“The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5).

This may be one of most frequently quoted-out-of-context scriptures in the New Testament!  In a great many cases Luke 17:5 is quoted alone as it is above, with resulting problems of understanding. But what is the real significance of these words?

If we continue reading in Luke 17, we find that Jesus apparently did not accept the request of the disciples and even appears to gently rebuke them for the question.  Unless we look at his words carefully, in context, they make little sense.  Notice how Jesus replied to the disciples’request:

The apostles said to the Lord, “Increase our faith!”  He replied, “If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be uprooted and planted in the sea,’ and it will obey you. Suppose one of you has a servant plowing or looking after the sheep. Will he say to the servant when he comes in from the field, ‘Come along now and sit down to eat’? Won’t he rather say, ‘Prepare my supper, get yourself ready and wait on me while I eat and drink; after that you may eat and drink’?  Will he thank the servant because he did what he was told to do?  So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty’” (Luke 17:5-10).

There is a clear negative note in what Jesus is saying here – in fact, Jesus not only denies the request, but he seems to be criticizing the request itself.   To understand this reply, we should first notice that this exchange takes place well after Jesus had sent out his disciples to preach and heal and they had successfully accomplished many healings – which doubtless showed they had a measure of faith by this time (Luke 9:1-6 and see James 5:15). The disciples’ sudden request for more faith seems odd, therefore, if it is a general request. However, the immediate context of their petition throws more light on its meaning.  Their request came directly after Jesus told them:

"… If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them” (Luke 17:3-4).

So the request for greater faith appears to have been made in the context of doubt regarding being able to fulfill the seemingly extreme requirement of forgiving those that sin against us virtually without end.   Understanding this makes more sense of Jesus’ reply.   First Jesus apparently tells his disciples that forgiveness is not a matter of having more faith – faith is not really the issue here – and if they only have a small amount of faith, it will be enough. But then Jesus immediately switches to a parable-like story or example of the fact that servants must simply do what they are told and expected to do.
  
This story makes little sense if the disciples were requesting more faith in general, but it makes perfect sense if the disciples were essentially questioning their ability to forgive a repeated offense in an ongoing manner.  Just as a servant continues to prepare his master’s meals on an ongoing daily basis, Christ seems to say, so the Christian must be willing to follow the instruction to forgive on an ongoing daily basis.

If the disciples had simply been asking for “more faith,” we would expect that Jesus would have responded in a positive manner – instructing them on developing faith, just as he instructed them when they asked him to teach them to pray (Matthew 6:9-13).  But the specific things Jesus said and the apparent tone of his response indicate that the disciples were not as interested in growing spiritually in this instance as much as they were registering  their opinion of the level of difficulty of the command they had just been given. 
​
Jesus reminded the Twelve that faith was not really what was needed in this regard, but a simple understanding that the command to forgive was a command we are expected to follow.  Ultimately, the disciples would come to learn that forgiveness is not based in faith, but in love.  As Peter himself would later write:  “Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8). 

There is no doubt that when the writings of the New Testament apostles are compared, it is the apostle Paul who might be called “the apostle of thanksgiving.” Paul uses the word for “thanks” in its various forms more than all other New Testament writers combined, and all except two of Paul’s epistles (Galatians and Titus) speak of giving thanks or the quality of thankfulness.

Even in his epistles that don’t mention thankfulness specifically, we can see Paul’s underlying attitude of gratitude implicit in what he says, for example,  regarding the hope of eternal life (Titus 1:2), God’s grace (Titus 2:11), and his goodness, kindness, and mercy (Titus 3:4-6).
​
But in the majority of Paul’s writings, the expression of gratitude is a primary part of his message. Typically, after greeting his readers, or very soon after, Paul gives thanks. This was frequently done in the world of his day, where individuals writing to others would often give thanks to their gods for benefits and blessings they had received. But in Paul’s writing the thanksgiving is different.  Instead of thanking God for blessings he has received, Paul usually gives thanks for those to whom he is writing.

Paul tells the believers in Rome:  “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Romans 1:8).  Similarly, he tells the Colossians: “We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you,  since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus and of the love that you have for all the saints,  because of the hope laid up for you in heaven” (Colossians 1:3-5).  In his letter to the Ephesians Paul says: “ …because I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love toward all the saints, I do not cease to give thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers” (Ephesians 1:15).

Paul does give thanks for blessings he and others received (Galatians 1:5, 1 Corinthians 15:57), and he clearly taught that we should give thanks for all things (Ephesians 5:20, 1 Thessalonians 5:18).  But if we read his epistles carefully, we see that Paul’s thankfulness is primarily expressed in his writings not for things he had received, but far more often for the spiritual gifts God had bestowed in the lives of others. 

That’s an interesting thought to consider as those of us in the United States and Canada celebrate Thanksgiving Day or at any time of year. The apostle Paul was not just the “apostle of thanksgiving,” he was also the apostle who primarily gave thanks for others.  In fact, when we understand that, we realize it is typical of Paul that he writes: “I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people” (1 Timothy 2:1, emphasis added).

