Every Christian knows Jesus’ words that his followers were to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-16).  Being the light of the world seems easy to understand – it clearly involves the responsibility to “illuminate” the world through the witness of our lives and, of course, to reflect the light of the God who himself can be described as “Light.”

​But what about the salt – what exactly does that represent?  Salt was used for many different purposes in the Middle East during the first century, so there are a number of possibilities regarding what Jesus intended. We should consider all of the most likely meanings.

1. Perhaps the most obvious possibility is that Jesus’ reference to our being “salt” has to do with the use of salt as a flavor enhancer (Job 6:6) –  that we are to make the world more pleasing or “palatable” to God (Romans 8:8).

2. Salt was also widely used to preserve food, especially meat which would spoil quickly in the heat of the Palestinian desert environment.   The sense of long-lasting preservation is seen in the biblical expression “a covenant of salt” (2 Chronicles 13:5).

3. Salt was utilized to purify things such as offerings made in the tabernacle or temple (Leviticus 2:13).  This is the meaning behind Jesus’ words “For everyone will be salted with fire ...” (Mark 9:49) and Paul’s words “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt” (Colossians 4:6).

4. On the other hand, the ability of large quantities of salt to kill vegetation and render land unusable led to salt being used metaphorically for the concept of emptiness and destruction (Job 39:6, Ezekiel 16:4, etc.). 

5. Despite the fact that large quantities of salt kill all plants, much smaller quantities were used as the world’s oldest chemical fertilizer.  In fact, after vegetation has been killed by a heavy application of salt, the plants often eventually come back more profusely.  Because the word “earth” in Jesus’ expression “you are the salt of the earth” can mean “soil,” some commentators feel that he may have meant his followers were to bring new life to the world, like a little salt to soil; but the likelihood of this meaning is certainly unsure in this context. 

6. Ancient peoples also often put salt on the wicks of oil lamps to cut smoke and increase their brightness.  This meaning seems attractive as the use of salt in this sense would then be parallel with light, in believers being both “salt and light.”  But in Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:13-16, salt is discussed before light is mentioned, indicating he probably had a more common use of salt in mind.

Many other meanings have been claimed for Jesus’ words based on other uses or characteristics of salt. For example, some have claimed that just like salt, believers can make the world thirsty for God’s truth.  But this and similar ideas are somewhat fanciful and would not have been understandable in the context of what Jesus said without explanation. Likewise, it is commonly thought that Roman soldiers were paid in salt (hence the word “salary”), so that salt might have been a symbol of the disciples’ “worth,” but in fact the Empire’s soldiers were paid in normal money (or not at all), but not with salt.

Because Jesus did not explain which aspect of salt he intended in using the metaphor, we must presume that he had the most basic aspect in mind, which would mean that either or both meanings 1 and 3 above – salt as a flavor enhancer or a purifier – are most likely what he had in mind and how his hearers would have understood the expression. Understood in either of these ways, being the “salt” of the earth would certainly mean that we represent the world to God, just as in being the light of the world we represent God to humanity (Matthew 5:16).

But Jesus’ words also hold some practical aspects in his use of salt as a metaphor. After saying “you are the salt of the earth,” Jesus proceeded to say “But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men” (Matthew 5:13). This is interesting as salt cannot actually lose its saltiness unless it is diluted by water or mixed with other substances. Salt spoiled in such a way might often have simply been thrown out on the street, and it is also possible that such low grade salt was spread on Roman roads to inhibit vegetation growth. In either case it would be “trampled by men,” but the lesson would be that our belief and behavior must not be diluted by things of the world around us.

