Word Study: adokimos

I thought a separate thread might be a good place to gather these occasional contributions.

Once or twice I have received a request to examine the word ‘adokimos’. (thanks RobertW). Usually the request has come in the midst of a complicated discussion and they was not sufficient time available to examine the word and its cognates.The Greek adjective adokimos (Strongs G96) is used eight times in the NT. Rom 1:28; 1Co 9:27; 2Co 13:5; 2Co 13:6; 2Co 13:7; 2Ti 3:8; Tit_1:16; Heb 6:8; This little list and the spread of the references shows it to be a key concept in Paul’s thinking especially. It is variously translated in the KJV KJV-reprobate 6, castaway 1, rejected 1; Its meaning is given as1) not standing the test, not approved 1a) properly used of metals and coins2) that which does not prove itself such as it ought 2a) unfit for, unproved, spurious, reprobateThe word is made by adding the letter ‘a’ to ‘dokimos’. The prefix ‘a’ in Greek usually signifies ‘without’. So adokimos means ‘without dokimos’. So let’s look at dokimos. My apologies but tracing Greek words is often a Sherlock Holmes process. BTW There is a Sherlock Holmes story in which Holmes explains his method to Dr Watson. Dr Watson asks “What do you imagine that it means?” Holmes answer should be printed at the front of every study of this kind…he replies.”I have no idea yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts”. Students turning to the scripture to proof their theories will always be subject to this ‘insensible’ urge to twist facts to suit theories. Anyway, on with our Sherlock Holmes process. It adjective ‘dokimos’ itself comes from a Greek verb ‘dokeO’ which is translated by many different English words in the KJV. (think 33, seem 13, suppose 7, seem good 3, please 2, misc 5;)dokeO AV 63 1) to be of opinion, think, suppose 2) to seem, to be accounted, reputed 3) it seems to me 3a) I think, judge: thus in question 3b) it seems good to, pleased me, I determined The underlying sense of the word is to consider something, weigh the facts, and come to a settled decision. Vine’s expository dictionary has the following comment; Think [i]dokeo "to suppose, to think, to form an opinion," which may be either right or wrong, is sometimes rendered "to think," e.g., Matt_3:9; Matt_6:7; see dokeo_under_ACCOUNT, dokeo_under_SUPPOSE. The key thought here is the forming of an opinion as a result of considering something.The adjective dokimos then is applied to things which have undergone a process of assessment or approval. The implication, however, is that the thing tested has passed the test and is genuine.In classical Greek the word is used in a variety of ways.adokim-os , on, A. not legal tender, not current, of coin, Pl.Lg.742a; not approved, of horses, Arist.Ath.49.1. 2. unsatisfactory, unconvincing, of a statement, Ph.Bel.76.47, Alex.Aphr.in Top.576.14. 3. disreputable, lakismat' adokim' olbiois echein E.Tr.497 ; mousa Pl.Lg.829d , cf. D. 25.36,Ep.Rom.1.28. Adv. -môs Poll.5.160 . 4. of persons, Pl.R.618b; discredited, reprobate, X.Lac.3.3, 2 Ep.Tim.3.8, etc.there is a related verb to go with the processdoki^mazô , A. assay, test, porphuran kai chruson Isoc.12.39 ; tous oinous Arist.EN1118a28 ; ta nomismata Id.HA491a21 :--Med., prove for oneself, choose, chôran X.Oec.8.10 , cf. Men.532.11 (dub.):-- Pass., epeidan to ergon . . dokimasthêi CIG2266.15 (Delos).II. approve, sanction, meta dedokimasmenou [logou] mê xunepesthai Th.3.38 ; epsêphisasthe dokimasantes tous nomous, eit' anagrapsai toutous hoi an dokimasthôsi And.1.82 ; arrenas erôtas Plu.2.11e ; hopêi tautêi aretê dokimazetai Pl.R.407c : c. inf., ekponein edokimaze he approved of their working, X.Mem.1.2.4; epeidê . . edokimasthê tauta kalôs echein Th.2.35 . 2. as a political term, a. approve after scrutiny as fit for an office, Lys.16.3, Pl.Lg.759d, Arist.Ath.45.3:--Pass., to be approved as fit, Lys.15.6, etc.; dokimastheis archetô Pl.Lg.765b ; mou dokimazomenou when I was undergoing a scrutiny, D.21.111; dedokimasmenos [iatros] PFay.106.24 (ii A. D.), cf. PGnom.201 (ii A. D.): metaph., hon ho Hêphaistos edokimasen OGI90.3 (ii B. C.); huper tou stephanôthênai dokimazomai D.18.266 . b. pass as fit to serve, hippeuein dedokimasmenos Lys.14.22 , cf. X.An.3.3.20, IG22.1126.15, 1369. c. examine and admit boys to the class of ephêboi or ephêboi to the rights of manhood, Ar.V.578 (Pass.), Arist.Ath.42.2, etc.; heôs egô anêr einai dokimastheiên D.27.5 ; eis andras dedokimasmenoi Isoc.12.28 . d. test an orator's right to speak (cf. dokimasia 4 ), AB310. 