The identity of the author of the Epistle of Jude has often puzzled students of the New Testament. The epistle itself simply calls him “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ and a brother of James” (Jude 1:1).  But who was this Jude and what can we learn from his identity?

First, we should realize that the name Jude is just a shortened form of the Jewish name Judah –  or, as it was written in Greek, Judas. So it is not difficult to see why modern translations of the Bible call the author of this epistle “Jude” rather than “Judas” in order to differentiate him from Judas Iscariot who betrayed Jesus.
 
Some have thought that this righteous Jude was the same person as the other individual called Judas in the lists of the twelve disciples. Although the King James Version calls that apostle “Judas the brother of James” in Luke 6:16, this is based on a mistranslation. The word “brother” does not appear in the Greek of the verse and virtually all other translations call this individual “the son of James,” as the expression should be rendered.

Another idea is that Jude was another of the original twelve disciples of Jesus –  the one called Thomas. The reason for this is interesting. The Gospel of John – the only Gospel that ever mentions Thomas separately from the lists of disciples –  calls him “Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve” (John 20:24, etc.). Several early Christian manuscripts actually refer to Thomas as “Didymus Judas Thomas,” and the names Didymus in Greek and Thomas in Aramaic both mean the same thing: “twin.”

While this might seem like an attractive possibility for the identity of Jude, it is an unlikely one. Apart from the fact the early texts that speak of Thomas as having the name Judas are few and only found in a very limited area, the letter of Jude itself suggests that Jude was neither the apostle called Judas or the one called Thomas.  If Jude had been one of the original disciples, there would be no reason why he would not have introduced himself in his letter as the apostle Jude – just as the other apostles generally did in their letters.    

Even more importantly, the author of Jude specifically does not include himself with the apostles when he wrote: “But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold” (Jude 1:17) –  which we can contrast with the nearly identical statement of Peter (who does call himself an apostle) when he says: “… be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior” (2 Peter 3:2 NKJV).

It is much more likely that when Jude writes simply that he is “a brother of James,” he is referring to James the half-brother of Jesus.  This identification has the weight of a great deal of Christian tradition and of scripture itself behind it.  Matthew 13:55 records the names of two of the brothers of Jesus as James and Judas, and very early Christian writings state that Jude was that same Judas, the brother of Christ. 
 
Both these brothers of Jesus –  James and Judas –  were not among the original disciples who became apostles, and the New Testament tells us, in fact, that they rejected Jesus and his teachings (John 7:5, Matthew 13:57, Mark 3:21, etc.). It was only after the resurrection that Jesus’ half-brothers came to believe and then became important members of the early Church, with James becoming the virtual leader of the Jerusalem Christians (Galatians 1:18-19). In stark contrast to the Judas (Iscariot) who appeared to accept Christ’s teaching at the beginning, but who betrayed him at the end, the Judas who wrote our book of Jude may have rejected Christ at first yet eventually, like James, he became a fervent believer and upholder of the truth.

In writing to many people he did not know personally, it is certainly inconceivable that the author of the epistle of Jude would not explain which James he was the brother of unless he and James were known to everyone –  that he was not just the brother of any James, but the brother of James the brother of Jesus. This puts the first verse of Jude in clear perspective and provides one of the most impressive examples of deep humility in the whole New Testament.
​
Jude was one of the most important people in the early Church, yet his description of himself as simply “the brother of James” is an amazingly humble one.  How many people, if they had been the brother of Jesus, would not have introduced themselves that way? Yet humility was one of the greatest traits of Jesus (Philippians 2:7) and one which Jude and the other brothers of Jesus had witnessed frequently. 
​
Jude knew that Jesus had described himself as a servant (Matthew 20:28), and in describing himself not as the “brother of Jesus,” but as “Jude, a servant of Jesus Christ” (Jude 1:1), Jude begins his letter by stressing that first and foremost he was simply the servant of a servant. This may not tell us what made Jude important, but it tells us exactly who he was.

​We have reorganized and updated the blog categories that you see listed to the right of this post.  The new categories are more intuitive and make our content easier to find and navigate. For example, we now have separated the "Bible" category into "Behind the Stories," "Bible Study," "Biblical Concepts" and "Books of the Bible," so if you are looking for techniques and tips to enhance your personal study you don't have to sort through many other posts that are not relevant to what you need right now.

​So if you haven't used the categories feature before or if you would like to see how it has changed, be sure to check it out.  It only takes a couple of seconds to scan down the list to get a sense of what the new categories are and to see if there are some you would like to take a look at.  

​Remember that this listing is only for blog postings (to see a list of our articles, click on the "Articles" tab at the top of the screen). The blog categories contain most of the many hundreds of posts we have published since 2014.  Using this feature can be both time saving and helpful if you are looking for information or inspiration on a specific subject –  and we can say that categorically!

The existence of evil in our world is impossible to deny. Sadly, the pages of history and the stories of our daily news provide endless examples of evil at the individual, national and even international levels. As a result, atheists often claim that the clear existence of such widespread and ongoing evil proves there cannot be an all-powerful and loving God. 

According to this thinking, the existence of evil and the existence of God are mutually exclusive. If God exists, and he is good, the argument goes, why would he allow such terrible evil and its resultant suffering to continue?

As Christians we may occasionally wrestle with this conundrum ourselves, and we are very likely to hear it spoken by friends or others who are not believers.  The natural reaction in such situations is for us to try, where appropriate, to explain the temporary necessity of evil in the plan of God –  that God must allow evil in order to grant us free moral agency and the opportunity to develop the character he seeks. 

This explanation for the existence of evil is one that makes sense to most Christians and it is one which the Bible itself addresses.  In his epistle to the Romans, the apostle Paul summarizes the situation in saying that “… the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God (Romans 8:20-21).

In these verses we could easily substitute the word “evil” for “decay,” and the sense is clearly the same – God allows the present situation in order to fulfill his purposes in our lives.  And, as  Paul specifically stresses, in the long run allowing evil to exist will be worth the end results: “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us” (Romans 8:18).

However, this argument is a theological one that may make little sense to many whose minds have not been opened to understand the plan of God (Luke 24:45, Ephesians 1:18). But there is another and much simpler explanation that we should consider giving to others who question God’s existence in the face of the evil that is evident in the world.  To say that the undeniable existence of evil indicates that God does not exist, we must also admit that by the same argumentation, the undeniable existence of good in the world must indicate that he does exist.

​Although it does not explain the existence of evil, this answer is as sure as it is simple in showing that evil does not prove the non-existence of God.  If an individual can see this, it is likely that they may be receptive to begin to understand the underlying reasons the Bible gives for the present existence of evil in the plan of a good and loving God.

“…To the one who is victorious, I will give … that person a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to the one who receives it” (Revelation 2:17).
 
