The English expression “above all” is a superlative: there can normally only be one thing that is “above all” in any given category – such as the highest mountain or the largest ocean.  In the New Testament, several Greek phrases function in the same way – they also connote something that is more important than any other among the things being discussed.  For example, the apostle James tells us “Above all, my brothers and sisters, do not swear” (James 5:12) – meaning that is the most important thing his readers must keep in mind in the context he is speaking about.

The apostle Peter uses the expression in the same way in his epistles, but interestingly he uses it not once but three times – each time of a different thing:

“Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins” (1 Peter 4:8).

“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things” (2 Peter 1:20).

“Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires” (2 Peter 3:3).

At first sight these statements seem to be unrelated. They certainly speak of different things that the apostle urges us to keep foremost in mind – though it may seem strange that he mentions two things to keep in  mind “above all” in the same epistle.  Yet there is perhaps a thread that connects them all.

In the first of these verses, Peter’s subject is obvious – it is love of one another that he emphasizes must be paramount in our concerns.  We must not only love each other, he says, but we must love each other deeply.  

In the second verse the subject may seem a somewhat narrow one to be regarded as something “above all else,” but the context of the statement helps us to understand what the verse is emphasizing.  Peter is not simply talking about understanding Scripture, but about our perception of it in a context of faith. The epistle’s first verses tell us that Peter writes: “To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours” (2 Peter 1:1). 

A few verses later Peter expands the theme of faith: “make every effort to add to your faith goodness” (2 Peter 1:5).  Then in verse 16 Peter begins a defense of his readers’ faith: “For we did not follow cleverly devised stories” (2 Peter 1:16);  in verse 19 he adds “We also have the prophetic message” (2 Peter 1:19)  It is in continuation of this thought that he then writes “Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20).  Peter’s point is that our faith is well grounded – something he urges us to place at the forefront of our minds.

In the final verse in which he uses the expression “above all” the apostle tells us “Above all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come” (2 Peter 3:3) and once again we must look at its context.  The third chapter of 2 Peter develops the idea that scoffers will come who, if they are able,  will undermine the very hope of every believer in the return of our Lord: “They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised?” (2 Peter 3:4), and Peter immediately follows this warning with a defense of the Christian hope regarding Christ’s return (verses 5–12) – concluding with the words “But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells. So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this” (verses 13–14 , emphases added).  Twice Peter stresses that which the believer is looking forward to – hoping for.  The context of 2 Peter 3:3 is clearly that it is paramount that we are not affected by scoffers and that we can continue to hope in the reality of the Lord’s return.

Whether consciously or not, Peter’s three references to things that we must keep in mind “above all” are related in that they have to do with the great triad of love, faith, and hope* (or “faith, hope, and love” as Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 13:13), that make up the centrality of Christian life.  There is no contradiction in what Peter writes – these three qualities are, indeed, things that we must strive toward “above all.”
 
* Download our free e-book These Three Remain: Why Faith, Hope and Love Are Even More Important Than You Realize  here.

“Why, LORD, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?” (Isaiah 63:17).
 
This is sometimes said to be one of the most difficult verses to understand in the Bible.  All the major translations essentially agree on how the verse should be worded, so the problem is not one of understanding what the underlying Hebrew text says, but simply what it means.  On the surface, the prophet Isaiah seems to blame God for ancient Israel’s sins, and to claim that it is because of God’s action in some way that we do not properly fear him.

Because the plain meaning of the words seems to contradict the rest of what the Bible teaches – that humans are entirely responsible for their own sins – some commentators have claimed that the passage must be understood as being spoken by those antagonistic to God who simply want to blame him for their wrongdoings.  But the context shows this explanation is impossible.  The section begins, in verse 7, with the words “I will tell of the kindnesses of the Lord, the deeds for which he is to be praised, according to all the Lord has done for us” and continues in this kind of positive and devout manner till the speaker says “you, Lord, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name” (vs. 16) immediately before asking “Why, Lord, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts …” (vs. 17). So, there is no sign of antagonism toward God at all – simply the asking of a question we would not expect Isaiah to ask.

The best way to understand this scripture is probably as referring to the fact that the people of Israel’s desire to do right – no matter how weak the desire may have been – was rendered useless by God’s continued displeasure with them, and the resulting lack of his help that they desperately needed if they were to do what was right (see vs. 10). As such, the statement is a strong affirmation of Israel’s own sinfulness and need of God rather than an accusation of God’s action in “making” them sin.  

This meaning of Isaiah’s words can be seen to be likely because the question is immediately followed by the request “Return for the sake of your servants” (vs. 18) – a request for God’s help as in times past (vs. 9).  So we might paraphrase Isaiah’s seemingly strange question as “Will you not help us again so that we are not left to our own wandering and hardness of heart?”

Certainly, there is nothing to be found anywhere else in the book of Isaiah that would suggest this is not the meaning of Isaiah 63:17.  In fact, the situation is clearly summarized in Isaiah’s very next chapter where the prophet speaks on behalf of Israel, saying: “You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? … for you have hidden your face from us and have given us over to our sins” (Isaiah 64:5–7).
​
Rather than an accusation that God was causing Israel to sin, Isaiah’s message is clearly that sinful Israel needed God’s help to do right – a lesson we can also learn from this powerful biblical book, and one we should never forget.

“There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all”  (Ephesians 4:4–6).
 
One of the key teachings of Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians is that of unity. The apostle emphasizes, among other things, that there is “one faith,” and “one baptism” (Ephesians 4: 5).  Ironically, however, this particular section of Paul’s writings is sometimes misunderstood in a way that limits Christian unity and interaction. The apostle’s words are misconstrued as a call to doctrinal purity and to mean there is only one faith (“ours” and not “theirs”)  and one baptism (the way we do it, not how others perform the rite).

Doctrinal purity is important, of course; but it is hard to find a scripture to show that minor matters of doctrine trump the unity that God desires within his church.  Many attempt to find such scriptures, however, and often settle on Romans 16:17:  “I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.”  This verse is often used to attempt to show that even minor matters of doctrine are more important than unity, but that is really the exact opposite of its meaning. Paul is actually urging us to see that the divisions and offenses caused by some are contrary to doctrine – it is people who divide the church who are to be avoided, not those who may differ in understanding of minor points.

