righteous before God’ = righteous for God’s name before God = to be
righteous is not on our own but gift of God in His grace – all by the blood of Yeshua when
one comes to Him to put faith in Him.

• vs. ‘be [proven] righteous before men’ = righteous for one’s name sake before men,
(ultimately to honor God’s name); it is not ‘worthy because one is judged worthy to the eyes
of men’; only with faith in Him – sanctified in the Spirit which bring them to bear fruits (Gal
5:22-23 ‘fruitage of the Spirit’). Cf. ‘righteous in virtue’

S1342 adj. dikaios ‘righteous’

Mt 9:13; 10:42; 13:17, 43, 49; 27:20, 24 v.l.; Jn 16:8, 10, Rk 2:25; 23:50, etc.
Just, upright, etc.
Cf. righteous before men - holding up God’s commandments; Torah-biding (Cf. ‘Torah-observant’
sounds like ‘orthodox’) [living with and conforming to what God instructs in Torah with the God's
will be done through us too. Mt 6:10]; virtuous; moral; - most places; Mt 27:19 (innocent - most;
‘just’ – KJV; righteous – NASB; Cf. Tit 1:8 – (morally) upright
Cf. righteous before God – worthy to the name of God → ‘in right relation to God’ → ‘right standing
before God’ Lk 1:16;

[Cf. See Rm 3:10 and Jam 2:21 EE for ‘being righteous – before God vs. before men; ‘proved
righteous > is justified’.]

Cf. just – act fair and honorably in interpersonal relationships; impartial; Mt 1:19; Act 10:22; Col
4:1 (just and fair – dikaion … isotēta)

Cf. just judgement – KJV (> righteous – most) Jn 5:30; 7:24; 2Th 1:5; Rev 19:2; just > righteous
judgment Rev 16:7
Cf. right (things to do) – Mt 20:4; Phi 1:7; Eph 6:1; 2Pe 1:3
Cf. God is ‘righteous’ (Rev 16:5); 'just’
'O righteous Father!' Jn 17:15
Cf. Rm 3:26 – ‘just’ ‘justifying’;
'resurrection of the righteous' Lk 14:14;

S1738 endikos righteous, just (2x) Rm 3:8; Heb 2:2;

Related words:
S94 adikos – unjust, unfair; Mt 5:45; Lk 16:10, etc.
S91 adikeō – do wrong, harm, injure, hurt Mt 20:13; Act 7:24, etc.
S92 adikēma – unrighteous deed Act 18:14; Rev 18:5,
S93 adikia – unrighteousness, injustice, unfairness; Lk 13:26; 16:18 (a manager
living in the unrighteous world; /x: unrighteous; /x: dishonest); Jn 7:18; Rm
1:18, etc.
In the basic sense, it is not a judicial concept – ‘being right with’ ‘right standing’
‘upright’ but rather ‘right relation in the sense that God sees us worthy – not our
being worthy for Him to love, but to live in His love. Yes, sinners are worthy to be
saved, not that He is going to save them because He found them worthy, but, since
He has already saved the humanity at the moment Adam fell, it means to have them
see and realize His love and take salvation in to allow them to be and to live the
way they were made in the beginning after God’s own image. Such righteousness
is God’s gift which He gives (i.e. He sees and takes us worthy for His name) – all
because He is love. He always loves in one direction from high to low as the stream
of water flows, non-stop, and He wants make sure and wants help for us to come
into His love – He even had to let His son offer His own soul.

To say Yeshua is righteousness is like the expression ‘Yeshua is salvation’, means

that He is the embodiment of all the righteousness. He IS our righteousness. It
would be foolish to look for it from elsewhere, by mistaking this word as an elusive,
legalistic, doctrinal term. He has proven that, by His sacrificial redemptive death,
we are shown to be worthy to His Father, when we come to place our faith on Him,
entrusting everything on to Him. To be worthy to become God’s children and to be
worthy for name, not worthy to be loved – all that not because we have done or we
could do something to appease, other than hearing the message about the Mashiah
being proclaimed (Rm 10:17), answering to His call, and opening the door when
He gently knocks on it (Rev 3:20).

Rm 5:1 'be taken as righteous on the ground of faith' (dikaiōthentes pisteōs).

Rm 3:28 Indeed we hold [our conviction in]

that a person is made righteous towards God
by coming into faith [in the Mashiah]
— all this standing apart from work of law-observing. {See 1:17}
• is made righteous towards God ░░ [S1344 dikaioō (39x) 'make/declare
righteous' /x: justify – theological jargon S1347 dikaiōsis (2x) 'x: justification
Rm 4:25; 5:18]; /declared righteous – NET, NWT; /made right with God –
NLT; /is put right with God – TEV; /xx: has God's approval – GW; /xx: is
justified – most; /xx: is justified before God – PNT;
• by coming into faith ░░ /through faith; /by faith; /xxx: allein durch den
Glauben ('only by faith') – Luther
Problem of the notion of 'by faith alone': [Instead of 'being saved through faith alone' (e.g. Eph
2:8-9; Jn 3:16; 5:24; 6:29; Act 10:43) and righteousness through faith (Rm 1:17; 3:28; 5:1; Phi
3:9), the Latin phrase 'sola fide' is often wrongly taken as 'justified by faith alone'.
[ www.compellingtruth.org/sola-fide.html]

'Justification' is a religious lingo. The word itself in outside religious setting means
'vindication'. Actually 'sanctification' is meant when Catholics use the term and it is with our
righteous acts, not with religious/pious deeds. It is God's taking us as righteous before Him,
i.e. to be worthy for His name. It is connected with 'salvation' into the freedom in God
(deliverance). There, we are to be righteousness before others. The notion 'resurrection' does
not belong to the semantic field of 'justification', nor 'reconciliation'.
www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2019/12/17/the-three-rs-of-justification/
'justification by faith' – a theological lingo. Worse is 'justified by faith alone' – it is
not 'faith' that 'justifies'; it is 'through faith' one may be made righteous. It is not
'faith alone'; there is nothing achieved or acquired by or through or in 'faith alone'. -
a serious error in Luther's German translation.
‘*salvation’ vs ‘*deliverance’ ‘rescue’; ‘*saved’ ‘be saved’; *redeemed

ordo salutis (Lat. "order of salvation")

from Week 16: Ordo Salutis (Order of Salvation) and Definition of Terms

(from Alexander and Baker (2003), Dictionary of the OT – Pentateuch

6. Salvation. From the very outset the Pentateuch is addressed to the solution of the sin problem.
How can humans be restored to fellowship with God and thus receive the blessings for which they
were originally created? From one point of view, the flood narrative serves to show what will not
work. The effects of sin have gone so deeply into human nature that even if the best-behaved
people alive were preserved and everyone else were destroyed, sin as an attitude would still rear its
ugly head (Gen 9:20-23). Somehow sin would have to be addressed on a different level. There
needed to be an attitude change before there could be a behavioral change. And in all of that there
needed to be some way for humans to reenter the presence of God, without which life is only
existence. To address these issues God started at the beginning. Adam and Eve disobeyed God
because they did not believe what he had said would happen to them if they disobeyed. And they
did not believe his word because they had become convinced that they could not trust him to
provide their most basic needs (physical—food; aesthetic—beauty; intellectual—wisdom). So,
God began with another couple by showing them his absolute trustworthiness. He cared about their
most basic needs (place, progeny, posterity) and promised to provide these if they would permit
him to do so. Once God’s trustworthiness had been established, Abraham was given the
opportunity to believe a frankly incredible promise. When Abraham had passed this test (after
some detours along the way), he was ready for the final one, the test of obedience. Again, he
passed with honors. This pattern is developed twice more in the book of Genesis in the Jacob and
Joseph stories. Thus, the paradigm for experiencing the blessing of God is reestablished. But not
only is the paradigm restored; in the obedience of the patriarchs a platform is erected upon which
both the results and the being of sin may be addressed. A just God cannot simply ignore the results
of sin in the world, and a loving God cannot allow the contagious nature of sin to continue to
pollute the race. Thus, the patriarchal narratives are means, not ends. They prepare the way for
something beyond themselves: the covenant.
*soteology

[What does it mean by ‘*salvation’? ‘be saved’ ‘born again’? A notion of salvation,
if any, is different among various religions and denominations.]
Act 4:12 salvation ░░ [ meaning of the name ‘Yeshua’= 'Yah (a short form of YHWH) is salvation'.]

works vs. faith in salvation – justification, sanctification to glorification. Cf. Eph

2:8-9; Rm 3:20-31; Mt 5:17; 22:37-40; Jn 14:6; 1Jn 2:3-6,
‘once saved; always saved’? – it all depends on what is mean by ‘saved’]

[problem with the word ‘faith’ – outside Gospels (in which it is ‘dynamic trusting relationship btw
two parties), it is mostly used as a substitute for ‘religion’; cf. ‘other faiths’, ‘strengthening our
faith’ etc. Here, it is 'believing what Yeshua said'] [See GG for ‘faith’ ‘belief’ etc.]
…

Cf. S4982 sōzō – to make well, restore; to heal, to rescue, to preserve; ‘to save’ Mt
27:40
'*shall be saved' (e.g. Rm 10:9, 13); vs. 'will be saved' (e.g. Rm 9:27; 1Tm 2:15)

The subject of the verb ‘to save’ is God, not a thing. Faith, baptism, or anything else cannot be the
agent of 'to save/rescue/deliver/heal.

hē pistis sou sesōken se Lk 17:19 (a Samaritan leper – double cursed) ); 8:48 //Mt 9:22 //Mk 5:34
(woman with bleeding); 18:42 (sight recovered); 'your faith has made you well' - most; '~ whole' –
KJV; /xx: 'your faith has saved you' – CSB. Lk 7:50 (a woman, outcast sinner; your sins are
forgiven; 'be saved') [IRENT renders the noun as a preposition phrase: "in your faith on me, you
are ~"]

1Pe 3:21 'baptism which now saves you also' → IRENT renders it 'immersion-rite
with which now also you are saved'.

S4992 sōtērion 'salvation' ''deliverance' 'rescue'

Lk 3:6 the deliverance by Elohim [not about ‘salvation of sinners’ but
deliverance of Israel.] /the salvation that God has provided – ISV; /the
salvation that God gives – GW; /xx: the salvation of God – most; /God's
salvation – NIV; /xxx: the saving power of God – CEV;
Cf. ‘*born again’ – cliché, a religious catch phrase
• ‘born from above’ (> ‘born anew/fresh’/ x: ‘born again’ - KJV) – Jn 3:3, [Cf.
anōthen – from above Jam_1:17, 3:17]
• ‘drink the living water – Jn 4:14;
• ‘eat the bread from heaven’ – Jn 6:43;
• ‘have the light of life’ – Jn 8:18;
• ‘follow me’ – Jn 1:43; 12:26; 21:19, 22
• ‘regenerate us’ – 1Pe 1:3, 23 (x: ‘born again’)
• 'sons of God' - Gal 4:4-7 [See * adoption]
S4506 rhuomai (18x) Cf. sōzō Mt 27:40.
• rescue 2Pe 2:7
• (~ apo) Mt 6:13 //Lk 11:4 v.l.; Mt 27:43; Rm 15:31 (kept safe away from cf. NIV); 2Th
3:2; 2Tm 4:18
• (~ ek) Lk 1:74; Rm 7:24; 2Co 1:10 (3x); Col 1:23; 1Th 1:10; 2Tm 3:11; 4:17;
• (~ ek peirasmos) 2Pe 2:9
• the one who delivers ('deliverer' – Rm 11:26)

[Cf. Psa 27:12 "Do not place me into the hands of my (enemies)" H5414 nathan 'to give, place, put' 'give over'
/x: deliver; x: fall.]

H3444 yeshuah (77x) 'deliverance out of', 'salvation' Gen 49:18; Exo 14:13, etc.
H3467 yasha (206x) 'to save' 'to rescue' 'to deliver out of' Exo 2:17; 14:30; Deu
28:31; Jdg 6:36, etc.
God as Savior – vs. deliverer. Salvation is not just a matter for an individual –
cf. 'deliverance out of'.

(1) The name ‘Yeshua’ (Yah saves; YHWH is Savior) – Mt 1:21 –

‘save/deliver his people)
(2) Deliverance of Israel (Lk 1:73, 77)
(3) The poor (1:46-55)
(4) ‘Savior’ – title for Elohim; title for Yeshua Mashiah.

*Atonement - Doctrine of atonement:

“Christ Jesus died over our sins” (1Co 15:3); /> ‘for our sins’; [Gal 1:4; cf. Rm
5:8 ‘for us’]

‘blood of Yeshua’ – his death was not bleeding. Blood is a symbolic for His death on
the Cross.

www.xenos.org/essays/christian-doctrine-substitutionary-atonement : (1) moral

influence theory, (2) ransom theory, and (3) substitution theory.

www.academia.edu/454448/The_Atonement_In_Historical_Review
• Ontological, deontic, and relational concept of sins -
• Representative (governmental, exemplary, or participatory),
Recapitulation, Penal substitution Ransom/Christus, Victor Satisfaction
model of atonement

Participatory model - https://consequently.org/papers/pa.pdf

Transaction and Transformation Theories of Reconciliation

http://thinktheology.co.uk/pdf/Atonement_(Mick_Taylor).pdf

5 biblical metaphors:

five main images or metaphors used to explicate the saving significance of the death of Jesus. These
images are taken from five different spheres of life:
- the court room: justification (Rm 3:21-4:25; 1Co 1:30)
- the transaction (> market place): redemption (Eph 1:7; Col 1:14)
- personal relationships: reconciliation (2Co 5:18-19; Col 1:20-21)
- worship: sacrifice (Heb 10:12; 1Co 5:7)
- battleground: triumph over evil (Gal 1:4; Col 2:15)
Questions: ‘Will God save all or only some?’ (related to the unbiblical *Universalism). [Cf. 1Tm
2:4]

1. God does not save by Himself, but (through His agent? – anthropomorphism?)
2. God has them saved.
3. All does not mean ‘everyone’ –e.g. 1Ti 2:4 [saved from the Adamic curse upon his
disobedience at the Garden of Eden. Unrelated to a person’s getting forgiveness.] (Cf. Rm
11:26 ‘all Israel shall be saved [from their spiritual blindness]’).
4. Salvation is gift; it has to be received to be saved.
5. What does it mean ‘to save’ ‘to be saved’?
6. To be Saved from what (God’s curse – expulsion from Garden of Eden); to be saved to
what (back to favorable opportunities of Knowledge, that God wills and, on account of this
He has appointed the Mediator between God and man, the man Mashiah Yeshua, who gave
himself a ransom for all (- inclusive; ‘all and every one of them), to be testified in due time.
(Russell, vide infra. pp. 469-470) His ransom proves to be efficacious for those received
salvation, free gift of faith.

[Ref. Charles Taze Studies in the Scripture (Vol. 5. The At-one-ment Between God and
Man, (1899), p. 466).]
[www.thestudiesinthescriptures.com/Pages/English/Eng%20V5/Eng%20Vol%205%20Ch%
203.htm ]

*at-one-ment;
[from Dale Cannon (1996), Six Was of Being Religious.]

at-onement
The state of being at-one with ultimate reality. It encompasses in its range of meaning
"reconciled with", "in right or appropriate relation with", "in rapport with", "in agreement
with", "in harmony with", "in conformity to", and "in union with"-with the understanding
that the precise characterization of this state of at-onement will differ from one tradition to
another.

Q: The origin of neologism 'at-one-ment'; what does it try to say!?

https://forward.com/culture/11632/at-one-ment-00488/

Ch. 11. Atonement by the Blood of Jesus? (pp. 112-126) in John Hick, The
Metaphor of God Incarnate – Christology in a Pluralistic Age (2005, 2nd
Ed.)
With the concept ‘salvation’, a theological and religious term, the question is to what we are
being saved and from what. (Words: saved, delivered, rescued, redeemed) (from sins, sin guilt,
harm, (power of) evil, (hands of) enemies, darkness, etc.) (from misfortunes or bad luck or
doom - Shamanism)

• Sometimes being saved refers to being saved alive from physical death (See Gen
12:12; 50:20; Exo. 1:22; Deu 20:4; Ezk 13:18; Mt 8:25; 14:30).
• Others refer to being saved from physical enemies and out of slavery (see Jud 6:14;
1Sam 4:3; 2Kgs 16:7; 19:19; Psa 59:2; Lk 1:74).
• Still others refer to salvation concerning God's protection of the nation of Israel as in
Exo 14:30: Thus the Lord saved Israel that day out of the hand of the Egyptians.
• Other scripture passages refer to God's special promises to Israel to save them from
sickness and disease (See Psa 103:3; 42:11; 67:2; Deu 28:1-14; Mk 16:16-18.)

• Rescue from the [power of] evil (Mt 6:13)

• Redemption (Rm 3:24; 1Co 1:30; Eph 1:7, 14; 4:30; Col 1:14; Heb 9:12, 15)
• Redemption of our bodies (Rm 8:23)
• Redeemed from the curse incurred on as condemned in the law (Gal 3:13)

The doctrine of salvation is the heart of Christian gospel. It is at the same time one of the most
confused and complicated doctrines in the church. Atonement theories, justification,
redemption, and the meaning of salvation are all interconnected with this doctrine.
What is salvation? In the Old Testament, salvation is described as "safety" (yesha) and "peace"
(shalom). The term salvation in the Greek (soteiria) means "deliverance" from enemies in the
New Testament, and "health" in an extra-biblical sense.2 In Latin, salvation (salus) means
"soundness," "health," and "welfare."3 The English term salvation was derived from the Latin.
Traditionally, the church has perceived salvation from three basic perspectives, corresponding to
the three major branches of Christianity: Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and
Protestantism.
For the early Greek church, salvation meant freedom from death and error. For the Roman
Catholic Church, salvation denotes freedom from guilt and its outcomes in this and the next life
(in purgatory and hell).
In classical Protestantism, salvation signifies freedom from the law and its anxiety-producing
and condemning power.4 These definitions focus on the freedom from the power of sin, guilt,
and death. In all of them we see that the meaning of salvation has been defined from the
perspective of sinners.

Ref. Andrew Sung Park (2009), Triune Atonement: Christ's Healing for Sinners,
Victims, and the Whole Creation
https://youtu.be/dXN3h0TIXts An Interview with Andrew Sung Park

Ref. www.theopedia.com/atonement-of-christ

Theories of atonement:
• Historical theories – Ransom, recapitulation, satisfaction, penal-substitution, moral-
example, government;
• Modern theories – declaratory, guaranty, vicarious repentance, Christus Victor (or
Dramatic), accident, martyr.

‘I am saved’ – from what to what (status)?

Elohim saves us; we are saved – by grace and in faith.
 I am saved. Then? What happens? What does it mean ‘to be saved’?

‘the cult of Salvation’ (in Korea), as ‘the cult of Word of Faith’ (in USA)

sōtēr (savior) and sōtēria (salvation) – in Gospels:

• salvation/deliverance/rescue (7x) – Lk 1:69, 71, 77; 2:30; 3:6; 19:9; Jn

4:22.
• savior (3x) – Lk 1:47; 2:11; Jn 4:42

cf. a ransom lutron Mk 10:45; [cf. redemption > Latin redemptio (buy back)]

[Ps 18:2 H6403 – HED #6647 verb ‘to be delivered’ ‘escape’; + H3468 HED
#3589 (salvation; deliverance) from verb yashua HED #3588]

Cf. Lk 1:71 ‘deliverance (sōtēria) out of our enemies’; 1:74 ‘be rescued
(hruomai) out of the hand of our enemies’

[See also ‘*Gospel’]

[‘salvation’ as a religious and church jargon (? spiritual overtone). Often the word
‘salvation’ is used without anything to do with its biblical setting. 124F124Fa From a linguistical-
literary viewpoint ‘salvation is not salvation’, i.e. ‘salvation’ in someone’s vocabulary is
not salvation in someone else’s. Only when it is defined internally from within the Bible,
it makes sense. Not just the word ‘salvation’ but every single word or term (beginning
with ‘god’) stands clear and unambiguous and is suitable in our communication – only if
we have agreed upon definitions. Otherwise all we have is an exercise of babel tower in
theological arguments.]

“If we define salvation as being forgiven and accepted by God because of Jesus’
death on the cross, then it becomes a tautology that Christianity alone knows and is
able to preach the source of salvation. But if we define salvation as an actual human
change, a gradual transformation from natural self-centeredness (with all the human
evils that flow from this) to a radically new orientation centered in God and
manifested in the ―fruit of the Spirit, then it seems clear that salvation is taking place
within all the world religions—and taking place, so far as we can tell, to more or less
the same extent. On this view, which is not based on theological theory but on the
observable realities of human life, salvation is not a juridical transaction inscribed in
heaven, nor is it a future hope beyond this life (although it is this too), but it is a
spiritual, moral, and political change that can begin now and whose present
possibility is grounded in the structure of reality.” John Hick ― A Pluralist View,
Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy
R. Phillips (Grand 1996), 35-36.
[quoted in www.blts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/MKS-I-Am.pdf ]

a
the word ‘salvation’ is even used in nonchalant manner – e.g. “But few have taken the time to study
out when the HIGH DAY beginning the Festival of Unleavened Bread is? Many assume it is the 15th,
but salvation doesn’t come by assumption.” from
http://yahuyahweh.org/eaoy/pdf/Passover_Day_A_High_Sabbath.pdf
Cf. restoration, recovery – to be recovered to be in a status (‘normal’ or ‘original’)
in relation to Elohim.

Cf. deliverance, release; rescue – with political overtone; E.g. deliverance of

Israel, the Gentiles, etc.; rescue from physical harm or danger;
Cf. liberation; consummation; freedom;

synergism [Arminianism] vs. monergism, [Calvinism]; vs. Christian Universalism

[‘universalism’ itself is a vague term.]

Reading material: Arminianism FAQ 1 (Everything You Always Wanted to Know…) – (Roger
Olson) ‘evangelical synergism rather than Arminianism since it did not begin with a Dutch
theologian Jacob Arminius (d. 1609).

Salvation comes to all and for all; not 'salvation of all', as God reaches out to redeem and save
all people into Elohim Himself. [2Co 5:18-19]

Does Bible say, ‘God loves everyone'?

Does Bible say, ‘salvation is free’?

Is it free because we don’t have to pay for it? No, it is because it has been given to humanity
already when Adam and Eve fell. It is only that we have to receive from Him in the Life of
Mashiah Yeshua. [Jn 3:16].

“Once saved, always saved.” What does it mean ‘I am saved’? Have made through something
safe? Once you are pulled out of a pit, is there all there is, as a sheep is sought after and
brought back to the shepherd Himself? Then, no more going astray anymore? [Lk 15:4] Even
if we are made into androids it would be even impossible. Unless we have a God in our own
image (as Adam did). Unless one dies right after being saved. Then what’s use of being saved.
A sinner repents at his death bed – what’s meaning of any salvation if he gets one?

Is the Gospel of Jesus about salvation of you and people? What is it that He says ‘Good news
of Kingdom’? Is it something like where you go and are to be put under authority of theocratic
power organization [aka Church]? A paradise – place for some to go after death, in place of
‘hades’ ‘sheol’ or ‘hell’?

‘redemption’ –? a concept higher than ‘salvation’ vs. 'deliverance' 'rescue'

Cf. restoration, recovery

Salvation, a typical church language, is not just a rescue but also a restoration operation. To
understand salvation, we need to know what the problem was, what God did about it, and how
we respond to it. We need to understand ‘humanity’ vs. God; ‘sin’, ‘evil, ‘life’, ‘death’,
‘justice’, ‘eternal life’, ‘Kingdom reign of Elohim’.

‘be saved’ – saved from what and saved to what and saved for what. ‘Become saved’ [an
event at a point of time] is not an end, goal or purpose (of God’s creation and care); it is a
beginning of ‘being saved’ (to last from beginning to consummation).
 Cf. In the context of healing Lk 7:50 sōzō (save, rescue) is rendered as ‘be made whole’. Cf.
Gk. iomai (heal, cure).

It is not a one-time event, even concerned with an individual. It is from the beginning of the
humanity at Creation all through down to the Consummation with God’s care of what He has
created. It covers people, nations, world, and the whole creation to be put into the condition
God has intended. Often it is used in a narrow sense (as in biblical jargons – ‘born again’
‘sinner's prayer’.)

Three stages in which how salvation is effected:

(1) Justification – upon repentance to change one’s mindset turned away from the
worldly self-centeredness to God-centered, each person gets saved as is declared
righteous before God, not based on the works of morality or religion, but by
coming to Him to place trust on Him only - on what He has promised as revealed
in the Scripture.
(2) Sanctification – one’s spirit is quickened by God’s spirit to be brought to Life a,
125F125F

Light, Love with Learning from above and Leading others learn.
(3) Glorification – taking the promised inheritance of ‘Kingdom reign’ for the
precious rewards He has provided for the faithful – not those who say believers
but who ARE believers in Him.

“Is salvation by faith or salvation by faith plus works?”

Many thinks this is perhaps the most important question in all of Christian
theology. This question is the cause of the Reformation, the split between the
Protestant churches and Catholic Church. [https://ebible.com/questions/308-
is-salvation-by-faith-alone-or-by-faith-plus-works/ ]

The truth is, it all depends on what is meant by the term ‘salvation’.
Contentious arguments and debates are mostly from not tackling this first step
clearly. Also they fail to see ‘righteousness’ to be seen in different sense –
righteousness before God and righteousness before men, even though the core
concept of ‘being righteous’ is ‘to be worthy [to honor the name of Most-High
Elohim.]

Reading material: Brian Abasciano, "Does regeneration precede faith? The

use of 1 John 5:1 as a proof text" Evangelical Quarterly 84.4 (2012), 307-322.

life (‘soul’ ' 'life' ‘being of life’)

126F126F

S5590 psuchē cf. 'living' 'life' ‘livelihood’ –

S979 *bios (10x) - Mt 12:44; Lk 8:14, 24, 43; 15:12, 30; 21:4; 1Tim 2:2; 2Ti
2:4; 1Pe 4:3 v.l.; 1Jn 2:16, 3:17, etc.);
(S2222 zoē ‘Life’ – as in ‘Life eternal’):

a
Note the capitalized Life or Light means the word has a different sense than in ordinary usage. E.g.
Life is for translating Gk. zōē.
Cf. S4200 porismos (1x) – gain – 1Tm 6:5
In the daily life of Mashiah-followers, it is a process of steps – each day we die in Him and
each day we shall live because of Him. Without picking up one’s cross to participate the death
of Mashiah, there is no Life eternal with us. Only then, our thirst is quenched by water of life
(Jn 4:14) and living water will flow out of us. (Jn 7:38). Simply there is no room for such
expression, ‘once saved, always saved’.

Did Yeshua the Mashiah come to "save" people during His ministry on earth? But He did not!
Rather, Yeshua —through His atoning death—made it possible for those whom the Father
"calls" to be reconciled to God after His death and resurrection.
Near the end of His life in the human flesh, Yeshua told His disciples, "I will pray the Father,
and He will give you another Helper to be called to your side to may abide with you forever"
(Jn 14:16). Even His disciples did not yet have the indwelling presence and power of the holy
Spirit. They were not yet restored! As Yeshua told Peter, "Once you are restored, strengthen
your fellow brethren." (Lk 22:32). And, speaking of Yeshua’s lifetime, John was inspired to
write, "the [promised] spirit was not yet given, because Yeshua was not yet glorified" (Jn
7:39).
So, in a technical sense, no one was "converted" during Jesus' human ministry. No one
received the promised holy spirit until the Day of Pentecost after Yeshua’s death and
resurrection (Act 2). And, surprising to some, Yeshua did not even try to convert the
multitudes during His ministry. He was not "trying" to save all humanity back then any more
than God is trying to save all humanity now!

Does His death (suffering and crucifixion) save people? No, not quite. It is His death on the
Passover – as Passover sacrifice, that has brought YHWH Elohim’s salvation plan into reality
breaking into the history of entire humanity, not just of Israel.

*deliverance

http://home.clara.net/arlev/passover.htm#7

By seeing in the word ‘sacrifice’ the implication that an animal is meant

(Deu 16:2 speaks of the Passover sacrifice being ‘from the flock or the
herd’) many commentators have been prompted to interpret 1Co 5:7 as
referring to the Passover sacrifice lamb. But this is too narrow a view for
Christ is not only the fulfilment of the sacrifice lamb, but also of the entire
festival. -???

…Passover, then, deals with deliverance and not just a deliverance from sin.
When we look at the cross of Christ, we see deliverance being secured in
various differing situations that mankind can find himself bound in. In the
cross, then, we see:
1. Deliverance from sin - Rm 6:6-7, 18, Col 1:14, 1Pe 2:24
2. Deliverance from Satan - Lk 4:18, Col 1:13, 2:15
 3. Deliverance from the flesh - Rm 6:6; 7:24-25, Gal 2:20
4. Deliverance from death - Heb 2:14-15
5. Deliverance from the demands of Law - Rm 8:2, Gal 5:1
6. Deliverance from the coming wrath of God - 1Th 1:10
7. Deliverance from all accusation of guilt - Act 13:39 (where the RSV’s
‘freed’ is the translation of the normal Greek word for ‘justified’ - that
is, considered ‘not guilty’)

But this list is by no means exhaustive for, with everything that holds individuals
bound in slavery, there’s deliverance in the cross - whether depression, anxiety,
worry, fear and so on.

For each and every taskmaster that is set up over a disciple’s life and that refuses
to let them be free to serve God, the solution is to be found in the work of Jesus on
the cross through the fulfilment of the Festival of Passover.

In many places in the Bible ‘salvation’ (as in KJV) is better rendered as

‘deliverance’– e.g. 1Pe 1:15; 2Pe 3:15. Be that it may as both concept overlaps
(context-dependent), salvation (as a theological term) is not something to do with
a so-called ‘once saved, always saved’. It is being acted in the God’s will from
the Creation to the Consummation. God has put the humanity in His salvation
from the beginning, even at the Adam’s Fall. Salvation affects the whole created
world, not just at the level of an individual person or a group of people. Most
confuses it with the epochal salvation event of the Mashiah’ death and, in turn,
with personal repentance into restored relationship to God. Salvation of the
whole created world – the whole creation is on groaning (Rm 8:22). Even as a
person level each of us is also groaning for salvation in the hope of glory, that is,
the Mashiah (Col 1:27).

Yeshua as ‘Salvation of YHWH’16: [See in WB #3 ‘*Savior’ as a title Yeshua

the Mashiah]

• Mt 1:21 ‘Yeshua – he will save his people from their sins’

• Jn 4:22 ‘…through [the line of] the tribe of Yudah comes the very
salvation [for all people] [from the Father]’ (IRENT)
• Lk 19:9 ‘salvation comes to this house’ (Zacchaeus)
• 2Tm 1:10; Tit 1:4, 3:6 ‘our Savior, Mashiah Yeshua’
[Cf. 1Tm 1:1; 2:3; Tit 1:3, 2:10; 3:4; Jud 1:25 God as ‘our Savior’]

Titus 2:11-12
2:11 Indeed, the grace of Elohim has manifested [+ in the person of Mashiah

Yeshua], [3:4]
the very grace which brings salvation to all people [to receive]
2:12
teaching us [who have accepted God’s grace]
to live self-disciplined, righteously and godly life
 in the midst of this present age,
renouncing all the ungodliness and worldly desires,
This verse should not be read as a proof text as used by Universalism.

It is Elohim who saves a person. The Bible does not save them. Religion does
not. Faith does not. Baptism does not. Belonging to a religion or church does
not. Sadly, millions and billions of humanities put their faith in religion –
‘believe in religion’.
*Atonement, *ransom, *redemption; *redeem; redeemer; – a path to
‘salvation’, not a means or technique. Cf. ‘forgiveness of sin’
reconciliation; restoration; making righteous (cf. ' justification')

[To check difference in concept of atonement, sin, guilt, sin sacrifice between
Judaism and Christianity, aside from the specific Christ event.]

www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vicarious.htm ((A copy in WB #1 Collection))

… Atonement as Suffering and Forgiveness as Its Result: The priestly office of Christ cannot be
understood without a clear and accurate conception of the nature of atonement.
The idea and meaning of atonement are conveyed in the following statements in Lev 6:2–7 and
4:13–20.

Lev 17:11 "For the life of the flesh is in the blood:

and I have given it to you upon the altar
to make atonement for your souls:
for it is the blood
that makes atonement for the soul."
[H3722 kaphar 'make atonement' 'propitiate' 'cover over' 'appease']

Atonement

– early 16th century (denoting unity or reconciliation, especially between God and man): from at
one + -ment, influenced by medieval Latin adunamentum ‘unity,’ and earlier onement from an
obsolete verb one ‘to unite.’

Hebrew concept – restitution or restoration of relation; reconciliation with God. Animal blood
sacrifice is just one of how this is achieved in OT (Cf. ‘Day of Atonement’). Cf. Paschal lamb is not
of blood sacrifice. Death of Yeshua as the Paschal Lamb is not of shedding/sprinkling blood and
cannot be connected to the idea of atonement with animal blood sacrifice.

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12984-sacrifice
The Blood: The utmost care was taken by the priest to receive the blood; it represented the
life or soul. None but a circumcised Levite in a proper state of Levitical purity and attired in
proper vestments might perform this act; so, too, the sprinkling of the blood was the exclusive
privilege of the "priests, the sons of Aaron" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8, 13). Moses sprinkled it when
Aaron and his sons were inducted; but this was exceptional (ib. viii. 15, 19, 23). In holocausts
and thank-offerings the blood was sprinkled "round about upon the altar" (ib. i. 5, 11; iii. 2, 8,
13). In the sin-offering, the later (ib. vii. 2) practice seems to have been to put some of the
blood on the horns of the brazen altar, or on those of the golden altar when that was used, or
even on parts of the holy edifice (ib. iv. 6, 7, 17, 18, 25, 30, 34). The same distinction appears
in the case of turtle-doves and pigeons: when burnt offerings, their blood was smeared on the
side of the brazen altar (ib. viii. 15; xvi. 18, 19); when sin-offerings, it was partly sprinkled on
the side of the altar and partly smeared on the base. ….

www.theopedia.com/atonement The word atonement, is almost the only theological term of English
origin. It was likely first used in Tyndale's English translation as derived from the adv. phrase
atonen, meaning "in accord", literally, at one. In the English Bible, it is mainly used to translate the
Hebrew word kipur, although it is used once in the King James New Testament to translate the
Greek word katallage (Rm 5:11). Most modern translations render it "reconciliation" in its other
occurrences throughout the NT.
Atonement in the Old Testament: Certainly, the most frequently mentioned means of atonement in
the Old Testament were the blood sacrifices, dominating the use of the term by constant reference
in the books of Leviticus and Numbers. Atonement needed to be made for everything from heinous
crimes like idolatry (Num 16:47) to mistakes of intent, when the only sin was ignorance or error,
not willful disobedience (Num 15:22-29).
The Day of Atonement Yom Hakippurim was an annual day of repentance for the Old Testament
people of Israel the rites for which are set forth in Leviticus chapter 16 (also see Exo 30:10; Lev
23:27-31, 25:9; Num 29:7-11). It is described as a solemn fast, a Sabbath on which no food or drink
could be consumed, and on which all work was forbidden. Sacrifices were offered by the high priest
as an atonement for himself and for the people.
Atonement in the New Testament: …concept of Christ presented as our reconciliation (2Co 5:18),
as a propitiation (1Jn 4:10), in giving his life as "a ransom for many" (Mt 20:28), having poured out
his blood "for the forgiveness of sins" (Mt 26:28).
Heb 8:3-6; 9:6-15 emphasizes this point to make clear his doctrine of the purity of Christ as both
the true and perfect sacrifice and the true and perfect priest who performs the ritual of atonement.
EE

Heb 2:17 Therefore, he had to become

like his own brothers in every aspect,
in order to be a merciful and faithful High Kohen
in all matters pertaining [to the service] to Elohim,
thus atoning for the sins of the people.
[hilaskesthai S2433 hilaskomai Cf. Lev 16:30 H3722 kaphar]

Rm 3:25 with the blood of his own ░░ (proetheto ~~ en tō autou haimati) [not ‘dia tēs pisteōs + en’ ‘faith +
in the blood’] [Cf. Heb 10:19 ‘by the blood of Yeshua’] [= by virtue of His death on the Cross in His self-
giving love as the Passover sacrifice to God.]. [Cf. Heb 9:22; Rev 17:10-11; Act 20:28]

Rm 5:9 " having been now taken as righteous [on the basis of His finished work] with His blood"

Eph 1:7 "In him we have the very redemption through the blood, of that very One, [His Beloved],
…"

Col 1:20 " having made peace through His blood of the Cross"

Rev 1:5b "[Yeshua Mashiah ….] freed us from our sins by his own blood"

Heb 10:19 'the blood of Yeshua' [Rm 3:25]

[The phrase 'shed blood' is not in the Bible. It is a poetic church lingo. Yeshua death is from
exhaustion-asphyxiation and shock, not from bleeding. 'Blood of Yeshua' is a metaphor for His self-
giving death in God's love, not of as a method of 'atoning'.]

Heb 9:14 the blood of the Mashiah ~~will cleanse ░░ [this concerns ‘sanctification’ of the
believers upon His death, not ‘justification’ or ‘atonement’.] ['the blood of Yeshua' (10:19); cf.
'blood-shedding' of animal sacrifice (9:22)]

Heb 9:22 without pouring out of blood [of animal sacrifice] ░░ (← 9:8)
[S130 haimatekchusias (1x) 'blood-pouring out' /x: blood-shedding) of animal sacrifice, not human
sacrifice. not of Yeshua. It is taken up as an antitype of ‘blood of Yeshua’ (10:19) 'the blood of the
Mashiah, (9:5), symbolic of His self-giving death, here in Pauline pesher on OT text Lev 17:10-12
(which is about a law prohibiting eating of blood, not about atonement of sins).]

Heb 9:22 remission [of the transgression of the covenant] ░░ [S859 aphesis (17x)] [not
‘forgiveness/atonement of our sins’]; - KJV: /x: forgiveness – many, ARJ; /xxx: no sins can be
forgiven – GW; /xxx: forgiveness of sins – ESV; /
https://redeeminggod.com/hebrews-9-22-shedding-of-blood-forgiveness-of-sins/
https://redeeminggod.com/death-of-jesus-appease-god/
https://youtu.be/jB7EZ5fgr4I 00:34:00
S863 aphiēmi (146x) (1) forgive Mt 6:12; (2) permit Mt 3:15; (3) leave Mt 4:20; (4) let go
S2433 hilaskomai (2x) Lk 18:13 (be merciful); Heb 2:17 (make propitiation for; atone for)
S2435 hilastērion (2x) 'propitiatory' Rm 3:25; Heb 9:5
S2644 katallassō (6x) 'reconcile' Rm 5:10; 1Co 7:11; 2Co 5:18
S2643 katallagē (4x) 'reconciliation' Rm 5:11; 11:15; 2Co 5:18, 19
S3083 lutron (2x) ransom Mt 20:28; Mk 10:45
S2434 hilasmos (2x) 'propitiation' (atoning sacrifice?) 1Jn 2:2; 4:10
S1632 ekcheo (27x) 'pour out' (Mt 9:17; Lk 5:37; Jn 2:15; Rev 16:1); 'gush out' (Act 1:18); 'rush
headlong' (1:11); [pour out blood (Mt 23:35; 26:28; Mk 14:24; Lk 11:50; 22:20; Rm 3:15; Rev
16:6)];[pour out spirit (Act 2:17, 18, 33; 10:45; Rm 5:5; Tit 3:6)]
'Atonement'
'Atoning sacrifice'

https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/atonement/

[Lev 16:30 – Check for Heb – exēcheomai (atone; be taken away - BBE) ~~ katharizō ‘make ~
purified in ritual sense from all your sins’ (/x: be made free from all sins – BBE; / x: wash away sins
– ERV; /forgiveness of sins – CEV)]
(Matt 26:26-29 //Mark 14:22-25 //Luke 22:15-20). At Luke 22:19-20, Jesus asserts that both the bread
and the wine symbolize the fact that his death would be "for you" (huper humōn), a phrase not found
in the other Gospels (though the notion of the blood of Christ being "poured out for many" is found
in both Matthew and Mark). The key element linking the passage in all three Gospels to atonement is
the sacrificial nature of the language; the poured-out blood is the blood of the lamb of Leviticus 16,
sacrificed "for the forgiveness of sins" (Matt 26:28).

Cf. Day of Atonement; blood atonement; blood covenant (Gen 15:9-21);

“Lev 17:11 For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I, I have put in on the altar for YOU to
make atonement for YOUR souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by mean of the soul that
is in it.. v. 12 Therefore I have said to the sons of Israel, No soul among YOU may eat blood,
neither any stranger who dwelling among YOU eat blood. … v. 14 For the soul of every flesh is
its blood.” – this is a law prohibiting eating blood; not about ‘blood atonement'. -
https://youtu.be/jB7EZ5fgr4I WHY JESUS DIDN’T HAVE TO DIE to Atone for Our Sins (from
0:22:00).

Kim, Jintae, "The Concept of Atonement in Early Rabbinic Thought and the New Testament
Writings" (2001). LBTS Faculty Publications and Presentations. 248.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/248
www.jgrchj.net/
download
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1247&context=lts_fac_pubs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repentance_in_Judaism
www.myjewishlearning.com/article/repentance/
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lts_fac_pubs/324/ Targum Isaiah 53 and the New Testament
Concept of Atonement
www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/911888/jewish/Teshuvah/

http://reslight.net/?p=242
A common unbiblical premise: <<No man, nor any created being, could possibly pay the price
to atone for sin — that only God can pay for man’s sin. What is called infinite sin, would require
an infinite price that only God Himself could give for sin.>>
 God did not give himself as a ransom, an offsetting price, for sin, but it was the “man Christ
Jesus” who gave himself.
God, in his wisdom, condemned all of Adam’s offspring in one man, so that only one righteous
man would be needed to pay the price for sin. That one man was not God but was the man
Christ Jesus.
The Bible NOWHERE says that God had to sacrifice Himself to Himself for human sin. In the
Bible, a human sacrifice is an abomination to God. Death of Yeshua was not the sacrifice of
human body as God would demand, but it was his life offered as sacrifice being what was
acceptable to take away sin. God accepts sacrifice but does not sacrifice Himself to Himself.
The one who died on the Cross was the human Yeshua (as the Mashiah), not God, not God the
Son. With death his body was given; his humanity died as his soul died; his spirit returned to
His God. Resurrection is His self, that is, his ‘soul’ in a spirit body to ascend to His Father. The
resurrection in the Scripture is 'resurrection into a spirital body' (not 'spiritual'), not ‘bodily
resurrection’ (Cf. ‘resurrection of body’ in Apostles Creed) Gk. - σαρκὸς ἀνάστασιν; Latin -
carnis resurrectionem

A literal reading of the word ‘ransom’

(www.biblestudytools.com/encyclopedias/isbe/ransom.html
http://helpmewithbiblestudy.org/2JesusChrist/AtonementRansomRedemption.aspx )
as ‘buying off someone from someone’ will lead to even a strange unbiblical idea on
to whom ransom is paid: ‘paying the Satan’ - the Fathers (Irenaeus, Origen).
Gk. lutron; antilutron; agorazō; exagorazō; apolutrosis; Heb. pidhyon, kopher;

*propitiation vs. expiation; mercy-seat;

appeasement (placation) of God’s wrath (i.e. divine judgment. cf. anger, hatred);
ransom; atonement; removing guilt; cover over (defects; /x: cover up);
forgiveness; [Cf. ‘substitutionary atonement’; ‘placation’; ‘appeasement’]

[A highly technical word ‘propitiation’ (Rm 3:25; Heb (1Jn 2:2; 4:10) is
rendered as ‘sin-offering for atonement’ in IRENT.]

Heb. kofer – ransom or propitiatory gift.

[Ref. www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2092-atonement ]

1Tm 2:6 Himself as a ransom ░░ (antilutron) [Cf. lutron (Mt 20:28; //Mk 10:45). Cf.
luptō 1Pe 1:18; apolutrōsis Eph 1:7] (in His body and soul)
[Linguistic and theological significance of ‘atonement’ ‘ransom’ ‘buy off’. – ‘cost
Himself in rescuing from the power of evil and sin’. “from the power and punishment of
vice, from the slavery and misery of sinners – Schleusner, quoted in Clarke’s
commentary; /x: from the captivity of Satan – Gill’s commentary]
[The word ransom should not be read in a literal sense (just as in case of the term
‘incarnate’), but metaphoric (≈ ‘salvation’ in broad sense). Ref. John Hick (2005, 2 nd Ed),
The Metaphor of God Incarnate, (Ch. 11. Atonement by the Blood of Jesus? pp. 112-
126)]
 Rm 3:25a
ARJ: It is this very Mashiah whom Elohim had put forward into a public view,
so that by His own blood [virtue of His self-giving death on the Cross,]
He should become a means of propitiatory covering [/an offering for
propitiation]=;
[efficacious] through {the} faith:
a mercy-seat of atonement ░░ [1Jn 2:2; 4:10]; [for deliverance from our sins, satisfying
God’s wrath 1:18]

[Depending on the meaning taken for this word, the translations take a different rendering
of the entire sentence of v. 25a. Highly specialized words ‘propitiation’ and ‘expiation’
are difficult to convey its sense to the readers.] [This seems referring to ‘effecting
remission of sins’ (AFESIS) in contrast to ‘passing-over’ (PARESIS) in v. 25b]; /a means
of propitiatory covering – ARJ; /a means of expiation – Danker; /propitiation sacrifice
– ARJ; /a sign of his mercy – BBE; /a sacrifice of atonement – NIV duo; NRSV; /a
sacrifice to pay for sins – NIrV; /the means by which people’s sins are forgiven– GNB;
/x: that–which-satisfies [His wrath] – TransLine; /a mercy seat [or, propitiation] –
ALT; /a mercy seat (accessible through) – NET; /propitiation (by his blood, to be
received through) – ESV; /propitiation (in His blood through faith) – NASB;

[For English word study ‘propitiation’ ‘expiation’ ‘mercy seat’ with OED, see
Appendix 1Jn 2:2; 4:10 ‘propitiation; mercy-seat’] [See a separate file !!06Rm fn mss (ch
3.25)]
[TransLine fn: Or, “that which propitiates; the means-of-satisfaction; the satisfying-
sacrifice”, the effect of which is to satisfy God’s wrath and obtain His mercy (its focus is
on God). Some think it means ‘that which expiates, covers, cleanses” our sin, the effect
of which is to remove our sin and guilt (its focus in on our sin). “Propitiation’ is the
removal or satisfaction of wrath. State from the human perspective, it is the means of
gaining His mercy. Jesus is the sacrifice that removes or satisfies the wrath against sin
(1:18) that Paul has just proven is upon all flesh (1:18-3:20). As a result, God is
“merciful” (the related word in Heb 8:12). Elsewhere only as – ‘mercy seat’ in Heb 9:5,
the place where the propitiation was made. Related to “satisfaction” in 1Jn 2:2, and
“make-an-offering-for-satisfaction” in Heb 2:17. We could never satisfy God’s wrath
against sin. He set forth His own Son as the satisfaction for His own wrath for the reason
stated at the end of v. 26.]

Propitiation for our sins – 1Jn 4:10; 2:2. [Heb. 2:17 – ‘make propitiation’] [‘To be
merciful’ – Lk 18:13; ‘mercy-seat’ – Rm 3:25; Heb 9:5]
Salvation on the part of God is with expiation (‘ex-’ out of or from. to remove guilt
away in order for us be on the way to righteousness) toward propitiation (‘pro’ –
toward, for; addressing enmity to be removed as divine justice and holiness are
addressed to > appeased) with the blood of Yeshua the Mashiah on the Cross as the
Passover sacrifice at the appointed time (kata kairon) of God in the day of Passover.
'blood' as a metaphor for His self-giving death on the cross, not 'shed blood' from
bleeding.]

Atonement with blood – in OT it is literal blood of sacrificed animals to be

sprinkled at altar area. In NT it is blood of His renewed covenant which is
symbolic of His self-giving death.
‘Blood of Jesus’ – His self-giving death (in God’s self-giving love) (‘self-laying down’)
– a rather than ‘self-sacrificing death’ ‘self-sacrificial death’ – a rather legalistic (of
sacrificial system of OT) and judicial term. His blood with death is not the agent of
salvation/forgiveness; it is God Himself. God is not who so to speak ‘sacrifices himself’
on the altar. [Cf. Heb 9:13, 19; 10:4; blood of animals. – Cf. Lev 17:10-11 etc. – it is about
injunction against blood (e.g. 17:12-14) (; not that only ‘blood’ is used for atonement. Atonement
by means of blood (of animal sacrifice) is for specific sins.]

• Rm 3:25; = ‘sin-offering for atonement’ (> ‘propitiation’) with his own blood
(Yeshua as Mashiah)
• Heb 9:14; 10:19; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14 = ‘blood of Yeshua [‘redemption through ~]
• Cf. 1Co 10:16 – ‘communion in blood of Messiah
• Heb 9:14 – ‘blood of Yeshua purging conscience’.
• Heb 9:22 “according to the Law almost everything is purified by blood, and there is
no remission of sins (/x: sins are forgiven only if blood is poured out – GNB)
[Cf. the relevant text Lev 17:10-11 only says that blood (of scarified animals) is used
to obtain atonement, not that blood is the only means for obtaining atonement.] [Three
aspects of karbanot (Hebrew word for sacrifices, offerings) – giving, substituting, and
bring a person closer to God – its primary purpose is not ‘forgiveness of sins’’
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/qorbanot.html
[Blood of a sacrificed animal, as an antetype for blood of Jesus by in the Pauline
midrash of OT practice. Cf. Christian phrases - ‘power in the blood of Jesus Christ’,
‘washed by the blood of Jesus Christ’, etc.)]
[Cf. ‘death atones sins’: (in Judaic midrash - Sifre, Num. 112 etc.)

Reconciliation (katallagē) – 2Co 5:19 (‘a ministry of reconciliation’).

From ‘*salvation from’ to ‘salvation to’ – (experience of) deliverance from a

clear and present danger; - (how and why and for what of salvation).
• ‘delivered from the wrath to come’ on us – 1Th 1:10
• in the danger of the judgment – Cf. Mt 5:22
• ‘give account of it in the day of judgment’ – Mt 12:36
www.amatteroftruth.com/how-baptism-saves
BAPTISM ALONE does NOT save us, NOR does FAITH ALONE save us. The TRUTH of the matter
is there is NOTHING being ALONE that saves us. God's GRACE being ALONE does not save us for
God's grace has appeared to ALL of mankind, but yet many of us know that all mankind is not going to
be saved. FAITH being ALONE does not save us, because as many of us know there are people that can
be and who are being deceived into believing something that is NOT the TRUTH, and we know that
FALSE doctrine will NOT save those that TRUST in the FALSE teaching of man-made doctrines no
matter how sincere their FAITH may be. For it is ONLY the TRUTH that ultimately makes us free, and
it is our CONTINUING in this TRUTH unto the END that saves us. But even TRUTH being ALONE
cannot save us, because the word of TRUTH itself clearly teaches us that there are some who REJECT
the TRUTH and who do NOT BELIEVE the TRUTH.

Again baptism being ALONE does not save us, because there are some that have been
baptized in water and who go on living in sin which we are clearly taught in the word of God brings
death, the wages of sin is DEATH. Even the shed blood of Jesus being ALONE does not save us,
because Jesus died for ALL of mankind and yet many will not accept his atoning sacrifice and
resurrection in order to receive forgiveness of their PAST sins so that they may be reconciled back to
God and placed back into right relationship with God.

But rather The TRUTH of the matter is IN the COMBINING of all these things TOGETHER
which is what SAVES us and it is NOTHING being ALONE and apart from these things that will save
us. [Only God himself saves us; being delivered out through ‘immersion’ – prefiguring death and
 resurrection - [in token] of turning their hearts to God’s way [leading] into forgiveness of sins - Mk 1:4
- ARJ] So when someone teaches it is by GRACE ALONE or that it is by FAITH ALONE that saves
us and NOT of WORKS lest any man should BOAST, then be WARNED that this teaching is NOT
the WHOLE word of Almighty God.

So, before we go any further you must realize that I am not teaching that baptism ALONE
saves us. It is NOT in the baptism of John the Baptist, it is NOT in the baptism of repentance in water
that is for the BELIEVER only, it is NOT in the baptism into the body of Christ, it is NOT in the
baptism of the Holy Spirit, it is NOT in the baptism into the death of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ,
and it is NOT in the baptism with fire being ALONE that SAVES the BELIEVER.

However, it is IN the PURPOSE of each and every one of these baptisms that SAVES a
BELIEVER! Or more precisely it is in the purpose of these various forms or stages of baptism that
KEEPS a BELIEVER unto the END in his or her FAITH abiding IN the saving GRACE of Almighty
God UNTO the OBTAINING of ETERNAL LIFE in the world to COME.

Ref:

www.ligonier.org/blog/two-important-words-good-friday-expiation-and-
propitiation/
www.studylight.org/dictionaries/hbd/view.cgi?number=T1978

‘mercy seat’: [mercyseat – KJV. The English word is a translation of the Hebrew
kapporeth (in the Masoretic text) and its Greek hilasterion (in the Septuagint) by
William Tyndale influenced by the German word Gnadenstuhl as in the Luther
Bible, literally meaning ‘seat of grace’.] [Heb. kapporeth in the Masoretic text;
Gk. hilasterion in LXX.
www.hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Terumah/Kapporet/
kapporet.html]

Danker – p. 175
hilaskomai 1 ‘cause to be kindly disposed’ …. Lk 18:13; 2 exiate Hb 2:17
hilasmos – expiation, of Jesus who serves as God’s means to overcome a
brokenrelationship btw God and sinner 1Jn 2:2; 4:10.
hilasthrion - 1 means of expiation, of Jesus as remover of sin, which disrupts or obstructs
relationship btw God and sinner Rm 3:25. 2 place of expiation, as the context makes clear
in Hb 9:5.

• Rm 3:25 a means of atonement ░░ [1Jn 2:2; 4:10]; [satisfying God’s wrath 1:18 for
deliverance from our sins] [Depending on the meaning taken for this word, the
translations take a different rendering of the entire sentence of v. 25a] [This seems
referring to ‘effecting remission of sins’ (AFESIS) in contrast to ‘passing-over’
(PARESIS) in v. 25b]; /a means of expiation – Danker; /propitiation sacrifice – ARJ;
/the sign of his mercy – BBE; /a sacrifice of atonement – NIV duo; NRSV; /a
sacrifice to pay for sins – NIrV; /the means by which people’s sins are forgiven–
GNB; /x: the throne of mercy where God's approval is given – GW; /x: our sacrifice
– CEV; /gave Jesus as a way to forgive people’s sins – ERV; /that–which-satisfies
[His wrath] – TransLine; /a mercy seat [or, propitiation] – ALT; /the mercy seat
(accessible through) – NET; /propitiation (by his blood, to be received through) –
ESV; /propitiation (in His blood through faith) – NASB; /a mercy-seat – (ALT, YLT),
Diagl, Halmy; /a Mercy-seat – WNT; /the mercy seat - NET; /a propitiation – HCSB;
 /an offering for propitiation - NWT; /an expiation – RSV; /> a sacrifice of atonement
– NRSV, NIV duo; /x: an atonement – ISR; /an atoning sacrifice – HNV; /the
kapparah for sin – JNT; /a Propitiatory shelter – CLV; /as a sacrifice to pay for sins
– NIrV; /the sacrifice for sin – NLT; /the sign of his mercy - BBE; /a means of
reconciliation – TCNT; /a place where atonement by the Messiah's blood could occur
– ISV2; / a mercy seat and propitiation – AMP; / the means of propitiation – WNT;
/a propitiatory sacrifice – Noyes; /the atoning sacrifice [for our sins] - AUV;
/(dying) as a sacrifice of reconciliation – GSNT; /(baloney) – MSG; /to be a
propitiation, - KJV; /a propitiation – NKJV, ASV; /a propitiatory sacrifice – REC; /a
propitiatory covering – Rhm; /x: a reconciliation – Geneva; /propitiationem – Vulg;
/화해 헌물 – KKJV; /화목 제물 – KRV; /x: an expiatory satisfaction – Wuest; /as the
means of propitiation, (a propitiation accomplished by the shedding of his blood) –
PNT;

[TransLine fn: Rm 3:25 Or, “that which propitiates; the means-of-satisfaction; the
satisfying-sacrifice”, the effect of which is to satisfy God’s wrath and obtain His
mercy (its focus is on God). Some think it means ‘that which expiates, covers,
cleanses” our sin, the effect of which is to remove our sin and guilt (its focus in on
our sin). “Propitiation’ is the removal or satisfaction of wrath. State from the human
perspective, it is the means of gaining His mercy. Jesus is the sacrifice that removes
or satisfies the wrath against sin (1:18) that Paul has just proven is upon all flesh
(1:18-3:20). As a result, God is “merciful” (the related word in Heb 8:12). Elsewhere
only as – ‘mercy seat’ in Heb 9:5, the place where the propitiation was made. Related
to “satisfaction” in 1Jn 2:2, and “make-an-offering-for-satisfaction” in Heb 2:17. We
could never satisfy God’s wrath against sin. He set forth His own Son as the
satisfaction for His own wrath for the reason stated at the end of v. 26.]

• Heb 2:17; /propitiation – ALT, ESV, HCSB, Noyes, NKJV, LITV, MKJV
/atonement and propitiation – AMP; /atonement – NET, HNV, ISR, NIV duo, PNT;
/expitiation- RSV, Murdock; /an expatiation - Etheridge; /make reconciliation for
- KJV+; /a sacrifice of atonement – NRSV; /propitiatory sacrifice – NWT; /a
kapparah – JNT; /a propitiatory shelter – CLV; /to expiate – Diagl, Mft, (TCNT);
/x: could pay (for) – NIrV; /x: offerings – BBE; /a sacrifice that could take away
– NLT; /a means of purifying [Lev 16:30] for people’s sins [i.e., make atonement
for them] – AUV; /x: make peace with God – GW; /so that the people’s sins would
be forgiven – GNB; /sacrifice himself for forgiveness of – CEV; /bring forgiveness
for – ERV; /atone for – ISV, WNT /to forgive – GSNT; /to get rid of – MSG (-
baloney); /the making of propitiation – Rhm; /that sacrifice – Wuest; /so as to
make-an-offering-for satisfaction – TransLine(fn. Or, ‘make propitiation,
propitiate, satisfy’. That is, to make a sacrificial offering to satisfy
God’s wrath against sin, to gain His mercy. He offered Himself, 7:27;
9:26. God’s response to this is to be ‘merciful’, the related word in 8:12.
Elsewhere only as ‘be merciful’ in Lk 18:13. Some think it means ‘to
expiate’ on which see Rm 3:25.)]
[Heb 9:5 /mercy-seat – TransLine (Fn. or, ‘the place of propitiation’
where the blood of the sacrifice was offered to satisfy the justice of God.
It was on top of the ark. Used of the place and the offering. Same word
as in Exo 25: 17, 21-22; Lev 16: 14- 16. On this word, see "that which
satisfies" in Rm 3:25)]
 • 1Jn 2:2; /[the] propitiation – ALT; /the propitiation – ESV, NASB, HCSB, NASB,
HCSB, Mft, MRC, Etheridge, Murdock, KJV++, ASV; /a propitiation – Diagl,
Rotherham, Noyes; /the propitiatory shelter – CLV; /propitiatio - Vulg; /the
expiation – RSV; /an expiatory satisfaction – Wuest; /the atoning sacrifice – NET,
HNV, NRSV, NIV duo, TCNT, ISV; /an atoning sacrifice – GSNT,WNT; /the
sacrifice that atones – NLT; /an atoning offering – ISR; /x: the offering – BBE ;
/atonement – Bishops; /personal atonement – PNT; /the reconciliation – Geneva;
/to pay for – NIrV; /x: the payment – GW; /the means by which ours sins are
forgiven – GNB; /the sacrifice that takes away – CEV; /the way our sins are taken
away – ERV; /the propitiation (the atoning sacrifice), - AMP; /a “covering over” [or
atonement] for our sins [See Heb 2:17; Dan 9:24; IIChr 29:24], - AUV; /화해 헌물
–KKJV; /화목 제물 – KRV; /
• 1Jn 4:10; 1 (appositional): /a propitiation – YLT, Wesley; /x: the propitiation
– Whiston; /an atonement – ACV; /as a propitiatory sacrifice -NWT; /[as] a
propitiation [or, appeasing sacrifice] – ALT; /as a sacrifice to take away – NLT;
/as the atoning sacrifice –NIV duo, GSNT,WEB; 2 (x: purpose) /x: to be the
atoning sacrifice – NET, NRSV; /to be the expiation for – RSV; /to be a
propitiation – DRB, Darby; /to be the propitiation – ESV, HCSB; /x: that he might
be the means of expiating our sins – Cass; /to be the kapparah – JNT; /to be an
atoning offering – ISR; /to be the way that God takes away our sins – ERV!; /to be
an offering for – BBE; /to give his life to pay for –NIrV; /to be a reconciliation –
Geneva; /to be the agreement – Bishops; /to be a “covering over” [i.e., atonement,
2:2] – AUV; /2-a /to be the propitiation – NASB, KJV++, ASV;

Etymologically means thing for propitiation, with Hesychius writing that a

synonym of hilasterion was thing for catharsis, while the Vulgate translates it
as propitiatorium.

Gk. hilasterion translated as propitiation. Also in LXX for Heb. kphrth, translated as
‘mercy seat’ by William Tyndale of the German term Gnadenstuhl, from the same
narrative position in the Luther Bible; Gnadenstuhl literally means seat of grace, in the
sense of location of grace. /atonement-seat – Apostolic Interlinear]

It was on the top of the ark of the testimony (Ark of Covenant) in the Holy of Holy
Place of the Mishkan) (Exo 25:21-22). The kerubim (> cherubim) spread out their wings
above, overshadowing it with their wings; with their faces one to another; toward the
mercy seat were the faces of the kerubim. (Exo 37:9). God told Moses He will appear
in the cloud of incense over the mercy seat. Blood of the animals of sin offering [Heb.
hatat] to be sprinkled in front of it (Lev 16:2, 14-15).]

*judgment; *condemnation; *punishment; *guilt

[Problem with English words: ‘condemnation’ ‘to condemn’ – now they are biblical, religious,
legal jargon; do not fit in the biblical text.]
• S1349 dikē 'right', 'justice'
• S2917 krima 'judgment' – Mt 7:2, Rm 3:8;
• S2920 krisis – judgment, accusation, decision, sentencing
• S1341 dikaiokrisia – 'righteous judgment' Rm 2:5

• S2631 katakrima ('judgment-pronouncement'; /x: 'condemnation' – religious jargon)

(only in Rm 3x, Rm 5:16; 18; 8:1) → verdict, sentencing.
• S2919 krinō judge, sue; be judgmental, decide (x 115, e.g. Mt 7:1)

• S2632 (katakrinō 'judge down' 'bring down judgment's' /x: 'condemn')

Mt 12:41, 42; 20:18; 27:3; Mk 10:33; 14:64; 16:16; Lk 11:31, 32; Jn 8:10, 11
Rm 2:1, 8:3, 34; 14:23; 1Co 11:32; Heb 11:7; 2Pe 2:6

• S2613 katadikazō 'pronounce guilty', x: 'condemn'; e.g. Lk 6:37; Mt 12:7);

• S1342 dikaios 'righteous; S94 adikos – 'unjust' [both in Mt 5:45]
• S371 anaxiōs 'guilty' – 1Co 11:27
• S338. anaitios 'guiltless' 'innocent' – Mt 12:17

Cf. judgment seat S968 bēma (12x – Mt 27:19; Jn 19:13; Act (8x) 7:5, Rm 14:6, 10; 2Co 5:15.

of Elohim (Rm 14:6, 10) – cf. Rm 14:6 v.l. 'of the Mashiah' [/of Christ – KJV]
of the Mashiah (2Co 5:10)

H4941 mishpat (justice, regulation, rule; x: judgment – KJV – Gen 18:19; Jer 23:5;
H6664 tsedeq righteousness – Gen 18:19; Jer 23:6
H1779 din (20x) –
(1) 'judgment' – Deu 17:8; Job 19:29, Jer 5:28, etc.;
(2) 'justice, rights' Isa 10:2, Pro 20:8; 29:7; 31:5; 8

judgment – God’s ‘just judgment’ vs. ‘righteous judgment’

*excommunicate; shun; ostracize; dictatorship; authoritarianism

conscience
1Tm 3:9 clean conscience (suneidēsis + katharos); /x: clear conscience – most
(\ different sense, i.e. having no guilty feeling)
1Tm 1:5, 19; Act 23:1 good conscience (suneidēsis + agathos)
*world; *cosmos; *universe; ‘system of things’; world order; ages; generations,
‘aeon’;

inhabited world, earth; the heart of the earth (= Yerusalem);

• oikeoumenē – Heb 1:6; 2:5
/> inhabited earth – NWT; /habitable world – Darby; /inhabited world – IRENT;
/[Metonymy] inhabitants of the world Acts 17:6, 31 (Psa 9:9); hē oikeoumenē holē, all
mankind, Rev 3:10; 12:9.
• aiōn – S165. /world order; /age (as a period of time) [problem with word picture – ‘the
length of life span’ rather than a distinct period of history, etc.]; /x: world, /*aeon; /?: system
of things (NWT x27 – problematic because it might easily to bring word association with
‘concrete things of object, material’, etc. instead of all the phenomena.); [Danker p. 12 (1)
ages ago Lk 1:70; Jn 9:32; eternity Jn 6:51, 58; Jn 2:17. Pl. Lk 1:33; Rm 1:25; forevermore
Gal 1:5; - (2) ‘a segment of extended time’ age (present) Mt 13:22; Lk 16:8; Rm 12:2;
(future) Mk 10:30; Lk 20:35; Heb 6:5 – (3) ‘the world as spatial entity’ world 1Ti 1:7; Heb
1:2 – (4) Aean Eph 2:2; perh. Col 1:26; Eph 3:9]
e.g. Heb 1:2 the world-orders ░░ (pl.) /the systems of things – NWT; /xxx: the universe –
NIV, HCSB; /the worlds – KJV; /xx: the world – NASB, ESV; /x: ages – YLT; /x: *aeon; /

• kosmos, world, universe [Danker p. 206 – (1) adornment -1Pt 3:3. (2) ‘the entire cosmic
order including the earth’ universe, world Mt 25:34; Jn 17:5, 24; Act 17:24; Rm 1:20; 1Co
8:4; Eph 1:4; 2:2; 1Pt 1:20; Rev 13:8; 17:8. (3) ‘planet earth as microcosm’ world Mt 4:8;
Mk 14:9, etc. (4) ‘inhabitants of the earth’, world – a. humans in general Mt 5:14; 13:38,
18:7; Jn 1:29; 3:16,, 17bc, etc. b. a segment of humankind, freq. viewed as outsiders relative
to another segment Jn 7:4, 7; 12:31, etc.]
“Elohim loved the world” (Jn 3:16) vs. “Do not love the world (1Jn 2:15).

*World – (in existential sense, not physical and metaphysical, of the created beings in
the biological and things of physical domain) refers to cultural milieu and political
systems. Metonymically, (1) humanity in such a world (which is often oppressed by
political powers and swept away (going with the flow) of culture which has divorced from
the Creator (e.g. Jn 3:16), and (2) scheme, system, and spirit of fashion, culture, and
ideas as well as religions (e.g. 1Jn 2:15)

• creation, http://biblehub.com/greek/2937.htm
ktisis (19x) = the act of founding, establishing, building, etc. in Greek writings:
(1). the act of creating, creation: tou ksomou, Rm 1:20.
(2). equivalent to ktisma, a creation i.e. that which is created of individual things and beings,
a creature (w/ different connotation, such as an animal), Rm 1:25; Heb 4:13; Rm 8:39;
collectively, the sum or aggregate of created things: Rev 3:14 (on which see archē, 3; (hē
ktisis tōn anthrōpōn, teaching of the Twelve etc.
pasa ktisis, Col 1:15; ap’ archēs ktiseōs, Mk 10:6; 13:19; 2Pe 3:4; ou tautēs tēs ktiseōs, not
of this order of created things, Heb 9:11; accusative to the demands of the context, of some
particular kind or class of created things or beings: thus of the human race, pasa tē ktisei,
Mk 16:15; en pasa (Rec. adds tē) ktisei tē hupo ton ouranou, among men of every race, Col
1:23; the aggregate of irrational creatures, both animate and inanimate (what we call nature),
Rm 8:19-2. (Wis. 5:17); pasa hē ktisis, Rm 8:22;
(3) an institution, ordinance: 1Pe 2:13;
 Mk 10:6; 13:19 from the beginning of creation,
Rm 1:20 since the creation of the world
Rm 1:25 served the created thing [> creature] rather than the [one]
Rm 8:19 earnest expectation of the creation [x: creature t
Rm 8:20 the creation was subjected to futility /x: the creature - KJV
Rm 8:21 itself the creation will be freed from creature i
Col 1:23 in all creation x: every creature which is under KJV: /

Rm 8:22 the whole creation groans together

Mk 16:15 : πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει /to all the creation; /x: to every creature - KJV

Rm 8:39 nor any created thing other will be able; /other creature- KJV

2Co 5:17 in Mashiah, he is a new creation /x: creature – KJV, NAS

Gal 6:15 but a new creation /creature-- KJV
καινή κτίσις is used of a person of new creation in Mashiah

Col 1:15 firstborn of all creation /x: every creature - KJV

Heb 4:13 no created thing
2Pe 3:4 from [the] beginning of [the] creation
Rev 3:14 beginning of the creation by Elohim God
Heb 9:11 /not of this creation; /x: building - KJV;
1Pe 2:13 to every human institution; /x: ordinance - KJV

NWT system of things (27x). Cf. ‘world’ 150 verses found, 185 matches

http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1001077313#h=1:0-4:0

NWT is rendered as ‘system of things’ when it refers to the current state of affairs or features
that distinguish a certain period of time, epoch, or age. The Bible speaks of “the present
system of things,” referring to the prevailing state of affairs in the world in general and the
worldly way of life. (2Ti 4:10) By means of the Law covenant, God introduced a system of
things that some might call the Israelite or Jewish epoch. By means of his ransom sacrifice,
Jesus Christ was used by God to introduce a different system of things, one primarily
involving the congregation of anointed Christians. This marked the beginning of a new
epoch, characterized by the realities foreshadowed by the Law covenant. When in the plural,
this phrase refers to the various systems of things, or prevailing states of affairs, that have
existed or will exist.—Mt 24:3; Mk 4:19; Rm 12:2; 1Co 10:11.

Mt_12:32; 13:22, 39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20; Mk 4:19; 10:30; Lk_16:8; 18:30; 20:34,
35; Rm_12:2; 1Co_1:20; 2:6 (x2); 2:8; 3:18; 2Co_4:4; Gal_1:4; Eph_1:21; 2:2;
1Ti_6:17; 2Ti_4:10; Tit_2:12; Heb_6:5;

The word ‘world’:

168 verses found, 203 matches – NET;
203 verses found, 242 matches - KJV
191 verses found, 228 matches – ASV
166 verses found, 202 matches – LITV
oikoumenē vs. kosmos
oikoumenē vs. kosmos
The Greek word commonly translated as "world" in Heb 1:6, is *oikoumenē; it is derived
from the Greek word for house or household. A "household" is the people who live together
in a dwelling.

The word oikoumenē has been commonly defined as "inhabited land/earth." This definition
gives people the notion that an oikoumenē is wherever people are able to dwell. However,
this is obviously not what the word means as the following passages demonstrate. The word
oikoumenē refers to people living in the inhabited land.

• This gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole oikoumenē as a

testimony to all the nations. Mt 24:14.
• Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus for a census be
taken of all the oikoumenē. Lk 2:1.
• showed him all the kingdoms of the oikoumenē in a moment of time. Lk 4:5.
• He has fixed a day in which He will judge the oikoumenē in righteousness Acts
17:31
• the expectation of the things which are coming upon the oikoumenē for the
powers of the heavens will be shaken. Lk 21:26.
• there would certainly be a great famine upon the whole oikoumenē. Acts 11:28.
• "These men who have upset the oikoumenē have come here also." Acts 17:6.
• the great goddess Artemis … whom all of Asia and the oikoumenē worship will
Acts 19:27.
• dissension among all the Yehudim throughout the oikoumenē, Acts 24:5.
• Their voice has gone out into all the earth, and their words to the extents of the
oikoumenē.” Rm 10:18
• that hour which is about to come upon the whole oikoumenē to test those who
dwell on the earth. Rev 3:10.
• Satan, who deceives the whole oikoumenē was thrown down to the earth, and
his angels were thrown down with him. Rev 12:9.
• the kings of the whole oikoumenē, Rev 16:14.

Notice how every single time, the word oikoumenē is referring to the people, an economy
or population of people.

In the case of Heb 1:6 and 2:5, the word oikoumenē is referring to the economy of all the
personages of heaven, God and his angels.

There is an overlap in meaning with the Greek words kosmos and oikoumenē. This occurs
when the word kosmos ("world") is used in Scripture to refer to the people of earth. It is
used in this manner routinely in the New Testament. When it is used this way, it functions
similarly to oikoumenē. Compare Mt 4:8 and Lk 4:5.
S166 aiōnios ‘eternal’

S166 aiōnios ‘eternal’

Used frequently with ‘life’ (44x) -

zōē aiōnios variously as ‘, ‘eternal life’, ‘life eternal’; /x: life everlasting; /x:
everlasting life – KJV (cf. ‘eternal life in Rm 6:22; but ‘everlasting life’ in Rm 6:23!);
GW,

Mat 19:16, 29; 25:46; Mk 10:17, 30; Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30;

Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3;
Act 13:46, 48; Rom 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23;
Gal 6:8; 1Ti 1:16; 6:12, 19;
Tit 1:2; 3:7; 1Jn 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; Jud_1:21;

Other phrases with the adjective:

1. tinō olethron aiōnion (pay eternal ~) 2Th 1:9. [olethros – destruction, ruin,
disaster – 1Co 5:5 (of flesh); 1Th 5:3; 1Ti 6:9 (eis olethron kai apōleian)]
2. eis kolasin aiōnion (into eternal ~) Mt 25:46 [kolasis – punishment – 1Jn 4:18]
3. puros aiōniou (~ fire) – Jud 7
4. the eternal kingdom 2Pe 1:11
5. ~ paraklēsis (consolation 2Th 2:16
6. Covenant Heb13:20; chain Jud 1:16; gospel Rev 14:6; (weight of) glory 2Co
4:17; 2Th 2:10; 1Pe 5:10; judgment Heb 6:2; salvation Heb 5:9; deliverance Heb 9:23;
spirit Heb 9:14; inheritance Heb 9:15

eis tous aiōna /forevermore - /forever; /x: for ever (KJV); / -

eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn - /forever and ever; /x: fore ever (KJV) – Gal 1:5; Phi 4:20;
Heb 13:21; 1Pe 5:11; 2Pe 3:18; Rev 1:6; 4:9, 10; 5:13; 7:12; 10:6; 11:15; 15:7; 19:3;
20:10; 22:5
eis aiōnas aiōnōn Rev 14:11;
tou aiōnos tōn aiōnōn - for ever and ever – Eph 3:21;

*eternal; everlasting; forever; evermore; forevermore (also ‘for evermore’); nevermore;

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/77633/what-is-the-correct-way-to-write-for-
ever-more
‘End of the World’

The endless ‘End of the World’ The Bible nowhere says the world will end; but it will
remain for aeons. The ‘End of the World’ is used often religious jargon. Many confuse the
Parousia (coming and being present) of the Son-of-man with their pagan idea of the end of
the world, with fantasy and confabulation. They love to read ‘the former heaven and the
former earth’ with catastrophic destruction of the literal physical world of the planet Earth
and ‘heaven’ and then unbelievable replenished with a new heaven and a new planet!!

Mt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20 closing-up of the present world-order ░░ (sunteleia aiōnos –
Matthean characteristic expression) [Gk. sunteleia Cf. telos ‘end’ ‘goal’] /end – most;
/consummation – Berean Literal; + [Gk. aiōn Cf. Heb 1:6 'made the world-orders; 2Co 4:4 'Elohim of
for this world-order; /xx: the god of this world (Satan)'] /age – most; /system of things – NWT; /x:
world – KJV, NLT;
[ = the world powers under which they have been living.] /x: the end of the world - KJV [- religious jargon];
/the end of the age – NIV, ESV, HCSB, NASB, NET, most; /the conclusion of the system of things – NWT;
28:20 heōs tēs sunteleias tou aiōnos
24:3 to sēmeion (tēs sēs paraousias) kai sunteleias tou aiōnos
13:39 ho de therismos sunteleia aiōnos estin
13:40, 49 en tē sunteleia tou aiōnos

sunteleia - consummation, completion – not ‘end’;

aiōn - eons, ages – not ‘world’.

‘an end of the ~’ (sunteleia tou aiōnos Mt 13:39)

‘in the end of the ~’ (en tē sunteleia tou aiōnos – Mt 13:49),
‘until the end of the ~’ (heōs tēs sunteleia tou aiōnos – Mt 28:49)
‘at the end of the ~’ (epi sunteleia tōn aiōnōn – Heb 9:26) (+ ‘kosmos – world’)

Cf. 1Co 7:31 “… this world (kosmos) in the present form is passing away.”
Cf. 1Pe 4:7 “the end of all things is at hand “,
Cf. Mt 24:14 “the end will come” [+ with the Fall of Yerusalem for the former
dispensation] [Gk. telos ‘end, goal, final point’]

*land

'The Holy Land' – Heb. Adama HaKodesh appears only once in Zec 2:12 (16).

/sketches-of-jewish-social-life-at-the-time-of-messiah-jews-and-gentiles-in-the-land/

*create; *creation’ vs ‘*new creation’; ‘re-creation’; generation, regeneration,

*creature

*create vs. *make

God created/made “all things” in heaven and earth and the sea:
Act 14:5 ‘turn to … {the} living God, who made the heavens and the earth
and the sea and everything in them.”
 Act 17:24 “Elohim that made the world [* kosmos] and all the things in it,
the very One, being Lord of heaven and earth, …”
Rev 4:11 “… the Adonai, yes, our Elohim, … because you, you created all
things and on account of your will they came to be existing —yes, they were
thus created.”

Heb 1:2 whom Elohim appointed to be as heir of all things, through whom also made the world-
orders
Col 1:16 ‘in him (the Son) all things in the heavens and on the earth were created anew,
Act 14:15 “the living God has made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all things in them”

[S4160 poieō (574x) 'make'] /xxx: created (the world) – ESV;

[S2936 ktizō (15x) 'create' Mt 19:4; Eph 2:5]

[Yeshua is the creator of the new creation, not of Genesis creation (Gen 1:1 'created the
heavens and the earth').]

*creature – is this word used for inanimate thing at all? Any example? E.g. 'the heavens and
the earth' in Gen 1:1 – inanimate things created - are these 'creatures'??
'created things'; 'created beings'
'creation' – act of creating; things created

'ex nihilo' – 'creation from nothing' or 'creation out of nothing'?? Creation cannot be anything
to do with 'nothing' → 'Before creation there was nothing'.

*Creation – *ktisis
ktisis S2937 – [19x] [act or product of] creation; Mk 10:6; Rm 1:20; Col 1:15; etc.
ktisma S2938 – created thing/creature
ktistēs S2939 – [only 1x in 1Pe 4:19] creator [Cf. Yeshua the Mashiah as the creator of new
creation (see below); not of Genesis]
ktizō S2936 – to create; to form, to make (into).
(1) Genesis creation – Jn 1:1; Gen 1:1 (– of the heavens and the earth) Psa 33:6;
Rm 1:20 – 'from creation of the world' apo ktiseōs kosmou
(2) New Creation in Yeshua the Mashiah (cf. Jn 1:14) (Eph 1:4 ‘before founding of the world’
pro katabolēs kosmou)

Eph 1:3-11
Jn 1:1-5 is the preamble to the coming of Yeshua as the Incarnate Word (not ‘Incarnate God’)
as Immanuel Mt 1:23. This is the way G-Jn prefigures a new creation in Yeshua the Mashiah –
it is the beginning of Yeshua’s ministry and Gospel into the Gospel dispensation. In that sense
and in this particular context, the word ‘*beginning’ (S746 archē 56x – usually anarthrous for
the meaning of 'beginning' except Jn 2:11; 8:25; Col 1:18; Rev 3:14; 21:6; 22:13)a is used in Jn
15:27; Mk 1:1, Lk 1:2; 1Jn 1:1, 5; 2:7, 8; 3:11; 2Jn 6, 7. The Gospel of Yeshua is the Way to
Father Jn 14:6.

'new creation' in Yeshua Mashiah:

• Gal 6:15 – 'what counts is a new creation'
• 2Co 5:17 – 'anyone in is a new creation'
• Rev 3:14 – 'the Beginning of the Creation'

a
Other meanings: 'ruler' Lk 12:11; 20:20; Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16; 2:10, 15; Tit 3:1; 'principality' Rm
8:38; 'rule' 1Co 15:24; Eph 1:21; 'principle' Heb 5:12; 6:1; Jud 1:6; 'corner' Act 10:11; 11:5;
 • Col 1:15 – 'firstborn over all the creation' a
• Eph 2:10 – 'we are his workmanship created in Yeshua the Mashiah'
[S2936]
• Jam 1:18 – 'a kind of firstfruits over all His created-ones' [S2938]
• Heb 4:13 – 'no created-thing' [S2937]

Different expressions:
'in the regenerated world' – Mt 19:28
"new heaven and new earth" – Rev 21:1; 2Pe 3:18; Isa 65:17; 66:22

*founding (katabolē) vs. creation (ktisis)

*founding of the world ░░ (10x) [not 'creation',]

pro katabolēs kosmou before the founding ~ = Jn 17:24; Eph 1:4; 1Pe 1:20;
apo katabolēs kosmou from the founding of the world = Mt 13:5; 25:34; Lk 11:50; Heb 4:3;
9:26; Rev 13:8; 17:8
pro chronōn aiōniōn before time eternal 2Ti 1:9b

Cf. Jn 17:5 "Now, O Abba, glorify me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had
with You before the world was."
www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/john17_5.html
Cf. Jn 6:38 "I have come down from heaven"
Cf. Phi 2:6-8

www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/terms/ktisis.html

The Greek word ktisis is normally translation as "creation". The verb form is ktizō, to
create. The word ktisis is not found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old
Testament. The verb ktizō is used sixty-six times in the Greek Old Testament.

a
Col 1:15 'new creation in Yeshua Mashiah'
 Any good lexicon will tell you that the Greek word ktisis was used by ancient Greek
speakers to refer to the establishment or founding of political dominions such as city
states or kingdoms especially with respect to their authority structure. The idea is that
any political domain, such as a city or a kingdom, is founded upon its authority
structure.

ktisis at 1Pe 2:13. “Submit yourselves for the sake of the Lord to every human creation
(ktisis), whether to a King as the supreme authority, or to governors as sent by him for the
punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.”

A careful examination of the context of Col 1:15-16 (firstborn over all creation - Cf. Eph
1:4… ‘before founding of the world’. ‘firstborn’ does not mean a creature which was created
first’, . shows that Paul is not referring to the Genesis act of creation as many people
mistakenly presume. He is using the words ktisis and ktizō to refer to the establishment of the
Kingdom of the Beloved Son and the authority structure of heaven and earth over which the
risen Jesus was granted all authority. God subjected all things in heaven and earth, including
the angels, to the risen Christ (Mt 28:18; 1Co 15:27-28; Eph 1:20-23; Heb 1:4; 2:5-9;
1Pe3:22). Note how Paul is referring to the authority structure that now exists (italics)
because God has subjected all things in heaven and on earth to the risen Christ, the firstborn
out of the dead:

For He delivered us from the authority of darkness, and transferred us to the Kingdom of His
beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins who is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn of all creation (ktisis) since in him all things were created (ktizō),
both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or
rulers or authorities - all things have been created (ktizō) through him and to him. He is
before all things, and in him all things stand together (see Eph 1:9-10). He is also head of the
body, the church and he is the beginning, the firstborn out the dead, so that he himself might
come to be pre-eminent in all things.

Col 1:13-18. Carefully observe how Paul is used the Greek words ktisis and ktizō in the same
manner as Peter – to refer to the authority structure upon which the Son's Kingdom is
established. Paul is referring to the establishment of the risen Son's Kingdom since God has
subjected all things in heaven and earth to the risen Christ including angels, authorities,
rulers, thrones, lords, and powers. Note also how Paul says that Jesus is the firstborn out of
the dead "so that" he might become first ['pre-eminent' – ARJ] in all things.

Ref: Moyer Hubbard (2002), New Creation in Paul's Letters and Thought
preview – www.questia.com/library/106444140/new-creation-in-paul-s-letters-and-thought

Cf. 'creationism' 'new creationism' 'scientific creationism'

Reading material: 'New Creation' Confusion, ('New creationists'?)
www.academia.edu/36292986/THE_NEW_CREATION_CONFUSION_...
*firstborn’

prōtotokos –

(1) a first child born in a family, e.g. Mt 1:25; Heb 11:28.

(2) a person of a comparable position in a family, e.g. Heb 11:17 ‘his only-begotten
son’a; e.g. (plural) Heb 12:23 … assembly of privileged firstborn ones ekklēsia
prototokōn (pl.)
(3) Figuratively, the one who have been brought forth to take such a position as to the
risen Mashiah [notion is unrelated to being a first one to be 'created':
Rm 8:29 … to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many
brethren.
Col 1:15 … is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation (/x: of
every creature):
Col 1:18 … is Beginning – Firstborn from the dead; that in all things he himself
shall come to be preeminent.”
Rev 1:18 … the Firstborn from the dead; [cf. /mss ‘the firstborn of the dead’]

*suffering; *tribulation; *affliction; *persecution

[cf. * rapture]

Words: suffering vs. affliction – Col 1:24 (afflictions of the Mashiah vs. Paul’s
sufferings). Cf. trial (of hardship) – persecution, oppression, *tribulation; disease,
sickness, illness,
S5302 hustereō (e.g. husteroumenoi - destitute Heb 11:37);
S2346 thlibō Oppress, persecute; press hard Heb 11:37; Mt 7:14;
S2558 kakoucheō treat badly, maltreat; hurt
S1188 desmos 'chain';
S5438 phulakē 'imprisonment'
S3958 paschō; suffer [Cf. SourceNT; /xx: experience ordeals – (Heb 2:18); /xx: experience – Mt 16:21]

‘(Yeshua to) *suffer’ S3958 paschō – Mt 16:21; //Mk 8:31; //Lk 9:22 – does not
refer to the crucifixion itself. His suffering is not his crucifixion itself, [as
graphically depicted in the Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of the Christ
(2004)]. The cup (< vessel) be removed [in His Gethsemane prayer] is not the
‘cup of suffering’ as wrongly translated in GNB (Mt 26:39;(26:42) Mk 14:36;
//Lk 22:42). It is the vessel of God’s wrath [+ for justice the earth is to receive],
which Yeshua has to take upon Himself.

Being tested or undergoing trial not from ‘being tempted’, but from ‘being
challenged, etc.’ with persecution, opposition, oppression thlibmenoi,
excommunication, exile, denouncing, imprisonment, chained (lost freedom),
stoning/killing, torture tumpanizō; mocking empaignos; trials of scourging peiran
masitgōn; macairas apethanon,

a
Isaac was not the first son of Abraham. Cf. Gen 22:2 “your son, your only son”. (LXX ‘your son, the
beloved one’)
Boycott, sanction, divestment,
Jm13 13, 14 (be undergoing trial /tempted – HCSB);
Heb 11:38 [peiran lambanō undergo suffering; experiencing (trial)]

‘tribulation’ refers to persecution (including that which the believers will go

through) which has been confused it with ‘God’s wrath’ (Rev 11). [Check Greek
concordance study].

Apostles’ Creed – ‘passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus …’ ‘suffered

under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died …’
Here ‘suffering’ is an inaccurate term to use. Sentenced to death and
executed under Pilate, not ‘suffered’. His Suffering in the Passion Week
was from the representative of all the humanity, viz. the Sanhedrin authority
of Yehudim and the occupying Roman power. Suffering does not equate
with pain and affliction on the Cross.

“sharing in the suffering of Christ” (Rm 8:17; Phi 3:10); the Passion (> Latin
patere ‘suffer’ – not ‘emotion’, an intense, driving, or overmastering feeling or
conviction; ‘something one love to do’ ‘passionate’); Gk. pathema > paschō
www.middletownbiblechurch.org/salvatio/passion.htm

what sense of ‘suffering’ Brutality of horrible and terrible pain; torments, affliction;
anguish on the execution stake; the crucifixion itself? Or pointing to suffering execution
to death?

‘The Passion of the Christ’:

www.textweek.com/response/passion_movie.htm

Reading material:
https://mycontemplations.wordpress.com/2009/05/05/how-unique-was-the-suffering-of-jesus/

http://ancientworldinfilm.s3.amazonaws.com/The%20Passion.pdf
Zeb Garber (2006), Mel Gibson’s Passion – The Film, the Controversy, and its Implications –
esp. Ch. 12 Crucifixion in Rabbinic Context: Juridical or Theological? by Jacob Neusner.

www.ptm.org/04PT/MarApr/weekChangedWorld.pdf Review of the movie The Passion of Christ

www.ptm.org/05PT/MarApr/aboutThePassion.pdf
Cover Story - Plain Truth Ministries
Jerry Griffin

… Each of the four Gospel accounts use only a few verses to describe the punishment Jesus
received. In a single verse, Matthew, Mark and John mention, almost in passing, that Pilate had
Jesus scourged before sending him off to be crucified (Mt 27:26, Mk 15:15, Jn 19:1). The extent
or severity of this scourging is not given, and Luke omits this detail altogether. In regard to the
crucifixion, all four Gospels, in the greatest economy of words, simply say, “they crucified him”
(Mt 27:35, Mk 15:24, Lk 23:33, Jn 19:18). For the original audience who read these words, no
 more needed to be said. The ancient world understood the brutality of this form of execution, and
no doubt Jesus experienced [‘suffered’? – ARJ] a cruel and painful death. But the biblical writers
do not dwell on those aspects. It is the theological significance of that death, not its excruciating
physical details, that gets their attention. …

In Gibson’s traditionalist Catholic theology, one can obtain meritorious favor in the eyes of God
by identifying with the sufferings of Christ. Historically, therefore, Catholic theology has had a
tendency to fixate on Christ’s sufferings — just compare Catholic artwork to Protestant and the
emphasis is apparent. This fixation was especially prevalent during the Middle Ages when the
notion of suffering was taken to ascetic extremes and the salvation of the soul was equated with
the torture of the body. … [fn: Whether salvation comes from one’s efforts to gain extra merits
imparted by Christ and the saints or whether it is solely by faith in the imputed righteousness of
Christ was a key issue of the Reformation, separating Protestantism from Catholicism.]

*anger; hate; *cold; *wrath; fury

thesaurus -
Flare, heat, bitterness, brewing, burning;
Worried, uneasy, restless, turmoil, throe; pain, pang; hurt; agony;
excruciation; distress; struggle; suffering; affliction, torment, torture
Cold, dark, damp, light out

*fulfill

The time is fulfilled

The prophecies /Scriptures are fulfilled
The law is fulfilled – (‘Fulfillment of the Law’ by Yeshua – abolishment
of the law? No longer Torah is to keep? Torah is replaced by God the
Son? What law? What Torah? etc.)

*addiction

(edited after Ashley Gutherie). “addiction” is a model as a way of describing a set of

phenomena, and it has been a really useful model for certain kinds of things, for example,
alcoholism and heroin addiction. It is not something to be labelled as ‘disease’.
Physiological characteristics associated with addiction to a substance are not really the
crux of what is going on with someone who is experiencing a difficulty with abusing or
overusing it. A universal definition of addiction is that people have cravings for
substances when their blood levels of the substance drop, and they have a difficulty in
discontinuing the habit of use. Cf. habit; habit-forming (addictive) substance, Cf.
psychological addiction; interpersonal codependence; obsessive compulsive disorder;
object relation theory.

*attitude; behavior, conduct

One’s attitude and action – activity, behavior, conduct.

What one does – thinks, speaks, feels, communicates – what, when, why, how,
whom, where
*Be alert; Watch (out); be (/stay) awake; be watchful; Be on guard;

*inherit; *inheritance; heirs

Greek verb klēronomeō – translating it as ‘inherit’ by most English Bibles does not
fit the context, since (in no instance the word is used in the sense of ‘to obtain from
someone after their death –

Danker p. 203 –1. ‘be a heir’ in legal sense, inherit Gal 4:30. – 2. ‘be recipient of a
share (in)’, with focus on experience of divine conferral of promised benefits, the
dominant sense in NT acquire, obtain, inherit Mt 5:5; 19:29; Mk 10:17; 1Co 6:9f;
Hb 1:4; 12:17; Rv 21:7

Rev 21:9
/xx: inherit –most, PNT, Wuest; /obtain a share – Cass; /receive a share of; /receive –
IRENT' JNT, NIrV, GNB, ERV; / I will give – HNV, EMTV; /be given – CEV;
/enter into possession of – TCNT; /possess – GSNT, DRB; /obtain – Mft; /xx: have
heritage – ESV duo; /xx: have for one’s heritage – BBE; /xx: be the heritage of him –
WNT; /xx: obtain for his inheritance – Cass; /enjoy allotment – CLV;
/상속받으리니 – KKJV, JSS; /유업으로 얻으리 – KRV;

~ eath/land - Mt_5:5;
~ life eternal - Mt_19:29; Mk_10:17; Lk_10:25; 18:18;
~ kingdom - Mt_25:34; 1Co_6:9, 10;15:50; Gal_5:21;

~ salvation - Heb_1:14;
~ promises - Heb_6:12;
~ blessing - Heb_12:17; 1Pe_3:9;
~ (these things) - Rev_21:7; (referent unclear)

~ (property?) Gal_4:30;

inheritance –
klēronomia 1. ‘a share in what is passed on by a testator’ inheritance
Mt_21:38; //Mk_12:7; //Lk_20:14; Lk_12:13;
2. ‘participation in a share’, inheritance w. focus on divine conferral of the
promised benefits(s) Ac 20:32; Gal 3:18; Eph 1:14, 18; 5:5; Col 3:34; Hb
9:15; 1Pt 1:4;
3. 1+2 Act 7:5; 13:33 v.l.; Hb 11:8 in the sense possession.

Act_7:5; 13:19; 20:32; 26:18; Gal_3:18; Eph_1:14, 18; Col_1:12;

3:24; Heb_9:15; 11:8; 1Pe_1:4;

~ in the kingdom of Mashiah and God –Eph_5:5

heirs – Rm 8:17 etc.
*vison, *transfiguration

Mt 17:2 //Mk 9:2 ‘he was transfigured to the eyes of them’.

Lk 9:29 ‘appearance of His face changed to their eyes’

The so-called Transfiguration Vision is narrated in the parallel pericope in the

Synoptic Gospels (Mt 17:1–9 //Mk 9:2-8 //Lk 9:28–36). 2Pe 1:16–18 refers to
it. It is not ‘transfiguration of Jesus’ but ‘transfiguration vision’ of Him. [“It is
not a transfiguration of Yeshua’s reality, but of the disciples’ vision. … it was
the disciples’ eyes that were changed. God enabled them to see what is -- instead
of just what appears. He lifted the veil [from their eyes]” – edited after Peter
Kreeft (2007) The Philosophy of Jesus. pp. 100-104.]
*Fear (verb)

'have fear' (of things, someone); 'have fear' (for God); 'be afraid'; 'be fearful of';
'be frightened' 'be startled'

S5399 phobeō (95x) to fear vs. to be afraid; to frighten; to terrify;

e.g. Rev 1:17 ('Fear not'); Rev 2:10 ('do not fear' >> Do not be afraid); Mt 2:22
(was afraid);
S5401 phōbos (47x) ("fear" Mt 4:26; Phil 2:12)
S1169 deilos (4x) fearful 'frightened' (Mt 8:26, Mk 4:40); Heb 12:28 ('awe');
Rev 21:8 ('cowardly'). (cf. 'fainthearted' 'scared' 'feared')

A fixed biblical phrase with the verb imperative: mē phobou (mē phobeisthe)
‘Fear not’ vs. 'Have no fear' vs. 'Don't be afraid' (as if of one's doing something).

[In the case of imperative, it is the context which usually make clear (e.g. as in Mt 28:5) what is
the object of the verbal phrase (fear of what): ‘Have no fear’ ‘Be not afraid’ ‘Fear not’ – i.e.
‘have fear of something or something’. In the example of Mt 28:10, it needs to be made clear
that it is not ‘to be afraid of the speaker’. Cf. A different scenario is Jn 12:15 ‘Have fear any
more, O daughter of Zion’ – there it should be made clear that it is not ‘fear of the King who
comes’.

Mt 28:10 Fear not. Throw off all the fear you had, now that I am with yoů all. ░░
/Have no fear – ARJ; /throw off all the fear you had – ARJ; /throw off all fear –
Cass; /Dismiss all the fear – WNT; /Fear not - most; /Fear ye not – YLT; /Do not be
afraid – ESV, GNB, CEV, ISR; /Don’t be afraid – ERV, GW; /Be not afraid – KJV,
Geneva, Bishops; /Have no fear – NWT; /xx: stop being frightened – ISV; /Have no
fear – BBE; /xx: Stop being frightened – ISV; /

*Fear vs. *awe; *reverence

H3372 yare
'to fear' 'to be afraid of';
'be astonished' (Exo 15:11; Psa 76:13; 139:14, etc.)
H3374 yirah 'fear' (41x) (Psa 110:10; Pro 1:7)
H 3373 yare 'afraid'
H4172 mora
H6342; pachad 'dread'

S1790 entromos (3x) 'trembling' – Act 7:32; Heb 12:21

S5398 phoberos (3x) 'fearful' 'terrifying' – Heb 10:27, 31; 12:21
S1630 ekphobos (2x) 'terrifed' – Mak 9:6; Heb 12:21

S5399 phobeō (95x)

'to fear' 'be afraid of' 'be fearful of' – Mt 1:20; 10:26, 28, 31, etc.;
 'be terrified' – Mt 17:6;
'be frightened' – Lk 2:9; Jn 6:19;
'be awed' – Mt 9:8;
'be awe-struck' – Mt 27:54;
'to fear (God') – Lk 18:2; 23:40; Act 10:2, 22; 13:16, 26; 1Pe 2:17; Col 3:22;
'God-revering' ('God-fearing) – Act 13:16, 26 See 'God-fearers' in <WB #3C
– People and Persons>
S5401 phobos (47x)
'awe' – Act 2:43; 'fear' – Mt 14:26; 28:4, 8; Mk 4:41; Lk 1:12, etc.; Jn 7:13, etc.;
Act 5:5, 11; 19:17;
'fear (of Elohim) – Rm 3:18; 2Co 7:1;
'fear (of the Lord') – Act 9:31; 2Co 5:11 (xx: the terror of the Lord- KJV; /x: 'to
respect the Lord' – CEV);

Cf. to worship (God) H4576 sebō Act 13:50

Cf. ‘God-revering’ 'God-fearing' – See 'God-fearers' in <WB#3C – People and Persons>

*anxiety - <<Anxiety is the dynamic center of neuroses and thus we shall have to deal with
it all the time.>> — from Karen Horney (1999), The Neurotic Personality of Our Time.

Related words & phrases – fear (plethō phobos Lk 5:26 ‘fill with fear’), fearful
(phoberos Heb 10:31); fright, frighten, afraid, dread, scare, apprehensive,
apprehension, panic, terror; alarm, gloom; scared, shaken (with fear), unsure;
insecure; shudder, tremble (S5425 phrissō Jam 2:19); trepidation; unnerved;
discouraged; ‘lose one’s heart’; pusillanimity; ‘irrational fear’; ‘not fear’ (as to God
– Isa 63:17; Psa 55:9; Mal 3:5; Lk 18:4; ? Lk 12:5); vs. 'fear not' ‘not be afraid’ for
English diction.
In Elohim I put my trust – fear not – Psa 56:4, 11;
'YHWH is on my side – what is there to fear' – Psa 118:6.

To Twitter: “Fear of fear? So many things we fear of, but hardly we

pay attention to why we do fear and why we come even to fear.”
‘*Fear of God’
www.hebrew4christians.com/Meditations/Yirat_Adonai/yirat_adonai.html
https://hebrew4christians.com/Scripture/Parashah/Summaries/Eikev/Yirah/yirah.html
\Fear of God

'to fear' [H3372 yare'];

'to fear Elohim' (xx: to be afraid) – Gen 42:18, Exo 18:21; Lev 19:14, 32; 25:17; Psa 66:16; Ecc
5:7; 12:13;
'to fear YHWH your Elohim' + love Him + serve Him – Deu 10:12;
'to fear Him (YHWH)' – Psa 103:13“YHWH has mercy on those who fear Him'
Cf. 'In Elohim I put my trust – fear not '– Psa 56:4, 11; 118:6.
[Fear of God – of what? Of judgment?]
Those who do not fear Elohim' – Exo 9:30 (Pharaoh); Psa 55:19 (David's enemies); Ecc 8:13 (the
wicked do not fear);

Cf. related 'to sanctify the name' (of the Heavenly Father) (Mt 6:9; //Lk 11:2);

'a fear'– [H3374 yirah]

Exo 20:20 (Cf. ' (not) be afraid' + 'a fear of Him – (Elohim)');
Proverbs 9:10 "Beginning of wisdom is fear of YHWH"
Job 28:28 'fear of the Adonai, that is wisdom'
Pro 1:7 “Fear of YHWH is beginning of knowledge”
Psa 110:10
“Beginning [H8462 techillah] of wisdom [H2451 chokmah]
is fear [H3374 yirah] of YHWH
and [beginning of] knowledge [1847 daath] is
understanding [H998 binah] of the holy one” [H6918 qadosh]

[Note: wisdom and knowledge are God’s (from God), not of the world.]

Deu 2:25 'put dread and fear of you [Moses]' (H6343+H3374)

Isaiah 11:3 'and his [← v. 1 a shoot from the stump of Jesse; a branch from his
root] delight is in the fear of YHWH;
he will not judge by what he sees with his eyes,
or decide by what he hears with his ears…'

Gk. phobos S5401 'fear' (e.g. Pe 3:15); Gk. eulabeia S2124 'reverence';
Gk. eulabēs S2126 God-fearing, pious; Gk. hieroprepēs S2414 'reverent'

'fear' of another person – servile vs. filial fear (after Luther)

Fear of God is the other side of our love of God. Neither can go alone without the
other hand-in-hand. [Cf. reverence, respect, awe, reverential fear; Ko. 경외 (敬畏);
두려움 >> 무서움; /xx: dread, dreadful fear – cf. fear-monger with hellfire preaching
e.g. Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758); [about God’s judgment, but not about ‘fear of
God’s discipline’]

www.ligonier.org/blog/what-does-it-mean-fear-god/ "… The focus here is

on a sense of awe and reverence for the majesty of God. That’s
often lacking in contemporary … Christianity in general. We get
very flippant and cavalier with God, as if we had a casual
relationship with the Father. We are invited to call Him Abba,
Father, and to have the personal intimacy promised to us, but still
we’re not to be flippant with God. … We’re always to keep reverence
and awe for Him. … It is a frightening thing to fall into the hands of the
living God” (Heb. 10:31).]
Ref: Wali van Lohuizen (2011), A Psycho-Spiritual View on the Message of Jesus, (pp. 319-
320)

Phobos: Fear or Awe?

About the word group phobos: Generally understood as fear and rendered so. In classical
antiquity the term exhibited various shades. Phobos describes encounters with force expressed
as terror and anxiety but also honor and respect. [1] This concept of terror, fear and anxiety has
haunted much of Christianity as it referred to the fear of God and his punishment. It is often
seen as a heritage from the OT; we will see in a moment that the OT fear often exhibited more
the concept of awe. In the Gospels the feared ‘fear of God’ does not figure at all, but surfaces
in the Epistles and is continued in early Christianity [2]. But the OT picture of fear is not so
bleak. In various layers of the OT fear refers to other connotations. TDNT (Günther Wanke,
the author for the OT part) is quite clear on this issue, if read meticulously. Apart from meaning
fear and being afraid it also carries connotations of having someone in honor (B I 1), of
respecting (B I 2), feeling reverence, holding in respect (B II 1a, b): “man treats with fear and
reverent awe especially persons and places that stand in a special relation to God” (B II 2). My
interpretation is that it implies an awareness of distance. The OT formula ‘fear not’ expresses
a reassurance and assistance in everyday life (B II 4) and thus diminishes this distance:
communication is open. (mē phobeisthe) it means that this distance is removed: communication
is possible. Fearing God should be along with loving God. Then there is not even room for fear
of the punishment of Yahweh (B II 3b). In the Wisdom literature the fear of Yahweh changes
face and is equated with knowledge, insight and wisdom (II B 3c). ‘God-fearing’ refers to
people whose conduct is orientated to the will of God (B II 3a). It also refers to fear for
punishment that constantly is lurking around the corner. Yet Psalm 2.11 LXX speaks of
‘serving the Lord en phobōi and rejoice in him en tromōi. Should it be ‘in fear’ and ‘in
trembling’? But why tremble when rejoicing? It refers to a quiver as is experienced in utmost
joy. Therefore: serving while in awe and rejoicing while in a spontaneous quiver.

How to interpret phobos in the Gospels? Where it refers to an encounter with the sacred one’s
reaction is that of awe, a condition of being totally impressed with something grand,
unattainable and distant, the mysterium tremendum of Rudolf Otto (cf. G. van der Leeuw in
RGG II 1180–82). Yet this overriding confrontation with the sacred evokes an awareness of
being connected, of belonging. This reaction is completely different from a confrontation with
hostility and threat or intimidation. In first instance the confrontation with the sacred is
startling, a momentary emotion, it is a shock. When one then is told ‘don’t be shocked’ a
connection is established. Distance diminishes, communication starts. When the disciples are
confronted with a miracle (e.g. Mk 4.41 par) they do not fear but are startled and stand in awe.
The transfiguration cannot evoke fear; it is utter awe (Mk 9.6 par).

[1] Balz in TDNT sub A4.

[2] Balz in TDNT sub E: “the word group is a favorite one in the post-apostolic fathers. In
distinction from the NT the fear of God is increasingly used in formulae.”
Psa 139:14
for it is awe-filled H3372 – I’m wonderfully-made H6395.- IRENT
/for I am fearfully and wonderfully made - KJV
/for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. – ESV
/for I am fearfully and wondrously made – Geneva;
/> for I am awesomely and wondrously made! - ISR
/because in an awe-inspiring way I am wonderfully made - NWT4
/xxx: because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made – NWT3
/xxx: because your deeds are awesome and amazing – NET (see its note below).
/xxx: because you are fearful and wondrous! – ISV;
/xxx: for with awesome ways I am distinguished – LITV
/xxx: for with wonders I have been distinguished – YLT;
/xxx: for I am strangely and delicately formed - BBE
/xxx: for thy [doynges] are to be dreaded, I am made after a marueylous sort - Bishops
/xxx: for thou art fearfully magnified – DRB;
/xxx: because you are to be feared; all you do is strange and wonderful. – GNB;
/xx: because I have been so amazingly and miraculously made. - GW
/x: because you made me in such a wonderful way. (I know how amazing that was!) – ERV;
/x: because of the wonderful way you created me – CEV
/xxx: 나를 지으심이 신묘막측하심이라 – KRV (Korean gibberish)
/あなたは 恐るべく、くすしき方だからです。- Kouge、

NET tc Heb "because awesome things, I am distinct, amazing [are] your works."

The text as it stands is syntactically problematic and makes little, if any, sense. The Niphal of
‫( ָּפלָּה‬pala') occurs elsewhere only in Exo 33:16. Many take the form from ‫( ָּפלָּא‬pala'; see GKC
216 ß75.qq), which in the Niphal perfect means "to be amazing" (see 2Sa 1:26; Psa 118:23; Pro
30:18).

Some, following the Septuagint (LXX) and some other ancient witnesses, also prefer to emend
the verb from first to second person, "you are amazing" (see L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150
[WBC], 249, 251). The present translation assumes the text conflates two variants: ‫נפלאים‬, the
otherwise unattested masculine plural participle of ‫ ָּפלָּא‬, and ‫( נִ ְפלָּאֹות‬nifla'ot), the usual
(feminine) plural form of the Niphal participle. The latter has been changed to a verb by later
scribes in an attempt to accommodate it syntactically. The original text likely read, ‫נוראות‬
‫"( נפלאותים מעׂשיך‬your works [are] awesome [and] amazing").
*live out; *practice

The Greek verb S4165 poieō ‘do’ (1:26; 4:17) is rendered as ‘live out’; whereas the
noun erga is rendered as a verbal expression ‘what one does’ (not ‘deeds’ – a highly
charged word). [The main theme of this Yaakob’s letter is about ‘living out one′s
faith’ and it does not dwell on doctrinal themes in contrast to the Pauline Letters
which have them in abundance and depth.] [S2041 ergon 'work']

Jam 2:14 erga de mē echēi

2:17 mē erga echēi
2:18 chōris tōn ergōn; ek tōn ergōn
2:20 chōris tōn ergōn
2:21, 22, 24 ouk ex ergōn;
2:22 tois ergois
2:25 ex ergōn
2:26 chōris ergon

Cf. poieō to Pascha

Heb 11:28 'keep the Passover' i.e. 'keep/observe the Passover memorial' [on Abib
14]
Mt 26:18 in IRENT - 'keep celebration of the Passover festival' = 'celebrate the
festival' of the Passover – i.e. through the Festival of the Matzah.

Cf. 'offer Passover sacrifice to YHWH' – in OT phrase [See in the companion file
<Walk through the Scripture 5 – Time, Calendar and Chronology'>.]

Cf. Problem of the word 'practice' English in the sense of 'drill'; poieō S4160

1Jn 3:4 lives out the [work of] sin ░░ \(poieō tēn hamartian); /does the work of sin – ARJ; /live out
the [the way of] sin – ARJ; /practices sin – REC, CEB, Darby; /x: sins – many, ERV, TNIV.
KJV++; /xxx: keep on sinning – LB; /xxx: is a sinner- BBE; /xx: commits sin – DRB, Geneva,
Bishop; /xx: commits a sin - Cass; /xx: habitually commits sin; /xx: v. 4 – To commit sin (is to
break God’s law: for sin is lawlessness) – REB; /xxxx: makes a practice of sinning – ESV; /
1Jn 2:29; 3:7 live out the righteousness [which is from Him] ░░ (poieō tēn dikaiosunēn. Cf. 3:10 ‘poieō
dikaiosunēn’. /x: put righteousness in practice – ARJ (- ‘as in a drill); /x: do what is right – NIV,
HCSB; /x: practice righteousness – most; /do righteousness – KJV; /x: do justice – Douay; /x: do
what God approves – GW;
*walk,
S4043 peripateō
Rev 3:4; 9:20; 16:15; 21:24;
[figurative ‘lead a life’ ‘conduct in life’] Rm 6:4; 8:1 v.l.; 8:4; 13:13; Act 21:21; Eph 4:1
1Co 3:3; 7:17; 2Co 5:7; 6:16; 10:3; Gal 5:16, 25; 6:16; Eph 2:10; 4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15; Phi 3:16,
17, 18; Col 1:10; 2:6; 4:5; 1Th 2:12; 4:1, 12; 2Th 3:11; 2Pe 2:10; 1Jn 1:6, 7; 2:6; 2Jn 1:6; 3Jn
1:4; Jud 1:18;
S4748 stoicheō –Rm 4:12
S4198 poreuomai 'go '– Mat 2:8; Act 10:20, etc.; Act 16:7 'travel' 'journey'

See * walking on the water

Mt 14:25, 26 walk down on to the Lake ~~ walking about on [the shore of] the Lake ░░
\peripatōn epi tēn thalassan (accu) ~ epi tēs thalassēs (gen) peripatounta

(In //Mk 6:48, 49 and //Jn 6:19 have epi + gen)] [See Jn 6:16 epi + accu – ‘(went down) on to the Sea’.]

/the Lake – IRENT; /'the lake' – NIV; /the sea – most; /xxx: the water – CEV, GNT, NLT, Aramaic PE;
/xxx: the waves – Weym;

[Most translates as sea or lake consistently, except (1) CEV, MSG omit it in v. 26; (2) /(walk) over the
sea ~ on the sea – NWT; /(4); / xx: on the [surface of the] lake ~ on the water – AUV; (4) /xx: on the
sea ~ on the water– NET (- ‘stylistic reasons’?!).] /walking about (on the sea) - ALT; /walking (on the
water - [miles of different meaning.] The common misreading/quoting 'walking on the water' is prob.
from conflation with v. 28 'to come upon the waters' (elthein epi ta hudata) & v. 29 (Peter) walked come
upon the waters' (periepatēsen epi ta hudata').

v. 26 1 (‘on the sea/lake):; /(walk) over the sea ~ /walk on the sea – most; /(walk about) on the sea
– ALT; /on the lake – JNT, NIV trio, Noyes; /xx: upon the sea – Diagl, Rhm, ASV, RV, DRB; /supra
mare – Vulg; /x: 바다 위로 (걸어서) – KKJV, KRV; /湖の上を – JSS; / 2 (/xx: on the ‘water’ – mistaken
interpretation; confused with v. 28, 29); /xx: upon the waters ~ upon the waters - Murdock; /xx: on
the water – TCNT, GNB, ERV, NLT, MSG; / xx: on the [surface of the] lake ~ on the water – AUV;
/xx: on the water– NET [‘stylistic reasons’]; /(omitted in v. 26 with ‘on the water’ in v. 25) – CEV,
MSG; /
[Cf. ? An idiomatic expression ‘live on the Lake’ = ‘live on the shore’]
*morning and related expressions

[ http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2008-June/046758.html ];

Noun:
• Cf. dawn = the fourth night-watch (Mk 13:35); the English word is ambiguous in the
biblical setting when a day begins at sunrise (not 12 a.m., not at sunset).
• orthros S3722 early morning
Lk 24:1; orthrou batheos ‘very early morning’ (i.e. ‘dawn before day break’)
Jn 8:2; orthrinou paregeneto ‘~ came’;
Act 5:21 hupo ten orthron ‘in the ~’

• Jn 24:4 morning (prōias S4405) already come

• Act 20:11 augē (S827) ‘daybreak’
• Lk 1:78 anatolē ‘sunrise’

Verbs and verbal phrases:

• augazō S826 2Pe 1:18 ‘shine through’; 2Co 4:4 ‘shine on’);
• Rm 13:12 hē nux proekopsen ‘night is far spent’.
• Mt 28:1 epiphōskousē S2020 (to dawn) [See Appendix in G-Mt for Mt 28:1 ‘dawn has
come vs. dawn is coming’ tē epiphōskouē eis mian sabbatōn]
• 2Pe 1:18 diaugazō (the day) shines through
• Act 27:33 ‘until that day was about to come’
• cf. lampō S2989

*amazed,

In most occurrences of the word ‘amazed’ in the English Bibles translation

needs to be changed. The nuance of the common English word is not present in
the text. [e.g. ‘amazed to see a nice result.’] [Cf. a well-known hymn title
‘Amazing Grace’].

English word group: shocked, astonished, astounded, surprised, impressed; Cf.

word picture of ‘amusing’.

[Danker p. 167] thaumazō a. intr. wonder, be amazed/astonished/impressed/surprised Mt

8:10; Mk 15:5; Lk 1:21; 8:25; 11:38; Jn 4:27; 7:15; Act 3:12; Gal 1:6; 1Jn 3:13; Rev
17:6f; Mt 9:33; 21:20; Lk 9:43; Jn 7:21 – b. tr. admire, wonder at, be surprised about Lk
7:9; 24:12; Jn 5:28; Act 7:31; 2Th 1:10; Jud 16; Ren 17:8; 13:3.
Cf. ekstasis (astonishment) Lk 5:26; ekstēmi (astonish) Mk 2:12
*lie; *falsehood; *deception; *deceive; mislead; get astrayed;

deceive, be deceiving, be deceived; cf. deceptive.

