As Christians, we come to understand that faith has two sides, two aspects, two dimensions. Call them what we may, our belief must include not only faith in the existence of God, but also faith in the nature of God – his goodness.

These dual aspects of belief and trust are summed up perfectly in the book of Hebrews: “And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6).  We must first believe that God exists and we must also believe in his just and good nature –  that he is a God who rewards righteousness.

But, basic as this might seem, we do not always understand that these two aspects of faith are the story of the Bible itself – that throughout the Scriptures God introduces and reveals himself to humanity in exactly these two ways.  If we start at the beginning, we find the existence of God is shown in the creation story of Genesis 1. The nature of God is then seen in the story of God’s gifts to humans – including the potential gift of eternal life – in Genesis 2.   The same two-part story is repeated in every major theophany of the Bible. God’s existence is shown to the Israelites in the fire and thunder on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:17-20), and his nature is revealed to them in the law of love that he gives them there shortly afterward (Exodus 20:1-17).  There are dozens of smaller examples of this pattern throughout the Hebrew Scriptures. In words or actions, God reveals himself, then his nature.

Of course, the New Testament is no different. On numerous occasions Jesus is revealed as the son of God and then his nature is demonstrated in his works and teachings (Matthew 14:22-36, etc.). The reality of his divine existence is made especially clear to the key disciples in the visible transfiguration on the mountainside, and his nature as the son of God is then stated audibly (Matthew 17:1-5).  At the conclusion of his ministry, the same two principles are made evident in more symbolic yet equally real ways for all to see.  The identity of the Son of God is revealed to Jerusalem in the triumphal entry, and his nature, his sacrificial goodness, is revealed a few days later in his public crucifixion on behalf of all.  The expressions of these two bases of our faith are inseparable and reach backward and forward as we read the Scriptures – the Passover lamb, as a foreshadowing of Christ, was identified on the tenth day of the month and sacrificed separately on the fourteenth, and so on. Throughout the Bible we find God continually reveals himself and then reveals his nature. God appears and God blesses; God is and God acts; the great “I AM” (Exodus 3:14) is also the great “I DO” (Psalm 86:8).

Our faith in God must also follow the same development. It is never enough to simply believe God exists. As the apostle James tells us: “Show me your faith … You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that – and shudder” (James 2:18-19).  That kind of faith is purely belief in God’s existence, and James shows that we must go beyond that.    The second half of God’s revelation of himself is always of his nature, and the second half of our faith that must be developed is always our trust in God’s nature.  As we saw above in Hebrews: “… anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him” (Hebrews 11:6, emphases added).
​
We must never be content in feeling that we are Christians because we believe God exists. The Bible shows from beginning to end that we must believe that –  then come to deeply know and trust the One we believe exists. We are reminded of this in almost the final words of the Bible which stress the existence and the nature of God: “Look, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to each person according to what they have done” (Revelation 22:12).  Our faith is ultimately rewarded not because we believe God exists, but because we trust in the way he is and wants us to be. 

​Does God ever seem far away to you –  as though he were hidden from view and you cannot “see” his presence in your life? How can we know he is still there and just as desirous to work with us at times like that? Consider the biblical book of Esther. 

Our new article on the brave and beautiful Esther looks at some of the "hidden" aspects of the book and shows how they provide a valuable lesson for us. You can read the article here.

​We tend to think of the apostle Paul as a somewhat unique New Testament figure –  a spiritual giant in his own right who received a different calling and training from the other apostles. Yet despite the unique nature of Paul’s identity in the New Testament Church, in one sense the apostle’s ministry was not unique. It was at least foreshadowed in the work of a great Old Testament figure.

We see this fact from the beginning of Paul’s ministry.  In the autobiographical section of his letter to the Galatian Christians (Galatians 1:11-2:21), the apostle tells us that after his conversion “I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus” (vs. 17).

Paul telescopes events somewhat here, as Acts tells us that immediately after his conversion “Saul spent several days with the disciples in Damascus. At once he began to preach in the synagogues that Jesus is the Son of God” (Acts 9:20). It was either then, or “After many days had gone by, there was a conspiracy among the Jews to kill him” (Acts 9:23) that Paul “went into Arabia.”

Today we might presume that the “Arabia” Paul mentions was the same area that we call Arabia today – the Arabian Peninsula –  but in Paul’s day that was not the case.  In New Testament times Arabia referred to the area of Jordan, the Sinai Peninsula, and the territory on the northwestern edge of the Arabian Peninsula. It was this area that was made into the Roman Province of “Arabia” beginning in the second century.

That this was the area Paul had in mind when he said he went to Arabia is seen just a little later in the apostle’s letter where he wrote about the symbolism of Hagar: “Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia …” (Galatians 4:25 ESV, NKJV, etc.). In fact, of all the places in “Arabia” to which Paul might have gone after his conversion, it is more than likely that Mount Sinai would be the one to which he would have been drawn.  As a devout Jew steeped in the law of Moses and the Covenant made at Sinai, Paul might naturally have desired to go to that very area to pray, meditate and learn how the truth he had now come to see related to what he already deeply believed.  

Additionally, of course, Paul was fully aware of the story of Elijah who, after the prophet’s life became endangered, fled to Horeb, the Mountain of God also called Mount Sinai (Deuteronomy 4:10, 1 Kings 8:9, 2 Chronicles 5:10, etc.) where he was instructed by God (1 Kings 19).  In fact, Paul mentions exactly this incident in his letter to the Romans:

“…I am an Israelite myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people, whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what Scripture says in the passage about Elijah—how he appealed to God against Israel: “Lord, they have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me”? And what was God’s answer to him? “I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace” (Romans 11:1-5).

In this passage Paul shows a similarity between his own situation (“I am an Israelite myself”) and that of Elijah, the remnant in Elijah’s time and the remnant in his own time.  The verses he quotes are from 1 Kings 19 –  the story of Elijah running to the mountain of God in Sinai. A number of scholars have pointed out that there are repeated echoes of the story of Elijah going to Sinai in what Paul tells us of his own trip to Arabia.  Just as Elijah stressed at Sinai, “I have been very zealous for the Lord God Almighty” (1 Kings 19:10), so Paul tells us he “was extremely zealous.” Just as Elijah complained at Sinai that his enemies were trying to kill him, so we saw in Acts that the Jews were apparently trying to kill Paul before his journey to Arabia. Just as God told Elijah to return to Damascus (1 Kings 19:15), so Paul returned directly to Damascus from Arabia (Galatians 1:17).  

As N.T. Wright has written, there are even more subtle parallels between the two stories.  Just as Elijah went to Sinai after zealously killing the prophets of Baal, so Paul, mistakenly but with equal zeal, went to Arabia after persecuting members of the Christian Church. Just as Elijah is told to return and anoint and thereby announce the new kingship of Hazael of Syria and Jehu of Israel, so Paul returned to announce the new kingship of Jesus as the anointed one – the Messiah (Journal of Biblical Literature, vol. 115, p. 689).