3. c. inf., think fit to do, Luc. Bis Acc.31, J.AJ2.7.4, etc.: with neg., refuse to do, Ep.Rom.1.28: abs., BGU248.19 (i A. D.), etcLet me illustrate. For some years I worked as a labourer at the Wedgwoods pottery factory in Stoke on Trent. They had Quality Control system which finally placed the ‘Wedgwood’ mark prior to the last glazing. This mark meant that the process had been ‘looked over’ at every stage and found satisfactory. It had been tested and tried and fully ‘came up to Wedgwood standard’. Wedgwood was happy to have it reputation riding on this piece of china and so ‘stamped it Wedgwood’.Some china didn’t get through all the processes satisfactorily. To most people this china looked fine but not to the Wedgwood ‘lookers-over’ (the technical term!) They scrutineers would then refuse the Wedgwood mark. These cups and saucers might still be sold in local markets as ‘seconds’ but they did not carry the Wedgwood mark. That mark not only said ‘we made it’ but also ‘this is satisfactory’ to the makers.The same process has operated with gold and silver smiths for generations in the UK. They would add another stamp to declare the percentage of precious metal in the article.The Wedgwoods ‘lookers-over’, my mother-in-law did this job at one time, looked, and considered, and came to a settled conviction, and put their stamp of approval on the china. (Later standards dropped and even ‘seconds’ would bear the stamp.) If they had been Greek they would have used the verb ‘dokimazO’ to describe this whole process, including the stamp of approval. The cup with the Wedgwood mark would be ‘dokimos’, the cup without the mark would be ‘a-dokimos’. ‘a-dokimos’ would thus mean ‘not having stood the test’, and hence very possible substandard or a fake.The first use of ‘adokimos’ is very illustrative. (Rom 1:28 KJV) And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; The word ‘reprobate’ here is ‘adokimos’. Youngs Literal translation has (Rom 1:28 YLT) And, according as they did not approve of having God in knowledge, God gave them up to a disapproved mind, to do the things not seemly; We can see that Youngs is picking up the sense of something ‘not approved’ here, if other words it has failed the test. It is sub-standard and fake. But Youngs has done something else here; it has picked up Paul’s play on words in this verse. The KJV ‘like’ is the word ‘dokimazO’ Paul is describing, and he uses Aorist tenses throughout, man’s rejection of the knowledge of the true God. God has revealed Himself and mankind is without excuse, but mankind chose to withhold the stamp of approval. To use John’s language ‘they would not add their seal of approval to the witness of God.’ (John 3:33) The china passed all the tests but the factory still refused to authenticate it as ‘bona fide’ Wedgwood. Man’s state is one of wilful ignorance; he has rejected the witness of God to Himself. To have accepted it would to have brought man under its legitimate obligations of creature to Creator. Our race said ‘we will not have this man to reign over us’, even though we know Him to be the rightful Creator, we will not accept His rule. We will not add our signature to this proposal.We see now the pertinence of the judgment to the crime. They refused to ‘authenticate’ the revelation of God, and God abandoned them to a mind that was without His ‘authentication’. A sub-standard, counterfeit mind, unfit for the purpose for which it was intended and utterly unreliable. It is only as we respond in faith to God’s revelation of Himself to us that this process begins to be reversed. We see/hear the revelation, we put to it our seal that God is true, and our mind, now submitting to revelation begins to work as it was intended. So all these ideas of failing the test, being sub-standard, not fit for the use for which it was intended, without God’s seal of approval, counterfeit, spurious, are lurking in the word ‘adokimos’.Perhaps now we can look at the way the Bible uses it.And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; (Rom 1:28 KJV)But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway. (1Co 9:27 KJV)Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates? (2Co 13:5 KJV)But I trust that ye shall know that we are not reprobates. (2Co 13:6 KJV)Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved (dokimos), but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates(adokimos). (2Co 13:7 KJV)Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. (2Ti 3:8 KJV)They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Tit 1:16 KJV)But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Heb 6:8 KJV)