Some feel that every detail of doctrine as they understand it is important and cannot be negotiated, but Paul makes a clear distinction between the essentials of the gospel that cannot and must not be compromised (Galatians 1:8) and minor issues of understanding  (Philippians 3:15) that do not necessarily separate individuals from the body of Christ. 

But to return to Ephesians. To understand why Paul speaks of “one faith” and “one baptism,” it is vital that we keep in mind the context of what Paul is saying. Throughout Chapter 4, and throughout the whole epistle, Paul stresses the need for unity in the church and, not surprisingly, Ephesians has frequently been called the “epistle of unity.” 

Paul begins Ephesians by pointing to the great goal of unity (Ephesians 1:10) and continues throughout chapters 2 and 3 by stressing the unity God has made possible between Jews and Gentiles (note especially Ephesians 2:14-18) and concluding  “This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus” (Ephesians 3:6, emphasis added here and below). In Ephesians 4, Paul then broadens the concept of unity to the whole church, instructing us:

Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it (Ephesians 4: 3–7).

Seen properly in this context, it becomes clear that far from meaning that there is only one faith (ours and not theirs) and one baptism (the way we do it, not how others perform the rite ), Paul seeks to unify the body by emphasizing its unity in all things.  Just as there is “one Lord,” so there is “one faith” and “one baptism,” etc. These are all examples of things that unify us rather than divide us.   In other words, we all worship the same Lord, we are all part of the same faith, and all share the same way of life -  our essential beliefs and actions show the unity we have, or should have, in Christ.

The whole of Ephesians is written from the perspective of the unity we share, the unity which is the basis of our relationships in Christ, despite our differences.  And Paul is not blind to those differences but sees them as part of a unified body of Christ: “From him the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, grows and builds itself up in love, as each part does its work” (Ephesians 4:16) “for we are all members of one body” (Ephesians 4:25).  That is perhaps why Paul ends his epistle by saying “Grace to all who love our Lord Jesus Christ with an undying love” (Ephesians 6:24).
​
Doctrinal accuracy is important, of course, but we must always be careful that we do not overuse the concept so that minor matters become a hindrance to unity in the body of Christ.  The Sermon on the Mount indicates the kingdom of God is not so much about the pure in doctrine as the pure in heart. Ultimately, it is the presence of the Spirit of God within us and our way of life, not the minor details of our beliefs, that define our identity as members of the body of Christ. 

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.                                                                 

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.”

“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.

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!

​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.

​“The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want. He makes me lie down in green pastures. He leads me beside still waters ... Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,  I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff,  they comfort me …” (Psalm 23:1-4).

It’s hard for modern Christians not to think of Psalm 23 when the word “shepherd” comes to mind.  But that beautiful psalm reflects only some of the aspects of shepherding. Leading the sheep to pasture – providing for them – and through the valley of darkness – protecting them – are certainly vital aspects of the job, but as a shepherd himself David knew that there was more to the job than just feeding and protecting the sheep.

We find additional insights into the role of the shepherd in another of David’s psalms: “Save your people and bless your inheritance; be their shepherd and carry them forever” (Psalm 28:9). In the first half of this single verse we see the same aspects of protecting the sheep and providing for them, and in the second half David also mentions guiding the sheep (the Hebrew urom is a verb – to shepherd or guide, not to be a shepherd) and carrying them.

In this short but remarkable verse, David captures perhaps all the major aspects of the shepherd’s role in four verbs: To protect the sheep from death, to supply their needs, to guide them and finally to carry them when they are weak or injured and need the shepherd’s strength in addition to their own.   

This picture meshes well with Christ’s role as shepherd, which we see in the prophecy quoted by Matthew: “But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah … out of you will come a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel” (Matthew 2:6).  Jesus himself elaborated on the same four aspects of that role mentioned by David in Psalm 28.  As the prophesied shepherd,  Christ did all these things for his people:

Protected them from eternal death: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep” (John 10:11).

Provided their needs: “I am the gate for the sheep … whoever enters through me will be saved. They will come in and go out, and find pasture” (John 10:7-9).

Guided them: “When Jesus… saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. So he began teaching them many things” (Mark 6:34).

Carried them: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he … go after the lost sheep until he finds it? And when he finds it, he joyfully puts it on his shoulders and goes home” (Luke 15:4-6).

The people of ancient Israel in David’s day, and those of Judea in Christ’s day, knew well that these things were all involved in being a shepherd. That’s why Christ used that analogy often, and why his hearers may have understood more fully  than we sometimes do what it means that the Lord is our shepherd. They knew, as we should come to know also, that the flock need never doubt that the Shepherd will always  protect, provide for, guide, and carry the sheep. It’s what shepherds do.

Some Christians believe that the kingdom of God and kingdom of heaven are two different things. According to this view,  the writers of the New Testament were referring to a “millennial kingdom” (the kingdom of God)  or a “universal kingdom” (the kingdom of heaven).  But does the New Testament really make such a distinction? 

The expression “kingdom of God” occurs some 68 times in the New Testament, while the phrase “kingdom of heaven” occurs only 32 times.  Importantly, while “kingdom of God” is found in ten New Testament books, all the references to the “kingdom of heaven” occur in the Gospel of Matthew.

While the “two kingdoms” advocates suggest that Matthew was describing a “millennial kingdom” and the other Gospel writers were speaking of a “universal kingdom,” there is no biblical basis to presume this.  On the contrary, there is good biblical indication that the two expressions are not referring to two different things, but are two ways of referencing the same thing.

We see this in the words of Christ himself in his conversation with his disciples after he spoke with the rich young ruler who did not want to give up his possessions to follow Christ:

“Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven.  Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” (Matthew 19:23-24, emphases added).

Looking closely at these verses we see that Christ used both expressions –  the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven –  at the same time and clearly speaking about the same thing. 

Why then does Matthew usually use only the expression “kingdom of heaven”?  The answer is simply because Matthew originally wrote his Gospel to a Jewish audience that by tradition – in order to not break the commandment against lightly using God’s name –  often tried to avoid speaking the name of God and frequently substituted a euphemism.  As a result, the Jews frequently referred to the “kingdom of heaven” rather than the “kingdom of God”  –  using the one expression for the other in much the same way that we nowadays might say “The White House announced” meaning the President or his administration announced something.

