Spicq - Theological Lexicon of the New Testament

PREFACE

I have often been asked to bring together in one volume the NT word studies scattered throughout my previous works, especially in the commentaries. I could not simply collect them as they were, even filling in the references and bringing the bibliographies up to date. Still less could I think of producing an exhaustive work, a project so perfectly completed by the dictionaries of W. Bauer or Moulton-Milligan, not to mention the grammars, some of the articles in the Theologisches Wörterbuch of G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, and especially A. Deissmann’s Licht vom Osten (Tübingen, 1923; ET Light from the Ancient East, New York, 1927), Bibelstudien, (Marburg, 1895) and Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg,1897).

Not only do I study a restricted choice of words, but also my intention is theological. What interests me is not orthographic novelties, idioms, phonetics, or declensions, but the semantics and the religious and moral sense of the language of the NT. This language has its own rules and its own vocabulary.

One cannot understand it except in light of the usages of the Greek language as it was spoken and written in the oikoumene of the first century, which is called “standard Koine,” the popular language understood by the hearers and readers of the NT authors. That is why I have used many references—not only to the classical authors, but to the texts that are closest to the first century BC or AD. These references will undoubtedly be the most useful aspect of this work.

Indeed, the many papyrological and epigraphical publications continually bring new findings. It is my goal to serve students of the Bible by placing conveniently at their disposal the fruit of my studies. “The person who knows the papyri a little meets at every turn in the NT, parallels of subject matter and form that allow him to gain a more vivid grasp of the words of Scripture.”

ἀγαθοποιέω

agathopoieō, to do good; agathōsynē, goodness

agathopoieo, S 15; TDNT 1.17–18; EDNT 1.4–5; NIDNTT 2.98, 100, 102; L&N 88.3; BAGD 2 | agathosune, S 19; TDNT 1.18; EDNT 1.7; NIDNTT 2.98, 100–101; MM 1; L&N 57.109, 88.1; BAGD 3

Classical Greek and Koine had different formulas for saying “do something good,” but it was the LXX – translating the hiphil of yāṭaẖ – then the Letter of Aristeas and the NT that were the first to use the combined form agathopoieō, unknown in the papyri.

In the OT, it refers to the performance of a good deed toward another, either by God or by a human. Thus Wis 1:12 juxtaposes “do good” and “do evil,” just as the Lord asks whether it is permitted on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil – agathopoiēsai or kakopoiēsai – to save a life or to take a life (Luke 6:9). In its first occurrence in the Sermon on the Mount, the verb, used with an object in the accusative, has the same sense: to render good in return for good. In Luke 6:35, however, it has a theological significance: “Love your enemies, do good,” because agathopoieite explicates agapate and shows that agapē love, when seen clearly and in action, manifests itself in doing good; the context proves that this type of love is proper to the sons of God.

On the other hand, if the four usages of agathopoieō in 1 Peter all have a religious meaning, since they refer the doing of good to the will of God and to God’s grace, the accent is not so much on the charity that gives and forgives, but on the virtue (cf. Gal 6:9–10), which is the virtue of servants who do well that which they ought to do or of wives who are faithful to the obligations attaching to their position (1 Pet 3:6). Doing good is opposed to doing evil (2:14; 3:17), transgressing (2:20).

In the same way, the noun agathopoiïa refers to an upright moral life: “Let those who suffer according to the will of God entrust their souls to the faithful Creator in their doing of good.” Far from losing heart, or being paralyzed by panic, in these last days, Christians will occupy themselves with doing their best (cf. Eccl 9:10), seeking to fulfill the requirements of order and of justice: staying in their place, carrying out the responsibilities appropriate to their gender, their social status, and their function within the community (1 Pet 4:10; 5:2), having good morals, doing nothing blameworthy or mean. In short, their manner of life, their conduct (anastrophē; 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16), should be commendable and appealing to pagans.

If Christians are marked by their good conduct, they will be known as an honest persons, agathopoioi: governors are appointed “to punish evildoers (kakopoiōn) and to praise doers of good” (1 Pet 2:14). This adjective, which places the beneficent or charming woman in contrast to the ponēria of the man in Sir 42:14, is attested only in three late papyri.

Closely related to agathopoiïa is agathōsynē, a strictly biblical term, unknown in secular Greek and in the papyri. Its meaning is doubtful. Used more than a dozen times in the LXX (tôb-tobah), it refers to the beneficence that someone has shown (Judg 8:35; 2 Chr 24:16), to kind generosity (Neh 9:25, 35), to moral goodness, to well-being and happiness. It is used in the New Testament only by St. Paul, who sees it as a gift of God (2 Thess 1:11), a fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) and of the light. This would be first of all goodwill or the intention to do that which is good, linked with the power of faith to accomplish it (2 Thess 1:11); then a right disposition of the soul, which we would call “kind feelings,” and which characterizes the person who is agathos, morally correct. This person’s excellence is seen in all areas: “in all goodness, justice, and truth” (Eph 5:9). But in the list of virtues in Gal 5:22, agathōsynē comes between chrēstotēs and faithfulness; it no longer means moral goodness so much as goodness of heart. St. Jerome made this excellent comment: “Kindness or mellowness – the two senses of the Greek chrēstotēs – is a sweet, caressing, quiet virtue, disposed to sharing all of its goods; it invites familiarity; it is sweet in its words, steady in its ways. The Stoics briefly define it as a virtue naturally given to doing good. Goodness per se (agathōsynē) is not far removed from kindness, because it also is given to doing good. The difference is that goodness can be a bit somber and have knitted brows and an austere moral tone, doubtless doing good and giving what is asked of it, but without being mellow in its dealings or drawing everyone in with its sweetness.” Thus agathōsynē will always take care to obtain for others that which is useful or beneficial, but it can have a stern side and apply itself to correcting and punishing; kindness adds to this basic and active goodness a shading of cordiality and sweetness (cf. Eph 4:32; Col 3:12).