This is very good. Can we look a little more at the process of refining before we tackle the passages. I recall a passage in the Old Testament when God said that the 'bellows' was burned and the smelter smelts in vain; reprobate silver they are to be called because God has rejected them. What is the 'dross' that is being refined out of the person's mind and heart in order to attain the 'Wedgwood' seal of approval (as it were)? I think this one puzzle piece will help us also understand what is going on in the passages. The 'Smelter' has burned up His bellows because He got the fire so hot trying to bring the person from reprobation. The bellows burst into flames? What would not be refined?

What is the 'dross' that is being refined out of the person's mind and heart in order to attain the 'Wedgwood' seal of approval (as it were)? I think this one puzzle piece will help us also understand what is going on in the passages. The 'Smelter' has burned up His bellows because He got the fire so hot trying to bring the person from reprobation. The bellows burst into flames? What would not be refined?This is . (Jer 6:29-30 KJV) The bellows are burned, the lead is consumed of the fire; the founder melteth in vain: for the wicked are not plucked away. Reprobate silver shall men call them, because the LORD hath rejected them. I think before we do the exposition we need to do the exogesis.There are some dreadfully final judgments in Jeremiah, but the sparkles of hope keep shining through too. One of the things that Jeremiah was commissioned to do was to root out, and to pull down, and destroy, and to throw down… to build, and to plant. The emphasis, however, is on demolition. The problem with Judah is that they healed too quickly before the word had done its work among them. The prophets were partly to blame in this. No doubt when there were signs of improvement they immediately switched to the brighter shinings of the promises.In your passage the emphasis is on the hopelessness of the situation. Judah and Jerusalem is beyond help. There is, in them, no good thing. The fires that burn do not smelt away the dross to release the pure silver. It is all dross, there is no silver. In that sense this refining process is pointless. The condition of Judah and Jerusalem is beyond remedy. When the smelting, purifying process was accomplished there was no silver residue. Sometimes the paraphrases of the CEV and the Message get the mood very clearly. but my people are too wicked to be made pure, and so I have rejected them. (Jer 6:30 CEV) and Men will give up and call them 'slag,' thrown on the slag heap by me, their GOD."(Jer 6:30 MSG) These are hopeless as translations but they have nevertheless touched the heart of Jeremiah’s prophecy here.This terminal condition is reflected in the verse The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it? (Jer 17:9 KJV) Young’s says Crooked is the heart above all things, And it is incurable--who doth know it? (Jer 17:9 YLT) The word ‘crooked’ is the word we get Jacob from. Judah was incurably ‘jacob’, with no Israel in it. Judah was 100% there was nothing redeemable in it; it is all rejected.These are terrifying prophecies for God’s own people, and this is why Jeremiah was largely rejected. They would not accept his witness.Now where do we start the exposition? For myself, I would have to start with the promise not of a cured old heart, but of a new one. Not a repaired covenant but a new one. (seems we’ve been here before. ;-)) I think the metaphor of producing saints in the crucible is biblical but I think we have to think through its implications. There is a tendency to think that the work of purifying goes on throughout the whole of life. This is not the bible metaphor. Biblically, this kind of purifying was the work of an intense hour, not a lifetime.

The problem with Judah is that they healed too quickly before the word had done its work among them. The prophets were partly to blame in this. No doubt when there were signs of improvement they immediately switched to the brighter shinings of the promises.So we see then that they were brought to the place of repentance over and over again- yeilding only 'improvement'; but improvement is not repentance. This tells me we must keep the fire hot until the fire does the work. The bellows at this point almost seems metaphorically to be the preacher (prophet) himself flowing with the Pneuma of God. The wind of a fresh word kindling the fire that both lights and heats. As Finney would put it they were "convicted" or "anxious" sinners who would never repent. I keep coming back to his progression as I believe it fits so well:1) Careless Sinners2) Awakened Sinners3) Convicted SinnersSee if I have this right?-If they will submit to the hand of the 'Smelter' who works for but 'one hour' they will be gloriously regenerated and transformed from dross to silver. If they will not submit to what the Holy Spirit is doing they remain as dross. here is a tendency to think that the work of purifying goes on throughout the whole of life. This is not the bible metaphor. Biblically, this kind of purifying was the work of an intense hour, not a lifetime.Do you think though that there is a 'fine tuning' and 'refinement' that must carry on after that crisis event? Or are the trials that come merely to authenticate the silver? Thanks,-Robert

Hi Robert So we see then that they were brought to the place of repentance over and over again- yeilding only 'improvement'; but improvement is not repentance. This tells me we must keep the fire hot until the fire does the work. The bellows at this point almost seems metaphorically to be the preacher (prophet) himself flowing with the Pneuma of God. The wind of a fresh word kindling the fire that both lights and heats. As Finney would put it they were "convicted" or "anxious" sinners who would never repent. I keep coming back to his progression as I believe it fits so well:I think Jeremiah’s point here is that no amount of heat is going to purify non-existent silver. I think these people will have to come to utter helplessness and desperation. I think my understanding of prophecy and of Jeremiah in particular is heavily dependent on Jeremiah 18 If we put this no-hope death sentence into the scenario of Jeremiah 18what do we get?The vessel of the nation is ‘ruined’ in the hands of the potter. There is no silver in this ore. Is that the end the story? No!!! The potter re-made his vessel, again, another vessel as seemed good to the potter to make it. My time at Wedgwood was with a ‘china-thrower’ a man who made vessels on the throwers wheel. When it goes wrong, it cannot be mended. The potter will lean all his weight on the clay and flatten it to utter shapelessness; all trace of the former vessel has gone. Now he will lift it, gently nursing the clay up and out to give it carrying capacity again. He has made it again, another vessel.God then applies this to his people. God has passed sentence against them. They are silver-less ore, they are stone hearted and incurable, rotten figs unfit for human consumption, no longer fit for divine consumption. So the judgments are set in process. It’s all over now isn’t it? No!!! At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; If that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. (Jer 18:7-8 KJV) Really? For this hopeless, useless, valueless, refuse of a nation? Yes, He can start again.The folly of the nation was that they refused this last chance too. Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good. And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. (Jer 18:11-12 KJV) To say ‘there is no hope’ when God has just said ‘there is hope’ is a form of defiance. The nation went into bondage.But while today if we hear His voice, harden not your hearts… While it is called ‘today’ there is hope. But the change begins where Jeremiah said it must; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent… There is a hopelessness which drives people to God, and another which drives them away. Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. (2Co 7:9-10 KJV) Do you think though that there is a 'fine tuning' and 'refinement' that must carry on after that crisis event? Or are the trials that come merely to authenticate the silver? When the silver is purified where would the impurities come from? They must have been ‘added’. In fact, I think the only way we can ‘corrupt’ gold and silver is to add other things to it. Silver and gold may oxidise slightly in air but they don’t corrupt naturally. (any scientists? please challenge or tweak this point)Many ‘other things’ do get added to the gold of God’s work in His saints. Lots of rubbish gets dumped in the Temple that should never have been there. When we become aware of such things we must call on Him who purifies the sons of Levi, and cooperate with him in cleansing the temple.One of the messages that Greg has on SI is called Hezekiah; not a very exciting title but it deals with getting the Temple fit for God again when it has become polluted. It might be something the Lord might use at end of year. It meanders a bit at the beginning but settles down to its topic ultimately. It has a follow-on called David and Goliath which will explain my phrase in another thread “the expulsive power of a new affection”.

