Home » Posts tagged 'ambassador'
Tag Archives: ambassador
John the Baptist and the Lord Jesus and Sending Authority in Matthew 3
Paraginomai Versus Ginomai
The Greek verb paraginomai appears only three times in Matthew, an intense or emphatic form of a common verb, ginomai. All three occur in Matthew 2 and 3:
2:1, “Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem.”
3:1, “In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea.”
3:13, “Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.”
The magi, those kingmakers from a powerful far eastern nation, came with royal authority and bringing kingly gifts. Herod recognized their authority. It troubled him. John the Baptist, the forerunner and herald of the King who would sit on the throne of David forever, came heralding or preaching. The King Himself, Jesus, came to begin His work in an official capacity.
Luke 7:20 uses the same unique verb, paraginomai, to describe John the Baptist ascending to his divine task, parallel with Matthew 3:1. The only usage in Mark, 14:43, sees an official, governing body of chief priests, scribes, and elders with Judas coming to arrest Jesus. The Apostle Paul uses paraginomai in 2 Timothy 4:16, saying, “At my first answer no man stood with me.” He described no one joining him in an official capacity in public court. It’s an obviously technical word to denote the function of a person who came into court to defend the accused (John Phillips, Exploring the Pastoral Epistles, p. 454).
Official Capacity
The only use of paraginomai in Hebrews (9:11) reads:
But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building.
This verse describes Christ, the anointed one, come an high priest, so again in a high, official capacity, so with authority. In the New International Commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth says concerning Hebrews 9:11, The use of paraginomai instead of the usual ginomai suggests “an official public appearance” (p. 449). So also Harold Attridge in his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, commenting on the dramatic nuance of the word (paragenomenos, participle of paraginomai), says, “He has arrived on the heavenly scene as High Priest” (p. 245).
John the Baptist was a man sent (apostello) from God (John 1:6). That verb (“sent,” apostello) is also very technical, expressing the nature of an envoy or an ambassador. Jesus asked (Matthew 21:25), “The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men?” The implication in Matthew by Jesus (cf. Mk 11:30, Lk 20:4) was that God authorized the baptism of John. He got it from heaven.
The Lord Jesus came like John with sending authority. Jesus said, “As my Father hath sent (apostello) me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). God also expects sending for all His workers. It’s more than reading the Great Commission, saying you’ve got it because you read in Matthew 28:18-20. That command went to a plural, “Go ye.” One should assume that “ye” meant people in the group. It did not imply that anyone or everyone could go with His authority (“power”). “You” is also plural in John 20:21.
Romans 10:15
The Apostle Paul writes in Romans 10:15,
And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!
The word “preach” is kerusso. This is the same word applied to John the Baptist and his preaching. The kerux is someone to announce the Lord’s coming, to give His message, and to prepare the way for Him. Again, Romans 10:15 asks of the plural, “they.” Who “sends” (apostello) “them”? Christ sends as Head of His church.
John the Baptist “came” in an official capacity. God “sent” John in an official capacity. The New Testament uses the same terminology for every believer. How shall they hear without a kerux? How shall they kerusso except they be apostello? God the Father sent John and Jesus directly. Jesus then sends true believers by means of the church. He heads the church. God sends believers only through true churches.
A Special Cast of Characters
Ones Christ sends constitute a special cast of characters and yet not one, not one because it applies to everyone. Every one bringing glad tidings or the gospel of peace should be and must be sent. That should be every member of a church, a member of Christ’s body with Him as Head.
As a personal example, individual churches sent my wife and I. A true church sent us in 2020 from California to Oregon. The same true church sent us in 2021 from Oregon to Utah. In 2022, a true church in Utah sent us from Utah to Indiana. The church in Indiana sent us for a few months to England at the end of 2022 and beginning of 2023 Since February 22, 2023, my wife and I function as heralds with authority of or from our church in Indiana. We requested and received letters, which we possess, from three total churches in all this (California, Utah, and Indiana).
God sent John. He came. Sent and came are unique words of sending. God sent Jesus. He came. The same pattern applies to the work of every true believer.
How serious would you take the sending of the Commander-in-Chief of the United States? If the United States of America authorized you for a legitimate task, would you acknowledge the honor bestowed? Can you recognize the greater honor of the Lord Jesus sending you through a true church?
