The Bible speaks about both the “gifts” and “fruit” of the Holy Spirit. Are these the same things?  And if not, what is the difference – and should we be striving to develop one more than the other?

There can be some overlap between what the Bible says regarding gifts and fruit of the Holy Spirit – both ultimately come to us through the Spirit of God – but there are also differences between the two.  At the most basic level, gifts of the Spirit are given to us; fruit of the Spirit is developed in us over time – it is the result of the Spirit working in our lives. Put another way, God gives gifts, but he grows fruit in our lives.  It is important that we understand other differences, also.

Gifts of the Spirit

The Scriptures speak of a number of gifts of the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12:4).  For example, Romans 12:6-8 lists the gifts of prophesy, serving, teaching, encouragement, giving, leading, and showing mercy. 1 Corinthians 12:8-10, on the other hand, mentions wisdom, knowledge, faith, healing, miraculous powers, prophecy, discernment of spirits, speaking in different languages, and the interpretation of languages.  As you can see, apart from the mention of prophecy, these two lists are quite different.  So we have to put many scriptures together to find all the gifts the Bible enumerates, and even the combined lists are doubtless not complete regarding all the possible gifts God can give.

Overall, however, it is clear that the gifts of the Spirit are outward flowing to accomplish the work of God.  They often represent skills or aptitudes that we are given in order to better serve.   As such, no one receives all the gifts of the Spirit, and no single gift is given to all God’s people (1 Corinthians 12:28-29).  But every Christian is given at least one gift either at conversion (Ephesians 3:7-8) or as the need arises.  Each one of us is given the gift of an aptitude or skill, and it is our responsibility to identify that gift and to put it to work to help others (1 Peter 4:10).  Some gifts may seem more impressive than others, but every gift is important and necessary in the body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:21-23).

But just because these gifts are given through the Spirit of God does not mean we have no part in developing and using them. Take the gift of knowledge, for example. God does not simply pour facts into our minds.  He blesses us with an aptitude for learning and understanding things and perhaps also in being able to memorize facts and to see their significance.  In any case, we must work in order to use the gifts we are given.  And we must always remember that unless we use our gifts and use them in love and not for self-aggrandizement, they are rendered useless (1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Corinthians 13:1).

Fruit of the Spirit

When we turn to the Bible’s words on the fruit of the Spirit we find very different things.  The fullest list is in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, where we find: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control…”  (Galatians 5:22-23).  These qualities are clearly different from those the Bible calls the gifts of the Spirit. Although they all have outward manifestations, they are attributes that signify inner changes in our very nature.  For example, we can increase in the gift of knowledge, yet our behavior may not change; but we cannot truly increase in the fruit of love or patience without our behavior being affected.  In fact, the fruit listed in Galatians 5:22-23 is in direct contrast to the acts of carnal human nature listed in the preceding verses in Galatians 5:19-21.

Although Paul mentions nine specific qualities, he speaks of the singular “fruit” of the Spirit rather than the plural “fruits” – indicating that the various qualities are perhaps all aspects of the central quality of love. But whether this is the case or not, we need to develop as many of the aspects as possible in order to produce spiritual fruit in every part of our lives: “so that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10). 

While we are individually limited to which gifts of the Spirit we receive, we can develop all of the fruit of the Spirit and we should strive to develop it all as much as possible.  Jesus himself referred to this in saying “This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples” (John 15:8).

So we can summarize by saying that the gifts of the Spirit primarily involve what we do, while the fruit of the Spirit involves what we are. There is certainly overlap in some areas – gifts can appear to change us inwardly and fruit is manifested in our outward behavior.  But the differences teach us important lessons. We must not neglect to nurture and develop fruit in our lives just because it is clear that we have been given gifts and we are busy utilizing them. 

In the same way it is imperative that we do not concentrate entirely on developing fruits in our own lives while neglecting to use the gifts we may have been given to serve others.   In his letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that we should “earnestly desire the best gifts…” (1 Corinthians 12:31), yet he also stresses that the gifts are nothing without the fruit underlying them (1 Corinthians 13).  Jesus also reminds us (John 13:35) that men would recognize us as his disciples not by our gifts – but by our fruit.  

​Scriptures in Question:
 
 
“ … you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live” (Exodus 33:20).
​
“The Lord would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend” (Exodus 33:11).
  

 
The Bible makes it clear that God is invisible to physical eyes, and that even if we could see him we could not live (Exodus 33:20, 1 Timothy 6:16, etc.). Yet there are also scriptures that show individuals have claimed to have seen God (Exodus 33:11, etc.).   The answer to this seeming contradiction is that in some circumstances God revealed himself to certain individuals – in human or angelic form (Genesis 32:30, Judges 13:22), with very reduced glory (Exodus 33:18-23), or in a vision (Acts 7:55-56).

But what about the rest of us?  For now, at least, we can only “see” God conceptually (both the Hebrew and Greek words used in the Bible for “see” can mean to see with the eye or to see in the mind – as in “I see what you mean”).  Eventually, we are promised that we will see God in his fullness: “… we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2b).   So when Christ affirmed that “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8), he undoubtedly was referring to both our present conceptual view of God and our future literal view.
 
The apostle Paul elaborated on this fact for us in his inspiring words:  “For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known” (1 Corinthians 13:12). Paul’s statement is doubly inspiring because it affirms not only our future clear view of God, but also the fact that we can presently see him – conceptually – if we wish to look.

How do we do this – how do we see God to the extent that is now possible?  We can certainly read the scriptures that talk about God, but not many give detailed descriptions. Is there something else we can do? Someone else once asked that same question. The Gospel of John records that one of the twelve disciples – Philip – asked Jesus:

“Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:8-9). 
​
Because Jesus was God in human form (John 1:1, 14), when people saw him, they were seeing God.  When we read the detailed accounts of Jesus’ life and ministry, we can “see” God in that sense, too. The privilege and pleasure of doing exactly that is one of the greatest aspects – and purposes – of studying the word of God:  of seeing “The Word” in “the word.” It should always be in the forefront of our minds as we approach the Bible.

“You are the light of the world…” (Matthew 5:14).

As Christians we are all aware of Jesus’ words that his followers were to be the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:14), but how do we accomplish that – what exactly is involved in being the light God wants us to be?