Thanks Bro. Ron,Say can you begin dealing with the verses that deal with the adokimos passages containing the word the 'mind'? I will be listening to the sermons in the mean while.You have done much already today so I will not ask for it today; just as you get time. I appreciate all your help!God Bless,-Robert

Very helpful, thank you for the word study. It is interesting that I come upon this after having gone through Jeremiah 42 mere moments ago. I won't go into the details, but obviously the theme of God dealing with a totally-corrupt remnant is prevalent. At the end, when Jeremiah says:Jeremiah 4220 For ye dissembled in your hearts, when ye sent me unto the LORD your God, saying, Pray for us unto the LORD our God; and according unto all that the LORD our God shall say, so declare unto us, and we will do it.21 And now I have this day declared it to you; but ye have not obeyed the voice of the LORD your God, nor any thing for the which he hath sent me unto you.22 Now therefore know certainly that ye shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence, in the place whither ye desire to go and to sojourn.Reading it, I almost tremble now, even though the word was given unto a different people thousands of years ago.My thoughts were along the lines of "for there was no repentance in the heart of the remnant of Judah." Not "a little repentance, needing to be coaxed out by crisis," but none, there was nothing left, and only selfish desire that it be well with them (v.6) drove them to seek Jeremiah about the LORD's will in the first place.This is very interesting, I had never thought of "reprobate silver" as meaning "not silver at all," is that the sense you get from it? It would make a good way of understanding the Biblical concept of total depravity, I think.

Hi KeithThis is very interesting, I had never thought of "reprobate silver" as meaning "not silver at all," is that the sense you get from it? It would make a good way of understanding the Biblical concept of total depravity, I think.Yes, that's the sense I get from it. No silver at all.and Yes, very much my way of thinking about 'total depravity'.Hey, Keith, that's two 'yes-es' from me in one posting. You might want to print this one out and save it. :-D

Hey, Keith, that's two 'yes-es' from me in one posting. You might want to print this one out and save it. :-D I should put it on my refigerator! ;-)A question about one of the N.T. instances of the word: was Paul saying that it was genuinely possible for him to transition from where he was into a state of "no silver at all" in the "castaway" verse?

A question about one of the N.T. instances of the word: was Paul saying that it was genuinely possible for him to transition from where he was into a state of "no silver at all" in the "castaway" verse?hmmm. My adokimos thread really has the underlying theme of ‘failed’ ‘not come up to standard’ and hence not ‘approved unto God’ (2 Tim 2:15 and ‘dokimos’.) We then have to see how it applies in all those eight verses of the NT.RobertW has linked the ‘unapproved’ of the NT with the ‘reject silver’ of Jer 6:30. The word refuse or rejected has quite a history in Jeremiah. It would be worthwhile looking up the Strongs number on Jeremiah just to see how it is used. (Jer 2:37; Jer 4:30; Jer 6:19; Jer 6:30; Jer 7:29; Jer 8:9; Jer 14:19; Jer 31:37; Jer 33:24; Jer 33:26;)There is a link, I’m sure, but the NT word passes from just the idea of reject silver to anything which fails to get God’s approval. For the people of Judah it was their whole lives; I have a feeling that for the NT it is much more linked to the idea of service and God’s approval or not. So, at this stage, of our ‘data gathering’ (and this word study is a real-time exercise) I don’t conclude the ‘unapproved’ of Paul translated ‘castaway’ in the KJV of 1 Cor 9:27 is utter rejection of Paul as a person. I’m trying to express all this very carefully. Our English word ‘reprobate’ has now come to mean a thoroughly unprincipled and incurable rogue, but that is an acquired usage. In the 1 Cor 9:27 verse, for example the NASB opts for ‘disqualified’. This changes the mood entirely and makes us ask the question; ‘disqualified from what?’ Heaven? Millennial rule? Future service? We shall have to look at these verses. I am determined to stick to my Sherlock Holmes and make the theory fit the data rather than the other way about.The question could also be asked ‘what had Judah forfeited by its disqualification?’ personal individual salvation? That doesn’t seem to have been in the frame in the Jeremiah verses. Chosen vessel status? Much more likely I think, but we’ll need to look again at those NT verses. If I followed through on these hunches, I would be on my way to saying Paul’s fear was that he would lose his ‘ministry’ rather than his personal salvation. The 2 Tim 2:15 verse has me heading in that direction too.

