The only occurrence: “Flee also youthful lusts” (2Ti 2:22). Perhaps Paul used the word here with its obvious implications (cp. lusts). But another possibility is this: A close relation is neoterizo, which means ‘to make violent innovations’. The context (vv 20,21) would chime in with this idea. In which case, Paul was warning against the zeal of a young man eager to make changes in ecclesial procedure simply because ‘the new must be better than the old.’
The NT has approximately two dozen different words all translated “receive”. The one to be given particular attention here is not dechomai, the most common of them all, but a close relative of it: para-dechomai. This also is translated “receive”, simply because the translators could not find another equivalent without expanding it into a phrase in what might have proved more misleading.
The essential idea is that of accepting formally, as a tenet of some importance; as when a man says: “I know the claims of the church of Rome, but I do not accept, or receive, them.”
Hence in the interpretation of the parable of the sower, “these are they…which hear the word, and receive it” (Mar 4:20). The message is not only listened to and understood but is accepted as vital teaching to be held on to.
There is a touch of formality about Paul’s instruction: “Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses” (1Ti 5:19).
In Heb 12:6, a good father “scourgeth (chastises) every son whom he receiveth.” The discipline proclaims a parenthood not to be disowned.
The great complaint made against Paul and his friends by citizens of Philippi eager to stress their own staunch loyalty to Rome was that these men “teach customs, which it is not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans” (Acts 16:21). It was not unlawful to hear the teaching, but they deemed it unlawful to accept it as religious authority.
Most eloquent of all is the instruction of the Lord Jesus to Paul not to stay in Jerusalem, “for they will not receive thy testimony concerning me” (Acts 22:18). There is here the implication that Paul quite expected that the story of his marvellous conversion on the road to Damascus would immediately have its effect on his old friends and colleagues in Jerusalem. Not they! Paul’s optimism in those early days in the Faith was to meet with rude rebuff. “They will not receive thy testimony.” What an understatement!
“I (Christ, the Judge) am he that searcheth the reins (nephros) and the hearts” (Rev 2:23). But Psalm 7:9 asserts that “God trieth the hearts and the reins.” Here then is another example of the familiar NT usage whereby the name and character of the Father are, readily and without explanation, used also of the Son. They are part of his natural inheritance.
Here, as nearly always, “heart” stands for the mind, a man’s thinking powers. Then what is the meaning (in metonymy) of the reins, the kidneys? Suggestion: the natural emotions, in contrast to a man’s thinking powers.
The Greeks had a word for legal disproof or refutation, or for the cross-examination which exposes the weakness of a case.
The same word, and more especially the corresponding verb, elencho, is something of a favourite in the NT, to describe thorough proof, not disproof, of error. Herod reproved by John the Baptist (Luk 3:19); the accusers of the adulterous woman being convicted by their own consciences (John 8:9); Balaam rebuked for his iniquity (2Pe 2:16); the public witness of the Holy Spirit: “he will reprove the (Jewish) world of sin” (John 16:8).
But whereas cross-examination or argument is intended to convince an independent judge or jury, in the NT bringing conviction to the person directly involved is the main idea.
This strong personal impact is a thing to look out for in all occurrences of this word. This is true even in Heb 11:1: “Faith is…the evidence of things not seen”, where the idea of convincing argument and personal reaction to it are both involved.
The same word, made doubly intensive by two prefixes — diakatelencho — means to defeat and put to shame in argument. The AV of Acts 18:28: “(Apollos) mightily convinced the Jews, and that publicly, shewing by the Scriptures that Jesus was Christ” is an over-optimistic translation. RV: “powerfully confuted” is much better.
Orthos means “straight, correct, right, upright”. An orthopaedic hospital sets children right. The adverb means “correctly”, and the verb, anorthoo, describes the act of setting up or setting right.
Bible examples are mostly straightforward (orthos!). The poor woman, eighteen years bowed down, was “made straight” (Luk 13:13). Paul bade the lame man at Lystra “stand up straight”. The stammerer, healed by Jesus, “spoke properly”. “Thou hast answered right” expressed the Lord’s approval of good understanding.
At Antioch Paul rebuked Peter because “they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel” (Gal 2:14). And years later, when Judaism was again making its impact, the exhortation was: “Make straight paths for your feet” (Heb 12:13). The context there also bids the waverers “lift up the hands which hang down” (12:12), that is, lift up your hands straight towards heaven in prayer for guidance.
The LXX uses this word for the “setting up” of David’s throne when Messiah inherits the kingdom (2Sa 7:13,16). When the complete failure of Solomon is considered, it is evident that he did not “set up straight” the throne of David. Jesus is the man to do this, for “thy discipline hath set me straight,” says one of the psalms of Messiah (18:35, LXX). “I have kept on straight (katorthoo) towards thy commandments: I hated every unrighteous way” (Psa 119:128).
Lastly, the workman in Christ who does not need to be ashamed “straight-cuts” the word of truth. It is a picture of a skilled ploughman driving a perfectly straight furrow, keeping his eye steadily on the Mar ahead.
There seems to be little doubt that “pass by” is the more precise meaning of parago, as in John 9:1: “And as Jesus passed by he saw…a man blind from his birth” (8:59 also). Sometimes the word is paraporeuomai, essentially the same in meaning, perhaps with the idea of “journey”. Luke 18:36 is noteworthy: “they passed through (the gate of Jericho en route for Jerusalem)”.
Yet in three places it may be questioned whether the AV “pass away” is presenting quite the right idea. Is it true that “the fashion of this world passeth away” (1Co 7:31)? Two thousand years later the world is just as much with us, isn’t it? Perhaps Paul meant: “the world passeth by”, ie it is a passing show, and you are to be content to stand aside and treat it as such.
So also in 1Jo 2:8,17. Ought not this to read: “The darkness is being made to pass you by” (present indicative passive)?
Two examples out of Paul’s second journey merit attention. The apostle and his party “came through” Mysia — the word is used from the point of view of Luke awaiting them in Troas (see “Acts”, HAW, ch. 65). And in his speech at Athens, Paul explains: “As I came through (your city)…” (Acts 17:23), thus plainly implying: ‘I had no intention to stay and run a campaign here.’
