When we think of faith, hope, and love, we think, of course, of the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love …” 

It’s a scripture every Christian knows and one of the first ones we may memorize. But many do not realize how important these three qualities are in the writings of Paul. He is the only New Testament writer who groups faith, hope, and love together in quite this way, though the Book of Hebrews – which was clearly heavily influenced by Paul, even if he was not its author –  is the only other New Testament book that does group the three qualities directly (Hebrews 10:22-24).

For Paul, faith, hope, and love were more than just the topics of an important section of his letter to the Corinthian church.  The three qualities appear grouped together in almost every one of the apostle’s letters, though we may not always see it.   Paul sometimes mentions only one or two of the three concepts in a given verse, so it may not be obvious that they are all present in the same chapter or letter,  but the three qualities permeate almost everything Paul wrote and  are frequently found bound together in the same way we find them grouped in 1 Corinthians 13:13. Consider these three verses:

“… the faith and love that spring from the hope …”  (Colossians 1:5).
“… your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope” (1 Thessalonians 1:3).
“putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet” (1 Thessalonians 5:8).

Sometimes Paul includes faith, hope, and love in longer lists of spiritual qualities, and we may not connect them as we read the list, but the main reason we may not see how frequently Paul uses this great triad in his writing is that he often varies the expression faith, hope, and love by replacing one of the qualities with a related one which suggests the same thing from a specific angle.  In these cases we can learn much regarding how Paul thought about faith, hope, and love by seeing what words he uses to substitute for these qualities.

​Take, for example, the way Paul often substitutes “endurance” for hope (just as we saw them connected in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, above): “pursue … faith, love, endurance …” (1 Timothy 6:11); “… your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing… we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4); “Teach the older men to be … sound in faith, in love and in endurance” (Titus 2:2).

The concepts of hope and endurance are clearly related, and by writing endurance instead of hope, Paul stresses that particular aspect of hope in what he is saying. Sometimes, just as he uses “endurance,” the apostle uses “patience” as another synonym for hope (2 Timothy 3:10, etc.).

If we look at another example: “… faith, love and holiness …” (1 Timothy 2: 15), we find holiness taking the place of hope, and these two qualities are also connected, as Paul shows in speaking of the hope we have in the promises of God: “Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves… perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

So too, when Paul writes of “… sound teaching, with faith and love” (2 Timothy 1:13), he uses sound teaching in place of hope – which might seem strange, but right teaching gives us hope, and if we look carefully at the context in which Paul writes this to Timothy, it  is, in fact, one of hope (vs. 12). 

As a final example, notice the way Paul uses “good conscience” as the basis for  hope in his letter to Timothy: “The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).  Paul’s point is clear in making this substitution – it is only when our consciences do not condemn us that we have true hope.
 
We have only considered variants of “hope” in these examples, but if you look for them you will find that Paul frequently varies the words he uses for each of the three great qualities.  We can learn a great deal by being aware of this fact and letting it teach us.  So next time you see faith, hope, and love – or something similar – in the writings of Paul, think about it. Ask yourself what you can learn about these vital qualities of Christian living through Paul’s choice of words and how they may illuminate the context of what is being said. 

Often this small technique can open up unexpected insights into some key areas of Paul’s teaching.  It’s a way we can come to better understand the three things that Paul tells us – repeatedly – matter the most.
 
* Download our free e-book on faith, hope, and love and read it on any computer or e-reader and on many smart phones!   

​Some feel that the Bible teaches that it is wrong for women to wear jewelry or expensive clothes or even elaborate hairstyles.  One of the scriptures used to support this view is found in the apostle Paul’s words to Timothy on the subject of women’s adornment:

 “…  I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,  but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Timothy 2:8-10).

The first thing we must realize is that Paul’s instructions in this regard are for a specific setting – that of public worship.  The apostle begins this instruction in the first verse of the chapter speaking about prayer. He elaborates on this topic before saying “Therefore … “ – meaning as a result of what he has just said about public prayer – “I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.  I also want the women to dress modestly…” (1 Timothy 2:8-9).  His thoughts regarding both men and women are relative to prayer.

So Paul’s instructions regarding women’s dress and appearance are aimed primarily at public worship. The key is that he says the women should dress “modestly” (vs. 9), meaning not to draw attention to themselves in a way that is not fitting for public worship.  We should also realize that the word translated to “dress” modestly can refer to demeanor as well as dress, to behavior as well as clothing.

We see this principle throughout what Paul says. When he speaks of “elaborate hairstyles” he is not condemning women styling their hair, but the practice of the time in which well-to-do Greco-Roman women would weave gold threads into their hair – again to draw attention to themselves (see also 1 Peter 3:3).  The proper attire for Christian women in Christian worship, Paul stresses, is not attire that is focused on themselves, but  that which is “appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (vs. 10).

From Paul’s perspective there are two things wrong with women wearing the kinds of clothing and adornment that he condemns for public worship.  First, by wearing clothing that was not modest or that drew inordinate attention to themselves, women might be a distraction to the men with whom they were worshipping.  Second, by wearing obviously expensive clothing, pearls and gold, women might likewise arouse jealousy among poorer women in the congregation.  This is not to say that either result would be intentional, but that Paul says it is the woman’s responsibility not to provide a “stumbling block” (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8:9) to their fellow worshippers.