It's us who deceive others. We have ourselves constantly deceived by others, and
lo, actually we are deceiving ourselves! (John 8:44) The deceiving soul is none
other than a satan.

1Jn 2:21 ‘lie’ [that which denies the truth] (not ‘cover-up’; ‘excuse’; ‘white lie’)

Quote: ‘People believe what they want to believe’ - (after Tab Hunter) –
‘All T looks like a bone to a dog’. (People see only what they are looking for.) – Oriental
saying
When people believe lies, it is NOT because they have to, BUT because they want to.
- (> “People do not believe lies because they have to, but because they
want to” – Malcolm Muggeridge) [Cf. 2Th 2:11 “Elohim has a force of delusion come
upon them into believing the falsehood.”]

Cf. self-deception; Cf. instigation;

*right and wrong’; ‘*good and evil’; wicked, bad

• right and wrong; good and bad; moral and immoral
• lie vs. deception, vs. falsehood
• evil; wicked, wrong, malicious,

‘Right is what one feels good; wrong is what on feels bad’?

‘Right is what God feels good’?

[Gen 2:9ff]
'Good and evil' -- the Tree of the Knowledge of 'Right and Wrong' (as in
CEV 1995) – rather than 'of Good and Evil' as in most Bible translations)

The two ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are not opposite as a prevalent thought in
dualism. Things are good when God pronounced so (Gen 1:4, 8, 9, 12, 17,
21, 25, and 31); evil is absence (deficiency) of goodness. Not to be
confused with ‘(knowing) good and evil’ (with a tone of morality), a
phrase in Genesis (2:9, 17; 3:7, 22), which should be better translated as
‘(knowing) right and wrong’ (in existential for relationship of God and
man to be in harmony of God’s creation work).
‘right and wrong’- which is what is based on one’s will;
not ‘good and evil’ – which is what comes out of one’s will
– Cf. Gen 2:9; Heb 5:14.
*evil (adj.) *wicked; bad; good; right and wrong; moral/immoral; legal/illegal;
ethical;
‘holy’ vs. ‘profane’ (//‘common’ ‘secular’)

‘flawed’ ‘very flawed’ – what are the examples for ‘flawed person’ in rhetoric?

Note: all *adjectives are by their nature relative in their sense.

This includes the word * all.
Cf. ‘name calling’ ‘labelling’ ‘a calling name’
As for English ‘evil’ (adj.) – ‘bad’ ‘wicked’ ‘unclean’ ‘immoral’ ‘lawless/unlawful’
along with Greek and Hebrew synonyms, how does a Bible translate it clearly
without misleading or confusion?

S2259 kakos (50x) 'bad' > 'evil'. Mt 21:41 (those ~); 24:48 (~ servant); 27:23 (what ~ thing);
Lk 16:25 (~ things); Rm 12:21 (the ~ thing); 13:3 (the good works but the ~)
S4190 ponēros [adj. /x: wicked – NWT]
Mt 6:13; 2The 3:3 'away from the evil power'; apo tou ponērou
Jn 17:15 'out of the evil power'; ek tou ponērou
Mt 13:19 'the evil one'; 13:38 'the sons of the evil one'
Mt 13:49 'the evil ones'; 22:10 'evil or good ones';
Mt 18:32 'evil servant' (bad servant?)
[Q: Problem of the word 'evil' (adj) as a translation word in Mt 7:11 – "if yoů (←
fathers) for all yoůr evilness …" />> being bad" vs. /x: "being evil".].
Mt 5:11 (say every kind of evil things); Mt 9:4 "evil thoughts"; Mt 15:19 'evil thoughts'; 12:34
'evil in the heart'; 12:35 'evil man' 'out of the evil'; 12:39, 45; 16:4 'evil generation'
Danker p. 293. [purple is not in original]
ponēros, Check BDAG p. 851
[penomai ‘toil, work’, cp. poneō 'work hard' and ponos] ???
-1.'marked by lowness in social worth or deviation from an acceptable moral or social standard',
and so in general bad and freq. w. focus on lack of straightforwardness; opp. of agathos
– a. as adj.
(a). of living entities: humans Mt 12:34, 35a, 45b; 16:4; Lk 19:22; Act 17:5; 2Ti 3:13; evil
spirits Mt 12:45a; Lk 7:21; Act 19:12f.
(b) of things: Jn 3:19; Act 18:14; Gal 1:4; Col 1:21; 1Ti 6:4; Heb 3:12; Jam 2:4; 2Jn 11; 3Jn
10; days permeated with evil activity Eph 5:16; 6:13 (perh. in assoc. with the idea of an astral
evil day); boasting of a kind marked as socially base Jam 4:16. In Mt 20:15 p. may well be
rendered envious; in 6:23 and Lk 11:34 a moral dimension involving association with 'the evil
eye' in magical practice may be implied, but 3 below takes principal account for both pass.
– b. as noun [as ho poneros etc.?]
(a) of living entities:
human Mt 5:39, 45; 12:35; 1Co 5:13. A transcendent entity ho ponēros the evil one, the devil
Mt 13:19 (apo pou ponērou); Jn 17:15 (‘ek tou ponērou’ = parallel to ‘ek tou kosmou’); Eph
6:16 (missiles of the evil one); 1Jn 2:13f (become victorious over > conquer the evil one);
5:18f (the evil one does not touch); prob. Mt 5:37, w. focus on his reputation for chicanery.
(b) of thing(s): (to) ponēron Mt 5:11 (‘every evil thing’ utterance that brings opprobrium on
another);; Mk 7:23 [all these evil things]; Lk 3:19 [all of evil things]; Act 25:18 [‘ōn ~~
ponērōn (v.l) .]; Rm 12:9 [the thing evil]; Mt 9:4 [pl. thinking evils]
-2. 'low in quality', of produce, opp. of agathos ('of high quality') bad, poor Mt 7:l7f.
-3. 'in deteriorated or undesirable state or condition', of physical circumstance bad eyesight Mt
6:23; Lk 11:34 [s. l.a. (b)]; virulent sore Rev 16:2.
*evil (noun), evilness; theodicy; *problem of evil; *good and evil;

good and evil; good vs. evil – Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22; Deu 1:39; Lev 5:4; Isa
41:23; 5:20; Prov 17:13; Psa 38:20; Amo 5:14; Eccl 12:14; Job 30:26; Heb
5:14;

Definition of 'evil' (noun)

The word ‘evil’ as a singular noun in English usage – (1) evil (- abstract
concept with no definite article. cf. evilness); (2) an evil one (person, thing,
object, thought); (3) the evil one; (4) the Evil one; vs. (5) the Evil One.

– Problem of Greek gender (masc. vs. neut.). Problem of personification (the

Evil one → the Devil → the Satan)

What is Greek noun for 'evil' as an abstract notion?

Cf. Satan vs. the Satan; Origin of Satan:

*Problem of Evil;

'Evil' is as absence of Goodness. (cf. dualistic view of the world). Cf. 'darkness as
absence of light'. (Gen 1:3-4). On the other hand, 'good' is that which God declares to
be so. (Cf. Gen 1:3 to 31)

Origin of evil – ‘evil’ is being generated out of human minds when right- and-wrong
contrast is blurred and reversed, as they exercise freedom belonging to the creature
made after God’s own image, to be independent from the Creator. Satan should be
understood as a collective of all the human evil-ness before we can personify it – even
this, it is only for the purpose of our articulation, not because it became an ontological
entity – ‘spiritual being’ ‘ghost-like’ ‘spiritual force’, etc.

'Evil' is not something caused by God the Creator; it may be blamed by 'a god-being'
which itself is made by man, while all evil [things] are man's product.

"Human beings are the per accidens cause all evils in this world that willed per
accidens by God. a Something not caused by human does not belong to the category
of 'evil' – such as that which is resulted from natural phenomenon or something which

a
Cf. Geivett, (1993), Evil and the Evidence for God. "... Human beings are the per
accidens cause all physical evils that willed per accidens by God. This is because such
physical evils are themselves byproducts of moral evil, all of which are caused per
accidens by infinite human individuals in the exercise of free will. …" p. 21.
would be blamed on 'devil'. [the ‘reality of evil’ – evil is generated and coming out of
human heart, mind, thought – it cannot be something coming from outside (‘invading
evil spirits’). No such thing as ‘devil made me do it’.] [Cf. ‘demon-possession’
‘exorcism’]

Gregory Boyd (2001), Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare
Theodicy https://voice.dts.edu/review/gregory-a-boyd-satan-and-the-problem-of-evil/

John Hick, 1968, Evil and the God of Love.

R. Geivett, 1995, Evil & the Evidence for God: The Challenge of John Hick's
Theodicy

/theodicy 'vindication of God'

Evil and Evidence of God'

www.str.org/articles/evil-as-evidence-for-god
www.str.org/publications/the-problem-of-evil
www.firstthings.com/article/1994/12/evil-and-evidence-for-god

God created ‘evil’? (as Jewish interpretation; also wrongly rendered in OT –

KJV – ‘God causes, God controls evil’? Then why God should create ‘evil’. Here
'evil' is not 'evil'; each word is used in different sense, like any word used in a
statement.

[Cf. non-biblical Augustine's 'original sin' theory.

'guilt to God' vs. 'sin'

How Can A Good And Loving God Allow Evil?

www.truelife.org/answers/transcript-why-does-god-allow-evil
www.truelife.org/answers/transcript-where-did-evil-come-from
www.rzim.org/read/just-thinking-magazine/if-god-why-suffering
www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY161/the-problem-of-evil
www.bethinking.org/does-god-exist/bill-craig-vs-ac-grayling-debate-transcript
 Fr. http://3l8hvo31a7yc2inkkn1eprjd.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2014/05/HowCanAGoodAndLovingGodAllowEvil-
Transcript.pdf

… Augustine defined evil as “a privation of a good.” In other words, evil is where

good should be but is not. This definition also specifies that evil is not a thing; it
has no substance.

This does not imply evil does not exist. Rather, it means that evil exists in the same
way as dark or cold does. Dark and cold are very real things that are ways of
speaking of the absence of light or heat. Both dark and cold are parasites, in a way,
of light and heat since light and heat can exist without dark and cold, but dark and
cold cannot exist without the existence of light and heat. The importance of this
way of thinking about evil is that although evil is real it was not created by God,
but it was made possible by God.

Although God is not directly responsible for creating evil, he is sovereign over it
and uses it to accomplish his good purposes. This idea of God and evil co-existing
is extremely difficult to reconcile at times even for the staunchest believer. And
this is precisely the rub that is so often exploited to show that God does not exist.

There are two kinds of arguments against God that use the existence of evil. One
argument holds that evil could not exist at the same time as a morally perfect, all-
powerful, all-knowing God. This is called the logical argument from evil. The other
kind of argument says the amount and quality of evil makes it extremely unlikely
that a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God exists. This is known as the
evidential or probabilistic argument.

There are two kinds of answers to this question. One is called a “theodicy” and
tries to show God’s reasons for allowing evil. This is a difficult task given the lack
of information on the subject in the Bible. Although the Bible has a lot of material
dealing with the nature of evil and its remedy, it doesn’t explicitly reveal why God
allows it. A more modest approach is to justify God by giving plausible reasons for
evil. This way of arguing is known as a defense. The advantage of a defense is that
it can show the bankruptcy of a challenge without the burden of giving specific
reasons why God permits evil. …

[See next entry: * Satan; the evil one/thing; demon(s), demonic spirits; ‘ghosts’]

Evil – Evil does not exist by itself. It is not something God created. It is the result of
what come out of the mind of human without God's love going against God’s
principle. [cf. www.snopes.com/fact-check/false-einstein-humiliates-professor/
[Cf. Hebrew word for evil, wicked simply means ‘off the guiding path (of Elohim)’]
Cf. Gen 2:9, 17 should be read 'a tree of the knowledge of right and wrong', not 'the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil'. [cf. CEV Gen 2:9 "One of these gave life--
the other gave the wisdom to know the difference between right and wrong."] [Cf.
‘devil made me do it’.]

Evil as something coming out from the dark side of human soul. Psychological
projection mechanism on to something, someone, or some object (e.g. Satan) along
with personification literary device, and anthropomorphism.

Cf. ‘infinite evil’ in the original sin jargon.

Cf. So-called ‘necessary evil’; Cf. "What is worse than doing evil is being evil."
(Dietrich Bonhoeffer). How do they define the word before they use in such
expression?
The word ‘evil’ in the translation of Bible is not necessarily what is meant by ‘evil’.
E.g. Isa 45:7, "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I
the Lord do all these things" (KJV). Here the word evil is a wrong translation; it
means "disaster" or "catastrophe" in the passage.

Jam 1:15 [What we label as ‘evil’ is not from outside or from someone else (e.g.
‘devil made me do it’ ‘the Satan yielding power over us’, but from within
ourselves.]

Lk 11:34 Cf. ‘evil’ in eyes’?

Mt 6:13 the evil [power] ░░ [as synecdoche = the reality of evil in the world.]

[‘the + adj’ = plural in English; plural or singular in Gk.]

[Without a justification, ‘evil’ in many Bibles is personified (e.g. 2Th 3:3; 1Jn
5:18, 19) to equate this to Satan.]; /> evil - KJV; /x: the evil one – many; /xx: the
Evil one; /xx: the Evil One; [See BW] [s. Jn 17:15 (‘out of the evil power’)] [s.
2Tm 4:18 (away from the evil work (in the world) – apo pantos ergou ponērou)

(my rebuttal comments are in red or strike out).

x: NET tn (on Jn 17:15) The phrase "the evil one" is a reference to Satan. The genitive noun (tou
ponērou) is ambiguous with regard to gender: It may represent the neuter (to ponēron), "that which
is evil," or the masculine (ho ponēro), "the evil one," i.e., Satan. In view of the frequent use of the
masculine in 1Jn 2:13, 14; 3:12, 5:18-19 it seems much more probable that the masculine is to be
understood here, (what the grammatical gender has anything to do with the noun to be a person (?
male)?! What about ‘holy spirit’ – grammatical neuter – why it is it that they make it take the
pronoun ‘he’ in most translations?!) and that Jesus is praying for his disciples to be protected from
Satan (whoa!! Satan is a person, a power, a force?? which is to come to the disciples just as the
Devil did to Judas – Jn 13:2?? Cf. Satan as a twin brother of Jesus in SDA theology). Cf. BDAG
851 s.v. πονηρός 1.b.β

Evil [as an abstract notion] is directly caused by human beings; not by nature,
machine (androids including), or demons. Nor it is something caused by God the
Creator. It may be made by 'a god-being' which itself is made by man. For things
which can be ascribed to non-humans a different term is required to avoid confusion
and controversy in unfruitful arguments. The starting point of evil in action is
something done against others. Some excuses that the others are not human persons
(e.g. slavery); some excused that the others are not human beings (e.g. feticides by
abortionists – as long as ‘it’ is not out of a woman’s body, it is nothing more than
tissue. Some push the baby coming out back into the woman’s body and tear them
apart to achieve their goal of abortion to avoid accusation on their conscience.)

It is what comes out human mind in ones’ thought out into action – common
denominator is not ‘badness’, but ‘standing on his own against the Creator’. –
subject to external psychological projection to other than self (e.g., as a ‘Force’) and
to personification (as the way ‘Satan’ is commonly pictured with taking the source
of evil to be in spirit realm).

[There is no ‘evilness’ in the nature with a cycle of life and death. Nature does not
know evil; is not aware of evil. Nor it is concerned about ‘bad’ things, such as natural
disaster or ‘disease’, by extension ‘death’ itself!]. a 10F10F

Thus, the notion of ‘evil’ when we read the Scripture should be taken to refer to the
totality or reality of what humans do (think, say, act) which is against God’s will
and it’s all directed again fellow human beings. It is by the humanity who was made
in the image of God but chose to wrongly exercise their freedom of choice. They
chose to listen to the Serpent’s offer to desire becoming God on their own, thus
severing the direct tie between human spirit and God’s spirit. Evilness in human is
shown up whatever and whenever they do dishonor God’s name. In their falling
short of God’s glory, it is closely tied to ‘sin’.

Q: Did 'God' create 'evil'? Did God create 'Satan'?

A: What God? Which God? Whose God?

What is evil? What evil? Which evil? Evil things/persons?
Definition: absence of 'good'/goodness.
One cannot make/create absence of something. The proper Q is 'the origin of evil' 'presence of
evil of the world (humanity), not of the universe.

Cf. Isa 45:7 – I YHWH form (H3335 yatsar) the light [H216 or] and create (H1254 bara;
LXX poiēsas made) darkness (H2822 choshek); create (LXX kritō) calamity (NASB, ESV,
NET. H7451 ra' 'bad thing' 'disaster' – NIV, HCSB, GNB /woe - NRSV; evil – KJV; kakia
badness – S2549; S2556 kakos bad, evil LXX); and make (H6213 i.e. bring) peace (H7965
shalom 'goodness' 'well-being' – NASB; 'prosperity' – NIV; x: 'success' - HCSB).

Q: If God, why evil? [problem of English word 'evil' – noun vs. adjective]
A: What God, which God, whose God? What is evil? What evil? Whose evil?
Evil vs. evilness?
Why 'why'?

a
Often even an absurd question is raised ‘did God create evil?’. Obviously, the questioners do know
what is meant by God, nor the meaning of ‘evil’ itself.
e.g. sin is 'evil', catastrophe/disaster is 'evil'; illness/distress is 'evil'; etc.
Q: Is God responsible for Evil?
A: What evil? Evil (abstract notion) vs. evilness (of human); God is responsible for all human
doings incl. evil things????

Not that evil is ''rejection of the purpose and the operating system God intended for His
creation' (www.compellingtruth.org/did-God-create-evil.html definition of evil), but rather
'rejection of the purpose and the operating system God intended for His creation' is evil.

ṭôb (H2896) (S2570 kalos) and râ‛âh (H7451) (S4190 pornēros) – good and evil (Gen 2:9)
Ref: www.compellingtruth.org/did-God-create-evil.html
Ref. www.christiancourier.com/articles/676-did-god-create-evil
Ref. www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html#n01
Ref. Norman Geisler (2011), God, Why Evil? A New Way to Think About the Question
https://normangeisler.com/if-god-why-evil-2011/
https://evanlenow.com/2011/04/08/review-of-if-god-why-evil/

Ref: Gregory Boyd (2001), Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian
Warfare

Cf. Gk. mythology – skylla and charybdis – (sea) monsters

[Cf. insanity defence (mental disorder defence) – ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’.]
[Cf. ‘Demon made me do it’ or ‘Devil ~~’].

Blaming the devil – ‘devil made me do it’.

We get used to ‘blame everything on the devil’.

[Cf. – “We Have Met the Enemy, and He is Us.” – Not by Yogi Berra but is well known for a
title of a comic strip Pogo by Walt Kelly. www.rru.com/pogo.html This is derived from the
famous statement of Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry on the "War of 1812": "We have met
the enemy and they are ours." It later appeared in a "modern day" poster for the first Earth
Day in April 1970, and next in the comic strip itself in August 1970 in Porky Pine's mouth,
and was re-used by Kelly in a subsequent Earth Day poster (1971), and further strips and in
the title of the 1972 Pogo: We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us book. A similar
statement was actually used by Kelly many years earlier in his introduction to The Pogo
Papers (1953) which he closes with these comments:-
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Walt_Kelly www.igopogo.com/final_authority.htm ]
http://otegony.com/we-have-met-the-enemy has pic from posters and comic strips.]

Used synonymously in the same narrative (parables):

‘the Satan’ (//Mk 4:15), ‘the Evil one’ (//Mt 13:19), ‘the Devil’ (//Lk 8:12)

Isa 45:7 I form [LXX kataseuasas prepare] light

and create [LXX poiēsas] darkness,
make peace and create [kritō] calamity.
 I, YHWH, do all these things."

H7451 ra' calamity - NASB, ESV, NET; /'bad thing' 'disaster' – NIV, HCSB, GNB /woe -
NRSV; evil – KJV; kakia badness – S2549; S2556 kakos bad, evil LXX);
/I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster – NIV;
/I form light and create darkness, I make weal and create woe – NRSV;
/I am the one who creates the light and makes the darkness. I am the one who sends good
times and bad times – NLT;
/The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity;
/I form light and create darkness; I make success and create disaster – HCSB;

*evil; *the evil

Mt 5:37 the evil one;

Mt 5:39 /x: evil-doer – NET; (cf. Rev 22:11 ‘doing unrighteous things’ /x:
evildoer – NET, ESV)
Mt_6:13 (‘the evil one’ vs. ‘evil’);
Mt_13:38 (sons of the evil one); not in //Lk 11:4.
Mt 13:19 (the evil one); //Mk 4:15 (Satan); //Lk 8:12 (the devil)
Jn_17:15;
1Jn_2:13, 14; 3:12; 5:18, 19

Eph_6:16; 2Th_3:3;

Mt 6:13b
And take us away from
(Gk. hruomai – Mt 27:43. Cf. sōzō Mt 27:40)
[/x: deliver – KJV, ESV, NASB, ; /x: rescue - NKJV; /x: save]
[hrusai (impr. aor. mid 2S) > hROUMAI – BDAG p. 907 to rescue from
danger, save, rescue, deliver, preserve]; [? shield, protect]

away from [Gk. apo – not ex, ek (x: out of)] /> from;

the [power of] evil. (or, the reality of evil)

[Gk. apo tou ponērou - adj. gen. masc/neu. sing.] IRENT takes it as
synecdoche; not as ‘an evil person’ or even ‘the Evil person’. See * Satan – is
it a person?
[In NT, the word is not used as an abstract ‘evil’ as such (cf. Augustine).]
/x: wicked; /x: doing evil – Jeffrey Gibson; /evil – Augustine, etc. /> [the sphere
of] the evil – AJR;
[The rendering in IRENT of this phrase arthrous Greek noun as ‘the reality of
evil’ seems best to bring out its sense and remove confusion regarding its
identity. It is to be taken to be read in a given context as metonymic variously
for ‘the sphere of power of evil, ‘the evil thing’, or ‘the Evil one (person)’. Here
the definite article signifies ‘the specific’ in contrast to general sense of ‘evil’.
A problem occurs when it is used with personification. Then it is equated to the
Devil (the Satan), which is foreign to the context of the Lord’s Prayer. Cf. tēreō
(keep and protect) ek tou ponērou Jn 17:15.]
 1Jn 5:18, 19 – personification of ‘evil’ in most translations to equate this to Satan is
unwarranted]; (QQ to be checked) /xx: the Evil one; /x: the evil one – most (- what does it
mean?); /xx: the wicked one – KJV; /
(QQ to be checked)
Mt 6:13 /evil - KJV; /the Evil one; /x: the Evil One – BBE, ERV; /the evil one – ASV; /xx:
the evil one – ASV, ESV, GW, ISV, LEB, NET, (EMTV) (- what does it mean? a human
person?);
Jn 17:15; Mt 5:37;

[Note: Similar to Hebrew poetic structure, the clause v. 13b is parallel to the preceding
clause, v. 13a, but carries an idea not same or contrasting, but complementary.]

When translated as ‘rescue/deliver from’ as in most English Bibles, what we get is a

wrong word picture of “taking us out of the hand/grip of Evil one”. The word ‘deliver’
sounds more like ‘delivery out of the hands of the Evil One. The word ‘rescue’ as such
suggests taking ‘out of’ his grip/hand; or to snatch out of reach of the Evil one.

[//2Th 3:3 (stērixei humas kai phulaxei apo tou ponērou The Lord guards/keeps us
from the evil one) in conjunction with 2:17. See also Jn 17:15 ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ (from
out of)] [This phrase is not at all parallel to 2Tm 4:18 -- ‘from every evil work/attack’;
Didache 10:5] cf. Rm 8:23. Cf.

Mt 6:13b ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

but rescue us away-from the evil (one).
2Th 3:3 πιστὸς δέ ἐστιν ὁ Κύριος,
Faithful but is the Lord,
ὃς στηρίξει ὑμᾶς καὶ φυλάξει ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.
who will-strengthen yoů and He-will-guard from the evil (one).
2Tm 4:18 ῥύσεταί με ὁ Κύριος ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου πονηροῦ
Will-draw-for-self me the Lord from every work evil
καὶ σώσει εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐπουράνιον,
and He-will-save into the kingdom of-Him the (one) heavenly;
Jn 17:15 «Οὐκ ἐρωτῶ ἵνα ἄρῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου
Not I’m-requesting that you-should-lift-up them out-of the world
ἀλλ' ἵνα τηρήσῃς αὐτοὺς ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ [/x: κόσμου].
but that you-should-keep them out-of the evil (one).//kosmou;

[ponēros– neut. (rendered as ‘*evil’) or masc. (rendered as ‘the evil one’) – subject of
an exegetical issue. See 1Jn 2:13-14; 3:12; 5:18-19; Eph 6:16; 2The 3:3; Barn 2.10.]
[Not to get confused with a common word ‘kakos’ (‘*bad’ - used as a noun). cf. verb.
adikeō.]

[NET fn: The word term πονηροῦ may be understood as specific and personified,
referring to the devil, or possibly as a general reference to evil (- any examples in the
Scripture to support this? – ARJ). It is most likely personified since it is articular (τοῦ
πονηροῦ). Cf. also "the evildoer" in Mt 5:39, which is the same construction.]

[the ‘Evil one’ (or Evil One) as capitalized; ? to differentiate from ‘evil person/man;
evil-doing one’. ? a personhood conferred on the Satan? Or, personification [Cf.
personhood or personification of ‘spirit’ as in ‘the Holy Ghost’ (KJV).]
[The context usually makes it clear. In Mt 13:19 ho ponēros (singl. grammatical
masculine) refers to a person ‘the evil one’. Since the focus is not the nature of a person,
it should be understood as ‘the one doing evil things’. Mt 5:39 ek tou ponērou estin
‘(typical of something) out of the evil-doing person’. Rm 12:9 ‘abhor the evil (one); =
that which is evil’. Rm 12:21 ‘conquer the evil with the good’. Cf. Rm 12:17 return
kakos for kakos to no one. (badness; /x: evil).

Includes the reality of evil in man, influence of evil people, which is in turn ultimately
ascribed to the Evil one (personified; not a person, nor a spirit being). Does not carry
any sense of ‘doing evil’ (Cf. [B-Greek Sep. 1997] Jeffrey Gibson: "Re: ponerou in Matt.
6:13 and the meaning of Matt 6:13b" )

[Alford p. 63 … the introduction of the mention of ‘the evil one’ would seem here to be
incongruous. Besides, compare the words of St. Paul, 2Tm 4:18 (hruomai apo pantos
ergou ponērou); which look very like a reminiscence of this prayer.]

[Note: we ask God’s protection from, because the Evil One is ‘in darkness’ ‘in disguise’
‘deceiving’, not easy to spot or recognize; Cf. a wrong picture of a threatening two-horned
one in a caricature.] ;

Isa 45:7 I form the light and create darkness;

I make peace and create evil
I, YHWH, am doing all these things.
/xx: evil – KJV; /calamity – ESV, NET; //trouble – Bishops, ERV; /sorrow – CEV;
/blessing and disaster- GNB; /
Judaic rabbinic teaching? http://youtu.be/KGNAOZTXkac - Satan as God’s team
member, serves critical purpose and is an evil inclination; similar to ego; and they accuse
Christians of holding God vs. evil (under Satan) of the dualistic position. Satan is as a
god! [A God who creates ‘evil’ is an evil God, the Satan’] [Evil is that which comes out
from the dark side of soul – cf. psychological projection and literary personification
affects the word ‘evil’, ‘Satan’, etc.

Related words: good, worthy, right; commendable, honorable; pure, clean,

undefiled;
Related words: *unworthy, worthless, bad, wrong, wicked, ill-(conduct), vile,
base, corrupt, pervert; (ritually) unclean, defiled;

Lk 8:15 fine and good ░░ (kalē kai agathē) [Gk. word study; Cf. pure katharos]
/fine and good – NWT; /noble and generous – Cass; /noble and good – LEB; /pure and good
– Bishops; /honest and good – ASV, KJV, Darby, ESV, NET; /good and honest – CEV, GW,
ISV; /x: good and better – ABT; /good and true – BBE; /x: good and perfect – DRB; /noble
and good – EMTV, ISR; /good and obedient – GNB; /right and good – LITV; /humble and
good – Murdock; /xx: with pone minds and in a right spirit – WNT; /upright and good –
YLT; /

• ponērōs (Mt 5:11; 37);

• S5337 phaulos (6x) 'bad' 'evil' (Jn 3:20; 5:29; Rm 9:11; 2Co 5:10; Tit 2:8, Jam 3:16)
[contrasts agathon 'good' in 2Co 5:10; Rm 9:11; contrasts agatha 'good things' Jn 5:29];
[Cf. phalulon pragma 'trifling matter/affair' 'light task' 'unimportant business' in Classic
Gk.]
• kakos (Mt 21:41),
2Co 5:10 bad ░░ \κακὸν {/φαῦλον} [‘good or bad’ – good is what God declares to
be good – Gen 1:3ff] [theologically, it is whether ‘what they have done were for the
glory of themselves or of the glory of God; whether they honored God’s name];

Jn 5:29 the things good ░░ [agathos]

 Jn 5:29 the unworthy things ░░ \τὰ φαῦλα; [phaulos; cf. ponēros evil]; /x: evil; /
[Danker p. 370 [orig. undetermined; ‘cheap, paltry, worthless’] ‘displaying insensitivity
about what is right and proper’, bad, low-grade Jn 3:20; 5:29; Rm 9:11; 2Co 5:10; Tit 2:8;
Jam 3:16]

*good (things, acts, conduct, behavior, *deeds, works) vs. *unworthy (/> bad) –
Scriptural definition or criteria is whether these honor or dishonor God’s name.

*Rewards: [‘good deeds’ to be counted for ‘rewards’]

When we love God, we make it our aim to please Him who first loved us (1Jn 4:19) and
to serve Him with pure motives (Prv 16:2; 1Co 4:5). There is no one-to-one
correspondence btw good deeds and rewards. Our reward is to be with Him, as our hope
is in Him.

References on 'evil'
[Related topics: Problem of evil; theodicy; the Sovereignty and Goodness of God;
moral evil; Judgment of God; Human Suffering; Molinism vs. Calvinism]
http://www3.dbu.edu/mitchell/theodicy.htm

Gregory A. Boyd (2001; 450 pp.) Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a
Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy.
• http://daviddflowers.com/2010/12/10/an-open-theism-theodicy/
• http://static1.squarespace.com/A+Reponse+to+Gregory+Boyd's+Open+Theist+Solu
tion.pdf
Gregory A. Boyd (1997; 414 pp.), God at War: The Bible & Spiritual Conflict
• www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/42/42-2/42-2-pp251-269_JETS.pdf

Walter Wink (1986), Unmasking the Powers – The Invisible Forces That Determine
Human Existence, (esp. Ch. 1. Satan – pp. 9-40; and Ch. 2. The Demons – pp. 41-
68)]

www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2011/03/walter-wink-and-greg-boyd-on-the-
problem-of-evil/

James Brayshaw http://imaginenosatan.com/about.html

— (2009), Satan Christianity's Other God: Legend, Myth, Lore, or Lie Historical and Biblical Proof of
how Man Created Satan and Made Satan to Be A God (Vol. I)
— (2011), Imagine There's No Satan: How Satan Got Into The New Testament (Vol. II)
— (2011), Who's The Devil Jesus Knew? - Explaining Satan In The Gospels (Vol. III)
— (2012), This Is It... Satan Is Finished: Explaining Satan From Acts To Revelation (Vol. IV.)

Dennis McCallum (2009), Satan and His Kingdom: What the Bible Says and How It
Matters to You
http://powertochange.com/itv/spirituality/the-existence-of-evil/ (video)
*evil in Heb.

Related Heb. words:

H1352 goel (1x) 'defiling' Neh 13:29
H2930 tame (161x) – 'defile' Gen 34:5; 'become unclean' – Lev 5:3
H2932 tum'ah (36x) – 'uncleanness' Lev 5:3
H2403 chatta'ah (294x) – 'sin' 'sinfulness' Gen 4:7; 18:20, Exo 34:9, etc. – cf. sin-offering;
atonement;
H5771 avon (231x) – 'iniquity' – Gen 15:16; 44:16; Exo 34:9; 'punishment' – Gen 4:13;
19:15; Lev 5:17; 18:25; 'guilt' – Exo 28:43; Lev 5:1; 17:16;

H7451 ra' (667x) adj. 'bad' 'evil' 'distressing'; noun. 'evil' 'evilness'
e.g. good and evil' (Gen 2:9, 17; 3:5, 22); 'evil' (Gen 6:5; 8:21); 'bad' (Gen 24:50; 37:2); 'do bad;
hurt; do harm' (Gen 26:29; 31:29); 'displease ('Gen 28:8)

Isa 45:7 [H1254 bara' 'to create'] [H3335 yatsar 'to form' 'to fashion'] [H6213 asah 'to make']
[H7965 shalom 'peace']
I form light and create darkness, [cf. 'darkness' is absence of 'light']
make peace and create evilness*;
I, YHWH, do all these things."
*evilness – 'absence of goodness' 'moral evilness'; [x: woe - NRSV; /x: calamity – NASB, ESV,
NET; /x: disaster – NIV, HCSB, GNB; /xxx: evil – KJV, etc.].

Cf. Hab 1:13

Your [← YHWH v. 1] eyes are too pure to look on evilness,
and You cannot tolerate wrongdoing. *
So why do You tolerate
those who are deceitful? **
Why are You silent while one who is wicked*** swallows up one
who is more righteous than himself?
*wrongdoing. [H5999 amal 'trouble' 'toil']
**deceitful [H898 bagad – x: treacherously – NASB, KJV]
***wicked - [H7563 rasha 'wicked' 'guilty of something bad, sin, crime']
*evil spirit; *demon; demonic spirit; unclean spirits

‘*evil spirits’ (ponēros), ‘unclean spirits’ (akathartos), ‘deceiving spirits’

(1Ti 4:1);
‘demonic spirits’ (pneumata daimōn) – this expression only once in Rev
16:14. 'demonic spirit' = 'demon'? Can the word 'demon' be read as
'demonic spirit' rather than 'demonic figure'?

Also, of those demon-afflicted (Mt 8:16). Unspecific 1Pe 3:19.

[Note: KJV has 'devil(s)' for demon(s).]

*Problem of the expression ‘evil spirit of God’.

God has evil spirit? an evil God sends? in what sense of the word ‘evil’? ‘evil
spirit from God? – is accurate translation of the word as it is used within the
context?

'evil spirit' in OT translations:

A 'sprit of evilness' vs. 'evil spirit': 1Sam 16:15, 16; 18:10; 19:9; Jdg 9:23
• 1Sam 16:14-16 (the Spirit of YHWH departed from Saul, and a spirit of evilness from
YHWH troubled him) /x: spirit of God – KJV etc.;
• 1Sam 18:10; (a spirit of evilness from Elohim came upon Saul)
• 1Sam 19:9a (a spirit of evilness from YHWH was upon Saul)

/an evil spirit – most; /the evil spirit – KJV, ISV; /a harmful spirit – ESV; /a spirit of distress –
Berean Study; /a spirit of sadness – YLT; /the tormenting spirit – NLT (a tormenting – 18:9a); /

• Judg 9:23 (Elohim sent a spirit of evilness btw Abimelech and the men) /an evil spirit –
KJV, most; /spirit of ill will; /a spirit to stir up hostility – NET;
•
Cf. 1Kg 22:22 YHWH said ... I will go out and be a deceiving/lying [H8267 sheqer] spirit in the
mouth of all the prophets of Ahab.

‘evil spirit’ is here man’s spirit in his evilness, not demonic spirits. Not 'the evil spirit' but ' a
spirit of evilness. Not ‘evil spirit which God has’!!]

God let (/x: use; /> allow) a ‘spirit of evilness' (x: the evil spirit) afflict man in disciplining those
who sin and to prevent sin. So, He allows the evil spirits to afflict us. With Job, God did not tell
Satan what to do. He just told Satan what he could not do. [Cf. Not every affliction and difficulty
that we experience is caused by evil spirits. But some of them might be. That is why we need
the Armor of God and we need to learn to walk in the Spirit. God has given us the spiritual
weapons to not sin and win the righteous battle.]

www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/what-is-an-evil-spirit-of-the-lord/
'Evil spirit' In NT:

'Evil spirit' In NT:

'*evil spirit' in NT (2x)

Act 19:15, 16; the evil spirit; [the spirit of the evilness
[mostly as 'unclean spirit']

Mt 12:43; Lk 11:24 the unclean spirit (S169 akathartos)

Mt 10:1; Lk 6:18; Act 5:16; 8:7 unclean spirits
Mk 1:23; 3:30; 5:2; 7:25 – an unclean spirit
Mk 1:26; 3:11; 5:8; 9:15; Lk 8:29; 9:42; 11:24 – the unclean spirit
Mk 1:27; 5:13; 6:7; Lk 4:36 – the unclean spirits
Mk 9:25 the spirit of the uncleanness
• a spirit of an unclean demon – Lk 4:33;
• a spirit of infirmity – Lk 13:11;
• the dumb spirit – Mk 9:17
• Lk 4:33 a spirit of unclean demon
• Act 16:18 – the spirit

cf. Act 23:8, 9 – "We find nothing wrong in this man. What if a spirit or an angel spoke to him?"
(‘angel’ and ‘spirit’ in appositive use?)

S169 akathartos – Act 10:14, 28; 11:8 'nothing unholy or unclean'; Rm 14:14;

S2839 koinos (x) 'impure' 'defiled' 'defiling' 'profane' Mk 7:2; Rev 21:27; 'common' 'unholy' – Act
2:44; 10:14; 'common' – Tit 1:4 (~ faith); Jud 1:3 (~ salvation).
*demon, demons

• S2192 echō + 'have/possess a demon' Lk 7:33; 8:27; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 49, 52; 10:20
• S1525 + eiserchomai (demon) enters Lk 8:30
• S1139 daimonizomai – be possessed with a demon Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 9:32;
12:22; 15:22; Mk 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:22
• S1544 ekballō + 'cast out'
Cast out demon - Mt 9:33, 10:8; (17:18); Mk 7:26; Lk 11:14;
Cast out demons – Mt 7:22; 9:34; 10:8; 12:24, 27, 28; Mk 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22; 6:13; 9:38; 16:9, 17;
Lk 9:49; 11:15, 18, 19, 20; 13:32
• Cf. 3105 mainomai 'be out of minds' 'be insane' (a root word for mania,
manic): Jn 10:20; Act 12:15; 26:24, 25; 1Co 14:23;

S1140 daimonion

*demon [diamōn] [cf. English word 'daemon']

Cf. Eudemons and kakodemons - good & evil demons. www.jimbrayshaw.com

a demon
Mt 12:22; Lk 7:33; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 49, 52; 10:20, 21;
Mt 11:18 (‘he has a demon’ < ‘he’s got a demon spirit’);
Lk 4:33 (‘has a spirit of an unclean demon’)
the demon
Mt 9:33; 17:18; Mk 7:26, 29, 30; Lk 4:35; 8:29; 9:42; 11:14;
demons, the demons
Mt 8:31; 9:34; Mk 1:34; 3:15, 22; 5:12 v.l.; 6:13; 9:38; 16:9;
Lk 4:41; 8:2, 27, 30, 33, 35,38; 9:1, 49; 10:17; 11:15a;
Act 19:13; 1Co 10:20, 21; 1Ti 4:1; Jam 2:19b; Rev 9:20; 16:14; 18:2;

deities (pagan)
Acts 17:18 xenōn daimoniōn (strange deities)

Note: in KJV: ‘devils’ x 51; ‘devil’ x 61. No word ‘demon(s)’ appear. Cf. ‘Satan’ x 37.

Jam 2:19 "You do believe that there is one God! Big deal!
Even the demons believe that, too!
— yes, they tremble [with fear]."

Related words and phrases – [See EE here17 for details in a collection of cross-
references - in the Scripture]

a
Lk 11:15 'Beelzebub, the chief of the demons'
b Jam 2:19 "You do believe that there is one God!
Big deal!
Even the demons believe that, too!
— yes, they tremble [with fear]."
 cast out demons (cf. ‘exorcism’)
Mt 7:22; 10:8; 12:24, 27, 28; Mk_1:39; 3:15; 16:17; 11:15, 18, 19, 20; 13:32;
Beelzebul - Mt 12:27 (chief demon) ‘rulers of demons’ 12:24
the evil spirit – Act 19:15, 16;
the unclean spirit – Mt 12:43; Mk 1:26; 9:25; Lk 8:29; 9:42; 11:24;
an unclean spirit Mk 1:23; 3:30; 5:2; 7:25;
every unclean spirit Rev 18:2;
unclean spirits Mt 10:1; Lk 6:18; Act 5:16; 8:7; Rev 16:13;
the unclean spirits Mk 1:27; 3:11; 5:13; 6:7; Lk 4:36;
a spirit of Python Act 16:16;

demon-instigated (daimniōdēs) ‘demonic’ (Jas 3:15)

demon-afflicted (> daimonizomai); (physically and mentally afflicted); Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28,
33; 9:32; Mk 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:21b; /> demon-possessed - most; /x:
possessed by demons - GW; /x: possessed with demons - ASV; /xxx: possessed with devils
– KJV; /xxx: with demons – GNB; /x: oppressed by demons – ESV;

‘rulers of the darkness of the world Eph 6:12

• S2192 echō + 'have/possess a demon' Lk 7:33; 8:27; Jn 7:20; 8:48, 49, 52;
10:20
• S1525 + eiserchomai (demon) enters Lk 8:30
• S1139 daimonizomai – be possessed with a demon Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28,
33; 9:32; 12:22; 15:22; Mk 1:32; 5:15, 16, 18; Lk 8:36; Jn 10:22
• S1544 ekballō + 'cast out'
Cast out demon - Mt 9:33, 10:8; (17:18); Mk 7:26; Lk 11:14;
Cast out demons – Mt 7:22; 9:34; 10:8; 12:24, 27, 28; Mk 1:34, 39; 3:15, 22; 6:13;
9:38; 16:9, 17; Lk 9:49; 11:15, 18, 19, 20; 13:32
• Cf. 3105 mainomai 'be out of minds' 'be insane' (a root word for
mania, manic): Jn 10:20; Act 12:15; 26:24, 25; 1Co 14:23;

Cf. daimōn Mk 5:12; Lk 4:35; Mk 7:29

Cf. daimonion > daimon 1Ti 4:1;
Cf. daimoniōdēs – Jas 3:15 /demonic - most; /x: devilish –KJV; /
Cf. echō daimonia Lk 8:27; Jn 10:21a. (‘have demons’ = ‘have demonic spirits’ –
IRENT; cf. *demon-afflicted’

Cf. archē Rm 8:38;

Cf.
Mk 5:2, (man ‘with an unclean spirit’); Lk 4:33, (‘have a unclean spirit of demon’);
Act 16:16 ‘have a spirit of divination’
Lk 22:3; Jn 13:27 (satan entered); Cf. Jn 13:2 (devil)

[‘demon’ in NT; (S1140 daimonion 63x– a demon, demons, the demon, demon-
possessed)
[Note: KJV and its precursor translations rendered this word incorrectly as ‘devil’.
'devils' (37) – Mt 10:8; 12:24; etc.
'the devil' (22x) – Mt 9:33; 25:41; Mk 3:22, etc.,
'the devils' (14x ) – Mt 8:31, 33; Mk 3:22, etc. )f
[‘demon’ \deemun\ vs. ‘daemon’ \daymun\] [Not to be confused with a common male name
‘Damon’ (meaning gentle, tame)]

[in OT. shed (pl. shedim) translated as ‘demons’ in 2 places Deu 32:17; Psa 107:37]

(? a two-horned, pointed tail, etc. Cf. medieval work of bestiary)

http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11468/what-is-the-origin-of-
the-devils-red-pointy-costume-and-pitchfork ]

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/demons.html

A demon is an evil spirit, or devil, in the ordinary English usage of the term. This definition is,
however, only approximate. In polytheistic religions the line between gods and demons is a shifting
one: there are both good demons and gods who do evil. In monotheistic systems, evil spirits may be
accepted as servants of the one God, so that demonology is bound up with angelology and theology
proper, or they may be elevated to the rank of opponents of God, in which case their status as diabolic
powers differs from that of the demons in polytheism. [Except a few places, IRENT renders the noun
as ‘demonic spirit’, rather than ‘demon’ – with its wrong picture of something like ghosts or spirit
beings, etc.]

Moreover, in none of the languages of the ancient Near East, including Hebrew, is there any one
general term equivalent to English "demon". [See a different quoted ref. below.] In general, the notion
of a demon in the ancient Near East was of a being less powerful than a god and less endowed with
individuality. Whereas the great gods are accorded regular public worship, demons are not; they are
dealt with in magic rites in individual cases of human suffering, which is their particular sphere.

Demons in the New Testament

New Testament demonology in part reflects contemporary popular belief, which turns up also in
rabbinic literature, and in part the dualism attested in the sectarian literature from Qumran. Demons
are called "unclean spirits" or "evil spirits," as in rabbinic literature. They are believed to inhabit waste
places. Possession by demons causes, or is associated with, various sicknesses, especially those in
which there is a perversion of the human personality, so that the demon, not the man himself, directs
his acts and speech (Mark 1:23, 26; 9:17–29). The story of how Jesus cured a demoniac by sending a
legion of unclean spirits into a herd of swine (Matt. 8:28–34; Mark 5:1–20; Luke 8:26–39) illustrates
vividly the persistence of very ancient popular belief, as does the parable of Matthew 12:43–45, in
which the unclean spirit after wandering through the wilderness takes seven demons devils with him.
On the other hand, in the New Testament lesser demons have little independent personality or power,
but are subject to a prince, Beelzebul or Satan, and the demonic is often presented, not as something
occasional and relatively harmless, but as a cosmic reality of great importance, the enemy of God and
man (Eph. 6:12). Beelzebul (Beelzebub) is a name applied to the chief demon by both Jesus and his
opponents (Matt. 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mark 3:22; Luke 11:15–19). The correct explanation of the name
is much disputed, and new evidence from Ugarit has not completely cleared up the etymology. The
spelling Beelzebub reflects identification of Beelzebul with Baal-Zebub, god of Ekron (II Kings 1:2).
Possibly there were two different original forms, Beelzebul meaning "Baal is prince" or "Lord of the
shrine," and Beelzebub "Lord of flies" (cf. Ugaritic il dbb [in Gordon, Textbook, ʿnt 3:43]).

http://jeffreyskupperman.com/2010/10/19/demons-in-judaism/

There is a generic word for “demon” in Hebrew: shed (pl. shedim). The term covers a lot of ground.
The Hebrew Bible, and later Talmud and then kabbalistic texts such as the Zohar also uses different
terms to refer to specific kinds of demons. Generally speaking, Jewish demons included satyr-like
creatures, evil spirits, the children of Lilith and the like. Eventually we’ll see beings more like what
will become normative in Medieval and Renaissance occultism, though the differences, even if
subtle, are significant. We don’t see fallen angle-type demons outside of the Enoch material.

Folktales of the Jews, Volume 2: Tales from Eastern Europe pp. 40-41

www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/13523-shedim

Demons in the Bible.

The demons mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are of two classes, the "se'irim"
and the "shedim".

The se'irim ("hairy beings"), to which the Israelites sacrificed in the open fields
(Lev. xvii. 7; A. V. "devils"; R. V., incorrectly, "he-goats"), are satyr-like demons,
described as dancing in the wilderness (Isa. xiii. 21, xxxiv. 14; compare
Maimonides, "Moreh," iii. 46; Vergil's "Eclogues," v. 73, "saltantes satyri"), and
are identical with the jinn of the Arabian woods and deserts (see Wellhausen, l.c.,
and Smith, l.c.). To the same class belongs Azazel, the goat-like demon of the
wilderness (Lev. xvi. 10 et seq.), probably the chief of the se'irim, and Lilith (Isa.
xxxiv. 14). Possibly "the roes and hinds of the field," by which Shulamit conjures
the daughters of Jerusalem to bring her back to her lover (Cant. ii. 7, iii. 5), are
faunlike spirits similar to the se'irim, though of a harmless nature. The
V04p515002.jpg (Job v. 23. A. V. "stones of the field"), with which the righteous
are said to be in league—obviously identical with, if not a corruption of, the
V04p515003.jpg (Mishnah Kil. viii. 5), explained in Yer. Kil. 31c as
V04p515004.jpgV04p515005.jpg "a fabulous mountain-man drawing nourishment
from the ground" (see Jastrow, "Dict.," and Levy, "Neuhebr. Wörterb." s.v.
V04p515006.jpg)—seem to be field-demons of the same nature. The wilderness as
the home of demons was regarded as the place whence such diseases as leprosy
issued, and in cases of leprosy one of the birds set apart to be offered as an
expiatory sacrifice was released that it might carry the disease back to the desert
(Lev. xiv. 7, 52; compare a similar rite in Sayce, "Hibbert Lectures," 1887, p. 461,
and "Zeit. für Assyr." 1902, p. 149).

The Israelites also offered sacrifices to the shedim (Deu 32:17; Psa 107:37 –
/demons - most; /xx: devils – KJV; /evil spirits – BBE; /xx: gods - GNB).

The name V04p515007.jpg (believed by Hoffmann, "Hiob," 1891, to occur in Job v. 21), for a long
time erroneously connected with "the Almighty" (V04p515008.jpg), denotes a storm-demon (from
V04p515009.jpg, Isa. xiii. 6; A. V. "destruction"; compare Psxci. 6, V04p515010.jpg, "that
stormeth about"; A. V. "that wasteth"). In Chaldean mythology the seven evil deities were known as
"shedim," storm-demons, represented in ox-like form; and because these oxcolossi representing evil
demons were, by a peculiar law of contrast, used also as protective genii of royal palaces and the
like, the name "shed" assumed also the meaning of a propitious genius in Babylonian magic
literature (see Delitzsch, "Assyrisches Handwörterb." pp. 60, 253, 261, 646; Jensen, "Assyr.-Babyl.
Mythen und Epen," 1900, p. 453; Sayce, l.c. pp. 441, 450, 463; Lenormant, l.c. pp. 48-51).
It was from Chaldea that the Hebrew word "shedim" = evil demons came to the
Israelites, and so the sacred writers in tentionally applied the word in a dyslogistic
sense to the Canaanite deities 'in the two passages quoted. But they also spoke of
"the destroyer" (V04p515011.jpg) Ex. xii. 23) as a demon whose malignant effect
upon the houses of the Israelites was to be warded off by the blood of the paschal
sacrifice sprinkled upon the lintel and the door-post (a corresponding pagan
talisman is mentioned in Isa. lvii. 8). In II Sam. xxiv; 16 and II Chron. xxi. 15 the
pestilence-dealing demon is called V04p515012.jpg= "the destroying angel"
(compare "the angel of the Lord" in II Kings xix. 35; Isa. xxxvii. 36), because,
although they are demons, these "evil messengers" (Ps. lxxviii. 49; A. V. "evil
angels") do only the bidding of God, their Master; they are the agents of His divine
wrath.
‘*devil’; ‘*Satan’, Beelzebul;

*devil
devil
• Synonymous with the Satan (Mt 12:26 etc. See below)
• also called figuratively ‘the Serpent’ (as in the Garden of Eden in Gen 3:1ff)
• See below ‘the evil’ – Mt 6:13
• In KJV and its precursors, all the occurrences of 'demon(s)' are
incorrectly rendered as 'devil(s)'. [No word 'demon(s)' appears in KJV.]
a devil (Jn 6:70 – ‘one of you is a devil’) [i.e. someone like the Devil; ‘to be as Devil’] – most;
/x: an adversary – JNT, CLV, Rhm; /accuser - Diagl; /a slanderer – NWT; /x: the devil – NET, PNT; /xx:
the Devil – HCSB; /a son of the Evil One – BBE; /a devil (of the evil one and a false accuser) – AMP;
/xx: an informer – GSNT; /xx: a traitor – ONT; /a false accuser – ONT fn; /xxx: a demon – CEV;

S1228 diabolos (38x)

1. adj. 'slanderous' – 1Tm 3:11; 2Tm 3:3; Tit 2:3;
2. 'of devil' – Act 13:10
3. 'a devil' – Jn 6:70
4. Mostly as ho diabolos – 'the devil';
5. O devil’s son! (huie diabolous – in vocative) (Act 13:10)

The word ‘devil’ is not be capitalized for IRENT translation, except two places in NT in
Rev 12:9 and 20:2 as it appears as if in banner label ‘the Devil, also Satan’. – Same as in
ASV]
[Note: KJV ‘devils’ x 51; ‘devil’ x 61. No word ‘demon(s)’.]

[In IRENT, the pronoun ‘he’ is carefully avoided in reference to the word devil (esp. in Mt 4
and Lk 4) (A) to remove confusing double referents by the pronoun ‘he’ in traditional Bibles
where ‘Jesus’ and ‘Devil’ appear in the text segment; (B) to remove a wrong picture of
personification of the devil - as if a person (a monster?). E.g. Jn 8:44 and Jam 4:7 – pronoun
him/he is replaced by it.]

ho diabolos (x 29): /the Devil – ALT, EBTV, HCSB, NWT, MSG, MRC, LITV, MKJV; /as
‘the devil’ – KJV, EMTV, Wuest, Cass and most; /x: the Adversary – JNT, CLV; /xx: the
adversary – Rhm; /x: the Accuser – Etheridge; /xx: the accuser – Diagl; /xx: the Calumniator
– Murdock; /xx: the Evil One – BBE; /diabolo – Vulg; /x: 마귀 – KKJV, KRV; /悪魔 - JSS; /
Mt 4:1, 5, 8, 11; 13:39; 25:41; Lk 4:2, 3, 6, 13; 8:12; (4:5 v.l.);
Jn 8:44; 13:2; Act 10:38; 13:10; Eph 4:27; 6:11; 1Ti 3:6; 1Ti 3:7; 2Ti 2:26; Heb
2:14; Jam 4:7; 1Pe 5:8; 1Jn 3:8, 10; Jud 1:9; Rev 2:10; 12:12; 20:2, 10;
Rev 12:9 (ho kaloumenos diabolos kai ho satanas the one who is called Devil, yes,
the Satan’ > ‘who is the devil and Satan).

Cf. the Devil, falsehood, lies – in Jn 8:44 (See EE here18)

'Blaming the devil' – ‘devil made me do it’. – See under * evil.

Devil's advocate – Roman Catholic lingo]

Devil as personification of evil.

‘Devil’ – cf. ‘DEvil’
*Satan

the word ‘in Hebrew - first appearance is Num 22:22. ‘and the angel of
YHWH stationed Himself in the road as an adversary (le-satan) against him
(Balaam) /for an adversary against – KJV; /to resist– NWT; /to oppose –
NET; /to stop – ESV; /
Satan; the Satan;
“(a) satan” is anyone who thinks, says, does as Satan does E.g. Mt 8:33.
Note: Satan does not ‘feel’ unlike humans. [cf. divine apatheia
(impassability)]
‘Satan’ satan in Hebrew appears a few places in TaNaKh;
[H7854 satan (27x) 'adversary'. The word does not appear in Genesis It
appears first time in Num 22:22.] (Cf. 'the serpent' Gen 3:1 > H5175 nachash).
‘Satan’
– Job 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 12; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7; [Satan is one of angels/agents of
which power is circumscribed by God – under the control of God who sets
parameter.]
– Zec 3:1, 2; (in the vision of the prophet)
‘adversary’
– Num 22:22; 1Kg 11:23, 25; 2Sam 19:22 (23);
– Psa 109:6 (/Satan – KJV);
– 1Ch 21:1 (an adversary – NET, YLT; /a satan – NAB; /Satan – most) (as
adversary, opponent, antagonist, accuser – nuance of action of someone, not a
special person.) [Cf.= God did through the agent of adversary] in //2Sam 24:1 –
‘satan’ is not independent, but as agent.]
Notion of 'Satan' in OT is far from that of Christian Church.
(https://jewsforjudaism.org/knowledge/articles/why-jews-cannot-accept-the-new-testament/ )

Zec 3:1 Then, [an angel of] YHWH showed me Yoshua

the high priest standing before the angel of YHWH,
and the Satan standing at the right side of Yoshua
to accuse him.
3:2 And YHWH said to the Satan,
'YHWH rebuke you, O Satan!'
3:1 an angel of YHWH – [Peshitta: aram kalm]; / the angel – NLT; /he – most; Cf. 'YHWH showed me' –
1:203:1 YHWH (kurios – LXX; /he – most; /the LORD – GNT; /xxx: the angel – NLT

3:1 accuse [H7853 satan]

3:1 the Satan [H7854 satan] />> Satan – most;

S4567 satanas, meaning ‘adversary’.

• 'Satan' without definite article (6x)
• (1) in nominative – Mk 3:23 (contra //Mt 12:26); Lk 22:3
• (2) in vocative (satana) – (O Satan!) Mt 4:10; 16:23; Mk 8:33;
• (3) in genitive – 2Co 2:17 a Satan’s angel.
• 'the Satan' (30x) – Mt 12:26; Mk 1:13; 3:23, 26; 4:15; Lk 4:8 v.l.; 10:18; 11:18; 13:16;
22:3, 31; Jn 13:27; Act 5:3; 26:18; Rm 16:20; 1Co 5:5; 7:5; 2Co 2:11; 11:14; 12:7; 1Th
2:18; 2Th 2:9; 1Ti 1:20; 5:15; Rev 2:9, 13, 24; 3:9; 12:9; 20:2, 7. [Note: KJV has
all as 'Satan' (capitalized, anarthrous).
Cf. Popular images of the devil in paintings (e.g. of the medieval period), often with the made-
up image of 'hell' is not from the Bible. (Elaborated by Dante's Inferno . See elsewhere
for ‘hell’ ‘hades’ ‘Gehenna’ in this file.) a 102F102F

[It is overdue to assign ‘Satan’ into the land of ‘it’, instead of ‘he’, remove the medieval
comic of it image from the word itself – yes, Satan is a real – in the sense of real word
- but not a real entity holding sway of human minds. That ‘everything is (just) illusion’
is an illusion.] Cf. Solipsism; existentialism;

[Note: JNT translates mixed up among Satan, adversary, and Devil (cf. Mt 4:1; Jn 8:44).]

What is it meant by ‘the Satan’? Is it a person? “Jesus and Satan are brothers - by the
Mormons.”
Satan may be in the sense of God’s adversary, someone acting against God’s will, like Satan
does (esp. in vocative). However, the word cannot be adequately rendered as 'adversary'. Cf.
1Pe 5:8 ‘your opponent/adversary (antidikos) Satan’ [Cf. echthros – enemy, foe, adversary; >
echthrō ‘to hate’ – hostile/hateful]
– Mt 4:10; (Get out of my way, O Satan!);
– Mt 16:23; //Mk 8:33; (vocative - Kefa was called Satan by Yeshua - ‘Get out of my way! O
Satan! – i.e. you, acting like Satan’) [a Satan; someone like Satan (Cf. A Korean expression
‘사탄같은 놈' someone like Satan. ‘사탄보다 못한 놈’ someone even less of Satan’.]
[God’s adversary; one who, following the Serpent at the Garden, decides what is right or
wrong on one’s own apart from God (- a notion unrelated to whether it is good or evil) with
thought centered on man’s desire for worldly things; treating God as a means. Note of a
popular depiction of ‘devil’.]

Cf. Jn 12:31; 14:30; 16:11 'the Ruler of this world' in Yeshua's speech
Cf. ‘fallen angels’– cf. Eph 6:12 the rulers of the darkness of this world.
Cf. a great red dragon with seven heads ~ and seven diadem-crowns upon its heads –
Rev 12:3-4.

a
Acronymic word play: SATAN = S.A.T.A.N. = “Spirit After Total Adamic Nature” (‘after’ in the sense
of ‘coming after’ to hold man in his control) – the very source of all ‘evil’ in the human world.
It’s not ‘devil-made-me-do-it’ (unless it is one’s very self or existential ‘alter ego’), but ‘I did it proudly
in my own way turned away from God’ whether one is religious or secular, at the pulpit or on the pew.
Satan should not be simply taken as identical to ‘devil’ which is often depicted as a two-horned figure
wearing a red costume with a pointy tail and beard, and a trident (not pitchfork). The adjective ‘Satanic’
is not in the sense of ‘devilish’, ‘demonic’, gruesome, or cunning; but rather existentially ‘human’ in sin
(being separated from God) and going against God’s will. Cf. Kefa (> Peter) himself was once called
Satan by Yeshua (Mt 4:10). [‘devil’ > O.E. from Latin diabolus from Gk. diabolos (slanderer, accuser)].
Cf. Named as ‘the shadow’ (as if one’s mirror image) – in Edward Hays (1966), The Gospel of Gabriel
(p. 33)]
Ref. Russell (1987), Devil: Perceptions of Evil from Antiquity to Primitive Christianity. Russell (1984),
Lucifer: The Devil in the Middle Ages.
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/11468/what-is-the-origin-of-the-devils-red-pointy-
costume-and-pitchfork
 'Satan disguised as an angel of light' (2Co 11:14) S3345 metasxēmatízō
'the Devil, Satan ~~ with its angels' (Rev 12:9) < its agents (IRENT)
/‘the devil and its angels’ – most; /the Devil and his angels – GNB; /x: the Evil One and
his angels – BBE; /Slanderer-Liar and his messengers – SourceNT;
2 Co 12:7, aggelos Satana /a Satan's agent – IRENT; [not 'messenger' (most, KJV,
ESV, NIV, NET, NASB). Not 'angel of Satan' (CEV, Douay, Weymouth)]

[Ref.
• Wray and Mobley (2005), The Birth of the Satan – Tracing the Devil's Biblical Roots” Free
download http://tiny.cc/aix38x (a copy in the Collection)
• https://web.archive.org/web/20081118225044/http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/test-
archives/html4/1997-01/16342.html [Paul Dixon - Ladd Hill Bible Church: "Re: John 6:70 -
DIABOLOS and Colwell/ Harner/ Dixon"]

• https://bible.org/seriespage/6-angelology-angels
• John Drummond (2016), "Who Is Satan? - Biblical Archaeology Society"
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bibleinterpretation/who-is-satan/
• Shawna Dolansky (2016), "How the Serpent Became Satan - Biblical Archaeology"
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblicaltopics/bible-interpretation/how-the-
serpent-became-satan/ (a copy in the Collection)

• Ref. Gregory Boyd (2001), Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian
Warfare Theodicy
• Ref. James R. Brayshaw http://imaginenosatan.com/about.html
Vol. 1. Satan: Christianity's Other God
Vol. 2. Imagine No Satan
Vol. 3. Who’s The Devil Jesus Knew?
Vol. 4. This is it … Satan is finished.

• www.christadelphians.com/biblebasics/0602devilandsatan.html
• https://youtu.be/SDaOu4qahio Satan, Diabolos, title or name?
• https://youtu.be/cZqyKTzPDOM Michael Heiser — “Satan” Old Testament (Overview)

What is Satan? A spirit-being, similar to a demon, a demonic spirit, a spirt person (brother of Jesus?
cf. Mormon doctrine). Who can be Satan? [Beezebul as the ‘chief; /x: prince; /x: ruler (archon) of
the demons’ Mt 9:34; 12:24; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15]. It’s not tied to demons or capricious nature. It’s
found in people and human person; working with them or working out of them.]

Whatever and howover we think what Satan is, the reality of satan cannot be denied. No one has
to believe Satan, any more than God. It all depends on what we mean by Satan.

It is much simpler to think Satan not as a supernatural spiritual being or force, the chief of demons,
but to recognize any person who blasphemes the name of Elohim and any person who deceives
others in the name of God.

It is for most found among people with power and with love of power –esp. political and religious
– of religions, cults, sects, denominations.

Satan has never said in the Bible that ‘I am the satan’ - the truth of about being Satan and
identity. No human being has easy discerning eyes to tell who among the human beings AER
satans. A father of deception – deceives people with what is pleasing to them as they would
 hear as truths – and par excellence in deceiving his/its identity (c.g. ‘devil made me do it’) is a
father of all the lies of human beings make.

[Satan = ‘father of deception disguise, delusion, degradation, darkness, and death’].

Variously called: ‘Satan’; ‘devil’ (false accuser, slanderer, calumniator),

‘Beelzebub/Beelzebul’ (Mt 10:25; 12:24 par), Belial (2Co 6:15); the ruler of this world (Jn
12:31; 14:30; 16:11), the prince of the power of the air (Eph 2:2), the god of this world (2Co
4:4), the Destroyer (1Co 10:10), a murderer from the beginning (Jn 8:44), the enemy (Mt
13:25, 28, 39; Lk 10:19).

Cf. ‘the evil one’ (Mt 13:19; Jn 17:15; 1Jn 2:13, 14; 5:18, 19; and alternate reading in Mt
5:39; 6:13; and 2Th 3:3)

Often ‘evil’ is due to ‘devil’ and is attributed to Satan, as if it is a spirit person. In fact,
Christians cannot avoid to be those saying ‘devil made me do it’. No, evil is not something
derived from devil, but from the heart of man.

Related expressions:
Eph 2:2 [' the ruler of the authority of the air, that is, of the spirit'
John 12:31 the ruler of this world ░░ [ho archōn tou kosmou toutou (= 16:11); ≈ ho
tou kosmou archōn (Jn 14:30); /> prince of this world - KJV; [not to be confused with
2Co 4:4 'Elohim for this age' (ho theos tou aiōnos toutou)]
Col 1:13 'the domain of darkness' (ek tēs exousias tou skotous)]

“In the mind of the Biblical writer, Beelzebub was not anything in form, substance, or power.
Beelzebub is a term easily recognized to mean little more than a false God and the false ideas
associated with it. – James Brayshaw (2015), Who’s the Devil Jesus Knew.

Many put Satan, Abaddon/Apollyon, Beelzebul/Baal-zebub ['chief of demons'] into the

category of angel - the names of 'angels', fallen angels. ['demons' are also fallen angels?]

[From Palmer, Gospel Harmony, footnote] – (to be checked for the validity and proofs of
his statements)

The devil and Satan are the same being. Before God created mankind, he created the angels.
Satan used to be an angel, who God created to be the "covering cherub" (a certain kind of
angel) and the "star of the morning."

The early church fathers and the Latin Vulgate translation named him "Lucifer," that is,
"Light Bearer," although this name is not found in the original languages of the Bible. In
Isaiah 14:12 he was called Morning Star, Son of the Dawn. He was an archangel, the highest
rank of ruling angels. He was a very beautiful and powerful being. But he became
narcissistic and self-willed and aspired to make himself equal with God. So God ordered
Michael, the archangel, to throw him out of heaven. There was a great war in heaven and
Michael and his angels won. And when Lucifer left heaven, he took his third of all the angels
with him (Revelation 12:4) and they followed him. So Lucifer became Satan, which means
adversary, and he was later also identified with a Canaanite idol named Baalzeboul, or
Prince Baal, the prince of demons. The one third of the angels that left with him are now the
 lesser demons, also called evil spirits. Satan and some (the rest are in Tartarus, that is, the
Abyss or bottomless shaft– Jude 6; Lk 8:31; Rev. 9:1,2,11; 11:7; 17:8; 20:1-3) of his servant
spirits now roam the earth, in bitter and lonely hatred of God, opposing God's pleasure in
any way they can. Contrary to myth, they do not live in hell. God did not banish them there
yet, and no being in the universe would voluntarily go there! (On the contrary, scripture says
that they are in a constant quest for rest, in the form of the water in human beings, or even
pigs– Mt 12:43, Lk 11:24 or Diatess 11:18; and Luke 8:32,33 or Diatess 12:16-17.) No,
Satan is here with us, as "the prince of the kingdom of the air" (Eph. 2:2; 4:11,12) going
around trying to lead people astray. He is the Father of Lies (John 8:44). The first person he
lied to was Eve, the first woman, and because she believed him, all mankind is in a state of
fallenness along with him (Genesis 3:1-24) He is the enemy of our souls (I Peter 5:8). See
Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:12-19; Rev. 12:1-17

*Beelzebul

S954 Beelzeboul (7x) Mt 10:25; 12:24, 27; Mk 3:22; Lk 11:15, 18, 19;
/Beelzebub – KJV, NKJV, ASV

'Beelzebul, the chief of the demons' (Mt 12:24; Lk 11:15)

Cf. Baal-zebub 'lord of flies' – Philistine god – H1176 (4x) 2Kg 1:2, 3, 6, 16

*Lucifer, morning star

The word "Lucifer" (translates ‫ הֵילֵל‬in Isa 14:12 taking from the Latin Vulgate. The Latin word
lucifer means "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing". It
occurs only once in the entire Bible in which says:
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!” [Isa 14:12a KJV]

It refers specifically to a certain Babylonian king who was an enemy in war of the Israelites.
The original Hebrew text uses the word ֵֵ ‫ הי ֵ לל‬which literally means “bright star” or “shining
one,” a term applied sarcastically or mockingly by the Israelites to this particular enemy of
theirs.

a
The word 'Lucifer' is the King James Version rendering of the Hebrew word ‫ הֵילֵל‬in Isaiah
14:12 in Geneva, KJV, Douay-Rheim, Darby translations. It was taken from the Latin Vulgate
translation; the Latin word lucifer (uncapitalized), meaning "the morning star, the planet
Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing".

The Hebrew word, transliterated Hêlêl or Heylel (pron. as HAY-lale), occurs once in the
Hebrew Bible, meaning "shining one, light-bearer". The LXX renders it as ἑωσφόρος
(heōsphoros), a name, literally "bringer of dawn", for the morning star.

The word has no other meaning other than 'lightbringer', 'lightbearer', 'bringer of dawn',
'shining one', or 'morning star'. Historically and astronomically, the term “Morning Star” has
always been applied to the planet Venus.

Most Bibles render as ‘morning star, star of the morning, shining star, shinning morning star,
Day Star, shining one, etc., effectively removing a wrong connotation as in KJV.
 Since the only occurrence of the word in the Bible is that one verse in Isaiah, there is
absolutely nothing in the Bible which says that ‘Lucifer’ is Satan or the devil. It was Pope
Gregory the Great (540-604 AD) who was the first person to apply that passage of scripture to
Satan and thus to equate Lucifer with Satan. But even then, this notion didn’t catch on in a big
way until the much more recent popularization of John Milton’s “Paradise Lost” in which
Lucifer is used as another name for Satan, the evil adversary of God. Also, such luminaries of
the Christian world as Martin Luther and John Calvin considered it “a gross error” to apply
Isaiah 14:12 to the devil, “for the context plainly shows these statements must be understood in
reference to the king of the Babylonians.”

Thus, the Christians who claim that Lucifer is the devil actually have no Biblical basis or
authority for such a belief. Though they may claim to be “Bible believing Christians” whose
faith is built solely on “the Word of God” they are actually followers – in this and many other
respects – of Christian religious traditions and not of the Scripture.

Rev 22:16 the bright morning star

[Here refers to the Mashiah.]
[Cf. the morning star – Rev 2:28] [Cf. Num 24:17 ‘a star shall come out of
Yaakob (> Jacob)’ Cf. ‘star’– Mt 2:2, 9] [Cf. Isa 14:12 ‘bright morning star’; /x:
Lucifer’ – KJV, Vulg. – refers to Nebuchadnezzar. Many misinterpret it as
‘Satan’.]

Hebrew and You with Lee M. Fields — www.koinoniablog.net/2014/07/hebrew-and-you-

with-lee-m-fields-would-you-name-your-son-lucifer.html

Today no one would dream of naming their son Lucifer! However, ancient Christians did name
their sons Lucifer, and there was a well-known Christian named Lucifer (died c. 370). Why
would any Christian parent give their son the name of Satan?!?

I received a question from someone who was studying Isa 14:12. I suspect the person had
studied Greek but not Hebrew and was using the best tools he could use and had available. He
was trying to do research on the Greek word ἑωσφόρος, heōsphoros. He had attempted to look
it up in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, but found that it was not there.
So, he asked for help. The question involved the issue of what Isa 14:12 tells about Satan and
why the KJV reads “Lucifer.” Here is an explanation.

The word heōsphoros does not appear in Kittel, because it does not appear in the NT. This word
is the Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Hebrew ‫שחַר‬ ָּ ‫(הֵילֵל בֶּן־‬hêlēl ben šaḥar) in Isa 14:12.
(Incidentally, the Qamets under the Shin in ‫שחַר‬
ָּ is a pausal form used with a heavy accent; the
contextual from is with Patach, ‫שחַר‬ ַ , and in both cases the word is accented on the first
syllable.)

To understand how the KJV reads “Lucifer,” we need to look at the Hebrew, the language in
which most of the OT was composed, then the LXX, the Greek translation of the Hebrew OT,
and the Vulgate, Jerome’s Latin translation of the Hebrew OT.

First, the Hebrew. The phrase consists of three words. Hêlēlis found only here in the Hebrew
OT, but is a word derived from a verb meaning “to shine.” The noun would presumably mean
“shining one.” The second word, ben, means “son of.” Šaḥar is found 24 times in the Hebrew
OT. It basically means “dawn” (cf. Gen 19.15). In some cultures, “Dawn” was the name of a
god. Isaiah was probably using the phrase ‫שחַר‬ ָּ ‫הֵילֵל בֶּן־‬, “shining one [=star], son of the
Dawn,” as a poetic reference to the planet Venus. The Hebrews used the same word ‫ּכֹוכָּב‬
(kôkab) to refer to either a star or a planet. But the literal planet Venus was probably being used
to refer to an astral deity. Isaiah used this deity to represent the king of Babylon as a (self-
proclaimed?) divine figure. This has the effect of making the king’s fall greater and therefore
more dramatic.

Second, the Greek. The three-word Hebrew phrase is rendered by ὁ ἑωσφόρος ὁ πρωὶ
ἀνατέλλων (ho heōsphoros ho prōi anatellōn), “O Heosphoros, who rises early/who raises the
morning.” The key word, heōsphoros, has two parts: heōs means “morning” and phoros means
“bearer, one who brings.” Heōsphoros, “bringer of the morning/dawn,” is again a reference to
the planet Venus. Thus, though heōsphoros is not a literal translation of hêlēl ben šaḥar, it is
an accurate translation of a phrase referring to Venus, an exact equivalent of hêlēl ben šaḥar.
The interpretation of the Bible text by the LXX translators is probably the same as that
mentioned above.

Third, the Latin. The exact Latin equivalent of the Greek Heosphoros is Lucifer. Luci comes
from lux meaning “light” and fer is the same as the Greek phoros, “bearer.” So, though it had
other uses, Lucifer is a term for the planet Venus, just as the Greek and the Hebrew are.
www.koinoniablog.net/2014/08/hebrew-and-you-with-lee-m-fields-when-did-
lucifer-become-a-name-equivalent-to-satan.html

The sources for the identification between “Lucifer” and Satan are difficult to date,
but they all come from post-New Testament times. There are three basic groups of
sources to check plus the NT.

OT Pseudepigraphic Works

First, many OT Pseudepigraphic works were originally Jewish and then later
reworked by Christians. We begin to see Satan equated with Venus here. For
example, in The Life of Adam and Eve, thought by many to have been composed
between 100 B.C. and CE 200, probably closer to CE 100, with Greek and Latin
translations between then and 400, though this is all in dispute now (see J. R.
Levinson, “Adam and Eve, Literature Concerning” in Dictionary of NT
Background, 4–5). In 9:1 Satan is said to have transformed himself into “the
brightness of the angels.” Eve, complaining to Satan about his continual onslaught
of deception to lead her into sin, asks in 11:2–3, “Have we stolen your glory and
made you without honor?” In 12:1, the devil responds that the reason for this
pursuit is that it is on account of them that he was expelled and deprived of his
glory “which I had in the heavens in the midst of angels, and … was cast out onto
the earth.” The cause for this expulsion was the very creation of man. Man was
created in the image of God. Therefore, Michael the angel presented Adam before
all the angels and told them to “worship the image of God.” Satan refused because
he was superior to man and man should worship him. Other angels began to follow
suit. Michael warned of the threat of God’s wrath. To this Satan responded, “If he
be wrathful with me, I will set my throne above the stars of heaven and will be like
the Most-High” (cf. Isa 14.13; Dan 8.10; Obad 4; Job 22.12; Jude 9). Whether the
identification is Jewish or Christian, I cannot tell. It may have been a Jewish idea.
The writers of these works often rewrote the Bible stories.

Later Jewish Rabbinic Works

Second, in the later Jewish works of the rabbis (Talmud and others). The earlier
rabbinic works do not make the Lucifer-Satan connection. Rather they apply Isa
14:12 to God’s judgment on human rulers. For example, in the Babylonian
Talmud, Shabbat 149b quotes Isa 14:12. It takes a lesson from Nebuchadnezzar
and Zedekiah to teach that it is right to punish the wicked. There is no treatment of
hêlēl ben šaḥar, and no identification with Satan or hint of reference to any other
superhuman being.

NT Sources

In the NT there are only three verses which may apply, Luke 10:18; Rev 9:1 and
12:9. In Rev 12:9 Satan is clear, but no star is mentioned. In Rev 9:1, a star is
fallen from heaven to earth. But is this a reference to Isa 14:12? If it is, is it
teaching that Isa 14:12 is talking about Satan? Perhaps, but I think it is better to say
that Rev 9:1 is applying the same terminology that Isaiah does (namely, of a
powerful one who is cast down from his high place by God) to Satan. Therefore Isa
14:12 need not be interpreted of Satan in any way. Lk 10:18 is no more conclusive
than Rev 9:1.

The earliest Christians to identify the figure of Isaiah 14:12 with Satan seem to be
the contemporaries Tertullian (d. c. 225) and Origen (d. about 250). Tertullian in
his Against Marcion 5.17 quotes Isa 14:13-14 and applies it to “the devil”
(diabolus). Though Origen wrote in Greek, his First Principles work is preserved
only in the Latin translation of Rufinius. In 1.5.5 Rufinius’ translation does contain
the word Lucifer in quoting Isa 14:12. Many later church fathers continued this line
of interpretation.

Conclusion: The Short Answer

Isaiah 14:12 simply does not give any factual information about the history of Satan:

(1) Isaiah’s context is about the fall of the king of Babylon. Kings were often referred
to as stars; Isa 14:12 would be describing the fall of the greatest (in some sense) one.
(2) Lucifer was not originally a name for Satan, but referred to the planet Venus.
(3) It was only later that Christians, perhaps following some writings of OT
pseudepigrapha, which were sometimes heavily steeped in speculative stories about
angels, made this identification.

The name Lucifer, then, meaning “light-bearer,” is quite appropriate for Christians
and their task of bringing the light of the gospel to the world. Jesus himself, the
ultimate Light-bearer (Jn 1:4, 5, 9; 8:12; 9:5), is called the “*morning star” and
“bright morning star” in Rev 2:28; 22:16, respectively, another term for the planet
Venus. Of course, given the historic identification of Lucifer as the name for Satan,
this meaning would be completely lost today.
*angels; *archangel; theophanic angels.
problem of the meaning, sense, and usage of the word ‘angel’ other than of a its basic
meaning of a messenger. "angels” are angels? – dependent on the context:

(1) God’s divine messenger

1Tim 5:21 ('elect angel' < 'chosen messenger')

Gal 4:14 (Paul as) ‘a God’s messenger’
In Revelation (e.g. Rev 1:31; 2:1- 3:14) IRENT renders as messenger, messengers –
except 5:11 & 7:11 'angels' (in reference to more than those seven that are in the
role of messengers Rev Ch. 15, 16, 17).
(2) 'theophanic angels' - angels who not only bring a message from God, but who
represent God in personal terms, or who even may be said to embody God. [Dunn
p. 67]
[‘angel of Adonai/YHWH’ – a Hebraic phrase is used in IRENT, in place of
the usual ‘angel of the Lord (LORD). E.g. Lk 1:11] [‘angel from above’, ‘angel
of the Most-High’, ‘God’s angel’ ‘angel of God’, etc.] 'angel of Elohim'; ‘angel
of Adonai (i.e. of YHWH)’.
Gen 31:11 "the angel of Elohim said …"; v. 13 "I'm the El of Bethel …" (/the God
who appeared to you at Bethel – NLT; /the God, the one appearing to you in the place
of God – LXX)
Exo 3:2-6 "the angel of YHWH" " v. 4 YHWH … v. 6 said … I am (H595 anoki)
[/egō eimi – LXX] Elohim of Abraham, Isaac, and Yaakob"
Exo 14:19 "the angel of Elohim …"
(4) 'angels who sinned' – 2Pe 2:4, 11; Jud 1:6;
(5) agents:
agents of the Dragon – Rev 12:7;
a Satan’s agent 2Co 12:7. />> an angel of Satan; /x: a messenger of Satan;
Cf. Mt 25:41 'Satan and its agents'
2 Co 12:7, aggelos Satana /a Satan's agent – IRENT; [not 'angel' (CEV,
Douay, Weymouth). Not 'messenger' (most, KJV, ESV, NIV, NET, NASB).
Cf. 2Co 11:14 'the Satan itself disguises as an angel of light'
There are only two named 'angels' in the Bible (OT and NT) - Gabriel (4x Dan 8:16;
9:21; Lk 1:19, 26) and Michael (- 5x Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 1:9 (‘Michael the
archangel’); Rev 12:7 (‘Michael and his angels’). [The word ‘archangel’ (‘chief
angel’) by itself appears only once in the Bible (1Th 4:16) ‘an archangel’s shouting’].
(Michael in Hebrew meaning ‘who is like God’. Cf. Isa 14:14 – ‘to be like the Most-
High’) [Cf. people named Michael in OT 10x]

[Cf. angel Christology]

'Michael' – only 2x in NT – Jud 9 ('Michael the archangel') and Rev 12:7 (‘Michael and his angels’);
Cf. ‘archangel’ – 1Th 4:16; 2Th 1:7; Jud 1:9 ('Michael the archangel')]
Cf. 1Th 4:16 – … the Lord Himself shall come down from heaven 'with an archangel’s shouting'
2Th 1:7 'at the revelation of the Lord Yeshua from heaven with His mighty angels']
Cf. Heb 1:4 "[Son] … has become to be much more superior to the angels"

Ref. www.whyangels.com/archangels_michael_gabriel.html

Cf. /Cherub Gen 3:24 'kerubhim' (91x) LXX cheroubim.

Dan 3:25 – the appearance of the fourth is like a son of gods.

." [’ělâhîn, not ’ĕlôhim] ['his angel' v. 28]/a son of the gods – NASB; NIV, ESV, HCSB; /xxx:
the son of God – KJV, NKJV; /xx: an angel – GNB; /xxxx: a god – NLT, CEV; /xxx: (like that of) a
god – NET; /xx:(resembles) a divine being – ISV; /a son of the gods – NAS77;

[Cf. Gen 6:2; Job 1:6; 38:7 – sons of Elohim)

’ělâhîn 'gods' – (Daniel 2:11, 47; 3:12, 18; 4:8, 18; 5:4, 11, 14, 23)
*angel vs. prince

H5057 nagid (44x) leader, ruler, prince - 1Sam 9:16; 1Kg 1:35, 1Ch 5:2, etc.
Psa 76:12; (princes); Job 31:37 (prince, leader); cf. Job 29:10 (nobles) Prov 28:16 (prince,
leader)
5387 nasi (134x – prince Gen 17:20; leader – Exo 16:22; Lev 4:22; ruler – Exo 22:28. Dan
9:25 'the anointed one, a ruler (x: prince)';
H4397 malak (213x) 'angel' 'messenger' Gen 16:7; Exo 3:2; Num 20:14; Deu 2:26; Psa 34:7;
etc.

[H8269 sar 'chief' 'commander' 'captain' Gen 12:15; Jos 5:14]-

Isa 9:6 'prince of peace'

Dan 10:13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me

twenty-one days.
Then Michael, one* of the chief princes, came to help me,
because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

BDB 8 = patron-angel, only Daniel: ‫ שַׂר‬of kingdom - Daniel 10:20 (prince of Persia and prince of
Greek) and , ‫ יָוָן ׳ש‬Daniel 10:20; specifically of the prince (? Archangel) Michael - Daniel 10:13, 21;
Daniel 12:1
'prince of the host' Dan 8:11 = who is referred to?
'Prince of princes' Dan 8:25.

Barnes commentary - ‘prince of the kingdom of Persia’ – Here ‘prince’ refers to an angelic feature
ruling over the kingdom. As he offered resistance, however, to this heavenly messenger on his way
to Daniel, as it was necessary to counteract his plans, and as the aid of Michael was required to
overcome his opposition, the fair construction is, that he belonged to the class of evil angels.
*'Jesus' vs. 'angel'

‘Jesus as God’s messenger’ – God has sent him on a mission

'angels of Yeshua'
‘Jesus as an angel’ Cf. ‘Jesus is an angel’ in non-biblical angel Christology

(1) Jehovah’s Witnesses; (“Archangel Michael is Jesus”)

(2) Spurgeon www.spurgeongems.org/vols13-15/chs842.pdf - [Sermon #842 The
Angelic Life] ‘Michael is the Lord Jesus’ (p. 7).
(3) Matthew Henry Commentary
(4) some early Church Fathers

Ref www.amazingfacts.org/media-library/book/e/85/t/who-is-michael-the-
archangel
http://earlychurch.org.uk/pdf/angel_juncker.pdf Christ as Angel [… Christ was
always the Logos, the Messenger, and Revealer of the Father. we should not say
‘For John Christ was also God’, which is a Trinitarian expression with ‘God’
applied to the Mashiah without clear meaning and usage of the word …]

[Cf. non-canonical Jewish Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Remiel and
Sariel/Saraqael. Named angels in Jewish tradition, in Catholic tradition, and in
Islamic tradition.]

Is an angel a person? What sort of person, if not human person? Divine person?
Spiritual person? Angelic person? What about fallen angels? What do we mean by
‘person’? Having personhood (a legal term) or personality (a psychological term)? An
angel is not a person; then so what? How is it differentiated from personification of
non-persons?

Ref. 'angels' in James D. G. Dunn (2010), Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?
– pp. 66ff. https://books.google.com/books?id=-
8xWzXiByKgC&pg=PA59&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

‘
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-angelology-angels
https://bible.org/article/angelology-doctrine-angels

*cherubim
'kherubim’ (> cherubim with a wrong image of ‘cherub’) - four-winged.
Seraphim – six wings.
*power; *energy; *force; *work

force ('physical force'), power (physical, economic, political, etc.), energy

(kinetic vs. potential; speed, velocity, acceleration, work);
'impersonal force' [cf. 'May the Force be with you' – in the movie 'Star Wars'.]
'force power' - a jargon as in 'Force Users'; cf. exertion of power

*authority; *power; *privilege; *might

Vocab: authority, faculty, competence; ability, capacity, capability, potential,

faculty, competence,

'position' – holding position and keeping in power.

Gk. exousia
Heb. s'mikhah

*authority; *power (Jn 10:18; Rev 20:6); *privilege (‘right’ ‘prerogative’

Jn 1:12). Ko. and kanji - 힘, 권능, 권세, 権威, 権力, 能力.
(cf. ‘power of his resurrection’ Phi 3:10)

The word authority has to do with headship and leadership. It is tied with power -
controlling power with man, but creative power with God.

Related words:
dunamis Mt 22:29 (power), 25:15 (ability); Mt 9:39 (mighty work /x:
miracle)
doxa (* glory) Mt 24:30
katakurieuō Mt 20:25

[Gk. vocabulary study ‘power, might, authority, dominion/lordship’ 1Co

15:24; Eph 1:21; Col 2:10]
archē (government – NWT; principality, rule – KJV; /x: rule – ISR);
exousia (/power, authority– KJV; /authority – NWT);
dunamis (/power - NWT; /power, might – KJV); [pl. mighty works >
‘miracles’]
kuriotēs (/dominion – KJV; /x: lordship - NWT; /xx: mastery – ISR)

Authority is something to be given and to be received – ultimately [the

basis of exercise of] authority is all from God. In normal person-to-person
relation, any authority even in husband-wife or man-woman relation is to
be given by the other. It is not something to be taken from other – it is in
dictator-slave relation.
1Tm 2:12 be taking husband’s proper position ░░ [See more in the
Appendix of IRENT Pauline Writings.]

(authenteō – NT hapax – [BDAG p. 150. to assume a stance of

independent authority, give orders to, dictate to w. gen. of pers. ANDROS,
w. DIDASKEIN, 1Ti 2:12 (practically – 'tell a man what to do' – JB])
/>>take over authority of her husband; //get one’s way/dominate /usurp
authority/shout orders at, act like a chief toward, bark at, get upper hand][x:
/have authority over – NIV; /exercise authority over - NWT; problem of
English expressions - ‘authority over someone on what’ ‘submission to
someone for what’] [A detailed discussion on this text is in the Appendix
of Paul #11-14.]
[cf. /neque dominari viro (dominate) – Old Latin; / neque dominari in
virum (dominate over) – Vulgate; /usurp – Geneva, Bishops; /take authority
over – La Sainte, Casiodoro de Reina; /usurp authority over –KJV;
/domineer over – Goodspeed, NEB; /tell what to do –CEV; /dictate to –
REB; /]

*see
[vocab: 'see', 'look', 'observe', pay attention', 'be attentive', 'glance]

see the kingdom of the God – Jn 3:3; Lk 9:27

see God's glory - Jn 11:40
see the Son-of-man coming – Lk 21:17
see Elohim – Mt 5:8
ever seen what God is – Jn 1:18
see angel – Mt 1:20; Rev 18:1; (S3708 horaō 684x)

S1492 eidō know, etc. Mt 6:8; 7:11, etc.

S1689 emblepō 12x look, consider Mt 6:26, 19:26, etc.
S991 blepó (132x) see, look Mt 5:28, 7:3, etc.
S2396 ide S2400 idou 'look'
S3700 optanomai appear (1x) Act 1:3.

*glory
[S1391 doxa (167x) Mt 4:8; Mk 8:38, etc.] [LXX most frequently for H3519
kabowd (200x) [Gen 31:1; Exo 16:7, etc.], several times for H1926 hadar (Lev
23:40; Deu 33:17, etc.) and H1935 hod (Num 27:20; 1Ch 16:27, etc.)];
https://youtu.be/kGC88pw72wQ <내 생애에 누릴 영광 두 개>

glory of His Father – Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38;

glory of Adonai – Lk 2:9
glory in the Highest Places – Lk 19:38
glory to Elohim – Lk 2:14; 13:13; 17:18
glory of Elohim - Jn 11:4, 40
glory (of Yeshua) – Mk 10:37; Lk 9:31, 32; Jn 2:11; 12:41
 glory taken from the only** Elohim – Jn 5:44
[Yeshua as] radiance of glory [of Father] – Heb 1:3
glory of Adonai - 2Co 3:18

glory of the Son-of-man - Mt 24:30; 25:31; Lk 21:27;

crowned 'Son of Man' with glory – Heb 2:7
glory for my own (Yeshua) - Jn 8:50
glory to myself (Yeshua); my glory - Jn 8:54
glory of the only begotten son - Jn 1:14
glory (of Mashiah) – Lk 24:26
glory of him and of the Father - Lk 9:26
glory from men; glory from Elohim - Jn 12:43
glory I (Yeshua) held - Jn 17:5
glory (of Yeshua) Elohim has given - Jn 17:22, 24
glory of (Yeshua) Mashiah – Rm 2:9; 3:3; 5:5; 1Co 2:8; 2Co 4:4; 8:19, 23;
Phi 3:21; Col 3:4; 2Th 2:14; 1Tim 3:16; 2Tim 4:18; Jam 2:1; Rev 1:5; 5:12,
13; 1Pe 1:7, 21; 1Pe 4:13; 5:1, 4; 2Pe 1:17; 3:18;

glory of Elohim - Rm 1:21, 23; 3:7, 23; 4:20; 6:4; 9:23; 11:36; 13:21; 14:27;
15:7; 16:27; 1Co 10:31; 11:7; 2Co 1:20; 3:18; 4:6, 15; Gal 1:5, 12, 14, 17;
Eph 3:16, 21; Phi 1:11; 2:11; 4:20; Col 1:11; 1Th 2:12; 2Th 1:9; 1Tm 1:11,
17; Tit 2:13; Rev 4:9, 11; 5:13; 7:12; 14:7; 15:8; 16:9; 19:2, 7; 21:11, 23; 1Pe
4:11, 14; 5:10, 11; Jud 24, 25.

glory of his own (- man) – Jn 7:18

glory to your people Israel - Lk 2:3
glory of the kingdoms of the world - Mt 4:8
glory of the inhabited land - Lk 4:4
glory related to people - Rm 2:7; 10; 8:18; 9:4; 1Co 2:7; 11:7, 14; 15:43; 2Co
3:18; 4:17; Eph 3:13; Col 1:27; Phi 3:19; 1Th 2:6; 2:20; 2Tim 2:10; Rev 21:24,
26; 1Pe 1:24;

Cf. ‘*Biblical authority’ – authority derived from the Bible vs. authority of the Bible
(with 'bible' as a translation work). [Check for the concepts of ‘Word of God’ →
‘Scripture’ → ‘Bible’ having different meaning and sense elsewhere in WB #2.]
Church authority – 'ecclesial authority'
www.askelm.com/essentials/ess031.htm ('curse of church authority')
*miracle;

S1411 dunamis S1411 (120x)

[G-Jn does no use this word but the word 'sign' (S4592 sēmeiōn 77x) is used throughout. (e.g.
'water turned to wine' Jn 2:1-11).]

(1) power, strength, ability - Mt 6:13; 22:29; Lk 1:17; 1Co 14:11; 15:24, 43, 2Co 8:3;
Rev 3:8, etc.

(2) pl. 'powers' – Mt 24:29; Mk 13:25; Lk 21:26

(3) sing., pl. *mighty work [works of God’s power (Acts 2:22; Rm 15:19; 2The 2:9);
of a new and higher power.]
/xxx: *miracle – most. IRENT does not use it as a translation word as it is a religious jargon
(similar to 'supernatural' which is not a biblical word); /
e.g. Mt 14:2 'mighty works – KJV; /x: powerful works – NWT; /xxx: miraculous power – most,
NASB, NIV, NET, NIV; /xxx: supernatural powers – HCSB; /xxx: miracles – TEV, Aramaic;
(Mt 7:22; 11:20; 1Co 12:29, etc.); /xxx: *miracle – most;

This Gk. word is not equivalent to the common English word 'miracle' which carries quite
different word picture, though some acts or events in the NT may be described as 'miraculous'.

Related Greek words [Check for Hebrew counterpart]

S2904 kratos (12x) – strength, power, dominion Lk 1:51; Act 19:20; Eph 1:19; 6:10; Col
1:11; 1Ti 6:16; Rev 1:6, etc.
S2479 ischus (10x) – strength, power, might, ability Mk 12:30, Lk 10:27; Eph 1:19; 6:10;
Rev 5:12, etc.

1. sēmeion S4592 (77x) a “sign”, i.e., an evidence of a divine commission;

an attestation of a divine message (Mt 12:38, 39; 16:1, 4; Mk 8:11; Lk
11:16; 23:8; Jn 2:11, 18, 23; Acts 6:8, etc.); a token of the presence and
working of God; the seal of a higher power.
2. teras S5059 (16x) (terata, “wonders;” wonder-causing events; portents;
producing astonishment in the beholder (Acts 2:19, 22).
3. erga, S2014 (174x) “works” -- of Him who is “wonderful in working”
(Mt 5:16; Jn 5:20, 36).

Examples of these words occurring in a cluster:

Act 2:22 – “signs, wonders, mighty works”
2Co 12:12; Heb 2:4 – ‘signs, wonders, mighty works’
Rm 15:19 – ‘signs and wonders’
2Th 2:9 – ‘every powerful-work (> power) – yes, signs and wonders – to deceive’

[ http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/miracle.html]
 The phrase ‘mighty work’ reflects the true meaning of the original Greek. Many
translations use ‘miracle’ to render two different Greek words – ‘mighty work’ and
‘sign’. In contrast, the English word ‘miracle’ which is commonly used for
translation has a very different sense, connotation and nuance. In the Scripture, there
is nothing equivalent to this modern English (which has connotation of ‘natural law
broken’) – all wondrous works to their eyes are ‘God’s mighty works’, which serves
as ‘sign pointing to the very God’.

[Note: difference in nuance between ‘*might’, ‘power’, ‘authority’; ‘mighty’ vs.

‘powerful’. The phrase ‘mighty God’ is not same as ‘powerful God’. Cf. the
expression ‘mighty power of God’.]

These are all signs by mighty works of God (through Yeshua), revelatory acts, all
are supranatural, not supernatural.

The common English word ‘miracle’ (as in most Bible translations) is a misleading
and unsuitable as a translation word in NT, conveys entirely different sense, nuance
association and usage – of ‘miraculous feats’ or ‘something from super-human
power’ ‘as if of a magic’. ‘miraculous happenings, awesome things’ ‘supranatural
things' – often associated with spiritism and spiritualism; spiritualistic;
charismatics a , shamanistic practices in Christianism; shamanistic religions (vs.
‘shamanism’), paganism.]

[Cf. ‘Jesus as a miracle worker par excellence’? – Yeshua did not come as a miracle
worker who was performing or practicing miracles [like (1) the rain maker Abba
Chilkiah story in Talmud, (2) the Honi circle-drawer story in Josephus]. Cf.
Christian miracle-mongers and peddlers of supranatural things – all from the
deceiving spirit of the world, treating Him as a God-man. Religious or non-religious
people are so enamored with miracles. Whatever they can see as awesome and
remarkable things in the Bible are labeled as miracles, which in turn they tend to
crave after. Yes, in literary sense and in linguistic usage, we are not wrong to say
everything is a miracle. Then, what constitutes a miracle, or what should be non-
miracles?]

Note: The Transfiguration Vision in the three Synoptic Gospels was a God’s
revelatory act through Yeshua to bring up the coming of the Kingdom reign of
Elohim. It is hardy to be labelled as a miracle as done by many writers, albeit it was
said to be a miracle performed on Himself! Another one is a reading of the Gospel
narrative as ‘walking on the water’ without sinking / drowning – a really miraculous
feat people like to entertain.

a
Ref. John F. MacArthur, Jr. (1992), Charismatic Chaos;
Can miracles occur? –
What is meant by 'miracle'?
Supernatural? Supranatural (supra-natural)
Definitions of Miracle

"an event that is an exception to the ordinary course of nature"

Hume: 'A miracle is a violation natural law …' (here, he means 'contradict')
Richard L. Purtill: "An event brought about by the power of God that is a temporary
exception to the ordinary course of nature for the purpose of showing that God has
acted in history" “Defining Miracles,” in In Defense of Miracles: A Comprehensive
Case for God’s Action in History, eds. Geivett and Habermas (1997).

So-called miracles – Numerous articles and books are written under the heading of
‘miracles in the Bible’, ‘miracles in NT’, or ‘miracles of Jesus’ [All the God’s gift –
whatever we are and we have is the supra-natural work of God. /x: supernatural; /x:
miracle. That begins with Life, Light, Love, and Language. It is simply a fool to see
everything we see is by an accident and evolution. Where did their own sacrosanct idols
(‘time’ and ‘space’ and ‘consciousness’) come from? If they are from nothing, where
this ‘nothing’ come from?

"A 'miracle' is NOT an event that ‘breaks’ any ‘laws’ of nature, since nature does not
have such a reified character; rather, a miracle is a manifestation of the Spirit’s presence
that is ‘out of the ordinary’ (referred to as ‘sped-up’ or more ‘intense’ in another
context); but even the ordinary is a manifestation of the Spirit’s presence"; (parenthesis
added) [from James K.A. Smith (2001), Thinking in Tongues: Pentecostal
Contributions to Christian Philosophy (p. 105)]

[Note: So-called 'Miracle of walking on water': the phrase 'walking on water' is not in
the Bible. Such was actually not at all a miraculous act as such performed by Yeshua,
who was described in the Greek text as 'walking by the sea/lake' Mk 6:45-52 {//Mt
+14:22-33; //Lk Ø} (//Jn 6:16-21)]
*cross, Cross; *execution stake; *patibulum; *stipes;
[Needs editing out duplicate statements]

The Greek word S4716 stauros (27x. a stake, a pole) is translated as 'cross' in most
English Bibles. The noun 'cross' in English refers to (1) a mark, object, or figure
formed by two short intersecting lines or pieces (+ or ×) and (2) an ancient device for
crucifixion. (synonym: crucifix).

The word was derived from Latin crux. In NT it refers to a device the Romans
employed for executing criminals, usually a simple upright wooden pole on which a
criminal is fastened (called crux simplex in Latin). In addition to this upright pole
(Lat. stipes), often a transverse beam (Lat. patibulum) affixed on which the stretched
arms are bound. The basic meaning of crux Latin translation word, is a ‘stake’; ‘cross’
is a later acquired meaning.

This was used for execution from the ancient times, in the East and in ancient Greece.
It was in Rome, however, that from its early republican times the cross was most
frequently used as an instrument of punishment, and amid circumstances of great
severity and even cruelty. It is certain, however, that it was absolutely forbidden to
inflict this degrading and infamous punishment on a Roman citizen.

Within the Gospel narratives what Yeshua was put on (bound/nailed) was an
‘execution stake’a. Not: it is not a ‘torture stake’ (as in NWT and several other
translations – see End-note here) 19 . The device is not to torture but to put to death
('execution'). The word 'cross' is not used in IRENT translation to avoid anachronism
and wrong images since it usually denotes in every day usage an icon of various
design or something one finds associated with the church buildings associated with
the crucifixion.

The word for the execution devise (e.g. Mt 27:40, 48) is used also in a figurative
sense from the practice of having a criminal made carry his own to a place of
execution as if for a public show. It is the patibulum (cross-beam) that is carried by
the offender to a place where an upright stake is already in place [this also facilitated
execution of criminals in a large number].

From the early Yerusalem Mashiah Community (> ‘Messianic Community’; >>
‘Church’) on, it has become the symbol of the Mashian faith. In the text, however,
where this word carries this particular sense in the Apostles and the Epistles in NT,
IRENT retains the word but capitalized (‘Cross’), since the word there in the text

a
/xxx: 'execution timber' in Good New of Messiah New Testament. by Gregg
www.torahtimes.org/gnmbook/thegoodnews.html ).
 was no longer used to refer to an execution device as such, but it was to represent
always as the symbol for the redemptive death of Yeshua the Mashiah. The word
‘cross’, now a religious word, is the symbol of Christianity.

What Shimon carried for Yeshua (Mt 27:32 etc.) is probably this cross-beam, rather
than the whole execution device. Here, Gk. stauros is used as synecdoche for its cross-
beam part (Latin, patibulum) which is what criminal carries on himself to a place of
execution, rather than the whole device including an upright pole (Latin, stipes).]

[Used figuratively as being put on public display (shame-bringing) as if a criminal on the

way to execution by crucifixion. It is used 5x in figurative sense in the expression ‘carrying
one’s own execution stake’ in Yeshua’s sayings: Mt 10:38; 16:24; Mk 8:34; Lk 9:23; 14:27.]

It is not in the sense that those who want to follow Him have to be ‘prepared for death’ (=
ko. 죽음을 각오하고 좇아야 한다). It does not refer to negative or adverse circumstances
in one’s life (the pain of life), but rather something which demands the decision to surrender
one’s will to God. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing else. The one who is to follow Yeshua
must make that decision every day in life. It means death of oneself in regard to all – everyone
and everything, tangible or intangible, in the world - one may hold dear. No decision could
be more painful. This is what is meant by ‘dying to self’ for Yeshua’s sake, not ‘giving up
one’s life’ as in English idiom]

Outside the Gospels – 1Co 1:17, 18; Gal 5:11, 6:12, 14; Eph 2:16; Phi 2:8; 3:18; Col
1:20. The word does not appear in the Acts.

In its place Gk. xulon (-stake' 'wood' 'tree') often together with a verb kremannumi (S2910
'fasten') as in Act 5:30; 10:39; Gal 3:13.)

Outside the Gospels (in Act 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; 1Pe 2:24) the Greek xulon (S3586
wooden-stake, a piece of log of wood)a is used. It is rendered as 'wooden stake' for
crucifixion.
In Acts a few bible translations (i.e. NIV, NASB, NET, GNB, GW) it is rendered as
'cross' as well.
Some mistake it as a tree trunk (as of a live or dead [olive] tree – cf. EL Martin, Secret
of Golgotha).
To translate it as ‘tree’ (as in KJV) easily misleads the readers.

[Cf. Gal 3:13; (rendered as 'wooden-pole') quoting Deu 21:23b, the word xulon is not for
execution, but for hanging the body of an executed criminal to a public display.]

a
often together with a verb kremannumi (S2910 'fasten') in Act 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 and in Gal
3:13. The word is different from dendron ‘living, green tree'.
b
Deu 21:22-23 "If anyone is found guilty of an offense deserving the death penalty and is
executed [by stoning – v. 21], and you hang his body on a stake (- NWT; /x: tree – most; /pole).
His dead body should not remain on the stake through the night …"
*stauros (noun)
stauros (noun)
‘execution stake’ vs. ‘Crucifixion’ in IRENT translation

Outside the Gospels (x 11)

In the Gospels (x 16)
(None in Acts)

Of Yeshua (x 11) Of Yeshua’s (x 2)

Mt 27:32, 40; 42; Phi 2:8;
Mk 15:21, 30,32; Heb 12:2;
Lk 23:26;
Jn 19:17, 19, 25, 31; As the symbol (x 9) @
1Co 1:17, 18;
Figurative (x 5) $ Gal 5:11; 6:12, 14;
Mt 10:38; 16:24; Eph 2:16;
Mk 8:34; [10:21 v.l.] Phi 3:18;
Lk 9:23; 14:27; Col 1:20; 2:14

@ The noun is translated in IRENT as ‘execution stake’ [as in the Gospels]

except where it was used as metonym symbolic of Yeshua’s redemptive death,
rendering as ‘Crucifixion’ (capitalized).

Note: Gk. xulon (‘tree’ used in the context of Yeshua’s crucifixion) is rendered
in IRENT as ‘wooden stake’, not as ‘tree’: Act 5:30; 10:39; 13:29; and 1Pe
2:24. Cf. Gal 3:13 – 'wooden-pole'

$ [synecdoche for its cross-beam]; [It is as a criminal (rebel against Rome) marching on
their way to execution, carrying it shamed through the midst of a jeering mob.] [no
allusion to Yeshua’s death on the execution stake.] [not about imitation of Christ and
his crucifixion]

The common figure of symbol is crux immissa (or ‘Latin cross’). Various forms,
such as crux commissa (or ‘Tau cross’ – in T-shape), are seen in Church history
and tradition. Not to be confused with crucifix (a Latin cross with a representation
of His body hanging from it), which is of Constantine Catholic Church tradition as
the symbol of His sacrifice in His suffering and death. A few groups do not have
‘crosses as a symbol of the faith.

[It has nothing to do with figures of similar shape such as ankh (ancient Egyptian
symbol) or swastika (a common ancient symbol – in various shapes).]
 Crux immissa vs. crux simplex:
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Cross_shape
• William Smith, in A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities, John
Murray, London, 1875]
• www.caic.org.au/jws/cross/chapter5.htm

Justus Lipsius (1629) in his book De Cruce Liber Tres states that ‘the Lord’s
cross’ was the traditional two-beamed Roman cross (crux immissa) with a picture
of it (p. 47). A picture of Crux simplex was also illustrated (p. 19).

crux humilis (a Low Cross) vs. crux sublimis (a Tall Cross)

www.seiyaku.com/customs/crosses/immissa.html

Cf. FURCA … a fork, was also the name of an instrument of punishment. It was a piece of
wood in the form of the letter A, which was placed upon the shoulders of the offender,
whose hands were tied to it. Slaves were frequently punished in this way and were obliged
to carry about the furca wherever they went (Donat. ad Ter. Andr. III.5.12; Plut. Coriol. 24;
Plaut. Cas. II.6.37); whence the appellation of furcifer was applied to a man as a term of
reproach (Cic. in Vatin. 6). The furca was used in the ancient mode of capital punishment
among the Romans; the criminal was tied to it, and then scourged to death (Liv. I.26; Suet.
Ner.49).b The patibulum was also an instrument of punishment, resembling the furca; it
appears to have been in the form of the letter Π (Plaut. Mil. II.4.7, Mostell. I.1.53). Both the
furca and patibulum were also employed as crosses, to which criminals were nailed (in
furca suspendere, Dig. 48 tit. 13 s.6; tit. 19 s.28 §15; tit. 19 s.38).

*crucify

*Crucify
The verb form stauroō (46x. S4717) meaning 'to put on the stake to death'. It is rendered as
'put on the stake' when used for actual process, but usually 'crucify' (from Latin; 'to put on the
cross'). Some wrongly renders as 'impale'
List of the verbs
• prospēgnumi (fasten) Act 2:23
• stauroō (crucify; put on execution stake)
Mt 20:19; 23:34; 26:2; 27:22, 23, 26,31, 35, 38, 44; 28:5;
Mk 15:13, 14, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 32; 16:6;
Lk 23:21 [2x], 23, 33; 24:7, 20;
Jn 19:6 [3x], 10, 15 [2x], 16, 18, 20, 23, 32, 41;
Act 2:36; 4:10;
Rm 6:6; 1Co 1:13, 23; 2:2, 8; 2Co 13:4;
Gal 2:20; 3:1; 5:24; 6:14; Heb 6:6; Rev 11:8;
 The verb stauroō corresponding to the noun means ‘to put on an execution stake’;
it is appropriately rendered as ‘crucify’ (itself of a Latin origin) in most English
Bible translations. That would lead to death by prolonged exhaustion and
asphyxiation, sometimes taking several days to death.

IRENT renders in most places (1) as ‘crucify’ when it is in the sense of legal
execution. (2) Only when the actual act putting on the stake itself is in focus, as in a
few places, it seems better to render as ‘put on the execution stake’ (e.g. Mk
15:24), which is somewhat verbose.

Note: A number of English translations a use the word ‘impale’ in place of ‘crucify’. Such a
106F106F

practice is an example of glossary fallacy, simply copying from old glossary books (which
are not even dictionaries, nor lexicons). The English word ‘impale’ [> Lat. in + palus
(stake)] has entirely different meanings – (1) to pierce and transfix with a sharp pointed
stick or stake; (2) (in rare use) – to enclose with pales or stakes. It has nothing to do with
‘to crucify’, a Roman method of executing.

In one place (Act 2:23) the Greek verb prospēgnumi (to fasten) is used.
Cf. Jn 3:14 lifted up on a stake ░░ [– direct allusion to His crucifixion]

Note:
1. Greek noun for the execution itself, ‘crucifixion’, does not appear in the
Scripture. For IRENT Gk. stauros (‘cross)’ is rendered as execution stake whit it
refers to the device used for execution of criminals (rebels against Roman power).
In Epistles, it is often used metonymic for the self-giving death of Yeshua. IRENT
renders it as ‘Crucifixion’ (capitalized) instead of ‘cross’ or ‘execution stake’.

2. Not to be confused with ‘hanging a dead body on a stake’ which, in OT, it was
for hanging the dead body to exhibit for all to see (Deu 21:22-23), not for execution.

History of crucifixion in ancient time.

Perception of Crucifixion –

Rita Brock and Rebecca Parker (2009), Saving Paradise: How Christianity Traded
Love of This World for Crucifixion and Empire
http://savingparadise.net/about/ "It took Jesus a thousand years to die …"

a
‘impale’ – In NWT 2013 all its occurrences have been corrected and replaced with a phrase such as
‘execute on the stake’, somewhat verbose and ponderous it may be. As for the word ‘cross’ they keep
‘torture stake’ instead of more appropriate ‘execution stake’ and, unlike the term ‘crucify’, it fails to
bring the image of the epochal event but simply describing the activity of the procedure.
crucifixion in the art]
https://youtu.be/HjBfBB9r2QM Basilica of Santa Sabina
www.cleansingfire.org/2011/03/earliest-known-crucifixion-scenes-in-christian-art/
The
http://counterlightsrantsandblather1.blogspot.com/2018/03/the-scandal-of-cross.html
earliest surviving image of the Crucifixion of Christ dates from around 420 (a
very late date, about 200 years after the first appearance of Christian art in the
catacombs of Rome). It appears on a pair of wooden doors in the church of
Santa Sabina in Rome, probably made on the orders of Pope Celestine I. Carved
panels showing scenes from the Old and New Testaments decorate the doors. As
is typical of early Western Christian art, the subject of these doors is Salvation
History. The earliest surviving Crucifixion in art appears way up in the top left
corner of the doors. The arrangement of the panels on the door has been altered
many times, but it is unlikely that this small panel was ever very prominent.

www.rome101.com/Christian/Sabina/ The Door Panels of Santa Sabina

Top 12 panels
Location of His crucifixion – in the Mount of Olive grove in the ecclesiastic district
‘Bethpage’ – see WB #4.
*Crucifixion – of the Mashiah

signifies His redemptive death on the Passover day. His suffering, crucifixion and death as
such do not ‘save’. [His suffering does not equate with crucifixion with ‘pain’, ‘agony’, and
‘violence’, etc.] It is the God – Elohim – who saves and in His plan of salvation, both of
individual person or people, was carried out to restore and bring in as His people. It is His
obedience to His Father that accomplishes the task according to the Torah (teaching), that
He died as Passover sacrifice. He could not die on any other day. The Festival of Passover
(= Festival of the Matzah ← Lk 22:1) is for celebration that YHWH Elohim brought His
chosen people out of the slavery of Pharaoh’s Egypt (Exodus 12:14-18). However, there is
another very important reason for celebrating it by those who know Yeshua, who has made
it Passover the father has chosen to free the world from the slavery of sin! (Mt 26:1, 17).
And the Mashiah made sure that He kept this Holy Day in the midst of His calling to take
away the sin of the world! (Mt 26:26-29). The celebration of the Passover with Festival of
the matzah is for the chosen people, for the chosen, and for all in the world with ears to hear
His voice.

The one who died was Yeshua, the promised Mashiah, the only-brought-forth Son of
Elohim, and the Lamb of Elohim. It is not God who died (as is seen in the gnostic and
docetic elements of Catholic Church teaching). The cry of Psalm Yeshua recited is the cry
of all God’s humanity, not a personal anguish of a man treated cruelly and put to death on
the execution stake. It is not God himself (the God; ho theos; Elohim), the Father, who died,
neither ‘God the Son’ [a Trinitarian jargon of Constantine Catholic Church doctrine], but
God’s Mashiah (> ‘Christ’), God’s Image, Logos (Word) of Elohim, and Son of Elohim.
Here Elohim, Father to Yeshua, accepted Yeshua’s obedience even to death on the Cross.
We should not read something like God’s abandoning or ‘forsaking’ of His Son. Human
beings fail, but God does not fail; when human beings die, God does not die also. It is not a
sadistic, cruel picture of God, according to which a bloodthirsty God calls for the sacrifice
of his Son. The God only suffers through His Son because His love of the Son and humanity.
On the cross of Yeshua His Mashiah it was not simply a God who was crucified – not ‘the
God’ (ho theos, Deus pater omnipotens, Elohim) (Where was the Holy Ghost in there?).
There is no room for unbiblical pagan docetic idea of ‘suffering God’, a ‘crucified God,’
even a ‘death of God’ on the cross. [Cf. unbiblical Latin phrase ‘patripassianism, the view
that God the Father himself suffered. Father suffered figuratively! – sharing pain in
fellowship.]