The similarities with Elijah do not stop with these parallel events.  One of the most significant aspects of Elijah’s ministry is recorded in his trip to the coastal area of Sidonian Zarephath (1 Kings 17:9-10), which Jesus himself used as a symbol of the Gospel going to the Gentiles (Luke 4:25-26).  Paul’s undoubted knowledge of the story of Elijah going to the Gentiles gives us even more reason to believe that he may well have seen himself as travelling in the footsteps of the zealous Old Testament prophet.

The autobiographical section of Paul’s letter to the Galatians shows us that God will always use zeal when he can guide it to his purposes.

Scholars of the New Testament mainly agree that the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark as we now know it (Mark 16:9-20) were probably added after the Gospel was written in order to make it more complete and to bring it more into alignment with the other accounts of the life of Jesus by adding a few verses about what occurred after the resurrection.   This probability need not trouble us. Such a scenario does not mean that the verses added later could not have been inspired.  In any case, the additional material is largely taken directly from the endings of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John (see our post “Question Mark” here).

That the present ending of Mark probably was added is clear:  it does not appear in any of the earliest known manuscripts; it was evidently unknown to early Christian scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early third century); and the style of verses 9-20 is nothing like that used throughout the rest of the book. But the fact that early Christians seem to have eventually felt a need to bring Mark’s Gospel to a more understandable close only points up the question we must ask:  why did Mark end his Gospel so abruptly?

It has sometimes been guessed that Mark may have died or have been otherwise unable to complete his work; but considering that we are only talking about a few short verses this seems unlikely.  Recently, scholars such as N. T. Wright have suggested another possibility –  that the ending of Mark was intentionally left “dangling” in order that Peter or another eyewitness to the events could verbally add his or her testimony after the Gospel had been read out in the early churches. The problem with this latter idea is that there is simply no evidence that anything like this happened, either with Mark or with any other book of the Bible.  In fact, there is a far more likely reason for the seemingly abrupt ending of Mark.

What most discussions of the “abrupt” ending of Mark fail to take into account is that Mark’s Gospel begins as abruptly as it ends.  While the other three Gospels all include some background material, Mark’s account regarding Jesus simply starts “in mid stream,” as it were, by beginning with his baptism and continuing through his ministry.

The abrupt beginning and ending of Mark compared to the other Gospels suggests that its purpose was never to try to provide a more complete “Life of Christ” in the way that Matthew and Luke do (and that even John approximates by giving us key sections of the story from before Jesus began his ministry to the post-resurrection events). This indicates that the purpose of Mark –  which is thought to have been the earliest Gospel written –  was not to look at the background to and aftereffects of the life of Christ, but purely to provide a summary of his words and works, his deeds and teachings. 

This scenario fits well with what we know of the history of Mark’s Gospel.  Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis near Laodicea, tells us:  “… [Mark] accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.”

In other words, rather than making an extended summary of the life of Jesus, the purpose of Mark’s Gospel was, as many modern scholars believe, to provide a manual for disciples – a selective narrative that could be used to teach new believers the Way of Christianity and to help current believers grow in understanding and faith.

That Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism of Jesus and ends with his death is probably no coincidence – these are the points where the life of every Christian begins and ends.  It is precisely in limiting himself to the part of the story of Jesus that is parallel to the lives of his followers that Mark provides a focused guide for the Christian life.  For that purpose, details of the early life or post-resurrection appearances of Jesus were not necessary. 

So the ending of Mark only seems abrupt when it is compared to the endings of the other Gospel accounts – which is doubtless why, in time, the additional verses were added to Mark’s original ending. 

If you have read the biblical book of Ruth, you probably think you know it well. But whether you have read it once or many times, we think you will find a lot more in this beautiful story with the help of our short new e-book.

Many people think of the book of Ruth as a simple love story, but in reality it is far from simple, and it is not really a “love story” in the modern sense of “romantic love” either! Instead, Ruth is a story of deep courage, strength, loyalty, determination, and kindness with an underlying message that reaches from the ancient world to our lives today.

You can download a free copy of our latest e-book in your choice of three formats (PDF, Kindle, and Nook (E-Pub) to read on your computer or e-book reader.  There is no registration necessary and you do not need to give an email address - just click on the file type you want to download!  Download RUTH from our e-book page, here. 

“….if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Corinthians 7:21).

Freedom is always a good idea.   You don’t have to persuade Americans of that, especially around the fourth of July each year, and most every other place in this world either celebrates freedom or mourns its absence at any given time.  But freedom comes with a price, of course.  It is always bought with a struggle, and in this country we can look back on the War of Independence and the abolition of slavery as only two examples of the value of freedom and the struggles necessary to obtain it. 

The apostle Paul recognized the same truth applies in a spiritual sense. Writing to the Corinthians, he said “….if you can gain your freedom, do so,” and the context is interesting.  Notice the whole sentence from which this quote is taken: “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Corinthians 7:21).

Paul tells us several things here.  First, we must remember that slavery in the biblical world was not the evil of the racial slavery conducted at various times in history.  It was more like indentured service from which people could often work their way to independence, and it was certainly nothing like the totally demeaning and dehumanizing types of slavery with which the world is sadly more familiar.   So Paul tells his readers “don’t worry about it if you were called without freedom.”  Under the circumstances of his time, although it was not the best situation, slavery in that culture did not restrict many aspects of personal freedom and usually didn’t interfere with a person’s choice of religion or other things we would regard as essential rights.

Nevertheless, Paul still wrote to people in that situation: “… if you can gain your freedom, do so,” and the words are not given as advice to be considered, but a principle to be followed.  It’s easy to read over them today as being antiquated and not applying to us in our modern age, but they do. 

Many biblical verses show that when we are called we are all actually spiritually enslaved – enslaved to sin and our own human nature  (John 8:34, 2 Peter 2:19, etc.).   But many other verses show that through the struggle fought on our behalf by the Son of God, we are given freedom from these things (2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1, etc.). 

Yet, just like physical freedom, spiritual freedom has to be recognized, appreciated, guarded and preserved.  As Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).  How can we lose our spiritual freedom?  The New Testament shows that we can sink back into slavery through accepting false beliefs (Galatians 2:4), by not controlling our physical natures (Galatians 5:13), or through anything that takes control of our lives (2 Peter 2:19).

But it needn’t be that way.   Just as celebrations of freedom, such as the Fourth of July, each time we observe them remind us of the need to protect our physical freedoms, every time we study the word of God it should be a reminder that we need to preserve our spiritual freedom, too.  Look how the apostle James – the brother of Jesus – reminds us of this truth:  “But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do” (James 1:25).   A little later in his letter, James also tells us: “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom” (James 2:12), and it’s really the same principle. 

Freedom is always a good idea, but whether it’s this Fourth of July or the next time we open our Bibles, we must remember: freedom must be chosen, and choosing freedom is always the right idea.

* This post first appeared on 7/3/2016 on our sister site, TacticalChristianity.org

“… Appoint someone evil to oppose my enemy;  let an accuser stand at his right hand. When he is tried, let him be found guilty, and may his prayers condemn him. May his days be few;  may another take his place of leadership. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes. May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor. May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children. May his descendants be cut off,  their names blotted out from the next generation” (Psalm 109:1, 6-13).

