kai Exemplar Texts

John 10:10 The Evil Thief and kai

by

John Ch 10 gives us the text known as “The Good Shepherd“. Here we see Jesus as that sole Shepherd guarding, preserving the life of His sheep.

In this post, let us consider what the text tells us of The Lord’s antithesis: “The Evil Thief.”

10:1  “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door but climbs in by another way, that man is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the gatekeeper opens. The sheep hear his voice, and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 When he has brought out all his own, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 A stranger they will not follow, but they will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.” 6 This figure of speech Jesus used with them, but they did not understand what he was saying to them. 

7 So Jesus again said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, I am the door of the sheep. 8 All who came before me are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them. 9 I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture. 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. 11 I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. 12 He who is a hired hand and not a shepherd, who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees, and the wolf snatches them and scatters them. 13 He flees because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:1-15, ESV (highlights mine)

The Thief kai Robber

Three times, as highlight in bold above, the easily overlooked phrase “Thief and Robber” occurs. In each instance the word translated “and” is our Koine word “kai.” As discussed elsewhere such use of kai can, and often does, signify a flow from A to B, here Thief to Robber. The Koine kai is most-often translated as shown here by “and.” However, it is translated by multiple other connecting words in various context such as even, but, also, and sometimes left out, untranslated.

This frame of this website as to kai has two elements: First, at each occurrence of kai, we pause and consider it as a hinge word that conveys a meaningful relationship. Greek grammars locate kai in a category known as connectives, such as however, but, also. Here we consider kai as a particular sub-type of the category of connectives, here termed hinge, because it has a distinctive range of connective roles, as has been and continues to be discussed.

Often kai can be interpreted to convey the idea of unto. In older English expressions kai could be well translated as hereto, heretofore, or hereunto. Such translations give us something more than ‘plus,’ as and tends to do. Yet, kai is not freighted with the sense of cause and effect. Its use could be merely a simple additive connector between two independent concepts, like bacon and eggs, cream and sugar, peanut butter and jelly.

Let us in this Good Shepherd passage see if there is something more that we can apprehend than just such additive connection with respect to the anti-Shepherd, the Thief and Robber..

Koine Words for Thief, Robber

“Thief” translates the Koine word kléptēs (Strong’s G2812), which is the root of our English word kleptomaniac, a compulsive thief. Its verb form is kléptō, to steal, or we could say thieve. To kléptō is forbidden as one of the 10 Commandments, weighted in parallel with murder, adultery, lying, dishonoring one’s father and mother (Mark 10:19, Luke 18:20; see also Deut 5:19). So such doing is a serious matter, and such being (a thief) is being condemned by God.

“Robber” is the ESV translation of lēstḗs (Strong’s G3027). A robber, lēstḗs, is distinguished from kléptēs (thief) in an important way: the thief (kléptēs) steals by deception, concealment, subterfuge, cheating; the robber (lēstḗs) also steals but does so by force, compulsion, using even violence and murder.

So the presence of kai connecting kléptēs to lēstḗs can inform us as follows: deception (for the purpose of thievery) is succeeded by a forceful taking. Deception is not the cause of the forceful-taking effect; rather it is the strategy of The Anti-Shepherd to begin pretending that it is a rightful shepherd of the sheepfold. But his end purpose is not just to deceive the sheep, but to take control of the sheep.

Thus, the text in John 10 begins with such construction–kléptēs kai lēstḗs–twice: 10:1 and 10:8. The former is in the singular and the latter in the plural. So Jesus is here teaching that He has come to counter what has and continues to occur, namely vile enemies of the sheep, and of the Owner of the sheep, have come by deception unto to capture the sheep.

This leads then to the questions: who are the sheep, and who are (is) the Thief (Thieves) kai Robber(s)? We will return to these questions after consider the purposes of the Thief

John 10:10 What the Thief Seeks to Do

Before we come to the beautiful passage where Jesus describes Himself as the abundant life-giver and in particular The Good Shepherd, we begin with the third reference to Thief, namely: 10 The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy.

The Thief is again the Koine noun kléptēs. But the ESV translated phrase “to steal” begins with a Koine keyword that conveys purpose, namely what follows is the very purpose of the kléptēs, and the translated word “steal” is the verb form of kléptēs, namely kléptō. English loses something here because we have “thief…steal” whereas the Koine has it clearly “kléptēs…kléptō.” We might think that a thief arrives for some other purpose, even as a honorable one; after all even the most-hardened thieves among us do not steal everything. But the Koine makes the clear implication that kléptēs and kléptō are locked together: a thief steals because it is his very nature to do so, and stealing occurs because the cause of it emanates from the nature to do so. There is nothing opportunistic or inadvertent about the thieving in view in John 10:10. He is purposeful and opposite to that of The Good Shepherd.

The Thief Wants More than Thieving

After “to steal” in John 10:10 above, comes the phrase: and [kai] kill and [kai] destroy, where both occurrences of “and” is our Koine kai. This thief to whom the Lord refers is far more evil than a dishonest man stealing a solitary sheep from the fold and then running for the hills, perhaps out of desperation to feed his children. This thief seeks to obliterate the sheepfold, killing the sheep and destroying the structural framework of the sheepfold itself. Such thief wants the utter ruin of the work of the shepherd, here The Good Shepherd. The thief seeks the ownership and possession of the sheep.

One can further sense that the thief takes delight in dishonoring The Good Shepherd by devastating that of which The Good Shepherd loved and for which caring He was responsible. This thief is the ultimate vandal seeking complete vandalization. He is The Great Evil One.

Who Are The Sheep, and Who are the Thieves / Robbers?

The text of John 10 we have above is (of course) true, but not literal. This text is not about baa-baa, four legged sheep.

The language of sheep and robbers is a literary form known as an allegory. An allegory conveys a meaning by use of an abstract story, a surface story that contains another story hidden within it. (The English word “allegory” derives from the combination of two Greek words that together mean “other-speaking).

Instead of literal sheep and Thieves / Robbers, what is the other-speaking in this passage?

Herein lies the great divide as to the expectations of The Messiah. For the Jewish religion and many, perhaps, most of its adherents, the expectation was for Messiah being their Political / Military / Deliverer. From such frame, the “sheep” would be Israel itself, its religious system, and all true Jews. Who, then, would be the Thief and Robber? It would be, of course, the Roman Government, the then sovereign ruler and occupier force of Israel, its ultimate source of earthly authority, and the entity exacting tribute (taxes and honor) from Israel. Who, then, would correspond to The Good Shepherd? It would, by deduction, be personified by the Jewish Leadership–the priests, scribes and elders–undergirded by The Law, itself expanded by the writings and traditions of the Elders of old and present.

However, such interpretation cannot be supported from this text. The passage in John Ch 10 clearly states one of the seven great “I AM’s” of that Gospel, namely Jesus claiming that He is The Good Shepherd:

14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own and my own know me, 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

John 10:14-15, ESV (highlights mine)

Given that unambiguous claim, who then is the Thief / Robber? Rome? In political terms, as an Empire of occupation, such would be a possible interpretation. As such Rome would be a Thief in the sense of occupier of a land not their own, and a Robber of the prosperity of the land through taxation and corruptive influence.

However, Jesus is not recorded as having castigated either Rome’s Caesar or Caesar’s local authorities. The Jewish Leaders tried to trap Jesus exactly on this point by asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar.

13 And they sent to him some of the Pharisees and some of the Herodians, to trap him in his talk. 14 And they came and said to him, “Teacher, we know that you are true and do not care about anyone’s opinion. For you are not swayed by appearances, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? Should we pay them, or should we not?” 15 But, knowing their hypocrisy, he said to them, “Why put me to the test? Bring me a denarius and let me look at it.”16 And they brought one. And he said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” They said to him, “Caesar’s.” 17 Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they marveled at him.

Mark 12:13-17 ESV (Highlights mine; note particularly vs. 17)

What was “the trap,” and who was the “they” who set it? The trap was to get Jesus on the record speaking against Rome, and thus appealing to the Jewish people including His followers, or to condescend to Rome, and thus offend all Jews. It was giving Jesus two bad options.