[Some material garnered from Hans Küng (1993), Credo – The Apostles’ Creed Explained
for Today (pp. 86-87).]
 Medical aspect of crucifixion – the death is from exhaustion and asphyxia. Death is
not from bleeding, though the image of ‘blood’ is used figuratively for His self-giving
sacrificial death. Not ‘stoning’.
http://web.ccbce.com/multimedia/BLB/Comm/terasaka/crucify.html the Crucifixion of Jesus
Christ (medical aspects, etc.)

Details and History of Crucifixion - The Nazarene Way

www.thenazareneway.com/details_history_of_crucifixion.htm
Crucifixion is an ancient method of execution, in which the victim was tied or nailed to a .... Crucifixion,
while rare in recent times, was used at Dachau during the ...
History of crucifixion and archeological proof of the cross, as ...
www.bible.ca/d-history-archeology-crucifixion-cross.htm
Britannica reports that the first historical record of Crucifixion was about 519 BC ... During this early
period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or patibulum was ...
Ancient Crucifixion - Bible History Online
www.bible-history.com/biblestudy/crucifixion.html
Crucifixion was commonly practiced among the ancient Romans .... Scythians, Indians, Germans, and
from the earliest times among the Greeks and Romans.
Roman Crucifixion Methods Reveal the History of ...
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/.../crucifixion/roman-crucifixion-methods-...
Jul 17, 2011 - What do we know about the history of crucifixion? ... Download your copy of Ancient Israel
in Egypt and the Exodus and start receiving Bible ..... The nine times the word phrase “nailed to a cross” is
used in Christian Scripture ...
A Tomb in Jerusalem Reveals the History of Crucifixion and ...
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/.../crucifixion/a-tomb-in-jerusalem-reveals...
Jul 22, 2011 - In the history of crucifixion, the death of Jesus of Nazareth stands out as the ... During this
early period, a wooden beam, known as a furca or ...
Crucifixion was also used in pogrom in the medieval period (e.g. during Crusade) against the Jews.
www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-
holocaust/articles-and-resources/christian-persecution-of-jews-over-the-centuries/christian-persecution-of-
jews-over-the-centuries

Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle ...

www.cs.unc.edu/.../estimates....
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy in the Middle Ages and later 1. Chapter 0. Introduction 2.
Chapter 1. Examples of figures concerning the ...

The Persecution Of The Jewish People In The Middle Ages

www.yesnet.yk.ca/schools/projects/.../persecution/persecution.html
The Jewish people were viewed differently by Christian people and they were treated as ... The Christians
blamed the Jewish people for the crucifixion of Jesus, ...

Christian Persecution of Jews over the Centuries — United ...

www.ushmm.org/...persecutio...
United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
There was no mention of the resurrection of one individual well before Elijah's announcement. The Jesus
Jews were convinced that their people's scriptures had ...

So-called sign of the cross– a ritual performed in Constantine Catholic Church

tradition.
*family; tribes; people; nations'
'all the families of the earth' [H4940 mishpachah] Gen 28:14 → 'tribes' LXX S5443 S5443
phulai [cf. → Act 3:25 S3965] Rev 1:7
S3965 patria (3x) family Lk 2:4; Act 3:25; Eph 3:15
S3624 oikos house, household; home. Mt 9:6; Mt 16:6;
S3614 oikia Mt 2:11
S2398 idios Mt 9:1
S1074 genea Mt 1:7
S4772 suggenei Lk 1:61

*City; *town; village, hamlet, countryside

Gk. polis is city or town. Bethlehem is David’s town (hometown), not city.

*fruit; fruitage; *crops; *harvest; *grain; *seed

• *barley harvest (Passover season); *wheat – spring wheat harvest (Shavuot season);
winter wheat harvest (Sukkot season). www.thebalance.com/wheat-planting-and-harvest-
seasons-809321
www.gci.org/law/festivals/harvest Harvest seasons in Ancient Israel
• fruit [실과, 과일 – Ko.] E.g. figs, grapes, olives; pomegranate (in OT only; Exo 28:34 etc.);
• fruitage [열매 – Ko.] [e.g. ‘fruitage’ – NWT; />> fruit; Act 2:30; Rm 1:13; Gal 5:22 (~ of
the Spirit); Eph 5:9; Phi 1:22; 4:17.]
• harvest, crop (therismos) [수확, 추수– Ko.] (‘to reap’; ‘be ripe’)
• produce (gennēma – offspring) (e.g. Mt 26:29; //Mk 14:25; //Lk 22:18) – WNT, YLT, LITV,
NETfn; /x: fruit – KJV; /x: product – NWT, Murdock;
• (lachanon) /herb – Lk 11:42; (mint, rue, and every herb) – KJV; garden plant (Mt 13:32;
//Mk 4:32); / vegetable [채소, 푸성귀 – Ko] – Rm 14:2 – NWT;WNT; /x: herb – KJV; /
• grain – e.g. wheat, barley; /x: corn – KJV.
kokkos ‘kernel’ ‘seed’, ‘grain’ Mt 13:31; J 12:24; 1Co 15:37, etc.
• *seed, (kernel) – [씨(알) – Ko.]
• S1085 gnos (21x) – 'kind' (Mt 13:7) 'offspring' (Act 17:28); 'family' (Act 4:6), 'race' (At 7:19)

Related words;
• genēma – product, fruit Mt 26:29; //Mk 14:25; //Lk 22:18. (some GNT
text has it wrongly gennēma). As collective pl. produce 12:18 v.l.; in
imagery 2Co 9:10.
• S1081 gennēma– offspring, brood, always in imagery of snakes, – Mt 3:7;
12:34 ('brood of vipers').
• therismos – harvest (Mt 9:37 etc.)
• karpos – fruit, fruitage, produce; (yield/gain Jn 4:36; Rm 1:13; Phi 1:22;
4:17)
• S4690 sperma (43x) – (of plants) 'seed' Mt 13:24
(of man –) 'seed' – 'children' 'descendant' 'offspring' Mt 22:24; (seed
of David – Jn 7:42; Rm 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Abraham's seed – Jn 8:33;
Rm 9:7; (Lk 1:55);
 *seed

• S4703 sporos (6x) 'seed (of plants)' Mk 4:26, 27, 31; 8:5, 11; 2Co 9:10 (2x);
• S4690 sperma (43x Mt 13:24, 27, 32, 37, 38; 22:24, 25; Mt 4:31; 12:19, 20, 21,
22; Lk 1:55; 20:28; Jn 7:42; 8:33, 37; Act 3:25; Rm 1:3; 4:13, 16, 18,
• children Mt 22:24, 25 //Mk 12:19, 20, 21 //Lk 20:28;
• the seed of David Jn 7:42; 2Ti 2:8; Rev 22:16; Act 13:23;
• a seed of David Rm 1:3; [Cf. 'son of David' Mt 1:1] [Cf. 2Sam 7:14]
• seed of Abraham Lk 1:55; Jn 8:33, 87; Act 3:25; 7:5; Rm 4:13, 16, 18; 9:7, 8;
11:1; 2Co 11:22; Heb 2:16; 11:18; Gal 3:16, 19, 29
• seed of (those brought forth by Elohim) 1Jn 3:9
• 'seed' of Abraham – Gal 3:16 Paul's rhetoric with word-play between ‘seed’ and
‘seeds’;

S4690 sperma [the English word ‘seed’ carries a different sense from offspring or
descendant. The word ‘seed’ of a person (as in ‘seed of Abraham’) is in figurative
use to carry the sense of Danker p. 325 – 1. ‘source of propagation’ seed (of plants;
of humans Hb 11:18); - 2. ‘product of propagation’ – a. of ancestral continuity or
lineage seed, posterity, - b. w. focus on a specific descendant seed, descendant
(Gal3:16 – 'the seed ~ of Abraham') – c. w. focus on production of divine
characteristics through God’s own, seed 1Jn 3:9 (‘gene’ in CEB is a frivolous
translation).

• H2233 zera (230x) –'a sowing' (Gen 47:24); 'seed' of plants (Gen 1:11, 12, 29);
'descendant' (Gen 7:3, 9:9; 17:7); 'offspring' (Gen 3:15 a '~ of the Serpent; ~ of the
womanb);

Notion of 'seed' is with female: 'her seed" does not mean 'the seed of her'. The expression 'her
seed' cannot mean anything but the 'seed' that she carries in her womb. 'offspring' of Sarai
(Gen 16:10. Cf. Heb 11:11) and of Rebekah (Gen 24:60); of the woman (Gen 3:15), of the
Lady (Rev 12:17)

[Note: notion of 'egg/ovum' and 'sperm' as such was in the premodern mindset. 'seed'
is of male element; nothing comparable to 'egg'. The idea of 'conception' and 'sexual
reproduction' came out with the discovery of the role of egg and sperm in reproduction
– in late 17th century.c]

a Gen 3:15 /> seed- most, Fox, BBE; /offspring – NAB, NET, ESV, NRSV, NIV duo, GNB, ISV NLT, AMP (~ her
Offspring), MSG; /x: descendant – CJB; /dx: descendants – GW, CEV; /xx: children – NIrV, ERV;
b 'the woman' – from the groundling (Adam Gen 2:22); named 'Eve' (Gen 3:20) https://youtu.be/y3Oyeipm5B8 [WHO

IS THE SEED OF THE WOMAN – by Rabbi Michael Skobac]

c [Ref. Cobb (2012), "An Amazing 10 Years: The Discovery of Egg and Sperm in the 17th Century", Rep. Dom. Anim.

47 (Supp. 4), 2-6. – a copy in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3B&C - Anthropology, 'Person', Religion)>.]
Wine; sour wine; ‘produce of the vineyard’ (‘fruit of the vine’);
[Related words; grape-vine; grape; to tread; wine press (yeqeb); ‘blood of grapes’
(dam anavim Gen 49:11); ‘grape wine’; ‘old wine’; ‘sour wine’ vs. vinegar;
‘must’; ‘skin bag’]
sour wine [Gk. oxos] [Mk 15:36 etc.] (NKJV, ESV, NET, etc.) –wine gets old and turns
into vinegar becoming sour; /xx: vinegar – KJV+, NIV; /
[equivalent to Latin posca – cheap sour wine diluted heavily with water for slaves and
soldiers. Prob. it was there for the soldiers who had performed the crucifixion – NETfn]

produce of the vineyard [Mt 26:29; //Mk 14:25; //Lk 22:18]; /fruit of the vine – KJV,
NET; /fruit of the grapevine – ALT; /produce of the vine; /> product of the vine; /
[See the next entry ‘vineyard; vine; branch’.]
[It refers to grape juice undergone fermentation. As grapes were harvested in the summer
or early fall, so at Passover time – in spring – fresh grape juice would not have been
available. Here, the expression with a symbolic reference to ‘blood’ is for its color, not
for wine as such.] [that is, grape juice compressed out from grapes, ‘what has come out
of’, ‘produce’’ ‘(primary) product’ of grape vine; which has been in fermentation
process.]
[Indexical and connotation of this word are not same as modern ‘wine’ as in the church
tradition of celebrating Eucharist. Resembling blood, it consistently appears as that
symbol of shed blood; is not (fully fermented) wine. - Ref: Jacob O. Meyer, Wine or
Grape Juice? – the Correct Memorial Emblem of the Messiah’s Blood (Assemblies of
Yahweh, Bethel, PA, 1987)
www.assembliesofyahweh.com/ ]

vineyard; vines; branches

Related Greek words:

ampelourgon – the one in charge of the vineyard (not ‘vine keeper); Lk
13:7 /vineyard worker; /x: vinedresser (- archaic) (cf. kēpouros – Jn 20:15
gardener)
klados – branch (in contrast to ‘root’) (Mt 13:32; Rm 11:16b, etc.)
ampelōn – vineyard Mk 12:1f; // Lk 13:6
ampelos –
(1) vine, grapevine Jam 3:12;
(2) vineyard ░░ /vine – most;
• fruit of the vineyard [Mt 26:29; //Mk 14:25; //Lk 22:18];
• vineyard (Jn 15:1, 5)
• vineyard of the earth (ampelos tēs gēs) Rev 14:19; 14:18 v.l.) *;
klēma grape vine (Jn 15:2, 5, 6) ░░ /branch – most;
kēpos – garden (Lk 13:19; Jn 18:1, 26; 19:41)
 *NET tn: ‘gathered the grapes from the vineyard of the earth.’
vineyard. Or "vine." BDAG (54 s. ἄμπελος a) states, "τρυγᾶν τοὺς
βότρυας τῆς ἀ. τῆς γῆς to harvest the grapes fr. the vine of the earth (i.e.
fr. the earth, symbol. repr. as a grapevine) Rev_14:18 (i.e. Revelation
14:18f.); but ἀ may be taking on the meaning of ἀμπελών, as oft. in pap.,
possibly PHib. 70b, 2 [III bc]." The latter alternative has been followed in
the translation (ἀμπελών "vineyard").

Ref. for semantic shift in Greek ‘vine to vineyard’ and ‘branch to vine’:

[‘prophetic warning over Yisrael pictured as the Vineyard of YHWH’ – Isa

5:1, 2-7. Cf. Mt 21:33-46]
[‘vine’ – Ps 80:8,9]
[Ref. C.C. Caragounis: “Is Jesus the Vine or the Vineyard?” in The
Development of Greek and the New Testament (2006 Baker) pp. 247-261
{Dec 21, 2007 [B-Greek] Chrys C. Caragounis' Book on the Development of Greek}
http://anebooks.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-jesus-vine-or-vineyard.html
www.lsn.se/2509/Debate.htm]
Crown; (victor's) wreath; laurel

English vocab – laurel, crown, coronet, tiara ;

Gk. stephanos
wreath, victor’s wreath, laurel; /> crown
Rev 6:2; 14:14 – on Yeshua the Mashiah)
Mt 27:29; Mk 15:17; Jn 19:2; /wreath of thorny twigs; /x: crown of thorns –
most); /

Gk. diadēma
(royal) crown, diadem – only in Rev (Rev 12:3; 13:1; 19:12)

‘astrologer-magi’;
See WB No. 3 (Names, Persons, and People)

‘*star of Bethlehem’; *planet

Motion of a planet – prograde, stationary and retrograde motion. 'standing still'.

Ref. "고대 천문학의 언어로 읽는 마태복음 2.9" - J. Korean Bible Translation Research
in Vol. 40. ['Reading Mt 2:19 in the language of the ancient astronomy]

'wondering stars' (Jud 1:13) = planets

See ‘*Morning star’* ‘Lucifer’

See WB No. 2 (Time and Space)

*tabernacle; vs. *tent; *booth; *synagogue;

*Mishkan; *Miqdash; *Temple; *sanctuary;
• House of YHWH – Exo 23:19; 34:26; Deu 23:18; ('house' - Heb bayith; /LXX
oikos)
• ‘Temple Mount’ (Heb. Har HaBayit)
'divine habitation' (or, 'divine dwelling place) – S3485 naos 1Co 3:16, 17; 6:19;
2Co 6:16; Eph 2:21 [Elsewhere rendered as 'Mishkan' in reference to Yerusalem
Temple]

Related words: (pagan) temples; shrines; Temple; Temple sanctuary; Temple

courts; Temple treasury; tabernacle.
[S264 eidōleiōn 'idol's temple'] 1Co 8:10
Related words: ‘altar’ Miskan and 'Ohel Mo'ed -pdf

*the Holy Place; the Most Holy Place; the Holy of Holies; *Temple; *sanctuary;
[See WB #4 'Place, Things, and Numbers]
*Sanhedrin;

[the Sanhedrin vs. a sanhedrin (a local court)]

Edited from www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Sanhedrin.html

The ancient Judaic court system was called the Sanhedrin. The Great Sanhedrin was the
supreme religious body in the Land of Israel during the time of the Holy Temple. There
were also smaller religious sanhedrins in every town in the Land of Israel, as well as a civil
political-democratic Sanhedrin. These sanhedrins existed until the abolishment of the
rabbinic patriarchate in about 425 CE.
The earliest record of a Sanhedrin is by Josephus who wrote of a political Sanhedrin
convened by the Romans in 57 BC. Hellenistic sources generally depict the Sanhedrin as a
political and judicial council headed by the country’s ruler.
Tannaitic sources describe the Great Sanhedrin as a religious assembly of 71 sages who met
in the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Great Sanhedrin met daily
during the daytime, and did not meet on the Sabbath, festivals or festival eves. It was the
final authority on Jewish law and any scholar who went against its decisions was put to
death as a zaken mamre (rebellious elder). The Sanhedrin was led by a president called the
nasi (lit. "prince") and a vice president called the av bet din (lit. "father of the court"). The
other 69 sages sat in a semicircle facing the leaders. It is unclear whether the leaders included
the high priest.
The Sanhedrin judged accused lawbreakers but could not initiate arrests. It required a
minimum of two witnesses to convict a suspect. There were no attorneys. Instead, the
accusing witness stated the offense in the presence of the accused and the accused could call
witnesses on his own behalf. The court questioned the accused, the accusers and the defense
witnesses.
The Great Sanhedrin dealt with religious and ritualistic Temple matters, criminal matters
appertaining to the secular court, proceedings in connection with the discovery of a corpse,
trials of adulterous wives, tithes, preparation of Torah Scrolls for the king and the Temple,
drawing up the calendar and the solving of difficulties relating to ritual law.
In about 30 C., the Great Sanhedrin lost its authority to inflict capital punishment. After the
Temple was destroyed, so was the Great Sanhedrin. A Sanhedrin in Yavneh took over many
of its functions, under the authority of Rabban Gamliel. The rabbis in the Sanhedrin served
as judges and attracted students who came to learn their oral traditions and scriptural
interpretations. From Yavneh, the Sanhedrin moved to different cities in the Galilee,
eventually ending up in Tiberias.
Local sanhedrins consisted of different numbers of sages, depending on the nature of the
offenses it dealt with. For example, only a Sanhedrin of 71 could judge a whole tribe, a false
prophet or the high priest. There were sanhedrins of 23 for capital cases and of three scholars
to deal with civil or lesser criminal cases.

Sources: Blackman, Philip. Introduction to Tractate Sanhedrin of the Mishnah. 1963.

Dimont, Max. Jews, Jews, God and History. 1962.
Encyclopedia Judaica "Sanhedrin". 1971.
Kung, Hans. Judaism. 1992.
Seltzer, Robert M. Jewish People, Jewish Thought. 1980.
*church; *ekklesia, congregation; Church; assembly; *community; *synagogue

[H5712 edah] Exo 12:47 /community - CJB, NET, NLT, Fox, etc.; /congregation – most, NASB,
KJV; /assembly – NWT, Darby, Douay;

[S1577 ekklēsia (114x)]

(A) assembly, congregation – Act 7:38; 19:32, 39, 41;
(B) 'gathered-up God's people' – In the Gospels – Mt 16:18 'the gathered-up God's people
called into my name' (>> 'my Church'); Mt 18:17 (2x) 'gathered-up people';
(C) In the Acts – Act 5:11 – 20:28;
In the Epistles – Rm 16:1-23; 1Co 1:2 – 16:19; 2Co 1:1 – 12:13; …
In the Rev – Rev 1:4 – 22:16]

'Mashiah Community of Elohim' (> 'Church of God'):

1Co 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:13; 1:22; 1Th 2:14; 2Th 2:4; 1 Tim 3:5.
There is no biblical phrase for 'Church of Christ', a protestant Christian church group of non-
denominational churches ('Churches of Christ'). Not to be confused with 'a Christian church'.

Cf. assembly, congregation;

Cf. government; polity; organization; society; movement; Heb 12:23;
Cf. Gemeinshaft vs. Gesellshaft
• Ferdinand Tonnies (1887), Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (English translation 1957
“Community and Society”).
• http://media.pfeiffer.edu/lridener/courses/GEMEIN.HTML www.enotes.com/research-
starters/gemeinschaft-gesellschaft

A synagogue [from Greek S4864 sunagogē (56x) 'assembly'] (of Yehudim) – mostly in
Synoptic Gospels and Acts. Others -Jn 9:59, 18:20 and Rev 2:9; 3:9. Cf. Jam 2:2 in the
sense of 'gathering/assembly'. Hebrew equivalent is: bet knesset, 'house of assembly' or bet
tefila, "house of prayer", Yiddish: shul.

Cf. Ko. 교회 (敎會) (meaning "가르치는 모임)"

Cf. 교회당 (敎會堂) or 성당 (聖堂) ('holy cathedral/building' – of Catholics) – refers to its building.
Cf. monastery; abbey; cloister; friary; hermitage; priory; lamasery, convents; [cf. monastics, monks,
hermits, nuns, medicants; ascetis;]

The common English word ‘church’ as a non-biblical term often refers to a building,
denomination, or an organization.

Church: church? churches? Church? the Church? – what Church, which Church and whose
Church?

E.g. For the Catholics, it means their own Roman Catholic Church. It usually connotes a
power organization in the institutionalized Christianity with buildings, practices, and
programs/rituals differently according to a particular denomination (e.g. Catholic Church,
Protestant Church, etc.) which itself represent a Christianism. When the word is used, the
context tells what exactly it means, whether it refers to a local church, a denomination or an
abstract notion of Church. /Church – ('Christian church' as a building/place, congregation,
organization, or service). It is a typical religious lingo; unsuitable for a translation word for
Gk. ekklesia in NT. IRENT does not use it for a translation word in the NT.
S1577 ekklēsia (114x) (the root of the terms "ecclesiology" and "ecclesiastical")
The Greek word ekklēsia is basically a gathering of a particular group of people for a
purpose (such as for a meeting for civic affairs in a city).
Cf. plēthōs (multitude; a large number of people) Act 19:9 /xx: congregation - NET;
Cf. sunagō (Act 11:26) ‘to assemble together’ ‘to convene’’

In the Gospels, it occurs in 2 places. However, this has nothing to do with the word 'church'
as used in English within and without church. To use the word 'church' as a translation word
in NT and especially in the Gospels is a typical anachronism. In Mt 18:17 it is used in the
sense of ‘congregation’ of people sharing common spirit of life. IRENT renders it as 'the
gathered people', that is, community of people.

In the particular occurrence of Mt 16:18a the word 'church' is very misleading. There was no
church as such in that time! No notion of 'church' existed then. [It is not in the sense of
‘church’, neither of assembly, nor of congregation. The word is best understood in its
etymological sense of ‘called-out’, i.e. ‘the people called out by Yeshua’ which is ‘God’s
own special chosen people (Tit 2:14; 1Pe 2:9) in Mashiah’, referring to the corporate (local)
body of Yeshua the Mashiah Himself. ‘Church’, which is a human religious power
organization, is not the goal of Yeshua’s mission; it is not a place where ‘Kingdom of God’
is to be found.] The Gk. phrase mou tēn ekklēsian is not 'my church', but in the of sense 'the
living community in me of those called out by God'. Especially in this verse such
anachronism is unpardonable as it simply misleads.

Unrelated to the Body of Mashiah:

• Cf. congregation - Heb 2:12 (Psa 22:22 of Israelties); - most, ASV; />> meeting – GNB;
/xx: church – KJV, DRB; /xxx: Church – Geneva;
• Cf. assembly (gathering of people meeting for matters of common interest)– Act 19:32 (of
those in power convened for a meeting); Act 7:38 (of Israelites with Moses in Mt. Sinai);
Act 19:39, 41; Heb 12:23 (of the firstborn)
• 'the gatherings of a congregation' 1Co 14:33b, 34; 'a gathering of a congregation' 1Co
14:28, 35; [some render it as church]
• Mt 18:17 'the gathered people' [most render it as 'church']

Related to the Body of Mashiah:

(1) singular (arthrous): Act 5:11; 7:38; 8:1, 3; 11:22, 26; 12:1, 5; 13:1; 14:27; 15:3, 4, 22; 18:22;
20:18, 28; Rm 16:1, 5; 1Co 1:2; 6:4; 10:32; 11:22; 12:28; 14:5, 12, 23; 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Gal 1:13;
Eph 1:22; 3:10, 20, 21; 5:23, 24, 25, 27, 29; Phi 3:6; 4:15; Col 1:24; 4:15, 16; 1Th 1:11; 2Th 1:1;
1Ti 3:5, 15; 5:16; Phm 1:2; Heb 2:12; 12:23; Jam 5:4; 3Jn 1:6, 9, 10; Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14;
(2) anarthrous en ekklēsia – 1Co 11:18; 14:4, 19, 28, 35;
(3) plural– Act 9:31; 15:41; 16:5; Rm 16:4, 16, 23; 1Co 7:17; 11:16; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; 2Co 8:1,
18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8, 28; Gal 1:2, 22; 1Th 2:14; 2Th 1:4; Rev 1:4, 11, 20; 2:7, 17, 23, 29; 3:6, 13,
22; 22:16; (every ~) Act 14:23; 1Co 4:17

aMt 16:18 – This verse is the notorious proof text for the Catholic doctrine of Petrine primacy which is in turn the
basis of its Papal supremacy .
 the ‘Church’ (other than as used for a title for religious denomination) is what the Body of
the Mashian community is. [Cf. body as not a physical human body, but as a polity. See the
word play on ‘body’ in 1Co 12:12. Cf. ‘corporate Body belonging to the Lord – 1Co 11:29.]

The rest are by most rendered as church/churches. RENT does not use 'church' as a translation
word, since the word with its meaning and characters is different from the word used in English
within or without religion.

In the rest, its essence is 'believers' gathering in Mashiah with sense of belonging',
'sharing life in fellowship' in the Lord, and love of the word of Elohim with people called
out for the Lord'.

IRENT often renders ekklēsia when it is related to the Body of Mashiah; it as 'Mashiah
community (communities)'.a
• 'those gathered believers' Rm 16:5, Col 4:15
congregation (of assembled people in common tie) Act 11:26; 13:1; 14:23; 15:3;
Rm 16:1, 23; 1Co 4:17; 6:4; 11:18; 12:28; 14:4, 5, 12, 19, 23;
Col 4:16; 1Ti 5:16; Phm 1:2; 3Jn 9,10; Heb 2:12 (OT) ‘
congregation of Mashiah community – 1Co 4:17; 6:4; 12:28; 14:4; 2Co 8:1 (pl); Phi 4:15;
Jas 5:14;3Jn 6
• congregations – Rm 16:4, 16; 1Co 7:17; 14:33, 34; 16:1, 19; 2Co 8:1, 18, 19, 23, 24; 11:8,
28; 12:13; Gal 1:2, 22; 1Th 2:14; 2Th 1:4]
• ‘Mashiah community - Act 2:47 v.l.; 14:27; 20:17; 1Co 15:9; ‘Eph 1:22; Eph 3:10, 21;
5:23, 24; Col 1:18, 24; 1Th 1:1; 3:5; 2Th 1:1; Rev 2:1, 8, 12, 18; 3:1, 7, 14; Phi 3:6
(of Elohim) (/x: 'church of God') Act 20:28; 1Co 1:2; 10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Gal
1:13; 1Ti 3:5;
• 'Ekklesia' (as in phrase 'Mashiah and his Ekklesia) -Eph 5:25, 27, 29, 32;
• Apostolic Mashiah Community – (should be reserved for the early 'Jerusalem
Church' in the Acts). Act 5:11; 8:1, 3; 11:22; 12:1, 5; 15:4, 22; 13:1, 14:23, 27;
18:22; 19:42; 20:28;

The English word "church" comes from the Greek word kuriakos, "belonging to the Lord"
(kurios).

Cf. A related expression ‘Body of Mashiah’ (>> ‘Body of Christ’) [Rm 7:4; 12:5; 1Co 6:15;
10:16; 11:29; 12:12, 27; Eph 4:12; (5:13)] 'Body' as corporate body (> corporation). In some
way, the descriptive name would be ‘People of the Way’ or ‘Children of Light’ ‘brotherhood in
Mashiah’, ‘gathering in Yeshua’, etc. [Note: 'Christ' is religious lingo, factually unrelated with
Mashiah (or Messiah) of Hebraic mindset of the OT and Gospels; 'Christ' 'Christian' is church
lingo.
Ref: Evaluation-Churchless_Christianity-12-2012 www.lcms.org/page.aspx?pid=695

a
In his Jewish New Testament, David Stein renders ekklēsia as 'Messianic community' (except Mt
16:18 as ‘my Community). A problem with it is the connotation and association of the word ‘Messianic’
with the Messianic movements, Messianic Jews, etc.
A problem with the word ‘community’ is the nuance it carries as a common secular
sociological jargon.
‘a church’ – a place or building for gathering of people for particular religious activities by a
religious organization; often such an organization.
‘the church’; esp. as ‘the Church’ – a denomination organization such as Catholic Church,
Orthodox ~, Protestant ~, Methodist ~, etc.

The basis of Church, the Church, churches – with a certain people group around the core beliefs
and practices – is ‘power’, the priestly power over people, indoctrinated and controlled with their
beliefs.

Note: The biblical word ‘church’ within or without the Scripture (‘church’ as appeared in most
English as translation of ekklesia) is a typical anachronism with church/religious jargons. The
'ekklesia' and 'church' have nothing much in common; instead it gives rise to completely wrong
reading of the Scripture. No word ‘church’ appears in IRENT.

Danker p. 117
1 ‘a gathering of people meeting for matters of common interest’, assembly
-a. in Hellenic society, w. ennomos, emphasizing statutory time for meeting Act 19:39. Cp. the
non-regulated gathering vs. 32, 40.
-b. in the early Messianic community, of pers. gathering in a meeting place Rm 16:5; 1Co
16:19; Col 4:15; Phm 2; with focus on deliberation Mt 18:17; Ac 15:22; 1Co 6:4; 14:35; with
focus on a cultic meeting 11:18; 14:4f, 28; 3Jn 6. Usage in b is closely connected with the
understanding of Israel as God's chosen community and Christ followers/Messianists in
legitimate continuity, hence-
2. 'God's people as a community', assembly, congregation
-a. specifically in ref. to OT Israel Act 7:38; Hb 2:12.
-b. with focus on Messianists in an area but without ref. to one specific meeting place as in lb
(a) in general Ac 5:11; 8:3 (here the generic term alongside implied house congregations); 1Co
4:17; Phil 4:15.
(b) of Christ followers in a named locality: Macedonia 2Co 8:1; Thessalonica 1Th1:1; and
others; the global community of Christ followers Mt 16:18; 1Co 12:28; Eph 1:22 and oft.; Col
1:18, 24; Phil 3:6. e. tou theou God's assembly/church 1Co 10:32 al.; e. tou christou Christ's
assembly/church Ro 16:16 [pl. congregations]

(The gloss 'church' is freq. used to render e., but with the result that connection with usage in the
LXX and connection with Israel is lost.)

www.etymonline.com/word/congregation
Used by Tyndale (1520s) to translate Greek ekklesia in New Testament in the
sense "an assembly of persons for religious worship and instruction", also "the
Christian church in general." The word also was used by Wycliffe and other Old
Testament translators in place of synagogue on the notion of "the whole body of
the Hebrews, as a community, gathered and set apart for the service of God.
(Vulgate uses a variety of words in these cases, including congregation but also
ecclesia, vulgus, synagoga, populus.) Protestant reformers in 16c. used it in
place of church; hence the word's main modern sense of "local society of
believers" (1520s).

http://btdnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Biblical-and-Historical-
Reflection-on-Ecclesiology-and-Insider-Movements-Tim-Tennent.pdf
 << … In these contexts, the very word “Christian” has strong connotations and
associations with Western culture or foreign-ness. For many of them the words
“Christian” and “Church” call to mind British imperialism or colonialism or worse.
In short, the phrase “Christian church” may carry very negative, cultural
connotations whereas Christ may not. …>>

With the reality of the churches in Christendom in its two millennia history down
the current status from its atrocity to its vanity (typified by so-called megachurch
boom), the word ‘church’ should not belong to the biblical words in the Bible text.

[To change other people’s religion to 'Christianity', join a 'church', and adopting a
Christian culture was not the mandate of Yeshua. Instead, ‘Yeshua without a
religion that is foreign to them, a religion of Christianity (Christianism). Moreover,
Christian vocabulary (jargon, Christianese a ) is a barrier for people to hear the
Scripture, associated with Western culture and political and religious powers in
collusion.
The word ‘church’ is unsuitable for a translation word in the NT, as it carries very
different meaning, most commonly as (1) a building and local organization of
people, or (2) a particular denomination – hardly it can be all inclusive (cf. ‘catholic
church’ in Apostles’ Creed – ‘sanctam ecclesiam catholicam’). Cf. the expressions
– their church, my church, etc.

“churchless Christianity” -
www.reclaimingthemind.org/papers/ets/2005/Tennent/Tennent.pdf
www.internationalbulletin.org/issues/2005-04/2005-04-171-tennent.pdf

The problem and inappropriateness of the term ‘catholicity’ or ‘catholic’ related to the church – (as
in Apostles’ Creed << … believe in the holy catholic church … >>).
https://bavinckinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Bavinck_Catholicity_CTJ27.pdf

In the sense of ‘universality’? [Linguistically the word is not easily dissociated from something to
do with a sectarian of Universalists.] What does it mean by a ‘universal church’?

Quoting – (adapted from Christian Courier, Dec. 2013, p. 11, Brandon Renfroe): Use of
the biblical word ‘Church’ in four senses of the Greek word ekklesia in the religious
context:
Universally – Mt 16:18; 2Th 2:14; Eph 1:22-23
Regionally – Act 9:31;
Locally – 1Co 1:2; Rev 1:4
Assembled – 1Co 11:18; 14:34

Quoting: Bryant J. Williams III in B-Hebrew:

a
Part of being a Christian is speaking ‘Christianese’, Christian jargon (an insider language).
Two Hebrew words that normally translated "congregation": QAHAL and `EDAH. These
two words are translated in the LXX by several different words, of which, two are primary.

1. QAHAL (assembly) is normally translated in the LXX by ekklēsia (assembly; which in

NT often translated as church) in the majority of instances, but also by ochēlos (crowd)
and pēltēos (multitude). What is striking is that in Genesis, Leviticus, Numbers, and
Ezekiel 32:23 QAHAL is translated by sunagogē.

2. `EDAH is normally translated by sunagogē (congregation; transliterated into English

as Synagogue). Of the 225 times in the LXX sunagogē is word used, but in it there are 34
times that has no Hebrew equivalent.

Clearly, the language of the ‘church’ being the Body of Mashiah (sōma Christou;
Mashiah’s Body - 1Co 12:27) and Bride of Mashiah (Rev 21:9) are more than mere
metaphor. Instead, they are ontological facts. It’s a mysterious new reality set forth in
Scripture. … For many in the church this has become nothing more than theological jargon.

The words of Yeshua to Shaul (> Saul) (Act 9:4-5) are a sobering reminder that the church
is not only the physical representation of Mashiah on the earth (i.e., what the church does
she does as his ambassadors), but also that what is done to/against the so-called church is
done to/against Mashiah, the glorious bridegroom.

Which one is real ‘Church’?

‘To build it up, or to tear down’ (2Co 13:10)?

God’s temple (1Co 3:16; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:21) as the believer’s corporate Body of Mashiah
– ‘church’ –. Cf. 1Co 6:19 “the Body of you people is the temple of the holy Spirit” – you
(plural) refers to the (local) corporate Body of the believers (‘Church’) as in 3:16. Not an
individual’s physical body as some claim to be for indwelling of holy Spirit.

temples (of ‘false-gods’ > ‘idols’) – shrines – 1Co 6:19

*churchification

In the Oxford English Dictionary, uses of the verb "to churchify" go as far back as to
1719 and means to "to imbue with the ideas, principles, or characteristics of the
Christian Church; to make 'churchy,"' adding a specific use of "to churchify," meaning
"to assimilate to the Anglican Church." By extension, churchification is the result of
churchifying, meaning that some characteristic of the church has been imbued, or that
something has become part of the church. E.g. 'churchification of Islam in Europe' in
recent history.
*works vs. faith; *Law vs. Gospel; Law vs. Grace; Law vs. Torah

Ref.: A Biblical Arch. Society article by Ronald Hendel “The Law in the
Gospel” Bible Review, Apr. 1998, 20, 52 – “The law is an essential precondition
for the gospel: When Jesus and Paul speak, they speak in the language of law”

Halakhah (Essene Halakhah letter from Qumran ‘MMT’ (‘Some Precepts on

Torah’) - even from before 1st c.); Mishnah (ca 200 CE); Talmud (ca 600 CE)

Cf. Martin Luther’s distinction between law and gospel.

‘works’ – the sense is usually clear in the context, often used in fixed phrases. If the word
occurs by itself, the context has to be supplied – e.g. Rm 3:27; 4:2, 6;
in several different contexts:

(1) ‘works of law’ – (Rm; Gal)

(2) ‘works of righteousness’
(3) ‘works of darkness’, etc.

Eph 2:9 what we do [to earn ~] ░░ (ergon, ‘works’ - i.e. ‘works of our own righteousness’
(Tit 3:5) – by keeping religious rules and requirements.]
[Rm 3:20 ‘justification not by works’ ≈ Eph 2:9 ‘salvation not the result of works];
[‘work on the basis of obligation and requirement to meet law’s demands’ of religions, that
is, ‘works of our own righteousness’ cf. v. 10. Also Rm 4:5; Tit 3:5 (‘works of
righteousness’). The same word is in context diametrically opposite to Jam 2:14 ‘works
that which flows out of Love’. Work being performed as requirement in obedience with
law – Rm 3:20; vs. work flowing out from result of Love in faith.);

/works; /x: earning the love of God - PNT; /x: actions – JNT, ISV; /> anything you’ve
done – GW, (NIrV); /something you have earned – CEV; /our own efforts – GNB; />
obedience to Law – TCNT; /It has not been earned – GSNT; /your own [good] deeds
[See Tit 3:5] – AUV; /merit – WNT; /what you have done – Mft; /x: the good things
we have done – NLT; /what we have done to merit – AJR; /[the fulfillment of Law’s
demands ] – AMPexp; /

*worship’;
*devotion; *veneration; *offering; *sacrifice; sacrificial rites; *Mass; religious service
Public worship; church worship]

[English word *worship – verb and noun]; [Fr. Old Eng. ‘worthiness’ ‘acknowledgment
of worth’

[English 'to worship' is just one of translation words for S4352 proskuneō which carried diverse
sense and diverse worship-objects. It is usually in the sense of 'pay homage to' 'prostrate before.
Only when the verb is used in reference to the God ('Elohim'), it should be used, unless possible
it is used in pejorative with the word in quotation marks, i.e. 'worship'. In English usage 'to
worship' does not necessarily allude to God as the object, as in the expression either 'worship
someone', even 'worship something'. The expression 'worship someone' always 'worship
someone as ~'. In case of 'worship someone as God'; it does not mean that some is God or is
identical to God.a

S4352 proskuneō = ‘pros’ + ‘kuneō’ kiss) (21x in Rev) From ‘worthy’. The essence is
‘rendering/giving one’s most worthy things to God’. 'to worship as to God']

[As to Elohim – 4:10; 5:14; 7:11; 11:1, 6, 16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10; 22:9 ('to worship');
As to all others – 3:9; 9:20; 11:1; 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:7; 9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4, 8 (prostrate before,
bow down)]

[from John 4:24: John W. Ritenbaugh

[Worship, which is our response to God, is what we give in our devoted service. The worship of God
involves the totality of life; therefore, it cannot be confined to a particular location. …. He means that
God is not confined to any one place, nor is the worship of Him confined to any one place. Likewise,
it cannot be confined to just an hour or two on a particular day because in a biblical sense the worship
of God is our response to Him in all of life. So, He cannot even be isolated to an hour or two on the
sabbath. ….]

[S4352 proskuneō. Cf. S3000 latreuō Mt 4:10; Act 7:42, etc. 'serve' 'worship'.]

To worship as to God, it is 'Father' who is to be worshiped, none other; not the Son,
not the Mashiah. Cf. "God Jesus religion" (of either Trinitarian or oneness doctrine)

The Gk. corresponding to the noun 'worship' is S2999 latreia (e.g. Jn 16:2; Rm 12:1; Heb 9:1)
which is rendered in IRENT as 'sacred-service' – something not related to S4352. See below
for vocab - S3000 latreuō 'to serve' 'to worship'.]

a
In a similar line of argument, we can see the word 'believe' itself is ambiguous without clear
context. With a statement 'I believe something', the sense of 'believe' is not complicated. It
may mean 'believe it to be true' or, in opposite with ellipsis ever 'believe to be not true'. To
say 'I believe someone' actually means 'I believe someone to be ~ (true, a king, etc.).
 Dan 3:28b
rather than serve [H6399 pelach]
or worship [5457 segid 'pay homage']
any god [H426 elah] other than their own God [lê·lā·hă·hō·wn].

1Ch 29:20 Then David said to the whole assembly,

"Praise YHWH your Elohim."
So, all the assembly praised YHWH,
Elohim of their fathers;
they bowed down,
prostrating themselves before YHWH and the king [David].

[H1288 barak 'to praise' 'to bless'] [H7812 shachah 'to prostrate' /x: to worship]

As words have meaning, if we use words in different contexts or words of wrong

choice, we can often convey a completely different meaning. Likewise, if we use a
word carelessly, we not only fail to communicate accurately but also we become a
victim of our own strange ideas and doctrines. One of the weapons possessed by
human mind is to use of words to manipulate others (Orwellian double-talk is just an
extreme example) to create doctrines and also find proof texts in the Bible to suit their
agenda. This is what is done by all the sectarian as well as denominational parties.
Unfortunately, a similar thing that happens quite often when we translate a word from
one language to another without a clear understand of the meaning of the original
word being translated.

‘worship’ is a term for a cultic ritual. A typical example is Catholic Mass. What actually is
something called worship is difficult to characterize, esp. among various Protestant groups,
where a ‘sermon’ is a focal point along with praise song and prayers.

“Worship is not worship is not worship.” Worship is what we have in our response to our
god in our life. Not to be confused with ‘worship services’ as in churches. [Cf. ‘person
worship; public worship; Judaic ‘sacrifice’] [Related words: adore, admire, devote (to
someone or something), honor, praise; idolize, service, obedience,]

Questions: ‘What is worship?’ ‘What is true worship?’ – this presupposes the question what
is worship is already answered. ‘What is worship, then?’ ‘the meaning of worship’ ‘the
purpose of worship’ ‘corporate worship’ ‘public worship’ ‘private worship’ - when google
searched, we get gazillion hits! How this religious jargon ‘worship’ different from ‘devotion’,
with ‘(religious pious) adoration’ set aside? Do ‘Christians’ worship ‘Jesus’ [sic]? Is it same
as ‘devotion’? Worship as God? When He is worshiped, where is YHWH Elohim? On His
left side? Where is the Holy Ghost [sic]? To the left side of Elohim? Or are they at different
levels of positioning? How can we avoid God-talk in anthropomorphic mindset which tends
to be actually of ‘three Gods’ linguistically speaking when it is claimed that they are three
different and distinct ‘persons’, howsoever the word ‘person’ is defined to fit one’s doctrines
– all of which are actually man-made, not God-given, nor Scripture-pronounced?

The word ‘worship’ is a term for a cultic ritual. A typical example is Catholic Mass. What
actually is something called worship is difficult to characterize, esp. among various
Protestant groups, where a ‘sermon’ is a focal point along with praise song and prayers.
Worship, public vs. private - corporate worship or worship in personal context -
www.ccclh.org/pdf/Worship.pdf

"Worship: Bowing Down and Serving the Lord"

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/ascending-mountain-lord-temple-praise-and-worship-
old-testament/worship-bowing
[a copy in the Collection]

…the Hebrew verbs “bow down” (hẉ h) and “serve” (āb̠ad) are often translated “worship.” These
verbs describe the physical expression of a relationship of submission to authority — to “bow
down” and to “serve” (e.g., Exodus 20:5).

In the practice of OT temple worship, we see this embodiment of relationship when those
worshipping the Lord in his holy house literally “bow down” and “serve”.
In addition to these narrower usages, the Old Testament also shows that “bowing down” and
“serving” in worship is a way of life. It illustrates how obedience and covenant faithfulness is
worship; lack of obedience and unfaithfulness to a covenant is betraying the relationship of
submission and loyalty required of one who should be in the position of “bowing down” and
“serving”.

… these verbs illustrate that worship is something that we do and that we are in a relationship with
the one whom we are worshipping. Rather than merely being about what we think or feel, these OT
terms point us to an “embodied” understanding of worship — a way of life and a relationship with
God expressed by the physical actions of bowing down or serving.
…
ḥwh always refers to the action/attitude directed toward a human or divine figure who is recognized
(appropriately or inappropriately) as being in a position of honor or authority. Depending on the
figure and the situation, it may be a gesture of greeting, respect, submission, or worship. The action
may entail falling to one’s knees, in front of which one places the hands or between which one bows
the face (nose, forehead) to the ground (or comparable gesture). … The gesture is an external sign
of the inner spirit (though hypocrisy is possible); the word can also simply express the inner
attitude. The prayer posture (hands outstretched) normally does not entail prostration. [“ḥwh” in
Fretheim New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis.]

So, simply put, in the Old Testament, ḥwh is a physical enactment of one’s relationship with a
superior [-- expressed in the noun form as hishtach vāh]. It was understood as an outward
expression of an inward attitude. Translations include “to bow”, “to prostrate oneself”, “to make
obeisance”, or “to bend low.” This gesture of bowing down was widespread in ancient Near Eastern
religious practice and was a daily part of the ritual worship of the gods in ancient Near Eastern
temples. …
…
The second verb in the couplet of the Ten Commandments “Thou shalt not bow thyself to them, nor
serve them” is the Hebrew term ‘āb̠ad,̱ which, when used without an object, is usually translated as
“to work”. Those who work for another are in that person’s service and thus “with personal objects
‘āb̠aḏmeans ‘serve’ and expresses the relationship between an ‘eb̠eḏand his or her ’āḏôn, ‘lord,
master’.” The lord is the one who is served, and the servant or slave is the one who does the work.
This term brings with it an understanding of the submission and loyalty of a servant to his or her
master that directly connects with “religious loyalty expressed through worship,” particularly in
Deuteronomy. [9] The Hebrew verb ‘āb̠aḏ naturally becomes paired with the verb ḥwh; serving and
bowing down are the proper expression of a relationship of submission and subservience.

The Old Testament helps us understand why we should see ourselves as God’s servants, those who
are grateful to bow down and serve only him. This insight comes in a simple passage in Leviticus,
but it has already been hinted at in the Ten Commandments. Remember that YHWH told Israel, “I
am YHWH your Elohim, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of
bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me” (Exo 20:2–3). YHWH’s position as our Lord
derives from his having brought us out from bondage to another lord. Because of the redemption,
the Israelites became God’s ‘āb̠aḏîm, his servants or slaves.
 What is it when we call ‘*worship’ of religious practices and traditions?

Is it like coming into a place together with prayer to a certain direction and to bow
down? To rise up and to sit down to sing hymns, to listen to sermons or
exhortations, to pass plates for collecting paper money? To whom is our actual
worship directed?

Where does it say how we are to ‘worship God’? [coming into the presence of God
to praise, thank, and honor His name – at personal level in each one’s real life and
at corporate level with public gathering.]

Cf. ‘*sacrifice or offering of various kinds for various purposes in OT,

prominently with blood motif.

We can see ‘how to worship God’ though not directly in Torah:

– (1) in Shema Yisrael [of Judaism] Deu 6:4 (variously translated) quoted in
NT in Mk 12:29; partly in //Lk 10:27ff; //Mt 22:37ff.
– (2) in the first part of the Ten Words (the Ten Commandments) Exo 20:3-7;
//Deu 5:6-11.

Exo 20:3 ‘You shall not have other gods in place of me, [YHWH Elohim].’ [‘in
place of me’ > ‘before me’ – most] – to worship a Him; to praise Him
115F115F

[‘HalleluYah’], the Sovereign, the Creator, the Savior.

It is a person’s (people’s) whole-hearted living towards Elohim of Covenant, not

certain religious activities of ‘devotion’, ‘piety, ‘solemnity’ or ‘liturgy’.
Muse on ‘worship’ vs. 'sacrifice' (esp. in OT)
https://youtu.be/OBolhd32IKo How do we worship God?
How do we worship? At timeline 08:00

Mk 7:7 [S4576 sebō (10x) 'worship (Elohim)' – Mt 15:9; Mk 7:7 'God-fearing' (Act 13:43,
13:50; 16:14;17:4, 17; 18:7); 'worship (goddess Artemis)' (Act 19:27)]

“Worship is …” Cf. ‘public worship’ is a liturgical execution.

“True worship”
“Worship the true Elohim”
What is ‘worship’? It is not something we have to!
In New Covenant – habit (life style) of celebrating in joy and exalting God in
communion with Him – rejoicing, fullness of joy, rejuvenate, shalom, hope, and

a
worship Him - "It behooves us to be careful what we worship, for what we are worshipping we are
becoming," Ralph Waldo Emerson said. This is true. Because a person becomes or does what his god is, he
must know who God is and must be careful regarding his reaction to this commandment because it affects
every area of life, thoughts, and action. It is not just a tiny sidebar of life. If kept as it should, it becomes part
of the very foundation of what we are becoming. [modified from Matthew 22:37-38 John W. Ritenbaugh].
Worship is only to God? God is the only one we worship? Worship God the Father, God the Son? Also God
the Holy Ghost? Worship the Trinity God? How many Gods the Trinitarians worship. One-ness God only?
 strength come: Ps 16:8 – God’s right hand (power of God in spirit, not power of
positive thinking)
Becoming like Yeshua – path of living

Worshiping 'God'
‘We worship God’ – but what does it mean to ‘worship’ and to ‘worship God’?
‘Do worship someone, something, some immaterial ones, or some ideas (why not ‘angels’
‘babies’ ‘American idols’)? Worship other than ‘God’? Respect? Praise? Adore? Revere?
Venerate? Or, God is defined by the One to be ‘worshiped’}
The English word 'to worship' – in various sense and usage (of ‘to be used or not to be’):
(1) honor or reverence as divine being or supernatural power (2) to regard for a person
or thing with great or extravagant respect, honor, or devotion.] ‘Someone being
worshiped’ does not mean ‘someone being the God’; though he may be worshiped as
God, or as a god (e.g. Caesar). The word 'to worship' as a translation word in the
Scripture is not same as 'worship' of religious church lingo.
It needs to clarify this English word ‘to worship’ – definition and usage – to avoid a
stalemate on the questions of ‘Is Jesus God’. When the Bible tells Elohim (‘the God’) alone
is to be worshiped, then do Christians worship ‘Jesus’? What does it mean by ‘worshiping
God’? What God? Which God? Whose God? What does it mean by 'worshiping Jesus'?
What Jesus? Whose Jesus? What does it mean not to worship Jesus? When we worship/pray
where Yeshua the risen Lord be and what He would be doing? – Similar questions also arise
when ‘the Holy Ghost’ (KJV) is claimed to be another ‘person’ (among three) and is called
‘God’]; [‘worship’ as a translation word requires problems of its usage in English within
and without Church.]
“Worshipping someone-something as God (= god)”: That which is worshiped is not
necessarily mean to be ‘god’, nor ‘the God’, but worship-worth divine. Worshiped by
men does not mean that a god-being is being worshiped. Same for the verb ‘pray’. Pray
to someone does not mean someone is a god-being. Someone believed to be sinless, to
know all things, etc. does not mean this someone is a god-being.
Is it only ‘God’ we say we worship? Veneration, adoration, praise, prostrate before or
bow down, do obeisance, etc.? We worship something or someone – worship for what
reason? We worship ‘God’; that someone is said to be ‘worshiped’ in the English Bible
does not prove that he is ‘God’. What God? Which God? Whose God?
*sacred-service; *worship

Word study of related Greek words for ‘service’ ‘ministry’ – see EE here.20
latreia, latreuō, leitourgia
Word study of related Greek words for ‘priest’ ‘high priest’ – see EE here.21

Related words
• ‘*Worship service’ – a jargon for liturgical public worship of a church; not same
as ‘worship’ in the Bible. (cf. ‘public worship’ ‘music worship’ etc.
• missa (Latin, English – ‘Mass’) – a non-biblical Catholic liturgical practice.
• What is called equivalent to ‘worship service’ in the practice of Yehudism and the
modern rabbinic Judaism?

Worship and sabbath – Sabbath is of a rest day with congregation gathering. It is

not directly related with ‘worship’, nor ‘day of worship service. [The problem of
defining ‘worship’ which is not same as church practice of ‘worship service’ on a
certain day – most on Sunday; Sabbatarians on Saturday.]

S4352 proskuneō (60x) 'to prostrate before' 'to pay homage to' 'to do obeisance to' (archaic) Mt
2:2; 8:2; 14:33; 18:26; 28:17; Lk 24:50; 'to worship (only in reference to the God)' Mt 4:10;
Lk 4:7, 8; Jn 4:20;
S4353 proskunētēs – a worshiper (1x) Jn 4:23
S2356 thrēskeia – reverence, veneration
S2151 eusebeō -- to show piety ...
S4573 sebazomai -- to fear
S3000 latreuō -- to worship; [God] Mt 4:10; Lk 1:74; 2:37; 4:8; Act 7:7; 24:14; [something]
Act 7:42;

S2999 latreia – sacred-service [Danker p. 213 cultic devotion Jn 16:2; Rm 9:4; 12:1; Hb 9:1, 6]

[Cf. S3009 leitourgia (‘public service’ – NWT; ‘ministry’ – KJV, NASB; ‘worship’ – NET, ESV trio;
‘ceremonies’ - JNT) - Lk 1:23; Hb 8:6; 9:21; Phi 2:17, 20; 2Co 9:12]

Rm 12:1
to present the bodies of yoůr own as a ‘living sacrifice’,
one that has been consecrated,
one that is well-pleasing to Elohim;
— this being what yoůr sacred-service
belonging to God’s word should be. [cf. Jn 4:24]
sacred-service ░░ (Gk. latreia) 22
1 (as a noun): /sacred service – NWT, ALT, EBTV, NLT, Wuest; /x: service – KJV, ASV, NET,
Aramaic Bible in Plain Eng; /service of worship – NASB; /act of worship – NIV duo; /act of
(reasonable) worship – WNT; /worship – NIV, ESV, SCSB, GNB; /”Temple worship” – JNT;
/divine service – CLV, Rhm; /religious service – Diagl; /(cult) rite – Mft; /(Your reasonable
((rational, intelligent)) service and spiritual) worship - AMP;
2 (rephrased into a verbal phrase): /(That’s the most sensible way) to serve God – CEV; /(This
 offering of yourselves is the spiritual way for you) to worship ((serve)) God. – ERV; [(this is
the reasonable way for you) to worship. – ISV; /(This is truly the way) to worship Him. – NLT;
/( For this is a reasonable [or spiritual] way for you) to worship [or serve] - AUV; /(When you
offer your bodies to God,) you are worshiping him – NIrV; /
3 (turned into baloney): /xx: (a new sentence of baloney) – PNT; /xxx: (a baloney) – Embracing
what God does for you is the best thing you can do for him – MSG; /

Gk. proskuneō;

Danker p. 305 – [pros, kuneō ‘to kiss’ (freq. part of social ritual)] ‘recognize
author’s prestige by offering special honor’, ordinarily through a gesture of
prostration, do obeisance to, pay homage to –

a. to humans Mt 18:26; Act 10:25; Rev 3:9.

Especially in honor of Jesus Mt 2:2, 8, 11; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; Jn 9:38 -
b to beings considered transcendent (whether identified as such expressly or by
implication), ordinarily w. focus on religious aspect, worship
(1) deity in monotheistic cult Mt 4;10; Lk 4:8; Jn 4;20f, 22b; Heb 1:6; 11:21; Rv 4:10;
5:14
(2) deity in polytheistic cult Act 7:43
(3) malevolent beings Mt 4:9; Lk 4:7; Rev 9:20 and freq. in Rev.
(4) angelic beings, w. gesture of prostration tantamount to religious devotion Rev 22:8
(5) Jesus as risen Lord Mt 28:9, 17; Lk 24:52

'worshiping God' [either as in a corporate or personal worship] - as paying honor to God for who He
is and what He does. “The chief end of man is this very thing, to glorify God and enjoy Him forever
[Westminster Catechism]. We are to worship the right God-being whom we know who He is; and
are to worship in spirit and truth.
S2151 eusebeō. Act 17:23 'venerate';
• 'worship Elohim' [S4576 sebō (10x) to venerate, to worship) + ton Theon] Act 16:14; 18:7, 13;
• 'worship Elohim' [proskuneō (S4352 'prostrate before' 'pay homage to' (Mt 2:11) 'to worship' (Jn
4:23) + tō Thō] 1Co 14:25; Rev 7:11; 11:16; 19:4, 10; 22:9;
• [Cf. In OT – Exo 3:12; 2Sa 15:32; Psa 74:8]
On the other hand, the Gk. or Hebrew word for English word worship is used in reference to other
than ‘God’ – kings as representing God, and even to glorified saints (1Chr 29:20; Rev 3:9), angels
(Rev 22:9), Satan (Mt 4:9 – Cf. v.10), ideas, things (as in paganism). It does not mean 'to worship' as
used in English.

A problem inherent in Trinitarian mindset is to bring worship and praise to Father, Son, and ‘Holy
Ghost’, as if they are separate ‘persons’ worthy of worshipping, picturing strangely as three having
taken a place side by side. As ‘Elohim is spirit’ (Jn 4:24 – /xx: a spirit - KJV, /xx: a Spirit -NWT; /x:
Spirit – Rec;), there no space, place or time can be related to God-being. Or would they appear
sequentially as people pray to them, as each waiting ‘his’ turn?!
to *worship, proskuneō
S4353 proskunētēs – a worshiper (1x) Jn 4:23

[S4352 proskuneō (60x) – (corresponding Hebrew word hāwā)

[Note: this does not have Gk. equivalent noun ('a worship') for this word.]

'to prostrate before' 'to pay homage to' 'to do obeisance to' (archaic); 'to worship (only in
reference to the God).
The word occurs in reference to different objects:
• in reference to God ['to worship']
(Mt 4:10; Lk 4:8; Jn 4:20, 21, 22, 23 (2x), 24; 10:25; 1Co 14:25; Heb 11:21; Rev 4:10;
5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 14:7; 15:4; 19:4, 10; 22:9)
• Generic (Mt 18:26; 12:20; Act 8:27; 24:11; Rev 3:9; 11:1)
• to Yeshua (new born) 3x (Mt 2:2, 8, 11)
• to Yeshua (the risen Lord) 3x (Mt 28:9, 17; Lk 24:52)
• to Yeshua 9x (Mt 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; Mk 5:6; 15:19; Jn 9:38; Heb 1:6)
• to angel (Rev 22:8)
• to man (Peter) (Act 10:25)
• to dragon, beast, image (Act 7:43; Rev 13:4, 8, 12, 15; 14:9, 11; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4)
• to demon (Rev 9:20; 14:7; 15:4)
• to the devil (Lk 4:7)
https://carm.org/new-world-translation-and-proskuneo-worship [the word 'worship' is used
in reference to Jesus; therefore, Jesus is God. Since Jesus is 'God' people worship! This word
'worship' found in the Bile translations then proves that Jesus is God!!! The translation word
is simply conveniently recruited for proof-texting'. They have at least two Gods [to worship].
They don't see the word was used even for demon, dragon, etc.
www.gotquestions.org/is-Jesus-God.html " …If Jesus were not God, He would have told
people to not worship Him, …"

Anyone or anything can be 'worshiped'. But to worship as what? Worshiped as 'God'??

The word is then rendered variously:

• 'to pay homage to' /x: 'do obeisance to' (quaint/archaic word used in NWT) Mt 2:2, 8, 11
(to the new born Yeshua; /xx worship); Heb 1:6 (to the Son of Elohim); /bring homage
to; /show homage to; /
• 'prostrate oneself' ('keel down' 'bow down') (in homage; in reverence) Mt 8:2; 9:19; 14:33;
15:25; 18:26; 28:9; Mk 5:6; 15:19; Lk 24:52; Jn 9:38; Rev 3:9;
• 'bow down' Heb 11:21;
• 'to worship' (as to Goda)
• 'to do an act of worship' (after NWT) – Mt 4:9; Lk 4:7;
• Ko. 절하다, 경배하다; ‘to worship’ (예배) ;
[Cf. ASV margin note "The Greek word denotes an act of reverence, whether paid to a creature
(as Jn 9:38) or to the Creator (see Jn 4:20)." Some claims that this makes Jesus a 'creature', not
the 'Creator' – a typical Trinitarian argument.]

a
Note: For the Trinitarians, God is a title used for 'the Father' 'the Son' 'the Holy Spirit' as well as 'Trinity'.
It is also for 'God' or 'god' of other religions. Hence, what God and which God are not obviously known
without hearing in the very context which is used.
 Related words:
Cf. S4363 prospiptō (8x) ‘prostrate before’ ‘fall down’ ‘bow down to’ (at someone’s feet) Mk
3:11; 5:33; 7:25; Lk 5:8; 8:28, 47; Act 16:29.
Cf. S1120 gonupeteō (4x) Mt 17:14; 27:29; Mk 1:40; 10:17 (‘kneel down’, ‘go down on one’s
knees’)
Cf. S5087 tithemi + S1119 gonata + S4352 proskuneō _Mk 15:19 [‘bend the knees and bow down
(prostrate)')]
Cf. S2578 kamptō Phi 2:10 ‘+S1119 (gonu) "bend one’s knee" 'fall on the knees' 'kneel down'
('bow the knee'??)
[S4098 piptō (91x) fall down, fall (prostrate) (at one's feet); occurs as pipto + proskuneō (Mt 2:11; 4:9;
18:26; Rev 5:14; 7:11; 11:16; 19:4; 22:8).]

[S3000 latreuō (21x) 'to serve' 'render sacred service' 'to worship' –[God] Mt 4:10; Lk 1:74;
Act 7:7; Rm 1:9; Phi 3:3; 1Tim 1:3; Heb 8:5; 9:9; Rev 7:15; 22:3; [Sun, moon, stars] Act 7:42;
[S2999 latreia (5x) – 'sacred service' (>> worship) Jn 16:2; Rm 9:4; 12:1; Heb 9:1, 6]

[S4576 sebomai sebō (10x) 'to revere' 'to venerate' 'to worship' Mt 15:9; Mk 7:7, Act
13:50; 19:27; sebō ton Theon 'worship Elohim' (Act 16:14; 18:7, 13)
sebomenōn 'God-worshiping' – Act 13:43; 17:4, 17)]

[Cf. S2152 eusebēs (3x) 'devout' Act 10:2, 7; 2Pe 2:9 + phoboumenos [S5399 phobeō
(95x) 'to fear'– Act 10:2 (of Elohim)]
S2151 eusebeō (2x) – Act 17:23 ('to worship'); 1Tm 5:4 ('to be devout');

[S2515 eusebeō (2x) 'to revere' 'to pay homage to' 'to worship' Act 17:23; 1Tm 5:4]
S1398 douleuō (25x)
• 'serve' (God, Lord, people) (Mt 6:24; Lk 15:29, Act 20:19; Rm 7:6, 25, Rm 16:18,
Gal 5:13; Eph 6:7; Phi 2:22; Col 3:25; 1Th 1:9; 1Tim 6:2);
• 'be enslaved' (Jn 8:33; Act 7:7; Rm 6:6; Gal 4:8, 9, 25; Tit 3:3)
S1247 diakoneō (37x)a 'to serve'; ‘to minister’ Mt 4:11; 8:15; Jn 12:2, etc.

S2356 thrēskeia (x4) 'x: religion' 'religious worship' 'form of worship' (NWT); reverence,
veneration. Col 2:18 ['cultic devotion' (/x: worship) of the angels'); Act 26:5 ('our ~ as a
Pharisee'); Jam 1:26b, 27

S2357 thrēskos (1x) Jam 1:26 'religious' 'be a formal worshiper – NWT3; 'be a worshiper
of God – NWT4 'fn. religious'
S4574 sebasma (2x) 'object of worship' Act 17:23; 2Th 2:4
S4573 sebazomai (1x) – Rm 1:25 'to worship' 'to revere'
S4353 proskunētēs – a worshiper (1x) Jn 4:23

[H6915 qadad 'bow down'] + [H7812 shachah] pay homage or worship:

Gen 24:26, 48;43:28; Exo 4:31; 12:27; 34:8; 1Kg 1:16; 1Ch 29:20, 30; Neh 8:6;
Cf. H6915 + with his face to the ground + H7812: 1Sam 24:8; 2Ch 20:18; 1Kg 1:31
Cf. H6915 + fall flat – Num 22:31;
Cf. H7812 + to YHWH – 1Sa 1:28 (‘[Eli] worshipped YHWH there')

aCf. S1249 diakonos 'servant' 'minister' Mt 20:26; Jn 2:5; Rm 13:4, etc.

Cf. S1401 doulos '(bond-) servant', 'slave' Mt 8:9; Jn 8:34; Rm 1:1, etc.
 https://youtu.be/Cv8B-Dt5cVg Hebrews Chapter 1 - An Interpretation Catastrophe
[The Gk. proskuneō almost always signified a physical act. It indicated the oriental custom of
either genuflection, i.e., bowing down by bending the knee(s), or prostration …towards those
possessing imperial authority, especially kings. Such physical acts usually indicated no more
than a humble attitude of submission. … our English word “worship”, whether used as a noun
or a verb, does not designate a physical act.
In summary, the word 'to worship' as a translation word for proskuneō fits only in reference to
YHWH Elohim, not in any other things, persons, or God-being, including 'Jesus'.a
[ www.patheos.com/blogs/kermitzarleyblog/2013/09/is-jesus-divine-because-he-was-
worshipped/ ]
This Greek word itself does not tell that its object of the act is particularly divine or
God. Only with a translation English word ‘worship’ its use is limit to God-being. It is
only the context that let it carry a special sense as ‘worship God’. [Note on 'to worship
someone': ‘Someone being worshiped’ does not mean he is the God’; he may be
"worshiped as God".
English Bibles often translate indiscriminately as ‘worship’ even when its nuance and
sense require it differently. E.g.
[Cf. Mt 6:9 //Lk 11:2; Pater ~! hagiasthētō to onoma sou.]
[Cf. Mk 12:29b <Shema Yisrael> from Deu 6:4]

athe word ‘worship’ is unfit for translation but English Bibles often translate indiscriminately as ‘worship’
even when its nuance and sense require it differently. e.g.
Mt 2:2, 11 (Magi ‘pay homage’ to a new king; ‘paid homage’ to the child’)
'Worshiping Jesus'

[‘to call upon the name of Jesus’ 1Co 1:2, or Act 7:59 does not mean ‘Jesus’
was 'God' to whom they were addressing/worshiping.]

Heb 1:6 (All God’s angels) pay homage to the (Son) ░░ (proskuneō) /xx: worship
/pay homage to – Cass, Noyes; /x: do obeisance to – NWT-3; NWT-4; /x: do reverence to – ISR; /bow
before – GSNT; /bow down before – TCNT; /x: worship – most; /x: prostrate themselves in worship
before – ALT, EBTV;
- the same word used in reference to the child Yeshua (Mt 2:2) by the magi.

It is fallacious thus to argue that because Jesus is ‘worshipped’, he must be God. But what
sense is ‘worship’ and what senses is ‘God’?] [See also ‘Jesus is God?’ issue.]

Christological progress: Veneration/adoration of the risen Lord to ‘worship’ of Jesus is in

parallel to <Man, Son-of-man → a ‘divine’ man → the (‘only-begotten’ Son of God
(metaphoric) → mystical pre-existent eternal God the Son (metaphysical) → God-Man or
demigod born of 'Mary Ever-Virgin'.

Faith → beliefs → dogma / creeds / doctrine → church tradition → religion

Worship something or someone? In what sense is the word 'worship' used in English usage,
within or without Church lingo? [Cf. ‘Maria worship’ (/Mariolatry) in Catholic Mariology.]
‘Worshiping Jesus’? – adoration? veneration? As to 'God Jesus'?

[Cf. 1Co 8:5-6

but to us there is one God — the Father,
out of whom all things are and we are for Him,
and one Lord — Yeshua Mashiah,
through whom all things are and we are through him.

Cf. Rev 5:12b “Worthy is the Lamb who was killed to receive power and wealth and
wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
5:13b "To Elohim – the One seated on the throne and to the Lamb be praise, honor, glory,
and power forever and ever!".
Sacrifice

Related words to worship: kohen (priests), sacrifice, altar;

Related terms: altar a; atonement; Death of Mashiah; lamb, Lamb of God;

12F12F

Leviticus, Lord's Supper, Lord’s Last Supper; kohen (priest); kehunnah b 13 F113F

(priesthood; priestly office/service); spirituality; Tabernacle (vs. tent);

Temple; (pagan) shrine; sanctuary (Mishkan);

*Sacrifice: c 14F14F

(a nonreligious dictionary meaning) “giving up what you value in exchange

for something you don't value, or for no reason at all. It also means identifying
something you love only to abandon it for the sake of something that has no
meaning for you. Sacrificing has to do with killing, surrendering, and enduring
loss.”
[Below is adopted from Bakers Evangelical Dictionary
www.biblestudytools.com/offerings-and-sacrifices.html
Sacrifice under the OT sacrificial system is a concept not present in the Western
culture. … Offerings and sacrifices were a key part of the practice of relationship
with God from Cain and Abel, to Noah, to the Patriarchs, to Jethro the priest of
Median, to the ratification of the Mosaic covenant by sacrifice before the tabernacle
was built. They remained central to the ritual systems of the tabernacle and the first
and second temples and, therefore, to the Old Testament theology of God's
"presence" and his relationship to ancient Israel as his "kingdom of priests." When
God became present with us in the person of Yeshua Mashiah (the Logos incarnate)
these Old Testament offerings and sacrifices continued to yield much in terms of
Yeshua as our sacrifice, Yeshua as our High High Kohen, and our commitment and
ministry on the part of Mashiah followers of ourselves and our kingdom labors as
a sacrifice to God.

a
Altar of Incense ░░ Lk 1:11 – located in the Holy Place. (Not in the Holy of the Holy Places,
which was accessed once a year by Kohen HaGadol.)
Note: Heb 9:4 thumiatērion is not ‘incense altar’ (thusiastērion), but ‘incense censer’, which was
to be brought into the Holy of the Holy Places, taken off from the incense alter in the Holy Place.]
b
kehunnah:
Danker p. 174
– hierateia Lk 1:9; Heb 7:5 priestly offices/service [Cf. leitourgia Lk 1:23]
– hierōsunē Heb 7:11ff, 24 priestly offices, priesthood
[Linguistically unrelated is Hawaiian word kahuna (a person functions as priest, prophet, healer,
sorcerer, magician, wizard, minister, or expert in any profession in ancient Hawaii.)]
c
sacrifice – (a nonreligious dictionary meaning) “giving up what you value in exchange
for something you don't value, or for no reason at all. It also means identifying something
you love only to abandon it for the sake of something that has no meaning for you.
Sacrificing has to do with killing, surrendering, and enduring loss.” [verb, noun (act),
noun (that which is sacrificed).
In the Old Testament.
The Hebrew expression "to present an offering" is a combination of the verb "to
present, bring near, offer" (hiqrib) and its cognate noun "offering" (qorban).
The Hebrew word normally translated "sacrifice" (zebah) does not occur in
Leviticus 1-3 until 3:1 in the introduction to the "peace offering" section (see
also vv. 3, 6, 9). The term for "offering" continues to be used there (vv. 1, 2, 6,
7, 8, 12, 14). Thus, one can say that the peace offering was a particular kind of
"offering" that was also a "sacrifice" – it involved an animal that was killed and
then eaten as part of a communal meal.
Related terms; burnt offering; peace (/fellowship) offering; grain and drink
offering; sin or purification offering; guilt (or reparation) offering.
In the New Testament.
The verb thuō, "to slaughter, sacrifice" an animal, is used fourteen times in the
New Testament referring to (1) non-sacrificial animals killed (Jn 10:10; Act
10:13; 11:7) and prepared for a wedding feast (Mt 22:4) or other kind of
celebration (Lk 15:23, 27, 30); (2) the slaughter of the Passover sacrifice (Mk
14:12; Lk 22:7; 1Co 5:7); and (3) offerings to pagan gods (Acts 14:13, 18; 1Co
10:20).
The noun thusia, ["sacrifice, offering, act of offering" (cf. the verb above),
occurs twenty-nine times referring, for example, to specific Old Testament
passages (e.g., Mt 9:13; 12:7), fulfillment of Old Testament sacrificial
regulations (Lk 2:24) or festival celebrations (1Co 10:18), and the sacrifice of
Christ on the Cross (Eph 5:2). Prosphora, "offering, sacrifice, gift; act of
offering; grain offering" (x 9; cf. the verb prospherō, "to offer, present"), refers
to Mashiah’s presentation of himself to God as an offering (Eph 5:2; Heb 10:10,
14) and the Old Testament offerings (Heb 10:5). The term dōron, "gift", occurs
nineteen times in the New Testament; sixteen of those times it refers to
sacrificial gifts or offerings to God.
In the person of who Yeshua was and in what He has done in obedience to His
Father, all the sacrificial system (which was at the core of Judaism) is
completed. The core of Catholic tradition in the practice of Mass, a Catholic
liturgy which colloquially refers to the entire church service in general, is
simply continuation of OT practice – directly opposite of what NT claims.

Yeshua the Mashiah and the Old Testament Sacrificial System.

Yeshua as our "Passover sacrifice."
Yeshua as our suffering servant "guilt offering."
Yeshua as our new covenant ratification "peace offering." Lk 22:1-23;
Yeshua as our "sin offering." Rm 3:24b-25a; 8:3; 2Co 5:21; 1Jn 1:9; 2:2
The sacrifice of Yeshua and the whole Old Testament sacrificial system.
Heb 9-10 opens with a summary of the Old Testament sanctuary system,
beginning with a description of the sanctuary itself and ending with the
distinction between the sacrifices that were offered throughout the year versus
the Day of Atonement.
The Mashiah followers and the Old Testament sacrificial system.
Act 21:23-26; Psa 51:17; Rm 12:1, Php 2:17; 1Pe 2:18-25
 祭物(제물)

Religious priestly sacrificial rites (祭祀 제사) is what Catholic Mass is. Cf.
Yeshua our High High Kohen is the end of sacrificial system, as the Temple-
based religion was done with; He is the end of priestly office for Mashiah
believers, who do not believe in a religion (of Christianity).
Only in the mind-set of religiosity, people believe in a religion. (In Korean people
speak of ‘기독교 를 믿다’ [‘교’ =종교 (宗敎, religion), not teaching]. Cf.
Catholic Church Religion; Mormon Church religion, etc.

*idol; *icon

*idol; false gods; *idolatry – Col 3:5; idolator - Eph 5:5

‘idol’ - Act 7:41; 1Co 8:1, 4, 7; 10:19; ‘idols’ – Act 15:20, 29; 15:29; 17:16;
21:25; Rm 2:22; 1Co 8:1, 4, 7,10; 2Co 6:16; 1Th 1:9; 1Jn 5:21; Rev 2:14, 20;
9:20;

IRENT renders as ‘pagan false god’ ‘idol of pagan god’ ‘carved idol of false god’
‘false gods - 1Jn 5:21’

Problem of English word ‘idol’ itself has its meaning and usage different from
used as a translation word in the Bible. E.g. common English usage – ‘American
Idol’; an idol and inspiration, etc. The expression ‘idol worship’ may not have
anything to do with a religious sense.
'graven image'; iconography

*icon [Greek eikōn] : a conventional religious image typically painted on a small

wooden panel and used in the devotions of Eastern Orthodox.

‘graven image’ (Exo 20:4; Deu 4:16) is anything, animal or human image, for
the purpose of recognizing, giving honor to, or representing a god or deity.
Carved out of stone, wood, or metal. It could be a statue of a person or animal,
or a relief carving in a wall or pole. It is differentiated from a molten image
(Exo 34:17), which is melted metal poured into a cast.

icons – images with a religious content, meaning and use. Most icons are two-
dimensional; mosaics, paintings, enamels, miniatures, but ancient three-
dimensional icons also exist. [common practice and tradition esp. in Eastern
Orthodox Church.] [People would look for icons when there is no connection
to God Himself through spirit.]
Ref:
What is an icon ?
http://thewayofbeauty.org/2010/05/just-what-do-catholics-believe-about-icons/
the Iconoclastic Controversy in the East
catholic.com/tracts/do-catholics-worship-statues
http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/14957/what-is-the-difference-
between-icons-and-idols-in-churches-that-permit-icons

[Note: what does it mean by ‘worshiping someone or something’ other than

the basic sense of ‘bowing down before’? What people do have nothing really
to do with ‘icons’ beyond having it so that they are reminded of something or
someone?] [Cf. The practice of ‘asking [dead] saints to intercede for people
with God" is not in the Bible but in the Catholic Church tradition. How is
devotion to Mary different from devotion to God, when the Church elevated
Mary as Queen of Heaven, which itself is a very common pagan theme?]
…
*anoint;

[See also * Mashiah, * Messiah, * Christ, * Anointed]

H4886 mashach (69x) (to apply oil on)
• to apply on (something) - Isa 21:5 (on breastplates); Jer 22:14 (paint
the paneling of a house); for sanctifying or dedicating to a special
purpose for God (Exo 29:36; 40:10 – the Altar; Exo 30:26 'the tent
of meeting'; Exo 40:9 – Mishkan];(Exo 29:2 Unleavened bread)
• to apply oil on someone on the body - Amos 6:6
pouring oil on the head was used as a symbolic act for officially,
designating and setting apart a person for a certain, public,
leadership function in the community. It was a one-time event much
like an inauguration or ordination. In OT for three kinds of leaders
anointed for their role - kohanim (Exo 28:41), kings (1Sm 10:1), and
prophets (1Ki 19:16). A major difference between Israel and the
other nations was that when God had someone anointed or
authorized for leadership, He also provided the empowering of the
Holy Spirit to do the job (1Sam 16:13; Isa 61:1) (cf. different verb
in Ps 23:5 – oil on the head – Cf. Mt 6:17 aleiphō);
H4899 mashiach – adj. 'anointed' -
• Isa 45:1 one authorized and empowered leader –
• Lev 4:3 'the anoinet kohen'
• Dan 9:25, 26 – an anointed one
• 1Sam 2:10– His anointed one
• The phrase haMashiah (the Mashiah) itsef does not occur in OT

Cf. Mashiach (Mashiah)

Cf. moshiah (savior) www.jewfaq.org/mashiach.htm
The English word ‘anoint’, used figuratively outside a religious context, is
now mainly heard as a church jargon (e.g. ‘anointing of the sick’ as in a
Catholic Church rite of Extreme Unction; ‘anointing the body’ before burial).

IRENT uses this English word ‘anoint’ only in this special sense when it is
rendering Greek verb chriō which is for an act of consecrating someone by
pouring oil on his head for a position of priest, prophet, or king. [The Greeks
had no such ceremony for installing leaders by pouring oil on them as did the
Israelites; therefore, the word itself was not comprehensible to them.]

This is not to be confuse with Greek word aleiphō (‘to apply something such
as olive oil or perfumed oil’) is often translated as ‘anoint’ to the confusion
of modern English speakers. Greek word aleiphō (‘to apply something such
as olive oil or perfumed oil’) is often translated as ‘anoint’ to cause a wrong
word picture to modern English speakers. E.g. even ‘anoint your head’ (Mt
6:17 – ‘grease’) ; ‘anoint the eyes’ (Jn 9:6 – ‘apply’ ‘rub’) in addition to
‘anoint with oil who are sick’ (Mk 6:13; Jam 5:14) as well as ‘anoint the
(dead) body’ (Mk 14:8; 16:1; – which itself gets confused as if it’s burial-
preparation yet not completed). [In the subtitle of the text, the word
‘anointing’ is used as a technical jargon – e.g. as it anointing of Yeshua by
the woman in the Passion narratives.]

Cf. anointing oil [chrism] – the term ‘ointment’ is a church jargon, it is

linguistically incorrect.
See above for Christ (the Anointed One); Mashiah; Messiah;
Cf. Gk. chrima, chrisma (ointment, cream, unguent, emollient); chriō,
chriomai – smear or rub on; apply on; daub, anoint.
*house;

Used in various senses. E.g. ‘House of God’.

‘Royal House of David’

*grave; *tomb; *memorial-tomb; burial-place; burial cave

sepulchre (sepulcher) or sepulture; burial chamber; loculi; ossuaries; sarcophagi

(coffins)
Burial in the ground vs. burial by entombment. Cf. cremation.

tomb ░░ [Gk. mnēmeion is rendered as ‘memorial-tomb’ in IRENT.] It is not

a common grave (for burial in the ground), but a cave tomb where ‘burial’ is
by entombment of the body.

Ref. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/behold-lamb-god/jesus-and-ossuaries-first-century-
jewish-burial-practices-and-lost-tomb

Burial by entombment in a rock-hewn tomb usually consisted of two separate and

distinct burials. The first burial was the simple placement of the body in the tomb either
in a niche (loculus, Latin for “a little place,” and in Hebrew, kokh, plural kokhim) —
shafts cut as deep as a body in the burial chamber—or on an arcosolium—a bench or
shelf cut out of the wall of a tomb.
The second burial occurred about a year later when family members reentered the tomb,
carefully took the bones of the deceased (the flesh had completely decomposed), and
placed them in a specially prepared, separate container known as an ossuary (from Latin
os, “bone”). These chests were placed in small niches in the tomb for permanent burial.

Burial cave – archeology – www.timesofisrael.com/the-case-of-the-missing-

concrete-how-a-2000-year-old-burial-cave-was-found/ [a copy in >IRENT
Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #4 - Place, thing, Numbers)>]

[Mk 15:46 parallel. Yosef Arimathea was not using his own tomb as a temporary one
for Yeshua!] The normal Roman practice was that a criminal was not buried but his
corpse was left hanging on the execution stake. Yosef of Ramathayim (‘Joseph of
Arimathea’), the important Sanhedrin member, was able to have this bypassed by Pilate.
*burial; *entomb; *embalm;

Anointing vs.
‘Enbalming’ – as in ancient Egyptian practice; also, in Western culture. No
such thing is in Judaism.;

The body of Yeshua was NOT ‘buried in a grave’ but entombed. His ‘burial’ by
by entombment. Entombment, inhumation, interment – Cf. burial, burying,
reburial.

[http://craigaevans.com/Burial_Traditions.pdf Craig A. Evans, Jewish Burial Traditions

and the Resurrection of Jesus “… leaving the bodies of the executed unburied was
exceptional, not typical. It was, in fact, a departure from normal Roman practice in Jewish
Palestine.”]

Ref: Jodi Magness (2013), The Archaeology of the Holy Land - Ch. 11 Ancient Jewish
tombs and burial customs (to 70 C.E.) pp. 230ff

By the first century C.E., Jerusalem was surrounded by a necropolis of rock-cut tombs.
These tombs are characterized by the following features:

1) The rock-cut tombs are artificially hewn, underground caves cut into the bedrock
slopes around Jerusalem.

2) With few exceptions, the tombs were located outside the walls of the city.

3) Each tomb was used by a family over the course of several generations, as reflected
by the biblical expression “he slept with [or was gathered to] his fathers” (for example
Judges 2:10; 2Chr 32:33; 33:20; 34:28).

4) When a member of the family died, the body was wrapped in a shroud and
sometimes placed in a coffin and was then laid in the tomb as an individual
inhumation, even if the bones were later collected and placed elsewhere.

5) Because of the expense associated with hewing a burial cave into bedrock, only the
wealthier members of Jerusalem’s population – the upper classes – could afford rock-
cut tombs. The lower classes apparently disposed of their dead in a manner that has
left fewer traces in the archaeological record – for example, in individual trench graves
or cist graves dug into the ground.

6) From the earliest periods, the layout and decoration of Jerusalem’s rock-cut tombs
exhibited foreign cultural influences and fashions. Evidence for such influence – and
indeed, for the use of rock-cut tombs – is attested only in times when Jerusalem’s
Jewish elite enjoyed an autonomous or semi-autonomous status; that is, in the late First
Temple period (late Iron Age) and the late Second Temple period (Herodian period).
During these periods the Jerusalem elite adopted foreign fashions that were introduced
by the rulers or governing authorities.
Jewish 'burial' (in a wide sense) is consists of entombing the body of the deceased into a
side chamber inside a tomb (cave dug on the face of hill/cliff). The family will 'sit' at
home (as in Martha and Mary's story) for 7 days. A year later, the bones are gathered up
and put into an ossuary (urn).

The ancient traditional Korean burial practice: The body is washed and wrapped with
shroud. Then placed in a wooden coffin which is kept in a main room at home usually for
3 days for a family burial. [This would be comparable for 'sitting' in Jewish custom]. Then
they bury the family burial plot on a mountain side or a hill-side. The site is carefully
selected according to (풍수 지리 風水 地理). The location is usually in the ancestral
home place, often at a far distance. The ground is dug and the coffin is placed. It is then
covered with dirt and a small mound was made on top of it. A mourning period of the
descendants (esp. eldest son) will last for a while (one number I remember is '40 days'; he
has to put on coarse hemp or ramie clothes for that period time).

Vocab: 'grave' 'tomb', sepulcher', 'burial place', 'memorial-tomb' (word used in NWT).

‘want’ ‘desire’ ‘wish’ ‘*will’ ‘be willing’

Gk. thelō (desire, want,) –

The English phrase ‘be willing’ is an idiom with an adjectival phrase

(‘disposed or inclined toward; not brought about by coercion or force’),
and cannot be used as ‘present progressive tense’ as it would be for other
verbs). It is not appropriate for rendering Gk. verb. In negative form
‘refuse’ is accurate than ‘not willing to’. E.g. Jn 5:40.
will – confusing with ‘will’ as a common auxiliary verb for future tense.
wish – of a very different nuance.
*transformation; metamorphosis
(Cf. *repent)

Rm 12:2 get transformed – by His spirit –░░ [Gk. metamorphosis (Cf. 2Co 3:18; Col
3:2)] metamorphosis – radical change in one’s mindset] [‘reformation’ or ‘revival’ in
religion is nonbiblical church jargon. The Scripture tells only ‘transformation and
continual renewal’.]; />continue being transformed – let God - ARJ; /be transformed
– most, SENT; /xxx: transform yourselves – Diagl; /
[Cf. Acrostic TRANSFORM for ‘education’ - Teaching the truth based on the Word of
God (Scripture-centered); Responding to the world (Cross-cultural Philosophy);
Affirming the responsibility (Social involvement); Networking the partners (Partnership
Philosophy); Situating the practice (Purpose-driven Philosophy); Facilitating the
mutuality of learning (Learner-centered Philosophy); Orchestrating the whole person
(Whole-personality Philosophy); Responsive and responsible; Modeling as a learner
(Role Model Philosophy) – edited from
http://biblical.edu/images/stories/ESLPLUS/ohphilosophyofeducation.pdf ]
‘work’, ‘works’, 'acts', ‘deeds’

Relational diagram – *salvation, 'justification' and *sanctification:

Love → Grace
On God's Part
→ salvation → 'take and make righteous' → sanctification.

Repentance →
→ be saved in faith@ → 'taken/made *righteous' → sanctified in works
On Our Part
'in Mashiah' & 'in faith' 'fellowship in Mashiah family' →→→→→→→→
'baptism' in water 'baptism in spirit'
Freed from sin (guilt and power);

Rites, rituals, rules, routines

* Repentance – change one's mind(set) to God's way.

* Salvation ('deliverance') – 'be saved from sin guilt and power to freedom in God
in Life eternal. It is like 'being rescued' from drowning or fire which is then
followed by healing/restoring and by God's taking us righteous before Him to lead
into sanctified life ('toward completed salvation Heb 9:28). Having saved is not
something of one-time act or event. Cf. unbiblical cultic mantra of 'once saved,
always saved'
@ Cf. 'saved by faith' – 'faith' is not the grammatical subject of the verb. /x: faith saves. It
is better expressed by 'saved in faith' 'saved with faith'. Same with 'immersion' ('baptism')
– 1Pe 3:21.

'work' and 'faith' are not apposite antithetical notions. [See non-existing dichotomy of
faith vs. acts in Romans vs. James]

'Being made righteous before God' – The term '*justification', a theological lingo
'justification' as a theological jargon (an action of declaring or making someone
righteous in the sight of God) is problematic since it is easy to get confused with its
usual sense of 'vindication' (an act or instance of justifying something) ← the verb 'to
justify' (to show something or someone to be right, reasonable or acceptable).

When the Catholics says 'justification', it actually means 'sanctification' which cannot be
without 'righteous works' – not 'religious and pious acts deeds' → make us clean, keep us
undefiled, pure (Mt 5:8), set-apart and holy to be worthy for God' name to have the will
of God done through us (Mt 6:10),

BDAG - ergazomai
– 1. w. focus on effort as such in the course of activity (intr.)
be at work, be active Mt 21:28; Lk 13:14; J 5:17; Ro 4:4f; 1Co 4:12; 1Th 2:9;
2Th 3:8. - Mt 25:16 (e. en do business with).
– 2. w. focus on result of effort (trans.), do, effect, carry out Mt 7:23; 26:10; Ac
13:41; Ro 2:10; 13:10; 2Co 7:10; Col3:23; Hb 11:33; Jam 1:20. – e.tēn brōsin
expend effort on the food Jn 6:27; e. ta hiera do the temple work 1Co 9:13; e. ēnē
thalassan get living from the sea Rv 18:17.

ergasia – business, trade; gain, profit; effort

ergaēts – worker, laborer; doer,
ergon [cp. erdō 'do']
– 1. task, assignment Mk 13:34; J 4:34; 17:4·Act 13:2; 14:26; 15:38; 1Co
15:58; 2Ti 4:5; Rv 2:5. - This may be the place for 1Th 3:1, but s. 4.
– 2. deed, action Mt 5:16 and oft. - W: descriptive genitive connoting
manifestation, practical expression Rm 2:15; Eph 4:12; 1Th 1:3; 2Th 1: 11;
Jam 1:4. – Linked with LOGOS Lk 24:19; Ac 7:22; Col 3:17; 2Th 2:17; Js 2:14.
– 3. pass. aspect of E. a work, product Ac 7:41; 1Co 3:13-15; Hb 1:10; 2Pt
3:10; 1Jn 3:8.
– 4. thing, matter Ac 5:38; some would place 1Ti 3:1 here, but s. 1.
erethizō [= Hom. erethō 'provoke, trouble'] ‘rouse by challenging’; the more usual
neg. sense vex, harass Col 3:21; by rhetorical ext. in positive sense challenge
2Co 9:2
*murder; *kill; *slay; *slaughter; put to death; execute; destroy

take other’s life; /put ~ to death, bring ~ to death, execute; take life away from;
‘bring one to death’ ‘put to death’ ‘have one dead’ ‘remove; get rid of’

[Cf. ‘shall not murder’ – is it a logical statement? ‘do not commit a crime/sin
of murder’ as a God’s commandment? People commits (killing) and then it
turns out to be, or judged to be a murder. We can hardly admonish people a
moral imperative ‘not murder’. We may say ‘if you kill, it would be a murder’
or ‘better not commit a murder’, etc.]

A translation practice: E.g. 2King 11:2 /and escaped from wholesale killing
spree; /so he was not killed – NIV, HCSB; /x: so that he was not slain’- KJV;
/x: so the child was not murdered – NLT; /x: so that he was not put to death –
ESV; /> and escaped execution – NET;

Hebrew words –
• ratsakh H7523 ‘murder’ Exo 20:13 (in the Ten Commandment);
• muth H4191 ‘kill’
• zabach H2076 'slaughter for sacrifice' Gen 31:54; Exo 3:18, etc.

Gk. synonyms – how to render them correctly in the context:

• phoneuō – ‘take life’, kill – a. with legal authorization execute, w. connotation
of evil intent Mt 23:31, 35 – b. without legal authorization murder Mt 5:21
and numerous similar rendering, including Jam 2:11a, of Exo 20:13f; so also in
the rhetorical statement Jam 2:11b. – Danker p. 375.

Mt 5:21 = 19:18; [Ten Commandments – Exo 20:13; Deu 5:17]

Mt 5:21 take other’s life ░░ (it’s ‘going after someone and kill’) [= Mt 19:18
//Mk 10:19; //Lk 18:20; ← Ex. 20:13; Dt. 5:17] [whether the text is in NT, or OT
of God’s Commandments’, it is not ‘kill’ (ASV) or ‘murder’ (KJV), nor ‘commit
murder’ all incorrect translation – all legalese. There is no ‘command’ as such to
say ‘do not murder’. One may harbor an intention to murder, murder or commit
murder is a legalese.] /xxx: put to death – BBE (- prohibition of life
sentence??); /x: kill – KJV; /xx: murder – NET; /commit murder – GNB,
LEB;
[hilarious commandment! – ‘shall do no murder’ – KJV; ‘never murder’ – GW;
‘must not murder’ – ISV. These sound like an inside talk among murderers (Gk.
phoneus). Similar to ‘shall not commit a murder’ (or, even ‘a homicide’=!

• anthrōpoktonos 1Jn 3:15;

• katasphazō S2695 (1'x) Lk 19:27 'kill off' 'slay' 'slaughter' 'execute'
• apollumi Mt 2:13, 12:14, etc. /get rid of – IRENT; /destroy - KJV, ESV; /xxx:
kill – NIV.
• S2380 thuō (14x) - to sacrifice, to kill – Mt 22:4, Mk 14:12, Lk 15:23; Jn
10:10; Act 10:13; 11:7, etc.
• kataluō Mt 5:17, etc. ‘annul’; ‘make void’; /x: destroy – KJV
• S4969 sphazō (10x) slay 1Jn 3:12 (2x); 8x in Rev 5:6, 12; 6:4, 9; 13:3, 8; 18:24;
[E.g. Rev 6:9 – slain – most; /> slaughtered – HCSB, GW, ISV; /> violently killed –
NET; /x: killed – GNT, CEV; /xx: martyred – NLT; /xxx: murdered – Aramaic PE;
/xxx: sacrificed – Weym]
• S615 apokteinō (74x) (apo + kteinō – intensive form, ‘kill off’ – Danker p. 33)
Mt 10:18; Lk 12:5, Jn 7:2, Rev 2:3; 6:8, 11; 9:15; etc. ‘kill’.
[Mt 26:4; Mk 14:1; 1Th 2:14 ‘those Yehudim who had the Lord Yeshua put to
death'; /xx: the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus – most; Cf. anti-Semitic
language 'Jews the Jesus killers'.] ['killed the prophets' (Lk 11:47, 48; Rm 11:3);
'(You, men of Israel v. 12) killed the author of life' (Act 3:15)]
• S337 anaireō (22x) – 'kill' 'put to death' 'get rid of’' - Lk 22:2
S4967 sphagē – n. (3x) 'slaughtering' 'sacrificing' – Act 8:32; Rm 8:36; Jam 5:5
S2871 kopē – n. (1x) 'slaughter' 'smiting' – Heb 7:1
S5408 phonos – n. (9x) 'murder' – Mt 15:19, Rm 1:29, etc.

On English word ‘*kill’

Other than unintentional killing (as self-defense or by accident) the sense
of English word ‘kill’ presupposes desire, intention and action on the part
of the actor.

‘I can kill you’ – it is not about ability but ‘I would if I want or decide’.

Jn 7:2
Yehudim have Yeshua to ‘bring to death’, not ‘put to death’, nor ‘kill’
(most translations). Problem of the agent of the verb and of anti-Semitic
rhetoric (‘Jews as Jesus killer’).

Lk 12:5
It reads that [God] kills!

The ‘meaning’ of the word may be ‘kill’, as a lexical gloss, but is it the
‘sense’ of the word in that particular context? What about in the different
cultural context (e.g. ‘what you will eat/drink’ vs. ‘food you need to
sustain your life’ - Mt 6:35) in the ancient times vs. in modern affluent
times)? It presupposes that ‘God can kill’. But then what does it mean?
This verse might serve a best proof text for hell-preaching when it is read
in the mindset of eisegesis out of the context, which tells that God shall
take care of those coming after God’s people when they are on their
mission of proclaiming the good news.

[e.g. Jonathan Edwards (theologian) (1703–1758) known for his sermon "Sinners in the
Hands of an Angry God" (1741) quotes Lk 12:4-5, which would be well suited for
hellfire-preaching when taken out of the context.23]
 ‘God can kill’ – Of course? But, what sense would this statement make?
God is life; how God on Himself kill life? Can God be an agent of the
act (of killing)? 'kill' vs. 'have killed' vs. 'put to death'

It is perfectly understood when it says ‘gods can kill a person or people’ – in

pagan or mythological setting, but in what sense and in what way God kills a
person? or to say ‘God can kill’ – whom, for what, and how. Is it Scriptural to
think God as an agent of such act, which is contrary to God’s very nature, Life,
when even God Himself does not bring down judgment sentence [Jn 5:22] but
have people judged by what they have done [Cf. Jn 8:15]?

Lk 12:5 ‘[Yoů should rather] fear the one who, after he has killed, has
authority to throw into hell’ (ESV) –not ‘power’, but ‘authority (to delegate)’
to throw into.

Cf. See the text which phrases very differently from G-Lk: //Mk 10:28
“rather be in fear of him that can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna’
(NWT) [putting aside the issue of correctly rendering as ‘GeHenna’ over
‘hell’] [Cf. ‘have both ~ brought to’ – IRENT]

In this rather unusual phrasing in G-Lk text, most interprets the agent that kill
is taken as God; also the one who throws into hell is God.

In the sense ‘*kill’ in English means ‘go after and put someone on death; kill
off’ by some personal agent. It would not include killing occurring as self-
defense or as accident on the part of an agent.

What person/people does the patient (or grammatical object) of the verb
‘throw’ refer to? Any particular group?
What does the subject yoů (in plural) refer to? – the listeners (the disciples of
Yeshua)?
Cf. IRENT rendering of Lukan text: “When life is taken away, He has authority
to have them thrown into the [place like] Geh-Hinnom [for destruction in
fire].”

‘*pray’, 'beg', ‘*prayer; 'petition', '*supplication; *benediction

Cf. request; ask for, intercede, supplicate, entreat

*petition
1. (Noun) something asked or requested formally; a formal written request made to an
official person or organized body (as a court); such a document embodying such a
formal written request. Cf. an earnest request; entreaty; begging or pleading for
something.
2. (Verb) make or present a formal request to (an authority) with respect to a particular
 cause.

Prayer is not same as petition. Do we petition our own father?! E.g. Lord’s Prayer’ – it is of
petitions. ['Prayer to God' - rests on 'being close to Him' and 'being connectedness' with our
without verbal expression'. All the prayers are centered on the name of Elohim and what it
stands for (Mt 6:9 //Lk 11:2). Different from 'petition' or 'begging'.]

Talking to Yeshua in person in vision is not a prayer: Stephen said: Act 7:59 "O Lord Jesus,
receive my spirit" [Cf. Act 7:60 "O Adonai, do not hold …' - /xxx: Jehovah – NWT]

S154 aiteō ask for Jn 16:23b, 24, 26

S2065 erōtaō (63x) BDAG p. 393
(1) ask for; request (= aiteō S154) Jn 16:26; 'to implore' 'to beseech' 'to question'
Mt 15:23; Lk 11:37; 14:18 ('I beg you');
/xxxx: pray – KJV Jn 14:16; 16:26; /xxx: desire – KJV Jn 12:21;
(2) ask (a question) Jn 1:19, 16:23a;

S4336 proseuchomai (86x) 'to pray' – (not asking for something, or begging something)
Mt 5:44; 6:5, etc.
S2172 euchomai (7x) 'to wish' (Act 26:29; 27:29; Rm 9:3; 3Jn 1:2); 'pray' (2Co 13:7 [pray
to Elohim that …], 2Co 13:9 ['pray for your perfecting']; Jam 5:16 ['pray for each other']);
S1189 deomai (22x) to beg, beseech, pray Mt 9:38; Lk 5:12; Act 4:31; Rm 1:10;
2Co 5:29, etc. (Ø G-Mk, G-Jn)

S4335 proseuchē (37x) 'prayer' Mt 17:21; 21:13, 22; Mk 9:29; 11:17; Lk 6:12; 19:46, 22:45;
Act (9x) 1:14; 2:42, etc.; Rm 1:10; 12:12, etc. (not in G-Jn)
S1162. (deēsis) (18x) – supplication, entreaty – Lk 1:13; Rm 10:11; 2Co 1:11. Cf. Eph 6:18
(both S4335 + S1162);

S2428. (hiketēria) (1x) – supplication, intercession – Heb 5:7;

S1783. (enteuxis) (2x) – intercession – 1Tim 2:1; 4:5
S1793. (entugchanō) (5x) intercede – Rm 8:27, 34; 11:2; Heb 7:25; petition Act 25:24;

[What does it mean to 'pray'? Pray to whom? Pray what? Is prayer itself not worship, worship to
Elohim? Or the word can be applied to any person, living or dead – depending on what the word
'pray' means and what is prayed (e.g. Catholic saints; Catholic Mary – Mother of God, God the
Mother)? On the other hand, to whom we pray determines the meaning of the word 'pray' itself.

Different nuance and word history for Korean '빕니다’ = pray, beg, etc.'
'to pray' and '기도하다' – semantic field is not same.

Petition, supplication – it is different from prayer. Every form of religion has 'prayer'. What
prayer is makes religions different from each other. (e.g. Muslims', Buddhists', Catholics';
Tongue-speakers', shamans', etc.)

https://youtu.be/7ds5xLgIJJg <구체적인 기도는 거의가 가짜다> 태승철

성경본문:Rm 8:26-27 – 'what to pray', not 'what to pray for', not 'how to pray'
"기도가 구체적이라야 응답도 구체적이다! 구체적으로 소원을 그리고 기도하며
날마다 그 소원을 마음으로 바라보라!" ss 참 자주 듣는 기도에 대한 권면입니다.
그런데 다 거짓입니다. 모든 종교에 기도가 있습니다. 종교인이 아니라도 모든 사람은
 기도하며 삽니다. 그러나 기독교의 기도가 이런 모든 기도와 다른 점중의 하나는 결코
그 내용이 구체적일 수 없다는 겁니다. 왜냐하면 기독교의 기도가 기도 되려면 반드시
십자가를 거쳐야 하기 때문입니다.

Oremus pro invicem 'Let us pray for each other'

Eph 6:18 "… in supplication for all God's holy people"

NT Biblical prayer

Pray to your Father in the heavens

Holy, holy, holy is YHWH Elohim Almighty
In the name of His Son, Yeshua,
Through the spirit of Elohim
Received through His Son as His gift. [Jn 20:22; 1Co 3:16]

Prayer to the saints, to the Blessed Mary, etc. is Catholic prayer; nothing to
with the biblical prayer.

Dan 9:17
prayer [H8605 tephillah]
supplications, [H8469 tachanun]
*Amidah ('standing') ‫עמידה עֲ מִ ידָ ה‬
"Amidah" (Hebrew: ‫תפילת העמידה‬, Tefilat HaAmidah, "The Standing Prayer"),
also called the Shemoneh Esreh (‫)שמנה עשרה‬, is the central prayer of the Jewish
liturgy. This prayer, among others, is found in the Siddur, the traditional
Jewish prayer book. Due to its importance, it is simply called haTefila (‫תפילה‬,
"the prayer") in rabbinic literature.

The Amidah is recited at each of three prayer services in a typical weekday:

morning, afternoon, and evening. A fourth Amidah (called Mussaf) is recited
on Shabbat, Rosh Chodesh, and Jewish festivals, after the morning Torah
reading. A fifth (called Neilah) is recited on Yom Kippur.

The typical weekday Amidah actually consists of nineteen blessings, though

it originally had eighteen (hence the alternative name Shemoneh Esreh,
meaning "Eighteen"). When the Amidah is modified for specific prayers or
occasions, the first three blessings and the last three remain constant, framing
the Amidah used in each service, while the middle thirteen blessings are
replaced by blessings (usually just one) specific to the occasion.

The prayer is recited standing with feet firmly together, and preferably while
facing Yerusalem.
The Hebrew word Tefilah (‫ )תפילה‬is generally translated into English as "prayer".
But this is not an accurate translation, for to pray [as in common English usage] means
to beg, beseech, implore, and the like,@ for which we have a number of Hebrew
words which more accurately convey this meaning. Our daily prayers are not
simply requests addressed to G‑d to give us our daily needs and nothing more. Of
course, such requests are also included in our prayers, but by and large our prayers
are much more than that, … [quoted from
www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/682090/jewish/The-Meaning-of-Prayer.htm - a
copy is included in <IRENT Vol. III Supplement (Collections #1)>]
#
@
[such is common in all languages, cultures, and religions, including primitive – to receive
favors and to fend off evils or misfortunes.]
www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pray

[Yehudim pray three times a day] [Minkhah is the afternoon prayer (‘evening prayer’).
Shakharit, recited upon arising, and Maariv before going to bed.] [See Act 10:3]

Praying to the God of the Scripture in the name of who He has let – Yeshua. We
pray to Elohim in the name of Yeshua the Lord. We don’t ‘pray to YHWH God in
his own name (YHWH) – it would be as an invoking of a god to hear people as in
shamanism and all religions with shamanistic roots. To pray in the name of Yeshua
does not make Yeshua (as the Son of Elohim) same as YHWH (Elohim the Father).

Prayer is a communicative act in contact with the Creator God, who cares about
His creation. Without it, there is no relationship to be found, which is the seed of
God’s Love. Prayer as in the Bible is not same as prayer as in Church liturgy. Being
the essential in our living as it is God’s commandment (i.e. He wants us to be
doing), when, how often, how long, where, in what bodily position or posture, etc.
are from the mindset of payer as a liturgical process. The God we pray to is God
who comes to us. He is not who we need to manipulate/invoke for Him to come, as
He is a self-giving God. We don’t come to Him, but bring ourselves into His
presence. We are not alone, indeed. We are not even alone with ourselves; to live
is to be with others. [‘praise’, thanksgiving, and confession (‘I am sorry’) are part
and parcel of prayer – making room to bring petition and intercession to Him. Such
things, ‘meditation’ or ‘contemplation’, are secondary to prayer.]

Our ‘praying’ is essentially in waiting and listening to hear what He reveals of His
will – to receive spirit (= breathing-in of His spirit), just as air we breathe in, with
our spirit tuned on the frequency of spirit to resonates with it.]

‘breathing life’, that is, ‘living in spirit’, is having been connected to God in
personal relation in a direct line for life-giving spirit to and quicken and sustain
(‘breath’ - like oxygen for the body).
 ‘Breath’ is same word as ‘spirit’ in Hebrew. It is free flow of God’s spirit (= as
‘breathing air’ – oxygen for the body) from above to quicken and resonate the
person’s spirit. It is through the Word of God (Scripture).

When a prayer is listen a Him, one gets nourished in spirit and it becomes feasible
17F17F

‘say to’, ‘talk to’ and ‘tell’ as Elohim is person-in-relation (not ‘personal’). b He 18F18F

always hears us, whether we say or not. Our problem is of hearing Him. It is not a
monologue. Thus prayer is not constrained by our language c. Through this open
19F19F

channel it carries up ‘ACTS’ [Adoration-praise, Confession, Thanksgiving, and

Supplication] to God. The A.C.T.S is what is carried in prayer, but it is not prayer
itself. To have a ‘communication line’ open. It is actually what ‘worship’ is to be.] d 20F120F

Thus ‘pray’ (praying; to pray) needs to be distinguished from the word prayer as a
countable noun which refers to what is brought up through praying, such as
‘petition’. No petition can reach Him unless one is connected to Him in life-
sustaining breathing/prayer. It is not by becoming conscious of God’s presence. It
is by ‘asking’ – Why? Why Lord? (as one would not know His name to call Why
Adonai?), Why me? It is not by ‘asking for (me)’.

It does not concern about place (near or remote), preparation, practice, procedure,
time or a period of time. It is always and everywhere. It is not related to meditation
or contemplation. It is alien to so-called transcendental meditation, meditation to
Enlightenment, mysticism, etc. [Note: ‘emptying one’s mind’ always brings the
mind back to the filled-in state. A Latin phrase: natura abhorret a vacuo - “Nature
abhors vacuum.” See also Mt 12:43-45.]

In the insightful admonition which Paul gave: ‘adialeiptōs proseuchesthe’

(unceasingly be you praying) we come to realize that prayer is not same as ‘talking

a
Listening and hearing – “Listening is where Love is.”
b
‘person-in-relation’: Dave Hunt writes “…Rejecting the truth God has revealed to everyone, man
perverts the witness of creation and conscience and creates his own gods. The very appeal of the "Star
Wars Force" or some "higher power" is that a force, being impersonal, cannot hold one morally
accountable but, like atomic power, can be used by man to his own ends. Clearly, God has to be a
personal Being to create and relate to mankind. -- 5 "Justice and Justification," The Berean Call, Feb.1,
2002” – The fact is not ‘God’ being does not have to be a person, or described to be a person, in order
to be the Creator God. Linguistic and logical problems – what does it mean by ‘God’’, by ‘personal’ (in
contrast to impersonal?), and why God has to be? Elohim is not a person, nor a personal being. Elohim
as God-being is a being of person-in-relation. He is supra-personal. He comes as a being and a person to
humans, the creation made after His own image, through His Son. – ARJ.
c
Prayer by itself is not language-bound: “And in the same way the Spirit also comes to our aid
and bears up in our present weakness — indeed, we do not know what to pray as we ought,
but the Spirit itself pleads in with for us, out of our groanings that can find no words to express.”
(Rm 8:26)
d
“*Origen distinguished four kinds of prayer: *praise (proseuchē), petition (deisis);
intercession (enteuxis), and thanksgiving (eucharistia). Only the prayer of praise, which
Origen equated with prayer in the strict sense (kyriolexia), may be addressed to God. Prayers
of petition, intercession, and thanksgiving (katachrēstikōs) may be addressed to Christ as high
priest.” From Catherine M. Lacugna (1973), God for Us – the Trinity & Christian Life (p. 125).
to God’’, ‘petitioning/requesting’, ‘thanksgiving’, ‘confessing’, or ‘praising’ – in
speech or in silence. Such are things which are impossible to do unceasingly. It is
not ‘constantly’, ‘continuously’, ‘continually’, ‘at all times’, ‘often as we need’, or
‘lasting long as scheduled’. [Cf. Col 1:9 ‘not ceasing praying – over you’. Not ‘pray
for you’ but ‘hold and carry you in our prayer’.]

Most of time, this common and simple word ‘pray’ is used and understood with a
generic God in one’s mind and even just a short step from ‘wishing’ ‘wishful
thinking’ and ‘desiring’ or ‘hoping’. ‘Praying’ is not ‘talking to a God-being to get
things done or to have wishes come’, ‘petitioning’, ‘begging’, ‘conjuring up’
‘incantation’, or ‘offering up wishes for God do something’, or ‘calling up a power
or the Force’, etc. Not a formula to be put into use. Not same as ‘meditation’,
‘talking down to oneself’, ‘self-hypnosis’, ‘mystical experiencing’, or ‘self-
awakening’ (achieving a transcendental state of mind). It is not chanting, reciting
something of Bible verses or mantra. All these have shamanic characteristics,
treating God as nothing more than a genie in Aladdin’s lamp. (Cf. A prayer in the
OT turned into a Christian mantra – in ‘The Prayer of Jabez’ by Wilkinson).]
Even in the supposedly religious and quasi-religious setting, it has become a ritual,
liturgy, or a routine, without from being connected to YHWH Elohim, who is the
reality of God-being. [E.g. inauguration prayer, public prayers, etc.]

Cf. The Korean word for ‘to pray’ is 빌다 which is borrowed from the common
vocabulary with the expression of native indigenous religion with an element of
shamanic practice. (cf. 卜, 祈福)
Cf. prosperity gospel – health, wealth, prosperity, fortune; Cf. ‘Word of Faith’ cult.
A prayer becomes a means to achieve one’s wishes.

Prayer is not same as ‘petitioning’. Note two different verbs in the same sentence –
Mt 21:22 //Mk 11:24 – ‘praying’ (proseuchomai) vs. ‘requesting /asking for
(aiteō).
Cf. as a phrase as ‘prayer and petition’ – Act 1:14; Phi 4:6. The question ‘why
aren’t our prayers answered today’ should be honestly phrased as ‘why does not
God answer what we asked for? – The reasons: (1) God we ‘pray’ to is not the very
Elohim who is our Father. God we call is not much different than God people are
fond of calling. His holy name, even if they know what it is, remains hollow; (2)
Who are we so that Elohim would know and see what we need; (3) Are we praying
unceasingly to refresh our spirit and nourish our soul so that we are connected to
God in spirit – tuned on the same frequency so that our petition can reach Him? (4)
We are asking wrong things (Cf. Mt 6:11 – bread from heaven to nourish our soul);
(4) We are asking without the ground whereby Elohim can hear – in the name of
Yeshua, the Mashiah of YHWH Elohim; (5) Elohim has already bestowed all the
things necessary for us to live (Ps 23:1). We are blessed – blessed of Elohim
Himself. Are we asking for pleasure, pride, and power to carry out our plans, instead
of honoring the name of Father?
Related words:
aiteō S154 (Danker p. 11 – ‘ask for in expectation of a response’, ask, ask for, request
Mt 6:8; 7:7; Lk 11:9; Jam 1:6. Mt 5:42; Act 13:28. Mt 27:29; Act 16:29; 1Co 1:22. With
double accusative of persons approached and thing requested Mt 7:9; Mk 10:35; Jn 16:23
erōtaō S2065 – (1) ask (a question) – Mt 15:23; 16:13 Mk 4:10; Lk 22:68; Jn 1:19;
4:47; 5:12; 16:5, 23; Ac 1:6 (2) ask, in sense of making a request – Mk 7:26; Lk 5:3;
8:37; Jn 16:26; Act 10:48; 18:20; Phi 4:3; 1Th 4:1; 5:12; 1Jn 5:16; 2Jn 5 – Danker p. 150
eperōtaō S1901 – inquire, question; request, demand. [Danker p. 139 – 1 ‘put a
question to’, ask Mt 12:10; Mk 5:9; 8:23; 11:29; Lk 22:64; Jn 9:23; 1Co 14:35; cp. Act
23:34. Mt 27:11; Mk 15:2; Act 5:27. W. double acc. Mk 7:17 – 2 ‘make a request’ ask
for Mt 16:1]
parakaleō – entreat, plead, beseech, ask for
eksateō – ask for, demand (as a right; cp. Job 1-2) Lk 22:31 (- fr. Danker p. 132)
(cf. eksēgēsato - [Danker – p. 134 – 1 aor.mid.ind. 3sg. of exaiteō]

proseuchē S4335 – prayer

deisis S1161 – petition, supplication – Lk 1:13; 2:37; 5:33; Act 1:14; Rm 10:1; Phi 4:6, etc.
entugchanō S1793 – Danker p. 131 approach, appeal Act 25:24; Rm 8:27, 34; 11:2; Heb 7:25
enteuxis S1788 prayer, intercession, and petition 1Ti 2:1; 4:5
euchē S2171 – supplication Jam 5:15

In the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6:9-13; //Lk 11:2-4) Yeshua empowers His followers
to pray. It is to God as to a father as Yeshua showed. The Lord’s Prayer is not
a list of petitions (‘three petitions toward God’ + ‘three petitions for us’).

A prayer to Elohim (the God) is praise, petition, and pledge and then put into
praxis – in the name of Yeshua the Mashiah in holy spirit. It is not same as
what is called ‘prayer’ in Judaism, Islam, and other religions. It is not shamanic
‘petitions’ or rubbing Aladdin’s lamp to chant ‘give me this’ and ‘give me
that’. It is independent to meditation, recital, chanting, or singing. The petition
being asked to carry out the divine will is as already has been given; and these
are being pledged into praxis in our daily lives. It is not bound by time, place,
and people.

