Sometimes Christians – like everyone else - experience doubts in their lives. But when the doubts are regarding some aspect of their beliefs or statements in the Bible, Christians often agonize over whether their doubts are sinful, whether they are, in fact, the disbelief that the Bible so clearly condemns (Matthew 21:21; Hebrews 3:12; etc.).

But the truth is, doubt need not be disbelief at all. The Scriptures show that God understands that humanly we doubt when we don’t see clear evidence of things and his word does not condemn this. How do we know this to be true?   A clear example which we often read over in our study of the Bible is found in the Birth narratives in the first few chapter of the Gospel of Luke. 

Luke 1:5-25 tells us that an angel appeared to the priest Zechariah to tell him that he would have a son who would become a powerful servant of God – John the Baptist. Zechariah’s response was “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years” – an answer that displeased the angel who told him “you will … not be able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words” (vs.20).  Notice in this story that the angel specifically said Zechariah’s attitude was one of disbelief in that he said “How can I be sure of this?”

Luke then continues his narrative by describing a very similar situation that occurred soon after – when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her that she would have a son who would be great and would be called the Son of the Most High  (vss. 26-33). Notice Mary’s reply: “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” (vs. 34). In this case, Mary did not show disbelief by saying “How can I know this is true?”, but simple doubt by asking “How can this happen?” 

Mary was not reprimanded for this response as Zechariah had been for his, simply because she expressed human uncertainty as to how the situation could happen rather than  doubt that it would happen. As a result, the angel simply explained to Mary that what he had told her would come about through the miraculous working of God’s Spirit.

In these accounts, the difference between Mary’s response (“How can this be”) and Zechariah’s (How can I be sure”) is that Mary asked her question not from unbelief but from puzzlement, and this is directly analogous to our own situations when we are puzzled or do not understand something said in God’s word.  

Doubt is not unbelief, it is questioning some aspect of what we believe. While unbelief says, “I don’t accept this possibility,” doubt is simply saying “I cannot understand this.” Mary’s underlying belief despite her temporary doubt is seen in the words of her cousin Elizabeth – John the Baptist’s mother – who exclaimed “Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:45).

It is certainly possible for doubt to eventually grow into disbelief if they are not dealt with properly, but this does not mean that our initial doubts and uncertainties are somehow wrong.  God clearly does not regard our lack of understanding of a spiritual fact as being any different from our lack of understanding of advanced physics equations, or whatever.  We see God's patience with those who struggle with doubt in Jesus' interaction with Peter (Matthew 14:30-31), Thomas (John 20:27), and in many other scriptures. But even though God accepts and works with our doubts, he does expect us to continue to believe and trust him when doubts do arise in our minds. 

Doubt only becomes disbelief when we let it – when we get preoccupied and mired down in doubts that are a natural part of the Christian life and that will, if we continue to trust God, almost always be removed or seen as not important as our Christian understanding and experience grows.

* For more articles on the subject of doubt, see our blog category "Dealing With Doubt" here.

“Don’t you care, God?” may seem like an extreme question to ask the One who made the world, and gave us life; who often helps us, and heals us, according to his loving will.  But it is exactly the question the disciples asked Jesus at one point.

Most Bible readers are familiar with the story recorded in the Gospels, that on an occasion when Jesus was crossing the Sea of Galilee with his disciples a great storm rose up that threatened to capsize the boat and perhaps drown them. We remember the fact that, despite the storm, Jesus was sleeping in the boat, and the terrified disciples woke him to see what was happening, and said to him, “Teacher, don't you care if we drown?” (Mark 4:38).

The fear of the disciples is very evident in this story – especially in the third gospel where Luke records their urgently repeated “Master,” “Master,” as they tried to waken Jesus (Luke 8:24).  But we should remember these were men who made their living fishing on the great lake of Galilee, and this was doubtless not their first storm, so the situation probably was an extreme one.

But notice again the disciples’ question to Jesus: “Teacher, don't you care if we drown?” (Mark 4:38).  Implicit in this question are two things.  First, the disciples knew full well that Jesus had the power to help them. They had already seen many of his miracles by that point (Mark 3:7-12; etc.), and knew that he had the power of God.  In that sense, their question was addressed as much to God as to Jesus. 

The second thing we notice about the disciples’ question is that it so often typifies our human reaction when we suffer and wonder why God does not answer our prayers – when we are overwhelmed by our doubts and fears. This all-too-human reaction is seen elsewhere is the Bible – as when the psalmist pleads “Awake, Lord! Why do you sleep? Rouse yourself!” (Psalm 44:23).  It is as though we accuse God of not looking at our situation, or somehow not caring about it.

But Jesus did not berate the disciples for their question. Instead, after he calmed the storm, and gave them a reply to make them think. He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mark 4:40).

It is a question we should ask ourselves, too, whenever we face life’s storms and we begin to fear or falter.  Jesus’ words remind us that even when God seems distant, even when he may seem “asleep,” it does not mean that he is not there, or does not care, and that we simply need to call to him and then to trust him in faith that the storm will end.  As the psalmist also wrote:

“He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed. They were glad when it grew calm, and he guided them to their desired haven. Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for mankind” (Psalm 107:29-31).

God has promised he will finish the work he began in us (Philippians 1:6), and although he does not promise he will stop storms from rising in our lives, he does promise he will get us to our destination.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.  (1 Corinthians 14:34–5)

At first sight, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian Church regarding women not speaking in church may seem clear cut and incontrovertible. In the past, it was almost universally understood this way – as a simple “Women must not speak [publicly] in church.”  Not surprisingly, today many holding strongly egalitarian views have tried to discount the statement in various ways, but these attempts have not been successful for a number of reasons.  For example, the suggestion is sometimes made that these verses were added later – as they contradict what Paul wrote in the same letter regarding women praying and prophesying: “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Corinthians 11:5). 

But virtually all the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain verses 34–5, including the earliest ones we have, and there is simply no evidence they were added at some point. On the other hand, some have suggested that in 11:5 Paul was speaking about women praying and prophesying in non-church settings, but the context does not show this.  So there are problems with both approaches to these texts and the apparent contradiction between what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–35 should prod us to see how the two verses might possibly be harmonized rather than choosing one statement and rejecting the other.

First, we should look closely at the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34 – which is clearly verbalized in the first verse of the chapter: “Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1 emphasis added). After dealing with the spiritual gift of tongues, Paul turns to the matter of prophecy and states “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said” (verse 29). Notice that Paul then says “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged (verse 31). He does not say all the men, but that all may prophesy. But then he adds a special restrictive statement – that the women must remain silent.

What is unspoken but seems clear here, is that Paul has moved on from the prophets speaking (which he says includes all) to the prophecies being judged as we saw in verse 29: “prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” The others here are surely not the members of the congregation, but the other prophets. As Paul states in verse 32 “The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”  All prophets were allowed to speak, but their messages had to be evaluated by the other prophets who were present. It is in this direct context that Paul then says a woman must not speak in church. The word “woman” (Greek gyne) is always used for “wife” in the New Testament and this seems to be the sense here, as Paul continues “If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home” (verse 35).

