More than any other New Testament book, the Third Gospel teaches us what it means to be humble.
 
Not surprisingly, humility is displayed in all the gospel accounts of the life of Jesus. For example, although we tend to think of Matthew as the gospel of kingship – the gospel that frequently alludes to the messianic kingly role of Christ – Matthew also records many examples of humility in the lives of Jesus and others. But none of the four gospels focuses as clearly on the humility of the Son of God and his teachings on the subject as does the book of Luke.

A Life of Humility

Luke alone describes the humble nature of the physical birth of Jesus – beginning with Mary’s affirmation of her humble state (Luke 1:48, 52), and the details of Jesus’ birth that underscore the relative poverty of his parents (Luke 2:24, etc.).  Like Matthew, Luke tells us that Jesus had no fixed home (Luke 9:58), but alone among the gospels Luke tells us that Jesus’ ministry was only possible because of the support of others who were better off (Luke 8:1–3). 

Luke alone records how Jesus was humbly subject to his earthly parents throughout his early years (Luke 2:51), and gives us dozens of details illustrating Jesus’ humble way of life – such as the fact that except on one occasion, he is pictured as traveling either by foot or by boat in an age when many – and certainly anyone due respect – traveled by horse or donkey. 

Luke also stresses how Jesus lived a life of spiritual humility, and this is frequently seen not only in what the evangelist tells us regarding Jesus’s words about himself (Luke 22:27; etc.), but also, for example, in the fact that although he was worthy of many titles and was called “the Son of God” by others, in Luke’s Gospel Jesus refers to himself as simply the “Son of Man.”

Humble interactions

Luke also carefully records details of Jesus’ interactions with others who expressed humility.   Perhaps the greatest example of this kind of reciprocal humility that is found in the Gospels is seen in the story of the centurion who implored Jesus to heal his servant. Only Matthew and Luke record this story (Matthew 8:5–13; Luke 7:1-10), but Luke’s additional details are informative.  In addition to the great humility of the Roman officer who declared “I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you” (Luke 7:6–7), this story also shows the humility of Jesus – not only in his willingness to go to the sick rather than having them brought to him, but also because Luke tells us the sick man was not an important servant, but simply a lowly slave (doulos). 

In similar ways, Luke provides us with many other examples of humility in action – some of them unexpected. For example, although we know Jesus came to serve (Matthew 20:28) Luke repeatedly shows us that his humility allowed him to be served by others. For example, the evangelist tells us that Jesus attended meals in the homes of others where he was served by the hosts (Luke 10:40–42; etc.), and he gives us the story of the woman who washed his feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair in an extreme act of service (Luke 7:36-50). In these examples, Luke teaches us that in our relationships with other people, there is a balance between the humility of serving and the humility of being willing to be served – supporting the needs of others and not being too proud to be supported in our own needs (Luke 4:38–39).

Teachings on Humility

Luke shows us that Jesus emphasized the defining character of his disciples was to be humility.  While Matthew records Jesus’ words “those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12), Luke gives this same teaching not once, but twice (Luke 14:11; 18:14), showing its additional importance for Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ teaching.  

Some of Jesus’ most memorable teachings on humility are also recorded in Luke. Early in his Gospel, Luke tells how the disciples argued as to which of them would be the greatest, and how Jesus said “it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest” (Luke 9:46–50).  Importantly, Luke shows that late in Jesus’ ministry the disciples were still arguing in this way, and Jesus retaught them in even more detail. “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them … But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves … I am among you as one who serves” (Luke 22:24–27). 

Luke also records Jesus’ instruction to those who picked the places of honor at a banquet –  “all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Luke14:7–11). And to those who were confident of their own righteousness and looked down on everyone else, Jesus told the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector  to teach the same lesson: “all those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted” (Luke 18:9–14).

A Handbook of Humility

In both the teachings of Jesus that it records, and in examples drawn from Jesus’ ministry, the book of Luke focuses on humility more frequently than any other gospel – or any other book in the New Testament.  Many additional teachings on humility that Luke records do not mention humility directly, but show how this quality affects every aspect of our Christian lives. For example, in Luke 17, although the words “humble” and “humility” appear nowhere in the chapter, the concept underlies a great deal of what Luke tells us.

So it is worth remembering – it is to Luke that we should turn if we want a handbook of practical and applied humility, and we will also see much more of the message of his gospel if we remember that even when it is not obviously focusing on this quality, Luke is the gospel of humility. 
 
*This article is adapted from the author’s book, Lessons from Luke: Understanding More
of the Message of the Third Gospel. Download a free copy, here.
 

The word “gospel” means “good news” and in that sense, all the four gospels contain a joyful message. But there is one gospel that focuses on joy – we might almost say it is filled with joy – and that gospel is Luke. Joy may not be as noticeable as some of Luke’s other themes, but it is a very real emphasis of his gospel, nonetheless.  Luke begins and ends his account of the life of Jesus by focusing on joy, and between these two “bookends” he mentions joy more than any other gospel – in fact, more than any other book of the New Testament.

At the beginning of his gospel, Luke (alone) records two events in which great joy is  evident. Luke gives us a “prequel” to his account by recording the birth story of John the Baptist – whose parents are told “He will be a joy and delight to you, and many will rejoice because of his birth” (Luke 1:14). Luke notes that while still in Elizabeth’s womb, John “leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44) at the sound of Mary’s voice, and that even her neighbors and relatives shared her joy (Luke 1:58).