The other Gospels usually used “kingdom of God” where Matthew used “kingdom of heaven” in recording their parallel accounts of the same spoken words.  We can see this by comparing, for example, Matthew 11:11-12 with Luke 7:28; or Matthew 13:11 with Mark 4:11 and Luke 8:10. In these and many other instances Matthew used the expression “kingdom of heaven” in deference to his Jewish audience, while the other Gospels used “kingdom of God.”

​For all these reasons, the New Testament makes it clear that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are exactly the same thing.

“The Lord has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my hands he has rewarded me. For I have kept the ways of the Lord; I am not guilty of turning from my God. All his laws are before me; I have not turned away from his decrees. I have been blameless before him and have kept myself from sin. The Lord has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his sight” (Psalm 18:20-24).

At first sight, verses such as these might appear to show a self-righteous attitude and perhaps that David was proud of his own righteousness.  If you were to say the same things to your friends, you know how they would react!  But there are two factors to consider in looking at verses like these and understanding what David meant:

1) What righteousness means in the Old Testament.   First, we must understand that the concept of righteousness in the Old Testament is somewhat different from what we find today and even in the New Testament. In the Hebrew Bible the word sedek which is often translated as “righteousness” literally means “straightness” as opposed to “crookedness,” but it is usually used of the status of relationships rather than as a  measure of perfection. Under the Law of Moses one could be righteous by simply maintaining one’s relationship with God and others according to basic legal norms –  the term did not denote some kind of perfect purity or spiritual perfection.

Anyone who did not literally murder, cheat, lie to, or otherwise harm other individuals maintained a proper relationship with them and was therefore “righteous.” In the same way, those who, for example, did not take God's name in vain and who kept the Sabbath day maintained a basic relationship with God that was regarded as righteousness. This is different, of course, from the deeper expectations of the New Testament, which more frequently stress the spirit of the law, as well as the importance of  right motivation and the attitude behind our behavior.   

But according to the earlier concept of righteousness found in much of the Old Testament, when a person fulfilled the basic demands of his relationship with God and others he or she could be said to be “righteous,” and many of the times that David uses the term sedek, it is from this perspective.  David was righteous in Hebrew terms simply because he lived within the expectations of  the covenant community of which he was a part.   

2)  What David also says regarding sin and righteousness.  Even though David could see himself as usually being righteous in terms of how his society used the term, we find plenty of evidence that he was not proudly self-righteous.  We know that David sinned and knew that he sinned (Psalm 51, etc.), so it is clear he did not imagine himself perfect in our modern sense of righteousness.  We also know that David earnestly asked God to help him walk in the way of righteousness, as we see, for example, in Psalm 19: “Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me. Then I shall be blameless, and I shall be innocent of great transgression” (Psalm 19:13).

Finally, we know that beyond asking God’s help to walk righteously, David openly gave God the credit when he did do what was right!  In Psalm 18 –  the same psalm we quote above regarding David’s expressions of righteousness –  we also find: “It is God who arms me with strength, and makes my way perfect” (Psalm 18:32).  This same attitude of humbly crediting God with his righteousness is frequently confirmed in other psalms, as when David says: “You are my Lord, my goodness is nothing apart from You” (Psalm 16:2).

So, there is no indication in the psalms of David, or elsewhere, that David was self-righteous or proud of his own goodness.  It is clear that while David knew that at most times he did walk righteously according to how this concept was understood in his own culture, it is equally clear that he asked God’s help to do so and gave God credit when he succeeded.
 
* For further understanding of the psalms of David, download our free e-book Spotlight on the Psalms from our sister site here.

In this post, we are not talking about historical first events such as the first sacrifice or the first building of a city that is mentioned in the biblical narrative, but the first appearance of terms that play vitally important roles in conveying the teachings of the Bible – words such as faith, hope, love, etc.  We have selected seven of these key concepts; seeing their first occurrences can be instructive as well as interesting. 

FAITH – Finding the first instance of the word “faith” in the Bible is not as simple as it may seem. This is because the Hebrew of the Old Testament has at least six words that can reflect different aspects of the idea.  But many of these words carry meanings such as “faithful” which really means some aspect of loyalty (Genesis 5:22, 24, etc.). When it comes to the concept of faith as “trust,” the first clear instance is found in Genesis 15:6 which tells us “Abram believed the Lord, and he credited it to him as righteousness” (emphasis added). Paul quotes this verse in the New Testament and translates it with the Greek word pistis – the same word he uses throughout his writings on faith.

HOPE – The first mention of hope is found in the book of Ruth. In Ruth 1:12 we find Naomi telling her daughters-in-law: “Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me – even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons…”  Here, in hope’s first appearance in scripture we see the very real difference between faith and hope.

LOVE – Arguably the most important single concept in the Bible, the first mention of love in the Bible occurs in Genesis 22 when God tells Abraham: “… Take your son, your only son, whom you love—Isaac—and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on a mountain I will show you” (Genesis 22:3).  Once again, a key biblical concept first appears in the stories about Abraham, in this case a particularly important one. This is not only the first occurrence of the word love in the Bible, it is also the love of a father for his son – a foreshadowing or pre-enactment of the greatest act of sacrificial love the world has known.

JUDGMENT – Although judgment is a quality often associated with the Old Testament in the minds of many, the word “judgment” itself does not appear till relatively late in the biblical narrative. It is only when we get to Exodus 6:6 that we read: “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the Lord, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.”   Judgment here in its first mention, as in so many cases in the Old Testament, is associated with an equal stress on salvation – in this case the physical saving of Israel.

TRUTH – This is one of several key biblical concepts first mentioned specifically in the story of Joseph. Genesis 42:16 records Joseph telling his brothers: “Send one of your number to get your brother; the rest of you will be kept in prison, so that your words may be tested to see if you are telling the truth. If you are not, then as surely as Pharaoh lives, you are spies!”