In this same letter, Paul had carefully explained the headship principle of the woman being subject to her husband as the man is to Christ and Christ is to God (1 Cor. 11:2–16). It was in that context that he wrote “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). Then, in chapter 14, Paul is still giving instruction regarding prophesying, but has moved on to the matter of judging what is said. This immediately raises the question, what if a man – especially a husband – prophesies, would it not be wrong for a woman – especially the man’s wife – to publicly judge his message? That is why in this context Paul states that “If [the women prophets] wish to inquire about something [a prophet – especially their husband – has said] they are to ask their own husbands at home” (1 Corinthians 14:35). It would clearly dishonor the headship principle if women publicly questioned the messages of male prophets in church, and especially male prophets who were their husbands.

Understood this way, we can see that Paul’s statement about women prophesying in chapter eleven does not at all contradict his words on the headship of men and his injunction in chapter fourteen that women do not publicly judge the messages of the male prophets. Thus, Paul concludes: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, … But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:39–40).  So it is that Paul tells us “The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (verse 32) and “Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission” (verse 34). Both male and female prophets had to be in submission to the principle of evaluation by other prophets, and female prophets had to be in submission (the Greek word is the same in both verses) to the headship principle. The men had to be in submission to the headship principle also, because they were subject to God’s judgment of their prophecies through the evaluations of the other prophets.

So Paul was not saying that women could not speak at all in church – we know they could pray or prophesy publicly.  Rather his teaching was that the women prophets must respect the headship principle and refrain from publicly judging the messages of men, which would be tantamount to publicly correcting and exercising spiritual headship over the men – something he clearly forbids in 1 Timothy 2:12. 

If you have never read R. Herbert's widely popular book Lessons from the Life of Jesus, you now have a new opportunity to read the book or listen to a discussion of its main ideas.  Rather than simply retelling the story of the life of Jesus the book focuses on some of the details of the Gospel narratives that are easy to miss, but which can help us to better understand the life and teachings of Christ.  Lessons from the Life of Jesus is now revised and expanded in its fourth edition – and available as both an e-book (.pdf, .epub, and mobi formats here), and a podcast summary and discussion here! Download the format of your choice to gain insights you can utilize today. 

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”  Numbers 23:19

“Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” Exodus 32:14
 
These verses – and others like them – seem to contradict each other regarding whether God ever changes his mind once he has decided something.  This is not just an abstruse theological or philosophical question, however; it is one that can have direct application to our lives. Consider what the Scriptures teach.

Probably the most quoted biblical example of God changing his mind is that of Abraham, who prayed for the few righteous people living in the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16–33). But although God agreed not to punish the cities if he found a continually decreasing number of righteous individuals – as Abraham asked – God still destroyed the cities in this example, although it shows Abraham felt it was not inappropriate to ask God to change his mind.

There are other, clearer examples where God clearly does change his mind regarding what he declares. For example, Ezekiel 4 records that God instructed the prophet to prepare a meal, saying “Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel” (Ezekiel 4:12). When Ezekiel insisted that he did not want to do this, we are told that God changed his command, saying: “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement” (Ezekiel 4:15). In this case the symbolic message God wanted to convey to the people of Judah was preserved, but he was willing to change his mind regarding how the message would be conveyed.

There are many other biblical examples such as this where people prayed to God and he changed his mind in regard to what he had predicted he would do. But to understand these verses – and the seeming conflict with other verses that say God does not change – we must differentiate between “relative” or “conditional” statements and “absolute” or “unconditional” statements made by God.  In some cases, God simply will never change – for example, he will always react to a situation righteously. For that very reason God will change if, again for example, God decides to punish us – unless we repent – and we do repent. In that case, God would be unrighteous not to change his mind regarding whether we should be punished or not. The Bible has numerous examples of this.  

God had the prophet Jonah tell the people of Nineveh that he would destroy their city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh’s inhabitants repented of their sin (verses 5–9) and in response to their repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). This is a clear example of a conditional statement by God. His “change of mind” was entirely consistent with his character. His underlying nature did not change, rather God simply changed a predicted outcome relative to new circumstances in order to maintain the righteous judgment on which the prediction was based.

On the other hand, an example of an unconditional statement by God can be seen in his promise to King David: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). There is no condition expressed or implied in this statement. No matter what David’s descendants did or did not do, God’s prediction was unchangeable, according to his plan.

So God’s inherent nature does not ever change, but he is willing to change his intentions in order to maintain outcomes that are according to his righteous character, mercy and love.

The first epistle of John displays a unique writing style. One of the most characteristic aspects of this apostle’s letters is the way in which he frequently compares or contrasts spiritual situations.

​In 1 John 1:9-10, for example, he contrasts “If we confess our sins” with “If we claim we have not sinned.”  As we continue through his letter we find that he compares “Whoever loves his brother” with “whoever hates his brother” (1 John 2:10-11); “The one who does what is right” with “The one who does what is sinful” (1 John 3:7-8); “Every spirit that acknowledges … Jesus …” with “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus” (1 John 4:2-3), and so on.

This frequent use of comparison or contrast lends a dynamic force to what John writes –  it is straightforward, to the point, and unequivocal.  But sometimes the lesson behind the comparison is not quite as easy to see, and we may miss it if we do not keep an eye open for occurrences of the pattern. A good example of this is found in the third chapter of John’s letter:

This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God … (1 John 3:19-21).

The immediate contrast between “If our hearts condemn us” and “if our hearts do not condemn us” is clear enough, but the lesson John points to here is perhaps not as obvious.  At face value it might seem that John is simply saying if our hearts or “consciences” condemn us, God is greater than our hearts (vs. 20); but what does that mean?
 
To understand the contrast John is making, we must widen our view to look at the context in which these verses appear.  Beginning in verse 10 of chapter 3, all the way up to verse 19 where John begins to talk about our consciences condemning or not condemning us, John speaks continually about whether we love one another or not: “This is how we know who the children of God are … Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another….  We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other… Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:10-18).

John then states that “This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: if our hearts condemn us …” (vs. 19-20).  Knowing that “we belong to the truth,” as John puts it, is not a result of what he says next –  our hearts condemning or not condemning us – because we cannot always trust our own conscience to be a judge of our behavior (Jeremiah 17:9). Rather, John refers to what he has just said:  that we love others in our behavior and in truth (vs. 18); and to what he says after this verse, that we have confidence before God because we keep his commands “… to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us” (vs. 23).  

The theme of love is really the main point of the third chapter and of John’s entire letter, and this immediate context allows us to paraphrase the point of 1 John 3:19-20 something like this:

“… because we demonstrate our love for one another in actions and in truth, we know that we are the children of God and this sets our conscience at rest… Even if our conscience sometimes causes us to doubt our standing before God, we know our conscience is not the final judge and that God, who sees the love he has placed within us, accepts us and hears us – for ongoing love of others in our lives is the proof that God does not reject or condemn us, and that he hears us.”
​
We all occasionally groan under the weight of conscience and in our most discouraged moments we may wonder if we are really a child of God, or if God hears us.  But John’s message shows us that the outgoing and ongoing love God places in us through his Spirit is the proof that we are indeed his children.  It's a tremendously encouraging lesson, but –  like many of John’s lessons –  it is one we can only see properly when we consider what he wrote in its full context. 

*For more studies on the Epistles of John, download our free book Seven Letters: Lessons from the General Epistles available in e-book and audio book formats here.

“All you need is love, love, love is all you need, love is all you need …”  – The Beatles.

It may have been a smash hit, but the Beatles’ 1967 song “All you need is love” is not exactly good theology!  When we think of the biblical importance of love, many scriptures come to mind – ranging from “God so loved the world …” (John 3:16) to the apostle Paul’s great summary statement in 1 Corinthians 13:13 – “now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.” Love, of course, is of supreme importance because it is perhaps the central defining characteristic of the nature of God himself – “God is love” (1 John 4:7) – so its centrality in the Christian faith cannot be argued.