In the same way, in Luke’s account of the nativity of Christ, joy is equally evident when the angel announces the birth of Jesus to the shepherds with the words: “I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people” (Luke 2:10).  That “good news” was, of course, the beginning of the “gospel” – a message of potentially unparalleled joy for everyone (“for all the people”) that through Jesus Christ those who were lost and doomed could now be saved.
Once we enter the body of Luke’s gospel, we find multiple references to joy. Luke records Jesus’ admonition that we find joy even in times of persecution (Luke 6:23), that those like the seed that fell on rocky ground only temporarily receive the word with joy (Luke 8:13), that the seventy–two Jesus sent out returned with joy (Luke 10:17), and that Jesus himself was full of joy through the Holy Spirit (Luke 10:21).

But it is the joy of the lost being found that underlies much of what the Evangelist writes.  Joy is at the heart of the three parables he records regarding the shepherd who goes in search of the lost sheep (Luke 15:3–7), the woman who searches for a lost coin (Luke 15:8–10), and the father who daily looked for the return of his lost son (Luke 15:11–32). Each of these parables ends with a joyful celebration: the shepherd invites everyone to rejoice with him, as does the woman when she finds her coin, and the father whose son had been lost has finally returned.

But while Matthew records, for example, some of the parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12–14), Luke alone includes Jesus’ words “I tell you that in the same way there will be more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety–nine righteous persons who do not need to repent” (Luke 15:7). In the same way, all four gospels record the miracles of Jesus, and the resurrected Jesus appearing to the disciples, but only Luke records the joy of the people at Jesus’ works (Luke 19:37), and only Luke (Luke 24:41) and John (John 20:20) record the disciples’ great joy at seeing their resurrected Lord.

When we look for it, we find joy throughout the third gospel. Given what we have seen of this continued focus, it is perhaps not surprising that Luke’s account ends in exactly that way – with the words “Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy ...” (Luke 24:52).

If we want to read a gospel account that highlights the joy that Jesus and his disciples had, or we would simply like to read the Bible’s most joy–filled book, we need look no further than Luke.

*Extracted from our free e-book Lessons from Luke: Understanding More of the Third Gospel. Download a free copy here.

​The Gospel of Luke is frequently seen as the “Gospel of the Lowly.” It is said to be the gospel that champions the marginalized in society – women, the sick, tax collectors, and  perhaps especially, the poor. And it is easy to see Luke as the Gospel with a social conscience: it is Luke the physician who notices and looks with care at the lowly – often recording their words when no other gospel does. Near the very beginning of his account Luke alone records the words of Mary that God has looked with favor on “the humble state of his servant ... He has brought down rulers from their thrones but has lifted up the humble. He has filled the hungry with good things but has sent the rich away empty” (Luke 1:48, 52–53).  In Luke, we are told Jesus was commissioned to preach good news to the poor (Luke 4:16; 7:22); and while the beatitudes in Luke speak of the blessing of the poor and the hungry, there are corresponding woes (only in Luke) on the rich and full (Luke 6:20–26).

Similarly, in Luke’s Acts, among other examples, we are told about poor individuals begging for alms (Acts 3:2–3), that some believers sold their possessions to help the poor and needy (Acts 4:32–35), and that the churches sent financial help to the poor in Jerusalem (Acts 24:17).

So we can be forgiven if we see all these (and many more) examples in Luke-Acts and presume that Luke champions the poor and needy. But is this really what Luke does? Luke certainly does often show the poor in a favorable light and also gives examples of the rich abusing their power and refusing to part with their riches (for example, the parable of the “rich fool” living a life of greed in Luke 12:16–21, and that of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19–31).

Looking at Luke Again

But this is not all that Luke does. Of the four gospel writers, Luke has the most to say about riches and poverty, but if we look closely, Luke speaks not only for the poor, but for the rich also.  We should not forget that Luke was doubtless not a poor man himself (physicians were as well paid in his day as they are in ours), and we should remember that Luke and Acts were apparently written for a rich man – the “noble” Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). More importantly, while Luke gives examples of the righteous poor, he actually gives more examples of the righteous rich.

Luke details and praises the works of a number of individuals who unquestionably qualified as being very well-off in that society. We need only look at the centurion whose servant Jesus healed and who, as a benefactor, had built a synagogue for the Jews (Luke 7:2–4) or the centurion Cornelius who Luke tells us was “devout and God-fearing” and who “gave generously to those in need and prayed to God regularly” (Acts 10:2). We read also of Zachaeus who had become wealthy as a tax collector, but who gave half of what he had and displayed great generosity when he heard the gospel (Luke 19:1–10). Likewise, Luke 8:1–3 lists a number of women (including the doubtless well-off Joanna, the wife of the manager of King Herod’s household) who we are told  supported Jesus’ ministry financially. These and other well-to-do individuals were all rich yet living righteously. And we should not forget Joseph of Arimathea, the wealthy man (Matthew 27:57), who gave his own tomb for Jesus and who Luke describes unequivocally as a “good and upright man” (Luke 23:50–53).

When we see all these rich but righteous individuals, we realize that Luke’s negative examples from among the wealthy are not a criticism of the rich, but of the rich who are captive to their worldly riches – as with the story of the rich young ruler who did not follow Christ when he had opportunity to do so (Luke 18:18–30). 