God’s blessing and benevolence are in store for Him to give out freely; simply
ask then it will be given – unless there is blockage with us to make us unable
to receive.
Petition is something we ask which needs to move God’s will for His sake, to
let His plan for us is created – we ask with our total surrender for His will be
done through us. (Hannah and Samuel – 1Sa 1:1-28)

Mt 6:33 ‘seek foremost the Kingdom reign of God’

Phi 4:19 “… the very Elohim, who is in charge of me in every need, shall
supply all your need by Mashiah Yeshua out of His wonderful riches.”
Famous prayers – Jn 17; The Disciples' Prayer (so-called Lord's Prayer – Mt 6:9-15 //Lk
11:2-4); Eph 3:14-19 (Rm 5:5)
Cf. Jabez's prayer 1Ch 4:10
Bruce Wilkins (2000), The Prayer of Jabez: Breaking Through Blessed Life, made the
prayer 'infamous' become a formula suitable for the prosperity gospel.
Spurgeon (1871) - www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/augustweb-only/8-19-53.0.html

"A daring prayer after the manner of Wilkin's which "God always answers with blessings" –
such a prayer is always answered not by Elohim but by other God. Cf. Jam 5:16.

www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/jabez
www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/real-prayer-jabez/
http://www.womenofgrace.com/blog/?p=13273 What’s Wrong with the Prayer of
Jabez?
www.letusreason.org/BookR5.htm

benediction
*benediction S2129 eulogia; S2127 eulogéō 'praise' 'bless' 'be blessed' (cf. God or
man).

Num 6:22-25
2Co 13:14(13)
The divine grace through the Lord Yeshua the Mashiah
and the Love from Elohim
and the fellowship [of Life in] in the holy Spirit
be with yoů all.
benediction’ (축도 祝禱, Cf. 축원祝願) is not a prayer, nor a special prayer,
neither ‘blessing others’. It is a pronouncement of God’s blessing on the
congregation. It is to be received in faith with thanksgiving and rejoicing –
nothing to do with one’s decision and determination to have it done (우리의
믿음을 요구는것도 아니고, 인간의 결심이나 결단에 의해 결정되지 않는다 – It
is not something demands our faith to receive, but receive in faiths; nor it is
done with making up one’s mind or being determined with human spirit.) [Not
‘있을지어다’ (as if the subject is the pronoucer. Wishful thinking? Or as if on behalf of
God, one makes a pronouncing? In the sense of ‘will be there?), nor ‘빕니다’ = pray,
beg, but ‘함께있을 지이다’ = ‘to be with you’ - in Ko.) –.] A pastor’s ‘giving
benediction in the worship program, thought as their prerogative (read ‘big
deal’) to be jealously guarded, which comes with their position/power, is not a
God’s grace.
[The Protestant tradition of ‘Benedicition’ in the worship service does not have
anything resembling the Constantine Catholic and Eastern Church tradition of
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament – consisting of Exposition, Adoration,
Bendiction and Reposition (www.thesacredheart.com/bene.htm )
 Cf. ‘to bless God’H1288 (barak); Gk. eulogeō (G2127); e.g. Gen 24:48 a; 12F12F

Psa 66:8;
cf. God bless (people) – Gen 39:5; Psa 24:5; Deu 23:20
Cf. people bless others – Gen 24:60; Deu 23:11, 12; Gen 27:25; 48:9
Cf. blessing on something – Deu 11:29 [pronounce (H5414) blessing
(H1293) on Mout Gerizim]
H1288 brk (338x) 'to bless' Gen 1:22; bārûk (52x) 'blessed' (YHWH, Abram, etc.) Gen 24:27;
Exo 18:10; 'blessed' ('you' – Moses ← 5:1; 27:1) Deu 7:14; 28:3;
H1293 bĕrākâ, 'blessing' Gen 12:2.
Cf. H835 esher (45x) 'happy' Psa 33:12; Deu 33:29]

Sinner’s prayer

an Evangelical jargon – its content as well as the way it is employed is not in

harmony with what the Bible says. [The Sinner's Prayer - Is It Biblical?
http://carm.org/sinners-prayer ]

a
Gen 24:48 – two associated verbs here - H6915 kadad (bow down) and H7812 shachah =
G4352 proskuneō (‘prostate oneself before). [Cf. kamptō + gonu - Rm 11:4; 14:11; Phi 2:10.
Cf. different kinds of bows, prostration]
‘prayer for the dead’

2Tm 1:16-18 ░░ “May the Lord grant mercy to the household of Onesiphorus, … 18 may the Lord grant
him to find mercy from the Lord on that Day!—and you well know all the service he rendered at
Ephesus.” [NET fn - a reference to the day when Onesiphorus stands before Christ to give account for
his service (cf. 2Ti_1:12; 1Co_3:13; 2Co_5:9-10)]
[The text is used for unbiblical Catholic doctrine of purgatory - www.newadvent.org/cathen/04653a.htm
Onesiphorus was assumed already dead but do not come remotely close to providing the coveted
evidence for the validity of prayers for the dead.
www.christiancourier.com/articles/1068-did-paul-pray-for-the-dead ]
www.cgg.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Library.sr/CT/BQA/k/182/Should-Christian-Pray-for-Dead-
Ecclesiastes-95.htm ]

‘be baptized for the dead’

“(be baptized) for the dead’ 1Co 15:29 (huper tōn nekrōn) – what sense is ‘for’? (to bring them out of
the Catholic purgatory? /over the dead ones; /for the sake of; /for the purpose of being dead ones – NWT;
/< ‘be immersed for [being to remain as] the dead’ – IRENT

*fellowship [of Life] in the holy Spirit –

Not ‘working of the Spirit’, ‘fellowshipping with ‘Mr. Holy Spirit’, but
fellowship/communion of the believers in God’s Spirit. Not
“communicating with, talking to, praying to, meditating on” God the Holy
Spirit [sic], the third person, who are supposedly alongside with ‘God the
Father’ and ‘God the Son’ [sic] of Trinity God.]; /xx: the H.S.
communicating himself to you – Cass

2Co 13:13 (14) followship [of Life] in the holy Spirit ░░

/(v. 13): /The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship
of the Holy Spirit be with you all. – NET; /I pray that the Lord Jesus Christ will bless
you and be kind to you! May God bless you with his love, and may the Holy Spirit join all
your hearts together. – CEV;
(v. 14): /the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion
of the Holy Ghost, be with you all – KJV ; /The favor of the Master ‫ יהושע‬Messiah, and
the love of Elohim, and the fellowship of the Set-apart Spirit be with all of you. – ISR;
/The favor of the Adon ha’Mashiah, and the love of (YHWH), and the fellowship of the
Ruah ha’Qodesh be with all of you. – HalleluYah;
‘foretell’, ‘*predict’; ‘*prophesy’, ‘*prophecy’; prophet

[Divination]

‘prophesy, /x: prophesize’ is not about ‘predicting of future events’ but ‘preaching
on to people’ for their thoughts and acts, to deliver God’s pronouncement;
‘prophets’ in the Scripture corresponds ‘preachers’ in church jargon (not ‘pastors’
who gives out ‘sermons’.)

Cf. 'prefigure':

S4396 prophētēs (146x) – Mt 1:22; 2:5, 15; Mk 1:1; Lk 1:70; Jn 1:21; Act 2:16; Rm
1:2; 1Co 12:28; Rev 10:7, etc.

'the Prophets' as 'the Books of the Prophets' is rendered as 'the Nevi'im' 'the
Nebi'im' in IRENT – Mt 5:17; 7:12, Rm 3:21, etc. as in the phrase 'the Torah and
the Nevi'im' (/the Law and the Prophets' – most; /the law and the prophets - KJV).

S4394 prophēteia – a prophecy; prophesying; [pl. 'prophecies' – Jn 12:16; Act

13:29; 17:3; 'prophetic messages' – 1Co 13:8; 1Tm 1:18; 1Th 5:20; 1Co 14:22]

S4395 prophēteuō – (28x) to prophesy Mt 7:22; Jn 11:52; to bring prophetic

messages from Elohim; - 1Co 11:4; 14:1, etc.

S4302 prolegō (14x) – foretell – Mt 24:25; Mk 13:23; Rm 9:29, 2Co 7:3, 13:2
('told before'), etc.

fulfillment of a prophecy – telic (purpose, intention) vs. ecbatic a (result,

consequence); cf. atelic, paratelic;
e.g. Jn 3:15, 16 hina - /so that; /x: in order that;
e.g. Mk 1:4; // Lk 3:3 eis (leading into receiving God’s forgiveness of sins)

a
ecbatic (adj.) "drawn from the relationship of cause and effect," especially of arguments,
1836, from ecbasis, from Latin ecbasis, from Greek ekbasis "a going out, issue, event," from
ek- "out" + basis "a step, a base," from bainein "to go, walk, step," from PIE root *gwa- "to
go, to come".
There is no notion of '*prediction' in the Bible.

E.g. Psa 22 (quoted in Mt 27:46 //Mk 15:34)

This Psalm is not a "prediction of Jesus' death by Crucifixion" (- a title of youtube
https://youtu.be/rNScUt5couI )

In the Scripture, nothing is about predicting but foretelling. There is no such thing as
‘Jesus predicts something’ in the Bible – e.g. of Kefa’s denial (Mt 26:33-34 etc.), His
suffering and death (Mt 16:21 etc.), etc. [Cf. prophecy mania; prediction freaks, fortune
peddling.]

Prophecy - the proclaiming the messages God wants to have delivered to give warning.
It is not about predicting future (as prophecy games some are fond of - taking some
Bible verses out of the whole context – which have appeared in the history, especially
last 200 years as the world itself has gone through troubles, turmoils and throes into
degeneration and decay at the spiritual level, and at the same time awakening at diverse
areas of human endeavor, even more accelerating pace at the turn of the century of 2000
CE.) It is to come out of the believers’ mouth as they interpret the events of the world,
social, economic, political, religious, ideological, and intellectual spheres. As illegal
becomes legal, abnormal becomes normal, wrong becomes right, bad becomes good,
truly these are our last days living in the generation of perversion, each of human
becomes its own god with the purpose of one’s existence is in the pursuit of power and
pleasure – riding on industrial and then information revolution in recent human history.

Related word: * revelation, mystery; *reveal [fr. Latin revelare, formed as re- +
velum a veil]

So-called Messianic prophecies

It is said that he books of the Old Testament contain many passages about the
Messiah (< 'Mashiah' in IRENT). However, we have to make clear of problems in
this line of arguments –
1. An anointed one (e.g. king) should not be confused with 'a Messiah', 'the
Messiah', which itself needs a precise definition and identification. Does the text
say about the Messiah or about a person coming as Messiah?
2. Even if the OT text is about the very (promised) Messiah, the sense of the
word is a person in position of a king, prophet, or priest. Does it carry the sense
of ‘Christ’ subject the various Christian doctrines? NT writers quoted and edited
to use these OT text for their midrashic pesher exegesis purpose in their
kerygmatic, not historical, writing of Gospel of/about Yeshua coming as the
Mashiah and as the Son of Elohim. Not ‘God the Son’ having a human title of
Mashiah came in a human being. See WB #3 Names, Person, People.
 Daniel's Prophecies (Danial Chapter 9):

Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks of Daniel; Dan 9:24-27

✓ 70th week of Daniel;

✓ Artificial Christological readings as a messianic prophecy.

• earliest and latest possible date of an event: terminus_post_quem ("limit

after which") and terminus ante quem ("limit before which")
• latest and earliest possible date of a non-punctual event: terminus ad
quem ("limit to which") and terminus a quo ("limit from which").

*revelation

General vs. special revelation

http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/priority-general-revelation-
special-revelation-6-theses-natural-law-scripture

*shalom; *peace; harmony

shalom - a Hebrew word rich in meaning. Most English Bibles render as ‘peace’.
However, it is not just ‘peace’ (as if achievable by man’s effort), or ‘absence of conflict
or war’ or ‘being peaceful’ which mortal human wish to have on earth, but covers
contentment, well-being, completeness, harmony, etc. It is always from God and
because of God – God’s shalom, the shalom God gives (Eph 1:2).

peace – pictured as absence of war or conflict, instead of *harmony, which is one

supreme idea in oriental society.

A church jargon: ‘sign of peace’

*leaven

See also ‘*unleavened bread’ (matzah) in the Passion narratives.

Lk 12:1+para. leavening of the Pharisees ░░ /> leaven [not ‘leavening agent’ as such
here (e.g. sourdough – 13:21), but leavening effect in the process of baking bread –
flour mixed with water to make dough – let it sit to get fermented to have dough rise.]
[alludes to their teaching ‘which is hypocrisy’] (cf. 1Co 15:6-8; Gal 5:9)

The word ‘leavening’ means ‘rising of the dough’ – not about having used leavening agent
(yeast, baking soda, etc.). The field flour, mixed it with water, rises when kept at room
temperature (cf. starter; sour-dough) cf. Mt 13:33.]
[www.yhrim.com/Are_we_to_Keep_7_or_8_Days_of_Chag_Matzoth_11-25-5992.pdf ]

*reveal; *manifest; *appear

• apokaluptō reveal; x: show

• phaneroō make known; show; disclose
• phaneros; emphanēs; (adj) manifest, in the open, publicly known, disclosed;
recognizable, known; apparent;

Verbal nouns:
Problem with the word ‘revelation’ – (1) ‘revealing’ vs. (2) ‘what is revealed’.
Problem with the word ‘appearance’ – (1) ‘outward look’ vs. (2) (act of) appearing.
‘*perfection' 'completion' 'maturity'

S2676 katartisis (1x) 'perfecting' 2Co 13:9.

S5046 teleios (19x) 'perfect' (Mt 19:21; Rm 12:2; 1Co 13:10; Phi 3:15; Col
4:12; Heb 9:11; Jam 1:4; 1Jn 4:18); 'mature' (1Co 2:6; 14:20; Eph 4:13);
'complete' (Mt 5:48);

‘complete’ ‘perfect’ ‘fulfill’ ‘accomplish’ ‘*mature’

To clean up $$
[teleies S5046 'having reached the goal (telos S5056)'] perfect, mature

• (A) 'matured as a person': Col 1:28; 4:12; Eph 4:13; Jam 1:4; 3:2 (person); 1Co 2:6; Phi 3:15; Heb 5:14
(persons);
• (B) 'perfect': 1Co 13:10 (thing); Heb 9:11 (tabernacle); Jam 1:17 (gift); Jam 1:24 (law); 1Jn 4:18 (love);
Rm 12:2 (will of Elohim)
• (C) 'perfect in doing' 'to the fullest': Mt 5:48 (to be as your heavenly Father is); Mt 19:21 (to keep
commandment)
Danker p. 349
teleios 'free from any deficiency, omission, or corruption', complete, perfect-a. of integrity
relative to character, personal identity, or an avowed objective Mt 5:48a (with God as model
vs. 48b); 19:21; 1 Cor 2:6; 14:20; Eph 4:13; Phil 3:15; Col 1:28; 4:12; Hb 5:14; Js 1:4; 3:2;
1 J 4:18.-b. of things that are at the highest point of quality: the will of God Ro 12:2; that
which will supersede or bring to perfection present phenomena to teleion 1Cor13:10; gift Js
1:17; law of liberty 1:25; tent, comp. teleiotera skēnē ~ Hb 9:11.

teleiotēs 'quality of completeness', perfection, as high point in expression of congregational

integrity or unity Col 3:14; as high point of achievement in a process of personal maturation
Hb 6:1 epi tēn teleiotēta (to go on) to the maturity]
teleioō 'bring to a point at which nothing is missing'
-a. of carrying out a responsibility or task complete Lk 13:32; Jn 4:34; 5:36; 17:4; Ac 20:24;
Hb 7:19. W. focus on doing someth. within a specific span of time Lk 2:43.
-b. of bringing someth. to a designed conclusion complete Jn 19:28 (of scripture; cf. its
preceding clause – ‘all things accomplished’ – teleō) ; Jam 2:22 -(faith);
www.tillhecomes.org/sermons/james/james_2_14-26/ 1Jn 2:5; 4:12, 17. – (love). – ‘be
brought to its goal’ is better rendering. Of persons integrally united Jn 17:23.
-c. of bringing to the ultimate point of maturation complete, to perfect
(a). in ref. to ethical/spiritual perfection Phi 3:12; Hb 7:28; 9:9; 10:1, 14; 11:40; 12:23;
1Jn 4:18.
(b) in ref. to total qualification for an assignment, perh. = to consecrate Hb 2:10; 5:9.

teleiōsis 'a bringing to full realization'

-a. fulfillment, of promise Lk 1:45.
-b. perfection, of a cultic system deficient in total effectiveness Hb 7:11.

teleophoreō bear to full maturity Lk 8: 14.

teleutaō intr. 'come to an end', transf. sense die Mt 2:19 al.

teleō 'bring to completion', of functioning in a manner that leaves nothing undone

-a. to end, a speech or instruction Mt 7:28; 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; a period of time Rv 20:3, 5, 7.
-b. do (completely), of carrying out an action or objective
to the fullest extent Mt 10:23; Lk 2:39; 12:50; Jn 19:28, 30; Ac 13:29; Rom 2:27; Gal 5:16;
2 Ti 4:7; Js 2:8; Rv 11:7; 15:1, 8; 17:17. Of prophecy Lk 18:31; 22:37.
-c. achieve fully, to perfect 2 Cor 12:9.-d. make payment, pay, of rendering what is due Mt
17:24; Rm 13:6.

telos –
1. 'a point in time that marks culmination'
-a. w. focus on termination, end Mt 24:6, 13f; Mk 3:26; 13:7, 13; Lk 1:33; 21:9; Jn 13:1;
1Co 1:8; 1Pe 4:7. With oux Lk 1:33. Adv. heōs telous; until the end 2 Cor 1:13 (some render
'fully').-b. w. focus on culminating mode, outcome, end Mt 26:58; Lk 22:37; Rom 6:2lf (for
wordplay, see 2 below); 2Co 11:15; Phi 3:19; 1Ti 1:5; Heb 6:8; 1Pt 1:9. to teaoc; kupiou the
Lord's ending, viz. of Job's long trial Jam 5:11. eita to telos next the concluding phase 1Co
15:24.
-c. w. focus on aspect of completion, end Rom 10:4. By metonymy, to telos; as part of a title
signifiying the one who brings everything to completion, of God Rev 21:6; of Christ 22:13.
Adv. phrases, finally: eis telos; Mt 10:22; Lk 18:5; to de telos; 1Pt 3:8.
-2. revenue, tax Mt 17:25; Rom 13:7; in word play 6:21ff.
bless or praise

*bless vs. *praise; *glorify

• eulogeō S2127 [Cf. eulogētos S2128 adj.]
(1) God blesses people (Lk 1:28; Eph 1:3; Heb 6:14, etc.);
(2) people praise God /give blessed words to God (Mt 23:38; Lk 1:64, 2:28,
24:53; 1Co 14:16; Jam 3:9; Mk 6:41 (to God over the bread); /xx: "bless God"
– most;

[Mt 14:19; Mk 6:41 //Lk 9:16 – over the food in the pericope of <Feeding five
thousand> ‘gave blessed words [+ the One who brings bread out of the earth]’ - /xxx:
blessed the food – NASB, GW. Cf. David Stein of JNT. Cf. Spong (1988), This
Hebrew Lord, p. 44.]

• epaineō S1867 to praise, approve, commend people; (Lk 16:8; Rm 15:11, 1Co
11:2, etc.) [cf. epainos S1368 (n.)]
• aineō S134 to praise (‘praise God’ - Lk 2:13; Lk 24:53 v.l.; Rm 15:11, etc.)
[Danker p. 10. with acc. Lk 2:13 al.; with dat. Rev 19:5] [Cf. Lk 18:43 (1) anos
(noun 'praise S126) + didomi ('give' S1235).
• doxazō (S1392 'glorify' > 'praise')

cf. blessing (giving blessed words received; things received) vs. blessedness vs. grace [cf.
‘favored’ ‘with favor’]

Problem of the word ‘blessing’: it is now a common religious jargon, with word picture of
health, wealth, and prosperity, rather than God’s shalom, God’s words. The basic meaning
is ‘give good words’. For the ungodly they are just ‘good and nice words, but for God’s
people they are blessed words from God – ultimately the Word, the Logos, the God Himself.

[What is for us to say ‘Bless you!’? About same idiom as ‘good morning’? Related to
shamanic practice of seeking favor to spirits?

[Cf. Job 2:9 /xx: curse God – most; /renounce God – ASV, RV, WEB /bless God –
Douay, YLT; /Blaspheme God – JPS, Jubilee2k;
NET tn. The verb is literally ‫ב ַָׂרְך‬, (H1288 barakh, "bless"). As in the earlier uses, the
meaning probably has more to do with renouncing God than of speaking a curse. The actual
word may be taken as a theological euphemism for the verb ‫( ִקלֵל‬qillel, "curse"). If Job's
wife had meant that he was trying to justify himself rather than God, "bless God" might be
translated "speak well of God," the resolution accepted by God in Job_42:7-8 following
Job's double confession of having spoken wrongly of God (Job_40:3-5; Job_42:1-6).]
H1288 'bless' – most; 'curse', 'revile' ? – Job 1:5; 2:5, 9, 11; Psa 10:3; 1Kg 21:10, 13
H7043 qalal 'curse' 'dispise' 'dishonor' 'abate' – Gen 12:3; Psa 62:4; 109:28 'bless ~~ curse';
H779 arar 'curse' – Gen 27:27; Num 24:9 (bless ~~ curse),
H423 alah 'curse' (Gen 24:41; Num 5:23; Deu 29:19, etc.); 'oath' (Lev 5:1; Num 5:21, etc.)
H6895 qabab 'curse' – Num 23:25 (curse ~~ bless);
 When we have already, what blessing do we need? [Mt 5:45; Ps 23:1] Are we not to ask our
Father His mercy, instead?

What blessing do we have to ask Him? – Only things that honor His name through our life.
[Mt 6:9b] How can three square meals to satisfy us every day to be something we should ask,
as Eugene Peterson tells that that’s what the Lord has taught us to prayer (a satanic verse in
his Bible translation, The Message).

Possessions, pleasure, things, events, persons can make one shielded from unhappiness,
but cannot make one happy.

‘*blessed vs. *happy; *happiness; *blessing; *reward, *inheritance

['Happy are the ones who take every moment count'.]

*God's blessing is none other than joy, peace, new hope and freedom — being in
the Lord.

Hope is not something when we say we hope for.

Peace is not something peaceful, but shalom (true rest).

'Hell' (not Gehenna) is not a place to go to after death. You are in hell here and now if
you have no God's blessing.

Cf. what is Abrahamic blessing?

makarios (adj): /blest; /blessed; /xx: happy - many; /xxxx: fortunate – a few;
/xxxxx: in luck - Gaus; (as in the Beatitudes – Mt 5:3-11 //Lk 6:20-22)

A common English word ‘happy’ carries different nuance in various usage. Derived
from ‘hap’ for luck or fortune, ‘happy’ has nothing to do with makarios and
improper and misleading translation to tickle the ears in our happiness-crazed
culture.

[An example of lexicographic fallacy in an erroneous assertion by John Ligor

(1836), A New Version of Four Gospels. “p. 15 … The proper word is happy.
Blessed is always in Scripture eulogētos, benedictus.” – simply he accepts a
translation something to dictate how the text should be read. It is possible that he
may get from the word ‘blessing’ a word picture of material worldly things to
possess.]
*HalleluYah; /*Hallelujah - most; /> Alleluia – KJV, etc.; [= ‘Praise Yah’ (Yah – a short
form of YHWH)]; [allēlouia - a Greek transliterate of the Hebrew (e.g. Psa 116:19). In NT only
occurs in Rev 9:1, 3, 4, 6. See OT Psa 117:1 quoted in Rm 15:11.]

IRENT renders it as ‘Praise Yah’. English word Hallelujah, pronounced as Halleluyah, is

used often as a Christian jargon, its meaning and sense being mostly obscured and the Name
is not being appreciated.

*hoshana (hosanna) Mt 21:9 etc.

‘Happy’ (from ‘hap’ meaning ‘luck’. Related word - ‘fortunate’) describes a reactive state
in one’s feeling and entirely foreign to the Greek word makarios (‘blessed’) in use
throughout the Scripture, as in Mt 5:3 ff (in the ‘Beatitudes’).

Cf. Prosperity gospel of wealth, health and happiness.

Cf. The phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ as one of the unalienable rights in the United
States Declaration of Independence – a satanic phrase.
Cf. ‘happy’ and ‘predict’ - Two examples alien to the spirit of the Scripture.

*happiness

What is happiness? What is true happiness?

Most people love happiness. Observe carefully though, most of unhappy
people actually do love unhappiness, their own making. As if addicted!

Other related questions: What does happiness mean to you? What are the characteristics
of happy people?

When searched on the web for a meaningful definition of ‘happiness’ you will see a lot of
non-answer. What we find often is a description of various epiphenomena. They can spot
happiness in some or unhappiness in others without much difficulty. They tend to dwell
on other issues such as how to find out what makes (or should make) us happy. Instead of
pinning down on what happiness is, it is more about how to be happy, or things which
make one happy or what things cannot make happy. People desire happiness, but it is not
a desire per se.

Basically ‘happiness’ is a mental reaction producing positive emotion effect with our
feeling to stimulus from external and even internal sources, which can be any. It depends
how a person is mature, psychologically and spiritually. To be happy persons is not
because a certain stimulus is accessible to make them happy, but it is because they can and
choose to react positively to any stimulus. A truly happy person is not in need of a
particular kind of stimuli, but actually creates happiness. It is only possible by those who
are blessed as to their spirit [Mt 5:3], blessed of God Himself, nothing to do with things of
 the world. Sadly, many English Bibles translate Gk. makarioi as ‘happy’, being totally
ignorant and negligent in their blindness to the wonderful Scriptural truths. a
12F12F

[Check it out - https://youtu.be/imangO2AlaE (Rabbi Zelig Pliskin: A Masterclass

In Happiness)]

Reward Gk. misthos – Danker p. 235 - pay, wages (Mt 20:8; Lk 10:7; Jn 4:36; Act 1:18;
Rm 4:4; 1Ti 5:18; Jam 5:4; 2Pe 2:13, 15; Jud 11; ‘pay’, reward (Mt 6:2; Mk 9:41; 1Co
38; 9:176; 2Jn 8; Rev 11:18; ambivalently 22:12);

Something to be receive now to enjoy, not *promise (something in future).

Special cases for ‘reward’:

• Mt 5:12 vs. ‘your reward is great in the heavens’ (NWT) ‘your reward in heaven
is great’ (JNT) - ? Reward to be received in the heavens? Great from the heaven’s
point of view?
• Mt 6:1 ‘Reward from your heavenly Father’ (is given open here on earth, not
there in heaven after death.
• Gal 5:22-23 ‘fruitage of the spirit’ as to what would be the reward by God.
(See * righteous; * justification.
• Mt 6:20 Treasures (thēsauros) to be treasured up in heaven – things you do on
earth; not something God gives (cf. reward).
‘Treasure in heaven’ cannot be other than ‘blessed Words’ (cf. eulogeō ‘give
blessed words’ > ‘bless’);
Related word: Gk. apodidōmi –to repay; Mt 6:4ff (to *respond to; /x: to reward)

a
Happiness freak and peddlers – Such frivolous Bible translations would be comforting for
those cultic attractions of happiness, wealth, and prosperity gospel, prevalent among all walks
of life, being hooked on peddling of God’s Word – heavily imbued with positive-thinking
psychology, possibility thinking preaching, etc. The phrase ‘pursuit of happiness’ was found
its way into the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) itself –
" … We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the
pursuit of Happiness. …"
These rights are not something the Creator God would give to us, but something mortal human
beings demand. Why? Happiness is just a by-product of our life in God, when we honor the
very name of Him – YHWH. Happiness naturally follows our being thankful persons. Only
those people blessed of God Himself, that is, His spirit can be thankful and happy persons. Be
happy! – No, better be a thankful person.
*magnify, *glorify, *sanctify, *consecrate; *consecration; ‘set apart for holy
purpose; ‘*hallow’; ‘*praise’ ‘*bless (God); *holiness vs. '*sanctification';
[S37 hagiazō (28x) 'set apart as holy' Mt 6:9; 23:17; Jn 7:17, Rm 15:16; 1Co 1:2; Heb 10:10, etc.]
• 1Pe 3:15 sanctify [as Lord] ░░ - KJV, NASB; /x: honor – ESV, HCSB; /x: revere –
NIV; /xxx: worship – NLT; /xx: regard as holy – CSB; /xx: have reverence for – GNB;
/x: exalt – ISV; /x: set apart – NET; /xx: hallow Aramaic; /xx: dedicate your lives – GW;
• Mt 6:9 [Have Your name] be sanctified and honored ░░ /x: hallowed be [thy name] –
KJV, NASB, Douay, etc. (archaic); /x: kept holy – NLT, ISV, GW, Weymouth, WEB;
/be honored as holy – HCSB, CEV; /xx: holy name be honored – GNB; /be revered –
NHEB; /be sanctified – Darby; /

‘(God is) holy’ – what does it mean? – Cf. pure

• S38 hagiasmos /*sanctification (≠ holiness) [≠ consecration: the noun itself
does not appear in the NT.]; (being set apart from the world towards God; /xx:
set-apartness - ISR
1Co 1:30; 1Th 4:3, 4; 2Th 2:13; Heb 12:14; 1Pe 1:2;
Rm 6:19, 22 (xx: holiness – KJV, NWT3+4a)
• S42 hagiosunē (3x) – holiness (Cf. sacredness) Rm 1:4; 2Co 7:1; 1Th 3:13
• S41 hagiotēs (1x) – holiness Heb 12:10;
Cf. S40 hagios (235x) holy 1Pe 1:15-16 (cf. Rm 6:11).
Cf. hoi hagioi' (15x?) – Phi 4:21; 1Co 6:1; 2Co 9:1, Heb 13:24; etc.; ‘the holy people of
Elohim' – IRENT; /x:'God's consecrated ones'; /x: > the ones consecrated to God – Cassirer;
(-religious lingo); /x: the saints – most, KJV, HCSB, NASB, NET (- religious lingo, esp. in
Catholics); /x: the Lord's people – NIV; /xxx: the believers – NLT; /God's people – CSB;

'to sanctify' and ‘consecrate’ are not same:

• ‘consecrate’ = 'To set apart to a sacred purpose or to religious use'
['consecrated' is not 'holy (people)' – as in Cassirer's NT translations]
• ‘sanctify’ (as a biblical word) = ‘to set apart as worthy for God to see and be
pleased’. Not 'to declare holy'. Not 'to make holy'. [Cf. Jn 10:36 the word is
phrased out in IRENT to bring its sense – ‘set apart for the holy purpose’.]
[Cf. Related concept: ‘purification’ as in Judaic purification regulation. God
wants to see us ‘pure’, not righteous, right, saved, sinless, etc. – these are
simply in the consequence in the life of believers.] [‘pure as to the heart’ – Mt
5:8 – we are made pure by God; and we keep our heart pure]
In God-human relation almost all of God’s actb toward man is not static
abstract, but is thought of bidirectional process (not ‘reciprocal’); with the
God as the agent and the give and man as the responder. Man’s response may
be positive/negative, presence/absence.
E.g. love – God loves first; *sanctification – God sets (sanctify) us apart from
the world and we set apart (sanctify) ourselves from the world; salvation –
God saves; human receives in faith; *justification – God declares us
righteous; we stand righteous before God and before men,

a
[NWT3+4 cf. haplotēs simplicity 2Co 1:12; /xx: holiness]
b
God in His Love acts from His will and expression (i.e. the Logos).
 *bless vs. praise

S2127 eulogeō (43x) [Cf. 'blessed' S3107 makarios (50x) Mt 5:3ff; Jn 13:17 etc.]

Matthew 23:39

God blesses his people. Eph 1:3; 1Pe 3:9; Jam 1:25; Heb 11:21; Lk 11:27; Rm
12:14;

This land is blessed. This land blesses people with bountiful produce.
Blessed is the coming Kingdom of David, our father – Mk 11: 9, 10; Mt 21:9;
blesses children. Mk 10:16; Heb 11:21;

''give blessed words to' (God); /xx 'bless' (God):; Jam 3:9; Lk 1:64; 24:53 (S2127
aineō + S2127 eulogeō )
1Co 14:16 ['give praise']

"Blessed words be to ~" Lk 13:35; 19:38

*thank, *thanksgiving; ‘being a thankful person’

• “Foremost, we thank God, not for something, but for who He is and for
who we are.”
• “Thank for something? It does not mean that one is a person who is
thanking in everything (1Th 5:18). Even evil persons do thank.”
• “Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and
supplication along with thanksgiving let YOUR petitions be made known
to God” (Phi 4:4)
• Psa 50:14 “Offer to Elohim thanksgiving as your sacrifice /the sacrifice
of your thanksgiving …”?
• Related words and phrases: idiom - ‘thanks for nothing’.

1Th 5:18 ▪ In everything [+]

be yoů giving thanks [to keep God’s name honored]
everything [+] ░░ [+ in and with yoů; from and to yoů; and for and against yoů]
giving thanks ░░ [Thanking God is the hallmark of those who experientially know
who God is, and their first step approach the presence of God Himself, without which
there is no prayer. Thus, the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 6) itself does not mention this, because
any prayer can only come after.] [To love God is to thank and praise and to keep His
name honored in our life as His love is flowing through to others.] [‘Keep looking for
something to thank for.’]
in everything [yoů’re doing and that which comes to yoů] ░░ ἐν παντὶ; (in
everything you are to do and bring forth, or you are facing/encountering. Keep
finding out things to thank for.); [+ about to do and to face; everything we are
facing, everything to have come and about to come] /in connection with everything
 (give thanks) – NWT; 1 /in everything - most, ALT, NASB, AMP, etc.; /(give thanks) for
everything – Mft, SoureNT, AUV; />> at all times – ERV; 2 (reactive): /for everything;
/in every circumstance of life – WNT; /in all circumstances – ESV, Cassirer, NLT, GNB,
NRSV, NIV duo, /whatever circumstances – TNT; /(thank God) no matter what happens –
MSG; /(give thanks) no matter what happens - NIrV; /x: whatever happens – GW, CEV,
GSNT (- tone of Que Sera, Sera); /> under all circumstances - TCNT; /(be thankful)
whatever the circumstances may be – PNT; /Ko. 어떤경우나 처지에도; /> 모든 일에 [-
reflects the sense of ‘all’ instead of ‘every’/x: 범사에; /x: 만사에] [‘because of’ as well as ‘in
spite’ of each fact]

[everything yoů have, or yoů do, and that which come to yoů; and everything yoů don’t
have, or don’t do, and that which doesn’t come to yoů – all things in the past, present,
and future] [Everything of my life – every hour, every day is to thank for; simply it’s so
precious.][Everything of me – what I am, who I am, how I am.] [Note: ‘Let go of all
things on me and with me.’][In turn, ‘giving thanks’ does make things bearable.][cf.
‘nothing’ – Rm 8:38-39] [When it says, it tells us that we are going to look for something
to thank for. We in our life are going to create something we thank for. It’s not passively
getting some reward for things we do in keeping with the law or prosperity principle.]

[for everything, for what little we have (- learning to live without), in every
circumstance of life (whether we want/like; what little we understand or not.)]
[Cf. Lk 16:10-12 ‘trustworthy a in small things’]
123F123F

[Here is a small secret. Usually ‘giving thanks’ is a retrospective or passive expression,

that is, one does thank upon things done or happened. However, a much more fruitful
way is life of thanksgiving when it is in a prospective mode, that is, one does
something (doing or encountering things-events-persons) in a way that, however small
or minute, something thankful is, intentionally, generated or found. Make it a habit to
think before one undertakes anything, small or large, petty or important: ‘how I would
this to be thankful to God for it’ ‘Is it something I will be thankful and brining glory to
Him?’ Look for something to thank for and to praise Him in the ordinary experience
and encounter, a hidden sparkle of beauty in the ugly world. One step further – keep on
creative and worthy work so that one can have things to thank for.]
be you giving thanks [to keep God’s name honored] ░░ [euxaristeō (to give
thanks) = fr. eu + xaristeō. cf. cognates – xaris (grace); xairō (to rejoice) – See
EE above] (live in thanks; not ‘saying thanks’); [See. Mt 6:13 ‘honor the name
of God’.] 1 />be you giving thanks [in praise of Him] – ARJ; /give thanks – most,
SourceNT (- a word picture of ‘instances of giving thanks’; />be giving thanks – ALT, CLV;
/>> keep thanking God – CEV (- a word picture of ‘continuous or keep repeating’ rather than
bringing out the nuance of the way one lives in thanks); /> Give thanks {to God} – ERV;
/>Thank [God] – AMP, AUV; /> thank God – Mft, MSG, GSNT; /x: express thanks – ACV; /?:
give praise – BBE; / 2 (static): />>be thankful, (whatever the circumstances may be). – PNT;
/>> be thankful (in all circumstances) - NLT, />>be thankful (in connection with everything) -
NWT; />> (in every circumstance of life) be thankful – WNT; /
[Jam 1:17; Eph 5:20; 2Co 9:15. www.wcg.org/av/SpOL/spol168.htm <Thanks Be To God –
Joseph Tkach>] [‘give thanks to anyone; be thankful of Him] [The appropriate everyday
expression is not ‘I thank you for this’ but ‘I thank God for you doing this’]

a
*trustworthy vs. faithful vs. reliable – faithful person is trustworthy; may not be reliable as one
wishes. *Truthiness vs. truthfulness vs. truth.
 [Without living in thanks here comes ‘complaints’ ‘resentment’ ‘bitterness’ ‘anger’ ‘hate’
‘vengefulness’ ‘feel hurt’ ‘make hurt’, etc. In other words, a life being wasted in hell, internal
hell, which contributes itself to external hell in collective scale, which is in turn in the hands of
Satan. ‘safeguard away from the Evil one (apo ‘away from’; not ek ‘out of; from’) – Mt 6:13.]
[Combination of the expressions ‘be thankful’ and ‘no matter what happens’ makes this verse
a very static (sit-and-wait-and then) and reactive (usu. only for something good happened)
approach to life. Thank for what you are; for what you are in; for what you have (incl. ability)]
[Where there are worries, complaints, discontents, doubts, no giving of thanks is found. Receive
with the hands kept open to overflow. Where there is no sharing and giving, no giving of thanks
is found.]
[Love of God – (a) thanks-giving (b) praising (c) adoration (thirst for God’s word).]

*anathema; *curse; *oath; *swear;

[cf. Heb. harem?]
• S332 anathematizō (4x) 'to curse' Mk 14:71; 'put under an oath' Act 23:12, 21;
• S331 anathema (6x) an anathema, a curse Rm 9:3; 1Co 12:3; 16:22; Gal 1:8, 9.
anathemati Act 23:14 – oath; /curse- KJV;
• S2671 katara (6x ) 'a curse' Gal 3:10; Heb 6:8, etc. = S2652 katanathema (1x) Rev
22:3 = S685 ara (1x) Rm 3:14; S2616b. katathema
• S2672 kataraomai (6x) 'to curse' Mt 5:44, Rm 12:14, etc.
• S2653 katanathematizō (1x) 'to curse' Mt 26:74; S2617a. katathematizō
• S2551 kakologeó (4x) 'speak ill of' Mt 15:41 Act 19:9, etc.
• S3660 amnuo (26x) 'take an oath' 'swear' Mt 5:34; Jam 5:12, etc.
• S1944 epikataratos (3x) 'accursed' Jn 7:49; Gal 3:10, 13.
• H779 arar (63x), 'to (bring a) curse' Gen 3:14; Exo 22:28; Num 5:18, etc.
• H7043 qalal (82x) 'to curse' Gen 8:21; 'despise' Gen 16:4, 'make things light' 'abate'
Gen 8:8.
• H7045 qelalah (33x) 'a curse' Gen 27:12; Deu 11:26, Jer 24:9, etc.
• H8381 taalah (1x) 'a curse' – Lam 3:65
• H7621 shebuah – 'oath' (29x) Gen 24:8, Psa 105:9, etc.;(1x) 'curse' Isa 65:15.
• H423 alah – (36x) 'oath' Gen 24:41; Num 5:21; 'a curse' Isa 24:6;
• Cf. H2763 charam/haram (52x) 'to ban' 'destroy' Exo 22:20; Num 21:2; Jos 6:18; 'to
set apart; be devoted' Lev 27:28.
• H2764 cherem (38x) 'devotion, ban' 'devoted thing' Lev 27:21, 28, 29; Num 18:14;
Deu 7:26, etc.

*peace, *shalom

*rites; *ritual; *liturgy

[Cf. (religious) rites (formal ceremonies; e.g. Judaic ‘circumcision rite’ brit-milah);
vs. rituals (repetitive acts); vs. ceremonies, vs. *liturgy]

• S3009 leitourgia (6x – Lk 1:23; 2Co 9:12, etc.) 'service – civic/public or

religious/priestly/liturgical – how is it different from a worship?

• S4352 proskuneō (60x) 'pay homage to' 'worship' Mt 2:2, 8, 11; 4:9, 10; 8:2,
Jn 4:20, etc. [Cf. only verb; no corresponding noun form]
• S4576 sebō (10x) 'to worship' 'revere' Mt 15:9 //Mk 7:7; Act 16:14; 18:7, 13;
 19:27; (God-revering/fearing/worshiping/devout one) Act 13:43, 50; 17:4;
17:17; Cf. only verb; no corresponding noun form]
• S4574 sebasma (2x) 'object of worship' Act 17:23; 2Th 2:4.

[Quote: 'The bible is liturgical; liturgy is biblical' – Scott Hahn (Catholic scholar)
https://stpaulcenter.com/audio/the-road-to-emmaus/how-catholics-read-the-
bible/ – 'liturgy' referring to Catholic Mass?]

*baptize, *baptism; *immerse, *immersion

immersion: As used in the IRENT translation. The English word ‘baptism’ is the
transliterate the Greek word, which simply means 'immersion'. As for a translation word in
the Bible it is anachronistic and unsuitable as it does not have same meaning, sense,
connotation, and usage. The word has become a church lingo, not a biblical notion; it
corresponds to *immersion rite.

• baptizō S907 'immerse', 'dip (in water)' >> 'baptize'; /xxx: bathe – Unvarnished NT
• baptisma S908 'immersion' 'immersion-rite' > 'baptism'; /xx: dipping;
• baptistēs S910 'immerser' > 'baptizer’, /xxx: 'baptist’
Cf.
• rhantizō (sprinkle – Hb 9:13; cleanse oneself Mk 7:4 v.l.);
• katacheo (pour down – Mk 14:3);

That which was by Yohanan (> John) [e.g. Mt 3:11; Lk 3:16; Mk 1:8; Jn 1:25, 26, 33] was
in the token of repentance and forgiveness. Thematically historically immersion rite by
Yohanan is connected to Judaic mikveh; ritual purification with full body immersion into
water, the concept being of importance of Judaism and Judaic life. In the NT ‘immersion
rite’ (baptism) signifies each one’s participation (outward expression) in the likeness/figure
of Yeshua’s death, burial, and resurrection, which is only possible by immersion, not by
sprinkling. The so-called ‘infant baptism’ is an unbiblical Catholic doctrine, which goes
hand and hand with baptism by sprinkling. (cf. Col 2:11-12; Phi 3:3; Rm 2:28-29)
https://youtu.be/OTAz7XIUy_0

[Judaic mikveh; ritual washing for purification] [By dipping themselves down into the running water
and rise straight up.]

‘have ~ immersed (>> baptize) in water; with fire and spirit. en hudati; en
pneumati hagiō kai puri Mt 3:11; (x: with water)

www.christianitytoday.com/history/2008/august/what-is-pre-christian-history-of-
baptismal-ceremony.html

https://youtu.be/aF1mlbLupOw What is the origin of Baptism?

Cf. Judaic purification ritual
1Co 10:4 'into Moses'
…1Co 1:14 'Paul baptizes only a few'
[as a sign of becoming of disciple of the baptizer?]

immersion rites by Yohanan the immerser – (cf. Judaic purification ritual)

"Yohanan's immersion-rite of repentance" (Mk 1:4; Lk 3:3; Act 13:24;
19:4) ‘in water’
immersion rites for Yeshua by Yohanan the immerser:
 – Mt 3:13-17 //Mk 1:9-11 //Lk 3:21-23; Act 1:22; (Cf. Jn 1:32)

Mt 3:15 ‘it is proper for us to fulfill all [that is for] righteousness ░░ \prepon estin ēmin
plērōsai pasan dikaiosunēn; [immersion rite is not to attain righteousness, nor to get sins
forgiven. As for Yohanan’s immersing people it was a token of turning their heart to God
leading into receiving forgiveness – Mk 1:4]

fulfill ░░ [pleroō. Also 5:17. Not ‘satisfied and done away with’.]
all that is for righteousness ░░ \pasan dikaiosunēn; (same phrase in Act 13:10) [cf. 6:33]
[nothing to do with ‘righteousness imputed in justification’ as in Pauline letters. Yeshua’s
immersion is not same as immersion-rites by the Yeshua Movement from Act 2.]
[dikaiosunē - different from dikaiōma Rm 2:26 (righteous-requirements)] [‘being righteous
before God’ - on the basis of ‘compliance to the Law’ in the OT dispensation.]

immersion rites by Yeshua’s disciples (not by Yeshua himself): Jn 3:22; 4:1;

immersion rites by Yeshua movement: Mt 28:19; Act 2:38, 41; 8:12, 13, 16, 36, 38; 9:19;
10:47, 48; 11:16; 16:15, 33; 18:8; 19:3, 4, 5; 22:16;

[‘proxy baptism’ – baptism ‘for the dead ones’ by Mormonism. – See 1Co 15:29
for the proper translation of the text – \baptizomenoi huper tōn nekrōn ‘being
immersed on account of the dead ones’]. [Cf. purgatory, indulgences, in
Catholicism.] [unbiblical ‘infant baptism’]

[A church practice of ‘baptism’ is one of the important rites conducted by a

church. It is connected with the Judaic purification ritual (mikvah) to which the
immersion by Yohanan (> ‘John the Baptizer; /x: John the Baptist’) is related. In
OT and in the Gospels, it had to do with cleansing (purification). People would dip
themselves down into the water and rise straight up from the water! Yeshua (Mt 3:16; Mt
1:10) was NOT thrown back and lifted forward (3 times) by Yohanan! It was not in the
name of ‘Jesus’ or in the name of ‘Trinity’, unlike church baptism.]

[Motive of self-dying of the baptism is a Pauline midrash.] [The original Greek

word for this in the Gospels has nothing to do with a rite or ritual and should not
be read anachronistically with baptism by the Church – several different ways it is
practiced, e.g. sprinkling water, baptistry.]
 When people say ‘baptism’, they mean it a water baptism, baptismal-rite of church. It is not a
symbol. It is simply a seal by the congregation. It is an outward seal for resentence leading to
salvation. It is not same as ‘immersion’ or other forms of baptismal rite. Such rite in the Bible is
an immersion-rite into water as a seal for the person having come to Elohim in the name of Yeshua
to be a member of His flock. It is into death of our own being’’ so that we are brought into Life
eternal in the Mashiah. It points to immersion into the Spirit of Elohim (> ‘baptism in the spirit’).

When people say ‘save’, they mean something done by the standard and norm of the religion
practiced by a church. Biblical salvation as one’s personal life event is nothing other than coming
to Elohim having received His forgiveness and is a beginning of life-long salvation (together with
fellow believers) until resurrection Life is received. [Cf. 1Pe 3:21]

‘Baptism saves a person' (or ‘a person is saved by baptism’, ‘being baptized save a person’) is a
typical of cart-before-the-horse religious jargon. It is symbolic of a believer's faith in a crucified,
buried, and risen Savior. Hence baptism is in reference to Christ ONLY! It is Elohim who saves
person, who comes to Him by placing trust in the person of Yeshua the Messiah. Neither the
Church saves them. Religion does not. Religious life does not. The Bible does not; neither
believing the Bible saves.

• Act 2:38 epi tō onomati ‘be immersed upon the name of Yeshua the Mashiah into
receiving remission of sins’ – not ‘for the remission of’ (i.e. ‘in order to receive’)
[‘baptized in the name of Jesus Christ’ – KJV]
• ‘be immersed in the name of Yeshua the Mashiah' Act 10:48 en tō onomati;
• ‘be immersed into the name of the Lord Yeshua' Act 8:16; 19:5;
• Cf. ‘immerse into the name of Father, of the Son, and of the holy spirit’ (Mt 28:19
eis to onoma tou patros kai tou huiou kai tou hagiou pneumatos)] [Cf. ‘be baptized
in the name of Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost’ (KJV)]

Cf. 'be immersed into Mashiah' Gal 3:27.

The Greek verb baptizō (Cf. baptō – dip, dip in Lk 16:24; Jn 13:26, etc.) [See
also under ‘into the name’]

(1) wash, purify Mk 7:4; Lk 11:38;

(2) immerse, dip, plunge, wash, baptize – IRENT renders as ‘immerse’
‘receive immersion-rite’.
(in connection with Yohanan): Mt 3:6, 11a, 13, 14; Mk 1:5, 8a, 9; 6:14;
Lk 7:29
(in the ekklesia of Mashian community) Mt 28:19; Mk 16:16; Act 2:41;
1Co 12:13; Gal 3:27
(in extended sense) Mt 3:11b; 20:22, 23; Mk 1:8b; 10:38, 39; Lk 12:50;
(in figurative typology) – 1Co 10:2 'immersed into Moses'

The Greek noun baptisma is translated mostly as ‘baptism’. However, IRENT

renders it as immersion-rite because the traditional word connotes quite differently
in meaning, connotation, association and word picture and it is impossible to
convey its original sense in the original setting, a typical example of words of
ecclesiastical anachronism. It was a simple act of a person dipping his body to
immerse himself into running water and to rise out of it; never in such an elaborate
style as in some churches. Moreover, it is never with ‘sprinkling with water’ as in
Constantine Catholic Church tradition. (See EE for Korean and Japanese
translations.24) Similarly, translating it as immersion (as in ‘receive immersion-rite’
brings an additional picture (‘being ritualized’) which is not present in the text.

It is a symbol as a person is brought into the Mashian community (1Co 12:13 ‘into
one [corporate local] body’). ‘Baptism follows salvation; salvation does not follow
baptism’ (Mk 16:16) (cf. Act 10:47). Baptism is not what ‘saves’ a person. (cf. 1Pe
3:21) [Cf. Lk 17:19 "faith saves us"?]

It is ‘in water’ (in the River Jordan by Yohanan - Mt 3:11; //Mk 1:8; //Lk 3:16;
//Jn 1:26; 31, 33; //Act 1:5; 11:16) with water as a symbol of spirit. With fire –
Mt 3:11; //Lk 3:16. [“in token of repentance [leading] into [receiving] God’s
forgiveness of sins” – much more than Judaic purification rites.]
It is ‘with holy spirit’ (Mt 3:11; //Mk 1:8; //Lk 3:16; //Jn 1:33; //Act 1:5; 11:16),
not ‘with the Holy Spirit’ (- most English translations), nor ‘with the Holy
Ghost’ (- KJV, Wesley, Whiston), ‘with the holy Ghost’ (Geneva), ‘with the
holy ghost’ (Bishops).

It is ‘in the name of Yeshua the Mashiah’ (Act 2:38; 8:16); in the name of the
Lord (Act 10:48); in the name of the Lord Yeshua (Act 19:5)

It is [to bring] into the Mashiah (Gal 3:27); It is into the Mashiah Yeshua and
into His death (Rm 6:3); into death (Rm 6:4).
It is not into other’s name (1Co 1:13, 15). Cf. Israelites were into Moses during
the Exodus (1Co 1:13; 10:2);
It is [to bring] into the name of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19b). [‘into the
name of’ is in the sense of ‘into the covenant reality of’]

Note: [The common phrase ‘in my name’ (of Yeshua) is found in the quoted
saying of Yeshua in Historia Ecclesiae by Eusebius “Go ye and make disciples
of all nations in my name”. (His quoting unrelated to do the next sentence (Mt
28:19b) on ‘baptismal rite’) See *Great Commission.]
*kill, murder, slay, slaughter, sacrifice, exterminate, put to death, execute,
phoneuō (kill, murder)

‘Thou shall not murder’ as a command?? Prevention of murder crime -

‘murder’ is a crime judicially sentenced). Cf. IRENT rendering – ‘shall not
take other’s life’

thuō (sacrifice) apokteinō sphazō phoneuō (phonos) diacheirizomai anthrōpoktonos

*die; expire (‘breath-out’), give out soul; ‘not die’ ‘without dying’

[Enoch and Elijah are the only two people God took to heaven without them
dying. It does not mean they did not die. Heb 11:5 “In faith Enoch was taken
away so as to not see death,”

Gen 5:24 tells us, "Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God
took him away." 2Kg 2:11 tells us, "Suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of
fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a
whirlwind." Enoch is described as a man who "walked with God for 300 years"
(Genesis 5:23). Elijah was perhaps the most powerful of God's prophets in the
Old Testament. There are also prophecies of Elijah's return (Mal 4:5-6).

S1606 ekpneō Lk 23:46 //Mk 15:35; / Ko. 숨을 거두다; give out breath of one's last;
[Cf. //Mt 27:50 aphiēmi to pneuma 'yield up the spirit of his'] /> breathed his last – most; /xxx:
give up the ghost – KJV; /xxx: gave the spirit – Jublee2k; /xxx: expired – Aramaic Bible in
Plain English;
S1634 ekpsuchō (3x) Act 5:5, 10; 12:23]
S2348 thnēskō 'be dead' Jn 19:33
*death; → * dead → * resurrection

/from death; from the death; /

1Jn 3:14 'from the death to the life' ek tou thanatou eis tēn zōēn

Death:

[as to a human being – death as experience/event vs. as state/condition]

[biological/physical death vs. death of soul, vs. spiritual death.]

Current issues on death:

‘End-of-life’ (EOL) decision making – ethical and legal issues
‘brain death’
‘suicide’
‘euthanasia’
Neuronal activity – vision, hallucination, dream, etc.

Death as antithesis of life. The Scripture concerns mostly with (1) death of
biological life, especially physical life of human beings (Gk. bios), and (2) death
of one’s spirit (opp. ‘quickening’). Cf. Gk. psuchē is commonly rendered as
‘life’ in most Bible translations but inadequate and often misleading. IRENT
renders it as ‘one′s being of life’ or, in idiomatic phrase, as ‘soul’.

‘pass from death unto Life’ – Jn 5:24

eternal Life; * Life eternal; cf. * life after death
eternal punishment – Mt 25:46
eternal destruction – 2Th 1:9
eternal fire – Mt 18:8; 25:41; Jud 1:7
eternal judgement – Heb 6:2
eternal sin – Mk 3:29

Cf. ‘the second death’ [Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8];

Cf. eternal shame – Dan 12:2
Cf. geuomai thanatou (5x) [IRENT renders as ‘come to face death’ > ‘have
experience of’]- Mt 16:28 //Mk 9:1 //Lk_9:27; Jn 8:52; Heb 2:9; [idiom –
experience death (NET); /x: die; /x: (to) *taste death - most; /x: (to) taste of
death – KJV, ASV, etc. [NET tn: the Greek verb does not mean "sample a small
amount" (as a typical English reader might infer from the word "taste"), but
"experience something cognitively or emotionally; come to know something"
(cf. BDAG 195 s.v. γεύομαι 2).]
‘*resurrection; *rise, *raise
'resurrection'
– S386 anastasis (42x) Mt 22:23; Jn 5:29, etc.
– S1454 egersis (1x) Mt 27:52
– both verbs are used for the theme of (raised/rise into Life)
S1453 egeirō (144x)
(1) ‘raise up’ Lk 24:34; Mt 3:9; 27:63; Jn 5:21; 21:14;
(2) 'arouse, arise, wake, rise up' Mt 1:24; 2:13, 14, 20, 21; 12:42; 14:2;
16:21, 20:19; Mk 2:9; 3:3; 14:42; 16:6, 14; Lk 1:69; 9:7; Jn 2:19, 22; 5:8;
7:52; 12:1, 9, 17; 14:31; etc.];
‘He is risen’; ēgerthē Mt 28:7; Mk 16:6;
‘He will be raised’ egerthēsetai Mt 17:23;
'the nation will rise up' egerthēsetai Mk 13:8
'he having risen' egertheis Mt 8:26
S450 anistēmi (108x) ['ana-' does not have sense of repetition – (cf. S308 anablepsas
'look up' Mt 14:19; Mk 8:24)]
(1) 'get up', 'rise' BDAG p. 83
Mt 9:9; 12:41; Mk 8:31; 10:34; Lk 1:39; 18:33; 24:46; Jn 11:23, 24, 31; 20:9.
(2) 'raise' (4x) Jn 6:39, 40; 44, 54
'he having risen' anastas Mk 16:9
'had risen from the dead' anastē Mk 9:9
'rise up' Jn 11:23, 24 /xxx: rise up again – most (rise up twice??) [in other
verses, this oxymoronic rendering is less common;

Cf. www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/the-resurrection.htm - (not about 'resurrection')

The common phrase in the NT ‘ek nekrōn’ ('from out of dead ones'), usually
translated as 'from the dead'a, is not same as ‘from death’ with the word 'death' as
an abstract notion. The phrase connotes ‘general resurrection’ which is initiated by
Yeshua’s resurrection.] [cf. ‘out of the death’ ek tou thanatou Jn 5:24]
[Green – verses referring to Yeshua; purple – others]
‘be raised from out of dead ones’ – [God is the agent to raise]
Mt 17:9; Mk6:14, 16; Lk 9:7; Jn 21:14; Jn 2:22;
Act 3:15; 4:10; 10:41; 13:30, 34; Rm 4:24; 6:4, 9; 7:4; 8:11; 10:9; 1Co 15:12a, 20; Gal 1:1;
Eph 1:20; Col 2:12; 1Th 1:10; 1Pe 1:21;
(Jn 12:1, 9, 17; Heb 11:19)

‘rise from out of dead ones’ – Mk 9:9, 10; 12:25; Lk 24:46; Jn 20:9; Act 17:3, 31;
2Ti 2:8; (Lk 16:31; Eph 5:14) [God raises; the person rises up]
bring up from out of dead ones –Rm 10:7; Heb 13:20;
The resurrection from out of dead ones – Lk 20:35;
resurrection from out of dead ones – 1Pe 1:3;
are alive from out of dead ones – Rm 6:13;
life from out of dead ones – Rm 11:15;
the beginning, firstborn from out of the dead ones– Col 1:18;

a Greek expression is not "from death" - CEV, Bishops (escaped from death? ‘death’ as experience or condition);
/from among the dead – CLV, Rhm; /> from the dead – most; /> from the dead – LITV, MKJV, Darby; /x: out of
the dead ones – Diagl; /a mortuis – Vulg; /x: had come back to life – GW]; /xxx: from death –x: raised up from
death;
the firstborn from out of the dead ones– Rev 1:5
“the resurrection from out of dead ones” – Act 4:2;
“raised up from out of dead ones” – 1Co 15:12b;
“resurrection out of from dead ones’ – [eis tēn exanastasin tēn ek nekrōn –
resurrection that lifts me up (IRENT)] Phi 3:11
Cf. "[the] resurrection of [the] dead ones" – [hē] anastasis [tōn] nekrōn - genitive
“from out of resurrection of dead ones” – Act 26:23; Rm 1:4;
“the resurrection of the dead ones” – 1Co 15:42;
“resurrection of dead ones” – Act 17:32; 23:6; 24:21; 1Co 15:13, 21; Heb 6:2;
Cf. with the preposition apo [tōn] nekrōn (from; away from)
• poreuomai apo nekrōn (go from dead ones) –Lk 16:30; [‘from the realm of the dead
one’]
• egeirō [S1453] apo tōn nekrōn – (rise from the dead ones) Mt 14:2; Mt 27:64; 28:7;

Cf. There is no biblical expression ‘resurrection from death’ ‘raised from death’, etc. (as
in CEV renders wrongly) with the abstract noun ‘death’ – ‘resurrection’ and ‘from death’
are tautological. Conceptually resurrection is not something to come ‘from death’.
Resurrection is not something from death but victory over death’.

The Scriptural phrase ‘from out of the dead ones’ (> ‘from the dead’) connotes general
resurrection which is true, not an instance of a person’s resurrection. Same for the
Resurrection of the Mashiah; it is His resurrection from out of the dead ones. Paul
interprets His resurrection as the initiation (> beginning) of the general resurrection (Rm
1:4 – ex anastaseōs nekrōn – Adrio König (1989), The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology,
p. 79)

Resurrection of Yeshua: Elohim raised up Yeshua, His Son:

[Resurrection for Yeshua is not the climax of His life story of Immanuel. It is His
*Ascension to His Father, YHWH Elohim and glorification, from when He comes
to the believers – in Spirit. Coming back to Father completes the purpose of Logos
Incarnate and Immanuel – not to become another person of God-head as in the
Trinitarian theology (one of three god-persons), as well as in the anti-Trinitarian one
(e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses – one of two, Almighty God and mighty God).

• Act 3:26; Elohim raises (His servant)

• Act 17:31 (Elohim v. 30) raised him (= a man who He has appointed)
• 1Th 1:10; (Elohim v. 9) raised His Son, that is, Yeshua.
• Rm 8:11 the spirit of the One [Elohim v. 7-9] who [x: that] raised up Yeshua out
of dead ones.
• Cf. Jn 2:19-21 'raise it [the Temple] up' – [This does not mean 'Jesus raised himself
up', as if he was God, same as 'Jehovah'.
• Rm 4:24 ex anastaseōs nekrōn resurrection out of among the dead ones
• 1Co 15:12 ek nekrōn egēgertai (> egeirō ‘raise’)
• 1Pe 1:3 di’ anastaseōs ~ ek nekrōn

Yeshua was by Elohim raised in the power of God’s holy Spirit. He rose to Life,
not to life; but did not raise himself. [Cf. 'God Jesus' religion]
 • Not spiritual/mystical/‘physical’ resurrection -
www.marcusjborg.com/2011/05/16/the-resurrection-of-jesus/
• but ‘bodily resurrection’ [into a glorified spirital body]. [note:
‘body’ is not used in the sense of ‘physical/biological’ body.].

[ Where was Yeshua after He died until His resurrection? Was He still alive (His
soul)? Only his body was dead? What happened to his body? What about His spirit?
Alive as a ‘ghost’?

Note: (with the Trinitarian doctrine) when 'Jesus' is not just worshiped as God, but
he IS God and believed he was God before he was born – and necessarily born of
a virgin without a human father and thus born as a demi-god of a god-man, in his
case it is not resurrection but nothing more than re-incarnation.

https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/
https://lifehopeandtruth.com/life/life-after-death/

Resurrection of Yeshua among from the dead

https://www.openbible.info/topics/resurrection_of_jesus
Resurrection of the dead
Lazarus

Collection of bible verses on the topics (listed alphabetically), relevant and many
irrelevant:
https://www.openbible.info/topics/resurrection
https://www.openbible.info/topics/first_resurrection
https://www.openbible.info/topics/second_resurrection

Resurrection of human:
E.g. the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 7:15), the daughter of Yair (> Jairus; Lk
8:54 - 55), Lazarus (Jn 11:38 – 44 anistēmi), Eutychus, Dorcas, etc. [all bodily
resurrections; ‘raised in body’ – physical dimension; raised back to life’. Cf. Mt
10:8; 11:5.]
nekrous egeirete – Mt 10:8 (‘raise dead ones)
peri anastaseōs nekrōn - Act 17:32, 24:6, 21
anazaō – come to life (x: live again – KJV); /Rev 20:5

eis tēn exanastasin tēn ek (/tōn) nekrōn Phi 3:11; also Act 4:2
tēs exanasteōs ek nekrōn Lk 20:35
peri tēs exanasteōs ek nekrōn Mt 22:31
anastasis nekrōn 1Co 15:13, 21; anastasis tōn nekrōn 1Co 15:42
What is it? – Not uniting of the soul with the body; but recreated as a living soul
with a spirital body. 1Co 15:12, 13 [Cf. 'soul' is being resurrected while
'body' (flesh') decays (Ecc 3:19, 20)? – 'soul immortality']
 Who will be resurrected? "both the righteous and the unrighteous” (Acts 24:15);
resurrection to a new life vs. resurrection to judgment (John 5:25, 29);
Cf. Rev 20:12-13. Cf. Rev 20:14-15 'second death';
Cf. Mt 23:33; Heb 10:26, 27.
When – 1Co 15:21-23; Lk 23:43; Rev20:6, 12, 13.
How – Jn 11:25; 5:28-29; Isa 33:24; 35:5, 6; 1Co 15:42-44, 50
Where – 2Co 5:1; Rev 5:9,10; Reve 20:6; Phi 3:11; Psa 37:29.
1Ki 17:17-24; 2Ki 4:32-37; 13:20, 21; Job 37:23;
Mt 10:30; Luke 7:11-17; 8:40-56; 20:37, 38; John 11:38-44; Act 9:36-42;
20:7-12; 1Co 15:3-6;
data from www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/what-is-the-resurrection/

Resurrection is rising to Life after death – in what form or reality?

'bodily resurrection' – what does 'body' mean? Physical, biological, soulical? Spirit body?
Body spiritual? [Cf. body and spirit – vs. soul.]

Does ‘resurrection’ apply only to the ‘body’? Does ‘spirit’ live outside a body, like a
ghost? - [ www.letusreason.org/doct15.htm Arguing for Soul-sleep]

How is the doctrine developed on Sheol, Hades as ‘temporary hell’, and Paradise as
‘temporary heaven’? What sense the word ‘heaven’ is used, outside Biblical
terminology? E.g. as in ‘heaven and hell’ – non-biblical phrase – how can it be used to
fit as biblical? – using it with clear definition.
Notion of resurrection vs.
• ‘soul sleep’ (‘conditional immortality) 25 – unbiblical; [Cf. biblical figurative
expression ‘to sleep’ for ‘being dead’. But what does it mean by 'soul' before
arguing about 'soul'?!
• reincarnation; transmigration of 'soul' – a prevalent pagan idea as in Hinduism.

non-biblical idea of ‘soul transmigration’ and ‘reincarnation’

From Clarke’ commentary.

• Re-incarnation from Hinduism.

• The Pythagoreans believed the souls of men were sent into other bodies for the
punishment of some sin which they had committed in a pre-existent state. Hinduism –
sin or afflictions coming from the resulted committed in one’s former state
• A soul-transmigration doctrine of the Pharisees (from Josephus) – souls of those pious
are permitted to reanimate human bodies; and that those of the wicked are put into
eternal prisons, where they are continually tormented, and out of which they can never
escape (cf. Catholic purgatory).
• It may be just necessary to say, that some of the rabbis believed for an infant to sin in
the womb, and to be punished with some bodily infirmity in consequence.
 • Becoming gods, uniting with God – new age movement; Mormonism, etc.
• Cf. resuscitation; near-death experience (NDE) with hyperliteralism for
'heaven and hell' – subject experience with brain working beneath conscious level
is non-Scriptural. [Ref. Hank Hanegraaff (2013), After Life: What You Really
Want to Know About Heaven, the Hereafter, & Near-Death Experiences]
• Cf. ‘out-of-body experience’ (OBE or OOBE); hallucination; having a ‘vision’;
‘seeing an apparition’;
• '*mortality' '*immortality' -- (imperishable, uncorruptible, > immortal -
aphthartos) Cf. concept of ‘immortality’ (not-dying, no-death) – that which in the
Scripture belongs only to God, not man, god-man or demigod.
• ‘soul immortality’ [See below * mortal] – pagan Greek idea. Before any
meaningful debate can be made on this topic, we have to define the word 'soul'.
The phrase itself is ambiguous as the word is not same ‘soul’ in other expressions.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2006603 Cf. ‘ghost’ – a 'soul' of deceased
person as in pagan idea
Cf. Death is death of soul itself with (1) disintegration of biological/physical body;
(2) return of ones’ spirit to the Creator (cf. aspirital body taken on resurrection),
with death having to do nothing with going straight to ‘heaven’, 'Catholic –
purgatory and limbo', or ‘hell’.] What does it mean by ‘soul’ anyway? [In Greek
philosophy, (human) ‘body’ has mind and soul.]b

Check it out - https://youtu.be/YzFUXKk2B4I (Rabbi Friedman - The Soul and the

Afterlife: Where Do We Go From Here?)
• The Third Resurrection: What Is Its Value?
• The Final Harvest
• Basic Doctrines: The Third Resurrection
• Basic Doctrines: The Second Resurrection
• Basic Doctrines: Eternal Judgment
• Death: The End of the Beginning

Whatever ‘heaven’ is (for that matter whatever non-scriptural ‘hell’ is for those
who believe it), it is not [where] for anyone to go to – only the Son of Elohim
as Jn 3:13 clearly declares.

a
'*spirital' – a neologism 'of spirit' 'concerned with spirit', the sense which is not in the word 'spiritual'.
'spiritual body' is a strange concept. See * genitive problem. E.g. so-called 'natural law' should be
called 'law of nature'. E.g. 'theory of music', not 'musical theory' (musical sounding theory?)
b
Reading material: Peter Hicks (2003), The Journey So Far – Philosophy Through the Ages.
[← www.academia.edu/40009509/Why_the_Third_Day_The_Promise_of_Resurrection_in_All_of_Scripture ]
Concept of Resurrection of the Dead in OT

In OT: — Hos 13:14; Job 14:13-15; Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2, 13; [Hos 6:2]a

https://thetorah.com/the-valley-of-dry-bones-and-the-resurrection-of-the-dead/ Devorah Dimant.

"…The is almost entirely absent in the Bible. [b] One ambiguous passage in Isa 26:19 may refer
to resurrection: The verse appears in a section in Isaiah (chs. 24-27) discussing the end of days.
[4] Whether it is speaking metaphorically or literally, the rabbis, at least, understood it to be a
literal description of resurrection. [5]

The only biblical passage that unambiguously refers to resurrection is found in the final chapter
of the book of Daniel (12). The chapter opens with a description of the future redemption,
which will take place during the worst time the world will ever have experienced (v. 1). The
text continues by describing other wonders that will occur at that time: Dan 12:2 'Many of those
that sleep in the dust of the earth will awake, [6] some to eternal life, others to reproaches, to
everlasting abhorrence.' Daniel is the latest biblical book, the final version of which is dated to
around 167 B.C.E. And thus, we can say with confidence that by the second century B.C.E.,
the concept of resurrection clearly entered Jewish discourse, though how widely it was accepted
is less clear.

Despite the paucity of biblical evidence for resurrection, or perhaps because of it, the question
of whether resurrection of the dead will occur was the focus of intense debate during the last
centuries of the Second Temple era. Josephus writes that the Pharisees accepted resurrection
while the Sadducees rejected it (Josephus, Antiquities, xviii; Whiston trans.): …

This view is confirmed in an anecdote recorded in the book of Acts about how Paul defended
himself against charges of heresy when he was preaching in a synagogue about the resurrection
of Jesus (Acts 23:6-9): …

Rabbinic Judaism adopted the principle of resurrection and a future life as a key element of
Jewish faith. Ironically, it even threatens people who do not believe in the resurrection —
ostensibly a reference to the Sadducees — with no future life (m. Sanhedrin 10:1): …

Problem with Enoch and Elijah – many believe that they did not die! Based on their
reading of Gen 5:24 and Heb 11:5 texts they take that Enoch didn’t die. Same for Eliyahu
2Kg 2:11 (> Elijah). If they didn’t die, what happened? Transferred to ‘heaven’? Where
does the Bible say a person may ‘go to heaven’ (while some may go to hell)? Such ‘heaven
and hell’ is unbiblical language. Cf. Heb 9:27; 11:35, 40; Jn 3:13; 8:51

a Hos 6:1 “Come, let us return to YHWH; for he has torn us, that he may heal us;
he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.
Hos 6:2 he will revive us after two days; on the *third day he will raise us up,
that we may live in His presence
b
[End-note here: For a detailed description, and slightly different view of the biblical attitude toward
individual resurrection, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate
Victory of the God of Life (2008).
'*punishment - Translation issue on Mt 25:46

Translation issue on Mt 25:46: 'eternal cut-off from Life'

S2851 kolasis (2x) 'punishment'; x: torment) – Mt 25:46; 1Jn 4:18]

Cf. kalazō ‘chastise’ Cf. timōria/timōreō vindictive punishment - Acts 22:5; 26:11; Heb 10:29.
From Jersak, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut, p.30 quoting from Abbott, Analytical Studyof Words)
– here not ‘torture/torment’ (=BASINOS), neither ‘eternal punishment’, but a punishment of its
own. Should be read literally with the perspective of ‘love against power’ and ‘love against fear’
in the background, rather than the Eschatological judgment.] [BDAG p. 555 cf. NET fn:
‘punishment’, eternal punishment in view of 1Jn 4:17, rather than ‘torture or torment’. Punishment
one is afraid of receiving at the judgment.];

'cut-off' – however, cut off of what? Cut off from what?

vs. 'separation' and 'rejection'?

+ S166 aiōnios 'age-long', 'eternal'; not the sense of something 'continuing

indefinitely', 'forever', 'everlasting', etc. e.g. in 'hell fire preaching'.]

‘everlasting cutting-off ~~ everlasting life’ (NWT) [similar examples: ―cut off

forever (Capel, NT-CHCG, Ożóg), ―eternally cut off (FLV6), ―the aionian
cutting-off (Emphatic Diaglott), ―age-lasting cutting-of (Tomane)]

‘eternal punishment ~~ eternal life’ (most);

‘everlasting punishment ~~ life eternal’ (KJV)

[Note: misguided translations: ―an everlasting pruning (Miller), ―an eonian

pruning (Mitchell)]

1. everlasting cutting-off (NWT) – an English phrase which does not make

sense. Being cut-off unendingly, or cutting continuously forever? Keep cutting
endlessly? [Chopping a tree would not be an unending process, though it may
take more than one swing of an axe.] [‘an everlasting pruning’ is worse. Is the
text giving a picture of garden work?]

3. eternal punishment

- Many do not understand that 'eternal' does not mean endless, unending, etc.,
taking it as a temporal concept of an eternal duration. Not about ‘be punished
forever’ (ERV). It is rather about 'eternal' impact and result.

- Many have a wrong word picture of punishment confused with a different

word ‘torture’,
 - It is however in the text is used in the text itself as what is in contrast to
'eternal life'. It is really nothing more than a cut-off from eternal life itself, that
is, the very God Himself as the source of Life.

- The phrase ‘eternal punishment’ is NOT a proof text to keep unbiblical

hellfire preaching tradition unquenchable, which is closely interwoven with a
Greek idea of soul immortality. The biblical jargon ‘hell’ (word of a pagan
origin) has unbiblical meaning and usage; confused with Gk. H86 hades. (Mt
11:23; Lk 10:15; Act 2:27; Rev 1:18, etc.) as KJV translates several Gk.
words as 'hell'. (Latin - Inferno)

Cf. Known as the greatest hellfire preacher - Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758) – the
last preacher in the Puritan tradition (of 18th and 19th century in Europe and
America).

Note: soul immortality denies the very meaning and significance of resurrection
and resurrection life. It is the source of misreading the text Lk 23:43 to see ‘the
paradise’ as a place of bliss when some person goes after death (on the same
day!), instead of ‘hades’ ‘sheol’ or ‘hell’.
*Life vs. life; *Life eternal; * eternal life; ‘everlasting life’;

Note: IRENT uses capitalized ‘Life’ (of/from God) for S2222 zōē taken different from
‘life’ (of human and other biological existence). It is primarily to distinguish from
translation of other Gk. words such as S5590 psuchē (Mt 2:20) and S979 bios (Lk 8:14).]

[Gk. zōē - NET fn: John uses 37 times: 17 times it occurs with aiōnios, and in the
remaining occurrences outside the prologue it is clear from context that "eternal" life is
meant. The two uses in Jn 1:4, if they do not refer to "eternal" life, would be the only
exceptions.
NET sn. An allusion to Ps 36:9, which gives significant OT background: "For with you
is the fountain of life; In your light we see light." In later Judaism, Lk 4:2 expresses a
similar idea. Life, especially Life eternal, will become one of the major themes of John's
Gospel.] [Jn 5:26 ‘life in the Son’];

‘Life eternal’ (in IRENT); > ‘eternal Life’ /xx: everlasting life – KJV ('life
everlasting' in a few places);
zōē aiōnios (#2222 ζωή; #166 αἰώνιος)
www.revisedenglishversion.com/appendix/2/Life_in_the_Age_to_Come/
Life eternal ░░ [= ‘Life belonging to the realm of ‘eternity’ (= Elohim). It is Life in
Elohim here and now.
It is something for you to receive as the gift from Elohim (Jn 3:15) – not just to
experience, but to live; not 'life after death', as you come to put your trust in the Son of
Elohim, not in 'God the Son'. It is Life of those belonging to Elohim’s Kingdom (Mt 5:3).
It is ‘Life in the Mashiah, as the present reality – the very Life from and with God’. Not
to be confused with ‘resurrection Life']

* resurrection Life – not 'life after death' (cf. the resurrection of the dead
ones – Mt 22:31; 1Co 15:42; the resurrection out of the dead ones – Phi
3:11; by resurrection out of the dead ones – Rm 1:4), but life eternal which
manifests in resurrection.
Cf. Jn 11:24 'will rise in the resurrection in the Last day' (not 'rise after
death')
Cf. Jn 11:25 'I, I am the resurrection and the Life.'
Cf. Jn 5:29 'to a resurrection to Life ~ to a resurrection to judgment'

[This is what Life is in NT. It has no temporal sense – such as ‘long life-span’ ‘living
forever with dying’, etc. Terribly translated ‘everlasting life’ (KJV, DRB, Geneva,
Bishops, MKJV, LITV, NWT) has become a religious or biblical jargon.
44x in NT.
Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40; 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3;
(3x) Mt 19:16, 29; 25:46; (2x) Mk 10:17, 30;
(3x) Lk 10:25; 18:18, 30; (2x) Act 13:46, 48;
(4x) Rm 2:7; 5:21; 6:22, 23; (1x) Gal 6:8;
(2x) 1Ti_1:16; 6:12; (2x) Tit 1:2; 3:7; (1x) Jud 1:21;
(17x) Jn 3:15, 16, 36; 4:14, 36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40; 47, 54, 68; 10:28; 12:25, 50; 17:2, 3;
(6x) 1Jn 1:2; 2:25; 3:15; 5:11, 13, 20; (Cf. 1Jn 5:12; Life)
[various rendering -e.g. in Jn 3:36]
/life eternal – Murdock; /eternal life – most, ASV, Darby; /life which is eternal – Etheridge;
/xx: everlasting life – KJV++, LITV, MKJV, Bishops, Geneva, Noyes, NWT, ISR; /xx: the
Life of the Ages – WNT; /xx: life age-lasting – Diagl; /xx: life age-abiding – Rhm; /xx: life
age-during- YLT; /xx: never ending life – AUV; /xx: has life forever – ERV; /xx: life
complete and forever – MSG (- baloney); /xxx: Immortal Life – TCNT; /

A leader asks Jesus how one can inherit 'eternal life' – as wealthy leader (Lk 18:18); a
certain rich man (Mk 10:17, 22); as a young rich one (Mt 19:16).

He knows that God exists and that he is accountable to that God, so his question is
particularly focused: "Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?" If God exists,
then the goal of life must be related to his purpose for us. The expression is unique to
New Testament time. In the Old Testament one could inherit the land (Gen 28:4; Deu
1:8; 2:12; 4:1). Or one might speak of the Lord as one's inheritance (Psa 15:5 LXX).
Mention is made of an "eternal inheritance," but its nature is not specified in the context
(Psa 36:18 LXX). Dan 12:2 speaks of the just who will rise to eternal life.

The basic sense of ‘eternal’ is, not of a temporal notion, but ‘belonging to God’ or ‘from
God’, or ‘God’s’. Thematically similar to the metaphoric use of ‘the heavens’ (which
is a metonym or a circumlocution of God Himself, rather than an invisible place).

Note: use of the word ‘everlasting’ (adjective) as translation word for Gk. aiōnios
is incorrect and misleading as if it is of a temporal concept of ‘unending’ ‘ever-
continuing without ending’ or ‘endless’. e.g. NWT; some both – KJV.

A problem of ‘eternal life’ on linguistic and literary as well as practical level, lies in
its historical and traditional tie to a biblical jargon ‘everlasting life’ (KJV), which
puts emphasis on duration and future-pointing – quite contrary to what it is, ‘now and
here in fullness of life’, not mundane life, nor religious life.

Words of weighty idea in the Scripture have become fragmentary in our thought and
become abstract theology-rich concepts and spatiality terms.
To live for a believer in Yeshua is to live Life from God (aka ‘eternal life’); it
is to live in God’s love and in God’s spirit (not ‘spiritualism’, nor something
to do with ‘the Holy Ghost). Such life is what we take with profound sense of
gratefulness. We are not ashamed of what we do, what we have done, what
we are – all these being less than what we should (have), we could (have); esp.
less than others (못다하는, 못다한, 못한, 모자라는), but are to be ashamed
when we are unclean and impure, looking at oneself, rather than looking to
our Creator; turning to darkness, rather than walking in light.

Christian beliefs have these all fragmented as if separate independent things

to ponder, study and analyze – life, love, spirit – just as they are all fragmented
into cults, sects, churches, denominations, Christian religions.
We should not ask God’s will to be told ‘do this or that’ or ‘don’t do this or
that’. God is not a small god who would tell us so. God’s will for us is to live
the Life from God and in our life to honor His name for whatever we do and
to do whatever honors His name as we are eager to do – not trusting our human
inclination and schemes, but His providence.

[‘eternal life’ in Synoptic Gospel – ‘as inheritance, as reward’ – comparable to ‘resurrection life’ in
G-John and Pauline Epistles.]

Various meanings of the word ‘*life’ in English (other than biblical sense):
1. the condition of living or the state of being alive. The condition, quality, or fact of
being a living organism – to distinguish from inanimate existence.
2. the experience of being alive;
3. the course of events and activities (for human and biological beings).
4. (for animate or inanimate) the period – during which something is functional;
between birth and the present time;
5. the period between the present until the end (or death). Legal – ‘life sentence’
6. the cause or source of living; the animating principle; a person who (or a thing
which) makes or keeps a thing alive.
7. the existence of an individual being, human or animal.

it is often used as a translation word for psuchē – 'soul' ('person'), which is not to
confused with an idea of 'a soul of a dead man' or 'ghost'.

Cf. S976 'bios'

(1) life and activity associated with it, 1Pe 4:4 v.l.; Lk 8:14; 2Ti 2:4; 1Ti 2:2;
(2) resources needed to maintain life physical life; livelihood, Mk 12:44;
Lk8:43;

Related words: ‘being alive’; living, livelihood; lifespan, lifetime, life-time;

biography, life history, life story; (life) career; animateness, liveliness, aliveness.
Cf. soul, spirit, person, organism, being, existence.

Quotation: “Life and jokes”:

Life is something to take seriously. Life is ‘all’ jokes – don’t take them seriously – unless
they have bones in them.
Life is something worthy to live and live for.
 S2227 zōopoieō (11x)
Jn 5:21 'quicken' 'make alive' (the dead)
Jn 6:63 'it is the spirit that gives-life'
Rm 4:17 God the One who gives life
Rm 8:11 'give life to' 'quicken' (your mortal bodies)
1Co 15:22 'in Mashiah all will be made alive'
1Co 15:36 'what you sow does not come to life'
1Co 15:45 Adam became a life-giving spirit
2Co 3:36 (the spirit gives-life'
Gal 3:21; '(law) could give life'
1Pe 3:18 (made alive by spirit);

Cut-off

The opposite of ‘Life eternal’ is not ‘everlasting death’ or ‘everlasting dying’, but
eternal absence of Life, that is, eternal cut-off from Life.

25:46a eternal cut-off [from Life] ~~ eternal Life ░░ /eternal punishment and eternal life -most,
SourceNT; /x: everlasting ~ life eternal– KJV, Wuest; /x: everlasting cutting-off ~ everlasting
life –NWT; /x: everlasting punishment ~ everlasting life – Cass, ISR, LITV, MKJV, NKJV, GSNT;
/cutting-off age-lasting ~ life age-lasting – Diagl; /x: punished forever ~ eternal life –CEV, NIrV;
/x: punishment forever ~ (go and have life) forever – ERV; /forever ~ eternal – NIrV; /the
Punishment of the Ages ~ the Life of the Ages – WNT; /aeonian punishment ~ aeonian life– TCNT;
/chastening eonian ~ life eonian – CLV; /the torment which is eternal ~ the life which is eternal
– Etheridge; /age abiding correction ~ age abiding life; /x: never ending punishment ~ never
ending life – AUV; /aeternum iusti ~ vitam aeternam – Vulg; /

cut-off from Life ░░

/being cut-off; /x: cutting off – NWT (- unpolished English; unclear sense); /x: punishment –
most (not fit in the context and theme); /xxx: torment – Etheridge; /correction – Rhm; /x: be
punished (forever) – CEV;
[‘they are to go off into eternal punishment’ with KOLASIS (+ restorative/disciplinary) may not
allude to the final condition of them, in contrast to kolasis – ‘cut-off’ [Cf. BDAG p. 702] – here
in the sense of ‘cut-off from Life’. Also 1Jn 4:18 ‘cut-off from Love'. Not about the final
condition as olethros (2Th 1:9 destruction as a final sentencing and condition). The problem
with ‘punishment’ in English – (1) association with torment, torture, hell-fire preaching, etc.
and (2) confusion with ‘judgment’.

[Cf. kolazō BDAG p. 555]

[cf. ‘*judgment’ – *KRISIS; cf. ‘to sentence, condemn’ katadikazō –Lk 6:37; cf. katatrima
‘condemnation’ – Rm 8:1] [Not to mix up with ‘eternal judgment’ (Heb 6:2; Mk 3:29 v.l.), ‘going
into or receiving the sentencing of destruction (2Th 1:9) or ‘being thrown into the eternal fire’ (Rev
20:15, Jud 7)] [cf. ‘to perish’] (Cf. ‘eternal sin’ – Mk 3:29)]
[Cf. ‘lift off’ airō (> cut off); ‘prune’ kathairō of vine branch in Jn 15:2; ‘cut down’ ekkoptō of a tree
in Mt 3:10]
 [In this verse ‘eternal cut-off’ is paired with ‘eternal Life’. The thematic antithesis to eternal life is
not ‘eternal death/dying’, but ‘eternal absence of Life’. That is, eternal cut-off from Life. Eternal
punishment does not fit for the context.]
[The adjectival word ‘eternal’ aiōnion is not a word of temporal concept, nothing with time or
duration (as in KJV translation ‘everlasting’), nor ‘of final condition’. The word ‘eternity’ is not
endlessness, unending, etc., but metonymic for God himself and God’s realm.]

Ref: www.forananswer.org/Matthew/Mt25_46.htm

Cf.
• krisis – Mk 3:29 /x: ‘eternal damnation’ (krisis) vs. ‘forgiveness’
(/eternal judgment’ – ISR; /xxx: ‘everlasting sin’ – NWT) [Mt 23:33
judgment (of GeHinnom/Gehenna)]
• dikē –Act 25:15 – judgment – KJV, ISR; judgment of condemnation –
NWT;/
• katakrima –Rm 5:16, 18; 8:1 – condemnation
• katakrisis – 2Co 3:9 – condemnation

*afterlife'; '*life after death' *immortality; 'soul immortality'

'afterlife'
life after death
'abode of the dead' in the TaNaKh.
'near-death experience (NDE)'

Vocabulary:
eternity – [Cf. '*eternal life' 'everlasting/eternal'.]

(often metonymic for God-being) refers to divine time-dimension, totally

different from our time dimension of past, present, and future. It does not mean
‘endless duration’ or ‘far end of time limit’. In terms of time, the sense is not
‘lasting, enduring, remaining, persistent, or even ‘coming in the future’, but
‘decisive and present now’.
The word 'eternity' as a translation word appears once in KJV (Isa 57:15
H5703 'ad'); others Bible translations: H5769 olam for NKJV: 3x Ecc 3:11 (––
'world' – KJV; eternity - most; Isa 57:15; NIV -- 3x - Psa 93:2; Prov 8:23; Ecc
3:11

Gk. aion S165 Acts 15:18 /x: 'from eternity' - NKJV; /from long ago – NASB;
/from the beginning of the world – KJV; /

'Life after death'; 'belief in afterlife'

https://clas-pages.uncc.edu/james-tabor/ancient-judaism/death-afterlife-future/
Vocab: mortal vs. *perishable; *immortal vs. *imperishable;

S110 athanasia (3x) 'immortality' – 1Co 15:53, 54 ("Our bodies to put on immortality");
1Ti 6:16 ("to Yeshua the Mashiah alone immortality belongs" – immortality that which
is from Elohim) [> S2349 thnētos (6x) 'mortal' – Rm 6:12; 8:11; 1Co 15:53, 54; 2Co
4:11; 5:4]
S862 aphthartos (8x) 'indestructible, imperishable' – Mk 16:20; Rm 1:23; 1Co 9:25;
15:52; 1Ti 1;7; 1Pe 1:4, 23; 3:4; [> S5349 phthartos (6x) 'perishable' 'corruptible' Rm
1:23; 1Co 9:25, etc.]

Rm 1:23 (aphthartos ~phthrotos); /the perishable God-being (vs. a perishable

human being);
Rm 2:7 (aphtharsia); imperishableness; /xxx: immortality
1Tm 6:16 the only One to whom immortality (athanasia) belongs; /has
immortality; /x: possess immortality.
1Co 9:25 (perishable); 15:42 (~ imperishable), 53, 54 (aphthora perishableness
~~ athanasia immortalness); /x: corruption – KJV;
Mk 16:8 v.l.; 1Ti 1:17; 1Pe 1:4; (imperishable); 1Pe 1:23 (perishable,
imperishable)

Gk. phtharos (perishable) and aphtharos (imperishable) (Rm 1:2; 1Co 9:25; Eph 6:24,
etc.). [ /x: ‘incorruptible’ - problem of the word with ethical political picture.]
‘perishable’ in the sense of ‘disappearing by losing its relevance and significance’,
not as food being perished.

Cf. akantalutos – indissoluble; /indestructible – NET, NWT, WNT; /x: endless –

KJV, etc.; /x: never ends; Heb 7:16

Cf.– Act 10:26 kagō autos anthrōpos eimi I myself am also a mere man. /xx: I too
am a more mortal – NET (- for his humanity, but it does not have anything to do with
being mortal. The word ‘mortal’ should not be lightly used in translation, other than
as an antonym of Gk. word athanasia).
 'Problem of immortality' – what does it mean by 'immortality'?

what is immortal? a - exempt from death; exempt from oblivion. What death?

immortal of what? – name, work, life, fame, value?

God is immortal – what does it mean? What God?
Soul is immortal – What does it mean?

All matter and energy are conserved but our bodies decay and disintegrate. Soul
became exist no more, as body dies and spirit returns to where it came from. Often
the word 'soul' is used in different sense to denote something that exist after death –
(cf. 'ghost'). What does it mean that our bodies are to put on immortality on
resurrection?

[1Co 15:53] 'soul immortality' is a pagan Greek notion.

From the Bible we can form a doctrine of immortality. and even a doctrine of
human soul, all subject to definition of the terms. Such a notion as immortality is
not in OT. However, the common thought of ‘soul immortality’ is pagan and
unbiblical. The concept of ‘immortality’ is an attribute to the Creator God Himself.
The soul of a human being dies. As the body dies, it decays. The soul is put in a
sleep state, having no consciousness. Only with God’s grace through the work of
Yeshua the Mashiah, the believers in Hm attain immorality after resurrection.
Without death of a soul (as in soul immortal pagan doctrine) there is to be no
resurrection. Faith in Elohim and in His Son is faith of resurrection; not faith of
immortal soul; but immortality to put on with resurrection life.

Problem of 'Soul immortality' – a Greek philosophy; a very common belief in diverse

indigenous primitive pagan religions and cults, including syncretic Constantine Catholic
Church. Unbiblical. [Cf. ‘Thou shall surely die’ Gen 3:3-4. Is the verse Satan’s lie vs.
deception with a right-wrong perverted truth? Does he use lies to deceive or use ‘truths’,
half-baked they may be?]

In the Scripture, the concept of immortality is something belonging to God. The words
‘soul’ and ‘immortality’ are often put together (words in the Bibles), both without clear
definition, give rise to an idea contrary to the Scripture. In fact, English word ‘soul’ is a
translation word for both Gk. and Hebrew. Gk. psuchē does not mean ‘soul’; ‘soul’ is its
gloss. b By itself negates the whole meaning and significance of the Resurrection in the
129F129 F

Scripture. [The favorite proof text is Lk 16:19-31, a parable read literally for such an un-

a
www.truthaccordingtoscripture.com/documents/death/immortality-gift.php#.W1Ir4sJG2JY
(Immortality–The Gift of God Through Faith in Jesus The Christ)
b
‘gloss’ vs. ‘meaning’. E.g. ‘word’ is not the meaning of Gk. Logos (Jn 1:1), but a gloss. Gk. Logos is
not something which simply means ‘word’ in English. Used as a translation word there, but in some
diffirent texts, it is translated differently to fit the context.
 biblical doctrine. Again, here is a problem with words and definitions to give rise to
diametrically opposing human doctrines: they argue about ‘soul’ without defining the
term. Each side has a different thing in mind. None is talking and arguing about the same
thing.

‘immortality’ – a metaphysical construct, not theological idea. Elohim, the Ultimate

Reality of Being, cannot be described or explained by any human language without
being imprecise, unclear, inaccurate, and approximate with anthropomorphism. The
concept of ‘death’, which is in the vocabulary of human language, belongs only to
the created world (including biological); it does not belong to a vocabulary of the
realm of spirit. Thus an ‘immortal God’ is nothing but a philosopher’s God and the
same for the ‘God who is dead’.

"God is dead", quoted statement by German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche,

applies to philosopher’s own God or God concept (actually he himself is his
God), not Elohim in the Scripture.

Different from but confused with other theological jargon - kenosis

theothanatology (Death_of_God_theology ) such as by Friedrich Hegel

Cf. “a God who is beyond Being”

Anthropology - ‘tripartite soul view of human nature’ – ‘tripartite soul’ – - see

WB #3B

‘*infinity

https://youtu.be/s86-Z-CbaHA (The Banach–Tarski Paradox)

∞ Countable infinity vs. uncountable infinity
Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel
hyperwebster
we are finite creatures; what is common to us is a very small portion/slice
of reality – common sense applies to that which we can access. vs. total
sense.
Zermelo-Fraenkel Axiom-
The universe isn't strange; we are.

‘*eternal’ ‘everlasting’; ‘for ever and ever’

Greek words and aiōnios (a.) from aiōn (n.)

*eternal, ‘belonging to (the realm/dimension of) eternity’, i.e., to
God.
It is not used in a temporal sense as much (e.g. such as ‘everlasting’ ‘un-
ending’). ‘Life eternal (eternal Life)’ is ‘Life from God’, not ‘a life which
 is everlasting’ or ‘lasting to eternity’; not of ‘spiritual vitality (of God). Cf.
resurrection life – Yeshua is risen to Life (Gk. zoē), but Lazarus (G-Jn 11)
came to life (living – Gk. bios) for a foretaste of resurrection life. E.g. the
question ‘is the universe eternal?’ has one answer, ‘No’, as ‘eternal’ is not
about temporal existence of indefinite duration, which cannot be verified
by measurement or observed.

Related words: * forever; into the * aeon;

KJV: (/x: ‘everlasting’ < eternal; /x: ‘damnation’ < judgment)

Mt 25:46 ‘everlasting punishment’ (eternal cut-off – IRNT) vs. ‘eternal life’: the
only occurrence in NT
Mk 3:29 /x: ‘eternal damnation’ (krisis) vs. ‘forgiveness’ (/eternal judgment’ –
ISR; /xxx: ‘everlasting sin’ – NWT) [krisis - Mt 23:33 judgment of Gehenna]
Mk 12:40 /x: damnation’ (krima) (< ‘judgment’)
Heb 6:2 ‘eternal judgment’ (krima)
2Th 1:9 ‘everlasting destruction’
Jud 1:6 ‘everlasting chains’ (eternal bonds – NWT)
Jud 1:7 ‘vengeance of eternal fire’

[See *life eternal; *eternal life; *judgment]

Heb 5:9 ‘eternal salvation’

Rm 1:20 ‘his eternal power and Godhead’

Rm 16:26 ‘everlasting God’
2Pe 1:11 ‘the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Savior J.C.’
2Co 4:17 ‘eternal weight of glory’
2Ti 2:10; 1Pe 5:10‘eternal glory’
Heb 9:15 ‘eternal inheritance’
Heb 3:20 ‘everlasting covenant’
2Co 4:18 ‘things which are seen are temporal; ~~ not seen are eternal’
2Co 5:1 ‘a house ~~ eternal in the heavens’
Eph 3:11 ‘eternal purpose’
Rev 14:6 ‘everlasting gospel’ (everlasting good news – NWT)
2Th 2:16 ‘everlasting consolation and good hope’
1Ti 1:17 ‘King eternal, immortal, ~~’
1Ti 6:16 ‘to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen’

*bread; *wine; ‘produce of vineyard’ (‘fruit of the vine’); new wine; *food

bread as main staple; (barley or wheat bread). Problem in translation this word
occurs when the cultural setting is different. It is a problem in the culture where
bread is not a main staple of diet as in the rice-based agriculture.26
*provision for soul (life)
*manna (Exo 16:4; Jn 6:30-31) What the people of Yisrael after their Exodus
complained was that they had to subsist only on manna as their food, to which
they were given quail later. It was the lack of those which they were able to
enjoy while they were living in bondage of the Pharaoh’s Egypt.

Yeshua as ‘bread of Life’. Yeshua Himself as genuine bread from heaven (/x:
true bread – most) – Jn 6:32

‘Bread from above for today’ (in the Lord’s Prayer)

Matzah (‘Unleavened Bread’) for the Passover season 27

Yeshua “My food is to do the will of him who sent me and to accomplish his
work.” Jn 4:34.

**fish; *lamb/goat/pigeon

[See <Walk through the Scripture #4 - Place, Things, and Numbers>

* wine; new wine;

New wine; old wine; sour wine (x: vinegar);

new wine [to be made] Mt 9:17; //Mk 2:22; //Lk 5:38 ░░ [oinos S3631 + neos S3501] [=
‘must’ – grape juice to put to ferment]; [not ‘newly opened or decanted’ (Ko. 새로 뚜껑을
연) ; not opposite of ‘aged’ (ko.오래되어 시어버린; /x:묵은 ) =sour wine (/x: vinegar -
KJV) - 27:48 (oxos - wine turns sour as it gets aged into vinegar]; /[freshly squeezed grape
juice for] new wine [to be made] – ARJ; /new wine – most; /fresh wine – Mft, CLV;
//freshly squeezed grape juice – AUV ( - lacks any reference to ‘wine in making’); /new
wine in making – ARJ; /new wine to /just made – Wuest; /
[ must (n1.): "new wine," O.E. must, from L. mustum, short for vinum mustum "fresh wine,"
neut. of mustus "fresh, new.] [TransLine Fn: The word means ‘new’ in the sense of ‘young’.
Jesus is referring to undeveloped wine, not yet fermented. So the intent is that no one puts
unfermented wine into ‘worn out’ wineskins. Such skins are hard and inflexible. Same word
as ‘new’ later in this verse; Col 3:10; Heb 12:24; ‘young’ in Tit 2:4; and ‘younger’ is Lk
15:12; Act 5:6; 1Tm 5:1; Tit 2:6. Used 23 times. GK 3742.]
[cf. ‘pomace’ = ‘marc’]
sour wine Mt 27:48; //Mk 15:36; //Lk 23:36 ░░ (Gk. oxos – wine which got old, turning
gradually into vinegar); [cf. oinos ‘wine’ – Mk 15:23 etc.] [equivalent to Latin posca –
cheap sour wine diluted heavily with water for slaves and soldiers. Was prob. there for the
soldiers who had performed the crucifixion – NETfn]; /sour wine – NKJV, NET, ESV,
NRSV, NASB, HCSB, Wuest, NWT; /x: vinegar – KJV+, PNT, RSV, JNT, Diagl, GW,
ERV, Mft, Rhm, Etheridge, Murdock, ASV, YLT; /x: wine vinegar – ALT, NIV trio; /xx:
bitter wine – BBE; /x: common wine – TCNT, GSNT; /cheap wine – GNB; /x: wine – CEV;
/vinegar (a mixture of sour wine and water) – AMP; /

Gk. oinos – 28x in NT (fermented) wine

Gk. gleukos – Act 21:13 (sweet) wine
‘produce of vineyard’ (> ‘fruit of vines’) – Lk 22:20 etc.

Cf. ‘blood of grapes’ [i.e. grape juice – ‘must’] – Gen 49:11, Deu 32:14
Gk. oxos – sour wine (Jn 19:29, 30); /x: vinegar.
Druken - Eph 5:18 (drunken, intoxicated). cf. 1Tm 3:3, 8 (‘given to wine’
‘given much to wine’). Cf. Heb. shekar (LXX sikera) ‘intoxicates’.

Jn 4:46 – water and wine (cf. the expression ‘water and blood’)
Wine for celebration – Jn 2; Deu 14:26;
Bread and wine (Heb. yayin) - Gen 14:18
wine – symbolic of God’s wrath (Rev 14:8). Cf. 16:9 – wine of
Babylon’s fornication

The Old Testament never mentions a cup for Passover -- only the lamb,
unleavened bread, and bitter herbs.
 The drink offering used in regular Old Testament sacrifices comes from
the Hebrew word "nacak," and it. Although called a "drink" offering
because it was liquid, it was not drunk but always "poured out" at the altar.
The cup that was drunk in the New Covenant Passover service is unrelated
to the drink offering of OT sacrifices (Heb. word nacak which means to
pour out) was not to drink, but ‘pour out’ at the Altar. Paul wrote to
Timothy that he was ready to be offered (Greek "spendomai", poured out
like a drink offering") at the end of his ministry.

Both Yeshua and Paul referred to the Passover drink simply as "cup" or
"fruit of the vine." They NEVER used "wine" in referring to the cup. Wine
as such would be inappropriate word/thing in the light of sobriety and
humility at Passover in setting of the Lord Last Supper.

Grape juice had to have been in the vessel of the Passover setting. Pure,
unadulterated (unfermented) "blood of the grape" is the only proper
symbol for the pure, saving blood (Heb. dam) (a symbol of life) of Yeshua
the Messiah in the Passover.

Ref. http://yrm.org/wine_or_grape_juice.htm

*winebibber Mt 11:19; //Lk 7:34 ░░ [S3630 oinopotēs 2x] - KJV; /xx: drunkard
– NASB, most; /xx: a drunk – ISV; /xxx: a wine drinker – GNB; Douay; /xxx:
wine-drinking – Darby; /xx: drinks too much – CEB; /xxx: given to drinking wine
– NWT;

‘produce of vineyard’ (‘fruit of the vine’); vine and vine branches.

[Ref www.cai.org/bible-studies/hebrew-and-greek-words-translated-wine ]

*see, *know, *say – problem with simple words

see – with eyes? discern; look at; observe; notice; understand, *beholda, etc.
know – know about; get knowledge of (about); get to know (experientially);
say – speak, tell, utter;

Related English words –

• ‘behold!’, ‘lo!’, ‘See’, ‘observe’, ‘look’, ‘Listen’, ‘regard’,
• ‘be revealed to’, ‘manifest’, ‘confront’;
• appearance, form, *image;

a
Psa 11:7 – 'The righteous YHWH loves to see righteous deeds; the righteous one shall
behold His face'.
*languages; *tongues; ‘speaking in tongues’

Biblical languages – Hebrew and Aramaic; Greek; Latina

Related words of ‘language’ - system of words for communication

lingua franca; langue; tongue; vernacular; accent; brogue; dialect; patois;

slang; argot; expression; jargon; lingo; parlance; sound; speech; talk;
utterance; voice; diction; word; wording; terminology; vocabulary;
articulation; cant; communication; doublespeak; gibberish; gobbledygook;
vulgar language; idiom; phraseology; signal; verbalization; vocalization;
conversation; discourse; discussion; palaver; prose; style;

www.uni-due.de/ELE/LinguisticGlossary.html

Related words – language b, dialect, parlance, jargon, speech;

130F130F

Related words – words, terms, terminology, lingo

Related words – linguistics, phonology, phonetics; semantics;
Related words – glossolalia ("speaking in tongues"); spirit baptism;

The word ‘TONGUES’ in Greek is γλῶσσ – an organ of speech in the body;

metonymically the language or dialect used by a particular people distinct from
that of other nations. In other words, it is a LANGUAGE that is spoken and
understood by someone on the earth. But what Christians do IS BABBLING!
How did a gift from the holy Spirit go from a LANGUAGE that can be
understood, to BABBLING – other than in shamanic (‘spiritism’) influence?

tongue [Gk. glōssa]

• In the NT it means language/dialect, except a few places an organ for

speech, taste, and swallowing.
Mk 7:33, 35; Lk 1:64; 16:24; Rev 16:10; Jas 3:5;
• in figurative usage
Act 2:3, 26; Rm 3:13; 14:11; Phi 2:11; Jas 1:26; 3:6, 8; 1Jn 3:18;
• metonym as ‘language(s)’
singular – 1Co 12:10, 28; 13:8; 14:14, 19, 22, 26; 1Pe 3:10;
plural –Mk 16:17 (speak in new languages they pick up); 1Co 14:21;
• metonym as in the verbal phrase Gk. laleō glōssē ‘speak in a language
[of one’s own]’
plural (in their own languages) – Act 10:46; 19:6; 1Co 12:30; 13:1; 1Co
14: 5, 6, 18, 23, 39; Rev 17:15;
singular (in one’s own language) – 1Co 14:2, 4, 9, 13, 27; Rev 14:6;

a
https://youtu.be/gI_mxDZ3pfE <How Latin Works>
b
http://youtu.be/iDc34AXWIls What is language and why does it matter? by Noam Chomsky
(2013)
(caution: an hour and half long.)
Nowhere it is suggested anything ‘ecstatic’, ‘strange’, ‘alien’, ‘supernatural’,
‘inspired’, ‘gibberish’, etc. In 1Co 14, KJV a word ‘unknown’ in italic is added
in 1Co 14:2, 4, 13, 14, 19, 27 (but not 1Co 14:5, 6, 9, 14, 19, 21, 22, 26, 39). It is
unnecessary and actually misleading. It is nothing ‘unknown on earth’, but
‘unable to understand by the hearers’.

The so-called glossolalia is the phenomenon of speaking in unintelligible

utterances (often as part of cultic religious practices – by Charismatics and
Pentecostals). www.religioustolerance.org/tongues1.htm (Definitions of
speaking in tongues)

Not to be confused with xenoglossia/xenoglossy/xenolalia;

In English, ‘speak’ and ‘tongue’ come together only in idiomatic expressions,

such as ‘speak in one’s mother tongue’ or ‘one’s native tongue’. In normal
English diction, it is ‘to speak in (a certain) language’; ‘to speak with (use of
certain) languages’. To have ‘tongues’ in the translated English is due to (1)
being insensitive to the way a word is used; (2) copying the traditional
translations; (3) or standing on glossarists’ agenda.

1. ‘tongue’ as metonymic for language (cf. dialect)

1Co 12:10 ‘different kinds of tongues’ heterō gēne glōssōn (also 12:28, 30)
1Co 13:1 ‘speak in the human tongues’ laleō tais glōssais tōn anthrōpōn
Act 19:6; 1Co 12:30 ‘speak in tongues’ laleō glōssais – foreign languages
Act 10:46 ‘speak in tongues’ laleō glōssais – Gentiles native languages
Act 2:4 ‘speak in other tongues’ laleō hetrais glōssais (foreign)
Act 2:11 ‘speak in our tongue’ laleō hēmetrais glōssais
Mk 16:17 ‘speak in a new tongue’ laleō glōsse kainais (newly acquired)

2. Examples of various rending 1Co 14:2 ‘in a language of his own’:

1 (singular - tongue): /speak in a tongue – most, NKJV, ASV, Etheridge,

Wuest; /in a ‘tongue’ – PNT, Mft; /x: in an unknown tongue – KJV, AMP,
Noyes; /in an unknown tongue – WNT; /x: with a tongue – Diagl; /xx: in
strange tongues – GNB; /xx: in an inspired tongue – Cass; /
2 (singular - language): /in another language – HCSB; /in another
language – HNV, GW, ISV, MRC; /with a tongue – Rhm; /in a language
– CLV; /in a language [supernaturally] - AUV; /in a language he had not
known before - NIrV; /languages that other don’t know – CEV;
3 (/x: plural): /xx: in tongues – NLT; /x: with tongues – Whiston;
4 (paraphrase):/xxx: speak ecstatically – GSNT; /x: makes use of tongues
– BBE; /xx: uses the gift of ‘tongue’ – TCNT; /xx: A person {that has the
gift of} speaking in a {different} language – ERV; /xx: If you praise him
in the private language of tongues – MSG (- baloney);
The exact phrase ‘speak in tongues’ (laleō glōssais) (tongues in plural) (KJV,
ASV, etc.) is only in some Bibles (some mixed up with ‘speak with tongues) for
Act 10:46; 19:6; 1Co 14:5, 6, 39.

E.g. in Act 10:46 (NIV, NET, ESV, Webster, WNT ISV, LEB, LITV, BBE). Cf.
/speak in another languages (GW); /speak different language- ERV; /speak with
diverse tongues – Murdock; /xxx: speak in strange tongues – GNB; /xx: speak
unkown languages – CEV; /xxxx: gave utterance in tonges of ecstasy – Cass; /

Act 10:46 speaking with languages [native of their own] ░░ (Also 19:6. Cf. Act
2:4ff) [/‘speak in languages’; /speaking with tongues – biblical jargon; /xx: speak
in tongues – unEnglish cult jargon]

3. So-called ‘speaking in tongues’ (Glossolalia) with 1Co 14:

So-called 'gift of tongues' – The true 'gift of tongues' always glorify YHWH
Elohim and is only given for the purpose of communications divine truths [not
so-called prophecies] to those who otherwise could not understand the words
being spoken. The word 'tongue' is metonymic for language or dialect, not
babbling gibberish by charismatics not unlike a shamanic practice.

Glossolalia a phenomenon of speaking in unintelligible utterances (often in a

religious setting).

It is a hall maker of Pentecostalism sect. The classic Pentecostal belief that

speaking in tongues is the real evidence of the ‘second baptism of the Holy
Spirit’ [sic] and a sure sign of ‘personal salvation’. It is practiced by
Pentecostals. They have a jargon ‘private prayer language’ ‘ecstatic utterance’
for such a gibberish. Some ‘Charismatics’ which are found among various
denominations of Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox - glossolalists (‘tongue-
speakers’). ‘Renewalists’, a term for Pentecostals and Charismatics, are
increasing worldwide, esp. in the developing countries – Latin America,
Southern Asia, and Africa.

They claim they are speaking a heavenly language or a language of spirit. They
find their needed proof texts in 1Co 14 for their practice of ‘tongue-speaking’.
They may say it is a ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’, but some of them say it is not a gift
but something anyone can pick up and become fluent by practicing.

Most claims (if not openly) that it is a sure sign of one’s salvation (‘being born-
again’). – This is, in fact, a sure sign of self-deception (of being deceived and of
deceiving themselves. Whatever the word ‘salvation’ may mean to them has
nothing to do with YHWH’s restoration of Kingdom reign in the person of
Yeshua.
 Similar tongue-speaking is a common occurrence in utterances indistinguishable
from such as observed in rituals of a shamanism which has an apotropaic function
(warding off evil). It is un-Scriptural. The Apostle Paul wrote in length a whole
chapter on this issue to reprimand the Corinthian congregation in the midst of the
center of the ungodly world, who was unshed of their pagan origin). In fact, the
tongue-speakers take a complete opposite of what he wrote; claiming that he was
actually commending their practice and Paul himself was one of them! Wherever
the phrase ‘speaking in tongues’ – which is nothing other than saying ‘speak in
languages, all these are to them same as their own speaking in gibberish, babbling
spirit-possessed – which cannot be anything to do with holy Spirit, Spirit of
Elohim.
(glossolalia)
“… To preserve the fellowship and witness of the Church with reference to the use of
languages. The Wesleyan Church believes in the miraculous use of languages and the
interpretation of languages in its biblical and historical setting. But it is contrary to the
Word of God to teach that speaking in an unknown tongue or the gift of tongues is the
evidence of the baptism of the Holy Spirit or of that entire sanctification which the
baptism accomplishes; therefore, only a language readily understood by the congregation
is to be used in public worship. The Wesleyan Church believes that the use of an ecstatic
prayer language has no clear scriptural sanction, or any pattern of established historical
usage in the Church; therefore, the use of such a prayer language shall not be promoted
among us. Act 8:14-17; 1Co 12:1-14:40; Gal 5:22-24.” www.bible.ca/cr-wesleyan.htm

“The only time anybody in the Bible ever talks with not their own voice is
when they are demon-possessed.” [Steven L Anderson
http://youtu.be/at9MZ54Hst4 ]. (e.g. Isa 29) [also Mk 5:9 //Lk 8:30 – demon
named ‘Legion’]

Reading material:
www.biblestudents.com/tonguesspeaking.html (GLOSSOLALIA: SPEAKING IN
TONGUES)

*conscience

suneidēsis – /conscience /sense of what is right and wrong – NIrV.

‘holy’ vs. ‘profane’ (//’‘common’ ‘secular’)

[Gen 2:9ff]

The two ‘good’ and ‘evil’ are not opposite as a prevalent thought in dualism.
Things are good when God pronounced so (Gen 1:4, 8, 9, 12, 17, 21, 25,
and 31); evil is absence (deficiency) of goodness. Not to be confused with
‘(knowing) good and evil’ (with a tone of morality), a phrase in Genesis
(2:9, 17; 3:7, 22), which should be better translated as ‘(knowing) right and
wrong’ (in existential for relationship of God and man to be in harmony of
God’s creation work).
*moral; *morality; moral nature;

• moral nature of man; www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/06/07/are-humans-

born-with-a-common-moral-nature/
• moral nature of God
http://biblehub.com/sermons/auth/bevan/the_moral_nature_of_god.htm
• moral nature of angels

human nature and moral goodness [Patrick Lee www.patrickleebioethics.com/nature-

morality.htm]

*Dark side of reality; Dark side of soul

• adj. – evil, bad, wicked; immoral, unethical, unlawful, lawless

[evil things/thoughts/acts/people; an evil ~]

• noun – evil (with no article) → evilness (in contrast to ‘goodness’)

As with any word or term which we come across in the Bible, we do need study
from the start with what the word means in English (usage), including etymology
and equivalent words in different languages, before we can go further in questions,
such as ‘where is evil from?’ ‘If God, why evil?’ ‘If no evil, why Satan, or even
God?’ Is it from outside as if from Satan (‘devil made me do it’)? Or is to from
inside out of our human reality? Why evil has to be projected out and be ascribed to
external force, power, or spirt, or even a certain kind of being (e.g. ‘demon’)?

‘evil’ – problem of the word 'evil' (noun vs. adjective); problem of evil and Satan
accuracy and *precision; *correct;

“A correct answer may not be the right answer. How one knows it
to be correct to begin with? Lexicographically, grammatically,
taking prescriptively? Exegetically, doctrinally, or even on one’s
own authoritative opinions and fickleness?” e.g. politically
correctness is always a wrong answer.

• proof; falsification; falsifiable; argument; claim; proven, verifiable.

*generation; age; age-world; world; aeon

Generation – Gk. genea – with usual sense of a period of 40 years of human

life span. The primary meaning is a group of people born at about the same
time and living at the same time, sharing similar attitudes and interests.

Several related Greek words:

• ethnos (translated as "nation" in Mt 24: 7, 9, 14), or
• genos (translated as "generation" in 1Pe. 2:9 and having more of a
meaning of "kin" or "kind"), (‘offspring’ – KJV – Act 27:28, 29; Rev
22:6), or
• suggenes (translated as "race" in Rm 9:3 NN and meaning "kinsmen,
fellow countrymen or a relative by blood)," or
• gennema (translated as "generation" (KJV) but most others as
"offspring” in Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33, etc. – meaning a type or progeny of
people with like character and attributes).