The Significance of Mediation in Reconciliation and Relationship, pt. 5
Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four
Evangelism itself is a form of mediation, what the Apostle Paul calls “the ministry of reconciliation.” An evangelist mediates between God and a lost soul toward salvation. The sin of a soul offends God, one estranged from Him, and the evangelist mediates with the gospel. When I write that, I do not mean that an evangelist is a mediator, like 1 Timothy 2:5 says that Jesus is. No man comes to the Father except by Jesus Christ (John 14:6).
Ambassadorship Mediation
2 Corinthians 5:18 gives the sense of mediation in evangelism, when it says God “reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ.” Then it follows, “and hath given unto us the ministry of reconciliation.” Jesus Christ reconciles to God as the Mediator. Still, however, God also gives believers the ministry of reconciliation. In the next verse, “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,” but he has “committed unto us the word of reconciliation.” The mediation believers do is by “word.” We talk to people.
Verse 20 says that we are “ambassadors for Christ,” so this is like diplomacy. Ambassadors represent one nation to another nation. “We are ambassadors” is the Greek presbeuo, used only here and in Ephesians 6:20. Presbeuo is “to be a representative for someone” (BDAG). The way we participate in this mediation is through word, and the message of words that we speak as ambassadors Paul writes in verse 21:
For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
That one sentence encapsulates the gospel. It’s something believers can speak as diplomats for God with total authority from Him. The goal is to bring someone in the kingdom of this world or the kingdom of Satan into the kingdom of God.
God then wants unity between those in His kingdom. The New Testament shows that to be in a true church. It also reveals that churches should want unity with each other too. These realities I wrote about earlier in this series.
Mediating Harry and William as an Example
The Situation
True reconciliation necessitates God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, each of the members of the Trinity. No true peace will come without the Lord. He provides the basis of peace, first getting right with God through Jesus Christ. Harry and William won’t have that without humble submission to God’s Word.
Much of the world knows about the rift now between the two brothers, sons of King Charles of England, William, the heir to throne, and Harry. Harry came out this weekend in anticipation of his published autobiography and said he wants his father and brother back. Is this to say, he wants reconciliation and mediation?
In accordance with true reconciliation, Harry cannot have it on his terms alone. He announced to the world that the relationship between him and his dad and brother did not have to be this way. On the other hand, Charles and William view the relationship a different way. If they were talking, I think they might say the same: “It didn’t have to be this way.” What would it take to restore a relationship, so it is no longer ‘this way’?
Mediating The Conflict
I use Harry and William as an example because they are a prominent conflicting relationship with an obvious barrier between them. Anyone can see both what the discord or dispute between them is and how reconciliation and mediation could occur.
Harry might not take take reconciliation or mediation. He receives his greatest income by telling family secrets. In mediation, if that could occur, I would confront both sides about keeping internal family disputes secret. They settle them in private only. If Harry chooses to leave his royal duties, he must give up his titles. Any money he makes must exclude public ties to the monarchy.
I would take Charles, William, and Harry through their grievances. Each would confess what I knew, what is proven, to be true. Both must repent, and then forgive. Each party must keep all listed ground rules for the future. As a result, both sides have their brother, their sons, and their father again.
Realities of Mediation
When I write about mediation, I am not writing about compromise, the wrong idea that two sides get together and come to some middle ground. It may seem like that, because the mediator listens to both sides. They both may have different versions of the same event. Both parties also might have their own set of grievances against the other party. When the mediator listens to one side and agrees with that side, the other side might view that as compromise, when it isn’t.
Sometimes what one side sees as a violation the mediator says is Christian liberty. He may identify it as a doubtful disputation. One side may think something is what it thinks it is, but a mediator says, “No, it isn’t.” Coming to some of those types of decisions is why two sides get a mediator. In general, a party does not want to see it a different way than what he or it sees it. He very often won’t. If he agrees to a mediator, he might have to do that. This is mediation.
A mediator very often sees what two conflicting parties do not or cannot see. He can point out inconsistencies on either side. If he does his job, he wants true, legitimate reconciliation between the parties, that is, biblical peace.
If a party only wants to hear its side, what some may portray as its echo chamber, it can choose to do that. It is choosing then not to reconcile. Mediation reveals or tests the desire for reconciliation. It provides that last plank or marker toward reconciliation. It follows the model of the Lord Jesus Christ and the example of the apostles.
Recent Comments