More importantly, who was the “they?” If it was the representatives of Rome, such as the tax collectors (aka “publicans”) or its appointed ruler (Herod, or later Pontus Pilate), then the trap was to put Jesus on record that the Jews should rightly be paying their taxes, in full, to Rome, or to being declared a rebel against Rome, a serious offense, even to His being considered a Thief and Robber in the eyes of Rome.

But, the “they” were not from Rome. To find the answer we need to look back to the chapter preceding the above taxes passage, specifically to Mark Ch 11:1 and 11:27-29. In vs 27 we see clearly that it was the trio of chief priests, scribes, and elders of the Jewish religion leadership in Jerusalem who were gravely offended at Jesus having cleansed the Temple of its commercialization of worship.

And, so, shockingly we are led to conclude that Thieves / Robbers were the very leadership of the Jews, including, especially, those directly associated with worship of Yahweh and were (supposedly) the defenders of God’s OT revelation. It was, in our parlance, The Religion Industry (TRI) that had come into history deceiving as a Thief until capturing as a Robber The Lord’s sheep These sheep we come to know in the Gospels and Acts as those who came to faith in the Resurrection and the Gospel of Christ’s which had redeemed them from the curse of the Law, and most-significantly TRI.

Coherence with Scripture

Always, always, the test of any study of a particular–a word, a verse, a paragraph–of the Scriptures must be that it coheres (fits together) with all of the Scriptures, the Bible. God is not a the Source of “confusion / disorder.” Neither are you and I sources of a “private interpretation.”

  • “For where envy and self-seeking [selfish ambition, ESV] exist, 
    confusion [disorder, ESV] and every evil thing [vile practice, ESV]
    are there.”
    (James 3:16; NKJV [ESV])
  • “knowing this first, that no prophecy* of Scripture is of
    any private [someone’s own, ESV] interpretation”
    (2 Peter 1:20; NKJV [ESV])
    • *Where “prophecy” (Strong’s G4394, prophēteía), in this context, can reference “something that any believer may exercise as telling forth God’s Word. This, however, does not make him a prophet (prophḗtēs [4396]) which is used in the NT in a very restrictive sense.” Zodhiates, S. (2000), The Complete Word Study Dictionary, AMG Publishers.
    • Thus, we stand in a very particular place in God’s unfolded Revelation. God used “Prophets” to proclaim His Word perfectively and authoritatively into space-time, which reality He confirmed with the signs of the prophet and by conformance to the whole of Scriptures as then revealed. Upon the completion of Scripture, the Books we have of the NT, there are no such “Prophets” who speak on God’s Authority as to create additional Scripture. None. No not one.
    • And, so, what we do, and what only we can do rightly, is expound from such Scripture that which is contained within, and we do so provisionally, subject to confirmation by the entirely of the completed Revelation of the Scriptures guided in all such matters by the preserving Work of The Holy Spirit. All hearers / readers of any such proclamation (“prophecy” in such specific sense as bounded in the above text) are to be, as the Berean’s were, “examining** the Scriptures…to see if such is these things were so,” that is, true. (Acts 17:11; ESV) ** “Examining” (G350 anakrínō), the emphatic form of accurately, carefully studying a matter to reach a right judgment).

Where, then, can we find such coherence with regard to the above discussion of John 10:10? In many places; below are some exemplars.

Matthew Ch 23

Matt Ch 23, the Lord repeatedly refers to the scribes and Pharisees as “hypocrites,” a clear reference to their deceptions consistent with the root idea behind Thief. Further he accuses them as the sons of murderers (Mt 23:31, 34, 35), a connection to the forceful taking of Robbers. Then in the closing verses of Mt 23:37-39 He embodies such abhorrent hearts and deeds by making reference to “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem the city” (Mt 23:37) and “your house” (23:38), extending the reference to TRI itself.

Genesis Ch 3

Genesis Ch 3, thematically occurring immediately after Creation, we see the Serpent (snake) enter the narrative with the deceitful purpose of causing death itself to enter God’s Creation. We can see also the link between the Serpent (snake) of Gen 3 with the Lord’s referring to TRI representatives in the above Mt 23 passage where he calls them “you serpents, you brood of vipers” (Mt 23:33).

Exodus Ch 32

Exodus Ch 32, begins with Moses delayed on the mountain in direct communication with Yahweh, where such “delay” was the impatience of the people of the Exodus. And, so, we read:

1 When the people saw that Moses delayed to come down from the mountain, the people gathered themselves together to Aaron and said to him, “Up, make us gods who shall go before us. As for this Moses, the man who brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we do not know what has become of him.” 2 So Aaron said to them, “Take off the rings of gold that are in the ears of your wives, your sons, and your daughters, and bring them to me.” 3 So all the people took off the rings of gold that were in their ears and brought them to Aaron. 4 And he received the gold from their hand and fashioned it with a graving tool and made a golden calf. And they said, “These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!”5 When Aaron saw this, he built an altar before it. And Aaron made a proclamation and said, “Tomorrow shall be a feast to the Lord.” 6 And they rose up early the next day and offered burnt offerings and brought peace offerings. And the people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.

Exodus 32:1-6, ESV (highlights mine)

God shows us in this text a hidden story within an outer story. At the very time Moses is receiving directly from God, the Will of God as to worship and behavior, the people are concocting their own form of worship, here emulating what they knew in Egypt but blending it with reference to “the Lord” Whom they knew had by great signs and wonders liberated them from Egypt. When Moses returns from the mountain with the tablets, what he saw violated the very thing he held in his hands. (One can argue that the above text shows the direct violation of each of the first four Commandments, a topic outside our present scope). What is unambiguous is that the people’s hearts lies in the creation of their own religion industry, TRI, and such is diametrically opposed to the true worship of God.

Epistle of Jude

The entirely of Jude’s brief epistle is a warning against the infiltration of the enemy–Thieves and Robbers in our present parallel context–into the true fellowship of believers. Consider this extended passage from Jude:

4 For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ….8 these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority, and blaspheme the glorious ones… 10 But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively. …12  shepherds feeding themselves; waterless clouds, swept along by winds; fruitless trees in late autumn, twice dead, uprooted; 13 wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.

Jude 4-13, excerpted, ESV (highlight mine)

Note the reference to “shepherds,” namely that those “certain people” who “have crept in unnoticed” (the deceitfulness of the Thief) claim a position of authority rejecting the rightful authority of “our only Master and lord, Jesus Christ” (vs 7). And such shepherds are “feeding themselves,” action which is antithetical to a rightful shepherd concerned with feeding the sheep. And such is their perversion of the grace of God (vs. 4).

Epistle of Galatians

The Galatian epistle is concerned with what is known as “the Galatian error.” Such error it the syncretism, the blending together, the alloying, of TRI and The Gospel, the religion of self-salvation and the Good News of Christ’s having redeemed us from the curse of the Law.

Note again, as above, such error occurs by invasion of the sheepfold by deceiving false authorities, as false shepherds seeking after the true sheep. Consider the below text from the Galatian Epistle:

1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

3:1 O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. 2 Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? 4 Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? 5 Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you …10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” 12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.

4:28 Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise. 29 But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now. 30 But what does the Scripture say? “Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman.” 31 So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.

5:1 For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. 2 Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. 3 I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. 4 You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. 5 For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. 6 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. 7 You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? 8 This persuasion is not from him who calls you. 9 A little leaven leavens the whole lump.

6:12 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh who would force you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. 13 For even those who are circumcised do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may boast in your flesh. 14 But far be it from me to boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. 15 For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation. 16 And as for all who walk by this rule, peace and mercy be upon them, and upon the Israel of God.

Galatians 1:6-9; 3:1-5, 10-14; 4:28-31; 5:1-9 ; 6:12-16, ESV (highlights mine)

Grace (to you-all) KAI Peace

by

To the saints and faithful brothers in Christ at Colossae:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father. 

τοῖς ἐν Κολοσσαῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ, 
χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν.