It’s a lesson we can all keep in mind. How much of our thanksgiving is focused on what we personally have to be thankful for, and how much is focused on thankfulness for God’s gifts to his people – and to all people – everywhere?  Paul shows us that true and full thankfulness is gratitude for others and what they have received physically and spiritually, just as much as it is gratitude for what we ourselves have received. 

​The story of how the resurrected Jesus reinstated and recommissioned the apostle Peter after his earlier denials of his master is frequently told, but we do not always notice its significance for us:
  


​When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”  Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17).

It is frequently pointed out that while, in his first two questions, Jesus uses a form of the word agapé – godly, unconditional love – Peter replies with a form of the word phileó – meaning only brotherly love or affection.  To paraphrase the question and answer: “Do you have love for me?” “Yes, I have affection for you.”  In his final question (verse 17) Jesus lowers the level of love to ask “Do you have affection for me?” to which Peter again replies “…you know I have affection for you.”
 
It is possible that by repeating his question three times Jesus is subtly reminding Peter of his disciple’s three denials, but it is clear that Peter, in his shame, could not bring himself to say he loved Jesus to such a high level as unconditional godly love, only to a lesser, human degree – to which Jesus finally lowered his question. But while the element of shame may have affected Peter’s answers at that moment in time, we certainly need not “lower our sights” as to the level of love it is possible to develop and to direct to God and to others.
 
A great many scriptures in the New Testament show that it is the highest unconditional agapé love that we are to have toward God and others.  In two extremely poignant scriptures, Peter himself tells us that we must move beyond human love:

“Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love [phileó] of the brethren, love [agapé] one another earnestly from the heart” (1 Peter 1:22).

“add ... to godliness, mutual affection [phileó]; and to mutual affection, love [agapé]” (2 Peter 1:7).

It is perhaps significant that Peter included this thought in both his epistles:  we must move beyond human love to a godly love that is both deeper and higher than human affection. Peter had learned the hard way that human love – even the love of closest friends – is not enough to fulfill God’s law of love.  It is a lesson that Peter had clearly grasped, and one that we must also learn. 

When ancient Israel entered the Promised Land of Canaan, they were told that God would drive out the Canaanites before them and that the Israelites were to destroy any who remained. 

The Bible tells us that this judgment was delivered on the Canaanite people because of their extreme depravity. The Canaanites would sacrifice their children – putting them to death in horrible ways – in order to gain some advantage for themselves, to make their lives better.  The Israelites were warned time and again not to follow that way (Leviticus 18:21, 24 and Deuteronomy 18:9-13).

In the past, some sceptics challenged whether such a horrible practice could actually have existed in ancient Canaan; yet actual evidence of child sacrifice by the Canaanites does exist. For example, several ancient Egyptian wall reliefs carved around the time of Ramesses II, in the temples of Karnak and Luxor, actually depict the abominable practice (A.  Spalinger, "A Canaanite Ritual Found in Egyptian Reliefs," Journal of the Society for the Study of Egyptian Antiquities 8 [1978]:47-60.).

If we fast forward to today’s world it is sad that so many cultures have chosen to go that same way in what has become a genocide without borders – the abortion of countless unborn babies. Today abortion is viewed as an acceptable sacrifice – for some, even up to the time of the birth of a child – to personal convenience.  The usual rationale, of course, is that before birth babies are not people. Biblically, however, it is clear that personhood begins before birth, and the Bible gave clear laws to protect the life of the unborn (Jeremiah 1:5, 20:17; Exodus 21:22-23, etc.).

But even though many people do not know or understand the biblical view of personhood before birth, it may be surprising to learn that widespread abortion is something that a majority of people do not accept or want.  According to a recent national public opinion poll conducted in the United States by the highly respected Marist Institute for Public Opinion, eight in ten Americans support “substantial restrictions” on abortion.  Furthermore, a majority would limit abortion to cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother – or would prefer not to allow it at all.   In fact, only one in ten Americans say they would prefer no restrictions on abortion while almost two-thirds of Americans – most Americans – feel abortion is “morally wrong”  (60 percent stated they are against abortion while 37 percent said they would allow abortion in some or all circumstances).

So if most people in our democratic society feel they would like to limit widespread abortion, why is nothing done to restrict it?  The answer may lie in the fact that many people say they feel afraid to speak out on the topic because people who do so are so mercilessly attacked by the minority of people who want unrestricted abortion.  It has become “not politically correct” to even mention abortion, but fine to practice it. So, we have a tragic disconnect in our society – between what many people believe deep down and the fact that they feel unwilling or unable to do anything about stopping what they believe is wrong.

In the United States we face a national election in which our choice will determine whether we either begin to limit abortion or reinforce and expand the practice. It is a choice we cannot sidestep by not voting, and the words of famed theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who died in the Nazi Holocaust, are relevant: “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil … Not to act is to act.”
​
Choosing one way takes us along the path of humane love for the vulnerable and defenseless unborn – the way of parental acceptance or adoption.   Choosing the other path takes us yet further into the ways of the Canaanites who sacrificed their children in order to gain some advantage for themselves.  It's in our hands.