Specially, there must be examined the highly expressive word describing how priest and Levite both “passed by on the other side”, when seeing the stricken traveller (Luk 10:31,32). Parerchomai is not sufficient to express the Lord’s disgust that they “came through” on that road; they carefully “came through over against” the poor man; “passed by on the other side” is excellent translating.
The good shepherd “goes in and out” (as a leader of the flock) to “find pasture” (nome) for his flock (John 10:9). Is the word used here in deliberate contrast to nomos, the Law? And it may be that in 2Ti 2:17 Paul had the same play on words in mind. “Their word (ie of these Judaist teachers) will eat, will have nome, as doth a canker” — this last word may mean cancer or gangrene. Again, possibly, Paul wrote with Prov 24:15 (LXX) in mind.
Diatribo describes the action of ceaselessly rubbing away (at inflamed eyes or an itch on the skin). But the word here in 1Ti 6:5 has an extra prefix: paradiatribo, as though to suggest men who are constantly coming alongside to renew their irritating arguments.
And the word that accompanies this, translated in AV by “men of corrupt minds”, is another eloquent polysyllable: diephtharmenos — not just corrupt, but utterly corrupt. And this perfect participle seems to imply: ‘they have already become like this, and they so continue…hopeless!’
The piercing of the side of Jesus with a spear provides the only NT occurrence. But the more intensive form of the word, katanutto or -nusso, is used in Acts 2:37: “they were pricked in their heart”, with direct allusion to John 19:34: the horror of their sin in destroying the Son of God was brought home to them. The Acts passage also seems to look back to Psalm 4:4, where the LXX is markedly different from the AV “commune”. See also Isaiah 6:5.
The NT has a bundle of words for “preach”, each with its own special emphasis. Those in most common use are the most straightforward.
Euangelizomai is, literally, to carry a message of good. A lovely word! This is what the gospel is.
Katangello intensifies the notion of one who bears a message, and consequently is well rendered in RV by “proclaim”. If anything, this translation is hardly vigorous enough. For instance, Paul’s “Him declare I unto you” really means, ‘I am here to tell you plainly about the God you say you don’t know’ (Acts 17:23, and also vv 3,13). The AV of 1Co 11:26: “ye do shew the Lord’s death (by the formal remembrance of him) till he come”, is not strong enough. “Proclaim, openly declare” would be better. But how is this done if all others are shut out?
More emphatic even than this is diangello. “Suffer me first to go and bury my father,” said a disciple of sorts. “No,” said Jesus, “go thou and preach the kingdom of God” (Luk 9:60). Here the AV makes no difference from any other word “preach”. But here Jesus surely had his mind on the OT. For in the LXX this word comes very rarely, but three times it refers to the sounding of Jubilee trumpets (Lev 25:9; Jos 6:10), when freedom was proclaimed to those in bondage (there may be something of the same idea in Exo 9:16; Psa 2:7). Now read this idea back into Luk 9:60.
Kerusso means to fulfil the office of a herald. Hence, appropriately, it is first used with reference to John the Baptist as Messiah’s forerunner (Mat 3:1). There is always behind the use of this word the idea of one who sends the herald: “How shall they hear without a preacher? and how shall they preach except they be sent?” (Rom 10:14,15).
Parrhesiazomai means “with plain or confident or bold speech”. Nearly always there is the implication of opposition or persecution or the risk of these. Saul of Tarsus, now become Paul the disciple, “preached boldly” at Damascus (Acts 9:27). Years later he besought the Ephesians to harness their prayers to his work, “that I may speak boldly as I ought to speak” (6:20). Is there a hint here that he was somewhat daunted by opposition? In Acts 18:26 there is a characteristic picture of Apollos “speaking boldly” in the synagogue concerning the work and message of John the Baptist.
Dialegomai puts the emphasis on reasoning, shaping an argument, and even disputation. It was evidently Paul’s usual mode of preaching the gospel to the Jews, for time and again he is described as “reasoning out of the Scriptures”, “reasoning in their synagogues”, etc. (Acts 17:2,17; 18:4,19; 19:8,9; 24:25). And in his discourses to the brethren also — his “long preaching” at Troas, with its calamitous result for Eutychus, was on these lines (20:7,9). The Pauline model seems to have been much left behind in modern ecclesias, both as to duration and method; Hebrews 12:5 (“speaketh”) describes tribulation and chastisement as God’s patient reasoning with His children.
Parakeimai means, quite literally, “to be beside”, as when a man and a woman lie together. And evidently this was the forceful figure in Paul’s mind when he wrote: “I find then a law that when I would do good, evil is present with me” (Rom 7:21 and also v 18). This follows on remarkably well from the figure the apostle has used in vv 1-4.
“And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luk 2:52). The word here translated “increased” — prokopto — is of special interest to those who find profit and pleasure in the use of lexicons and concordances. Literally it means “to cut forward”. A primary application was to the pioneer driving a track or trail through dense undergrowth. Hence it came to mean “press on, surge forward, forge ahead”. The picture is thus presented to the mind of an eager alert teen-age Jesus improving rapidly, both in physical and spiritual powers, well ahead of those his own age. A proper understanding of the verb settles here any doubt about the ambiguous word translated “stature”. The word can, of course, mean “age” also (see RV mg. and John 9:21; Heb 11:11), but here that meaning is impossible, for how could Jesus press on or forge ahead of others in age? There is here, therefore, probably the only indication Scripture contains about the physique of Jesus — he was tall well above average.
More than this, Jesus advanced beyond measure in wisdom. The reader is bidden think of him as wonderfully precocious whilst still at school, showing such a detailed knowledge of and insight into the wisdom of the Scriptures studied there, as to make all others appear pedestrian. And with increasing maturity there would come special stature at Nazareth as one who could advise and direct with a quiet sureness of judgement altogether abnormal in one of his years.
There is here yet another item of information about “the hidden years”. Not only did Jesus grow in favour with God far beyond others who cultivated godliness (that was only to be expected!); he also forged ahead of others in the good opinion of men. Thus up to the time when he left his carpenter’s shop to become a prophet and a witness to his own Messiahship, Jesus is to be thought of as the most esteemed and admired of all the rising generation in Nazareth. What a contrast with the reception his own city gave him not long afterwards (Luk 4:16-30)! So it must have been his claim rather than himself which set them against him.
