Between my junior and senior years of high school, I served on a fire crew for the Washington State Department of Natural Resources. When we were not fighting fires, we cleared fire roads that were impassible. I assisted a civil engineer in traverse surveying to find landmarks for locating old fire roads. These landmarks had been established decades earlier but over time were lost. We were not there to move them.

Landmarks are mentioned in the Old Testament. Before entering the land, God commanded:

“You shall not move your neighbor’s boundary mark, which the ancestors have set, in your inheritance which you shall inherit in the land that the Lord your God gives you to possess.” (Deut 19:14)

Once in the promised land, boundaries became essential for tribes and families to live in peace. However, approximately 722 years later, following the division of the north and south, Hosea the prophet condemned the practice of moving landmarks. (Hosea 5:10) Several times God warned both northern and southern kingdoms against this practice. Microsoft Copilot suggests “symbolic landmarks: Covenant, moral, religious, judicial, political, social boundaries” were moved. The destruction of both the north and south was partly due to their proclivity to moving these landmarks.

When asked the question: “When and why did God remove His word from Israel and Judah?” Microsoft Copilot answered:

Scripture teaches that God “removed His word” from Israel and Judah gradually, purposefully, and as judgment, when the people rejected His covenant, despised His prophets, and hardened themselves against His revelation. The Bible itself explains when, why, and how this happened.

Here is Copilot’s short list:

1. 1. Removing prophetic revelation — no more prophets sent (Amos 8:11–12).
   2. Removing His presence from the temple — the glory departs (Ezekiel 10–11).
   3. Removing His covenant protection — allowing judgment (2 Kings 17; 2 Kings 25).

For believers, the Bible presents landmarks set by God. Here are applicable references to God’s Word in the Old Testament: Deut 4:2; 12:32; Prov 30:5–6; Ps 19:7-11; Psa 119, and in the New Testament: Eph 2:20–21; 1 Tim 5:18a; 2 Tim 3:16; Th 2:13; Heb 1:1-2; 2 Peter 3:14–18; Jude 3; Rev 22:18. The abiding principles, landmarks, from the Bible must not be moved

Bible interpreters give us clues regarding these landmarks, but over time the landmarks become obscured by cultural changes. Each generation needs to reestablish and build upon legitimate existing landmarks, not move them. Today, biblical landmarks continue to be moved. This is why scholarly research of the original texts of Scripture is important. John’s prologue to his gospel account provides assurance that God’s landmarks will never be removed because we have the ultimate landmark, the Incarnate Word (Jn 1:1-18).

Doctrinal Statements of a local church are not the landmarks. They only state how the current generation of believers interprets the biblical landmarks. These doctrinal statements are important because they allow us to fellowship together with others of like faith and practice.

In last week’s blog, we considered the term meek, prautes in the Greek. In its New Testament contexts, it is the opposite of the modern concept of meekness. Most newer translations translate it as gentle. Israel was promised that “Messiah the Prince” (Dan 9:25) would ride into Jerusalem with gentleness (paus – the noun form) on a beast of burden rather than on a war horse (Zech 9:9). Matthew recalls this quotation to explain the instuctions Jesus gave to his disciples (Matt 21:5). The connotation of this term describes the inward attitude of a believer toward others in difficult situations. Another term translated gentle is epieikes. We lose a valuable lesson when we fail to see the distinction between prautes and epieikes, or gloss over this distinction.

Epieikes occurs five times in the New Testament (epi, upon, and eikos, reasonableness. Eikos occurred frequently in secular conversations but never in the New Testament). One word study source suggests the implication regarding eikos, “. . .eikos (‘to yield’), ‘mildness’ in the sense of not insisting on the letter of the law in a given case (Kittle vol. 2, p. 588).”

The two terms, prautes and epieikes, often occur together but always in the context of difficult circumstances. The first refers to one’s attitude; the second to one’s behavior toward the situation or persons. Note the following:

Comparing the two terms, prautes and epieikes, the first has to do with attitude, the second with behavior, both in conflict situations. This is important, especially in the present contentious culture in which we live. We can’t do this by fallen human nature, only through the power of the Holy Spirit. In this way, looking back on how we performed in conflict, we can tell whether we were responding in the flesh or through the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit. This is God’s way of letting us know whether we are walking in the Spirit. If we did not respond appropriately, it is time to ask for forgiveness.

Caspar Milquetoast was a comic book character created by H.T. Webster in 1924. Over time, he was known as Johnny Milk Toast. The title of the comic strip was “The Timid Soul.” Microsoft Copilot describes Milquetoast as “A timid, meek, unassertive person.”