Today, people change their names because they do not like the name they have or because they see some advantage to having a different name.  This is particularly common for actors and musicians, of course, who change their names or take “stage names” they feel might be easier for people to remember and better for their chosen careers.  Some past and present examples include John Wayne, who was born Marion Robert Morrison, Bob Dylan who was born Robert Allen Zimmerman, Kirk Douglas –  born Issur Danielovitch Demsky, Alan Alda – born Alphonso Joseph D'Abruzzo, Martin Sheen –  born Ramón Antonio Gerardo Estevez, Elton John –  born Reginald Kenneth Dwight, and Natalie Wood – born Natalia Nikolaevna Zakharenko.
 
But name changing is not just a modern phenomenon. The birth name of the great theologian Martin Luther was actually Martin Luder. He later changed his name to “Luther” (based on the Greek “eleutherios” meaning “free”) as being more appropriate to his beliefs.

There are also many instances of name changes in the Bible, though the ones we find there almost all occurred because someone else changed an individual’s name rather than the person changing it themselves. An exception was Naomi, the mother-in-law of Ruth (Ruth 1:20), who changed her name to Mara, meaning “bitter,” after losing her husband and sons.

More commonly, the names of individuals were changed when they entered the service of the king of a foreign culture, just as Joseph was renamed Zaphenath-Paneah –  the meaning of which is unknown –  by the Egyptian pharaoh (Genesis 41:45), Daniel was renamed Belteshazzar – a form of  “Bel protects the king” – by the king of Babylon (Daniel 1:7), and the Jewish girl Hadassah was given a new name, Esther (meaning  “star,” Esther 2:7)  when she was taken into the court of the Persian king.

Many think that the apostle Paul’s name was changed by God from “Saul,” though the New Testament shows that the name Paul –  the Greek form of Saul –  simply began to be used of him when he started to work in Greek-speaking areas (Acts 13:9).  Yet it is also possible that there was some significance in the changed name. In Greek, paulos means small, and it was perhaps a mark of humility to willingly exchange the name of the Hebrew king Saul for the humble Gentile name Paul, just as the apostle became a humble servant to the Gentiles (Ephesians 3:8).

More important, biblically, are the clear examples where God did change the names of his servants. God renamed the patriarch Abram as Abraham (“father of nations,” Genesis 17:5), for example, and his wife Sarai as Sarah (probably meaning “princess,” Genesis 17:15). He also renamed their grandson Jacob as Israel (meaning either “prince of God” or “he who overcomes with God,” Genesis 32:28).  There was deliberately expressed symbolism in these new names given by God, of course, each new name expressing a new identity based on what the individual had accomplished or the person’s potential in the plan of God.  

In the New Testament we see exactly the same process in action when Jesus renamed his disciple Simon as Peter –  meaning “stone” (John 1:42).  Peter had certainly not earned this new name to that point, but with the coming of the Holy Spirit he was transformed into a stable pillar of the New Testament Church (Galatians 2:9).

Interestingly, however, there are relatively few such changes recorded in the Scriptures where God gave his servants new names.  The phenomenon was uncommon and always full of great meaning when it did occur.  Yet despite the relative infrequency of God’s acts of re-naming, the Bible does make it clear that every faithful believer will be given a new name in eternity as we see in the scripture at the top of this post (Revelation 2:17).

At that time the changed names of believers will apparently be as meaningful and relevant to our potential roles in eternity as the names changed by God in the past.  The answer to Shakespeare’s question in “Romeo and Juliet” “What’s in a name?” may be “very little” –  unless it is a name changed by God. But then the answer will doubtless be “a great deal!” And the best news of all is that when a name is changed by God, the new identity is certain. 

​Just as Abraham in his great age became a “father of many nations” according to his new name, so we can all be encouraged by Numbers 23:19 which tells us that: “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?” God will fulfill his promise to give every believer a new name. 

​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. 

​In 1952, the Congress of the United States of America established a National Day of Prayer as an annual event by a joint resolution. This resolution was signed into law by President Harry Truman, who called for the nation to take time “to turn to God in prayer and meditation.” Every president over the last 62 years, regardless of political or religious affiliation, has proclaimed a National Day of Prayer which is now set by law to be observed on the first Thursday of May each year.

The roots of this day of prayer may be said to go back to 1775 when, on the very eve of the U.S. War of Independence, the First Continental Congress called for a day of prayer.  Today such public devotion may seem foreign to many, but the principle of approaching God in a spirit of national rededication is itself an echo of such days in biblical times. 

This year, the National Day of Prayer falls on Thursday, May 3. and its theme is unity.  It is a great opportunity for us to both give thanks for our national blessings and to remember the spiritual problems and the needs of our nation at this time.

* If you would like more information on prayer, you can download a free copy of our e-book Your Call: Using the Direct Private Line of Prayer (available in different versions to view on computer, e-reader, or phone) from our sister site here.

​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 that Jesus is not anywhere mentioned in this epistle indicates the work could hardly have been produced by Jesus’ own brother.  

But this criticism is based on a lack of thorough analysis or understanding 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.

Regardless of who the author of this letter was, it is missing a great deal of the essential thrust of James to think that Jesus does not appear in this biblical book.   It is true that Jesus is not named specifically, but 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.

Scriptures in Question:   ​

“In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil” (Job 1:1).
 “…all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).  


These two scriptures ­­– Job 1:1 and Romans 3:23 – are loved by sceptics as they feel the two verses provide a “perfect” example of biblical contradiction.  How, they ask, could Job be “blameless” (NIV, ESV, etc.) or “perfect” (as translated in the King James Version) –  in other words, sinless –  if, as Paul affirms, all have sinned?

Many Christians realize that when the New Testament uses the word “perfect” (as when Jesus tells his followers to “be perfect” – Matthew 5:48), the Greek word used means “mature” or “complete” (see “Does God Expect us to Be Perfect?” on our sister site, here).  In the Old Testament a similar situation occurs.  The Hebrew word tam translated in Job 1:1 as “blameless” or “perfect” (and again in Job 1:8, 2:3) has several shades of meaning. It comes from a root word meaning to be complete or finished (Genesis 47:18, Deuteronomy 31:24) and in a secondary sense to be morally sound or upright (Job 22:3, Psalm 18:26).  Tam itself can be translated “complete,” “finished,” “blameless,” “innocent,” or “having integrity.” In Proverbs 29:10, for example, the word is used in the phrase “a person of integrity.”

This meaning –  of having moral integrity or “uprightness” –  that lies at the heart of what we are told in Job does not imply perfection as we might think of the word in modern English usage. In fact, the respected Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Abingdon, 1981) states categorically: “the words which are rendered in English by ‘perfect’ and ‘perfection’ [in the Hebrew Bible] denoted originally something other and less than ideal perfection.” 