There is another way that spiritually we might lose our “saltiness.”  Jesus also told his disciples “Salt is good, but if it loses its saltiness, how can you make it salty again? Have salt among yourselves, and be at peace with each other” (Mark 9:50, emphasis added). This suggests that our saltiness can be lost through a lack of peace with one another, and that we may cease to fulfill our function of making the world more acceptable to God by our “saltiness” either being diluted, as we saw above, or by not living peaceably with others.   These obstacles to successful discipleship are both worth thinking about.  ​

When we read the apostle Paul’s great “Faith, Hope, and Love” summation of the most important qualities in the Christian life (1 Corinthians 13:13), it is sometimes  easy to forget the importance of other spiritual qualities that support that great triad.  One such quality is trust, which actually underlies all of Paul’s “Big Three” and enables each one to function.
​
Faith and Trust

There is a good deal of overlap between the words faith and trust in English, but they are also different.  At the most basic level, faith is a noun – it is something we have or are given. Trust is primarily a verb; it is something we do.  This is true in the Bible, also.  Although the same Hebrew and Greek words are translated as both “faith” and “trust” in the English Bible, context and the form of the words  show us whether faith or trust is meant.    
 
How does the difference between faith and trust affect us? To use a physical analogy, we believe that aircraft can fly – we probably have absolute faith in that fact – but to board a plane for a flight we also must trust the pilot. If we suspect the pilot is inebriated we might get off the plane immediately – we have faith that it can fly safely, but we do not trust that it will.
 
In the same way, we can have faith in something or someone and still not trust them.  The prophet Jonah is a Biblical example of this – Jonah had faith in God, but did not trust him (Jonah 4:2). In the New Testament, the apostle James tells us that even demons believe in God (James 2:19). They have “faith” that God exists , but they do not choose to trust and follow him.  So it is not enough to just have faith in God, we must also trust him – and the connection between faith and trust is a two-way street.  On the one hand, trust is our active response to what we already have faith in, but on the other hand, the more we develop our trust in God, the more our faith grows with it.

Hope and Trust

Hope and trust are also directly related.  If we do not really trust any person controlling a situation in which we are involved, we will have very little hope in the outcome.  That is why our trust in God is so important for a life that is truly based on hope.  We can see this principle in the book of Romans: “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13).   Here, Paul clearly tells us that we will be filled with the joy and peace that come from hope “as” or to the degree that we trust in God – and he stresses that fact a second time in the same verse by telling us a result of trusting God is that we will overflow with hope!

This is a principle found throughout the Bible – it is only to the extent that we trust God that we will really look forward with hope for this life and the next.  In the apostle John’s description of his vision of the new heaven and earth he tells us “He who was seated on the throne said, ‘I am making everything new!’ Then he said, ‘Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true’” (Revelation 21:5).  John reminds us that we can look forward to  renewed  life in a renewed world precisely because God is trustworthy – we can hope because we can trust!

Love and Trust

There is an old proverb that “When mistrust comes in, loves goes out” and it has often been said that we cannot deeply love those we cannot really trust because the foundation of all love is trust.  This principle  is often as true spiritually as it is physically.  Even if we say that God is able to love us with a perfect love that needs no trust, this may be true, but theologians have argued that ultimately  God’s love is based on trust in his own power to eventually bring us to love him. 

But whatever the case may be regarding God’s love for us, it is clear that our love for God, and for others, is largely built on trust.   We love God because we have first been loved (1 John 4:19), but our response to that love is based on our trust – just as David says in the Psalms: “But I trust in your unfailing love …” (Psalm 13:5).

Trust usually precedes love and is always needed to maintain it.  Trust is the glue that holds relationships together and allows them to grow.  We must be willing to extend trust to those we want to love, and we  must give ultimate trust to the One who has given us ultimate love.

The Foundation of Trust

So trust really does function as the foundation of faith, hope, and love.  But while faith, hope, and love are all ultimately gifts given to us by God, we must remember that our willingness to trust underlies the effectiveness of those gifts.  Faith, hope, and love are all doomed to falter and certainly will not grow if trust is not our response to these qualities.  It is as we learn to trust God fully that our faith is strengthened, our hope is increased, and our love grows.   Faith, hope, and love may be the most important spiritual qualities in our lives, but we must actively apply trust to receive and to grow in them.  