If we read his words carefully, we see that Paul’s instructions to Timothy are certainly aimed at wrong intent or unintentional error in women’s dress – not as a ruling against their adornment.   In a very similar manner, the apostle Peter admonishes women:

“Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:3-4).
                 
But once again we find that context makes this instruction clear. In the verses directly before these, Peter is discussing the situation of how women whose husbands are unconverted can best be a proper influence on their mates, saying:

“Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment …” (1 Peter 3:1-3).

In other words, Peter does not condemn or disallow the woman’s adornment either – he simply stresses that wives should not look to their physical beauty to influence their husbands, but to the inner beauty to which they have been called.

That it is not wrong for a woman to be adorned in a beautiful way is made clear in a number of scriptures and none is clearer than Ezekiel 16 where God himself speaks of Israel as a young woman whom he adorned: 

“I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put sandals of fine leather on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments.  I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck …” (Ezekiel 16:10-11).  

Peter and Paul both knew this and similar scriptures and would hardly have forbidden something that God tells us he has done.  The Bible does not speak against women adorning themselves, but against the wrong intent of such adornment or its excessive use in inappropriate settings such as that of public worship. 

​As Christians we know that the greatest responsibility and opportunity we have in the lives we are given is to love God and our fellow human beings (Matthew 22:37-39). But none of us is perfect in this regard; so how do we grow in love for God and others? 

The apostle John gives us an answer to this important question. In his letters, John talks extensively about love, mentioning the concept no fewer than 34 times, including his well-known summary statements such as “…God is love” (1 John 4:8). But John’s teaching on love is not as general as it might sometimes appear. 

In his first epistle, the apostle talks about an easily overlooked aspect of the two directions or dimensions of love – love of God and love of people – that must both be present in our lives. In doing so, John answers the question of “How do we increase our love for God and man?” by answering a slightly different one: “How do we know if we love God and others?”  He gives us the answer first in terms of whether we truly love God or not.  Notice what he tells us:

“Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister” (1 John 4:20-21).

The proof of our love for God, John says, is that we love others.  In the next chapter of his letter, John repeats this fact:  “... everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1).  But the apostle then reverses the direction of this understanding:
“This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3).

The proof of our love for others, John tells us here, is that we love God and are obedient to him. Just as it is not possible to truly love God without loving his children (1 John 5:1), it is also impossible to truly love God’s children without loving him (1 John 5:2). Together, these verses show the two directions that love must work in.  In the first case, our love and obedience to God involves – and is proved by – our love of our brothers and sisters. In the second case, we are told that our love for our brothers and sisters is based on – and proved by – our love and obedience to God.

Simple as it may sound, this two-way definition can be tremendously helpful to us as Christians.  We can see what John says as both admonition and encouragement.  First, there is clear admonition for all of us in the understanding that we cannot claim to love God if we cannot bring ourselves to love all people, and conversely, that we cannot pretend we truly love people if we do not deeply love God.  Love of one without love of the other is not genuine love.

But the encouraging side of this equation relates to our original question:  “How can we grow in love of God and others?”  What John shows us indicates we can increase our love of God by loving people more, and if we want to increase our love of others, we can do that through actively developing our love of God.  It may seem counterintuitive, but it is a truth that solidly underlies much of what John tells us.

Why is this? The reason is that unless God is the center of our life – what we love above all else –  we will never  truly love others as much as ourselves, because without God at the center of our lives, we will love ourselves above all else – we will primarily be “lovers of ourselves” (2 Timothy 3:2).  Conversely, if we do not love others as much as ourselves, we are not fulfilling God’s command and our love of him will always be limited.

What John shows us is that as we grow in our love for God, our love for others will naturally increase at the same time.  The closer we grow to God, the more he changes the way we think about ourselves – and others – and the more we begin to love others.  As we grow to love the children of God more, it is a direct reaction that we begin to be less self-centered and our love for God naturally increases as a result.

John’s words on the two directions of love may indeed seem counterintuitive at first, yet they are profoundly true in showing us how we can know and grow our love for God and others.

​“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17 NKJV, emphasis added).

Paul’s words “from faith to faith” as we find them in the King James Version and a number of other English renderings of the New Testament is a puzzling one – as we can see in the confusing range of translations found in other versions. Compare a few examples of how these words are translated:  

“from faith to faith” NKJV
“from faith for faith” ESV
“out of faith into faith” HSB margin
“by faith from first to last” NIV

It is easy to see why some translations opted for “from faith to faith” because Paul had just mentioned the belief of the Jews and then the Gentiles (vs. 16).  But this meaning does not fit well for a number of reasons – which is why a great many modern translations do not use “from faith to faith.” 

The underlying Greek from which the expression is translated, ek pisteōs eis pistin, literally means “from [or out of] faith into faith,” but how do we interpret this? The expression has been understood to mean many things. For example:

From immature faith to mature faith
From the faith of the Old Covenant to the faith of the New Covenant
From faith in the law to a faith in the Gospel
From human faith to the faith given by God

This wide range of possible meanings is confusing, to say the least, but Paul gives us an important clue to what he meant.  After using the expression “from faith to faith,” Paul then quotes Habakkuk 2:4b, saying: “as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” When we look at what that Old Testament prophet wrote, we find that “the just shall live by faith” was used in a context showing that although the enemies of God arrogantly follow their evil ways (vss. 3-5), the righteous trust and live their faith.  As a result, the righteous are spared and live by virtue of their faith (vs. 4b).
  