The imprecatory psalms have a way of getting our attention, but it is not always in a positive manner. How do we reconcile the seemingly brutal and even vengeful attitude that appears to lie behind these psalms and the teachings of forgiveness and love for enemies found in the New Testament?

Our new article looks at the imprecatory psalms and gives reasons why these psalms are not what they might seem to be. You can read the article here.

All of the four Gospels record an event in which a woman came to Jesus during a meal and anointed his feet and dried them with her hair (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 7, John 12).  Many feel that Luke’s account refers to an event in Galilee early in Jesus’ ministry, while the stories told by Matthew, Mark, and John refer to a separate nearly identical event occurring in Bethany near the end of Jesus’ life.   Some even divide these latter three stories into separate events because John apparently says the event he described occurred “six days before the Passover” (John 12:1), while Matthew and Mark say the event occurred “two days before Passover” (Matthew 26:2, Mark 14:1).

But this confusion fails to put the various accounts together properly.  For one thing, John does not say the woman anointed Jesus six days before Passover. What he says is: “Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead.  Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor” (John 12:1). John says Jesus came to Bethany six days before Passover, and that at some point while he was there a dinner was given in his honor.  So there is no contradiction between the accounts of Matthew, Mark and John in this regard.

As for the account in Luke, that story does not say where the event took place –  or when, though it is placed with other material from the early part of Jesus’ ministry.  Although many presume that Luke’s “orderly” (Luke 1:3) account is chronological, it does, in fact, often stray from a chronological sequence.  For example, in Luke 3 we read that King Herod shut John the Baptist up in prison (Luke 3:19-20), but then we read in the following verses that Jesus was baptized by John (Luke 3:21-22).  In reality, of course, John baptized Jesus before being placed in prison (Matthew 3:1-17; 4:12; John 1:29-34).  An even more striking example of “achronological” recording is seen at the end of Luke’s Gospel where he appears to compress the five weeks between the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into a single day – if we treat what is said chronologically (compare Luke  24 with Matthew 28 and John 21).

As for differences in the anointing stories, they are small and easily explained. For example, Mathew and Mark say the woman anointed Jesus’ head; the other Gospels say his feet were anointed. But the woman may well have anointed Christ’s head and feet – recorded differently according to the stress the individual Gospel writers had in mind (for a kingly anointing, or an anointing for burial). 
 
Luke’s account says the event occurred in the home of a Pharisee named Simon; the others say it was in the home of Simon the Leper in Bethany. But Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee were probably one and the same.  A leper could never have hosted a dinner nor have partaken in one with other people – Simon the Leper must have been healed and could thus have been the same as Simon the Pharisee.  Simon may well have been referred to as “the Pharisee” in Luke because Luke stresses Jesus’ reply to Simon’s pharisaical and self-righteous attitude, while the other Gospels remember him as Simon the Leper.

So there is no real reason why all the Gospel accounts could not be referring to the same thing. That being the case, consider the probability that they are, in fact, simply different accounts of the same event.   It would be a strange coincidence if two different women (or more!) had gone to the house of a man called Simon, had anointed Jesus with exactly the same amount (300 denarii worth) of exactly the same kind of expensive perfume (nard), and had wiped his feet with their hair.  If they were different women, why did the Gospel writers not differentiate them in some way?  On the other hand, that Mary sister of Martha was the one woman who anointed Christ may perhaps be seen earlier in John’s account where he tells us: “(This Mary… was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.)” (John 11:2).  Note that John says “the same one who” rather than “one of the women who.”

It would also be strange if not one of the four Gospel writers recorded both or all stories, if multiple similar events had occurred.  This is especially true considering Jesus’ words in Mark 14:9: “Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.” Would Christ have put so much emphasis on this event if it was the second instance of two virtually identical cases?  If this had been done by two different women, surely both would be clearly recorded.

Beyond these facts, we should remember that in John (12:4-5) we are told Judas complained that the perfume used to anoint Jesus was worth 300 denarii and the money could have been given to the poor, but is rebuked by Jesus who tells him to leave the woman alone as she has done a good work.  In Matthew (26:9) and Mark (14:4) we are told that some of the disciples made exactly the same complaint (“300 denarii”) and were rebuked in the same way by Christ. Are we to believe that given identical circumstances, the disciples made exactly the same mistake after Jesus had already rebuked them for it just a few days before?  It is much more reasonable to put the Gospel accounts together and to see that they refer, with differing details, to one dinner, one woman, and one anointing of Jesus.

Regardless of how many women were involved in these Gospel stories, however, they teach lessons that we can apply in our own lives.  The attitude of love they exhibit is one we can all strive to imitate. How?  Just as love was shown to Christ through the gift given for his physical body, we too can give gifts to the Body of Christ, which is his Church (Romans 12:5; 1 Corinthians 12:12–13; Ephesians 3:6, 5:23; Colossians 1:18, 24; etc.).  The lessons of human love and godly forgiveness* that underlie these stories are ones which are indeed, timeless (Mark 14:9).
 
* Our article “Are Simon the Leper and Simon the Pharisee the Same? – and Why it Matters” shows a practical lesson we can all learn from these accounts, here.  
​

The identity of the author of the Epistle of Jude has often puzzled students of the New Testament. The epistle itself simply calls him “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1:1).  But who was this Jude and what can we learn from his identity?

First, we should realize that the name Jude is just a shortened form of the Jewish name Judah –  or, as it was written in Greek, Judas. So it is not difficult to see why modern translations of the Bible call the author of this epistle “Jude” rather than “Judas” in order to differentiate him from Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus.
 
Some have thought that this righteous Jude was the same person as the other individual called Judas in the lists of the twelve disciples. Although the King James Version calls that apostle “Judas the brother of James” in Luke 6:16, this is based on a mistranslation. The word “brother” does not appear in the Greek of the verse and virtually all other translations call this individual “the son of James,” as the expression should be rendered.

Another idea is that Jude was another of the original twelve disciples of Jesus –  the one called Thomas. The reason for this is interesting. The Gospel of John – the only Gospel that ever mentions Thomas separately from the lists of disciples –  calls him “Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve” (John 20:24, etc.). Several early Christian manuscripts actually refer to Thomas as “Didymus Judas Thomas,” and the names Didymus in Greek and Thomas in Aramaic both mean the same thing: “twin.”

While this might seem like an attractive possibility for the identity of Jude, it is an unlikely one. Apart from the fact the early texts that speak of Thomas as having the name Judas are few and only found in a very limited area, the letter of Jude itself suggests that Jude was neither the apostle called Judas or the one called Thomas.  If Jude had been one of the original disciples, there would be no reason why he would not have introduced himself in his letter as the apostle Jude – just as the other apostles generally did in their letters.    

Even more importantly, the author of Jude specifically does not include himself with the apostles when he wrote: “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold” (Jude 1:17) –  which we can contrast with the nearly identical statement of Peter (who does call himself an apostle) when he says: “… be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2 NKJV).