I agree that we had best stick to searching out the facts first, then forming theories to fit them.The N.T. passages are somewhat more important to me, but I'm curious about this aspect of the Jeremiah passages:The question could also be asked ‘what had Judah forfeited by its disqualification?’ personal individual salvation? That doesn't seem to have been in the frame in the Jeremiah verses. Chosen vessel status? Much more likely I think,In Jeremiah 42, where God is dealing with a specific remnant of Judah ( vv. 1 & 8 : "all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest," are we dealing with the same 'reprobate silver' here?), I think the theme is not merely one of disqualification but one of destruction.Jeremiah 4217 So shall it be with all the men that set their faces to go into Egypt to sojourn there; they shall die by the sword, by the famine, and by the pestilence: and none of them shall remain or escape from the evil that I will bring upon them.18 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; As mine anger and my fury hath been poured forth upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so shall my fury be poured forth upon you, when ye shall enter into Egypt: and ye shall be an execration, and an astonishment, and a curse, and a reproach; and ye shall see this place no more.Is God not here saying to those that would spurn His previous gift of deliverance from Egypt, and His present offer of reconciliation (on very generous terms, vv. 10-12), that He would not only not use them as a chosen vessel, not only leave them to their natural fate apart from His guidance, but essentially hunt them down and wreak calamity upon them, unto their utter destruction? (I'm taking "evil" in v. 17 to mean 'calamity' rather than 'injustice', for obvious reasons)

Hi Keith,In Jeremiah 42, where God is dealing with a specific remnant of Judah ( vv. 1 & 8 : "all the captains of the forces, and Johanan the son of Kareah, and Jezaniah the son of Hoshaiah, and all the people from the least even unto the greatest," are we dealing with the same 'reprobate silver' here?), I think the theme is not merely one of disqualification but one of destruction. I’m sure you’re right. I think the Amos verse; You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities. (Amo 3:2 KJV) is always at work in God’s dealings with the people of His Sinai covenant. Great privilege brought great responsibility, and punishment for all your iniquities. Again, though we have done the exogesis, what it meant then, we must go on to the exposition, what it means for me. In Jeremiah we shall find principles that will need to be transposed into a different key for a clear NT understanding. The OT is giving us basic building blocks for concepts and principles.For Judah the destruction came. The last verses (but two) of 2 Chronicles 36:14-21 are the terrible fulfilment of the threat that recurs right through Jeremiah. These verses actually tie in the deportations with the prophecies of Jeremiah. The amazing thing was that after the total destruction of city and temple and priesthood and the deportation of Judah, God turned the captivity of Zion. The remnant carried the promises but millions never returned and passed from history into myth and legend.Jer 42:17,18… Is God not here saying to those that would spurn His previous gift of deliverance from Egypt, and His present offer of reconciliation (on very generous terms, vv. 10-12), that He would not only not use them as a chosen vessel, not only leave them to their natural fate apart from His guidance, but essentially hunt them down and wreak calamity upon them, unto their utter destruction? (I'm taking "evil" in v. 17 to mean 'calamity' rather than 'injustice', for obvious reasons)Historically some who had rebelled against Babylon chose to take refuge in Egypt, although Jeremiah told them plainly that they would not escape God’s anger by doing so. They took Jeremiah with them as a hostage; So Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, and all the people, obeyed not the voice of the LORD, to dwell in the land of Judah. But Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the captains of the forces, took all the remnant of Judah, that were returned from all nations, whither they had been driven, to dwell in the land of Judah; Even men, and women, and children, and the king's daughters, and every person that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard had left with Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Jeremiah the prophet, and Baruch the son of Neriah. (Jer 43:4-6 KJV)I think this is just showing the thoroughness of God’s wrath and that retribution was inescapable, even for those who fled to Egypt. Jeremiah continued to prophesy to all Judah that are in the land of Egypt. Jer 44:24The Jeremiah 42:10-12 is really a promise that reaches beyond the coming judgment. Some leaders within Judah had determined to escape Babylonian capture by intending to flee to Egypt. Jeremiah warns them that they would do better to stay in Judah, even though Babylon would conquer them. Those who stayed in Judah went into captivity in Babylon and some returned. Of those who fled to Egypt, retribution would still follow them, but there would be no ‘restoration’ for them.