If Paul is using Habbakuk’s words with this apparent meaning, then just as the Old Testament prophet tells us the righteous will live by their faith, so Paul is stressing the righteous will live by faith. If understood in that straightforward manner, “from faith to faith” or “from faith into faith” would mean essentially “starting in faith and ending in faith” – exactly how the NIV translates this expression – with the connotation of “totally by faith.”
​
There is another indication this may be the intended meaning. Paul uses  similar expressions – “from death to death” and “from life to life” – in 2 Corinthians 2:16  where the reduplication of the words death and life seem to simply stress their meanings – as in “total death” and “total life.”
​
So although it is the least literal of the translations we have considered, the New International Version seems to present wording closest to what Paul meant by “from faith to faith.”

​"For he seems to do nothing of himself which he can possibly delegate to his creatures.  He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what he could do perfectly and in the twinkling of an eye.  He allows us to neglect what he would have us do, or to fail.  Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free will to coexist with Omnipotence.  It seems to involve at every moment almost a sort of divine abdication.  We are not mere recipients or spectators.  We are either privileged to share in the game or compelled to collaborate in the work, … Is this amazing process simply Creation going on before our eyes?  This is how (no light matter) God makes something – indeed, makes gods – out of nothing."
– C. S. Lewis, The Efficacy of Prayer.

​This paragraph from one of C.S. Lewis’ lesser known works gives us a glimpse into the great apologist’s thoughts on how God truly is desirous to share all that he is and has – including the responsibilities which he grants to us.  Truly something to ponder. 

In the time of Jesus – as they still do today – Jews often greeted each other with the expression “shalom” or “peace,” and many letters dating to the First Century begin with this simple greeting.

The apostle Paul added another word – “grace” – to this standard greeting, and we find “grace and peace” in every one of his letters.  This additional word summarized as well as any other the gospel of salvation by grace that Paul preached tirelessly (Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.), and it was a fitting greeting to his readers.

Jude, in the introduction to his epistle, uses a further expanded expression: “Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance” (Jude 1:2).  While it is easy enough to read over this greeting, we should not. Just as the aspect of the gospel that Paul stressed was summarized in that apostle’s “grace and peace,” we can see a similar situation in the “mercy, peace, and love” found in the epistle of Jude. 
 
Jude’s threefold greeting forms a three-note chord, as it were, providing harmonious notes that recur throughout his epistle.  This is important because if we read this epistle without keeping this background theme in mind, it is easy to see only the many verses speaking of troubles, errors and problems in the Church.  In fact, some commentaries stress the “Seven Negatives of Jude” listing the evils of ungodly acts and words, the people who are grumblers and fault-finders, who follow their own evil desires, boast and flatter others.  Jude does say that “These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit” (Jude 1:19), but his characterization of problems faced by the early Church is not the point of his letter.  His whole epistle, just like his initial greeting, focuses not just on the apostle’s concerns, but on his response to these negative issues.

Mercy:  Just as Jude begins his letter with the greeting of mercy (Jude 1:2), we find that he draws it to a close by reminding his readers of God’s mercy to us and our responsibility of mercy to others.  “… You wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life” (Jude 1:21), he writes, and follows up by reminding us of our responsibility to “Be merciful to those who doubt, save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh” (Jude 1:22-3).   Jude did not just catalog the Church’s problems; he focused his readers’ eyes on the mercy that God is willing to show us if we come out of those problems, and the mercy that we in turn must sometimes show others.

Peace:  Just as Jude stresses the outcome of mercy in his epistle, he also stresses the peace that his readers can find in the knowledge of God’s final outworking of history.  While he does not use the word “peace” directly, this assurance is clearly what lies behind the beginning of Jude’s wonderful doxology “To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy…” (Jude 1:24).  Jude puts his readers’ minds at rest regarding the turmoil of false doctrines and dispute in the Church by looking past the problems of the present in a peace-providing reminder of God’s ability to preserve his readers from the errors that surround them.

Love:  Even before he includes love in his opening greeting (Jude 1:2), Jude stresses love from the first verse of his letter: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:1).  It is precisely because they are loved by God, Jude tells his readers, that they will be able to survive the evils that surround them and be kept for the return of Christ.   Jude’s stress on God’s love is paralleled at the end of his letter by his stress on our responsibility to “keep yourselves in God’s love…” (Jude 1:21).

In fact, the closing thoughts of Jude's letter directly parallel his initial greeting of mercy, peace, and love.  Jude tells his readers:  “keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life” (Jude 1:21).  Reversing the order of his initial greeting, Jude speaks of love, mercy, and the peace that he urged his readers to have – despite the difficulties they faced day to day – in the hope of eternal life.

So Jude begins and ends his short epistle with a tremendously positive theme that overrides the “negatives” which he must catalog in the Church of his time.  For those of us who read his letter today, it is easy to misunderstand and to see it as an epistle of “doom and gloom” based on the problems Jude feels he must identify.  But the purpose of his letter is far more positive than that.  It looks beyond the evils that afflicted the early Church – and which can still affect us now – to the eventual outcome of which Jude assures us. Rather than an epistle of problems, errors, and difficulties, Jude is indeed an epistle stressing a message of love, mercy, and peace. ​

​​In thinking about faith, we may consider its relationship with hope and love – those other members of the great triad that the apostle Paul tells us are chief among the qualities we should seek – but we may not often think about other spiritual qualities that interact with and affect our faith.  One such quality, although it is of great importance, is easily overlooked. We look at this quality that can increase our faith in our latest article, published today.  You can read "An Overlooked Aspect of Faith"  here.