It is much more likely that when Jude writes simply that he is “a brother of James,” he is referring to James the half-brother of Jesus.  This identification has the weight of a great deal of Christian tradition and of scripture itself behind it.  Matthew 13:55 records the names of two of the brothers of Jesus as James and Judas, and very early Christian writings state that Jude was that same Judas, the brother of Christ. 
 
Both these brothers of Jesus –  James and Judas –  were not among the original disciples who became apostles, and the New Testament tells us, in fact, that they rejected Jesus and his teachings (John 7:5, Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, etc.). It was only after the resurrection that Jesus’ half-brothers came to believe and then became important members of the early Church, with James becoming the virtual leader of the Jerusalem Christians (Galatians 1:18-19). In stark contrast to the Judas (Iscariot) who appeared to accept Christ’s teaching at the beginning, but who betrayed him at the end, the Judas who wrote our book of Jude may have rejected Christ at first yet eventually, like James, he became a fervent believer and upholder of the truth.

In writing to many people he did not know personally, it is certainly inconceivable that the author of the epistle of Jude would not explain which James he was the brother of unless he and James were known to everyone –  that he was not just the brother of any James, but the brother of James the brother of Jesus. This puts the first verse of Jude in clear perspective and provides one of the most impressive examples of deep humility in the whole New Testament.
​
Jude was one of the most important people in the early Church, yet his description of himself as simply “the brother of James” is an amazingly humble one.  How many people, if they had been the brother of Jesus, would not have introduced themselves that way? Yet humility was one of the greatest traits of Jesus (Philippians 2:7) and one which Jude and the other brothers of Jesus had witnessed frequently. 
​
Jude knew that Jesus had described himself as a servant (Matthew 20:28), and in describing himself not as the “brother of Jesus,” but as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:1), Jude begins his letter by stressing that first and foremost he was simply the servant of a servant. This may not tell us what made Jude important, but it tells us exactly who he was.

​We have reorganized and updated the blog categories that you see listed to the right of this post.  The new categories are more intuitive and make our content easier to find and navigate. For example, we now have separated the "Bible" category into "Behind the Stories," "Bible Study," "Biblical Concepts" and "Books of the Bible," so if you are looking for techniques and tips to enhance your personal study you don't have to sort through many other posts that are not relevant to what you need right now.

​So if you haven't used the categories feature before or if you would like to see how it has changed, be sure to check it out.  It only takes a couple of seconds to scan down the list to get a sense of what the new categories are and to see if there are some you would like to take a look at.  

​Remember that this listing is only for blog postings (to see a list of our articles, click on the "Articles" tab at the top of the screen). The blog categories contain most of the many hundreds of posts we have published since 2014.  Using this feature can be both time saving and helpful if you are looking for information or inspiration on a specific subject –  and we can say that categorically!

The existence of evil in our world is impossible to deny. Sadly, the pages of history and the stories of our daily news provide endless examples of evil at the individual, national and even international levels. As a result, atheists often claim that the clear existence of such widespread and ongoing evil proves there cannot be an all-powerful and loving God. 

According to this thinking, the existence of evil and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. If God exists, and he is good, the argument goes, why would he allow such terrible evil and its resultant suffering to continue?

As Christians we may occasionally wrestle with this conundrum ourselves, and we are very likely to hear it spoken by friends or others who are not believers.  The natural reaction in such situations is for us to try, where appropriate, to explain the temporary necessity of evil in the plan of God –  that God must allow evil in order to grant us free moral agency and the opportunity to develop the character he seeks. 

This explanation for the existence of evil is one that makes sense to most Christians and it is one which the Bible itself addresses.  In his epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul summarizes the situation in saying that “… the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:20-21).

In these verses we could easily substitute the word “evil” for “decay,” and the sense is clearly the same – God allows the present situation in order to fulfill his purposes in our lives.  And, as  Paul specifically stresses, in the long run allowing evil to exist will be worth the end results: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18).

However, this argument is a theological one that may make little sense to many whose minds have not been opened to understand the plan of God (Luke 24:45, Ephesians 1:18). But there is another and much simpler explanation that we should consider giving to others who question God’s existence in the face of the evil that is evident in the world.  To say that the undeniable existence of evil indicates that God does not exist, we must also admit that by the same argumentation, the undeniable existence of good in the world must indicate that he does exist.

​Although it does not explain the existence of evil, this answer is as sure as it is simple in showing that evil does not prove the non-existence of God.  If an individual can see this, it is likely that they may be receptive to begin to understand the underlying reasons the Bible gives for the present existence of evil in the plan of a good and loving God.

“…To the one who is victorious, I will give … that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17).
 
Today, people change their names because they do not like the name they have or because they see some advantage to having a different name.  This is particularly common for actors and musicians, of course, who change their names or take “stage names” they feel might be easier for people to remember and better for their chosen careers.  Some past and present examples include John Wayne, who was born Marion Robert Morrison, Bob Dylan who was born Robert Allen Zimmerman, Kirk Douglas –  born Issur Danielovitch Demsky, Alan Alda – born Alphonso Joseph D'Abruzzo, Martin Sheen –  born Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estevez, Elton John –  born Reginald Kenneth Dwight, and Natalie Wood – born Natalia Nikolaevna Zakharenko.
 
But name changing is not just a modern phenomenon. The birth name of the great theologian Martin Luther was actually Martin Luder. He later changed his name to “Luther” (based on the Greek “eleutherios” meaning “free”) as being more appropriate to his beliefs.

There are also many instances of name changes in the Bible, though the ones we find there almost all occurred because someone else changed an individual’s name rather than the person changing it themselves. An exception was Naomi, the mother-in-law of Ruth (Ruth 1:20), who changed her name to Mara, meaning “bitter,” after losing her husband and sons.

More commonly, the names of individuals were changed when they entered the service of the king of a foreign culture, just as Joseph was renamed Zaphenath-Paneah –  the meaning of which is unknown –  by the Egyptian pharaoh (Genesis 41:45), Daniel was renamed Belteshazzar – a form of  “Bel protects the king” – by the king of Babylon (Daniel 1:7), and the Jewish girl Hadassah was given a new name, Esther (meaning  “star,” Esther 2:7)  when she was taken into the court of the Persian king.

Many think that the apostle Paul’s name was changed by God from “Saul,” though the New Testament shows that the name Paul –  the Greek form of Saul –  simply began to be used of him when he started to work in Greek-speaking areas (Acts 13:9).  Yet it is also possible that there was some significance in the changed name. In Greek, paulos means small, and it was perhaps a mark of humility to willingly exchange the name of the Hebrew king Saul for the humble Gentile name Paul, just as the apostle became a humble servant to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8).

More important, biblically, are the clear examples where God did change the names of his servants. God renamed the patriarch Abram as Abraham (“father of nations,” Genesis 17:5), for example, and his wife Sarai as Sarah (probably meaning “princess,” Genesis 17:15). He also renamed their grandson Jacob as Israel (meaning either “prince of God” or “he who overcomes with God,” Genesis 32:28).  There was deliberately expressed symbolism in these new names given by God, of course, each new name expressing a new identity based on what the individual had accomplished or the person’s potential in the plan of God.  