Col 1:2 (ESV and NA27, where such “you” is in the plural)

As highlighted above, χάρις is the Koine word Charis from which we also get “Charity” in the sense of expressed love, commonly translated as Grace. And Peace is the translation of the Koine εἰρήνη (Iray-nayn, from which we get the female name “Irene”). Then in this phrase in addition to our familiar “kai” there is the pronoun ὑμῖν (hue-min) which references the plural form of “you” (as you’al).

KAI Exemplar Used to Hinge Two Key Words

The above shown phrase from Col 1:2–“Grace to you kai Peace“–is the predominant greeting to Believer-Saints in the NT. The exact same phrase in the Koine occurs in 12 additional verses, thus it is given to us in 13 Books of the NT:

  • Rom 1:7
  • 1 Cor 1:3
  • 2 Cor 1:2
  • Gal 1:3
  • Eph 1:2
  • Phil 1:2
  • 1 Thes 1:1
  • 2 Thes 1:2
  • Phile 3
  • 1 Pet 1:2
  • 2 Pet 1:2
  • Rev 1:4

These many occurrences are significant because of their repeated usage but also because they express two of the most-important realities of the NT and the Christian life, Grace and Peace. Such references are distinctive of the NT, and is the default address toward a Christian. (And, so, it would in our day a most-appropriate greeting to a Christian brother / sister).

For these (and other) reasons it is well worth the effort to dig into such simple four-word phrase. Let us not just pass them by without stopping to think, absorb, and experience the wonder of it.

Is “kai” Merely ‘Hingeing’ Two Words?

As discussed elsewhere, the default translation of “kai” is “and” as above in the ESV and likely in every other English translation. And the default experience of reading / hearing “and” is that it conveys a simple “plus,” as with ham and eggs, peanut butter and jelly.

The unfolding premise of this website is that every “kai” deserves a pause to consider whether it indeed is weighted with a deeper meaning. So, in these 13 occurrences, is “kai” only conveying that there are two things (ideas, the nouns of grace and peace) expressed as a both, a simple independent pairing?

Here in this site, our first leaning is to consider “kai” as designating “unto,” “herein,” namely a flowing toward from the first word (or word string), A, toward the next (final) word, B. Such flowing toward is not of cause / effect, for which there is a clear, exact Koine alternative expression. Rather it gives us the idea that B emerges (flows) from A.

So, let us ask, what is the standing of our B (Peace) with respect to A (Grace)?

As is often the case, it is helpful to think back to Gen Ch 3. How serious was the Fall? Was it not the judgement of death, literally dying unto death? And was it not immediately demarcated by expulsion from the Garden out from the immediate presence of God, and further guarded against any attempt to re-enter it by God’s appointed and armed defenders?

What then? Was there any possible resolution, restoration to Gen Ch 2? If so, by what means?

Adam, The First Adam, as Redeemer?

Upon Eve’s deception and Fall, Adam was presented with the very forbidden fruit of her ruin by Eve and then: “she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:6, ESV, where in the LXX the Koine has it that after Eve had eaten both Adam and Eve then ate of the fruit together, as the final “ate” of Gen 3:6 is in the plural).

We know that Eve was deceived but Adam was not: ” 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.” (1 Tim 2:13-14, ESV). As will considered more deeply in a separate writing Adam had before him the ultimate choice of opposites: not eat what God had forbade and remain in his state of sinlessness, or partake with Eve and join her in the fallen state of death.

What could be more dramatic than this? Further as we know from the full unfolding of the Scriptures, Adam (with Eve) was the father of us all, spreading the judgment of death to each one of us. He was our father, and from his being we have been given our individual being, and we bear the dying unto death consequences, every one of us.

What could have spawned Adam to make such a consequentially horrific choice? Was it his overwhelming passion toward Eve? His fear of being alone, as he had been before God’s provision of Eve? Was it the loss of a part of himself (which part God used in some transformative way to create Eve)? “21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man.” (Gen 2:21-22, ESV; “rib” is the common translation, and an unfortunate choice, but it requires an explanation beyond our present context)

If we focus on the moment preceding Adam’s choice to eat, prior to his departure from his moral standing to be in the presence of God, what would his motivating impulse have been–would it not?–have been seeking to make something good our what had become something deadly bad right before him, bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh? Does it then seem most-reasonable that Adam would have submitted himself to join in Eve’s judgment to be with her as her with the intended aspiration to be–if at all possible–to become both her and his own, rescuer / restorer.

Did he think it was possible? Was it just a bare hope? Did he not fully grasp the consequences of what had occurred? Did he reason that if he could not be their restorer of this great evil, he would as a self-choosing judgment-of-justice to perish with Eve given that he had not protected her from the Serpent’s power of deception?

Adam, nor any descendent of Adam (or Eve), the Scriptures and reason show could not rescue / restore / save another fallen being, nor even save himself. Adam as mortal, and fallen, would not, could not, reverse the irreversible. Time, and the choosing that had been made, could not be reversed, not be undone. No restoration to what was could ever be would ever be humanly possible. There was no route, no work, no repentance, that could open that gate to Eden. Adam and Eve never received another word from God upon the closing of the gate based on the only record we have of the post-Exile period in Gen Ch 4 and following.

Can Time, and Its Consequences, Ever Be Reversed?

Our interest here is not of the wisdom of secular philosophers, even those ancient and wise. But there are postulates sometimes expressed that capture the essence of our deepest Spiritual mysteries. And such is the below claim of an ancient playwright:

This alone is denied to god: the power to undo the past.

Agathon (445 – 400 B.C.), Greek playwright

Agathon was immersed in a polytheistic Greek culture of mythically powerful ‘gods’ and ‘goddesses’ who intervened in human affairs. His pithy claim was to express the boundary on even the pantheon of such all powerful ‘gods,’ namely that what came into existence was irreversible.

A really deep question is whether Agathon was correct if one applies it to The One True God? What the Scriptures reveal in an astonishing revelation that God Himself–The Logos of John Ch 1–became truly human, but born without sin directly by the Spirit of God joined / acting upon an NT woman (Mary). This One, and only this One, was able to “undo the past” as to its otherwise eternal consequence by becoming the Substitute, the Second Adam:

12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death [!] through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace [Charis] of God and the free gift by the grace [Charis] of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. 16 And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift [Charis] following many trespasses brought justification. 17 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life [LIFE! Koine: zoe] through the one man Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life [LIFE! Koine: zoe] for all men. 19 For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, as sin reigned in death, grace [Charis] also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life [LIFE! Koine: zoe] through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Rom 5:12-21 (ESV; highlights mine)

We cannot delay here though the above passage from Romans deserves a book of exposition itself. Our essential point is that neither Adam nor any human successor was capable of the restoration of life. It required the Unique One as our Substitute. And such occurred not because of the dealmaking or merit of the recipients but of Grace and Grace Alone. Such Great Gift was, is, and will always be “free” to us, but at unimaginable cost to God Himself. Agathon’s claim has been overturned in the most material and marvelous way, that of God’s Work of Grace.

Grace Hence Peace

The keyword Peace designates our great longing even in family, community, and social contexts, but especially, predominantly, with respect to our Creator God. Peace is the undoing of the sentence of death under which we have each been humanly conceived and individually affirmed by our self-will. Peace is again being in the Garden of God’s favor and presence, though not yet fully so. There is the old man and its nature that must yet experience the death we earned from Adam and ourselves. The Peace is the unearned by great reality of our present state, and it flowed from Grace.

Grace was initiated by God Himself. It was acted out by Him in Christ. And it was transacted between The Son and the Father on the Great Exchange of Judgment at the Crucifixion. Thus Grace was fully realized as had been long hoped for and promised in the OT. Among the boundless consequences flowing from such Grace is the present Peace we have with God, which reminder God used multiple authors to repeat over and over again for us to fully embrace the simple five-word phrase: Grace to you kai Peace.

So, “grace plus peace” is not wrong, as both are true and a present reality. But the “plus” obscures a deeper reality, namely and finally, that Grace flowed to the establishment of Peace, final, permanent, and irreversible.