But does the supreme importance of love mean that love is all the Christian needs?  Many actually think this and go about their lives thinking that as long as they have love, they are “good Christians.”  The Bible, however, shows that this is not really true at all.  To imagine God as only as God of love is to limit his nature and to entirely miss the fact that the God of love is also, for example, the God of Justice (Isaiah 30:18, Psalm 33:4-6, Isaiah 61:8; etc.) as well as light or truth ( 1 John 1:5; etc.) and many other things. When we remember this, we can better understand what Paul had in mind when he wrote to the Philippian church:

“And this is my prayer: that your love may abound more and more in knowledge and depth of insight, so that you may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit of righteousness that comes through Jesus Christ—to the glory and praise of God” (Philippians 1:9-11). 

Paul had already told these Christians he knew they had love (verse 8), but then he emphasized the knowledge they needed.  The word “knowledge” that Paul uses in this passage is not gnôsis which connotes simply “knowing” but epignôsis, which is used in the New Testament to connote full discernment and spiritual knowledge. Paul echoes the need for this kind of knowledge that guides love in his letter to the Colossians:

“we have not stopped praying for you. We continually ask God to fill you with the knowledge of his will through all the wisdom and understanding that the Spirit gives, so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:9-10).

These two passages both show that we need to grow in the knowledge of God and his will if we are to please him and bear the fruit of good works based in love. It is perfectly possible to have love in our lives – to be sincere, dedicated, loving – and still wrong.  We can love mistakenly or unwisely and as Paul and many other biblical writers show, our love should be coupled with the spiritual knowledge that guides us in seeing how, when and where to show love. 

If we were to believe the advertising of this world (especially around Valentine’s Day), we would believe that all a relationship needs is love (and perhaps expensive gifts to “demonstrate” that love). But any married couple can confirm that a healthy and strong relationship needs far more than just love.  Our relationship with God is no different. We cannot be truly “one” with God by simply having love that we “demonstrate” through sacrifices, gifts, or other works.  The Old Testament prophetic books are full of statements to this effect, and the principle is clear in the New Testament also. 

When the Bible tells us that “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments” (1 John 5:5) it shows that we must come to know – and know deeply – how to love.  Saying “all you need is love” is like saying “all you need is air.” Of course we need air, and of course we need love, but they are not the only things we need. As the apostle Peter summarized, we must “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18). We must have love, but to be effective Christians we must always remember that love is not all we need.

The Gospel of Luke records a group of parables in which Jesus gave three examples of the concept of lost and found: the story of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:1-31).  

​We know these are not just three similar stories that were grouped together thematically as Luke specifically shows they were given at the same time (vss. 3, 8, 11) in response to the Pharisees’ criticism that Jesus ate with “sinners” (vss. 1-2). 

In the first parable, Jesus said: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?” (vs. 4). In the second, he continued: “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” (vs. 8). And in the third and best known parable we are told that Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had and set off for a distant country (vss. 11-13). This parable also tells us that when the prodigal son finally returned:  “…while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him” (vs. 20), showing the father had been waiting and looking for his son.

In all three of these parables we are told that when that which was lost was found there was great rejoicing (vss. 6, 9, 32), and the moral of each is clearly that God rejoices in “finding” the lost soul. But these are not just a group of similar parables.  Not only were they given at the same time in response to the same situation, with a clear connection between the stories, but also if we look closely, there is another important  aspect of what is said.
 
In the first parable we are told specifically that the sheep that was lost was one in a hundred; in the second parable the coin that was lost was one in ten; in the third parable the son who was lost was one of two.   Although each parable makes the same point, there is an additional message in the complete sequence – in all three taken together. 
 
Jesus began by showing that even one of many (one in a hundred) has great value.  One hundred  sheep would have been a very large flock in ancient Palestine, and one missing sheep might hardly be noticed.  Spiritually, the message is clear: God values everyone who is lost –  even if they are “only one” of the vast number of humans who have lived.  The sequence continues, however, in showing the relative worth of the one of ten coins that was lost. The fact that the woman called on her friends to rejoice with her when the coin was found shows that its value must have been significant to her – probably a tenth of all her savings. In the final parable, the sequence concludes by showing the tremendous value to his father of the one of two sons who had been “lost.”  The father in the story is shown as perhaps having been searching the distant road continually, hoping for his son’s return.
 
In this parable we often concentrate on the uncharitable reluctance of the elder of the two sons to rejoice when the younger one returned.  Although that is an important part of the story, we should not forget that the discussion between the father and the elder brother also serves another purpose – to show the great value of the lost brother who was found.  The elder brother’s argument is essentially that the father was placing as much value on the young brother as on the one who had stayed faithful –  and that argument was in fact accurate. 

The parable makes it clear that the elder brother would receive his due reward (vs. 31), but the father replies to him that: “… we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (vs. 32).
​
The three “lost and found” parables Jesus gave were not just repetition for effect. The interlinked stories show successively  the value to God of the one who is lost. The sequence demonstrates at its beginning God’s personal attentiveness towards all of humanity and at its end his deeply focused love for each individual. Together, the parables show that no one is too small or insignificant to be viewed as of great value to God, and that every individual who returns to God, whatever their sins of the past, is of immense value – as valuable in God’s sight as any other.  The three parables show as clearly as anything in the New Testament not only the joy of the lost being found, but also the loving acceptance with which God views the one who is found.
 
* For more about the parables of Jesus, download our free e-book The City on a Hill.

And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who said to David, “You will not come in here, but the blind and the lame will ward you off”—thinking, “David cannot come in here.” Nevertheless, David took the stronghold of Zion, that is, the city of David.  And David said on that day, “Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him get up the water shaft to attack ‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” (2 Samuel 5:6-8 ESV).

This passage in the book of 2 Samuel is puzzling at first sight. Did David really hate the lame and the blind?  Some translations attempt to smooth out the statement – the NIV, for example, renders the verse “those ‘lame and blind’ who are David’s enemies,” but the translation “‘the lame and the blind,’ who are hated by David's soul” found in the ESV is an accurate and a quite literal one.

First, we need to ascertain who “the lame and the blind” were.  Most modern commentaries presume that the Jebusites believed that the fortifications of Jerusalem were so strong that even those who were mobility- or visually-impaired would be able to ward off David and his army.  While this interpretation might seem very reasonable, it leaves unanswered why David would say his soul hated the lame and the blind.  We also see that “the lame and the blind” could not have simply been a verbal taunt as David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft. Finally, we see that David offered a large incentive – the rank of “chief and captain” (1 Chronicles 11:6) – to anyone who would lead the way in attacking “the lame and the blind.”

Archaeology may perhaps help us to better understand the situation. There is some evidence that the ancient Jebusites were connected to, and perhaps associated with the Syro-Hittite peoples of the Near East.  As a result, in 1963, the renowned Israeli soldier, archaeologist, and scholar, Yigael Yadin (1917–1984), noted that ancient clay tablets that have been found with texts written by these people include instances of a ritual known as the “Soldier’s Oath” that may be relevant to what David said (Yigael Yadin, The Art of Warfare in Biblical Lands: In the Light of Archaeological Study Volume 2, pages 268-269). These “oaths” were magical rituals made against enemies in which blind and deaf individuals were paraded before them and it was then said:

“Whoever …. turns his eyes in hostile fashion upon [our] land, let these oaths seize him! Let them blind this man’s army and make it deaf! Let them not see each other, let them not hear each other! Let them make a cruel fate their lot! … Let them make him blind! Let them make him deaf! Let them blind him like a blind man! Let them deafen him like a deaf man! Let them annihilate him, the man himself together with his wife, his children and his kin!”  (quoted from James B. Pritchard’s Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, pages 353-354.)