Looking closer still, we find that Luke not only mentions godly rich men and women, but also he often seems to alternate examples of unrighteous rich and righteous rich individuals (for example, the rich young ruler in Luke 18 and Zachaeus in Luke 19; etc.). This pattern can hardly be coincidental and  indicates that Luke was consciously showing both – purposefully setting one alongside the other and showing the universal acceptance of the gospel by rich and poor alike.  
​
The realization of this fact gives us a clearer understanding of Luke’s message. Luke does not “champion the poor and put down the rich” as is so often said. Rather, Luke levels the field – he equalizes rich and poor before God, showing the poor that they are elevated in God’s calling and reminding the rich they are humbled in theirs (as James 1:9–12 so clearly states). The rich are not put down in Luke’s writings – they are shown as having special responsibilities and opportunities to help others. But in showing this Luke emphasizes that there are many righteous rich, just as there are many righteous poor.

​Many people who read the book of Ruth think of it as a simple love story, but in reality it is far from simple, and it is not really a “love story” in the modern sense of romantic love, either. Nevertheless, the book of Ruth is a richly meaningful biblical story that can repay a little background study a great deal.
 
The first thing we should realize is that the central character of the book of Ruth is not really Ruth herself, but her mother-in-law, Naomi. In reality, the book of Ruth tells us far more about Naomi than it does about Ruth. The book begins and ends with Naomi, and when we look carefully we find that the narrative revolves around Naomi throughout most of the story – every event leads back to her. We can see how central Naomi is to the story when we realize that of the words spoken by all the characters in the book, 120 words are spoken by Ruth, while 225 – almost twice as many – are spoken by Naomi.  It might be hard to find another story in which the supposed heroine speaks half as much as one of the supporting characters!
 
People as Parables?
 
For some, the story holds allegorical meanings with Ruth representing humanity, Boaz representing Christ, and Naomi the Christian Church that brings the two together.  While this kind of symbolic interpretation of the book may seem attractive, almost endless variations exist regarding the symbolism that is supposedly involved. For some, Naomi represents the old covenant and Ruth the new covenant; others see yet different meanings. When we consider all the possibilities, we realize it would be difficult to discern which, if any, allegory might properly explain the book.
 
It is true that the New Testament finds allegorical parables in many of the events recorded in the Old Testament. The parallels that can be seen between Christ and Abraham, Melchizedek, Moses, David, Solomon, Elijah, Elisha, and other individuals are clearly spelled out in the New Testament, but that does not mean that every Old Testament story must fit this mold. In the case of the book of Ruth, we should remember that Ruth is only mentioned once in passing in the New Testament – in the genealogy of Jesus (Matthew 1:5) – and the story of Ruth is never alluded to, so we should be careful before we make comparisons that the Scriptures do not.
 
Foreshadowing and Fulfillment
 
On the other hand, when we look closely at the book of Ruth, it does contain an underlying theme – within the story itself – that undeniably foreshadows the gospel. At the beginning of the story, Naomi first loses physical sustenance in the time of famine and then loses her husband and sons. But when she hears that the Lord has restored food (literally “bread”) to Israel (Ruth 1:6), she leaves the region of Moab to travel back to Bethlehem (meaning “house of bread” or “house of food”) in the region of Judah called Ephrathah (meaning “fruitfulness”).
 
Naomi's words to her daughters-in-law at that time reflect her emptiness. She tells them, “Do I still have sons in my womb that they may become your husbands?” (Ruth 1:11). Having lost her original home, her husband, and her sons, Naomi is figuratively empty. When she arrives in Bethlehem, she summarizes this emptiness when she says: “I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty” (Ruth 1:21).
 
But in Bethlehem the narrative turns to describing the change from emptiness to fullness – both physically and figuratively. We are told that “the barley harvest was just beginning” (Ruth 1:22) and that Ruth goes to the fields to pick up the leftover grain at Naomi’s request (Ruth 2:2). As the story progresses, we see Ruth moving from simply gleaning in the poorest parts of the field to receiving more and more in the better areas from the hand of Boaz (Ruth 2:14-18).
 
This “filling” of Naomi with physical bread precedes the figurative filling that occurs with the redemption of her property and the birth of “her” new son who comes as a result of the marriage of Ruth and Boaz. The “filling of the empty” through God’s grace underlies the whole book – which begins with stress on emptiness and concludes with stress on the fulfillment of good things.
 
When we see the centrality of this message in the story of Ruth, we realize the importance of the list of names that concludes the book. Humanly, it is easy to see it as just an appendix that functions like the credits at the end of a film. We see it, but not as part of the story itself. Some even suggest this closing genealogy may have been added later; but if the book was composed by Samuel, as many scholars believe, there is no reason the genealogy could not date to that time. In any case, the genealogy forms the ending of the book as it was accepted into the canon of Scripture, and the genealogy leads, of course, to David – the king who became the ancestor of Jesus Christ.
 
The Bread of Life
 
In that sense, the book of Ruth foreshadows a double fulfillment – found first in David and then in his descendant, Jesus. This is because David was a messianic (“anointed”) king in ancient Israel (2 Samuel 23:1), but he also foreshadowed a much greater Messiah (Isaiah 9:1-7). The parallels between the messianic David, mentioned at the end of Ruth, and the later messianic figure of Jesus Christ are many and obvious. Both David and Jesus were born in Bethlehem, the city of bread which is the setting of most of Ruth. Just as David was prophesied to become king from Bethlehem (1 Samuel 16:1), so was the greater King who descended from him (Micah 5:2). David, the Bethlehemite king who provided bread for his people (2 Samuel 6:19, 1 Chronicles 16:3) foreshadowed the One who was himself the “bread of life” (John 6:35) and who would provide that spiritual bread for the salvation of his people (Mark 14:22).
 