So how do we develop our trust in God?  In any relationship, we develop trust in someone by getting to know them and seeing that they are trustworthy.  God is completely trustworthy, of course, and the Bible shows that unequivocally:   “God is not human, that he should lie,  not a human being, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act?  Does he promise and not fulfill?” (Numbers 23:19 ). But because humans  are the way we are, most of us need to see that trustworthiness  in our lives to fully appreciate it and to respond to it.  

We do that in two ways – by getting to know God better through the study of his word – where we see countless examples of rewarded trust – and by paying close attention to the events in our own lives and the lives of others where God is clearly acting.  Gratitude plays a role here, too. If we are noticing and giving thanks on a daily basis for even the smallest things in life that show God’s help, we will  usually find that our trust grows quickly.  And as it does, so will the faith, hope, and love in our lives.                                                                 

Earlier this Spring, the Associates for Biblical Research, an American archaeological research group, announced the discovery of a curse text discovered on a small, folded lead tablet that had been found in archaeological excavations in Israel in late 2019.  The artifact is of particular interest to readers of the Bible not so much for what its inscribed text says, but for the fact that it contains the earliest instance of the Hebrew name for God – Yahweh – that has ever been found in an archaeological context, and also for its significance regarding the history of Hebrew writing and the Bible itself.

The tablet, which is barely larger than a postage stamp, contains an inscription that is believed to be centuries older than any known Hebrew inscription from ancient Israel. The small international team of scientists studying the artifact employed advanced tomographic scans to recover the text, slowly recovering one after another of the artifact’s written letters. When the text had been completely recovered, the textual specialists could tell that the text reads:

Cursed, cursed, cursed – cursed by the God YHW.
You will die cursed.
Cursed you will surely die.
Cursed by YHW – cursed, cursed, cursed.
 
This “curse text” was found in discarded material from an archaeological excavation on Mt. Ebal near modern Nablus.  Significantly, this was the site, according to Deuteronomy 27 and Joshua 8, where the people of ancient Israel were instructed by God to recite curses on those who did not obey the Law of God.  As a result, the site became associated with cursing, and numerous artifacts such as the newly translated tablet were left there in ancient times.  Joshua 8:30 tells us that Joshua built an altar on Mt. Ebal and the curse tablet was found in the location where Joshua’s altar is believed to have stood and where its possible remains have been found.

But the new text is tremendously important as it may well represent both the oldest known example of written Hebrew, and also the oldest known example of the Hebrew YHW [or YHWH]– the name for God often transliterated as Yahweh.  The find, which predates the famous Dead Sea Scrolls by more than a millennium, is so significant because the text seems to date to the Iron Age I or Late Bronze Age periods –  around 1200 BC at the latest, and perhaps as early as 1400 BC or earlier.  Either way, this is centuries before the oldest previously known Hebrew texts and instances of the name of God in Hebrew outside the Bible.

This fact strongly argues against those who attempt to date the Bible to much later centuries by claiming that the ancient Hebrews were not literate and that the biblical books were probably not written down till around 700 BC.   And it is important to stress that the new text is not only Hebrew writing, but also that it is a sophisticated composition written in a carefully balanced “chiastic parallelism” or crossover style found in many of the biblical writings and often said to be a mark of “developed” writing characteristic of later dates. 

The date of the earliest Hebrew inscriptions has, in fact, been continuously pushed back in recent years.  A nearly 3,000-year-old inscription called the stele of Mesha in which the king of Moab boasts of his victories against the Kingdom of Israel and its god Yahweh, contained the earliest known extra-biblical mention of the God of the Bible for a number of years after its discovery in 1868.

Since then, even older inscriptions have been found. An inscription found in what is today Sudan, in the temple of Soleb dedicated to the Egyptian god Amon-Re and built by the Pharaoh Amenhotep III (1378-1348 BC),  has more recently been seen as the oldest known reference to Yahweh, God of Israel.

