He had been invited, of course – not that he needed an invitation! – and we had saved a place for him.  But he had not come to dinner for the past week, and it was beginning to look as though he would not be coming to dinner again any time soon.  He may just have been busy, of course; any apostle – and especially the chief apostle – must have so many responsibilities. But it was strange, nonetheless. Some were even beginning to wonder if they had offended him, or if fellowship with the Gentile converts was not  a pressing issue just now.  But surely, it couldn’t be, as some had even suggested, that Peter named Cephas viewed us as somehow less than equal in the fellowship of Christ … could it?

In the second  chapter of Galatians  Paul tells the amazing story:

“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face … For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray” (Galatians 2:11-13).

Paul’s stand against Peter’s hypocrisy must have been a legendary event in the early Church. Paul certainly did not skirt the issue:

“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?” (Galatians 2:14).

Fortunately, Peter had the humility to accept Paul’s reprimand (something worth thinking about in itself) and changed his behavior – fellowshipping again with the Gentile believers.  Clearly, he learned a valuable lesson, one which lies behind the words written in one of his own epistles years later: “Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers…” (1 Peter 2:17).

But this story is given in the Bible for our admonition, not Peter’s.  Do we avoid certain people in the faith for any reason? Do we not fully accept other believers because of some difference in doctrine or belief?  The apostle Peter made this mistake – are we above it? 

We know that we are to “keep away from every believer who is idle and disruptive and does not live according to the teaching” (2 Thessalonians 3:6 and also see vs. 14), but that does not apply to believers who are sincerely trying to do God’s will.  The writings of Paul and Luke, in Acts, make it abundantly clear that Gentile believers were to be fully accepted as brothers and sisters in the faith – even though they may not have had complete doctrinal understanding (Acts 15:28).   This principle also applies directly to us, of course, in dealing with fellow believers of other doctrinal persuasions.  We may not agree with each other on things that we consider to be important, but that does not preclude our fellowship and helping one another in the faith.  Even though we may understand that principle intellectually, we must all ask ourselves whether there is some reason we are not showing up for dinner.

When we read Paul’s letter to Philemon, we tend to focus on the story of Onesimus – the slave who apparently left Philemon at some point and whom Paul now exhorts Philemon to take back as a brother in the faith.  But a good portion of this short Epistle actually consists of what Paul has to say about Philemon himself; and beginning early in the letter Paul commends Philemon:

“I thank my God always when I remember you in my prayers, because I hear of your love and of the faith that you have toward the Lord Jesus and for all the saints, and I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ (Philemon 1:4-6 – italics added for emphasis).

Interestingly, two things often cause people to be confused within these two small verses.  First, many popular expositions of the book get tangled up in trying to explain how Philemon had love for Christ and faith toward the saints, but this expression is just a chiasmus, or crossover, as was often used in Greek. It should be understood as “faith” in “the Lord Jesus” and “love” for “all the saints” rather than the other way around, as it might appear. You can see a clear example of this kind of chiasmus in Matthew 12:22,  which tells us “The blind and dumb both spoke and saw” – which clearly means the blind saw, and the dumb spoke.

The second often misunderstood point about these verses is found in Paul’s statement “I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective…” (Philemon 1:6, NKJV). I wish I had the proverbial dollar for the number of times I have heard and seen this verse used as a proof text that we should verbally witness or share our faith with others, but the real meaning is different and makes an important point. Here, the expression “the sharing of your faith” seems to mean not verbally sharing but rather communicating one’s faith through an outpouring of good works. The NIV captures this meaning quite well: “I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ” (Philemon 1:6).

The Nineteenth Century “Barnes Notes” commentary first summed up the meaning of this verse relative to how Philemon’s faith was to be expressed: “That his faith, expressing itself by good fruits, might be shown to be true … For although faith has its proper seat in the heart, yet it communicates itself to men by good works.”  Most commentaries since that time have agreed that this is the clear meaning of verse 6. 

So, properly understood,  these verses in Paul’s letter to Philemon make two important points:  first, they show the necessary link between our faith in Christ and love of the saints (Philemon 1:4-5), and then they show that the faith within us should be “communicated” or “shared” by good works (vs. 6).  This two-pronged argument represents something Paul wanted to stress to Philemon:  that faith in Christ involves loving the brethren, and that this true faith is manifested in good works to them.  These are important points for our understanding of the Book of Philemon, and of faith, too.

Our latest free ebook, Take Courage! The Vital Quality Every Christian Must Have, has just been published and is ready for download in multiple formats.   The topic is an important one. We live in an age when courage is seldom found and often unappreciated, but the Bible commands us to utilize courage in many areas of our lives. Take Courage! explains why courage is vitally important for every Christian and looks at how we can have real courage in our own lives. Don’t think courage is just for heroes – this is a book that may change many aspects of your life. Download a free copy (no email or registration needed) here.

Luke’s Gospel indicates that the evangelist may have particularly appreciated good food – at least it shows clearly that he noticed and commented on food more than any other Gospel writer!  But Luke does not simply mention food and meals – he draws lessons from them.
​
As a frame of reference, we should notice that Luke’s account of the life of Jesus really does have a noticeable focus on food. For example, while Matthew uses the word “eat” 18 times, and John only 15 times, Luke uses the word 33 times. Mark also uses this word quite frequently (25 times), but overall Luke uses a number of eating and food-related words twice as many times as Mark and the other Gospels, so his emphasis on this is clear. Within his Gospel, Luke also – uniquely – describes ten meals in which Jesus participated, and we will look at them all briefly.   Click here to continue reading.

As we read the New Testament, we all tend to have our own idea of exactly what the “gospel” is.  But unlike concepts such as “God,”  “Truth,” “Faith,” and others that the Bible specifically defines for us (1 John 4:8; John 17:17; Hebrews 11:1; etc.), the full meaning of the term gospel is not ever defined in a single verse.  Of course, we know that the word gospel means “good news” – but what exactly is that good news? Perhaps most of us would say that it is something along the lines of “the good news about salvation,” but it is actually far more than that, as we begin to see if we bring the relevant scriptures together.

In the Greek New Testament, the noun euangelion (“gospel”) appears over seventy times and in many contexts. In one sense, the gospel is about the whole New Testament message, but there are other more specialized uses of the word among the New Testament writers. The apostle Paul uses the word more than three times as often as all the other New Testament authors combined, and most of the other occurrences are found in Matthew and Mark, with a few instances elsewhere.