Fortunately, the apostle John answers that question for us in his first epistle. John begins his letter, in fact, by stressing that “God is light, and in him is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:10). He continues in the second chapter of his epistle by showing that it is our responsibility to not only reflect that light, but also to live in it – to become part of it – and he shows us how we can know that we are being successful in this:

“Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates a brother or sister is still in the darkness. Anyone who loves their brother and sister lives in the light, and there is nothing in them to make them stumble. But anyone who hates a brother or sister is in the darkness and walks around in the darkness. They do not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them” (1 John 2:9-11).

If we look carefully at what John tells us in these verses, we see that he presents three tests, three ways we can know that we are, indeed, “in the light” and able to “be” the light we are called to be.  First he gives us the most basic test of love, stressing that if love is manifest throughout our lives we are living in the light (1 John 2:9).
  
Next, John shows that a person living in love is living in obedience – there is nothing in them to make them stumble (1 John 2:10). This is not to say that we are perfect, of course (1 John 1:8), but that our way of life is one that seeks and follows obedience to God: “If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.  But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 John 1:6-7).  John makes the need for obedience even more explicit in the following chapter: "We know that we have come to know him if we keep his commands. Whoever says, 'I know him,' but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the truth is not in that person” (1 John 2:3-4).  

Finally, although it is easier to miss than the first two points John makes regarding our relationship with the light,  John speaks of those who do:  “… not know where they are going, because the darkness has blinded them” (1 John 2:11).  The point here is that those who do not walk in the light are in darkness – meaning they do not see and understand spiritual things as they should.  They do not understand the truth. To put the same thought positively, if we are walking in the light, we will have an understanding of spiritual truth. This thought underlies John’s comment later in his letter that: “… whoever lives by the truth comes into the light …” (John 3:21).  Living in the light involves understanding and living by the truth.
 
The apostle Paul made this connection even more directly when he wrote: “The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel…” (2 Corinthians 4:4). In fact, Paul’s writings dovetail with those of John perfectly in this matter. Notice what he tells the Christians at Ephesus: “for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth” (Ephesians 5:9). These points are exactly those mentioned by John in only slightly different wording. Combining John’s three aspects of walking in the light with Paul’s summary of the “fruit” or result of living in the light, we see: love=goodness, obedience=righteousness, truth=truth.
​
These, then, are the three tests and proofs of our walking in the light.  If we really are walking in such a way that the light of God may be seen in us, we will be walking in love, obedience, and truth.  Other scriptures make it clear that one or the other of these aspects is not enough.  We can have truth without love, we can have obedience without love, and we can love at least to some degree without obedience or truth. Both John and Paul show us that we must have all three of these aspects of light in our lives, and that it is not enough to see the light, we must also be the light.

The prophet Nathan (Hebrew “He gave” or “Gift of God”) served during the reigns of both King David and his son Solomon.  Although Nathan was usually “behind the scenes” during the reigns of these kings, it is probable that no other single person was more influential during that pivotal era of biblical history.

Nathan is mentioned many times throughout the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles – mainly during the darkest and most troubled times of King David’s reign. We first meet him in 2 Samuel 7:2 when David told the prophet of his desire to build a temple for God.  At first Nathan encouraged the king, but we are told that later that night God spoke to Nathan, telling him in detail why he would not accept a temple built by David, stressing that David had shed much blood (1 Chronicles 28:3).
 
It was not a flattering message to have to relay, but we see something of Nathan’s character in that he did not attempt to smooth over the reason for God’s refusal of David (or to cover the fact that he himself had been wrong to originally encourage the king) – we are specifically told that “Nathan reported to David all the words of this entire revelation” (2 Samuel 7:17, emphasis added).

Later, Nathan had to confront David with the king’s sins of adultery with Bathsheba and of having her husband Uriah killed (2 Samuel 12:1-15).  Considering the fact that David had already killed to hide this situation, we see Nathan’s tremendous strength of character and faith in boldly accusing the king.  Nathan not only accused David as God had commanded him to do, but also predicted that David’s first child by Bathsheba would die, and that the king would suffer great anguish as a result of the actions of his own family members.

Close to the end of David’s life, Nathan related to David the news of his son Adonijah’s plan to seize the throne.  In this way the prophet skillfully enabled the hasty coronation of David’s chosen heir – Solomon. 
 
Nathan was not simply a bringer of bad news, however. He also encouraged the king and informed David that his throne would be established forever (1 Chronicles 17:1-15).  He was clearly a trusted advisor throughout his service to the king and a man of important accomplishments.  There appears to have been a book written either by Nathan himself or about his service as a prophet (1 Chronicles 29:29), and Nathan apparently wrote a history of King Solomon along with two others (2 Chronicles 9:29).

But Nathan’s major accomplishment was undoubtedly the true faith he repeatedly showed in expressing tough love for David and confronting the king with his errors.  Nathan’s character and faithfulness in conveying the word of God, no matter how negative the message sometimes may have seemed, obviously gained him the respect of Israel’s greatest king. True to his name, the prophet surely was a “Gift of God” to David in helping him to correct his course when he went astray (for example, Psalm 51) – something the king must surely have appreciated over time.
​
In fact, it is doubtless a sign of David’s respect and love for Nathan that the king named his third son after the prophet (1 Chronicles 3:5).  And it is through that Nathan – not Solomon or any of David’s other powerful sons – that Jesus Christ was descended (Luke 3:31).
​
The prophet Nathan served in a “behind the scenes” career, but one which had a tremendous effect for good.  He is an example to all of us of the value of truth spoken in love, and of faith in dealing with difficult situations concerning those we strive to serve.

Does the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) belong in your Bible? It is a story we may know well, but one which is hotly disputed in terms of its authenticity. This is because the earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament do not include the story, and when it does appear there is confusion as to where it should be placed – some manuscripts place the story in different parts of the Gospel of John and some even place it in Luke!

Yet many early manuscripts do have the story, and several of the early church fathers regarded it as authentic.  The passage certainly appears to be authentic in style, and everything about the section is in keeping with the character of the scribes and Pharisees who repeatedly tried to trap Jesus (Matthew 16:1; 19:3; 22:35; Mark 8:11; 10:2; 12:15; Luke 10:25; 11:16). Given this conflicting situation, we must look at the problem more closely.