So say the experts… my view will follow!Vines Expository DictionaryReprobateadokimos signifying "not standing the test, rejected" (a, negative, dokimos, "approved"), was primarily applied to metals (cp. Isaiah_1:22); it is used always in the NT in a Passive sense, (a) of things, Heb_6:8, "rejected," of land that bears thorns and thistles; (b) of persons, Rom_1:28, of a "reprobate mind," a mind of which God cannot approve, and which must be rejected by Him, the effect of refusing "to have God in their knowledge;" in 1_Cor_9:27 (for which see CAST, REJECT); 2_Cor_13:5,6,7, where the RV rightly translates the adjective "reprobate" (AV, "reprobates"), here the reference is to the great test as to whether Christ is in a person; in 2_Tim_3:8 of those "reprobate concerning the faith," i.e., men whose moral sense is perverted and whose minds are beclouded with their own speculations; in Titus_1:16, of the defiled, who are "unto every good work reprobate," i.e., if they are put to the test in regard to any good work (in contrast to their profession), they can only be rejected. In the Sept., Prov_25:4; Isaiah_1:22.Easton's Bible Dictionary[b[Reprobate[/b] - that which is rejected on account of its own worthlessness (Jer_6:30; Heb_6:8; Gr. adokimos, "rejected"). This word is also used with reference to persons cast away or rejected because they have failed to make use of opportunities offered them (1_Cor_9:27; 2_Cor_13:5-7).International Standard Bible EncyclopediaReprobaterep´rṓ-bāt: This word occurs in the English Bible in the following passages: Jer_6:30 (the Revised Version (British and American) “refuse”); Rom_1:28; 2Co_13:5, 2Co_13:6, 2Co_13:7; 2Ti_3:8; Tit_1:16. In all these cases the Greek has ἀδόκιμος, adókimos. The same Greek word, however, is found with other renderings in Isa_1:22 (“dross”); Pro_25:4 (“dross”); 1Co_9:27 (“castaway,” the Revised Version (British and American) “rejected”). The primary meaning of adokimos is “not-received,” “not-acknowledged.” This is applied to precious metals or money, in the sense of “not-current,” to which, however, the connotation “not-genuine” easily attaches itself. It is also applied to persons who do not or ought not to receive honor or recognition. This purely negative conception frequently passes over into the positive one of that which is or ought to be rejected, either by God or men. Of the above passages 1Co_9:27 uses the word in this meaning. Probably Rom_1:28, “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind” must be explained on the same principle: the noús of the idolatrous heathen is permitted by God to fall into such extreme forms of evil as to meet with the universal rejection and reprobation of men. Wettstein's interpretation, “an unfit mind,” i.e. incapable of properly performing its function of moral discrimination, has no linguistic warrant, and obliterates the wordplay between “they refused to have God in their knowledge (ouk edokímasan),” and “God gave them up to a reprobate (= unacknowledged, adokimos) mind.” Even Tit_1:16, “unto every good work reprobate,” affords no instance of the meaning unfit, but belongs to the following rubric.The close phonetic resemblance and etymological affinity of dokimos to the verb dokimázō, “to try,” “test,” has caused the notion of “being tested,” “tried,” and its opposite of “being found wanting in the test” to associate itself more or less distinctly with the adjectives dokimos and adokimos. Thus the more complex meaning results of that which is acknowledged or rejected, because it has approved or not approved itself in testing. This connotation is present in 2Co_13:5, 2Co_13:6, 2Co_13:7; 2Ti_3:8; Tit_1:16; Heb_6:8. In the first two of these passages the word is used of Christians who ostensibly were in the true faith, but either hypothetically or actually are represented as having failed to meet the test. “Reprobate unto every good work” (Tit_1:16) are they who by their life have disappointed the expectation of good works. The “reprobate (rejected) land” of Heb_6:8 is land that by bearing thorns and thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband man. It should be noticed, however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of rejection because of failure in trial; compare in the last-named passage: “rejected and nigh unto cursing.”

The “reprobate (rejected) land” of Heb_6:8 is land that by bearing thorns and thistles has failed to meet the test of the husband man. It should be noticed, however, that adokimos, even in these cases, always retains the meaning of rejection because of failure in trial; compare in the last-named passage: “rejected and nigh unto cursing.”Hi Bro. Ron,I was thinking on this passage today; the passage reads; For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. The land itself would not burn if set fire by the husbandman; only the plants themselves. The land could be cursed though. The plants bring forth after their own kind. They were born of thorns and thistles and bring forth after their own kind. Yet, this particular land seems to only want to produce thorns and thistles. Why would that be? In desert regions and during dry times you will notice that only very thorny plants grow in these dry areas. As a matter of fact, we have cactus plants that will grow just fine under the driest conditions in the Southwest part of the country. I used to have a saying that the seeds of sin will grow on the very soil of your heart in which you quinch the Holy spirit and harden you heart. Metaphorically, I see the Holy Spirit as that 'rain' coming down being quinched from the ground and dryness and hardness results. The process produces ground that becomes "fallow ground", which must be broken up. We read in Jeremiah 4:3 For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. What is he saying here? Get rid of the sin and break up the ground of your heart? We read again; Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground: for it is time to seek the LORD, till he come and rain righteousness upon you. Hardened ground will not absorb 'in' the rain that cometh often upon it; but it will do just that, "drinketh it in." Like a desert after a hard rain, the soil is too hard to receive it in as it would in a well tilled area. Yet, soil does not have free moral agency- man does. The Holy Ghost is poured out and poured out and poured out and yet an individual can still find a means of only supporting the most vile of plantlife. Where are the fruits of the Spirit? Why are we seeing all these 'thorns' and 'briars.' I think the key is back in Jeremiah 4:3 For thus saith the LORD to the men of Judah and Jerusalem, Break up your fallow ground, and sow not among thorns. The people simply refuse to cooperate with the Holy Ghost because they want their sin. God deals with them and deals with them and they are not saved. The bellows are burned, the smelter smelteth in vain. Any thoughts?God bless,-Robert

So far, what I'm getting on adokimos:Adjective, usually of humans (even the application to metal is a metaphor for the state of Judah).General connotation of "rejected", "unapproved", "unapprovable", "unacceptable", etc.Apparently also connotations of "unacknowledged" (any connection to "I never knew you" and/or "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."?)And there seems to be some dispute as to whether it could mean "unfit" when applied to "mind", meaning that the "reprobate mind" is incapable of moral sense, perhaps to the degree that salvation is impossible for those with such a mind. How do the facts fit (or not fit) that kind of theory, anyway?Some of my questions, which I think have been partly answered:What, exactly, does it mean for a man to be adokimos? Is there more than one answer, depending on the instance?Who, exactly, does the Bible call adokimos?What effect does being adokimos have on one's relationship with God?Is it mutable or immutable (Delboy. changeable or unchangeable :-))?