This kind of sympathetic magic appears to be exactly what the ancient Jebusites were doing – placing a terrible curse on anyone who attacked their city.  If this is the case, as Yadin suggested, the biblical text is certainly more understandable.  This would perhaps explain why David told his men that because of the situation they should secretly enter the city by way of a hidden watershaft – perhaps to avoid the lame and blind “curse carriers,”  and why he needed to offer a large incentive to anyone who would lead the attack under these circumstances.  As for “hating” the lame and blind, David’s comments would most likely apply to the lame and blind curse carriers rather than to all people with these disabilities.

This certainly makes sense as the Bible clearly shows David did not hate such people – it documents in detail his love for and help of Saul’s lame son Mephibosheth whom he restored and invited to eat regularly at his table (2 Samuel 9:10-13).

Whatever the precise meaning of David’s words in 2 Samuel 5:6–8, it is clear that the king did not hate the disabled – and Yadin’s suggestion as to the king’s actual meaning is as good as any. In this case, as in many others, passages that seem to contradict what we know of plain biblical teaching are often better understood with historical background to illuminate them.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Exodus 20:7).
 
We usually understand the third commandment as forbidding the taking of God’s name in vain – using it wrongfully in speech.  So, for example, In Leviticus 24:16 we read, “Whoever blasphemes the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death.”

But the word vain (as it’s rendered in the KJV, ESV, etc.) can also mean “worthless,” or “to make of no value.”  This helps explain some otherwise puzzling scriptures. For example, strangely enough, sacrificing one’s children to Molech, the god of the pagan Ammonites (1 Kings 11:5) was considered a violation of the third commandment:

“’Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD”  (Leviticus 18:21).

“‘Any Israelite or any foreigner residing in Israel who sacrifices any of his children to Molek is to be put to death. The members of the community are to stone him. I myself will set my face against him and will cut him off from his people; for by sacrificing his children to Molek, he has defiled my sanctuary and profaned my holy name’” (Leviticus 20:2-3).

Also strange is the location of this law in Leviticus 18 among laws giving proscribed sexual relations:

18:20 “Do not have sexual relations with your neighbor’s wife and defile yourself with her.
18:21 “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molek, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the Lord.
18:22 “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable.

How are we to understand this aspect of the third commandment and its setting in the law?
It is sometimes said the position of this law shows taking God’s name in vain was  considered a breaking of marriage relation with God – especially because God said: “I myself will set my face against him and his family and will cut them off from their people together with all who follow him in prostituting themselves to Molek” (Leviticus 20:3).

But why would this make God’s name worthless or of no value? A more likely reason is that breaking the third commandment “profaned” or devalued God because sacrificing their children to Molek would cause the nations surrounding Israel to say that the Israelites regard their own God as an inferior deity, because they only offered animals to him, but they sacrificed their own children to Molek.  Seen this way, by sacrificing their children to Molek the Israelites profaned God’s name by declaring him of less, or little value.

Unlawfully touching the holy things of the tabernacle was also considered a violation of the third commandment: “Speak to Aaron and his sons so that they abstain from the holy things of the people of Israel, which they dedicate to me, so that they do not profane my holy name: I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:2).  In a similar way, Malachi condemns the priests who were devaluing the name of God in his time through their sub-standard offerings (Malachi 1:10–14).

So, while the third commandment certainly covers what is said in regard to God, its principle is actually much wider and can also apply to things that we do.

If someone were to ask you to summarize the apostle Paul’s teaching found in his letters in the New Testament, what would you say?  Chances are, like most of us who know and love his epistles, you would take a deep breath and launch into a somewhat complicated explanation of the nature of salvation, faith, law, grace, and a number of other core Christian doctrines.

The Practical Paul

But was Paul really just a “theologian’s theologian,” a “super-scholar” who concentrated on doctrine above all else?  The answer, of course, is not at all.  We only have to look, for example, at his first letter to the Corinthian church.  Paul has a great deal of practical guidance for Christians dealing with some of the problems and challenges of life.  But we can go further than that. There is actually a practical side to most of what Paul wrote – we just don’t always see it. 

When we look at Paul’s epistles closely, we find that he frequently divides his material in such a way that the first half of his letter stresses theological issues and the second half of the letter stresses their practical application. We can see this quite clearly in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, but the principle applies to most of his epistles.   In Ephesians, for example, the doctrinal portion of the letter (chapters 1-3) is followed by an ethical or Christian living section (chapters 4-6), and the whole epistle is structured around this balance.

But that’s not all.  When we focus in on almost any section of the apostle’s writings, we find that he utilizes this balanced form of teaching continually.  We just have to learn to see the pattern.  In one half of his statements Paul often presents a theological fact, and in the other half we are given the application of that fact.  Usually, it is first the doctrine, then the practice.  In fact, at a technical level, Paul actually often balances two different forms of the same verb – first the “indicative” form stressing a fact, then the “imperative” form telling us what we must do about that fact.  But the overall pattern of fact plus application of the fact is very clear when we look for it.  Consider a few examples where the factual statement is bolded and the resulting application is italicized:

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love” (Galatians 5:13).

“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Colossians 3:1).

Sometimes we have to continue reading for several verses to get to the practical application of a point, as in this example:

“For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.  Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature… ” (Colossians 3:3-5).

And sometimes Paul will reverse the order – placing the practical application before the underlying doctrinal fact – but if we keep the structure in mind, we will see the balance is still there:

“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (Philippians 2:12-13).

Whatever order he uses, once we see this pattern in Paul, every epistle becomes a clearly linked series of thoughts about what God has done and what we must do as a result.  But it is not just a way of teaching what we must do – it is just as much about helping us understand why we should do the things we need to do.

As we study his epistles, we should continually ask “What is the fact Paul is stating?” and “What is he saying we should do as a result of that fact?”  If we do this consistently, we will often see the points he is making far more clearly – and not miss the guidance he gives us.  Keeping this simple principle in mind can help us to navigate through Paul’s sometimes dense and even difficult writing (2 Peter 3:16) by better keeping up with his arguments and the significance of what he is telling us.

Paul wasn’t just about theology, and focusing on the practical side of his letters can often help us to better understand much of what he wrote. After all, it was Paul himself who said “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice” (Philippians 4:9).

Today, the expression “the poor” invariably refers to the specific socio-economic group of those who are impoverished, who often do not have homes, resources, or even proper food and clothing.  But when we read the expression “the poor” in the Bible, we should realize that while the term can certainly represent those who were financially under-privileged, it can also mean other groups and individuals. We can only fully understand many scriptures when we keep this in mind.

In the Old Testament, the poor are frequently the disenfranchised: day workers, slaves, beggars, widows, the sick, and resident aliens who were protected and assisted by various laws (see for example, Exodus 22:21; 23:9; Leviticus 19:33–34; Deuteronomy 10:17–19; 24:17–22; etc.).  But “the poor” are not always members of this socio-economic group.  Often, those in a position of need – such as individuals  needing protection – are described as the poor.  We find an example in the Psalms where David exclaims  “Who is like you, Lord? You rescue the poor from those too strong for them, the poor and needy from those who rob them”(Psalm 35:10).