So although Job 1:1 records that Job was blameless, and in Job 1:8 and 2:3 God is said to have declared Job to be blameless, the Hebrew word translated “blameless” does not have to mean morally perfect and completely sinless.  This can be seen in that the book itself shows Job’s failings.   In 7:21 Job states “Why do you not pardon my offenses and forgive my sins?” and in 42:6 Job confirms his own sinfulness when he says: “Therefore I despise myself and repent in dust and ashes.”   When we take these facts into account, it is clear that being “blameless” or “perfect” before God in Job – and elsewhere in the Old Testament – means being morally upright, but it does not have to refer to some kind of sinless perfection.

Putting the scriptures together, then, there is no contradiction between what the Book of Job tells us and what Paul affirms in Romans.  All humans, including Job, have sinned, as Paul stresses; but Job had attained a level of integrity or moral uprightness that God himself acknowledged as being remarkable – just as the Book of Job states. 

Some five hundred years ago, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his list of 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg. It was these “theses” or principles, of course, that triggered the Protestant Reformation, and in so doing changed the history of the modern world.

Most of Luther’s theses had to do with his rejection of the practice of selling “indulgencies” in the Catholic Church of his time – a means of raising money for the church which claimed that people might pay to have the souls of loved ones or others released from “purgatory.”  Although this may seem like ancient history to most of us in the modern world, and most of us may not know what a single one of Luther’s 95 theses was, there are some timeless lessons to be found there.

In his very first thesis –  which formed the basis of those that followed –  Luther (citing Matthew 4:17) wrote: “Our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, when He said, ‘Repent’, willed that the whole life of believers should be repentance.”   This statement was a remarkable one for its time.  The Vulgate –  the Latin version of the Bible used by the Catholic Church –  translated the command to repent in Matthew 4:17 with the words paenitentiam agite, meaning “Go, and do penance.” But Luther found that in the Greek text of the New Testament the word for repentance used by the New Testament writers was metanoia, which has nothing to do with penance and means to change one’s heart and mind –  to be changed or converted.

This deeper and more accurate understanding of the concept of repentance had a direct impact on Luther’s first thesis, for we obviously cannot constantly be doing penance throughout our whole lives; but as Luther stated, our lives as believers should be ones of ongoing repentance in the sense of continual change and ongoing conversion.

The truth that Luther had learned was that all of the Christian life is repentance. Certainly, the Bible speaks of a primary repentance when we first turn to God from our own sinfulness (Acts 2:38, 11:18), and we might call that “Repentance with a capital R.”  But the Scriptures also show that our initial Repentance is followed by an ongoing repentance (here with a small “r”) that is the continual mindset of the Christian. This does not mean constantly dwelling on our mistakes and failures, but continually and immediately repenting when we do find we have come short of God’s way. 

We see this ongoing or additional repentance throughout the Bible.  We see it frequently, for example, in the psalms of David where he expresses repentance on many occasions. We see it in the New Testament in scriptures such as Revelation 2:5 which commands members of the church to repent of errors into which they have fallen, and in 1 John 1:8-9 which tells us that: “If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
 
This is the ongoing reality that the apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote: “So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live your lives in him” (Colossians 2:16). Just as we begin our Christian lives with repentance and faith (Acts 2:38), so Paul says, we must continue – in repentance and faith. 

We know that it is the Spirit of God that leads us to initial repentance (Romans 2:4), and as his Spirit continues to live in us (1 Corinthians 3:16) we are continually guided to repentance from ongoing mistakes and sins. The Scriptures are clear that this ongoing repentance is not done to try to earn salvation, but as a natural result of salvation occurring in our lives and our desire to become more and more like God. In other words, we are forgiven our sins through the occurrence of Repentance at the beginning of our Christian lives –  but we continue to ask God to forgive us and spare us from the consequences of our sins after that point.  Every small “repentance” reaffirms our original “Repentance.”

In reclaiming the concept of ongoing repentance, Luther discovered something that every Christian must discover and act on also: that true repentance is not just an inaugural event in our Christian lives, but it is also the very basis of our life in Christ from that time forward.  

The concept of ongoing lifelong repentance is not a message that is commonly heard in many churches, but it is a message that we need to nail firmly to the doors of our hearts and minds. 

​“Then Jesus, calling out with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last” (Luke 23:46 ESV).

“When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, "It is finished," and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” (John 19:30 ESV).

On the surface, the accounts of Luke and John certainly might seem to be at variance with each other regarding the last words of Jesus, but when we look more closely we find little reason to see any contradiction.

First, we should notice that while Luke specifically says “…having said this he breathed his last,” the wording of John’s Gospel “… and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit” does not necessarily preclude intervening words – it could simply mean that moments or minutes after receiving the wine, Jesus died. 

Note that while Luke focuses specifically on Jesus’ last words – and calls them exactly that – John seems to focus on the sour wine event and its resultant “It is finished” as the final prophecies fulfilled by Christ. This is typical of Luke’s frequent focus on the humanity of Jesus and his actual words, as opposed to John’s focus on Jesus’ fulfillment of prophecies relating to the Messiah and details regarding the message of salvation.

But there is no real reason to think that both accounts were not true.  Jesus’ last words may have been a combination of what John and Luke record: “It is finished. Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”   If these were the actual and full last words of Jesus, then the two Gospel writers simply recorded that part of the expression which was of most importance to their own accounts.

It is also sometimes said that both Luke and John are contradicted by Matthew and Mark, whose Gospels both record Jesus’ expression “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” as his last words.  But both Matthew and Mark write that, soon after this, Jesus gave a loud cry: “And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit” (Matthew 27:50); “With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last” (Mark 15:37).

But these accounts do not say whether the “loud cry” or “loud voice” contained words or not. If the cry contained words, it was doubtless those recorded by Luke and John.  The reason that the other two Gospels say a “voice” or “cry” was probably because they are based on the account of a witness of the crucifixion who was close enough to hear the cry, but not close enough to make out the exact words.  (Both Matthew and Mark agree that many of the witnesses stood “at a distance” from the cross – Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:40).

When we keep both factors in mind: that Luke and John compiled their Gospels stressing different themes, and that Matthew and Mark may well have drawn their information from different witnesses, there is no need to presume any contradiction between the four Gospels as to the last words of Jesus.

​​We all know the apostle Peter’s admonition that we “grow in grace and knowledge” (2 Peter 3:18), and most of us try to strike a balance in seeking both in our lives. Yet we often tend to gravitate toward one or the other –  focusing on the development of our Christian walk or our biblical understanding.

Some Christians spend a great deal of time in study of the word and may even fall into the ditch of seeking knowledge at the expense of growing in grace*. Those who make this mistake may become involved in some of the more obscure aspects of the Scriptures such as prophecy, and this becomes their main focus.  On the other hand, there are other Christians who move toward the opposite extreme of neglecting the responsibility of study of God’s word when they fall into the ditch of believing that “all you need is love.” 