MERCY – Like truth, we first find this vital spiritual principle in the story of Joseph. Genesis 43:14 records his father Jacob telling Joseph’s brothers: “And may God Almighty grant you mercy before the man so that he will let your other brother and Benjamin come back with you ...”  This is the original biblical story in which mercy and truth are juxtaposed.

FORGIVENESS – Yet another important biblical term – the last one on our list – is first specifically mentioned in the Joseph story. In Genesis 50:17 we read: “‘This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.’ Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father…” The key qualities of mercy and forgiveness were obviously at the core of this story.
​
Looking at these “first occurrences” of key terms in the biblical narrative, it is especially interesting to notice that two of them – faith and love – first appear in the story of Abraham and three others – truth, mercy and forgiveness – all occur in the story of Joseph.  That accounts for five of the seven spiritual qualities that we look at here, and noticing these key “firsts” helps us to realize the importance of these two stories in the development of the Bible’s teachings.  In these two stories alone we find direct examples of spiritual concepts that lie at the very heart of all the Bible contains.  It is not surprising then that the stories of Abraham and Joseph are recognized as perhaps the greatest foreshadowings by individuals in the Old Testament of Jesus Christ –  in whom these qualities would all be perfected.

“Out of his fullness we have all received grace in place of grace already given” (John 1:16).

This verse is sometimes explained as representing the Old Covenant being replaced by the New, as though it meant one kind of grace instead of another kind. But if that is what John had in mind, he would doubtless have written “… grace in place of law already given” –  especially as we see in the very next verse: “For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ” (John 1:17).
 
The meaning of “grace” itself is straightforward. As is often said, while “mercy” refers to our not getting what we deserve, “grace” refers to our getting what we do not deserve – the many blessings God pours out upon us.  But what does “grace in place of grace” mean?

Fortunately, the meaning of John’s statement is fairly easy to determine.  In writing that we have received “grace in place of grace” (emphases added here and below), the apostle is not contrasting two different things, but two (or more) things of the same kind.  In the Greek in which the New Testament was written the expression is literally “grace for grace” (see for example, Matthew 5:38, “an eye for an eye”) meaning “grace in place of grace” or “grace on top of grace.” The English Standard Version translates the verse in this way with the wording “grace upon grace.”

This implies not a change of grace, but an addition to the grace we originally received – an ongoing gift of God’s grace.  In this sense, the word grace is almost synonymous with blessings.  That is what John means by “Out of his fullness we have all received grace …”  And we should not forget that John makes this comment directly after telling us that the Son of God came from the Father “… full of grace and truth” (John 1:14).  That is the fullness from which, vs. 16 tells us, we receive God’s blessing of grace.

But John’s main point is that God does not simply grant us his grace when we initially turn to him (John 1:12).  He continues to grant that grace to us in an ongoing manner throughout our Christian lives (John 1:16).

Despite heavy Greek and Roman influences, the Jewish culture of the New Testament period was still essentially a Semitic one in which the repetition of a word in Hebrew or Aramaic (the commonly spoken language of Judea at that time) was used to indicate the “superlative” degree of comparison.  In other words, just as we find “pits, pits,” meaning many pits in Genesis 14:10, so John’s use of “grace for grace” not only literally meant “grace upon grace” but also conveyed, to John’s 1st century Jewish readers, the underlying concept of “much grace.” 
​
So John 1:16 is not referring in any way to the Old and New Covenants described in the Bible. It simply stresses God’s full and ongoing blessing and the outpouring of his gift of grace to us in a continuous manner.  Put simply, God not only blesses us, he continually and constantly blesses us with his grace.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus found in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 16:19-31) is one which often confuses people.  Is it a parable, or is it meant to reflect actual events?  Theologians have often argued this question, but knowledge of the culture in which Jesus lived and taught can help us answer it.

Jesus’ story, in summary, tells us that a very rich man ignored the poor man Lazarus who lay outside his gate each day. When both men died we are told that Lazarus was “… carried by the angels to Abraham’s side” (vs. 22), while the rich man found himself in a different place: “In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side” (vs. 23).

Those who see this account as a literal one recording actual events feel that it obviously refers to Lazarus being in heaven and the rich man in hell.  But there are problems with this view.  If it records actual facts, then the dead are able to speak despite their torment and can converse with those in heaven, and vice-versa (vss. 23-31).  Apparently, a single drop of water would also relieve the burning torment of someone in hell (vs. 24).   This situation is in contradiction to several statements that we find in the Old Testament (Psalm 115:17, Ecclesiastes 9:5, etc.), so we must ask why would Jesus flatly contradict these scriptures? 

On the other hand, although it is sometimes claimed that the story is unlikely to be a parable because it has a named character (Lazarus) – something that we do not find in the parables – there may be a reason for this instance of naming.  By telling us the rich man asks that Lazarus bring him water and go to warn his family, the story indicates that he knows who Lazarus is and therefore must have known him and been fully aware of his need during his lifetime. This is a way of specifically showing the rich man’s guilt.

Furthermore, Luke introduces this story of the rich man and Lazarus in exactly the same way he introduces the parables that precede it. All of them are introduced either with the formula “what man/woman …” or “there was a man/woman …” (Luke 15:3, 8, 11; 16:1). There is, in fact, nothing about the story of the rich man and the poor man that cannot be seen as a parable.

This is especially true as the story of the rich man and Lazarus fits into a sequence of parables and sayings on the same subject: the use and misuse of money.  After giving the parable of the prodigal son, Jesus gave the parable of the shrewd manager and then the story of the rich man and Lazarus. In this, the final climactic story of this group, Jesus gives an example of the principle that we cannot serve God and money, as he stressed a few verses earlier (Luke 16:13).

But even if the story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable, we must still ask why it contradicts clear statements found in the Old Testament.  For the answer to this we must look again at the context of the parable.  Luke tells us: “Now the tax collectors and sinners were all gathering around to hear Jesus.  But the Pharisees and the teachers of the law muttered, ‘This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.’ Then Jesus told them this parable…” (Luke 15:1-3).

This is the setting in which Jesus began the following four parables – including the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  The direct audience for the parables was not the crowds he frequently taught, but a group of Pharisees.  Although Luke shows that Jesus switched his attention and directed one of the parables toward his disciples (Luke 16:1), he then continued to speak to the Pharisees as we read: “The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them …” (Luke 16:14-15, emphasis added).   It was at this point, after some initial comments, that Jesus gave the story of the rich man.