It is instructive now to find the apostle Paul using the same word to describe his own early years: “And I was forging ahead in Judaism beyond many of my own age in my generation (or ‘in my own race’ — either way, the phrase appears to be redundant! Is it?).” Here is a picture of an eager precocious youth eclipsing by his brilliance all his fellow-students at the feet of Gamaliel.
And the thrill of excelling in Bible scholarship, which Saul the young rabbinist had known in his early years, he later wished for his “son” Timothy: “Give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine. Neglect not the gift that is in thee…Be diligent in these things; give thyself wholly to them; that thy profiting may be manifest to all” (1Ti 4:13-15). By such dutiful application to all aspects of godly service, Paul would fain have his young protege press forward in spiritual development so that “no man despise his youth” but rather that he become a pattern to others — “an example (type) of the believers”.
With a somewhat different emphasis Paul wished the same noteworthy progress for the church at Philippi which he loved so dearly: “And having this confidence (of acquittal when the appeal to Caesar was heard), I know that I shall abide (in the flesh) and be able to dwell with you all so that you press on ahead (of others) in your joy of faith.”
Yet even as he wrote, Paul experienced the deep satisfaction of seeing the Lord’s work make progress where he was: “My affairs have worked out rather unto the surging forward of the gospel; with the result that not only are my bonds in Christ manifest in all the Praetorium (ie the royal court) and among all the rest, but also most of the brethren who believed in the Lord through my bonds are more abundantly bold to speak the word of God without fear” (Phi 1:12-14).
Thus in his personal friends, in some ecclesias he had founded, and in the work of preaching Paul was able to contemplate a great pressing forward.
Yet even as he wrote, the seeds of decay were beginning to germinate in the church. Shortly before he died, it became needful for Paul to issue warning against the surging advance of false ideas: “Shun profane and vain babblings, for they will make inroads and result in more ungodliness.” This irresistible progress of apostasy he likened to a cancer feeding on the wholesome tissue round about it: “Their word will eat as doth a canker.” Also, “evil men and imposters shall make inroads even worse (than the persecutors), both leading astray and being themselves misled.” All this must have been a sickening discouragement to the great apostle who now had only a few weeks to live.
As a kind of postscript, it may not be amiss to draw attention to the problem provoked by another of the varied uses of this interesting word: “Now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The night is far spent, the day is at hand” (Rom 13:11,12). Yet two thousand years later the dawn has not come! Useless to look for error in the translation; it could hardly be faulted. The solution must surely be in some other direction.
In 1Co 15:31 only: “I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus”. Ne is a particle indicating an oath. The only other occurrence (?) is Gen 42:15,16: “By the life of Pharaoh”. Paul will not swear an oath: ‘by the life of Jesus’, so he dilutes it into: ‘by the rejoicing (which I have concerning you) in Christ Jesus…’
Peripateo and pareuomai between them cover a tremendous number of passages. The first of these is always “walk” (from patos, a trodden way). Poreuomai has more the idea of a journey on foot, but this meaning cannot be insisted on. Both words are frequently employed, especially peripateo, in the Hebrew idiomatic sense of religious observance — “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless”. In this sense it is one of the main words of Paul’s vocabulary.
In one place only, Paul’s quotation from Lev 26:12, LXX, uses the more elaborate emperipateo: “I will dwell in them, and walk in them (ie among them)”, the promise now being appropriated to the New Israel (2Co 6:16). This is the word that is used to describe Job’s Satan “walking up and down” in the earth (1:7; 2:2). Since the other LXX usages of emperipateo also refer to God (Deu 23:14; 2Sa 7:6) — making four out of six places — it seems fairly likely that these two in Job have a similar reference; in other words, Job’s Satan was an angel of the Lord!
The solitary occurrence of orthopodeo (Gal 2:14, home-made by Paul?) is of somewhat unusual interest: “When I perceived that they (Peter and the others) walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel…” Literally, this is: “they did not straight-foot it.” The expression is the exact equivalent of the description of the cherubim: “their feet were straight feet” (Eze 1:7). The connection is this: Just as the chariot of the cherubim was regarded as the bearer of the word and power of Almighty God (cp. Psa 147:15), so also in the NT the preachers of the gospel are the Lord’s cherubim-chariot (cp. 2Th. 3:1, RV). In this duty they must be “straight-footed”, ie there must be no deviousness about the methods employed in their proclaiming of the message of Christ.
Like peripateo, another word to describe the practical observing of God’s law is stoicheo. But here the emphasis is specially on first principles, the basic fundamentals, the spiritual ABC of the religious life.
Thus, the brethren in Jerusalem were anxious that Paul should show himself as “walking orderly”, keeping the Law (Acts 21:24). And Paul himself emphasized to his Jewish readers how necessary it is also to “walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham” (Rom 4:12). The phrase suggests a child gradually learning to walk with the stride of his so-much-more-mature father.
There is a distinct hint of reproach about Paul’s use of this word in his exhortation to backsliding Galatians: “If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk” (5:25) — as who should say: ‘Provided you are moving in the right direction I shall be content, even though you make slow progress from immaturity’ (cp. also 6:16).
Similarly, in Phi 3:15,16, the apostle makes pointed contrast between those who are “perfect” (ie spiritually grown-up) and others who “walk (stoicheo) by the same rule” of “pressing towards the Mar for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (v 14).
The figure of a dedicated man fighting in God’s war of righteousness originated in the OT, where in half a dozen places the service of God in His sanctuary is called “warring the warfare”. See Num 8:24,25; 4:23; Exo 38:8; Isa 40:2 (see LXX); and probably Psa 148:2; and Dan 8:10-13.
Paul certainly had the same idea in mind when he exhorted Timothy to “war a good warfare” according to the prophecies concerning him (1Ti 1:18).
A perfectly straightforward word; yet its usage is rather striking and decidedly symbolic. The Pharisees washed their hands (Mat 15:2), but those in Christ wash hands and eyes and face and feet (Mat 6:17; Joh 9:7; 13:5), and indeed the whole body: “he that is bathed needeth not save to wash his feet” (John 13:10) — whereupon Peter, recognizing that his Lord was enacting the consecration of a priesthood, demanded: “Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head” (13:9; Lev 8:23).
Is 1 Timothy 5:10 an allusion to the Last Supper?