The new discovery from Mt. Ebal may be older than even the very early Soleb inscription, and continuing study by a wide range of ancient textual specialists will doubtless help to narrow down its date more precisely.  

A new, revised, and expanded edition of one of our more popular downloads – Spotlight on the Psalms: A Closer Look at One of the Bible's Best-Loved Books –  by R. Herbert, is now available for free download.            
                                                                                                                                  
Psalms is the Old Testament book most often quoted in the New Testament and most frequently read today.  The new second edition of  Spotlight on the Psalms includes more biblical, cultural, and even archaeological background information to enrich this practical commentary that can help you to better understand the psalms and better apply their messages in your own life.

Download a free copy of this new edition in the format of your choice, from our sister-site, here.

Of all the prophecies found in the Bible, perhaps the most amazing are those found in the twenty-second psalm.  The clearly prophetic details of the death of the individual spoken of in Psalm 22 match the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion of Christ found in the four Gospels to such a degree that they remain a central part of Christian faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus.

Skeptics have certainly attempted to negate the prophetic aspects of this psalm, which was composed approximately 1,000 years before the life of Christ, but the reality of its foretelling cannot be ascribed to sheer coincidence. 

Certainly parts of Psalm 22 may have had a preliminary application to events in the life of David himself, but many of its details – such as the dividing of the individual's clothes and the casting lots for them, and the piercing of his hands and feet – obviously did not. 

In the same way, it is clear that the crucifixion of Jesus was witnessed by a great many individuals, and it is unrealistic in the extreme to suggest that the early Christians simply said that all the details mentioned in Psalm 22 occurred at the death of Jesus when so many could have contradicted them if that were not the case.

Here are just some of the statements found in Psalm 22 alongside their parallels in the Gospel accounts of Jesus' crucifixion.  A number of other correspondences can be seen by reading the psalm in its entirety, but consider the following selected examples:
 
Psalm 22:1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Matthew 27:46 About the ninth hour Jesus cried…“My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?”
 
Psalm 22:7 All who see me mock me;
Matthew 27:41 In the same way the chief priests, the teachers of the law and the elders mocked him
 
Psalm 22:7 they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
Matthew 27:39 Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads
 
Psalm 22:8 “He trusts in the Lord,” they say, “let the Lord rescue him. Let him deliver him …”
Matthew 27:43 He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him …
 
Psalm 22:14 I am poured out like water,
John 19:34 ... pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
 
Psalm 22:15 My mouth is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
John 19:28 Later… so that Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, "I am thirsty"...
 
Psalm 22:16 … they pierce my hands and my feet.
John 19:23a … the soldiers crucified Jesus
 
Psalm 22:18  They divide my clothes among them and cast lots for my garment…
John 19:23-24a When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining … “Let’s not tear it,” they said, “Let’s decide by lot who gets it.”
 
Psalm 22 does not end with the death of the one it describes, however.  The psalm continues by speaking of a time beyond the death of that clearly messianic individual:
​
All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the Lord,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
for dominion belongs to the Lord
and he rules over the nations.
All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him –
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it! (Psalm 22:27-31).
 
Notice especially the closing words of the psalm: “He has done it!”  These words, referring to the future culmination of the purposes of God beyond the suffering and death of the promised Messiah, were also closely echoed in the final words of Jesus on the cross:  “It is finished!” (John 19:30) – words marking not the end, but the beginning of his victory. 

Sometimes a single word – even a small one – can make a big difference in understanding a verse or passage of the Bible.  Take the English word “so,” for example.  The English word “so” can be ambiguous. We can say “so long,” “it’s so hot today,” “so can you,” and “so, are you going?” – all with different meanings.   This can lead to problems and mistakes of understanding in reading the Bible, because the Greek word houtos which is often translated “so” in many Bibles does not have that kind of ambiguity – it simply means  “in this way,” (as when Jesus says “you should pray in this way…” in Matthew 6:9).  However, because of the ambiguity of the word “so” we can easily make wrong assumptions about what is meant when that English word is used to translate houtos