When Jesus risen from Death appeared to the Apostles gathered in terror and hiding, He appeared before them, the very embodiment of Grace, and spoke directly: “And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace [Koine be unto you.” (John 20:26, KJV). Hence we have the very foundational moment of our keyword phrase: “Grace to you kai Peace.“

Exemplar Study of “kai” in 1 Cor 3:1-4

by

Context of This Study of Greek Koine “kai.”

The first Epistle to the Corinthians (1 Cor) was written a few years after Paul had spent 18 months teaching in that major Greek city. The theme of the Epistle is corrective of the errors and misbehaviors that have developed in that church, the most important of which is the divisions in the body of believers, beginning in the first chapter and expanded in chapter 3.

Passage of Interest: 1 Cor 3:1-4

Our interest here, primarily, is the role of this site’s keyword, kai, in the corrective instruction given to the Corinthian church. As shown below in 1 Cor 3:1-4, kai occurs twice:

  • linking [A] strife with [B] jealousy,
  • linking [A] behaving as (mere) humans with [B] a being of the flesh

I have consciously used “with” to express the linking of the two above pairings [A with B] because our purpose here is to consider how kai might best be translated beyond its nominally-taken “and” as, a default translation, as in the ESV below and most other translations.

1 Cor 3:1-4 in the ESV Translation

1 Cor 3  1 But I, brothers, could not address you as spiritual people,
but as people of the flesh [sárkinos], as infants [nḗpios] in Christ.
2 I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for it.
And even now you are not yet ready, 3 for you are still of the flesh [sárkinos].
For while there is jealousy and [kai] strife among you,
are you not of the flesh [sárkinos] and [kai] behaving only in a human way?
4 For when one says, “I follow Paul,” and [de] another, “I follow Apollos,”
are you not being merely human [ánthrōpos]? 

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version. (2016). Crossway Bibles. Highlighting and bracket additions are mine.

As highlighted we have three key words referencing the recipients of this text:

  • flesh (which occurs three times),
  • infants, and
  • human (humanity).

Significantly, all five occurrences of theses three words are anarthrous (un-articulated), which in English we would precede by “a” (or “an”) but in Koine there is only the absence of the definite article. This absence of articulation is notable because it is contrary to the most-common situation of articulation used with Koine nouns. More on this below.

The Linking Words kai and de in 1 Cor 3:1-4

The ESV provides “and” as the translation of the Koine in three occurrences in our text above, twice in vs. 3, and once in vs. 4. However, as shown in brackets, the ESV has made such English word choice for two different Koine words: kai and de.

Briefly, de is the Koine word that conveys separation, contrast. This most commonly is translated by “but” or perhaps “except.” The NET Bible uses “or;” numerous other translations uses “another.” Both approaches conveys better the idea of separation. The Latin Vulgate translation has it alius autem (“but another”) which makes the separation even clearer. However, the majority of English translations follow the ESV with “and.” This is unfortunate in my view because the big deal issue in chapter 3, and the central theme of the entire Corinthian Epistle, is exactly and most sadly the separations (breaks) that have occurred, dividing upon the church body on a totally un-Biblical basis.

How Might kai Be Better Translated than by “and?”

Brief Recap of the Three “And’s“

As discussed elsewhere on this site, a most-common understanding of “and” is that of “plus,” an additive idea. This is what we mean by “ham and eggs,” “peanut butter and jelly,” “cream and sugar.” When so commonly used, there is no relational connective but that of “both,” and of no particular order or relationship. No hearer would respond: “do you want ‘ham and eggs,’ or do you want ‘eggs and ham’?” It’s simply plus, they’re both going on the same plate, the same piece of bread, or in the same cup, mixed without any relationship distinction. As a small experiment, order “half-cafe” coffee at a shop and insist that the decaf be put first into the cup so as to be on the bottom; you will be told that it makes absolutely no difference which goes in first.

In other contexts, “and” really signifies “next,” as when we would give out directions of travel or a sequence of adding ingredients for a recipe.

In yet other contexts “and” conveys the idea of an ultimate outcome, a telos, even a denouement: “George was in a hurry, running like he was on fire, jumping over benches and fences, as fast as the wind, and he fell, hit the ground hard, and broke his leg.” Neither of such “and” usages would convey the idea of “plus,” nor adequately the idea of “next.” The second “and,” especially, would be understood, by the context, that all the preceding text describes events that leads up to the culminating event, that of the broken leg. (And “George” derives from the Koine word for earth…so a little humor here). In such context, “and” really conveys the idea of cause and effect, or more subtly the flow of a narrative that results in a logical conclusion. If we sought to have a more expressive English linking word for such purpose we could choose “unto,” or “and, so,” or using an archaic but useful term “whereupon.” (As often the case, the archaic term works best).

Alternatives to “and” for the Two “kai’s” of 1 Cor 3:3

Our kai-text here is:

3 for you are still of the flesh [sárkinos].
For while there is jealousy and [kai] strife among you,
are you not of the flesh [sárkinos] and [kai] behaving only in a human way?

First, are the above two singular nouns–jealousy, strife–simply two additive things, peanut butter and jelly? Koine morphology does not help us here as these two nouns are directly parallel, distinguished only by the first being “masculine” and the second “feminine,” and the manuscript order is that “jealousy” precedes “strife.” So we must turn to context to see if there is something deeper that matters than an idea of “plus.”

The First kai: An Inner State of Being Linked to an External State of Being

We are not here doing a deep dive on the words “jealousy” and “strife.” But as they are in English, the first is a noun that catalogs an inner state of being, however transitive or dominating. In contrast, the second word–“strife”–catalogs a relational state of being external to any particular person in a state of “jealousy.” And, so, we would most reasonably sense that their linkage in something more than connecting two things (two states of being). Rather, we are led to the relational linking of the first leading to, flowing toward, resulting in, the latter: jealousy unto / whereupon strife.

Is this then the same thing as cause and effect? No. Koine, like English, has very distinct ways of expressing B caused by A, strife caused by jealousy. We can understand reasons for the distinction presently being suggested that “kai” conveys a flowing toward but not a causative linking. First, strife can occur without antecedent jealousy; there are just strife-full or highly-reactive people, always causing commotion, and strife. They are the opposite of the “agreeableness” trait of the “A” in “OCEAN,” a tool of psychology for personality segmentation. Further, a state of jealously might not necessarily lead to strife. This would be the case of a person who burns inside with such passion but out of fear or passivity restrains from its expression into a conflict.

So we can understand kai in the present context of being an intermediate linking, more than “plus,” but not to “cause / effect.” Is this understanding meaningful? I say “yes.” From 1 Cor 3:3 we can counsel ourselves, and anyone who listens to us, or will, that harboring jealously even if restrained and private is a not-good state of being. It’s something like the trigger pulled to a locked and ready position on a pistol. Guns, like strong emotions such as jealousy, need to be disarmed unless there are extraordinary reasons for them to be at ready. (Such as the Lord Himself who the Bible tells us that it was His “jealousy,” typically translated “zeal,” that preceded His cleansing of the Temple, an external act of serious strife, appropriate because of the affront against God of the ongoing practices present there).

The Second kai: An Inner State of Being Linked to an External Behavior

Returning to 1 Cor 3:3, the second kai in the verse links together (A) a state of being, fleshiness with (B) another state of being, “human(-ness),” behaving in a distinctive way (human-ing, behaving as those they were only humans / people, not as new creations in Christ).

Consider this context we are again reasonably led to a parallel insight to the first kai, namely: being fleshy flows toward / leads to behaving as ordinary people (humans) would do who do not have an inner life by the Spirit of God.

Again, does this matter? Again, the answer is “yes.” We are helped in appreciating the significance by noting the five occurrences noted above of flesh (3x), immaturity, and only being human. The Koine words, respectively are as shown at the beginning of this post: sárkinos, nḗpios, and ánthrōpos.

Our focus here is not doing a deep dive on Koine words, but a brief consideration is helpful. All three words, and five occurrences, are negative characterizations. Sárkinos can have a neutral meaning of a person’s material being distinct from bones and skin; it can simply designate body. But here, and in other places in Scripture it is freighted with the idea of bodily passions, some physiologists would call acting from the “limbic” brain regions, that which is itself unguided by the executive, analyzing, reasoning portion of the brain (“the frontal lobes”). In this context, sárkinos is suggestive of that impulse “if it feels good…do it.” And it is significant that sárkinos occurs three times in this very brief passage of four verses.