Negative Evidence

Almost every one of the disputed verses in John 8 gives some indication that they were not composed by the apostle John.  Consider a few examples that use vocabulary that is never used anywhere else in John’s writings:

In verse 1 we are told that Jesus “went to” the Mount of Olives – a phrase that is never found in John’s Gospel apart from in these contested verses – and the place name “Mount of Olives” is likewise never used by John (see, for example, John 18:1 where John simply refers to Jesus going to “a garden.”). 
In verse 2 the expression “came early” is never used by John, nor is the phrase “all the people.”
In verse 3 the scribes are mentioned – John nowhere mentions the scribes.
In verse 6 the word “tempting” is used in the sense of trying to trap Jesus in a difficult situation.  John never uses this word in this way.
In verse 9, the word “conscience” is never used by John.  
In verse 10, the word translated “but” or “except” is never used by John.

Considering the combined evidence of all the verses in this section, it is difficult to believe that these words were written by John.  Why would the apostle suddenly use totally different vocabulary than that which he used throughout his Gospel, three epistles, and the Book of Revelation?

An Alternative Possibility

But just because it seems unlikely that John composed the verses we call John 7:53-8:11 does not necessarily mean that they are not authentic.  When they do appear in early manuscripts, these verses sometimes appear in the Gospel of Luke, and so we should consider the possibility of their Lukan origin.

When we look at this possibility, we find that every one of the expressions considered above, that never appear anywhere else in John’s writings, can be found – often on numerous occasions – in the writings of the Evangelist Luke.  For example, consider the phrase “all the people” that appears in verse 2. Although this expression was not used by John, it is a characteristic phrase used by Luke – it appears some twenty times in his writings.  Even the word “people” by itself is used only twice by John, but over fifty times in the writings of Luke.  In a similar way, the mention of the “scribes” in the “scribes and Pharisees” in verse 3, although never used by John, is found multiple times in Luke.
 
These facts should make us seriously consider the possibility that “John 7:53-8:11” originated not in manuscripts of John’s Gospel, but in the Gospel of Luke. But if that were the case, why are they not in the earliest manuscripts and why the confusion as to where they belong?

We must remember that Luke, perhaps more than any other Gospel writer, collected a great number of eyewitness accounts in composing Luke and Acts.  John reminds us that Jesus did many other things that could have been included into the Gospel narratives (John 21:25), and this doubtless applies especially to the situation with Luke’s many sources.   Ancient books were written on scrolls, of course, and Luke doubtless had to select his material carefully to make it fit on a fairly standard scroll.  This would mean that the story of the woman caught in adultery may well have had to be put aside along with other excess material that could not fit in the production of Luke’s Gospel.

This could easily have led to a situation where the story surfaced and “floated” within the early Christian community for some time before being included in the Gospel manuscripts. This would explain why it appears in manuscripts of several different Gospels and in different places.

Interestingly, if the story was recorded by Luke, it fits very well where it appears in some manuscripts – after Luke 21:38.  But although it fits well there, it would have broken the development of Luke’s account of the Passion narrative, giving another reason why he may not have included it. 

So despite the seemingly conflicting manuscript evidence, a great many biblical scholars feel that this story represents an actual episode in the ministry of Jesus.  The late renowned textual critic Bruce Metzger, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Princeton University, concluded that “… the account has all the earmarks of historical veracity” (A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London, England: United Bible Societies [1971], 220).
​
The story of the woman caught in adultery fits well with Luke’s constant interest in the place of women in the Gospel narrative. The consistent Lukan vocabulary makes it highly likely that it was recorded by that evangelist, and the story’s acceptance by early church fathers – despite its uncertain location – all suggest the likelihood of authenticity, and that the woman caught in adultery does indeed belong in the text of our Bibles.  ​

“Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (Galatians 6:7-8 ESV).

This passage in Galatians is a classic example of biblical verses that we may diligently highlight in our study, but they then take on a life of their own and we tend to read and remember them out of their actual context.  As a result, we may miss their real meaning and the message they have for us.

In the case of Galatians 6:7-8 it is easy to see these verses as purely a comparison and contrast between “sinful living” and “spiritual living.”  Viewed this way, Paul’s stress on sowing and reaping seems like a simple exposition on the end results of the lifestyle of a sinful person who reaps the fruits of his or her wrongful actions as opposed to the results of righteous living.  The verses have been quoted in this way in many sermons – sometimes with colorful examples such as hypothetical  individuals who sinfully “sowed their wild oats then prayed for a crop failure,” as opposed to individuals who were blessed for righteous living.
​
But that is not really the contrast Paul is making in this passage.  The previous verse begins the thought by saying “Let the one who is taught the word share all good things with the one who teaches” (vs. 6).  This thought sets the stage for what Paul says in verses 7-8, and those verses are followed in turn by the conclusion of the thought:  “And let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (vss. 9-10).

We can see that these verses are not different thoughts because Paul continues the analogy of sowing and reaping throughout the whole passage of Galatians 6:6-10.  And when we take the whole passage in its context, we realize that Paul is not contrasting sinful living with spiritual living so much as he is contrasting selfish living with a life of unselfish giving.

That is why the thought begins in verse 6 with Paul talking about those who are taught sharing “all good things” with those who teach.  His overall thought, expanded in verses 7-8, is that if we do not share and serve outwardly, we serve only ourselves – we “sow to the flesh.” It is only as we share with and serve others (vss. 9-10) that we “sow to the Spirit” and will eventually reap a reward.

In fact, the only other two places Paul uses the analogy of sowing and reaping in his epistles regarding our behavior are in his letters to the Corinthian Church, and they make exactly the same point:  “If we have sown spiritual seed among you, is it too much if we reap a material harvest from you?” (1 Corinthians 9:11) and “Remember this: Whoever sows sparingly will also reap sparingly, and whoever sows generously will also reap generously” (2 Corinthians 9:6).

In all three instances – in 1 and 2 Corinthians and in Galatians 6 – Paul uses the analogy of sowing and reaping to affirm that the seed we sow determines the harvest we receive. Certainly the Bible uses the broader application of the idea of sowing and reaping:  “The one who sows righteousness reaps a sure reward” (Proverbs 11:18b), and “whoever sows injustice reaps calamity” (Proverbs 22:8a); but Paul’s use of the sowing and reaping analogy is clearly a specific one dealing with unselfish and generous giving and living.
 
Such good deeds may have been neglected by the congregations in Galatia as they were caught up in a number of divisions and errors that were consuming their attention and energy. These errors are the focus of most of what Paul discusses in his letter to the Galatians, but we must not miss his point that such doctrinal and moral issues and concerns must not preclude our doing good in the life to which we have been called.  Paul’s point is not just regarding the responsibilities of life – that we reap what we sow; but also the opportunities of life – that if we want to reap, we must sow.