Perhaps we can see a reference to this ultimate fulfillment described in Ruth in the words of Mary, the mother of Jesus, at the annunciation of his conception – when she exclaims that God fills “the hungry with good things” (Luke 1:53). This is, in fact, a perfect summary of the message of the book of Ruth and what it foreshadows – a message about the God who not only provides physical bread for those who walk with Him, but who also provides, through Ruth’s eventual descendant, the bread of salvation.  In fact, we meet the God who provides for His people – both physically and spiritually– as clearly in the book of Ruth as in any place in Scripture.

*For more on the book of Ruth, download our free e-book Ruth: A Story of Strength, Loyalty, and Kindness here.                                               
                 

Each of the four gospels contains information on the life of Jesus that the others do not.  But almost half of what we read in the Gospel of Luke is not found in any of the other three gospels.  If it were not for Luke, we would not have much that we know about the life of Jesus, or many of his most famous teachings – such as the parables of the Good Samaritan, the Prodigal Son, and many others.  Luke contains so much unique material that it is worth especially careful study – and this e-book opens up the third gospel in unique ways to show you just how  much you have been missing!  Download your free copy here.​

 The question of how many individuals wrote the book of Isaiah is an old one, but it is still frequently asked.

One Isaiah, Two Isaiah, Three Isaiah, Four?

The book of Isaiah clearly has two distinct halves – what is sometimes called “first Isaiah”(chapters 1-39), and  “second Isaiah” (chapters 40-66). These two halves have very different approaches and themes.

The first half of the book looks at judgment while the second half looks at redemption. The first section focuses on Judah and Assyria, while the second is about Jerusalem and Babylon. The second half of the book also appears to be set about two centuries after Isaiah lived and prophesied. The first half speaks of future captivity for the Jewish people, the second half speaks of their release – from what appears to be the perspective of that later date. There are also specific details which could not have been humanly known in Isaiah’s time. For example, the Persian king Cyrus is named 150 years before he lived (44:28; 45:1).

As a result of these facts, many claim that the second half of Isaiah cannot be ascribed to the same author.  Some scholars go one step further and divide Isaiah into three parts by citing differences between chapters 40-55 and chapters 56-66, and yet other scholars see indications of even more Isaiahs – other individuals who may have contributed later sections to many parts of the book. This last viewpoint is based largely on the fact that some ideas in Isaiah (such as the end of the age and the resurrection of the body mentioned in 26:19) are presumed to not have come into existence till much later, and while some sections of the book speak of the prophet in the first person (for example, chapters 6, 8), other sections such as chapters 7, 20, and 36-39 are stories about him, like those we see in the books of Kings – and so they are presumed to have been added by later writers.

Arguments for unity

On the other hand, there are numerous reasons why Isaiah can be viewed as the work of a single author.

Vocabulary and expressions:  Isaiah uses by far the largest Hebrew vocabulary in the Old Testament (almost 2,200 different words) and although there are subtle differences between the use of words in the two sections there are at least 25 words and expressions that are used nowhere in the Old Testament except in Isaiah, but which are used in both halves of the book.  For example, the expression “the Holy One of Israel” is rarely used in the rest of the Old Testament, but occurs 12 times in Isaiah 1-39 and 14 times in chapters 40-66, suggesting a single author.

Structure: The first half of Isaiah records his commission to preach condemnation (chapter 6), the second half records his commission to preach comfort (chapter 40). Both halves of the book of Isaiah begin with the old city of Jerusalem (1:1 and 40:2) and both close with God’s new city on Mount Zion (35:10 and 66:20). Structural parallels such as these suggest a unity in the work.

Argument from logic:  If the prophet could predict the coming of the Messiah in detail hundreds of years before that happened (chapters 42; 53; etc.), he could certainly have foreseen the return of the nation of Judah from eventual captivity, or the name of king Cyrus. This is no different from the  foretelling of Josiah’s name and reign three centuries before his birth (I Kings 13:1–2).

Manuscript Evidence: There is no known ancient manuscript of Isaiah, either in Hebrew or in Greek, which is divided in a manner indicating it was originally composed as two or more books. For example, the Isaiah scroll found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and dating to the second century before Christ, has what we call chapter 40 beginning in the same column that contains what we call chapter 39. This is a strong early witness to the unity of Isaiah.

Evidence of the New Testament:  Jesus and the writers of the New Testament all speak of Isaiah as a single individual wherever they quote from the book. In John 12:37-41 Jesus quotes from both halves of Isaiah and attributes both quotes to the same author. Similarly, Matthew 3:3 and 4:14, Mark 1:2 and 7:6, Acts 8:30 and 28:25, and Romans 9:27 and 10:16 all quote Isaiah as a single person.