The other two relevant context words–nḗpios and ánthrōpos–also have a negative behavior / person connotation. Nḗpios is related to our English words associated with “neo-” or “newness,” conveying the idea of immaturity, adolescence. The Epistle makes clear that at this stage, the Corinthians should no longer be Spiritual children. As discussed just above, the word “human” translated by the ESV is of Koine ánthrōpos, the generic word for mankind / human being from which we get “anthropology” the study of such; ánthrōpos is also, here, conveying a negative condition as the Corinthians are called to be new creations, something much more than just better humans.

If you wish to study these three words an easy short cut is to use a web search by entering “Strongs G4560” ( for sárkinos), “Strongs G3515” (nḗpios), or “Strongs G444” (ánthrōpos).

All three of these words describe a condition of being of the Corinthian Christians and church members that demarcates the context and origin from which the most-serious condition that is developed beginning in 1 Cor 3:4–that of divisions in the church. Paul by the Holy Spirit, sees such divisions as a very serious matter. And the seriousness is much more than their existence. The divisions have arisen because they each have departed from following Jesus as Christ and Lord. Several groups are following mere men–Paul, Apollos, and Cephas / Peter (1 Cor 1:10), while others are (or claim that they are) following Christ. This condition is worse than nonsense: it eliminates the essence of what following Christ means, as though Jesus was just another one of the possibilities for being of New Testament Christianity.

Such foolishness–evil in its essence–did not arise from nothing. This brief passage of 1 Cor 3 gives five words of fleshy immaturity and two “kai” linkages, each of the form A flowing to B, perhaps best translated if a single word is demanded by “unto.” In both such linkages, the cure is by recognizing that antecedent condition A because it is that which naturally, inevitably becomes condition B.

Further Thoughts on the Five Anarthrous Nouns

Just above we noted the significance of three key words that together appear five times, always unarticulated in the Koine: sárkinos, nḗpios, and ánthrōpos.

All three of these words are nouns. Nouns, as we should recall, are traditionally defined as that class of word-types that describe persons, places, or things. But nouns are deeper than just those three sub-categories, especially in the Koine when the noun is unarticulated.

The usual rule for unarticulated Koine nouns, but not a rigid one, is that such nouns represent a category of that which exists, not any specific one, with emphasis on the idea of “category”or mort particularly a “universal.”

As discussed “jealousy” describes an inner state of being. We have all experienced it at some time and in some way. But let us think now of “jealousy” explicitly as “being” in the heightened sense of existence, something like a living category of life, as one might add to the great taxonomy of living things (mammals, reptiles, fungi, etc.).

The Concept of Existence from Mathematics

Let us do this by drawing a parallel from mathematics. In the discipline of mathematics the issue of existence recurs frequently and often in very important ways (a mathematician would say “always” in important ways). Accordingly, there is a distinctive mathematical symbol designating existence as meaningful, more so than the familiar designator π, namely: ∃ (“there exists”). Were I to influence an English translation of the New Testament, I would, in addition to putting kai everywhere it occurs, also insert such ∃ before every anarthrous (unarticulated) Koine noun to highlight the concept of such noun representing the existence of a category. While we’re on the subject of mathematical analogues, let us also think about incorporating ∄ (“there does not exist”) and ∃! (“there exists uniquely), as in: ∄ no other way by which a man can be saved, and such salvation comes ∃! in Christ.

The Concept of Existence from Philosophy: Ontology

A major division of philosophy deals with questions of existence, known by the term “ontology,” which means the study of being. Questions surrounding ontology are frequent and important: “I think therefore I am” (Descartes proclamation of the assurance of his existence). Which comes first: philology (words) or ontology (being)? Does true being stem from the existence of a word, or is it the other way around, namely that words only reflect a greater principle that something pre-exists.

External states of being, such as strife, are perceivable outside the inner condition of an individual person. There can be definitional issues of what rises to the level all of us might recognize as strife, and what would be the essential but/for traits that would make such designation. But, as is often said, I know it when I see it.

Internal states of being, such as jealousy, are more imperceivable although by communication and a relational connection internal states can be at least grasped to a large extent by others. Let us think more fully on this by the example, the ∃, of Abraham Lincoln, which we could express as ∃! Abraham Lincoln.

Let us first think in ontological terms of Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865) from the standpoint of his contemporaries. There would have some who knew him as a young man (say 1829 – 1830), others a lawyer (1836 – 1860), still others, and as President (1861 – 1865). If we were able, by some Time Machine, to have a conversation with individuals who knew Lincoln uniquely from each of such three periods, their ontological claim for him would be uniquely distinct: child, lawyer, President.

And what about us? We have our own, multiple ontologies of Lincoln. If we are recounting Presidents, then he was most-immediately preceded by Fillmore, Pierce, and Buchanan–all of whom little is known by the average person–and immediately succeeded by Andrew Johnson, Grant, and Hayes, again generally unknown men except for Ulysses Grant. But with Lincoln we are not supremely interested where he fit into what order of Presidents. His ontology for us, primarily, is not that he was the 16th President, but that he led the Union fight of the Civil War and ended slavery. The instantiation of such ontology is the massive, prominent Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC decorated with many of his declarations. When one stands at the Memorial one does not think of Lincoln’s bodily “being,” his remains, or even his historical “being.” Rather we think of the “being” that is present to us, his words and the legacy of his historic actions as President. By being, he is present to us, and has both ∃ and rightly understood, also ∃!.

Anarthrous nouns, somewhat less dramatically, have such ∃ when considering their ordinary semantic range, and ∃! with respect to historic / notable / uniquely distinctive context. Nouns tend to be humble, quiet things, especially compared to verbs, where literally all the action occurs. As to the Koine vocabulary of the New Testament there are more nouns (2412) than there are verbs (1864); humble they may be but they provide a richer range of semantic choices for persons, places, things, and categories. And the most frequently occurring nouns in the New Testament are, interestingly, these nine: God (1309x. Theos), Jesus (912x, Iesous), Lord (713x, Kurios), man (550x, anthropos), Christ (529x, Christos), Father (413x, Pater), day (389x, hemera), Spirit (379x, Pneuma), and Son (375x, Huios). Learning the Koine of just these nine significant words would give one understanding of 5566 words in the New Testament, which is 1/5th (20%) of all its nouns.

When we now consider all the anarthrous occurrences in our passage we can understand them as having a specific ∃. They are more than ideas. They have a form of weightiness to them, and presence, leading to the adverse consequences described.

Further Thoughts on kai as Additive

The default translation of kai is “and” closely followed by “also” which is essentially the same idea, that such linking word is like the simple plus sign, ✚, of mathematics. As final thought here let us return to mathematics for a final analogy.

One of the earliest principles of mathematics we all learned early in our days, shortly after learning 1 + 2 = 3, is this: 1 + 2 = 2 + 1.

We perhaps wondered, back then, whether the ‘trick’ of 1+2 and its mirror 2+1 leading to the same answer, 3, was a general principle or a particular example? Such question leads to the idea of equations. Specific number calculations are particulars; an equation expresses a universal. (If you didn’t have that nailed down, you missed something pretty important principle of algebra…here’s your second chance).

To express a universal by an equation we introduce the famous symbols x and y. We know that x and y do not stand for any particular value, but any value, that is a universal principle applicable to any particular. So we would then be able to grasp such universal as given by the above particular as x + y = y + x. Such is a law of mathematics that always is true for addition. It has a name: The Commutative Principle.

The use of “and” as the default translation of kai is expressing kai by such Commutative Principle. Kai, by such Principle, merely adds B to A, using our previous symbology, as equivalent to A added to B.

Our present goal with the exemplar of 1 Cor 3:1-4 is to show that there is a deeper understanding possible to kai than the application of the Commutative Principle, one that significantly enriches the understand of a text. Are you persuaded?