Clearly, as Peter tells us, we need both grace and knowledge, and this is a principle we find often in the Scriptures. The apostle Paul elaborated on it when he wrote that our goal should be: “… that you may live a life worthy of the Lord and please him in every way: bearing fruit in every good work, growing in the knowledge of God” (Colossians 1:10). But what we may fail to understand if we tend to gravitate in one direction or the other is how the two areas of spiritual growth interact. Growing in grace can actually increase our spiritual knowledge, and growing in knowledge can increase the fruit of grace in our lives. If that sounds counterintuitive, consider the following scriptures.

“Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ to further the faith of God’s elect and their knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness” (Titus 1:1, emphasis added).  Here, in the very opening of his letter to Titus, Paul stresses that furthering knowledge of the truth leads to godliness.  This concept is simple enough – we cannot please God without knowing what it is that pleases him –  but it is a concept that we should always keep in mind if we are to be truly growth oriented. 
 
Yet knowledge is only half of the equation for spiritual growth. Notice what Paul states in his letter to the Colossians regarding those he taught:

“My goal is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:2-3, emphases added).  In this profound scripture Paul shows the opposite truth to that he stressed to Titus. Here, we see that being united in love forms the basis of knowledge and understanding of Christ.
  
The fact that we can only have true knowledge of God  if we live in love is also repeatedly stressed by the apostle John (1 John 1:10-11, etc.). Notice one example of this teaching: “This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us” (1 John 3:16). It is through knowledge of Christ’s sacrifice that we come to understand and to be able to emulate true love in our lives.  John reiterates the connection between love and knowledge a few verses later: “Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4:8). 

We need both grace and knowledge, love and truth, or however we might categorize these two primary aspects of Christian growth. And we need to remember that not only are both vital, but also that growth in one often leads to growth in the other. 

Once we understand this principle we gain insights into many biblical stories. In the Old Testament, for example, we see Job, who evidently walked perfectly before God (Job 1:1, 8), yet who still had to learn lessons (Job 42:5).  In the New Testament we see many examples of the religious leaders of Jesus’ day who had knowledge but who needed to grow in love (Luke 11:42, etc.).
​
Our lives need to exhibit both grace and knowledge, but fullness of growth in one of these areas often involves continuing to grow in the other. 
 
* In this context, grace refers to our walk before God (as in John 1:14) rather than the grace he extends to us.

​
​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!

Although we cannot properly forgive others without understanding the concept of forgiveness and its importance, that intellectual knowledge is not, of course, forgiveness itself. 

​If we are to move from understanding forgiveness to granting it, we must move from the mind to the “heart” – from simply accepting the idea of forgiveness to embracing it and making it truly a part of us. In other words, we must move beyond an understanding of forgiveness to an attitude of forgiveness.

This is what Jesus meant when he warned that we will not be forgiven “…unless you forgive your brother or sister from your heart” (Matthew 18:35).  The Greek expression “from the heart” used in this verse and others (1 Peter 1:22) means exactly what it means in English: to truly and deeply forgive.  But how exactly do we know if we measure up to that standard – how do we know if we really are forgiving someone “from the heart”? 
 
The answer is relatively simple.  Jesus spoke of forgiveness “from the heart” in concluding his parable of the ungrateful servant who did not forgive others as his king forgave him, so his point was obviously that we must forgive as our King forgives us.  The Scriptures contain many verses showing the manner in which God forgives us – far too many to include here – but we will simply look at three examples from the Old Testament prophets.
 
The Book of Micah contains some wonderful words revealing God’s attitude in forgiving: “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever but delight to show mercy” (Micah 7:18, emphasis added).  This is the very opposite of reluctant forgiveness. We delight to do something we enjoy, that we love to do, and although humanly we may not look at forgiving as an enjoyable activity, this is exactly the attitude we need to have if we are to forgive from the heart.

The prophet Isaiah helps us to expand on this understanding: “let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:7 ESV, emphasis added). Other translations convey the word Isaiah used of God’s forgiveness with “freely,” “generously,” “richly,” and “bountifully.” This is clearly the opposite of forgiveness that is limited in any way. 

Another prophet, Hosea, recorded a prayer God commanded ancient Israel to pray that claims a specific attribute of God’s forgiveness:  “Take words with you and return to the Lord. Say to him: ‘Forgive all our sins and receive us graciously’…” (Hosea 14:2, emphasis added). God invites us to receive his gracious pardon and this is the opposite of grudging forgiveness. Humanly it is all too possible to reach “surface forgiveness,” but because it is not from the heart it is expressed ungraciously and sometimes even unkindly.  Hosea shows us that God does not do that, and if we want to forgive from the heart, neither must we.

These three passages only begin to cover the many ways in which God expresses his forgiveness, and it can make for an extensive and very profitable study to look at other examples found in the Scriptures.  Even without in-depth study of such verses, it is worthwhile to keep the principle in mind and look for the key descriptive word whenever we read biblical verses that speak of God forgiving or pardoning. 
​
However, the three examples given above make the point.  God delights to forgive and he forgives abundantly and graciously. These qualities, and many more, show us what it means to “forgive from the heart.” Combined with Jesus’ statement in Matthew 18:35, they show that just as God himself forgives from the heart, he expects us to do no less!

* Excerpted from our new free e-book How to Forgive. You can download a copy here.

You may not know at this moment when you will need to exercise forgiveness, but you can be certain that sooner or later you will have to forgive someone for something. Perhaps right now there is an old hurt that you have never been able to completely forgive, or perhaps the necessity will not arise until tomorrow or next week, but whenever the need to forgive comes up or to prepare you for when it does, our latest free e-book is designed to help you.

Our new book, How to Forgive, looks at this vitally important subject from a practical perspective, showing what the Bible actually teaches about this topic and how we can best apply the guidance it gives us.  As with all our e-books, this new title is absolutely free and does not require any kind of registration or giving an email address. The book is available in three formats –  so you can download a copy to read on your computer, phone, kindle or other e-book reader. Simply click on the version you want on our sister website here.  ​​

“Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:5).
 
The biblical command to love God “with all your heart…” given in Deuteronomy and quoted by Jesus as the most important of all commandments (Matthew 22:37) lies at the very center of the Christian Faith.  But knowing exactly what loving God with our “heart” means is not as simple as many people presume.   Love is so fully equated with the emotions and the heart in modern society that it is easy to think that the command simply means  to love God “dearly” or “from the heart.”

The many biblical passages that speak about the heart can easily be misunderstood if we are unfamiliar with the way the term was understood and used in the world in which the Bible was written. Both the Hebrew word lebab (or leb) and the Greek word kardia that we find translated “heart” in our English Bibles had a very different meaning from our modern idea.
When these biblical words are used metaphorically –  as opposed to talking about the physical organ we call the heart –  they rarely have anything to do with emotions. In the Old Testament, for example, lebab primarily refers to thought, understanding, or memory, and even things such as awareness or courage. 