​As Christians, we must listen to both the “word” of God – the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and the “Word” of God – Jesus Christ (John 1:1).  In fact, as Jesus himself showed, the one testifies to the other: “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me” (John 5:39, emphasis added). But Jesus’ point in saying this was that we can be studying – even diligently – and still not hearing the One we should be hearing.   

So how do we most effectively listen to the Word and his word?  Find out in our new article on practical strategies for hearing the Word through Scripture – published today on our sister website, here.​

​The Book of Jeremiah has a reputation for prophecies of gloom, but its sobering messages are offset with equally positive words which we should not overlook.  We find an interesting example of this fact in the prophet’s simile of two trees.  In Jeremiah 17 he draws a vivid picture of the difference between lack of trust and trust in God – using two symbolic trees as examples.  
 
He begins with these words:  “This is what the Lord says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who draws strength from mere flesh and whose heart turns away from the Lord” (Jeremiah 17:5). Then, Jeremiah makes his first analogy:
 
That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;
    they will not see prosperity when it comes.
They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,
    in a salt land where no one lives (Jeremiah 17:6).
 
The prophet compares the one who turns away from trusting God to a stunted shrub – not a full grown tree, but a “bush in the wastelands” that can never flourish in its harsh environment.  Notice that Jeremiah points to four reasons this “tree” will not grow: it is in infertile soil (“wasteland”), it suffers from a lack of water (“parched places”), it suffers temperature extremes (“of the desert”) and its growth is stunted by salinity (“a salt land”).  This picture accurately portrays factors that limit plant growth.  We are told in the NIV that this tree will not see “prosperity;” but the Hebrew word tov means “good” of any kind, and most English versions translate it that way.
 
Jeremiah then makes a contrast with this tree when he says “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord, whose confidence is in him” (Jeremiah 17:7):
 
They will be like a tree planted by the water
    that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
    its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
    and never fails to bear fruit  (Jeremiah 17:8).
 
This tree, Jeremiah tells us by means of multiple Hebrew idioms, is “planted by the water”(an idiom for nourishment), spreads its “roots” (an idiom for family members or descendants), and does not fear when heat comes (an idiom for persecution or affliction).  Its leaves are always green (an idiom for health), it has no worries in “drought” (an idiom for times of need), and it never fails to produce fruit (an idiom for both descendants and also for good success in life).  What a difference trust makes!

Jeremiah’s two trees represent simple analogies, but ones based on profound truths.  The prophet does not compare righteousness and unrighteousness, good and evil, or make any such broad general comparisons.  Instead, he focuses purely on the matter of trust and tells us that the life that does not include trust in God will always be limited and will not flourish or grow.  By contrast, Jeremiah says, the one who learns to trust God will survive problems and will flourish and grow abundantly.

But Jeremiah’s two trees also are a symbolic study in spiritual contrast, just like the two trees Genesis tells us grew in the Garden of Eden.  The two trees teach us that spiritually, we only grow to the extent that we learn to trust God.  It is a simple point, but one worthy of serious thought.  As Christians intent on spiritual transformation, we tend to look to spiritual exercises such as prayer and study as our primary means of growth.  But Jeremiah reminds us that spiritual growth is not just based on activities such as these, but also on actively and continually increasing our trust and faith in the One who grants growth.

That is a lesson that we see much more fully developed in the New Testament teaching of growing in and through faith, but it is one that Jeremiah makes vividly clear in his simple comparison of the two trees.  And we should remember that Jeremiah knew a good deal about faith. He is to be included among the shining examples of faith who suffered “chains and imprisonment” (Hebrews 11:36 and Jeremiah 37:15-16) mentioned in the great “Faith Hall of Fame” chapter of Hebrews 11.

When we think of faith, hope, and love, we think, of course, of the apostle Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 13:13: “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love …” 

It’s a scripture every Christian knows and one of the first ones we may memorize. But many do not realize how important these three qualities are in the writings of Paul. He is the only New Testament writer who groups faith, hope, and love together in quite this way, though the Book of Hebrews – which was clearly heavily influenced by Paul, even if he was not its author –  is the only other New Testament book that does group the three qualities directly (Hebrews 10:22-24).

For Paul, faith, hope, and love were more than just the topics of an important section of his letter to the Corinthian church.  The three qualities appear grouped together in almost every one of the apostle’s letters, though we may not always see it.   Paul sometimes mentions only one or two of the three concepts in a given verse, so it may not be obvious that they are all present in the same chapter or letter,  but the three qualities permeate almost everything Paul wrote and  are frequently found bound together in the same way we find them grouped in 1 Corinthians 13:13. Consider these three verses:

“… the faith and love that spring from the hope …”  (Colossians 1:5).
“… your work produced by faith, your labor prompted by love, and your endurance inspired by hope” (1 Thessalonians 1:3).
“putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet” (1 Thessalonians 5:8).

Sometimes Paul includes faith, hope, and love in longer lists of spiritual qualities, and we may not connect them as we read the list, but the main reason we may not see how frequently Paul uses this great triad in his writing is that he often varies the expression faith, hope, and love by replacing one of the qualities with a related one which suggests the same thing from a specific angle.  In these cases we can learn much regarding how Paul thought about faith, hope, and love by seeing what words he uses to substitute for these qualities.

​Take, for example, the way Paul often substitutes “endurance” for hope (just as we saw them connected in 1 Thessalonians 1:3, above): “pursue … faith, love, endurance …” (1 Timothy 6:11); “… your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing… we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring” (2 Thessalonians 1:3-4); “Teach the older men to be … sound in faith, in love and in endurance” (Titus 2:2).

The concepts of hope and endurance are clearly related, and by writing endurance instead of hope, Paul stresses that particular aspect of hope in what he is saying. Sometimes, just as he uses “endurance,” the apostle uses “patience” as another synonym for hope (2 Timothy 3:10, etc.).

If we look at another example: “… faith, love and holiness …” (1 Timothy 2: 15), we find holiness taking the place of hope, and these two qualities are also connected, as Paul shows in speaking of the hope we have in the promises of God: “Therefore, since we have these promises, dear friends, let us purify ourselves… perfecting holiness out of reverence for God” (2 Corinthians 7:1).

So too, when Paul writes of “… sound teaching, with faith and love” (2 Timothy 1:13), he uses sound teaching in place of hope – which might seem strange, but right teaching gives us hope, and if we look carefully at the context in which Paul writes this to Timothy, it  is, in fact, one of hope (vs. 12). 