This story was specifically aimed at the Pharisees. Jesus not only mentioned the futility of riches and Abraham (to whom the Pharisees looked for their eligibility for salvation – John 8:39), but also structured the story according to the teachings and beliefs of the Pharisees themselves.  Although the priestly Sadducees said that there was no resurrection and no angels (Acts 23:8), we know that the Pharisees believed in angels and in the resurrection, both of which Jesus referenced in the story (Luke 16:22, 31). They believed in human spirits that existed after death and would, on the last day, be bodily resurrected. But the Pharisees also believed in concepts of heaven and hell that were essentially like what we find in the story of the rich man and Lazarus.  

It is highly significant that when we read of Jesus talking to the priestly Sadducees he never discusses this idea of a tortuous hell – it was something they did not believe in.  But when Jesus talked with the Pharisees he used this kind of graphic example of the kind of ongoing tortuous separation from God in which they believed.  Jesus knew the teachings of the Pharisees well (Matthew 23:25-28, etc.) and put them to use in correcting the Pharisees themselves.
​
The story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable then, but it is one given for the ears of the Pharisees and given “in their language,” according to their theology, in a way that they would get the point of the parable without getting caught up in arguing the theological aspects of the story itself.  

​You may have known people who were offended at the concept Christians teach – that an individual’s mind must be “opened” to see the truth. To many it sounds almost insulting that they would not be “intelligent enough” to fully understand Christian belief. Nevertheless, the Bible does teach that no matter how intelligent we may be, we cannot understand spiritual things unless God “opens our mind.” 

The ancient biblical writers did not talk about opening the “mind,” of course, as that is a modern concept. Instead, writers in both the Old Testament and New Testament used the expression to “open the eyes,” meaning the same thing. In fact, antiquated as it might seem, the concept works well because our eyes are already open and yet need to be “opened” – just as people’s minds can be functional, yet may need to be opened spiritually, too. That is why Jesus said: “I praise you, Father… because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children” (Matthew 11:25; see also Matthew 13:13-14). 

That is why the work of the coming Messiah was foretold in just these terms by the prophet Isaiah: “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped” (Isaiah 35:5); “… to open eyes that are blind … to release from the dungeon those who sit in darkness” (Isaiah 42:7).  When Christ commissioned Saul – the apostle Paul – it was to do the same work: “I am sending you to them to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me” (Acts 26:17-19).

So fully perceiving and understanding spiritual things requires God’s help. We may know this, but the understanding calls for the use of wisdom in several areas of the Christian life. First, in sharing our faith we cannot expect people to understand the truth of God’s word unless God is opening their minds to see it. That is something to remember at all times. Trying to “help” or force people to understand spiritual realities cannot work unless God is already calling them. 

Second, we should remember that people’s eyes are not usually “opened” all the way at one moment in time. God is gracious in revealing to us what we can handle before helping us to move to the next level of understanding and responsibility. We should always remember to have the same patience with those we aspire to help in the knowledge of the truth.

Finally, we must constantly remind ourselves that the fact spiritual eyes are opened slowly and not all at once is something we must apply to ourselves daily. It is always easy to presume – at every stage along the way – that we know or understand “most things.”  But the truth is, the further we progress along the road of Christian growth, the more we become aware that we still have so much more to learn, so much more to understand.  That is why David prayed – as we should, too – “Open my eyes that I may see wonderful things in your law” (Psalm 119:18). It’s a prayer we never outgrow.

* Reproduced from the February, 2015 blog post on our sister site TacticalChristianity.org

“….if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Corinthians 7:21).

Freedom is always a good idea.   You don’t have to persuade Americans of that, especially around the fourth of July each year, and most every other place in this world either celebrates freedom or mourns its absence at any given time.  But freedom comes with a price, of course.  It is always bought with a struggle, and in this country we can look back on the War of Independence and the abolition of slavery as only two examples of the value of freedom and the struggles necessary to obtain it. 

The apostle Paul recognized the same truth applies in a spiritual sense. Writing to the Corinthians, he said “….if you can gain your freedom, do so,” and the context is interesting.  Notice the whole sentence from which this quote is taken: “Were you a slave when you were called? Don’t let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so” (1 Corinthians 7:21).

Paul tells us several things here.  First, we must remember that slavery in the biblical world was not the evil of the racial slavery conducted at various times in history.  It was more like indentured service from which people could often work their way to independence, and it was certainly nothing like the totally demeaning and dehumanizing types of slavery with which the world is sadly more familiar.   So Paul tells his readers “don’t worry about it if you were called without freedom.”  Under the circumstances of his time, although it was not the best situation, slavery in that culture did not restrict many aspects of personal freedom and usually didn’t interfere with a person’s choice of religion or other things we would regard as essential rights.

Nevertheless, Paul still wrote to people in that situation: “… if you can gain your freedom, do so,” and the words are not given as advice to be considered, but a principle to be followed.  It’s easy to read over them today as being antiquated and not applying to us in our modern age, but they do. 

Many biblical verses show that when we are called we are all actually spiritually enslaved – enslaved to sin and our own human nature  (John 8:34, 2 Peter 2:19, etc.).   But many other verses show that through the struggle fought on our behalf by the Son of God, we are given freedom from these things (2 Corinthians 3:17, Galatians 5:1, etc.). 

Yet, just like physical freedom, spiritual freedom has to be recognized, appreciated, guarded and preserved.  As Paul wrote in his letter to the Galatians: “It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery” (Galatians 5:1).  How can we lose our spiritual freedom?  The New Testament shows that we can sink back into slavery through accepting false beliefs (Galatians 2:4), by not controlling our physical natures (Galatians 5:13), or through anything that takes control of our lives (2 Peter 2:19).

But it needn’t be that way.   Just as celebrations of freedom, such as the Fourth of July, each time we observe them remind us of the need to protect our physical freedoms, every time we study the word of God it should be a reminder that we need to preserve our spiritual freedom, too.  Look how the apostle James – the brother of Jesus – reminds us of this truth:  “But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do” (James 1:25).   A little later in his letter, James also tells us: “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom” (James 2:12), and it’s really the same principle. 

