Every year people flock to fashion shows in Paris, New York, and other centers of haute couture to see what styles and colors are "in."
​
Back in the days of the apostle James, for some members of the church, the “in” style was apparently clothes showing wealth and the in colors were apparently gold, scarlet and purple:
​
“My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism. Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in filthy old clothes also comes in. If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, “Here’s a good seat for you,” but say to the poor man, “You stand there” or “Sit on the floor by my feet,”  have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?” (James 2:1-4).

The colors getting people’s attention here were not just gold and silver.  In that day and age the most noticeable difference between a rich person’s clothing and a poor person’s was usually color. Only the rich could afford clothing made of finer materials like colored silk or linen died with expensive purple or scarlet dyes (Proverbs 31:21, Mark 15:17, etc.).   So this wasn’t just about paying attention to those wearing gold rings.  James puts equal stress on those focusing on the doubtless brightly colored clothing of the rich man (vs. 3), and he uses some pretty strong language about them – he says if they are guilty of gravitating to such a person at the expense of  others, they are guilty of discrimination (vs. 4). 

The problem wasn’t really about the gold ring or the brightly colored robe of the rich man, of course – the root of the problem was that some of James’ readers were seeing those who wore gold rings and scarlet and purple clothes as somehow better than others. Think about it. The people of the Church did not want to associate with the rich in the hopes of getting some of their money, but there were certain things about the rich man – we might think of them as distinguishing “colors” – that meant people gravitated to him.  The wealthy man was simply the man to know, the man to be friends with, the man who was wearing the “in” colors.

So we must ask ourselves what “color” is in today, in our age, in our church.  It may well not be the “color” of money.  It could just as well be the “color” of  “appearance,”  “popularity,”  “tech savvy,” or even “dedicated church attendance” or “missionary zeal,” depending on who is looking and how they see things.   The fact is, just like the poor man James mentioned, every church congregation has those who are not wearing the “in” color.  Sometimes they are the old, sometimes those in ill health, sometimes they are just those with poor social skills.  But if we see others – any others – as more attractive, fun, or “in” to be around, we have missed the point of James’ warning. 

It’s really a matter of perspective.  Our physical eyes may see and sense the things that make people “in,” but we need to always look beyond what the eyes see.  That, of course, was the point of God’s words to Samuel regarding the physically impressive Saul: “The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7). And notice an important detail of what James said that we so often read over without noticing it much – James begins his admonition to not be swayed by what is attractive by making an important point: “My brothers and sisters,” he says, “believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism” (vs. 2). 

​Before talking about the rich man and his physical glory, James makes a comparison with the much more “glorious” nature of Christ.  James prefaced his statement with that thought because he wanted us to remember that, if we have the right perspective, we will see that even those totally devoid of anything that could make them “in” physically still carry the image of God, which is far more glorious in every way than the "in colors" of human society. 

It’s a point that may not apply to us personally, but if we ever find ourselves gravitating mainly to those who exhibit whatever “color” is “in,” spending time primarily with those who are the “in crowd” within our group, it does apply. 

Some of the statements of Jesus concerning the end of the age have been interpreted as meaning that the end times would occur in the generation in which Jesus lived.  This view of some New Testament scriptures has been held by even prominent individuals such as the theologian and medical missionary Albert Schweitzer who believed that many of the words of Jesus recorded in the Gospels show this belief.  

One of the main areas of scripture to which Schweitzer pointed was Matthew 24; but if we look closely at that chapter, we see that after Christ listed many things that would happen at the end of the age, he said:

“Now learn this lesson from the fig tree:  As soon as its twigs get tender and its leaves come out, you know that summer is near. Even so, when you see all these things, you know that it is near, right at the door. Truly I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.  Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away. But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father” (Matthew 24:32-36).

First, we should realize that Jesus’ words regarding “this generation” may simply mean that the generation Christ was speaking of – the generation that would witness the signs he said would occur – would not pass away till the signs were all fulfilled and the end occurred. The Greek pronoun translated "this" can often be translated "the same" and we should keep this meaning in mind. 

It is clear that some of the sayings of Jesus recorded in Matthew 24 found fulfillment in AD 70 with the Roman destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem (Matthew 24:1-2), but other statements contained in his discourse on the Mount of Olives in that same chapter have a clear setting in a distant future, as we see, for example, in the prophecies: “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come” (Matthew 24:14), and “For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again” (Matthew 24:21) – neither of which were fulfilled in AD 70.

Schweitzer also appealed to Matthew 23 as a chapter he thought showed Jesus taught the end would occur at that time, but there, in his criticism of the teachers of the law and Pharisees, Jesus simply said:

“You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned … And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar. Truly I tell you, all this will come on this generation” (Matthew 23:33-36).