Two occurrences of this word in the LXX serve to fill out the picture it presents.
The command in Deu 27:6 that the altar shall be built of “whole stones”, ie not chiselled to size or shape (Exo 20:25), not of cracked or friable (i.e., soft sandstone) material. Such would soon disintegrate from the heat of the altar.
Isaiah’s ghastly picture of the spiritual ill-health of his nation laments that “there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores” (1:6).
Over against this is Peter’s description of the lame man healed at the temple gate: “God hath given him this perfect soundness in the presence of you all” (Acts 3:16).
There is now a fuller meaning discernible in Paul’s concluding blessing on his Thessalonians: “I pray God your whole (perfectly sound) spirit (the new man in Christ) and soul (natural health) and body be preserved blameless (pleonasm here, surely) unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1Th. 5:23).
In a similar passage James is even more pleonastic: “that ye may be perfect and entire (completely sound), wanting nothing” (1:4) — three expressions covering the same idea.
The Greek word literally means “wood”. It is also used of anything made of wood, hence the phrase: “swords and staves (pieces of wood)”.
However, the OT uses the word for “tree” in this more general sense, and this meaning also carries over into the NT, as in: “Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree” (Gal 3:13). And also Peter (three times: Acts 5:30; 10:39; 1Pe 2:24) and Paul (once: Acts 13:29) use the word about our Lord’s crucifixion: “whom ye slew, and hanged on a tree”; yet Jesus was certainly not crucified on a living tree.
Two possible explanations offer themselves: (a) It was with allusion to Gen 22:3,6, LXX s.w., the offering of Isaac; (b) It was because the apostles saw the cross of Christ not as a tree of death (like the tree of knowledge of good and evil) but as a Tree of Life reversing the curse of Eden.
In Rev 22:2 a certain element of phony exegesis has crept into the read-ing of the words: “On either side of the river was there the tree (hardly ‘wood’!) of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits…and the leaves of the tree (wood) were for the healing of the nations.” The temptation to read here “wood” as meaning “a miniature forest” must be resisted, even though “on either side” requires the collective sense for “tree”. Here is straight quotation from Psalm 1:3. This also provides the interpretation of the trees symbol.
There are two main words in the NT with this meaning:
1. oikoumene (where people dwell in houses), and
2. kosmos, the ordered world.
It will be convenient to deal with these separately, and to note that the same essential feature (much neglected in the books) belongs to both in Bible usage.
In its general idea, oikoumene describes the entire world where men dwell (eg Acts 17:31). Yet in practice it came to be much restricted to the Roman empire, as being the only important part of the inhabited earth (Acts 19:27; 24:5; Rev 3:10; 16:14).
This became also Jewish usage, only with reference to their (Jewish) world, as in the following: “That all the world should be taxed” (Luk 2:1: the Syrian province actually). “A dearth throughout all the world” (Acts 11:28). “These that have turned the world upside down are come hither also” (Acts 17:6). “When he bringeth the first begotten into the world…” (Heb 1:6). There are doubtless several other instances besides these.
Kosmos shows clear signs of being subject to the same double usage.
In some places it undoubtedly means the civilised world (Luk 12:30). This is the meaning that the ordinary Bible reader mostly, or even always, associates with the world.
Yet, in many a place, restriction to the Jewish world is clearly intended and is necessary:
“Shew thyself unto the world” (John 7:4), jibed the brothers of Jesus, meaning: ‘Go and advertise yourself in Jerusalem.’
“I speak to the world those things which I have heard of my Father” (John 8:26).
After the triumphal entry, “Behold, the world is gone after him” (John 12:19).
“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me…” (John 15:18).
“I spake openly unto the world” (John 18:20).
“…that he (Abraham) should be the heir of the world” (Rom 4:13).
“The rudiments of the world…touch not, taste not, handle not…” (Col 2:20).
The foregoing are just samples. There are, almost certainly, a good many more in the same category.
The NT distinguishes carefully between the uncontrollable explosion of anger (thumos) and the anger which is deliberate, reasoned, and sustained, the anger which a man nurses in his bosom (orge).
Thumos describes the intense wrath of Pharaoh when he heard about Moses’ attempt to free his people (Heb 11:27). Another example is the sudden explosion of anger in the synagogue at Nazareth when Jesus preached there: “they were filled with wrath” (Luk 4:28). And when “Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre and Sidon” (Acts 12:20), he was “fighting mad” (thumo-macheo).
Some of the examples of orge are very instructive, and even striking. “Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance (orge)?” asks Paul. The Lord Jesus describes the AD 70 judgment on Jerusalem as “wrath (orge) upon this people” (Luk 21:23). On the occasion of the healing of the man with a withered hand (Mar 3:5), Jesus — aware of the Pharisees’ criticism — “looked round about on them with anger (orge)”. Nor is this the only anger of the Son of God, for Rev 6:16,17 repeats its emphasis on “the wrath (orge) of the Lamb”.
But what is righteousness in Christ may be wrong in his disciple. “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (Jam 1:19,20). This establishes that Eph 4:26, AV — “Be ye angry, and sin not” —needs to be amended to read as a rhetorical question implying: ‘No, hardly ever!’
Another illuminating use of orge comes in the parable of the prodigal. The older brother “was angry, and would not go in” (Luk 15:28). This was no sudden burst of wrath, but an expression of a cherished hostility to his younger brother.
The normal Greek word for “take” (lambano) is strengthened by a prefix — paralambano — to convey the idea of one person taking another along with him. This is the meaning in lots of passages, as when Jesus took three apostles into the mount with him.
In describing the call of the saints, “one taken and the other left” (Luk 17:34), there is plain implication of being taken by someone (an angel: Mat 24:31). Examples like these are so common as to create the problem: Why isn’t the word always translated that way? The exceptions seem to have to do with instances where persons are not involved; eg 1Co 15:1,3: “The gospel which I also received (I took it to myself when given it by Christ)…The gospel which also ye received (they took it to themselves from Paul)”.
The meaning is intensified yet further by the acquisition of another prefix, making sumparalambano. This imparts the yet warmer idea of close fellowship, as when Paul and Barnabas “took with them John Mark”. This becomes all the more poignant when a bitter quarrel broke out over John Mark’s later defection, so that Paul “thought it not good to take him with them, who went not with them to the work” — sumparalambano again; fellowship marred (but not broken) by differing principles about the preaching to Gentiles.