Conclusion
​
While it is perfectly possible that Isaiah was edited in some details in the course of later biblical history – perhaps by later prophets – most of the differences between the major sections of the book can be explained by the possibility that Isaiah completed the first half of the book in the period between 740 BC and  686 BC., and the second section somewhat later. The opening of the second section of Isaiah “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and proclaim to her that her hard service has been completed, that her sin has been paid for” would then show that the prophet was looking ahead, past the judgment that had occurred, with words of comfort for the new situation of the second half of the book.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scholars of the New Testament mainly agree that the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark as we now know it (Mark 16:9-20) were probably added after the Gospel was written in order to make it more complete and to bring it more into alignment with the other accounts of the life of Jesus by adding a few verses about what occurred after the resurrection.   This probability need not trouble us. Such a scenario does not mean that the verses added later could not have been inspired.  In any case, the additional material is largely taken directly from the endings of the Gospels of Matthew, Luke, and John (see our post “Question Mark” here).

That the present ending of Mark probably was added is clear:  it does not appear in any of the earliest known manuscripts; it was evidently unknown to early Christian scholars such as Clement of Alexandria and Origen (early third century); and the style of verses 9-20 is nothing like that used throughout the rest of the book. But the fact that early Christians seem to have eventually felt a need to bring Mark’s Gospel to a more understandable close only points up the question we must ask:  why did Mark end his Gospel so abruptly?

It has sometimes been guessed that Mark may have died or have been otherwise unable to complete his work; but considering that we are only talking about a few short verses this seems unlikely.  Recently, scholars such as N. T. Wright have suggested another possibility –  that the ending of Mark was intentionally left “dangling” in order that Peter or another eyewitness to the events could verbally add his or her testimony after the Gospel had been read out in the early churches. The problem with this latter idea is that there is simply no evidence that anything like this happened, either with Mark or with any other book of the Bible.  In fact, there is a far more likely reason for the seemingly abrupt ending of Mark.

What most discussions of the “abrupt” ending of Mark fail to take into account is that Mark’s Gospel begins as abruptly as it ends.  While the other three Gospels all include some background material, Mark’s account regarding Jesus simply starts “in mid stream,” as it were, by beginning with his baptism and continuing through his ministry.

The abrupt beginning and ending of Mark compared to the other Gospels suggests that its purpose was never to try to provide a more complete “Life of Christ” in the way that Matthew and Luke do (and that even John approximates by giving us key sections of the story from before Jesus began his ministry to the post-resurrection events). This indicates that the purpose of Mark –  which is thought to have been the earliest Gospel written –  was not to look at the background to and aftereffects of the life of Christ, but purely to provide a summary of his words and works, his deeds and teachings. 

This scenario fits well with what we know of the history of Mark’s Gospel.  Papias (AD 60-130), the bishop of Hierapolis near Laodicea, tells us:  “… [Mark] accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord’s sayings.”

In other words, rather than making an extended summary of the life of Jesus, the purpose of Mark’s Gospel was, as many modern scholars believe, to provide a manual for disciples – a selective narrative that could be used to teach new believers the Way of Christianity and to help current believers grow in understanding and faith.

That Mark begins his Gospel with the baptism of Jesus and ends with his death is probably no coincidence – these are the points where the life of every Christian begins and ends.  It is precisely in limiting himself to the part of the story of Jesus that is parallel to the lives of his followers that Mark provides a focused guide for the Christian life.  For that purpose, details of the early life or post-resurrection appearances of Jesus were not necessary. 

So the ending of Mark only seems abrupt when it is compared to the endings of the other Gospel accounts – which is doubtless why, in time, the additional verses were added to Mark’s original ending. 

​It is widely believed that the author of the New Testament Epistle of James was none other than James the younger brother (technically half-brother) of Jesus (Matthew 13:55). But some critics have claimed that the fact Jesus is not mentioned in this epistle beyond its initial greeting indicates the work could hardly have been produced by Jesus’ own brother.  

But this criticism is based on a lack of thorough analysis of this epistle.  The fact that its author is clearly an important figure in the early Church, but one who modestly avoids a direct statement of which of the numerous James he was, suggests the likelihood of his relation to Jesus, and the epistle’s avoidance of mentioning Jesus directly can be seen from this same perspective.

In any case, although Jesus is not named specifically throughout the letter, his presence is clear within the epistle, nonetheless.  James presents his readers with some 60 requirements for right behavior in the space of the 108 verses in his short letter –  more than one moral principle for every two verses.  Where do these exhortations come from? Almost all of them come directly from the teachings of Jesus himself.  Interestingly, James focuses most on the teachings of Jesus as given in the Sermon on the Mount.   Almost half the material in the Epistle of James shows similarities with almost half the verses in Jesus’ sermon. Consider the similarities evident in the following statements by Jesus and by James:

Oaths

Jesus: “… I say to you, Do not take an oath at all, either by heaven, for it is the throne of God, or by the earth, for it is his footstool, or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King… Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’; anything more than this comes from evil” (Matthew 5:33-37).
James: “But above all, my brothers, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or by any other oath, but let your ‘yes’ be yes and your ‘no’ be no, so that you may not fall under condemnation” (James 5:12).

Fruits

Jesus: “You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” (Matthew 7:16).
James: “Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water” (James 3:12).

Trials

Jesus: “Blessed are those who are persecuted … Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:10-12).
James: “Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds” (James 1:2).
 
Gifts

Jesus: “Ask, and it will be given to you… If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” (Matthew 7:7-11).
James: “If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him … Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights with whom there is no variation or shadow due to change” (James 1:5-17).

Treasures

Jesus: “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal” (Matthew 6:19).
James: “Your riches have rotted and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver have corroded, and their corrosion will be evidence against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have laid up treasure in the last days…” (James 5:2-5).