In the New Testament we see exactly the same process in action when Jesus renamed his disciple Simon as Peter –  meaning “stone” (John 1:42).  Peter had certainly not earned this new name to that point, but with the coming of the Holy Spirit he was transformed into a stable pillar of the New Testament Church (Galatians 2:9).

Interestingly, however, there are relatively few such changes recorded in the Scriptures where God gave his servants new names.  The phenomenon was uncommon and always full of great meaning when it did occur.  Yet despite the relative infrequency of God’s acts of re-naming, the Bible does make it clear that every faithful believer will be given a new name in eternity as we see in the scripture at the top of this post (Revelation 2:17).

At that time the changed names of believers will apparently be as meaningful and relevant to our potential roles in eternity as the names changed by God in the past.  The answer to Shakespeare’s question in “Romeo and Juliet” “What’s in a name?” may be “very little” –  unless it is a name changed by God. But then the answer will doubtless be “a great deal!” And the best news of all is that when a name is changed by God, the new identity is certain. 

​Just as Abraham in his great age became a “father of many nations” according to his new name, so we can all be encouraged by Numbers 23:19 which tells us that: “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?” God will fulfill his promise to give every believer a new name. 

​Does God punish the children and other descendants for the sins of their “fathers” – their parents or ancestors?  Some scriptures – including the Second of the Ten Commandments – seem to show this to be the case:

“I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20:5).  

​The principle is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9 and appears again in the Book of Exodus with only slightly different wording: “… he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (Exodus 34:7).

Yet other scriptures, which are equally clear, seem to contradict this principle of the punishment of children for their parents’ sins.  In the Book of Deuteronomy, we find: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).  The prophet Ezekiel repeats this opposite approach: “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them” (Ezekiel 18:20).

In order to untangle this seeming contradiction, we must realize that the situations covered by these two sets of scriptures are different.  First, notice that in the first set of verses (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9) nothing is said about death, whereas in the second set of verses (Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20) the death penalty is mentioned in each case. 

Moses and Ezekiel both make it clear that under God’s law no one was to be punished for someone else’s crimes or sins.  The context is a specifically legal one regarding punishments meted out under human justice.  In the Second Commandment and parallel verses it is God who is being said to punish –  in a general manner that does not apply to humanly applied punishments.

This is not because God somehow deals out “tougher” justice than he commands humans to do in specific situations, but because God has set in place spiritual laws (summarized in the Ten Commandments) that have an effect when they are broken. Just as we cannot act against the physical law of gravity by dropping an object on the ground without risking breaking it, or jumping from a height without risking hurting ourselves, we cannot break a spiritual law without hurting ourselves – and often others as well.

The scriptures that speak of the sins of parents affecting the individual’s children and other descendants are simply speaking of the unavoidable consequences that people bring upon themselves and others through breaking spiritual laws.  Children who are born to drug-addicted mothers will unavoidably be affected by the parent’s addiction. Children who grow up in homes where parents routinely break spiritual laws almost always get hurt by the result of those behaviors. Unfortunately, those children often then pass on the negative results of such choices by following the same behavioral patterns themselves –  so the problems suffered by those who reject God’s laws may indeed last till the “third and fourth generation.”
​
But these unavoidable ongoing effects of the behavior of individuals on their families and others are separate and different from situations where individuals are condemned and punished by society through specific laws for specific crimes. In such cases, God’s law stresses, children should never be punished for the behavior of their parents. 

​In 1952, the Congress of the United States of America established a National Day of Prayer as an annual event by a joint resolution. This resolution was signed into law by President Harry Truman, who called for the nation to take time “to turn to God in prayer and meditation.” Every president over the last 62 years, regardless of political or religious affiliation, has proclaimed a National Day of Prayer which is now set by law to be observed on the first Thursday of May each year.

The roots of this day of prayer may be said to go back to 1775 when, on the very eve of the U.S. War of Independence, the First Continental Congress called for a day of prayer.  Today such public devotion may seem foreign to many, but the principle of approaching God in a spirit of national rededication is itself an echo of such days in biblical times. 

This year, the National Day of Prayer falls on Thursday, May 3. and its theme is unity.  It is a great opportunity for us to both give thanks for our national blessings and to remember the spiritual problems and the needs of our nation at this time.

* If you would like more information on prayer, you can download a free copy of our e-book Your Call: Using the Direct Private Line of Prayer (available in different versions to view on computer, e-reader, or phone) from our sister site here.

​It is widely believed that the author of the New Testament Epistle of James was none other than James the younger brother (technically half-brother) of Jesus (Matthew 13:55). But some critics have claimed that the fact that Jesus is not anywhere mentioned in this epistle indicates the work could hardly have been produced by Jesus’ own brother.  

But this criticism is based on a lack of thorough analysis or understanding of this epistle.  The fact that its author is clearly an important figure in the early Church, but one who modestly avoids a direct statement of which of the numerous James he was, suggests the likelihood of his relation to Jesus, and the epistle’s avoidance of mentioning Jesus directly can be seen from this same perspective.

Regardless of who the author of this letter was, it is missing a great deal of the essential thrust of James to think that Jesus does not appear in this biblical book.   It is true that Jesus is not named specifically, but his presence is clear within the epistle nonetheless.

James presents his readers with some 60 requirements for right behavior in the space of the 108 verses in his short letter –  more than one moral principle for every two verses.  Where do these exhortations come from? Almost all of them come directly from the teachings of Jesus himself.  Interestingly, James focuses most on the teachings of Jesus as given in the Sermon on the Mount.   Almost half the material in the Epistle of James shows similarities with almost half the verses in Jesus’ sermon. Consider the similarities evident in the following statements by Jesus and by James:

Oaths

Jesus: “… I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King… Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:33-37).
James: “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation” (James 5:12).

Fruits

Jesus: “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:16).
James: “Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water” (James 3:12).

Trials

Jesus: “Blessed are those who are persecuted … Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:10-12).
James: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds” (James 1:2).
 
Gifts

Jesus: “Ask, and it will be given to you… If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:7-11).
James: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him … Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:5-17).

Treasures

Jesus: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19).
James: “Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days…” (James 5:2-5).

These few examples show the almost amazing level of inclusion of the words of Jesus found in the Epistle of James.   But we should notice that not a single one of these examples has the identical wording that would show direct borrowing from the Gospel accounts of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) or the parallel Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49).  Rather, the words of Jesus in James indicate the reporting of someone who knew Jesus and his teachings well, but who – as would be the case with James the brother of Jesus –  was not present to hear the Sermon on the Mount itself (John 7:5).
 
Far from not being found in the Epistle of James, the presence of Jesus is seen throughout this letter in the words and core teachings of Christ that James records.

Scriptures in Question:   ​

“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1).
 “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  


These two scriptures ­­– Job 1:1 and Romans 3:23 – are loved by sceptics as they feel the two verses provide a “perfect” example of biblical contradiction.  How, they ask, could Job be “blameless” (NIV, ESV, etc.) or “perfect” (as translated in the King James Version) –  in other words, sinless –  if, as Paul affirms, all have sinned?