The first four books of the New Testament show us that the gospel is the good news about the person and work of Jesus Christ.  Mark begins his account of the life of Jesus by stating that it is “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God” (Mark 1:1 ESV), or as the NIV translates it, “The beginning of the good news about Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.”   This clearly shows that a major focus of the gospel is the complete story of Jesus – his life, death, and resurrection.   

But Mark also shows that there is more to the gospel.  Later is his first chapter he tells us that Jesus himself began “proclaiming the gospel of God” (Mark 1:14) – and we are told specifically what that gospel was: “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15 NIV) or, as the ESV has it, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.”  So the gospel – as preached by Jesus himself – involved the good news about the kingdom of God and also the admonition to repent and believe.

When we turn to the epistles of Paul, we find other definitions of the gospel. In his letter to the Romans Paul introduced himself as: “Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his earthly life was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was appointed the Son of God in power  by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord” (Romans 1:1-4).  Here, Paul stresses the fact that Jesus is the Son of God through his resurrection, but he also looks backward in time and includes the Old Testament prophecies about the Son of David that were to be fulfilled by Jesus.  In his first letter to Timothy Paul looks at the gospel a different way, as  “the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted,” and he specifies what that gospel is: “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners …” (1 Timothy 1:11, 15).

Many today claim that Paul changed the gospel of the kingdom of God, as taught by Jesus, to a gospel about Jesus. If we were to read some of the things Paul says in isolation, we might think that, but Paul did not change the gospel, as we have shown in another of our articles (which you can read here).  We need only turn, for example, to 2 Corinthians 11:4 where Paul specifically warned against those who taught another Jesus or another gospel –  proving that for Paul the gospel was not only about Jesus, but also included additional material. 

And Paul is not the final biblical writer to speak about the gospel. In the book of Revelation, the apostle John tells us: “Then I saw another angel flying overhead, with the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who dwell on the earth – to every nation and tribe and tongue and people. And he said in a loud voice, ‘Fear God and give Him glory, because the hour of His judgment has come. Worship the One who made the heavens and the earth and the sea and the springs of waters’” (Revelation 14:6–7). Here we see the gospel being defined as a message to fear and worship God.

Putting these separate strands together, we see that during his ministry Jesus preached the part of the gospel that focused on the kingdom of God, and that he largely kept his own identity hidden, except to his disciples (Matthew 16:20; etc).  After his resurrection, however, we find “He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3), but he also stressed to them that “you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth”(Acts 1:8). In other words, after the resurrection of Jesus, and according to Jesus himself –  the gospel was both the good news about the kingdom of God and also the good news about Jesus himself and how he had instituted the fulfillment of the kingdom and made it possible for people to be a part of it.

In conclusion we can see that the word gospel can refer to a lot of things in the Bible. Sometimes it refers broadly to all the New Testament fulfillment of what was promised in the Old Testament. Sometimes it refers to the details of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Sometimes it focuses on the saving work of Jesus, while at other times it looks more specifically at the kingdom of God and how Jesus both instituted and made the kingdom possible.  Finally, it can be a general message from God to humankind reminding us to fear and worship him for our own benefit and blessing.  But either directly or indirectly Jesus Christ plays a role in all these forms of the gospel message, and in every case – however the word is used – the gospel is, indeed, good news!

When we think of the self-revelation of God in the Old Testament, we might think of a number of scriptures such as Exodus 3:14 where God said to Moses “I am who I am” or  Exodus 34:6-7 where God described himself as “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet 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.”

While it is probably unlikely that we would think of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:1-17)  as an example of such divine self-revelation, there is more about God in that section of text than might meet the eye.  This point was recently made by Andrew Wilson in a Christianity Today article (September 20, 2021). In the course of that article Wilson points out that the commandments  do not actually begin with a commandment, but with the identity and nature Of God: 

“[a] feature of the Ten Commandments that … frequently goes unnoticed, is the fact that there are ten theological affirmations—ten attributes of God, if you like—woven through them. If the text tells us who we should be, it also tells us who God is. Revelation sits alongside regulation.”

Or, to put it another way, beneath the rules there is revelation. The Ten Commandments actually introduce God as much as they outline his law.   Wilson is correct in stressing that the commandments begin not with the rules but with the revelation “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery…” (Exodus 20:2).  It is only after this self-revelatory opening that we are told “You shall have no other gods before me” (vs. 3). 

Likewise, the second commandment (from a Protestant perspective) not to make or worship images of God (vs. 4)  is followed by a rationale that is longer than the commandment itself: “for 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, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments” (vss. 5-6). There is clearly as much, if not more stress on the nature of God than the command itself in this case.

In the same way, the third and fourth commandments reveal God’s justice and love, and the fifth commandment stresses that he is a God of giving.  Although some might argue the next five commandments do not mention God directly, this is to be expected when we remember that the first half of the ten commandments center on our relationship with God and the second half in our relations with others. In any case, we agree with Wilson’s assessment that the final five commandments also show a great deal about God, even if indirectly.

Our understanding of the Ten Commandments as providing self-revelation of God himself, as well as his laws, is strengthened by other facts not mentioned by Wilson, but which substantiate the point he makes.  Perhaps most importantly, it is known that the format in which the Ten Commandments was given was that of contracts or treaties in the ancient biblical world.  Such relationships were sealed by covenants that were formalized in a particular way. The dominant party – usually the great king making the treaty – first identified himself, then often enumerated what he had done to show his good intentions toward the other king or society. This was followed by a list of “stipulations” specifying what was expected on the part of those with whom the covenant was being made. There might also be a list of blessings or curses on the other party for keeping the covenant or failing to keep it. The Ten Commandments clearly fit into this kind of treaty covenant:

Identification: “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2).
Benefits: “Who has brought you out of the land of Egypt …” (Exodus 20:2).
Stipulations: “You shall have no other god but me …” (Exodus 20:3).
Blessings and Curses: (see Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28; etc.).
 
When we understand this background to the commands given at Sinai, we realize why, in addition to being Ten Commandments, they were also intended as “Ten Commitments” – a unique set of guidelines to a relationship with the God whose nature was revealed in those commandments (as explained in our free Cornerstone Bible Course unit on the Ten Commandments published May 5, 2021, and available here). 

