​“And now these three remain: faith, hope and love…” (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Probably every Christian knows the apostle Paul’s summary of the greatest Christian virtues found in 1 Corinthians 13:13.  As new believers, it is one of the first verses we learn and one we always remember.
​
The meaning of Paul’s statement is simple enough.  Like towering mountain peaks that still stand after the surrounding landscape has been eroded down or like three “rock hard” pebbles that remain when a stream has washed away the softer sand and soil, these three qualities “remain.” 

But our new e-book, These Three Remain, helps you see scriptures speaking of these qualities when you might otherwise read right over them. It looks closely at each of the three key Christian attributes and examines how they interact with each other in your life.  In fact, as you read this book, you may find that faith, hope and love are even more important than you ever realized.  You can download this new free e-book here.

​The words “How much more” are most often heard as part of a negative statement such as “How much more of this can I take?” But if you search for them, you will find they frequently appear in the Bible in a completely positive manner – that can teach us something.

Back in the 1st Century, in the time of Christ, the renowned Jewish teacher Hillel and other scholars developed careful methods of logical argumentation in order to arrive at sound conclusions regarding interpretation of the Scriptures.  One of those methods was called Qal va-homer (literally “light and heavy”), which argued from the lesser to the greater situation and which is often called the “how much more” argument.  In other words, if X is the case, how much more would Y be the case.

We actually see this principle occasionally in the Old Testament. For example, after Miriam criticized Moses and was punished with leprosy, Moses prayed that she might be healed, but God reminded him: “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days” (Numbers 12:14) – in other words, if she would be punished for seven days for offending her human father, how much more should she be punished for seven days for offending God.

When we get to the New Testament we see the method of argument employed regularly by Jesus in his teaching.  Not surprisingly, we see the most examples in the Gospel of Matthew, which seems originally to have been written in Hebrew for a primarily Jewish audience.  The twelfth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel contains a clear examples of Jesus’ use of the “how much more” argument in the story of his healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day.

Before we look at that example, it is good to remember that in using the “how much more” argument, the Jewish scholars and rabbis utilized a common format.  The argument was presented in three propositions: a first fact or premise, a second fact or premise, and a conclusion based on the two preceding premises.  We see this when we read how Jesus replied to the Pharisees who tried to trap him by asking him:  “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12.10).

First Jesus told them: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” (Matthew 12:11 – the first premise). Then he continued: “How much more valuable is a person than a sheep!” (Matthew 12:12a – the second premise). Finally he concluded: “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12b – the conclusion). Notice that in the parallel account of this event in Mark, that Gospel records a different type of argument made by Jesus at this time that would have satisfied the congregation of the synagogue, but would not have been as effective in combatting the religious leaders – the Pharisees (Mark 3:4).

But in Matthew, Jesus not only answered the learned Pharisees decisively, he also did so using their own scholarly argumentation – their own method of scriptural interpretation.  Jesus’ answer was thus not only a clear statement of the acceptable – and desirable – principle of doing good on the Sabbath day, it was also an indictment of the Pharisees for not reaching that conclusion themselves by using their own principles of exegesis.

Just as the “how much more” argument is found repeatedly in Jesus’ teachings, we find it also used by the apostle Paul, who was steeped in the scholarship of the Pharisees and trained by Hillel himself. Knowing this sheds extra light on many of the things that Paul writes.  For example, in his epistle to the Romans Paul writes:  “… if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” (Romans 11:24).  Looking closely at these words of Paul, we see the same type of premise, “how much more,” and conclusion. Paul may sometimes vary this format, but the result of his argument is the same.

Remembering that the “how much more” argument was one used frequently by Jesus and Paul can help us to understand more about what they are saying when they use this form of interpretation.  A pattern is certainly clear – neither Jesus nor Paul used this type of argument in a random manner.  Most often it was used to clarify difficult questions or important points of doctrine. If we remember this when we are reading the Gospels or epistles of Paul, we can see why it is helpful to pay special attention whenever we see the words “how much more.”  Once we know the principle and recognize it, how much more we can get out of many of its occurrences!

Scripture: “It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man” (Psalm 118:8).

Something to think about:  These words from the Psalms are sometimes understood to mean that we should not trust human beings, but their message is simply that we should not put our trust in men.  The two things are quite different.  We can interact with people – especially fellow believers – who are completely trustworthy and whom we may trust in everyday dealings. But that is not the same as putting our trust in men. 

In this verse, the psalmist speaks of not looking to humans for the ultimate protection and help we need in life. For some, their trust in “man” may be in the government, friends, family, or even themselves, but we need only read the rest of the psalm to see that the author – presumably King David – was reflecting on dire situations that he had survived thanks to God’s clear help.

This is also a messianic psalm and much that it has to say clearly reflects the life of the promised messiah, Jesus Christ. The principle the verse teaches was repeated elsewhere both by David “I am at rest in God alone; my salvation comes from Him” (Psalm 62:1 HCSB), and by Jesus himself “Have faith in God” (Mark 11:22). But whether we apply Psalm 118:8 to the life of David or Jesus, its message of where our deepest trust should be in life certainly applies to us.
​ 
This verse is often said to be the center verse of the whole Bible, but that depends entirely on which version of the Bible one looks at. Psalms 117 is certainly the shortest chapter in the Bible, and Psalm 119 is certainly the longest chapter in the Bible.  Nice as it might have been, Psalm 118 – sitting between them –  is not the central chapter in most Bibles, and verse 8 is not the central verse. Yet the principle this verse gives is certainly one of central importance in the life of faith!