Concordance:
• ‘all the generations’ ‘fourteen generations’ – Mt 1:17
• ‘this generation’ –
Mt 11:16; 12:41, 42; 23:36; 24:34;
Mk 8:12; 13:30;
Lk 7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 15, 51; 17:25; 21:32;
• ‘that generation’ – Heb_3:10;
• ‘this generation of truth-perversion’- Acts 2:40 (from Deu 32:5, 20).
• Cf. ‘on us and our children’ Mt 27:25. (not someone in the future).

In the fixed phrase ‘this generation’ it means the people of that particular generation. It
refers to the people of generation which Yeshua himself belonged to. It does not refer
to a future generation (2000 years or more far out into the future from the time of the
Gospels!). It has nothing to do with race, nation, family, or a kind of people. Many in
their peculiar eschatology try to force such meaning into the text in only three places
(Mt 23:36; 24:34 and Lk 21:32); when they occur in the so-called Olivet Discourse. An
example of unbiblical agenda-driven eisegesis par excellence.
*perverse, *perversion

*Perversion in the Scripture has to be seen in the context; it is not moral or sexual
perversion.

IRENT renders the expression genea diestrammenē ‘generation perverting truth’.

(‘perverse generation’ – KJV, ASV, NET, DRB, JUB; ‘perverted generation’ –
Darby, EMTV, LEB; ‘crooked generation’) Mt 17:17; Lk 9:41; Act 20:30; Php
2:15;

What is being perverted may refer to one’s behavior and conduct a. However, it
132F132 F

often is used with a much deeper meaning. It is to take abnormal as normal,

wrong as right, evil as good, and illegal becomes legal, etc. – in social and
cultural as well as ideological and intellectual realm. [Cf. Ezk 22:26 they have put
no difference between the holy and the profane, or between the unclean and the clean.]
Moreover, the perverting people think and claim that their way is nothing wrong
with it and rather demand others accept their way – in the same principle
governing human conduct – to see the purpose of life lies in pursuit of power
and pleasure, a Satanic verse, while what they think and claim is the norm.
Perverted behavior and conduct are ‘perverted’ because they come out of the
mindset of those perverting truth. [It should not be taken to suggest what is
termed in psychiatry as paraphilias (‘sexual perversions’).28 ]

It is conceptually in the opposite of ‘* repentance’.

See EE for Greek synonyms of diastrephō here29 .

Mat_17:17; Luk_9:41; Act_2:40; Act_20:30; Rom_1:27; 1:28; Eph_4:19;
2Th_3:2; 1Ti_6:5; Jas_3:16; Php_2:15; Tit_3:11; 1Pe_2:18; Jud_1:7;

*perdition,
[Gk. apōleia (> apollumi) – destruction – ‘waste’ ‘loss’ ‘destruction’ ‘ruin’]

‘perdition’ is a typical biblical jargon as in the phrase ‘son of perdition’ (KJV)

(‘man doomed to destruction’) – in two places, Jn 1:12 (for Judas Iscariot) and
2Th 2:3 (for ‘the man of lawlessness’).

aa
In one’s Attitude, Behavior, Conduct and Demeanor – what a person really is shown – into Agenda
and Action.
*tithing; *tithe; one tenth;

tithe ░░ [meaning ‘one tenth’ of what’s gained on crops and herds; collected from the
people of eleven Tribes of Yisrael to support the Tribe of Lewi who were charged with
Miqdash (> temple) service but without having their own land allotted. The word is used as
a church jargon for a contribution’.]

In NT - Mt 23:23; L k 11:42; 18:12; Heb 7:5, 6, 8, 9

The English word tithe (from Old English: teogoþa "tenth") is a one-tenth part
of something. In this sense it is used by some English Bibles to translate the
equivalent Hebrew word in Gen 14:18-20 (a tenth of battle booty Abram gave
to Malki-Tzedek); 28:12-22. (a tenth of all God gives Yaakob). It is properly
rendered as ‘tenth’ as in most English Bibles and it has nothing to do with
‘tithing’. (Cf. /xx: tithes – KJV; /x: a tithe – LITV)

Heb. ma’aser

(Ref. www.biblicalheritage.org/bible%20studies/tithes.htm )

As in Judaic practice in the ancient Israel described in the Mosaic tithing law,
the word tithe and tithing are mentioned in Deu 14:22-23; 24-25; 14:28-29;
12:17-18; 26:12; Lev 27:30-32; Num 18:21, 24, 26; [also 2Ch 31:5-6; Neh
10:38; 13:12; Mal 3:10. It was a tenth of agricultural yield as befitting the
agricultural society and applied only for Israelites living in Israel. The primary
purpose of the tithing arrangement under the Law had been to support Israel’s
temple and priesthood.

It is true that Levitical priests continued serving at the temple in Yerusalem until
it was destroyed in 70 CE, but Christians from and after 30 CE upon the
Crucifixion of Yeshua, became part of a new spiritual priesthood that was not
supported by tithes.—Rm 6:14;Heb 7:12;1Pe 2:9. In NT the word ‘tithe’ (as
verb) appears in Lk 18:12 and Heb 7:5 – both referring to the practice under
Mosaic Law.

Many Christian churches take over this term ‘conveniently’ for their practice of
collecting a tenth of one’s income for their use. As Christians, they were
encouraged to give support to the Christian ministry both by their own
ministerial activity and by material contributions. Instead of giving fixed,
specified amounts to defray congregational expenses, they were to contribute
“according to what a person has,” giving “as he has resolved in his heart, not
grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.” (2Co 8:12;
9:7) They were encouraged to follow the principle: “Let the older men who
preside in a fine way be reckoned worthy of double honor, especially those who
work hard in speaking and teaching. For the scripture says: ‘You must not
muzzle a bull when it threshes out the grain’; also: ‘The workman is worthy of
his wages.’” (1Ti 5:17,18) However, the apostle Paul set an example in seeking
to avoid bringing an undue financial burden on the congregation. — Act 18:3;
1Th 2:9. All that goes by the label ‘tithe’ is what was to be given only to the
Levites, which was a tenth of the produce from the land. Nothing to be by
‘obligation’ to help others for whatever noble purposes.

Related word: ‘temple-tax’ [that which was to support the Miqdash (temple)
service in Yerusalem.]

*honor and *shame

Honor, dishonor, shame, shamed; shameless; shameful; reverence;

reverent; Reverent; keeping one’s face; *face in oriental concept.

[Mt 6:9 to have the name of Elohim honored and sanctified is at the core
of prayer to God.] [Cf. 1Sam 2:30 – YHWH declares “… those honoring
me I will honor”. Cf. Instead of ‘honor’ Bishops translation reads as
‘worship’; DRB as ‘glorify’.]

Cf. English words – rude, blatant, dishonoring, shaming, disrespect, irreverent,

impertinent, abusing, abusive, blasphemous; bold, improper, impudent,
unbecomingly; uncouth

Shame – “shameful people are shameless.” [two words of seemingly

opposite ‘meaning’ are, in fact, paradoxically of same sense. E.g. ‘valuable’ vs.
‘invaluable’; ‘almost done’ vs. ‘almost not done’.

Oriental societies – “honor and shame” as the back bone of their ethics and social
conduct. [Ref: Bruce Malina (2001, 3rd ed.), The New Testament World: Insights
from Cultural Anthropology. Ch. 1 Honor and Shame: Pivotal Value pp. 37-57.]
[Check for quite a few books on ‘honor and shame’.]

Jerome H. Neyrey (1998), Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew

Cf. Matthean genealogy in Mt 1:2-6 includes women – in the background of the

oriental social value of honor and shame.

Ref. Craig S. Keener (2009), The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary

*freedom; *liberty

‘freedom from and freedom to’ ‘salvation from and salvation to’ - Tit 2:11-14; Lk 4:18-19;
Rm 8:1-2; 2Co 3:17-18; Jam 1: 25; 2:12; Gal 6:1-5.

Reading material – Erich Fromm (1940) Escape from Freedom [an edited copy of
https://pescanik.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/erich-fromm-the-fear-of-freedom-escape-
from-freedom.pdf is in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3B&C - Anthropology,
'Person', Religion)>

‘free’ - Old English frēo (adjective), frēon (verb), of Germanic origin;

related to Dutch vrij and German frei, from an Indo-European root meaning
‘to love,’ shared by ‘friend’.

‘liberty’ – from Latin libertas > liber (‘free’)

two different Greek words.

• ophesis – (Lk 4:18a, b; //Isa 61:1) "release, pardon, cancellation, letting go."

Lk 4:18a NET sn: The release in view here is comprehensive, both at a physical
level and a spiritual one, as the entire ministry of Jesus makes clear (Lk 1:77-
79; 7:47; 24:47; Act 2:38; 5:31; 10:43).
Lk 4:18b NET sn: The essence of Jesus' messianic work is expressed in the
phrase to set free. This line from Isaiah 58 says that Jesus will do what the
nation had failed to do. It makes the proclamation messianic, not merely
prophetic, because Jesus doesn't just proclaim the message — he brings the
deliverance. The word translated set free is the same Greek word (aphesis)
translated release earlier in the verse.
• eleutheria - "freedom, liberty, freedom from"

Liberty vs liberation:

• 2Co 3:17 – freedom the Spirit of the Lord gives;

Jam 1:25; 2:12 – law of liberty

• Lk 4:18 (//Isa 61:1-2): ‘liberate’ ‘set free’ (the Israel from religious and
political as well as spirital level; even also in the case of opening opened
the eyes of a blind man).

‘freedom of will’ (free will); ‘logical, legal, and libertarian freedom’; political
freedom; economic freedom, religious freedom, etc.
‘Freedom from and freedom to’
The kind of freedom in the Scripture is basically ‘freedom of choice’ God has
given to human beings created after His own image.

Liberty – ? a rather political philosophical construct.

Related words: enslavement, slavery, bondage, shackle, restriction, limitation,
imposition, constraints, coercion, aggression, oppression, harassment,
threatening;

Quote: "May we think of freedom, not as the right to do as we please, but as the
opportunity to do what is right". 
(Peter Marshall)

*equal; *same; *identical; identity;

E.g. with King and his son relation as an example. Son is equal to Father, it does
not mean Son is same as Father. Father is the king. What king is, so the Son is
– as Father is. (In this expression ‘king’ does not refer to ‘the king’.) Father and
Son are one, that is, one in kingship (authority, power, and reign). Father and
Son are two different persons. – See ‘* trinity’ where Father is the God (=
Elohim); Son is not the God, but what God is (that is, God-being).
Grammatically it is correct to say ‘Son is God’, that is, in the sense of ‘Son is as
God’. However, the way the word is used in English, ‘God’ (without the definite
article) cannot be differentiated. Hence, a very common serious misconception
‘Jesus is God’ (cf. ‘Jesus is God’). ‘The name of our God is Jesus’, or even
‘Jesus and Jehovah is the same person’.

‘for the sake’ of vs. ‘for someone’s (something’s) sake’; ‘on behalf of’ vs. ‘in
behalf of’; ‘instead of’ vs. ‘in (someone’s) stead’
‘on (someone’s) account; on the account of; ‘on the basis of’

Cf. ‘for (someone/something)’ ‘for the benefit of’ ‘because of’ ‘in one’s place’
[See below for ‘in behalf of’ vs. ‘on behalf of’ in ‘English grammar’]
‘die for ~’ = [‘in behalf of’; /x: ‘on behalf of’ – in most cases] – over 10x. All in
reference to death of Yeshua the Mashiah

die ~ apothnēskō (die; /x: put to death; /give his life)

for (someone): huper (cf. eis, dia; charin;)

[the agent of the verb → the Mashiah]

• Rm 5:6; uper asebōn ;
• Rm 5:8; 1Th 5:10; uper hēmon;
• 1Co 15:3; uper tōn hamartiōn hēmon;
• 2Co 5:14; uper pantōn
• 2Co 5:15; uper pantōn; uper autōn
• Gal 3:13; genomenos uper hēmon katara (curse) - /in place of us; /in our
place – CEV; /x: instead of us – NWT (vs. in our stead – archaic); /x: for us –
most; [ collocation prob. as well - ‘curse for us’];

[the agent of the verb →Yeshua]

• Jn 11:50 uper tou laou (/x: on behalf of our people; /> in behalf of the people
– NWT; /for the people – most;
• Jn 11:51, 52 uper tou ethnous (/for the nation – most; /for that nation –KJV+,
Geneva; /xx: for the Jewish people – ERV, GNB; /xx: for the Jewish nation – NET,
GW; /in behalf of – NET; /for the people – Bishops, Murdock;
• Heb 2:9 [Yeshua comes to face (/experience; /x: taste) death]; /for all –
LITV, MKJV; /for everyone – most, ISR, NWT4; /xxx: for all men –
Geneva, Murdock; /xxx: for every thing – DRB; /xxx: for every man –
KJV, JUB; /for every [man] – NWT3; /on behalf of every one –ARJ;
/on behalf of everyone – Cass, NET;
[agent → believers]
• Eph 3:1 (Paul) /for – most; /in behalf of – ASV, EMTV, NWT
• Eph 3:13 (tribulations) /> for you – most ASV; /in your behalf - ,
NWT; /x:on behalf of – LEB, NETfn, EMTV; /for your sake –
Murdock; /
• 2Co 5:20a /대신하여 ~ 대신하여 – KRV; (=‘in place of’)
/ambassadors on behalf of ~ on behalf of Christ – ASV;
/for ~ in behalf – Murdock;
/in behalf of ~ in behalf of – YLT; /
/for ~ in Christ’ stead – KJV;
/are the Messiah’s representatives ( Cf. samples) on the Messiah’s
behalf – ISV
/are Christ’s representatives ~ on behalf of – GW;
/x: for ~ In behalf – Murdock;
/for ~ on behalf of – ESV; /
/for Christ ~ on Christ’ behalf – NET;
/substituting for ~ As substitutes for – NWT;
/speak for ~ speak for (?? as if spokesmen) – ERV;
• other examples for ‘huper’: ‘for the sake of’ – Rm 1:5 ~ of His name –
ESV; /xxx: in behalf of Darby; /xxx: for the sake of Christ - CEV; 2Th
1:5 ~ of the Kingdom (in Darby only); 2Co 12:10 ‘for the sake of
Mashiah’; /> for Christ – most; /for the sake of Christ – ESV, NET; /x:
for Chist’s sake – KJV, ASV, GNB ( - now heard as an expletive);
• 1Co 15:29 (get baptized) just to end up as the dead ones ░░
\(baptizō) huper tōn nekrōn; – exegetically difficult expression (s. EE
in IRENT)

study on Gk. dia

‘for the sake of’:, etc. 2Co_4:5; Heb_1:14; 2Th_3:12;
*seal vs. *mark; [bible] code; cipher; reveal (to make it clear and open);
revelation (act and the content).

비밀, 비결

• mark; imprint, charagma Rev 13:16, 17; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4;
[Cf. “mark of the beast” Rev 16:2; 19:20]

• sealing up Rev 10:4; 20:3, 10. (to seal to secure vs. to seal up – to keep hidden)
seal shragis Rev 6:3, 5, 7, 9, 12; 7:2; 8:1; Rev 9:4; 22:10;

*mystery; *secret; *myth, mythos, mythology;

S3466 mustērion (28x) – (a hidden truth to come to be revealed). Most translations

render it as ‘mystery’. IRENT renders as ‘sacred-secret’a (as in NWT) but in two
places as ‘mystery’ as in
Rev 17:5 “a name, a mystery,”
Rev 17:7 “the mystery of the woman”

• 1Co 2:1 v.l. "the sacred secret of Elohim" = mystery, that is, the God [common
appositive use of genitive] {v.l. /the witness of Elohim} [cf. 1Co 1:6 'the testimony
about the Mashiah}
• Col 2:2; Rev 10:7 "the sacred secret of Elohim"– (/x: the sacred secret that God
declared as good news – NWT4)
• Mt 13:11 //Mk 4:11 //Lk 8:10 “the sacred secret of the kingdom”
• Eph 6:19 “the sacred secret of the gospel”
• Eph 3:3, 4 'the sacred secret
• Eph 5:32 'this sacred secret is profound– of 'husband and wife' and that of 'Mashiah
and the Ekklesia'
• Col 4:3 “proclaim the sacred secret, that is, the Mashiah” (appositive genitive); /the
mystery of Christ – most; /the secret about the Messiah – ISV; /?: mysterious plan
concerning Christ – NLT;
• 1Ti 3:9 “holding to the sacred secret of the faith with clean (x: clear) conscience.
• Rm 11:25 “ignorant of this sacred secret
• Rm 16:25 “according to the revelation of the sacred secret that had been kept in
silence (x: kept secret – most) for long ages”
• 1Co 2:7 “God's wisdom, concealed in a sacred secret that Elohim determined
• 1Co 15:51 “a sacred secret”
• Col 1:26, 27 'this sacred secret … in this sacred secret'
• Rev 1:20 “the sacred secret of the seven stars”

a
By translating it as ‘sacred secret’ it removes unwanted word association and image from the
common word ‘mystery’.
www.teleiosministries.com/pdfs/Doctrines_of_Men/isaac_newton_trinity.pdf (p. 6 in the footnote
on ‘mystery of the Trinity’)

The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It
lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from
Divine Revelation (≈ Church pronouncemennt - ARJ), but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden
by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide.
cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted
it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types, we can form a representative concept
expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the
various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As
regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains
no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these
are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do.
…
Theological doctrines regarded as mysteries – e.g. 'incarnation' 'trinity' –
are because of mind in fogginess.

(Andrew Greeley – The Jesus Myth).

p. 11 NOTE

The word "myth" is used in the title of this volume in a specific and definite
sense. A myth is a symbolic story which demonstrates, in Alan Watts' words,
"the inner meaning of the universe and of human life."

To say that Jesus is a myth is not to say that he is a legend but that his life
and message are an attempt to demonstrate "the inner meaning of the
universe and of human life." As Charles Long puts it, a myth points to the
definite manner in which the world is available for man: "The word and
content of myth are revelations of power." Or as A. K. Coomaraswamy
observes, "Myth embodies the nearest approach to absolute truth that can be
stated in words."

… my usage is the one that is common among historians of religion, literary

critics, and social scientists. It is a valuable and helpful usage; there is no
other word which conveys what these scholarly traditions mean when they
refer to myth. The Christian would be well advised to get over his fear of the
word and appreciate how important a tool it can be for understanding the
content of his faith.
*heaven; *heavens; *sky

S3772. 'heaven' (278x) – ho ouranos (the heaven) nearly as often used in the plural,
hoi ouranoi (the heavens) ["The singular and plural have distinct overtones and
therefore should be distinguished in translation (though unfortunately they rarely are)"
(G. Archer).]

e.g. the kingdom reign of the heavens – Mt 3:2;

e.g. the heavens were opened – Mt 3:16
e.g. our Father who is in the heavens – Mt 5:16

e.g. by the heaven – Mt 5:34;

e.g. On earth as it is in the heaven – Mt 6:10
e.g. birds of the 'sky' – Mt 6:26
e.g. treasure is in heaven – Mt 6:20
e.g. until heaven and earth shass pass away – Mt 5:18

In Hebrew, words for plural and singular in English are same in Hebrew

— H8064 shamayim
e.g.
Gen 1:8 heaven ‫שמים‬
Gen 1:1 the heavens ‫השמים‬
Ko. 하늘 ;하늘 나라(천국); 천당 天堂 – a Buddhist term

Meaning of ‘heaven’ in OT (Heb. shamayin H82065) & NT (Gk. ouranios S3770)

(1) sky: Mt 6:26 ‘birds of the sky’ (tou ouranou Singl.); starry sky; Cf. (outer) space
(공간),
(2) God: (circumlocution): Mt 3:2 ‘Kingdom of the heavens’
(3) Realm of God: (Rev 20:1 ‘out of the heaven’; Rev 21:10 ‘out of the heaven from
God); (Rev 12:1 ‘signs in the heaven’)
(4) Created thing, universe: Rev 14:7 (made the heaven and the earth)
(3) powers of heavenly realms: (Rev 20:11 the earth and the heaven) (Rev 21:1 ‘the
former earth and the former heaven)

sky or heaven. e.g. birds of the sky tou ouranou – Mt 6:26 – HCSB; /of the air
– KJV, NIV, NASV; /in the sky – NET; /x: of heaven – NWT; /xxx: of the
heaven – ASV; /

cf. S109 aer (7x) 'air' – Act 22:23 (into the air); 1Co 9:26; 14:9; 1Th 4:17 (the
air); Eph 2:2 (of the air); Rev 9:2; 16:17 (the air)

outer space; cosmos; universe;

 heavens or heaven:

A recent article:
Jonathan T. Pennington: "Heaven" and "Heavens" in the LXX: Exploring the
Relationship Between SHAMAYIM and OURANOS, Bulletin of the
International Organ. for Septuagint and Cognate Studies 36 (2003) 39-59.

The plural is actually more common in G-Mt … the usual explanation is that it
represents the Hebrew form, which is plural (special dual – just like elohim) form
ha′shamayyim. (Carl W. Conrad)

‘heavens’ –
‘the heavens’ in Gen 1:1 is more of the created ‘universe’,

in the Lord’s Prayer, it’s not the universe (우주; 天; 하늘);– with deistic-
pantheistic idea of god’s immanence– ‘god is in everything and everywhere’) with
its implied spatial sense. It is used symbolically as the antithesis of ‘the earth’ –
reversal of all that belongs to the earth (and the order of things in the world),
revolutionary just as ‘resurrection’.

Outside the Bible, when the word ‘heaven’ is used, it usually refers to something
which is opposite of ‘hell’, which itself is unscriptural term; ‘heaven and hell’
instead of biblical jargon ‘heaven and earth’. E.g. ‘heaven or hell you go.’ People
take it something like Paradise, or Christian Nirvana, etc. Or simply as a place for a
person to go after death when they have done ‘good’ (Buddhist’s idea)

On the common quasi-religious expression ‘to go to heaven a (after death)’ (usu. in

13F

company with another expression ‘go to the hell (after death). [See ‘heaven and
hell’]. These are not Biblical ideas though commonly used by religious as well as
non-religious people.

In the Bible, there is no such idea found. It is an erroneous conflation of two

different ideas ‘enter into the Kingdom reign of Elohim’ and ‘after death’. The
Kingdom reign of Elohim has come to us in the person of Yeshua; those who
respond to His call joins its movement and enter into it (Mt 6:13; Jn 3:5; cf. Jn 3:3)
to take the privilege of becoming God’s children of God (Jn 1:12). Actually, the
picture of ‘heaven to which one goes after death’ may be found rather in a different
idea of ‘* paradise’ (Lk 23:43).