We are used to referring to the individual twelve disciples by their anglicized names as found in English translations of the Bible – names such as Peter, James, and John. But only knowing the English forms of their names is somewhat like thinking the name of the famous French king Charlemagne was Charles. What were the disciples’ actual names?  Read on.

Kephas/Petros:  Peter’s original name was Simon (next on this list), but the disciple was renamed – or more accurately, given the additional name Kephas or Peter by Jesus (John 1:42).  The Aramaic name Kephas and the Greek name Petros both mean “stone” or “rock.” Interestingly, Jesus told Simon, “You will be called Peter” (emphasis added), and the gospels show that Jesus continued to call him Simon with only one exception. The name Peter seems to have been widely used of the disciple only after the establishment of the early Church.

Shimon:  The name of Simon (both Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot) was the Hebrew name Shimon meaning “He has heard.”  In Jewish culture the one who had heard was understood to be God, and this name was often given when a child was conceived as a result of prayer - though Shimon became a popular Jewish name, without reference to its original meaning.

Yakov: The disciple we call James was named Yakov  after the patriarch we call Jacob.  The meaning of the name is “heel” or “he who supplants,” and although this might seem somewhat negative, the name was extremely popular due to it being the name of the famous grandson of Abraham.

Yochanan: The name John that we read in the gospels is an English approximation of the Aramaic or Hebrew name Yochanan which means “Yahweh is gracious.”

Bar-Talmai :  Bartholomew’s name was actually a fusion of Aramaic and Greek. He was called Bar-Talmai in Aramaic which means “the son of Talmai” (Talmia being an Aramaic form  of the famous Greek name “Ptolemy”).  The disciple is also called Nathanael in the Gospel of John because his full name in Aramaic was probably Natanel Bar Talmai – Nathanael son of Talmai. The name Natanel meant “God has given.”
 
Mattityahu:  The tax-collector turned disciple we know as Matthew is called Matthaios in the gosples – which was a Greek form of the Hebrew name Mattityahu meaning “gift of Yahweh,” from the roots mattan meaning "gift" and yah “God.” This is yet another Hebrew name, like Shimon and Yochanan, that acknowledged the gift of children to God. Mattiyahu was also called Levi after the founder of the Israelite tribe of that name.

Tau’ma or Ta’om: This was the name of Thomas – an Aramaic name that means “twin.” In the gospels, the disciple is also called Didymus which is the Greek name with the same meaning. Early traditions state that the disciple’s full name was Judas Thomas.

Theudas:  The name of the disciple called Thaddeus in the gospels was a variant of Theudas – a Greek version of the name Judas. The fourth-century scholar Jerome called Thaddeus “Trinomious,” meaning “the man with three names,”  because in the Gospels of Matthew and Mark the apostle is listed as Thaddeus, in some versions of Matthew 10:3 he is called “Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus,” and Luke replaces the name Thaddeus with “Judas son of James.” The apostle John also calls Thaddaeus “Judas (not Iscariot)” (John 14:22).

Andraus :  Also a Greek name, Andraus was the disciple we call Andrew. The New Testament does not mention any Hebrew or Aramaic name for this disciple so he was probably from a region of Palestine in which Greek was widely spoken. The  Greek name means “manly” or “masculine.”

Philipos:  This was yet another Greek name. Although it meant “friend of horses,” it was given to many male children in honor of the great Macedonian king Philip, father of Alexander the Great.  Clues in the gospels suggest that it is likely that Andrew and Philip were Grecian Jews.

Yehudah :  The name of the disciple Judas was actually the name Yehudah, normally translated into English as Judah. Ironically, in the case of the betrayer of Christ, the name means “praised,” but it was a very common name in first century  Palestine given in honor of the patriarch Judah, founder of the tribe of the same name. The name Iscariot sometimes given to the disciple Judas was not a last name but means “of Kerioth,” a town in Judah.
​
Knowing the meanings of the individual disciples’ names sometimes helps us understand what is said in the New Testament, and the Greek names that were used of many of the twelve help us understand the importance of the Greek language in the time of Jesus and why the New Testament writings were preserved in Greek.

​It is often said that the apostle Paul changed the focus of the Christian gospel from the stress on the kingdom of God that we find in the four gospels (Matthew 9:35; etc.) to a stress on the saving work of Jesus that we see in his epistles.  But did Paul really make such a profound change within Christianity?

It is certainly true that Paul places a great emphasis on the atoning death and the resurrection of Jesus. We can see this, for example, in his first letter to the church at Corinth where he summarizes his teaching in these words:  “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures” (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

Yet even in these verses – which are often quoted as an example of “the gospel according to Paul” –  we see the possibility of a broader reality in that Paul says these things are of “first importance.”  In other words, there are other important aspects of the gospel of which Christ’s death and resurrection form the basis.  In fact, we only have to read a little further in this same letter to see the broader picture:

“For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in turn: Christ, the first fruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death” (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).

Here, Paul deftly works from the concept of death and resurrection (vs. 22-23) to that of the kingdom rule of Christ, and then finally back to the destruction of death (vs. 26).  But notice that Paul collapses time in this view.  He telescopes the return of Christ (“when he comes”) to directly touch the final outcome of creation (“the end”).

When we see his “goal-oriented” view of the kingdom of God, we better understand Paul’s teaching and the stress he places on Jesus himself.  As he states in 1 Corinthians 15:14:  “if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.”   It is clearly through this lens that Paul views the kingdom of God:  there can be no kingdom without the saving work of Christ, and what Christ accomplished enables us to enter that kingdom.  
 
In the same letter Paul tells us: “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable”(1 Corinthians 15:50).  This is, of course, in total agreement with what Christ himself said in explaining the reality of the kingdom of God to the Pharisee Nicodemus (John 3:1–21).

Paul also clearly states that those who live in wrongdoing will not inherit God’s kingdom (1 Corinthians 6:9; Galatians 5:21; and Ephesians 5:5), making it clear that the kingdom was far more than an outdated concept for him, as some modern theologians claim.

So when Paul writes unequivocally that “… we preach Christ crucified” (1 Corinthians 1:23) and “I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2), we must see these statements in context.  And when he writes “even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!” (Galatians 1:8), we need not see this statement as meaning he preached Christ crucified as opposed to the kingdom of God, but as the basis of the kingdom of God.