These few examples show the almost amazing level of inclusion of the words of Jesus found in the Epistle of James.   But we should notice that not a single one of these examples has the identical wording that would show direct borrowing from the Gospel accounts of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) or the parallel Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:17-49).  Rather, the words of Jesus in James indicate the reporting of someone who knew Jesus and his teachings well, but who – as would be the case with James the brother of Jesus –  was not present to hear the Sermon on the Mount itself (John 7:5).
 
Far from not being found in the Epistle of James, the presence of Jesus is seen throughout this letter in the words and core teachings of Christ that James records.

​
​On the surface, the Old Testament books of First and Second Kings and First and Second Chronicles seem very alike. In fact, after reading Kings, Chronicles may appear to be simply a retelling of much of the same material. 

​This feeling is heightened by fifteen statements in Kings that say  “Now the rest of the acts of [king X], and all that he did, are they not written in the book of the chronicles of the kings of Judah?” (1 Kings 14:29, etc.).   But this Chronicles of the Kings of Judah is not the biblical Book of Chronicles; it is a different account that was not preserved in the Bible and has not survived. There was another book, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel, mentioned nineteen times in the Bible (1 Kings 14:19, etc.), that also has not survived.

But returning to the books we do have – the biblical books of First and Second Kings and First and Second Chronicles –  are these really just overlapping accounts with no significant  differences?  The answer is not at all!  In reality, Kings and Chronicles have entirely different underlying themes and often carry very different lessons –  as we can see by considering the following facts.

The material in the two books of Kings was composed relatively soon after the events they describe and completed soon after the beginning of Judah’s captivity in Babylon. The material in the two books of Chronicles was brought together later, a good many years after the events it describes, shortly after the return from captivity.  So it is clear that Chronicles was written when Kings was already in existence, and so it must have been felt that it gave additional valuable information or perspectives.

There are, in fact, a number of important differences in the types of material included in these works. At the broader level, Kings deals with the history of both Israel and Judah while Chronicles focuses on the history of the southern kingdom of Judah. In Chronicles, the northern kings of Israel are usually only mentioned when they had some effect on the kings of Judah.
 
While Kings provides an overview of all the royal lines, Chronicles focuses on the Davidic line.  So Kings does not include the reigns of Saul or David and begins with Solomon. Chronicles begins with Adam and includes the reigns of Saul and David.  The different focus is clear in the details each account gives. For example, while Kings gives a detailed description of Solomon building his palace (1 Kings 7:1-12), the construction of Solomon’s palace is only mentioned in passing in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 8:1). Kings details the shortcomings of Solomon at the end of his life, but Chronicles does not mention them.
 
Kings is concerned with Judah’s failure to maintain covenant relationship with God, whereas Chronicles is more concerned with its restoration.  For example, Kings gives a detailed account of King Josiah's purging of the land from idolatry (2 Kings 23:4-20). On the other hand, Chronicles gives a detailed treatment of Josiah's reinstitution of the Passover (2 Chronicles 35:1-9).

But the outlook of both books is also very different. Jewish tradition states that the prophet Jeremiah wrote Kings and that the priest Ezra wrote Chronicles, but in any event, the prophetic versus priestly perspectives of the two works is clear. Consider the fact that the careers of the great prophets Elijah and Elisha are detailed in Kings but not at all in Chronicles. In Kings the priestly Levites only appear twice, whereas they are mentioned about a hundred times in Chronicles.  More importantly, the different perspectives influence what stories are included in the two accounts. We see this, for example, in the fact that Hezekiah’s sickness and the prophet Isaiah’s prediction regarding it are mentioned only in Kings (1 Kings 19:14-34), whereas the same king’s purification of the temple and his actions regarding it are found only in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 29:1-36; 30:1-31:1; 31:2-21).

Because Kings  is written more from the perspective of the prophets who warned Israel and Judah of their sins, its message is primarily one of responsibility and judgment. Chronicles, on the other hand, is written from the perspective of the priests who reinstituted Judah’s religion after the captivity, and its message is one looking at reconciliation and hope –  man’s faithlessness on the one hand and God’s faithfulness on the other.   Kings may thus often seem a more negative account, and Chronicles a more positive one.  This is reflected in various ways. For example, in Kings the sins of many kings are often highlighted, whereas in Chronicles, the good traits of each king are usually given first (except for those kings who apparently had no good traits!).  Both books show the relationship between God and his people, but Kings stresses the political and prophetic aspects of that relationship while Chronicles looks more at the religious and priestly interactions.

So the differences between Kings and Chronicles  are similar to the differences we find among the Four Gospels (see our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels) in the New Testament. Although we may find several versions of the same story in Kings and Chronicles, the differences are important as each book gives different details and has its own unique viewpoint and lessons.   In fact, about half of the material in Chronicles is unique in the Bible – so resist the temptation to skip over that work if you have just read Kings. What at first may seem like a similar account has a great deal more to offer!

​The four Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – lie at the very heart of Christianity, recording its most essential teachings and providing us with most of what we know about the person of Jesus Christ, his fulfillments of Old Testament prophecies, his message, and his true identity. Without them the rest of the New Testament would not make any sense, and we would have no idea of the true significance of a great deal of what is written in the Old Testament.  

Yet many Christians do not know why there are four Gospels, exactly how they differ, or what their unique lessons are. This book answers those questions by looking at the “stage,” the “actors,” and the “story” of the Gospels and by providing background and perspective that can greatly increase your understanding of their message. The four Gospels are certainly among the most important books of the Bible. Isn’t it time you got to know them better?  