In other words, “heart” in the Old Testament usually refers to things of the mind rather than the emotions.  That is why we find biblical verses such as “As [a person] thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7),  or “…the Lord has not given you a heart to understand …” (Deuteronomy 29:4), and why Solomon prayed “… give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong…” (1 Kings 3:9).  That is also why many modern Bible versions translate the word “heart” in these verses as “mind” (NIV, Holman, etc.).

Although on the surface some uses of “heart” in the Old Testament may seem to relate to emotions, the essential idea is almost always one of thought rather than feeling.  In fact, when biblical writers wanted to refer to “feelings,” they usually spoke of them as being located not in the heart, but in the lower organs – the intestines (1 Kings 3:26, etc.)! 

In the New Testament we find the word “heart” (kardia) has the same metaphorical usage as lebab – most frequently meaning  “mind” –  as when we are told “Knowing their thoughts, Jesus said, ‘Why do you entertain evil thoughts in your hearts?’” (Matthew 9:4) and “For out of the heart come evil thoughts” (Matthew 15:19).  In fact, when the New Testament writers seem to be speaking of the heart and mind as two separate things –  as in the verse “All the believers were one in heart and mind” (Acts 4:32) –  they are usually using a common Jewish expression which was literally “one heart and one soul” – meaning they were completely unified (Jeremiah 32:39, etc.).

As we saw with the use of the Hebrew, when New Testament writers wanted to speak of the emotions they usually used a term for the lower organs, just as the apostle Paul wrote that we should put on “bowels of mercies” (Colossians 3:12 KJV), meaning we should have compassionate feelings toward others.  
 
When we understand this background, we realize that modern versions of the Bible may sometimes actually confuse us. In other words, when the Bible speaks of the heart, we must be careful to determine whether we are reading a verse giving the modern meaning of “emotions” or the ancient meaning of “mind.”  This can be important in many cases.  When the Old Testament tells us that David was “a man after [God's] own heart” (1 Samuel 13:14) and this is repeated in the New Testament as “a man after my heart” (Acts 13:22), we must realize that God’s “heart” means his thoughts and attitudes rather than his feelings. 

This fact is especially important in understanding the greatest commandment of all –  that we must love God with all our “heart.”  Easy as it may be to see this command in modern terms as referring to deep feelings and emotions for God –  good as such feelings may be –  the Bible actually means that we must love God with all our mind.  Loving God with all our “heart” means not leaving the slightest part of our minds separate from the rule and influence of God.  This is what Paul was speaking of when he tells us we must “… take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:5).
​
There is no place for any kind of divided affection in the command to love God with all our heart.  Just as Jesus stressed that “No one can serve two masters” because we will invariably love one and “hate” or love the other so much less by comparison (Matthew 6:24), loving God with our whole heart means having a love that includes nothing short of total and complete dedication of mind.  Only when we give our minds – our very selves –  completely to God are we loving him with all our heart. 

 
“Imitation is not just the sincerest form of flattery - it's the sincerest form of learning.”
― George Bernard Shaw
 
 
The word “imitation” often has a negative connotation – we can think of imitation designer clothes that don’t look as good as the real items,  imitation coffee or milk that doesn’t taste as good as the real thing, and many other examples.  Usually, the imitation is just not as good as the thing imitated – the real thing.
 
But there is one type of imitation that is perfectly acceptable  - in fact desirable:  when God himself is involved in the process of imitation.  The first chapter of Genesis  clearly tells us that God made an imitation when he made the first human.  “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness…. So God created mankind in his own image,  in the image of God he created them…” (Genesis 1:26-27).  And, of course, when God had done this,  God looked at the imitation he had made and “God saw… it was very good” (vs. 31).
 
Naturally, the imitation God made of himself was not endowed with the power, wisdom, goodness and countless other qualities that God has, but it had a small measure of these qualities – just enough to show the family likeness – and  it was good, but it wasn’t as like the original as might be possible.
 
In most cases, if you have an imitation of something, that’s what you are stuck with.  It’s always going to be a kind of second-class item.  But the interesting thing about the imitation that God made is that it was upgradable.  God made the imitation of himself with the ability for countless ongoing upgrades – with the potential to make the imitation ever more like the original.  In one sense, that’s what life is – or should be – all about: taking the opportunity to fulfill that potential .
 
So this kind of imitation is not wrong – or in any way second class.  It’s something we should all be doing in our lives – seeking to be a better imitation of God.  You may not have thought about it this way, but  that was what Jesus himself was doing, on a daily basis, during His physical life.  Notice what he said in this regard:  “… the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does” (John 5:19).   Jesus plainly says that even though he was the Son of God, his focus was on imitating God.  He knew the Father and constantly imitated him in his actions and thoughts.
 
How do we do this?  Although we do not have the unique knowledge of God that Jesus had, fortunately God has made available clear templates and instructions for us to follow to continuously “upgrade” ourselves to become increasingly better imitations.
 
First, we can imitate the original by getting to know God better through in-depth study of his word, not just in looking to see what it says, but looking to see what it says about him.  It’s a different approach when we don’t just read the story, but read the story like we would read the instructions for updating the software on our computers – carefully, and  focusing on what the words are showing us that we should do to successfully make the upgrade.
 
Second, we can imitate good copies.  God has given us the examples of his trained and trusted servants who closely imitate him. This is why the apostle Paul repeatedly stresses that we need  to look at his example and that of others to the extent that they imitate Christ.  Look at these instances of what Paul says about this: 
 
“Therefore I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I have sent to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus …”  (1 Corinthians 4:16).
 
“We did this… in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate” (2 Thessalonians 3:9).
 
These words of Paul dovetail with those found in the Book of Hebrews:
 
 “… imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised” (Hebrews 6:12).
 
“Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith” (Hebrews 13:7).
 
Third, we can pray specifically for help in becoming a better imitation.   Notice in Philippians Paul tells us something about imitating. He says we should “… have the same mindset as Christ Jesus” (Philippians 2:5), and after discussing this he then goes on to say “…continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (vs. 12).  If we are praying for God’s will in our lives, we should be getting his help to better imitate him and those he has changed – and we can pray for this specifically.
 
We need to remember that humans are actually programmed to imitate. That’s how we learn language, social skills, and countless other things.  It’s in our natures to imitate, and God put that there for a reason.  As a result, we must be careful, as John says, that we “do not imitate what is evil, but what is good” (3 John 1:11a).  If we are diligently studying, watching and praying to better imitate the model we have been given, God will continue his work in us and our spiritual imitation of his nature  will truly be “very good.”

By Kevin DeYoung *

Everyone who knows anything about the gospels—and even those who don’t—knows that Jesus was a friend of sinners. He often drew the ire of the scribes and Pharisees for eating with sinners (Luke 15:2). Jesus clearly recognized that one of the insults hurled against him was that he was “a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!” (Luke 7:34). As Christians we love to sing of this Pharisaical put-down because it means that Jesus is a friend to sinners like us. We also find ourselves challenged by Jesus’ example to make sure we do not turn away outsiders in a way that Jesus never would.