While it is true that Paul uses the word “kingdom” far fewer times than it is found in the Gospels, we should remember that he does use the word “kingdom” frequently (some 14 times) in his epistles – more often than Peter, James, and John do in all their epistles combined.  And it is precisely in the context of the kingdom of God that Paul urges Timothy to preach:  “in view of his appearing and his kingdom” (2 Timothy 4:1).  In fact, Paul goes so far as to state that those  who  worked with  him in preaching the gospel were nothing less than  “co-workers for the kingdom of God” (Colossians 4:11).

This is not to say that there were not different stresses in the teaching of Jesus and Paul.  Jesus preached a gospel that stressed his identity relative to the kingdom of God; Paul preached a gospel that stressed the underlying work of Jesus that made the kingdom of God possible.  In short, Paul preached a gospel that stressed the person of Jesus and the kingdom of Jesus.  To doubt that is to doubt the clear words of Luke – who perhaps knew Paul and his teaching as well as anyone – when he wrote that Paul could not be hindered in what he taught:

“Preaching the kingdom of God, and teaching those things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ, with all confidence, no man forbidding him” (Acts 28:31). 

In writing this, Luke places the preaching of the kingdom first – perhaps indicating that it seemed to him that the message of the kingdom was often in the forefront of Paul’s preaching.  But the two aspects are equally part of the gospel according to Paul.

When we put everything together, the New Testament clearly shows that rather than teaching a new gospel, the apostle Paul continued to teach the gospel of the kingdom of God – as well as preaching and teaching the gospel about Jesus Christ and how he had made the kingdom of God possible.

We may not be able to read ancient manuscripts of the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, but often we don’t realize how much our own language has changed over the centuries and how difficult it would be for us to read a Bible in English from several hundred years ago.  Below, we give the  example of the Lord’s Prayer from Matthew 6 – as it looked in English Bibles every two hundred years from the thirteenth century to today.  Before the thirteenth century very little of the Bible was translated into English at all.  The first complete English-language version of the Bible dates from 1382 and was credited to the translator John Wycliffe and his followers, so we begin with that time point.

Thirteenth Century –  Manuscript in the Library of Cambridge University:
Fader oure that art in heve, i-halgeed be thi nome, i-cume thi kinereiche, y-worthe thi wylle also is in hevene so be an erthe, oure iche-dayes-bred gif us today, and forgif us our gultes, also we forgifet oure gultare, and ne led ows nowth into fondingge, auth ales ows of harme.

Fifteenth Century –   Manuscript  in the Library of  Oxford University:
Fader oure that art in heuene, halewed be thy name: thy kyngedom come to thee: thy wille be do in erthe as in heuen: oure eche dayes brede geue us to daye: and forgeue us oure dettes as we forgeue to oure dettoures: and lede us nogte into temptacion: bot delyver us from yvel.

Seventeenth Century –  The King James Version of 1611:
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.  Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.  Giue vs this day our daily bread.  And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters.  And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer.

Nineteenth Century –  The English Revised Version:
Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.  And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

Twenty-first Century –  The Christian Standard Bible:
Our Father in heaven, your name be honored as holy. Your kingdom come. Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us today our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. And do not bring us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.

The differences between these instances of the Lord's Prayer become more noticeable the further we go back, of course, and considering that most of us know what the examples above say before we started to read them, we would probably agree that we would find it difficult to read a whole Bible of the thirteenth, fifteenth, or seventeenth centuries –  even if it is in English.

While it may be interesting to see and realize the difficulty we would experience in reading a Bible in our own language unless it were of recent date, we can draw a useful lesson from this.  Often, Christians think that the major work of Bible translations into other languages is essentially done. The Bible has, after all, been translated into over 700 languages, and the New Testament has been translated into well over 1,200 languages. 

While it is true that this means the Bible has been translated into most important languages, it is still equally true that there are many thousands of dialects of these languages that still have no Bible translation.  While we may think that local dialects are  relatively unimportant – for instance, someone in the United States speaking a southern dialect can fairly easily understand someone using an Appalachian dialect – the differences in our dialects are relatively small.

But in many language groups the various dialects are just as, or even more, different than what we see in an English Bible of today and an English Bible of the thirteenth century – that you and I would find extremely difficult to read.

The moral of the story is simple. While a great deal of Bible translation work has been tirelessly accomplished by dedicated translators over the past century or so, there are many millions of people who still have no Bible in their own language, or only one in a related dialect that is very difficult for them to read.  Understanding this situation can help us to pray more, and more intently, for still-needed translations, and to see the need to support the ongoing work of Bible translators in whatever way we can.

“No one tears a piece out of a new garment to patch an old one. Otherwise, they will have torn the new garment, and the patch from the new will not match the old. And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined. No, new wine must be poured into new wineskins. And no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” (Luke 5:36-39).
 
Jesus’ double parable of the old and new garments and the old and new wineskins (Matthew 9:14-17; Mark 2:18-22; and most fully, Luke 5:36-39) is one we all know well and is usually seen as being straightforward in comparing the “old truth” of the Mosaic dispensation with the “new truth” of the gospel (law vs. grace, law vs. love, law vs. Spirit,  or some similar duality). This nearly universal interpretation of the parable may seem to make good sense, but it runs afoul of a particularly difficult problem: Luke shows Jesus ended his parable by stating that “no one after drinking old wine wants the new, for they say, ‘The old is better’” – which flatly contradicts the usual interpretation of the parable he had just given.

The apparent contradiction is so strong that as far back as the early church some attempted to remove Luke 5:39 from the text of his gospel, and numerous manuscripts omit the verse. But almost all textual scholars agree that the verse is clearly authentic.  Rather than trying to do away with it, we need to look more closely at its location and meaning.

Using Luke’s version, we see that the setting in which the double parable occurs is a section of text – Luke 5:1-6:16 –  which, apart from some small insets recording healings that Jesus performed, deals with the character and selection of his disciples. At the center of this section, when Levi (Matthew) held a great banquet for Jesus and his followers, we are told that the Pharisees and scribes who were also present began to question and criticize Jesus’ disciples. First, they asked them, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” (Luke 5:30), and then they said to Jesus, “John’s disciples often fast and pray, and so do the disciples of the Pharisees, but yours go on eating and drinking” (Luke 5:33).  Both these questions were indirect criticisms of Jesus by the Pharisees, but they were direct criticisms of his disciples.