Consider a simple but interesting example.   In John 3:16 – the best-known verse in the New Testament and perhaps of the whole Bible – we read “God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son …”   Most people presume this means that God loved the world “so much” that he gave his Son  (in fact some versions, such as the Message Bible, actually mistranslate the verse that way). But houtos does not mean “so much.” It almost always means  “in this way,” and what John 3:16 really tells us is the manner in which God loved the world – how, not how much. That is the clear meaning of the verse, and it is translated as such by modern Bible versions such as the Christian Standard Bible (“For God loved the world in this way …”) rather than using the ambiguous English word “so” which can mean “in this way,” but which is usually presumed to mean “so much”!

But this is not just an interesting minor detail of New Testament Greek. The meaning of houtos and the confusion that arises when it is translated “so” can sometimes affect matters of doctrine and Christian living.  A good example is found in Paul’s words regarding the Lord’s Supper in 1 Corinthians.   The King James Version translates a key part of Paul’s instruction: “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28 KJV, emphasis added here and below).  Here we can see the ambiguous “so” which could easily be understood in this verse as meaning that we should examine ourselves (ahead of time) so that we are properly prepared to take the bread and wine.  Many translations actually render the verse that way – along the lines of what is found in the New International Version: “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup” (1 Corinthians 11:28 NIV), or the International Standard Version “A person must examine himself and then eat the bread and drink from the cup.”

Versions that follow this path leave the reader with the understanding that we must examine ourselves first, and then – as a consequence or a result of having done so – we should eat the bread and drink the wine.   But as we saw above, the Greek word houtos which is translated ambiguously as “so” in the KJV rendering of this verse, and as “then,” “before,” or in some similar way in other translations, does not carry these meanings.   When we translate the word houtos correctly as “in this manner,” we see that Paul’s meaning was that those who participate in the Lord’s Supper should do so in a self-examining manner as they participate, rather than before they do.  

Several recent versions of the New Testament have been careful to follow the clear meaning of houtos and translate 1 Corinthians 11:28 as it should be understood. For example, “But let a man examine himself, and in this manner let him eat of the bread, and let him drink of the cup” (Berean Literal Bible) and “Let a person examine himself; in this way let him eat the bread and drink from the cup” (Christian Standard Bible).   In these translations it is much easier to see that Paul’s instruction was not to examine ourselves before we take the bread and wine, but as we do so.  Put another way, the self-examination Paul urges is not a completed action performed a number of hours or days before partaking of the bread and wine, but  a present, continuous action during the Lord’s Supper.

This understanding of the verse helps us to better see Paul’s point regarding self-examination.  It is certainly not intended to help us determine if we are somehow worthy to take the Lord’s Supper – we are all unworthy, and that is one of the reasons we take it – but to help us participate in the Supper in a spiritually conscious manner – to make sure that we are not guilty of the excesses and improper taking of the Supper in those ways Paul condemns in the immediate context of 1 Corinthians 11:28.  

Fortunately, a number of newer Bible versions are starting to follow the clear meaning of houtos  in whatever context it is found – and in doing so they remind us of just how careful we need to be in the translational use of that unassuming but highly ambiguous English word, “so.”

It is often said that the best Bible is the one you will read. But given that basic truth, some Bible translations are better for specific tasks. Some translations make studying easier and more enjoyable, some are easier to memorize, and some are more accurate and profitable to study – getting as close as possible to what the biblical writers wrote and helping us to better understand their message.

That’s where the new, free, e-book Which Bible Should I Use? comes in.  It is specifically designed and written to help you choose and use the best translation for your needs – and that could be one you have not heard of before. On the other hand, perhaps the best Bible for you is the one you are using now. But even if it is, this book may be worth your time by helping you to assess the version you are using, to know more about its strengths and limitations, and to get the most from it. You may also discover other translations in this book that complement the Bible you are now using – for even greater understanding and engagement with the Scriptures!