As precious as this truth is—that Jesus is a friend of sinners—it, like every other precious truth in the Bible, needs to be safeguarded against doctrinal and ethical error. It is all too easy, and amazingly common, for Christians (or non-Christians) to take the general truth that Jesus was a friend of sinners and twist it all out of biblical recognition. So “Jesus ate with sinners” becomes “Jesus loved a good party,” which becomes “Jesus was more interested in showing love than taking sides,” which becomes “Jesus always sided with religious outsiders,” which becomes “Jesus would blow bubbles for violations of the Torah.”

Here we have an example of a whole truth being used for a half truth in the service of a lie. Once, as a younger man in ministry, I made an offhanded comment about how Jesus “hung out with drunks.” I was gently and wisely corrected by an older Christian who had himself overcome alcohol addiction. He challenged me to find anywhere in Scripture where Jesus was just “hanging out” with people in a state of drunkenness. In an effort to accentuate the grace of Christ, I stepped beyond (around, over, and away) from the biblical text and made it sound like Jesus loved nothing more than to yuck it up with John Belushi in Animal House.

If we are to celebrate that the Lord Jesus is a glorious friend of sinners—and we should—we must pay careful attention to the ways in which Jesus actually was a friend to sinners. Omitting the story of the woman caught in adultery (for reasons of textual criticism), I count five main passages in the gospels where Jesus is chastised for getting too close to sinners.
​

1. Matthew 9:9-13; Mark 2:13-17; Luke 5:27-32 – This is the story of Jesus calling Matthew the tax collector to be his disciple. We find Jesus reclining at table with many tax collectors and sinners, “for there were many who followed him” (Mark 2:15). When the scribes and Pharisees grumble about the company he keeps, Jesus tells them that he has “not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
2. Matthew 11:16-19; Luke 7:31-35 – Here Jesus rebukes the “people of this generation” because they rejected John the Baptist for being too tight and reject the Son of Man for being too loose. It’s from this incident that we get the phrase “friend of sinners.” We should note that it was an insult heaped upon Jesus by his enemies. This doesn’t mean Christ didn’t own it and we shouldn’t sing it, but it suggests he may not have owned it in every way. If Jesus was not a “glutton and drunkard” as his opponents thoughts, so he may not have been “a friend of tax collectors and sinners” in exactly the way they imagined either.
3. Luke 7:36-50 – Right on the heels of this story comes another one like it in Luke. A sinful woman anoints Jesus with expensive ointment and wipes Jesus’ feet with her tears and the hair of her head. When Jesus is corrected for letting this “sinner” touch him, he reminds Simon that those who are forgiven much love much. In the end, Jesus forgives the woman her sin and announces “Your faith has saved you; go in peace” (Luke 7:50).
4. Luke 15:1-2 – The setting for the parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son of Luke 15 is found in the first two verses of that chapter. As the tax collectors and sinners “were all drawing near” to Jesus, the Pharisees and scribes grumbled that Jesus was receiving them to eat with them. The three parables that follow demonstrate how God seeks out the lost (15:3, 8, 20) and how pleased God is when sinners repent (15:7, 10, 21-24).
5. Luke 19:1-10 – Again, the Jewish leaders grumble because Jesus “has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner” (Luke 19:7) Though Zacchaeus repents and is a changed man (19:8), the Jews simply cannot accept that the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost (19:10) and that this notorious tax collector has been saved (19:9).

​So what lessons can we draw from these episodes? In what way was Jesus a friend of sinners? Did he have a grand strategy for reaching tax collectors? Did he indiscriminately “hang out” with drunks and prostitutes? Was he an easy going live-and-let-live kind of Messiah? What we see from the composite of these passages is that sinners were drawn to Jesus, that Jesus gladly spent time with sinners who were open to his teaching, that Jesus forgave repentant sinners, and that Jesus embraced sinners who believed in him.
​
Jesus was a friend of sinners not because he winked at sin, ignored sin, or enjoyed light-hearted revelry with those engaged in immorality. Jesus was a friend of sinners in that he came to save sinners and was very pleased to welcome sinners who were open to the gospel, sorry for their sins, and on their way to putting their faith in Him.

*Republished with permission from The Gospel Coalition website.

​​
When the expression “a life of prayer” comes to mind, people usually think of a devout figure whose life is characterized by frequent and extended prayer.

But there is another very different possible meaning that we should always remember is contained in this expression.  In a very real sense our lives are part of our prayers: we pray what we live, not just what we say.

Although we may not find a biblical verse that makes this statement in exactly those words, we find many scriptures that make the principle clear.  For example, the apostle Paul wrote: “Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters … to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship” (Romans 12:1).  When we remember the many biblical verses that equate prayer with sacrifice (Psalm 141:2, etc.), what Paul writes takes on even clearer meaning –  that just as our prayers are given as offerings or sacrifices to God (Revelation 8:4), the sacrifice of our “bodies” –  our lives –  is also part of our worship.   Paul urges us to make our lives  just as much a pleasing offering to God as our verbal prayers.

The Christian writer and preacher A. W. Tozer referred to this principle when he wrote: "We cannot pray in love and live in hate and still think we are worshiping God."  Tozer’s comment is well known, but he followed it up with an analogy that is not so often quoted and which summarizes the broader principle:

Let us suppose we are back in the old days of the high priest, who took incense into the [temple sanctuary] and went behind the veil and offered it there. And let us suppose that rubber—the worst-smelling thing I can think of when it burns—had been available in those days. Let us suppose that chips of rubber had been mixed with the incense, so that instead of the pure smoke of the spices filling the temple with sweet perfume, there had been the black, angry, rancid smell of rubber mixed with it. How could a priest worship God by mixing with the sweet-smelling ingredients some foul ingredient that would be a stench in the nostrils of priest and people?

Tozer’s  analogy is a good one, and we might well contrast it with what Paul instructs us in Ephesians:  “Follow God’s example, therefore, as dearly loved children and walk in the way of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God” (Ephesians 5:1-2).   Paul shows here that our walk – if it is in the way of love –  is equivalent to a fragrant offering or sacrifice, just as that of Christ was. 

But the principle of our lives being prayers is not just an analogy that we can dismiss or overlook. The relationship between our lives and our prayer “offerings” is as important as it is direct. We see this from the beginning of the biblical record with the story of Cain whose offering was rejected by God:

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then the Lord said to Cain, “Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast?  If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it” (Genesis 4:4-7).