Puah and Shiprah were the two women mentioned in the Book of Exodus who were in charge of the midwives who delivered the Israelite children in Egypt.  Exodus tells us:

“The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives … “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live” (Exodus 1:15-17).
​
Because the two women placed their fear of God before their fear of the Egyptian king, Jewish tradition presumed that they were Hebrew-born women, but the traditions disagree.  While one links Puah with Miriam, Moses’ sister, and Shiprah with Jochebed, the mother of Moses,  another tradition viewed the women as Jewish proselytes who were not related to Moses at all.
​
The fact that they are said to be “Hebrew midwives” could mean  that they were Hebrew or that they were “midwives to the Hebrews.”  The names of the two women also seem to reflect underlying Egyptian names, and it is possible that they were indeed Egyptian converts.  This possibility seems all the more likely as we continue to read the story:

“Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”  The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.  And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own" (Exodus 1:18-21).

The fact that Puah and Shiprah could contrast Hebrew with Egyptian births suggests that they may have acted as midwives for both, and their excuse would be all the more believable if that were the case.  The ancient Jewish historian, Iben Ezra, states that the two women were in charge of “more than 500” midwives; if this was true, the  women were likely appointed by the Egyptian government and would almost certainly have been Egyptian women.

In any event, these women  acted with faithfulness to the law of God and demonstrated a measure of faith in doing so.  It is clear that  their faith was rewarded.   We are told not only that “God was kind to the midwives”  in the sense that they were spared the anger of the Egyptian king, but also we are told “the people increased…” (vs. 20), and “…because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own” (vs. 21). 
 
This last blessing may have been a particularly kind one, as scholars believe that midwives in that era were often women who could not have children of their own.  In the Hebrew of the Old Testament the expression “families” is literally “houses,” however, and Jewish tradition has it that these were “distinguished” houses from which many Hebrew civil and religious leaders descended. 

Whatever the case regarding the various traditions about them, it is clear that God did bless the two chief midwives, and the positive outcome of the story should not obscure the extent of their faith and faithfulness.

Historically, this is the earliest known example of civil disobedience in the face of a specific command by a powerful regime to disobey the law of God.  Even today it remains as a wonderful example of the power of faith in difficult circumstances.  The two courageous women did what they could to protect themselves, yet their faith in God was ultimately their protection and blessing.

“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness.

​If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! ‘No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money’” (Matthew 6:22-24).

This quotation of Jesus, found in Matthew 6 and also in Luke 11:34, is a fascinating one, as it has been interpreted so many different ways.  While the NIV has “if your eyes are healthy” and “if your eyes are unhealthy,” other translations refer to the eyes as being “good” and “bad” or “single” and “evil,” and in various other ways.
  
Some of the confusion is understandable. The word translated “healthy” in the NIV makes sense as something we might say about an eye, but the word can also be translated as “single” – that is its usual literal meaning.  Some have argued that this fits the context in which Jesus is talking about having a single master (vs. 24), but that meaning does not really fit the rest of the passage.

However, there is another possibility we should consider.  The Greek word for “healthy” in Matthew 6:22 can imply “generous,” and the word used in verse 23 for “unhealthy” can imply “stingy.”  These meanings may seem out of place at first, until we realize that the context of Christ’s statement about our eyes in Matthew 6 is actualy one of money, possessions and treasures.   Directly before his statement about the eyes, beginning in verse 19, Jesus instructed his followers to put more value on heavenly treasure than treasure on earth.  Directly after what he says about the eyes, beginning in verse 24, he tells us that we cannot serve two masters and that we will end up either loving God or money (“mammon” – as in the KJV – is an Aramaic word for money or other possessions), as we cannot serve and love both.

When we keep this immediate context in mind, what Jesus says about our eyes may well be meant to be understood as referring to a having a “generous” outlook as opposed to a “stingy” outlook.  If his comment was made with those meanings, then there is no conflict between the first and second part of his statement; it fits perfectly within the overall theme of putting our religious desires and priorities before our desires for physical possessions and wealth.   We should, Jesus tells us, be more concerned about saving treasure in heaven than stingily being unwilling to share what we have on Earth.
​ 
Of the various translations of Matthew 6:22-24 that are possible, although one which sees the reference to our eyes as being either “generous” or “stingy” may seem strange at first, these meanings fit the usage of the Greek and fit the context of what Jesus was talking about perfectly.  But in any case, our responsibility as followers of Jesus is to maintain the kind of priorities that enable us to look at others not stingily, but with a “generous eye.” 

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9).
 
The Gospel of Luke recounts how Jesus fulfilled the words spoken by the prophet Zechariah as he entered Jerusalem in a “triumphal entry” during the climactic week at the end of his ministry (Luke 19:28-44).   Luke tells us how Jesus instructed two of his disciples to go to a nearby home where they would find a young donkey and to bring it to him. He told the disciples that if anyone challenged them, they were to simply say: “The Lord needs it” (Luke 19:31).  The disciples did this – explaining to the donkey’s owners what Jesus had told them.
 