Freedom is always a good idea, but whether it’s this Fourth of July or the next time we open our Bibles, we must remember: freedom must be chosen, and choosing freedom is always the right idea.

* This post first appeared on 7/3/2016 on our sister site, TacticalChristianity.org

​Does God punish the children and other descendants for the sins of their “fathers” – their parents or ancestors?  Some scriptures – including the Second of the Ten Commandments – seem to show this to be the case:

“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” (Exodus 20:5).  

​The principle is repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9 and appears again in the Book of Exodus with only slightly different wording: “… 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” (Exodus 34:7).

Yet other scriptures, which are equally clear, seem to contradict this principle of the punishment of children for their parents’ sins.  In the Book of Deuteronomy, we find: “Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16).  The prophet Ezekiel repeats this opposite approach: “The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them” (Ezekiel 18:20).

In order to untangle this seeming contradiction, we must realize that the situations covered by these two sets of scriptures are different.  First, notice that in the first set of verses (Exodus 20:5; 34:7; Deuteronomy 5:9) nothing is said about death, whereas in the second set of verses (Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel 18:20) the death penalty is mentioned in each case. 

Moses and Ezekiel both make it clear that under God’s law no one was to be punished for someone else’s crimes or sins.  The context is a specifically legal one regarding punishments meted out under human justice.  In the Second Commandment and parallel verses it is God who is being said to punish –  in a general manner that does not apply to humanly applied punishments.

This is not because God somehow deals out “tougher” justice than he commands humans to do in specific situations, but because God has set in place spiritual laws (summarized in the Ten Commandments) that have an effect when they are broken. Just as we cannot act against the physical law of gravity by dropping an object on the ground without risking breaking it, or jumping from a height without risking hurting ourselves, we cannot break a spiritual law without hurting ourselves – and often others as well.

The scriptures that speak of the sins of parents affecting the individual’s children and other descendants are simply speaking of the unavoidable consequences that people bring upon themselves and others through breaking spiritual laws.  Children who are born to drug-addicted mothers will unavoidably be affected by the parent’s addiction. Children who grow up in homes where parents routinely break spiritual laws almost always get hurt by the result of those behaviors. Unfortunately, those children often then pass on the negative results of such choices by following the same behavioral patterns themselves –  so the problems suffered by those who reject God’s laws may indeed last till the “third and fourth generation.”
​
But these unavoidable ongoing effects of the behavior of individuals on their families and others are separate and different from situations where individuals are condemned and punished by society through specific laws for specific crimes. In such cases, God’s law stresses, children should never be punished for the behavior of their parents. 

The title of this post may appear strange. What else would “firstborn” mean other than being born first – the eldest of the children in a family?   In the Bible the designation of firstborn often does mean the literal “one born first” but just as often – if not more often – it has different connotations, and knowing those meanings  can help us to better understand a number of scriptures.

In ancient Israel, as in much of the ancient Near East, the firstborn son inherited his father’s responsibilities as head of the family (Genesis 27), so we read in the Old Testament that he normally received a special – double – inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:17).  We see this fact in the stories of the patriarchs, where we also see that being the “firstborn” was a privilege that could sometimes actually be bestowed on a younger son who was not the literal firstborn at all. When we read the stories of the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph, we see that “firstborn” privilege was frequently not  based on literal birth order, but on selection.

But whether literally firstborn or chosen as such, the holder of the firstborn birthright  held a special place in biblical society.  After the Passover slaying of the Egyptian firstborn and the Exodus from Egypt, every firstborn Israelite male was dedicated to God’s service.  This obligation was later transferred to the Levites (Numbers 8:14-19), but the significance of the special relationship between God and the firstborn continued, as we see in the fact that the nation of Israel as a whole was called God's firstborn (Exodus 4:22-23, Jeremiah 31:9, etc.). This fact signified Israel’s special standing among the nations and also the priestly responsibility of Israel to be a “light” to the Gentile nations around them.

The term “firstborn” can be used metaphorically in the Bible as well as literally.  In the symbolic sense the term was often used in ancient Near Eastern cultures (as it still is today) to mean the superlative example of something – whether good or bad.  So in the Book of Job “firstborn” is even used of a terrible disease: “It consumes the parts of his skin; the firstborn of death consumes his limbs” (Job 18:13 ESV).  But  when speaking of people, firstborn may mean the least or the greatest.  So in Isaiah  we find “The firstborn of the poor will feed, and the needy will lie down in safety” (Isaiah 14:30 NKJV, ESV, etc.); and the Book of Psalms, speaking prophetically of the coming Messiah, states “… I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27).

Thus, Jesus Christ is called the “firstborn” in the New Testament, and we can see now how this can mean several things.  The term applies both to his literal position as firstborn of God:  “… when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Hebrews 1:6);  firstborn from the dead: “… the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead” (Colossians 1:18); and the One who is supreme: “The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation” (Colossians 1:15).

We see, too, how these meanings flow over into the New Testament’s description of Christians as “firstborn.” Our relationship with Christ and our identification with him mean that we too have become firstborn, like the nation of physical Israel, but even more: “For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters” (Romans 8:29).  That is why the Book of Hebrews refers to Christians as “the church of the firstborn” (Hebrews 12:23).
​
So, the term “firstborn” in the Scriptures can mean much more than simply “the one born first.” It may mean that, but it may also mean the one to whom the birthright and responsibility was passed (which may apply in many situations, such as what Paul tells us about Christ being the “last” or “second” Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:44-46).  “Firstborn” may also mean the greatest or least of individuals or even things.  Above all, “firstborn” can refer to several aspects of the nature and role of Jesus Christ – and our identity with the One who is the ultimate firstborn.

​The words “How much more” are most often heard as part of a negative statement such as “How much more of this can I take?” But if you search for them, you will find they frequently appear in the Bible in a completely positive manner – that can teach us something.