In Cain’s case God rejected a physical offering because of his not doing right, but the New Testament makes it clear that the same applies to our verbal prayers: “We know that God does not listen to sinners. He listens to the godly person who does his will” (John 9:31). The Book of Hebrews gives a clear example of this interaction between our everyday and prayer lives: “Through Jesus, therefore, let us continually offer to God a sacrifice of praise—the fruit of lips that openly profess his name.  And do not forget to do good and to share with others, for with such sacrifices God is pleased” (Hebrews 13:15-16).  Our sacrifice of prayer and praise is directly linked, Hebrews says, to our walk, our behavior and our deeds.

The Bible’s teaching is clear, then:  our everyday life is part of our “prayer” life and God “hears” what we do just as much as what we say.  It is often said that our private lives must match our public prayers, but our everyday lives must match our private prayers, too. One of the greatest ways we can improve our prayer lives is to bring our everyday lives into alignment with them. It’s a fact that gives new meaning to the old question, “How’s your prayer life?”

*Download our free ebook on prayer,  YOUR CALL:  USING THE DIRECT PRIVATE LINE OF PRAYER here.

​ 


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



For many Christians John 3:16 is their best known and most loved verse in the Bible. It has been called the “golden verse” of Scripture, one of the Bible’s most succinct summaries of the gospel, and the ultimate single-verse summary of God’s plan for humanity.   But many do not realize just how much meaning is packed into this one short verse –  its very familiarity often obscures its richness –  and it can be profitable to look at each part of the verse more closely:

“For…” The word “For” with which this verse begins points back to John’s previous statement that: “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him” (John 3:14-15). This refers, of course, to the bronze image of a serpent that God instructed Moses to place on a high pole for the healing of the Israelites who acknowledged their sin in the wilderness (Numbers 21:4-9). In that story, everyone who “looked at” the serpent was granted life, and in John’s Gospel we see Christ made it clear that in the same way whoever “believes” on him is granted eternal life (John 3:16).  Looking and believing are equal in these accounts of the same story –  faith is “looking” without the eyes, or beyond what the physical eyes see, to a reality that saves (see our article “Seeing Is Believing: The Serpent on the Stake” here).  That is the background to John 3:16 – that our belief is not just the acceptance of an abstract idea about God and what he has done, but an active looking to the Person who is salvation.

“God so loved…” We should also realize that when this verse tells us that God “so” loved the world, it does not mean God loved the world “so much.”  Instead, the Greek in which the verse was written clearly means God loved the world “in this way.” In other words, “God loved the world in this way – he gave his only son …” It’s an important difference.  The Old Testament often stresses God’s love (Isaiah 63:9; Hosea 11:1-4, etc.), but John 3:16 shows the way in which that love was expressed.

“the world…” The Greek word translated “world” is kosmos which can mean not just the physical world or universe, but also –  as in this case –  all the inhabitants of the world. Rather than just telling us that God loved people in general, “the world” emphasizes the all-inclusive and universal love that God displayed – love of everyone without exception.

“that he gave…” Giving is, of course, characteristic of the nature of God –  it is one of the things that most clearly defines him –  and the gift of his son is his greatest gift, eclipsing all others (Romans 8:32).  The gift was foreshadowed in the prophets, as Isaiah wrote: “For to us a child is born, to us a son is given…” (Isaiah 9:6).  

“his one and only son...” In this phrase John stresses that God’s love extended to giving his “one and only" son – a sacrifice that reminds us of the story of Abraham’s willingness to give up Isaac (Hebrews 11:17).  Here the expression marks the unique nature of the gift that God was willing to give (1 John 4:9).

“that whoever believes on him…” The word “whoever” signifies “everyone” and stresses again the universal nature of God’s gift and its availability to anyone who will accept it. John reiterates this truth a little later in the same chapter: “Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life …” (John 3:36).  Unseen in our English translations is the fact that the word “believes” is a “present participle” in the Greek of the New Testament – a verbal form that stresses continuity of action. The required belief is not just associated with a one-time emotional occurrence – it is ongoing, and it only those who continue to believe who receive the gift (Matthew 24:13).

 “shall not perish but have eternal life.” Here we see as much stress on God’s desire that we do not perish (2 Peter 3:9) as on his desire to grant us life. The specific words “eternal life” are typical of the teaching of the apostle John, who uses them more than twice as many times as all the other Gospel writers combined. John here uses the expression in the present tense to stress that the life God offers us is not just life that we “shall” have at some future time, but spiritual life that begins now, in the present, and continues eternally from now.

The total message of this great verse is echoed by John in his first epistle: “This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him” (1 John 4:9). But it is only in John 3:16, the verse we all know but do not always appreciate to the full, that the great message is so clearly and thoroughly explained.

The Gospel of Luke records a group of parables in which Jesus gave three examples of the concept of lost and found: the story of the lost sheep, the parable of the lost coin, and the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:1-31).  

​We know these are not just three similar stories that were grouped together thematically as Luke specifically shows they were given at the same time (vss. 3, 8, 11) in response to the Pharisees’ criticism that Jesus ate with “sinners” (vss. 1-2). 

In the first parable, Jesus said: “Suppose one of you has a hundred sheep and loses one of them. Doesn’t he leave the ninety-nine in the open country and go after the lost sheep until he finds it?” (vs. 4). In the second, he continued: “Or suppose a woman has ten silver coins and loses one. Doesn’t she light a lamp, sweep the house and search carefully until she finds it?” (vs. 8). And in the third and best known parable we are told that Jesus continued: “There was a man who had two sons. The younger one said to his father, ‘Father, give me my share of the estate.’ So he divided his property between them. Not long after that, the younger son got together all he had and set off for a distant country (vss. 11-13). This parable also tells us that when the prodigal son finally returned:  “…while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him” (vs. 20), showing the father had been waiting and looking for his son.

In all three of these parables we are told that when that which was lost was found there was great rejoicing (vss. 6, 9, 32), and the moral of each is clearly that God rejoices in “finding” the lost soul. But these are not just a group of similar parables.  Not only were they given at the same time in response to the same situation, with a clear connection between the stories, but also if we look closely, there is another important  aspect of what is said.
 
In the first parable we are told specifically that the sheep that was lost was one in a hundred; in the second parable the coin that was lost was one in ten; in the third parable the son who was lost was one of two.   Although each parable makes the same point, there is an additional message in the complete sequence – in all three taken together. 
 
Jesus began by showing that even one of many (one in a hundred) has great value.  One hundred  sheep would have been a very large flock in ancient Palestine, and one missing sheep might hardly be noticed.  Spiritually, the message is clear: God values everyone who is lost –  even if they are “only one” of the vast number of humans who have lived.  The sequence continues, however, in showing the relative worth of the one of ten coins that was lost. The fact that the woman called on her friends to rejoice with her when the coin was found shows that its value must have been significant to her – probably a tenth of all her savings. In the final parable, the sequence concludes by showing the tremendous value to his father of the one of two sons who had been “lost.”  The father in the story is shown as perhaps having been searching the distant road continually, hoping for his son’s return.
 