Older translations interpret the Greek term prautes as meek; newer translations use different terms because meek connotes weakness. This characterization persists regarding Christians. A good response is, “You try being a Christian.”

The Greek term, prautes, occurs eleven times in the New Testament, always referring to behavior toward others. It is one of the characteristics listed in the fruit of the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal 5:23). In the same context, it is how spiritual Christians should treat “a man caught in any trespass” (Gal 6:1).

Paul, calling out bad behavior in the church at Corinth, sent individuals with stern letters of correction. He warned:

“What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness (prautes) (1 Cor 4:21)?”

When Paul left Titus in Crete, he was to correct “many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers” (Titus 1:10). “They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny Him, being detestable and disobedient, and worthless for any good deed” (Titus 1:16).

The correction involved:

Remind them to be subject to rulers, to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good deed, to malign no one, to be uncontentious, gentle (prautes), showing every consideration for all men (Titus 3:1-2).

When writing the encyclical to the churches in Asia Minor, Paul wrote:

I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, entreat you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness (prautes), with patience, showing forbearance to one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph 4:1-3).

To Churches in the Lycus Valley, he wrote:

And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness (prautes), and patience, bearing with one another, and forgiving each other (Col 3:12-15).

To his young protégé he wrote:

And the Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness (prautes) correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 2:24-25).

James exhorts, “in humility (prautes) (Jas 1:21) receive the word implanted.” Again, wisdom is gentle (prautes) (Jas 3:13). Peter instructed believers to be ready to defend the faith with “gentleness (prautes) (1 Pe 3:15).”

My interpretation of prautes is:

“An outward gentleness based upon an inner strength that comes from being controlled by the Holy Spirit and being at peace with God and what He is doing in my life.” (DJB)

When studying the Scriptures, the focus is usually on the authors or main characters. However, we can learn a lot by studying some notable individuals who were not the authors or main characters. Titus, for example, seems to be a burly type who could correct unruly individuals in the church in Crete. Or Apollos, who was eloquent in speech but refused to go to Corinth when asked. Another was Demas, identified as a fellow worker, but who abandoned Paul when the ministry was difficult. There are too many notables to count on this short blog. But one stands out as a F.A.T. man, Faithful-Available-Teachable. Microsoft Copilot attributes this acronym to NBA coach Pat Riley. The notable person was Timothy.

When Paul first met Timothy, he was already proven to be Teachable. There is significant documentation throughout Paul’s writings that he continued to be a learner, i.e., a disciple. He was Available. Timothy was Paul’s choice envoy sent to at least six churches for one purpose or another. He was not always successful, but he was always available. Then there is the time Paul sent Timothy to Philippi, where we learn how trustworthy Paul considered Timothy to be when he wrote:

But I hope in the Lord Jesus to send Timothy to you shortly, so that I also may be encouraged when I learn of your condition. For I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned for your welfare. (Phil 2:19-21)

Time and again, Paul trusted Timothy to be his representative and the servant of the Lord Jesus Christ who would do whatever needed to be done when Paul could not go personally. Paul notes:

But you know of his proven worth that he served with me in the furtherance of the gospel like a child serving his father. (Phil 2:22)

Paul considered Timothy to be one of a kind. Notice the characteristics Paul found useful in this young man. First, he had a “kindred spirit.” The Greek term is isopsuchos. It consists of two terms, isos, equal, and psuche, soul. This strengthens the negative, “no one,” with the positive “of like soul.” When we define soul as a person’s driving force—his deepest interests, aspirations, and God-given purpose—we see a stark contrast with Demas, who “loved this present world.” (2 Tim 4:10)

Second, Paul states that this driving force was not put on, selfish, or in any way self-serving. This was his true character. The Greek term translated “genuinely be concerned” is gnesios, i.e., natural, by nature. Too often, individuals in ministry focus on what they can get out of it, seeking ways to get ahead.

Third, Paul expressed his expectations of what Timothy would do when he arrived at Philippi. The Greek term is merimnao, translated “be concerned.” Strong’s Concordance suggests “the idea of distraction” from the root “to divide.” Timothy would focus all his attention on meeting the needs of the local body of believers at Phillipi.

Are you a F.A.T. Christian?