Jesus answered the question regarding the disciples’ lack of fasting by pointing out that the friends of the bridegroom do not fast as long as the bridegroom is with them.  He then told the Pharisees the double parable of verses 36-39.  The fact that the parable does not make much sense to us indicates it probably made more sense to the Pharisees to whom it was spoken.  Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud, which records many of the traditions of the pharisaic/rabbinic scholars, contains a saying that ties directly to Jesus’ statement. In the section Pirkei Avot (“Chapters of the Fathers”) we read: “Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it. There is a new container full of old wine, and here is an old container which does not even contain new wine” (Avot 4:20).
 
These sayings are clearly proverb-like –  as is the case with Jesus’ words “they say, ‘The old is better,’”  and it is likely that we are dealing with proverbs or proverb-like sayings that the Pharisees would have recognized. But what was the point of those proverbs?  Keeping context in mind, it is likely that the “wine” of both Jesus’ parable and the Talmudic saying is the teaching that the individual disciple imbibes, and that different types of disciples relate differently to new and old teachings.  Implicit in Jesus’ parable is the fact that new teaching requires previously uneducated disciples in order to be properly received, just as new wine requires new containers.

Jesus, then, was answering the Pharisees’ criticisms by pointing out that his new teachings could not be received by established students such as themselves, and that the Pharisees should not be critical of the “new containers” that he was selecting.  The parallels with the statement recorded in the Talmud are direct: “Do not pay attention to the container but pay attention to that which is in it” could certainly be said of Jesus’ disciples.

This is not to claim that the sayings later recorded in the Talmud were directly behind Jesus’ parable, but that expressions of this type were widely known and used enough that they formed a meaningful cultural backdrop to his words. If this possibility is accepted, then we have clear equivalences:  the new wineskins of Jesus’ parable represent previously untrained disciples, while the old wineskins represent previously trained disciples.  Seen this way, the new wine of the parable represents Jesus’ teaching, and the old wine represents the traditional training of the Pharisees. Established disciples who had already studied under the Pharisaic schools had learned traditions and approaches that were accepted and viewed as correct. Such disciples  would naturally regard their own understanding of the law as superior.  As Jesus remarked “they say ‘The old is better.’”
​
In essence, Jesus’ parable told the Pharisees that “you cannot teach an old dog new tricks” – that they were not receptive to the teachings he offered.  But the disciples he was choosing –  despite their failings by pharisaical standards –  were indeed receptive and suitable disciples. 

​“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, whose trust is the Lord. He is like a tree planted by water,     that sends out its roots by the stream, and does not fear when heat comes, for its leaves remain green, and is not anxious in the year of drought, for it does not cease to bear fruit” (Jeremiah 17:7-8 ESV).

A plant can only grow upward to the extent that its roots grow downward and are established. To a large extent, as Jesus showed in his parable of the sower and the seed, that will depend on the quality of soil the seeds are placed in (Matthew 13:3-8). If the soil is too rocky (vs. 5-6) or already covered with competing weeds (vs. 7), the seed won’t be able to take root or survive.  But even in good soil (vs. 8), plant growth (“a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” vs.8b) depends on how far the roots can extend.  That  isn’t referring to  the “hard ground” that seeds cannot take root in at all, but to situations where plants get started, and then run into layers of rock or hard clay. If the roots cannot spread far and wide in every direction, the plant will inevitably be stunted in its growth.

Remembering these basic facts of plant growth help us to better understand the words of the apostle Paul:  “… I pray that you, being rooted and established in love, may have power, together with all the Lord’s holy people, to grasp how wide and long and high and deep is the love of Christ” (Ephesians 3:17-18).

Paul tells us two things here – first of all, what the good “ground” is in which we must be planted. Paul says we have to be rooted in love, but it is clear from what he goes on to say that it is not our own love. The love is instead “the love of Christ” (vs. 18).  Understanding this is a fundamental part of understanding Christian growth.  If we try to grow in the ground of our own human love we will find it is shallow soil indeed. Instead, Paul shows it is the love that God gives that provides deep enough “ground” for real spiritual growth.  How deep is that?  Paul tells us clearly in saying that we need to grasp “how wide and long and high and deep” God’s love is.  In other words, Paul makes it clear that the extent of that ground in which we are to grow – the space in which our “roots” can expand – is virtually infinite.

It’s a principle that Paul stressed more than once. We see it again in his letter to the Colossians:  “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness”  (Colossians 2:6-7).   Here, we see not only the same analogy of Christian growth like a rooted and growing tree, but also Paul’s stress on the fact that it is as we live our lives in Christ that the rooting and growth occurs.

It’s interesting to compare these words of Paul with the earlier words of the prophet Jeremiah, quoted above – which were doubtless based on the words of David in Psalm 1:3.  All three biblical writers use the same analogy of the rooted tree, but all use it differently. David speaks of being rooted in the law of God (Psalm 1:3), Jeremiah speaks of being rooted in trust or faith in God (Jeremiah 17:7), and Paul speaks of being rooted in the love of Christ.  All are true, yet perhaps we also see a clear growth of understanding based on progressive revelation.  We might say that all three “grounds” provide deep soil for spiritual rooting and growth, but the best ground for the deepest growth is, of course, in God’s love.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus uniquely recorded in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 16:19–31) is one of the most enigmatic teachings of Jesus.  The story raises questions regarding the nature of death, the afterlife, and the punishment of sinners, and we have explored its meaning in another post, here.

In this post we will look at a more fundamental aspect of this story –  whether it represents the reporting of an actual event, as it certainly might appear to do, or if it simply represents a parable meant to teach one or more lessons.  The nature of the story is particularly important because if it is intended to be understood as being the reporting of an actual event, that must affect our understanding of the details of the story itself and the nature of the afterlife scenario that it describes.  

There are two main reasons why the story is sometimes seen as reporting a factual event rather than being simply a parable.  First, it is true that the Synoptic Gospel writers (there are no true parables in John’s Gospel) usually introduce the telling of a parable with words such as “Then Jesus told them a parable” (Luke 18:1), or they tell us in retrospect that something was a parable, as in “Jesus spoke all these things to the crowd in parables” (Matthew 13:34).  But in Luke 16 there are no such statements that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was, in fact, a parable.

Secondly, the parables of Jesus are almost always generic – they do not utilize the names of actual individuals, but rather tell us of the actions of “a man” or “a woman” or even “a certain king” or whoever.  In Luke 16, however, Jesus specifically names the man Lazarus as the central character of the story, in line with his statements regarding other specific individuals such as King Herod or John the Baptist.