In this parable we often concentrate on the uncharitable reluctance of the elder of the two sons to rejoice when the younger one returned.  Although that is an important part of the story, we should not forget that the discussion between the father and the elder brother also serves another purpose – to show the great value of the lost brother who was found.  The elder brother’s argument is essentially that the father was placing as much value on the young brother as on the one who had stayed faithful –  and that argument was in fact accurate. 

The parable makes it clear that the elder brother would receive his due reward (vs. 31), but the father replies to him that: “… we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found” (vs. 32).
​
The three “lost and found” parables Jesus gave were not just repetition for effect. The interlinked stories show successively  the value to God of the one who is lost. The sequence demonstrates at its beginning God’s personal attentiveness towards all of humanity and at its end his deeply focused love for each individual. Together, the parables show that no one is too small or insignificant to be viewed as of great value to God, and that every individual who returns to God, whatever their sins of the past, is of immense value – as valuable in God’s sight as any other.  The three parables show as clearly as anything in the New Testament not only the joy of the lost being found, but also the loving acceptance with which God views the one who is found.
 
* For more about the parables of Jesus, download our free e-book The City on a Hill.

 The two unmistakable themes of the Gospel of John are belief and love.*  Although John sometimes stresses these concepts separately, he also frequently connects them, as we see in verses such as John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (emphases added here and in the following scriptures). John also shows how the two great themes of love and belief were tied together in the words of Jesus himself: “… the Father himself loves you because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God” (John 16:27).

When we move beyond John’s Gospel to his epistles, we find the same two themes are also linked there. For example, the connection between belief and love is perfectly summarized in a single verse in the apostle’s first letter: “And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us” (1 John 3:23).
 
But although these two themes are clear enough in John’s writing, we do not always notice that he is teaching us an important lesson regarding them: that the one spiritual quality affects the other.

Belief Increases Love

Notice what John says regarding the first aspect of this interaction – that of belief affecting love.  In 1 John 4:19 the apostle tells us: “We love because he first loved us.” Although the word belief does not appear directly in this verse, the concept is obviously implied – we come to love God because we believe God first loved us.
   
John connects belief with love in many other verses in this letter –  such as 1 John 5:1 where he tells us: “Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well.” 

But John evidently did not feel the necessity to elaborate on the connection between belief and love, as it is not a difficult one to see for ourselves in our own personal experience: the more we come to see and understand God and believe in him and his nature, the more we come to love him.   Put simply, the more we come to know God, the more we come to love him.

Love Increases Belief

But John also shows this principle is reciprocal: the more we love God, the more our belief is strengthened. Consider the following verses.

“Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love” (1 John 4: 7B).

In this case, love is mentioned first and then knowing God – our belief in him –  comes as a result. It is easy to read over this verse without seeing the connection John is making, but it is clear once we focus on it.   The apostle makes the same connection in other verses. For example:

“No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us” (1 John 4:12).

What proof do we have of God? John asks. His answer is straightforward –  if we truly love one another, then God is living in us and we experience him in our lives in this way.  John looks at the other side of this situation a few verses later:

“… whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen” (1 John 4:20).

This obviously has vital relevance for Christian life and belief.  As we come to love, John tells us, we come to experience God –  and so to believe in him.  Near the end of his letter, John unites the two principles of love and belief once again:

“In fact, this is love for God: to keep his commands… This is the victory that has overcome the world, even our faith” (1 John 5:3).

John is not alone in making this connection. The New Testament shows on many occasions that spiritual qualities, such as belief and love, do not exist in a vacuum.  The apostle Paul, for example, wrote on how belief interacts with love: “…The only thing that counts is faith expressing itself through love” (Galatians 5:6). John’s epistles show the same truth from both directions –  the more we come to truly believe, the more we will also love; and vice versa, the more we truly love, the more we will come to truly believe.

Ultimately, for John, love and belief cannot be separated. We cannot develop the kind of love God exhibits without believing, or truly know and believe God without loving.  As has been wisely said, “Belief is the eye of love, love is the heart of belief.” Both are necessary for the eternal life that, John tells us, God has desired to give us from the beginning (1 John 2:24).
 
 * See the chapter on these two themes in our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels. 

During the course of this past year we published well over a hundred blog posts here and on our sister site.

The list below gives the 12 posts that were most popular on this site, so check out the list to see how it compares with your own favorites and to see if you missed any of these posts ...



Being Encouraged by our Discouragement

Puah and Shiprah:  The Sanctity of Life

The Message behind the Message in Jude

The Three Things that Matter Most

Sowing and Reaping in Galatians 6

The Gifts and Fruit of the Spirit

The Priest, the Plot, and the Parable

What We Love and What We Don’t

Four Ways to Please God

Putting a Price on Forgiveness 

Growing the Two Directions of Love

Peace of Mind in the First Epistle of John
 
You might also like to see the parallel list of most popular posts this year on our sister site: 
www.TacticalChristianity.org .
​

The star that appeared to the wise men in the East announcing the birth of Christ and which led them to him (Matthew 2:1-9) shone brightly till its purpose was fulfilled, then it disappeared from view.  In a similar manner, John the Baptist, who was called the “greatest of those born of women” (Matthew 11:11), accomplished a short intense ministry aimed also at announcing and pointing to the Christ, then likewise faded from view.  

The star that heralded Jesus’ birth, bright as it appeared, was to be obscured by the one to whom it pointed – the Messiah himself.  Here we also see a parallel with John the Baptist.  As Christ affirmed, “He was a burning and shining lamp” (John 5:35), but John nevertheless  came only as a witness because “The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world” (John 1:8-9). Once Jesus’ ministry began,  John’s  “light” was dimmed by the rising of his successor.  As John himself said using this very analogy, “He must wax, but I must wane” (John 3:30).  But like the heavenly star that also preceded the Messiah’s birth,  John the Baptist’s job was fully accomplished in the short but intense work which God intended for him. Both were powerful witnesses to the coming of the Messiah.

How does this apply to us?  Although we may not live in the age which saw a heavenly light or a great prophetic “light” like John the Baptist pointing to Christ, the apostle Peter reminds us that “We also have the prophetic message as something completely reliable, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts” (2 Peter 1:19).  That “morning star”  is Christ himself (Revelation 22:16); and the “prophetic message” is not so much all of prophecy as it is the prophetic message regarding the meaning and purpose of the coming of Christ.

The star of the nativity, the “lamp” of John the Baptist, and the “light shining in a dark place” were different announcements made available to different groups of people: the first to only a select few, the second to all who heard John, the third to all who come in contact with the word of God throughout the whole world.    The three forms of announcement also increased in the level of understanding they provided those to whom they were given.  Bright as the heavenly star may have appeared, powerful as John’s testimony may have been, we can be thankful that the announcement that has come to us is the fullest, clearest and most profound light of all. ​