Often it is conflated with Jn 14:2 ‘many abodes in the house(hold) of my Father

a
‘To go to heaven’ is a common quasi-religious expression, having common with an idea from
indigenous tribal religion is heard more often than ‘to go to hell’, and it is often heard where ‘* hellfire
preaching’ is also heard. It is ‘go to heaven-kingdom’ (天国에 가다 (天国= kingdom of the heavens in
G-Mt) in Korean expression.
 ~~~ prepare a place for you all (the disciples). [Note, Tyndale translation has it
‘mansions’ (which is carried to KJV) which does not mean a large imposing house
as in modern English, but a dwelling place.

Reading materials on ‘heaven’:

These may cover much more than ‘heaven’ as such and ‘heaven’ which is dealt in
these may by and large not be a biblical heaven, just as when people speak of
‘heaven’. This shows an example par excellence of eisegesis (‘reading into the
Bible’). The Scriptural reality of ‘Kingdom reign of the heavens (Elohim)’ which
is here on earth in the person of Yeshua Himself is confused and conflated with
syncretic mixture of varied pagan and non-religious popular ideas about after-life
and idea of paradise-nirvana.

• David Biema, Times, Mar 24, 1997. pp. 71-77. “Does Heaven Exist?”
[Cf. What in the world people mean by ‘heaven’?]
• Peter Kreeft (1990), Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Heaven.
• — (1989), Heaven, the Heart's Deepest Longing.
• Joseph M. Stowell (2006), Eternity: Reclaiming a Passion for What Endures.

*heaven and earth in OT

the heavens and the earth earth and heavens

Gen 1:1 (Elohim creates); 2:1 (completed); 2:4 Gen 2:4

(were created);
Exo 20:11; 31:17; heavens and earth
Deu 4:26; 30:19; 31:28 Gen 14:19, 22;
Jer 3:25; 51:48;
1Ch 16:31; 2Ch 2:12; 2Ki 19:15; 2Sa 18:9 Psa 69:34; 89:11; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8;
Jer 10:11; 23:24; 32:17; 134:3; 146:6;
Isa 37:16;
Isa 44:23; 49:13;
Psa 96:11; 113:6;
Ezr 5:11; Joe 3:16; Job 20:27
Hag 2:6, 21;

The new heavens and the new earth new heavens and a new earth
Isa 66:22 (that I, YHWH, am making)] Isa 65:17 '(Adonai YHWH – v. 15 – I am
creating ~)

Any OT translation which distinguishes two different Hebrew phrases (one with articles and
one without)?
*heaven and earth in NT

[2Pe 3:13 ‘(waiting for) new heavens and a new earth’; 2Pe 3:7 'the heavens and the earth of
the present']
[Rev 21:1 ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ taking place of 'the first heaven and the first earth' –
not physical, but figurative for ‘powers’ in heaven and on earth.]
[Cf. new creation in Yeshua the Mashiah – Col 1:15-17]

From the heaven; out of the heaven

• anōthen Jn 3:3, 7, 31; 19:11, 23 'from above' /x: (born) again – most; [Cf. palin
'(over) again' – e.g. palin anōthen Gal 4:9]; See in the Appendix for G-Jn <Jn 3:3ff
'from above' vs. 'again'>
• apo ou ourou 'from the heaven' Mk 8:11; 22:43. [G-Jn has one instance in 6:38]
• ek tou ouranou 'out of the heaven' Mt 16:2; Mk 1:11; Lk 10:18; Jn 3:13, 27, 31;
6:31, 32, 33, 41, 42, 50, 51; 12:28; also in 6:38 v.l.
• ek tōn ouranōn 'out of the heavens' Mt 3:17; 13:25
• ex hupsous 'from on high' Lk 1:78; 24:49 (English idiom) [24:49] /x: from above- GNB;
/from heaven – GW;
*logic; *fallacy; '*proposition'; 'propositional statement'; *rhetoric

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic
traditional logic, syllogistic logic or Aristotelian logic

Propositional statements - E.g.

Discourse: “Systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, and courses of action, beliefs
and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak
(after Foucault)." https://literarydevices.net/discourse/

Rhetoric is a technique of using language effectively and persuasively in spoken or written

form. It is an art of discourse, which studies and employs various methods to convince,
influence, or please an audience. https://literarydevices.net/rhetoric/

A rhetorical device is a use of language that is intended to have an effect on its audience.
Repetition, figurative language, and even rhetorical questions are all examples of rhetorical
devices.

"Rhetorical question" – a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a
point rather than to elicit an answer. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct
answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an
acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message. wiki/Rhetorical_question

Modes of persuasion – often referred to as ethical strategies or rhetorical appeals, are devices
in rhetoric that classify the speaker's appeal to the audience. They are: ethos, pathos, and logos,
and the less-used kairos. wiki/Modes_of_persuasion

*proof; *evidence;

“People believe what they want to believe; people don’t believe what they don’t want
to believe. Belief just gives a seed for proof.”

“Absence of evidence is no evidence of absence” - truly. Presence of evidence

is not enough evidence for conviction. Belief is not faith; faith is not belief.

Related words: myopic view; colored view; blind spot; presupposition; presumption;
assumption; hypothesis; synthesis; thesis; *fallacy; belief, conviction; logic; syllogism;
proof texting; statement, equation; premise; agenda; figure of speech; rhetoric; circular
logic (circularity); paradox, oxymoron, double entendre, word play, word association;
particularization, abstractizationa, signalization, conceptualization, Philosophic burden

a
Henri Wald (1975), Introduction to Dialectical Logic p. 77 “… Abstractization whereby the
content of notions is formed and generalization whereby their sphere is formed are the two
edges of the outcome of induction. Abstractization and generalization means revealing the
essence and the general and formation of the concept.
of proof Philosophical skepticism basic beliefs, Evidence theories of justification;
[‘fallacy of similarity’ to prove that presence of something similar provides validity (Cf.
‘identical structural parallel’ a);134F

‘fallacy of counting scholarly noses’ to find support from finding as many scholars to
be comfortable;
‘fallacy of successive copying’ of which the original did not have itself well proven.
‘lexicographic fallacy’ relies for evidence on someone’s lexicographic expertise or on
some published lexicons or dictionaries, which are in reality nothing more than a
glossary book. The dictionary simply collects the meaning of a work they could read
from its usage.
‘fallacy of looking for bones’ jumping on the texts for proof text like a dog on something
looking like a bone. E.g. Calling the common phrase ‘I am’ as if it’s God’s name, even
superstitiously thinking capitalization ‘I AM’ (in all caps) would make it something
special and mysterious.]

Ref. www.logicalfallacies.info/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy

Circular Reasoning - Logically Fallacious

Circular reasoning vs. Tautology (rhetoric) (not to be confused with tautology in
propositional logic)

Circular reasoning: the premise is restated as the conclusion in an argument,

instead of deriving the conclusion from the premise with arguments.

e.g. in pseudo-science: the evolutionist's dating of fossils according to the rock

strata they are found in, while at the same time dating the strata according to the
"index fossils" they contain. Dating a rock based on the fossil it contains only
works if it is assumed that evolution is true. As one paleontologist admitted, "For
most biologists, the strongest reason for accepting the evolutionary hypothesis is
their acceptance of some theory that entails it" (David G. Kitts, "Paleontology and
Evolutionary Theory," in Evolution, Sep.1974, p. 466)

e.g. in pseudo-belief: “God exists because the Bible says God exists-and, since
God wrote the Bible, it must be true. This argument is problematic from a purely
logical standpoint since it bases belief in God's existence on the Christian belief
that the Bible comes from God.” [Note a misleading expression as the ‘Bible’ is
simply translation product of the Scripture, which.]

e.g. church cliché: “The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in
the Bible.” "I believe the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true." – these
cliché are not just illogical but also erroneous and unbiblical. The word ‘Bible’ as
such does not appear in the Bible. And nowhere in the Bible God tell the Bible is
the Word of God.

*time; *space; space-time; dimensions, universe, physics, cosmology.

For entries ‘hour’, ‘day’, ‘time’, etc.,

a
the phrase in http://elihubooks.blogspot.com/2011/11/bart-d-ehrman-daniel-b-wallace-and.html
 see WB#5 (Walk through the Scripture #5 Time, Calendar and Chronology).

• ‘Hour’ (Gk. hora) is not ‘hour as on the clock’. Used figuratively as it ‘my hour
has come’ in the Bible, ‘hour’ is different nuance and usage than ‘time’ in
English idiom.
• Hours in ordinal, 1st hour, 6th hour, etc., in Greek text is an hour-period
(daytime or nighttime divided into 12.)
•

Such a mysterious thing is! [From Wikipedia: time is a dimension in which

events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future,
and also the measure of durations of events and the intervals between
them. Time has long been a major subject of study in religion,
philosophy, and science, but defining it in a manner applicable to all
fields without circularity has consistently eluded scholars. …] Now most
of time, it is about ‘duration of time’. E.g. A definition – ["time is what clocks
measure" is actually a definition of ‘duration’, not ‘time’ per se.
Newtonian time – time as a dimension, independent of events, in which
events occur in sequence. Another view is, it is, instead, a part of a
fundamental intellectual structure (together with space and number)
within which humans sequence and compare events. This second view,
in the tradition of Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant, holds that time
is neither an event nor a thing, and thus is not itself measurable nor
can it be travelled. Time is one of the seven fundamental physical
quantities in the International System of Units] – Note: here ‘time’ is
actually ‘duration of time’.

Does the idea that time is a dimension really help us comprehend and
feet what this thing called ‘time’? What about the way we perceive that
time flows – and flows continuously without ‘time freeze’?

As Time, space, energy and matter (the whole shebang of physics and
physical reality) is just a God’s created work by His fiat, the God of the
Scripture is supra-temporal (beyond the time dimension) though He
intimately relates to it, especially for humankind, a creation after His own
image. Any statement which tells about God is necessarily
anthropomorphic.

Like ‘energy’ in physics, which exists in discrete quanta, time itself may be seen to exist
in discrete time quanta. See EE for ‘atom of time’ 30

[‘Is time real?’ - https://youtu.be/FVINOl0Ctfk

‘What things really exist” https://youtu.be/H9Q6SWcTA9w http://bit.ly/1G9SEkx;
Quentin Smith - Why is there Something rather than Nothing? https://youtu.be/M5n4mJkVivs
Also check a related site http://bit.ly/1LUPlQS ]

*thesis; synthesis; antithesis

Solution, resolution, dis-solution of problems

Dialectic; Neo-orthodoxy; rationality ; reasoning; diairesis; deduction, induction;

logic; statements, premises; conclusions; syllogism
"logos" or rational appeal, "pathos" or emotional appeal, and "ethos" or ethical appeal;

*betray; hand over; deliver

Gk. paradidōmi /betray, deliver over/up; /handed over; /xx: give someone up,

Danker p. 266-7[red – added by ARJ]

paradidōmi (120x) [para, didōmi] 'convey fr. one position to another',

in general hand over
– (a) of subjecting a pers. to custodial procedure, which could involve
various stages and numerous parties in the judicial process
- (1) of delivery to an authority or penalty, either by a party in the
chain of responsibility or by someone filled with animus, hand
over, deliver Yohanan the Baptizer Mt 4:12; a person to a court Mt
5:25; 10:17, 19 to persecution 24:9, 10;
Judas as the agent Mt 10:4; 26:15, 16, 21, 23, 24f; Mk 13:9; 14:10,
11, 18, 21; Lk 22:4, 6, 22 (prob. w. connotation of betrayal, cp.
6:16); 24:20, 48; Jn 6:64; 71; 12:4; 13:2, 11, 21; 18:30; Act 3:13;
7:42; 8:3; 12:4; 21:11; 22:4; 1Co 11:23; 2Co 4:11;
Mt 26:46; Jn 18:2, 5; 21:20 (betrayer),
– (2) of divine action, punitive or remedial hand over Rm 1:24,
26, 28; 1Co 5:5; 1Ti 1:20; 2Pe 2:4;
– refer to Yeshua as an atonement sacrifice – redemptive Rm 4:25;
8:32; sim. Eph 5:2 = 25. Mk 9:31; Lk 9:22, 44; 24:7 Yeshua to
authorities Mt 20:18; 26:45; Mk 15:1, 15; Mt 17:22;
- (b) of transmission of a thing, w. circumstance or intention signaled by
context hand over, give: money Mt 25:20; spirit Jn 19:30; hand down:
custom Act 6:14; instruction 16:4; 1Co 11:2; 15:3; 2Pe 2:21; model of
instruction Rm 6:17; power Lk 4:6; body 1Co 13:3; reign 15:24. Of
action exposing oneself to hazard risk Act 15:26.
- (c) of entrusting someone to another commit, commend Act 14:26;
15:40; 1Pe 2:23.
- (d) of submission to immorality Eph 4:19.
- (e) of a crop ripe to deliver its produce Mk4:29.
- (f) Lk 21:16 (paradothēsesthe will be betrayed by family)
papadidōs, paradotheis, paradotēnai, paradothēmai, paradoi,
paradothō pres. act. ind. 2 sg., 1 aor. pass. ptc., 1 aor. pass. inf., 1 fut.
pass., 2 aor.act. subj. 3 sg., and 1aor. pass. subj. of paradidōmi

paradounai, paradous, paradō, paradōsō, 2 aor. act. inf., 2 aor. act. ptc.,
2
aor. act. subj. 3 sg., and fut. act. ind. of paradidōmi.
1Co 11:73; Act 3:13
Mt 17:22; 20:18; 26:2, 45; Mk 9:31; 14:41; Lk 9:22, 44; 24:7 The
Son-of-man is handed over to. [It was Yeshua’s surrender to Father’s
will, not ‘getting betrayed’. Cf. Judas as a ‘betrayer’ v. 46 of Him to
the Yehudim Authorities, divulging where they could have their hand
on Him. /xx: betrayed – most; [See BW ‘*betray’] /x: betray.
Judas betrays Him [to be handed over] to the Yehudim Authorities (i.e.
the Sadducees in power) –
Mt 26:15 (paradōsō will betray),
Mt 26:16; Lk 22:4 (paradō might betray);
Mt 26:21, 23; Jn 13:21 (paradōsei will betray),
Mt 26:24; Lk 22:22 (paradidotai is betrayed)
Lk 22:6 (paradounai to betray), 22:21 (paradidontos betraying),
Lk 22:48 (paradidōs are betraying);
Jn 6:64 (paradōsōn will betray); 6:71; 12:4 (paradidonai to betray);
Jn 13:2 (paradoi he should betray); 13:11 (paradidonta was betraying),

Judas – Betrayer S3836 ho paradidous the one who betrays)

(APA) Mt 27:3, 4; (PPA) Mt 10:4; 26:25, 46, 48; Mk 14:42, 44; Jn
18:2, 5; 21:20;

S4273 prodotēs – betrayer Lk 6:16; pl. paradotai – Act 7:52; 2Ti 3:4;
*psychology, *psychiatry, *psychoanalysis

Believers’ taking on the charged terms/jargon to deal questions scripturally:

• psychology model
— understanding of person (Creation) — biblical?”
• psychopathology model
— diagnosis of root causes/problems (Fall) — biblical?”
• psychotherapy model
— approach to caring and prescribing cures
(Redemption/Sanctification) — biblical?
(Ref. Robert W. Kellemen (2014), Gospel-Centered Counseling)

The practice of psychoanalysis does not belong to medical profession; psychoanalysts

are not physicians and are not related to medical profession of psychiatrists, not to
psychologists. (Freudianism a; neo-Freudianism)
136F

Psychoanalysis, (www.simplypsychology.org/psychoanalysis.html) founded by

Sigmund Freud, is a religion b by itself with his theory of infantile sexuality adopted as
137F

the creed of the Freudian Church, propagated by the Freudian School.

Etymology: since 1906, from Psychoanalyse, coined 1896 in French by Freud from
Latinized form of Greek psyche- "mental" + German Analyse, from Greek analysis.
Freud earlier used “psychische analyse” (1894).

The book by Sigmund Freud, The Interpretation of Dreams (1899 in German, Die
Traumdeutung) introduces key concepts that would later become central to
psychoanalysis. It emphasizes the role of the unconscious mind, which is one of the
underlying principles in Freudian psychology. … It marked the beginning of
psychoanalysis and is a fascinating text revealing Freud’s unique talent as a writer and
ambitious theorist
(from http://psychology.about.com/od/sigmundfreud/gr/interpretation.htm )
His essay, Beyond the Pleasure Principle (1920 in German, Jenseits des
Lustprinzips).

Ref. Richard Webster (1995), Why Freud Was Wrong – Sin, Science, and
Psychoanalysis.

a
www.victorianweb.org/science/freud/intro.html Freud and Freudianism
http://youtu.be/x_YLy6yZeaw Introduction to Century of the Self ["This series is about how those in
power have used Freud's theories to try and control the dangerous crowd in an age of mass
democracy." - Adam Curtis. BBC - Press Office - The Century of the Self ]
b
“Religion, religion, O religion!” – Just as evolutionism is, and also scientism is. [The concept of
evolution, metaphysical or scientific, should not be confused with evolutionism.] In the same
line, Marxism is a religion, which emerged as communism of a political ideology with
materialism, dictatorship and militarism.
Related words:
behaviorism (Cf. B. F. Skinner, an American psychologist)
(Reading material: FROM PIGEON TO SUPERMAN AND BACK
AGAIN);
Pop psychology (popular psychology, pop psych, Psychobabble; self-
help );
human potential movement;

*knowledge; *theology; *philosophy; *metaphysics;

What does it mean to know God? It certainly not knowing about God, nor about
having knowledge of (about) God. Neither is it knowing Him at deeper, mystic,
esoteric, metaphysical, or ‘spiritual’ level. It is to be experiential relation to Elohim
the Creator (not ‘God’) by living in His Love, Light, and Life. To ‘know’ Him, is
prerequisite of believing in Him, to love Him, and to pray to Him; in turn to put one’s
trust in Him and to receive His Love is prerequisite of knowing Him. This way of
thinking is reciprocating as in a circle, not moving in a line.

How do we know God? How do we have God-talk? All the statements or talks about
God is from human attempt using language and vocabulary which is miserably
inadequate to delve into the great mystery – God Himself. It cannot be other than in
anthropomorphic language. The difficulty is much more than the attempt to make
valid statements about subatomic structure in quantum theory of the modern physics.
Here things are not subject to our direct observation; identify, describe and make
statements about them from the trace they leave behind.

‘To know God’: – JI Packer (1993), Knowing God

[Theology is man’s talk of God issue; how close it is to what the Scripture reveals,
explains, and proclaims, is to be seen. The problem is not that “American churches
are left with a deep and chronic deficit in theology”, but that most of things in
theologies are not in harmony with the Scripture, because they are born of man’s
ever-unstable religious doctrines and traditions in ever-changing society and culture.]

Check a variety of theology - *contextual theology; kingdom theology, liberation

theology, Catholic theology, Protestant theology, biblical theology, etc.

Theological vocab: Lex orandi, lex credendi lex vendi

Cf. ‘knowing God’ vs. ‘knowledge of God’ – Hos 6:6; Jn 17:3

*ontology; epistemology

www.ontology.co/
www.academia.edu/4826761/On_the_Ontological_Status_of_Human_Embryos
http://eje-online.org/content/151/Suppl_3/U17.long Carlos Alonso: “An ontological
view of the human embryo. A paradigm”
*foreknowledge;

1Pe 1:2; kata prognōsin theou patros

‘[to those chosen] as according to God’s plan or
foreknowledge’?

most renders as ‘the foreknowledge’ as if God has the stock of data on the future, and
also has and ability to correctly predict the future.

[Danker p. 298
proginōskō – (1) be previously acquainted with Act 26:5; already know about 2Pt 3:17;
(2) have plans for; know before 1Pt 1:20; Rm 8:29; 11:2;

prognōsis – ‘state of having in mind’, plan, purpose, as opposed to someth. happening

fortuitously [s. proginōskō (2)] Act 2:23; 1Pt 1:2

– Act 2:23 tē ōrsmenē boulē kai prognōsei tou theou

– 1Pe 1:2 (kata prognōsis theou) -

Q: “Did God Know That Adam and Eve Would Sin?” –

Is this God’s ability to refrain from using foreknowledge?

(http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2011006). This line of thinking is in fact bringing
God’s thinking to a mere human level.

The problem of the question itself shows our limited linguistic and literary ability to
grasp what is meant by ‘to know’ and ‘would sin’. What does it mean ‘to know’ in the
context? Is it not much of ‘prior knowledge’ such as prediction correctly (as God is
supra-temporal, unbound by time domain), but rather ‘He has already decided’ (s.
CEV). What does it mean ‘to sin’, not an abstract concept with a noun? Is it not a
dynamic relation of God to human kind, rather than committing some act?
God has given ‘freedom of choice’ when He made them in His own image.

[cf. thelēma – ‘will’ ‘desire’]

‘my hour’; ‘my time’; appointed time

my hour Gk. hē hōra mou – (‘hour’ in figurative sense); /mine hour – KJV; />
my time
Jn 2:4; 7:6;
his hour /> his time Jn 7:30; 8:20
my time Gk. ho kairos ho emos Jn 7:6

• Gk. chronos vs. kairos vs. hora

kairos is rendered in NWT:

an appointed time - 1Co 7:5;

the appointed time

Mt 8:29; 26:18
Mt 26:18 (the appointed time for me is near); Mk 1:15; 13:33; Lk 1:20; Rm 5:6;
1Co 7:5 (for an appointed time); Heb 9:9, 10; 1Pe 4:17; Rev_11:18;
[Rev_1:3; Rev_22:10]; - the appointed time is near (eggus /at hand)

the due time (for me, for you,)

Lk 21:8; Jn 7:6, 8; 1Co 4:5; 2Th 2:6; 4:6;
1Pe_5:6 (in due time);

NWT

is near
Mt24:32, 33; 26:18; Mk 13:28, 29; Lk 21:30,31; Act 1:12; Rm 10:8; Php 4:5; Heb 6:8;
8:13; Rev 1:3; Rev 22:10;

at hand
Mat_3:2; 4:17; 10:7; 26:18, 45,46; Mk 1:15; 14:42; Lk 21:30,31; Jn 2:13; 7:2; 11:55;
19:42; Rm 13:12; Php 4:5; 2Th 2:2; 2Ti 4:6; 1Pe 4:7; Rev 1:3; 22:10;

Cf. Jn 7:6 hetoimos /ready; /x: at hand - NWT

*eschatology; *last day; last days; the end; eschaton; *apocalyptic

‘the end’ ‘the end times’ ‘the end of the world’ ‘consummation’ ‘in these last days’
'Kingdom of God';

[Ref: Adrio König (1989), The Eclipse of Christ in Eschatology – highly readable and
excellent, not a word to be missed.]

Ref. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11841-016-0534-0 [Mikel Burley,

"Dislocating the Eschaton? Appraising Realized Eschatology", Sophia, Sep 2017, Vol.
56, Issue 3, pp 435–452]
"Coined by C. H. Dodd (1935; rev. 1961), The Parables of the Kingdom, ‘realized
eschatology’ denotes, in the first instance, an interpretation of the New Testament
according to which the coming of the kingdom or reign of God is not something
 that would occur only after the completion of Jesus’ ministry; rather, it was
brought into reality (realized, actualized) during that ministry itself. For Dodd,
there is no question about whether Jesus declared that ‘the eschaton, the divinely
ordained climax of history, is here’ (1936b: 193), for the declaration is evident
both implicitly in many of Jesus’ parables and explicitly in various statements
ascribed to Jesus in the gospels."

“on the last day” (/> at the last day; /> in the last day)
• en tē eschatē hēmera - Jn 6:39; 11:24 (resurrection); Jn 12:48; (judgment)
• tē eschatē hēmera Jn 6:40, 44, 54; (resurrection)
Cf. en tē eschatē hēmera (on the last day - great day - of the festival) Jn 7:37;

“the last days’”

• ep′ tais eschatais hēmerais (in the last days) Act 2:17;
• ep′ eschatais hēmerais (in the last day) Jam 5:3; 2Ti 3:1;
• ep′ eschatōn tōn hēmerōn touōn (in these last days) Heb 1:2;
• ep′ eschatōn tōn hēmerōn (in the last days) 2Pe 3:3;

Cf. “end of {the} time’” – cf. ‘end of the age’

• ep′ eschatou tou chronou [/en eschatō chronō] Jud 18;

Cf. “the consummation (> end) of the age” – beginning of the age to come of
the Kingdom reign of Elohim.
• sunteleai tou aiōnos Mt 13:39, 40, 49; 24:3; 28:20 etc.

[From pp. 64-65 Herman Hoyt (1969), The End Times] (with minor editing; in
purple is not his.)

The phrase "second coming" (a theological jargon) does not appear in the
New Testament. It is first found in the writings of the Church Fathers. But the
New Testament is full of the idea. Such synonymous expressions as "come
again" (Jn 14:3) and "appear the second time" (Heb 9:28) do appear in the
New Testament.

There is some truth in the fact that Christ spoke of various comings. In
relation to the Holy Spirit, Christ said, "I will come to you", and "we will
come unto him" (Jn 14:18, 23). In the sense of providential, spiritual judgment
Christ said to the Church at Ephesus, "I will come unto thee quickly" (Rev
2:5). But these "comings" are never confused with that grand and final
eschatological event which is designated in theology as "the second coming".

Nine Greek Terms Defined

Though the New Testament abounds in terms and expressions concerning the
second coming of Christ, nine are cited here as helpful in preparing the
student for the unfolding of the general nature of the second coming in the
New Testament.
ho erchomenos – This word means the one who is coming or the coming one.
This came to be a title of the Messiah. John the Baptizer used it: "Are you the
one who should come ...?" (Mt 11:3). The exultant multitude used it on the
day of His anti-triumphal entry: "Blessed is he that comes in the name of
YHWH” (Mt 21:9). The writer of Hebrews used it specifically as referring to
the second coming: “For yet a little while, and he that shall come will come"
(Heb 10:37)
[Fn -"Who is to come" appears four times in the AV of Revelation (1:4, 8;
4:8; 11:17). The ASV omits it in 11:17. It does not appear in the Greek
text of 16:5. Explanation for the omission in 11:17 and 16:5 may be that
Christ has already come in that the rapture took place.]

erchomai – referring to the act of coming from one place to another, this word
is used over and over again as referring to the second coming of Christ (see
Mt 24:30; Mk 14:62; Lk 21:27; Jn 14:3; 1Co 4:5;2Th 1:10; 2Jn 7; Jude 14;
Rev 1:7; 22:7, 12, 20).

katabainō – Used to mean to come down or to descend, this word lays

emphasis upon the direction in the act of coming. This word is used of the
first coming of Christ: "For I came down from heaven" (Jn 6:38). It is also
used of the second coming of Christ: "For the Lord himself shall descend
from heaven with a shout" (1Th 4:16)

hēkō – In meaning, this word marks the result in the act of coming. It means
one has arrived. Christ used this word in relation to His first coming: "For I
came forth and am come from God" (Jn 8:42, ASV). Christ also used the
same word in relation to His second coming: "If therefore you shall not watch,
I will come as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon
thee" (Rev 3:3, ASV).

parousia – Denoting arrival and presence, this word occurs over and over
again in relation to the second coming of Christ. Paul used the word of
himself in such a way as to indicate its meaning: "Not as in my presence only,
but now much more in my absence" (Phi 2:12). Since the word came to be
used of the arrival and presence of a ruler, it was very easy for the early
Christians to use this word of the arrival and presence of Christ on the earth:
"For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in the
presence of our Lord Jesus Christ at his coming?" (1Th 2:19). In the Gospels
parousia of the Son-of-man occurs only in G-Mt (Mt 24:3, 27, 37, 39). G-Mk
and G-Lk has it ‘coming’ in //Mk 13:24; //Lk 21:27 for the parallel to Mt
24:27. In the Epistles, parousia of the Lord Yeshua the Mashiah is mentioned:
1Co 15:23; 1Th 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2Th 2:1, 8; Jas 5:7, 8; 2Pe 1:16; 3:4; 1Jn 2:28.

apokalupsis – This is a compound word meaning to unveil or uncover and is

usually translated by the word ‘revelation’. It is used in many connections, but
also in relation to the second coming of Christ. This word is rendered
"appearing" in 1Pe 1:7 and ‘revelation’ ‘coming’ (KJV), ‘appearing’
‘manifestation’ ‘come again’ (ERV) in 1Co 1:7. But in Rev 1:1, as in most
other places, it is translated "revelation". This word describes the nature of
Christ’s arrival and presence on the earth. It will be unveiling of His divine
glory.

phaneroō – Sometimes translated as ‘show’ or ‘appear’ (Jn 21:1; Col 3:4), or

‘manifest’ (1Jn 3:5), this word means to bring out into the open and make
clear and plain that which hitherto existed but was not known. The word is
used of Christ and believers in 1Jn 3:2 (ASV): "Beloved, now are we children
of God, and it is not yet made manifest what we shall be. We know that, if he
shall be manifested, we shall be like him; for we shall see him even as he is."

epiphainō – Meaning to bring to light or to full visibility, this word was used
of Christ at His First coming, when ‘by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus
Christ" (2Tm 1:10) life and immortality were brought to light. It is also used
of the second coming to denote the "brightness" of His presence on the earth
(2Th 2:8), that particular quality after which the saints yearn and which causes
them to love His "appearing" (2Tim 4:8).

horaō – A word meaning to see with the eyes, it is used of the sight that will
greet the seeing eyes of mankind at the second coming of Christ. It was used
of Christ at His first coming: "But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me,
and believe not" (Jn 6:36). Following His resurrection, it is said that he
"appeared" to Simon (Lk 24:34). "And unto them that look for him shall he
appear the second time" (Heb 9:28).

Cf. Gk. parousia (‘come to be present’) – most renders as ‘coming’ (as if

to be in the future); cf. ‘presence’ (as if already realized event) – NWT:

Mt 24:3, 27, 37, 39; of the Son-of-man;

1Co 15:23; (of Mashiah);
1Th 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; Jas 5:7, 8; 2Pe 1:16; 3:4; 2Th 2:1, 8 (of our
Lord Yeshua the Mashiah);
1Jn 2:28; (the Son)

1Co 16:17; 2Co 7:6, 7; 10:10; Phi 1:26; 2:12;(individuals)

2Th 2:9; (of the lawless one)
2Pe 3:12 (of the day of Elohim)

Cf. vocab: ‘second time’ ‘again’ 'second coming of the Lord'

<The Son-of-man ~ come in His glory>. See related texts – 1Th 4:16; Jn 5:25-29; Jud 9 (cf. Zec
3:1-2); Lk 18:8]
*second coming of the Lord; rapture; ‘left behind scenario’

‘Second coming’ (parousia) of Yeshua the Mashiah:

1. Literal
2. Personas
3. Visible
4. Audible
5. Physical
6. Vitalizing
7. Glorious
8. Climatic
https://youtu.be/i3hXKNTMuEY

The word ‘*rapture’ itself does not appear in the Bible but it has become a church
jargon used in conjunction with events relating to the "Second Coming of Jesus" (←
Mt 24:21-35, 36-51; //Mk 13:14-31, 32-37; //Lk 21:20-33; 12: 35-48; Cf. 2Pe 3:10;
1Th 5:3; Jn 14:3; Rev 22:12), not as what the common English word means. It is
taken up from a wrong reading the Greek ‘be caught away’ (harpagēsometha 1Th
4:17).

The unbiblical idea of the Secret Rapture created by the Catholic Jesuit and was taken
up by Darby and Scofield and became popularized by Left Behind fiction series
(1997-2007) by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins and the movie series; became
known as ‘left behind scenario’ – that the coming of Jesus would take place in two
separate stages. The first will be a ‘secret rapture’ —or carrying away of the saved to
‘heaven’—at the beginning of a ‘seven-year tribulation’, during which the antichrist
will appear. The second phase occurs at the close of this time of tribulation when
Jesus will return to Earth in triumph and glory.

As to Darbyism – Pre-Tribulation: [It is not necessary to understand the last 18

chapters of Revelation because ‘the “Church” will not be here during its fulfillment.
When the ‘Church” disappears, then the tribulation of 7 years begins.

The Bible nowhere speaks of these two separate comings and the word “rapture” is
also an invention of theologians and occurs nowhere in the Bible. The deception does
not stop there, Christians also debate whether we will be taken before the tribulation
or in the middle of the seven years or at the completion of the seven-year tribulation.
These are called pre-tribulation, mid-tribulation and post tribulation.
http://www.secret-rapture.com/ http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-
deceptions/jesuit-end-times-antichrist-deception/ www.reformation.org/left-behind-
by-jesuits.html

*rapture – [The English word itself is not in any English Bible translation, despite the
religious mania (Cf. the popular fiction, ‘The Left Behind’). The word appeared in the
writings of Matthew Henry (in his commentary 1806) and Nelson Darby (1827 as in ‘pre-
tribulation rapture’ for Rapture Doctrine – Premillennialism; Dispensationalism) – base on
the Greek verb in 1Th 4:17 harpagisometha (> harpazō)]. Cf. ‘tribulation’ ‘pre-tribulation’
in various forms of millennialism.
[Ref: www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm “Ch. 17 The Rapture Theory - Its Surprising
Origin” in EL Martin (1999), Essentials of New Testament Doctrine]
1Th 4:17 snatched up ░░ - NETfn; /< gathered up – GNB, ERV (- cf. episunagō in Mt
24:31; 2Th 2:1); /swept up – PNT; /caught up – most, KJV+, Cass, NAB, Barclay; /x:
snatched away – CLV; /caught away – NWT, Diagl, Rotherham; /taken up – CEV,
BBE, DRB; /x: rapt with – Etheridge; /rapienmur (> rapio) – Vulg (> raptizo - Latin
‘caught up’); ( after gathered up, to return with the Lord; not ‘disappearing’. Not ‘rapture’ of
eschatological jargon - rapture-mania with a non-biblical ‘rapture-removal’ in a pre-tribulation
rapture idea. [Cf. English word ‘rapture’ means a state of being carried away by overwhelming
emotion. The sense of ‘seizure or capture’ is archaic usage]
[NET tn ‘suddenly caught up’ - Or "snatched up." The Greek verb ἁρπάζω implies that the
action is quick or forceful, so the translation supplied the adverb "suddenly" to make this
implicit notion clear.] (Not related to paralambanetai Mt 24:36-41)

• https://youtu.be/p20zDOjlRdc [Chuck Missler: The Rapture Part 1 of 12]

• Chuck Missler (2003), The Rapture: Christianity's Most Preposterous
Belief (Audio or Kindle Edition)

Cf. Jn 14:1-4
harpagisometha 1Th 4:16, when the "dead in Mashiah" and "we who are alive and remain"
will be "caught up in the clouds" to meet "the Lord in the air"
harpazō Act 8:39, 2Co 12:2-4; Rev 12:5. – catch up; take up away;

Cf. English idiom: ‘in a rapture’ – Act 10:10; 11:5; 22:17 (JUB); Lk 1:67 (WNT);

www.newjerusalem.org/Strongs/H7161
H7161 qeren [animal's horn] (76x – Gen 22:13)
H7162 qeren (keren 14x in Dan. – Dan 3:5) 'horn' 'cornet'
H3104 yovel (27x – Exo 19:13);
H2689 chatsotsrah (29x – Num 10:2; 1Ch 15:24) '*trumpet'
*shofar;
[H7782 (72x)] Exo 1:16; Psa 47:5

In NT
[S4536 salpigx (11x) 'trumpet-sound' – (1Co 14:8); 'shofar' – (Mt 24:31; 1Co 15:52; 1Th 4:16; Heb
12:19; Rev 1:10; 4:1; 8:2, 6, 13; 9:14); [/x: trump - KJV, ASV, RV – archaic; /x: bugle – NASB]
the last shofar (1Co 15:52);
seven shofars - Rev 8:2, 6 [Cf. the shofar by the 7th messenger – Rev 11:15 – often
conflated with 1Co 15:52 for End-time prophecy games]
a sound [S2279 ēchō] of a shofar Heb 12:19
a shofar of Elohim 1Th 4:16
'to blow a shofar' S4537 salpizō (12x) ('blow a trumpet' (Mt 6:2); 'blow a shofar' (1Co 15:52; Rev
8:6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13; 9:1, 13; 10:7; 11:15) /xx: sound a trumpet – NASB; /xx: sound thine trumpet –
KJV; /
bugle; clarion;
*war; *battle; *fight; conflict; attack; assault;

contention, argument, quarrel, dispute; (family) feud, enmity; hostilities, hostility;

S4171 polēmos (18x) strife/quarrel (Jam 4:1); battle (1Co 14:8; Heb 11:34; Rev 9:7; 16:14,
etc.); war (Mt 24:6; Rev 11:7; 12:7)]
S3163. machē (4x) – fight (Jam 4:1; 2Co 7:5; 2Tm 2:23; Tit 3:9; Jam 4:1)
S2052 eritheia (7x) (selfish ambition; contention; /strife - KJV) 2Co 12:20; Gal 5:20; Rm 2:8;
Phi 1:17; 2:3; Jam 3:14, 16
S1370 dichostasia (2x) (dissension > dissention) Rm 16:17; Gal 5:20.
S139 hairesis (9x) Act 5:17; 15:5; 24:5, 14; 26:5; 28:22; 1Co 11:19; Gal 5:20; 2Pe 2:1
(party/sect, faction; factional opinions-views);

*enemy; vs. friends; vs. neighbor

*enemies, foes, adversaries, opponents; combatants; those who are against (someone),
hurting/harming others; accusers. [Cf. concept of nonresistance, pacifism, tolerantism
(tolerance for the sake of tolerance)’]

[“our adversaries” vs. “our enemies” vs. “those who take us as enemies”]

The English word ‘enemy’ covers a wide semantic field, from the well-known ‘love your
enemies’ to ‘shall be saved from our enemies’. Enemies of whom, in what sense of ‘enemy’
- (Mt 5:44; Lk 1:71; 6:27; 19:43; Rm 5:10; Rm 11:28; Phi 3:18; Col 1:21; Hebrews 10:13;
Rev11:5, 12, etc.). IRENT renders as ‘those who are against you’ in the so-called “Love
Your Enemies commandments” in Mt 5:44 //Lk 6:27.]

The problem of ‘Love Your Enemies’: the following group of people are inappropriate to
simply label as ‘enemies’:
Those persecute you; hate you; curse you; hurt; harm, etc. [Cf. Lk 6:28 epēreazō
/exploit; /treat spitefully (RSV), despitefully– KJV; /mistreat; /cruel; /abuse; /hurt;
/treat badly; /insult; /ill-treat]
[Cf. Lk 10:29-37 <Parable of Good Samaritan> is not about ‘who is my enemy’ but ‘who is
my neighbor’. Cf. Startley, ed. (1992), The Love of Enemy and Nonretaliation in the NT, p.
137ff.]

[word count: enemy, enemies - 30x – KJV, ESV; 32x – NWT; 35x – NET]
Danker p. 157

echthra [echthros] enmity Lk 23:12; Ro 8:7 (cp. e. tou theou enmity with/
toward God Jam 4:4); Gal 5:20; Eph 2:14, 16.

echthros [cp. (to) echthos; 'hate': etym. unclear)

- 1. as adj.
- a. in act. sense inimical, hostile Mt 13:28 (but s. 2).
 - b. in pass. sense treated as enemies on account of you Rm 11:28 (but
s. 2).
- 2. as noun, w. or without the art, 'one who is inimical', enemy Mt 5:43f;
22:44; Lk 1:71; Act 13:10; Rm 5:10; 12:20; 1Co 15:26; Gal 4:16; Phi
3:18; Col 1:21; 2Th 3:15; Jam 4:4; Rv 11:5, 12. — e. anthrōps may be
rendered some enemy Mt 13:28 (cp. 1). In Rm 11:28 echthroi di’ humas
may plausibly be rendered enemies (of God or Christ) for your sakes.

Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

Enemy:
an adjective, primarily denoting "hated" or "hateful" (akin to echthos,
"hate;" perhaps associated with ektos, "outside"), hence, in the Active
sense, denotes "hating, hostile;" it is used as a noun signifying an "enemy,"
adversary, and is said
(a) of the Devil, Mt 13:39; Lk 10:19;
(b) of death, 1Co 15:26;
(e) of one who is opposed to righteousness, Act 13:10;
(i) of foes, Mt 5:43, 44; 10:36; Lk 6:27, 35: Rm 12:20; 1Co 15:25; Gal
4:16.
(c) of the professing believer who would be a friend of the world, thus
turning himself into an enemy of God, Jam 4:4;
(d) of men who are opposed to Christ, Mt 13:25, 28; 22:44; Mk 12:36;
Lk 19:27; 20:43; Act 2:35; Rm 11:28; Phi 3:18; Heb 1:13; 10:13; or to
His servants, Rev 11:5, 12; to the nation of Israel, Lk 1:71, 74; 19:43;
(f) of Israel in its alienation from God, Rm 11:28;
(g) of the unregenerate in their attitude toward God, Rm 5:10; Col 1:21;
(h) of believers in their former state, 2Th 3:15;

See FOE. Cp. echthra, "enmity."

*dumb vs. mute;

A fixed phrase - ‘dumb and deaf’

*fool, foolish, stupid, moronic

*perfect, mature, perfection, fullness, maturity

[related words; growth, development, maturation]

maturity - physical, psychological, * spirital (> spiritual)

goal, fullness,

Heb 6:1 (epi tēn teleiotēta–) [it’s not about one becoming mature person, or attain
maturity or perfection (in whatever sense), but moving on to the fullest level (in
knowledge and understanding) pertaining to the Mashiah.]
Cf. teleios – 1Co 14:20 grown-up; /x: men; /x: mature man (people);

*water; rain; flood; deluge

Noah’s Flood: As it rained the mountains were covered out, [no longer to be
visible]. Not ‘covered over by the rising water level, submerged’!

*confess = to acknowledge, admit, accept and answer; attest (give testimony);

openly-confess;

*visible; recognizable, discernable, observable, understandable,

*darkness, decay, destruction, death; disease, disorder; deadlines;

*emotion; feeling; mood; moody; gut feeling (intuition, cf. instinct);

*pain, hurt, ache, pathos, Han; sickness vs. illness; afflictions;

*father; *forefather; *seed; *fatherhood;

[See WB #3 for *Father as to Elohim in OT and NT]

*fire

Often used in figuratively – e.g. together with ‘immersion-rite’ (of Yohanan the
Baptizer) with a sense of refining fire. (Mt 3:11 31)

Not to be confused with the expression ‘tongues of flame (> fire)’ in Act 2:1-4.
Cf. ‘fire of baptism’ – an English idiom, carrying a sense of suffering for a purpose.
‘immersed with holy Spirit and with fire’ Lk 3:16

Hooked on ‘*fire’, ‘hell’ and ‘brimstone’:

[‘brimstone’ theion - Cf. ‘sulfur’ – a chemical name which is unfit as a translation

word lacks vivid biblical imagery.]

• ‘… the angels will throw the [evil] into the furnace of the fire’ Mt 13:50
etc. (‘furnace’ = ‘fire’ appositive, rather than fiery’ ‘flaming’ ‘blazing’)
• ‘into eternal fire’ Mt 18:8;
• ‘into the Geh-Hinnom of fire’ (Gehenna) Mt 5:2; 18:9
• ‘into the Geh-Hinnom {of fire}’ Mk 9:47

• ‘into Geh-Hinnom, into the fire ~ unquenchable’ Mk 9:43,

• ‘into Geh-Hinnom, {into the fire unquenchable}’ Mk 9:{45} (phrase);
• ‘where ~ the fire ~ unquenchable’ Mk 9:{44} (verse),{46} (verse),
• ‘into Gehenna (Geh-Hinnom), {of the fire} and there ~ fire
unquenchable’ Mk 9:48

• ‘rained fire and brimstone’ Lk 17:29 – (Sodom)

• ‘He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire’ Lk 3:17
• ‘the one with a mark received on the forehead or on the hand …. will
drink the wine of God’s wrath and tormented with fire and brimstone’
Rev 14:10
• ‘the Lake of burning fire with brimstone’ Rev 19:20; 21:8
• ‘the Lake of fire’ Rev 20:14, 15
• ‘the Lake of fire and brimstone’ Rev 20:10
• “But the present heavens and the earth being kept in store by the same
Word, are being kept for fire until the day of judgment and destruction of
ungodly men.” 2Pe 3:7

• fire to refine Mt 3:11 //Mk 1:8 //Lk 3:16 ('immerse in holy spirit, yes, in
[refining] fire of spirit);
• Fire to burn up Mt 3:12
• Fire in Gehenna
‘*friend’; ‘*fella’;

• philos ‘friend’ (Lk 14:10 etc.)

• hetairos ‘you fella¡’ ░░ vocative – (Mt 20:13; 22:12; 26:50) /x: friend – most; /> fellow – NWT
(too formal for in colloquial speech); /My man - Mft; /> My friend – Cass, WNT, Etheridge; /
~, my friend - PNT; /x: Comrade – CLV, MRC, YLT; /여보게나 – Ko (ARJ);
• agapētoi my beloved ones¡ 1Jn 3:2
*marriage, marriage feast, cf. wedding (ceremony);
The concepts of dating and engagement are not in the vocabulary of the Bible.
Concept of ‘virgin’ is also different. [WB #3C for ‘virgin’ ‘virgin birth’.]

Ko. 처녀 (處女) ≈ maiden. cf. 숫 처녀; 동정녀 (童貞女);

After a formal agreement between the two family (not persons) with dowry:
혼인 婚姻 (betroth); 정혼 定婚 (espousal); 결혼 結婚;시집가다 (come to live
under the roof with her man). Cf. No dating; no engagement (약혼 約婚);

*Levirate marriage (Deu 25:5-6) –

cf. Lk 3:23 "[Yeshua] being, as thought of, a son of Yosef, who was son of Heli …"

*marriage; *divorce; *marry

Related words:
betrothal, spouse, 'engage', engagement, wedding, wedding-feast (>> marriage
ceremony), conjugal relation, marital; romantic love32;
‘*divorce’ ░░ Mt 10:31-21; //Mk 10:4; Lk 16:18 [Here in the 1st century patriarchal
society, it was about ‘putting away one’s wife’ – quite different from ‘divorce’, a
modern legal term.] [S630 apoluō (68x) 'release' Mt 1:19; 14:15]
*fornication (sexual immorality),
*adultery – sexual relation between a married person and a partner other than
the lawful spouse.
The ground of 'putting her away' is 'fornication before coming to marriage, not
adultery [Mt 5:31-32; Cf. Lev 20:10 – adultery is punishable by death]

[‘marriage’ – of personal and family union, not based on sexual style and preference –
in the Bible is not same as marriage concept in the western society. ‘Betrothal’ (Heb.
Ketubah) is the initial part. Btw two families; with payment of the dowry – she is then
set apart (sanctified). Isa 61:10; Jdg 14:10-11; Jer 2:32; Isa 49:18; Psa 45:8-15, -
Bridegroom departs from wedding to Father’s House – prepares room addition; bride
prepares his imminent return. https://youtu.be/p20zDOjlRdc at 8:50 time marker – (on
Jewish wedding). ‘Doctrine of imminence’ – believes are taught to expect the Savior
from heaven at any moment (Phi 3:20; Tit 2:13; Heb 9:28; 1Th 1:10; 4:18; 5:6; Rev
22:20) – expresses hope and a warm spirit of expectancy (1Th 1:10)]

Marriage is a social contract of tribal construct in human history. Such is what we have
as a civic union – whether the ceremony is performed at a place of a religious institute
and whether a priest/pastor presides over it have no bearing on it. We have a certificate
of marriage contract. [Cf. Rm 7:2-3]

How can such a marriage be a binding one for people in the light of the New Covenant
by Yeshua the Mashiah? A legalistic approach reading a Bible translation literally goes
against the spirit of Yeshua as the Lord. As we see callousness of our hearts, as Moses
had seen even in the God’s chosen people, we should not make a blunder by interpreting
the Scriptural texts in our own terms on the issue of marriage and divorce, considering
we live now in different societies of diverse cultures. Even use of the word ‘divorce’ for
a Bible translation word is anachronistic. (E.g. ‘husband putting his wife away from his
household’ – Mt 19:7 – is not equivalent at all to ‘getting divorced’ in modern western
societies.)

Such is in contrast to marriage covenant, a covenantal union, as the Scripture has shown
from the time of Creation what marriage should be, to be married in truth. It is not
possible to hold a marriage covenant as long as we remain in the spirit of the world, but,
with God’s grace, if we only live in harmony with the ‘Law’, that is, the Way of the
Mashiah, in the blessed Kingdom reign of Elohim. [Cf. Concerning people married
while there were in darkness before having come into the Truth.131F13Fa]

Now the spirit of the world is at its work to pervert the meaning of words we have used
and cherished throughout human life and language. This generation of the sons of
perversion now wants to change the definition of the word marriage itself to become
possessed by the unclean spirit with the purpose of their life itself grounded on the
pursuit of power and pleasure. The word which is a covenant relation to form a family
and to ensure the family of mankind is changing a mere façade for convenience,
cohabitation and copulation, to satisfy their need of power-pleasure principle.

Mt 1:18 (Gk. mnēsteuō – ‘commit to marriage’ 'give into marriage' [arranged between
two families];
/be espoused - KJV – archaic; /정혼 (定婚) 시키다 - Ko.;
/x: be betrothed – ESV, NASB; /x: be engaged to – most; /be promised in marriage to;
/x: be pledged to be married. /xx: 약혼 (約婚) 하다 – Ko.

It was between two families; there was no custom of ‘dating’ or ‘engagement’ as such.
A maiden is given to her husband-to-be and she would move into the new household
after a provisional period (about a year).

['betroth' – enter into a formal agreement to marry]

It was between two families; there was no custom of ‘dating’ or ‘engagement’ as such.
A maiden is given to her husband-to-be and she would move into the new household
after a provisional period (about a year).

S1060 gameō (29x) 'marry'

S1061 gamiskō (8x) 'give in marrage' -- equivalent to gamizō S1061a.

Mt 24:38 //Luke 17:27; Mt 22:30 //Mk 12:25

marrying and being given in marriage

a
1Co 7:10-16 Because as those not in the TRUTH at the time of marriage we were not under a
covenant, we were under a contract! And all contracts are pierceable. So as those Now under the
covenant but not under the covenant when we married, we are not bound to stay but free to marry
again as under the covenant when the other party wants to leave; doing so, we are not committing
adultery.
*sexuality; *Homosexuality

Sexual behavior is set within a limit set by cultural, social and tribal constraints.
When everting goes, the constraints become ineffective and non-existent. What
one like is what is right.

Sex outside procreation – follows 'pleasure and pain principle'. Human existence
is homo hedonicus et potestas (pleasure and power as the guiding principle). The
framework of honor, shame and duty crumbles in modern society; the shameful
become shameless, and guilty feeling disappears.

Homosexuality as such is not sin, but it is in sin, just as heterosexuality is.

Humanity itself is in sin (Cf. Gen 19:1-13; Lev 18:22; Rm 1:26-27; 3:23; 1Co
6:9); so is our sexuality. The homosexual’s problem is not ‘being homosexual’,
but all that they represent to others is manifestation of their sinfulness like any
other pleasure-oriented human behavior– their action, behavior, conduct,
lifestyle, agenda, movement, ideology – for the pursuit of power and pleasure
with effect on other people and God’s creation order (life, family, and society)
– dominated by sexual drive. They ‘decide’ to be homosexual when they say
‘have come out of the closet’. Heterosexuality is norm of God’s created order
– fundamental to human society, family and culture. A heterosexual person
does not decide when he becomes heterosexual – it was already as decided
when human beings are created by God.
1Co 6:9 malakos (‘effeminate homosexual’ - IRENT) and arsenokoitēs (‘male
homosexual’ - IRENT). They are often incorrectly and ridiculously rendered
intentionally: [underlined for the unacceptable translation phrases]. E.g. (-
offending? – offending whom?) (‘practicing’? ‘drilling’?)
• ‘effeminates and abusers of themselves with mankind’ – KJV;
• ‘effeminates and abusers of themselves with man’ – KJV;
• ‘male prostitutes and homosexuals’ – LITV, ISV;
• ‘male prostitutes and homosexual offenders’ – NIV;
• ‘passive homosexual partners and practicing homosexual’ – NET;
• ‘men who submit to homosexual acts and men who practice homosexuality’ – NWT;
• ‘a pervert or behaves like a homosexual’ – CEV;
• ‘homosexual perverts’ – GNB; /
• ‘homosexuals and sodomites’ – EMTV;
• ‘men who let other men use them for sex or who have sex with other men’ – ERV (-
technically detailed!);
• ‘men who practice homosexuality’ – ESV;
• ‘homosexuals’ – GW;
• ‘passive homosexual partners, nor dominant homosexual partners’ – LEB;
• ‘男娼となる者、男色をする者’– JSS;
• ‘abusers, homosexuals’ – MKJV;

Note: reading by gay proponents of the Greek words very differently (incl. etymological
 fallacy and argument from absence) – An example of how they are desperate to justify
themselves:
htt://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/02/homosexuals-shall-not-inherit-kingdom.html
“…"malakos" which literally means "soft" and is a fairly common Greek word that
depending on context can mean virtually anything... …The context of Paul's list is moral
vices and so meanings from definition 3 above are appropriate ones and thus "lack of
self-control" seems best. Some people appear to have decided that the word can mean
'soft' in a sexual sense and thus mean 'effeminate' or 'passive homosexual partner', which
I suppose is possible. There seems no reason to think the context here merits such a
translation though.” "arsenokoites" (literally "man-bed") … Elsewhere it is said to be
something mainly done by men with men but which can even be done to a woman … In
short, Greek usage provides no reason at all to think that the word means "homosexual".
No study I have ever seen has concluded that the word meant "homosexual" in Greek.”
“In short, I see no reason to think either malakos or arsenokoites in 1 Cor 6:9 have
anything to do with homosexuality whatsoever. Such translations are simply a result of
poor scholarship.” – simply a gay-agenda driven venting by an Anglican!

Even the translation of the Bible (e.g. Source NT by Ann Nyland) is altered to suit their
agenda.

On ‘*sermon’, preaching

[cf. ‘preaching’ ‘teaching’ 'pulpit sermon' 'hell-fire preaching']

Are Sermons Too Few or Too Many?

Clint Roberts, 2014-05-27

May 27th, 2014 at www.reclaimingthemind.org

Say the word “sermon” and the average person doesn’t get too thrilled. In fact for a lot of
people the word is only used as a pejorative (as in, “You can spare me the sermon, OK?”).
But consider the sermon in its true sense – the message or homily or whatever you choose to
call that which is taught aloud on a regular basis to a corporate church gathering. It’s not a
popular word, and it’s not a popular concept. Maybe that’s not entirely bad. If it were, then
by now we’d have had to witness a nauseating reality show competition in which young
preachers go one at a time & America texts in its vote for the best sermon.

But to the degree that the sermon has a bad rap, whose fault is it? The sermon is one thing
that is definitely not in short supply. America in particular is a land of 10,000 sermons, in
just about any given week, and with a vast array of differences between them. A 72 hour trip
around the internet would show you an endless matrix of church and other websites with all
the sermons you could sample in every bit of free time you have. If I were Dr. Seuss my title
for this would be “Oh the Sermons You’ll Hear.”

While a number of people in the present secularized society have only heard snippets of
sermons, or have only a distant memory of sermons they heard as children, those with
particular interest in the thinking and doing of churches realize that there are more species of
sermon than of insect living in your backyard. Below is my own catalog of many (maybe
most?) of the different kinds or types of sermons preached on a regular basis somewhere not
too far from any of us. It is a homiletical parade of the good, the bad, and the ugly. As you
move down the list you will see that I begin with more standard fare but then later I get to
some of the more bizarre and even obnoxious kinds of sermons, where I include some links
to examples that you will find entertaining and/or disturbing.
On to the Carnival of Sermons …

The Expository Sermon: Verse-by-Verse

I begin with the ancient standard, the time honored, the historically preeminent, and the
unfortunately not nearly as popular as it once was: verse-by-verse exposition. It is still the
sermon of choice for a great many of the most serious and devout. It’s a harder sell, though,
for the masses today, since it demands more of the listener, moves more slowly and
carefully, seeming to the short attention spans of today like a boring and tedious study of
words and ideas that requires too much detailed concentration on the text and its meaning.

The Expository Sermon: Passages & Narratives

Not every expository sermon is necessarily of the verse-by-verse variety, so I thought this
deserving of its own category. Sermons can still be very text-based but with a wider view.
Some of the “books within the book” do not lend themselves as much to verse-by-verse, like
Old Testament narratives, wisdom literature and exotic apocalyptic visions. Much as in the
case of the difference between literal word-for-word translations vs. thought for thought
(“dynamic equivalence”) translations, sometimes an exegesis and exposition that is not
merely one-word-at-a-time (or even one-verse-at-a-time) is more appropriate and effective in
communication of what is in those words (and verses).

The Theological / Doctrinal Sermon

Sure to shrink a crowd these days, sermons of this kind would hardly even be understood by
a lot of modern church-goers. The language would at best seem vaguely familiar while
arcane, and at worst completely foreign. A friend of mine said he once used the word
“supralapsarian” in a sermon on salvation and the Fall, and afterward someone asked him,
“What was that ‘super-cali-fragilistic’ thing you talked about?” The fact is you’ll be hard
pressed to hear a sermon that even includes much overt theology, let alone one that
emphasizes or prioritizes it.

The Apologetics Sermon

For this sermon type the Christmas message would likely be on the historical existence of
Jesus and maybe astronomical proof of the appearance of the star. At Easter it would be a
defense of the resurrection. Often philosophical, regularly featuring evidences for Christian
beliefs, and naturally emphasizing arguments in contemporary debates like creation &
design over blind evolution, the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family, etc. For this kind
of sermon defending the truth is paramount and arming or equipping people is the goal.

The Current Issues Sermon

Some preachers keep up with everything going on and make it the theme of or at least the
launching point of their sermons. Consider how many sermons included a reference to or
take-off on “Y2K” on the last Sunday of the year 1999. This could be broad enough to
encompass news, politics, social events, trends, entertainment, etc. In the old days the adage
was about having ‘the Bible in one hand and the newspaper in the other,’ but today’s
equivalent would have to include several other types of media carrying the significant news
and topics of the moment.

The Therapeutic Sermon

We used to call it “self-help” and before that “felt needs,” but the focus is on the common
everyday problems of people and offering solutions for them, given with an energetic
encouragement that these problems can and will be solved. Some refer to the message as the
‘Gospel of Self-Esteem’. As popular now as perhaps ever (Osteen isn’t hurting for members
any more than Oprah is hurting for viewers), the appeal of the message is its practical value
to help bring you relief, to help resolve your relationship problems, to give your stressed and
troubled psyche some healing, maybe even give you some wisdom and advice to assist your
financial woes. This phenomenon can be seen as the Christian version of what is in the wider
culture of endless life-coaches offering strategies and products. With a nod back to Norman
Vincent Peale’s “positive thinking” and Robert Schuller’s “possibility living”, these sermons
key on those Bible verses that will provide the recipe to make the ‘Chicken Soup for your
Soul.’ They are practical, and usually given with lots of “you can do it” kind of
encouragement. Part pep-talk and part promise that God will help, heal, restore, etc., for so
many people in our society with so many issues, these sermons command attention. Their
popularity is the reason so many people continue to baffle me by pointing to teachers like
Joyce Meyer as their main spiritual guides in life (her teaching also includes a jolt of
prosperity teaching – see below).

The Charismatic Sermon

Outsiders consider these the most entertaining, and the extreme version – mostly a
stereotype – might include snake handling and people jumping out of their wheelchairs after
getting Holy-Ghost slapped on the head. This kind of sermon often displays very little
substance and sometimes even a dose of heresy, or at least some weird ideas made up on the
spot during the preacher’s rant (especially if it’s being ‘revealed’ on the spot – see the “Free
Association” sermon on this list). Usually the preacher roams, yells and sweats, but not
always. He (or she, since in this case it might sometimes be a woman) may break into
tongues now and again, and will almost certainly call for plenty of ‘amens’ and ‘hallelujahs’
along the way. The level of ‘charisma’ is a spectrum (mild to extreme) and can be relative to
people’s experience. Some people think a raised or clapping hand makes a church
charismatic, while those who have spent hours in the throes of ‘Toronto blessing’ type
pandemonium will probably have a much higher standard for what counts as charismatic.
This category can be confusing since “charismatic” can refer either to the theology of the
sermon or the style in which it is delivered. Not all Holy Ghost hollering’ is theologically
*charismatic, and not all of those who hold to charismatic doctrine jump, sweat and dance
down the aisles.

The Prosperity Sermon

The much discussed and (rightly) maligned sermon that proffers the ‘Prosperity Gospel’ is
its own category. Don’t fuse or blend it with the traditional charismatic sermon, because
they are distinct. While most who preach it happen also to advocate a charismatic emphasis
on miracles and gifts, along with a style that fits charismatic worship, not everyone does.
Once again, Osteen sometimes teaches something of a soft version of this in his own unique
way, and his is not in the traditional charismatic stylings. What really sets this sermon apart
is its clear focus on “health and wealth” as we sometimes say. Unfortunately this is the kind
of sermon that so many around the world have heard as their example of Christian
preaching, thanks to the reach of television stretching back a few decades to when those
advocating this began to make use of that medium. Televangelists have found that this
sermon has cash value, and since the message itself justifies and encourages wealth, they
have gone hog wild. For many years people with cable have been subject to witnessing this
kind of message as they channel surf. Sometimes it is more of a pitch than a sermon, filmed
not in front of a congregation but in a small infomercial studio. It includes all sorts of bizarre
gimmicks (see Peter Popoff’s “Miracle Manna” as an example). By now everyone knows
this twisted heresy about speaking increase into your life, sowing seeds of faith, reaping
harvests and hundred-fold returns – all specifically financial references, of course. Your
faith is a spiritual power wielded through the instrument of your tongue to unlock riches and
perfect health, forcing God’s hand in a sense, making him bend the metaphysical elements
with your very words so that they yield what you want in this life. It is the Christianized
version of what the larger pop-spiritual world has seen in books like “The Secret.”

The Anecdotal Sermon

You may wonder why this is its own kind of sermon, but I’ve heard enough of them through
the years that I think it deserves its own title. While most sermons may include anecdotes –
little stories told about this or that, often personal accounts – this is a sermon that features
one or more of them as the main course. Often those speaking to youth groups do this. A
personal story grabs and keeps attention, so it may help hold short attention spans. But I’ve
heard effective speakers also use lots of anecdotes such that the stories, taken all together,
end up comprising a large portion of the entire message. The stories are compelling and
often begin with lines like, “I was traveling on a plane recently and sat next to a man who
…” If it is a well-travelled popular preacher he may tell a lot of stories about that itself, as
in, “Recently I was speaking to a large group in a city I will not name, and afterwards a
woman came up to me …”

The General Spirituality Sermon

In many of the more theologically liberal churches, often representing some of the old
mainline denominations, you hear sermons that could easily be given at a social gathering of
any kind. We can call it “general spirituality” or even borrow the term that sociologist
Christian Smith coined to describe the diluted semi-Christian belief system of so many
American teenagers: “moralistic therapeutic deism.” These sermons are least likely to offend
any of the members of a diverse audience. They are ecumenically friendly (“non-sectarian”
as they might like to say) by keeping things so broad that most Catholic, Orthodox or
Protestant people could mostly agree with what is being said. For that matter, many
Muslims, Mormons and Buddhists could agree with much of it too. They tend not to inspire
all that much in the hearers, who are most likely to compliment such sermons with things
like “What a lovely message” and “That was very nice.”

The Academic Sermon

A statistical anomaly, this kind of sermon still gets preached in a few places. It is a now
unpopular style that was once heard in certain denominations, the sermon sounding a lot like
a lecture. It is a well-researched sermon, with lots of preparation. It has solid content, a diet
of meat without a lot of empty carbs. You might get extensive word etymologies, exquisite
historical detail, robust background, and probably good quotations from ancient sources,
modern scholars and maybe Shakespeare now and again. The only problem is most people
today can’t hang with something like this for more than 4 minutes. It is subject to the charge
of being elitist, ivory-tower theology. I remember after a sermon I once preached in my
younger days a nice man said to me afterwards, “You do know this isn’t a seminary class,
right?”

The Prophetic or Apocalyptic Sermon

Very much like the “Current Events” Sermon already described, only with a determined
dedication to interpreting the end times. Often camping out in the more difficult prophetic or
apocalyptic writings that other preachers tend to avoid (e.g., Ezekiel’s wheel in the sky, John
the Revelator’s seven bowls of judgment, etc.), but also quite adept at finding prophetic
threads in everything from proverbs to hymns to parables, it is from among the ranks of
these preachers that embarrassing headline-grabbing rapture predictions usually originate.
They keep a finger in the Book of Daniel and an eye on the always tumultuous events in the
Middle East. If you want to be especially effective at this kind of sermon, you have to learn
to pronounce Israel as “Izrul” John Hagee-style, and refer to it at least 50 times per sermon.

The Spontaneous Free-Association Sermon

Nearly every sort of sermon involves some level of planning and preparation. At the very
least there will likely be a main point or points; some will use notes, some may even write
out a full manuscript. But there is a special kind of sermon that dispenses will all of this.
Maybe you’ve heard one. It is a stream-of-consciousness meandering or “letting the Spirit
lead” journey with the destination unknown even to the speaker. A typical candidate for this
is either a very old, experienced long-tenured preacher who is perfectly comfortable just
“talking’ to” his people from the pulpit every week; or it is a certain kind of charismatic
preacher who lets the Spirit give him the utterance on the spot. I have heard preachers like
this read a text and then just walk around for the next 25 minutes making it up as they go,
none of it having much to do with the text, the sermon itself not really having an aim or a
point. But whether he’s speaking directly from his heart or talking directly out of his
[something else], in my experience there is rarely much benefit to the hearer outside of some
mild amusement and, depending on the natural gifts of the speaker, a level of entertainment.
At its very worst it can seem almost like gibberish (as exemplified in this really bad lip
reading gag).

The ‘Giving a Speech’ Sermon

The direct opposite of free-association is a carefully written script. We are all familiar with
this style of public reading due to political speeches and papers read at academic
conferences. But it can be a style of preaching and a kind of sermon as well. The words have
been carefully chosen, and most often the delivery is not terribly enthusiastic or exciting,
especially by preaching standards. This is another sermon type that was once more common
but today would likely be found only in a small number of ‘high church’ environments. I’ve
heard Roman Catholic priests give ‘homilies’ that are basically short speeches they are
reading. One interesting note on this style: it is the preferred way of the big shots who lead
the massive LDS Church (the Mormons). When I lived in their shadow I would watch some
of their semi-annual meetings viewed by millions of their members around the world. There
in the enormous conference center their leading ‘apostles’ would give talks (sermons), which
amounted to mostly soft monotone reading off a teleprompter of words painstakingly crafted
with help from what amounts to speechwriters (Here is the current Mormon
prophet/president from the most recent conference). If you are ever tempted to think your
church’s sermons are boring, just be glad you’re not a Mormon.

The Stand-Up Comedy Sermon

Humor is always effective if the speaker is effective with it. People who speak to young
audiences can force it too much, of course. I’ve heard preachers who are not naturally
inclined toward it decide to try a stand-up act in front of a room full of teenagers hoping it
will bridge the gap. This is dangerous. Now I’ll admit that when someone has the ‘chops’ for
it (good timing and all), I enjoy plenty o’ comedy on the part of the speaker. I’m even
critical of some preachers who I think are really good but seem to have no sense of humor
whatsoever. But on the other hand, when an attempt at humor bombs it can have a backfiring
effect on the whole sermon. And of course if the message is to have a meaningful point,
there should be at least part of it that is not evoking laughs. There are wrong reasons for a
sermon to be funny, as we all know. And there are wrong methods for getting a crowd to
laugh, as the once infamous “holy laughter” phenomenon demonstrated. If people are going
to roll in the aisles, I’d rather it be because they’re hearing something like this.

The Screamfest
And speaking of comedy, outsiders always get a special kick out of preachers who yell most
or all of their sermons, making such sermons unique in and of themselves. Many preachers
will raise their voices in certain places, but the screamers start belting it out the moment they
open their mouths and keep it a maximum volume until the last “amen.” While some will be
tempted to see this as mostly within black churches, it is actually found among preachers of
all backgrounds and types. I’ve seen screamers in white collars and screamers in T-shirts.
They can be young or old. All that’s needed is a good set of pipes and lung capacity. These
guys (and sometimes women too) can shred their vocal cords nightly & never lose their
voices. In a few cases the hollering’ is not in fact every word but certain words – like the
way this guy always yells the word “GOD.” When you see a news story or youtube forward
about an amazing ‘boy preacher’, the primary talent that the kid has developed is yelling in
the preaching cadence he has heard along with the gestures he has seen. It’s so easy a child
can do it.

The Evangelistic Sermon

With the exception of televised prosperity preaching, more people outside the church walls
have heard this kind of sermon than any other, thanks largely to long time traveling
evangelistic preachers like Billy Graham. Back in the periods of “Great Awakening” in 18th
Century Europe & America, men like John Wesley, George Whitefield and later Charles
Finney travelled widely and preached to countless hordes of people in the open air. This
sermon does not merely include the basic Christian Gospel message, it preaches only this
message. That is, however it gets to it, it gets there fast. The text might be on anything from
Moses’ showdown with Pharaoh to Paul’s instructions about elders, but the sermon will
really be the same thing each time: the sacrificially atoning death of Jesus for sin and his
resurrection, combined with the call to accept this as the basis for being made right with God
and becoming a follower of Christ, over against the warning of rejecting all of this at your
eternal peril. You could accuse evangelistic sermonizers of being “one trick ponies” but
unlike other single-issue preachers (whose only topic may be abortion or the modern state of
Israel or gay marriage), this is far more justifiable as a single issue, since it is the
theologically central and foundational message of the entire Christian system of belief.
Obviously missionaries in very un-Christianized places preach mostly these sermons, since
it is the heart of Christianity. It is the starting place and entry into the rest of what it means to
believe and live like a Christian. Since the aforementioned ‘Awakenings’ these sermons
have most often ended with “alter calls” or invitations to public confession (or counseling,
prayer, etc.). The only downside for a congregation that hears only these sermons each week
and counts on the preaching alone to comprise their spiritual training is that they will remain
biblical and theological infants for life.

The Hipster Sermon

This would involve elements from some of the other kinds – like comedy, contemporary
references to current events & entertainment, practical self-help advice – but it would be
packaged better. The preacher is likely on the younger side, exuding the vibes of coolness.
His look is good, his dress is perfectly within the style guide of this week’s fashions. He has
easy stage presence and connects well with the audience. And his physical surroundings no
doubt match up & help create the hipster atmosphere. There’s a good chance the church is a
fairly new “plant.” The very traditional church goer may even be inherently suspicious of the
level of cool permeating the experience. You’ll probably hear the slang that is the native
tongue of 18 year-olds but a foreign dialect to people over 35. It’s not likely there will be
depth or length to the message but it is not impossible. This sermonizer knows that attention
spans are short. He also knows how to use media to enhance the message in powerful ways.
Of course no style of church is so hip that it can’t be parodied just like the rest on this list.
We at least have to laud this sermon’s appeal to outsiders and seekers. They will likely
listen, comprehend and engage with it. Hopefully it’s more than fluff and show.

The Right-Wing Political Sermon

Since the modern era of the “moral majority” that came and went when I was too young to
understand it, there has been a regular diet of preaching the politically conservative gospel in
many socially and politically ‘right wing’ circles. What started then has rolled on through
several phases, especially as the political polarization overall has increased. This kind of
sermon would provide a weekly update on the biggest issues that conservative Republicans
are addressing. No need to Tevo your favorite Fox News shows – just go to church. Sermons
are most likely to focus on moral and social debates – abortion, gay marriage, large vs. small
government, threats to religious freedom, the sound bites surrounding whatever specific
thing is being fought over this week. This kind of sermon is also typically very patriotic –
“draped in the flag” as they say.

The Left-Wing Political Sermon

Political sermons aren’t just from the right. There exist more socially liberal congregations
regularly treated to sermons that are every bit as political in nature, only coming from the
opposite wing. An observer once described Obama’s Chicago pastor Rev. Wright as “the
liberal Falwell.” I remember how on my commute I used to hear regular AM radio
broadcasts of a downtown mainline OKC church whose minister preached these kinds of
sermons. His voice was more measured and soft-spoken, but every message made the point
about how Bush & the evil Republicans (this was some years ago) were the Pharisees. They,
after all, talk about being religious, he would say, but it is mere hypocrisy, since they exploit
 the poor, launch wars, are arrogant, & think they are better than others for racial reasons
(just like the Jewish elitists in the Gospels). This was his basic weekly sermon. Of course, a
less extreme version of this can be seen in what some call today the “Christian Left” or “Red
Letter Christians” (since they emphasize the teachings of Jesus primarily). Some of it is a
reactionary movement by those rejecting the ‘religious right’ of their upbringing. Others
simply wed Christian morality to social & political causes that they feel the political left
represent (“income inequality,” etc.).

So Which is the Right One?

It’s not so easy to specify one of these to the exclusion of elements of all the others. Some of
what is represented in these descriptions should clearly be avoided. There should not be
rambling idiocy, manipulation, lame attempts at comedy, twisted theology, etc. But then
some of the other features in these different descriptions are vitally important. The text
should be handled well, studied with some depth, and taught at a level above 4th grade
Sunday School. This should quite naturally involve background, history, logical
connections, and theological/doctrinal truths as they appear.
I think some truths will be important enough to camp out on and defend (good arguments
made for them), hence some apologetics. In certain places there will be obvious connections
to current events as well as practical applications to life’s numerous questions and
challenges. Comedy is golden when used well, just like analogies and anecdotes are fabulous
tools in the hands of an effective communicator. And of course the central Christian Gospel
message is the theological “True North” that maintains the overall philosophical perspective
throughout.

That’s my take on it, anyway. You may disagree. You may argue that there are still too few
sermons, and that any sort of sermon is better than no sermon (or a lack of sermons). You
may think of kinds of sermons that I left off the list or important components of a good
sermon that I failed to emphasize in the preceding paragraph. If so your comments are
welcome. Now I’ll conclude by saying “Amen” and allow you to sing your own benediction.

A comment: Not a small number of sermons (written or broadcast) are easily found to be
frivolous, superficial, surplus, and irreverent to the Scriptural message. Some are given as an
entertainment with showmanship, or given to peddle the Bible, Jesus, Spirit and God to
collect money. Some are even satanic (i.e. contrary to God’s will and Scriptural teaching).
Everyone is born a sucker and some are willing to or sold to be.

*wing

The Hebrew word for WINGS is ‫ ָּכנָּף‬phonetically pronounced kä·näf'. It means:

wing, extremity (like wings curtain wings of a stage), edge, winged, border,
corner, shirt, skirt, corner (of garment). Wings are actually a part of a garment
which goes from the arm to the garment itself! So that when the arms are
extended the wings appear or spread. The worldly and religious are responsible
for this fictional projection of image, esp. from medieval church traditions. The
word translated as ‘angels’ are divine messengers, which appear in human form,
not as ‘winged angelic figures’.

On ‘covenant’
Meaning of the words (brit, chadash, renewed covenant) and Scriptural basis
of understanding the Covenannt:

‘New Covenant in Mashiah’ as the renewed Covenant of Elohim.’

B’rit Chadasha in Hebrew Jer 31:31.

Hē Kaine Diathēkē in Greek Lk 22:20; 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15; 12:24;
[Cf. Heb 8:13]

B’rit (‘cutting’): “cutting” was part of the establishment of a covenant – an

agreement between two individuals or parties. A great example of this covenant
“cutting” is seen as it takes place between Avraham and YHWH (Gen 15) when
the sacrifice was literally “cut” in half as YHWH passed between the cuttings.
[Judaic custom of “brit milah” (circumcision-rite) is performed when a Hebrew
child is 8 days old and he joins in the covenant made with Avraham.
This is where we get the term "cutting a deal". So, “covenant” is a good translation
of the word b’rit.

Chadasha … doesn’t it mean “new”? Well, not exactly. The word ‘new’ is
fixatedly used as fixated by those who teach so-called Replacement Theology.
That is, The CHURCH has now replaced ISRAEL under the so called “New
Covenant”.

The word Chadasha (Chet-Dalet-Shin-Hey) and Chodesh (Kuf-Chet-Dalet-Shin)

share the same root word “Chadash” which means “to make new” or more
accurately “to renew”.

The Israelite people were told to celebrate/observe and keep the ‘Rosh Chodesh’.
It is translated as “New Moon”, but that is not the literal translation of these two
words. “Rosh” means beginning, but it also means “head”. This can be head as in
“the first” like Rosh Hashanah.

So "Rosh Chodesh" literally means “Head of the Renewed”. You see it’s not a
“New” moon… You can tell just by looking at it with its craters that it’s the same
moon that has been there since YHWH created it as our celestial calendar (that’s
where we get the word “Month from “month”). So, it’s the same moon, only its
light is “renewed” every month.

Furthermore, the word “new” when used elsewhere in the New Testament does
not mean “new” as in “never happened” or “never existed previously.” Take, for
example, the Mashiah’s teaching of the NEW commandment to love one another.
That commandment does not mean that all of the other previous commandments
of YHWH are now made “obsolete” or “growing old” and “ready to disappear.”
As the Apostle John teaches later, loving one another is really an old
commandment (Lev 19:18) as is the commandment to love your Elohim with all
your heart (Deu 6:5). Neither one of these commandments was new with the
coming of Messiah but because they had not been obeyed, they seemed NEW to
the brethren. In actuality, they too were being “renewed”.

Beloved, I am not writing a new commandment to you, but an old commandment

which you have had from the beginning; the old commandment is the word
which you have heard. On the other hand, I am writing a new commandment to
you, which is true in Him and in you, because the darkness is passing away, and
the true light is already shining. (1Jn 2:7-8)

The word we translate “new” means renewed or made fresh again. As previously
stated, the “new” moon is not a completely new heavenly body; it is the same moon
on a new cycle. This is the meaning of “chadasha” used by Jeremiah in prophesying
the New Covenant.
So, the “New Covenant” isn’t something “new” as the Church would have people
believe. No, YHWH is “renewing His covenant” with us. The meaning of the New
Covenant can become clear only from within the Torah of TaNaKh (not ‘Old
Testament’), not from within the New Testament itself.
So going to the Ketuvim Netzarim (NT in Hebrew) the RENEWED Covenant
mentioned first by Messiah is in Lk 22:20.

“And the cup in like manner after supper, saying,

This cup is the renewed covenant in my blood,
even that which is poured out for you”

Did Messiah really say “renewed” here? Most English Bibles simply translates as
‘new’ (for which Greek word is neos). The Gospel writer used Gk. word kainos to
translate the word Yeshua uttered in his language. [See below for ‘*renewed vs.
new’.]

The concept of ‘renewed’ was well established in the TaNaKh, so we know that
when Messiah said these words (in Hebrew) His disciples knew exactly what He
was making reference to. Nobody asks a single question this night because these
Hebrew men know about the Renewed Covenant that YHWH promises in the
TaNaKh. Only because of the conventional English translations, we are led into
poor understanding of what the Scripture says. As for those who followed the
Mashiah had heard from was only TaNaKh, not our New Testament. Moreover,
the Gospels themselves do not belong to the NT Dispensation, which was ushered
only after the coming of God’s spirit poured on during the Shavuot (again, not
‘Christian Pentecost’) in Acts Ch. 2.

No place in the New Testament do we get an explanation as to WHAT the

Renewed Covenant actually is… which is why Christians have ten thousand ideas
as to WHAT it is. The NT authors themselves presuppose that we understand the
concept by having studied the Torah and the Prophets. From the New Testament
we only see how it is accomplished and how it is mediated. Importantly it should
be understood that Torah does NOT mean ‘Law’. Torah is YHWH’s Instructions
in the way of life in His Righteousness.
In the Torah we see the first mention of the Renewal of this covenant. No,
we won’t be going to Jeremiah just yet. Why? Because the RENEWAL of the
covenant will first be foreshadowed at Sinai.

As you know, YHWH gave Moses the Covenant on tablets of stone at Sinai…
but what most people miss is that YHWH provides the stone tablets on
which He (YHWH) write His Commandments with His own finger. Ok, so why
does it matter that YHWH provided the stones AND wrote on them?

In Exo 32:20 Moses destroy the golden calf and turn it to dust. Moses
then mixed the dust in water and made the children of Israel drink it.
Why? I believe this is yet another foreshadowing of “The Cup” that
Messiah would drink in our stead. …

In Exodus 34:1 YHWH tells Moses:

“Hew you two tables of stone like to the first: and I will write on these
tables the words that were in the first tables, which you broke”
Jeremiah and Ezekiel to see exactly what this renewed covenant is all
about.
Jeremiah 31:31-40.

Now to focus on a few essential issues. First, this is a B’rit Chadasha –

literally a “Renewed cutting” or Renewed Covenant. It’s not something
COMPLETELY different. We know this is the Renewed Covenant that
Messiah speaks of for so many reasons. Primarily because it’s the only
“Renewed Covenant” promised in the TaNaKh. Yes, it is promised in
Ezekiel as well, but it’s the same promise (we will go there in a few
minutes). But the other reason we know this is the Renewed Covenant
spoken of in the New Testament is because Paul quotes this very
passage in Hebrews 8. (2nd Corinthians 3).
Heb 8:13
In His saying ‘renewed’, [⇦8:8]
He has shown the former one as grown old.
Now what grows old and become aged is on its way of getting
out of the scene [to make room for the Renewed Covenant usher in].

What Ezekiel has to say about this renewal - Ezk 36:22-38

…A new heart also will I give you, and a new Spirit will I put
within you: and I will take away the heart of stone out of your
flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put My
 Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye
shall keep my judgments, and do them.

He writes our names in His book, and His Torah on our hearts… That’s
New Covenant!!
“how can I know I am saved?” Well, if they knew the Torah, they could
read 1Jn 3:34 and KNOW if they are saved:
Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in
him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit
whom He has given us.
Wow, John just nailed it… he echoes the very words of both Jeremiah
and Ezekiel!! There is your "New Testament" confirmation of what was
established in the Torah.
“For this is the love of Elohim, that we keep His commandments: and
His commandments are not a burden” 1Jn 5:3.
Torah was given (a gift) so that we would know how to live a life of
righteousness, and a life that is pleasing to our Creator and Savior. We
can’t walk with Him, if He is the only one walking:
The “goal" of the Torah is to make us like our Messiah. He walked it
perfectly, and we are told to walk it just as He did:
“He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked”
1Jn 2:6.

A definition of “sin”

“Whosoever lives out the [way of] sin are in fact being away from
God’s law; indeed, the sin is the living away from the Torah” 1Jn 3:4
(Gk. hē anomia - not ‘the transgression of the Law’ - KJV)
This is where the “Luther indoctrinated Christian” would cry out BUT
YOU ARE ADDING WORKS!!!

“You see that a person is justified [before men] by works you do and
not by just having faith” Jam 2:24

Extracted, copied, and edited from

https://web.archive.org/web/20100704175723/ +
www.koshermessiah.com/whatisthenewcovenant.htm

Downloaded and edited copy in the Collection

New vs. renewed:

*renewed vs. new; ‘Renewed Covenant’ > ‘New Covenant’;

adj. kainos
– new
Mt 13:52 things new and old
Jn 19:41 new memorial-tomb
1Jn 2:7ff ‘not new commandment, but an old commandment’
Mt 9:17; //Lk 5:38 new wine (neos) in a new (kainos) wine skin-bag for
new (neos) wine; Cf. //Mk 2:21 new skin-bag (neos);
Rev 21:1 a new heaven and a new earth ~ the former (prōtos) heaven and
the former earth
– renewed (covenant),
Jer 31:31
Lk 22:20 //Mt 26:28 v.l. (not in //Mk 14:24); 1Co 11:25; 2Co 3:6; Heb 8:8; 9:15;
12:24; (Heb 8:12) >
– renewed,
Eph 2:15; 4:24 ‘a renewed man’; Gal 6:14; 2Co 5:17 ‘a renewed creation’
2Pe 3:13 renewed heaven and renewed earth

Danker p. 183
- 1. ‘of recent orgin’ new
Mt 9:17; Mk 2:21: Lk 5:38; Jn 19:41;
- 2. ‘different and superior in quality relative to someth. old’ new
Mt 26:28 v.l.; Lk 22:20; Eph 2:15; 2Pt 3:13; 1Jn 2:7ff; Rev 21:2, 5;
- 3. Unfamiliar, strange - Mk 1:27; Act 17:19 new teaching; Rev 2:17 a new name

Rev 21:5 ‘kaina poiō panta’ I’m making all things new’ Cf. a verb ‘to renew’
ananeō Eph 4:23]

Adj. neos (‘new’ ‘different’) Mt 9:17; 1Co 5:7; Heb 12:24 (covenant); Col 3:10
(new person); Jn 21:18; Lk 15:12f; 1Ti 5:11; Tit 2:4; young; Act 5:6; 1Ti 5:1f;
Tit 2:6; 1Pe 5:5; Lk 22:26
vs. palaios (old):
Cf. related word kainotēs (‘renewal’ ‘renewed condition’ ‘newness’); Rm 6:4;
7:6]

*serpent; snake; viper; *beast, wild-beast

• ophis snake - Mt 7:10; //Lk 11:11 (water-snake); Jn 3:14; Mt 10:16; 23:33; 1Co
10:9 (← Num 21:5-9);
ophis airō Mk 16:18 v.l. (Cf. Act 28:3-5; Exo 4:3,4); pateō ophis Lk 10:19 (//Ps
91:13); Cf. cult of snake-handlers.
Serpent (2Co 11:3; Rev 12:9, 14, 15); Rev 20:2 (the Old Serpent) – when
allusion to Gen 3, it is rendered as Serpent (capitalized), otherwise as ‘snake’ as
they have very different word picture and association.
• echidna viper (Act 28:3) (Mt 3:7; 12:34; 23:33 //Lk 3:7 ‘brood of vipers’ in
 Yeshua’s denunciation of the people of religion in power.) [religious snakes;
dangerous; calculating] [capable of making decisions on how much venom to
inject.]
• therion wild animal (Mk 1:13; Act 11:6); beast, wild beast (Heb 12:20; Jam
3:7; Rev 6:8; 13:1; Tit 1:12) (Act 28:4 ff – for a viper)
• cf. zōon living creature (Heb 13:11; 2Pt 2:12; Jud 10; Rev 4:6ff)

snake, viper – often used figuratively

serpent – Not a reptile; but the word is used figuratively and symbolically for
‘deceiver’ https://youtu.be/m5iZmrocHDo [Cf. ‘devil’] - Gospels, Rev, Gen 3:1ff.
 Vocabulary: man, *human,

human, mankind, humanity, manhood, human nature; person, personhood,

personality; personification; personalistic (language); anthropomorphism;
a man (male, female), a human, a human being., a human person (living or dead).

In the modern English usage, 'man' is no longer 'man'. Linguistic gender confusion. The
word 'men' and 'man' carries different word pictures. Often it refers to male person(s).
[Cf. 'married man'; 'husband'].

[See * love for philanthrōpia]

Ref. [Note: the word ‘personality’ in these books and articles may not be same
as used in psychology which pertains to an individual human being. /Personality
As to a God-being, ‘personity’ (a neologism) may be a better term.

• C.S. Lewis (1945), Beyond Personality: The Christian Idea of God

‘three personal God’

• Herbert Wolf, “An Introduction to the Idea of God as Person”, J. of Bible

and Religion Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan. 1964), pp. 26-33
www.jstor.org/stable/1460426 [preview]
‘personality of God’ ‘personality in God’ ‘personhood of God’
‘God as a person (or persons) within himself’
‘a personally-related God’

(1) Ontological (or metaphysical) vs.

(2) analogical (or symbolic)
(3) via eminentiae [speaking of God by a heightened extension (and limitation) of human
categories]; cf. via negativa - ‘direction toward God as person, in terms of man as person’

• M. William Ury (2002), Trinitarian Personhood: Investigating the

Implications of a Relational Definition. –
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=0L5KAwAAQBAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA1 [sample]
‘notion of person’.

• L. Porter, “On Keeping 'Persons' in the Trinity: A Linguistic Approach to

Trinitarian Thought”, Theologica1 Studies 41 (1980): 530-548 [a copy in the
collection.]
• William Hill (1982), Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of
Salvation (1982), (Part 2 - pp. 83-216) https://epdf.pub/queue/the-three-
personed-god-the-trinity-as-a-mystery-of-salvation.html
 Vocabulary: God, divinity, divine

*God, *deity, *Godhood; *Godhead;

[See * capitalization of the word 'God']

God/god; god-being; godhead; ‘what God is’ (/x: ‘what God was – NET Jn 1:1c); god-
being, God-man; demigod; false gods; ‘son of God’ ‘sons of God’

'the God' (ho theos) = (YHWH) Elohim = rendered as 'Elohim' in IRENT

'God' (theos – anarthrous) = rendered as 'God' 'God-being' 'god' 'what God is/was'.

*Godhead – what does it mean? A head-God? God family? Another God other than three
Gods in Trinity? ("Three-faced head"? "three-headed God"?) (see Orthodox church icons)
*god, god-being, God, deity vs. divinity (? divineness) vs. divine being or divine person. A
‘human being’ (‘human person’) as a ‘divine person’. That God is a divine person is
oxymoronic. 'God' cannot be said He is a 'divine person' – tautological.

God is not a 'person'; but God is as a person – metaphoric (God comes as a person as
we come to Him); ('God' is non impersonal, not just personal, but suprapersonal.
('beyond person')

'person' – an undefined (or defined) concept/notion/term in the Trinity formula

['Person'; Latin - 'persona'] 신격 神格 (cf. 인격人格) (삼위일체三位一體) (성삼위
聖三位) (위격 位格)

Is Yeshua a divine person? What does it?

The English word 'god' is a Proto-Germanic origin. The notion could be "divine entity
summoned to a sacrifice www.etymonline.com/word/god . The word is a generic. It is used as
a title (similar to Islamic 'allah', the one who does not have a name). It is not a name. It does
not denote a particular being. Only the context can tell what the word is meant; what God and
which God. Even in the English bible it is a translation word for Hebrew elohim and el in the
OT. It is for Gk. theos in NT, in which only the arthrous 'ho theos' (e.g. Jn 1:1b) which is 'the
God' does refer to the particular God-being, YHWH Elohim (/x: Jehovah God; /x: LORD
God) (e.g. 2Ch 6:41)

Cf. ho theios Acts 17:29 [theios, ‘divine’] deity [cf. divineness]; divine being [adj. ‘divine’ –
2Pet 1:3, 4]

'false-gods' ░░ [S1497 eidōlon - 1Jn 5:21 (metonym for idol-worship, idolatry) [anything or anyone in place of
the true Elohim. English word ‘idol’ is now used in a different sense; it is unfit for a translation word. Cf. religious
icons and iconography] /x: *idols – most;

'*mammon' – (Aram. 'rich', 'wealth', 'treasure') S3126 mamōnas (4x) – Mt 6:26 //Lk 16:13 ('serve
God and mammon' – here 'concern/obsession in wealth/money' as a god); 'wealth' in Lk 16:9, 11;
'*treasure' S2344 thēsauros e.g. Mt 2:11; 6:19, etc.
'*money' S694 argurion 'silver' Act 3:6; 20:33, 1Pe 1:8, (silver) money; Mt 25:18; 26:15, etc.
*deification; theosis

Ref. Christensen and Wittung (2007),

http://assets.bakerpublishinggroup.com/processed/book-
resources/files/Excerpt_Christiansen_Partakers.pdf?1362587948 [a copy in the collection]
“partakers of the divine nature” (2Pe 1:4)
“becoming god” (Athanasius).
Ref. https://hrcak.srce.hr/file/319716 Medved -Theosis (Deification)
Ref. M. David Litwa, "2 Corinthians 3:18 and Its Implications for Theosis", Journal of
Theological Interpretation 2.1 (2008) 117—133.
Ref. M. David Litwa, (2012), WE ARE BEING TRANSFORMED - Deification in Paul's
Soteriology
*divine;
English word ‘divine’ (as adjective): (New Oxford American Dictionary 2009)
1. Emanating from God – "divine judgment"; "divine guidance"
2. Resulting from divine providence – "divine care"
3. Being or having the nature of a god – "the divine will"; "the divine king"
4. Devoted to or in the service or worship of a deity – "divine worship"; "divine liturgy"
5. Appropriate to or befitting a god – "the divine strength of Achilles"
6. Excellent, beautiful or creative – "the music was simply divine"; "the divine Shakespeare"

‘*divine’

meaning, sense, usages of the word 'divine'

Word phrases – d~ nature, d~ essence; d~ power, d~ persons, d~ things, d~ objects, d~ ideas, etc.
the name of God; the throne of God, the power, God's word is divine, etc.

That something or someone is 'divine' has nothing to do with being a god/God. It can be applied to
anyone and anything other than God the Almighty. E.g. God cannot be ascribed as 'a divine
person'. The expression 'divine God' is incongruous. The word 'divine' can be applied to only other
than the divine being itself. “God is divine” or “Divine God” is oxymoron, unless 'God' is in the
sense of a 'god-being'. Only a *human person (or a human being or a human) can be divine – 'this
man is divine', etc. Yeshua → a divine man as the Son of Elohim.

[See elsewhere on 'problem of God' or 'God problem'.

Yeshua as the Son of Elohim, exalted (by Elohim ('the God') - Phi 2:9) is divine, not 'God'.
'Jesus' to be God is from different logic and language of Church, not from the Bible. [See
'How Jesus became God' (Bart Ehrman – e-book in the Collection) or 'When Jesus became
God' (Richard Rubenstein 1999), etc.]

The word is often used in common English in the sense without any reference to 'God'.
Anything and anybody can be called divine – in different usage and context. This makes it
unsuitable as the translation word for Jn 1:1c. e.g. Moffatt: 'the Logos was divine'. What does
it mean by divine? Divine thing, concept, idea, or even a divine god? The anarthrous theos
– not adjectival, not substantive, but qualitative-descriptive. Cf. TNT renders "… and shared
his nature"!!

the meanings of ‘divine’ in English pertinent to the anarthrous Gk. theos in qualitative sense.
• having the nature of or being a deity.
• relating to, coming from, or of a deity
• emanating from, or being the expression of a deity:
• like God or like a god
• being a god; being God
• godlike (characteristic)

E.g. A polytheistic religion par excellence is Japan's Shintoism. It is associated with their emperor
worship; their emperor is called divine. The two, emperor worship and Shintoism have persisted
through Japan's history and will persist. [Ref. Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1997), Truth Triumphant
www.sabbathtruth.com/portals/20/documents/Truth_Triumphant.pdf p. 355]
Divinity;
divineness, divine nature; deity;

Cf. problem of ‘Jesus being a divine person, at the expense of being a human person in Trinitarian
thought. 'Jesus is divine' – what does it mean?

Cf. 'divine nature' – what is 'nature'? divine essence (?); divine substance (?);

The word 'divinity' is not about 'being divine' but 'being a deity or God'. The so-called Divinity of
Jesus in Trinitarian lingo is about Jesus being God, i.e. 'God Jesus'; it has nothing to do with Him to be
divine. To be divine and to be human has nothing to do with 'to be fully God and to be fully man', a
Trinitarian oxymoron. When someone is fully God, he cannot be fully man; when someone is full
man, he cannot be God, unless spoken in self-deceiving double-talk.

"'Divine nature" – a copy in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3A.1 - God, Yeshua, &
Names)>
https://web.archive.org/web/20160502083216/http://life-rlbible.com/?p=1279 =
https://web.archive.org/web/20150815181931/http://jesus-rlbible.com/?p=6564

Others – Covered in WB#3

What is 'divinity'? Being divine? Having divine quality? Being divine one? Being a
deity, a God?

[problem of 'humanizing God' (God became man) and 'divinizing Man' (Man became
God) – pagan thinking.]

What is divinity of 'Jesus', in the church or in NT? Jesus being God? What God? What
is 'God'? 'Jesus being divine? A divine man?
*sacred; *holy; set-apart, sacrosanct; *reverend; sanctify, glorify;

*Holy: When God created, over what He created He declared ‘good’. Over the
groundlings (‘human beings) created after His own image, He declared ‘very good’.
However, there is always ‘the wholly otherness of God’. Otherwise, God would not
be God. *Holiness is in God’s being different from the creation, in character and in
essence. However, holiness is not an essence, but ‘being holy’ in that His being
different and separate from His work of creation. It is simply an adjective, a
descriptive term. It is that those things belonging to God is ‘set apart’ from things
of non-God, or things ‘from God’. The Spirit of God is holy since it is from God, is
the holy Spirit.

Lev 10:10
“and to make separation (/distinction /division; /distinguished)
between the holy and the common (/> unholy), [/sacred and common; /holy
and profane]
and between the ceremonially unclean and the clean,”

‘Divine’ as pertaining to God-being is intrinsic to God. Syn. with ‘belonging to God’.

[See also in WB #3]

[See ‘*saints’ in Walk through the Scripture #2 – Names, Persons, and People]

S40 hagios (1) 'holy'; (2) (things) 'set apart'.

Cf. S37 hagiazō 'sanctify' Mt 23:17. /x: holy;

Mt 7:6 'what is sacred' [→ Heb. kodesh. Here, that which has been dedicated to the Temple for a sacrifice
– Delitzsch, p. xvii.]

Heb 8:2; 9:12 the Holy Place

9:3 Holy Place
9:3 Most Holy Place

Heb 3:1 God's holy brethren.

Heb 6:10; 13:24; Rm 12:13; 15:25, 26, 31; 16:2; 1Co 14:33; 2Co 1:1; 8:4; 9:1,
12; 13:13, etc. the God's holy people (/x: the saints)
Rm 8:27; 16:15; Col 1:2; Eph 1:1, etc. God's holy people

reverend
Pas 111:9 "He has sent redemption unto His people: He has commanded His covenant forever; holy
and reverend is His Name.

'Reverend' as a title for clergy is irreverent and blasphemous. It is from human pride.
 Vocabulary: general

*chest vs. breast vs. bosom

S4738 stēthos (5x) – chest (Lk 18:13; 23:48; Rev 15:6); bosom (Jn 13:25; Jn 21:20).
S3149 mastos (3x) – breast (Lk 11:27; 23:29); chest (Rev 1:13);

E.g. ‘beat the chest’ (Lk 18:13; 23:48), not ‘beat the breast’. English ‘breast’ is appropriate only for
a nursing mother’s.

Cf. S2337 thēlazō (5x) -- (Lk 11:27) “the breasts at which you nursed” (ESV; NASB, NET); (>
‘which nursed you’ NKJV, ISV)

H7699 shad [mascl.] - Gen 49:25 ‘breasts and womb’

Isa 49:22 ‘sons in their arms and daughters on their shoulders’

S2859 kolpos (6x) – bosom; (folder of) lap (Lk 6:38); bay (Act 27:39)

eis to kolpon into the bosom (Jn 1:18; Lk 16:22;

en tō kolpō ‘in the bosom’ (Jn 13:23; Lk 16:23)

(/Hebrew idiom for being in relational position of intimacy and fellowship.)

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/abr/31_63_maloney.pdf <JOHN 1:18: "IN THE BOSOM OF" OR

"TURNED TOWARDS" THE FATHER? Francis J. Moloney>

Ko. 가슴; 젖가슴; 품(안)

*Children

Mk 9:37 //Mt 18:5 //Lk +9:48} (Cf. Jn 13:20)

" … receive one such as these children"

Mk 10:15-16 //Lk + 18:17 (cf. Mt 18:3)

" … whoever does not receive the Kingdom reign of Elohim, like a child does [+
having the sense of awe and wonder, with the open mind untethered to the worldly], they shall never enter
into it.” [not about 'innocence' 'humbleness']
*good

Mk 10:17 O good teacher ░░ \didaskale agathe (also in //Lk 18:18) (cf. ‘Teacher, what
good things is there I must do’ //Mt 19:16; 'ask me about what is good' Mt 19:17).
Ko. 훌륭하신; 좋은; /xxx: 선한;

Mt 19:17 good teacher~~ say to me ‘good’? None is good but One, Elohim {/mss#1} ░░ (//Mk
10:18 = Lk 18:19) – KJV; {/mss ask me about the good [thing]? Only one is good, Elohim - ARJ;
[Note: ‘say ~ good’ =use ‘good’ in this way ; say = interpret (Heb. amar) Ref: David Bivin: New Light
on the Difficult Words of Jesus – Insights from His Jewish Context (En-Gedi Resource Center 2005) p.
81]{/mss#2}{my father in the heavens} – Justin;

*poor

Mt 5:3 the poor people of God ░░ (not ‘persons’ ‘individuals’, but ‘people’); /> the God’s poor people
– ARJ; /the God’s poor ones – ARJ; /the poor ones of God – ARJ; /those God’s poor ones – ARJ;
/the poor – most; / the destitute and helpless – Wuest; /
[ blessed are because they belong to the Kingdom reign of Elohim; not because they are poor’)]
[The v. 3 is about the God’s poor ones – they are the ones in the Kingdom reign of the heavens. The
rest seven ‘they shall be’ in vv. 4-10 describes their characters. They are blessed, not because they
are poor (‘O happiness of the poor’).
Belonging to God; not people in poverty; not about condition - material, economic, financial, but
decisively rejecting prosperity, possession, pleasure, and power as the driving principles of life,
persevering in worldly pursuit. They refuse to identify themselves with poverty as well as wealth
itself. Compare the ‘rich ones’ (Mt 19:23-24) – those who identify themselves with wealth] [In the
sense of ‘emptying of all those cherished in the world’] [Jam 2:5] [☼Psa 41:1; 140:12; Isa 61:1]
[Unrelated to Buddhist teaching on “청빈(淸貧)과 무소유(無所有)의 가르침”.]

H6041 ani (77x) poor, afflicted Exo 22:25; Lev 19:10; Deu 15:11; 2Sam 22:28; Job 29:12; 36:6; Psa
10:12; 14:6; 22: 24;]
H6035 anav (20x) 'poor' 'humble' 'meek' Psa 35:10; 69:32; Isa 61:1; Psa 10:7; 22:26; Isa 29:19;
Num 12:3;
H34 ebyon (61x) Psa 140:12; Exo 23:11; Deu 15:4; 1Sam 2:8; Psa 72:12;
H1800 dal (47x) '(the) poor' Exo 23:3; Lev 19:15; Psa 41:1; 73:13; 113:7;
H7326 rush (24x) 1Sam 18:23; Psa 82:3; Prob 19:1

David Flusser – his eisegesis takes a Hebrew expression in DSS to read it as 'those who are
and have the Holy Spirit (?!) with a contrite heart' (00:29:00; 00:33:10)
https://youtu.be/QcwCs0IIUh0 ]

*Clothe; clothes, robe;

[S2440 himation (61x) robe, cloak, coat, tunic? garment?, raiment?, clothes, apparel?,
clothing, clothe, Mt 17:2];
[S5509 chitōn (11x) Mt 5:40]
*purple; scarlet
[very expensive dye. For royal clothes. "Tyrian purple" www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
news/in-ancient-rome-purple-dye-was-made-from-snails-1239931/

Act 16:14 S4211 porphuropōlis 'seller of purple clothe'

S4209 porphura (4x) 'purple (clothes) Mk 15:17, 20; Lk 16:19; Rev 18:12
S4210 porphurous (4) 'purple' Jn 19:2, 5; Rev 17:4; 18:16;
S2847 kokkinos (6x) 'scarlet' – Mt 27:28; Heb 9:19; Rev 17:3, 4; 18, 4; 18:12, 16

*Behold!, 'Look!"

The fixe phrase kai idou 'and behold" occurs 29x in G-Mt: [> S3708 horaō] (Lk 25x)
Mt 2:9; 3:16f; 4:11; 7:4; 8:2, 24, 29, 32, 34; 9:2f, 10, 20; 12:10, 41f; 15:22; 17:3, 5; 19:16;
20:30; 26:51; 27:51; 28:2, 7, 9, 20
Lk 2:25, etc.

Cf. Chairete! (> S5463 chairō 'rejoice')

Mt 26:49 Here you're ░░ /> Shalom – Aramaic PE; /> "Shalom to you" – Delitzsch; /x:
'Greetings!' – NIV, ESV, NKJV; /xxx: Hail – KJV, NASB; /xx: Hello – CEV, GW; /x: Peace be
with you – GNT; /xxxx: Rejoice – Jubilee2k;
Mt 28:9 'Shalom!' ░░ [the very first word the Risen Master said to the disciples!] /"Shalom to you"
– Delitzsch; /"Rejoice!" – NKJV, Jubilee2k; /"Greetings!" – ESV, NIV, NET; /"Peace to you" –
Aramaic PE; /"Peace be with you" – GNT; /xxxx: All hail – KJV, ASV; /xxxx: Hail! – Darby;
/xxxxx: 'Good morning!' – HCSB; /xxxx: "Hello!" – ERV; /xx: (and) greeted them – NASB; /

*immediately' 'at once'!

S2112 eutheōs (87x) immediately, at once. (G-Mt 18x) (G-Mk x42) (G-Lk 7x) (G-Jn 6x) (Act
10x); the rest 4x.

*'literally' 'literal'

'take the Bible literally?' what does 'literal' mean here?

'literal translation/rendering contra idiomatic? The only 'literal translation' of something

would be possible as in 'interlinear translation'; each word in the source language is
supplemented with one corresponding target language, often consistent one-to-one without
considering the context which put the words in different meaning.

The expression 'literal interpretation' – does it make sense?

Literal vs. fictional vs. factual??

www.str.org/SolidGroundNov2018-the-bible-reading-the-ordinary-way
the word “literal” means “taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or
allegory, free from exaggeration or distortion.” [New Oxford American Dictionary]

www.str.org/SolidGroundNov2018-the-bible-reading-the-ordinary-way
*mindset (Hebrew vs. Greek vs. Western)

www.wildbranch.org/teachings/hebrew-greek-mind/ (Bratt Scott)

"Mindset of the Scripture" vs. "mindset of the religion" (church/tradition)

*violence

H2555 chamas (hamas – ‫ … " )ח ָ ָָ֖מס‬the earth is filled with 'violence' through them …" Gen
6:13

*Relic, *icon; idol

'Worshiping' relics (in Catholics)

Shroud of Turin
www.churchathome.org/video/shroud-of-turin-pt1.html
www.churchathome.org/video/shroud-of-turin-pt2.html
www.churchathome.org/video/shroud-of-turin-pt3.html
*abortion
www.godandscience.org/doctrine/abort.html

*memorial; 'remember'
[Cf. memory, remember, recall, that which is remembered]

[Memorial (1) something designed to preserve the memory of a person (who has died), event, etc.,
as a monument, art objects, or a holiday. 1.1 (as modifier): Intended to commemorate someone or
something. E.g. ‘a memorial service in the dead man's honor’
(2) historical: a written statement of facts presented to a sovereign, a legislative body, etc., as the
ground of, or expressed in the form of, a petition or remonstrance. A record or memoir.

'that which is remembered', memory, *remembrance, not 'memorial'

S3422 mnēmosunon (3x) Mt 26:13 //Mk 14:9; Act 10:4
H2143 zeker (23x).
Exo 3:15 "Say this to the sons of Israel:
' 'YHWH, Elohim of your fathers, Elohim of Abram,
Elohim of Isaac and Elohim of Yaakob,
has sent me to you.'
This is my name eternal
and by this I shall be remembered from generation to generation."
[/xx: this is my memorial – NET; /xx: this is my memorial – KJV; xx: this is my
Memorial-name – NASB]

Cf. 'memorial-tomb' 'tomb'

S3418 mnēma (8x) Lk 23:53; Mk 5:3; Act 2:29, etc.
S3419 mnēmeion (40x) Mt 8:8; 23:29; 27:52; 27:60; Mk 16:2; Lk 24:2, Jn 11:17,
etc.
Cf. 'grave' (burial place)
S5028 taphos (7x) Mt 23:27; 27:61; Rm 3:13, etc.
*weep; *cry; *wail;

S2799 klaiō (40x) 'to weep' Mt 2:18; 26:75, etc.

S2805 klauthmos (8x) 'weeping' Mt 2:18; 8:12, etc.
S214 alalazō (2x) Mk 5:38 'wail'; 1Co 13:1 'clang'

S2896 krazō 'cry' 'cry out' Mt 8:29; 21:9, etc.;

'gnashing the teeth' 'grinding the teeth' – associtiated with despair, anger, etc.
• 'the weeping and the grashing of the teeth'
(ho klauthmos kai ho brugmos tōn odontōn)
Mt 8:12 //Lk 13:28 (for the warning of the sons of the kingdom be thrown into the
darkness outside)
Mt 13:42, 50; 22:13; 24:51; 25:30 (within the context of parables – on the fate of
the unrighteous ones at the conclusion of the age)
• "gnash the teeth" Acts 7:54 in the story of the stoning of Stephen.
• gnash [H2786 charaq (5x)] + teeth: Psa 35:16; 37:12; 112:10; Lam 2:16; Job 16:9

*aware; *awake; *alert; attentive;

*body; *head;
[S2776. kephalē f. head;. S4983 sōma n. body]

Eph 4:4 "There is one corporate Body [in the Mashiah]" (not individuals, different denominations or
factions)
Eph 4:15b "… the head, who is the Mashiah; v. 16a from whom the whole corporate Body [=
Mashiah community] …"
1Co 12:27 "yoů all are as a corporate Body belonging to Mashiah (sōma Christou; not sōma
Christou and all the members are parts of His Body." [Cf. 1Co 12:12]
Col 1:18 "He [the Son of Elohim] is [at] the head of the body — the Mashiah community"
Col 2:19 "… to the One [=the Mashiah] who is the Head of the corporate Body
Gal 3:28b "indeed, all of yoů are one in Mashiah Yeshua"
*beginning

archē S746 (56x)

Thayer's Greek Lexicon

BDAG p. 137 ○
1

anarthrous
Mk 1:1 Beginning of the Gospel
Mt 24:8 //Mk 13:8

arthrous
Lk 8:25; 20:10; Jn 2:11 (autēs ~ archēn); 8:25
Lk 12:11 (tas archas the rulers)
Jud 1:6 (tēn hautōn archēn)
Rev 3:14; 21:6; 22:13 (hē archē)

apo archēs
Mk 10:6 (~ ktiseōs) " at the beginning of creation...

ap' archēs
Mt 19:4, 8; 24:21 (~ kosmou); Mk 13:19 (~ ktiseōs); Lk 1:2; 12:11; Jn 8:44;
1Jn 1:1; 2:7, 13, 14, 24; 3:8, 11; 2Jn 1:5, 6
2Th 2:13; 2Pe 3:4;

en archē
John 1:1, 2; Gen 1:1 LXX; Phi 4:5

kat' archas
Heb 1:10 "In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth

ex archēs
John 6:64 Jesus had known from the beginning.

BDAG p. 137 ○ 2

hē archē
Col 1:18; Rev 1:8 v.l.; 21:6; 22:13
*disease; infirmity, *affliction; *heal; cure; *heal; *save; 'ransom', 'redeem',

['savior' 'vs. deliverer' – see WB#3A – Name, Person, and God']

S4982 sōzō (108x) save, rescue, deliver; heal, make whole]

• (save) – Mt 1:21; 8:25; 10:22; 14:30, 16:25; Mk 3:4; Lk 7:50; 8:12; 9:24,
59; Jn 3:17; 12:27; Act 2:21;
• (heal, make whole) – Mt 9:21, 22; Mk 5:23, 28; 6:56; Lk 8:36, 50; 17:19; Jn
11:19; Act 4:9; 14:9;

S5199 hugiēs (12x) 'whole, wholesome, sound' – Mt 12:13, 15:31; Mk 5:34; Jn 5:4, 6, 9,
11, 14, 15; 7:23; Act 4:10; Tit 2:8.]
S4990 sōtēr ("Savior"), S4991 sōtēria ("salvation"); S4992 sōtērion (adj)]

To heal vs. to cure – IRENT renders both as 'to heal'. [Cf. 'treat' (a disease)]
S2390 iaomai (27x 'to heal')
– Mt 8:8, 13, etc.; Mk 5:29; Lk 4:18 v.l,; 5:17; 9:11, etc.; Jn 4:47, 5:13, etc.)
S2322 therapeia (3x)
– ('cure' 'healing' Lk 9:11; Rev 22:2); ('care' Lk 12:42)
S2323 therapeuō (43x 'to cure' 'to heal') [/cure – NWT]
– Mt 4:23, 24; 8:16; 12:15, 22; 14:14; 15:30; 21:14, etc.
– Mk 1:34; 3:10, etc.; Jn 5:10; Act 4:14; 5:16, etc.
– Lk 4:23, 40, 5:15; 6:18; 7:21, 8:2; 9:6, 11; 13:14; etc.

*Sickness, *illness, disease; [S3554 nosos (11x) Mt 4:23; Mk 1:34; Lk 4:40; Act 19:12, etc.]

S2552 kakopatheia suffering – (1x Jam 5:10)

S2347 thlipsis *tribulation, *affliction, suffering (45x) – Mt 13:21, Jn 16:33; Act 11:19, etc.
S1375 diogmos (10x) persecution – Mt 13:21, Act 8:1, etc.
S3958 paschō (52x) to suffer – Mt 16:21; Act 1:3, etc.

S629 apolutrōsis (10x) – 'redemption' - Lk 21:28; Rm 3:24, etc.

H1350 gaal 'redeem' Gen 48:16; Exo 6:6; Lev 25:25;
'redeemer' (Isa 59:20 LXX ho hruomenos S4506; Job 19:25 LXX ho ekluein; Psa 78:35 S3086
lutrōtēs; Jer 50:34; Isa 44:24 ho lutroumenos; etc.)
H1353 geullah (14x) – 'redemption' – Lev (9x) 25:24; Ruth 4:6; Jer 32:8, etc.

*alas!; Woe!;
S3759 ouai –
1) interjective (Woe to! How terrible for!) (43x)
Mt 11:21 ouai soi ~! How terrible for you; /Woe to you!
1Co 9:16 ouai moi estin! 'How terrible for me; /Woe to me!
2) terrible thing (4x in Rev) – hē ouai Rev 9:12; 11:14
/catastrophe – ISV; /calamity; /x: horrible thing – CEV; /x: horror - GNT; /x: terror – NLT;
*supper; *meal; *breakfast;
[See ''Last Supper' 'Lord's Last Supper' 'Eucharist']
S1173 deipnon (16x) 'meal';
Mt 23:6; Mk 6:21; 12:39; Lk 14:12; 20:46; Jn 12:2; Rev 19:9, etc. (formal meal)
Jn 13:2, 4; 21:20 (of the Last Supper)
1Co 11:20, (of 'Lord's meal)

S707 aristaō (3x) 'have a meal' – Lk 11:17 (← for supper); Jn 21:12, 15 (← for breakfast)
S729 ariston (3x) 'meal before the main meal' (lunch, breakfast) –
Mt 22:4 ('prepare my meal); Lk 11:38 ('wash before a meal');
Lk 14:12 ('you make a ~ or a supper').

cf. translation words –feast vs.'festial'; banquet,

to fast; *fasting

Definition: fasting as ‘…the act of willingly abstaining from some or all food,
drink, for a period of time…’ and people do so for a variety of reasons …

Vocabulary in NT

• S3522 nēsteuō (20x) – v. 'to fast'; 'to keep fasting'; – Mt 4:2; 6:16; Mk
2:18; Lk 5:33; 18:2 ('fast twice in the week); Act 13:3, etc.
• S3521 nēsteia (6x) n. a fasting (>> a fast)*
Mt 17:21; Lk 2:37; Act 14:23; (abstaining from food; not skipping a
meal)
Act 27:9 'the Fast' → Day of Atonement;
2Co 6:5; 11:27 (fasting from lack of food).

*'fast' (noun): to avoid word confusion with ‘fast’ (adj, adv – rapid, firm, etc.) as in
the phrase ‘hold fast’, IRENT instead uses the word ‘fasting’ for the noun. Also
‘fasting days’ instead of ‘fast days’. Cf. 'do fasting'.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/christian-fasting.htm

www.cru.org/train-and-grow/spiritual-growth/fasting/7-steps-to-fasting.2.html
Fasting in OT

https://bible.org/seriespage/chapter-1-fasting-old-testament-and-ancient-judaism-
mourning-repentance-and-prayer-hope-g

[Note: 'fast' as a noun should be replaced with 'fasting'.]

Verbs of interest associated with the noun include ‫קרא‬, “to call” or “to proclaim” a fast (1 Kgs
21:9-12; Isa 58:5; Jer 36:9; Jon 3:5; Ezra 8:21; 2 Chr 20:3), ‫קדׁש‬, “to sanctify” a fast (Joel 1:14,
2:15), and the verb and noun together as ‫ ַׂויָצָם צֹום‬, “to keep a fast” (or literally, “to fast a fast,” 2
Sam 12:16).25 The term “belongs to the semantic field that also contains weep, mourn, wear
sackcloth and ashes, deny oneself, and to do no work.”26

The most important other term for this study in this semantic field is ‫ענה נֶפֶׁש‬, Lev 16:29, 31 to
“afflict one’s soul” (KJV), to “humble one’s soul” (NASB) or to “deny oneself” (NRSV, NIV).
Forms of this phrase are found in apposition to ‫ צום‬in Psa 35:13 and Isa 58:3 and Isa 58:5. While
the derivative ‫( תענית‬note the tractate of the Mishnah by that name) becomes a standard term for a
fast in Judaism, Way is correct (in contrast to the NIV footnote on Lev 16:29) that the two terms
should not be seen as complete synonyms.

Lk 18:12 (nēsteuō dis tou sabbatou) 'fasting twice the week'. Gk.' sabbaton' (in singular)
here does not mean 'sabbath'. The expression 'fasting twice in the sabbath' is non-sensical;
practice of fasting is not skipping a meal but abstaining from meal for a whole day.

Jewish practice of 'fasting' – "twice a week" (Lk 18:12 /x: twice a sabbath) –
This practice had no divine sanction in the Torah, which appointed only a single fast-day
in the year, the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16:29). By the time of Zechariah there
seem to have been four yearly fasts (Zechariah 8:19). The bi-weekly fast of the
Pharisees was a mere burden imposed by the oral Law.
The Pharisees are said to have fasted regularly on the second and fifth days of
every week in private. [because on those days Moses was believed to have
ascended and descended from Sinai, … [Cambridge Bible for Schools and
Colleges]. This was "in addition" to the public days of fasting required in the law of
Moses, and they, therefore, made more a matter of "merit" of it because it was
voluntary. [Barnes' Note]

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/fasting-and-fast-days
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/fasting.html

Ordinary fast days lasted for the duration of the daylight hours from before dawn
until nightfall of the same day. On the other hand, the important fasting is a full 24
hours. On the Day of Atonement (and on the Ninth of Av), fasting is observed by
total abstention from food and drink from sunset until nightfall of the following
day.
Lev 23:27 (16:30); (Num 29:7) Act 27:9;

Cf. 'fasting' in Islam.

 Fasting is the fourth pillar of Islam. It is intentionally refraining from eating,
drinking, and similar things from dawn to sunset. Fasting during Ramadan is a
sphere of worship and obedience to Allah. Ramadan is 9th month of the year, most
sacred month, in Islamic lunar calendar.

*sympathy vs. *empathy;

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/hide-and-seek/201505/empathy-vs-sympathy
http://operationmeditation.com/discover/sympathy-vs-empathy-vs-compassion/
https://youtu.be/1Evwgu369Jw

*pity; *compassion; *suffering; distress; empathy (Germ. Einfuehlung ‘feeling

into’).
Mnemonic - e for walking in other’s shoes (experiencing); *sympathy – s for
feeling sorry for other’s hurt
[Cf. YHWH’s Suffering Servant (Isa 53:8) refers to Israel, not Messiah.]

*pain, hurt, suffering; hardship; trial; persecution; tribulation; affliction; torture,

torment, plague; pest, ‘Han’ 恨

Ref: Andrew Sung Park (1993), The Wounded Heart of God: The Asian
Concept of Han and the Christian Doctrine of Sin
*sorrow; cf. sadness

Mt 5:4 Blessed are they, who have deep sorrow

36F

[in lament and anguish over such as pervasive human evilness, predicament and
suffering; religious hypocrisy (Mt 23:11-29) and perversion of truth; unrighteousness
(Isa 59:4) and injustice.] [not lamenting over misfortunes and calamities in life.]
because it is they who shall be comforted ░░ [‘called to be by the side of Elohim]
138F

1Th 5:16 'always be rejoicing' ░░ [joy in the Lord. Cf. Mt 5:4 'sorrow' – 'joy' and 'sorrow' are
not incompatible notions.]

From EE
*arguments; *principle

“The art of arguing is the art of living. We argue because we must, because life demands it,
because, at last, life itself is but an argument” – Gerry Spence (1995), How to argue and Win
Every Time.

“Everything we say is our opinion and arguments”

Principle, axiom, premise, theorem, conjecture, hypothesis, theory, convention.

Fundamental vs. consequential statement.

Deductive vs. inductive
Knowing, understanding, experiencing.
Reality vs. phenomenon

*tolerance;

[www.crosswalk.com/video/shouldnt-christianity-tolerant-peoples-beliefs.html ]
respectful others – embracing of ideologies
engagement vs. accommodation; concession, compromise, adulterate; bigotry;

People of tolerantism are proven to be those who are most intolerant of

intolerance especially in religions.

“I’m willing to tolerate anything - except those who are not tolerant of me.”

C-words – confusion, contradiction, and conflict and compromise

- all the religious, political, philosophical, ideological – is brought out by words

which are consciously or unconsciously subject to misuse, misunderstand,
miscommunicate, and manipulate.
It is the words that has shaped what we human are. All the words are from human
minds. Such difference from ‘the word of God’!

A-words – alert, *awake, aware

S1127 grēgoreō (23x) 'stay awake' 'be watchful' – Mt 24:42; Mk 13:34; Lk 12:37;
Act 20:31; 1Co 16:13, etc.

happiness, blessing, luck, fortune, comfort

God’s blessing is the source of true happiness.

*future – fate, destiny, and fortune (shamanism)

*Protection

Psa 91:1-9 – QQ to find a decent English translation with King James English.

*study; *teach; *learn; *search; re-search;

The goal of teaching is not in teaching but in helping others learn.

*student; *pupil; *disciple - Gk. mathētēs – [Heb. talmid (pl. talmidim) – same
root with the word 'Talmud'.]

*Teacher, master (cf. ‘lord’), Rabbi,

[Problem of ‘teacher’ in Korean word 선생님 (with ‘님’ a honorific ending).

When it is used as a vocative, it is in common usage simply a polite addressing,
similar to ‘Mr.’ in English, though it can be used appropriately to one’s
‘teacher’. Cf. ‘Prof.’ 교수님.]

*ascend

S305 anabainō (82x) 'go up' (Mk 10:32; Jn 6:62; 20:17); 'come up' (Mt 17:27; Mk
4:23; Act 8:39); 'climb up' (Lk 19:4; Mk 6:51); 'sheet was taken up into the sky' (Act
10:16)
'be taken up' of Yeshua (Mk 16:19 - into the heaven); (Act 1:2, 11; 22; 1Ti 3:16);
'ascend' (Eph 4:8, 9, 10); Cf. Lk 24:51b v.l. 'carried into the heaven'

S354 analēmpsis (1x) Lk 9:51 (the day of his being taken up out of this world):
'to be taken up' – ESV, HCSB, NET; 'be received up' – KJV; / 'be taken up to
heaven' – NIV; /'to ascend to heaven' – NLT; /for his ascension – NASB;

'ascension' – a highly technical term related to Yeshua (Lk 24:50-51; Act 1:9-
11), who 'presented Himself after resurrection to the disciples -- Act 1:3; Mt
28:9-10; Lk 24:36-43; 1Co 15:6. (Cf. Jn 20:17 'going up to the Father')

S399 anapherō Lk 24:51 v.l. (Yeshua) carried up into the heaven.

*imitate

‘follow the example’ (CEV!) – mimētēs ginomai

‘be imitators of me’ – 1Co 4:16; 11:1 – ESV, etc. (cf. ‘followers of me’ – KJV)
‘be imitators of God’ – Eph 5:1’
‘imitate their faith’ – Heb 13:
‘no imitate evil but imitate good’ – 3Jn 1:11

imitate bad thing vs. good thing

Cf. Thomas à Kempis, Imitation of Christ (Latin: De Imitatione Christi) (1418-27) a Catholic
devotional book (text in http://sacred-texts.com/chr/ioc/index.htm ) “.... imitate is Life and
character …”

imitate – nuance of mimicking, non-genuine in quality (e.g. in ‘imitation leather’)

model, example, conform

*freedom; *free will

Freedom (from ~ & to ~); liberty; freedom of choice on one's own accord
free will; God’s sovereignty

www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/03/a-calvinists-understanding-of-free-will/
C Michael Patton

The concept of “free will” suffers no less with regard to this misunderstanding.
Does a person have free will? Well, what do you mean by “free will”? This must
always be asked.

Do you mean:
1. That a person is not forced from the outside to make a choice?
2. That a person is responsible for his or her choices?
3. That a person is the active agent in a choice made?
4. That a person is free to do whatever they desire?
5. That a person has the ability to choose contrary to their nature (who they are)?
6.
Calvinists, such as myself, do believe in free will and we don’t believe in free will.
It just depends on what you mean – as is the case for every word or term to use for
a purpose.
An essay – need to edit

John 8:34 tells us, “Whosoever does the [work of] sin is a slave of sin.” The man from earth
unknowingly had picked for himself the harshest master—Satan, the ruler of this world (Jn
12:31; 14:30; 16:11). This whole world is in bondage to Satan and his way of life that brings
pain, violence and sorrow.
Like many today, this man thought he was free because he lived his life without anyone telling
him what to do. That’s exactly what his master wanted him to think! He didn’t know that “the
way of man is not in himself; it is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer 10:23).
So, the man from earth was the slave all along. But that’s only part of the answer.
Two masters
We can only be slaves of sin or slaves of righteousness (Rm 6:18, 20). Because “no one can
serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to
the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon” (Mt 6:24).
We read in 1 Corinthians 7:22 that whoever “is called in the Lord while a slave is the Lord’s
freedman. Likewise, he who is called while free is Christ’s slave.” When we come to the
knowledge of God’s truth, repent and are baptized, we are set free from the bondage and penalty
of sin (which is death) and willingly serve a loving master who bought us with His own blood.
As our creator, God knows what’s best for us. His commandments are not burdensome (1Jn
5:3). They are instructions for how to live life as God designed it to be lived.
However, most are sadly like the “man from earth.” They are obliviously enslaved by sin, for
which the penalty is death (Rm 6:23).
 So, back to our question—who was the slave? The droid or the man? The answer is both! We
can’t change the fact we’re slaves; but we can choose who we’ll serve—our Creator (like the
droid) or the devil (like the man).
http://members.cogwa.org/young-adult-blog/an-interview-with-a-slave/

freedom and enslavement (Cf. self-enslavement; victimization)

How does God's sovereignty work together with free will?

Cf. TULIP (of Calvinism)

*information; disinformation; misinformation

*power and pleasure; *pursuit of power and pleasure

power gives pleasure; pleasure seeks power; - related to ‘praise’ ‘position’

‘possession’
Power to have control over oneself and over others. Power to rob from others’.

Kingdom of Pleasure (Hedonism)

Homo sapiens: Homo potestas et hedonicus70F7Fa etc.

• Homo ludens
• Homo economicus
• Homo religiosus (c/o Will Herbeg, Protestant-Catholic-Jew)
• Homo politicus
• Homo socius
• Homo potestas et Homo hedonicus b [Quote: “Power is the ultimate
71F71F

aphrodisiac.” Henry A. Kissinger]

• Homo androicus et geneticus [genetically created]

Ref: List of alternative names for the human species - Wikipedia ...

Ref: www.bookrags.com/research/homo-religiosus-eorl-06/
HOMO RELIGIOSUS. When the Swedish botanist Linnaeus developed his
system of biological classification in the eighteenth century, the
Enlightenment's ideal of rationality strongly governed views of humanity. As
a result, Linnaeus designated the human species Homo sapiens. Soon,
however, the Romantic movement and the incipient human sciences
accentuated other dimensions of humanity than the rational. In time, new
terms were coined on the Linnaean model to designate humanity in various
distinctive aspects: homo ludens (G. F. Creuzer and, later, Johan Huizinga),
homo faber (Henri Bergson), homo viator (Gabriel-Honoré Marcel), and

a
Ref. David P. Barash (2012), Homo Mysterious: Evolutionary Puzzles of Human Nature
b
– Ref. in Foundations Of Hedonistic Orientation/Choice Theory Alexander J Ovsich (2014)
www.webmedcentral.com/wmcpdf/Article_WMC004562.pdf )
 others. Perhaps the nineteenth century's growing awareness of the universality
of religion, especially in the realm of the "primitives" (as they were then
known), made it inevitable that a phrase would emerge to express that aspect
of humanity that the Enlightenment's ideal had so opposed: homo...

Basic principle of living beings in the created *world.

Human pleasure – incl. pride and sensuality
Human power – against powerlessness, limitedness, insecurity and vulnerability; for
protection, preservation as well as for controlling others. Both pleasure and power to
shield oneself from meaninglessness and purposelessness of life.

Power which the created beings are deficient has to come from others. To take power
from others requires power (to control) – that is, ‘power feeds power’, and ‘power
corrupts’.

On the part of human beings, it is ‘human beings of power and pleasure’. On the part of
God, it is ‘power and pleasure of God’. Fundamentally and essentially different as God’s
power is unlimited and inexhaustible. Power is there for God as something to give and
give, but never take. An analogy may be made with our sun giving off its light and
radiating out energy, but never there in need of taking. To give power is as it were a
pleasure for God; He delights in the created beings receiving His power. This is where
the essence of God’s love is – giving of power free and unlimited for the created being
to receive it its total freedom God granted (i.e. ‘made in the image of God’).

*pigeonholing; pick and choose; proof text;

to hammer; to nail down; explain away; plausible

*politics; *democracy; *government; 'politically correct' jargon

“Every government is a parliament of whores. The trouble is, in a democracy,

the whores are us.” P. J. O'Rourke
“My Political Problem is Me” http://pastordaveonline.org/2012/04/23/the-
power-and-failure-of-humor-a-review-of-parliament-of-whores-by-p-j-orourke/

*victimization

*slavery; *addiction; obsessive-compulsive disorder [OCD]

addiction-driven (cf. ‘purpose-driven’) – addiction – pursuit for pleasure and power

for oneself.

Emotional, mental, psychological and spiritual slavery as well as socio-political.

slavery, bondage; freedom liberty, emancipation; subordination, oppression,
enslavement; ‘abolition’; leaders, chiefs, commanders; instructors, teachers,
assistants, guides, mentor, model;

Heb. ebed; Gk. doulos – slave vs. servant, cf. bond-servant

Heb. ezer (Gen 2:28) ‘help-made’ > ‘helper’ (subordinate, equal or superordinate
helper?)

Gk. kephalē 1Co 11:3 – what sense is ‘head’? standing over head or leading ahead
of?
*sexuality

Sexuality and equality

“Equality now refers to a state of mutual indifference between the sexes,

achieved through a willed ignorance of all of the natural differences that turn a
man and a woman toward each other,” writes Margaret Harper McCarthy, a
professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and
Family. “But to be more precise, it is a state of indifference to the woman’s
difference.”

“Is there another way to be equal that doesn’t set us apart from each other —
sterile and alone — but brings us into greater and more fruitful unity, that isn’t
built, in other words, on the annihilation of the feminine difference?” she adds.
“The tragic irony for our society so bent on equality at the expense of
Christianity is that it is only Christianity, together with its precursor, that can
hold together both the equality of the sexes and the goodness and positivity of
sexual difference, particularly the feminine difference.”

From Gender equity or suppression? (L’Osservatore Romano, p. 19)

http://youtu.be/wSF82AwSDiU
The great porn experiment | Gary Wilson | TEDxGlasgow
[on pornography; ‘arousal addiction’]
[very worthy to read. Just like any other form of addiction, be it physiological
(drug, drink, nicotine, marihuana) or social (gambling), no one is immune to it, as advent
of internet. It's relevant to all in our postmodern society as human beings are driven to
power and pleasure - be it religion, politics, ideology, and knowledge. This is about
'arousal addiction', pornography in particular. I saw a news Colorado state is celebrating
opening up of Pot Shop - what is illegal federal level is now legal. Since whatever
involved is money-laundering, they deal with only cash. IRS has to make a rule how to
tax the illegal income, like levying tax on prostitute income.] [It is just a few examples
of 'perversion' - perversion of truth - right and wrong are not differentiated; illegal (i.e.
immigrants) is no longer illegal. Legal is not much different from illegal in our great
new state ushering in full force in this God-forsaking country.]

Gender confusion -

Thailand to have 'third gender' in new constitution

www.usj.edu.lb/uploadmanager/read/Justin&LindseyHolcombRidOfMyDisgra
ce.pdf
*partiality; *favoritism; *discrimination

Rm 2:11 /x: ‘show favor to someone’

*life history vs. *genealogy,

(Gk. genesis; Heb. toledōthʹ) in the phrase biblos geneseōs in Mt 1:1 is mistaken by
most Bible translations and expositors as ‘generations’, hence the idea of ‘book of
genealogy’ [/x: the book of the generation – KJV].

It is same word as in Gen 2:4, in which it also does not mean ‘generations’ but ‘history’
to read as “the history of the heavens and the earth’ (as in CJB, AMT, NWT). (‘a
history – NWT’); /x: the story – MSG, NIrV; /x: the account – NET, NASB, NIV duo,
NLT; /x: the generations – KJV, ESV trio; /x: origin – Lattimore. As translation word
for Mt 1:1 ‘history’ may give a wrong connotation of something out of historical
records or historical study, hence ‘life-story’ (생애 生涯) as rendered in IRENT.

With his Gospel work, he tells it is to be “a written-down life history” of Yeshua

Messiah which was to be read aloud. It is just that the family lineage of Yosef is listed
from the verse 2 on from Abraham. All the four Gospel books begin with such a title,
introduction, or prologue. When it is read as a genealogy record as most English Bibles
translate, the literary and theological intent of the Evangelist is completely missed

‘*history’ as a scientific disciple, or an aggregate of past events; records of narratives

of past events, not as facts but as interpreted recounts, etc.
*hand; *right hand
www.biblegateway.com/resources/dictionary-of-bible-themes/1270-right-hand-God

• (literal hand) right hand dexia + cheir: Mt 5:30; Rev 1:16; 17;
10:5;13:16.
• Literal ‘hand’ is implicit:

Rev 1:20; 5:1 epi tēs dexias mou in my right hand

Rev 2:1 en tē dexia - in the right hand
Rev 5:7 ek tē dexia from the right hand
• Idiomatic phrase – right side/position; /x: right hand;

1. ek dexiōn at the right hand of ~ (Elohim) –; /x: on the right hand of – KJV; />> in
his right hand; [Mt 22:44; 26:64; Mk 10:37; 14:62; 16:19; Lk 22:69; Act 7:55, 56;
2Co 6:7; Heb 1:3; 1Pe 3:22]
2. eis ta dexia (throw the net) to the right side (of a ship) –Jn 21:6 /x: on the right
side - most
3. eis ek dexiōn (crucified) at the right side – Mt 27:28
4. tē texia exalted (hupsoō) to the right side (of Elohim) Act 2:33; 5:31;
5. en dexia at the right Eph 1:20; Rm 8:34; Act 2:34; Heb 8:1

*witnesses

Isa 43:12
0B

I have declared, and delivered you, and made it clear,

and there was no foreign (/strange) god among you:

for this reason you are my witnesses, says YHWH, that I am Elohim
*yoke

zugos
yoke

Lk 14:19; yokes for oxen;

all others in figurative sense
Act 15:10; places a yoke on the neck of the disciples
Gal 5:1 held in a yoke of slavery [- Law-adherent. Cf. Judaizing; legalism]
1Ti 6:1; be under a yoke as slaves

Mt 11:29, 30; “Take up [together with me] upon yoů the yoke I have put on
myself” “My load (x: burden) is light.
‘take the yoke I have on myself’ > ‘put on my yoke upon you’
[It is not a yoke which Yeshua would use on them, as a driver of beasts
of burden, as if it is a comfortably fitting one He finds.]
Cf. suzugē (a yoked-fellow Phi 4:3 – one who is yoked together with
me).

heterozugeō unequally yoke with 2Co_6:14;

*Light; light;

• Problem of homonymic ‘light’ as noun vs. adjective. E.g. ambiguity in

1Jn 1:5 ‘God is light’; IRENT has it ‘God is the Light’
• IRENT capitalized when used in a figurative sense – cf. ‘Darkness’.

sunlight
lights; luminaries [Gen 4:14];
lampō S2989– shine; give light
*lamp;

• lampas S2985 torch, lamp, light; ░░ (– x 5 Mt 25:1, 3, 4, 7, 8; Jn 18:3, Acts

20:8, Rev 4:5; 8:10) [ a large, flat, bowl, with a rag or rope-like “wick”; when
attached to a pole to be carried as a torch); />
• luchnon S3088 'lamp';

• luchnia S3087 'lamp-stand' (Mt 5:15 = Mk 4:21 = Lk 8:16; 11:33; Heb 9:2;
Rev 1:12, 13, 20; 2:1, 5; 11:4)
• Heb. menorah with seven-lamps on it (Zec 4:2); seven-branched lampstand (Exo
37:17-24; 40:25).

*Culture

Related words: ‘world’ ‘culture’ ‘ethics’ ‘Christendom’ ‘Christianity’ ‘Church’

‘Religion’

Niebuhr's typology – five types of Christian cultural engagement: "Christ Against

Culture"; "The Christ of Culture"; "Christ Above Culture": "Christ and Culture in
Paradox"; and "Christ Transforming Culture."

C.U.L.T.S. = Contentious Unscriptural Later Theological Systems [continuously being

developed in the history of religions, taking out of what the Scriptures says and disregarding
the historical, literary and textual context for the purpose to empower the religious system
and organization.]
'Truth claim' = 'Truth is what I am' 'Cult is what I am not, but the others are'

Ref: 'cults'

www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kreitz/Christian/Cults/all.html
https://aeon.co/essays/theres-no-sharp-distinction-between-cult-and-regular-
religion
www.jashow.org/articles/characteristics-of-major-cults-in-america/
www.deceptioninthechurch.com/youthwithamission.html

Ref: 'culture'

http://forchristandculture.com/2011/07/21/theology-culture-part-1-introduction/
http://forchristandculture.com/2011/08/19/theology-culture-2-paradigms/

H. Richard Neibuhr (1951), Christ and Culture

http://regenerationayk.wordpress.com/2008/01/17/christ-and-culture-by-richard-
niebuhr-book-summary/
Craig Carter (2006), Rethinking Christ and Culture - A Post-Christendom
Perspective
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/may/29.68.html?paging=off
Carlson (2012), Christ and Culture, Revisited
www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/octoberweb-only/142-21.0.html?paging=off
*paradigm shift; philosophy of science;

www.academia.edu/10303182/The_Origin_of_the_Byzantine_Text_New_P
erspectives_in_a_Deadlocked_Debate quoted from p. 58.

§4.1. KUHN’S THEORY OF PARADIGM SHIFTS

Kuhn defined “paradigms” as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for

a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners”. This
paradigm shapes the basis of “normal science”, which means that subsequent research
is (and ought to be) based upon that commonly received paradigm. A paradigm is
usually sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems to be solved. When more
and more results come to light that are contradictory to the paradigm, a scientific
revolution can get started. In this period, the old paradigm is rejected, and a new
paradigm (or paradigms) is (are) proposed [=paradigm shift], until there is enough
consensus to accept a new paradigm as a basis for further research. It speaks for itself
that such a revolution is always accompanied by controversies. It is important to note
that the new “paradigm” is incompatible with the older one. Although Kuhn’s use of
“paradigms” is somewhat cloudy, it will provide a useful instrument for our analysis.

Cf. Hegelian dialectics – thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

*useless; worthless; unworthy;

Afraid to face useless death in your life? Don’t live useless life.

*alliteration

Alliteration is Awesome – Xidnaf

Alliteration with E - *e-words: education, entertainment, economy, ecology,

energy – are the balls Satan playing in its hands.

P-words – ‘Power of the people, by the people and for the people’ has turned
into ‘Populace of the power, by the power and for the power
false, farce, fake, fraud, etc. –

How Shameful are all Shameless!

[Heaven, Hope, Home vs. Heaven and Hell] – h-alliteration

Christ, Cross, Church – of Church Christianity

*economy; *wealth vs. *capital; *capitalism; market-driven economy; *labor;
redistribution; economic freedom;
economic inequality capitalism

• Chartier and Johnson (edit, 2011), Markets Not Capitalism - Individualist Anarchism
against Bosses. (1st Ch.)

• Ayn Rand (1967), Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (laissez-faire capitalism)

[Was Ayn Rand Right? Capitalism and Greed www.equip.org/PDF/JAF1324.pdf ]

• Thomas Piketty (2013), Capital in the Twenty-First Century

(2014. Trans. by Arthur Goldhammer)
http://youtu.be/7TLtXfZth5w
( www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674430006 for introduction, online)
(www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2014/05/01/six-ways-thomas-pikettys-capital-isnt-
holding-up-to-scrutiny/
www.newrepublic.com/article/117429/capital-twenty-first-century-thomas-piketty-
reviewed )

*mammon; (wealth; *riches); *rich vs. poor ones

mammon ░░ (S3126 mamōnas 4x) [Mt 6:24 //Lk 16:13 'money (as a god)'. Also Lk 16:9, 11 –
wealth] [transliterate of Aramaic word (wealth or riches). [Hebrew ‘money, wealth’ as in Hebrew
Mishna Nashim Ktuvot 3:2 corresponding to Exo 21:22. In Aramaic, other than mammon was
used for ‘money’. Hamp, Language of Jesus pp.64-65.] /> wealth; /worldly wealth – Webb;
[different nuance btw ‘money’ ‘bank account’ ‘bottom line’ ‘wealth’ ‘worldly wealth’ ‘prosperity’
'gold bars in a vault']; /xx: money-god;
[From: Aramaic: ‘riches, money, wealth; material possession’.] [mammon representing what we
all pursue for pleasure and power. The sense is much more than that is suggested by English
word ‘wealth’ or even ‘money’ Cf. ‘wealth’ as an essential for human activity and by itself does
not have anything evil.] [It became to represent a deity – legend mediaeval or before. - Milton,
Peter Lombard –
www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580b.htm ]
[figuratively, mammon is a god as money is what provides power and pleasure for mammon-
god believers of modern society. It is not money per se or what wealth represents as a god, but
'worrying about money' that which occupies one's mind, replacing 'God'.]
[Masters and Means: Everything which everyone has and sees in the world and in their mind, all
is either ‘masters’ or ‘means’ to them; or comes as masters or means. E.g. money, family,
government, organization, ideologies, ideas, religions, professions, jobs, possessions, happiness,
enlightenment, wisdom, etc. If they are ‘means’, as they should be, they are for God’s glory, to
use and to take care of. As to people, to love.]
[Mammon which belongs to the world system is “the great rival of God for the devotion and
service from men. All must choose between the road of self-assertion that leads to the temple of
mammon and the road of self-sacrifice that leads to the temple of God.” … “… the Pharisees did
tent, with ample justification from the OT, to regard prosperity, or at least their own prosperity,
as the reward of godliness.”– Caird p. 188.]

Note: in NT ‘*rich’ is uses as to persons of socio-economically well-to-do and wealthy class. Only
a few places in other senses figuratively: ‘rich in faith’ – Jam 2:5; ‘rich toward God’ (< in God’s
sight) - Lk 12:21; Cf. 1Ti 6:18 plouteō ‘to be rich’ ‘to be abundant’]
'*the poor people [of God]'

‘the *poor people [of God] – Mt 5:3 (IRENT). Also Lk 4:18; 7:22; Jam 2:5. See in ‘Appendix and
footnote material – G-Mt’ the problem of traditional translation and interpretation ‘the poor in the
spirit’,
[They do not refer to 'materially poor' (politically and economically powerless), nor 'poor in
spirit' (spiritually poor or deficient in spirit).]

[Cf. //Lk 6:20 does not have the phrase ‘tō pneumati’, which in G-Mt should construe to the
word 'blessed' (as 'blessed as to spirit')', not to 'the poor' (as 'poor in spirit' – which is how
most Bible translations render.]. [“the ones whom God has to care of their needs and who are
totally dependent on God”]

They are the blessed ones because they are the poor ones of God who belong to the kingdom
of Elohim, not because they are poor.

H6041 ani (77x) poor, afflicted Exo 22:25; Lev 19:10; Deu 15:11; 24:14; 2Sam 22:28; Job 29:12; 36:6;
Psa 10:12; 12:5; 14:6; 22:24; 25:16; 34:6, 17; 40:7;140:12;
H6035 anav (20x) 'humble' 'meek' 'afflicted' 'poor' Num 12:3 (Moses); Isa 61:1; Psa 10:2, 9; 40:17;
69:29;18:17; 22:26; Isa 29:19; 61:1; 2Sam 22:28; Num 12:3; Job 24:9; 34:28;
H34 ebyon (61x) 'needy' 'poor' 'in want' 140:12; Exo 23:11; Deu 15:4; 24:14; Lev 19:10; 1Sam 2:8; Psa
12:5; 72:12; 34:17; 40:7; 69:32; Isa 29:19;

*burden; *load; yoke

Mt 11:30 the load to carry along with me; /xx: my burden – most, Danker!
Gal 6:2 load – (baros) a weight that has to be carried
Gal 6:5 burdens – (phortion) a weight that is to be borne; can be relieved or