Many Christians realize that when the New Testament uses the word “perfect” (as when Jesus tells his followers to “be perfect” – Matthew 5:48), the Greek word used means “mature” or “complete” (see “Does God Expect us to Be Perfect?” on our sister site, here).  In the Old Testament a similar situation occurs.  The Hebrew word tam translated in Job 1:1 as “blameless” or “perfect” (and again in Job 1:8, 2:3) has several shades of meaning. It comes from a root word meaning to be complete or finished (Genesis 47:18, Deuteronomy 31:24) and in a secondary sense to be morally sound or upright (Job 22:3, Psalm 18:26).  Tam itself can be translated “complete,” “finished,” “blameless,” “innocent,” or “having integrity.” In Proverbs 29:10, for example, the word is used in the phrase “a person of integrity.”

This meaning –  of having moral integrity or “uprightness” –  that lies at the heart of what we are told in Job does not imply perfection as we might think of the word in modern English usage. In fact, the respected Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1981) states categorically: “the words which are rendered in English by ‘perfect’ and ‘perfection’ [in the Hebrew Bible] denoted originally something other and less than ideal perfection.” 

So although Job 1:1 records that Job was blameless, and in Job 1:8 and 2:3 God is said to have declared Job to be blameless, the Hebrew word translated “blameless” does not have to mean morally perfect and completely sinless.  This can be seen in that the book itself shows Job’s failings.   In 7:21 Job states “Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?” and in 42:6 Job confirms his own sinfulness when he says: “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”   When we take these facts into account, it is clear that being “blameless” or “perfect” before God in Job – and elsewhere in the Old Testament – means being morally upright, but it does not have to refer to some kind of sinless perfection.

Putting the scriptures together, then, there is no contradiction between what the Book of Job tells us and what Paul affirms in Romans.  All humans, including Job, have sinned, as Paul stresses; but Job had attained a level of integrity or moral uprightness that God himself acknowledged as being remarkable – just as the Book of Job states. 

Some five hundred years ago, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg. It was these “theses” or principles, of course, that triggered the Protestant Reformation, and in so doing changed the history of the modern world.

Most of Luther’s theses had to do with his rejection of the practice of selling “indulgencies” in the Catholic Church of his time – a means of raising money for the church which claimed that people might pay to have the souls of loved ones or others released from “purgatory.”  Although this may seem like ancient history to most of us in the modern world, and most of us may not know what a single one of Luther’s 95 theses was, there are some timeless lessons to be found there.

In his very first thesis –  which formed the basis of those that followed –  Luther (citing Matthew 4:17) wrote: “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘Repent’, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”   This statement was a remarkable one for its time.  The Vulgate –  the Latin version of the Bible used by the Catholic Church –  translated the command to repent in Matthew 4:17 with the words paenitentiam agite, meaning “Go, and do penance.” But Luther found that in the Greek text of the New Testament the word for repentance used by the New Testament writers was metanoia, which has nothing to do with penance and means to change one’s heart and mind –  to be changed or converted.

This deeper and more accurate understanding of the concept of repentance had a direct impact on Luther’s first thesis, for we obviously cannot constantly be doing penance throughout our whole lives; but as Luther stated, our lives as believers should be ones of ongoing repentance in the sense of continual change and ongoing conversion.

The truth that Luther had learned was that all of the Christian life is repentance. Certainly, the Bible speaks of a primary repentance when we first turn to God from our own sinfulness (Acts 2:38, 11:18), and we might call that “Repentance with a capital R.”  But the Scriptures also show that our initial Repentance is followed by an ongoing repentance (here with a small “r”) that is the continual mindset of the Christian. This does not mean constantly dwelling on our mistakes and failures, but continually and immediately repenting when we do find we have come short of God’s way. 

We see this ongoing or additional repentance throughout the Bible.  We see it frequently, for example, in the psalms of David where he expresses repentance on many occasions. We see it in the New Testament in scriptures such as Revelation 2:5 which commands members of the church to repent of errors into which they have fallen, and in 1 John 1:8-9 which tells us that: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
 
This is the ongoing reality that the apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote: “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him” (Colossians 2:16). Just as we begin our Christian lives with repentance and faith (Acts 2:38), so Paul says, we must continue – in repentance and faith. 

We know that it is the Spirit of God that leads us to initial repentance (Romans 2:4), and as his Spirit continues to live in us (1 Corinthians 3:16) we are continually guided to repentance from ongoing mistakes and sins. The Scriptures are clear that this ongoing repentance is not done to try to earn salvation, but as a natural result of salvation occurring in our lives and our desire to become more and more like God. In other words, we are forgiven our sins through the occurrence of Repentance at the beginning of our Christian lives –  but we continue to ask God to forgive us and spare us from the consequences of our sins after that point.  Every small “repentance” reaffirms our original “Repentance.”

In reclaiming the concept of ongoing repentance, Luther discovered something that every Christian must discover and act on also: that true repentance is not just an inaugural event in our Christian lives, but it is also the very basis of our life in Christ from that time forward.  

The concept of ongoing lifelong repentance is not a message that is commonly heard in many churches, but it is a message that we need to nail firmly to the doors of our hearts and minds. 

​“Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46 ESV).

“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30 ESV).

On the surface, the accounts of Luke and John certainly might seem to be at variance with each other regarding the last words of Jesus, but when we look more closely we find little reason to see any contradiction.

First, we should notice that while Luke specifically says “…having said this he breathed his last,” the wording of John’s Gospel “… and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” does not necessarily preclude intervening words – it could simply mean that moments or minutes after receiving the wine, Jesus died. 

Note that while Luke focuses specifically on Jesus’ last words – and calls them exactly that – John seems to focus on the sour wine event and its resultant “It is finished” as the final prophecies fulfilled by Christ. This is typical of Luke’s frequent focus on the humanity of Jesus and his actual words, as opposed to John’s focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies relating to the Messiah and details regarding the message of salvation.

But there is no real reason to think that both accounts were not true.  Jesus’ last words may have been a combination of what John and Luke record: “It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”   If these were the actual and full last words of Jesus, then the two Gospel writers simply recorded that part of the expression which was of most importance to their own accounts.

It is also sometimes said that both Luke and John are contradicted by Matthew and Mark, whose Gospels both record Jesus’ expression “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” as his last words.  But both Matthew and Mark write that, soon after this, Jesus gave a loud cry: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit” (Matthew 27:50); “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last” (Mark 15:37).

But these accounts do not say whether the “loud cry” or “loud voice” contained words or not. If the cry contained words, it was doubtless those recorded by Luke and John.  The reason that the other two Gospels say a “voice” or “cry” was probably because they are based on the account of a witness of the crucifixion who was close enough to hear the cry, but not close enough to make out the exact words.  (Both Matthew and Mark agree that many of the witnesses stood “at a distance” from the cross – Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:40).

When we keep both factors in mind: that Luke and John compiled their Gospels stressing different themes, and that Matthew and Mark may well have drawn their information from different witnesses, there is no need to presume any contradiction between the four Gospels as to the last words of Jesus.

​​We all know the apostle Peter’s admonition that we “grow in grace and knowledge” (2 Peter 3:18), and most of us try to strike a balance in seeking both in our lives. Yet we often tend to gravitate toward one or the other –  focusing on the development of our Christian walk or our biblical understanding.