Watch kai Pray

by

Here we consider another jewel of a phrase. As discussed in a previous post, “phrases” (and clauses) are segments of the architecture of a sentence, which is itself representative of a “whole thought.” As a whole thought, sentences traditionally have a subject (S), verb (V), and object (O, as a direct object) which is commonly framed in both English and Koine as SVO, in that order. Our traditional versified Bibles were man-created in the 16th Century and have no inherent Biblical significance nor do they always align with sentences as we would interpret them; verses can run on to multiple sentences and they can be incomplete as to a sentence.

The phrase in focus here, “watch and [kai] pray” is memorable. And it is noteworthy as to this site because two words of the three ‘hinge’ around the theme word of this website, the Koine word kai.

kai as ‘Flow’

Throughout this website we have been considering richer meanings, sometimes just hints / directions, for the Koine word “kai” that goes beyond its default translation of “and.”

One central thesis is that kai does not mean always, perhaps not even mostly, “and” in the sense of “plus,” such as “ham and eggs” (we want both, and the order has no significance), orthe identification of two categories, such as “good and bad”(they do not ‘go’ together but paired they represent a certain broad range of conditions).

If there is a best default translation for kai it is, in my view, “unto.” Such is not “unto” in the sense of cause and effect–there is an unambiguous Koine expression for cause and effect–nor is suggesting “on the one hand this and the other hand that” because again their is a clear Koine form, which commonly occurs, for making such point. We will consider both of these other hinge types below.

A nuanced way of understanding kai as “unto” is by the metaphor of “flow.” Recapping the above, kai is not A causes B (cause and effect), nor is it A on the one hand and B on the other, nor simply two things A + B as completely equivalent to B + A (which presumes that kai expresses the equivalent of the mathematical commutative law as 2 + 3 = 5, exactly as 3 + 2 = 5).

Rather kai can be expressive as “the flow” of thought, or action, A “unto” B. We could show this as: A → B, or by other arrow forms to represent stronger or weaker such flow-connections: A → B, A → B, A ⇢ B (stronger to weaker).

Let us now apply the flow-concept for kai to our the phrase-jewel of our present study: “watch kai pray.”

Context of “Watch and Pray”

The phrase “watch and (kai) pray” most notably occurs during the final moments of Jesus’s pre-resurrection life as it is said prior to his night arrest, which arrest was followed by the infamous nighttime trial, and the judgment of crucifixion the following morning. Below is our context in Mark 14:

32 And they went to a place called Gethsemane. And he said to his disciples, “Sit here while I pray.” 33 And he took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be greatly distressed and troubled.34 And he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death. Remain here and watch.” 35 And going a little farther, he fell on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 And he said, “Abba, Father, all things are possible for you. Remove this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.” 37 And he came and found them sleeping, and he said to Peter, “Simon, are you asleep? Could you not watch one hour? 38 Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 

Mark 14:32-38, ESV (Highlights mine, the bold font being our phrase of study, and the words translated “that” and “but” representing two other categories of ‘hinge-connectors’ to be discussed)

There is an exact parallel account at Matt 26:41 that mirrors the above verse Mark 14:38. The only other text in the Bible that has “watch” near “pray” occurs at Col 4:2: “Continue steadfastly in prayer, being watchful in it with thanksgiving.”

What distinguishes the memorable form of “watch and (kai) pray” from the text of Col 4:2, and other passages enjoining us to pray, is that our phrase occurs during a dramatic point in the narrative of Christ’s incarnation. What has just prior transpired is the so-called “Triumphal Entry” wherein the crowds see Jesus riding the prophesied donkey coming as King into His City / Throne of Jerusalem, with the crowds shouting “Hosanna!” meaning God has made it wonderfully so. Of course the crowds shouting, as is customarily the case, understood nothing of the words they used, but spoke as the Providence of God the Father dictated, affirming the OT fulfillment. Then that night was “The Last Supper” at which time Jesus inaugurated the New Covenant in His blood, at which time Judas–representing The Religion Industry (TRI) and its most-intimate betrayal–committed to departing that supper to conduct the dealmaking event with the leadership of TRI by agreeing on the sign of betrayal, being Judas finding Jesus where only he knew to do, and identifying him by the kiss of betrayal to direct the arresting armed force of the TRI to their target.

From the context of Mark 14 and Matt 26 we know that Jesus’s private prayer with His Father occurred during the final moments of the advance of the TRI army up the Mount of Olives directly east of the Temple Mount across the Kidron Valley. Because it was night, and a significant armed force was in procession necessarily with torches to light the way, the advance would have been discernible to those at the Garden of Gethsemane, had they been watching.

It would have been reasonable for the Lord’s 11 disciples that night at Gethsemane, after the Triumphal Entry and The Communion Supper, to have believed that at the Passover celebration the very next day Jesus would inaugurated as both the “religious” and “political” authority, transforming the situation in Jerusalem, Judea, and all of the territory of Israel, and even the Roman world itself. Of course they had heard the Lord on multiple occasions tell them that He would be rejected, killed, and resurrected, but they did not understand this as the subsequent text of the Gospel narratives makes clear.

What was taking place during the very time of the Lord’s words “watch kai pray” was the instantiation of the ultimate rebellion of both TRI and The Political Industry (TPI) against God, the former out of its fallen belief that “religion” and “piety” could save itself, both individually and corporately, and the latter believing that meaning and salvation was in centralized power and codified law (Pax Romana).

Watch ‘Flowing Toward’ Prayer

Both the Koine verbs translated “watch” and “pray” are in the imperative / command form (“mood”). So they are direct, immediate instructions to which the Lord is desiring obedience. It is clear, again from the passage itself, that the three core members of the 11 disciples (Peter, James, and John), and likely the other eight as well, were doing neither “watching” nor “praying,” but were in fact sleeping.

Here’s what we also know. The armed representatives of TRI, and Judas, were not sleeping. They were in fact sneaking up seeking to overwhelm by force and surprise the followers of Jesus, arresting Jesus (and others too). Also not sleeping was the Lord.

What was the context of the inability to stay awake for the Lord’s disciples? It was that they were not, and had not been, watchful, so they did not perceive their impending mortal danger by the advance of their most powerful and relentless enemy, TRI, soon to be followed by the in-concert partnership of TRI and TPI leading to the crucifixion of their Lord, a horrible and frightful scene.

The phrase “watch kai pray” in its context guides us to understand that it is the doing of “watching” with its attendant discovery and realization that flows toward, leads to, the doing of “praying.” The Lord’s command is not here that they, and hence us, should as a pattern of life being doing two things: thing one–watching–and the other thing–praying–end of story.

Praying wisely, passionately, and well flows from grasping–the watching–the context of our circumstance (and in the literal etymological sense of “circumstance,” standing, ‘stance,’ circumscribed, here by the force of oppression of TRI).

Flow Has a ‘Bow Wave’

As we have been considering kai as a flow, that is A → B (A is watching, B is praying, in the context of our phrase of study), there can be, and I believe here is, a two-way nature to the flow. Specifically, kai admits to the flow nature that as A → B so also A ⇠ B.

We can draw on a water flow analogy of experience. (Such analogy is even more-clear with the motion of air / wind as a breeze or an aircraft in flight, but is not readily discernible by sight). From the perspective of a boat being propelled through water, by the power of sails, rowing, or a motor, the boat is stationary and the water is flowing past the boat.

(We do not automatically conceive it this way because we innately understand that it is the boat moving through the water not the other way around; but if one stands at the bow of the boat, fixed to it, it really is the proper perception that the water is moving past the boat. This was a key perspective used by Einstein in formulating the great insights and equations of Special and General Relativity).

Taking such perspective on the boat, and looking ahead of the bow, we can observe that the flowing water actually begins moving because of the boat before it reaches even the bow of the boat. And if we look to the quarter beam on either side of the bow we can see the surface waves of the water that is the hydrodynamic influence of the boat even ahead of the particular water molecules that strike the hull of the boat. This is the “bow wave,” the upstream influence of a downstream object.