Back in the 1st Century, in the time of Christ, the renowned Jewish teacher Hillel and other scholars developed careful methods of logical argumentation in order to arrive at sound conclusions regarding interpretation of the Scriptures.  One of those methods was called Qal va-homer (literally “light and heavy”), which argued from the lesser to the greater situation and which is often called the “how much more” argument.  In other words, if X is the case, how much more would Y be the case.

We actually see this principle occasionally in the Old Testament. For example, after Miriam criticized Moses and was punished with leprosy, Moses prayed that she might be healed, but God reminded him: “If her father had spit in her face, would she not have been in disgrace for seven days? Confine her outside the camp for seven days” (Numbers 12:14) – in other words, if she would be punished for seven days for offending her human father, how much more should she be punished for seven days for offending God.

When we get to the New Testament we see the method of argument employed regularly by Jesus in his teaching.  Not surprisingly, we see the most examples in the Gospel of Matthew, which seems originally to have been written in Hebrew for a primarily Jewish audience.  The twelfth chapter of Matthew’s Gospel contains a clear examples of Jesus’ use of the “how much more” argument in the story of his healing of a man with a withered hand on the Sabbath day.

Before we look at that example, it is good to remember that in using the “how much more” argument, the Jewish scholars and rabbis utilized a common format.  The argument was presented in three propositions: a first fact or premise, a second fact or premise, and a conclusion based on the two preceding premises.  We see this when we read how Jesus replied to the Pharisees who tried to trap him by asking him:  “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” (Matthew 12.10).

First Jesus told them: “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?” (Matthew 12:11 – the first premise). Then he continued: “How much more valuable is a person than a sheep!” (Matthew 12:12a – the second premise). Finally he concluded: “Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath” (Matthew 12:12b – the conclusion). Notice that in the parallel account of this event in Mark, that Gospel records a different type of argument made by Jesus at this time that would have satisfied the congregation of the synagogue, but would not have been as effective in combatting the religious leaders – the Pharisees (Mark 3:4).

But in Matthew, Jesus not only answered the learned Pharisees decisively, he also did so using their own scholarly argumentation – their own method of scriptural interpretation.  Jesus’ answer was thus not only a clear statement of the acceptable – and desirable – principle of doing good on the Sabbath day, it was also an indictment of the Pharisees for not reaching that conclusion themselves by using their own principles of exegesis.

Just as the “how much more” argument is found repeatedly in Jesus’ teachings, we find it also used by the apostle Paul, who was steeped in the scholarship of the Pharisees and trained by Hillel himself. Knowing this sheds extra light on many of the things that Paul writes.  For example, in his epistle to the Romans Paul writes:  “… if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!” (Romans 11:24).  Looking closely at these words of Paul, we see the same type of premise, “how much more,” and conclusion. Paul may sometimes vary this format, but the result of his argument is the same.

Remembering that the “how much more” argument was one used frequently by Jesus and Paul can help us to understand more about what they are saying when they use this form of interpretation.  A pattern is certainly clear – neither Jesus nor Paul used this type of argument in a random manner.  Most often it was used to clarify difficult questions or important points of doctrine. If we remember this when we are reading the Gospels or epistles of Paul, we can see why it is helpful to pay special attention whenever we see the words “how much more.”  Once we know the principle and recognize it, how much more we can get out of many of its occurrences!

The word for spirit (pneuma) appears very frequently in the writings of the apostle Paul (146 times, in fact). Understanding his use of the term can be important, because Paul actually uses pneuma in at least five different ways:

1.  The breath of a living being (2 Thessalonians 2:8).   The word pneuma is sometimes used in the New Testament to mean "breath" or any movement of air or wind (John 3:8, etc.), but Paul does not use the word in this way.

2.  A characteristic of human behavior.  This may be negative as in “a spirit of fear” (2 Timothy 1:7) and “spirit of sleep” (Romans 11:8), or positive as in “a spirit of gentleness” (Galatians 6:1) and a “spirit of wisdom” (Ephesians 1:17).  The positive references often refer to qualities of the Spirit of God (see 5, below) expressed in us – we must look at the context of each instance to decide.   In this sense of behavior, pneuma is sometimes used as an adverb or adjective with the meaning of “spiritually” or even “crafty” ( 2 Corinthians 12:16)! 

3. A non-material part of the human being (1 Corinthians 2:11). Paul refers to Timothy's spirit (2 Corinthians 7: 13) and tells us to “be renewed in the spirit of your mind” (Ephesians 4:23).  Compare James 2:26, which says that “…the body without the spirit is dead….” 
 
4. A non-physical being. Just as John 4:24 says “God is spirit….,” 1 Corinthians 15:45 says that after his resurrection Jesus Christ became a “life-giving spirit.”  Compare also Hebrews 1:14 which says, “Are not all angels ministering spirits…?”

5. The Spirit of God (2 Corinthians 3:3) or equivalents such as “the Holy Spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:19), “the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead” (Romans 8:11), “the Spirit of His Son” (Galatians 4:6), “the Spirit of the Lord” (2 Corinthians 3:14-18) or “the Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9).

How do these different ways Paul uses the word pneuma or “spirit” affect our understanding of his writings?  Often even Bible translators have to try to decide whether Paul meant “Spirit” as in meaning number 5 – the Spirit of God – or “spirit” as in one of the other possible meanings of the word.  Consider the fact that the King James Version translated pneuma as “Spirit” 138 times and as “spirit” 123 times, whereas the New International Version translated the word as “Spirit” 246 times and as “spirit” 92 times.  That means the word is translated differently over one hundred times between these two versions – a considerable difference!

Sometimes context makes it clear which meaning of “spirit” is intended.  In 1 Corinthians 2:11, for example, Paul writes: “For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.” Both instances of pneuma are translated spirit, but it is clear one is human spirit and the other God’s Spirit that is meant.

But the lesson for us in our own study is that we should look carefully when Paul uses the word “spirit.”  Should it be capitalized or not? And if not, which of the meanings of the word given above best fits the context?  In the Book of Galatians, for example, Paul frequently mentions “spirit” but does not qualify the word, so we need to read each instance carefully to see what he meant.

There are clues we can utilize.  When Paul uses the definite article and says “the spirit,” it is usually the Spirit of God (unless he states otherwise as in “the spirit of fear”).   If Paul is talking about the Holy Spirit in the verses before an instance of just “spirit,” he usually means the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 12:3-7). When he writes that people have “received the spirit,” he means the Spirit of God. 