In fact, “the poor” may not be fiscally poor at all – as when King David places himself in the same category as the poor and needy: “But as for me, afflicted and in pain—may your salvation, God, protect me …  The poor will see and be glad … The Lord hears the needy and does not despise his captive people” (Psalm 69:29,32–33). In this example we see also the concept of the needy being expanded to include all Israel on the national level, and this is explicit in other psalms such as Psalm 9: “The nations have fallen into the pit they have dug … all the nations that forget God. But God will never forget the needy; the hope of the afflicted will never perish” (Psalm 9:15–18). 

It is particularly important to understand this national application of “the poor” in order to understand Old Testament verses such as Isaiah 61:1, “The Spirit of the Sovereign Lord is on me, because the Lord has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor” – a scripture which in context clearly applies to all Israel, and which was quoted, of course, by Jesus, not meaning that he would preach to only the economically poor, but to all of Israel.

The New Testament writings also have their own usage of the term “the poor.”  The Greek language had two terms for poor people: penes and ptochos.  Penes refers to a person with limited resources who did manual labor – many of the disciples were from this group – as opposed to the wealthy who did not have to work (as we see in many of the parables which speak of landowners being absent or only appearing after some time – as in Matthew 21:33–41; 24:45–47; 25:14–30; etc.). On the other hand, ptochos refers to an individual without any resources at all – beggars, the blind, lame, and others who had no family support and who often lived in the city streets or outside the cities (as we read in Luke 14:21–23).  Both types of poor are mentioned frequently in the New Testament.

The New Testament also alludes to many cases of people dropping from the category of “working poor” (penes) to “destitute poor” (ptochos) as a result of their following Jesus and being disowned by their families. It is in that light that we should understand Jesus’ words about the birds of the air and the lilies of the field (Matthew 6:25–34) and many of his other sayings in the context of giving up or losing one’s family and becoming extremely poor for the sake of accepting the gospel.

More generally, severe taxation under the Roman Empire led to an ever-increasing number of the working poor becoming even poorer, while the rich who profited from doing business with the Romans became ever richer (which is why, by the time the apostle James wrote his epistle he so strongly criticizes many of the rich and speaks of the great poverty of the poor).
But although “the poor” in the New Testament often means the physically impoverished,  it can also mean the spiritually needy as we saw in the Old Testament. This can lead to confusion for the modern reader where there was none originally.  It explains why Jesus is recorded in Luke as saying “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20), but in recording Jesus’ same Sermon, Matthew has “Blessed are the poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3).  While “the poor” means only monetarily poor to us, the New Testament writers could say either “the poor” or “the poor in spirit” and have the same meaning.

Finally, as we also saw in the Old Testament, the expression “the poor” can mean the people of Israel – and in the New Testament, God’s people as a whole. It was to this wider “poor” that Jesus announced he had been sent, and – because it includes the “poor in spirit” – it can include all of us.

By  Terrell Perkins

There are those who claim they know 'the secret key' to understanding the scriptures. There is indeed a key that unlocks the scriptures and in some respects it is a secret... at least to some people. Do you want to know the key to understanding the scriptures? It's love. Every page, every paragraph, every word, flows with God's love for His children. That the Scriptures exist is proof of God's love. He created us out of love. He gave us His law out of love for us. He allowed His only begotten son to become one of us, to suffer pain, humiliation and death at the hands of human beings out of His love for mankind.

The problem arises when we misunderstand what love is and what it is not. Love is NOT just what we feel... love is what we DO. Scriptures tell us the fruits of the Spirit are love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness and faithfulness. Most of the fruits of the spirit are qualities about dealing with someone else. Bliss is most commonly confused with love because bliss feels good. Bliss isn't bad as long as it is not mistaken for spiritual growth. We can experience bliss while looking at a beautiful sunset or experiencing a 'perfect moment.' Just like there are counterfeit gospels, there are also counterfeits for love. Bliss can also be a counterfeit for love. In Eastern and New Age religions bliss is often mistaken for love.

Bliss can be a counterfeit love for 'spiritual' people. Bliss is what those who are 'spiritual but not religious' most often feel. To show real love there must be another. And the other is always imperfect. That's what makes love so special. Love is getting into the trenches and getting dirty. We don't love the perfect... we love the imperfect. Bliss doesn't feed the hungry, visit the lonely, comfort the sick or give a coat to someone who's cold... love does these things.

Love may be said to be like a pearl. Do you know how pearls are formed? You put something irritating in an oyster, like a grain of sand, and a pearl is its response. Love covers imperfections like a pearl covers a grain of sand. 

Bliss is what we feel. Love is what we DO.
Bliss is about ourselves. Love is always about another.
Bliss is content to remain alone. Love always reaches out.
Bliss is not doing. Love is DOING.
Bliss can be completely self absorbed. Love is NEVER self absorbed.
Bliss is static. Love is dynamic.
Bliss can be like a stagnant pond....Love is like a river of living water.
Love always grows, always moves.

Christ didn't condemn a fig tree to die because he didn't like trees... it is a lesson for us.
We MUST bear fruit! The fruits of the spirit are all about dealing with other/imperfect people. God's Word defines what spiritual growth is the way DNA defines what physical growth is. True spiritual growth is always guided by the template of love like physical growth is guided by DNA.

Don't be deceived. We don't grow by watching a sunset... we grow by reaching out of ourselves to others. We first have to learn to love ourselves, then we have to learn to extend, to grow, our sense of ourselves. That's what love is... extending our sense of ourselves to include others. Hurt doesn't stop it, misunderstanding doesn't stop it, disappointment doesn't stop it, pain doesn't stop it... Love keeps coming like a pounding wave that eventually turns a mountain into sand. Love is what will transform the universe and us if we let it.

*Read more by Terrell Perkins at https://blacksmithscorner.blogspot.com/

"For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves” (1 Corinthians 11:29).

When we participate in the Lord’s Supper, we commemorate the sacrificial death of Jesus (Matthew 26:26–28), but in his letter to the Corinthian church Paul tells us that to do so without “discerning the body” brings judgment on the one/s participating. What does this mean?  There are two major interpretations of Paul’s statement, and we will look at each of these. But first notice the immediate context of what Paul says:

So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves.  (1 Corinthians 11:27–29).
 
In these verses the apostle emphasizes that Christians must not sin against the body and blood of the Lord (verse 27), and should examine themselves before taking part in the Lord’s Supper to avoid doing so unworthily (verse 28). But this does not of itself explain what he meant by “discerning the body” in verse 29.

Most commonly, what Paul says is seen in a reference to the sacrifice of Christ. We know that in the Lord’s Supper, the cup represents Christ's blood, and the bread represents his broken body. Thus, although a great many manuscripts of the New Testament simply say we must not partake of the emblems of Christs death without “discerning the body,” some manuscripts add “of the Lord” and the NIV and some other versions follow this tradition to make the verse clear. 

Seen this way, Paul’s warning is against not recognizing the sanctity of the fact that Christ's body and blood are represented in the elements of the bread and wine – in other words, not discerning or differentiating them from regular food and drink. This would certainly fit with Paul's instructions in the following verses regarding not coming hungry to the Lord's Supper and treating it as a regular meal as some in Corinth were doing  (1 Corinthians 11:34).