transferred. [“It is as I prove and bear my own burden that I am best able to
help bear someone else’s burden, and the more I do the former (‘bearing my
own burden’?), the more I will desire to do the latter (‘helping bear other’s
burdens’?).” – John Lynn.]

*collusion; go with the flow

compromise and collaborate, keep eyes blind to others; sin of commission; sin
of omission; sin of indifference;
"sin of certainty" [book reviews - https://creation.com/the-sin-of-certainty
www.thegospelcoalition.org/reviews/sins-of-certainty/ /jackasstheology/ ]
<Why God Desires Our Trust More Than Our "Correct" Beliefs …>

Misunderstand something (- labeling tone); vs. lacking (full) understanding;

; ignoring the reality (cf. ignoring vs. ignorance).
*hope; yearning; 'hopeful' 'hoping'
'hopefully'; 'I hope so'; 'I wish';

• S1679 elpizō (31x) 'to hope'' 'to put hope on', 'to expect'
– Mt 12:21, Lk 6:34; 1Co 13:7, etc.
• S1680 elpis (53x) 'hope' [ALT puts (46x) an intra-text expansion 'confident
expectation'.]
– Act 2:26; 23:6; Rm 4:18, etc.

The only thing can be called as 'hope' is to be with someone, another person.

Mt 12:21; Rm 15:12 [← Isa 11:10 LXX] “In his name the Gentiles will put their
hope.”
“Learn from yesterday, live for today, hope for tomorrow” - Albert Einstein
‘Cherish your past, dream your tomorrow, but live your today’
hope – ‘I hope ~’; hopefully; ‘a hope in ~ (someone/thing)’
“someone is our hope’, but ‘someone ≠ hope’; it is meant to say ‘hope for what’.
'hope' is one of wimpiest words in the Bible. How is it different from our wishes,
things we hope for (every day), etc. Among all the words in the Bible ‘hope’ is wimpiest?
One of most nebulous words in the Bible – what is ‘hope’? On what and for what? More than
‘hopefully’? Hoping for forgiveness and blessings from God? Hope that one would not lose
‘salvation’ (1Pe 1:4), if not ‘once saved, always saved’? Hope something to do with God’s
‘promises’ (Heb 6:17)? Hope for the great reward in heaven (Mt 5:11, 12)? Hope of God’s
kingdom to come? Hope for ‘going to heaven’ when I die?
1Co 13:13 – ‘faith, hope, love’; Heb 7:19 ‘better hope’
Heb 6:18 – ‘… the hope set before us. (v. 19) this hope we have as an anchor for the soul,
both sure and firm, ...’ a
98F98F

A reading material on the word ‘hope’:

www.discerningtheworld.com/2013/05/15/lost-your-salvation-is-it-possible-understanding-hebrews-6-
part-1/ WE HAVE THIS HOPE (Heb 6: 19)
The hope that is spoken of in the above verse is not this worldly kind of hope. This hope is not uncertain.
It is CERTAIN, it is not something that has no foundation. It is founded on the promise and oath of God.
(Heb 6:18). When someone makes an oath, he swears by someone greater than himself that he would
undertake to do the thing he has promised one hundred percent (Heb 6:16-18).
An example is when a person swears an oath by the name of his sovereign king or queen. The name of his
king or queen becomes the guarantee that he would keep his promise one hundred percent. A truly
obedient and subservient citizen will never dishonor his king or queen by not keeping his promise. The
dignity of the name of his king or queen will be at stake should he fail to keep his promise.
That was the basis on which Moses pleaded with God not to destroy His people when they made and
worshipped a golden calf. In Exodus 32 verses 12 and 13 Moses says, “If You destroy your people, the
Egyptians will ridicule and make a mockery of Your Holy Name. They will say that you were unable to
bring them into the Promised Land and instead slew them in the desert.
Your Holy name will be at risk if You do not keep your promise You made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.”
In Gen 22:16 we see that God swore by Himself, since He had no greater by whom to swear. God cannot
swear by someone greater than Himself because there is no one greater than He. He is the sovereign,
eternal and majestic God Who is above and greater than anyone or anything. It is in His Name, the One
Who cannot lie, that we have received the promise (hope) with an oath.
*lie; *liar; *deceive; *deceiver

S5579 pseudos (10x) 'what is false', 'falsehood', 'lie', 'deception'?, Jn 8:44; 1Jn 2:21, 27; Rm
1:25; Eph 4:25; 2Th 2:9, 11; Rev 14:5; 21:27; 22:15.
S4106 planē – (10x) wandering; deceit, delusion, error – Mt 26:64, Rm 1:27; Eph 4:14; 2Th
2:11, etc.
S539 apatē – (7x) deceit – Mt 13:22; Eph 4:22, Col 2:8, etc.
S1388 dolos (11x) deceit, guile – Mt 26:4; Mk 7:22; 14:1; Jn 1:47; Act 13:10, etc.
S172 akakos (2x) innocent, naive Rm 16:18; Heb 16:18.
S3180 mothodeia – (2x) scheming – Eph 4:14; 6:11
S5583 pseustēs – (10x) deceiver vs. liar – Jn 8:44; 8:55; Rom 3:4, etc.

S1818 exapataō – (6x) deceive – Rm 7:11; 16:18; 1Co 3:18, etc.

S4105 planaō – (39x) lead astray, deceive – Mt 18:12; Jn 7:12, 47; 1Co 6:9, etc.
S635 apoplanaō – (2x) cause to go astray – Mk 13:22; 1Tm 6:10
S538 apataō – (3x) deceive – Eph 5:6; 1Tm 2:14; Jam 1:26
S5422 phrenapataō – (1x) deceive the mind – Gal 6:3
S1387 dodioō – (1x) deceive – Rm 3:13
S3884 paralogizomai – (2x) deceive, delude – Col 2:4; Jam 1:22
S5574 pseudomai – (12x) to lie – Mt 5:11; Act 5:3; Rm 9:1; Gal 1:20, etc.
S1748 enedreuō – (2x) to trap; to lie in wait – Lk 11:56; Act 23:21;

Jn 8:44 "[the devil] is a liar/deceiver and father of lies/deceptions". [Satan does not lie; he
deceives and makes people lie.]

God made doubly sure that we do not flinch or waver in our hope by two unchangeable things [His
promise and His oath], in which it is impossible for God ever to prove false or deceive us, we who have
fled [to Him] for refuge might have mighty indwelling strength and strong encouragement to grasp and
hold fast the hope appointed for us and set before us (Heb 6:18).
As if this double assurance is not enough, God confirms His promise and oath by anchoring our hope in
our High Priest, Jesus Christ Who is seated in the Holiest of Holies in heaven (Heb 6:19). Whenever a
large ship moors in a harbor, the captain orders the anchor to be let down so as to prevent the strongest
winds from sweeping the ship into the sea. This is the message that verse 19 of chapter 6 wants to convey
to us.
Our hope is not anchored in the world where every gust of wind (persecution, suffering, hardship,
doctrinal errors etc.) can sweep us away into despondency, faintheartedness or unbelief. Our hope is
anchored in the most secure, most powerful, most magnanimous (noble), most wonderful, most lofty place
in the entire universe, i.e. the Holiest of Holies in heaven where our High Priest is seated at the right hand
of God.
WE HAVE A BETTER AND LASTING POSSESSION IN HEAVEN (Heb10: 4)
Someone once said that God allows persecution with the purpose of enlarging your bank account in
heaven. This seems to be a good observation, especially when Jesus’ words in Mt 5:11, 12 is taken into
account, “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and say all kinds of evil things
against you falsely on My account. Be glad and supremely joyful, for your reward in heaven is great
(strong and intense) . . .”
As was said earlier, the Jewish Christians endured persecution at the hands of the Judaizers and some of
them lost their possessions through plundering and confiscations. Instead of sympathizing with them, as
we all tend to do, the writer encourages them with a burst of joyful exhortation, “you have a better and
lasting possession in heaven.” Take careful note that he does not say “you shall have”; He says “you
(already) have at this very moment a better and lasting possession in heaven. This reminds me of Peter’s
words in 1Pe 1:4 – 6. Where are our hearts? Are they set upon things here on earth and our belongings, or
are they set upon things in heaven? As long as our hearts are set upon earthly possessions, we will never
be able to endure persecution. Only when our eyes are fixed on our High Priest where we have a better
and lasting possession in heaven, will we be able to endure trials, persecutions and sufferings with
exceeding gladness. ⌂
*hate; hatred, *abhor, abominate, loathe, dislike, disdain, execrate

[Synonym study: dislike, hate, abhor, loathe]

miseō - commonly translate as ‘to hate’. Occasionally, the context tells that it is in
the sense of ‘love less’. E.g. Mt 5:43; Lk 6:27 (one’s adversary or opponent); Lk
14:6 (of one’s family members); 1Jn 4:20 (of one’s fellow brother); Rm 9:13 (of
Esau).
apostugeō abhor Rm 12:9
*wrath; *fury; *anger; rage; vengeance; revenge
[indignation, rage, fury];

thumos; orgē; orgizō;

aganakteō ‘displeased’ aganakteō - Mt 26:8]
cf. paroxusmos - outburst?
‘wrath’ – archaism?
Check Prob 15:1 'rage and anger' (-NWT); vs. 'wrath and anger' (– NIV)
“God of wrath, not of love? God's wrath is God's love of justice and His reaction
to human evil.” – twitter@ounbbl

Rm 2:8 anger and wrath ░░ (thumos ‘anger’ + orgē ‘wrath’; {/mss – wrath and anger}; /wrath
and anger – NWT, NET; /x: wrath and indignation – ASV; /indignation and wrath – KJV+; /wrath
and fury – ESV, ISV; /anger and fury – GNB (- render orgē as anger and thumos as fury, furious);
/anger and indignation – Cass (- renders orgē as anger)

Anger easily devours; like fire it ignites. It is essential for a human being. Without it, one
is brain-dead, coward, or android. Fails to flare up confronting evil – unrighteousness,
injustice, and dishonoring God’s name, God will surely bring down His wrath.
Prv 29:11
A fool gives full vent to his anger,
but a wise holds it in check.

Eph 4:26
“orgizesthe kai mē hamartanete
/‘Be angry and’ – most; /When you are angry – ERV; /If you become angry – GNB;
[from Psa 4:4 LXX] [Cf. (4:5 MT) – tremble and do not sin – HalleluYah Scriptures]
[tremble for what – confronting evil – angry?]
orgizesthe – command or condition
ho hēlias mē epiduetō epi tō parorgismō humōn”;
(anger; angry state of mind)

*wise; *shrewd; *prudent;

[Cf. Wisdom, knowledge; gnosis]

Mt 7:24 'a wise man' ░░ andri phronimōi > phronimos; [Danker p.376 phronimos –
Cf. sophos wise Rm 1:22 etc
Mt 25:1 'wise bridesmaids'
Cf. Mt 2:1 'magi' priestly magi ░░ [from Lat. Gk. magoi]; /x: wise men – most (→ in the sense of 'learned
men'); (not ‘kings’) [priestly caste in Parthia, not ‘astrologers’ ‘magicians’]

Mt 10:16 shrewd — as those cautious serpents ░░ (phronimos – Mt 7:24);(cautious, careful about);

(corresponds to φρονιμωτατος – LXX Gen 3:1) (Cf. Lk 16:8 phronimōs poieō do shrewdly) /shrewd
–Deltizsch, NASB, HCSB, NIV duo, NLT, Cass, MRC (- problem of cleverness’, ‘well manipulating’
‘cunning’ ‘artful’ ‘calculating’ ‘shelfish’); 1 /wise-thinking ~ - ARJ; /wise and discerning – staying as
cautious as serpents are – ARJ; />> wise – ALT, NET, ESV trio, NIrV, TCNT, CEV, Mft, GSNT, PNT,
KJV++, ASV ( - problem with collocation ‘wise as serpents’); /prudent – JNT, CLV, Darby (- problem
with a wrong word picture – prude, prudish); /prudentes –Vulg; /x: sagacious - WNT, Murdock; />
wary and wise – AMP; /xx: smart – ERV; 2 />> cautious – NWT, GNB, ARJ; /x: be constantly on the
alert – TNT; /Stay alert. This is hazardous work I'm assigning you. – MSG (- baloney. cf. ‘clever,
more clever’ – Gen 3:1); 2 /xx: cunning – GW, ISV, MSG, Clarke Commentary; /x: crafty [Note: The
Greek word here is “sensible”] – AUV; /지혜롭고 – KKJV, KRV; /슬기롭고– Ko Cath 2005; /さとく –
JSS; / Cf. Mt 10:16 as the cautious serpents ░░ /x: as serpents are cautious – ARJ; />> as cautious
as serpents are – ARJ; /(wise) as the serpents – ALT; /as serpents – most; /(prudent) as snakes –
JNT; /[cf. Gen 3:1 ‘the special serpent’, intelligent among all the living beings (incl. human beings) of
the field (= ‘world’) – another name for Satan, rather than one of reptiles.] [This verse should not be
read as ‘serpents are wise (animals)’ or even to go for a fancy idea of ‘wisdom of serpent’.] [cf.
panourgia of the serpents deceiving Eve – 2Co 11:3] [serpents and doves may allude people catogeries.]

[TNT endnote – p. 437 The Greek word means ‘prudent’ ‘wise’ thoughtful’ and represents an
essentially human attribute. What does the reference to snakes add here to the instruction given to
the disciples? It probably alludes to the snake’s habit of cautious watchfulness, of not inviting
trouble. NEB has ‘wary’ and TEV ‘cautious’.] [See Gen 3:1 EE in IRENT.] [Problem of seeing
comparison/contrast. Not ‘you be like serpent’; nor about ‘snake-smart’ or ‘snakewise’; but you be
wise-thinking – as those cautious serpents. Note the different nuanance ‘those serpents’ ‘the
serpents’ ‘serpents’. Also the nuance and word picture of ‘serpents’ vis-à-vis ‘snakes’]
Danker p.376 phronimos

[phRēN – thinking, understanding] 'using one's wits effectively; prudent, judicious Mt

7:24; 10: 16 (as snake ~); 25:2; Lk 12:42; 16:8; 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15; in satire 2Co 11:19.

?? ginesthe phronimoi hōs hoi opheis; be smart as snakes = be snakewise; [- baloney -

where from Danker quoting? [Cf. SOED snakewise (adv) in the manner of a snake; with
snakelike movement]
EN (PARA) hEAUTOIS FRONIMOI wise from your own point of view= thinking
yourselves so wise Rm 11:25; 12:16.

[problem with the word ‘prudence’ for a word picture of ‘being prudish’]

*delight; be pleased; have/take pleasure in; be pleased with

eudokeō
• Mk 1:12 ‘[My Son, the beloved,] in whom I take delight’ >> be pleased with;
/xxx: approve - NWT
• 2Th 2:12 ‘have/take pleasure in unrighteousness’

*vessel; *cup

/> cup; /> mug; /xxx: chalice (- Catholic jargon); /x: glass;

• ‘vessel of salvation’ – Mt 26:27;

• ‘vessel of suffering’– Mt 20:22, 23];
• ‘vessel of divine wrath – Mt 26:39 ░░ [+ for justice the earth is to receive]; Rev 14:10.
Also Ps 57:8; Isa 51:17]; /> cup; /xx: cup of suffering – NIrV, GW, GNB; [Here,
Yeshua’s suffering does not refer to his crucifixion – not about fearing of coming
suffering through the Cross; He came for this purpose He knew well.]
 • Cf. Jn 18:11 ‘drink the cup my Father has given me? [?? NET sn = cup of suffering as
in the Synoptics Mt 26:39; //Mk 14:36; //Lk 22:42]
• Cf. Ps 16:5 “YHWH is my inheritance … and my cup’
• of blessing and salvation - (Ps. 23:5; 116:13); with wrath and horror (Isa 51:17; Ezk
23:33) of divine judgment and God’s wrath.

Metaphor of what? trial, hardship, suffering, agony, physical torture, (cf. Psa
69:1-3; Lam 1:13), offense, reproach, persecution, self-denial, forsaking,
aloneness, ignoble death, etc.? of divine punishment/wrath (cf. Rm 1:18; Rev
14, 15, 16)?
“at the last trumpet”

[“Last Shofar blowing” in highly symbolic language – 1Co 15:52; 1Th 4:16] Pauline
expression ‘at the last trumpet’ (/x: last trump - KJV), not on the earthly realm, is most likely
the Revelation’s seventh shofar blowing (Rev 10:7; 11:15). Cf. Preterism.]

*womb; *belly; 'bowels'

H4578 meeh – Gen 15:4, 25:23 (body); Num 5:22 (stomach); 2Ch 21:15 (bowels);
Ruth 1:11 (womb)
H990 beten
'womb' Gen 25:23; Deu 7:13,
'belly' Num 5:21;
'body' Deu 28:4

S2836 koilia 'belly' 'womb'

Mt 12:40 (of a whale);
Mt 15:17; 1Co 6:13; Rev 10:10 (of bowels - stomach);
Mt 19:20; Lk 1:15, 41, 42, 44; 2:21, 11:27; 23:29; Jn 3:4; Act 3:2; Gal 1:15;
(of a woman/mother);
Jn 7:38; Rm 16:18; Phi 3:19 ('inner most part of a person' metonymic), etc.;
S4698 splagchnon (= Lat. viscera, viscus); – Lk 1:7; 2Co 6:12; Phi 1:8; 1Jn 3:17
(figurative – affections, compassion); Act 1:18 (bowels)
Gk. hustera (womb) (Cf. 'hysteria') – not in the GNT.

*born again; *be saved

‘born again’ ‘born again Christian’ - A common biblical jargon from KJB
translation as ‘again’ of Greek word anōthen ‘from above’ in Jn 3:3, 7. [Heb.
malemelah – Gen 7:20] The sense of ‘again’ and the expression ‘born again’ is
probably due to conflation with v. 4 ‘get into the mother’s womb for a second
time’ deuteron. [Cf. Other rendering - ‘afresh’ ‘anew’.] The text of Jn 3:3-8
refers to the new life in spirit, not about ‘born again’ with conversion (‘be
saved’)33.
Cf. Gal 4:9 – palin anōthen ‘again anew, again from the beginning
(over again)’ [Gk. for ‘again’ is palin, not anōthen ‘from the
beginning/start’]
Cf. 1Pe 1:3, 24 – anagennasthai ‘regenerate’
Cf. Tit 3:5 – dia loutrou paliggenesias kai anakainōsews pneumatos
hagios ‘washing of regeneration and renewal in holy spirit'
Cf. Jn 8:44; Eph 3:17 – ap’ archēs ‘from the start’
Cf. 1Co 5:5 hina to pneuma sōthē ‘spirit be kept saved intact’ (not about salvation).
*judgment; righteousness vs. justice

Isaiah 56:1 judgment (KJV)/justice ~~ justice/righteousness ~~ righteousness,

Isaiah 28:17 judgment (KJV)/justice ~~ justice/righteousness.
cf. ‘right ruling’ ‘being fair’

The phrase ‘be saved’ is a typical biblical jargon. Would it be better to use ‘be
delivered’ and ‘be rescued’, (e.g. Lk 1:69 keras sōtērias; 1:71 sōtēria ex echthrōn)
 Greek words, grammar and usage

*apo vs. *ex

• S575 apo – 'from' 'away from'; E.g. (Mt 1:17 from); (Mt 6:13 away from the
[power of] evil);

• S1537 ex –'from' 'from out of' (e.g. 'far from out of danger' 'from out of
nowhere'); 'out of' (Lk 11:27 out of the crowd); 'out from'; 'from out'; 'out
from among'

apo nekrōn 'away from the realm of dead ones' (Lk 16:30 – x1) (cf. apo nekrōn ergōn – Heb
6:1; 9:14)

ek nekrōn '(out) from among the dead (ones) (Lk 16:31; 20:35; 24:46; Jn 2:22; 12:1, 9,
17; 20:9; 21:14; Act 3:15; 4:2, 10; 10:41; 13:30, 34; 17:3, 31; Rm 4:24; 6:4, 9, 13;
7:4; 8:11; 10:7, 9; 11:15; 1Co 15:12, 20; Gal 1:1; Eph 1:20; Phi 3:11; Col 1:12; 2Ti
2:9; Heb 11:19; 13:20; 1Pe 1:3, 21 – 37x);
ek mesou out of midst – Mt 13:49; Act 17:33; 23:10; 1Co 5:2; 2Co 6:17; (Col 2:14); 2Th
2:7)

• Cf. 'ek tou thanatou' (from the death into the life) Jn 5:24 1Jn 3:14 [S2288 thanatos 120x]
[cf. Rev 2:11 ek tou thanatou tou deterou 'by the second death']
'ek thanatou' Jam 5:20; 2Co 2:16; Heb 5:7; 'from death'

• S2196 heōs – 'until' (Mt 1:17, 25)

www.englishlessonsbrighton.co.uk/the-difference-between-from-out-of-and-among/

Verbs for 'come' 'go' 'leave' 'depart' 'pass-by'

S3855 paragō (11x) Mt 9:9, 27; Jn 8:59; 1Jn 2:8, 17, etc. go on, pass on; leave (a place);
S3899 paraporeuomai (5x) Mt 27:39, Mk 2:23; 11:2, etc. pass-by

Gk: heōs 'until'

heōs (Mt 1:25; 26:29); [as a point of reference, not a point of cessation (= Jm 5:7).] [Cf. achri
(1Co 11:26; Lk 1:20) – a termination point, that is ‘only until’; Cf. mechri(s)]

[For Catholic's 'Mary ever virgin' … Mt 1:25 … the word 'till' does not necessarily imply
that they lived on a different footing afterwards', i.e. the lived with normal conjugal relation
after his birth: 1Sam 15:35 ("Samuel did not see Saul any more until the day of his death");
2Sam 6:23 ("Michal the daughter of Saul did not have children until the day of her death" The
text simply says she remained childless.); Mt 12:20 ("he will not do ~~ until he brings
judgment to victory" – but will he do or not do afterwards).]
[For Catholic’s 'biblical' justification of ‘perpetual virginity of Mary’ 'Mary Ever Virgin' (which is not
to be confused another doctrine of ‘immaculate conception – about Mary being conceived itself) with
this word ‘until’,
see www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9757 . Biblical Evidence for the
Perpetual Virginity of Mary .

www.academia.edu/1040859/The_implications_of_until_in_English_and_Greek

Gk: ‘ahead of’ ‘before’

[E-sword search on NET ‘ahead of’]
pro prosōpou Mk 1:2; //Mt 11:10; //Lk 7:27 ‘before (the presence/face of)’
(/x: ‘ahead of’ – very different word picture ‘getting ahead’); Lk 10:1
emprosthen //Lk 7:27
pros – Mk 6:33;
proagō ‘go before’
proereō ‘foretell’?
apenanti Mt 21:2; /x: over against – KJV archaism
katenanti Mk 11:2; 13:3; Lk 19:30 ‘opposite across’?

Gk: receive; accept; welcome; take; take ~ in.

Gk. dechomai – an important word when used in the Scripture for interpersonal
relation. English synonyms, receive, accept, take, welcome, etc., have different
nuance. [‘welcome’ – for hospitality or entertainment]
Cf. chōreōas; lambanō; paralambanō; klēronoimenō; sunagō (Mt 25:43);

Gk: dunamis.

S1411 dunamis can mean ability, physical power, but it can also mean the outward manifestation of
the power, that is, authority, influence. (See LSJ) (1) all creatures all called to use their abilities for
God's glory, and not for selfish ambitions. (2) all creatures are called to give their authority to God,
that is, to subdue willingly to God's authority (See Re 11:15) -Vasileios Tsialas] Mt 6:13; Mt 22:29;
Mk 14:62

ability – Mt 25:15;
mighty work > powerful work (NWT) /x: miracle - most. – pl. Mt 7:22; Mk 6:14; singl. Mk
9:39, etc.
Gk: *all; *every; *many; *any; *whole
Gk. pas; holos; all, every, (the) whole, all sorts of, every kind of

(Mt 10:1 of disease, infirmity - - /every sorts of – NWT; /every kind of; /all
kinds of; /x: all manner of - ASV);

Cf. total; sum; cf. parts

‘many’ vs. ‘the many’:

Mt 20:28; … to give His life for many

Mt 26:28; … blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins

‘the many’ vs. ‘all’: Is ‘the many’ used to mean precisely as ‘many, but not all’?
Does ‘all’ cover everyone in the group? Or rhetorical?

all’ – Does it mean every one of them in the particular class?

Esp. in the followings: [Note: These verses do not concern about resurrection or
universal/general resurrection, but justification (righteousness and Life eternal).
[Cf. ‘universalism’ doctrine.]

Rm 5:12 “all sinned” – without any exception?

Rm 5:12, 18; all human beings (eis pas anthrōpous); /x: all men – KJV; /> all people; /x:
men of all sorts - NWT
Rm 5:15, the many (hoi polloi) be dead ~~grace abounded to many
Rm 5:19 the many were made sinners/righteous
Col 1:16, 17 “all things” (vs. “all other things” – NWT4).

<<Leupold argues at some length that many means as a matter of fact in this
passage “all”. …
While in some cases all may also be “many”; but in some cases, many is not “all”.
From Walvrood (1971), Dainel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation. p. 289>>

Gk. confess, acknowledge, accept, divulge

*confession - homologeō tēn kalēn homologian 1Ti 6:12, 13

Heb 13:15b ‘acknowledging the name of Yeshua’
Jam 5:16 ‘open up and acknowledge yoůr wrong doings (for forgiveness)’ >
/x: ‘confess your sins’;

/acknowledgment; /attestation professing; made a good profession; /professed

the good profession; give confession; confess the good confession – EMTV;
confession; giving witness – BBE; /confess your faith in Jesus – ERV; /firmly
professed your faith – GNB;
[English word ‘confession’ is a church jargon – with a wrong picture of
‘confessing to spit out when caught or on inquisition’. Also as a special
Catholic Church jargon; ‘professing, profession’ – of totally different meaning]

Gk: remain, *dwell, stay, *abide in; abide by;

dwell – locative sense;

remain, stay – temporal sense
abide – relational sense
commune – jargonish

1Jn 2:6 be abiding ░░ (menō– ‘abide’; remain; dwell; reside. See NET tn for difficulty of
choosing one. Also 1Jn 2:19, 24; 3:15, 24; 2Jn 1:9); /abides – (many); / is living – BBE;/are
(His) – CEV; /> remain –HCSB; /> remain in union with – GNB; /live in [fellowship
with] Jesus – AUV; /live – GW, NLT; />>be intimate with – MSG; /x: stays – ISR;
/resides – NET; /be continuing in – WNT; /dwells – ARJ; /live in intimate relation
with – ARJ; / live in union with – ARJ; /(his life) is indissolubly linked to (the life
of Christ) – Barclay;

Gk. menō – another important word in the Scripture when used for interpersonal
relation. the English word ‘abide’ as an archaic traditional translation word (as
in KJV, ASV, etc.) carries a different word image than ‘remain’ ‘dwell’ or ‘stay’
which cannot bring into the translated text.
[www.etymonline.com/abide abide (v.) Old English abidan, gebidan "remain, wait,
delay, remain behind," from ge- completive prefix (denoting onward motion; see a- (1))
+ bidan "bide, remain, wait, dwell" (see bide). Originally intransitive (with genitive of
the object: we abidon his "we waited for him"); transitive sense emerged in Middle
English. Meaning "to put up with" (now usually negative) first recorded 1520s. Related:
Abided; abiding. The historical conjugation is abide, abode, abidden, but the modern
formation is now generally weak.] [cf. ‘abide by (the rule)’]

intransitive verb
1. to stand fast; remain; go on being
2. [Archaic] to stay; reside (in or at)
transitive verb
1. to await
2. to submit to; put up with
Gk: ‘recline (at meal)’

Mt 8:11 (recline at banquet); Lk 22:14etc. (recline for a meal) – recline at meal;

/recline at table – JNT, ESV duo; /take one’s place at the table – NET, NRSV;
/x: sit down – KJV; /
Mt 14:19 (‘recline on the grass’) – /recline; /take one’s place on; /sit down –
most (- appropriate rendering).

NET tn: as 1st century Middle Eastern meals were not eaten while sitting at a
table, but while reclining on one's side on the floor with the head closest to the
low table and the feet farthest away.

Gk. porneia; *fornication

The Gk. is rendered differently depending on the context: Note the word
‘fornication’ appears in the limited texts, such as in Jn 8:41 and in Revelation.
It is not limited to a specific kind of act; it does not include incest, rape, etc.]

• fornication (Jn 8:41) – notice the tone in the speech;

• marital infidelity (Mt 5:32; 19:9) x: unlawful marriage – (see NAB).
• sexual immoralities (Mt 15:19; Mk 7:21);
• sexual immorality (Act 15:20, 29; 21:25; 1Co 5:1; 6:13, 18; 7:2; 10:8;
2Co 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1Th 4:3; Jud 1:7; Rev 2:14, 20,
21; 9:21; 14:8;
• ‘commit fornication’ (porneuō) in Revelation (Rev 2:14, 20, 21; 9:21;
14:8; 17:2, 4; 18:3, 9; 19:2) is in figurative sense = worshiping false
gods (cf. ‘idol’ idōlon; ‘sacrifice offered to idols’ idōlothuton); /x:
practice sexual immorality – ESV; /x: commit sexual immorality – NET,
LEB; /x: sin sexually – GW; /x: practice immorality – ISV;
Also, 2Ch 21:10-14; Ezk 16] [Cf. ‘whoring after gods/demons/idols’
(Exo 34:15-16; Lev 17:7; Ezk 6:9 in KJV).]

Ref: www.teknia.com/greek-dictionary (for glosses)

pro, pros, para; meta; sun

See IRENT G-Jn Appendix for [B-Greek] the use of πρός in John, and others.

huper, hupo

The word ‘for’ or the Greek words anti, hyper, dia, peri of which it is the translation,
admitting different senses, may of course be differently applied, according to the nature
of the subject, and yet the doctrine remains unchanged.
www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vicarious.html [See * atonement’]
*eimi
Gk. S1510 eimi (‘I am’) – is a copula. It does not have sense of ‘to exist’. It needs predicate which often
in ellipsis (esp. in speech).
E.g. Jn 1:1a 'In beginning was the Word present'. [Here, a predicate complement for the verb is in
ellipsis – to be found in 1:1b pros ton Theon ‘in relation to Elohim’ (not ‘with God’), a predicative
prepositional phrase.]
E.g. Jn 17:5 to be (alongside You) ░░ (einai); /x: was; was made; was created; existed (before the
founding of world), etc.;

*receive (someone) vs. *welcome’

dechomai
Receive – psychological and social – sharing space; acceptance
Welcome – social – as of ‘hospitality’.
Take in; not rejecting

‘immediately’ ‘at once’

Gk. euthus 59 times in the NT, 41x being in G-Mark, 11x of them in Chapter 1. Its
semantic range includes ‘soon’ ‘so’ ‘so then’.
*different vs. *another – hetero vs. allo

Jn 14:16 another ░░ [i.e. in His place (1Jn 2:1 Yeshua Mashiah as ho paraklētos)];
/another – most; /another ~ of the same kind as I am – Wuest;

1Tm 1:3 propounding different teaching ░░ (heterodidakleō - present different instruction

– Danker. [1Tim 6:3]); /propounding strange teaching –ARJ; /(desist from) propounding
strange doctrine – Cass; /bringing up ~; /to stop inventing new doctrines – PNT; /xx: charge
some they teach no other doctrine – KJV++; /charge certain men not to teach a different
doctrine, - ASV; /stop teaching differently with different teaching/doctrine – ARJ; /charge
certain ones not to be teaching things contrary to sound doctrine, - Wuest; /x: 다른 교훈를
가르치지– KRV; /다른 교리 ~ – KKJV; /instruct certain people not spread false teachings –
NET; /different doctrine – ESV; /false doctrine – TNIV, strange doctrines- NASB

[ALLOS – BDAG p. 46 cf. hETEROS – p. 399] [syn. another vs. different:

‘another paraklete’ /x: ‘different paraklete’. The paraklete itself is used as
personified; the context should tell how to translate and to understand the
words.]

http://zondervanacademic.com/blog/etymologiesa-a-first-look-mondays-with-mounce-9/
In classical Greek, where many of these finer distinctions were maintained, heteros meant
“another of a different kind.” allos meant “another of the same kind.” If you had an apple
and I asked for an allos, you would give me another apple. But if I asked for a heteros, you
might give me an orange. Another of a different kind.

This distinction is not always maintained in the New Testament (see Galatians 1:6-7 and
the discussion in my Expository Dictionary, pp. 490ff.). If the distinction were intended
here, Paul would be saying that the “gospel” preached by the false teachers was essentially
different from the gospel that Paul himself preached. Can we read that etymological nuance
into 1 Timothy 1:3?

In this context I think we can. It certain fits the context well, and it is precisely the meaning
of the same word in its other use in 1 Timothy 6. We can also see other biblical passages
where the classical distinction appears to be upheld (cf. Luke 9:29; Romans 7:23; 1
Corinthians 15:40; James 2:25). This is why the TNIV translates, “false doctrine.” In
addition, it would be expected if Paul were coining a word and therefore there had been no
time for usage to have changed the meaning of the word, that the meaning of the parts
would still be reflected in the meaning of the whole.
 English words, grammar and usage

References and reading material

Oxford University Press, Garner's Usage Tip of the Day

(Bryan Garner, www.lawprose.org)

http://youtu.be/_TfkK2BhYXQ Better Grammar Part Four with Bryan A. Garner

grammar - communicating clearly and effectively, not just to make understandable

also credible.

James Fernald, A Working Grammar of the English Language

T. M. Bernstein, Dos, don’ts &G Maybes of English Usage –
Gould Brown, Grammar of English Grammars
Chicago Manual of Style - Ch. 5 (16 Ed.)
Garner’s Modern American Usage

English word frequency list

www.wordfrequency.info/

www.wordcount.org (ranking for a word to find)

https://youtu.be/fCn8zs912OE The Zipf Mystery (Zipf Law (Pareto 80-20 principle)

is the the top 20 most common English words in order are: THE OF AND TO A IN IS I
THAT IT FOR YOU WAS WITH ON AS HAVE BUT BE THEY.
Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.90211
Hapax legomenon
.

letter sign-offs,
Yours, Etc.: Origins and Uses of 8 Common Sign-Offs

‘so that’ vs ‘such that’

LawProse Lesson #263: The "such that" lesson.

on vs. upon

From: Bryan A. Garner: LawProse Lesson #171:

These prepositions are usually synonymous and used in virtually identical

ways. The distinctions are primarily in tone and connotation. On -- the
shorter, simpler, more direct word -- is generally preferable {the trial court's
decision was based on the parol-evidence rule} {service on a defendant}
{the case centers on a 2006 contract} {the burden is on the plaintiff}. Upon
is stylistically inferior when on will suffice -- if only because it tends to
sound stuffy.

Yet upon is preferable [< required] in one circumstance: when it introduces a

condition, occurrence, or event {upon a proper showing by the applicant, a
license will be granted} {upon being served with interrogatories, the plaintiff
called his lawyer} {he was arrested upon returning to the United States} {the
voter left upon being told the polls were closed}. The sense "with little or no
interval after" is often an important nuance of upon {the board may remove
the officers for good cause shown upon a petition, notice, and hearing}.

Upon is also imperative in stock phrases such as once upon a time and take it
upon yourself.

wordy, verbose, prolix;

"sesquipedalian"

*It’s me:

Colloquial ‘it’s me’.

‘It is I’ – emphatic?

in response to ‘who is it?’ or ‘who is there’

“It is I who am here …”

“It is me who you call …”
gibberish, babelism, babbling; obfuscation

babelism - a confusion, as of ideas, speech, etc.

*due to
www.lawprose.org/ Law Pro Lesson #195

*message

‘Message has to be timeless as well as timely.’

*blame

Ref. www.academia.edu/5841703/Review_of_Blame_Its_Nature_and_Norms

*lest
www.lawprose.org/blog/ Gardner’s Usage Tip of the Day

lest (‘in fear of’); cf. ‘in case’

Cf. ‘or else’ ‘because’ ‘or’
"Lest" is best followed by a verb in the subjunctive mood, not the indicative,
because "lest" points to something that is merely possible, not definite.
Idiomatically speaking, if a modal verb follows "lest," it should be "might" (or
perhaps "should"), not "will" or "would".

*which vs. that

www.lawprose.org/blog/?p=2134
three guidelines. First, if you cannot omit the clause without changing the basic
meaning, the clause is restrictive; use “that” without a comma. Second, if you
can omit the clause without changing the basic meaning, the clause is
nonrestrictive; use a comma plus “which.” Third, if you ever find yourself
using a “which” that doesn’t follow a comma (or a preposition), it probably
needs to be a “that.”

‘On behalf of’ vs. ‘in behalf of’.

[‘because of’ ‘for’ ‘for the benefit of’]

On behalf of stalwart stylists everywhere, I write in behalf of maintaining the traditional

distinction between these phrases.

Careful writers distinguish between them. To act or speak in behalf of someone is to

independently promote that person's interest, praise, or defense — or to act on one's own
for that person's benefit {the employees picketed in behalf of the fired executive} {students
 spoke in behalf of the professor at the retirement party} {fight in behalf of justice for the
wrongfully accused}.

By contrast, to act or speak on behalf of someone is to act as that person's agent or

representative {she accepted the award on behalf of the committee} {the lawyer acted on
behalf of her client when she signed the document} {on behalf of our board of directors, I
would like to thank the event's sponsors}.

As mentioned in the lesson about on vs. upon (LawProse Lesson #171), upon behalf of is
stylistically inferior to the simpler on behalf of {the motion was filed upon behalf of [read
on behalf of] Mr. Albright}.

And using a possessive instead of a bulkier of-phrase is likewise a stylistic improvement if

the word denoting the person or thing being acted for isn't impractically long. For instance,
in the above example, "the lawyer acted on her client's behalf" is superior to "on behalf of
her client." Yet "fight in behalf of justice for the wrongfully accused" is surely best left as
it is.

To avoid the issue altogether, in many instances you can replace on behalf of with for {the
president signed for the corporation} {the lawyer appeared in court for her client}.

What's really bad is this common airline announcement: "On behalf of myself and the rest
of the crew . . . ." It should be, "Along with the rest of the crew, I'd like to say . . ." or some
such wording. There's no behoof in speaking on your own behalf.

Cf. ‘for own’s behoof’; ‘in one’s place’

Cf. Yeshua died for ~: it is ‘in behalf of’, not ‘on behalf of’.
Cf. ESV, GNB, GW, ISV – has none of ‘in behalf of’, but ‘on behalf of’ in NT

• 'for (someone)' = in place of/as a substitute for, (as in ‘sign for my

friend’).
• 'on behalf of ' = as the agent of; as in ‘sign on behalf of the minor child’,
(i.e. the implications will be as if he signs if he could and is allowed.)
“She was authorized by the Commission to act on its behalf’. “For and
on behalf of the handicapped soldiers, I accept this award”.
• ‘in behalf of’ = in the interest of; for the benefit of; (as in ‘raised money
in behalf of the earthquake victims’).

Word with w-; wh-clause

• worship(p)ed; worship(p)ing; worship(p)er. The "-p-" spellings are the preferred

forms in American English; the "-pp-" forms appear in British English.

• worth. When this word is used with an amount, the preceding term denoting the amount
should be possessive. E.g.: "He bought a few dollars' worth of golf tees."

• worthwhile. single word.

• -worthy. This combining form means (1) "fit or safe for" {a seaworthy vessel} {a
crashworthy minivan}; or (2) "deserving of" {a praiseworthy effort} {a creditworthy
 loan applicant}. As in the preceding examples, the form is almost always closed up
with its root, not hyphenated. Only a few newfangled "-worthy" terms {an article-
worthy celebrity} have hyphens.

• *wot (= to know) is an archaism that H.W. Fowler called a "Wardour Street" term, i.e.,
an "oddment" calculated to establish (in the eyes of some readers) the writer's claim to
be someone of taste and the source of beautiful English. Today, it's an affectation unless
ironic (and probably even then) -- e.g.: "News is now at hand that for reasons I wot
[read 'know'] not, the White House kitchens will serve free-range chickens only." John
Gould, "Pent-Up Pullets and White House Fowl," Christian Science Monitor, 20 May
1994, at 17.

• would. Writers often use "would" to condition statements that really ought to be
straightforward -- e.g.: "I would submit to you [read 'submit to you'] that very few
presentations end with the audience saying, 'Well, that presenter really beat our brains
out. He thrashed us good and proper.'" Ron Hoff, "I Can See You Naked" 58 (1992).
(A better revision: "Very few presentations end with the audience . . . .")

wreath; wreathe. "Wreath" is the noun {a Christmas wreath}, "wreathe" the verb {they
plan to wreathe the door in garlands}.

writ large. In this archaic cliché and in Omar Khayyam's "The Moving Finger Writes" --
but nowhere else -- "writ" (for "written") survives. E.g.: "Religion . . . is cheapened even
more when it is mixed with pre-game military exercises -- the baseball cap's 'God, Guns,
and Guts' message writ large." L.T. Anderson, "Public Prayer Needs Limits," Charleston
Daily Mail (W. Va.), 24 Sept. 1997, at C1.

wrong; wrongful. The distinction is important. "Wrong" = (1) incorrect; unsuitable {the
quoted figures were simply wrong} {it was wrong of us to expect them so soon}; or (2)
contrary to law or morality; wicked {cloning just to get human organs is wrong}.
"Wrongful" = (1) characterized by unfairness or injustice; contrary to law {Iraq's
wrongful aggression against Kuwait}; or (2) (of a person) not entitled to the position
occupied {the wrongful officeholder}.

wrongly; wrong, adv. Both are proper adverbs; "wrongly," which is less common,
appears before the verb modified {the suspects were wrongly detained}; "wrong" follows
the noun {he answered the question wrong}.

*wroth (= angry) is an archaism -- e.g.: "Ms. Eckert seemed to be quite wroth [read
'angry'] with me, though if her theory . . . is accurate, she should be delighted with my
work." Jack Kenny, "'Mean-Spirited Columnist' Hopes to Take Own Advice of
Lightening Up," Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.), 25 July 2001, at A4. The word is most
often seen in the set phrase "wax wroth" (= to become angry), which can be easily
simplified -- e.g.: "Pfeiffer has a ropy vein at her left temple that, when she waxes wroth
[read 'gets angry'], throbs noticeably." Leah Rozen, "Picks & Pans: Screen," People, 21
Oct. 2002, at 43. *Invariably inferior form.

Plural you in English;

thou, thy, thine (for singular) used in KJV, ASV, etc.; but now unfortunately
archaic. RSV retains the singular form when it refers to God.
.
“you all” (Cf. ye for plural – archaic) – a regionalism in South and Southwest,
the uncontracted "you all" as the plural form of "you" is a convenient usage,
since "you" alone can be either singular or plural – and therefore is sometimes
ambiguous. It shouldn’t be easily dispossessed. It's handy, and it's less
susceptible to raised eyebrows than "y'all" – (adapted from “Garner's Usage Tip
of the Day”). If used in IRENT, it has it as ‘you all’; cf. “all of you” - ‘all’ is
emphatic.

In the midst of; in the middle of; among; in;

*midst – ME meaning ‘middle’; a different nuance

*among – ‘One among robbers’ suggests that person is one of robbers.

*arthrous and *anarthrous nouns; countable and noncountable nouns

E.g. A Greek noun lacks definiteness when used anarthrous (i.e. without the article).
Unlike Greek which does not have an indefinite article, a or an is to be supplied in
English translation, unless the noun is as noncountable.

Anarthrous nouns may often carry adjectival sense. A noun may be used either in a
sense which is for a noncountable noun. Cf. A countable noun used as noncountable
– e.g. in adjectival sense; in a title phrase.

Cf. what does capitalization do in spoken English?

Cf. ‘my God’ vs. ‘Elohim of me’ (Gk. Jn 20:28 ho Theos mou)

Cf. Hebrew idiom ‘son of ~’, reflecting character of person. e.g. ‘sons of
thunder’ (Mk 3:17); ‘son of God’; ‘a son of Elohim’ Jn 19:7;

e.g.
water (substance)
a water, waters (in the sense of ‘body of water’)
the water [particularized]

e.g.
faith (relationship; trusting)
a faith, faiths (in the sense of ‘religion’)
the faith [particularized]

e.g.
spirit [noncountable – e.g. Jn 4:24 “Elohim is spirit” (/x: a spirit; /x: a Spirit)]
a spirit, spirits – human spirits (1Co 12:10; 14:32; Heb 12:23; 1Jn 4:1). =
angels (Heb 1:7, 14). Unspecific – Heb 12:9. ‘seven spirits before Elohim’ –
Rev 1:4; 3:1; 4:5; 5:6
the spirit
*Countable noun vs. *uncountable noun: Any word is countable. Any noun
as a word is countable. A noun may be used as countable or uncountable;
depending on what sense it is used the context. The so-called 'countable noun' is
a noun that which is used as countable.
E.g. [water] and [waters countable], e.g. waters – here the meaning of water as
uncountable is different from the meaning of 'water' as countable.

E.g. 'spirit' ('holy spirit') vs. a spirit (Mk 9:17)

Cp. in Jn 4:24 'pneuma ho theos' 'Elohim is spirit' (most translates it as 'God is spirit') is
incorrectly translated in KJV as 'God is a Spirit'. /xx: 'God is a Spirit' – ASV, YLT; /xx:
'God [is] a Spirit – Darby; /xx: 'God is a spirit' – GW; /xxx: the Spirit is God – Aramaic
Bible in Plain English.

When singular word used as countable it is arthrous, etc. ‘a NOUN’. It may

carry an unintentional word picture of ‘a member of a class of’. As arthrous,
e.g. ‘the NOUN’, it may be used in a fixed idiomatic phrase, e.g. ‘in the morning’
for English diction; often with additional descriptives, e.g. in the beautiful
morning’. However, it may particularize it – especially so with the Gk. article,
which gives the sense somewhere between ‘the’ and ‘that’ [e.g. 'the
aforementioned'].
Often it is used without articles – used (1) in a title, (2) as vocative, and
importantly (3) as adjectival, either as an adjective or as an adjectival noun. This
point is important when translating anarthrous Gk. nouns – it is not always ‘a
SOMETHING’. [See on the theologically serious issue in rendering Jn 1:1c.]

e.g. ‘*God Problem’ – What God? What problem?

*god, *a god, a God, God, the God (cf. a god-being; a deity; a divine
being), elohim (taking pl. verb); /Elohim (taking singular verb)
See elsewhere 'God is God is God'.

Problem of Jn 1:1c translation. See in <Appendix - ((on Jn 1.1 +Footnotes))>

/the Word was God

/the Word was a god – NWT
/what God was, the Word was – NEB;
/what God was, the word was – REB
/as what God is, the word was – IRENT

When this anarthrous noun is rendered as 'a god' with an indefinite article, it denotes a
member of class of god-being with a picture of more than one. It gives a sense of being
subordinate or inferior to 'God' and even reminiscent of a pagan god-being.

Here the anarthrous noun in the context is not simply as a countable noun, but adjectival in
function.
 Since the Scripture does not teach that there is only one God/god/elohim (monotheism), but
there only one God, Elohim, is to worship (henotheism). Cf. are elohim ('gods' 'god-like
being's – pl. non-capitalized. e.g. Heb 2:7 quoting Psa 8:5); all these are created beings.

Most, including the Trinitarians and Jehovah's Witness, takes 'the Word' [capitalized] refer
to a 'pre-existing Jesus' from their interpretation (pesher) without a Scriptural support. Yes,
Yeshua ('Jesus'), son-of-man, is a human being, a created being. He has been shown a divine
man [not a deity], man of God; the Gospels declare he is 'the only-begotten Son of Elohim
('the Son of God'). The follower of Him 'worshiped' Him, not because He was God; they
worshiped Him as God.

[The King on the royal court. His son is as King as well. There is no linguistic confusion
when the title 'king' is addressed to two.]

Here in the prologue of G-John, 'the Word' (ho logos) is, simply, the Word of God. Not a
person ('he' 'his' 'him'), but the word which belongs to God himself ('it', 'its'). Nor is it the pre-
existing eternal God the Son. Nor is it 'God Jesus' before he came to be 'born of a virgin' (an
unbiblical church doctrinal lingo) to be lived as demi-god (or god-man) in the 1st century for
about 33 years.

The Jesus figure is that of the Church, not of the Scripture. Even the name 'Jesus' belongs to
the Church tradition and may not be same as Yeshua as in the Scripture. Reading 'Jesus' into
the Biblical texts (NT as well as OT) is to be on a theological and doctrinal slippery slope.

Note: worse than Jn 1:1c of NWT is the error by REV in Jn 20:28 – 'my
Master and my Elohim' (IRENT); 'my Lord and my God' (most
translations, incl. NWT).

/xxxx: my Lord and my god – REB (www.stfonline.org/rev)

[See www.revisedenglishversion.com/ for its erroneous <Commentary for: John 20:28> – a
copy in the Collection.] Here in the text, Thomas was not calling the risen Yeshua as 'God'
(per Trinitarian), nor as 'a god'. He was calling out Elohim, Father of Yeshua.]

No one ever thinks that something or someone is ‘God’, ever ‘god’ or a ‘god’.
None can be so. When they say, it simply means ‘something or someone is as God
(to them). Only the true God is God’ (YHWH Elohim).

This discussion is relevant to the 'notorious' verse Jn 1:1c ‘and the Word was God’
– most; Cf. ‘and what God is, the Logos was’ – IRENT; ‘and what God was, the
Word was’ (NEB).

The Greek word for ‘what God was’ in IRENT is theos (anarthrous), in contrast
to pros ton theon in which it is arthrous the God. Translational and theological
dilemma is actually non-existing, if the sense and usage of a noun without the
article (in Greek) and without the indefinite article (in English) is fully
appreciated. It cannot be ‘a god’ as NWT renders when examined in the Scriptural
context. Neither the English adjectival phrase ‘fully God’ (NET) or adjective
‘divine’ can carry all the sense and nuance. E.g. ‘the Logos was divine’ – Moffatt.
Note: throughout IRENT it consistently renders the arthrous theos, ho theos as
Elohim, rather than ‘the God’ which is beyond the usual English convention where
the capitalized word is used whether it is arthrous or unarthrous in Gk. text.
A *remote arthrous theos is seen in 6x. It is rendered as 'the ~~ Elohim'. [E.g. Jn
17:3 'the only true Elohim'; Tit 2:13 ('of the glory of the great Elohim'). Rm 1:23
('the glory of the imperishable Elohim'); Rm 16:26 ('the eternal Elohim'); 1Co 12:6
('the same Elohim'); 1Jn 5:20 'the true Elohim'] [Cf. Mt 26:63 (Elohim the living
One 'the living Elohim').]

An opposite example is when the article governs more than one object:
E.g. 1Pe 1:3 "Praised be Elohim and Father of our Lord Yeshua Mashiah". Here the article is
retained in translation as it governs both 'Elohim' and 'Father'.

[Cf. Rm 9:26 'sons of living God' vs. Rm 8:21; 9:8 'the children of Elohim'.

For the anarthrous theos where in reference to Elohim, it is rendered variously

as 'God', 'God-being', 'what God is', '(a) god'. It often appears in a phrase – e.g.
'God's', 'from God' (Phi 1:28), 'by God' (2Co 7:10), as well as in such fixed phrase,
'from God our Father' (2Co 1:2), 'from God the Father' (Tit 1:4). Cf. 'from Elohim
Rm 2:29. Cf. 'Elohim the Father' (1Co 15:24; 1Th 1:1); 'our Elohim and Father
Himself' (1Th 3:11)]

Examples of English words/phrases/vocabulary

Sure, someone IS my father. When we use the word, however, most often it means
‘someone as father’, rather than someone to be a father (as if out of many) or the
father (as if particularized). Same for ‘son’. The phrase ‘son of something’ is a
Hebrew idiom to tell one’s character, not a son of something. Same for ‘president’.
To use the word saying ‘Abraham Lincoln was a president or the president’ is
different from when it is used as in the phrase ‘President Lincoln’. In the Greek,
there is only article which is equivalent to definite article in English and there is
no indefinite article as such. Without the article, it may mean, say, ‘a city’. But it
may not mean ‘a father’, but a descriptive of ‘being as a father in character or like
a father in general. In IRENT when the text is not ‘the son’ or ‘a son’, it renders
‘son’ without any article. (e.g. commonly in vocative, but also here Mt 4:3 ‘ei
huios ei tou theou’ If you’re Elohim′s son – ‘son of Elohim’, not ‘a son of’ or ‘the
son of’.)

In Mt 1:2ff, the recurrent Gk. word egennēse are rendered in various ways. E.g.
“Abraham begat Isaac” – KJV. Some as ‘begot’ (DRB); ‘Abraham fathered’,
‘became father to Isaac’ (NWT); ‘was the father of Isaac’ (NET, ESV, GW); ‘the
son of Abraham was Isaac’ (BBE); ‘his ancestors were Abraham’ (CEV). The
word does not contain anything to suggest an idea of ‘father’, ‘ancestor’, or ‘son’.
The best rendering is ‘brought forth’ (ISR, IRENT). Here, if the word ‘father’ is
to be used, it should be ‘father’, not ‘the father, nor ‘a father’. The countable nouns
in English do not always need ‘the’ or ‘a’, just as uncountable nouns can be in
plural (e.g. waters) with different sense. Same for ‘spirit’, ‘a spirit’, vs ‘spirits’.
English indefinite article denotes a member of a class – one of many (others.)

Problem with articles in English vs. in Greek: [Cf. languages which do not
have well developed articles such as Korean]

E.g.
• one man
• a man – (one of men)
• man
• the man
• that man

Gk. ‘anthrōpos’ (‘man’, or ‘a man’); ‘ho anthrōpos’ (the man, or the very
man); ‘ho anthrōpos ekeinos’ (‘that man’) ‘eis anthrōpos’ (‘one man’ - Jn
11:50).

The arthrous Geek word, e.g. ho anthrōpos, has the sense semantically in-
between ‘the man’ and ‘that man’.

E.g. ‘religion’

• religion
• one religion, a religion, religions
• the religion

E.g.
‘religion’ vs. ‘a religion’; science’ vs. ‘a science’; ‘art’ vs. ‘an art’;

Religion vs. science needs rephrasing – e.g. religious culture vs. scientific
culture. It is system, ideology, and people in power that religion stands vis-
à-vis science.
/allowed; /allowable; /permitted; /permissible; /right (o.k.); /acceptable;
cf. /lawful; /legal;
Cf. judiciary vs. forensic (often used wrongly in place of ‘judiciary’).

*marvel; be taken aback, be amazed; be shocked;

*astonished; astounded; *surprised; *wonder; to one’s surprise; awed; awe-
struck; trembling
*appalled; dismayed; offended; horrified; outraged; scandalized; shocked;
fear, fright, terror
anger, fury, wrath;
angry, furious, mad; wrathful;

*reveal; *manifest, *appear; show; unfold; unveil;

fame, reputation (of honor), rumor, news, story, ‘what people heard’;

– of Yeshua – Mt 4:24; //Mk 1:28; also Mt 14:1 (cf. Mt 9:31 - diaphēmizō)

‘not ~ until’ vs. ‘not ~ until after’: Cf. Gk. heōs;

e.g.
• “But Yosef knew her not until she had given birth to a son.” (Mt 1:25) Cf. "He did not
know until … "
• “For I tell you I’ll not eat it until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom reign of Elohim’ (Lk
22:16)
• “the weather will stay mild until the Thanksgiving.”
• “the weather will be mild until even after ~”
• “Until after the resurrection the disciples were unprepared to understand the Cross; and
apart from the Cross, they could not understand the real nature of Yeshua’s messian
mission (Mt 16:21-28), as Markan scholars often note. Keener, The Gospel of Mathew
– A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (p. 430).

heōs - Danker p. 158

[complex origin] marker of limit
1. as temporal marker
-a. conjunctive use till, until Mt 2:9, 13; 12:20; 16:28; 24:39; Mk 6:10; Lk 9:27; 17:8; J
21:22; Act 2:35; 1Co 4:5; 2Th 2:7; 1Ti 4:13; Hb 1:13; 10:13; Js 5:7.
-b. as long as, while Mk 6:45; J 9:4; J 12:35 v.l.

2. as terminal marker, a usage (freq. funct. as prep. w. gen.), developed since Aristotle:
-a. of position or place as far as, to Mt 11:23; Lk 2:15; 4:29; 24:50 (with pros); Ac 1:8;
11:19, 22; 2 Cor 12:2. heōs esō <right into Mk 14:54; heōs anō <to the top/brim J 2:7; heōs
eis <close to Lk 24:50 v.l.; heōs kaō <to bottom Mt 27:51. In extended scaled sense: apo
mikrou heōs megalou <from small to great Hb 8:11; heōs enos <as many as seven times Mt
18:2lf; heōs hēmisous < up to the half Mk 6:23; ouk estin heōs enos <there is not even one
Ro 3:12; eate heōs toutou <enough of this Lk 22:51.
-b. of time or calendric moment until Mt 27:64; Mk 14:25; Lk 1:80; 23:44; Ac 1:22; 19:9
v.l.; 1Cor1:8; 2 Cor 1:13; heōs ou until Mt 18:34; Lk 13:21; 22:18; Ac 21:26; 25:21. Of a
terminal point conceived temporally heōs therismou Mt 13:30; heōs thanatou 26:38; Mk
14:34. Adv. phrase heōs arti <until now Mt 11:12; J 2:10; heōs tou nun <until now Mt
 24:21; heōs pote <how long 17:17; J 10:24; Rv 6:10; heōs sēmeron <to this very day 2 Cor
3:15.-W. pronoun of pers. or proper name (up) to, until Mt 1:17; 11:13; Lk 4:42.

*prepare; *preparation; to ready = to make ready (+ something or + for

something) to be read for; prepare + something vs. prepare + for something.
e.g. "prepare for his birth day"; /x: prepare his birth day.
'prepare for the Passover' i.e. prepare celebration of the Passover. Vs. 'prepare
the Passover', i.e. prepare the Passover meal, etc.

'preparation' as a translation word of Gk. – metonymic for preparation day (i.e.

'eve') – 'eve of sabbath' (on 7th day of the lunar week), it became mistranslated
as Friday of the planetary week of the Gregorian calendar. 'eve of the Passover'
(Jn 19:14) is usually confused with 'that of the Passover Festival, which is the
day of Passover.

‘my’ vs. ‘of me’; ‘of mine’

‘my follower’ ‘a follower of me’; ‘a follower of mine (e.g. my plan); ‘(one) of my

followers’. ‘be a follower of me’ vs. ‘follow me’

‘for’: for our living; for our life (of);

learn vs. study vs. teach

wants to do, wish to do, likes to do, have to do.

get help from others – have to help yourselves to receive help;

job, career; mission; vocation

apologetics (‘defend’) vs. apology (excuse, etc.)

Apology (1) as proof, (2) as defense, and (3) as challenge (> offense) [Cf. different nuances
of the word ‘offense, offensive’.

[Ref. John Fram (2015), Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief]

 Jargon, penchant, and cliché galore

Lingo, jargon and cliché – biblical jargon, Christian jargon, Church jargon,
religious jargon, theological jargon, 'Christianese'a – some are non-biblical, some
are un-biblical.

words, terms, phrases, expressions; penchants; fancied words, catch words,

mantra; outdated terms; worn-out expressions;

[Cf. for the verses in the biblical text which are often used for proof-texting  ☼
Most of Bible reading and studying is in application mode, rather than hearing
what is being said in the text. Pick-and-choose proof-texting to suit for the
readers.]

• ‘everlasting life’ [Cf. ‘live forever’ – Easy-to-Read Version]

• ‘gospel hymns’
• ‘mystery’ – often a theological mumbo-jumbo
• ‘Christian rock music’ – Christian rock (not ‘rock’ for Peter)
• reader-friendly Bibles; easy-read versions
• spiritualism; spirituality; Cosmic Christ; Christian mysticism;
• ‘Christian humanism’
• ‘vision-casting’ ‘purpose-driven’
• possibility thinking gospel; prosperity gospel (of health, wealth,
happiness, and prosperity)
• “God loves you, so do I” (Yeah.) – Robert H. Schuller
• “This is my Bible. I can do what it says I can do” – Joel Osteen
• ‘Once saved always saved’ – from ignorance what it is to be saved –
from what to what. How can apostasies abound?
• ‘God spoke to me’
• televangelists – showmanship and entertainment, excitement, enjoyment
– for pleasure
• Evangelicals; evangelist; the Evangelist (Gospel writers);
• Charismatics; ‘speaking in tongues’ – tongue-babbling (as in
shamanism).
• /Transubstantiation (Latin: transsubstantiatio; Gk: μετουσίωσις metousiosis) a
metaphysical term for the change of substance or essence – used in Roman
Catholic doctrine.

a
http://youtu.be/vFAax4qjTzY How to talk like a Christian; http://youtu.be/PuK4sZdR36s
Messy Mondays: The Top 15 Christian Clichés]
www.premierchristianity.com/Blog/A-dictionary-for-understanding-Christianese
www.dictionaryofchristianese.com/ www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=christianese
www.ethicsdaily.com/17-phrases-that-indicate-youre-fluent-in-christianese-cms-24677/
https://evangelism.intervarsity.org/resource/how-not-speak-christianese
https://credohouse.org/blog/learning-speak-like-christian-40-examples-christianese
www.propreacher.com/12-christianese-words-phrases-need-explain/
https://www.todayschristianwoman.com/articles/2012/november/danger-of-christianese.html
 • rapture, rapturism, ‘left behind’; millennials, milleranian, millennialism
(millenarianism, chiliasm)a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapture

• Pre-tribulational Premillennialism; Mid-tribulational Premillennialism;

Plewrath Premillennialism; Partial Pre-Tribulation Pre-millennialism;
Post-tribulational Premillennialism
• Non-premillennialist views (Post-Millennialism & amillennialism
• Dispensationalism

• chalice – (Catholic)
• ‘heaven and hell’ (cf. heaven and home)
• ‘go to heaven’; ‘go to hell’ (after death)
• tabernacle
• ‘baptism by sprinkling’
• ‘anoint’ ‘ointment’ ‘unction’
• ‘total deprivation’– (unbiblical Calvinism) why then people should bother?
• ‘righteousness’ – ever know what it means?
• ‘justification’ – theological and biblical jargon – even know what it means?
• ‘salvation’ ‘be saved’ – ever know what it means? Save whom, saved from
what (evil, the evil power, sins, transgressanion, trespass, wrongdings, etc.),
from whom (enemines, Satan, etc.), to what (and so then?), and by whom.
[Cf. rescued, delivered, healed, restored]
• ‘all will be saved’ – (unbiblical universalism)
• ‘born sinners’ – nowhere in the Bible is there such an expression; no one is
born a sinner but born and become a sinner. [Related unbiblical Calvinism
‘pre-destination’, ‘total deprivation’, etc.]
• ‘doctrine of the original sin’ - unbiblical
• ‘born again’ – same as ‘regenerate’?
• ‘perverse generation’ ‘generation of truth-perversion’
• *Easter b (instead of Resurrection Day)
• *Christmas and its paraphernalia – Since Constantine Catholic Church time
• saints – (Special class of deceased people in Catholic)
• ‘wage of sin is eternal torment’ ‘everlastig punshment’;
• Pope – (catholic) Peter is the honorary or alleged first Pope? [Who and when
the claim began?] [first use - Pope Damascus (366-384 AD)]
• Father – Catholic
• The Reverend – used a title for mere mortals. Also 'the very Reverend'
• church – your church? a building? a denomination? a religion (e.g. Catholic

a
www.mille.org/people/rlpages/millennialism-mw-encyl.html
b
The church scholar Venerable Bede in modern-day England from AD 673–735, recorded the names
of several of the goddesses worshipped by early Saxons. He identified Eostre as one whose festivals
were celebrated in the month given her name.
Eosturmanath has a name which is now translated “Paschal month,” and which was once called
after a goddess of theirs named Eostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month. Now
they designate that Paschal season by her name, calling the joys of the new rite by the time-
honoured name of the old observance. [Bede: The Reckoning of Time, trans. Faith Wallis (1999),
vol. 29, Translated Texts for Historians, p 54. https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-
name-easter-of-pagan-origin/ ]
 Church)?
• Christians – people of Christian religions belonging to Christian churches;
and be expert to be seen as Christians. If some is a Christian, do I find a
reason not to be a Christian?
• Eucharist – a Church liturgical lingo
• ‘Hallelujah Amen!’ – a Protestant pet phrase - what really is understood by
‘HalleluYah’? The name Yah (=YHWH) is ever appreciated (cf. Mt 6:9).
‘young earth theory’; ‘gap theory’
• 'Christian Passover'; 'Christian Pentecost' – church lingo
• ‘saving faith’; ‘saving grace’
• ‘pray over’
• ‘preach’ – Biblical jargon for ‘proclaiming’; the English word applies only in a
few places in NT (e.g. Yohanan the Baptizer’s).
• universalism; ecumenism; tolerance (→ accommodation, acquiescence);
intolerance (→ hatred).
• “God told me …”
• Mary, Mother of God, Co-redemptrix, the Queen of Heaven – Catholic
Mariolatry.
• Mary, ever-virgin – Catholic and Protestant doctrine
• ‘Bless me Lord with this and with that’ – rather than ‘Have mercy’.
• ‘I pray about it’ ‘I pray over it’; ‘the Lord told me’ ‘God said to me’
• inerrancy of Bible (cf. inerrancy of the Word of God in Scripture)
• Doctrines, catechisms, dogmas – these are all man-made; the Scripture
does not give such things; it simply reveals, declares, and proclaims.
• ‘just pray this and be saved’; sinner’s prayer;
• (Westernized Christianity, Americanized Christianity, cultural Christianity;
Constantine Roman Christianity;
• ‘soul immortality’ – a religious jargon from pagan and Greek origin; what
is soul? If soul immortal, why resurrection?
• ‘grace’ as free gift – (given free, but receiving is free too?)
• ‘praise the Lord’ (which Lord?)
• ‘megachurch’ ‘church growth’ ‘revival’ ‘revivalism’ ‘church-building’
• ‘Christian humanism’; ‘Christian hedonism’
• ‘beatify’ - Catholic
• ‘seeker-sensitive’ – an Evangelical church jargon. ‘seeker-friendly’ to
cater for (church) seekers. A church growth movement associated with
‘purpose-driven church’ and megachurch phenomenon. (instead of the
corporate (local) Body of Mashiah – community of followers) [Ref.
Should a church be seeker sensitive? ]
• ‘I AM’ – taken wrongly and blindly as God’s name itself, taken out of the
context, juxtaposing the misread phrase in Exo 3:14 combined with
every occurrence of Gk. phrase egō eimi (with egō as emphatic), rather
than a statement which is usually in a complete predicate to make
sense.
• having mountain-moving faith’ ‘power of I AM’ – Joel Osteen
http://youtu.be/kuY8UIuZBK0 (‘I am’ is nothing more than ‘I am’ – i.e. one’s
self’ – which everyone utters.)
• inspiration – ‘to inspire is not same as to give some inspirations.’
• ‘Biblical inspiration’
 • The End Time; ‘these last days’
• Bible – the word is a translation work into vernacular languages and should not be
confused with the Scripture of the original language. The Bible per se is not God’s
Word, which is to be heard in one’s mind, not to be read off from the printed pages.
The Bible does not give authority; the Biblical authority is the authority man finds in
the Bible. However, the authority of the Scripture is founded on that the Scripture
itself will ALWAYS prove FALSE teaching to be FALSE. The TRUTH, the divine
reality, always shine through the darkness. Darkness is simply absence of light; it is
where evil hides.
• Salvation by faith (a protestant lingo; with 'once saved, always saved' – nonbiblical
idea) vs. sanctification by religious works (- unbiblical idea; a Catholic lingo) –
both remain disconnected in the theological mindsets.
• *religion; *atheism; *denominations; *cults; *church
[See WB #3 – Man, Anthropology, and Religion]
www.lcms.org/about/leadership/commission-on-theology-and-church-
relations/documents/religious-organizations-and-movements
• ‘go to heaven or to hell’; ‘hell’; ‘hellfire preaching’;
Jonathan Edwards (1974), Sinners in the hands of angry God’
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=etas
www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/618854-sinners-in-the-hands-of-an-angry-god

'lingo' '*jargon'; specialty or technical words

(Religious or non-religious) specialty word/phases with often ambiguous

meaning (ill-defined or ill-definable) and distinct usage. penchant.

e.g. "church lingo" – 'Jesus Christ' of church lingo – not the person but the
phrase. '*Church' of religious lingo – unsuitable for a translation word Gk.
ekklesia [see below **church]

A few words are consistently used in a wrong sense.

*Personality – is a psychological terma. (e.g. ‘personality disorder’). Many a instance

in theological writings have this term confused with a different term ‘personhood’.

*forensic – (as in the phrases ‘forensic case’ for ‘forensic investigation’ for ‘forensic
evidence’ with ‘forensic pathology’ of ‘forensic science’).
Almost all theological and religious writings are found to misuse the term ‘forensic’
[esp. when dealing with the idea of ‘justification’], where ‘judicial’ is the appropriate
term (which is related to atonement, salvation, etc.). The word ‘forensic’ has something
to do with detection and investigation of crime. There is hardly anything related to

a
http://psychology.about.com/od/overviewofpersonality/a/persondef.htm
"Personality refers to individuals' characteristic patterns of thought, emotion, and behavior,
together with the psychological mechanisms -- hidden or not -- behind those patterns. This
definition means that among their colleagues in other subfields of psychology, those
psychologists who study personality have a unique mandate: to explain whole persons."
(Funder, D. C., 1997)
"Although no single definition is acceptable to all personality theorists, we can say that
personality is a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both
consistency and individuality to a person's behavior." (Feist and Feist, 2009)
crimes in the Scriptural text. The word should have no place in the field related to the
Bible; even for discussing the mechanism of death from crucifixion there is hardly
anything of forensic matter.

*legal; *judicial; legalistic; law; legalism; rules

On Trinitarian lingo and jargon

• Trinity vs. tri-unity 'triune' 'triad'
• 'Trinity God' – resulting in five or more different notion of 'God'.
• 'God is Father' as an idiom for 'God as Father'. – what God? Which God? what
father? which father?
• 'God the Holy Ghost' (as in KJV) or, 'God the Holy Spirit' – unbiblical
expression. A God-being without a name?
• 'God the Sprit' – the phrase not in the Bible. [Cf. 'Elohim is spirit' Jn 4:24;
/xxx: God is a Spirit - KJV]
• 'God the Son' – Jesus was before he was born, after he was born, and after
resurrection-ascension. Cf. He was announced to be the Son, the beloved by
Elohim, upon his 'baptism'.
• Three 'Persons', each one is God, but no three Gods.
• Pre-existent 'Eternal God the Son'
• 'God incarnate'; 'Incarnate God' – cf. 'Logos Incarnate' as in Jn 1:14.
• 'Jesus is God' now; was Jesus God when he was on earth? Have turned back to
be God after death and ascension? Cf. 'Jesus as God'? (to worship; to pray?).
• 'Jesus was God' before he was born. [Cf. 'Jesus' was Michel the angle before
he was born – according to Jehovah's Witnesses.
• Son and Father are equal.
• 'Jesus' in NT is 'Jehovah' in OT (by many).
• 'Virgin birth' – (rather, 'virginal conception') Jesus does not have a father,
other than 'God' as his 'father' – making him a demigod or a God-man (Gk.
theanthropos), ['Jesus' as a divine person, but not a 'human person' – Catholic
idea – www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-jesus-a-human-person ]
or Docetism Cf. Human_disguise
'God the Father' – what is Father, what Father, which Father, whose Father?
• 'God the Son' – what is Son, what Son? Which Son? Whose Son?
• God (the Son) was put into Mary's womb to give birth to a god-man or
demigod walking on earth; after he died, he rose back as God as the 'soul' does
not die ('soul immortality'). The whole idea is nothing other than that of
reincarnation, but not resurrection at all.
• Mary in Catholic Mariology is called 'Mother of God', 'perpetual virgin' and
'Queen of Heaven' – reportedly have appeared in apparition as a lady in
Catholic legends. Co-Redemptrix , a candidate title.
Word and Quotation of the Day:

Quote: "To speak Christian is an exacting discipline. It has taken the church centuries
to develop habits of speech that help us say no more than needs to be said."
www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2010/08/16/2984111.htm

“religious indifferentism”

Quotation of the Day: (From < Bryan Garner’s Usage Tip of the Day >)

• "Prose is not necessarily good because it obeys the rules of syntax, but it is fairly
certain to be bad if it ignores them." Wilson Follett, Modern American Usage: A
Guide 22 (1966).

• "If paragraphs come in their natural order, you will easily make them follow one
another smoothly. Your handling of the subject will show you how to smooth the
transition from one paragraph to the next." Eric Partridge, English: A Course for
Human Beings 147-48 (1949).

• "Of the language of art, it has been said, two things, apparently contradictory, are
plainly true: first, that there is no single way of responding to its meaning; what
one finds depends on what one brings. And equally, what one finds is there already;
the meaning is there in the language." Hilda M. Hulme, Explorations in
Shakespeare's Language 2 (1962).

• "If you've written a paragraph that sounds heavy and tortured, put down your
pencil and ask yourself: 'If I were actually speaking these thoughts to a friend, how
would I probably say them?' Then go ahead and talk them out loud, and when
you're finished, write down as nearly as you can recall what you said. The chances
are good that many of your talked-out sentences will be an improvement over the
earlier, labored version of them." John R. Trimble, Writing with Style 81-82 (1975).

• [From http://rhetoric.byu.edu/ Chreia – example:

In the following passage Cephalus addresses Socrates and Glaucon regarding the
apparent pains of old age: "How well I remember the aged poet Sophocles, when
in answer to the question, how does lovemaking suit with old age, Sophocles, —
are you still the man you were? Peace, he replied; most gladly have I escaped the
thing of which you speak; I feel as if I had escaped from a mad and furious master.
His words have often occurred to my mind since, and they seem as good to me
now as at the time when he uttered them. For certainly old age has a great sense of
calm and freedom; when the passions relax their hold, then, as Sophocles says, we
are freed from the grasp not of one mad master only, but of many."
 Appendix

marriage in OT
<Custom of Marriage in OT>

www.bible.ca/marriage/ancient-jewish-three-stage-weddings-and-marriage-customs-ceremony-in-
the-bible.htm

1. The three "C" of weddings (< marriage) in the bible: Contract, Consummation,
Celebration

[+ covenant – ARJ]

Ancient Jewish weddings never involved a wedding ceremony like we see today with
the bride walking down the aisle to be married in the synagogue.

The "wedding ceremony" is something that did not develop for hundreds of years after
Jesus rose from the dead. Modern Jewish weddings are as removed and different from
the ancient Jewish marriage culture of the first century as Christian weddings are. If you
want to understand the many metaphors, illustrations and figures of speech used by
Jesus about "the wedding feast" and the church as the "bride of Christ", you must learn
the ancient culture and forget everything you know about modern marriage ceremonies.
[There was no "wedding ceremony" in the synagogue in the first century.]

2. There were three states of a marriage in the Bible:

a. Stage 1: signing the "ketubbah" contract (Creating the marriage bond)

i. The bride would choose her husband and her father would sign a legal contract with
him called a "ketubbah".
ii. Once this is signed the couple is fully married but do not have sexual relation yet.
iii. Young children were often married, (arranged marriage) but did not consummate
until of age.

b. Stage 2: The "chuppah": sexual consummation.

i. Up to 7 years later, the groom is able to raise the money as set out in the ketubbah
contract and notifies the father of the bride, who then sets a date to consummate the
marriage at the bride's home.
ii. The bride waits with her maidens, for the arrival of the groom and his companions.
iii. The couple enters the chuppah room and consummates the marriage while the
companions of the bride and groom wait and celebrate outside or in the next room.
iv. The groom hands the bloodied "proof of virginity cloth" to the witnesses chosen by
the bride's parents, who then give it to the bride for safekeeping.

c. Stage 3: The wedding feast

i. After consummation, the entire wedding party walks to the house of the groom in a
procession for a wedding feast.
ii. At the conclusion of the wedding feast, the couple has completed the ancient ritual
of marriage.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10432-marriage

Betrothal and Nuptial Rites.

The first step toward marriage was betrothal, involving the consent of the parent or guardian of the
girl and the payment of a price. The act of betrothal is expressed by the Hebrew word "aras"; the
price paid, by "mohar" (see Gen. xxxiv. 12; Ex. xxii. 16-17; Deut. xx. 7, xxii. 29; Hos. ii. 19-20).
The mohar may be in the form of service in the field or in war (Gen. xxix.; I Sam. xviii. 25). Probably
it was customary, even in early times, to give the bride some portion of the mohar, or at least to give
her presents (Gen. xxiv. 53, xxxi. 15, xxxiv. 12).

After betrothal the bride might be taken to her husband's house and the nuptials celebrated either
immediately or later (Gen. xxiv. 49-67; Judges xiv. 5 et seq.). The initial steps, it appears, were
customarily taken by the parents of the suitor, who formally made the proposal (Gen. xxiv., xxxiv.
4-6; Judges xiv. 2, 10). Not infrequently, however, in the comparatively free social intercourse of
those days, the young man and woman had met and formed a mutual attachment resulting in a love-
match (Gen. xxix. 9-12, 18; I Sam. xviii. 20, 28).

The bride did not always go to her husband empty-handed. Sometimes she received gifts from her
father, and a king's parting gift to his daughter was in one case a conquered city (Josh. xv. 16 et seq.;
Judges i. 12 et seq.; I. Kings ix. 16). In post-exilic times mention is made of a wife's dowry and of
a woman being able, by her own wealth, to support her husband (Tobit viii. 21; Ecclus [Sirach] xxv.
22). Mention is made also of a written marriage-contract (Tobit vii. 14).

After betrothal the bride was subject to the same restrictions as a wife (Deut. xxii. 23-24).

Of the marriage ceremonial little is known; it is not mentioned at all in the story of Isaac, while in
that of Jacob (Gen. xxix.) a marriage-feast and a nuptial week are spoken of. The central features in
later times were the wedding-procession and the wedding-feast. The bridegroom in festive attire and
accompanied by his friends went to the home of the bride, whence she, likewise in bridal garments,
veiled, and accompanied by her companions, was led to the house of his parents (Isa. lxi. 10; Judges
xiv. 10-11; Jer. ii. 32; Isa. xlix. 18; Ps. xlv. 8-15). The procession was enlivened with songs by, or
in praise of, the bride and bridegroom, and was lighted, if in the evening, by torches or lamps (Jer.
vii. 34, xvi. 9, xxv. 10; I Macc. ix. 37-39; Matt. xxv. 1-12; comp. Ps. xlv. and the Canticles, possibly
representing such wedding-songs). There followed the nuptial feast in the house of the bridegroom,
and the subsequent festivities sometimes continued for several days (Matt. ix. 15, xxii. 1-14; John
ii. 1).
‘literal meaning’
Literal Meaning by François Recanati

François Recanati (2004), Literal Meaning (pp. 5-6)

1 Two approaches to 'what is said'

1.1 The basic triad

Anyone who has reflected on the sentence meaning/speaker's meaning distinction knows that a
simple distinction is in fact insufficient. Two equally important distinctions must be made.

First, there is the distinction between the linguistic meaning of a sentence-type, and what is said
(the proposition expressed) by an utterance of the sentence. For example, the English sentence 'I
am French' has a certain meaning which, qua meaning of a sentence-type, is not affected by
changes in the context of utterance. This context-independent meaning contrasts with the context-
dependent propositions which the sentence expresses with respect to particular contexts. Thus 'I
am French', said by me, expresses the proposition that I am French; if you utter the sentence, it
expresses a different proposition, even though its linguistic meaning remains the same across
contexts of use.

Second, there is a no less important distinction between what is actually said and what is merely
'conveyed' by the utterance. My utterance of 'I am French' expresses the proposition that I am
French, but there are contexts in which it conveys much more. Suppose that, having been asked
whether I can cook, I reply: 'I am French'. Clearly my utterance (in this context) provides an
affirmative answer to the question. The meaning of the utterance in such a case includes more
than what is literally said; it also includes what the utterance 'implicates'.

'What is said' being a term common to both distinctions, we end up with a triad:
(4) what is stated (> ‘sentence meaning’), vs.
(5) what is said, vs.
(6) what is implicated.
The distinguishing characteristic of sentence meaning (the linguistic meaning of the sentence
type) is that it is conventional and context-independent. Moreover, in general at least, it falls short
of constituting a complete proposition, that is, something truth-evaluable. In contrast, both 'what
is said' and 'what is implicated' are context-dependent and propositional. The difference between
‘what is said' and 'what is implicated' is that the former is constrained by sentence meaning in a
way in which the implicatures aren't. What is said results from fleshing out the meaning of the
sentence (which is like a semantic ‘skeleton’) so as to make it propositional. The propositions one
can arrive at through this process of contextual enrichment or 'fleshing out' are constrained by the
skeleton which serves as input to the process. Thus 'I am French' can express an indefinite number
of propositions, but the propositions in question all have to be compatible with the semantic
potential of the sentence; this is why the English sentence 'I am French' cannot express the
proposition that kangaroos have tails. There is no such constraint on the propositions which an
utterance of the sentence can communicate through the mechanism of implicature. Given enough
background, an utterance of 'I am French' might implicate that kangaroos have tails. What's
implicated is implicated by virtue of an inference, and the inference chain can (in principle) be as
long and involve as many background assumptions as one wishes.
The basic triad can be mapped back onto the simple sentence meaning/speaker's meaning
distinction by grouping together two of the three levels. There are two ways to do it,
corresponding to two interpretations for the triad. The 'minimalist' interpretation stresses the close
connection between sentence meaning and what is said; together, sentence meaning and what is
said constitute the literal meaning of the utterance as opposed to what the speaker means:

literal meaning
– sentence meaning
– what is said

Vs.

speaker's meaning

The other, 'non-minimalist' interpretation of the triad stresses the commonality between what is
said and what is implicated, both of which are taken to be pragmatically determined:

sentence meaning

vs

speakers meaning – what is said

– what is implicated

Essential to this interpretation is the claim that 'what is said', though constrained by the meaning
of the sentence, is not as tightly constrained as is traditionally thought and, in particular, does not
obey what I will refer to as the 'minimalist' constraint.
'*Kingdom'

‘*kingdom; vs. kingdom(s); Kingdom of Elohim = Kingdom of the God > Kingdom
of God; Kingdom of the heavens; *reign;

https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/topics/Kingship,-Divine [needs separate NT & OT; verb

(rule/reign) vs. noun (kingdom), etc.]

Aside from frequently encountered phrases, such as "YHWH/Elohim reigns" (e.g. "YHWH will
reign for ever and ever" Exo 15:18) and "God's Kingdom; Kingdom of Elohim; Kingdom of the
heavens", the texts where the word 'God' (Elohim, YHWH) and 'Kingdom' occur together: God
as King:

Psa 99:1 YHWH reigns + Psa 99:4 King's strength also loves justice
Num 23:21 YHW their Elohim is with them; the shout of the King is among them.
Num 24:7 "his [Yaakob and Israel v. 5. (? their – NIV, NET)] King will be greater than
Agag; his kingdom will be exalted."
Psa 47:2 YHWH Most High ~~ a great King over al the earth.
Psa 95:3 YHWH is a great Elohim and a great King above all gods.
Isa 44:6 YHWH, the King of Israel and his Redeemer
1Ti 1:17 the King of the ages, immortal and invisible – God who alone is …
Rev 15:3 O Adonai, El Shaddai; ~ O the King of the nations (v.l. /ages).

Yeshua as <KING OF KINGS> (1Tm 6:15; Rev 17:14; 19:16);

Dan 2:37; Your Majesty, you [Nebuchadnezzar v.1] O King, are king of kings.
Ezr 7:19; [From] Artaxerxes, king of kings,

(See * Eschatology);

[Note: IRENT translates Gk. basileia S163 as 'kingdom' (uncapitalized) when it

refers to a political kingdom (cf. ‘empire’). In the fixed phrase as ‘the reign of
Elohim’ (> 'the Kingdom of God') or ‘the God’s reign’. For the Matthean phrase as
“the kingdom of the heavens” in order to avoid the auditory association with ‘reign’
vs. ‘rain’. ‘the kingdom reign of the Father’.

[reign of Elohim– a serious problem: often the phrase (esp. with the phrase in Korean
translation ‘하늘나라 or 천국’ ‘kingdom of heaven’) is mentally translated as a place for
good people to go after death (similar to the notion of ‘paradise’ which is parallel to
Buddhist’s nirvana ‘극락 極樂’).
 Ref.
• Bruce Chilton (1996), Pure Kingdom – Jesus' Vision of God
• Myles Munroe (2006), Kingdom Principles - Preparing for Kingdom
Experience and Expansion (https://epdf.tips/queue/kingdom-
principles-preparing-for-kingdom-experience-and-expansion-
understanding-.html )
• Tony Evans – The Kingdom Agenda – Life Under God
[Concept of the Kingdom Agenda https://youtu.be/ST6VMs2mctM ]
• Anthony Buzzard (2012) The Coming Kingdom of the Messiah: A
Solution to the Riddle of the New Testament

In common usage, the term 'kingdom' refers to a territory; a state or people

subject to the authority of a monarch. (Cf. empire). In biblical usage it
refers to the royal ruler or the authority by which he reigns. The rulers
whom God has designated to act as His regal representatives, and to
exercise His authority in the coming reign of Elohim are Yeshua and His
faithful chosen people, ekklesia (cf. 'Church') (1Pe 2:9).

Cf. power, law, rule, authority, justice

[http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/jbl/1962_ladd.pdf Kingdom of God –
Reign or Realm?] [http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/jesus_kog.php - list of
references]

In the NT "the Kingdom reign of Elohim" (hē basileia tou theou; ‘the Kingdom of
the God’) is the central tenet of Yeshua’s teaching. It is the present (not
‘eschatological’) activity of Elohim as ruler – coming and being present among us
(God’s word and will) with God’s love, shalom and justice – realized as the reign of
Mashiah the King, the Son of Elohim. It is for the Mashian Kingdom movement for
people to join, not a place to get in. (cf. ‘enter into the kingdom’ eiserchomai eis tēn
basileian Mt 7:21 is not ‘entering into a place/territory’ but joining the kingdom
movement). This is the core message of Yeshua’s Gospel – G-Jn has only 2x – Jn
3:3, 5.

Cf. 'the Kingdom reign of the heavens' (~ tōn ouranōn) is a typical Matthean
expression, with ‘the heavens’ as paraphrasis of Elohim. It is equivalent to 'the
Kingdom reign of Elohim'. Some tries to use them to denote two different
phases/dispensations.]

[Cf. ‘theocracy’: a system of human government in which priest group rules and controls its
subject in the name of God or a god’ with collusion of religious and political powers in
human history. World religious organizations and powers have effectively replaced God’s
Kingdom reign with their doctrinal and ecclesiastical control.]
Cf. ‘Kingdom reign of the Son-of-man’; ‘Kingdom reign of Mashiah’

Mt 16:28 kingdom of Him ~~ of the Son-of-man ░░ [Cf. ‘kingdom of Elohim in //Mk 9:1 //Lk 9:27]
[Cf. Mt 13:41 “his kingdom ~ of the Son-of-man”]
Lk 23:42 – ‘your kingdom’ (of Yeshua)
2Pe 1:11 – the eternal Kingdom of our Lord and Savior, Yeshua the Mashiah.
Col 1:3 – the Kingdom of His Son.
2Ti 4:1 – ‘of Yeshua the Mashiah ~~ His Kingdom reign’.
Eph 5:5 – the Kingdom of the Mashiah and of Elohim.

Phrases with 'the Kingdom' of Elohim [cf. Gk. 'the God' is uniformly rendered
as 'Elohim' in IRENT.]

Enter the Kingdom reign of the heavens – Mt 5:20; 19:23

Enter the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Mk 9:47; 10:23, 24; Lk 18:24
The Kingdom reign comes – Mt 6:10; Lk 17:20; 22:18; 23:51;
The Kingdom reign appears – Lk 19:11
See the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Mt 6:33
The mysteries of the Kingdom reign of the heavens – Mt 13:11
The mysteries of the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Lk 8:10
The mystery of the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Mk4:11
The Gospel of the Kingdom reign – Mt 9:35; 24:14
Proclaim [xx: preach] the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Lk 4:43; 9:60; Act 20:25; 28:1
The word of the God's kingdom – Mt 13:19
belonging to the Kingdom reign of the heavens – Mt 16:19
In the kingdom of their Father – Mt 13:43
belonging to the kingdom – Mt 13:38
A disciple of the Kingdom of the heavens – Mt 13:52
Greatest and least in the Kingdom of the heavens – Mt 18:4
Shut off the Kingdom reign of the heavens – Mt 23:13
See the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Mk 9:47; Jn 3:3;
Receive the Kingdom reign of Elohim – Mk 10:15; Lk 18:17
Seek the Kingdom reign of [Elohim] – Lk 12:31, 32
Belong to the Kingdom reign of the heavens– Mt 16:19;
The Kingdom reign of the heavens is come upon you – Mt 12:28;
The Kingdom reign of Elohim is come upon you – Lk 11:20;
The hidden truths about the Kingdom reign of Elohim– Mt 13:11;
The Kingdom of the heavens is like – Mt 13:24, 31, 33, 34, 45, 47
Coming into your kingdom – Lk 23:42;
Restore the sovereign kingdom to Israel – Act 1:6
Belong to the kingdom – Mt 13:38;

The Kingdom reign of Elohim has come ░░ [ēngiken (14x) (the Kingdom ~ Mt 3:2; 4:17; 10:7;
Mk 1:15; Lk 10:9, 11) > S1448 eggizō]; [Cf. 'is come (upon you)' Mt 12:28 //Lk 11:20 ephthasen >
S5348 phthanō.] [Cf. Lk 17:21 'is in midst of you']

The Kingdom reign of Elohim – Rm 14:17; 1Co 4:20; 6:9, 10; 10:50

'inherit' God's kingdom – Gal 5:21;

Deliver the Kingdom to Elohim – 1Co 15:24
By His appearing and His Kingdom reign – 2Tm 4:1
Bring me into His heavenly [epournion S2032] Kingdom – 2Tm 4:18
Into the eternal Kingdom reign of our Lord – 2Pe 1:11
'inheritance' in the kingdom of the Mashiah and of Elohim – Eph 5:5

Phrases with 'the kingdom'

Receive the royal title (> kingdom) – Lk 19:15

Give you the kingdom – Lk 12:32
The kingdom of this world – Rev 11:15 [/x: kingdoms – KJV]
The kingdoms of the world (~ tou kosmou) – Mt 4:8; Lk 4:5;

‘Kingdom’ in NT – basileia

(1) ‘Kingdom of God’ – with a King, the subjects, and the authority/ruling/life; IRENT
renders he basileia tou theou as ‘Kingdom reign of Elohim’. Cf. ‘Kingdom reign of
the heavens’ (in G-Mt).
(2) (also, plural 'kingdoms') rendered as ‘kingdom’ for political Kingdom, Empire,
Governments, Powers.
(3) as kingship - Jn 18:36 ‘my kingship does not belong to (/is not of) this world’ (it is
in this world, but not of this world) ek tou kosmou toutou

Kingdom reign of Elohim

> Kingdom of the God; >> 'Kingdom of God' God’s Kingdom ‘

Mk 1:15; 4:11, etc. 14x;
Lk 4:43; 6:20, etc. 32x;
Jn 3:3, 5 - 2x;
Mt 12:28; 19:24; 21:31, 43 -3x; [+ Mt 6:33 – His Kingdom]
[In the Acts 6x; in the Epistles – 4x].
= "kingdom of Mashiah" (Mt 13:41; 20:21)
= "kingdom of Mashiah and of Elohim" (Eph 5:5)
= "kingdom of David" (Mk 11:10)
= "the kingdom" (Mt 8:12; 13:19)
= "kingdom of heaven" (Mt 3:2; 4:17, etc. 32x)
= ‘God’s kingdom’ 1Co 6:9, 10; 15:50; Gal 5:21;
= heavenly kingdom 2Ti 4:18
= the kingdom of the Son Co1 1:13

There no separate kingdom of a future state to be realized and of a present reality not
fully realized. No such thing as ‘kingdom within a person’s heart’. It is the kingly rule
of the Spirit of Elohim.

all denote the same thing under different aspects, viz.:

(1) Mashiah’s mediatorial authority, or his rule on the earth;
(2) the blessings and advantages of all kinds that flow from this rule;
(3) the subjects of this kingdom taken collectively
A common expression ‘kingdom of Satan’ does not appear in in the Bible and may be taken to refer to
the (political and religious) kingdoms which are under the power of Satan.

Cf. 2Co 4:4 'Elohim for this age' /x: the god of this world (= Satan) – most Bible translations and
commentaries. Gor  this 4:4a → Mt 13:10-12, 13-15 (also parallel in G-Mk & G-Lk); Isa 6:9-10. Also
Jn 9:39; 12:39-40; Act 28:25b-27; Rm 11:7-8 (also vv. 9-10); https://youtu.be/0lu_-JyhAtw <Trinity
Delusion: The GOD of the age is who??>] https://rdtwot.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/2cor-44.pdf [2
Corinthians 4:4: A Case for Yahweh as the ‘God of this Age.’] – a copy in < IRENT Vol. III -
Supplement (Collections #3A.1 - God, Yeshua, & Names)>.

Cf. Gk. exousia Col 1:13 ‘the dominion of the darkness’. Cf. prince of this world – Jn
14:30]

http://youtu.be/e1KVgdRpz5s A Look at The Kingdom Agenda Bible Study - Tony

Evans
http://youtu.be/IrATAsm51LU The Kingdom Agenda - Bible Study Session One
https://youtu.be/ST6VMs2mctM The Concept of the Kingdom Agenda
[Sermons from Dr. Evans: http://tonyevans.org/ ]

Ref: Wali van Lohuizen (2011), A Psycho-Spiritual View on the Message of

Jesus in the Gospels: Presence and Transformation in Some Logia as a Sign of
Mysticism, Part II pp.81-165.

Bruce Chilton (1996), Pure Kingdom – Jesus’ Vision of God

Dr. John Cobb's special lecture (Seizing the Alternative to the system)
https://youtu.be/tci6calD6P4

See the next entry “Kingdom of the heavens vs. Kingdom of God”.
 Yeshua Himself as Kingdom Reign of Elohim – the kingdom of the present,
realized in Himself, and the kingdom of the future to be brought on His coming at
the Last day. [Cf. As to ‘eschatology’ – The Mashiah himself as the eschaton (‘the
End’). However, it is used only to refer to the Last Days] Here, the kingdom reign
is none other than the Mashiah Himself, that is, the realized kingdom, not
eschatological-at-the-end. Cf. *realized eschatology

[It has nothing to do with ‘Paradise’ or ‘heaven’ a place the dead are believed to go (i.e. nirvana) if
not fallen into ‘Hell’.]

The Kingdom reign of Elohim has come ░░ [ēngiken (14x) (the Kingdom ~ Mt 3:2;
4:17; 10:7; Mk 1:15; Lk 10:9, 11) > S1448 eggizō];
[Cf. ephthasen Mt 12:28 //Lk 11:20 (> S5348 phthanō)] ['is come' (upon you')]
/> has come – most; /is come – KJV; [Cf. "the meaning of the Gk. aorist [here] is future,
nevertheless, a certain and an imminent ~~ the Kingdom is potentially present in the
person of Yeshua during his earthly ministry" – CC Caragounis.]

"… is about to break in upon you (and overtake you in your obstinate and unrepentant
state)" – Chris the "meaning of the Gk. aorist is future, nevertheless, a certain and an
imminent", "the Kingdom is potentially present in the person of Yeshua as during his
earthly ministry" – Ref. CC Caragounis, “Kingdom of God, Son of Man, and Jesus’ Self-
Understanding”, Tyndale Bulletin 40-40.2 (1989) 3-23 and 223-38 and , CC Caragounis,
The Development of Greek and the New Testament, 261-78. – in rebuttal to the so-called
'Realized Eschatology' as in CH Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom, 1935, rev. rp. 1961,
p. 36. Source: Chrys C. Caragounis, "The Unity of the Greek Language and Its
Significance for Understanding the New Testament" Lecture Published in Word and Life,
Seoul, S. Korea Spring 2011

[Cf. S1451 eggus Lk 21:31 “the Kingdom is near”]

[Cf. Lk 17:21 'is in midst of you-all'; not 'within' (each of) you.]

/Perichoresis /Immanence

The Greek word basileia in the sense of a kingly *reign.

The notion ‘kingdom’ is of king and his subjects, tightly bound to a territory and
ruling with power. Ruling, however, is based on the laws of rules, regulations, and
reward-and-punishment. Political kingdoms and governments in human history
(earthly and worldly even religious kingdoms) are fundamentally run on pursuit of
power and pleasure with ‘power to take from and power to control over people’,
making them puppets, parrots, pawns, pets, and preys to predators with pomp and
pride – if not outright enchantment, brain-washing, enslavement a and an Orwellian
103F103F

state power by its ruling caste. This makes the world to be full of jokes made of false,

a
Related words to play: [coterie, clique, in-group, inner circle, gang, camp, pack, crony, obsequy, sycophant;
kowtow; flatterer; adulator bootlicking; groveling; cowering; fawning; brown-nosing]
 farce, fake, fraud, etc. – all shameful AND shameless. ‘Power of the people, by the
people and for the people’ has turned into ‘Populace of the power, by the power and
for the power – complete perversion of the legacy of Abraham Lincoln.

*Power – “The hallmark of having power is being able to act at all, to do what one
wants to do, when one wants to do it, how one wants to do it.” – quoted from p. 145
in Lip Service by Marianne LaFrance (2011). Hand in hand with ‘pleasure’, power
is to control, leading to control over others into enslavement and dependence
(‘making people crave for being under someone’s control’)

The Kingdom reign of Elohim’ (‘Kingdom of God’) God’s Kingdom is God’s action
in activity and movement from God – empowered in spirit (not ‘spiritual’ as if
spiritualized or spiritualistic). The idea of Kingdom reign of Elohim, the central
message of Yeshua’s Gospel, is not out of Yeshua’s own idea or conviction. “The
coming Kingdom of God (or, ‘Kingdom of Heaven’) is a part of conventional
Judaism” a (after Joel Carmichael).
104F104F

It is not a place; like a place to go (esp. after ones’ death in a jargon of ‘heaven and
hell’), but God’s reign realized in the person of Yeshua himself, the reality for a
person (humanity) belong to.

Since God Himself rules with His Word, an English word ‘*reign’ is a more accurate
term with the word picture of God’s action and moving of God’s spirit sweeping over
the created world, holding human affair under it. It exists in something of a dynamic
relationality b. Yeshua Himself ushered into human history. The common English
105F105F

word ‘kingdom’ refers to a human political power. It is for the God’s poor people to
join and enter. (Mt 5:3 – cf. misunderstanding as ‘spiritual poverty’ – impoverished
spirit; dispirited; etc.)

Kingdom vs. *reign: [Other related words – sovereign rule; rule; domain;
sovereignty; kingship (– Jn 18:36 IRENT)]
‘Kingdom’ – word picture of ‘territory’ (with military might for its unending appetite
of expansion), ‘held by king in power over his obedient (feared) subjects and over
enemies’, ‘imperialism’; ‘patriarchy with male dominance’; ‘power of taxation’;

The English word ‘reign’ - its aural image does not come as clear as we can hope
for. (Cf. rhyming with ‘rein’ and ‘rain’).

a
. Ref. Joel Carmichael (1962), The Death of Jesus, Ch. 6. The Kingdom of God, p. 82. “… it is repeated
even nowadays by pious Jews three times daily in the prayer called Shemoneh Esreh, No. 17. … More
importantly, it was not a divine work accomplished within the soul of the individual; it was not a spiritual
reformation of the individual but was something put into effect outside the individual: it was a material
transformation of the universe.”
Cf. www.hebrew4christians.com/Prayers/Daily_Prayers/Shemoneh_Esrei/Avodah/avodah.html “. . . May
our eyes see You return to Zion in mercy. Blessed are You, O Lord, Who restores His Presence to Zion.”
b
‘dynamic relationality’ - See under ‘Trinity’ for this term.
IRENT renders the Greek basileia consistently as ‘Kingdom reign’ when it refers
to God’s except as ‘kingdom’ (uncapitalized) only when referring to a political
worldly power entity. Since the English word ‘God’ does not tell it is used differently
than in generic sense, IRENT renders it ‘Kingdom reign of Elohim’ [See elsewhere
in this file for ‘Elohim’ as the translation of Greek word ‘the God’.]

The major difference of the Kingdom reign which is of Judaic tradition from that
which is announced by the Lordship of Yeshua the Mashiah is that He Himself is
ushering in and it is the reign by Him and in Him. It does not have ‘power’ as its
purpose, as God’s power itself is inexhaustible. Nor the word may be rendered as
‘power’, which is more tied to the notion of ‘God’ and ‘God’s will’. His Kingdom
reign is in the very giving of power and in the empowerment of His creation, which
was made after His image, to participate in life of creative work.

The expression in the Gospels ‘Kingdom is at hand’ (/near; /drawn near; > eggizō)
is not just ‘the promise of God is to be fulfilled’ (Andrew Greely, The Jesus Myth p.
39 www.questia.com/library/140244/the-jesus-myth )

The relation between the King and His people is ‘love to give and love to create’. It
is in contrast to the relation based on ‘power’ between kings and their subjects, which
encompasses rules, regulations, and rewards-punishments. Instead of God’s image
and Words (i.e. Torah = Teachings), it feeds on ideologies with much ‘doublespeak’
as in Orwellian society. For God it is possible to ‘give’, since His love is
inexhaustible.

The word ‘love’ used in the Scripture has nothing much to do with ‘love’ in English
used for human interpersonal level. In a sense, this love is the very power of God –
power in Spirit (cf. ‘the very God is love’ – 1Jn 4:8, 16). Power corrupts – a simple
self-evident true statement, as the purpose of power is power itself. Since power is
only finite, power has to eat up other’s power and eventually gets dissipated. (Cf. the
so-called Laws of Thermodynamics in the realm of physics can be equally extended
into the human social realm.)

In NT, the Kingdom of Elohim is NOT something ‘Christians’ expect to come in the
future at the so-called ‘second coming of Christ’ (cf. ‘Postponement theory’
entertained by the so-called Dispensational theology). Neither has it anything to do
with ‘heaven where a person would go after death’. It is simply an embodiment in
Yeshua the Mashiah Himself, God’s Kingdom is in Him, through Him, with Him.
(Cf. Rm 14:17). It is the very first proclamation He made at the beginning of His
ministry – “The appointed time is fulfilled, and the kingdom reign of Elohim is at
hand: repent and put trust in this good news (of the reign of Elohim)” (Mk 1:15 –
IRENT translation). It was ‘at hand’ with His coming there and then; not it was to
come in the future. The reality of the Kingdom that has come in Him has nothing to
do with rejection of Yeshua as their Mashiah, Prophet, Priest, and King on the part
of Yehudim authorities in their religion.

The Kingdom IS the very present reality in the person of Yeshua the Mashiah:
(See THE KINGDOM OF GOD, POSTPONED OR PRESENT? (Aug 2013)
www.ralphwoodrow.org/articles/kingdom-of-God.pdf )

Mk 1:15; //Mt 4:17; 10:7; Mt 3:2; Mk 9:1 (Cf. Lk 2:26); Lk 10:9-11; Lk 17:20-
21 (not ‘within you’, but ‘among you’. Cf. Ezk 11:19; 36:26-27; Lk 19:11; Mt
6:10 (not ‘it will come’, but it comes to us now and here with His spirit
quickening us); Mt 23:13; Lk 11:52; Mk 9:43-49; Mt 12:34.

Its fulfillment – Mt 26:54; Act 2:23; 4:28; 26:22-23; Lk 23:51; 16:16; Col 1:13;
Lk 24:49; Acts 1:8; Mt 16:19; Mt 18:3;

See the phrase “The Kingdom IS like ~” (in parables): Mt 13:24, 31, 33, 44, 45,
47; 20:1; 22:2; 25:14. 18:4; 5:3, 10; 11:11; 12:28;

Act 13:27;
Jn 18:36; Rm 14:1g7; 1Co 4:20
Rev 1:6, 9;

Cf. ‘King of the Jews’– Mt 2:2; 27:11, 29, 37; Mk 15:2, 9, 12, 18, 26; Lk 23:3,
37, 38; Jn 18:33, 39; 19:3, 19, 21;

The reign of Mashiah: Acts 2:29-35; Eph 1:20-22; Heb 10:12, 13; 1Co 15:25,
26; Rev 17:14; Rm 14:17.

God’s kingdom, being everlasting and unending, is both present and future – from
eternity in the past to the eternity in the future – “and that future will be GREAT,
GRAND and GLORIOUS”.

See also an enlightening discourse (29 min video on Vimeo) by Tony Evans -
vimeo.com/55044299 Concept of the Kingdom.
‘Kingdom of the heavens’ vs. ‘Kingdom of Elohim’

‘Kingdom of the heavens’; 'Kingdom of Elohim' (> 'Kingdom of the God')

This is the way IRENT renders as in WNT with an initial cap for ‘Kingdom’ to
show that it has nothing corresponding to the political human kingdoms of the
world history (Cf. Jn 18:36) and an initial capital letter for ‘Heaven’ to show that
it is used as a metonym.

‘kingdom of heaven’ – most English translations;

‘kingdom of the heavens’ – ALT = EBTV, NWT, Whiston, Etheridge, Rhm;
‘Kingdom of Heaven’ (JNT, TCNT, GSNT, MRC);
‘Kingdom of heaven’ (GNB);
‘kingdom of Heaven’ (PNT, LITV, MKJV).

This phrase ‘Kingdom of the heavens’ appear only in G-Mt (x 31 places):

Mt 3:2; 4:17; 5:3, 10, 19, 20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11, 12; 13:11, 24, 31, 33, 44,
45, 47; 52; 16:19; 18:1, 3, 4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:14; 25:1.

The expression, reflecting a Hebrew idiom, seems to have somewhat different

nuance and word picture than the synonymous phrase ‘Kingdom of the God’ (>
'Kingdom of God') and used interchangeably when compared to the comparable
texts in other Gospels. The latter is which is shown also in G-Mt but less frequently
(Mt_6:33; Mt_12:28; Mt_19:24; Mt_21:31, 43) and rendered as ‘Kingdom reign
of Elohim’ in IRENT. However,

[Note: there a few who take them to refer to the different age of dispensation in the
history. However, when we stay away of making doctrines, it seems that Kingdom
of the heavens carries the sense of God’s sovereignty in the heavenly realm
whereas Kingdom of Elohim is God’s will being accomplished over the humanity
on earthly realm Mt 6:10 - ). → the reign of Elohim by Yeshua the Mashiah

‘kingdom’ vs. ‘reign’ and related words in English

‘reign’ – [problem of rhyming – rein, rain]
(1) a period during which a sovereign is ruling.
(2) royal rule or authority; sovereignty.
(3) dominating power or influence (e.g. the reign of law).

‘kingdom’ [Cf. empire; cf. monarchy]

(1) a state or government having a king or queen as its head.
(2) [fig.] anything conceived as constituting a realm or sphere of independent
action or control: (e.g. the kingdom of thought.)
(3) the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ.
 (4) the domain over which the spiritual sovereignty of God or Christ extends,
whether in heaven or on earth.

realm - the domain, including the subjects, over which the king has jurisdiction;
figuratively, a sphere of power or influence: the laws of the realm.
dominion

‘enter into the kingdom’

[It has nothing to do with a non-biblical phrase ‘go to heaven (after death)’ (heavenly
mansion; paradise?).]

• Mt 5:20 //Mt 18:3 ‘have ome and enter into the Kingdom reign of the heavens; (find
themselves entered into the reign of Elohim).
/> join ( - as if a movement); />> enter (as if in the territorial image of the kingdom).
In his own voice, He was inviting to come into the Kingdom, which is what His Gospel
is for. The Kingdom is not something apart from Yeshua Himself. He was not telling
‘to go and enter into the Kingdom somewhere out there’, but ‘to come to me, entering
into the Kingdom.
• Jn 3:3 (‘see the Kingdom of Elohim’); Jn 3:5 (‘enter into the Kingdom of Elohim’).
*Sabbath; *Sabbath-rest; Sabbath day

*festival vs. *feast

[See in <Walk Through the Scripture – Time, Calendar and Chronology>.]

Hebrew [H2282 chag] and Greek (S1859 heortē) both for feast or festival. However,
English word 'feast' is of different meaning. In IRENT 'festival' is used for 7-day long
biblical festivals; 'feast' for a single day event.

Cf. English adjectives 'festal' for 'festival'; 'festive' for 'feast'.

*day; *night; *week;

[See in <Walk Through the Scripture – Time, Calendar and Chronology>.]

In the Scripture the word ‘day’ (Heb. yom – Heb; Gk. hēmera – Gk) refers to that
which begins at sunrise (either for daytime period or calendar date). Likewise, that
which begins at sunset is called ‘night’, never ‘day’. E.g. Mk 4:27 katheudē kai
egeirētai, nukta kai hēmeran (‘sleeps and rises up; night and day’ < “As he sleeps
during night and rises up next day”) Jewish reckoning of a day (calendar date) to
start at sunset is unnatural and unscriptural and contrary to common sense and
logic.

‘Week’ in the bible is a lunar week, not a planetary week of Gregorian calendar;
the numbered days of the lunar week does not correspond to the named days of the
solar week. ‘Seventh day’ in the Scripture is not same as Saturday; these are
unrelated, though a certain event in the biblical history may find to coincide when
the proleptic Gregorian calendar is aligned with the biblical calendar.

Day of YHWH –
Act 2:20; Joel 1:15; 2:11, 31; 3:14; Ezk 30:3; Amo 5:18; Oba 1:15; Zec 14:1
Rm 2:16 "on a {/that} day {when} Elohim will, through Mashiah Yeshua, …"
Phi 2:16 'in the day of Mashiah'
1Co 5:5 'in the day of the Lord {Yeshua}'
**Sabbath, sabbaths, week in Heb;
[Ref. Heb. TaNaKh text unaccented;
http://faithofgod.net/Hebrew/tnk/index.html http://faithofgod.net/Hebrew/tnk/lev.htm
H7651 sheba 'seven' – Gen 41:26; Ezk 45:23; Dan 9:25; [Dan 9:24 H7657 (shibeem 'seventy') + ]
H7637 shebiith 'seventh' Lev 25:4
shabuim ‫ שבעים‬weeks [Dan 9:24]; the (sixty-two) weeks ‫ – השבעים‬Dan 9:26]

H7620 shabua ‫'( שבע‬week'); 'a period of seven' (of days or year); e.g. Gen 29:27 a week.
[pl. ‫ שבתות‬shavuot 'weeks';
• Exo 34:22; Num 28:26; Deu 16:10, 16; 2Ch 8:13 Feast of Shavuot/Weeks (/x: 'festival')
• Lev 23:15 (count off … seven completea) 'weeks'; /xxx: (seven) sabbathsb – KJV, ASV,
NASB, NWT, etc.]
Cf. ‫ שבעים‬shavuayim 'two weeks' (Lev 12:5)
Cf. Lev 25:8 seven sabbaths of year; ‫( שבתת‬Cf. Lev 26:34 ‫)שבתתיה‬

H7676c shabbath (111x); ('sabbath'). Exo 16:23; Lev 16:31; (your sabbath) Lev 23:32. [It is mostly
used with the definite article as hassabbat (the sabbath) – Exo 16:29; Exo 31:14f; Lev 23:15 etc., esp.
in the full phrase, yom hassabbat 'the sabbath day' (Exo 20:8; 31:14; 35:3, Lev 23:3; Num 15:32; Deu
5:12, etc.) [metonymically as ‘sabbath-day’] ['sabbath’ as uncountable noun (as ‘sabbath-resting’); not to be
capitalized. Cf. 'a sabbath day']

[pl. ‫ שבתת‬shabbatot 'sabbaths']

Lev 23:38 sabbaths (of YHWH)
Exo 31:13; Lev 19:3, 30; 26:2 (keep) my sabbaths‫ ;שבתתי‬Ezk 46:3 (on the sabbaths);
[pl. shabuim (> H7620) 'sevens' 'seven time-periods' 'weeks' Dan 9:24, 25, 26]

Cf. 'the sabbath day' [yom haShabbat (19x)] – Exo 20:8, 12; 31:15; 35:4; Lev 26:8; Num 15:32; Deu
5:12, 15; Neh 10:31; 13:15, 17, 19, 22; Jer 17:21, 22, 24, 27; Ezk 46:4, 12;

*sabbath; *sabbath-rest

The word 'sabbath' is used

(1) in the sense of sabbath-rest
(2) usually in reference to 'sabbath day'

Sabbath day is on 7th day of the lunar week, which is unrelated to 'Saturday' in
the planetary week of Gregorian calendar.
A single annual sabbath-rest day – on the Day of Atonement. There are no
separated "annual sabbath" day in the 7-day long festivals. That there are two
sabbath days in Passion week, whether they are one after another or they are a
day part, is a clever made-up idea to come up with their own Crucifixion day
scenarios, be in Wednesday or Thursday crucifixion.

a Lev 23:15 "complete week" = 6 work-days + sabbath day] – vs. 'week' of 7 days (counting from any day of a
month).] [Cf. ''complete' [H8549 tamim] - ESV, NIV, HCSB, NET, Darby; /whole – Fox; /full; />> perfect (wrong
connotation and word picture); [translation phrase 'complete sabbath(s)' is non-sensical.]
b However, all translate correctly in the parallel text Deu 16:9 as 'weeks'. See fn on this verse on the file OT Texts on

Time, Calendar, Festivals in the zip file <IRENT – OT (+ fn. & end-note)>.
c Check for Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon – (1) sabbath …. (2) 'perhaps a week, like in the Sry. and Gr. (Mt

28:1) Lev 23:15; compare Deu 16:9 www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H7676&t=KJV ]

Sabbath & sabbaths in Gk.
https://yahshua-ha-mashiach.weebly.com/what-does-the-word-sabbaton-in-greek-really-mean.html

S4521 sabbaton (68x) (‘sabbath’ 'week')

1 'sabbath'a. - the seventh day of the lunar [complete] week, marked for rest from work and for
special religious ceremonies.b.
Mk 16:1 (diagenomenou tou sabbatou) 'the sabbath having past'
Lk 6:9 (tō sabbatō) 'on the sabbath'.
1-a 'week' – (a rare example)
Lk 18:12 (nēsteuō dis tou sabbatou) 'fasting twice the week'.c

2 'sabbaths' (i.e. sabbath days)

more than one – as inclusive as (several, a series of, any, or all) shabbats. Note. ALT,
EBTV, LITV, and YLT consistently render it in wholesale as ‘sabbaths’.
[A] as inclusive ‘sabbaths’ (several, a series of, any, or all) –
Mt 12:5, 10, 11; Mk 1:21; 2:24; 3:2, 4; (tois sabbasin 'on the sabbaths');
Lk 4:16 (en tē hēmera tōn sabbatōn 'on the day of the sabbaths'); 4:31 (en tois
sabbasin 'on the sabbaths'); 6:2, 9 (tois sabbasin)
Act 17:2 (epi sabbata tria 'for three sabbaths');
Col 2:16 (ē ~~ heortēs ē neomēnias ē sabbatōn) (– some renders as 'a sabbath')
[B] as in en tē hēmera tōn sabbatōn (Lk 4:16) 'on the day of the sabbaths';
as in [en] tois sabbasin (Mt 12:1, 12; Mk 2:23), idiomatic, ‘as on the sabbaths’;
2-a idiomatic –week, a period of seven days, of which the last day is for sabbath-rest.
[A] in the sense of ‘week’
Mt 28:1a (opse de sabbatōn) ‘after the week having past’d
[B] in the fixed phrase '*firste day of the week'f
Lk 24:1; Jn 20:1 (tē de mia tōn sabbatōn 'on the first day of the week');
Jn 20:19 (opsias tē hēmera ekeinē tē mia sabbatōn);
Mk 16:2 (tē mia tōn sabbatōn 'on the first day of the week');
Mk 16:9 (anastas de prōi prōtē sabbatou) 'having risen early on the first day of the week'
Act 20:7 (en de tē mia tōn sabbatōn 'on the first day of the week');
Mt 28:1b (eis mian sabbatōn 'toward first day of the week')
1Co 16:2; (kata mian sabbatōn {/sabbatou} 'on every first day of the week')
See under. ‘Examining Time related terminology’ in WB #6 - Passover-Passion Week Chronology.

a A few times we see the exact phrase ‘the day of the sabbath’ (Lk 13:14, 16; 14:5). However, the word itself is often
used metonymically for 'sabbath day';
b 'Christian Sabbath' (referring to 'Sunday' of the Roman planetary week) is an oxymoron, believing that 'sabbath' is

abrogated for 'Christians' (with proof-texting Mk 2:27; Col 2:16)

c Here in the context, Gk.' sabbaton' (in singular) does not mean 'sabbath'; 'fasting twice in the sabbath' would be non-

sensical.
d Here, plural Gk.' sabbatōn' does not mean that there were two sabbaths in the week to come up with a faulty idea of

'festival sabbath' is different from 'weekly sabbath' in the Passover week narrative timeline – all because of their
ignorance of the biblical calendar (i.e. 15th day of the lunar month is 7th day of the lunar week). Same predicament in
Judaism concerning * omer count for Shavuot (Pentecost)
e S1520 heis (one, first, alone).
f Cf. 'after eight days' – Jn 20:26 (meth' hēmeras oktō) /x: a week later – NIV etc.; /eight days later – NET; / [Check

elsewhere for "On counting and reckoning days".]

Sabbath; sabbaths Heb.

H7677 sabbathon (11x) *sabbath-rest – [equivalent to S4520 sabbatismos 'sabbath-rest' Heb 4:9. [Cf.
Mt 12:8; //Mk 2:28; //Lk 6:5.]

sabbath sabaton [H7676 + 7677] 'sabbath of sabbath-rest'

• for 7th year of rest for the land (Lev 25:4 "in the year of the 7th (H7637 shebiith) for sabbath-
rest") [ not related to 'sabbath' of 7th day of the week] /a special Sabbath – BBE; /x: to be a very
holy day – GNB; /a day of complete rest just like the Sabbath – CEV; /a very important day of rest
– ERV; /sabbath rest – NIV; /sabbath of complete rest – NASB; /Sabbath of complete rest – NET,
ESV, HCSB; /sabbath of rest – YLT; /
• for 7th day of the week (Exo 16:23; 31:15; 35:2; Lev 16:31; 23:3)
• for the Day of Atonement (Lev 23:24, 32a, 32b, 39 (2x); 25:4; Lev 23:32)a;
[LXX - sabbata sabbatōn in Lev 23:32, but sabbata anapausis in Lev 23:3] [Day of Atonement is not
weekly sabbath day which is on the day before. It is sabbath of sabbath rest for you people– NET; /It shall be
unto you a sabbath of rest – KJV; It is to be a sabbath of complete rest to you – NASB]
• Lev 23:24 (Day of Shofar blowing - the 1st day of the 7th month – New-Moon day; not
sabbath);
• Lev 23:39 '1st day of the week, 15th day of 7th month' and '8th day of the festival Sokkot'.
inconsistently rendered in different verses in different Bibles: E.g. Exo 16:23
/x: a sabbath observance (of a holy sabbath) – NWT; /a holy Shabbat – CJB; /a day of solemn
rest- ESV; /the rest (of the holy sabbath) – KJV; /a time of cessation from work. (a holy
sabbath) – NET; /a day of sabbath rest – NIV2, TNIV; /a day of rest, (a holy sabbath to) –
NIV-1, NIrV; /x: a holy day of worship dedicated to – GW; /a holy day of rest, dedicated to
him – GNB; /a day of complete rest – HCSB, NLT; /a sabbath observation – NASB, ISV;
/xxx: a time of cessation from work - NET; /the rest – Douay, Darby; /a rest – YLT; /a
solemn rest – WEB; /xxx: a day of worship – GW; /

Ref. www.sabbatismos.com/about-sabbatismos/ The expression in OT (Lev 23:3) shabbâth

shabbâthôn in Hebrew (sabbata anapausis in LXX) – sabbathhon seems equivalent to this
sabbatismos. This expression was seen in several places in OT, importantly for the weekly
sabbath, not only for those in festival seasons. There is no ‘sabbathon day’ distinct from ‘sabbath
day’ as some tries to prove that there were two distinct sabbaths in a festival week (though they
may fall on same day

a [Cf. Rosh Hashanah – New Year – Tishri 1-2]

predicate verbal phrases with 'sabbath' in OT.

• 'keep holy – the Sabbath day' Exo 20:8 //Deu 5:12; Jer 17:22, 24, 27; Isa 58:13; - 'keep the
Sabbath day holy - most; to sanctify – KJV] [H6942 – qadash –'keep holy'] [yom – day
H3117]a 'keep my Sabbaths holy' Ezk 20:20
• 'keep my Sabbaths' (H8104 shamar); Isa 56:6; Exo 31:13;
Lev 26:2 [/keep my Sabbath days of rest – NLT; /xxx: respect the Sabbath – CEV; /xxx:
observe my days of worship – GW; /xxx: keep the religious festivals – GNT]
'keep the Sabbath for it is holy to you' Exo 31:14;
• 'observe the Sabbath day' (H6213 shamar 'do' 'make'); Deu 5:15;
[Cf. 'observe the Passover (memorial)' – Exo 24:48a //Num 9:14a]
• 'rest a sabbath' Lev 25:2 (H7673 shabbath 'to rest') rest a Sabbath to YHWH; /x: keep a
Sabbath;
• Exo 31:16 – keep (H8104) the Sabbath and observe the Sabbath (H6213 asah); /xx:
observe ~~ celebrate – HCSB, NASB;
• 'keep the Sabbath' – Jn 9:16 tēreō (S5082) to sabbaton 'keep the Sabbath'; /x: keep the
Sabbath day – NLT; /x: observe the Sabbath – NIV, NASB, HCSB; /keep the Sabbath –
KJV, ESV, NET.
Cf. Jn 5:18 luō (S3089) to sabaton 'break the Sabbath'

*sabbath-rest:
[sabbath rest is not about relief or escape from work but finding rest in God's shalom.a Is Sabbath
for occasions of getting into church liturgy or worshiptaiment?
‘sabbath rest’ (S4520 sabbatismos):

The Gk. word for this occurs only once in the Greek NT:
"There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest [sabbatismos] for the people of God; for anyone who enters
God's rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. Let us, therefore, make every effort
to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience" (Heb 4:9)

One important point which should not to be missed: The word ‘*sabbath in the Scripture basically
means ‘sabbath-rest’
It is in the Lord – with the Lord, because of the Lord, from the Lord, and for the Lord, not on a
certain day. It is the very shalom which Yeshua gives. Taking sabbath rest is in Yeshua Himself,
not in keeping a certain day of the week, nor having a ‘worship’ service on a certain day once a
week. Yes, sabbath rest is Yeshua Himself, just as salvation in Yeshua Himself, as there is no
sabbath rest or salvation other than in Him, through Him, and because of Him.

Ref. www.sabbatismos.com/about-sabbatismos/ The expression in OT (Lev 23:3) shabbâth shabbâthôn

in Hebrew (sabbata anapausis in LXX) – shabbathon seems equivalent to this sabbatismos. This
expression was seen in several places in OT, importantly for the weekly shabbat, not only for those in
festival seasons. There is no ‘sabbathon day’ distinct from ‘sabbath day’ as some tries to prove that there
were two distinct sabbaths in a festival week (though they may fall on same day).

a
Ref. www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/may-web-only/wrestling-rest-nathan-stucky-sabbath-youth.html
Stucky (2019), Wrestling with Rest: Inviting Youth to Discover the Gift of Sabbath..
[The word sabbath is used Lev 23:32 in the sense of sabbath rest, not sabbath keeping similar
to 7th day sabbath. E.g. sabbath rest in the yom kippur (10th of the seventh month) –– should
not interpreted to support ‘two sabbath days’ in a week, in order to vainly explain away the
Passion week chronology with a Wednesday Crucifixion – Saturday evening resurrection
scenario.

It is used in that sense in the phrase ‘Lord of Sabbath’ (Mt 12:8; //Mk 2:28; //Lk 6:5)1 – ‘a lord over
sabbath-rest’. The word in this phrase does not refer to ‘sabbath day’, as if He is the Lord who enjoins
people to keep a certain day for sabbath; i.e. what sabbath is (do’s and don’ts), does not find any meaning
outside Him. A typical Sabbatarian claim that “He is saying that He has the authority to determine how
the day is to be kept” (Mk 2:27-28) is a result of ‘being bound by human tradition’, missing the core
meaning of sabbath itself in the whole Scripture.

[Mt 12:8 kurios gar estin ho huios tou anthrōpou ⇄ [kai] tou sabbatou]
[Lk 6:5 (hoti) kurios estin ho huios tou anthrōpou kai tou sabbatou]
[Mk 2:28 hōste kurios estin ho huios tou anthrōpou kai tou sabbatou]

Also, in OT in Lev 16:29-31(= 23:27-32), the word ‘sabbath’ in conjunction with the Day of
Atonement does not refer to ‘sabbath day’. It is sabbath rest to have for the Israelites with fastingc, not
sabbath day which is to keep set apart to YHWH Elohim.

Yeshua tells us He is the giver of true sabbath rest. God-given sabbath-rest is the very shalom
which Yeshua gives (Mt 11:29). It is in Yeshua Himself, not in keeping a certain day of the
week. The sabbath keeping is not related to ‘worshiping God’ which in OT Judaic tradition
involves sacrifice offering.

Mt 11:28-30<Yeshua as true sabbath rest>– After the theme <Son’s authority from Father> (11:27),
it proceeds with the theme <Yeshua, true sabbath rest> which is fully developed in the next several
pericopes (cf. 12:8).
Lord’s Day vs. Sabbath day:

Mosaic Covenant details on keeping Sabbath in Ten Commandments and how

Israel should keep it, though the Sabbath keeping itself is based on God’s creation
order, therefore applying to the whole of humanity. It is God-given rest for
celebrating God’s creation on the seventh day of the lunar week, which is not same
as Saturday.

On the other hand, the Lord’s Day (a church jargon) is the day of celebration of
Lord’s Resurrection. In Constantine Catholic Church tradition, it is on Sunday, the
first day of the Gregorian solar week. [Cf. Didache Sec. 14 “on the Lord’s own day
…”. Cf. Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, Ch. IX “The day of the preparation,
then, comprises the passion; the Sabbath embraces the burial the Lord's Day
contains the resurrection.”]

It is unrelated to Rev 1:10 ‘the Lord’s day’ and Day of Judgment in 2Pe 3:10
‘LORD’s Day’; 2Pe 3:12 ‘Day of Elohim’

Thus, Sabbath and Lord’s day are two different days. [This point is unrelated to the
issue of whether or not one should keep Sabbath; or whether Sunday is to be
considered to be ‘Sabbath’ of Christians.]

‘Saturday Sabbath’, 'Saturday Sabbath keeping' vs. ‘Sunday worship’

In OT dispensation, God’s sabbath rest came with provision of one day in a week (for
daytime of 7th day of the lunar week). It is not to set up a prohibitory regulation, or a
legalistic ritual. As for sabbath day stipulated in Ten Commandments was given to
Israelites after Exodus and belongs to Mosaic Covenant, not Abrahamic one. The meaning
of sabbath (rest) is (1) Relief from labor – for body, (2) Rest – for soul; (3) Replenishment
– for spirit; and NOT (1) regulation, (2) restriction, (3) requirement, ritual – for the sake
of regulation and requirement.

How is day of sabbath rest related to day of church public ‘worship service’? Anything
to do with the ancient Judaic on 7th day of the lunar week, the sabbath day?

• Weekly Offerings Num 28:10“This is the burnt offering for every Sabbath,
besides the continual burnt offering and its drink offering.”
• ‘holy assembly/gathering (x: convocation) – on seventh day sabbath (Lev 23:3);
on the 1st (- on 7th-day sabbath) and last day of the Festival of the Matzah; on
the day of the Feast of Shavuot (Lev 23:21-11); on the first day of the 7th month
– with shofar-blowing (Jewish New Year, Rosh Hashanah, Lev 23:24); on the
10th of the 7th month – Yom-Kippur (Lev 23:7); on the first day of the Sukkot
(15th of 7th mo. – 7th-day sabbath) (and the last day?) (Lev 23:34-35)]
 Question - how has a cultic/religious practice of ‘worship’ in Judaism as such become to
be integral to keeping of the day of sabbath-rest? Cf. ‘worship’ on Sunday or Saturday in
Christian religions.

The word ‘sabbath’ is in common usage of English, derived from the Biblical
word, used specifically in its original sense, but also figuratively. The ‘Shabbat’
(in Hebrew) which appears in the Scripture has nothing to do the keeping of a
certain day or the keeping of sabbath as such, as is to be on a specific day of
the week - of Saturday for the Sabbatarian incl. Jewish people.a It is not about
keeping of the Lord's day for Christians.

Sabbath is for God-given rest – 7th day of the lunar week set aside, primarily
enjoying true shalom (‘peace’) accompanied by ‘resting from labor’ – only God
is in ones’ mind; everything to do with myself is not of one’s concern – because
he is the ultimate source of joy and satisfaction = to love God (Deu 6:5) to be
one with Him.b It is not characterized by what one should NOT do on that day
in so much regulations and rules. It reflects Elohim’s resting from all His work
which He had done in the creation ‘week’ – Gen 2:2. Cf. ‘day of ‘worship’.

The word is most common used metonymically as ‘day of sabbath’. In a few

places in the Scripture, it is about ‘resting’, not about ‘day to keep’. E.g. Lev
23:26-32.

Ref:
(1) C. H. Mackintosh (1858), A Scriptural Inquiry into the True Nature of
Sabbath, the Law, and Christian Ministry.
(2) Robert Henry Charles (1923), Lectures on the Decalogue. Ch. 4 The Fourth
Commandment.

The question of ‘which day is sabbath?’ is to be answered only after a prior question
‘what is sabbath’ is answered properly. Though it is usually used as a metonym for ‘day
of Sabbath’ in NT the word ‘Sabbath’ does not mean a day itself. It is ‘taking rest from
work of labor and getting refreshed’; it is not about ‘not doing things’ which
characterizes ‘sabbath-keeping’ by Sabbatarians in Judaism/Yehudism or in Christian
denominations. The 7th day of the Creation serves as its antitype, but it was not for
‘sabbath-keeping’. Elohim entered into the creation rest – ceasing from the work of His
creation to set the creation into motion, into life (e.g. Adam from Genesis Ch. 2 onward).
God Himself did not ‘keep the 7th day Sabbath’ there and then! Sabbath rest was His
gift to the people of Israel (His chosen people) upon the Exodus – emancipation from
hundred years of slavery in Egypt under the Pharaoh’s rule. The so-called Sabbath-
keeping is set for the Yehudim, not for every human beings and societies.

a
Cf. Friday for Muslims (the day of jummah prayer).
b
https://youtu.be/IznaC0p7LVI (from 00:13:00 - shabbat, rest, shalom)
The Fourth Commandment is usually understood as ‘remember the Sabbath day to
keep holy’ and makes a particular day as a sacred day with a serious penalty for not
keeping it (similar to a taboo in some indigenous religions). cf. Exo 20:8; Deu 5:12;
Jer 17:22 'the sabbath day – keep holy'; Exo 31:14 'shall keep the sabbath, for it is
holy for you' ('a holy day for you'); [H6942 qadash – to keep holy, to set apart or
consecrated]

No, it is not about ‘not doing things’. On the contrary, it is for life and for creation.
It is not for ‘worship’ or ‘service’ either.

Shabbat – Heb; sabbath – English

The sabbath keeping is in the Ten Commandments (‘Ten Words’), which is

God’s gift to Israelites His Chosen people in the setting of the giving of manna
after the exodus from Pharaoh’s Egypt [Exo 16:13]. A day of sabbath is a special
day to set apart to be kept to Yahweh for all time by His covenant people. It serves
as one of the important ethnic boundary markers of Jewish people in the history.
It belongs to the Mosaic Covenant, not Abrahamic. It is for ‘relief for body from
labor’+ ‘rest for soul’+ ‘replenishment in spirit’, to be kept on 7th day (for daytime
period) of the lunar week, not ‘Saturday from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset’
which is the practice of the rabbinic Judaism.

We read in O.T. that YHWH Elohim set apart seventh day of the lunar week as a
day of rest, a sabbath, a gift to This was in the Ten Words (‘Ten Commandments’)
(Exo 20: 8-11; //Lev 23: 3) [Also narrated in Exo 31:12-16.] The verb ‘set apart’
does not mean ‘make it holy’. The Sabbath day is not a ‘holy’ day, nor a holiday
to keep and observe; it is the day of God-given resting and refreshing to enjoy Life
in His Loving care. Not worship or service day to go somewhere and to congregate
for rituals, rites, and liturgies. The day set for Sabbath was simply seventh day of
the lunar week in the Creation Calendar; not Saturday, nor Sunday, or any other
day of the solar week, it may fall on any of these Roman calendar days of the week
in the Roman (late Julian and Gregorian) calendar. (Note: early Julian calendar had
8-day week.) It is completely pointless to argue whether it is to be kept on Saturday
and what are the things not be done by so-called Christians. Constantine Catholic
Church completely divorced itself from whatever of Judaism; Sunday worship
eclipsed the Sabbath and the Passover is replaced with the Easter. Some come up
with Sunday as ‘Christian sabbath’ which is oxymoron.

Sabbath keeping was one of the major contentious issues over which the Yehudim
authorities and leaders to have brought to challenge Yeshua as to who He is and
where He got His authority.
A specified phrase ‘the day of the sabbath’ is found in Lk_13:14, 16; 14:5. The word
‘sabbath’ itself, however, is more frequently used as metonymically for ‘sabbath day’,
which is on 7th day of the lunar week. [It is not of the solar week. As appear in the
Scripture ‘7th day of the lunar week’ does NOT correspond to ‘Saturday’ which is
an unbiblical term. The seven named days of the week in Gregorian calendar has no
correspondence to the seven numbered days of the biblical week.]

• Sabbath day begins at sunrise, just as any day in the Scripture does,
unlike a 24-hr day in rabbinic Jewish calendar (reckoning to start at
sunset). Friday sunset to Sat. sunset in Gregorian calendar.
• Sabbath rest applies to daytime, since the night is already time for rest.
This cannot be overemphasized enough to relieve people confusion, contention, and
contradiction in the various arguments related to the Passion Week chronology:
There is NO more than one sabbath in a week. There is no additional sabbath day
in the 7-week long Festivals – the false idea brewed by misunderstanding of the true
Scripture-based calendar vis-à-vis the rabbinic Jewish and the Julian-Gregorian
Roman calendars. [See the separate file Walk through the Scripture #6 - Passion
Week Chronology for IRENT Vol. III - Supplement].
To reiterate: there is only one sabbath day in a 7-day long week, that is, on seventh
day. The first day and last days of seven-day long Festivals are special. Since sabbath
is on the first day of the festival, the sabbath day is called ‘High Sabbath’ (Jn 19:31).

Question - how has a cultic/religious practice of ‘worship’ in Judaism as such

become to be integral to keeping of the day of sabbath-rest? Cf. ‘worship’ on
Sunday or Saturday in Christian religions.

Exo 20:8-11
20:8
"Remember the day of sabbath to set it apart to God,
[Exo 16:23-30 in the ‘giving of manna’] [Cf. Deu 5:12-16 ‘keep ~’]
20:9
For six days you are to labor
and you do all your work.
20:10
But the seventh day is sabbath
to YHWH your Elohim.
You must not do any work,
you nor your son nor your daughter,
your slave man nor your slave girl
nor your domestic animal
nor your alien resident who is within your gates. (cf. Exo 23:12)
20:11
For in six days YHWH made the heavens and the earth,
the sea and everything that is in them,
and He proceeded to rest on the seventh day.
There, YHWH blessed the sabbath day
and set it apart for Himself. [cf. Gen 2:1-3; Ex 31:13-17]
Ref. C. H. Mackintosh (1858), A Scriptural Inquiry into the Sabbath the Law and Christian
Ministry by CHM.pdf [See in the separately uploaded file ‘On Sabbath’. ]

‘Sabbath’ is an important word of Scriptural theme. It was a major issue of contention with
which Yeshua confronted in the Gospels to challenge the Judean authorities — to show who
He truly is.

We come to know from the Scripture (OT and NT) that

(1) it is one of the Ten Commandments.
(2) it was to keep it holy on the seventh day of the week, and
(3) it says ‘thou shall not do any work’.
From the Scripture we should not miss the following:
(1) it is to the people of Israel that the ‘Ten Commandments’ was given (after the
Exodus). The ‘Ten Words’ (in Hebrew) is at the core of the Mosaic Law of Judaism
throughout its history, binding them throughout the generations until a renewed Covenant is
given by God Himself. It is one of a few ethnic and religious boundary markers for the people
of Israel – the Gentiles are not included in its commonwealth. Only Judaic people or
proselytes to Judaism are required to keep; others are not given the blessing of the law.
(2) It is to be kept on the seventh day of the lunar week according to the Biblical lunar
calendar, not on the one of the named days of the planetary week according to the rabbinic
Jewish or the modern Julian-Gregorian calendars. There is no correspondence between 7th
day of the lunar week and Saturday (which is 7th, 6th or 1st day of the week, different
countries/religions keeping differently).
(3) It is unbending; and none are allowed to do any work. There is no room here for
introducing what we deem to be "works of necessity". Moreover, there is nothing in O.T. to
equate ‘sabbath keeping’ with so-called ‘worshiping’ (which was then the Temple-based
ritual and sacrifice).

In modern times, a major controversy is brought out by the so-called Sabbatarians who take
‘keeping sabbath on Saturday’ as the essential requirement for being a true believer in their
fold. It is presumptuous at best, however, for people outside Judaism to claim of keeping this
commandment at their peril of being excommunicated. Without keeping eyes open to all the
truths about the sabbath they lack proper understanding of the true meaning of sabbath-
keeping, bordering on legalism.

Yeshua came to bring the entire Law of God to its fullest with the renewed Covenant in His
blood, and this He accomplished it in the very person of Himself, through His Life and Death.
Thus, the broken relation of humanity to the Creator God is restored, which could not be
achieved on the basis of people’s keeping the Law. So-called ‘Christian sabbath’ turns out to
be not about a certain day but a special person, because He Himself IS our sabbath-rest. To
have true sabbath is not to be found in keeping certain rules scrupulously on a certain day.
On the contrary, it is to fully enjoy God’s shalom every day of our mortal life — with Him,
in Him and through Him, to the glory of God the Father. With such sabbath-rest we have
entered, the remainder of the Ten Commandments is lived out, not because of the
commandments, but because of Yeshua the Mashiah Himself who abides in us in spirit as we
abide in Him.
 Controversy of sabbath keeping in Christian religions:
1.Those keeping sabbath on every Saturday, (so-called Sabbatarians).
2.Those not keeping sabbath
3. Those keeping ‘Sunday’ as ‘Lord’s day’ which has replaced sabbath in NT age.
4. Those keeping 7th day of the lunar week for sabbath rest. (not same as Saturday).
The verbs in the Scripture associated with it – ‘remember the sabbath day’ (Exo 20:8); ‘bless ~ set
apart the sabbath day’ (Exo 20:11) ‘observe the sabbath’ (Exo 31:16); ‘observe the sabbath day’
(Deu 5:15); Cf. Isa 58:13 (turn back your feet from sabbaths); guard ~ profane (Isa 56:2); set apart
(> sanctify) (Jer 17:22). There is no NT verse saying that sabbath should be kept be the followers of
Yeshua, who were all sabbath-keepers in the Apostolic period, and until pushed out by Hellenistic
Christianity and Constantine Catholic Church. If anyone keeps sabbath regulation, they should know
what sabbath is, what is it to keep sabbath, when, how, and, most of all, why. Otherwise it is nothing
more than another ritual by a group of people gathered.

Sabbath in the Scripture – Rabbinic Judaism keeps it on Saturday, thinking that the seventh day of the
week in the Scripture (which is of lunar week) is same as Saturday of the Gregorian week (which is
of planetary week).

The notion of sabbath-keeping has no relation to 'worship'. 'Christian sabbath' referring to worshiping
on Sunday is an oxymoron.

In the year 321 CE, Constantine decreed, "On the sacred day of the Sun ['venerabili die Solis' --the
sacred day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be
closed" (Codex Justinianus lib. 3, tit. 12, 3; trans. in Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
Vol. 3, p. 380, note 1). Constantine seems to have made this change himself and not through the
papacy, since the papacy of Catholic Church had not really come in to being at that time.
[Cf. Constantine Emperor (285? – 337 CE; reigning from 306]
[Cf. Justin Martyr wrote his apology circa 150 A.D. describing that Christians worship on Sunday.
[Cf. The papacy grew gradually out of the office of Bishop and for many years this was centered in
Rome.]

It should be noted that in doing this, Constantine is not changing the Sabbath; he is merely making
Sunday the official day of rest for the Roman Empire. His motivation was probably not born out of
hatred for the Jews (it's hard to say for sure why Constantine or any historical figure did what they did)
but out of a desire to adopt what the Christians had practiced for nearly two and a half centuries. Sunday
was interpreted to be the first day of the week in the Scripture which was mentioned for the Mashiah
followers in Act 20:7 and 2Co 6:2. Keeping sabbath as such is an issue (Cf. 1Co 2:14-17) different
from have a public worship on a certain day of the week.

Question we have on ‘sabbath-keeping’ (pertaining to Sabbatarian positions): Most have been issues
on violation of the commandment – not ‘keeping it’ as dictated. It elaborates on what one should not
do at the penalty to incur. What is, on the other side of a coin, the things which are commanded and
recommended to do (in place of not to day), excluding the concept of ‘worship’ in the religious
practice? What is the real meaning of sabbath rest, which is the thing supposed be the core of Sabbath
day?
.
 Related words to 'sabbath':

S4520 sabatismos (1x) Heb 4:9 ‘*sabbath-rest’

S2663 katapausis ‘rest’ ‘resting and refreshing’ – – Heb 3:11; 4:1, 3, 5. [Cf. (to
cease working) Gen 2:2-3]
[problem with English words - ‘rest’ as the remainder; ‘place of resting’ as in the phrase R.I.P.];
/His (his) rest – most; /his place of rest – GW; />> the place of rest - CEV; /that rest he spoke
– GNB; /God’s Rest – TCNT, ERV; /his Rest – Mft; /

sabbatical year; jubilee year - See WB #5 – Time, Calendar and Chronology

Scriptural and non-scriptural words and phrases – sabbath; sabbath rest; sabbath
observation; sabbath keeping; festival sabbath, weekly sabbath, Saturday sabbath,
Christian sabbath, etc.

Doctrinal position of the Sabbatarians:

Note: most 7th day Sabbatarians are Saturday Sabbatarians, including people of Judaism.
• The Seventh-day Sabbath was established at Creation (Gen 2:1-3). It is at the heart of the
Ten Commandment (Exo 20:8-11) which was symbolically written in stone to show its
eternal nature (Deu 29:29, 2Kg 17:37, Lk 16:17) because the Creator does not change (Mal
3:6a, Jam 1:17).
• YHWH told them “do not add to what I am saying, and do not subtract from it.” (Deu 4:2).
(Cf. Dan 7:25)
• Also, Yeshua said he came NOT to destroy the law, Mt 5:17-18. Therefore, the seventh-
day Sabbath observance is in accordance to the command in Scripture.
Reply:
• Yes, Yeshua did not come to destroy the law but He came to fulfill in Himself. The Sabbatarian
omit to quote the crucial phrase ‘came to fulfill’.
• ‘The Son-of-man is lord of the sabbath’. Mt 12:8 //Mk 2:28; //Lk 6:5
• Gen 2:1ff is not about ‘sabbath day’, which is commanded to be kept.
• Gen 1:14-15; Exo 12:2; Psa 104:9 provide the Scriptural basis of how the Biblical lunar calendar
was set to work. Not about keeping 7th day as Sabbath day.
• Lev 23:2-3 – sabbath listed as the first one for the designated times (> appointed times). Exo
31:13; Ezk 20:12, 20 – Sabbath is YHWH’s ‘sign’ ‘pointer’ (Gen 1:14) to Israel. This belongs
Mosaic Covenant, not to Messianic Covenant.
• Ref: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL7095201M/The_Decalogue pp. 110-172 (Fourth
Commandment) Robert Henry Charles (1923), The Decalogue - Being the Warburton Lectures
delivered in Lincoln’s Inn and Westminster Abbey 1919_1923.
[See in the separately uploaded file ‘On sabbath’.]
*Quotes

A quote of the day:

• ‘Hell is where one is happy to be by oneself, with oneself, and for
oneself’, that is, one lives by existing to oneself.’
• Give tithe and you sure get blessing! Yeah, it’s blessing from a god
who takes in your money in no time smiling.
• Life – for fun with pleasure, or to be in joy.
• Hell or heaven is not a place some may go after death; it is here
now.

Others
‘*heart’ ‘mind’ ‘thinking’ ‘conscience’; *psyche; consciousness
Discussed in WB #3

*holy spirit, ‘holy Spirit’ vs. ‘the holy spirit’; *the Holy Ghost
Discussed in WB #3

*spirit; *ghost; apparition

[see '*spirit' '*holy spirit' in WB #3A – Name, God, and Person

/Apparitional_experience (/Ghost ), 'soul' (remaining after a person's death);

/Spectre , /Revenant (animated corpse); 'spirit' of spiritism; /Vampire
Ref. Ch. 11 of 'Facing Finality' (see under * death)

*death and dying; *afterlife; *NDE

(near-death experience)

"Fear of death is not irrational, but there is irrational fear of death" – OJK twitter

Copies of file in the folder <On Death & Dying> in <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement
(Collections #1A - Words and Terms)>:
• Elizabeth Kubler-Ross (1991), Death and Dying (www.psicoterapia-
palermo.it/PDFS/On%20Death%20and%20Dying_Kubler%20Ross%20Elizabeth.pdf )
• 'Five stages of Loss' http://havenofnova.org/articles/how_am_i_doing/five_stages.pdf
• http://commcourses.com/iic/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/PDF-COVER-ART_Facing-Finality-
updated-2012.pdf

*body; *soul’
Discussed in WB #3

S4983 sōma (body)

*spirit; *spiritual (‘spirital’; ‘of spirit’), spiritism, spirituality, spiritualism; shamanism;

[word study on ‘spirit’ – see in WB #3] – the word as in common English vs. the word
used in the specific text. E.g. ‘spirit of the community’; ‘spirit of the modern world’,
‘Spirit of St. Louis’, artistic spirit. The sense and usage overlap with the word ‘soul’
‘mind’]. The word ‘spirit’ in the Bible as a translation word for Gk. pneuma, etc.
[spiritualism – practice and ideas of something to do with ‘spirit’ and ‘spirituality’.]

*blood – Concordance

‘blood + sacrifice’ Exo 23:18

‘blood + atonement’ (sin offering) Lev 6:30; 17:11;
Blood + drink offering Psa 16:4
Blood + holy place – Heb 9:7, 25; 10:4; 13:11

S129 haima (98x) 'blood'

Jn 1:13 [Gk. pl. bloodline].
Act 17:26 v.l. one {blood-line} /xx: one blood – KJV;

Blood of a woman – Mt 9:20; Mk 5:25, 29; Lk 8:43, 44;

Blood of animal sacrifice:

Heb 9:12, 13, 19; 10:4 (of bulls and goats)
Heb 11:28 'kept the Passover with the splashing of the blood'
Heb 9:18 first covenant ~~without blood of animal sacrifice.
Heb 9:20 the blood [of animal sacrifice to rectify seal] of the covenant
Heb 9:22 Indeed, with blood almost all things are rendered clean according to the law;
and without pouring out [>> shedding] blood [of animal sacrifice] there is no remission
[of the transgression of the covenant].
Heb 13:11 the blood of animal sacrifice.
Heb 9:25 - enters with blood other than his own.

Abstain eating blood - Act 15:20, 29; 21:25

In the idiom:
Mt 27:8; Act 1:19 ('Field of Blood')
Mt 27:6 ('blood money' > price of blood)
"flesh and blood" – Mt 16:17; 1Co 15:50; Gal 1:16; Eph 6:12; Heb 2:14;
"water and blood" – 1Jn 5:6, 8
"blood and fire" – Act 2:19, Rev 8:7

Figurative –
Act 2:20; Rev 6:12; moon into blood (color)
Rev 8: 8; sea tuned into blood
Rev 11:6; waters turn them to blood
Rev 16:3, the sea ... it turned into blood like that from a dead body
 Rev 16:4 [rivers and springs] turned into blood
Rev 14:20; blood came out of the wine press
Rev 19:13 a robe dipped in blood
Of persons:
Lk 13:1; (of Galileans);
Lk 11:50 Of all the prophets; 11:50, 51, Abel; Zechariah
Rev 16:6 poured out blood of God's holy people and prophets
Rev 17:6 with the blood of the God's holy people and with the blood of the
martyrs for Yeshua:
Rev 18:24 in her was found blood of prophets and God's holy people
Rev 19:2 avenged the blood of his servants.
Rev 6:10 avenge our blood
Act 5:28 bring the very blood of that man upon us
Act 22:20; blood of Stephen
Act 18:6 yoůr blood be upon yoůr own heads
Act 20:26; I'm clean of the blood of all men
Mt 23:30, in the blood of the prophets
Mt 23:35 all the righteous blood poured on upon the earth ~~ of Abel,
Zechariah
Rm 3:15 'swift to spill blood'

blood of Yeshua; 'blood of Mashiah'

– blood motif; symbolism; metaphor – for death on the Cross; and for atonement

Lk 22:44 thromboi haimatos (drops of blood);

1Pe 1:2 get sprinkled of his blood (Yeshua Mashiah).

1Pe 1:19 precious blood ~~~of Mashiah
Act 20:28 has secured with the blood of his own [Son]
Jn 19:34 – came out blood and water {Mt 27:49 v.l.}

1Jn 1:7 the blood of Yeshua Mashiah

Jn 6:53. 54, 55, 56 drink my blood (my - Jesus)
Mt 27:4 an innocent blood
Mt 27:24, this {righteous} one's blood
Mt 27:25 his blood

Rev 1:5 freed us from our sins by his own blood

Rev 5:9 bought us for Elohim with your blood
Rev 7:14; 12:11 the blood of the Lamb

Rm 3:25 offering for propitiation — [efficacious] through {the} faith [in Mashiah Yeshua] —
with the blood of his own.
Rm 5:9 taken righteous [on the basis of His finished work] with his blood
Eph 1:7; the very redemption through the blood of that very one
Col 1:14 redemption through his blood
Col 1:20 made peace through his blood of the Cross
 Eph 2:13 have become to be near to God in the blood of the Mashiah

1Co 10:16 sharing together of Life in the blood of the Mashiah

1Co 11:25 new covenant sealed with my blood
1Co 11:27 the body and the blood of the Lord

Heb 13:20 with the blood of an eternal covenant.

Heb 9:12 his own blood;
Heb 9:14 The blood of Mashiah
Heb 10:19 enter into the holiest by the blood of Yeshua
Heb 13:12 sanctified the people with his own blood;

Last Supper
Mt 26:28 the blood of my own of the covenant ~~ poured out
//Mk 14:24 the blood of my own ~~ the {new} covenant ~~ poured out
//Lk 22:20 new covenant ~~ the blood of my own poured out