As a final example, notice the way Paul uses “good conscience” as the basis for  hope in his letter to Timothy: “The goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5).  Paul’s point is clear in making this substitution – it is only when our consciences do not condemn us that we have true hope.
 
We have only considered variants of “hope” in these examples, but if you look for them you will find that Paul frequently varies the words he uses for each of the three great qualities.  We can learn a great deal by being aware of this fact and letting it teach us.  So next time you see faith, hope, and love – or something similar – in the writings of Paul, think about it. Ask yourself what you can learn about these vital qualities of Christian living through Paul’s choice of words and how they may illuminate the context of what is being said. 

Often this small technique can open up unexpected insights into some key areas of Paul’s teaching.  It’s a way we can come to better understand the three things that Paul tells us – repeatedly – matter the most.
 
* Download our free e-book on faith, hope, and love and read it on any computer or e-reader and on many smart phones!   

​Some feel that the Bible teaches that it is wrong for women to wear jewelry or expensive clothes or even elaborate hairstyles.  One of the scriptures used to support this view is found in the apostle Paul’s words to Timothy on the subject of women’s adornment:

 “…  I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes,  but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (1 Timothy 2:8-10).

The first thing we must realize is that Paul’s instructions in this regard are for a specific setting – that of public worship.  The apostle begins this instruction in the first verse of the chapter speaking about prayer. He elaborates on this topic before saying “Therefore … “ – meaning as a result of what he has just said about public prayer – “I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing.  I also want the women to dress modestly…” (1 Timothy 2:8-9).  His thoughts regarding both men and women are relative to prayer.

So Paul’s instructions regarding women’s dress and appearance are aimed primarily at public worship. The key is that he says the women should dress “modestly” (vs. 9), meaning not to draw attention to themselves in a way that is not fitting for public worship.  We should also realize that the word translated to “dress” modestly can refer to demeanor as well as dress, to behavior as well as clothing.

We see this principle throughout what Paul says. When he speaks of “elaborate hairstyles” he is not condemning women styling their hair, but the practice of the time in which well-to-do Greco-Roman women would weave gold threads into their hair – again to draw attention to themselves (see also 1 Peter 3:3).  The proper attire for Christian women in Christian worship, Paul stresses, is not attire that is focused on themselves, but  that which is “appropriate for women who profess to worship God” (vs. 10).

From Paul’s perspective there are two things wrong with women wearing the kinds of clothing and adornment that he condemns for public worship.  First, by wearing clothing that was not modest or that drew inordinate attention to themselves, women might be a distraction to the men with whom they were worshipping.  Second, by wearing obviously expensive clothing, pearls and gold, women might likewise arouse jealousy among poorer women in the congregation.  This is not to say that either result would be intentional, but that Paul says it is the woman’s responsibility not to provide a “stumbling block” (Romans 14:14, 1 Corinthians 8:9) to their fellow worshippers.

If we read his words carefully, we see that Paul’s instructions to Timothy are certainly aimed at wrong intent or unintentional error in women’s dress – not as a ruling against their adornment.   In a very similar manner, the apostle Peter admonishes women:

“Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight” (1 Peter 3:3-4).
                 
But once again we find that context makes this instruction clear. In the verses directly before these, Peter is discussing the situation of how women whose husbands are unconverted can best be a proper influence on their mates, saying:

“Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment …” (1 Peter 3:1-3).

In other words, Peter does not condemn or disallow the woman’s adornment either – he simply stresses that wives should not look to their physical beauty to influence their husbands, but to the inner beauty to which they have been called.

That it is not wrong for a woman to be adorned in a beautiful way is made clear in a number of scriptures and none is clearer than Ezekiel 16 where God himself speaks of Israel as a young woman whom he adorned: 

“I clothed you with an embroidered dress and put sandals of fine leather on you. I dressed you in fine linen and covered you with costly garments.  I adorned you with jewelry: I put bracelets on your arms and a necklace around your neck …” (Ezekiel 16:10-11).  

Peter and Paul both knew this and similar scriptures and would hardly have forbidden something that God tells us he has done.  The Bible does not speak against women adorning themselves, but against the wrong intent of such adornment or its excessive use in inappropriate settings such as that of public worship. 

​As Christians we know that the greatest responsibility and opportunity we have in the lives we are given is to love God and our fellow human beings (Matthew 22:37-39). But none of us is perfect in this regard; so how do we grow in love for God and others? 

The apostle John gives us an answer to this important question. In his letters, John talks extensively about love, mentioning the concept no fewer than 34 times, including his well-known summary statements such as “…God is love” (1 John 4:8). But John’s teaching on love is not as general as it might sometimes appear. 

In his first epistle, the apostle talks about an easily overlooked aspect of the two directions or dimensions of love – love of God and love of people – that must both be present in our lives. In doing so, John answers the question of “How do we increase our love for God and man?” by answering a slightly different one: “How do we know if we love God and others?”  He gives us the answer first in terms of whether we truly love God or not.  Notice what he tells us:

“Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen. And he has given us this command: Anyone who loves God must also love their brother and sister” (1 John 4:20-21).

The proof of our love for God, John says, is that we love others.  In the next chapter of his letter, John repeats this fact:  “... everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him” (1 John 5:1).  But the apostle then reverses the direction of this understanding:
“This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands. In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands. And his commands are not burdensome” (1 John 5:2-3).

The proof of our love for others, John tells us here, is that we love God and are obedient to him. Just as it is not possible to truly love God without loving his children (1 John 5:1), it is also impossible to truly love God’s children without loving him (1 John 5:2). Together, these verses show the two directions that love must work in.  In the first case, our love and obedience to God involves – and is proved by – our love of our brothers and sisters. In the second case, we are told that our love for our brothers and sisters is based on – and proved by – our love and obedience to God.

Simple as it may sound, this two-way definition can be tremendously helpful to us as Christians.  We can see what John says as both admonition and encouragement.  First, there is clear admonition for all of us in the understanding that we cannot claim to love God if we cannot bring ourselves to love all people, and conversely, that we cannot pretend we truly love people if we do not deeply love God.  Love of one without love of the other is not genuine love.

But the encouraging side of this equation relates to our original question:  “How can we grow in love of God and others?”  What John shows us indicates we can increase our love of God by loving people more, and if we want to increase our love of others, we can do that through actively developing our love of God.  It may seem counterintuitive, but it is a truth that solidly underlies much of what John tells us.