Additionally, Paul tells us that partaking of the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper is “proclaiming the death of Jesus” (1 Corinthians 11:26). So if we proclaim the death of Jesus in this way, yet are disobedient to him in our everyday lives, we invite God’s judgment and punishment for not discerning his body (1 Corinthians 11:29–30).

The second view of Paul’s warning understands “the body of Christ” to refer to the Church – which Paul specifically tells us is the figurative “body of Christ” in this same letter: “Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it” (1 Corinthians 12:27). This is because, as Paul explains elsewhere, Christ is the head of the church (Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 5:23) and we are baptized into him – becoming members of his body (Galatians 3:27; etc.).

Paul also reminds the Corinthians of our role in Christ’s body specifically in the context of the Lord’s Supper: “Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread” (1 Corinthians 10:17).  In chapter eleven Paul continues this theme of the church being one body and treating our church family appropriately: “So then, my brothers and sisters, when you gather to eat, you should all eat together” (1 Corinthians 11:33). 

Clearly, both the views of 1 Corinthians 11:29 explained above fit not only what Paul writes generally in his letters, but also the specific context of what he says regarding “discerning the body” in this verse. It is perhaps impossible to tell which meaning Paul originally had in mind – or if he was stressing both.  But both principles are valid and whether Paul intended to stress one or both of them, both are necessary in keeping the Lord’s Supper as we should – properly discerning our relationship with Christ and with one another.

When we think of salvation, we tend to think of it in a single dimension – that of Christ’s sacrifice and the resulting possibility of salvation from our sins. This is, indeed, the central aspect of salvation as taught in many verses of the New Testament, but there is a scriptural passage we tend to overlook, or read over, that shows God’s salvation of those who turn to him is even broader.

In the opening chapter of his Gospel, Luke tells us that before Jesus’ birth Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, prophesied by the Holy Spirit:

“Praise be to the Lord, the God of Israel, because he has come to his people and redeemed them. He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago), salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us  … to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear…  to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God… to shine on those living in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the path of peace” (Luke 1:68–79).
 
The passage shows that Zechariah clearly identified the coming Messiah who would be heir to David’s throne, and who would provide salvation for his people from “our enemies and all who hate us,” from “sins,” and from “darkness and the shadow of death.” 
 
First, we see the Messiah would save his people from their enemies, and while Zechariah may have presumed this was salvation from physical enemies of that time such as the Roman conquerors of Judea, we know from the larger prophetic picture the Bible gives us that the physical salvation of God’s people from their enemies would come later – at the Messiah’s return. But there is also a spiritual application of this prophecy: Jesus did save his people from their spiritual enemies – the spiritual powers that desire our destruction (1 Peter 5:8–9), and this aspect of our salvation is certainly in place now (2 Corinthians 10:3–5).
 
Next, we see that Zechariah foretold the Promised One would bring salvation to his people through the forgiveness of their sins.  Luke 1:31 records the angel told Mary “You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus” which means, of course, “salvation,” and Matthew’s account makes this explicit for us by saying “you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins” (Matthew 1:21). While we often think of this salvation in a somewhat abstract way – like the canceling of a debt, or the overturning of a guilty verdict – we should remember that  in reality it is salvation from the very Wrath of God. We may concentrate on God’s loving kindness and mercy in forgiving us, but we are forgiven our sins to save us from God’s wrath, as the apostle Paul made clear: “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!” (Romans 5:9). Sometimes we need to remember this to see the full extent of this aspect of the salvation we are given.
 
Finally, Zechariah’s prophecy shows us that we are saved from ourselves. In saying that we are saved from “living in darkness and in the shadow of death” (Luke 1:79), we are told that we are saved from the way we naturally live according to our own carnal minds (Ephesians 2:3).  As Matthew’s Gospel puts it: “the people living in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of the shadow of death a light has dawned” (Matthew 4:16).  This does not only refer to sin and sinfulness, but to the sad darkness that clouds most human minds so that we hurt ourselves and others endlessly for lack of knowledge of what is good, sane, and right (Hosea 4:6).
 
So Zechariah’s prophecy shows us in a single passage the three forms of salvation we receive through the work of the Son of God: we are saved from the spiritual enemies who would destroy us, saved from God’s righteous judgment of sin, and also saved from ourselves and from ultimately destroying our own well-being and happiness due to our spiritual blindness.  Zechariah’s inspired words show that God saves us from far more than an abstract spiritual debt – rather, in his kindness, he saves us in every way that we need to be saved.  

There are some areas of life where understanding needs to precede action.  When we visit a doctor or other medical professional, for example, we want them to understand what the situation is and what is needed before they take any action in prescribing medications or treatments.  In cases like that, understanding obviously has to come before action. 
     
But in other areas of life we find situations where this “normal” way of things is reversed, and we simply have to act before we understand, counterintuitive as that may sound.  Falling in love might be a good example – we have to experience love before we can really understand it.  Following God’s instructions is often one of these situations. No amount of philosophizing can help us understand why it really is more blessed to give than to receive, for example – it is only when we do give that we begin to understand how we are blessed in giving. But it is easy to forget that sometimes action has to come before understanding. We may make the mistake of not acting on what we see in the word of God because we don’t understand why we should do or not do a certain thing.

Yet the Bible is very clear about the reality of “action before understanding” when applied to its teachings.   Notice, for example, how David expressed this fact in the Psalms: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding” (Psalm 111:10). This is not saying that if you have good understanding you will follow God’s ways (though that is true, of course), but that following God’s instructions leads to understanding them.  Another verse that makes this same point is found in the book of Exodus. According to many translations, directly after God gave the Ten Commandments and other laws to ancient Israel the people said: “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient” (Exodus 24:7 NKJV). But the Hebrew literally says “we will do and we will hear” or “we will do and we will understand.”  Here again, as in many other instances, doing comes before “hearing” – action before understanding.

In the New Testament the principle is spelled out even more clearly. The Gospel of John records Jesus saying: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them” (John 14:21).  This does not mean something esoteric and mystical – by “showing” himself to those who are obedient, Christ simply meant that they would come to understand and know him, just as we say “Ah! I see it now” when we come to understand something. But once again, the order is action before understanding.

In fact, this principle lies at the very heart of much of what the New Testament tells us. Compare these two very important verses in the book of Acts: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); “And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit which God has given to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32).  The apostle Paul taught very clearly that: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14). When we put these verses together we see that we cannot understand spiritual things until we receive the Spirit of God, and we have to act – to repent and be baptized – before we can receive the Spirit.  So action must come before full understanding even from the very beginning of the Christian life.

The important thing for us to remember is that this principle does not only apply to us as new Christians – it applies to us every time we see some new guidance in God’s word.  The instruction may be clear as to what we must do, but we may only understand the guidance once we follow it – that is simply the way God often teaches us.  

Many of the individuals mentioned in Hebrews’ great “Faith Hall of Fame” chapter (Hebrews 11) understood that faith means we must sometimes act before we understand – we must obey before we fully comprehend.  These people seem to have learned a lesson we all must learn in the course of the Christian life: that faith often enables our obedience and our obedience often enables our understanding. 