​Our free new book Inside The Four Gospels is available in formats for computer, e-book reader and smart phone.  Download a copy here.

What is the most difficult book to understand in the Bible?  Is it one of the Old Testament prophets with its strange oracles and prophecies?  Or, in the New Testament, how about one of the apostle Paul’s epistles with its complex theological arguments?  The answer is almost certainly neither, but a book many of us feel we just don’t understand very well: the Old Testament’s Book of Ecclesiastes.

We all know the book that follows Proverbs in our Bibles.  Often, after reading Proverbs, we may quickly read through its difficult neighbor, but we seldom spend time in Ecclesiastes.  Many Christians feel uncomfortable reading it, as it seems to be a book that offers conclusions based on a view of life as meaningless.  But is this really the message of Ecclesiastes?  

Composed by King Solomon “The son of David, king in Jerusalem” (Ecclesiastes 2:16 could not have been written by any of Solomon’s successors), Ecclesiastes is unique in the Old Testament in that it hardly mentions the nation or law of Israel. Instead it stands back and looks at the most basic truths about life apart from any specific theological context.

But that is not to say, as many people presume, that the book offers a picture of life without God.  God is actually very present in the book – from the first chapter to the last. In fact, God is mentioned some 42 times within the twelve chapters of the book – an average of almost four times each chapter!

Another false assumption about Ecclesiastes is that it carries a message of unavoidable unhappiness with life; yet it frequently urges us to rejoice in the good things we experience (for example, Ecclesiastes 11:8-10).  Despite another common misconception, the theme of the book is not that nothing matters. Ecclesiastes concludes with the summary that “… God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:14), showing in fact that ultimately everything does matter.

But on the way to that conclusion, Ecclesiastes searches the whole range of human experience – including pleasure, work, foolishness and even despair – and finds it all empty. “Meaningless! Meaningless!” says the Teacher. “Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless” (Ecclesiastes 1:2). 

It is this unrelenting assessment that can make us uneasy in reading the book, yet that is not the book’s conclusion.  Ecclesiastes is brutally honest about the frustrating and inexplicable aspects of life, but as theologian N.T. Wright has written, it “encourages the reader to a God-centered worldview rather than falling victim to frustrations and unanswered questions.”  

Ecclesiastes is in constant tension between present reality and ultimate reality. What we experience now is contrasted with what we will experience eventually. We see this constantly throughout the book, but consider a single example: 

​“There is something else meaningless that occurs on earth: the righteous who get what the wicked deserve, and the wicked who get what the righteous deserve” (Ecclesiastes 8:14).

This may sound fatalistic in the extreme, but it is balanced with an opposite truth:

“Although a wicked person who commits a hundred crimes may live a long time, I know that it will go better with those who fear God, who are reverent before him. Yet because the wicked do not fear God, it will not go well with them, and their days will not lengthen like a shadow” (Ecclesiastes 8:12-13).

The apparent contradiction between the fact that the wicked “may live a long time” and “their days will not lengthen” is resolved when we see that Ecclesiastes continually contrasts what is wrong in the present with what will be made right in the future.  It continually returns to a position where meaning is found in the longer-term view of things – even though we may not understand God’s plans or purposes at this time (Ecclesiastes 8:17). 
 
So although the words of the Preacher paint a graphic picture of the futility of life from the perspective of the present, Ecclesiastes does admit to meaning when eternity is considered. When we see that, we realize that the hardest book in the Bible is simply one which requires us to admit two opposite but equally correct truths. Much of life may seem futile now, but life will not have been futile eventually. Ecclesiastes admits the problems of the present life, but also looks beyond to a reality in which wrongs will be righted and what may now seem meaningless ultimately will be seen as having meaning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​If you use a modern translation of the Bible in your study, you are probably aware that a question hangs over the last few verses of the Gospel of Mark.  Modern translations usually place Mark 16:9-20 in square brackets, in italic type, or use some other way of showing that these verses are perhaps not original to Mark’s Gospel.

A case can be made both for and against these verses.  A majority of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament do include them – going back to the earlier half of the second century – and so they were included without note in the King James Version and many other older English translations. But the text of verses 9-20 is not found in the very earliest known Greek manuscripts, and the early Christian scholars Eusebius (c. AD 260-339)  and Jerome (c. AD 347-420) both state that the verses were not present in the best manuscripts of Mark that they could find.

How are we to decide, then, whether the verses “belong” in the Bible or not?  Perhaps the best approach is to look carefully at what they say and to try to decide on that internal evidence.  First, verses 9-20 do not flow naturally after Mark 16:8 – there is a noticeable disconnect in what is said.  Although the subject of verse 8 is “the women,” the subject of verse 9 suddenly changes to Jesus, and there is some unnatural repetition.  Verse 9 states “… early on the first day of the week…”  while verse 2 has already told us “Very early on the first day of the week …”  Verse 9 also mentions somewhat repetitively “Mary Magdalene out of whom he had driven seven demons,” when Mary Magdalene was already introduced to the reader in verse 1 of chapter 16.

So verses 9-20 give several indications of a rather awkward summary of the resurrection that was added after Mark was written.  This may have occurred because with verse 8 the Gospel of Mark ends rather abruptly.  It is possible that Mark did not get to finish the Gospel he was writing, though the abrupt ending of verse 8 is actually in keeping with the style of the Gospel and the way Mark often handles his material.  But it is easy to see why some early Christians may have wanted to “round out” the ending and bring it more into line with the endings of the other Gospels.