Hi KeithAdjective, usually of humans (even the application to metal is a metaphor for the state of Judah).General connotation of "rejected", "unapproved", "unapprovable", "unacceptable", etc.Apparently also connotations of "unacknowledged" (any connection to "I never knew you" and/or "But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons."?)I have a strong sense that the order is important here. tested - unapproved - rejected. This brings us back to the question as to what is being tested. Is it the man or his works? Is it the man or his ministry? Is the man or his fitness for more responsibility?Hi RobertThis Hebrews reference is the only non-Paul use of the term in the new testament. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. (Heb 6:8 KJV) This is a very important passage of scripture coming as it does in the most severe warning in the New Testament.I think the ‘target audience’ of Hebrews is very important. They are people with a solid background of Jeremiah and all the other prophets. They would have been aware of the ‘second chance’ that had been given to Israel in the Restoration under Zerubbabel, Ezra and Nehemiah. They would have heard the ominous warnings of Malachi with its repeated note of finality; Oh that there were one among you that would shut the doors, that ye might not kindle fire on mine altar in vain! I have no pleasure in you, saith Jehovah of hosts, neither will I accept an offering at your hand. (Mal 1:10 ASV)They may well have been among those who heard the death knell of the nation; Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. (Mat 21:43 KJV) They may have even heard the terrible statement; Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. (Mat 23:36-38 KJV) He who had defended His Father’s house now disowns it; your house is left unto you desolate This is the same verdict as was pronounced on Judas Iscariot; For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. (Act 1:20 KJV)If we keep all this in mind as we read Hebrews it brings things into sharper focus and is, I think, the true context of this letter. So often they had rejected the words received by the fathers through the prophets, but in these last days God has spoken to us in a Son. The same theme continues at different points in Hebrews Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of reward; How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? (Heb 2:1-4 KJV) Christ and His New Covenant is God’s last word. He is the heir, 1:4, of whom Israel said But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. (Mat 21:38 KJV)Imagine then the remnant who have had all these ‘second chances’ and who have responded to the last word, if they should then begin to reject that and then begin to ‘draw back’; Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Heb 10:38-39 KJV) To these who have received such grace upon grace upon grace, and …were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, (Heb 6:4-5 KJV)… what more can God do?It is in this context that we get our only non-pauline use in the New Testament of adokimos; For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected (adokimos, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned. But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation, though we thus speak. (Heb 6:7-9 KJV)It seems to me that this is spoken to the believing remnant and is particularly applicable to them. I think we have to repeat the introduction to get the sense clearly i.e. a)For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: b) earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected (adokimos, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned.The point I am trying to make is that both kinds of land received exactly the same ‘experiences’ from God, but the former produces a harvest, the latter only thorns and briers. The former consequently is blessed, the latter adokimos, assessment according to purpose and quality, failure to meet the requirements, dis-approval, and ultimately rejection.If we put some flesh on ‘experiences’ from God, gained from the previous verses… if some are enlightened, have tasted the heavenly gift, (in Hebrews that does not mean a tentative sip, Christ tasted death for every man), were make partakers of the Holy Spirit, have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of a coming age… if some have received all these ‘experiences’ and only bring forth thorns and briers, the consequence is ‘rejection’ and they are on the point of being cursed and burned.I think it is pretty much agreed that Hebrews is pre-AD 70 and the destruction of the Temple and its rituals. Surely that was a demonstration of cursing and burning. This passage of Hebrews says the cursing is ‘nigh’ and the culmination ‘end’ is burning. Later in Hebrews the writer speaks of the Old Covenant; By saying, a new covenant, He has declared that the first is old. And what is old and aging is about to disappear. (Heb 8:13 HCSB) Even the outer form disappeared with the destruction of the Temple.We could quote several other verses from Hebrews but my purpose is to suggest that Hebrews is written to a particular group of people with a unique history and poised on the point of turning back from the New Covenant to the old. I think this reference is ‘group’ focussed. This group, the believing remnant, were in danger of ‘drawing back’ and so utterly forfeiting what God had planned for them.This warning has a personal dimension, but I think the main thrust is ‘group’.That’s long enough. I’ll wait for your comments.