In his first letter to the Corinthian church the apostle Paul wrote: "Tongues, then, are a sign, not for believers but for unbelievers; prophecy, however, is not for unbelievers but for believers."  This seems clear enough, but notice what he wrote next:  "So if the whole church comes together and everyone speaks in tongues, and inquirers or unbelievers come in, will they not say that you are out of your mind? But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, “God is really among you!”  (1 Corinthians 14:22-25)

These words of the apostle Paul regarding the use of Spirit-given languages (“tongues”) and prophecy in the Church may seem completely contradictory.  Paul initially says that tongues are a sign to those who are unbelievers, and that prophecy is given for believers – for those in the Church (verse 22).  But then, in the following verses, Paul continues with an example in which he says that if an unbeliever comes to a church and hears people speaking in unintelligible speech the outsider will thinks that they are out of their minds. On the other hand, Paul says, if the unbeliever comes in and the church is prophesying then he or she will be convicted and will worship God.

The key to reconciling this seeming contradiction between the point Paul makes, and the example he gives, is found in understanding that Paul means tongues are a sign to unbelievers, not to their conviction and belief, but to confirm their unbelief. We see this in what he says in the verse directly before those we are looking at: “In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me,’ says the Lord.” (verse 21). 

In other words, tongues are a sign to the unbelieving, not that they might believe, but that they are condemned in their unbelief in not turning to God so that they might understand.  Understood this way, there is in fact, no contradiction. Tongues are a (negative) sign to unbelievers, while prophecy – which Paul is stressing in this chapter is more important than tongues (verses 4–5; 19) – is a (positive) sign to believers. On the other hand, if unbeliever’s hear words they can understand (prophecy) they may be convicted and converted, Paul says. While tongues sometimes serve to strengthen unbelief, prophecy serves to strengthen belief.

The context of these verses makes this all clear. The Corinthians were misusing the gift of tongues so that there was no benefit to the church in their use. Tongues used this way – without interpretation (verses 13; 27–28) – were not of any use to believers or unbelievers alike.  Prophecy on the other hand, was helpful to those in the church because it conveyed the word of God to them, and even unbelievers, Paul reminds them, might be instructed and brought to faith by an intelligible message that convicted them of sin by revealing “the secrets of their hearts,” and helped them to see God's indwelling presence in the church (verses 24-5).

In this example, as in other parts of Paul’s writings, we must be aware that the apostle often appears to say one thing but then another as he looks at issues from different angles.  This is no different from us saying that someone is too short when it comes to playing basketball, but not short enough to be good at gymnastics (where being shorter and having a lower center of gravity is actually an advantage).   Paul has sometimes been called the most difficult of the apostles to understand (2 Peter 3:16) but we can better understand his writings by always keeping in mind the flexibility of his thinking.

More than any other New Testament book, the Third Gospel teaches us what it means to be humble.
 
Not surprisingly, humility is displayed in all the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. For example, although we tend to think of Matthew as the gospel of kingship – the gospel that frequently alludes to the messianic kingly role of Christ – Matthew also records many examples of humility in the lives of Jesus and others. But none of the four gospels focuses as clearly on the humility of the Son of God and his teachings on the subject as does the book of Luke.

A Life of Humility

Luke alone describes the humble nature of the physical birth of Jesus – beginning with Mary’s affirmation of her humble state (Luke 1:48, 52), and the details of Jesus’ birth that underscore the relative poverty of his parents (Luke 2:24, etc.).  Like Matthew, Luke tells us that Jesus had no fixed home (Luke 9:58), but alone among the gospels Luke tells us that Jesus’ ministry was only possible because of the support of others who were better off (Luke 8:1–3). 

Luke alone records how Jesus was humbly subject to his earthly parents throughout his early years (Luke 2:51), and gives us dozens of details illustrating Jesus’ humble way of life – such as the fact that except on one occasion, he is pictured as traveling either by foot or by boat in an age when many – and certainly anyone due respect – traveled by horse or donkey. 

Luke also stresses how Jesus lived a life of spiritual humility, and this is frequently seen not only in what the evangelist tells us regarding Jesus’s words about himself (Luke 22:27; etc.), but also, for example, in the fact that although he was worthy of many titles and was called “the Son of God” by others, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus refers to himself as simply the “Son of Man.”

Humble interactions

Luke also carefully records details of Jesus’ interactions with others who expressed humility.   Perhaps the greatest example of this kind of reciprocal humility that is found in the Gospels is seen in the story of the centurion who implored Jesus to heal his servant. Only Matthew and Luke record this story (Matthew 8:5–13; Luke 7:1-10), but Luke’s additional details are informative.  In addition to the great humility of the Roman officer who declared “I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you” (Luke 7:6–7), this story also shows the humility of Jesus – not only in his willingness to go to the sick rather than having them brought to him, but also because Luke tells us the sick man was not an important servant, but simply a lowly slave (doulos). 

In similar ways, Luke provides us with many other examples of humility in action – some of them unexpected. For example, although we know Jesus came to serve (Matthew 20:28) Luke repeatedly shows us that his humility allowed him to be served by others. For example, the evangelist tells us that Jesus attended meals in the homes of others where he was served by the hosts (Luke 10:40–42; etc.), and he gives us the story of the woman who washed his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair in an extreme act of service (Luke 7:36-50). In these examples, Luke teaches us that in our relationships with other people, there is a balance between the humility of serving and the humility of being willing to be served – supporting the needs of others and not being too proud to be supported in our own needs (Luke 4:38–39).

Teachings on Humility

Luke shows us that Jesus emphasized the defining character of his disciples was to be humility.  While Matthew records Jesus’ words “those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12), Luke gives this same teaching not once, but twice (Luke 14:11; 18:14), showing its additional importance for Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching.  

Some of Jesus’ most memorable teachings on humility are also recorded in Luke. Early in his Gospel, Luke tells how the disciples argued as to which of them would be the greatest, and how Jesus said “it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest” (Luke 9:46–50).  Importantly, Luke shows that late in Jesus’ ministry the disciples were still arguing in this way, and Jesus retaught them in even more detail. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them … But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves … I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:24–27). 

Luke also records Jesus’ instruction to those who picked the places of honor at a banquet –  “all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Luke14:7–11). And to those who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector  to teach the same lesson: “all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Luke 18:9–14).

A Handbook of Humility

In both the teachings of Jesus that it records, and in examples drawn from Jesus’ ministry, the book of Luke focuses on humility more frequently than any other gospel – or any other book in the New Testament.  Many additional teachings on humility that Luke records do not mention humility directly, but show how this quality affects every aspect of our Christian lives. For example, in Luke 17, although the words “humble” and “humility” appear nowhere in the chapter, the concept underlies a great deal of what Luke tells us.

So it is worth remembering – it is to Luke that we should turn if we want a handbook of practical and applied humility, and we will also see much more of the message of his gospel if we remember that even when it is not obviously focusing on this quality, Luke is the gospel of humility. 
 
*This article is adapted from the author’s book, Lessons from Luke: Understanding More
of the Message of the Third Gospel. Download a free copy, here.
 

Around the turn of our present era – just before and during the life of Jesus – two Jewish rabbis lived and rose to considerable fame. Even if you have heard of one or both of these teachers of the law, you may not know much about them – despite the fact they both had considerable influence on what we read in the New Testament today.

The first of these teachers, Hillel the Elder, also known as  Hillel the Great (c. 110BC – AD 10), lived in Jerusalem during the time of King Herod and became the most famous Jewish scholar of that era. The second scholar was Shammai (50 BC – AD 30), who tradition says was a Pharisee who became a leading Jewish teacher and whose influence was also considerable in the development of Jewish thought.