In fact, that is an important point to remember. The material in Mark 16:9-20 is essentially found in the endings of the other three Gospels.  So if we do feel these verses are additional to what Mark originally wrote, we are not rejecting any of the material they contain that is found in the other accounts of Jesus’ life. On the other hand, the basic principle of never deciding doctrine or important beliefs based on passages of Scripture that are of uncertain origin or meaning still holds.
​
We should also remember that there is variation in many of the early manuscripts of the New Testament.  There are even a few cases of other endings to Mark’s Gospel.  Ultimately, our faith in the inspiration of the Bible depends not on a particular manuscript, but on the guidance God has given in the process of preserving his word.  Often, as in the ending of Mark, even when there are uncertainties we are able to come to an understanding of what the original text likely was.

Each of the four Gospels has its own unique traits, its own perspective on the life of Jesus.

​When we look at the Gospel of Luke, for example, we see a clear stress on Jesus as the Son of Man, but there is another, often less noticed, aspect of Luke’s Gospel that can be illuminating: its focus on prayer.

​Read our new article on this aspect of the third Gospel here .  You may never see the Gospel of Luke in the same way again. 

The question posed in the subtitle above sounds like the famous query, “Who is buried in General Grant’s tomb?”     But it is a serious question.  The three epistles we call “First, Second, and Third John” are, along with the Book of Hebrews, the only New Testament letters that do not mention their authors.  While we are used to seeing the letters of “John” in our Bibles, they were not called that originally – the names were given to them by the early Church.  

The article we uploaded today is the first in a new occasional series on "The Faith Once Delivered" and while we think it answers the question "Who Wrote the Epistles of John?" we also think it highlights an important point regarding the apostle John's message.  You can find out what that is by reading the article here.

The Book of Acts is a remarkable document of early Christian history – in many ways.  One of the interesting things we see in it is a candid representation of Christianity.   It gives us the good news and the bad of what it was like to be a believer in the first century of the early Church.  Acts certainly gives good news – it continues Luke’s Gospel in the same manner as the earlier book, searching for and recording the successes that occurred as the new faith grew and spread from Jerusalem to Rome, the very heart of the ancient civilized world.  

But Acts also shows the bad news. It not only records natural disasters (from famines and earthquakes to shipwrecking storms), it also shows much human-caused misery.  Acts shows the imprisonment of believers great and small; it shows them accused, berated and physically beaten on numerous occasions. More tragically, it shows, of course, the first Christian martyrdom and the deaths of many others for their faith.  So Acts certainly doesn’t look at Christianity through rose colored spectacles. In fact, it gives us an honest appraisal of many of the difficulties experienced by early Christians that we would be missing if we only had the epistles written by Paul and the other apostles. 

The epistles speak of problems, but more often than not they are doctrinal problems in the early Church: discussions of apostasy, perversions of the gospel and moral issues relevant to specific congregations.  When the epistles speak of the problems of everyday life, it is usually in a generic sense, and it is mainly in Paul’s letters written to individuals that we find specific problems such as Paul’s instruction to Timothy “Use a little wine for your stomach’s sake and your frequent illnesses” (1 Timothy 5:23).   

Acts, on the other hand, continually grapples with instances of the things that go wrong in everyday life. It names the names and gives us actual examples ranging from those who tried to steal from the church (Acts 5:1-11) to someone who dozed off and fell to his death during a sermon (Acts 20:9)!  The actual examples give Acts an immediacy and a relevance that touches us all.  If we have ever felt tempted to fudge on a tax return, or ever felt drowsy in church, we can relate to the stories Acts gives us at a very real level. 

So, compared to the epistles we might say that Acts more frequently gives us specific examples – to which we can relate – of the problems of everyday life.  We may turn to the epistles more frequently for doctrinal guidance and generic examples of moral and doctrinal issues, but Acts often speaks to us through its real life examples - of both the positive and negative type.  

Both Acts and the epistles are given to us for a purpose, of course (2 Timothy 3:16),  but we should not overlook the everyday quality of Acts.  We need the doctrinal and moral guidance found in the epistles, but we often need encouragement and role models to look to in our daily life as well. Acts provides verbal pictures that are worth a thousand words.  So don’t neglect Acts in your study of the New Testament. It includes both the bad news and the good, and in that respect, it’s very much like your life and mine.

*You can download a free copy of our eBook on Acts:  Lessons in Christian Living from the Early Church right here on this site.  It’s not only free, you don’t need to give an email address or anything else to get a copy – just follow the link and click download!

Malachi is a fascinating book.  It is unclear exactly when it was written, and even whether Malachi is the name of the author or simply a title (malachi means “my messenger” in Hebrew, and the word is not found as a name anywhere else in the Bible), but the “message” of  Malachi is clear.

The last book in the Old Testament,  Malachi deals with the theme of God’s judgment on the unfaithful and backsliding post-exilic Jewish community, and His eventual judgment of all peoples.  But there is an underlying aspect to this theme which is seldom mentioned in commentaries on this book.  Malachi presents his message in the form of a legal trial. The charges are dire - but the outcome is amazingly good.  It's an ancient message we need today!  See the article just uploaded: "Malachi: A Story of Love and Legal Proceedings."