When studying soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, there are three aspects to salvation:

1. Saved from the past guilt of sin,

2. Saved from the present power of sin,

3. Saved from the future presence of sin.

In the Americanization of the gospel, greater emphasis is placed on #1 and #3 and less on #2. Yet #1 and #3 are provided by God. Jesus made this clear when He said: “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.” (John 6:29)

Number 2 is our task. In past blogs, we have seen this as soul-salvation, the process of applying “the implanted Word” (Jas 1:10), “the Word of God” that is “sharper than any two-edged sword” (Heb 4:12). This process involves changing our minds about ourselves and, in turn, changing our behavior in the light of God’s Word. (cf. Rom 6:1-23) Not just mouthing a verse we have memorized:

“Therefore if any man is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come.” (2 Cor 5:17)

When our first child was born, I did not know I wasn’t supposed to go into the delivery room of that hospital. When no one was looking, I went in to pray over her. In soteriology, concentrating on salvations #1 and #3 and omitting #2 would be like leaving my child on the delivery table until I stand at her grave. This might seem excessively crude, but it is far more serious than crude. It is the foremost task of the Church: teaching believers so “that we may present every man complete in Christ.” Teaching how to put on the new man (cf. Eph 4:22; Col 3:8-17; 2 Pe 1:14). Notice that in Romans 6:23, Paul wrote regarding soul-salvation: “the wages of sin is death.” Compare the entire context.

The title of this blog is “Conform, Reform, Transform” to bring home what it means to be “complete in Christ.” In Rom 12:2, Paul wrote:

“And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

The term translated “conformed” is suschematizo – (sun, together with schema, pattern) Present Passive Imperative. To become like the world. The passive voice suggests that conforming to this world (aion, the characteristics of an age) requires no effort on our part. Society does a good job of producing the products of the culture in which we live. On the other hand, reformed does not define the process of soul-salvation because it is like putting new, clean clothes over dirty, soiled underwear.

Transformation (metamorphoo) refers to a complete change of our mind and behavior. We cannot change culture. As young people say today, “It is what it is.” We cannot mask old habits and attitudes with a smile. Transformation requires rethinking everything. Changing our minds and behavior requires time, effort, and study.

A common bumper sticker begins “Happiness is…” followed by the driver’s favorite activity or object. The term was avoided in most of the older translations of the New Testament. As translations and paraphrases have sought to be more acceptable to modern culture, the term “happiness” appears more often. The older translations used the term joy.

When asked, “What translations use the term happiness the most?” Microsoft Copilot gives the answer:

Among major English Bible translations, the ones that use the word “happiness” the most are the modern, readability‑focused versions (NLT, NIV, CSB, NCV, GNT). More formal translations (KJV, ESV, NASB) rarely use the word “happiness” and prefer “blessed,” “joy,” or “gladness.”

So, what is the difference between happiness and joy? Microsoft Copilot defines happiness as:

. . . a blend of positive emotion and meaningful life satisfaction—a state of well‑being that can be momentary or enduring, shaped by pleasure, purpose, relationships, and personal values.

Copilot defines joy as:

. . . the deep, settled gladness that arises from recognizing and participating in God’s grace, empowered by the Holy Spirit, and resilient in trials. It is not emotional positivity but a theological reality: grace recognized becomes joy experienced.

The Greek noun translated as “joy” is chara. The verb translated as “rejoice” is chairo. The first occurrence of both chara and chairo is in John’s gospel account when the Jews attempted to sow discord between John the Baptist and Jesus (Jn 3:29). The writer sets the stage for the meaning of joy in the remainder of his gospel account when he quotes the Baptist, “He must increase, but I must decrease.” (3:30)

In chapter 4:36, Jesus uses the parable of a sower and reaper rejoicing together. In chapter 8:56, Jesus adds the element of expectation to the concept of joy when He states that Abraham rejoiced upon hearing the promise of the coming Messiah. In 11:15, Jesus made the surprising statement that He was glad Lazarus died. Then He explained that it was an opportunity to help them believe. In 14:28, Jesus gives a gentle rebuke to His disciples who expressed sorrow instead of rejoicing when told of His impending death. In 16:20-22, Jesus promised that their sorrow would soon be turned to rejoicing. In 20:20, the subsequent rejoicing was seeing the crucified, risen Lord Jesus Christ.

A review of all the occurrences of chara in John’s gospel account supports the meaning of biblical joy as finding its origin in the grace (charis) of God. Its first occurrence is 3:29. In 15:11 it occurs twice. The context is the metaphor of Jesus as the true vine. Genuine joy comes from abiding in our Lord Jesus Christ and through Him enjoying our relationship to God His Father, and ours. In 17:13, joy is abiding

Happiness, by definition, comes from events, things, and people in this life. Happiness is temporary. Abiding joy is present tense and permanent. It is the mark of all who are genuinely born of God.

Do you have abiding joy?