Some Christians spend a great deal of time in study of the word and may even fall into the ditch of seeking knowledge at the expense of growing in grace*. Those who make this mistake may become involved in some of the more obscure aspects of the Scriptures such as prophecy, and this becomes their main focus.  On the other hand, there are other Christians who move toward the opposite extreme of neglecting the responsibility of study of God’s word when they fall into the ditch of believing that “all you need is love.” 

Clearly, as Peter tells us, we need both grace and knowledge, and this is a principle we find often in the Scriptures. The apostle Paul elaborated on it when he wrote that our goal should be: “… 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 1:10). But what we may fail to understand if we tend to gravitate in one direction or the other is how the two areas of spiritual growth interact. Growing in grace can actually increase our spiritual knowledge, and growing in knowledge can increase the fruit of grace in our lives. If that sounds counterintuitive, consider the following scriptures.

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness” (Titus 1:1, emphasis added).  Here, in the very opening of his letter to Titus, Paul stresses that furthering knowledge of the truth leads to godliness.  This concept is simple enough – we cannot please God without knowing what it is that pleases him –  but it is a concept that we should always keep in mind if we are to be truly growth oriented. 
 
Yet knowledge is only half of the equation for spiritual growth. Notice what Paul states in his letter to the Colossians regarding those he taught:

“My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2-3, emphases added).  In this profound scripture Paul shows the opposite truth to that he stressed to Titus. Here, we see that being united in love forms the basis of knowledge and understanding of Christ.
  
The fact that we can only have true knowledge of God  if we live in love is also repeatedly stressed by the apostle John (1 John 1:10-11, etc.). Notice one example of this teaching: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). It is through knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice that we come to understand and to be able to emulate true love in our lives.  John reiterates the connection between love and knowledge a few verses later: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). 

We need both grace and knowledge, love and truth, or however we might categorize these two primary aspects of Christian growth. And we need to remember that not only are both vital, but also that growth in one often leads to growth in the other. 

Once we understand this principle we gain insights into many biblical stories. In the Old Testament, for example, we see Job, who evidently walked perfectly before God (Job 1:1, 8), yet who still had to learn lessons (Job 42:5).  In the New Testament we see many examples of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day who had knowledge but who needed to grow in love (Luke 11:42, etc.).
​
Our lives need to exhibit both grace and knowledge, but fullness of growth in one of these areas often involves continuing to grow in the other. 
 
* In this context, grace refers to our walk before God (as in John 1:14) rather than the grace he extends to us.

​
​On the surface, the Old Testament books of First and Second Kings and First and Second Chronicles seem very alike. In fact, after reading Kings, Chronicles may appear to be simply a retelling of much of the same material. 

​This feeling is heightened by fifteen statements in Kings that say  “Now the rest of the acts of [king X], and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” (1 Kings 14:29, etc.).   But this Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is not the biblical Book of Chronicles; it is a different account that was not preserved in the Bible and has not survived. There was another book, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, mentioned nineteen times in the Bible (1 Kings 14:19, etc.), that also has not survived.

But returning to the books we do have – the biblical books of First and Second Kings and First and Second Chronicles –  are these really just overlapping accounts with no significant  differences?  The answer is not at all!  In reality, Kings and Chronicles have entirely different underlying themes and often carry very different lessons –  as we can see by considering the following facts.

The material in the two books of Kings was composed relatively soon after the events they describe and completed soon after the beginning of Judah’s captivity in Babylon. The material in the two books of Chronicles was brought together later, a good many years after the events it describes, shortly after the return from captivity.  So it is clear that Chronicles was written when Kings was already in existence, and so it must have been felt that it gave additional valuable information or perspectives.

There are, in fact, a number of important differences in the types of material included in these works. At the broader level, Kings deals with the history of both Israel and Judah while Chronicles focuses on the history of the southern kingdom of Judah. In Chronicles, the northern kings of Israel are usually only mentioned when they had some effect on the kings of Judah.
 
While Kings provides an overview of all the royal lines, Chronicles focuses on the Davidic line.  So Kings does not include the reigns of Saul or David and begins with Solomon. Chronicles begins with Adam and includes the reigns of Saul and David.  The different focus is clear in the details each account gives. For example, while Kings gives a detailed description of Solomon building his palace (1 Kings 7:1-12), the construction of Solomon’s palace is only mentioned in passing in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 8:1). Kings details the shortcomings of Solomon at the end of his life, but Chronicles does not mention them.
 
Kings is concerned with Judah’s failure to maintain covenant relationship with God, whereas Chronicles is more concerned with its restoration.  For example, Kings gives a detailed account of King Josiah's purging of the land from idolatry (2 Kings 23:4-20). On the other hand, Chronicles gives a detailed treatment of Josiah's reinstitution of the Passover (2 Chronicles 35:1-9).

But the outlook of both books is also very different. Jewish tradition states that the prophet Jeremiah wrote Kings and that the priest Ezra wrote Chronicles, but in any event, the prophetic versus priestly perspectives of the two works is clear. Consider the fact that the careers of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha are detailed in Kings but not at all in Chronicles. In Kings the priestly Levites only appear twice, whereas they are mentioned about a hundred times in Chronicles.  More importantly, the different perspectives influence what stories are included in the two accounts. We see this, for example, in the fact that Hezekiah’s sickness and the prophet Isaiah’s prediction regarding it are mentioned only in Kings (1 Kings 19:14-34), whereas the same king’s purification of the temple and his actions regarding it are found only in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 29:1-36; 30:1-31:1; 31:2-21).

Because Kings  is written more from the perspective of the prophets who warned Israel and Judah of their sins, its message is primarily one of responsibility and judgment. Chronicles, on the other hand, is written from the perspective of the priests who reinstituted Judah’s religion after the captivity, and its message is one looking at reconciliation and hope –  man’s faithlessness on the one hand and God’s faithfulness on the other.   Kings may thus often seem a more negative account, and Chronicles a more positive one.  This is reflected in various ways. For example, in Kings the sins of many kings are often highlighted, whereas in Chronicles, the good traits of each king are usually given first (except for those kings who apparently had no good traits!).  Both books show the relationship between God and his people, but Kings stresses the political and prophetic aspects of that relationship while Chronicles looks more at the religious and priestly interactions.

So the differences between Kings and Chronicles  are similar to the differences we find among the Four Gospels (see our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels) in the New Testament. Although we may find several versions of the same story in Kings and Chronicles, the differences are important as each book gives different details and has its own unique viewpoint and lessons.   In fact, about half of the material in Chronicles is unique in the Bible – so resist the temptation to skip over that work if you have just read Kings. What at first may seem like a similar account has a great deal more to offer!

Although we cannot properly forgive others without understanding the concept of forgiveness and its importance, that intellectual knowledge is not, of course, forgiveness itself. 

​If we are to move from understanding forgiveness to granting it, we must move from the mind to the “heart” – from simply accepting the idea of forgiveness to embracing it and making it truly a part of us. In other words, we must move beyond an understanding of forgiveness to an attitude of forgiveness.