Naos means the inner sanctuary of a temple. It was there where Judas threw down the thirty pieces of silver.
“Ye are the temple of God” (1Co 3:16) makes a distinction from the outer court, which is Jewry (Rev 11:2).
What is “the temple of the tabernacle of God”? The inner shrine of the Tabernacle was the Holy of Holies.
In the age to come, there is no such Holy of Holies. Instead, the Lamb (Rev 21:22).
Nomizo is only one of many words in the think-tank. A complete study of them all would fill a book. With this particular word, the essential idea is that equivalent to the American use of “I figure that it would be best to…” — as when Paul was stoned at Iconium, the disciples came round him, “supposing that he had been dead” (Acts 14:19).
But because of the close relationship to nomos, the Law, in several passages there are overtones. “Think not that I am come to destroy the law or the prophets” (Mat 5:17).
Jesus “being as was supposed (ie legally reckoned) the son of Joseph…” (Luk 3:23).
The first of these is the more accurate meaning, as in: “I am tormented in this flame” (the rich man in “hell”: Luk 16:24,25).
The word describes the affliction of Israel under Egyptian bondage (Exo 3:7, LXX), the nights of misery suffered by Job (7:3), and the birth-pangs of Rachel giving birth to “the son of my anguish” (Gen 35:18), pains curable only by the blessed unconsciousness of death.
And this was the only word to describe the wretchedness of saying a final farewell to the apostle Paul (Acts 20:38), and of Mary and Joseph as they “sought their boy sorrowing” (Luk 2:48). It describes the aching misery of Paul grieving over the stony-hearted unbelief of his people (Rom 9:2), an unbudgeable prejudice against Jesus which torments the New Israel not at all. Instead, they are too busy “piercing themselves through with many sorrows” (1Ti 6:10) that are of no profit at all.
This is easy. The Greek word is mania (with the verb mainomai). And this is exactly what it means in every place, as the context plainly shows: “He hath a demon, and is mad” (John 10:20). “Paul, thou art beside thyself (said Festus: Acts 26:24); much learning doth make thee mad.” The Roman governor was, in effect, saying to Paul: ‘That’s just what you told us yourself ten minutes ago!’ — for had not the apostle declared: “and being exceeding mad against them (the Christians), I persecuted them even unto strange cities” (26:11)? Here the phrase is often read as meaning “very angry”. But no! Paul meant what he said: In those violent days he had behaved like a lunatic.
Similarly Rhoda the servant-girl was declared to be crazy because she announced the immediate answer to the prayers for Peter’s well-being (Acts 12:15). Those eager to speak with tongues in the ecclesia at Corinth were warned against the risk of being deemed mad because of their excitability (1Co 14:23).
The Greek word was “distress in the house”, ie strong family sympathy, as its basic meaning. The very idea is enshrined in the lovely words of Psa 103:13: “Like as a father pitieth his children, so the Lord…” Paul’s phrase also: “Father of mercies” (2Co 1:3).
The much more common Greek word eleos means “mercy” in the usual sense of compassion and help, as when blind men cried after Jesus: “Lord, have mercy on us.”
But more commonly eleos means the forgiveness of sins. Zacharias celebrated “the tender mercy of our God” in the gracious work of his son and his son’s successor (Luk 1:78). So also in James’ phrase: “mercy rejoiceth against judgment…” (2:13). And Peter: “according to his gracious mercy he saved us…” (1Pe 1:3). Always readers should be on the look-out for this specialised meaning, or much of value can be lost.
In at least three places the double meaning, of (a) compassion and (b) forgiveness, shines through. In the parable of the two debtors: “Shouldest thou not have had compassion on thy fellow servant, even as I had compassion on thee?” (Mat 18:33). How close is this to: “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us”? Again, the Samaritan is described as “he that had mercy on him (the stricken wayfarer)” (Luk 10:37). But that parable is also a picture of the redeeming work of Christ (see “Gospels”, ch. 121); so the inquirer who responded thus was perhaps nearer the Mar than he knew — or did he?
In the OT “mercy and truth” uniformly carries the idea of “God’s covenants of promise”. There is complete consistency in this. See “Bible Studies”, ch. 17.15. Indeed, in not a few places the two words are used separately with this idiomatic intent.
An interesting little problem remains in the NT use of “mercy”. As a greeting, “grace and mercy” is not infrequent, and tempts the reader to see it as a NT equivalent of “mercy and truth”. But to Timothy and Titus, Paul writes: “Grace, mercy, and truth”. Why?
Nous, although mostly translated mind, is, more precisely, understanding. The passages, twenty-four of them, are worth individual consideration.
There is also, once, nounechos (literally: having nous), which is used very effectively of the lawyer who “answered discreetly” (Mar 12:34) concerning the Great Commandment.
The verb noeo is straightforward enough: to understand. In Mar 8:17 it is reinforced: “Perceive ye not yet, neither understand?” (The last word there is suniemi — see below.)
The more emphatic dianoia usually gets the same translation “mind”. But there is one noteworthy phrase in Mary’s hymn of praise: “He (the Lord) hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts” (Luk 1:51). This is the more impressive when the allusion to Gen 6:5 is recognized: “And God saw…that the imagination (LXX: dianoia) of man’s heart was only evil continually.”
The associated noun noema seems to be used of human thoughts and designs only in a derogatory sense: “We are not ignorant of his (the Satan’s) devices” (2Co 2:11). “Their minds were blinded” (3:14). “So your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ” (11:3). So also 4:4; 10:5; Phi 4:7.
Another verb of even greater force is suniemi, with its emphasis on mental grasp of ideas and principles; as in “understanding what the will of the Lord is” (Eph 5:17); “then opened he their understanding (nous) that they might understand (suniemi) the scriptures” (Luk 24:45).
The number of times that this verb is used in the NT (twenty-six, along with the noun sunesis, seven, and its adjective sunetos, four) is a standing rebuke of the sloppiness of much modern religion, and is a firm justification of the Christadelphian tradition that, to the best of his ability, a man should bring his mind into constant activity in his religion.