Why is this? The reason is that unless God is the center of our life – what we love above all else –  we will never  truly love others as much as ourselves, because without God at the center of our lives, we will love ourselves above all else – we will primarily be “lovers of ourselves” (2 Timothy 3:2).  Conversely, if we do not love others as much as ourselves, we are not fulfilling God’s command and our love of him will always be limited.

What John shows us is that as we grow in our love for God, our love for others will naturally increase at the same time.  The closer we grow to God, the more he changes the way we think about ourselves – and others – and the more we begin to love others.  As we grow to love the children of God more, it is a direct reaction that we begin to be less self-centered and our love for God naturally increases as a result.

John’s words on the two directions of love may indeed seem counterintuitive at first, yet they are profoundly true in showing us how we can know and grow our love for God and others.

​“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith” (Romans 1:16-17 NKJV, emphasis added).

Paul’s words “from faith to faith” as we find them in the King James Version and a number of other English renderings of the New Testament is a puzzling one – as we can see in the confusing range of translations found in other versions. Compare a few examples of how these words are translated:  

“from faith to faith” NKJV
“from faith for faith” ESV
“out of faith into faith” HSB margin
“by faith from first to last” NIV

It is easy to see why some translations opted for “from faith to faith” because Paul had just mentioned the belief of the Jews and then the Gentiles (vs. 16).  But this meaning does not fit well for a number of reasons – which is why a great many modern translations do not use “from faith to faith.” 

The underlying Greek from which the expression is translated, ek pisteōs eis pistin, literally means “from [or out of] faith into faith,” but how do we interpret this? The expression has been understood to mean many things. For example:

From immature faith to mature faith
From the faith of the Old Covenant to the faith of the New Covenant
From faith in the law to a faith in the Gospel
From human faith to the faith given by God

This wide range of possible meanings is confusing, to say the least, but Paul gives us an important clue to what he meant.  After using the expression “from faith to faith,” Paul then quotes Habakkuk 2:4b, saying: “as it is written, ‘The just shall live by faith.’” When we look at what that Old Testament prophet wrote, we find that “the just shall live by faith” was used in a context showing that although the enemies of God arrogantly follow their evil ways (vss. 3-5), the righteous trust and live their faith.  As a result, the righteous are spared and live by virtue of their faith (vs. 4b).
  
If Paul is using Habbakuk’s words with this apparent meaning, then just as the Old Testament prophet tells us the righteous will live by their faith, so Paul is stressing the righteous will live by faith. If understood in that straightforward manner, “from faith to faith” or “from faith into faith” would mean essentially “starting in faith and ending in faith” – exactly how the NIV translates this expression – with the connotation of “totally by faith.”
​
There is another indication this may be the intended meaning. Paul uses  similar expressions – “from death to death” and “from life to life” – in 2 Corinthians 2:16  where the reduplication of the words death and life seem to simply stress their meanings – as in “total death” and “total life.”
​
So although it is the least literal of the translations we have considered, the New International Version seems to present wording closest to what Paul meant by “from faith to faith.”

​"For he seems to do nothing of himself which he can possibly delegate to his creatures.  He commands us to do slowly and blunderingly what he could do perfectly and in the twinkling of an eye.  He allows us to neglect what he would have us do, or to fail.  Perhaps we do not fully realize the problem, so to call it, of enabling finite free will to coexist with Omnipotence.  It seems to involve at every moment almost a sort of divine abdication.  We are not mere recipients or spectators.  We are either privileged to share in the game or compelled to collaborate in the work, … Is this amazing process simply Creation going on before our eyes?  This is how (no light matter) God makes something – indeed, makes gods – out of nothing."
– C. S. Lewis, The Efficacy of Prayer.

​This paragraph from one of C.S. Lewis’ lesser known works gives us a glimpse into the great apologist’s thoughts on how God truly is desirous to share all that he is and has – including the responsibilities which he grants to us.  Truly something to ponder. 

In the time of Jesus – as they still do today – Jews often greeted each other with the expression “shalom” or “peace,” and many letters dating to the First Century begin with this simple greeting.

The apostle Paul added another word – “grace” – to this standard greeting, and we find “grace and peace” in every one of his letters.  This additional word summarized as well as any other the gospel of salvation by grace that Paul preached tirelessly (Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.), and it was a fitting greeting to his readers.

Jude, in the introduction to his epistle, uses a further expanded expression: “Mercy, peace and love be yours in abundance” (Jude 1:2).  While it is easy enough to read over this greeting, we should not. Just as the aspect of the gospel that Paul stressed was summarized in that apostle’s “grace and peace,” we can see a similar situation in the “mercy, peace, and love” found in the epistle of Jude. 
 
Jude’s threefold greeting forms a three-note chord, as it were, providing harmonious notes that recur throughout his epistle.  This is important because if we read this epistle without keeping this background theme in mind, it is easy to see only the many verses speaking of troubles, errors and problems in the Church.  In fact, some commentaries stress the “Seven Negatives of Jude” listing the evils of ungodly acts and words, the people who are grumblers and fault-finders, who follow their own evil desires, boast and flatter others.  Jude does say that “These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit” (Jude 1:19), but his characterization of problems faced by the early Church is not the point of his letter.  His whole epistle, just like his initial greeting, focuses not just on the apostle’s concerns, but on his response to these negative issues.

Mercy:  Just as Jude begins his letter with the greeting of mercy (Jude 1:2), we find that he draws it to a close by reminding his readers of God’s mercy to us and our responsibility of mercy to others.  “… You wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life” (Jude 1:21), he writes, and follows up by reminding us of our responsibility to “Be merciful to those who doubt, save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh” (Jude 1:22-3).   Jude did not just catalog the Church’s problems; he focused his readers’ eyes on the mercy that God is willing to show us if we come out of those problems, and the mercy that we in turn must sometimes show others.

Peace:  Just as Jude stresses the outcome of mercy in his epistle, he also stresses the peace that his readers can find in the knowledge of God’s final outworking of history.  While he does not use the word “peace” directly, this assurance is clearly what lies behind the beginning of Jude’s wonderful doxology “To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy…” (Jude 1:24).  Jude puts his readers’ minds at rest regarding the turmoil of false doctrines and dispute in the Church by looking past the problems of the present in a peace-providing reminder of God’s ability to preserve his readers from the errors that surround them.

Love:  Even before he includes love in his opening greeting (Jude 1:2), Jude stresses love from the first verse of his letter: “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James, To those who have been called, who are loved in God the Father and kept for Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:1).  It is precisely because they are loved by God, Jude tells his readers, that they will be able to survive the evils that surround them and be kept for the return of Christ.   Jude’s stress on God’s love is paralleled at the end of his letter by his stress on our responsibility to “keep yourselves in God’s love…” (Jude 1:21).