In this instance, Jesus stated that the guilt of the religious leaders who had persecuted and killed many of God’s servants would not escape them, and that punishment would come on that generation of leaders who were no different from their ancestors. Because the Romans destroyed the Temple and killed many of the religious leaders in AD 70, that prediction effectively came to pass. 

Other key verses that Schweitzer believed showed Jesus promised his return in his own day are: “There be some standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom” (Matthew 16:28); “... until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power” (Mark 9:1); and  “... till they see the kingdom of God” (Luke 9:27). But these parallel accounts all record Jesus’ words being spoken immediately before the Gospels record the Transfiguration – in which some (as Christ said) of the disciples saw Jesus in a vision of divine splendor which was a "preview" of Christ in the Kingdom of God.

Although it is clear historically that many early Christians believed that Jesus would return in their lifetimes, the words of Christ and the apostles always focused not on the timing of the end, but on its imminence.  We must all live in readiness for the Kingdom of God - not only because we do not know the time it will be fully instituted at the return of Christ, but also because we do not know when our own lives will end. 

The question posed in the subtitle above sounds like the famous query, “Who is buried in General Grant’s tomb?”     But it is a serious question.  The three epistles we call “First, Second, and Third John” are, along with the Book of Hebrews, the only New Testament letters that do not mention their authors.  While we are used to seeing the letters of “John” in our Bibles, they were not called that originally – the names were given to them by the early Church.  

The article we uploaded today is the first in a new occasional series on "The Faith Once Delivered" and while we think it answers the question "Who Wrote the Epistles of John?" we also think it highlights an important point regarding the apostle John's message.  You can find out what that is by reading the article here.

One of the parables Jesus told specifically against the Pharisees can be profitably applied in our own lives in a way we might not expect:

“... There was a man who had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work today in the vineyard.’ ‘I will not,’ he answered, but later he changed his mind and went. Then the father went to the other son and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but he did not go. Which of the two did what his father wanted? ”  “The first,” they answered.  Jesus said to them, ‘Truly I tell you, the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you.  For John came to you to show you the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the prostitutes did. And even after you saw this, you did not repent and believe him”  (Matthew 21:28-32). 

In this parable, which is somewhat similar to the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector (Luke 18:9-14), Jesus uses the story of two sons to reprimand those who believed they were good people while not realizing that they were, in fact, self-righteous and not obedient at all.  The parable makes a strong contrast between these people and those who were clearly sinners by background, yet who were now accepting the message of the Kingdom of God.

Psychologically the parable is an interesting one in that it is difficult to read it without naturally siding with those whom Jesus exonerated. Noone finds it easy or pleasant to put themselves in the shoes of those  Jesus so clearly rebukes.  Nevertheless, we can apply this in various areas of life – not least in terms of the “vineyard” (Matthew 20:1) against which he set the parable.  Did we feel a call to do some good work which we accepted, yet which we have delayed or put aside? The story could apply to us in this or in many other ways.

And there is another way to approach this parable. Supposing we view ourselves as being both sons rather than just one of them.    This approach fits well with the Christian understanding that our carnal human nature remains with us and has to be constantly struggled against, even when we have repented and received the Spirit of God  (Romans 7:23-25).  We live our lives, in that sense, as both sons on a daily basis – the son (or daughter) who struggles to accept what we come to see is right and finally makes the right decision, as well as the son or daughter who may accept what we must do at first, but does not follow through because we forget our decision or are tempted away from it. This approach fits the details of the story in a number of ways.  Note the son who says “yes” at first seems to be respectful (he says “sir”) yet still fails, while the son who is rebellious (the first reaction of our own human nature is all too often wrong) is willing to finally turn and do what is right.

Jesus’ parable was clearly aimed at the apparently righteous Pharisaical individuals with whom he contrasted those who were rebellious yet finally obedient.  Yet it can be helpful to put ourselves in both situations in order to remember how our own human nature works.  Accepting the truth is not always easy and meditation on how this parable might apply to us in our own lives can help us to reach right decisions – to turn out to be the good son who even the Pharisees recognized was the son with whom God was able  to work.

It’s a simple principle, but one that can help us to profit from a number of Christ's parables that contrast right and wrong responses.

Barnabas Aid (USA) and Barnabas Fund (UK) stand at the forefront of the organizations seeking to aid persecuted Christians around the world.  Barnabas Aid's work rescuing and helping Christians facing great danger has received international attention.

Bishop Julian Dobbs, Barnabas Aid USA’s Honorary Director, kindly agreed to interview with LivingWithFaith.org and to answer our questions about the vital work this organization is striving to accomplish.  You can read the interview with Bishop Dobbs, here.