[Cf. anti-biblical catholic teaching of /Transubstantiation]

[In associated with the crucifixion, the word 'blood' is used as a metaphor for his
self-giving death. (cf. Col 1:20 "through his blood on the cross'; /blood of his cross –
most; /x: his blood, shed on the cross – CSB)]

[A text variant parallel of Jn 19:34 is found in some G-Mt mss. Since it is in a wrong
place before Mt 27:50, it misleads to hint bleeding as the cause of his death instead
of exhaustion-asphyxia and shock. His death on the cross was not from bleeding, but
rather from exhaustion-asphyxia and shock.

Cf. Heb 10:10 "With this New covenant we’ll have been sanctified through the offering
of the *body of Yeshua Mashiah once for all."
[S4376 prosphora (9x) 'offering' /x: 'sacrifice']
[S2378 thusia (29x) 'sacrifice' Heb 10:5, 11]
[S1435 dōron (19x) 'gift', Heb 9:9]

*shed blood; 'pour out'

[The English word /shed (1) to get rid of something not wanted or necessary; (2) let
something fall off as part of a natural process. *shed blood is a common church
lingo; no exact corresponding phrase in the Bible.]

[An archaic word 'shed' is used to render S1632 ekcheō. (6x – Heb 9:22; Rev 16:6; Mt 23:35;
26:28 //Mk 14:24 //Lk 22:20) in Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, KJV, NKJV, HCSB; others as
'pour out'. One example (Rm 3:15) is rendered by all as 'shed'; it is rendered as 'spill'
in IRENT.

The word 'shed' is used 2x in KJV for other than blood: Rm 5:5 "love of God is shed"
and Tit 3:6 "which (spirit) he shed on us". – nice poetic :-<
When searching for 'shed', no usage associated with blood is mentioned in the online English
dictionaries and www.etymology.com/word/shed . However, the search is to be for 'shed + blood'
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/shed+blood.
OED has a number of citations

Cf. Heb 11:28 "[Moses] kept the passover with the splashing of the blood".
[S4378 proschusis (1x)] splashing – NWT; /x: sprinkling – NASB, KJV, HCSB, NET; /x: application
– NIV;

Other verbs with 'blood' – 'bleed' 'ooze' 'burst'. 'shed' rhymes with the word ending with '-it'.
Compare Korean expression 흘리다 equivalent to 'flow (down)' 'and 뚝뚝 흘리다' drip down'.
*flesh;

H1320 basar; 'flesh'

S4561 sarx (149x) 'flesh'
https://biblehub.com/str/greek/4561.htm
https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/flesh/
[S4559 sarkikos – adj. Rm 15:27];
1. flesh (soft part of the living body, of both men and beasts)
2. used in figurative expression
3. that which contrasts to 'spirit', equivalent to the body – Jn 6:63.
He was born 'according to flesh' (Gal 4:29); 'of a woman' (Gal 4:4), not of a virgin.
'The God's Word became as flesh. (Jn 1:14) [‘the (God) was revealed in flesh (1Tm 3:16 v.l.)]

Flesh as a metaphor for 'bread' 'the word from the heavens' 'the Word incarnate' –
see G-Jn 1:14

S2907 kreas (2x) 'meat' Rm 14:21; 1Co 8:13 /x: flesh – KJV;

Problem words – *soul, *spirit (religious jargon), body,

The meaning, sense, usage of the words – soul and spirit – are not same as when
they appear as the translation words in the Bibles which they become religious
jargon. [Cf. The book title Soul of a New Machine’ (by Tracy Kidder 1982); the
name of the monoplane ‘The Spirit of St. Louis’ (flown solo by the pilot Lindbergh
1927); ‘a spirit of the Olympic game’, ‘spirit of our generation of truth-perverting.
– all have nothing to do with a ‘spirit being’ ‘dismembered soul’, etc.]
*man, human, human being; son of man
[H120 adam] (1) groundling, earthling, man(kind) [Gen 1:26; 2:5, 7, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25;
5:1; 6:5, etc.] (2) 'Adam' [Gen 4:1 (the Adam), 25; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
[H376 anse] male, man – Gen 2:23, 24; 3:16; 4:1, 6:4, etc.]
[H582 enosh ] man(kind) – Gen 3:6; 4:23; 6:9; Exo 4:19, etc.]
Gen 1:26a
Then God said,
“Let us make groundlinga in our image after our likeness.
Gen 1:27
Elohim created the humankind in His own image,
in the image of Elohim He created it;
male and female He created them.

Problem of English word 'man' in gender neutral usage. The genic sense of human being vs. a
male person. Especially for phrase ho huios ho anthrōpow, [the son of the man] usually rendered as
capitalized 'the Son of Man'; IRENT has it 'the Son-of-man'.

[- too much obsessed with ‘gender’ and ‘sex’ -- {Jan 29, 2010 Re: [bibexegesis] Synoptic Study and
Psalm 8} GFSomsel - This is an example of translation according to an ideology. In this case it was
decided that they should be politically correct and not say "man" but "human beings" and therefore
not "him" but "them." The NRSV is generally a very good translation apart from such intrusions of
political correctness. You will note that in the NT they will generally speak of "brothers and sisters"
rather than "brothers." In many cases (if not indeed all) this is a correct understanding since, as in
standard English prior to the rise of political correctness it was the practice to use the man as a generic
reference to include both males and females. and such seems to have been the case in Greek as well
most of the time. Exceptions were cases where only women were involved and when it was desired
to emphasize that women were included. Personally, I will continue to use the masc. as a generic
designation with the understanding that women are usually included.]

Heb 2:6b ‘Son of Man’ ░░. (cf. the first Adam and the last Adam) [huios anthrōpou – both anarthrous
in GNT, MT, LXX – 'a man's son'; not 'the son of the man'] [IRENT rendering the noun phrase as a
title, as it is referred to in v. 7. The same anarthrous phrase appears in Rev 1:13 and 14:14 from Dan
7:13 where it is a Messianic figure.] [serves connecting ‘man’ v. 6a to implicit ‘the Son of the man’
(Yeshua’s self-designation in the Gospels and Acts) in v.7-8];

/[QQQ Need to check reference to ‘man’ or ‘the Son of Man’/ ‘Messiah’ in Psalm 8:4.] [Some
translations lose verbal connection; thus, echo of OT prophecy may be lost.]

/humankind – in Everett Fox (1987), In the Beginning: A New English Rendition of

the Book of Genesis Translated with Commentary and Notes;
/man – most; - a problematic word to use as a translation word since its dominant
meaning is a male. Cf. gender neutrality issue.
/groundling – in Mary Phil Korsak (1993), At the Start - Genesis Made New;
‘*person’ *Person ‘personhood’ 'human being '‘being’

www.etymonline.com/word/person#etymonline_v_12750

person (n.)
early 13c., from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern
French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person,
personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face,"
such as those of wood or clay worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED
offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to
sound through" (i.e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying
the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty ...." Klein and Barnhart say it is
possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." Klein goes on to say this is
ultimately of Greek origin and compares Persephone.

[Note: absence of grammatical articles in Latin is reflected in the obfuscated

Trinitarian arguments in which several Gods are mentioned, but claims only one
God. Distinction of arthrous ho theos and anarthrous theos in Greek is not possible
in Latin.]

In legal use, "corporate body or corporation having legal rights," 15c., …

Note: In NT, there is no matching Gk. word for 'person' in English. Gk S444 anthrōpos ('a man' 'a
human being') is often translated variously reflecting gender confusion and neutrality for singular
(e.g. Mt 4:4; Mt 12:35 'a man') esp. in modern English Bible translations (e.g. 'person' – GW; 'one' –
CEV, ISV; 'people' – NLT; 'human beings' – GNB. In plural (e.g. Mt 6:1 'men') as 'others' – NIV,
NLT; 'people' – HCSB, ISV, NET; 'other people' – ESV.

Person, Personhood,
Soul; consciousness and the self;
Animals as persons;
non-human person
www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/14_5-6_introduction.pdf

'person' as a Trinitarian lingo

The technical term 'Person'a in the Trinitarian statements is an obfuscated

technical term. Though related, it does not have same meaning as the common

a
The word 'person' is usually translated as 사람 in Korean., which simply means 'man'. The kanji 位 (위) is
used as a technical Sino-Korean word as in 삼위 (三位 - roughly translated as 'three positions'). Cf. 'trinity'
→ 삼위 일체 (three positions/standings to be one individual/'body').
 English word person, thus causing confusion and misleading. It is from
translation of Latin persona which was used for a translation word for Gk.
hupostasis.

(p. 34 Ted Peters, God as Trinity, 1993)

How Should 'Person' Be Used in Trinitarian Discourse?
The Cappadocian theologians hand sharply distinguished between hypostasis and
ousia; whereas Athanasius had used them interchangeably. The Cappadocian
theologians had placed the emphasis on the three persons and located the mystery
in their unity; whereas Athanasius had emphasized the oneness of God whose
mystery lies in threeness. The Cappadocians and their Orthodox heirs tended to
give priority to person over essence r being, saying that divine person determines
the divine essence; whereas the emerging Latin tended to give priority to divine
essence.

At Constantinople in 381, the word hypostasis was chosen to refer to Father, Son,
and Spirit because it could be interpreted to the advantage of both sides. On the
one hand, it could refer to the ousia, or essence of something, and be translated
into Latin as substantia. Or the other hand, it could be forced to refer to the face
(prosopon) of God, the equivalent of persona in Tertullian's Latin formula, una
substantia, tres personae. In sum, the hypostasis equivocates. This means among
other things, that it is of little or no help to try to discern its meaning by doing an
etymological study of the word prosopon or a history of the relationship between
mask, faces, and persons. Nor does it help to accept further confusion create by
Boethius, who defined a person as an individual substance of a rational nature
(persona est naturae rationabilis individua substantia), because this only further
conflates the meanings of substance and person. What we have to work with is the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan word hypostasis, which we customarily render in
English as "person", in in it simply up to us to argue theologically for one or
another meaning of the term.

Robert Johnson: 'identity' over 'person'

Karl Rahner – to define 'person' as a 'distinct manner of subsisting'??
Ref. G. O'Collins (1999), The Tripersonal God – Understanding and Interpreting
the Trinity <Ch. 10 Trinitarian Persons and Actions, pp. 174-182. >

‘A human being’ vs. ‘a human person’ vs. ‘being human’

‘Someone is a divine person’ cannot logically stand if someone is referred to God himself.
Since God is God, it cannot be said He is ‘divine’. Note: personality is a psychological term
and has nothing to do with person, personhood, or being a person.
 James D. G. Dunn (2010), Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? (in Introduction) – Scribd.
Google-ebook;

… the classic creedal distinction between different ‘persons’ of the Godhead, when ‘person’ is
understood in its everyday sense, invites the perception of God in tri-theistic rather than Trinitarian
terms, as three and distinct individual 'persons'.

[Word study: person, human person, non-human person, figure, portrait, image. Cf.
Latin persona (actor as in a drama).]

[The word ‘person’ in English – various meanings, senses, usages, and definitions.
The term ‘person’ by some may not be same as ‘person’ by other, depending on
various purposes of discussion/statement. E.g. as a legal entity, it covers much more
than a human person/being, e.g. corporation. In law, ‘man’ and person’ are not same.
Any human being is ‘man’. A person is ‘man’ who is considered according to the
rank he holds in society, with all the rights to which the place he holds entitles him,
and the duties which it imposes …
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

Problem of definition of person as is used in the Trinitarian discourse: 'human person'

'divine person' human being vs. god-being vs. divine being. – see in the articles under
the heading '*trinity'.

www.mind.ilstu.edu/curriculum/what_is_a_person/what_is_a_person.php [Anderson: What

is a person? – a copy in collection <IRENT Vol. III - Supplement (Collections #3B&C -
Anthropology, 'Person', People)>

Jenny Teichman: The Definition of Person, Philosophy Vol. 60, No. 232 (Apr., 1985), pp.
175-185 www.jstor.org/stable/3750997 Page Count: 11 (copy in WB - Collection #3)

www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - as a theological term. Especially used in

the non-biblical Trinitarian belief and doctrine, it provides undecipherable
gobbledygook, as the word is used totally different sense without succeeding to
remove confusion. Even a statement is made saying that ‘Jesus is a human being.
He is a divine person, but not a human person’!! - the statement which cannot make
any sense. The original sense of Latin and Greek terms does not show up in the
English translation word ‘person’. [Cf. persona, hypostasis, hypostatic union,
personality, personhood, (two) natures of Jesus, etc. Cf. Korean 위격 位格) Cf.
‘divinity meets humanity’ in Yeshua; not ‘Jesus is not a human person, ‘the person
Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man’??!! Divinity meets humanity through
*Incarnation of the God's Word (ho logos in Jn 1:1) as Immanuel; humanity meets
divinity in the Ascension of the Resurrected Yeshua the Mashiah.]

Related words: Lat. persona; role, character, essence, nature; *personality (- psychological
term; personal style, character, bent, etc. Belongs to a same level of word category as
‘spirituality’); *personhood (the being of a person; or being as person), person-ness (not
‘personable-ness’); personification, anthropomorphism; divine person vs. divine being;
human being vs. human person. Regrettably, most of writings on the subject related to
religion (not psychology), the term ‘personality’ is haphazardly used instead of
‘personhood’. Note that the word is usually capitalized in the Trinitarian jargon (for what
purpose?). It should be understood as a translation word for the Latin and as such it is never
stressed that it does not have same meaning as the common English word ‘person’ [– e.g.
‘human person’ ‘divine person’. Does ‘divine person’ refers to a certain human being or a
spirit being god-like one?]. If the jargon ‘Person’ is not understood to connote ‘role’, it falls
into logical and linguistic quandary. Elohim does come to us as a person, but He is supra-
personal and does not belong to the category of ‘beings’ or ‘persons’, beyond ‘things’
‘concepts’ ‘ideas’.

[See EE 2 for a ref. on ‘human being’ vs.’ human person’ regarding ‘Jesus Christ’.]

In common English usage person denotes an individual human being. It is derived from
Lat. persona (actor’s mask, character in a play) which became to be used to refer to a human
being. However, the word is in common usage of English words and to use in as specialized
technical word for their theology only results in its tri-theistic metamorphosis. In a common
theological definition for personhood a person is said to possess attributes (of will, intellect,
uniqueness of individuality) as well as actions. [However, without considering
‘identification of the reality this argument does not go personification, a very common
literary device. Such is involved with the debate on ‘personhood of the Spirit’. The Spirit
(that is, the holy Spirit) [ko. 령 > 영 靈] is the spirit of God, not a being, an entity, or a
person separate from God. See Jn 16:13 for a common Trinitarian misunderstanding of
grammatical gender as evidence of personhood. There is no exact word in Hebrew
corresponding to ‘person’ as there is none in Greek.] [To say ‘person’ we should be able to
locate in space and place as well as within time, a dimension to which the realm of spirit
does not belong.]

The adjective, ‘personal’ vs. ‘of person’: Most of time we see the adjectival form ‘personal’
is used where the usual context requires ‘of person’. It is misleading as it carries a word
picture of ‘personable’ or ‘personal to me’, etc. a 5F5F

a
*Adjective problem – e.g. ‘personal’ vs. ‘of person’ [concerning the notion of 'person']. In
addition to a host of issues on the word and term ‘person’ itself, its adjectival form in English
‘personal’ has the same problem of other adjectival words where the noun and its counterpart do
not share same nuance and sense. E.g. the word ‘beauty’ has an adjectival form ‘beautiful’, but the
latter does not have anything connected with the concept of ‘beauty’. In other words, English does
not have a separate form with the meaning ‘concerning with beauty’ or ‘of beauty’. Cf. ‘The natural
law’ is not quite same meaning as ‘the law of nature’.
A quite similar case is for the word ‘spirit’. There is no English word which has meaning of
‘concerned with spirit’ or ‘of spirit’. On the other hand, the adjective ‘spiritual’ has a sense
different from ‘of spirit’. Hence, in IRENT translation, the word ‘spirital’ of a neologism is used.
E.g. 'spirital body' which is contrasted with 'soulical body' (/> physical body; /x: natural body –
'not unnatural body'??) is not 'spiritual body' – 1Co 15:44.
E.g. 'spirit world' (> 'spirital world') vs. 'spiritual world' (-- 'world is spiritual'???)
E.g. ‘music of beauty = beautiful music’ cf. ‘beauty of music ≠ musical beauty’.
E.g. 'biblical doctrine' ('bible-wise') is not same 'bible doctrines' (doctrines concerning the Bible)
E.g. 'biblical authority' → authority based on the Bible; 'authority of the Bible' – authority the Bible holds;
'authoritative Bible text' vs. 'authoritative Bible'
The problem occurs this word is used as a special theological term to designate the mode of
being of God in reference to the divine Triune (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost –
Mt 28:19b KJV). Its theological use is from the Latin word, which became to be used a
translation of the Greek concepts. The effect produced by such theological tradition (in line
of ‘Trinitarianism’) is an image of Godhead, contrary to the Scriptural truth. Some proposes
the word capitalized ‘Person’ as a special term to use to articulate with it differentiated from
a (human) person. Such a term ‘Person’ is purely contorted artificial theological construct
(as if a short-hand) and does not help human mind comprehend and actually mislead by
portraying as a single figure with three heads or three faces (Gk. trikephalos) for a tri-
theistic three-person God-head.

The confounding problem is the meaning of the word ‘person’ in English, which has nothing
to do with the term as the Trinitarian theological construct a, which ultimately changed the
56F56F

Trinitarian idea (as a reaction to the Arian heresy of ‘Christ being a creature’) to be guilty
of being de facto tritheism. The Creator YHWH Elohim is not ‘a person’, nor ‘a God’.
[Hence His name is a person-name for the humans can see Him just as He has revealed to
them; it is not a personal name.] On the other hand, Yeshua was a person, human as well as
divine [as He was equal to His father (Jn 5:18) and all the fullness of Elohim dwelt in Him
(Col 1:19; Eph 3:19).] [See a separate discussion in Appendix: On Trinity.] [A detailed
discussion on the statement ‘God is a person’ is found in Appendix: ‘IS GOD A
PERSON?’.]

God as person; 'personal God'.

That 'God is a person' is well accepted (aside from three-person Trinitarian lingo). If not, it
is automatically excluded from the concept of God-being. If, however, since the Supreme
being is what He is, he is not personal but supra-personal. All such religious and
philosophical idea of God being a person is not from realization of the Divine Reality, but
linguistic expression of anthropomorphic understanding of the God-being and the relation
of God-being and humanity. God is not a 'person', yet 'God' is a 'person'. It all depends on
how we define the words in the sentence – 'God' 'is' and 'person'. Precise definition makes
it possible to avoid confusion, contradiction, and useless contentions so that all can be on
the common ground of communication and for communion.

*Personification

/Personality vs. /Personhood

/Personification (used as a literary device). attributing human traits or character to animals,
inanimate objects, phenomena or abstract notions,
/Anthropomorphism the attribution of human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human
entities.

Vocabulary:
Personify; personate; impersonate; typify; embody, incarnate; represent; embodiment,
incarnation;

Vocabulary:

a
John J. O’Donnell, The Mystery of the Triune God (1989), Ch. VI. The Concept of Person in Trinitarian
Theology, pp. 100-111.
 /literary-devices/personification/
/Figure_of_speech
/Rhetorical_question
/Rhetorical_device
/Literal and figurative language
/Figure of speech
/Metaphor [a figure of speech that, for rhetorical effect, directly refers to one thing by
mentioning another. It may provide (or obscure) clarity or identify hidden similarities
between two ideas. Metaphors are often compared to other types of figurative language,
such as antithesis, hyperbole, metonymy and simile.]

[See below for the closely related '* Anthropomorphism']

Personification is a common figure-of-speech literary device to represent a thing or

abstraction as a person. In most cases, it is easy to recognize as a literary device.a

However, the issue of the personhood b of ‘the Holy Spirit’ [sic] is a real source of
controversies and contentions (all unnecessary) – doctrinally speaking. See under ‘* holy
Spirit’ in BW #3 for further detail. [Again, not to confuse the word ‘person’ with the term
‘person’ of Trinitarian theological construct – see above.]

One of the great causes of the problems in the line of the Trinitarian doctrine is a literalistic
interpretation of the Bible of the translated words and terms. Even the word ‘person’ (often
capitalized as ‘Person’) is a stumbling block for their mind-set. God is NOT a person. He is
a supra-person being (being beyond the semantic realm of ‘person’). If this term in the
doctrinal statement is ‘literally’ understood as its original Latin word persona, there would
not be confusion and misconception, since it means ‘mask’ or ‘role’, not a person in modern
English usage. The doctrine should move from Trinity (unity of three Gods), but Tri-unity
(unity of the triune) –creative works of love is by Elohim YHWH through Yeshua His Son
in the power of holy Spirit to reach the humanity – the power radiates out just as the sun
shines [Mt 5:45] with no discrimination or directionality to bring out its energy for the
benefit of His created world. That includes all the blessings from Him, such as salvation and
torah (teaching/guidance/instruction) among others. Only human beings were given an
existential freedom – to accept or to reject Elohim and His gift.

[Note: Grammatical gender should not be used to prove personhood of something. E.g. Jn
16:13-15 paraklētos (masc.) (16:7 = 14:16); here in this verse it is equated with ‘Spirit’
(neut.). However, grammatical gender cannot dictate how its gender should be, and it cannot
prove the holy Spirit to be a person or a God. All translations render it as ‘he’ 3rd person
masc. singular pronoun. The side effect is to prop up a non-biblical doctrine of the holy
Spirit as a person, the third Person of the Trinity God, God the Holy Spirit. If the Spirit has
any sort of gender, it would be thematically feminine. (Cf. personification of ‘wisdom’ in
the book of Proverbs of OT. Prov 31:10-31. Cf. ‘spirit of wisdom’ - Exo 28:3; Eph 1:17 –
Gk. sophia fem.)

a
An example is ‘love’ in 1Co 13:4ff. No one would mistake from such expression (e.g. ‘love
endures’) that ‘love’ is meant here as a person!
b
It is widespread to confuse 'personhood' (being a person) with a related word 'personality' (a
psychological term related to character and quality of a person).
*Anthropomorphism

Anthropomorphism is the conceiving or representing (interpreting) of non-human entities

in terms (by attributing to them) of human characteristics. /Anthropomorphism (my own
editing).

Here, non-human entities are such as god-beings, animals, inanimate objects, or abstractions
and human characteristics are such as purposes, forms, attributes, faculties, or behavior.
It is an innate mental process. It is often used as a literary device
https://literarydevices.net/anthropomorphism/

www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/anthropomorphism
www.britannica.com/topic/anthropomorphism

The term was coined by the Greek philosopher Xenophanes when describing the similarity
between religious believers and their gods — that is, Greek gods were depicted having light
skin and blue eyes while African gods had dark skin and brown eyes.
https://psychcentral.com/news/2018/03/01/why-do-we-anthropomorphize/11766.html

‘God is not like a man’ (Num 23:19), but, for instruction of the many, he is like a
man. – Philo [quoted in David Clines, “Yahweh and the God of the Christian
Theology”, Theology Sep 1980 83 (p. 325)]

Anthropomorphic languages about God is closely related to literary device of

personification in which God, the supra-personal being, is being presented as a personal
being, even being understood as a peron, as if He is one of persons.

… Accordingly, Zizek recognizes in Judaism not a mere break with the

“anthropomorphism” of the pagan Gods, but its full realization: “it is only
with Judaism that God is fully ‘anthropomorphized’, that the encounter with
Him is the encounter with another person in the fullest sense of the term - the
Jewish God experiences full wrath, revengefulness, jealousy, etc, as every
human being... this is why one is prohibited to make images of Him: not
because an image would ‘humanize’ the purely spiritual Entity, but because it
would render it all too faithfully, as the ultimate Neighbor-Thing” (ZIZEK,
2001, On Belief, pp. 126-127) – from– "Jew" in Zizek Dictionary.
www.academia.edu/4779309/Entry_Judaism_and_Christianity

Father in human family:

Reading material: Mitch Albom, “Dads don’t matter? That’s nonsense – when did it
become so difficult to extol fatherhood” (in Chicago Tribune 6/25/2014)
“… What does a father bring to the table? I can cite a few things I got from my own:
Strength. Quiet confidence. Discipline. Responsibility. And love — all displayed
differently than my mother, which was fine. My father also taught us how to be a
husband, how to respect a woman, when to lead and when to support…”
http://goo.gl/rfWJQ7

‘be subjected to’ ‘submission’; authority of husband;

*antichrists; false messiahs

See in WB #3.

pious, religious, devout; godly; *pious; *devout; saints;

Religious, pious, devout;

Sacred, holy, divine

*godliness, *piety, ascetic;

*(ritually) clean, defiled;
religiosity vs. religion;
saintly
piety
Cf. S2152 eusebēs (3x) 'devout' – Act 10:2, 7; 2Pe 2:9.
‘consecrated’; cleansed; pure, undefiled,

God's holy people - IRENT /consecrated ones – Cassirer; />> *saints – most [now
catholic church usage]

(sing.) 1Pe 1:15; Act 7:33; Rm 11:16 (< ‘set-apart); Mt 7:6 (< ‘sacred’)
Rm 7:12 ‘law is holy’; 1Co 3:17 ‘Mishkan is holy’
(pl.) Heb 1:16; 1Co 7:14; Rev 15:4; - most renders as holy but unfit. The English
word ‘holy’ is now a church jargon with sense of morally pure’]

Mt 5:8
Blessed are they, who are ☼purea as to the heart [☼Ps 73:1] [Cf. Heb 12:14 – holy]
because it is they who shall come to see Elohim. [Heb 12:14; cf. Jn 1:18]
Heb 12:14 ☼Strive after peace with all [kinds of] people {☼Ps 34:14}

and also after the [life of] sanctification [Cf. v. 10]

— otherwise no one shall see the Lord [Mt 5:8]:

a pure ░░ [= keep on purifying; their mind cleansed of evil desires/thoughts unworthy to His name. Thus, pure
from the heart and set apart from the world (‘sanctified’).] [Cf. purification ritual & immersion-rite in Judaism.]
*GeHinnom; *Gehenna; vs. *hell; problems of religious ‘doctrine of hell’ 'belief in hell'
'hell fire preaching' vs. ‘universalism’; *sheol, *hades

[Ref. Meghan Henning, "Hell" – In Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies. Ed. Christopher Matthews.
New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.] [www.academia.edu/2090567/The_origins_of_Christian_hell ]

'fire and brimstone' Lk 17:29; Psa 11:6; Ezk 38:22; (Isa 33:34); Rev 14:10; 21:8; (Rev
9:17; 19:18, 20; 20:10). [brimstone > sulfur (chemical name)]
'brimstone and fire' Gen 19:4;
'brimstone' Deu 29:23

/Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God Jonathan Edwards (a sermon 1741)

English word *hell:

'hell' – taken from Old English word into the Bible along with development of
non-Scriptural idea – and into Church language, translating from Latin '*inferno'
for Gk. 'hades'.
'what da hell' 'Go to hell'

'hell' in KJV – translating Gk. Gehenna

Cf. the Valley of Ben-Hinnom – 2Ch 28:3; 33:6; 2Kg 23:10-14 – pagan god Molech – child
sacrifice);

(Check in Wycliff, Geneva, Bishop, Douay)

• preacher's hell -- 'God … cast wicked Men into Hell' ... - Jonathan Edwards -- Cf. 'fire and
brimstone' – Lk 17:29; Rev 14:10; 20:10; 21:8 [brimstone = sulfur]
• 'a son of Gehenna' – Mt 23:15 [/a son of hell – NASB; x: the child of hell – KJV]
• the Gehenna of the fire – Mt 5:22 eis tēn geenana tou puros /xx: hell fire – KJV; /xx: hellfire –
HCSB; /x: the hell of fire – ESV; /x: the fire of hell – NIV; /x: the fiery hell – NASB, NET;
• 'heaven and hell' (the phrase does not appear in the Bible) www.ucg.org/bible-study-
tools/booklets/heaven-and-hell-what-does-the-bible-really-teach

www.tentmaker.org/books/GatesOfHell.html
H7585 sheol – translated as 'grave' 'hell' 'pit' – KJV e.g. Gen 37:35; Num 16:30; Jonah 2:2

'sheol' 'Sheol' 'underworld' 'the depths of death' 'the world of the dead – See '* Life after death'

'Abraham's bosom' (1x) – Lk 16:22

Paradise (1x) Lk 23:43;
Hades (10x), Act 2:27; Rev 1:18 ('death and Hades')
/Tartarus (in Greek mythology) cf. 2Pe 2:4 tartaroō 'throw into tartarus'
Cf. /Elysium (in Greek mythology)
Heb 9:27; 'And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment'
A Problem verse (translation and interpretation): 1Pe 3:19 – often misread as a 'disembodied
spirit' (aka 'ghost').

https://youtu.be/DYP7MAj76lE <Where Did Jesus Go Between His Death and Resurrection?>

/Apostles'_Creed
descendit ad inferos,
katelthonta eis ta katōtata
descended into Hades; /x: into the dead; /xxx: into hell

Cp. Eph 4:9, "katebē eis ta katōtera merē tēs gēs" ("he descended into the lower regions,
that is, the earth "); /x: of the earth – KJV, NASB, HCSB; [/S2737 katoteros (1x) 'lower']

: [B-Greek] when syntax doesn't get you there -- Eph 4:9b}

https://youtu.be/yvfv0uF4Db0 <Did Christ descend into Hell or Hades?>

About the English word hell:

[Cf. problem of Christian tradition and belief with hell fire preaching’. Cf. unbiblical
idea of ‘heaven and hell’ where people go to after death. Cf. ‘heaven and home’.]

Hell is a common English word, very useful and convenient one indeed. It is now
mainly a religious or church jargon, associated with ‘*hellfire’ and ‘hellfire
preaching’; hellfire doctrine still holds a prominent position in various
Christianisms with ‘God’s endless punishment’ and ‘everlasting torture’.

[A sample dictionary entry:

1. a nether wor1d in which the dead continue to exist;
2. realm of the devil in which the damned suffer everlasting punishment;
3. a place or state of torment or destruction – all unbiblical meaning.]
[www.mercifultruth.com/the-real-hell.html gives how related words are
differently translated among the Bibles.] [Myriads of articles and books on the
topic related to ‘hell’ can be found!]
Etymologically the English word ‘hell’ may be related to ‘hole’ (as in the ground to
make it hidden – related to Gk. Hades). It is shown in many colorful phrases of
everyday English, such as ‘the hell with!’ ‘what the hell!’, ‘to hell’, ‘Go to hell’,
‘hellish’, ‘hellwards’, ‘raise hell’, ‘for the hell of it’, ‘be hell on’, ‘all hell broke loose’,
‘get the hell out of’, ‘give someone hell’, ‘a hell of a ~’, ‘like hell’ ‘play hell’ ‘hell to
pay’. ‘hellhole’ (a place of extreme misery or squalor); ‘hell-bent’ (stubbornly
determined).

The word by itself, however, is a decent useful word aptly to describe a certain
human condition in which one is find its life not only in ‘darkness’, but also turned
away from light. In most cases, people would not know the truth, even outright
deny it nonchalantly or scornfully. This is far from is ‘hell doctrine’, as refined with
‘hellfire preaching’ in the last several hundred years. [Check for discussions on
‘eternal life vs. * life after death’ ‘issue of soul immortality’, ‘problem of evil’, ‘justice
and punishment’.] ‘Hell’ cannot be used a place some are to go after death, in
contrast to ‘heaven’ for some to go after death – all unscriptural ideas.
[http://youtu.be/rZC6tbgpsl4 Rethinking Life After Death (NT Wright) – just one
out of millions written on the subject! I would need nine lives of me to read and
watch and digest them all ;-< like all other important topics pertaining to our life.]

The word is used to translate several disparate Greek words by English translations
in KJV tradition and gives rise to unscriptural ideas associated with it and one of
many common biblical and church jargons. See below how it appears in English
translations from which wrong ideas tied to the distorted teaching in the Bible have
been fermented.

‘hell’ in English as an idea/construct viable unrelated with unscriptural biblical

‘hell-preaching’ and aside from what appears in certain Bible translation. Many
equates hell = eternal fire by picking up two disparate biblical, but not-scriptural,
words put together to come up with an elaborate human doctrine of hell and of
hellfire. They are literally hellbent on it! It has nothing to do with Christianity [see
 *Mashianity, Jesus Religion], but everything to do with Churchianity and
Christianisms.

I don’t believe hell as such, but love to use the word ‘hell’. One thing is clear that we
should not say to others ‘Go to hell!’ or ‘You will go to hell’ even if we use the word
the way they might understand with their own religiosity or doctrine. As a non-
Scriptural word, it is useful to bring a message. The fact is, someone does NOT go
to hell (as a hellfire preacher may love to say), but some ARE in hell. Then they ARE
guaranteed that they will be in hell in whatever form of afterlife they may believe
in. No, they don’t have to go to hell, but they choose or rather they are themselves
chosen to go.

Reading material:
http://escapetoreality.org/2014/08/01/conversations-about-hell/

Gehenna

GeHinnom; Geh-Hinnom; Gehenna; Hinnom Valley░░ (x12) Mt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28;
18:9; 23:15; 23:33; Mk 9:43; 45;:47; Lk 12:5; Jam 3:6

• G-Mt x7 - ‘into Geh-Hinnom’ Mt 5:29, 30; ‘to the Geh-Hinnom of the

fire’ Mt 5:22; 18:9; ‘in Geh-Hinnom Mt 10:28; ‘son of Geh-Hinnom’ Mt
23:15; “the judgment of the Geh-Hinnom’ Mt 23:33.
• G-Mk x3 - ‘into the Geh-Hinnom, into the fire that cannot be put out’ Mk
9:43; ‘into the Geh-Hinnom’ Mk 9:45; ‘into Geh-Hinnom’ Mk 9:47
• G-Lk x1 - ‘into the Geh-Hinnom’ Lk 12:5.
• Jam x1 - ‘by the Geh-Hinnom’ Jam 3:6

/ Gk. Gehenna; /Gehenna – TransLine, NWT, CLV, ISR98, Mft, VW, WNT,
Whiston, NAB, Vulgate; /ゲヘナ - JSS; /Gehinnom – HNV; /Gei-Hinnom –
JNT; /gehenna – Rotherham, (Vulgate); /gihano – Etheridge; /
/Garbage Pit Gehenna – SourceNT; /x: hell – KJV & most others, incl. Cass,
Wuest, JB, NIV trio; / (cf. Hades – ‘inferno’ in Vulgate)

[For word study and its usage see Supplement-Glossary-Place for ‘Gehenna’
‘Valleys of Jerusalem’; see also Supplement-Glossary-General for ‘hell’ and
related expressions.] /=Eng. Gehenna; \Gk. Geenna transliterate from Aramaic
gehenna (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/april26/9t5098.html ) (Heb. geh-
hinnom ‘valley of (ben-)Hinnom’)
[Used in figurative sense. In this clause, the sense would be ‘answerable to get
oneself thrown into’ ‘liable to destruction in’ fiery Hinnom valley - ARJ]
[cp. Mt 10:28 ‘… who can destroy both the body and the soul … in Gehenna’
[Cp. symbolic of ‘Lake of Fire’ – Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14; 21:8]

KJV renders all ‘Hades’ (‘inferno’ in Vulg.) as hell: in Mt 11:23; 16:18; Lk

10:15; 16:23; Act 2:27, 31; Rev 1:18; 6:8 for Hades; 2Pe_2:4 for tartarus
(inferno in Vulg) ;
Cf. HCSB ‘hellfire’ – Mt 5:22; 18:9

NIV erred once rendering Hades as ‘hell’ in Lk 16:23.

[Gk. ‘Geenna’, Γέενναν in Syonptic Gospels and James, transliterate from Heb.
ge hinnom (valley of Hinnom); Eng. Gehenna [The valley running SW to SE
Jerusalem to join Kidron valley. Jer 32:35). Used for trash burning See
Supplement-Glossary-Place for ‘Valleys of Jerusalem’ ‘Gehenna’ ‘Valley of
Hinnom’. much symbolism and symbolically used in OT]

wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=31.771120&lon=35.230279&z=15&m=b&show=/23952200/Tem
ple-Mount

[SourceNT Fn – on Mt 5:22
The words “Gehenna”, “Hades” and “Tartarus”, three very different places in the Greek, are
usually all just called “Hell” in most Bible versions (KJV, etc. including modern ones).
Gehenna was a real actual place on earth. It was used for the Jerusalem rubbish dump, and
was a valley just outside the city on the south running west to east. Smoke went up from it
all times as the rubbish was burning continually (with brimstone added into). It was full of
maggots, and the bodies of the worst criminals were thrown there. Josiah used it for burning
of offal. It used to be the site of child sacrifice to Molech. (purple font words are added by
 AJR)

[QQ Needs OT ref: here] [Needs the article in BAR on Gehenna, Tophet, etc.]
Clarke’s commentary – A particular place in this valley was called Tophet,
from ‫ תפת‬tophet, the fire stove, which was used to be the site of child sacrifice to
a pagan god Molech [2Ki 23:10; 2Ch 28:3; Jer 7:31; Jer 32:35; (to Baal) Jer
19:5-6]. In the intertestamental period, it came to be used symbolically as the
place of divine punishment (cf. 1 En. 27:2, 90:26; 4 Ezra 7:36).

…the Jews, in our Savior’s time, used the word, the place of the damned. See the word applied
in this sense by the Targum, on Rth_2:12; Psa_140:12; Gen_3:24; Gen_15:17

Jam 3:6 by [the flames of] the Gehenna ░░ \Gk. ὑπὸ τῆς Γεέννης; /x: hell –
most, Mft (- the only place it renders as ‘hell’; otherwise as ‘Gehenna’); /x: by hell - most; />
by Gehenna – NWT, etc.; /of hell – KJV; /from hell – GW; /from hell itself – CEV, GNB;
/(set on fire) by the flames of the Pit – TCNT; /x: by the Garbage Pit – SourceNT; /
[The
only occurrence of the Greek word Gehenna outside the Synoptic Gospels,
where likewise it’s metaphoric for the present condition, not ‘future condition’
in after life – frequently used for God’s ‘Final Answer’.]

The word Gehenna (fr. Geh-Hinnom) in all cases in NT is used figuratively carrying a symbolic
sense. [Hence, IRENT takes it as an idiom by transliterate to avoid to suggest as the ‘Hinnom
Valley’ itself, south of Yerusalem] Translating it as ‘hell’ brings a quite alien notion into the
Scripture and over several hundred years engraved as the so-called ‘doctrine of hell’, which
gave rise also to various reactive universalistic ideas – both ideas being equally misdirected,
naïve and full of fancy conjectures. These antithetical religious doctrines have to undergo
thorough examination and scrutiny to articulate the truth to confront the problem of evil in
conjunction with the ideas on afterlife, in order to reach a Scriptural understanding in harmony
with the whole Scripture and would not sidetrack the Gospel of God’s Kingdom in Yeshua the
Mashiah itself.

Most of such ‘doctrine of hell’ with so-called hellfire preaching for last four hundred years is
hodge-podge work of mixture of pseudo-biblical imagery and non-biblical ideas.

However useful and necessary may the doctrine be, it would be pointless, unless one cleans up
linguistically and scripturally, since ‘hell’ itself is a non-biblical word which was imported into
the Scripture and take out it amplified to suit one’s own doctrine. If one wants use the word, it
needs a precise definition, so that people can check it to see whether the teaching offered is
totally based on the Scripture or based on hodgepodge of philosophy, religions, and psychology.
For several hundred years the Western style Christian religions have produced man-made
plethora of doctrines and gospels, which is now steadily moving into the final everything-goes
‘Full Gospel of Perversion’, where right and wrong are reversed – products of humanity, which
has its God-given image defaced and hidden. Along the same line revisionist faces are shown
up, such as Universalism.

The word ‘hell’ itself is a very useful vocabulary, for which everyone may come up with one’s
own idea of the hellish condition of humanity we are witnessing in our life into post-modern
age. Accepting its English usage as it is current as a secular expression unrelated to religions
 and Christianity, the word without capitalization carries several meanings – such as [Ref.
http://wordweb.info/ ]

1. Any place of pain and turmoil

2. A cause of difficulty and suffering
3. Violent and excited activity
4. Noisy and unrestrained mischief

Use of the word hell: Being assure of that the word ‘hell’ is not in the Scripture and not in the
Bibles (except ‘hell-preacher’s Bible’ – KJV is most ‘hellish’ translation, having the word x 23x
in NT and even in OT 31x), we can use it freely without compunction to express precisely and
concisely what the word (whatever it means) can convey. [Cf. there is a euphemistic alteration
for it as in a common idiomatic expression ‘what the heck!’.]

The word comes often paired with ‘heaven’, as in the common non-biblical phrase ‘heaven and
hell’, the word ‘heaven’ is not easy to grasp since it’s not with human beings, especially when
it is seen as a place-related term. On the other hand, ‘hell’ is something with us and it is to grasp
its sense. A person who lives in the past is in hell. a Living in hell is what we have to face, rather
9F9F

than going to hell after death. A person, who lives in darkness and faces darkness, does not
forward to the source of light and does not step into light, is in hell. A person does not know to
what, why, and to whom we are to be existentially grateful is in hell; who complaints, blames,
excuses, etc. etc. Obviously, those are the ones who craves love from others, but, have no
listening ears and refuse to accept love and do not know what love is.

Ref: ‘Where Are the Dead?’ (offers no nonsense Scriptural and linguistic scrutiny on the
subjection of hell) www.bibletoday.com/booklets/ward_text.htm

Ref: for so-called ‘hellfire preaching’

http://wesleygospel.com/2011/12/27/books-for-hell-fire-preachers/

Ref: If anyone ever has time to spare, are fond of digging out something like ‘everlasting
torture’, ‘angry god’, etc., and wants to taste of what kind of work produced by Jonathan
Edwards (d. 1758), known as ‘fire and brimstone hellfire’ preacher, check this site
www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards [It would be interesting to find what he said about ‘God who is
love’ – one of the core theme of the whole Scripture.]

Condensing 2,000+ pages of his works to manageable 141 pages is a book by Strachan and
Sweeney (2003), Jonathan Edwards on Heaven & Hell (The Essential Edwards Collection)
[book review - www.unlockingthebible.org/jonathan-edwards-book-on-heaven-hell/ ]. [Not
same as another book with a same title by John Gerstner (2003), Jonathan Edwards on Heaven
and Hell.]

*GeHinnom – (Geh-Hinnom) the Hebrew word for the name of the valley south of
Yerusalem running W to E to meet Kidron valley. Historically it was used as garbage
dump site to be burned up with brimstone. Practice of child sacrifice in this area was

a
A person who only lives in the future is not much different from the one living in present in hell, as the
future will soon become the past. A person who looks back longingly is in hell (Cf. the story of Lot’s wife
in Gen 19:16).[‘Heaven and hell’ is not a notion belonging to the future. “Unless you are in heaven, you’ll
not go to heaven after death; you don’t have to go to hell; hell is where you are now.”]
recorded. (2Kg 16:3; 23:10; 2Chr 28:3; 33:6; Jer 32:35)- [worship of Moloch - the
idol of Moloch was there and was of brass, adorned with a royal crown, having the
head of a calf, and his arms extended as if to embrace anyone. The idolaters offered
children to him by heating the statue within by a great fire, and when it was burning
hot they put the children into his arms who were consumed by the heat; and, in order
that the cries of the children might not be heard, they made a great noise about the
idol with drums and other instruments. These drums were called "toph" and hence
the common name of the place was Tophet (Jer 7:31-32)]

Gk. transliterate Geenna appears 12 times in NT (Mt 5:22, 29, 30; 10:28; 18:9;
23:15, 33; Mk 9:43, 45, 47; Lk 12:5; Jas 3:6).

Most English Bibles translate it as ‘hell’, incl. DRB.

Others translate it as Gei-Hinnom – JNT; /Gey-Hinnom – MRC; /Gehenna – NWT, Mft,

CLV, ISR, WEB; /gehenna – Diagl, Whiston, Rhm, Vulgate, YLT, (JSS); /Gehinnom -
HNV; /x: Pit – TCNT; /pit of hell – MSG; /Hell – LITV; /Garbage Pit Gehenna – SourceNT;
[Cf. Korean translations borrowed the word 지옥 地獄 (‘underground dungeon’) of
Buddhism and native Chinese mythology. Cf. 염라대왕 (閻羅大王).]

Some English Bibles forgo the word hell completely – JNT, TCNT, WNT, Etheridge,
Whiston, Rhm, MRC, WEB, YLT, ISR, SourceNT, Mft, GSNT (except Jas 3:6);
Vulgate Latin gehennae.

[PNT has it as ‘rubbish-heap’ or ‘destruction’. However, it has ‘hell’ in 4 places as a

typical non-religious English idiom – nothing to do with ‘hell’ shown in other English Bibles
–Act 8:20; Jas 2:18; 3:2; 2Pe 2:3.]

The common English word ‘hell’ has also been used confusingly to translate
other Greek words of different meaning and sense in KJV – such as
(1) Hades (Mt 16:18; Lk 16:23, etc.),
(2) zofos tou skotous – 2Pe 2:17 (cf. seirais zophou); Jud 1:13 (utter
darkness), and
(3) tartaroō – 2Pe 2:4 (‘hold up in the deep abyss’) (rendered as ‘cast into
hell’).
A nickname ‘hell Bible’ or ‘hell-preachers’ Bible’ may be apt for them. Some
even uses it in OT translation.
Common alternative is to render it as Gehenna when they want to stay away
from non-Scriptural word ‘hell’ of pagan origin. IRENT renders it as Geh-
Hinnom in order to reflect the Hebrew word and to stay farther away from
the word automatic fixed association with ‘hellfire’ preaching – a legacy of
Anglicized and Americanized Bible translation.
• G-Mt 7x - ‘thrown into GeHinnom’ Mt 5:29, 30; ‘accountable for the
GeHinnom of the fire’ Mt 5:22; 18:9; ‘destruction in GeHinnom’ Mt 10:28;
‘son of GeHinnom’ Mt 23:15; “the judgment of the GeHinnom’ Mt 23:33.
• G-Mk 3x - ‘thrown into the GeHinnom, into the fire that cannot be put out’ Mk 9:43;
‘into the GeHinnom’ Mk 9:45; ‘into GeHinnom’ Mk 9:47
 • G-Lk 1x - ‘thrown into the GeHinnom’ Lk 12:5.
• Jam 1x - ‘by the GeHinnom’ Jam 3:6

/gehenna - Vulgate; / Heb. Geh-Hinnom, or Geh-benHinnom,

[Not to be confused with: she’ol (Hebrew) hades (Gk); inferno (Latin – as in Dante’s
Divine Comedy) – Mt 16:18.

[It means ‘being burned up’. Not ‘torture’, ‘torment’. Figurative for ‘eternal death’,
not ‘everlasting living in death’.] [cf. Jn 5:29; Rev 20:15]
the Gehenna ░░ [Mt 5:29, 30; 10:28; 18:9] /
/xxx: hell – most;

/Hinnom valley – ARJ; /Gehenna – Vulgate; NWT, Rhm, Mft, WNT, Whiston, MRC, Diagl, ISR,
AMP exp; CLV; / Ge-Hinnom – HNV; /Gei-Hinnom – JNT, MRC; /gihano - Etheridge;
/Garbage Pit Gehenna – SourceNT;
/x: destruction – PNT; /x: pit – TCNT;
/[Gk. S1067 ‘Geenna’, in Synoptic Gospels and James, transliterate from Heb. ge Hinnom (valley of
Hinnom) Aramaic gehenna; Eng. Gehenna; /[The valley running SW to SE Yerusalem to join Kidron
valley.] [Has much symbolism and symbolically used in OT. [Cp. Mt 10:28 ‘… who can destroy both
the body and the soul … in Gehenna’] [cf. symbolic of ‘Lake of Fire’ – Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14; 21:8]
[www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1999/april26/9t5098.html ) [Used in figurative sense. In this clause,
the sense would be ‘answerable to get oneself thrown into’ ‘liable to destruction in’ fiery Hinnom
valley - ARJ] [cp. 10:28 ‘the One who can destroy both the body and the soul … in Gehenna’]

The Gehenna of the fire

the Gehenna of the fire; [(ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς εἰς) τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. Also in 18:9; //Mk
9:47 (v.l.) (ἔχοντα βληθῆναι ~).];
GeHinnom ~ - ARJ; /the Hinnom valley of ~ - ARJ; /xx: the hell of the fire - ALT; /xx: the
hell of fire – ESV trio, ASV, Cass; /xx: hellfire – HCSB; /xx: hell fire – KJV++; /the fire of
Gei-Hinnom- JNT!; /
/the fiery Gehenna – NWT; /the fiery gehenna – Rhm; /the fire of Gehenna – ISR, Mft;
/the Gehenna of the fire – Diagl; /the Gehenna of fire – WNT; /the gehenna of the fire -
YLT; /the fire of Gei-Hinnom – JNT; /the hell (Gehenna) of fire – AMP; /the hell of the
fire – EBTV; /the hell of fire – MKJV, Wuest; /the Hell of fire – LTIV; /fiery hell – NET;
/the fiery hell – NASB; /a fiery hell – AUV; /the fiery Pit – TCNT; /the fiery pit - GSNT;
/the fire of hell – ESV trio, NIV trio, GNB, BBE, ERV; /the fires of hell – CEV, NLT;
/hellfire – HCSB, GW; /hell fire – ISV, NKJV; /hell-fire – KJV+; /the everlasting fire –
PNT; /godless in a furnace of eternal fire – MSG; /the hell [Gr., gehenna] of the fire [or,
the fiery hell]. – ALT;

Mt 5:22 shall be accountable for it [to be thrown down] to the Gehenna of the ~ fire ░░ (= have
to answer; i.e. ‘worthy of’; ‘fit to’. Should not be read ‘literally’ for this common figurative expression
of unworthiness, not imagined torment of immortal soul after death in ‘hell-fire preaching doctrine’.);
1 (GeHenna, GeHinnom, ): /> incurs the penalty of burning in the fire of Gei-Hinnom – JNT; /will
be liable to the fiery Gehenna – NWT; /~ the Hinnom valley ~~ - ARJ; /will be thrown into the
burning Garbage Pit Gehenna – SourceNT; />~ for [to escape] – ARJ; shall be guilty enough to be
thrown into Gey-Hinnom – MRC; /x: is himself heading straight for the fire of destruction.- PNT;
/shall be liable to answer for it in the fiery Pit. – TCNT; / 2 (/xx: hell fire): /xx: are on the brink
of hellfire – MSG; /> will be answerable for this to the extent of being consigned to the fire of
hell – Cass (-mouthful); /shall be in danger of hell fire – KJV++; /will be in danger of the hell of
the fire – ALT; /will be sent to fiery hell – NET; /will be liable to the hell of fire – ESV trio; /will
be subject to hellfire – HCSB; /shall be liable to be thrown into the fire of Hell. – LITV, MKJV
(~ hell); / /shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell – NASB;
Mt 5:21 (shall be) accountable for this before ░░ (= will have to answer against accusation/charge;
antithetical expression - not commensurate to the charges) [\deserves Mt 26:66; 1Co 11:27.] [QQ: the
verb form – sense of ‘future’ or ‘present’, or ‘God will have it’?]; /> ‘will be’. ESTAI (future tense)
/ shall be – IRENT, HNV, ISR, AMP, KJV, NKJV, WNT, Webster, Wesley, Whiston; /are – NLT;
/will be – most others; / will be (except the second one – is) – NIV trio; /Ko. 하게 되고 ~ /?:하게
되리라 (for the last one in v. 22)] (see 5:22 EE vide infra ‘to escape the fiery GeHinnom’):

‘accountable to’ or ‘thrown into’ the firefly valley of Hinnom [Notice it may not be a non-biblical
expression of ‘go to hell’; it is the person himself is the agent (‘get [thrown] into’) as well as the
patient in semantic-syntactic jargon by sending himself into such condition; for him to face and to
have to answer (condemnation would be brought on himself by himself by conscious choice.)
Accountable to – this plain figurative expression is often ignored in ‘hell fire preaching’, distorting
into ‘throwing into the everlasting unquenchable fire – everlastingly roasting the immortal soul after
death.

Needs editing on this /[enochos – BDAG p. 338] 1 /accountable to - NWT; /subject to ~

answerable to – NIV Duo; /liable to – NRSV, Diagl, ISR, ESV trio, CLV, TCNT; /liable to answer
– TCNT; /will answer for it in – GW; /shall be answerable to x2 + shall be liable to – WNT; /liable
to – Diagl, ISR; /x: liable to and unable to escape – AMP; /shall be culpable of – Geneva; / 2 /x:
will be in danger of – KJV, ALT, HNV, Diagl, ISR, BBE; /x: shall be in danger of - KVJ++, NKJV,
HNV, , ASV; 3 /will be subject to – HCSB, AUV, ISV; /shall be subject to – HCSB, ISV, Wuest,
AUV; /are subject to ~~ are in danger of being brought before – NLT; 1 /xx: will be judged ~
must stand trial in – NIrV; /cf. x: subject to ~ brought before~ –JNT; /be brought – GNB; /be
judged by – ERV; /guilty before – NASB; /will have to answer to – GSNT; /will have to stand trial
+ will be taken to court + will be in danger of – CEV; /x: liable to and unable to escape the
punishment imposed by – AMP (- mouthful); /will be sentenced by ~ must come before - Mft (-
first clause translocated to the last); /xx: is guilty of murder + might find yourself hauled into
court+ are on the brink of hellfire – MSG; / (- baloney); /x: must stand (his trial) – PNT; /x: will
have to his trial in – Barclay; /xxx: obnoxious to (judgment + the council + to hell-fire) – Murdock;
/xx: culpable of judgement + worthy to be punished by the Councill + worthy o be punished with
hellfire – Geneva; / [In this clause, the sense would be ‘answerable to get oneself thrown into’ ‘liable
to destruction in fiery Gehenna - ARJ] [cp. 10:28 ‘… who can destroy both the body and the soul …
in Gehenna’]
/will have to answer to (x2) + will have to answer for it in – GSNT; /x: will be subjected to + will
brought before + will be sent to – NET; /are subject to + in danger of being brought before –+
are in danger of – NLT;; /shall be guilty before (x2) + shall be guilty enough to go into – NASB;
/will be accountable to (x2) + will be liable to – NWT; /will be subject to + will be brought before
+ incurs the penalty of burning – JNT; /will be judged + must stand trial in Sanhedrin + will be in
danger of the fire in hell – NIrV; /will be judged + will be judged by + will be in danger of – ERV;
/will be subject to + is answerable to (x2) – NIV duo; /will answer for it – GW; /will be brought
to (trial) + will be in danger of going to – GNB; /shall be liable to and unable to escape – AMP;
/will be sentenced by God (this is placed at the end) +must come before + must go to – Mft; /
/will be answerable for this – Cass;
[Ref. supra, p. 35]
Hell of fire

Mt 5:22; 18:9; Mk 9:47 v.l. ‘hell of fire’ (KJV etc.); fire regarded as existing in hell.
Used metonymically as a place of eternal fire [s. Mt 25:41] envisaged as punishment for
the damned. Unscriptural idea, some takes it as a biblical idea since the expression is
found along with the word ‘hell’ itself in some English Bibles (in tradition of KJB) –
misunderstanding of Scriptural idiom and usage of related words such as ‘GeHenna’.
1 (xx: hell): /fiery hell – NET, NASB; /hell fire –KJV, NKJV, ASV, Bishops,
Geneva, DRB, ISV; /hellfire – HCSB, Noyes, GW, MSG; /hell-fire – WNT, hell of
the fire – ALT; /hell of fire – ESV trio, BBE, Wuest; /fire in hell – NIrV; /fire of
hell – Cass, NIV duo, GNB, ERV, AUV, MKJV; /fire of Hell – LITV; /fires of hell
– NLT; /hell (Gehenna) of fire – AMP; /
2 (GeHenna): /fiery Gehenna – NWT; /fire of Gei-Hinnom – JNT; /fire of Gehinnom
– HNV; /fire of Gehenna – ISR, Mft, WEB; /Gehenna of fire – CLV; /Gehenna of
Fire - WNT; /Gehenna of the fire – Diagl; /Gehenna of the fire – YLT; /x: Gey-
Hinnom – MRC; /gehennae ignis – Vulg!;
3 (others): /fiery pit – GSNT; /fiery Pit – TNCT; /fire of destruction – PNT (cf.
‘rubbish hip’ – for ‘Gehanna’)

Cf. Jas 3:6 being set on fire by the Geh-Hinnom (phlogizō hupo tēs geennēs);
/inflammata a gehenna – Vulg;
Cf. Mt 18:18; 25:41 ‘eternal fire’;
Cf. Mk 9:43, 45, (46, 48); Lk 3:17; Jud 1:7; ‘unquenchable fire’
Cf. Rev 19:20; 20:10, 14, 15; (21:8) ‘lake of fire’

‘hellfire preaching’ – is a religious jargon, pejorative outside and even within religions.
It has become associated with hellfire preachers of the 18th and 19th centuries in Europe
and America. The epitome of their image is Johnathan Edward (of Puritan religion),
whose well-known sermon ‘Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God’ depicted the realities
of ‘hell’ vividly with conflation of imagery from Dante’s epic poem (ca 1308 CE),
Divine Comedy (with Inferno the first of three canticas). Even mixed with ideas of Law
and Righteousness, and emphasis on God’s mercy for salvation, what it is spoken is
impossible to be heard by the non-believers and the believers would have not much need
for its message, except for justifying their attitude of condemnation of non-believers.

Related English words: ‘preaching hell’; condemnation, damnation, denunciation,

excommunication, anathema; doom, downfall, destruction, ruin, ruination, annihilation,
perdition.

The idea of ‘hell’ as non-Scriptural English word has its usefulness in every day English
language. The problem with it, however, is that people think it is what a Biblical word
represents. Also, people think it is a place one goes after death, the other being ‘heaven’
(again non-biblical notion). Taken the word to denote one’s state here and now it simply
tells that one is in hell when disconnected and alienated from Elohim, the Creator God.
Reading material: Rob Bell (2011), Love Wins - A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the
Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived

• http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/files/2011/03/LoveWinsRevie
w.pdf
• Rob Bell's Bridge Too Far | Christianity Today
• Critical Review of Rob Bell's “Love Wins” | Evidence Unseen

• http://youtu.be/iQvqpO78IXA Rob Bell and Hell (William Lane Craig) (from

tradition ‘hell doctrine’)

• Mark Gally (2011), God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better
than Love Wins

[Without anything grounded on the Scripture, Catholics entertains their doctrine of

purgatory, the place where the dead in general (including the majority of Catholics) pass
immediately after death, a place of purgation from sin, a place of penances, sorrows, woes,
anguish indeed, but not hopeless. The period of confinement there may be centuries or
millennia, according to the deserts of the individual and the alleviations granted. Catholics
will not need to remain as long in there as will the Protestants and heathen. Few will to go
to ‘heaven’ (- those called ‘saints’). Dante’s Inferno, the first part of his 14th-century epic
poem Divine Comedy, graphically describes the tortures in purgatory. This popular
imagery itself is rooted from pagan primitive religions of men (incl. Buddhism, Taoism,
etc.) and the view of ‘hell’ in English speaking people owes much to this, with the religion
(as in ‘hell fire preaching’).]

the Apostles’ Creed – www.creeds.net/ancient/apostles.htm

The earliest written version of the creed is perhaps the Interrogatory Creed of
Hippolytus (ca. CE 215). The current form is first found in the writings of Caesarius
of Arles (d 542).

… descend into hell (traditional English);

… descended to the dead’ (modern English trans.
… descendit ad inferna - Latin.
… κατελθόντα εις τα κατώτατα – Greek.
… il est descendu aux enfers – French

Did Jesus go to ‘hell’ between His death and resurrection?

 The Greek wording in the Apostles' Creed is κατελθόντα εἰς τὰ κατώτατα, ("katelthonta eis ta
katōtata"), and in Latin descendit ad inferos. The Greek τὰ κατώτατα ("the lowest") and the Latin
inferos ("those below") may also be translated as "underworld", "netherworld", or as "abode of the
dead". Thus, sometimes this phrase is translated as "descended to the dead."

/x: “he descended into hell.” English translation by English Language Liturgical Consultation
(since 1969):
/He descended to the dead. Catholic translation:

The first use of the English harrowing in this context is in homilies of Aelfric, ca. 1000. Harrow
is a by-form of harry, a military term meaning to "make predatory raids or incursions"[2]. The
term Harrowing of Hell refers not merely to the idea that Christ descended into Hell, as in the
Creed, but to the rich tradition that developed later, asserting that he triumphed over inferos,
releasing Hell's captives, particularly Adam and Eve, and the righteous men and women of Old
Testament times.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXC8DWkw4hg
Physics from Hell

‘heaven and hell’

‘Heaven and hell’ is a prevalent but non-biblical idea, unlike the expression ‘the
heaven and the earth’ [Cf. ‘in heaven ~ upon earth ~ underneath the earth (Rev 5:3,
13); ‘out of heaven to earth’ (Rev 9:1); ‘the heaven ~ the earth ~ the sea’ (Rev 10:6);
the heaven and the earth and sea (Rev 14:7; 20:11). Cf. ‘a new heaven and a new
earth’ and ‘the former heaven and the former earth (Rev 21:1).]

As a common theme in hell fire preaching, the idea of ‘some go to heaven and some
go to hell – after death – is non-biblical, but useful.

Twitter@ounbbl
If you don't know sure, you ARE in hell. If you do know, you may well be in
heaven now. Heaven or hell is not a place you go after death.

*heaven and earth;

[s. below for * paradise]

A biblical jargon. In NT (Mt 24:35; //Mk 13:32; //Lk 21:33; Mt 5:18) the phrase is ‘the
heavens and the earth’, except one place in Mt 28:18 ‘authority given to me ‘in
heaven and on earth’ (with ‘the heavens’ has nothing to do with ‘sky’)

Concordance on the phrase ‘heaven + earth’: [Note: ‘heaven and hell’ is a very
common pseudo-religious idiom, not just of Christians. The ‘heaven and hell belief’
is a very common un-biblical belief found among various Christianisms, which
include Messianic Jews. ‘Heaven and hell’ teaching as a human teaching par
excellence. Heaven or hell in the Bible is NOT a place people may visit (as in near-
death experiences) or may go and end up in there after death. ‘Hell’ is taken out of
KJV translation word for something which has nothing to do with ‘hell’, ‘under-
ground goal’, (guarded by demons?), ‘torment torture place’, etc. [See for the
unbiblical hell-fire preaching and theology.]
Mt 5:18; 11:25; 24:35; Mk 13:31; Lk 10:21; 16:17; 21:33 the heavens and the earth

Act 17:24 ‘(Lord of) of heaven and earth’

Eph 3:15 ‘in heaven and on earth’

Rev 21:1 ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ ‘the former heaven and the former earth’
2Pe 3:13 ‘new heavens and a new earth’
• A new heaven and a new earth – of the Renewed Covenant;
• The former (old) heaven and the former earth – of the Old Covenant;
• Cf. Heb 8:13

In OT ‘heaven and earth’

Exo_20:11; 31:17; Deu_4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 2Sa_18:9; 2Ki_19:15; 2Ch_2:12; Ezr_5:11;

Psa_69:34; 115:15; 121:2; 124:8; 134:3; 146:6; Isa_37:16; Jer_23:24; 33:25;

the heaven and the earth – Gen 1:1

the heavens and the earth
Gen_14:19, 22; Joel 3:16;

New heavens and a new earth Isa_65:17; 2Pe_3:13;

The new heavens and the new earth Isa_66:22

‘Heaven’ in the Scripture is not a place to go; nor a place for some people go
after death’ – it is a religious jargon rooted in deistic pagan thinking. Often
confused with ‘paradise’ or ‘nirvana’ of Buddhism.

‘The heavens’ in G-Mt (other than ‘the Kingdom of the heavens’)

Mt 3:16 ‘the heavens were opened’

Mt 5:12 ‘reward is great in the heavens’
Mt 5:45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32, 33; 16:17 ‘Father who is in the heavens’
Mt 16:19 ‘thing loosed in the heavens’
Mt 24:29 ‘the powers of the heavens’
Mt 24:31 ‘one extremity of the heavens’
Mt 24:36 ‘the angels of the heavens’

‘the Kingdom reign of the heavens’ (x 31 verses) – only in G-Mt

[→ the Kingdom reign of Elohim]
3:2; 4:17; 5:3; 5:10, 19, 20; 7:21; 8:11; 10:7; 11:11, 12; 13:11, 2, 31, 33, 44, 45 47, 52;
16:19; 18:1, 3, 4, 23; 19:12, 14, 23; 20:1; 22:2; 23:13; 25:1;

Arthrous singular:
Mt 11:23 ‘exalted to the heaven’;
Mt 12:5 Lord of the heaven;
Mt 21:25 – from heaven or from men;
Mt 22:30 ‘angels ~ in heaven’
Mt 23:22 ‘swear by the heaven’
Mt 24:29 ‘fall from the heaven’
Mt 24:30 ‘clouds of the heaven’

Unarthrous singular in very few places –

Mt 6:10 ‘in heaven ~ upon the earth’;
Mt 6:20; 19:21 ‘treasure in heaven’ in the sense of ‘heavenly’;
Mt 6:26; 8:20 ‘birds of heaven’ in the sense of ‘in the sky’;
Mt 28:2 ‘descend from heaven’
 In Gospels:

Plural ‘heavens’ (x49 in G-Mt); x5 in G-Mk and x4 in G-Lk

(Cf. singular ‘heaven’ x30 in G-Mt; x13 in G-Mk; x29 in G-Lk)

Mk 1:10, 11; 11:25; 12:25; 13:25;

Lk 10:20; 12:33; 18:22; 21:26;

[Cf. ‘the heaven’ is always in singular in Revelation ‘the heaven ~ the earth’ and
‘the earth ~ the heaven’:
• ‘the earth and the heaven fled away – Rev 20:11;
• ‘in the heaven and on the earth’ – Rev 5:3, 13;
• ‘out of the heaven to the earth’ – Rev 9:1; 13:13;
• ‘created the heaven ~ and the earth’ – Rev 10:6; 14:7;’
• ‘the earth and the heaven fled away’ – Rev 20:11;
• ‘a new heaven and a new earth’ – Rev 21:2.
• ‘the former heaven and the former earth’ – Rev 21:2.]

*paradise;

Appendix: Lk 23:43 ‘*Paradise’ – Commentaries on:

[‘paradise’ may be equivalent to the idea of ‘heaven’ people say ‘to go to heaven
after death’.]

Various unbiblical ‘fanciful’ commentaries:

SourceNT fn. p. 214 - paradeisis, commonly transliterated as “paradise”, a Persian loan
word meaning a garden of fruit trees (or orchard) which first occurs in Greek in Xenophon’s
Anabasis, 1.2.7. It appears commonly in the papyri and inscriptions in the same meaning.
See, for example, I. Tyre 1.108 (late Roman), “I solemnly request those who are going to
acquire this orchard…”; P.Petr. i.16.2.7 (230 BC), “the produce of my orchards”; P. Tebt
1.5.53 (118 BC), “the tithes which they used to receive from the holdings and the orchards”.
P. Lond 933.12 (CE 211) notes a payment on account of an “olive orchard”. See also the
Rosetta Stone (OGIS 90.15, 196 BC). It occurs frequently in the Septuagint as a garden,
sometimes as the abode of the blessed, see Cant. 5.13, Eccl. 2.5, and Neh. 2.8. The Midrash
Haggadah (Midrash means a verse-by-verse interpretation of Scripture, and Haggadah is
an interpretation and expansion of the non-legal portions of Scripture) describes Paradise
in detail, as far as giving specific dimensions and furnishings of the chambers. The details
are supposed to have supplied by individuals who visited Paradise while alive. It states that
nine mortals visited heaven while alive, and that one of these is Enoch. Enoch 20:7-8 states
“Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents and the
Cherubim…”, and goes on to supply a description of Paradise in Chapters 23-38. Ezekiel’s
description of Paradise is similar: a great mountain in the middle of the earth which has
streams of water flowing from under it. A palm tree grows in the middle of the center of the
sacred enclosure. Similar descriptions are to be found in other apocalypses (e.g. Apoc.
Baruch, 5; 2 Esd. 8.52). In Rabbinical literature the conception of paradise stands in
contradistinction to hell. Paradise is occasionally referred to as “the world to come”. The
word occurs elsewhere in the NT only in 2Co 12:4 and Rev 2:7.

Alford’s commentary (pp. 661-2)

[Note: This gives a good summary of a typical elaborate and fastidious interpretation.
Unfortunately, far too many “exegetes” like this decide first what they think ought to be
true and then mine the Bible for out-of-context nuggets (‘proof-text fallacy’) which
confirm their presuppositions. – ARJ]
v. 43. amen soi legō ….
The Lord surpasses his supplication prayer in the answer; the amen soi legō, sēmeron, is
the reply to the uncertain hotan of the thief.
sēmeron this day: before the close of this natural day. The attempt to join it with soi legō,
considering that it not only violates common sense, but destroys the force of our Lord's
promise, is surely something worse than silly: see below.
met’ emou esē can bear no other meaning than thou shalt be with Me, in the ordinary
sense of the words, 'I shall be in Paradise, and thou with Me.'
en tō par. On these words rests the whole exegesis of the saying. What is this PARADISE?
The word is used of the garden of Eden by the LXX, Gen 2:8, &c., and subsequently
became, in the Jewish theology, the name for that part of Hades, the abode of the dead,
where the souls of the righteous await the resurrection. It was also the name for a supernal
or heavenly abode, see reff. N. T. The former of these is, I believe, here primarily to be
understood; – but only as introductory, and that immediately, to the latter. By the death of
Christ only was Paradise first opened, in the true sense of the word. He Himself, when
speaking of Lazarus (Lk 16:22), does not place him in Paradise, but in Abraham's bosom-
in that place which the Jews called Paradise, but by an anticipation which our Lord did not
sanction. I believe the matter to have been thus. Our Lord spoke (as Grotius has remarked)
to the thief so as He knew the thief would understand Him; but He spoke with a fuller and
more blessed meaning than he could understand them. For that day, on that very evening,
was 'Paradise' truly 'regained' – opened by the death of Christ. We know (1Pe 3:18, 19,
where see note; iv. 6) that our Lord went down into the depths of death, – announced His
triumph (for His death was His triumph) to the imprisoned spirits, – and in that moment-
for change of state, to the disembodied, is all that change of place implies – they perhaps
were in the Paradise of God, – in the blessed heavenly place, implied by the word, 2Co 12.
That this is not fullness of glory as yet, is evident; – for the glorified body is not yet joined
to their spirits, – they are not yet perfect (Heb 11:40); but it is a degree of bliss compared
to which their former degree was but as imprisonment.
This work of the Lord I believe to have been accomplished on the instant of His death, and
the penitent to have followed Him at his death – some little time after – into the Paradise
of God. That our Lord returned to take his glorified Body, was in accordance with His
design, and He became therefore the first-fruits of the holy dead, who shall like Him put
on the body of the resurrection, and be translated from disembodied and imperfect bliss in
the Paradise of God, to the perfection of glorified humanity in His glory, and with Him,
not in Paradise, but at God's right hand.
 Expansion on v. 43 in Expositor’s NT (2003, www.jsm.org ) – gives a fanciful
interpretation.

(a statement of fact, and not a question, as some claim; however, his stay in Paradise would
be very short; some three days later, he would accompany Christ to Heaven, along with
every other person in Paradise, which included all the Old Testament Saints).

William MacDonald, Arthur Farstad (1995), Believer’s Bible Commentary

23:43

Jesus rewarded his faith with the promise that that very day, they would be together in
Paradise. Paradise is the same as the third heaven (2Co 12:2, 4), and means the dwelling
place of God. Today - what speed! With Me – what company! In Paradise - what happiness!
Charles R. Erdman writes:

This story reveals the truth to us that salvation is conditioned upon repentance and faith.
However, it contains other important messages also. It declares that salvation is
independent of sacraments. The thief had never been baptized, nor had he partaken of the
Lord's Supper. . . . He did in fact boldly profess his faith in the presence of a hostile crowd
and amid the taunts and jeers of rulers and soldiers, yet he was saved without any formal
rites. It is further evident that salvation is independent of good works . . . . It is also seen
that there is no "sleep of the soul." The body may sleep, but consciousness exists after
death. Again it is evident that there is no “purgatory." Out of a life of sin and shame, the
penitent robber passed immediately into a state of blessedness. Again it may be remarked
that salvation is not universal. There were two robbers; only one was saved. Last of all it
may be noted that the very essence of the joy which lies beyond death consists in personal
communion with Christ. The heart of the promise to the dying thief was this: "Thou shalt
be with me." This is our blessed assurance, that to depart is "to be with Christ" which is
"very far better."68

From Jesus Christ's side one person may go to heaven and another to hell. Which side of the
cross are you on?

In LXX the translators appropriately used the term “paradise” (paradeisos) for
Hebrew gan H1588 with reference to the ‘garden in Eden’ (Gen 2:8ff). a After the 91F91F

account in Genesis, Scripture texts that tell about paradise refer to (1) the garden of
Eden itself, or (2) the earth as a whole when it will be transformed in the future to a
condition like that of Eden, or (3) flourishing spiritual conditions among God’s
servants on earth, or (4) provisions in heaven that remind one of Eden. – [needs to
verify]

In GNT ‘the paradise’ occurs three times - Lk 23:43 (‘will be in the paradise’ [/>
paradise; /Paradise]); Rev 2:7 (‘in the midst of the paradise of my Elohim’); 2Co
12:4 (‘into a paradise’; Cf. ‘third heaven’ in v. 2). In particular the text in G-Lk is

a
[Also used in LXX to translate Hebrew pardes H6508. Neh 2:8 – ‘forest’; Ecc 2:5; SoS 4:13 – ‘orchard’]
often misunderstood to fit one’s own unbiblical doctrinal and theological
presupposition and preconception.
[Common misconception - it is a place next to ‘hell’ in Hades; it is a ‘place’ in
‘heaven’; it is a ‘heaven’, etc. – all for a ‘place’ one may go after death. Cf. ‘heaven
and earth’ as a place concept where people end up after death. Note there is no spatial
or locative idea in the spiritual realm – what is relevant and meaningful is not a place
or a location, but state, condition, and relation. When a believer in Mashiah dies, it
is not a place somewhere to end up, but to come into the presence of Him, face-to-
face – not looking for some sort of accumulated reward in store, or do living better
life as we would, but looking for live in communion with people.]

Church jargon - the abode of righteous souls after death in connection with
unscriptural pagan idea of soul immortality. Scripturally it may be also used
figuratively as a sort of ‘spiritual paradise’.

Outside its biblical usage, it denotes any place of bliss, delight and peace (with
pleasure). Syn. –Nirvana (in Buddhism among Eastern religions it is the ultimate
goal of the spiritual path – without connected to idea of immortality), Shangri-La (a
fictional valley in the 1933 novel Lost Horizon by James Hilton).

www.shalomalyisrael.org/files/Pardes.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pardes_%28Jewish_exegesis%29
P [Peshat] – literal, simple – BREADTH
R [Remez] – parable, allegory·– LENGTH
D [Derash] –·seek, search – DEPTH
S [Sod] – inner, mystical – HEIGHT
- Jewish exegesis on acronym

* ‘Paradise’ and punctuation problem in Lk 23:43

Paradise and other related expressions in NT:

• Lk 16:22 ‘the bosom of Abraham’ (See below for details on it).

• 2Co 12:1-5 ‘the third heaven’
• Rev 2:7 Tree of Life in paradise
• Rev 22:2 along both sides of the river, there was the tree of life
• Rev 21:2 New Jerusalem
• Jn 14:2 Yeshua preparing a place for us in it.
• Acts 2:31 Hades
• Cf. Eph 4:8 … He ‘ascended to the highest place’ (ISV)

Cf. Concepts and ideas often confusingly mixed up – Gk. Hades (Sheol in Heb.);
‘Paradise’; ‘Heaven’; ‘a place to go after death’; ‘hell’ (church jargon), etc.
Common religious jargon ‘go to heaven’ is in the sense of paradise.
 QQ: How does‘Paradise’ mesh into the fact and faith of Resurrection?
‘Dismembered soul’ into Paradise?

How do we put ‘Paradise’ together with ‘resurrection’? What does it mean if we

say Jesus is to be in Paradise after death?

See Appendix: ((Lk 23:43 ‘Today’ & ‘in the Paradise’))

Lk 23:43 Yes! I’m saying to you today— that with me ~~ [+ when I shall reign as King] ░░

[amen soi legō sēmeron — met’ emou esē en tō paradeisō]

Amen to you I’m saying today with me you’ll be in the Paradise.”

Lk 16:22 ‘bosom of Abraham’

Lk 16:22 the bosom [position by the side] of Abraham ░░ [only once here in NT]

Gk. kolpos (bosom, lap): (‘bosoms’ in v. 23) “Abraham’s side” (NIV, ESV), “next
to Abraham” (CEV), “with Abraham” (NLT), and “the arms of Abraham” (NCV).
[i.e. in very close relationship with. E.g. Jn 13:23; 21:20 (of Yeshua during a meal
reclining on the couch); Jn 1:18 (the Son in the bosom of the Father)]

Cf. Mt 23:6 (places of honor in the banquet).

Cf. Mt 8:11 "many will come from both east and west and will take their places in the
[Mashian] banquet alongside with Abraham and Yitzchak and Yaakob, in the Kingdom of
the heavens:"

Ref: www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/362-abraham-s-bosom

[JFB: the bosom of Abraham: This is a phrase taken from the practice of reclining at
meals, where the head of one lay on the bosom of another, and the phrase, therefore,
denotes intimacy and friendship. See the notes at Mt 23:6. Also Jn 13:23; 21:20. The Jews
had no doubt that Abraham was in paradise. To say that Lazarus was in his bosom was,
therefore, the same as to say that he was admitted to heaven and made happy there. The
Jews, moreover, boasted very much of being the friends of Abraham and of being his
descendants, Mt 3:9. To be his friend was, in their view, the highest honor and happiness.
Our Saviour, therefore, showed them that this and afflicted man might be raised to the
highest happiness, while the rich, who prided themselves on their being descended from
Abraham, might be cast away and lost forever.]

‘the bosom of Abraham’

= called Paradise by the Jews – Alford; [position of great honor (his side; close to)]

the bosom, the place of honor at the feast, - BDAG, SourceNT fn; /

QQ The following needs to be verified and substantiated:

An expression in the oral traditions of the Jewish Rabbi's for the state of bliss after death. Ancient
rabbinical writings generally divide Sheol into two sections - the pleasant section, called
'Abraham's bosom' by the ancient rabbis, is the place of the righteous souls; while the rest of
Sheol is the place for LIMITED retribution for the deeds done on the earth. According to the
ancient rabbis, Sheol is only a temporary keeping place of the souls, until the time of resurrection,
and 'Abraham's bosom' was NEVER confused with heaven, and the place of retribution in Sheol
was very different from today's concept of hell. This is the afterlife picture of the ancient
Rabbinical Judaism, as well as that of the New Testament and the early century Christianity (with
the Hebrew word 'Sheol' translated into the Greek word 'Hades').

www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/sheolxin.htm in the Jewish Talmud for Heaven – McArthur

www.mark-shea.com/dake.html Abraham's bosom" is also an expression of the Talmud for the
state of bliss after death. In reality, the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man it is not "about"
prayer to the dead, but about the refusal of Jesus' contemporaries to listen to their own Law and
consciences. The point of the parable is not "prayer to the dead is futile" but "hard hearts will not
be impressed even by the greatest miracle." That said, the parabolic nature of the text should not
distract us from the fact that it does reflect some real aspects of Jewish tradition belief in the
communion of saints begins to emerge in Jewish writings (2Macc 7; 12:38-45; 15:11-
16)."Abraham's bosom" is a metaphor for "heaven". The term is used by Josephus (Discourse
concerning Hades), and can also be found in the Talmud (Kiddushin 72b).
www.torah.org/qanda/seequanda.php?id=899
*Divine person vs. divine being vs. deity vs. divinity (divineness); triad, triune, tri-
unity, trinity, unity, oneness [of God]; 'unholy trinity'
jjj
[See WB #3 Walk through the Scripture, 2 - Names, Persons, and People on ‘God’
‘Trinity’]

Cf. 1Jn 5:16-17

The unholy trinity (unholy-trinity ):

• Satan and the False Prophet (Rev 16:13), (Revelation Ch. 12 & 13)
• the Antichrist (1Jn 2:22; 1:43 and 2Jn 1:7).
[cf. the sea beast (Rev 13:1-10); the land beast (Rev 13:11-18); the dragon (Rev
12:3) = the serpent = the Satan (Rev 2:9);

*incarnate; *incarnation; reincarnation

[See also in <Walk through the Scripture #3A – Name God, and Person>]

The Logos (Jn 1:1 ho logos) (= the God's Word) () – 'became as flesh' (= the Word
became embodied in the person of the man, Yeshua'. Not the Word turned into a
human being. 'Incarnate Logos', not 'Incarnate God (the Son)'.

Pagan idea of 'incarnate god'. [Cf. 'reincarnation']:

That 'Jesus' had to be born of a virgin to be sinless in order that it is possible
to forgive our sins, because only 'God' can forgive. 'Jesus' (of God Jesus) was
born a demigod, God-man. Fully God and fully man – God and man. He was
just a man.a

a
The chromosomes in the 'Jesus blood sample' which Ron_Wyatt claimed to have found
along the Ark of Covenant to be different from normal man's.
Trinitarian jargon and expressions

• All the words used are with no clear definition – 'God', 'Person', 'Father', 'Son'
'Spirit', 'Trinity', 'One', 'is', 'Divinity', 'worship', etc.
• Trinity
• Trinity God
• The Holy Ghost – (as a third person)
• ontological, immanent, economical Trinity;
• God the Son – How come the Son of God is called God the Son?
• A new math: "1+1+1 = 1x1x1 = 1, not 3"
• Godhead
• God the Holy Ghost
• Pre-existent Son; Pre-existent Son of God; Pre-existent God the Son,
• ‘God’ – a person like human? a spirit? what is it? which God? who is God/
• Holy Spirit baptism;
• Holy Ghost; ‘(Mr.) Holy Ghost’ ‘Holy Ghost God’ ‘God the Holy Ghost’
(‘성령님’; cf. '성령' – Ko.)
• Trinity; Trinity God – three-person God? Three-headed person? Three-faced
person? Three gods? – Icons of three-person God; three-headed person; three-
faced head.
• icon and painting of Jesus, a blue-eyed white man;
• ‘filled with the Holy Ghost and power’
• ‘slain by Holy Ghost’
• spirit baptism
• incarnate God; incarnate God the Son; God incarnate; incarnate Jesus - in contrast
to the biblical truth ‘incarnate Logos of Elohim’ (Jn 1:1, 14)

‘The name of our God is Jesus’; ‘Our God is Jesus’; 'God Jesus' → ‘Jesus is
Jehovah is Jesus’).

‘*Lake’ vs. ‘*Sea’; vs. water

Gk. S2281 hē thalassa [tēs thalassēs (genitive) vs. tēn thalassan (accusative)] (the sea, the lake
– here, referring to Lake Galilee). When IRENT renders it as 'sea' to follow common practies, an
appropriate footnote is added. Elsewhere, this is rendered as Lake (capitalized) as it usually refers
specifically to the Lake Galilee. E.g. it is even explained as ‘Galilee Lake’ – Mt 4:13, Mk 5:13 –
when it needs to be clarified. Often, simply as ‘lake’. [thalassa 'sea', usually 'Lake Galilee' – 7-
mile wide. Cf. 'the Great Sea' – Mediterranean Sea – is referred to in Mt 4:15 in the phrase 'the
way of the Sea'.]
‘*walking on the water

"Jesus walking on the water"?! The Bible never said that!

In three Gospels: Mt 14:25, 26; Mark 6:48, 49; John 6:19.

/the Lake – IRENT; /'the lake' – NIV; /the sea – most; /xxx: the water – CEV, GNT, NLT, Aramaic PE;
/xxx: the waves – Weym;

[Most translates as sea or lake consistently, except (1) CEV, MSG omit it in v. 26; (2) /(walk) over the
sea ~ on the sea – NWT; /(4); / xx: on the [surface of the] lake ~ on the water – AUV; (4) /xx: on the sea
~ on the water– NET (- ‘stylistic reasons’?!).] /walking about (on the sea) - ALT; /walking (on the)- most;
[different nuance and meaning!

v. 14:26 1 (‘on the sea/lake):; /(walk) over the sea ~ /walk on the sea – most; /(walk about) on the sea
– ALT; /on the lake – JNT, NIV trio, Noyes; /xx: upon the sea – Diagl, Rhm, ASV, RV, DRB; /supra
mare – Vulg; /x: 바다 위로 (걸어서) – KKJV, KRV; /湖の上を – JSS; / 2 (/xx: on the ‘water’ – mistaken
interpretation; confused with v. 28, 29); /xx: upon the waters ~ upon the waters - Murdock; /xx: on
the water – TCNT, GNB, ERV, NLT, MSG; / xx: on the [surface of the] lake ~ on the water – AUV;
/xx: on the water– NET [‘stylistic reasons’]; /(omitted in v. 26 with ‘on the water’ in v. 25) – CEV,
MSG; /
[Cf. ? An idiomatic expression ‘live on the Lake’ = ‘live on the shore’]

Cf. 'walk on the water' ('walk on water'?) – making Him a miracle worker as if it would
convince His disciples that He was indeed the Son of God (Mt 14:32–33). Cf. the phrase 'walk
over the waters' appears in Mt 14:29.

Mt 4:25, 26 walk down on to the See ~~ walking about on [the shore of] the sea ░░
\peripatōn epi tēn thalassan (accu) ~ epi tēs thalassēs (gen) peripatounta
(In //Mk 6:48, 49 and //Jn 6:19 have epi + gen)] [See Jn 6:16 epi + accu – ‘(went down) on to the Lake.]

Mt 14:25 Yeshua was making his way toward them walking down on to the Lake [heading toward
Bethsaida] ░░ \peripatōn epi tēn thalassan (//Jn 6:16) //Mk 6:48 with genitive same as in the next
verse.]
/x: walk on the lake - most; /
/xx: walk on the sea (- giving a wrong picture ‘walk on the water' of the Lake);
/xxx: walk over the sea – NWT;
/xxx: walk on the water – CEV, GNT, NLT, Aramaic PE;
/xxxx: walk the waves – Weym;

Mt 14:26 him walking about on [the shore of] the Lake ░░ \epi tēs thalassēs peripatounta (=
//Mk 6:48) = //Mk 6:49 [Yeshua] walking down on [the shore of] the Lake ░░ \peripatōn epi
tēs thalassēs. [Cf. para tēn limnē ('lake') – Lk 5:1]
/= walk by the Lake;
/xx: on the lake – NIV;
/xx: walk on the sea - most; /x: over the sea – NWT; /xxx: upon the sea – KJV;
/xxxx: walk on the water – NET, GNB, CEV, ERV, NLT.
/xxxx: walk the waves – Weym;
Cf. Mt 14:29 Kefa walked over the waters towards Yeshua ░░ (periepatēsen epi ta hudata.) /x:
on the water – KJV (conflate with vv. 25-26 Yeshua’s ‘walking down on to the sea’)

Mk 6:48 to them, walking about on [the shore of] the Lake ░░ \peripatōn epi tēs thalassēs
Mk 6:49 Him walking about on [the shore of] the Lake ░░ \epi tēs thalassēs peripatounta

Jn 6:19 Yeshua walking down on the [shore of the] Lake ░░ \peripatounta epi tēs thalassēs
Cf. Jn 6:16 his disciples went down to the Lake ░░ katebēsan epi tēn thalassan
Cf. Jn 21:1 to his disciples He appeared by the Lake ░░ ephanerōsen epi tēs thalassēs

Cf. 'sit down by the Lake' (Mt 13:1 Gk. para tēn thalassan – accusative)
Cf. English idioms
• live on [the] water - at a beach house; in a floating home; on a boat house; in a
waterfront home
• live on the coast; live on the waterfront
• live by the beach
• live on the lake (i.e. at Navy Pier)
• live by the lake (close bay);
• live at lakefront

*wilderness; *desert; *desolate area

Jn 1:23 desert-wilderness [of Yohanan’s activity] ░░ (= Mk 1:4; Lk 3:4) [= ‘Bethany

on the east across River Jordan (that is, in Perea) – Jn 1:28] [Arid region; not ‘outdoor
wilderness’ or ‘sand desert’.] [linked to the place the prophet Eliyahu was taken up to
heaven in a chariot of fire - 2Kg 2:4-11] [cf. ‘wilderness of Judea’ - Mt 3:1]
Jn 1:28 Bethany ~ across the Jordan River ░░ (on its eastern bank’, that is, ‘Bethany
in Perea’. Cf. ‘Bethany in Judea’) [in ‘the wilderness’ Mk 1:4; Lk 1:80; 3:2; ‘the
wilderness of Judea’ - Mt 3:1]
‘*history vs. facts

Andrew Lincoln (2013), Born of a Virgin? p. 126-128

In principle, the issue about Jesus' conception is no different from that of other historical clashes among
New Testament witnesses. Did the Temple incident occur at the beginning of Jesus' mission (John) or
towards the end (the Synoptics)? Did Jesus die on 14 Nisan (John) or 15 Nisan (the Synoptics)? What
is important at the level of canonical coherence is the portrayal of Jesus' authority in relation to the
Temple and its practices in the first instance and of his death in the second. Investigation of the
probability of one or other or neither of the depictions being historically more accurate then becomes
one part of illuminating what each of the witnesses has done in elaborating the significance of the basic
event for its own purposes. Similarly, here the basic event is Jesus' human conception, whether with or
without a human male. In terms of ancient biology, a virginal conception secures this because the
mother supplies all that is necessary (not sufficient) for the human substance of the foetus. The means
of this conception of Jesus in his humanity is secondary and the various alternative depictions of the
means can be explored historically as one part of the investigation of the significance of the conception
for those who have elaborated on it in these different ways.

So far, we have been using the term 'historical' and the phrase 'what actually
happened' in a relatively straightforward and common-sense way but those
acquainted with contemporary historiography and with historical Jesus studies will
realize that they cover a multitude of more complex issues.

As late modern readers, we bring a distinctive set of concerns about history to our
engagement with the Gospels. On the one hand, we are heirs of the Enlightenment
preoccupation with what actually happened in the past and its accompanying series of
quests for the historical Jesus. On the other, we share the more recent recognition that
all historical 'facts' already involve interpretation and the accompanying perception
that the writing of history is also the writing of narrative containing inevitable
elements of fictionalization.

Some take this further and argue that the historian's task is not so much to reconstruct
what happened in the past, since 'the past' only exists as already interpreted by
memory, as to account for how and why the past was remembered. Memory here is
also not simply an individual's recall of what was said or done but a social memory, a
process, involving the interaction between individual and communal perception and
interpretation, that is ongoing as each generation attempts to make sense of the past
for its own new situation. Despite this, the question 'Did that happen?' is hardly an
uncommon response to a Gospel story and it remains a legitimate one. It may be asked
in a naive fashion, presupposing a clear distinction between fact and fiction, between
recall and the shaping of social memory over time, that is vulnerable to obvious
criticisms. But the rejection of a purely positivistic notion of historiography should
not debar both ordinary readers and scholars from pursuing historical investigation in
a chastened fashion and attempting to make probable judgements not only about how
and why particular records remember the past in a distinctive way but also about the
most plausible explanation, on the basis of such records, of the events, deeds and
words that they have interpreted. Of course, such historical investigation produces yet
 another story rather than 'objective facts', as the various phases of historical Jesus
research amply demonstrate. Yet each generation inevitably has to satisfy its own
concerns about the past and about how far significant figures and events are rooted in
history. For Christian faith what remains normative are the stories of the New
Testament witnesses in their diversity and not the various historians' stories about
them, but the latter will play an important role in understanding and illuminating the
former. Part of the latter's role will be the attempt to distinguish, among core historical
traditions, material of dubious historical quality and legendary elements in the ancient
texts being studied. Such distinctions are not imposed by unbelieving or skeptical
prejudice but arise inevitably from taking the Gospel texts seriously in an investigation
of their relationship to each other, to earlier texts and traditions, and to the worlds in
which they were written and which they depict.

One further preliminary point should be made. There are major disputes and debates about historical
methods and their results in dealing with Jesus' words and deeds in the bulk of his public mission nearly
30 years after his birth. The historical task is likely to be even more difficult when it comes to this non-
public aspect of his conception at a time when there would have been little interest in the circumstances
surrounding the birth of this unknown child from Nazareth. As a consequence it is hardly surprising
that in the New Testament the details around his conception, known only to his parents and possibly
their immediate families at the time, are filled out in quite different and contradictory ways that fit the
later purposes of those who had cause to write about him because of their estimate of the significance
of his mission, death and resurrection. This fits with what we have already noted about the form in
which we have some of the key New Testament witnesses, that of ancient biography with its depiction
of the beginnings of a subject's life. As we have seen, we should expect that in its mix of core traditional
events and interpretative embellishments, the latter, with its elements of legendary and fictive material,
would feature particularly prominently in accounts of the early part of lives. While most ancient hearers
or readers of the Gospels' versions of Jesus' life would not have been especially concerned to sift
critically this mixture of material but would have been satisfied if the resultant portraits were plausible
in the light of what they knew from elsewhere, most present day readers will have rather different
criteria of plausibility and therefore want to pursue further the legitimate questions of which parts of
the infancy narratives are likely to be closer to what they would consider to be reliable tradition and
which material is likely to have been part of the less historical embellishment one would expect in an
ancient biography. Of course, in evaluating the most plausible construction of what lies behind the
literary witnesses to Jesus' conception, conclusions will nearly always be in terms of greater or lesser
probability. And if most ancient recipients of the texts were both disinclined and frequently not in a
position to disentangle the historical and the legendary, the paucity of evidence and sources and the
lapse of so much time will make it a lot more difficult than is sometimes assumed for present-day
readers to distinguish these elements, and so sometimes the conclusion that the evidence is inconclusive
will be a warranted one.

End

[↓ Endnotes below]
1
Note on word search in MS Word file or PDF files for IRENT work:

Words appearing in the files such as this and as others (footnotes or end-notes for
translation works) with an asterisk * indicate that they are entry words. If a reader wants
to search any occurrence of a word, simply typing a word (in whole or partial) would
work. However, since some may come up with many hits, search with a word preceded
by * would bring the entry words. E.g. Searching with the string of hou, for example,
did bring up 175 hits (all containing a string of hou, including ‘hour’, ‘hours’, ‘hour-
period’, etc.). If searched with the string of *hou, it did bring only one.
2
A review on Strong’s Lexicon:

www.baptistboard.com/archive/index.php/t-69263.html

(1) It's 120 years old, for crying out loud! There have been many mss discovered since then
and tons of research done. So Strong's is totally out and a recent lexicon is a must for the
serious student.

(2) Since it is so old, Strong's depends more than it should on meanings from classical
Greek. The Koine Greek of the NT is quite different from most classical Greek documents.

(3) It seldom gives definitions, only giving glosses. "Gloss" originally referred to a
marginal note giving a quick definition or explanation in an ancient mss but is often used
nowadays for a one-word definition in another language. (Glossary--get it?) A gloss is only
a general guide, not usually a true definition.

(4) It gives no information about how the word is used in various contexts in the NT--a
must for proper semantic research.

(5) It gives no information about extra-Biblical usage of words.

(6) It gives non-students of Greek a dangerous feeling that they are being scholarly by
saying, "This word means ---- in the Greek."

3
Accuracy and Bias in translations – It should be recognized that all translations are not accurate
or without bias, as they make claims.

Jason David BeDuhn has written a book, Truth in Translation – Accuracy and Bias in English
Translations of the New Testament. (2003). It is not to be missed by anyone who is seriously
concerned with Bible translation, especially who is engaged in the translation work. Though the
topics in his book may not be accepted or agreed as he argues, each issue he discussed merits
serious consideration, except the Chapter 11 (on translation of Jn 1:1c), which is lukewarm and
shows his lack of scholarship on the Greek and English grammar, syntax and usage – see Review
on His book.
A PDF file containing Introduction (pp. xiii – xix) and the Content from the book is uploaded at
www.scribd.com/ounbbl . www.scribd.com/doc/180349339/Accuracy-and-Bias-in-English-New-
Testament-Translation-pdf

4
anachronism –not only something to do with different times, but also affecting the cultural and
linguistic aspects.

5
jargonism – a neologism (not yet in OED). ‘being fond of using jargon’.
6
On archaic words:
Further affiant sayeth naught.

Many affidavits close with this classic legalese or some variation of it. Other than the
obvious questions ("What does it mean?" and "Is it necessary?"), this phrase gives rise
to two stylistic dilemmas.

First, is it sayeth or saith? Among American lawyers who use the phrase (British lawyers
don't), sayeth predominates. Up to the 17th century, the -eth suffix was merely an
alternative third-person singular inflection for an English verb (calleth, answereth,
witnesseth, etc.). Used primarily in southern England, it had become obsolete by the end
of the 17th century -- and rightly so.

Second, should it be naught or not? The predominant form is *Further affiant sayeth not.
But this is nonsense because it translates to "The affiant says not further" or "The affiant
does not say further." Does not say what? By contrast, Further affiant sayeth naught
makes literal sense: "The affiant says nothing further."

But here's the most important question of all: Is the phrase really needed at all? No. It's
an antiquarian superfluity. Think of translating it as "That's all, folks!" Truly, one might
simply take the sensible approach that when the affiant (uh-fye-uhnt) hath nothing further
to say, the affiant merely stoppeth.

Bryan Garner www.lawprose.org

For further reading, see Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage 331, 383 (3d ed. 2011).

E.g. ‘wrath’ instead of ‘rage’ (cf. ‘anger’) – Prob 15:1

7
Power of words – Korean proverbs (1) One word can make your debt of thousand pounds of silver let go;
(2) (Know that) saying uh is as far from saying ah, etc. (e.g. ‘freely’ without cost vs. ‘freely’ with hesitant to
pick up a merchandise.)

8
From Garner's Usage Tip of the Day: social; societal; sociable.
Although "social" and "societal" overlap to some degree, they are distinguishable.
"Social" = (1) living in companies or organized communities {man is a social animal};
(2) concerned with the mutual relations of (classes of) human beings {the social
compact}; or (3) of or in or toward society {social intercourse} (The Concise Oxford
Dictionary).
 "Societal" has replaced *"societary" (now merely a needless variant) in the sense "of,
relating to, or dealing with society." E.g.:
o "Teenagers are more likely to have unprotected sex when they have been drinking.
And that can lead to other societal concerns." Ralph Hingson, "Tough Laws,
Enforcement Slow Teenage Drinking," Boston Globe, 5 Oct. 1997, at E1.
o "Experts point to parental and societal influences that portray violence as a way to
solve problems." Deborah Sharp, "Student Gun Violence Creeps into Small-
Community Schools," USA Today, 3 Dec. 1997, at A2.
"Sociable" = ready for companionship; quick to unite with others; gregarious.
*Invariably inferior forms.

9
Cultural dislocation in translation – an example:
An example in the Source New Testament by Ann Nyland (2004) translates the well-known
hyperbole ‘easier for a camel go through the eye of a needle’ (Mt 19:24 KJV) as “a pig
might fly before a rich one enters the reign of God”, saddling itself with unconscionable
errors in her effort of cultural transfer of the idiom
– (1) loss of the wordplay in the original where ‘camel’ and ‘rope’ similar words in
Aramaic; and,
– (2) more importantly, the result of cultural insensitivity and disconnection when we know
well that pigs are considered unclean animal unfit for eating in their society (cf. kosher in
Jewish custom).
10
Phrase and phrase-based format as adopted in IRENT translation work:
E.g.
I myself went to the library in the morning
of that memorable day.
This sentence may also be counted as two phrases:
I myself went to the library
in the morning of that memorable day.

A working on transtation faces a variety of long sentence, which may contain only independent clauses (to
make a compound sentence) or subordinate clauses (to make a complex sentences) along with abundant
modifiers. The above example in a translated text, the latter would make more logical break to divide the
sentence into two meaning-based groups. [Actual breath pause Between two breath groups may be varied
and even negligible. In the script for oral reading a suitable unobtrusive editor’s marker for breath pause may
be placed above the space, such as ̌ . As might be employed in a free-form poem printed with visual effect,
the space between two may be more than a single space. E.g.
I myself went to the library in the morning of that memorable day.
If a dash is in place,

I myself went to the library — in the morning of that memorable day.

there would be not only a breath pause but also a momentary pause in the statement and in the reader’ mind
following through the statement. The phrase afte the dash is supplying additional information not only as an
after-thought, but also put a focus to bring the reader’s attention on it.

11
… two kinds of meanings that words have, the exact meaning of the word, its denotation; and the
accrued meanings of the word, its connotations.

… words as divided into two classes, abstract and concrete; but the evidence shows that all words are
abstract on one level or another. … [We need to] think of levels of abstraction

The "object" that we see, hear, and say about is a unique abstraction, created by a reaction between
your nervous system and the physical process.

… words in themselves have no meanings at all. It takes a mind to develop a meaning by associating a
symbol with something else, and no two minds work in quite the same way. A word brings up its
meaning when the mind interprets with what we have experienced in life. What we think of lexical
meanings of a word is an artificial construct and is just potential, possible and feasible.

A meaning is formed in our mind differently associating a word to what stands for, each person
differently.

Meaning – privacy, similarity, universality

But the word "meaning" itself poses difficult problems. What is the meaning of "meaning"? We all
recognize that language is a give-and-take of speech-signals, a series of stimuli by speakers and
responses by hearers; also that some non-linguistic stimuli produce linguistic responses, and vice versa.
… today they generally define meaning as simply the situation out of which language comes and the
response that it elicits.

If this is meaning, how does it change? It is clear that, for speakers of the same language, there must
be a large measure of consistency in the response to linguistic signals-otherwise, communication would
be impossible. Nevertheless, since no two situations can ever be exactly alike, there is always some
area of variation, and over a period of time the increment of slight variations will alter the reference of
the linguistic signal. Let us take an example. Since meaning involves both the situation out of which a
word comes (which makes the speaker say it) and the hearer’s response, every speech situation is
complex, with many components. But the relative prominence of these components will not always be
the same. When the word green is first said it ordinarily brings a response in terms of color; but if the
context concerns a fruit, this primary element of color may become associated with a secondary
element-unripeness. Repetition may then establish this association until the element of unripeness
becomes more prominent than that of color-so much so that it becomes possible to say, without fear of
misunderstanding, "Blackberries are red when they are green."

…. Even though it is generally recognized that meanings change, many people still cling, curiously
enough, to the quite contradictory notion that words all have "true" meanings, that changes somehow
take us away from the "true" meaning, and that the way to find out what a word "really means" is to
find out what it once meant. This is particularly true in respect to borrowed words in English, the belief
evidently being that the meaning of the word in contemporary English and the meaning of the Latin or
Greek word from which the English word is derived must be one and the same. A little reflection should
show that an appeal to etymology in order to establish the present meaning of the word is as
untrustworthy as an appeal to spelling in order to establish its present pronunciation. And for a reason
that is almost exactly parallel: change of meaning is likely to have altered the etymological sense, which
is thereby rendered archaic or obsolete, just as change of sound is likely to be unrecorded in the
"antiquarian" spelling that so frequently characterizes Modern English. The study of etymology has
 great value and interest ... but its usefulness in settling the question of what a word means is subject to
considerable qualification. Let us see what results when one ignores the idea that a word may change
its meaning and appeals to its etymology in order to determine its present meaning. A handbook of only
twenty-odd years ago on "correct English" sets forth the following dictum: "Dilapidated ... Said of a
building or other structure. But the word is from the Latin lapis, a stone, and cannot properly be used
of any but a stone structure." One might just as reasonably argue that because candidate is related to
the Latin candidus (white), it cannot properly be used of an aspirant for political office unless he is
clothed in a suit of white material. More clearly even, one might protest that holiday properly describes
Christmas or Easter, but should never be used of Independence Day or Labor Day; or that bonfire
should not be applied except where the combustible material is bone. These arguments are not much
more grotesque than some that have been seriously maintained in defense of an etymological crotchet,
while ignoring the fact of change of meaning. Indeed, one who argues on this basis is a victim of the
"etymological fallacy".

The fact is that what a word once meant is not necessarily what it now means; the etymological meaning
has often died out, and a quite new development is the living descendant. This is particularly true of
words in common or popular use. Words, after all, are for the most part purely conventional symbols.
They mean only what those who are using them agree to make them mean. Exactly the same principles
apply to "learned" words, but because their traditional users have generally known the language from
which they were borrowed, or of whose elements they were composed, they have tended to preserve
the etymological meaning-indeed, it is conventional to use such words with an eye to their source; thus
they are less prone to alterations of meaning than are popular words. It is in this way, incidentally, that
a cultural tradition holds in check, to some extent, the constant tendency of language to change. …

Extracted and edited on

L. M. Myers (1963), Guide to American English, (pp. 138-47. WHAT DOES A WORD STAND FOR?)
in Gaskin and Suberman (1966), A Language Reader for Writers, p.119ff.

12
THEOLOGICAL LANGUAGE FALLACY

This is the error of substituting theological language for scriptural language as if it were in
the original and then demanding, as a test of fellowship, that others use the theological
language the same way we do. This can be done in four different ways. One is by outright
substitution — teaching that an apparently simple word or phrase in a scripture passage really
is the same as a theological term for which the denomination has a separate (and not
necessarily simple or obvious) definition. This will commonly be followed by an insistence
that, in discussing the scripture at issue, the opaque theological term must be used instead of
the simple scriptural one. Church language can also be created by interpolation, such as when
the terms translated "persons" and "substance" were adopted from Latin legal terminology to
describe the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The organized Church
then imposed the correct use of this non-scriptural terminology as a test of fellowship through
adoption of creeds which insisted that God is three "persons" who share the "same
substance." A declaration that the three "persons" share only "similar substance" — a
difference of one iota in the spelling of a single Greek word — was cause for
excommunication.
Bible translators have also perpetuated some theological language for us. The work of
translation is a difficult and exacting labor, and each translator comes from a distinct
denominational background and will naturally tend to read the scriptures through the filter of
his or her own background. Moreover, Bible translation is almost always overseen by
committees of translators and denominational leaders who often represent a range of
doctrinal perspectives, and reaching consensus often requires translation of terms around
which controversies center into theological terms which each participating denomination is
free to define for itself. So I commend translators for the work they have done; I do not
criticize them. But readers should be aware of the perpetuation of theological language
through translation. Translators may perpetuate theological language by transliterating rather
than translating Greek or Hebrew terms, such as was done with the Greek word baptizo,
which is uniformly transliterated as "baptize" when it refers to the Holy Spirit or to rituals
involving water, but is translated in some other contexts. In Greek, the term means roughly
to "bathe" or "dip," but when transliterated as "baptize" it can be said to mean whatever the
speaker's denomination has decided it should mean.

Translators may also perpetuate theological language through selective translation — that is,
translating the same Greek or Hebrew word as one theological term in one context, but as
another theological term or even a simple non-theological word or phrase in a different
context, depending on the translators' perception of the intended theological content of the
context. An outstanding example of this is provided by the treatment of the Greek word
koinonia in the KJV (and most other English translations). The root meaning of the word is
"partnership," and it was used in secular Greek to describe business partnerships — indeed,
in Luke 5:10, the fishing company of Simon, James and John were described as koinonoi,
"partners." The KJV usually translates koinonia as "fellowship." "Fellowship" has since
become a thoroughly theological term, although it was a much more common secular term
in 1611. However, in I Corinthians 10:16, the KJV twice translates koinonia as
"communion." The context in I Corinthians 10 is speaking of the observance of the Lord's
Supper, and it would appear that the translators wished to limit the application of the passage
strictly to the church communion ritual and didn't wish their readers to form the impression
that we are either "fellows" or "partners" in Christ's body and blood, though that is what the
Greek text otherwise might imply.

13
Eerdmans Bible Dictionary p. 747
 Significance of Name: Because of the vitality ascribed to words, a name signifies first
and foremost existence. Everything and everyone have a name (Eccl 6:10), and the
very naming brings them into being (Isa 40:26; cf. Gen 2:19). The name represents the
person (Num 1:2; cf. Act 1:15, KN; RSV "persons") and the personality (e .g., Nabal,
"fool"; 1Sam 25:25). Because a name is a social reality, kept by memory and through
posterity (cf. Psa 72:17), to cut off a person's name means not only death but the very
obliteration of one's existence (e.g., 1Sam 24:21 [MT 22]; Psa 9:5 [MT 6]; 109:13).

The name conveys the authority of the person even when absent. To speak or act in
another's name is to participate in that person's authority (1Sam 17:45; 25:9; Act 4:7).
The principle is that of prophecy and revelation (Exo 3:13-14; Deu 18:19; Jn 5:43) .
God's name reveals his character and salvation in which people may take refuge (Psa
20:1 [MT 2]; cf. Isa 25:1; 56:6); to treat God's name as empty is to despise his person
(Exo 20:7). Similarly, to act in the name of Christ is to participate in his authority (Act
3:6; 1Co 5:4; 2The 3:6; Jas 5:14) as well as to share in his contempt (Lk 21:12-19; Act
5:41). Elsewhere the name of Christ stands for the whole of his salvation (4:7; 1Co
6:11).

To bestow a name is an act of authority, denoting possession, responsibility, and

protection for some person or object (2Sam 12:28; Psa 49:11; Isa 4:1). The naming of
creation is thus an exercise of dominion, part of the "image of God" (Gen 2:19-20; cf.
1:28). Changes of name confer new status, either greater or lesser (32:28; 2Kg 24:17).
Similarly, baptism into (Gk. eis) Christ's name signifies a new status, from death into life
(Rm 6:2ff.), and a new Lord (1Co 1:2). Believers are not given a new name, but bear
Christ's name (Act 11:26; 1Pe 4:16; Rev 14:1); their names are known by God (13:8).

14
Examples for rendering *imperatives in IRENT:

Lord’s command (in imperative) is not about ‘do this and don’t do this’. It
is exhortation to become the kind of person who lives in Him -
transformational.
‘Do not worry’ (Cf. ‘Don’t be anxious’) (Mt 6:25)
vs. ‘Stop worrying’
vs. ‘(Do) not be worrying.’
vs. ‘Be you not worrying.’
‘Judge not’ (Mt 7:1)
vs. ‘Do not judge’‘Don’t judge’ ‘Do not judge others’
vs. ‘Stop judgding’
vs. ‘Be not judges of others’
vs. Do not pass [condemning] judgement [on other people]
vs. ‘Be you not judging others’ ‘Not be a judgemental person’
‘Believe in me’ (Jn 14:1b)
vs. ‘Be you believing in me’
vs. ‘Do believe in me’
‘Love one another’ (Jn 15:12)
vs. ‘Be you loving others’
 ‘Obey your parents’ (Eph 6:1)
vs. ‘Be obeying your parents’
vs. ‘Be you obeying your parents’
vs. /x: ‘Be you subject to the parents of you’ – Diagl;

‘Do not worry’ (vs. ‘Don’t be anxious’) (Mt 6:25)

vs. ‘Stop worrying’
vs. ‘(do) not be worrying.’
‘Judge not’ (Mt 7:1)
vs. ‘Do not judge’‘Don’t judge’ ‘Do not judge others’
vs. ‘Stop judgding’
vs. ‘Be not judges of others’
vs. Do not pass [condemning] judgement [on other people]
vs. ‘Be you not judging others’ ‘Not be a judgemental person’

‘Believe in me’ (Jn 14:1b)

vs. ‘Be you believing in me’
vs. ‘Do believe in me’

‘Love one another’ (Jn 15:12)

vs. ‘Be you loving others’

‘Obey your parents’ (Eph 6:1)

vs. ‘Be obeying your parents’
vs. ‘Be you obeying your parents’
vs. /x: ‘Be you subject to the parents of you’ – Diagl;

15
‘tempt’, ‘temptation’ - From English dictionaries

temp

[Etym. ME: from OF tempter ‘to test,’ from Latin temptare ‘handle, test, try.’]

• entice or attempt to entice (someone) to do or acquire something that they find attractive
but know to be wrong or not beneficial. [Syn: entice, persuade, convince, inveigle, induce,
cajole, coax, woo] [Antonyms: discourage, deter]
 • have an urge or inclination to do something.
• attract; allure [Syn: allure, attract, appeal to, whet the appetite of][Ant. repel, put off]
• (archaic) risk provoking (a deity or abstract force), usually with undesirable
consequences.

temptation

• act or state of tempting

• act or state of or being tempted; a desire to do something, esp. something wrong or
unwise. [syn: desire, urge, itch, impulse, inclination]
• a thing or course of action that attracts or tempts someone.[syn: lure, allurement,
enticement, seduction, attraction, draw, pull; siren song; allure, appeal, attraction,
fascination]
• Temptation of Jesus - the tempting of Jesus by the Devil

16
Salvation through Yeshua is effected so immediate, permanent, and free when anyone finds
Him in His grace because the costly divine love is so complete. The love is continuously and
unconditionally reaching out the creation from the beginning to the consummation. No laws,
traditions, or religions have any power over such outpouring love in His Spirit. It cannot be blocked
by powers in human authorities or powers that be in heaven, as they are being played in the
deceiving hands of the Satan. “And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message
of truth, the Gospel of your salvation. When you came to believe, you were marked in him with a
seal, the promised holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption
of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of His glory” (Eph 1:13-14)

17
Concordance list on demons – related words and phrases

cast out demons (cf. ‘exorcism’)

Mt_7:22; 10:8; 12:24, 27, 28; Mk_1:39; 3:15; 16:17; 11:15, 18, 19, 20; 13:32;
/cast out demons – most; /x: cast out devils – KJV; /expel demons – JNT; /drive out demons
– HCSB, NIV trio, BBE, TCNT; /x: force out demons – CEV; /x: force demons out of
people – GW; /xx: banish demons – MSG; /expel the demons – WNT; /drive out demonic
spirits – Cassirer; /

Beelzebul - Mt 12:27 (chief demon)

the evil spirit – Act 19:15, 16;
the unclean spirit – Mt 12:43; Mk 1:26; 9:25; Lk 8:29; 9:42; 11:24;
an unclean spirit – Mk 1:23; 3:30; 5:2; 7:25;
every unclean spirit – Rev 18:2;
unclean spirits – Mt 10:1; Lk 6:18; Act 5:16; 8:7; Rev 16:13;
the unclean spirits – Mk 1:27; 3:11; 5:13; 6:7; Lk 4:36;

a spirit of Python – Act 16:16;– Diagl; /a spirit of divination – KJV, NASB, ESV trio; /a
snake-spirit – JNT; /spirit of prediction – HCSB; /x: a demon of divination – NWT; /x: a
 spirit by which she predicted the future – NIV duo; /a divining spirit – TCNT; /x: a spirit of
fortune-telling – ISV; /x: an evil spirit that told fortunes – GW; /x: a spirit in her that gave
here the power to tell the future – CEV;
demon-instigated (daimniōdēs) (Jas 3:15) /is works of demons – Cass; /from demons –
Etheridge, Murdock;/> demoniacal- Webster, Rhm; /> demon-like- GSNT; /demonic –
most; /x: devilish –KJV+, ASV, MKJV, LITV, TCNT, Mft, Darby, (Bishops, Geneva); /x:
devilish (demoniacal) – AMP; /x: comes from devil himself – CEV; /is from the devil –
ERV; /demonic [i.e., it is motivated by an evil spirit and not the Holy Spirit] - AUV;
/devilish conniving – MSG (- baloney); /belongs to~ evil spirits – WNT; /

demon-afflicted (> daimonizomai); (physically and mentally afflicted - demon griping on a

person is gripped by a demon, a personification) – Mt 4:24; 8:16, 28, 33; 9:32; Mk 1:32;
5:15, 16, 18; Lk 8:36
/x: demon-possessed - most; /possessed with the devil – KJV; /possessed of a demonic spirit
– Cass; /possessed with a daemon – Whiston; /possessed of a demon – NWT; /possessed by
a demon – GW, Mft, GSNT, Wuest;
/controlled by demon – JNT; /demon-oppressed – ESV; /dominated by an evil spirit – AUV;
/demoniac – RSV, CLV, WNT, Wesley; /x: being demonized – Diagl; /x: demonized –
Rhm; /x: with evil spirit – BBE; /x: he had a demon - GNB; /x: a demon was in him – CEV;
/had a demon inside him – ERV; /xx: possessed by a devil – PNT; /x: in who was a demon –
Murdock; /(struck speechless) by evil spirit – MSG;

[A problem of understanding the nature of such condition – vis-à-vis the modern concept of
‘demon possession’, which is observable phenomenon subject to study in socio-cultural,
psychological and neuropsychiatric, and religious aspects. Unless the word ‘possession; be
possessed’ is clarified, (along with understanding of a religious practice of ‘exorcism’, such
‘demon-afflicted’ is preferred to a special jargon ‘demon-possessed’ in the translation work
of the Scripture.]

18
Devil, falsehood, lies – in Jn 8:44
Jn 8:44
a Yoů [in your conduct] are from out of your father, the very Devil,
and yoů want to carry out the desire of this father of yoů.
That one was a manslayer right from the start
and does not stand in the truth,
because there is no truth in him.
b Whenever he utters all that which is false,
it is from his being — what and who he is —that he is speaking
because a deceiver [with falsehood] he really is!
— indeed, [he is] the father of [all] the falsehood [out of man’s mouth].

[Note: Devil a deceiver, not a ‘liar’; uttering always ‘truths’ (but not the whole truth as he
does not possess) which are to mislead people so that they choose to get themselves deceived
– except one lie which about who he is.] [Devil employs man as a liar. Man is who utters
lies, being deceived by Devil. Man is painted and made as stupid, silly, and sly by Devil –
smelly too.] /the lie; /x: (the) lies;
19
A list of other translations with the phrase ‘torture stake’ for stauros.
[As the main idea of the word is execution, however horrible it is, the point is not
‘torture’ (as pictured well in the prominent theme ‘violence’ ‘cruelty’ of the crucifixion
in Mel Gibson’s movie, The Passion of Christ.)

Others English translations which uses phrase ‘torture stake’

• Restoration Study Bible, [?] (2011) (x1 in Lk 9:23);
• The Gospel of the Kingdom for Students – A Harmony of the Four Gospels, Robert
ROBERG (2011) (e.g. Mk 8:34; 15:15,21; Lk 14:27);
• The New Testament: God’s Message of Goodness, Ease and Well-Being Which Brings
God’s Gifts of His Spirit, His Life, His Grace, His Power, His Fairness, His Peace
and His Love – Expanded, Amplified, Multiple Renderings, Jonathan P. MITCHELL
(2010) - as ‘cross (torture stake’) in Phi 2:8; (the original verson has also in Jn 19:17,
25, 31)
• Hebraic Roots Bible: A Literal Translation, Don ESPOSITO (2009) (not passim, e.g.
Mt 10:38; 16:24; 27:40, 42; Mk 8:34; 10:21; 15:30, 32; Lk 9:23; 14:27; Jn 19:25; 1Co
1:17, 18; Gal 5:11; 6:12, 14; Heb 12:2);
• Kata Mattyah: According to Matthew, Jackson H. SNYDER (2008) (x1 Mt 16:24);
• New Simplified Bible, James MADSEN (2005) (x1 1Co 2:2);
• The Word of Yahweh (Assembly of Yahweh, ed. 2, 2003) (e.g. Mt 27:32,40,42; Lk
23:26; 1Co 1:17; Gal 5:11; 6:12; Eph 2:16; Phi 2:16; Heb 12:2);
• The Living Destiny: The Man from Matthew Mark Luke and John, Marvin COLE (ed.
2, 1984) (e.g. Mt 10:38).

20
Word study of related Greek words for ‘service’ ‘ministry’:

latreia sacred service > worship

– Danker p. 213 cultic devotion Jn 16:2; Rm 9:4; 12:1; Hb 9:1, 6)

latreuō Rm 1:9 /serve – most; /sacredly serve – ALT; /render sacred service – NWT;
/render spiritual service – Cass; /xxx: offer the worship – TCNT;

(Danker p. 213 – 1. ‘carry out cultic activity’, the strictly religious aspect minister,
serve Lk 2:37 etc. – 2 ‘be committed in homage and devoted service’ beyond cultic
activity, serve Mt 4:10 etc.) /

leitourgia [Danker p. 214 –service, s. prec. – a. in cultic matters Lk 1:23; Hb

8:6; 9:21; in ext. sense Phi 2:17. – be in material matters, of aid rendered 2Co
9:12; Phi 2:30.]
Lk 1:23 –/x: public service – NWT; /x: ministration – KJV, Diagl; /sacred
service – ALT, /service – NET, ESV trio, NIV trio; /priestly service –
NASB; /xx: ministry – HCSB; /divine service – Cass; /

Heb 8:6; /x: work – JNT, NIrV, ECW; /service – MRC; /ministry – KJV+,
NET, most, Wuest, PNT, Cass, ( - anachronistic); /sacred service – ALT,
EBTV; /public service – NWT; /service – Diagl; /priestly work – GW,
 GNB; /appointed to serve – CEV; / [priestly] ministry – AMP; /divine
service – Mft; /priestly service – GSNT; /public ministry – Rhm; /office –
Bishops;
Phi 2:17; /service – most; /sacred service – ALT; /x: (sacrificial) offering –
ESV trio; /public service – NWT, Diagl; /ministration – CLV; /offered (as
a sacrifice) – TCNT; /

Heb 9:21; /? ceremonies – JNT, NIV duo; /ministry – KJV, NASB;

/worship – NET, ESV trio, HCSB, NIrV; /public service – NWT; /public
worship – TCNT; /priestly service – GSNT; /(omit) – PNT; /
21
Word study on ‘priest’ ‘high priest’:
*priest, priests; *high priest, chief priest, chief priests; priesthood
vs. *kohen, *kohanim; kohen gadol; the High Kohen (Kohen haGadol), *cohanim;
*cohen; kehunnah

hiereus – priest – Heb 5:6; 7:17; Act 19:14; (Act 14:13; priest of Zeus)
archiereus – chief priest/ high priest; /cohen gadol –JNT; /– Lk 3:2; Heb 5:10; 6:20;
Act 19:14
[Danker p. 56 /cohen gadol – JNT;
- 1. high priest, chief priest – Mk 2:26 al., of Christ Heb 2:17 al.
- 2. collectively, members of Sanhedrin who belong to high priestly families chief
priests Mt 2:4; Mk 8:31; Lk 23:13; Jn 7:45; Act 4:23 al.]

archieratikou ‘of chief priest’ Act 4:6

Yeshua, the God’s apostle and High Kohen Heb 3:1

NWT: inconsistent with ‘high priest’ vs. ‘chief priest’:

the high priest – x 49

the chief priest –Mk 2:26 v.l.; Jn 18:19, 22; Act 4:6;

Concordant Word study with JNT

*cohen – JNT x 72 - kohen

cohanim (x 26) – kohanim
Mt 12:4, 5; Mk 2:26; Lk 1:9; 3:2; 6:4; 17:14; Jn 1:19; Act 4:1; 6:7;
Heb 7:5, 8, 11, 12, 14, 20, 23, 27, 28; 8:4; 9:6; 1Pe 2:5, 9; Rev 1:6; 5:10;
20:6;
cohanim g’dolim – Lk 3:2 v.l. /the high priests – KJV; /kohen gadol – IRENT –
taking v.l. singl.;
the cohen hagadol – JNT x 37 - (High Kohen – note no additional ‘the’)
Mt 26:3, 51, 57, 58, 62, 63, 65; Mk 14:47, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 66;
 Lk 22:50, 54; Jn 18:10, 15, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26;
Act 4:6; 5:17, 21, 27; 7:1; 9:1; 22:5; 23:2, 4, 5; 24:1; Heb 9:7, 25; 13:11;
cohen gadol – JNT x 17 a chief priest – kohen gadol
Mk 2:26 [v.l. the cohen hagadol]; Jn 11:49, 51; 18:13; Act 19:14;
Heb 2:17; 3:1; 4:14, 15; 5:1, 5, 10; 6:20; 7:26; 8:1, 3; 9:11;
head cohanim (x4) Lk 22:66; 24:20; Jn 18:35, 19:21; - chief kohanim
the head cohanim (x 60) – the chief kohanim - IRENT
Mt 2:4; 16:21; 20:18; 21:15, 23, 45; 26:3, 14, 47,59; 27:1, 3, 6, 12, 20, 41, 62;
28:11; Mk 8:31; 10:33; 11:18, 11:27; 14:1, 10, 43, 53, 55; 15:1, 3, 10, 11, 31; Lk
9:22; 19:47; 20:1, 19; 22:2, 4, 52; 23:4, 10, 13;
Jn 7:32, 45; 11:47, 57; 12:10; 18:3; 19:6, 15; Act 4:23; 5:24; 9:14,21; 22:30;
23:14; 25:2, 15; 26:10, 12;

hierateia Heb 7:5; Lk 1:9 – to ethos hierateiras – according to custom of

/x: priesthood – ALT, NET, ESV trio, HCSB, NIV duo, etc.
priest’s office – KJV
priestly office – NASB, NWT; /
kohen’s function – IRENT; /

Heb 7:5; tēn ierateian lambanō; /became cohanim – JNT; /became priests – NIV
trio; /receive office of the priesthood – KJV; /priestly office – NET, ESV trio,
HCSB, NWT; /priesthood – ALT; /priest’s office – NASB; /

hierōsunē ‘kehunnah’ />> priesthood: Heb 7:11, 12, 24; 1Pe 2:5, 9.
Heb 7:11, 12ff /system of cohanim – JNT; /system of priest – ERV; /priestly system –
PNT; /priesthood – most, Cass; /> priests – BBE, CEV; /
Heb 7:24 /his position as cohen – JNT; /priesthood – most ;
Heb 7:14; hierosunēs > hierosunē – kehuannah [v.l. hiereōn > hiereus – kohanim
(coming from that tribe of Levi)]

hierourgeō - Rm 15:16 – with the priestly duty – JNT; /ministering – KJV ;/in the
priestly service – ESV trio; serve as a priest – ALT, HCSB; /serve like a priest – NET;
/engage in the holy work – NWT;

hierateuō Lk 1:8; -/officiate as priest; />> serve as priest;

[officiate - perform duties attached to a particular office, place or function – cf.
prosechō Heb 7:13]

22
Various renderings of the Gk. latreia in this verse:

Rm 12:1 sacred-service ░░ (Gk. latreia) 1 (as a noun): /sacred service – ALT, EBTV, NLT,
Wuest; /service of worship – NASB; /act of worship – NIV duo; /act of (reasonable) worship –
 WNT; /worship – most; /service – KJV++; /”Temple worship” – JNT; /divine service – CLV, Rhm;
/religious service – Diagl; /(cult) rite – Mft; /Your reasonable ((rational, intelligent)) service and
spiritual worship - AMP; 2 (rephrased into a verbal phrase): /(That’s the most sensible way)
to serve God – CEV; /(This offering of yourselves is the spiritual way for you) to worship
((serve)) God. – ERV; [(this is the reasonable way for you) to worship. – ISV; /(This is truly the
way) to worship Him. – NLT; /( For this is a reasonable [or spiritual] way for you) to worship [or
serve] - AUV; /(When you offer your bodies to God,) you are worshiping him – NIrV; / 3 (turned
into baloney): /xx: (a new sentence of baloney) – PNT; /xxx: (a baloney) – Embracing what God
does for you is the best thing you can do for him – MSG; /

23
The text is available online http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ ; an audio version
http://youtu.be/bbRdfMI5Y3I

Jonathan Edwards, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God – A Sermon Preached at Enfield, July 8th,
1741.

pp. 16-17
And consider here more particularly several Things concerning that Wrath that you are in such Danger
of.
1. Whose Wrath it is. It is the Wrath of the infinite GOD. If it were only the Wrath of Man, tho’ it were
of the most potent Prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The Wrath of Kings is very
much dreaded, especially of absolute Monarchs that have the Possessions and Lives of their Subjects
wholly in their Power, to be disposed of at their meer Will. Prov 20:2 The Fear of a King is as the
Roaring of a Lion: whoso provoketh him to Anger, sinneth against his own Soul. The Subject that very
much enrages an arbitrary Prince, is liable to suffer the most extream Torments, that human Art can
invent or human Power can inflict. But the greatest earthly Potentates, in their Majesty and Strength,
and when cloathed in their greatest Terrors, are but feeble despicable Worms of the Dust, in Comparison
of the great and almighty Creator and King of Heaven and Earth: It is but little that they can do, when
most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their Fury. All the Kings of the Earth before
GOD are as Grasshoppers, they are nothing and less than nothing: Both their Love and their Hatred is
to be despised. The Wrath of the great King of Kings is as much more terrible than their’s, as his
Majesty is greater. Luke 12. 4, 5. And I say unto you my Friends, be not afraid of them that kill the
Body, and after that have no more that they can do: But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear
him, which after he hath killed, hath Power to cast into Hell; yea I say unto you, fear him.
2. ’Tis the Fierceness of his Wrath that you are exposed to. …
3. The Misery you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that End, that he might shew what
that Wrath of Jehovah is. …

24
Baptism vs. immersion-rite: In Korean translations, ‘세례’ (meaning ‘washing-away
rite’) vs. ‘침례’ (immersion-rite). In Japanese Bible translations ‘バプテスマ’ is the
transliterate of ‘baptisma’).]

25
‘Soul sleep’ – controversial topic. a plethora of articles on this issue, pro and con. [Ref:
Justin Martyr, On the soul etc.]

Basic problem both sides have not made clear is what is meant by ‘soul’, which is an anachronistic
word used to translate Gk. psuche. To think it as a part of a person is as comparable to see ‘spirit’
as a part of a person. ‘Soul’ is one’s own being. ‘Spirit’ is not a substance or a component one has
(as in a common idea of tripartite structure of human being), but man’s faculty which is to resonate
with God’s spirit.
To be in sleep should be taken no more than of metaphor of ‘being dead’.

Related word: ekpsuchō (‘soul losing?’ Act 5:5, 10; 12:23) vs. ekpneō (breath out one’s last, expire
Mk 15:37, 39; Lk 23:46 – all Yeshua’s); koimaō (fall into sleep; die); katheudō; teleutaō (Mt 2:19;
9:18); cf. appolumi (perish Mt 8:25); apothnēskō (be dead Mt 26:35)

‘soul sleep’ – (‘conditional immortality)

a person is described as sleeping in relation to death (Lk 8:52; 1Co 15:6) is a figure of speech (not
‘literal’ sleep), but it is not without pointing to a reality which is not defined in the Scripture, since it has
always with ‘new life’ waiting for them. It is not about ‘body’ in sleep to wake up on resurrection; that
soul is in paradise or Hades after death is a common unscriptural belief. (Phi 1:21-23; 2Co 5:6-8 - against
the idea of soul-sleep) Does the phrase in 1Th 4:13-18 ‘fall asleep’ in the sense of ‘to die’ as a metaphor
but the person not continue in sleep’? The verb “to sleep,” koimaō, is used of both natural sleep (Mt
28:13; Lk 22:45; Jn 11:12; Act 12:6), and of death, but only of the death of the Christian ( - here
anachronistic term) (here in vss. 13, 14, 15; Mt 27:52; Jn. 11:11; Act 7:60; 1Co 7:39; 11:30; 15:6, 18,
51; 1h 4:13-15; 2Pe 3:4).

[In 1The 5:6, the word used for sleep is a different Greek word katheudō and in the context refers, not
to physical death, but to spiritual and moral complacency. But, 1Th 5:10 and Eph 5:14 is same as ‘to fall
asleep in death’ – Danker p. 182 Mt 13:25; 25:5; etc. Mt 9:4; Mk 5:9, etc.]

After death – ‘God receives one’s spirit’ (Lk 23:46; Act 7:59) of the believers. Does it mean that ‘soul’
does not die; does it mean that soul does not sleep? Most confuses ‘spirit’ and ‘soul’, esp. in this phrase.
How does Lk 15:10 (‘there is joy in the sight of the angles of Elohim’) suggest that a person’s soul does
not die?

What about Enoch (Gen 5:24) and Eliyahu (2Kg 2:11) being taken up into heaven? What about Eliyahu
in the vision (Mt 17:1-4)?
1Th 4:14 ‘sleep in Yeshua’ – is it ‘soul sleep’, or a figurative idom?
Ps 9:17 does not talk about ‘hell’ (- KJV language).

26
In Korean language, bread is 빵, a loan word pronounced same as ‘pain’ in French. Since this
refers to something eaten for a snack or a treat, it is unsuitable for a translation word for the Bible.
[Another related word in Korea, 떡 is made of rice and it is also only for a snack or treat.] Same
for밥 (rice meal), 음식 (meal). For adequate trans-cultural transfer of the meaning, the option is to
use the word for the main dish – ‘(쌀)밥’ ‘cooked rice’. The example of bread in the Pericope of
Feeding Multitudes is best rendered as ‘밥덩이; (> /밥뭉치 /> 주먹밥) (a ball/lump of cooked
rice).

27
Matzah (Unleavened Bread).

Cf. It was regular (leavened) bread, not unleavened one in the Last Supper. [Note: The use of
‘wafer’ of unleavened bread used in Eucharist for church liturgy as practiced in Christian religions
is a result from conflation of the Last Supper with matzah eating (for the Festival of the matzah –
unleavened bread).]
28
On the term *homosexuality and *sexual perversion:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders began its life in the 1950s as a
theoretical tome. Psychoanalysis still influenced psychiatry strongly, and early editions of the
book drew on Freudian theories such as castration anxiety (an unconscious fear supposedly
developed in early childhood) to explain sexual "deviance," as it was then called …..In 1973,
the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM list of paraphilias
(sexual perversions). But psychiatrists replaced homosexuality in the DSM-III (1980) with
"ego-dystonic homosexuality," which was used to describe people who were distressed about
their homosexuality. Eventually, in 1986, that diagnosis was dropped, too.

The evolution of the paraphilias has in some ways echoed that of homosexuality. … The current
edition, the DSM-IV-TR, … Those paraphilias include pedophilia (attraction to children),
voyeurism (spying on others), exhibitionism (exposing oneself in public), frotteurism (rubbing
against a non-consenting person) and sadism (inflicting pain).
www.academia.edu/1824353/How_to_Be_a_Pervert_A_Modest_Philosophical_Critique_of_t
he_Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

29
See EE for Greek synonyms of diastrephō here.

[diastrephō p. 93 Danker – (dia, strefō; ‘distort’ twist’) ‘divert from proper behavior’, pervert,
mistlead Lk 23:2; Ac 13:8. – Aass. of pers. Mt 17:17; Lk 9:41; Phi 2:15; of things taught Ac
20:30. –d. tas hodous make crooked the ways 13:10.]

Mt 17:17; //Lk 9:41 ō genea apistos kai diestrammenē (> diastrephō)- ‘people of
generation ~ perverting truth’ - IRENT; /perverse generation; /> perveted generation;
Phi 2:15 mesō geneas skolias kai diestrammenēs
in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,
Act 13:10 to make crooked the straight ways (>> pervert the right ways – KJV)
Act 20:30 uttering things of perverting truths

Cf. Lk 23:2, 14, apostrephō (subvert); /x: pervert – KJV

Cf. Tit 3:11 ekstrephō (go wrong way)
Cf. Gal 1:7 metastrephō to distort the Gospel; /x: pervert
Cf. Act 2:40 skolios –apo tēs geneas tēs skolias tautēs from this crooked generation!"
Cf. Jud 1:4 metatithēmi (turn the grace of our God into).
Cf. Jud 1:7 ekporneuō kai apeltheousai (> aperchomai) opisō sarkso heteras; /x: indulge in
fornication of sexual immorality and give themselves up to lust of flesh against natural desire.
/

atopos 2Th 3:2 [Danker p. 61 [deviant, wrong, Lk 23:41; Ac 25:5; 2Th 3:2; unusual, surpring
Act 28:6]; [Cf. pornēros – 2Th 3:2]

planēs Rm 1:27 error

30
‘atom [of time]’:

Gk. word atomos (English word ‘atom’ is derived from it) would be an indivisible smallest discrete unit
of any concept. It was used to describe theoretically the smallest indivisible unit of matter (Leucippus,
460 b.c.). It carries the idea of "indivisible," and the speaker/writer is free to supply any category/object.
This is a rather common characteristic of any language.

BDAG cites Aristotle, Physics 236a en atomō as referring to an instant of time. Symmachus's translation
of Isa. 54:8 uses the same phrase to indicate an instant, but he's late 2nd century CE. (from Webb Mealy)

1Co 15:52 en atomō, en hripē ophthalmou “in an atom of time, in a blink of an eye”. KJV and others
translate the phrase as 'in a moment'.

There is no reason not to apply this word to ‘time’ in addition to ‘matter’ (down to atom before its
internal structure further became known – nucleus and electrons, etc.), as the concept of quantum for
‘energy’ in modern physics. The term ‘atom’ as an undivisible unit of time, is comparable to ‘quantum’
in modern physics parlance. A discrete smallest unit of time which runs in succession, giving illusion
of continuous and ever-flowing. In between the atoms of time would be ‘absolute void, emptiness,
absence, 無 (kanji ‘mu’); 无 (simplified Chinese, ‘wu’). See a futher development of the idea in this line
in Ref. I. M. History (1998), The Far Side of Armageddon. (ISBN: 5550116049)

[The philosopher Whitehead] suggests that all created entities are made up of drops of experience, and
that existence itself, life itself for us humans, is an ordered series of extremely brief occasions of
experience. Ref. Korsmeyer JD ‘Evolution & Eden’ p. 97 (1998 Paulist Press). Prob. from ‘Process and
Reality’ (Alfred North Whitehead).

31
Immersion rite with fire –

Mt 3:11 immersed with holy spirit, {even with fire} ░░ (~ ἐν πνεύματι ἁγίῳ) {καὶ πυρί – also in
Lk 3:16, but not in Mk. (taken as an example of hendiadys)}; /> spirit, {also with fire} – ARJ; /spirit,
{yes, fire of spirit} – ARJ; /x: with the Holy Spirit - most; [This promise– fulfilled in the Ch 1-2
of the sequel to G-Lk.] [dative EN – parallel to ‘with water’, indicates medium, not agent (like ‘by
h.s.’)]
[Unconvincing is fn in Alford p .23 This was literally fulfilled at the Pentecost (Act 2). … The end
of baptism by water is METANOIA; the baptism by the Holy Ghost [sic] – sanctification, the entire
aim and purpose man’s creation and renewal -– Origen and others wrongly (why? – ARJ) take this as
‘baptism of the righteous by the Holy Spirit, and of the wicked by fire’ apparently from v. 12.]
[not ‘holy spirit plus fire’, nor ‘holy spirit = fire’ as appositive, but immersed in/with either holy spirit
for eternal life, or with fire for eternal destruction: See REC fn contra Alford. … fire here is not the
fire in Acts 2:3, which is related to ‘holy spirit’ (not ‘the Holy Spirt’ – REC and others; ‘the Holy
Ghost’ – KJV), but is the same fire as in vv. 10 and 12, the fire in the lake of fire (Rev 20:15)….]
[cf. ‘for the purpose of purifying rather than burning up’ - 1Co 3:13,15; Jer 23:29 ‘my word like a
fire’; Zec 13:9 refine in fire (Zec 13:9; Ps 66:10; Job 23:10; Prov 17:3; Isa 48:10; Mal 3:2,3); trials
(Jam 1:12); 1Pe 1:6] [cf. parallel passage in Jn 1:33; Act 1:5; 11:16 without PURI]
[Note Act 1:5 was fulfilled in Act 2:4 with ‘holy spirit’ in conjunction with ‘tongues of flame (> fire);
in Ps 104:4 (103:4 LXX) spirits // flaming fire ][‘Fire’ as metonymic for ‘suffering’ - the only occasion
where ‘baptism + of fire’ occurs alone is a common English idiom ‘baptism by fire’ (‘firebaptism’ in
Danish) {Oct 9, 2009 Re: [B-Greek] PNEUMA and PYR in Matthew 3:11} Iver Larsen];

32
romantic love vs. marriage
 Quoting from
http://cosmostheinlost.com/2014/01/10/sexual-revolution-make-sex-legal-safe-rare/

…
The punishing denials of Romanticized all-transcending-love were already exposed by Denis de
Rougemont’s Love in the Western World. The book should have been called Gettin’ no Love in the Western
World because he claimed, “Love ceases to be a demon only when he ceases to be a god.” Here is how he
connects idealization and ascesis: “To love in the sense of passion-love is the contrary of to live. It is an
impoverishment of one’s being, an askesis without sequel, an inability to enjoy the present without
imagining it as absent, a never-ending flight from possession.”

He then makes an important distinction between Romantic love and marriage:

“Romance feeds on obstacles, short excitations, and partings; marriage, on the contrary,
is made up of wont, daily propinquity, growing accustomed to one another. Romance
calls for ‘the faraway love’ of the troubadours; marriage, for love of ‘one’s neighbor.’
Where, then, a couple have married in obedience to a romance, it is natural that the first
time a conflict of temperament or of taste becomes manifest the parties should ask
themselves: ‘Why did I marry?’ And it is no less natural that, obsessed by the universal
propaganda in favor of romance, each should seize the first occasion to fall in love with
somebody else.”

33
‘be saved’

Jn 3:16; Rm 10:9-10

From www.truthortradition.com/
How and why to get saved (born again) – Rm 10:9-10

Oswald Chambers, from his daily devotional book My Utmost For His Highest on November 21,
“Never build your preaching or forgiveness on the fact that God is our Father and that He will forgive
us because He loves us. It is untrue to Jesus Christ’s revelation of God. It makes the cross unnecessary
and the redemption ‘much ado about nothing.’ If God does forgive sin, it is because of the death of
Christ.”
That is exactly correct. God loves everybody, but He is not going to save everyone. (Rm 10:9-10)
Love does not save. Sin required a payment, and that payment was in the person of Jesus Christ, the
Lamb, the Passover, the one from among the flock, the Man who died instead of us so that we could
have everlasting life, so that we could have life in the age to come…

1
Greek text for the pertinent verses.

[Mt 12:8 kurios gar estin ho huios tou anthroōpou ⇄ [kai] tou sabbatou]
[Lk 6:5 (hoti) kurios estin ho huios tou anthroōpou kai tou sabbatou]
[Mk 2:28 hōste kurios estin ho huios tou anthroōpou kai tou sabbatou]

2
Human being vs. human person – person vs. being; Person vs. person:

Ref. Adrian Thatcher, Truly a Person, Truly God (Ch. 7 Person, nature and Man, p. 80.) “ …
the most contentious element of incarnational doctrine, viz. that Christ, the divine Person, had
a human nature but lacked, or was not, a human person. Rather he became ‘man’, but the subject
of his human nature, like that of his divine nature, was the divine Person of the Son. God the
Son is a metaphysical Person whose divine nature becomes perfectly united to a human nature.
There is one Person not two, and there are two natures, not one. In what sense, then, is a Jesus
a human person? …”