But against these two arguments it can be said that the gospel writers do not, in fact, always mention when a story is a parable.  Luke himself does not do so in recording the story of the rich man and his financial manager (Luke 16:1– 13) which does not utilize any personal names and is universally regarded as a parable.   Also,  although Jesus does not use personal names in his other parables, he did sometimes  include personal details and allusions that associate the story with an actual individual. Such are his parables about building a tower (Luke 14:28–30) and a king  waging war without proper preparation (Luke 14:31– 32), both of which can be clearly linked to specific rulers of that era although they are not actually named. 

Another aspect to consider is that Jesus frequently stressed the meanings of names –  as when he named Simon, “Peter.”  This attention to names and their meanings may play out in the story of Lazarus and the rich man because in its underlying Hebrew form, Eleazer, the name means “God has helped,” painting a powerful word picture of the identity of an individual who was shunned and rejected, yet whom God helped.

Finally, there is a convincing grammatical reason to understand this story as a parable. In recounting the parables of Jesus Luke often uses the Greek pronoun tis, “one” or “someone” (often translated “a certain …” in Bible translations). So, for example, he tells us that “A certain man had two sons” (Luke 15:11).   Luke uses exactly this pattern in introducing the story of the rich man and Lazarus: “There was a certain rich man …” (Luke 16:1), indicating that he was introducing not a reported event, but a parable. 

Taken together, these four reasons outweigh the fact that personal names are not usually used in the parables of Jesus and show that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is best understood as a parable in which the name of the only identified person  has relevance to the story itself.  This is an important conclusion as it means that we should not use the story in the formation of doctrine regarding heaven, hell, or punishment.  It is likely, in fact, that rather than revealing actual details regarding the afterlife (which would be unique in the whole Bible), the story of the rich man and Lazarus is simply a parable using the current understandings of the religious individuals with whom Jesus was speaking.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The balanced structure of teaching we see in these verses is certainly not something that was new to Paul – we find it occasionally in formally structured sections of instruction throughout the Bible. To take only two examples:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me …” (Exodus 20:2-3).

“… Our Father in heaven, Your name be honored as holy” (Matthew 6:9 HSB).
​
But Paul uses this structure more consistently than any other biblical writer.  If we look for it, we will find there is invariably a connection between what he tells us about what we should believe and the way we should live – between theology and morality, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, belief and practice, doctrine and living.

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

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

In reading the Gospel accounts of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist (or the Baptizer, as he is sometimes called), Christians sometimes wonder why Jesus, being sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21; etc.), would undergo a ritual that was specifically meant to symbolize and affirm repentance from sin (Matthew 3:11).  Readers of the Gospel accounts may also wonder what Jesus meant in telling John – who was at first reluctant to baptize him –  that  it would be a “fulfillment of all righteousness” (Matthew 3:15).

Jesus’ expression “all righteousness” indicates a plurality, and there were indeed a number of reasons his baptism by John fulfilled various aspects of God’s will.  We can summarize those reasons by saying that in undergoing baptism, Jesus fulfilled seven significant purposes:
1) He endorsed the baptism of John who was rejected by the religious authorities of that day: “the Pharisees and the experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John” (Luke 7:30).  This was important as John’s ministry fulfilled a number of Old Testament prophecies.

2) He submitted himself to the call and command of a servant of God regarding personal behavior.  As part of his overall perfect obedience, Jesus obeyed and taught others to obey what God’s appointed servants decreed: “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you” (Matthew 23:2-3).

3) He identified directly with the sinful people of Israel, and of the world, for whom he would act as their sin-bearer: “God made him who had no sin to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21), and the lamb of God who would be sacrificed in a substitutionary death: “the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29).

4) He fulfilled the ritual requirement of washing placed on all the priests before beginning his own ministry. This was also necessary to serve as a perfect high priest for humanity: “We do have such a high priest … who serves in the sanctuary, the true tabernacle set up by the Lord, not by a mere human being … that is a copy and shadow of what is in heaven” (Hebrews 8:1-5).

5) He showed the important link between baptism and the receipt of the Spirit of God. On the Day of Pentecost, when the Spirit was made freely available, the apostle Peter stressed this same link: “Repent and be baptized … in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

6) He provided an opportunity for God to publicly reveal and confirm him as his Son: “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:17).

7) He gave an example regarding the practice of baptism for future Christians to follow: “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps”(1 Peter 2:21). This truth lay beneath the commission Jesus gave his disciples directly before his ascension: “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28: 19-20).

There were thus at least seven reasons why Jesus underwent baptism: to support John, to teach us the link between baptism and receipt of the Spirit of God,  to display obedience, to serve as an example for us, to provide an opportunity for God to reveal his Son, and not least to be counted as if he were a sinner and thus identified with sinners – while fulfilling the ritual requirements of the law in order to serve as a purified high priest for sinners.  Seen in this way, we realize that far from being a ritual footnote to his ministry, Jesus’ baptism was an event of the greatest significance.   It was directly after his baptism, of course, that Jesus resisted Satan, called his first disciples, and  began to publicly teach, heal the sick, and perform miracles. It is no exaggeration to say that the baptism of Jesus was the necessary preparation for everything that the Son of God would accomplish in his earthly ministry, as well as being the public announcement that his ministry was about to begin. 

​SURVEY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT   E-Book 
Vol. 1.  Creation to Covenant
Vol. 2. The Promised Land to the Promised One     

ISBN 978-1-63752-297-4  Cornerstone Publications
 
Based on the successful Cornerstone course, this new two volume e-book presents an in-depth but readable survey of the Old Testament by looking closely at key events recorded in the flow of the biblical  narrative.  This has many advantages over studying the Old Testament book by book or theme by theme, and the course is now used in seminaries, Bible schools, and other biblical training situations, as well as for personal use by students of the Bible around the world.  Volume 1 covers major biblical events from the story of Creation to the institution of the Sinai Covenant and Volume 2 covers the entry into the promised land to the close of the Old Testament. The two volumes offer a clear overview and a deeper understanding of the Old Testament.  Download a free copy of both volumes of this new book in the format of your choice from our sister site here.

Matthew and Mark both tell the story of Jesus healing the daughter of a Gentile woman in one of the cities of Syrophoenicia on the Palestinian coast:

“And … he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden. But immediately a woman whose little daughter had an unclean spirit heard of him and came and fell down at his feet.  Now the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician by birth.  And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, ‘Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.’  But she answered him, ‘Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs.’  And he said to her, ‘For this statement you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter.’   And she went home and found the child lying in bed and the demon gone” (Mark 7:24-30 ESV, and see Matthew 15:21-28).