In fact, the closing thoughts of Jude's letter directly parallel his initial greeting of mercy, peace, and love.  Jude tells his readers:  “keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life” (Jude 1:21).  Reversing the order of his initial greeting, Jude speaks of love, mercy, and the peace that he urged his readers to have – despite the difficulties they faced day to day – in the hope of eternal life.

So Jude begins and ends his short epistle with a tremendously positive theme that overrides the “negatives” which he must catalog in the Church of his time.  For those of us who read his letter today, it is easy to misunderstand and to see it as an epistle of “doom and gloom” based on the problems Jude feels he must identify.  But the purpose of his letter is far more positive than that.  It looks beyond the evils that afflicted the early Church – and which can still affect us now – to the eventual outcome of which Jude assures us. Rather than an epistle of problems, errors, and difficulties, Jude is indeed an epistle stressing a message of love, mercy, and peace. ​

​​In thinking about faith, we may consider its relationship with hope and love – those other members of the great triad that the apostle Paul tells us are chief among the qualities we should seek – but we may not often think about other spiritual qualities that interact with and affect our faith.  One such quality, although it is of great importance, is easily overlooked. We look at this quality that can increase our faith in our latest article, published today.  You can read "An Overlooked Aspect of Faith"  here.

Puah and Shiprah were the two women mentioned in the Book of Exodus who were in charge of the midwives who delivered the Israelite children in Egypt.  Exodus tells us:

“The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives … “When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live.” The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live” (Exodus 1:15-17).
​
Because the two women placed their fear of God before their fear of the Egyptian king, Jewish tradition presumed that they were Hebrew-born women, but the traditions disagree.  While one links Puah with Miriam, Moses’ sister, and Shiprah with Jochebed, the mother of Moses,  another tradition viewed the women as Jewish proselytes who were not related to Moses at all.
​
The fact that they are said to be “Hebrew midwives” could mean  that they were Hebrew or that they were “midwives to the Hebrews.”  The names of the two women also seem to reflect underlying Egyptian names, and it is possible that they were indeed Egyptian converts.  This possibility seems all the more likely as we continue to read the story:

“Then the king of Egypt summoned the midwives and asked them, “Why have you done this? Why have you let the boys live?”  The midwives answered Pharaoh, “Hebrew women are not like Egyptian women; they are vigorous and give birth before the midwives arrive.” So God was kind to the midwives and the people increased and became even more numerous.  And because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own" (Exodus 1:18-21).

The fact that Puah and Shiprah could contrast Hebrew with Egyptian births suggests that they may have acted as midwives for both, and their excuse would be all the more believable if that were the case.  The ancient Jewish historian, Iben Ezra, states that the two women were in charge of “more than 500” midwives; if this was true, the  women were likely appointed by the Egyptian government and would almost certainly have been Egyptian women.

In any event, these women  acted with faithfulness to the law of God and demonstrated a measure of faith in doing so.  It is clear that  their faith was rewarded.   We are told not only that “God was kind to the midwives”  in the sense that they were spared the anger of the Egyptian king, but also we are told “the people increased…” (vs. 20), and “…because the midwives feared God, he gave them families of their own” (vs. 21). 
 
This last blessing may have been a particularly kind one, as scholars believe that midwives in that era were often women who could not have children of their own.  In the Hebrew of the Old Testament the expression “families” is literally “houses,” however, and Jewish tradition has it that these were “distinguished” houses from which many Hebrew civil and religious leaders descended. 

Whatever the case regarding the various traditions about them, it is clear that God did bless the two chief midwives, and the positive outcome of the story should not obscure the extent of their faith and faithfulness.

Historically, this is the earliest known example of civil disobedience in the face of a specific command by a powerful regime to disobey the law of God.  Even today it remains as a wonderful example of the power of faith in difficult circumstances.  The two courageous women did what they could to protect themselves, yet their faith in God was ultimately their protection and blessing.

“The eye is the lamp of the body. If your eyes are healthy, your whole body will be full of light. But if your eyes are unhealthy, your whole body will be full of darkness.

​If then the light within you is darkness, how great is that darkness! ‘No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money’” (Matthew 6:22-24).

This quotation of Jesus, found in Matthew 6 and also in Luke 11:34, is a fascinating one, as it has been interpreted so many different ways.  While the NIV has “if your eyes are healthy” and “if your eyes are unhealthy,” other translations refer to the eyes as being “good” and “bad” or “single” and “evil,” and in various other ways.
  
Some of the confusion is understandable. The word translated “healthy” in the NIV makes sense as something we might say about an eye, but the word can also be translated as “single” – that is its usual literal meaning.  Some have argued that this fits the context in which Jesus is talking about having a single master (vs. 24), but that meaning does not really fit the rest of the passage.

However, there is another possibility we should consider.  The Greek word for “healthy” in Matthew 6:22 can imply “generous,” and the word used in verse 23 for “unhealthy” can imply “stingy.”  These meanings may seem out of place at first, until we realize that the context of Christ’s statement about our eyes in Matthew 6 is actualy one of money, possessions and treasures.   Directly before his statement about the eyes, beginning in verse 19, Jesus instructed his followers to put more value on heavenly treasure than treasure on earth.  Directly after what he says about the eyes, beginning in verse 24, he tells us that we cannot serve two masters and that we will end up either loving God or money (“mammon” – as in the KJV – is an Aramaic word for money or other possessions), as we cannot serve and love both.

When we keep this immediate context in mind, what Jesus says about our eyes may well be meant to be understood as referring to a having a “generous” outlook as opposed to a “stingy” outlook.  If his comment was made with those meanings, then there is no conflict between the first and second part of his statement; it fits perfectly within the overall theme of putting our religious desires and priorities before our desires for physical possessions and wealth.   We should, Jesus tells us, be more concerned about saving treasure in heaven than stingily being unwilling to share what we have on Earth.
​ 
Of the various translations of Matthew 6:22-24 that are possible, although one which sees the reference to our eyes as being either “generous” or “stingy” may seem strange at first, these meanings fit the usage of the Greek and fit the context of what Jesus was talking about perfectly.  But in any case, our responsibility as followers of Jesus is to maintain the kind of priorities that enable us to look at others not stingily, but with a “generous eye.” 

Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion!  Shout, Daughter Jerusalem! See, your king comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey, on a colt, the foal of a donkey (Zechariah 9:9).
 
The Gospel of Luke recounts how Jesus fulfilled the words spoken by the prophet Zechariah as he entered Jerusalem in a “triumphal entry” during the climactic week at the end of his ministry (Luke 19:28-44).   Luke tells us how Jesus instructed two of his disciples to go to a nearby home where they would find a young donkey and to bring it to him. He told the disciples that if anyone challenged them, they were to simply say: “The Lord needs it” (Luke 19:31).  The disciples did this – explaining to the donkey’s owners what Jesus had told them.
 
This initial part of the story is interesting in itself.  Jesus was, in effect, invoking the ancient principle of angaria (from a Babylonian word meaning “mounted messenger”) by which kings, rulers and other individuals with official responsibilities could requisition property for official use.  Angaria originated in the earliest postal systems in the ancient Persian, Greek and later Roman cultures where an animal could be “requisitioned” from its owner to carry the mail on the next stage of its multiple-staged journey, somewhat equivalent to the “Pony Express” of the American frontier.  In the Judea of Jesus’ day, under Roman rule, animals could be commandeered in this way for the emperor’s service, and the right was also expanded to include the needs of the king, and even magistrates and rabbis. 
 
A Messenger Received in Joy
 
This incident was, then, the prelude to the actual triumphal entry in which the crowds provided what we would call today a “red carpet” entry for Jesus by covering the road with their capes and the branches of trees to welcome him as he rode on the donkey into the city (Luke 19:35-37).   The scene was not unlike a humbler version of the great Roman “Triumphs” in which the grateful citizens celebrated the procession of heroes who had served the people.  In fact, the similarity with a Roman Triumph is more than  superficial, because the Triumph was a civil and religious ceremony which was held to publicly “celebrate and sanctify” the success of a commander who had led his forces to victory in the service of the people.  

But Jesus rejected the aggrandizing nature of the pagan Triumphs which fed the cult of personalities in Roman and other cultures, and he did this by riding humbly on a young donkey – the antithesis of the great horses of conquering kings and heroes – while fulfilling the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9 in every detail. Yet Jesus did accept the people’s praise (Luke 19:40), and the details of the story from beginning to end show that a triumphal entry – a symbolic victory celebration – was intended.

The words of the crowds who welcomed Jesus in this triumphal entry are important. Luke tells us (Luke 19:38) that the crowds quoted from the great messianic Psalm 118 – which is why the Pharisees attempted to silence them (Luke 19:39).  This is the same psalm that contains, in vs. 22, the statement so significantly quoted by Jesus in Luke 20:17:  “The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.”  But also this psalm contains clear references to the triumphal entry of the Messiah:

* I look in triumph on my enemies (Psalm 118:7).
* I will not die but live, and will proclaim what the Lord has done (vs. 17).
* Open for me the gates of the righteous; I will enter and give thanks to the Lord (vs. 19).
* Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. From the house of the Lord we bless you. The Lord is God, and he has made his light shine on us. With boughs in hand, join in the festal procession up to the horns of the altar (vss. 26-27). 
 
Although Luke only cites a few of the words from Psalm 118, the psalm is in fact a full prophetic description of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem.
 
What Was the Victory?
 
But if this was a triumph, what was the victory? Jesus had not yet defeated sin and death on the cross, and he had not yet completed the work he came to accomplish in this regard.  Yet there was one way in which a victory was surely celebrated.  The primary purpose of the angaria, by which Jesus obtained the donkey on which he rode, was to deliver a message. And at this point, at the end of his ministry, Jesus had successfully delivered the news of the kingdom of God to the point that it was now established and would continue to spread throughout the world.  He had also lived the perfect life needed in order that he could give himself as a sacrifice for all humankind.

In that sense, Jesus had fully triumphed in his work when he came to Jerusalem as “... your king who comes to you, righteous and victorious, lowly and riding on a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9, emphases added). The entry of Jesus into Jerusalem prior to his death was indeed a triumph: it celebrated Jesus’ righteous life and the fact that he had succeeded in delivering the message that he brought into the world.
​
There is surely a lesson in this for us. In following Christ as his disciples we do not attempt to mimic everything he did, of course, but we should certainly follow in many of his steps, as he commanded us.  The dual nature of Christ’s fulfilled mission – of living in obedience to God and carrying his message – is a dual opportunity and goal for every one of his followers, also. To focus only on our own obedience or only on the message we were commissioned to carry is not a complete fulfillment of the calling we have been given.  To the extent that we are able, with God’s help, to live lives pleasing to God and to serve him in carrying his message, we too participate in the victory of Jesus. 

​Scriptures in Question:

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16).

“Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them” (1 John 2:15).


The first clue we have that there is no contradiction between these seemingly opposing verses is that they were both written by the same person – the apostle John. This alone indicates that it would be unlikely that the two statements were at variance. 

The word “world” (Greek kosmos) found in both these verses is one John uses frequently – an amazing 79 times in his Gospel and a further 25 times in his epistles –  more often than any other biblical writer.   But the word does not always have exactly the same meaning in each case.  Just as we can use the word “world” in English to mean the planet Earth, the world around us, everything in the world, or just the people of the world, so the Greek word could be used with many of these same meanings.  We can see this range of meaning in some of the verses where John uses kosmos in his first epistle:

The planet Earth: “In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world” (1 John 4 : 9).

The people of the world:   “Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you” (1 John 3 : 13).

The world around us:  “Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world” (1 John 4:1).

The way of the world:  “For whatsoever is born of God overcomes the world” (1 John 5 : 4).

When John tells us in his Gospel that God loved the world, he is clearly referring to the people of the world (as God did not give his Son for the sins of the planet or the things in the world).  John uses “world” in exactly the same way in his epistle when he writes “And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world” (1 John 2:2).

On the other hand, when John tells us in his epistle that we must not love the world, it is equally clear, when we read the verse in context, that he is talking about the system or way of the world.  We need only look at the following verse to see this: “For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world” (1 John 2:16).
​
So, we must carefully distinguish between the various meanings of kosmos when John uses the word “world,” though this is not usually difficult.  His context usually makes it clear which meaning he has in mind.  In the seemingly contradictory examples we looked at, John is talking about two very different things –  humanity and the way of life of humanity. 

For John, the “world” in the latter sense is synonymous with darkness and evil (John 3:19), just as he tells us God is synonymous with goodness and light.  John’s point is that we must choose to love either darkness or light, the way of the world or the way of God.