This is what Jesus meant when he warned that we will not be forgiven “…unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (Matthew 18:35).  The Greek expression “from the heart” used in this verse and others (1 Peter 1:22) means exactly what it means in English: to truly and deeply forgive.  But how exactly do we know if we measure up to that standard – how do we know if we really are forgiving someone “from the heart”? 
 
The answer is relatively simple.  Jesus spoke of forgiveness “from the heart” in concluding his parable of the ungrateful servant who did not forgive others as his king forgave him, so his point was obviously that we must forgive as our King forgives us.  The Scriptures contain many verses showing the manner in which God forgives us – far too many to include here – but we will simply look at three examples from the Old Testament prophets.
 
The Book of Micah contains some wonderful words revealing God’s attitude in forgiving: “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy” (Micah 7:18, emphasis added).  This is the very opposite of reluctant forgiveness. We delight to do something we enjoy, that we love to do, and although humanly we may not look at forgiving as an enjoyable activity, this is exactly the attitude we need to have if we are to forgive from the heart.

The prophet Isaiah helps us to expand on this understanding: “let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:7 ESV, emphasis added). Other translations convey the word Isaiah used of God’s forgiveness with “freely,” “generously,” “richly,” and “bountifully.” This is clearly the opposite of forgiveness that is limited in any way. 

Another prophet, Hosea, recorded a prayer God commanded ancient Israel to pray that claims a specific attribute of God’s forgiveness:  “Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him: ‘Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously’…” (Hosea 14:2, emphasis added). God invites us to receive his gracious pardon and this is the opposite of grudging forgiveness. Humanly it is all too possible to reach “surface forgiveness,” but because it is not from the heart it is expressed ungraciously and sometimes even unkindly.  Hosea shows us that God does not do that, and if we want to forgive from the heart, neither must we.

These three passages only begin to cover the many ways in which God expresses his forgiveness, and it can make for an extensive and very profitable study to look at other examples found in the Scriptures.  Even without in-depth study of such verses, it is worthwhile to keep the principle in mind and look for the key descriptive word whenever we read biblical verses that speak of God forgiving or pardoning. 
​
However, the three examples given above make the point.  God delights to forgive and he forgives abundantly and graciously. These qualities, and many more, show us what it means to “forgive from the heart.” Combined with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:35, they show that just as God himself forgives from the heart, he expects us to do no less!

* Excerpted from our new free e-book How to Forgive. You can download a copy here.

You may not know at this moment when you will need to exercise forgiveness, but you can be certain that sooner or later you will have to forgive someone for something. Perhaps right now there is an old hurt that you have never been able to completely forgive, or perhaps the necessity will not arise until tomorrow or next week, but whenever the need to forgive comes up or to prepare you for when it does, our latest free e-book is designed to help you.

Our new book, How to Forgive, looks at this vitally important subject from a practical perspective, showing what the Bible actually teaches about this topic and how we can best apply the guidance it gives us.  As with all our e-books, this new title is absolutely free and does not require any kind of registration or giving an email address. The book is available in three formats –  so you can download a copy to read on your computer, phone, kindle or other e-book reader. Simply click on the version you want on our sister website here.  ​​

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5).
 
The biblical command to love God “with all your heart…” given in Deuteronomy and quoted by Jesus as the most important of all commandments (Matthew 22:37) lies at the very center of the Christian Faith.  But knowing exactly what loving God with our “heart” means is not as simple as many people presume.   Love is so fully equated with the emotions and the heart in modern society that it is easy to think that the command simply means  to love God “dearly” or “from the heart.”

The many biblical passages that speak about the heart can easily be misunderstood if we are unfamiliar with the way the term was understood and used in the world in which the Bible was written. Both the Hebrew word lebab (or leb) and the Greek word kardia that we find translated “heart” in our English Bibles had a very different meaning from our modern idea.
When these biblical words are used metaphorically –  as opposed to talking about the physical organ we call the heart –  they rarely have anything to do with emotions. In the Old Testament, for example, lebab primarily refers to thought, understanding, or memory, and even things such as awareness or courage. 

In other words, “heart” in the Old Testament usually refers to things of the mind rather than the emotions.  That is why we find biblical verses such as “As [a person] thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7),  or “…the Lord has not given you a heart to understand …” (Deuteronomy 29:4), and why Solomon prayed “… give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong…” (1 Kings 3:9).  That is also why many modern Bible versions translate the word “heart” in these verses as “mind” (NIV, Holman, etc.).

Although on the surface some uses of “heart” in the Old Testament may seem to relate to emotions, the essential idea is almost always one of thought rather than feeling.  In fact, when biblical writers wanted to refer to “feelings,” they usually spoke of them as being located not in the heart, but in the lower organs – the intestines (1 Kings 3:26, etc.)! 

In the New Testament we find the word “heart” (kardia) has the same metaphorical usage as lebab – most frequently meaning  “mind” –  as when we are told “Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, ‘Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?’” (Matthew 9:4) and “For out of the heart come evil thoughts” (Matthew 15:19).  In fact, when the New Testament writers seem to be speaking of the heart and mind as two separate things –  as in the verse “All the believers were one in heart and mind” (Acts 4:32) –  they are usually using a common Jewish expression which was literally “one heart and one soul” – meaning they were completely unified (Jeremiah 32:39, etc.).

As we saw with the use of the Hebrew, when New Testament writers wanted to speak of the emotions they usually used a term for the lower organs, just as the apostle Paul wrote that we should put on “bowels of mercies” (Colossians 3:12 KJV), meaning we should have compassionate feelings toward others.  
 
When we understand this background, we realize that modern versions of the Bible may actually confuse us somewhat by translating “intestines” as “feelings” and “heart” as “mind.” While these translations give us the actual sense of a verse in most cases, when they do translate “heart” as “heart” (as in “Love the Lord your God with all your heart”), we may miss the point that it is really talking about loving God with all our mind.

In other words, when the English Bible speaks of the heart, we must be careful to determine whether we are reading a verse giving the modern meaning of “emotions” or the ancient meaning of “mind.”  This can be important in many cases.  When the Old Testament tells us that David was “a man after [God's] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14) and this is repeated in the New Testament as “a man after my heart” (Acts 13:22), we must realize that God’s “heart” means his thoughts and attitudes rather than his feelings. 

This fact is especially important in understanding the greatest commandment of all –  that we must love God with all our “heart.”  Easy as it may be to see this command in modern terms as referring to deep feelings and emotions for God –  good as such feelings may be –  the Bible actually means that we must love God with all our mind.  Loving God with all our “heart” means not leaving the slightest part of our minds separate from the rule and influence of God.  This is what Paul was speaking of when he tells us we must “… take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
​
There is no place for any kind of divided affection in the command to love God with all our heart.  Just as Jesus stressed that “No one can serve two masters” because we will invariably love one and “hate” or love the other so much less by comparison (Matthew 6:24), loving God with our whole heart means having a love that includes nothing short of total and complete dedication of mind.  Only when we give our minds – our very selves –  completely to God are we loving him with all our heart.