But even with the clues we have, translation is often not easy.  For example, “gentleness” can be a characteristic of the human spirit or the Spirit of God – we must look carefully to try to decide which spirit is meant.  When Paul writes that he is absent in body but present “in the spirit” (1 Corinthians 5:3-4), he may mean in his human spirit, just as we use the expression today, but he may mean he is connected to his audience by the fellowship of the Spirit of God he and they have received – so they are of “one spirit” (1 Corinthians 6:17).

No great doctrinal uncertainties hang on the exact meaning of pneuma in the writings of Paul or elsewhere in the New Testament, but we can often deepen our understanding of God’s word by thinking about the possible meanings when we do read this word in our study.

Something to Think about:  Psalm 65:8 (CEB) "... you make the gateways of the morning and the evening shout for joy."

In many parts of the ancient Near East, in the cultures surrounding ancient Israel such as Babylon and Egypt, the sun was believed to rise from the underworld each day through gates which opened in the morning on the eastern horizon and to sink back into the depths of the earth at night ​through the gates of the evening in the west. 

For the cultures that held this kind of belief, the gates of the evening and morning were places of great significance controlled by the gods, but they were essentially part of the underworld and as such they were places of darkness, foreboding, and closeness to death.

The biblical writers rejected this view and characterized the morning and evening as times of joy – times in which the One true God demonstrated his power and his care for his creation (Psalm 30:5, 42:8, 49:14, 141:2, etc.).  Psalm 65:8 captures this view in a single verse, showing that each morning was a sign of the hope of life and each evening a rejoicing in the life God had given. Its wording is slightly different in other translations, but the idea is the same: "The whole earth is filled with awe at your wonders; where morning dawns, where evening fades, you call forth songs of joy" (NIV).

Today we may smile at the concepts of ancient pagan peoples, but we should be equally impressed with the enlightened nature of the biblical view.  Psalm 65:8 and similar verses shun the darkened views of ignorance that surrounded ancient Israel and remind us that each morning and evening are a cause for joy.  It's a message we should remember as we go from day to day and one we can apply in two small ways.  

First, the psalmist tells us "It is good to praise the Lord ...  proclaiming your love in the morning and your faithfulness at night" (Psalm 92:1-2), yet it is easy to forget to do this joyfully at the sleepy and tired ends of the day when joy is so often replaced by the hurry of preparing for the day or the wind-down at its end.  Psalm 65:8 is a colorful reminder to include real joy in our morning and evening prayers.  

Second, despite the problems or the simple ongoing strain that our lives may involve, Psalm 65:8 calls us to consider ourselves as gatekeepers: to consider each morning and evening an opportunity of reflecting joy.  They can sometimes be the hardest times to let our light shine, but remembering this simple verse can make a difference in our lives, and the lives of those around us, when we treat the morning and the evening as the times of joy they were intended to be!

Our new free eBook, THE BIBLE IN FIVE VERSES: KEY SCRIPTURES ON 36 BIBLICAL TOPICS by R. Herbert, is now online and ready for download.  
 
This eBook is a basic introduction to Christianity and was designed for personal study or missionary use. It explains thirty-six “key” Christian beliefs and principles of living in a straightforward, easy to understand manner, with introductory text and five key verses for each subject. 

​The book also includes a question for personal reflection on each topic and can be used to review key scriptures, for sermon and Bible Study preparation, or for inspirational reading.  

As is the case with all our eBooks, this one is completely free and you can download a copy for yourself without any kind of registration or hassle.  Just download the book in the format you prefer here.

Unfortunately, this blog post does not claim to offer the true significance of existence – but it does look at the meanings of the words for “life” in the New Testament, and the lessons we can draw from them. It is often pointed out that the different words used for “love” in the Greek New Testament help us better understand the breadth of that concept. In the same way, the three Greek words used for “life” can also give us insight into some important biblical verses.

The most basic word for life found in ancient Greek, and in the New Testament, was bios – from which we take our bio- rooted words such as biosphere, of course. Bios was commonly used for life in the simple sense, for the period of one’s “lifetime” and for those things that sustain physical life such as physical resources and even wealth. It is found with this meaning in scriptures such as Luke 21:4: “All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.”

The next word for life is psuche from which we take our psych- rooted words relating to the mind such as psychology, though in ancient Greek the word had a broader meaning including the breath of life, the vital physical force which animates the body,  the physical life or “soul.” We find this word most often in the New Testament with the simple meaning of our physical life – in verses such as Matthew 10:39: “He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.”  

The final word for life, and the most important, is zoe. We take our zoo- rooted terms such as zoology from this word, but zoe signifies not only the animate aspect of life as opposed to non-life, but also life in the absolute and fullest sense. It is the word used repeatedly in the New Testament in statements regarding the kind of eternal life God has (John 5:26) and wishes to give to us – life which is both qualitatively and quantitatively greater than the life we have now.  Zoe is found in verses such as 1 John 5:11-12: “And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.  He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.” 

Keeping the different meanings of these three words in  mind can often give us greater understanding of passages in the New Testament. An example is 1 John 2:16: “For everything in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—comes not from the Father but from the world.”  Here, knowing that the word “life” in “the pride of life” is a translation of the word bios helps us to see that the pride being spoken of is not arrogance, but pride of physical possessions – which fits better with the context. 

In Matthew 6:25, where we find: “For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink ... Is not life more than food …?” the word “life” is actually not bios, and the stress is not on the things that sustain life, but psuche – our very existence itself (just as Jesus said “is not life more than food…”).  

As a final example, notice John 10:10: “I have come that they may have life and may have life  abundantly.” Here, knowing the the word used for life is zoe, we see that Jesus’ goal was not that we just have a better or more abundant physical life, but that we get true life and come to have that life abundantly. 

By simply checking which word for “life” is used in a given scripture, when it might make a difference, we can often come to a fuller understanding of what is being said. To do that, all we need do is check the verse in an online Greek interlinear New Testament such as the one here.  It’s a simple enough procedure in order to be able to know the meaning of life.