Yet at the same time there is implicit warning against a mere academic attitude: “I (the Lord) will bring to nought the understanding (sunesis) of the prudent (sunetos)” (1Co 1:19). “Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent (sunetos)” (Luk 10:21).
“As a fig tree casteth her untimely figs when she is shaken of a mighty wind” (Rev 6:13).
Olunthos occurs here and in Song of Sol. 2:13 only. That excellent lexicographer Edward Robinson says these figs “are such as grow under the leaves, and do not ripen at the proper season, but hang on the trees during the winter”. But this can hardly be the meaning in these verses, for “the fig tree putteth forth her green (olunthos) figs” comes in a description of springtime. And it was at Passover when Jesus cursed the fruitless fig tree because it had not even those green figs, and therefore no promise at all of fruit later in the season (Mat 21:19).
So Rev 6:13 ought to be read with regard to green figs in the spring. It is noteworthy that in AD 70 the siege of Jerusalem began at Passover, and also that the Second Coming of the Lord will probably be at Passover (see “Passover”, HAW, ch. 14). Both interpretations of the Sixth Seal are possible, but reference to the time of Constantine is a nonsense.
Allos is a simple word for “other”. Allosso is a verb derived from it, meaning “change”. Going a step further, parallage describes a shift from one position to another. As you move your head from one side to the other, two objects in line at different distances appear to change position in opposite directions — parallage describes this effect. A similar phenomenon is noticeable with reference to the heavenly bodies: the constellations all appear to have fixed positions relative to each other. But not so the moon which appears against a different background of stars every night. This is the moon’s parallage. In Jam 1:17 God the Creator is called “the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness (parallage), neither shadow cast by turning” (RV). Here the great glory of the character of God is cpd to the sun — He is unchangeable, in contrast with the moon which, as it turns in its orbit, changes in appearance because of the casting of a shadow across its face.
The NT has an interesting variety of words for this idea. Those “vexed with unclean spirits” (Luk 6:18; Acts 5:16) were “crowded” with them (ochleo). Mat 17:15, describing the epileptic boy healed by Jesus, says he was “sore vexed”, using the very word for the sufferings of Christ (pascho). Another word (kakoo) means ‘to work harm, to do evil’; “Herod stretched forth his hand to vex certain of the church” (Acts 12:1).
Two more highly expressive words describe Lot’s distress amidst the sodomy of Sodom: “He was vexed (kataponeo, worn down as with hard labour: s.w. Acts 7:24) at the filthy way of life of the wicked…he vexed (basanizo: tormented, tortured) his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds” (2Pe 2:7,8).
The word elaphros probably derives from the Greek word for “deer”. Certainly one of its usages is that of light, nimble movement like that of a deer.
Here, then, is one of the sayings of Christ which few of his disciples really believe: “My yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Mat 11:30). And Paul insists that “our light affliction is but for a moment” (2Co 4:17). These two passages put the service of Christ in a different perspective.
And perhaps all the more emphatically when it is realised that in both places there may be an allusion to the cherubim-chariot of the Lord, as described in Ezekiel 1; for there the same word comes (in LXX) in an expression which has no counterpart in AV: “and their feet were winged, and sparks like gleaming brass, and their wings were light” (v 7).
Jesus appealed: “Take my yoke upon you…for I am meek and lowly in heart…my yoke is easy…”, using the figure of two labouring oxen. But the cherubim figures in Ezekiel 1 are essentially winged oxen (“straight feet… a calf’s foot”; and Eze 10:14 uses “cherub” instead of “ox”). Thus, “my burden is light” is seen to have a double meaning — with allusion also to the burden of prophecy, for this is the function of the cherubim chariot, to convey the word of the Lord with power: “His word runneth very swiftly” (Psa 147:15).
So also Paul in 2Co 4:17, where he links “light affliction” with “an eternal weight of glory…the things that are not seen (by ordinary men)”. Again, the word “weight” suggests the burden of prophecy or preaching.
These are some possibilities of exposition opened up by the word elaphros, which occurs hardly anywhere else.
There are four main words of fairly common (or very common) usage in this category. Besides these, there is a large collection of odds and ends, each with its own particular meaning.
The most frequently used word is blepo and its cognates. This is just the ordinary word for “see”. Not a few times it is used with specific reference to the eyes. “Anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see” (Rev 3:18). “When his (Saul’s) eyes were opened, he saw no man” (Acts 9:8). It is used five times of the blind man who was sent to Siloam to get his sight (John 9).
In this ordinary sense of seeing, blepo is used over and over again.
But it also goes beyond that, to cover mental contemplation or discernment. “Ye see your calling, brethren…” (1Co 1:26). “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind” (Rom 7:23). “Behold Israel after the flesh” (1Co 10:18).
At times this meaning becomes even stronger. “Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief” (Heb 3:12). “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit” (Col 2:8).
Anablepo is used almost entirely (20 times) of a man receiving his physical sight. In these cases the translation sometimes attempted: “he looked up”, is over-literal. The prefix is simply intensive. The only exceptions to this are when Jesus is spoken of as looking up to heaven in prayer (Mar 7:34; 8:24), or looking up into the tree to speak to Zaccheus (Luk 19:5). Luk 21:1 is certainly intensive: “Jesus looked up (ie took special note of the fact), and saw the rich men casting their gifts into the treasury.” The same is probably true in Mar 16:4: “When they (the women) looked (anablepo), they saw (theoreo) that the stone was rolled away.” Or is Mark intending to suggest here that they were like blind persons receiving their sight? Or were they at the foot of a slope, looking up to the site of the tomb?
Diablepo comes in only one place: “Then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” (Mat 7:5).
Emblepo means to “look intently”. Perhaps “study” is a good translation here. “Behold the fowls of the air” (Mat 6:26) means: ‘Study the life of the birds.’ So also: “Jesus beholding him (studying his face intently) loved him” (Mar 10:21). And after Peter’s denials, “the Lord turned and looked upon Peter” (Luk 22:61). Here a better translation would be the strictly literal: “looked into Peter”. At the ascension, the disciples stood “gazing up into heaven” (emblepo again). Saul, confronted with the glory of Christ, peered intently in his effort to make out more detail (Acts 22:11).
All the dozen occurrences of emblepo are worth “emblepping”!
There is also periblepo which means, quite literally, “look round about”. In all its seven occurrences it is translated in precisely this way.