As we gather this week to celebrate the 250^th anniversary of the United States, we are witnessing the rise of many who seem not to know or understand why this annual celebration is important. While historians record a few nations with aspirations similar to ours, none fully compare with it. The single most important objective, universal freedom and equality, is missing from all other governments that existed prior to the United States.

While the term “patriot” is not found until the 15th and 16^th centuries, the concept developed over millennia. It finds its roots in the Greek term pater (“father”) and patris (“fatherland”) (Microsoft Copilot).

The term “citizen” (NASB) translates the Greek term politēs (four occurrences). Not surprisingly, given its origin, the root meaning is polis, a Greek city-state. This is where Luke locates Paul in his sermon on Mars Hill (Acts 17:16-31). When Paul entered Athens in about AD 51, 80 years had elapsed since the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. He was keenly aware of the importance of patriotism and citizenship to his audience.

Paul does not use the term “citizen” in Acts 17, but does later in Acts 21 & 22. In Lk 15:15, Jesus taught the parable of “the Prodigal Son.” The prodigal was in a country where he was not a citizen. The term occurs again in Lk 19:14, demonstrating the concept of being of one country but not of another was clearly defined by New Testament times.

Paul was building on the current foundation of citizenship among the nations when he preached his sermon on Mars Hill. The concept of universal freedom and equality took another 6 centuries to develop as a theological dogma by Pope Gregory the Great and 1,200 years more to become a political reality in the Declaration of Independence. (Microsoft Copilot)

When the New Testament was written, the world was in political, theological, and moral upheaval. Paul’s audience debated the philosophies underpinning human government. But one overarching principle was lacking: God’s superintendence over human government.

This concept from Paul was not new. Solomon, writing nearly a millennium before, wrote:

The king’s heart is like channels of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes. (Prov 21:1)

What was lacking was belief in and an understanding of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Christ Jesus. This was apparent from their idol dedicated TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. While generations and nations could claim ignorance of God, none will be excused from the guilt of ignoring Him and His revelation.

The debate continues to rage in our day. Paul concluded with this outstanding and abiding truth:

“Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30-31)

This past week, a politician was asked to define hope. The word salad that followed was almost unintelligible. For those who have put their trust in Christ, hope is that which is certain to come to pass. (DJB)

The addressees of the Book of Hebrews suffered years earlier in life. Once again, persecution was increasing. Some Jewish Christians were considering going back to the old-time religion, thinking they might be spared this suffering for their faith.

Chapter 10:32 begins with an appeal to remember past suffering and personal victories. He reminds them of their willingness to endure suffering based upon the Old Testament promise of a Deliverer. His readers were not like those who shrink back, but they are those who have faith to the preserving of the soul (10:39).

Note that the negative in the first phrase of verse 10:39 is ouk, an absolute negative, not mē, a conditional negative. They were [absolutely] not of those…, but of those. Chapter 10 ends with a declaration of the kind of faith to which he is referring.

In James 1:21, James refers to soul-salvation. Here in Hebrews 10:39, reference is to soul-preservation. Soul-salvation refers to progressive sanctification. It is iterative, forming a pattern of behavior under the sun as believers receive the implanted Word and become more like Christ. Soul-preservation views our present life under the sun as a whole. It is a restatement of 10:38, But My righteous one shall live by faith, referring to a quality of life.

Chapter 11 is filled with examples of individuals who were saved by this same faith. At 11:6, he picks up the theme of God’s pleasure in past generations of His righteous ones.

And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (cf. Heb10:38 w. 11:6-7)

Chapter 11 reminds his readers of many who believed in God and His promise without seeing its fruition. God revealed His plan under the sun progressively; there were momentary victories, but not the ultimate fulfillment. However, the message was always the same. His promise was fulfilled in Christ Jesus.

Believing something doesn’t make it true. Believing in the divine nature and character of the One who promised does. The phrase “by faith” occurs 24 times in chapter 11. In 23 of those occurrences, faith is anarthrous, meaning there is no article. It emphasizes the quality of the faith in question. The last occurrence uses the definite article to refer to the previous 23.

Chapter 11 ends with:

And all these, having gained approval through the faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect. (Heb 11:39-40)

We can trust that this quality of faith will preserve us until God’s purpose for us is accomplished. We live by the faith that preserves the soul.

When approaching the subject of biblical love, we need to separate it as much as possible from cultural love. There is little resemblance between the two. John was uniquely qualified to define biblical love from his personal relationship with Jesus. It is no oversight that John never identified himself other than “His disciple whom Jesus loved.” (cf. v.13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20).