Hi Bro. Ron,We could quote several other verses from Hebrews but my purpose is to suggest that Hebrews is written to a particular group of people with a unique history and poised on the point of turning back from the New Covenant to the old. I think this reference is ‘group’ focussed. This group, the believing remnant, were in danger of ‘drawing back’ and so utterly forfeiting what God had planned for them.Yes, the Messianic Jews call this book (Hebrews) "Messianic Jews." I agree that it was targeted to the believing Jews and those Jews who were halting between two opinions. I think though that the same can be said in a general sense to the Gospels and the Prophets, so I don't want to just set the book aside and suggest it applies only to the Jews. I don't think that's what you're suggesting here, I just feel the passage still applies. My reasoning for that goes back to the grafting in passages of Romans. The words of Hebrews were to the Jew first; but also to the Gentile. The Corinthian church comes to mind. They had tasted of the Heavenly gift, the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come. What if some of them 'drank in' all these things and yet yielded thornes and briars? :-( We also are down wind of these things and have beheld the destruction of Israel and Jerusalem as a land (in our history books that is) in 70 and 135 CE. The mass amounts of calamities. We see a foretaste of the 'burnings.' Yet these things were written as our examples and for our learning. i guess I'm saying, it seems to me that we also are familiar with these passages as were the Jews as well as the destruction that came on the unbelievers. We seem to have more 'light' than even those to whom the Hebrews was written. So the list could be longer now and read were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come + the knowledge of the destruction of the priesthood, Temple, Jerusalem, Israel, Ananias and Sapphira, etc. etc. moreover we have something few had in those days- we have the vast proliferation of the word of God through the printing press and electronic media. God is on every hand. Am I seeing this all wrong or was there an element there that i'm missing? :-?God Bless,-Robert

I don't want to just set the book aside and suggest it applies only to the Jews. I don't think that's what you're suggesting here,No, that wasn’t what I was suggesting. I was rather trying to get the atmosphere of the passage; along the lines of Wycliffe’s famous advice...It Shall Greatly Helpe Ye To Understande Scripture If Thou Mark...Not only what is Spoken or Wryttenbut of Whomand to Whomwith what Wordsat what TimeWhereto what Intentwith what Circumstancesconsidering what Goeth Beforeand what Followeth. Yes, the Messianic Jews call this book (Hebrews) "Messianic Jews." I agree that it was targeted to the believing Jews and those Jews who were halting between two opinions. I don’t think Hebrews is written to those halting between two opinions. I think it was written to those who were in danger of turning around and heading back the way they had come; to those who were contemplating ‘apostasy’. They are not those who have ‘not arrived’ but those who have ‘become such as have need of milk and not of strong meat.’ That ‘become’ does not suggest non-arrival but retreat. I think it is this ‘retreat’ or apostasy that is in mind in Hebrews. I don’t think we are dealing here with people who have lost their footing but with people who are in danger of making a clear decision to return to the Old Covenant. This would be impossible unless the person discredited the sacrifice of the cross, Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29 KJV) The whole section in the NASB is Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know Him who said, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY." And again, "THE LORD WILL JUDGE HIS PEOPLE." (Heb 10:28-30 NASB)This would be the last straw, hence the last word, and the last warning, and all these references to the better things.I think 1 Corinthians is different ground. They are behaving like babes in Christ and hence ‘carnal’. The little list of examples of carnality, ‘envying, strife, divisions,’ are sins rather than apostasy. They have refused to grow, rather than decided to return the way they came.The Hebrews warning comes on the heels of generations of similar warnings, and this is the last. To turn away from this revelation knowingly and to choose Sinai again is without remedy.I would support my hunches my looking at another sobre passage of Hebrews. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: (Heb 10:28 KJV) This seems to be a reference to At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (Deu 17:6 KJV) but if it is that section of Deuteronomy is very specifically dealing with apostates. Concluding Deuteronomy we have the sentence; The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. (Deu 29:29 KJV) They had ‘received’ the truth, and embraced it. There was no excuse for ignorance. If, in full knowledge of this revelation and initial embracing of it, the covenant member then turns consciously chooses other Gods… And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; (Deu 17:3 KJV).. that person was removed from the covenant community by stoning.Again it is this extreme case that seems to be in the mind of the writer to Hebrews. I am not saying this to excuse compromise or luke-warmness, but simply that I do think we have extreme cases in view. Of course such luke-warmness might be the first signs of coming apostasy. I note that the only community in the Seven Churches which was threatened with total excommunication and annihilation (the removal of the lampstand) was Ephesus which had ‘left’ her ‘first love’.What I am saying is the context and style of these Hebrew warnings is very reminiscent of warnings to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels. In other words, I don’t think these strong warnings have their place in normal pastoral admonition but more in the setting of studied apostasy.

Hi Bro. Ron,It Shall Greatly Helpe Ye To Understande Scripture If Thou Mark...Not only what is Spoken or Wryttenbut of Whomand to Whomwith what Wordsat what TimeWhereto what Intentwith what Circumstancesconsidering what Goeth Beforeand what Followeth.I love this quote. The post is very good also.What I am saying is the context and style of these Hebrew warnings is very reminiscent of warnings to the nation of Israel in the Old Testament and the Gospels. In other words, I don’t think these strong warnings have their place in normal pastoral admonition but more in the setting of studied apostasy.I agree and that is how I have used this passage. It seems to belong to those who have truly renounced Christ. So it seems that modern application would be in terms of such as have turned to other gods? Would you concur?God Bless,-Robert