Next come two related words, theaomai and theoreo. Basically, they both mean “to gaze at a spectacle”. Here is the origin of the English word “theatre”. When the Ephesian mob rushed into the “theatre”, the Greek word is theatron. Its other occurrence is in 1Co 4:9: “we (apostles) are made a spectacle unto the world”. Cp also the use of the verb theatrizomai in Heb 10:33: “Ye were made a gazingstock both by reproaches and afflictions.”
All the occurrences of theaomai and theoreo are worth tracking down. In one after another there is the idea of staring intently at something of special interest or unusual character. “Which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of Life” (1Jo 1:1) — here is an allusion to disciples staring at Christ crucified, and handling him risen from the dead. At the trial of the adulterous woman, Jesus stared when he found that all her accusers had gone (John 8:10). Before the Lord called Levi the publican, he stood for a while and watched him at his work (Luk 5:27). “Now consider (take a good look at the circumstances regarding) how great this man, Melchizedek, was…” (Heb 7:4). The natives of Malta stared in amazement when Paul suffered no harm from snake bite (Acts 28:6). There are many more such examples.
There is also another specialised meaning of these two words in classical Greek, and this creeps into NT usage here and there — it is the idea of an official deputation to inspect the Greek games or to make enquiry at an oracle. Neither of these is to be expected in the NT, yet something reMarably close is to be traced in certain passages.
The use of theoreo in Mat 28:1 suggests that the women went to “see the sepulchre” of Jesus by formal arrangement with the disciples. The same word in John 12:19, “Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing?”, probably implies that the Pharisees at the triumphal entry of Jesus were officially deputed to keep an eye on him. Similarly, Luk recounts how the chief priests “saw the boldness of Peter and John” (Acts 4:13), the emphasis is on the fact that it was an official enquiry (so also in 3:16). “What went ye out into the wilderness for to see?” challenged Jesus concerning the investigation about John the Baptist. Again the word is precisely right, referring to an official deputation.
In the parable of the wedding garment, “the king came in to see the guests” (Mat 22:11). Here once more is the idea of an official inspection (and it foreshadows the day of judgement). Similarly Paul when he wrote to the Romans: “I trust to see you in my journey” (Rom 15:24). When Paul’s adversaries “saw him in the temple” and raised a riot, the word implies that they had been posted there officially for that very purpose.
The two related but distinct meanings of these words can make a detailed concordance study really fruitful.
Anatheoreo, in Acts 17:23, intensifies the idea of Paul’s staring (in disgust, indignation, pity?) at the altars of Athens, or, in Heb 13:7, of sustained contemplation of the fine example set by good men.
Another very common word for “see” is horao, with its related optomai from which comes our “optic”. The first and obvious meaning here is that of seeing with the naked eye. This is so simple and straightforward that it hardly needs to be illustrated. But this word is appropriated very often in the NT to describe the seeing of a vision granted by God. In an astonishing number of instances there is a divine element about the experience. In John’s writings there is no exception to this.
Out of sixty passages, there are (it is believed) only four which do not obviously have this specialised meaning. The following three are worth further scrutiny.
Gallio contemptuously chasing Paul’s Jewish adversaries from his judgement seat: “If it be a question of words and names and of your law, see ye to it, for I will be no judge of such matters” (Acts 18:15). Gallio was cleverly and sarcastically telling them: ‘This is beyond me; go and get a divine revelation about this question.’
When Paul was bidding farewell to the elders at Ephesus: “…and now I know that ye shall see my face no more” (Acts 20:25).
Heb 13:23: “Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom if he come shortly, I will see you.” What a neat way of implying: ‘Your visit, with him, will be as good a tonic as an angelic visitation.’
Two other seeming exceptions to the usual meaning of “divine vision” meet the reader in Matthew 27. Pilate washed his hands of further decision about the Nazarene. The AV: “see ye (to it)” would imply again the same idea. But the literal reading is: “ye shall see,” surely implying: ‘You, and not I, will have to face a divine judgment for this’ (v 24). And the same idea, sardonically expressed, is probably there in v 4 also.
According to instructions, the three disciples who witnessed the Transfiguration “told no man any of those things which they had seen” (Luk 9:36). The same word describes the shipmasters and the rest seeing the smoke of the burning of “Babylon” (Rev 18:18) — appropriately because the judgement is from God (17:17). “Ye see,” says Jam concerning Abraham’s offering of Isaac, because he has been directing attention to the inspired record (Jam 2:24). So also Heb 8:5: “See…that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed thee in the mount” — again the word has been well chosen.
There is also the fairly obvious use of this word where physical sight is not involved. “Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees” (Mat 16:6). “See that none render evil for evil” (1Th. 5:15). Paul refers to “as many as have not seen my face” at Colosse (2:1).
Ephorao (Luk 1:25; Acts 4:29) also has the idea of divine vision, only in each of these cases it is God who does the beholding: “The Lord hath looked on me (said Elizabeth), to take away my reproach” (Luk 1:25). And the disciples prayed: “Lord, behold their threatenings” (Acts 4:29).
Linguistically akin to this word is epopteuo and its noun epoptes. Classically, these two may refer to an official investigator or, very differently, to one who is initiated into the secret meaning of the Greek mysteries. Both usages operate in the NT Peter twice refers to the official adversaries of the gospel — Roman governors, or pagan husbands — “beholding” the “good works” and “chaste behaviour” of the believers (1Pe 2:12; 3:2). But Peter also declares how he and Jam and John “were eyewitnesses of the Lord’s majesty” in that most sacred mystery of the Transfiguration (2Pe 1:16).
With a different prefix, pro-orao signifies a seeing beforehand: “I foresaw the Lord always before my face” (Acts 2:25). So also in Acts 21:29.
The intensified form of the word kathorao comes only once with reference to “the invisible things (of God) being clearly seen” (Rom 1:20). This passage is usually understood as referring to ignorant Gentiles deducing the character and attributes of God from what they can appreciate of His works in nature. Actually the words have nothing to do with this, but the details are too complex for exposition here. Certainly the gist of the passage has not been “clearly seen” by the learned commentators, and they have a Bible as well as nature to help them out (see “Bible Studies”, ch. 13.02).