This initial part of the story is interesting in itself.  Jesus was, in effect, invoking the ancient principle of angaria (from a Babylonian word meaning “mounted messenger”) by which kings, rulers and other individuals with official responsibilities could requisition property for official use.  Angaria originated in the earliest postal systems in the ancient Persian, Greek and later Roman cultures where an animal could be “requisitioned” from its owner to carry the mail on the next stage of its multiple-staged journey, somewhat equivalent to the “Pony Express” of the American frontier.  In the Judea of Jesus’ day, under Roman rule, animals could be commandeered in this way for the emperor’s service, and the right was also expanded to include the needs of the king, and even magistrates and rabbis. 
 
A Messenger Received in Joy
 
This incident was, then, the prelude to the actual triumphal entry in which the crowds provided what we would call today a “red carpet” entry for Jesus by covering the road with their capes and the branches of trees to welcome him as he rode on the donkey into the city (Luke 19:35-37).   The scene was not unlike a humbler version of the great Roman “Triumphs” in which the grateful citizens celebrated the procession of heroes who had served the people.  In fact, the similarity with a Roman Triumph is more than  superficial, because the Triumph was a civil and religious ceremony which was held to publicly “celebrate and sanctify” the success of a commander who had led his forces to victory in the service of the people.  

But Jesus rejected the aggrandizing nature of the pagan Triumphs which fed the cult of personalities in Roman and other cultures, and he did this by riding humbly on a young donkey – the antithesis of the great horses of conquering kings and heroes – while fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 in every detail. Yet Jesus did accept the people’s praise (Luke 19:40), and the details of the story from beginning to end show that a triumphal entry – a symbolic victory celebration – was intended.

The words of the crowds who welcomed Jesus in this triumphal entry are important. Luke tells us (Luke 19:38) that the crowds quoted from the great messianic Psalm 118 – which is why the Pharisees attempted to silence them (Luke 19:39).  This is the same psalm that contains, in vs. 22, the statement so significantly quoted by Jesus in Luke 20:17:  “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”  But also this psalm contains clear references to the triumphal entry of the Messiah:

* I look in triumph on my enemies (Psalm 118:7).
* I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the Lord has done (vs. 17).
* Open for me the gates of the righteous; I will enter and give thanks to the Lord (vs. 19).
* Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. From the house of the Lord we bless you. The Lord is God, and he has made his light shine on us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar (vss. 26-27). 
 
Although Luke only cites a few of the words from Psalm 118, the psalm is in fact a full prophetic description of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
 
What Was the Victory?
 
But if this was a triumph, what was the victory? Jesus had not yet defeated sin and death on the cross, and he had not yet completed the work he came to accomplish in this regard.  Yet there was one way in which a victory was surely celebrated.  The primary purpose of the angaria, by which Jesus obtained the donkey on which he rode, was to deliver a message. And at this point, at the end of his ministry, Jesus had successfully delivered the news of the kingdom of God to the point that it was now established and would continue to spread throughout the world.  He had also lived the perfect life needed in order that he could give himself as a sacrifice for all humankind.

In that sense, Jesus had fully triumphed in his work when he came to Jerusalem as “... your king who comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9, emphases added). The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem prior to his death was indeed a triumph: it celebrated Jesus’ righteous life and the fact that he had succeeded in delivering the message that he brought into the world.
​
There is surely a lesson in this for us. In following Christ as his disciples we do not attempt to mimic everything he did, of course, but we should certainly follow in many of his steps, as he commanded us.  The dual nature of Christ’s fulfilled mission – of living in obedience to God and carrying his message – is a dual opportunity and goal for every one of his followers, also. To focus only on our own obedience or only on the message we were commissioned to carry is not a complete fulfillment of the calling we have been given.  To the extent that we are able, with God’s help, to live lives pleasing to God and to serve him in carrying his message, we too participate in the victory of Jesus. 

​Scriptures in Question:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them” (1 John 2:15).


The first clue we have that there is no contradiction between these seemingly opposing verses is that they were both written by the same person – the apostle John. This alone indicates that it would be unlikely that the two statements were at variance. 

The word “world” (Greek kosmos) found in both these verses is one John uses frequently – an amazing 79 times in his Gospel and a further 25 times in his epistles –  more often than any other biblical writer.   But the word does not always have exactly the same meaning in each case.  Just as we can use the word “world” in English to mean the planet Earth, the world around us, everything in the world, or just the people of the world, so the Greek word could be used with many of these same meanings.  We can see this range of meaning in some of the verses where John uses kosmos in his first epistle:

The planet Earth: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world” (1 John 4 : 9).

The people of the world:   “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you” (1 John 3 : 13).

The world around us:  “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

The way of the world:  “For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world” (1 John 5 : 4).

When John tells us in his Gospel that God loved the world, he is clearly referring to the people of the world (as God did not give his Son for the sins of the planet or the things in the world).  John uses “world” in exactly the same way in his epistle when he writes “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

On the other hand, when John tells us in his epistle that we must not love the world, it is equally clear, when we read the verse in context, that he is talking about the system or way of the world.  We need only look at the following verse to see this: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16).
​
So, we must carefully distinguish between the various meanings of kosmos when John uses the word “world,” though this is not usually difficult.  His context usually makes it clear which meaning he has in mind.  In the seemingly contradictory examples we looked at, John is talking about two very different things –  humanity and the way of life of humanity. 

For John, the “world” in the latter sense is synonymous with darkness and evil (John 3:19), just as he tells us God is synonymous with goodness and light.  John’s point is that we must choose to love either darkness or light, the way of the world or the way of God.