Mark makes it very clear that the woman was a Gentile, a Syrophoenician (the NIV calls her “Greek” because the Jews referred to all non-Jews as “Greeks”), and seems to also stress her gender – putting her at a double disadvantage as a member of an ethnic group and gender looked down upon by many ancient Jews who often used the term ”dogs” of Gentiles as impure according to God’s Law.  We should remember that religious Jews did not like to be approached in conversation by Gentiles and particularly by women.   The woman’s approach to Jesus is all the more remarkable as she clearly knew about Jewish culture.

Jesus apparently rebuffed her at first, saying: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (Matthew 15:24), and, when she persisted,  “Let the children be fed first, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs.”   This led to the woman’s amazing reply in pleading that even the dogs were able to pick up crumbs under the children’s table, for which words Christ rewarded her with the healing of her daughter.

Reading this account superficially, Jesus’ reaction to the woman, effectively referring to her as a “dog,” seems harsh and out of character, but we should consider two things.  Instead of the Greek word kinos “dogs,” Mark actually uses the word kinaria – the diminutive form used of “little dogs” or “puppies.”  This considerably softens the tone of Jesus’ words, though the implication is still there, kindly worded or not. We can only presume then, that Jesus’ words were meant not to disparage the woman but to see the extent of her humility and faith. This is a meaningful possibility to keep in mind, because Jesus’ reaction was immediate and full as soon as the woman replied in such a way to indicate her humble acceptance of his words and her faith in him despite any insult she might have perceived. 

If this was the case, the lesson for us is obvious.  Whenever we are faced with difficulties and trials that we need to take before God, we should remember that it is possible to approach him with both accepting reverence and persistence (see also Jesus’s parable on the importunate widow, Luke 18:1-8). The example of the Syrophoenician woman shows us that our faith must be willing to humbly accept the present answer, but we should also be unafraid to persist in asking God’s favor.

We are all so used to hearing people say “Amen” at the end of prayers and saying it ourselves that we seldom think about the word, but the following points may show you that there is a lot about that small word you don’t know.

1) “Amen” doesn’t just mean “may it be so.”  Many people think of amen as a kind of spiritual punctuation mark – something we put at the end of prayers to mean “the prayer is over.” Those who understand the word better think of it as meaning “may it be so” and being a way of adding our agreement to what was said, but the word means much more than that and actually has a number of meanings.  Amen comes from a Hebrew root which in its various forms can mean: to support, to be loyal, to be certain or sure, and even to place faith in something. At the most basic level, the word can mean simply “yes!” as we see in Paul’s statement: “For no matter how many promises God has made, they are ‘Yes’ in Christ. And so through him the ‘Amen’ is spoken by us to the glory of God” (2 Corinthians 1:20). But the central meaning of the word has to do with truth, as we will see.

2) Amen was not usually used to conclude prayers in the Bible.  Although it is found many times in the Bible, its main use was to affirm praise for God (Psalm 41:13; Romans 1:25; etc.) or to confirm a blessing (Romans 15:33; etc.) –  either by the speaker or the hearers.  The “amen” found at the end of the Lord's Prayer in some manuscripts of the New Testament  affirms the expression of praise that concludes the prayer. Perhaps because of this, over the course of the centuries it became common practice to use "amen" as the conclusion for prayers.

3)  Amen is used as a characteristic of God in the Old Testament.  Although the English Bible translation you use may not show it, in Isaiah 65:16 the Hebrew text speaks twice of “the God of Amen,” and this clearly uses amen as a characteristic or even a title of God.  Because many translators feel this would be confusing in English, they choose to render the text as “the God of truth,” and although that is not a bad translation, it does somewhat obscure the original sense of what was written.

4)  Amen is used as a characteristic of Jesus in the New Testament. Just as God is referred to as the God of Amen in the Old Testament, so in the New Testament in Revelation 3:14 “Amen" is used as a title for Jesus Christ “These are the words of the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.” The combination of Amen with “faithful and true witness” clearly shows the connection between amen and truth.

5) Amen was used uniquely by Jesus.  Jesus usually used the word amen at the beginning of his statements, and in those cases, it was sometimes translated by the Gospel writers into Greek as “truly” (Luke 4:25; 9:27; etc.).  The NIV translates this in turn as “I assure you …”   But a completely unique use of amen by Jesus in the New Testament is recorded by the apostle John, whose Gospel shows us that Christ frequently doubled the word at the beginning of particularly important statements. In the King James Bible this is translated “Verily, verily,” in the ESV as “truly, truly,” and in the NIV “Very truly.”   The doubling of amen was not only used by Jesus, however. In the early 1960’s part of a Hebrew legal document dating from the time of Jesus was found in which an individual declares “Amen, amen, ani lo ashem” meaning “Very truly, I am innocent.”  It is possible, then, that Jesus borrowed this doubled form of amen from legal language of the day.  But knowing that Jesus used this expression to signify important things he wanted to stress can help us see their importance in our own study of his words. The full list of occurrences of amen being doubled in John’s Gospel is: 1:51; 3:3, 5, 11; 5:19, 24-25; 6:26, 32, 47, 53; 8:34, 51, 58; 10:1, 7; 12:24; 13:16, 20, 21, 38; 14:12; 16:20, 23; and 21:18.

It is interesting that while the New Testament writers often left untranslated certain Hebrew or Aramaic words such as abba, “father,” but immediately followed the word with a translation into Greek, they invariably left “amen” untranslated in its Hebrew form. This could possibly have been because they felt the word amen was known and understood by all their readers, but it is more likely that they knew that the word represented a range of meanings and they felt it better to simply include the word and let the reader or hearer consider the possibilities. If this is the case, we can draw a lesson from the fact. That small untranslated “amen” we read in our Bibles can mean more than just “may it be so.” We can often profitably think about what it most likely means in a given context or the intended force with which the expression was used.  Finally, we should remember that “amen” certainly is not just a spiritual punctuation mark or a simple exclamation – wherever we use it we should think of it as a solemn affirmation that we are giving our personal guarantee that what was said is true! 

Most of us know what it feels like to finally accomplish something we have worked toward for a long time: a goal, a dream, a project to which we have dedicated time and energy. Even with relatively small-scale things, it can be a triumphant feeling. The larger the accomplishment, the greater are the emotions of triumph, thankfulness and deep happiness that come with accomplished plans and goals.