​“Everyone will be salted with fire.  Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:49-50).



​The passage found in Mark 9 regarding Christ’s words about salt is usually explained or expounded by simple reference to the fact that biblically salt was a symbol of preservation or purity, but if we look closely, these verses actually vary the significance of salt by stressing different meanings.

In Mark 9:49 the words “Everyone will be salted with fire” clearly refers to purification, but when we move to verse 50a the statement “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again?” just as clearly refers to the disciple’s commission to serve as “salt” of this world (Matthew 5:13) – a function of making the world palatable to God.

But in the final statement using salt as a symbol: “Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:50b), neither of these previous meanings fits the saying. “Have salt among yourselves” does not make sense in terms of purification or making the world palatable – how would either meaning relate to being at peace with one another?

It is most likely that in the latter part of verse 50 Jesus’ comment refers to the fact that in ancient Judea and in the wider ancient Near East, salt was used extensively in making covenants and treaties between individuals or groups.  We see this in biblical verses such as:

Numbers 8:19:  “Whatever is set aside from the holy offerings the Israelites present to the Lord I give to you and your sons and daughters as your perpetual share. It is an everlasting covenant of salt before the Lord for both you and your offspring.”

2 Chronicles 13:5:  “Don’t you know that the Lord, the God of Israel, has given the kingship of Israel to David and his descendants forever by a covenant of salt?”
​
Leviticus 2:13: “Season all your grain offerings with salt. Do not leave the salt of the covenant of your God out of your grain offerings; add salt to all your offerings.” This last verse is usually said to be based on the purificatory aspect of salt, but the text says specifically the salt is the “salt of the covenant.” 

To “eat salt together” meant to make peace and enter into a covenant – or what we call today a “peace treaty” with someone. In Acts 1:4, where Jesus met with the disciples after his resurrection, most translations say he was “with” the disciples, but the Greek is literally “being together salted” – perhaps especially significant after the disciples had only recently deserted and disowned him.

Now, going back to Mark 9:50, the context of Jesus’ words in that verse is clear.  The disciples were arguing about who among them would be the greatest, and Jesus had to rebuke them for this attitude (Mark 9:33-35). But his words recorded at the end of the chapter spoke to the lack of peace between the disciples caused by this – and doubtless other – arguments.  In telling the disciples to “have salt among yourselves and be at peace with each other” (vs. 50), Jesus was probably urging them to use the symbolic salt of covenant relationship – specifically of a covenant of peace – and thus to be at peace with one another.

We do not always know when the writers of the Gospels bring together related sayings that may have been spoken at different times, but which share a common theme.  That could be the case in Mark 9 where we see different uses of the symbolism of salt, but it is also possible that Jesus simply varied the meanings of the symbol as he occasionally did in other instances.  In either case, the reference to having “salt among yourselves” seems to be clearly related to the role of salt in covenants and treaties of peace.

​I remember seeing a cartoon a number of years ago that had the unlikely subject of a group of fleas sitting in what appeared to be a lecture hall, listening to an impassioned  speech from a flea behind a podium.

On the podium was a sign reading “There is no dog!” – and then it became clear that the “pillars” of the lecture hall were, in fact,  the hairs of a dog magnified many times!
 
So the subjects of the cartoon were obviously “Afleists” who did not believe that dog existed, but the context was not one in any way suggesting that human atheists were to be equated with fleas – it was simply looking wryly at the idea of how it is possible to be very unaware of things around us.

The cartoon might remind us of the apostle Paul’s words to the learned philosophers of Athens regarding the creation of all things by God:   “God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us.  For in him we live and move and have our being….” (Acts 17:27-28).

Like those earnest fleas debating the dog’s existence among the very hairs of the dog, we humans sometimes “don’t see the forest for the trees” when it comes to seeing the nature of the ultimate reality in which we live.   But religious people can be no less susceptible to this problem than atheists or agnostics.  We may not ignore the clear imprint of the Creator in the physical creation, but the problem of not seeing the forest for the trees can apply to us in a different way, nonetheless.

We read in the Gospel of Mark the story of how shortly after performing great miracles in which Jesus fed the multitudes:  “The disciples had forgotten to bring bread, except for one loaf they had with them in the boat. ‘Be careful,’ Jesus warned them. ‘Watch out for the yeast of the Pharisees and that of Herod.’  They discussed this with one another and said, ‘It is because we have no bread’” (Mark 8:14-16).

When Jesus realized the disciples’ lack of vision in this situation, he chastised them: “Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see ….”  (Mark 8:17).

In this situation, the disciples missed the meaning of Christ’s message by looking too closely at their own circumstances, the details of their own situation.  Sometimes we can make the same mistake:  we miss the message because we take it too personally.

It is often said that when studying the Bible we should always ask “How does this verse apply to me?”  That is indeed a useful principle of personal study, but we should also be careful not to let our study of the Bible become self-absorbed to the point that we miss the bigger picture that is sometimes there.
​ 
It is always good to remember that we are not the subject of the Bible, and that God is. The Bible is not just the revelation from God, it is primarily the revelation about God.  Our study should also ask the question “What does this verse show about God?”    If we study only to see what applies to us and to others, we can miss the message that is of forest-size proportions by concentrating only on what applies to some of the trees.