Observing the occurrences of the terms, notice the pattern. The verb agapao occurs 37 times in 27 verses; the noun agape, 7 times in 6 verses. Neither agapao nor phileo is mixed with other terms in John’s gospel account. Therefore, we can use his account to define biblical love. John begins with God’s agapao (Jn 3:16) and ends with Peter’s phileo (Jn 21:17). Biblical love has two facets, neither of which involves physical attraction (cf. Isa 53:2) nor an overwhelming or uncontrollable passion. This would be the noun epithumia and the verb epithumeo. Such urges are of the devil (Jn 8:44).

In Jn 11:3,  John provides an illustration of what follows in chapters 12-17 and culminates in chapter 21. Lazarus was sick. The human response to a sick and dying loved one is to appeal based on phileo. But Jesus did not respond. He waited four days and let Lazarus die. This doesn’t comport with love today. This is why John, led by the Holy Spirit, tells us that Jesus agapao all three (11:5). This is underscored in 13:1b, “having loved His own who were in the world, He loved them to the end.”

Chapter 12 begins the last week of Jesus’ life with a private dinner with His disciples. The difference between the actions of Mary and those of Judas Iscariot could not be starker. Even some who believed loved the approval of men rather than the approval of God (12:43). John 13:34-35 is not about attraction or affection. Agape and philia cannot be separated without negatively altering either or both. Biblical love can and must be distinguished from the love of the world. How will the world know that we are followers of the Lord Jesus Christ if we are unbalanced in either direction? Genuine biblical love is obedience (agapao, 14:15-31) and affection (philia).

We must not skip over phileo prior to chapter 21. Note 15:19 & 16:27. In 15:19 we have phileo without agape. In 16:27, we have God the Father loving (phileo) the believer because the believer loves (phileo) the Son. This is the only place God the Father is said to love (phileo) the believer, even though in other places we read that He loves mankind. The result of this affection for the Son answers why believers understand the Scriptures and unbelievers do not (cf. 14:21-22 w. 16:13-15). From this, I draw the abiding principle that a major part of philia/phileo is self-disclosure. If only this was being taught to teenagers today. Genuine biblical love is perverted when mixed with current culture, and/or the two facets of biblical love are separated.

What causes you to lose sleep at night? Many of us have reached an age when we expected to live a peaceful, quiet life doing what we have worked hard to afford. If, earlier in life, we had a habit of worrying, we may find that retirement has merely replaced past anxieties with present anxieties. Maybe we never learned the lessons of Philippians 4:4-20. We have heard many sermons on this passage and studied it in depth ourselves. Yet we still find ourselves distressed about “matters of this life” (NASB, GK biotikos; cf. Lk 21:34; 1 Cor 6:3-4).

It is interesting that Jesus, in Luke 21:34, associates “matters of this life” (biotikos) with díssipation and drunkenness, behavior that wastes life’s precious resources. The Greek term for “anxious” in the NASB (Phil 4:6) comes from the verb merimnao, referring to taking thought for something. In Philippians 4, the context begins with reference to a quarrel among two Christian women who had helped Paul in the past. He described this as sharing in his struggle in the cause of the gospel (sun, together, and athleo, to labor, from which we get our English term, athletics).

One might think that being around and working with Christians would be less stressful and more enjoyable. However, Paul’s exhortation in this letter to the Philippian church would suggest that this is not always the case. Paul had a special bond with the fellowship of these believers. When he was driven out of the city on his second missionary journey, they sent gifts to help him at Thessalonica. Then during his Roman imprisonment ten years later they sent material assistance again.

During his travels, Paul expressed his “daily concern (noun, mermna) for the churches” (2 Cor 11:28). Earlier in this epistle, Paul refers to his plan to send Timothy to Philippi because “I have no one else of kindred spirit who will genuinely be concerned (verb, merimnao) for your welfare” (Phil 2:20).

To those who might want to use the Philippians 4 text to mean all “worry is sin,” think again. This does not correspond to Paul’s use of the term concern. There are occasions and matters about which we should focus our attention and decide what is important and what isn’t. This comes through the power of the Holy Spirit, knowledge and application of the Word of God, and circumstances. The difference lies in understanding the distinction between eustress and distress.

Microsoft Copilot provides the difference as:

Eustress is positive, motivating stress that enhances performance.
Distress is negative, overwhelming stress that impairs functioning.

We need to consider the entire context of Paul’s letter to Philippians. At times it might be a sin not to be anxious.

Here are some abiding principles:

1. Eustress enhances performance.
2. Eustress is concern for others.
3. Eustress should be presented to God in prayer, supplication, and thanksgiving.
4. Eustress means choosing to think what is true, honest, just, pure, and lovely.