Pro-eideo has the same meaning: “The scripture foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith preached beforehand the gospel unto Abraham” (Gal 3:8). (Cp also Acts 2:31.)
Another extremely common word for “see” is eido, which through Latin has become the ancestor of “visible”, though the derivation is almost invisible. Eido is peculiar in having no present active form, so horao does duty for it instead. Thus the usage of the two words goes in step. Yet another peculiarity is that the perfect tense oida has shifted in meaning from “I have seen” to “I know (because I have seen, with the eye or mentally)”. This is really a separate study.
Special mention must be made of ide and idou, two imperative forms of eideo. These are nearly always translated “Behold!” or “Lo!” (which in archaic English was originally “Loke!”). In the gospels these words are signposts signalling either a most surprising situation or one which calls especially for the reader’s attention. Matthew uses them all over the place as he recaptures the startling character of the words and miracles of his Lord. But John has little use for them until he comes to write Revelation, and then he cannot do without idou.
Next on the list is skopeo, which, as its use in microscope and telescope implies, emphasizes the notion of careful scrutiny. In the field of personal relationships it is equivalent to “keep your eye on So-and-So.”
The first object of this exercise is self: “Take heed therefore that the light that is in thee be not darkness” (Luk 11:35). “Considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted” (Gal 6:1). And yet Phi 2:4 seems to say the opposite: “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.” But of course here Paul is deprecating a selfish concern for one’s own affairs. The apostle has another implied warning against such a worldly spirit: “We look (skopeo) not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen (blepo) are temporal” (2Co 4:18).
But there are certain others whom it is necessary to keep an eye on: “Mar them which cause divisions” (Rom 16:17). Why didn’t Paul say: ‘Withdraw fellowship, and then you won’t need to worry about them any more’?
In much pleasanter tone he also exhorts: “Be followers together of me, and mark them which so walk” (Phi 3:17). Brethren are to be scrutinized not as an excellent field for criticism but when it is evident that they set an admirable example. Indeed, they are to be “kept an eye on” as a target to aim at, a spiritual example to emulate. Paul, making reference to the Greek games, uses skopos in a similar fashion: “I press toward the Mar for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phi 3:14).
Episkopeo, more emphatic, means “scrutinize carefully”, as in Heb 12:15: “Looking carefully lest any man (self, or others?) fall short of the grace of God”. It probably means taking good care of those who waver in the Faith.
A small problem arises from the solitary use of historeo in Gal 1:18: “After three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter.” The well-established classical meaning of historeo is “to make inquiry”. But what about? About Peter’s attitude to the preaching of the gospel to Gentiles? About Paul’s own good standing with the leaders of the church? It is difficult to be sure. Some commentators sidestep the issue by citing examples from Josephus and Clement of Rome to show that the word might mean just “visit”. But it is difficult to believe that Paul would make that long journey to Jerusalem just for the sake of a friendly visit. The context suggests one of the two answers just mentioned.
Another solo occurrence is that of muopazo: “He that lacketh these things (a grasp of the ‘exceeding great and precious promises’, v 4) is blind and cannot see afar off” (2Pe 1:9). The Greek word is the English “myopic”, short-sighted. Obviously the meaning is: lacking spiritual discernment. How experience confirms this! One of the best tokens of spiritual maturity is a deep appreciation of the covenants of promise, and their future fulfilment.
There remains for consideration the one occurrence of katoptrizo: “We all with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord the Spirit” (2Co 3:18). A katoptron is a mirror. The only Biblical use of this word is about the mirrors of the tabernacle women being turned into a bronze laver (Exo 38:8, LXX). The RV reading is probably correct: “reflecting as a mirror”. But since your face cannot be reflected if you don’t look into the mirror, the idea of the AV is implied also. The allusion is, of course, to Moses’ face reflecting the glory of the angel who ministered the Law to him in Sinai. That was a fading glory. But we, keeping close to Christ, reflect his glory in a way which grows and intensifies with time and experience — “from glory to glory”.
Parakupto is really a very vivid word. It conveys the idea of stooping down in order to peer closely at something of absorbing interest. It is used of both Mary Magdalene and the apostle John “stooping” to look into the tomb of Jesus. And with this still vivid in his mind, Peter, writing of the sufferings and glory of Christ, declares “which things angels desire to look into”. The hymn is not all poetic imagination in the couplet:
“The angel watchers of the skies
Look down with sad and wondering eyes.”
James harnesses the same lovely idea: “But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and so continueth, this man shall be blessed in his deed” (1:25).
What a contrast between these examples, and the use in the LXX of 1Ch 15:29, about “Michal (David’s wife) looking out at a window” and despising her husband’s devotion and exhilaration before the Lord!
Out of nine different Greek words translated “obtain”, there is one — lambano — which has the specific meaning of “to obtain by lot”.
The Roman soldiers cast lots as to who should have the seamless robe of Jesus (John 19:24).
Zacharias, father of John the Baptist, found, as the result of the casting of lots, that to him would fall the honour of burning incense before the Lord at the time of the morning sacrifice (Luk 1:9). Apparently there were so many priests available for this coveted office that decision for each day was by lot.
The same word is used about Judas: “he obtained part of this (apostolic) ministry”, declared Peter (Acts 1:17). Here the word seems to imply that the office of treasurer was decided by lot.
Peter also implies, apparently, that the call of the gospel, which certainly does not come to all men, is decided likewise by the will and choice of God. There is nothing haphazard about the way the gospel comes into a man’s life. Hence Peter’s description of his fellow-believers as “them that have obtained like precious faith with us (apostles)” (2Pe 1:1).
Nikao means, quite simply, achieving a victory. In the NT almost all the 27 occurrences speak of a moral victory. “Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good” (Rom 12:21). And the repeated promise in Revelation, “To him that overcometh”, clearly has nothing to do with physical fighting. The same stands true in such OT passages as: “that Thou mightest be justified (LXX: might overcome) when thou judgest” (Psa 51:4; the Greek M.V in Rom 3:4 should not be read as a passive).
One reMarable exception presents itself — if indeed it is an exception. “These (the Beast and his ten kings) shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them” (Rev 17:14). Is it a moral victory that is spoken of here, achieved without any violence? And if so, how? Or does the context (“make war”) require that this be read as an exception to the general NT usage?