Although their lives overlapped, Hillel was about sixty years old at the time of Shammai's birth; but some of their interactions are recorded, and their teachings were completely different. Generally speaking, Hillel’s teachings were more lenient and compassionate, while those of Shammai were more strict and severe. A famous example is that Shammai said it was wrong to tell an ugly bride that she looked beautiful, while Hillel said that all brides are beautiful on their wedding day. While Shammai and his followers believed only worthy students should be admitted to study the law of God, Hillel and his disciples stressed that the law may be taught to anyone, in the hope that the person would grow and become worthy.

Shammai’s strictness could be extreme. He and his followers said that if someone forgot to ask a blessing on a meal and had left the place where he ate, the person must return to that place to recite the blessing.  Hillel said, however, that the person could recite a blessing in the place where they realized their omission. But While Shammai could be overly strict, sometimes Hillel could be overly lenient. For example, Shammai held that a man may only divorce his wife for a serious transgression, but Hillel allowed divorce for even such trivial offenses as burning a meal. 

This is why Jesus said  “anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery” (Matthew 5:32) – clearly distancing himself from the teachings of Hillel on this point. Jesus also phrased the “Golden Rule” of “do to others what you would have them do to you” (Matthew 7:12; Luke 6:31) in a positive way, in contrast to Hillel’s famous but more negative expression of the same concept.   But in other ways, Jesus sided with Hillel over Shammai. While Shammai stressed the importance of the Jewish people and their temple, Hillel – and Jesus after him – was more accepting of non-Jewish people and looked beyond the temple (John 4:21). 

But Jesus did not follow either of the major rabbis’ teachings exclusively, and in a sense, his agreement with them was often coincidental. This is seen in the fact that the discussions of the two scholars and their followers contributed to the belief that the oral law – as expounded by Hillel and Shammai –  was just as binding as the written law of God. Jesus firmly rejected this approach of many in his day by citing Scripture: “They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules” (Matthew 15:9).  Nevertheless, much of what we read in the Gospels is a result of Jesus rejecting or confirming what Hillel and Shammai taught on various points – the major theological views of his day. 

The influence of these teachers on the apostle Paul was also extensive – especially because Paul had studied with the scholar Gamaliel (Acts 22:3) who was the grandson of Hillel.   The book of Acts relates that Gamaliel intervened on behalf of the apostles of Jesus when they were seized and brought before the Sanhedrin – doubtless because many of their teachings agreed with aspects of his own and that of his grandfather, Hillel. Nevertheless, we see many instances in the writings of Paul where the apostle disagreed as well as agreed with the views of his celebrated teacher, and the views of Hillel and Shammai before him.

Ultimately, we can study and understand the New Testament without the teachings of the great rabbinical thinkers of New Testament times, but knowing something of their views can sometimes help us better understand what Jesus and Paul had in mind when they gave examples of how and how not to interpret the law of God.
 
* For more information on the historical background of the New Testament, download our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels: Four Portraits, Many Lessons here.

Don’t have time to read a whole e-book? Want to get the key ideas and principles in just a few minutes?  Or perhaps you would like to get a better idea of what an e-book is all about before investing the time to read the whole thing.  If one of these situations applies to you, or you would simply like to enjoy a podcast style discussion of one of our books, we have good news for you.

We are now producing Deep-Dive podcasts for a number of our e-books. These podcasts give a more in-depth look at a book’s central ideas than a simple blurb can do, and are stimulating ways to  engage with the book’s content and message. We now have the first podcasts available – providing short but meaningful looks at e-books we are sure you will enjoy. Listen to the podcasts on our sister-site, here, and check back often as we will be adding new podcasts each week.

If you are looking for a truly worthwhile goal to set for this new year, consider taking one of the many Bible courses that are available online. A good number, such as those available from Cornerstone Bible Courses, are completely free.  Cornerstone’s carefully prepared non-denominational and non-commercial courses provide in-depth information on the Bible – without advertisements or other distractions – to those who cannot attend Bible school or seminary, or who simply want to understand the Bible at a deeper level in their own personal study.  Significantly, all course materials – including e-textbooks – are provided for free and there are no charges of any kind.  If desired,  an optional  final exam can be taken online and a personalized certificate of completion is provided for all passing grades. You can download a free course and study materials today from the Cornerstone site, here.​​ 

And the Cornerstone courses are not the only Bible courses available online.  The Online Bible College Association is a new and growing association that provides an excellent service by listing worthwhile Bible courses they have personally checked to ensure they are not scams, and  provide quality, trustworthy material. A number of the courses they list are free. You can visit their helpful site and check it occasionally for new additions, here.

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”  (Luke 2:14 KJV).

“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased” (Luke 2:14 ESV)

The angelic annunciation to the shepherds that is recorded in the Gospel of Luke is among the best known of all the stories of the New Testament, yet the wording of this annunciation as it is found in various versions of the English Bible is profoundly different.

While virtually all translations are in agreement regarding “Glory to God in the highest,” there is much disagreement as to what was promised on earth. Older Bible translations such as the King James Version and a very few modern ones, such as the World English Bible, state that the coming of the Messiah brought the promise of peace and good will to “all men.”

But most modern Bible versions state that the promise of peace was not made to all, but to “those on whom God’s favor rests” (NIV), “those with whom he is pleased” (ESV), or some variant of one of these (as AB, ASV, BLB, BSB, CSB, ISV, NAB, NASB, NLT, and many others).

There is obviously a great deal of difference between these translations – on the one hand peace is offered to all people, and on the other hand only to those with whom God is pleased. Why the divergence, and which of these readings should we choose?  The first question is the easiest to answer.  The KJV was based on the  Byzantine Text family which uses the Greek word eudokia in Luke 2:14, while most other English versions follow the Alexandrian Text which has the nearly identical eudokias – but although the difference consists of only one letter, the meaning is quite different, as we saw in the respective translations.

As far as which reading is preferable, there is division among New Testament textual scholars, but in general it is true that the oldest manuscripts we have favor the reading found in the older manuscripts of the Alexandrian Text and hence almost all modern translations opt for that reading.  As is often the case in such questions, there are arguments on both sides of the issue; but ultimately, even if the textual matter is unresolved, we can answer the question theologically – by looking not only at what the immediate context of Luke is, but also what the whole Bible tells us.  

Biblically, it is unlikely that God’s promise of peace refers to everyone regardless of their attitudes and actions. Nevertheless, in verse ten of the same chapter Luke says the angel announced “I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.” So there is certainly a sense in which the good news – the message of the Messiah’s birth – was made available to all. This is the wider sense in which John 3:16 tells us that “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son.” But that same verse tells us that despite the universal availability of the gift, it is still only “whoever believes in him” that “shall not perish but have eternal life.”

In the same way, Luke 2:10 gives us the universal availability of God’s promise of peace, but verse 14 tells us that it is “those whom God approves” or “those with whom he is pleased” who receive the promise. It is those who have God’s goodwill, or favor – because of their faith in him and in the one whom he sent – who find peace.

We catch a glimpse of this selective reception of peace in the teaching of Jesus himself. In Luke 10:5 Jesus tells his disciples, “When you enter a house, first say, ‘Peace to this house.’” This is the offer of peace that is freely made to all. But Jesus continued by explaining “If someone who promotes peace is there [literally “a son of peace,”] your peace will rest on them; if not, it will return to you” (verse 6).  It is only those who are the “sons” or “daughters” of peace who receive the peace God offers. 

As for whether we personally are a son or daughter of peace, the answer is simply whether or not we accept the news of the Messiah’s coming, and what that means in our lives.  If we do, then – as the angel announced – we will experience the peace the Messiah’s coming brought.