We can see the same thing, perhaps more clearly, by observing a fixed pillar in moving water. Ahead of the pillar, one can observe the effect of the pillar upon the water even before it reaches the pillar. Exactly the same effect occurs with winds flowing against a wall, building, or mountain, or again to an observer in the cockpit of an airplane. Such flows have upstream influence based upon wonderful mathematical formulations of physics (known as elliptical boundary conditions on equations of motion). Other physical examples include “feedback loops,” where “effects” can, in turn, connect to the “causes” which inaugurated the initial “effect.”

How might such digression help us with understanding kai in general and specifically in our present phrase of study? It is this: being watchful does flow into one’s being prayerful, and wisely / intimately so; but being prayerful also leads / flows toward being watchful, at the very least sensitized to one circumstance (standing surrounded), but even more so to understanding better from the heart of God the nature of that which is to be the object of watching.

Two Other Phrases and ‘Hinge’ Connector Types

Not our primary focus in this post, or this site in general, let us briefly note two other phrases that immediately follow “watch kai pray” that illustrate other kinds of ‘hinge’ connections (as I have been using the term here).

Purpose Clause / Clause

We have been examining the first third of Mark 14:38 , namely: ” Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

My highlight of “that” by italics is only to indicate a particular ‘hinge’ connector, in transliterated Koine “hina.” It is the common introduction of a purpose statement. So here it tells us why we are commanded (“watch,” “pray” are imperative verbs) in the “kai” hinge phrase.

The question here, based on this context, is what is the “temptation” to be avoided. The Koine word the ESV translates as “temptation” is also translated in various contexts by “trial(s)” and by “test(-ing).” So “temptation” is freighted with the idea of wavering under some trial / test. The context of our passage (Mark 14) has nothing to do with the kind of circumstances we might ordinarily think of as “temptations,” such as the impulses / inclinations of the carnal, lower nature of the flesh. Here the temptation (test) is about faithfulness to the foundational claim of Jesus Christ, namely that the ‘observance’ of “The Law” by TRI was a false self-righteousness kind of worship, which can never please God or lead to Eternal Life.

As the troops of TRI were marching up the Mount of Olives with the threat, and realization, of death, exclusion, persecution–as we see in the Book of Acts which follows the Gospels upon the emergence of the NT church. The temptation would be strong to cave in to TRI both for reasons of avoiding persecution but also because many in one’s family, friends, associates would be clinging to the doctrines of TRI, claiming that Jesus had been not only a blasphemer but a false claimant on such “New Covenant,” exactly as the context of the Epistle to the Hebrews unveils.

Explanatory Phrase / Clause

The third phrase in our Mark 14:38 text illustrates another kind of ‘hinge’ connector known by the Koine “men / day (or de)” structure. In the ESV text, I’ve highlight “but” by italics as that is how it expressed such structure. The “men / de” framework means, in English, “on the one hand THIS and on the other hand THAT,” namely a way of contrasting two opposites.

Here in Mark 14:38 the opposites are: “the (our) spirit” and its natural inclination (to be “willing” to follow the Gospel teaching, contrasted with “the (our) flesh” and its natural inclination (to follow the prevailing winds of opinion, avoiding conflict or becoming the object of derision, or worse).

kai Exemplar Texts: 1 Corinthians 1:3

by

In a previous post in this series, we looked at “kai” as a meaning amplifier in Romans 1:7. Here we want to expand on a huge NT teaching embedded further in Rom 1:7, and then trace it’s repetition, use, and significance in the NT, and finally to connect it, only briefly, with an underlying foundational OT concept.

Romans 1:7

Previously we drilled down on Rom 1:7:

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints:
Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:7 (ESV)

Our focus before was on all three occurrence of “kai” in this verse and how such usage can open up a deeper understanding of the text.

We touched on the specific connection made by “kai” of two very important NT words: Grace and Peace. We all too easily pass by this verse and parallel introductions to all of Epistles as simple addressing of an ‘envelope’ (the word “epistle” means “letter” or more accurately a writing of a particular communication). We don’t lend to example such texts for particular doctrinal significance. Doing so is a big mistake, as I will here attempt to show.

Grace

As a standalone word, “Grace” is central to the Gospel (literally “Good New”), the message of the NT, the Character of God, the Finished Work of Jesus Christ, the Ongoing Work of The Holy Spirit.

Overview of the Occurrences of “Grace” in the NT

Numbers do not always tell the story of significance, but here it does. “Grace” (in the ESV translation) occurs 118x in the NT, from John 1:14 to Rev 22:21, with Eph 2:8-9 being just one notable exemplar:

John 1:14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Rev 22:21 The grace of the Lord Jesus be with all. Amen.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

All veres cited are from ESV.

Overview of the Meaning of “Grace” in the NT

Likely more than one thousand books have been written on even just the keyword “Grace,” and thousand times a thousand on the full implications of the word. It is likely we will spend all of Eternity at the foot of the Lord leaning ever more deeply its full significance. But as a start, the deeper we know the Holiness of God, our sin / sins / sin-nature and utter natural impotency (we were “dead in our trespasses and sin”), the greater our appreciation of, and desire to understand more of, God’s “Grace.”

Below is an excerpt for “Grace” from a Koine-English lexicon.

Strong’s G5485. χάρις cháris; gen. cháritos, fem. noun from chaírō (G5463), to rejoice. Grace, particularly that which causes joy, pleasure, gratification, favor, acceptance, for a kindness granted or desired, a benefit, thanks, gratitude. A favor done without expectation of return; the absolutely free expression of the loving kindness of God to men finding its only motive in the bounty and benevolence of the Giver; unearned and unmerited favor. Cháris stands in direct antithesis to érga (G2041), works, the two being mutually exclusive. God’s grace affects man’s sinfulness and not only forgives the repentant sinner, but brings joy and thankfulness to him. It changes the individual to a new creature without destroying his individuality (2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:8, 9).

Zodhiates, S. (2000). In The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). AMG Publishers. (Highlights mine; the reference to “Strong’s G” is to the identification of a traditional index of Koine NT words, particularly helpful to non-Koine readers).

Separately, I have collected the expanded definition briefed above with definitions from other lexicons. This is available on this site: Lexical Definitions of the NT Word “Grace”

“Grace” as the Root of Related NT Words

As is common in Koine, any given lemma, such as the above shows for “Grace” (namely Strong’s G5485. χάρις cháris) such word is additionally a component of multiple related words. This is particularly the case for cháris). Such additional words are shown in the image below.

kai Exemplar Texts: Romans 1:7

by

This post is in a series of exemplar texts in which our Koine keyword “kai” plays a deeper role than is commonly grasped. Here we will consider a most-important verse (yes they’re all important, but some more so) that establishes the theme of the entire Epistle to the Romans and thereby of the central doctrines of the NT.

Our consideration here is Romans 1:7. As we will do throughout this website, our focus is on the specific KAIStudies point, such as here the use of Koine connective kai, and not a full exposition of the underlying texts. (And with Rom 1:7, entire books could be written without exhausting the depth and significance of the text).

Rom 1:7 Text

Below is the ESV translation of Rom 1:7

To all those in Rome who are loved by God and called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom 1:7 (ESV)

There are three occurrence of “and” in the ESV: the first is addition by the translators without a mss source, the other two are default translations of kai. We can determine this connection, or mis-connection, between an English translation and the mss by use of the various KAI Tools discussed in various posts.

Here we will use Logos Software based on the ESV text for Rom 1:7, as given in the pdf directly below:

Rom-1-7-ESV-Interlinear

The base English text shown above is the ESV. The Koine underlying text is a reverse interlinear, meaning the Koine word order has been reassembled so that each Koine word is positioned, out of its original order, to match the corresponding English translation (ESV). This makes it simple to find the Koine word being translated but at the loss of the word order emphasis that is present in the mss. This particular reverse interlinear includes the mss word order numbering by the small number subscript to the first line below the English text.

Some Fixes / Clarifications to Rom 1:17

As shown above, I have crossed through four words in the ESV that do not appear in the mss: the first and, the phrase “to be,” and the definite article “the” before the closing words “Lord Jesus Christ.” The ESV is certainly not “wrong” to have it translated as it has. Its motivation is to provide a smooth reading English ‘voice’ to the Scriptures. But, our purpose here is not smoothness but exactitude as best as we are able to construct it.