The following paragraphs were first published well over one hundred years ago – in 1891 – by the British missionary, Henry Drummond, in his essay "Love: The Greatest thing in the World," though the form  in which they appear here is taken from Paulo Coelho's retelling of the story as The Supreme Gift  (Barcelona:  Sant Jordi Asociados, 1991).

"A man’s message of Faith lies in the way he lives his life and not in the words he says. Not long ago, I was in the heart of Africa, near the Great Lakes. There I met men and women who remembered with affection the one white man they had encountered: David Livingstone. And while I followed his footsteps through the Dark Continent, people’s faces lit up as they told me about the doctor who had passed through there some three years before. They could not understand what Livingstone said to them, but they felt the Love that was there in his heart. Take that same Love with you and the work you do will be fully justified. ...Then our souls will grow gentler, not because we took out aggression, but because we put in Love ...

Love begets Love. If you place a piece of iron close to a source of electricity it will, by a process of induction, become electrified. If you place it close to a magnet, it will become a magnet for as long as the other magnet is there. Remain close to Him who loved us and you will be magnetised by that Love.  Anyone who seeks the cause will feel the effect." 

Ironic as it might seem, the further we progress along the way to which we are called as Christians, the more it seems we see the failings and errors  of our own nature.   That can be discouraging at times, but when it happens we need to remember something. 

The Bible gives us two stories that speak to this situation, though we might not realize it unless we give the matter some thought. The first story, in the Old Testament, relates to a vision of the prophet Isaiah:

“In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple… “Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty” (Isaiah 6:1,5).

Isaiah’s very clear reaction on seeing God in this vision was one of understanding his own spiritual inadequacy and “uncleanness.”   Now compare this story with another in the New Testament  – how Jesus revealed his divine power to Peter and the men fishing with him:

“One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret … he said to Simon, “Put out into deep water, and let down the nets for a catch.”….   When they had done so, they caught such a large number of fish that their nets began to break …. When Simon Peter saw this, he fell at Jesus’ knees and said, “Go away from me, Lord; I am a sinful man!”  (Luke 5:1-8).

Although these two stories may seem very different on the surface, Peter’s reaction to seeing even a small glimpse of Jesus’ divinity was not unlike the effect of the vision of Isaiah – it was a realization of his own unworthiness and sinful nature.   Admittedly, these events occurred at the beginning of the careers of the two servants of God, but the principle remains the same – the more we come to understand of God, the more we are conscious of our own failings. 

It was many years after the conversion of the apostle Paul that he wrote: “What a wretched man I am!” (Romans 7:24), and “… I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle…” (1 Corinthians 15:9). Yet Paul continued this same thought to the Corinthian Christians: “But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect” (vs. 10).  Despite his painful awareness of his own failings – after many years  of God working with him – Paul could still say near the end of his life: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7).  Both statements were true! Just like the rest of us, Paul doubtless realized his own spiritual failings all the more as the years progressed, yet he knew that God was changing him and completing a purpose in his life.  

To use a simple analogy, before conversion we live in spiritual darkness – like living in a dark room – and cannot see any of the “stains” and “black marks” of sin that cover us.  As we are converted and move  toward the “light” (remember, God is spiritual light), the more we begin to see those black marks on ourselves – and the brighter the light becomes, the more we see even the smallest stains.

It is a  simple truth of the Christian life that the more we grow and come to see God, the less we like what we see of ourselves. Yet this can be encouraging – looked at the other way around, the less we like what we see of ourselves the more we are probably seeing of God and moving closer to him! 

This is not the same as living our lives in a despondent spiritual attitude that focuses on how unworthy we are.  It is just an honest realization of our own spiritual inadequacy and a heightened awareness of ways in which we do fail – sometimes in small things that we would never have noticed earlier in our Christian lives. 
 
Perhaps we can say that our occasional discouragement with our own failings can be turned around.  The more we see the failings of our own nature, the more we can be encouraged that we are doubtless moving closer to God who is enabling us to see those things.  We can rejoice that just as we see ourselves more clearly as we move closer to God, he can continue the process of helping us to see him and making us more like him. 

​Scripture in Question:  Matthew 27:9-10 

Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled: ‘They took the thirty pieces of silver, the price set on him by the people of Israel, and they used them to buy the potter’s field, as the Lord commanded me.’
​
The problem with these verses, according to many sceptics, is that the words quoted from Jeremiah do not appear anywhere in that book, but seem to appear in the Book of Zechariah. If the Bible is inspired, so the argument goes, why did the biblical writer incorrectly state the book from which the quotation is taken?

First, we can say that there is no confusion as to what Matthew says – the Greek text of his Gospel clearly does say “Jeremiah” and not “Zechariah,” so there is no issue of mistranslation.  But when we look closely at the so-called “source” of Matthew’s quotation – in Zechariah – we find that the wording is quite different: 

I told them, “If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.” So they paid me thirty pieces of silver.  And the Lord said to me, “Throw it to the potter”—the handsome price at which they valued me! So I took the thirty pieces of silver and threw them to the potter at the house of the Lord (Zechariah 11:12-13).  

Nevertheless, although this prophecy cannot be found in the Book of Jeremiah as we presently have it and it is similar to what is found in Zechariah, we have no reason to suspect that the words quoted by Matthew were not spoken by Jeremiah at some point.   We must always remember that the Old Testament and New Testament are both alike in that they represent the final culmination of many years of selection and editing by the Jews and early Christians, respectively.  We know that many other books were written by the biblical writers – and others – that were not included in the Bible as we have it today.