This feeling ties in to the story given in all of the four Gospels of the supreme sacrifice of the Son of God on behalf of humanity. That had surely been a project a long time in the planning – from before the world was even formed (1 Peter 1:20). It had been over thirty years of the physical life of Jesus in the actual making: growing, building, preparing, patiently working toward the eventual goal of the sacrifice itself.

The sacrificial death of Christ is a somber and heart-wrenching thing to ponder, yet it seems more than likely that even as he perished in excruciating pain, there was for the Son of God a feeling of triumph and thankfulness at the very end. We know that even beyond the physical pain Jesus bore, because of the human sin he had taken upon himself, he endured the terrible feeling of being cut off from the Father – as can be seen in his almost final words: “Why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 – and see Psalm 22:1). But we must always remember these were not his final words.

Putting the Gospel accounts together, we find that the last recorded words of Jesus – three small words in English translation, spoken directly before he died – show a much more positive ending to the story of the physical life of the Messiah. Those words, according to John, were simply: “It is finished!” (John 19:30). In the original Greek of the New Testament the expression is a single word (tetelestai), but the sense is certainly that of the three English words – “It is finished!” The positive nature of the expression becomes clear if we look at it closely.

The Greek word tetelestai carries a number of related meanings. In the English New Testament it is translated as “finished” (as with a job), “fulfilled” (as with a purpose), “accomplished” (as with a task), “performed” (as with a command), “completed” (as with a goal), and in other similar ways. But the central idea in each case is a positive one. While it is natural for us, as we come to the end of the crucifixion story, to think of “it is finished” as a negative expression – we see it as a supremely sad ending, almost like an admission of defeat – nothing could be further from the truth. When we translate the word tetelestai in any of the other ways it could be rendered, the meaning is much clearer. “It is fulfilled!” “It is accomplished!” “It is performed!” “It is completed!” These are not three words of defeat, but three words of triumph!

Despite the pain, the humiliation, and the anguish of his own impending death, the Son of God knew that he had succeeded – he had accomplished the very reason for his human life in a victory that would touch all human lives throughout all time. To that point in history no single event had accomplished so much good or incorporated such a victory. The last words of Jesus – “it is finished” – were surely the three most triumphant words ever spoken. They were equaled only by another three triumphant words spoken a few days later: “He has risen” (Matthew 28:6).

The Triumph of Trust

Ultimately, the lesson we can draw from the story of the last words of Jesus is one of trust. Jesus trusted God throughout his life and ministry and even throughout a slow and terrible death. He trusted that God was fulfilling his purpose when he was in pain, when he felt cut off from God, even as he felt his very life ebbing away. Far from being an expression of defeat, his words “it is finished” were the final and complete expression of his trust. The last words of Jesus were, in that sense, the fulfillment of a prophecy contained in the book of Isaiah: “The Lord Almighty has sworn, ‘Surely, as I have planned, so it will be, and as I have purposed, so it will happen’” (Isaiah 14:24).
​
When we see the final words of Jesus in context, with the sense they really convey, we can rejoice that they can – and will – apply to our lives also. Just as Job wrote of God “Though he slay me, yet will I trust him” (Job 13:15), the last words of Jesus remind us that we too can trust that despite any and all appearances, whatever may happen in our lives, if we continue to trust God he will complete his purpose in us. That is a tremendous truth that can underlie our desire to follow in the steps of Jesus and to strive to learn lessons from his sonship, signs, sermons, service and sacrifice.

​“… we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that you endure” (2 Thessalonians 1:4 NKJV).

The Bible often speaks of faith and patience in combination – prompting us to ask, “Can we have true faith without patience – or even true patience without faith?” The answer to these questions is found in understanding the relationship between the two qualities. 

Every Christian knows the importance of faith, hope and love (1 Corinthians 13:13), but sometimes we need to be reminded that these things are completely interrelated rather than existing in isolation.  It is sometimes hard to see this, because different terms are often used, so we don’t always see the connection.  An example is the way in which faith and patience interact. Biblically, patience is a form of hope.  We see this fact in many scriptures:   “But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently” (Romans 8:25); “We remember … your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance [patience] inspired by hope …” (1 Thessalonians 1:3).  

But patience can mean different things in the Bible. For example, the Greek word makrothumia, often translated “longsuffering,” relates to patience with people, whereas the word upomone is generally patience with regard to things or circumstances.  It is this patience with the circumstances and conditions in which we find ourselves that ties into faith – supporting it and being supported by it.

Notice how the two qualities of faith and patience interact. Paul tells us:  “… we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance [patience]” (Romans 5:3).  James tells us “ … count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience” (James 1:2-3 NKJV),  and Peter elaborates: “In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials.  These have come so that … your faith ... may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed” (1 Peter 1:6-7).  

These scriptures, and many others, show us that two things occur when we suffer as Christians. On the one hand, the sufferings refine our faith making it better, stronger (mentioned by Peter). Sufferings also produce patience in us (mentioned by James and Paul).  The two qualities are both needed to withstand problems.  Faith without patience produces Christians who may start off well, but who eventually falter in their faith and fall away or burn out. On the other hand, patience without faith produces individuals who experience suffering but do not profit from it in the way God intends. 

It is to the degree that we employ both patience and faith in our suffering that we are strengthened and endure, and it is that endurance which is ultimately necessary to succeed in the Christian life (Matthew 10:22; Matthew 24:13). Simply put, patience needs faith and faith needs patience.  As the Book of Hebrews confirms, we need both qualities in our lives if we are to: “Imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (Hebrews 6:12).

Check out the NEW Tactical Christianity!
 
After seven years of operation, the original TacticalChristianity.org sister website has been completely remade!   We are extremely happy to welcome you to the new site and know that you will find it even more helpful than it has been in the past.

Our newly remade site features an improved layout, as well as navigation and search features that are a great advance over what the earlier site was able to offer.  You will find that the page redesign also makes reading easier and more enjoyable.

Perhaps the greatest difference you will find in our new website is  the new Blog layout which now shows the blog post images and a short sample of text so you can get a better idea of which past blogs you might like to read.

We would like to give a mention of special thanks to Anthony Joseph  for his help in the new website design and production – we think he did a great job and are confident that you will think so, too.

Enjoy the new site and what it has to offer here!