We note that there are other English translations which more, or less, strive for greater, or even greatest, literality. Shown below are the NASB95, KJV, and the amazingly reliable Young’s Literal Translation (YLT).

to all who are beloved of God in Rome, called as saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (NASB95)
To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. (KJV)
to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called saints; Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and [from] the Lord Jesus Christ! (YLT)

Romans 1:17 in NASB95, KJV, and Young’s Literal Translation, Respectively

All three translations did not insert the first “and” present in the ESV, and which I have struck out in the above pdf of Rom 1:17. The YLT does not use any part of “to be” or an equivalent exactly as the mss reads and as I have crossed out; the NASB95 uses “as” and the KJV “to be.” Again these additions are not wrong. However it is cleaner, and more direct, to reflect the translation exactly as the mss, namely: the Epistle is direct to those in Rome “called saints” (and of course, to us as well); the text is not (explicitly) saying we are called “as” saints–implying that we are called only because we possess the preexisting condition of “being” saints–nor is it suggesting a potentiality of future condition as the added phrase “to be” might convey.

One final ‘fix’ I made in Rom 1:17 was suggesting the word “of” as in “of God” instead of the ESV’s “by God.” This is a point Koine scholars would understand deeply because of the richness of the Koine genitive case (typically used of possession, but it’s a richer subject than we are addressing here). All three of the additional translations given just above translate the genitive case of “God” as shown–“of God”–as I have done in the pdf.

Our main point in this post is the Koine connective kai.

Is “And” the Best Translation for the First “kai” in Rom 1:7?

The first of two occurrences of “kai” connects “Grace to you” (the phrase used by John MacArthur’s ministry) with “peace from God.” All four of the above translations uses the simple translation “and.” As discussed elsewhere, such is the default translation employed many thousands of times in the NT for kai, so it is not wrong.

But could kai be conveying something more?

kai as ‘Plus’

As discussed, the word “and” can be used in multiple ways. The default idea of “and” is “plus:” one “and” two is three. No one would wonder does such phrase–one and two is three–also mean that “two and one is three.” One of the earliest math principles learned in the earliest grades of elementary school is that addition is commutative, meaning: the order in which addition is expressed does not affect the calculation. And, so, “and” as used to express such addition has no significance as to order, priority, or meaning. There are many such language examples: ham and eggs, cream and sugar, peanut butter and jelly, salt and pepper. No coffee barista would ask a customer: do you want the cream added after the sugar, or the sugar after the cream? (One could do an experiment on this by ordering the coffee in insistence on sequence, say sugar first, then cream, and see what happens).

Further, in every day oral discourse, speakers (especially excited ones who do not want to lose the ‘floor’) will interject “and” at every phrase as a signal that they are not done speaking, or as a peacekeeper as they are thinking of what next they want to say. When public speakers do this, it is most annoying because are logically thinking there is a connection that is being made when there is none. In writing such use is a classic illustration of the dreaded run-on sentence.

Is the Apostle Telling the Loved by God that We Get Two Things: Grace “and” Peace?

The Epistle begins with identifying our condition, “loved by God called saints.” Because there is no connecting word in the mss, it is reasonable to conclude that the full impact of the phrase is that it is highlight a single unity of our being. This is a very powerful idea, that is stripped away by the ESV’s insertion of “and” where there is no kai in the mss (something both the KJV and NASB95 have done, but not the YLT).

Now, if we have the coherent unit of being as the antecedent phrase of “grace to you and peace” are we being told that the result is two things, say in the one hand there’s a ‘thing’ called “grace” and in the other hand a ‘thing’ called “peace,” each something like separate stickers that are affixed to us, something like a tattoo on one forehand and the other? If “kai” is “and” and only in the “plus” (additive) sense, then that is the best reading of the underlying meaning: we’re each receiving two separate gifts from God.

And, of course, as the Roman Epistle, and the entire NT tells us, that we indeed do possess distinguishable gifts of grace and peace, each word laden with deep, rich meaning. The issue here, however, in Rom 1:7, is the text conveying something more than two things by the use of kai?

Can kai Convey the Idea that Grace Yields, Leads to, Peace?

As discussed elsewhere, “and” can be freighted with a deeper meaning than commutative plus. It can be “next” as a sequence in space or time. It can mean next in the sense of result: John ran and tripped and broke his arm; such use of “and” is more than “plus,” and even more than “next” in a sequence.

In similar fashion, or even more so, kai in Koine can and does convey deeper connections than a mere plus. Again as discussed elsewhere, kai generally does not carry the more rigid concept of cause and effect; there are other Koine constructions that do that explicitly. Rather it can express, as I believe it does here in Rom 1:7, that the one, the antecedent “grace,” directs us to recognizing the subsequent “peace” derives from it.

In this way we would understand that “peace” is not delivered out of nowhere as its own ‘thing,’ but, rather, flows from a bigger, coherent whole ‘thing,’ namely “Grace.” This is supported by the coherent unity of the antecedent phrase “loved of God called saints” and the central theme of the Epistle, establishing the Grace Principle and contrasting it in myriad ways to “Law” and “Works.”

So, how would we then better translate such “kai,” presumptively claim such insight? Again as discussed elsewhere, the English word “unto” often ‘works’ though it is archaic in our day. But consider this: “…loved of God called Saints: Grace to you unto peace from God…” Such form lays the foundation of what is a central point of the NT, namely: that God’s gift of unmerited Grace has as its consequence something the OT Law never could provide a always-condition of peace with God, the essence of the one sacrifice (Heb 10:4) for all time providing the Atonement moving us from guilt to not-guilt to propitiation (active permanent righteousness in God’s sight, because of our “being” “in Christ”).

I would favor as an even better translation than “unto” by the use of a rightward facing arrow, as: “…love of God called Saints: Grace to you → peace from God…” I find such form persuasive as kai commonly functions as a form of punctuation (there is no actual function in the Koine as we have in English) and , sometimes, as a scene break establishing a kind of short pause.

Is “and” the Best Translation for the Second kai in Rom 1:7?

Returning to the pdf that began this post, let us now consider the other occurrence of kai in Rom 1:7: ” …God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” as the ESV and other translations express “and: for “kai.” (Note: there is no definite article “the” preceding “Lord Jesus Christ” in the mss, exactly as there is none preceding “God,’ thus establishing a clearer parallel of “Being,’ consistent with the Doctrine of the Trinity).

Again let us ask the same question. Is this text telling us that there are two distinguishable Persons who are the Givers of Grace and Peace? The use of “and” with the default sense of “plus” suggests exactly this situation. And, because the NT develops the full exposition of the Trinity, that there is One God, and yet there is in some humanly incomprehensible way the Being of Three Persons–as we know Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is foundational to Christianity, and any proper understanding of the NT. Heresies began early in church history, and continue to this day, denying such Trinity of Being in One God. So, it would not be ‘wrong’ to understand that through the Person of God the Father and (plus) the Person of Jesus Christ we have received “Grace → Peace.”

However, as we will see in numerous subsequent examples in later posts, the Koine mss uses kai to connect closely joined words, such as “God kai Father” wherein the better understanding is that God is unto Father, as His intrinsic Being and Relation to us, not as two separate ‘hats’ he wears such a some man named “Fred” who is a “manager” and (plus) a “father.”

So, I argue in the same way that a deeper understanding is available to us if we grasp that all the blessing of Grace unto Peace, the Atonement, Everlasting Life–the big subjects of the Epistle to the Romans, and us–derive from God the Father having sent His Son who Was/Is/Ever Will Be “Lord” (King) “Jesus” (his fully human Being, which name comes from the Hebrew “Joshua” meaning God with us) “Christ” (the Koine translation of the Hebrew word deriving from “Messiah,” Anointed Deliverer from God). Thus in the seventh verse of the first chapter of the Epistle we have this overwhelmingly important foundation, that all the great truths to be expanded derive from the One God acting in and upon His Creation on behalf of His Elect in a way humanly incomprehensible, namely entering His Creation to save the lost.