The Bible itself refers to a number of other books not included within the established Scriptures, but which are directly quoted or alluded to within them.  To give only two examples, the biblical epistles of 2 Peter and Jude both refer to the “Book of Enoch” (2 Peter 2:4, 3:13; Jude 4, 6, 13–15) which was apparently known to the New Testament apostles, but is not extant today, and Paul’s epistle to the Colossians mentions an “epistle from Laodicea” (Colossians 4:16), which is not otherwise known.

There are numerous other instances where biblical writers quoted or alluded to other works that were not included in the Bible itself and have become lost through the course of history. So there is no reason to find it surprising that Matthew was able to quote specific words from Jeremiah that are not found in the Book of Jeremiah in the form that we now have it.
​
Jeremiah doubtless uttered the prophecy recorded by Matthew, even if we do not have the actual source in which the prophecy was made.  Zechariah may have been inspired to make a similar prophecy, though it is also possible that Zechariah was inspired to allude to Jeremiah’s prophecy in his own writings, without actually quoting it directly.

The Sermon on the Mount is a central part of the teachings of Jesus that we all know and love – it  demonstrates the essential nature of the Christian way of life as much as any part of Scripture. Many of us have memorized parts of the sermon as found in Matthew’s Gospel (chapters 5-7), but how much time have we spent thinking about the setting of the sermon as opposed to the sermon itself?
 
We tend to take for granted that the sermon was given on a mountain because we know that Jesus frequently climbed mountains (Luke 6:12, John 6:15, etc.) – though he usually did this to get away from people, to be alone and to pray.   In this case we are told he specifically went up on a mountain with his disciples following him.

The New International Version tells us “Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them” (Matthew 5:1-2).  This gives the impression that Jesus simply went up on the side of a mountain – the lower slopes.  But “side” is not in the original Greek (or in most translations), and the Greek anebē  eis to oros  “he went up into a mountain” conveys the sense that he ascended  on to the mountain – certainly well up toward, or to, its summit.
 
Now this wording is interesting, because when we compare it with the Old Testament account of how Moses went up onto Mt. Sinai to receive the law from God, we find “When Moses went up on the mountain …” (Exodus 19:3, 24:12).  In fact, the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures which many of the writers of the New Testament used, translates this with exactly the same words as those used of Jesus ascending the mountain: anebē  eis to oros.

Many Jewish readers of the 1st century would have recognized the beginning of this story of the Sermon on the Mount as being identical to the beginning of the story of Moses receiving God’s law.  This would have struck a deep chord for those readers because every devout Jew knew that God had told Moses:   “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:18). Every devout Jew expected this prophet like Moses, and the similarities between Jesus and Moses were clear for those ancient readers who knew the Hebrew Scriptures. 

For example, the infant Moses and Jesus both escaped death when a ruler attempted to kill the male Jewish children in the area, both hid in Egypt as a child, both gave up  life in a kingly home to lead a humble life of service,  both fasted forty days and nights, both communicated directly with God, both performed miracles, both provided the people with bread to eat, both sent out 12 individuals, both chose 70 individuals, both taught with authority – and both ascended a mountain for the giving of  key commands and instruction from God. 

With that background in mind, we can see the significance of the fact that throughout the first third of the Sermon on the Mount the law of Moses is mentioned repeatedly, using the formula “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago …. But I tell you ….”  For example:

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment” ​ (Matthew 5:21-22, and see also Matthew 5:27, 31, 38, 43). 

Within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made it clear to his followers that he was not doing away with or replacing the law given through Moses (Matthew 5:17-19).  Instead, in this pivotal sermon – the longest connected teaching of Jesus in the New Testament – he gave new insight into God’s spiritual laws, raising our understanding of their intent to the higher level to which we are called.

​“Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” (Hebrews 11:1). 

Hebrews 11:1 is a scripture we all know well in the context of faith – it is, after all, the Bible’s own definition of faith.  But in the New International Version of the Bible – quoted above – that so many of us use regularly, the word “assurance” is perhaps a poor choice of translation into English.

On a scale of one to ten – where one is something that might possibly happen and ten is something that will happen without any doubt – most of us would rank the word “assurance” as perhaps a five!  The word does not really convey a lot of certainty – we speak of having to “reassure” people because the original assurance may not have been enough.   Other English translations use stronger words such as “evidence” (KJ and NKJV) or “proof” (HCB), and these seem to better convey the sense of what Hebrews is telling us.

Actually, the underlying Greek word which is translated “assurance” in Hebrews 11:1 is hypostasis – a word formed from stasis “to stand” and hypo “under.” The combined hypostasis or “standing under” refers to the ground on which something is built or the foundation of a house or other building.  In fact, this basic meaning of “foundation” gave rise in ancient Greek to the use of hypostasis to mean, by extension, “real estate” or “property” and specifically the title deeds or documents recording the ownership of property. In the ancient world, just as today, home or property ownership was recorded in “title deeds” and these documents were kept as the proof of ownership. Archaeologists have found such deeds hidden under the floors of homes in many cultures.