Take your Bible study up a notch – download this free new book directly (without registration or having to give an email address) in formats for computer, e-book reader, or smartphone – here.

As he closes his magnificent epistle to the church in Rome, the apostle Paul sends greetings to a number of his friends, co-workers, and acquaintances in the city. The list, given in Romans 16:1-16,  is extensive –  almost thirty individuals are mentioned as well as several groups of people – and nowhere else in Paul’s letters do we find such a long catalog of names.   As we read Romans today it is very easy to skim-read this list, noting the few names we may recognize and then finishing the epistle.  But there is more to the list than immediately meets the eye, and like everything in Paul’s writings, we can learn from it.  

First, of course, we see in this long list of individuals the degree to which Paul truly loved the church – knowing, remembering, and greeting a large number of people in a city he did not even personally know. Because of his constant travel and evangelization Paul must have met a great number of people, and it is impressive that he remembered not only the names of many of the people on his list, but also  their individual qualities.

We also see in Paul’s list his warm acceptance of all Christians – regardless of race, gender, social position, or any other consideration. The majority of the individuals mentioned in his list have Gentile names, and a large proportion are the names of slaves or  former slaves who had been freed.  Such were Tertius (verse 22) and Quartus (verse 24) whose names mean simply “Third” and “Fourth,” as they were probably minor slaves in someone’s household and simply given numbers as names, as was often the case.  These individuals were not even the “First” or “Second” slaves, making them truly socially insignificant in that culture; but Paul treated them, as he did every believer, with full equality and love. In fact, Paul mentions Quartus in the same breath as Erastus, the influential and important Corinthian director of public works (verse 23).  

Looking at what Paul says about all these people is particularly instructive. Phoebe, who is mentioned first in Romans 16:1-2, was evidently the person who delivered Paul’s letter to Rome, and the apostle’s greetings actually begin after she is mentioned.  Paul then specifically greets some twenty-eight individuals. Rather than just being an extensive list of greetings with an occasional personal comment thrown in here and there, however, if we look closely, we see a clear pattern.  Paul refers to the people he lists in seven different ways:

1.   Those Paul calls “beloved.”  Paul was well aware that God referred to his own son as “beloved” (Colossians 1:13) and doubtless did not use the expression lightly. He mentions only a few people this way.  
2.  Those who had helped Paul in some exceptional way such as  “risked their lives for me,” or “been a mother to me.”
3.  Those Paul says “worked very hard” doing God’s work.
4. Those Paul says “worked hard” doing God’s work.
5.  Individuals mentioned as being “fellow workers” without any other comment.
6.  Individuals who Paul notes as being fellow Christians who are specifically said to be “in Christ,” “in the Lord,” or “approved by Christ,” but of whom nothing else is said.
7. Some individuals are simply named, along with many others who are unnamed but included in someone’s family or household.  Although these people were doubtless Christians, they are included in the list without any qualifying remarks regarding outstanding characteristics.
 
The first thing we notice about Paul’s list, when we organize it in this manner, is the way in which he differentiates between those who are said to be involved in furthering the work of the gospel in some way, and those other individuals and groups who are said to be Christians but of whom nothing is said relative to the gospel work.  Paul doubtless deeply loved and cared about these latter individuals, but seemingly did not remember them as being notable in their service to God. Numerically, the majority of the people Paul greets are not given any special commendation and fall into this category (see verses 5 and 14–15, especially).

Those mentioned in group 6 who were said to be “approved by Christ” or described by a similar expression may have been particularly devout, though no reference is made relative to them being involved in the work of the gospel.

On the other hand, those who Paul  mentions specifically regarding their service to the gospel were certainly not all elders in the Church and served in different roles and capacities. Some, such as the lady mentioned only as “the mother of Rufus” (verse 13) clearly were extraordinarily dedicated to God’s work.  Others, such as Andronicus and Junia, had even been in prison with Paul (verse 7), showing their dedication to the gospel in that way.  