This usage of the word hypostasis for “title deed” was anciently very common.  J.H. Moulton and G. Milligan's authoritative Vocabulary of the Greek Testament states that hypostasis can mean “property, effects, written undertaking, agreements of sale, evidence of ownership” and that “… in all cases there is the same central idea of something that underlies visible conditions and guarantees future possession.”  Moulton and Milligan conclude that this is the essential meaning of hypostasis in Hebrews 11:1, so we can legitimately translate this verse as “Faith is the title deed of that which we do not see.”

Just as ancient peoples carefully placed the title deeds to their homes in places where they would be protected, today we usually place the title deeds to our homes or other property in our bank’s safe deposit box.  If we ever need proof that we own our home and that it is indisputably ours, we need only look to the title deed we have stored in the bank.   In saying that faith is the “title deed” of that which we hope for, but do not yet see, the author of Hebrews is using a far stronger word than “assurance.”  Hebrew s 11:1 is telling us in effect that the faith we are given is the title deed – the guarantee – of our possession of something even if we do not see it now.  That assurance is a ten on the scale of one to ten – it’s a certainty we can take to the bank.

It is often said that the apostle Paul changed the focus of the Christian gospel from the stress on the kingdom of God that we find in the Gospels (Matthew 9:35, etc.) to a stress on the saving work of Jesus as we see in the Pauline epistles.  But did Paul really make such a profound change within Christianity?

It is certainly true that Paul places great emphasis on the atoning death and the resurrection of Jesus. We can see this, for example, in his first letter to the church at Corinth where he summarizes his teaching in these words:  “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Yet even in these verses – which are often quoted as an example of “the gospel according to Paul” –  we see the possibility of a broader reality in that Paul says these things are of “first importance.”  In other words, there are other important things of which Christ’s death and resurrection form the basis.  In fact, we only have to read a little further in this same letter to see the broader picture:

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).

Here, Paul deftly works from the concept of death and resurrection (vs. 22-23) to that of the kingdom rule of Christ, and then finally back to the destruction of death (vs. 26).  But notice that Paul collapses time in this view.  He telescopes the return of Christ (“when he comes”) to directly touch the final outcome of creation (“the end”), stressing that Jesus “must reign” over everything – including death itself.

When we see his “goal-oriented” view of the kingdom of God, we better understand Paul’s teaching and the stress he does place on Jesus himself.  As he states in 1 Corinthians 15:14:  “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” It is clearly through this lens that Paul views the kingdom of God:  there can be no kingdom without the saving work of Christ, and what Christ accomplished enables us to enter that kingdom. 
  
In the same letter Paul tells us: “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable” (1 Corinthians 15:53).  This is, of course, in total agreement with what Christ himself said in explaining the reality of the kingdom of God to the Pharisee Nicodemus (John 3:1–21).

So when Paul writes unequivocally that “… we preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23) and “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), we need not doubt that this was vital to the gospel as Paul taught it.  But when he tells the Galatians:  “... if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8), we need not see that as meaning Christ crucified as opposed to the kingdom of God, but as the basis of the kingdom of God.

While it is true that Paul uses the word “kingdom” far fewer times than it is found in the Gospels, we should remember that he does use the word “kingdom” frequently (some 14 times) in his epistles – more often than Peter, James, and John do in all their epistles combined.  It is precisely in the context of the kingdom of God that Paul urges Timothy to preach:  “In the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of his appearing and his kingdom, I give you this charge:  Preach the word ….” (2 Timothy 4:1-3).

This is not to say that there were not different stresses in the teaching of Jesus and Paul.  Jesus preached a gospel that stressed his identity relative to the kingdom of God; Paul preached a gospel that stressed the underlying work of Jesus that made the kingdom of God possible. But the apostle specifically warned against those who taught another Jesus or another gospel (2 Corinthians 11:4).  In short, Paul preached a gospel that stressed the person of Jesus and the kingdom of Jesus.  To doubt that is to doubt the clear words of Luke – who perhaps knew Paul and his teaching as well as anyone – who wrote that even toward the end of his ministry, Paul was constantly:

“Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him” (Acts 28:31). 

In writing this, Luke actually places the preaching of the kingdom first and the teaching of “those things that concern the Lord Jesus Christ” second, but the two are no doubt equally part of the gospel according to Paul.

In his book, The Love That Made Mother Teresa (Sophia Institute Press, 2014), David Scott tells of experiences Mother Teresa shared of heroic love in the lives of others.  One of these examples is particularly moving:

“She told us of the sacrifices made by leper parents, who must give up their newborns immediately upon birth or risk infecting them for life with the disease. She told us the story of one couple saying good-bye to their three-day-old baby:

Each one looked at the little one, their hands going close to the child and then withdrawing, trying, wanting to kiss the child, and again falling back. I cannot forget the deep love of that father and mother for their little child. I took the child, and I could see the father and mother as I was walking. I held the child toward them, and they kept on looking until I disappeared from their eyes. The agony and pain it caused! . . . But because they loved the child more than they loved themselves, they gave it up.”

This story is heartbreaking in itself, but equally heartbreaking – in fact far more so because of the sheer numbers involved – are the children destroyed before birth by parents who may choose to part with children out of some form of self-love rather than from love of the child. 
​
Perhaps one of the greatest indicators of if we are actually living as Christians is whether we are giving up things for the sake of others, rather than for our own sake. The things we give up in this way may be our own convenience, plans, preferences, or ultimately even our personal happiness or well-being.  If we are to truly follow the Christian way of life, we must look at our own  lives and ask what we should be giving up for love.   ​