We cannot see any quantitative assessment of the work accomplished by these godly people in what Paul says, just his appreciation for their dedication.  But when we move past the individuals who are mentioned as having helped Paul personally, and those whom he calls “beloved” (yet we are not told why they are so regarded),  the remaining people on Paul’s list are the ones he shows were most actively involved in doing the work of God.  These remaining individuals are said to be  “fellow workers,” “those who work hard,” and “those who work very hard.”
​
We cannot know whether Paul was subconsciously or consciously “grading” these people as he greeted them in these ways, but it is clear that they were a minority among the larger group of Christians Paul greeted in his epistle, and that there was a difference in Paul’s mind between the level of dedication of the individuals he mentions.  It is also hard to imagine Paul – who wrote so carefully and deeply – as including the public grading of individuals without having a purpose in doing so. Perhaps that purpose was for the good of those whom he greeted, but perhaps it was for our good, also. We can all ask ourselves which group Paul would have included us in.

Asking that question of ourselves can be both instructive and challenging. After all, as Paul wrote to Timothy: “All scripture” – including the list of names found in Romans 16  – “is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (1 Timothy 3:16–17, emphasis added). If we let it, Paul’s list of greetings can inspire the people of the gospel to more and greater involvement in God’s work. 

“Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them?” (1 Corinthians 15:29).
 
The apostle Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthian church have puzzled many Christians for centuries.  Some denominations have extrapolated from the verse and have instituted a ritual by which a living believer is baptized in lieu of a person who is already deceased, and who was never baptized in their lifetime.  But is this kind of “baptism for the dead” what Paul is really talking about?

The apostle may have been referring to one of four possible logical and historical situations:
​
1. The possibility that the early Christians were indeed being physically baptized on behalf of those who had died – perhaps before they could be baptized.  This possibility is extremely unlikely as the New Testament clearly shows that baptism, while commanded, is not a requirement for salvation per se, and that sometimes it cannot be carried out (Luke 23:42–43; etc.).

2. Paul could have been referring to a pagan Greek custom, or to an unscriptural practice of vicarious baptism being followed by some members of the Corinthian church. This could be possible as Paul says “those” who do this, not “we.” But it is unlikely as we have no other record of such a practice in Corinth or elsewhere in the very early church (it is first documented in the third century AD).

3. Because baptism is a symbolic death to sin and a resurrection to righteousness (Romans 6:3–4), everyone who is baptized is, in that sense, symbolically baptized “for the dead” – that is, by baptism he or she proclaims the death of the old person and the new life in Christ.  This was said to be Paul’s meaning by the early Church father, Chrysostom (c. AD 347-), and is certainly possible.

4. A final possibility that is suggested by the context of Paul’s statement is that the apostle was referring metaphorically to the “baptism” of trial and suffering through which the followers of Christ are called to go (Matthew 16:24).  This fits with Paul’s words elsewhere linking our suffering with Christ’s death and resurrection (Philippians 3:10; etc.). The fact that the concept of baptism is used in exactly this sense in Matthew 3:11 and Mark 10:38–39, and that Paul goes on in 1 Corinthians to speak of suffering, also makes this meaning possible. Finally, Paul’s use of the ongoing present tense in his use of the word “baptized” in 1 Corinthians 15:29 makes this  possibility of  the baptism of suffering very likely.

Whichever possibility reflects the situation behind Paul’s statement, it is clear that a physical ritual of vicarious baptism for those who had died (possibility 1) is the least likely of all the meanings the verse could have. It is also a cardinal principle of proper biblical interpretation that we should never establish doctrine on uncertain verses of Scripture. Given that principle and the likelihood that Paul’s comment was either symbolic or metaphorical, there is no reason to invent a ritual practice that is nowhere commanded in the Bible. 

Whatever Paul was referring to in 1 Corinthians 15:29, he simply says that if there is no resurrection, why would baptism for the dead occur or make any sense. Paul’s point in this section of his letter has nothing directly to do with baptism, and everything to do with the certainty of Christian suffering and resurrection.

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).