“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).

John 3:16 is, of course, the best-known and most quoted verse of the Bible. Unfortunately, many people think that this verse – along with others such as Romans 10:9: “If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead, you will be saved” or Acts 16:31: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved,” means that if we simply reach a point where we believe in Jesus we are saved and God requires nothing else of us. 

Faith is, of course, essential for salvation, as we see in the apostle Paul’s explanation of its importance. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9). But what many do not realize is that we still have to meet God’s conditions to receive that gift of salvation through faith. As James tells us, “Even the demons believe—and tremble” (James 2:19) so there must be conditions affecting whether our faith or belief is acceptable to God.

Jesus himself implied this in preaching “Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:15) and telling his disciples “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16) showing that faith needs to be accompanied by certain behaviors to be saving faith. In fact, the New Testament shows us there are at least two things we must have in addition to faith in order to make our faith both real and acceptable.

Obedience

The Scriptures make it very clear that obedience to God is necessary for faith to save us. Jesus himself said “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21, emphasis added here and in the scriptures below), and “If you want to enter life, keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:17). The author of Hebrews explicitly adds that Jesus “became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him” (Hebrews 5:9).  

It is this obedience to God’s commands that is the basis for what the apostle James tells us about Abraham: “his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did” (James 2:22), and about the good works that God calls us to do when he wrote: “a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone” (James 2:24).

Perseverance

This is another requirement that we must meet for our faith to be acceptable to God. No matter how real our belief may have been at some point, if we do not continue in it, our faith is made useless. Consider the following clear scriptures:

“the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Matthew 10:22, 24:13, ESV).

“By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain” (1 Corinthians 15:2).

“But now he has reconciled you by Christ’s physical body through death … if you continue in your faith, established and firm, and do not move from the hope held out in the gospel” (Colossians 1:23).

“Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers” (1 Timothy 4:16).

Obedient, Ongoing Faith

So, while we are certainly saved by faith and not by our works, a living faith must be accompanied by obedience to God, and must be ongoing.  In one way, we might perhaps say these qualities are part of true faith, but they are also separate qualities that we must never presume are somehow automatically granted to us if we simply believe. That is why the apostle Peter wrote:

“For this very reason, make every effort to add to your faith goodness; and to goodness, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, perseverance; and to perseverance, godliness; and to godliness, mutual affection; and to mutual affection, love… and you will receive a rich welcome into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1 5-11).

If you visit our sister site, FreeChristianEBooks.org, regularly, you will know that we have begun adding multi-format options for our Christian books recently.  It’s a big project, but the goal is to ultimately have all our free e-books available in four formats: e-books (in .epub, .mobi,  and .pdf versions), audio books, podcast discussions and summaries, and explainer videos. 

These four formats provide a complete range of engagement from the full e-book which you might choose to read over a couple of days, to video summaries of the books' key ideas that only take a couple of minutes to watch.  So, check out some of the new formats for books you may not have read yet, or for which you would like a quick review. 

This past week we added a short new video explainer for R. Herbert’s Take Courage! The Vital Quality Every Christian Must Have. It’s a book that can help you to significantly develop your Christian walk – and the video only takes a couple of minutes to watch, here!

The apostle Paul quoted several ancient Greek poets in his ministry and writings, and his use of these works is interesting and instructive.  For example, in 1 Corinthians 15:33, Paul wrote “Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.” Which is a direct quotation from a poem by Menander (4th-3rd century B.C.), though it may have become a popular saying by Paul’s time.

More directly, in Acts 17 Paul quotes two of the Greek poets in the space of a single verse: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being.’ As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” (Acts 17:28).  The first part of this verse is a line by the poet Epimenides of Crete, and the last part of the verse is from the poet Aratus who was from Paul’s own homeland of Cilicia. But if we look closer, we find a much deeper connection between Paul’s preaching and the works of these classical authors  – especially the poet Epimenides. This poet and wise man lived during the 6th-century B.C. and became one of the most famous poets of his age. Many legends surround Epimenides’ life, but the ancient Greek historians record certain details that appear to be true, and one thing recorded of him is of particular interest. 

In his book Lives of the Eminent Philosophers the ancient historian Diogenes Laërtius records that because the wisdom of Epimenides was so respected, when a terrible plague struck the Greek city of Athens, its leaders sent for the poet to help them.  Epimenides agreed to help the Athenians, and when he arrived in Athens he took a number of sheep to the area of the Areopagus, the Athenian high council, close to the famous Parthenon temple. Then Epimenides is said to have released the sheep and told the Athenians to follow them and wherever the sheep lay down, to build altars and sacrifice to the deity of that specific area.  As some of the sheep lay down in areas not associated with any particular god or goddess, a number of altars were erected to the “unknown” god of those areas.  According to Diogenes, the pestilence was stopped in this way, and the Athenians long remembered Epimenides as having saved many of them from death.

With this backstory in mind, we better understand what we read in Acts 17 of Paul’s visit to Athens.  We see the significance of the fact that Paul is specifically said to have addressed the people of the city in the Areopagus (verse 19); why Paul mentioned – in full view of the great Acropolis temples – that the true God does not dwell in temples made by human hands (verse 24); that he said he had seen an altar to “an unknown god,” and that it was precisely that same God that Paul was proclaiming to them (verse 23).  It also explains why, of the many Greek poets Paul could have quoted, he chose to quote Epimenides (verse 28).  

The book of Acts probably does not record the entirety of Paul’s sermon in Athens, but the details that it does give were doubtless selected by Luke to show the link between what Paul said and the historical background of the Athenian situation. In this way, Luke shows a number of things that Paul demonstrated in his preaching in Athens:

1. Paul’s credentials.  Many of the Athenians were well educated for their day and would only listen to those they considered to also be educated. In the ancient world there were, of course, no degrees and diplomas, and the mark of an educated individual – especially among the ancient Greeks – was the ability to quote poets and learned men. Paul’s carefully selected quotations from the works of their own poets established his learning with his Athenian audience.   

2. Paul’s relevance.  In tying his message to an important aspect of Athenian history and culture, Paul was able to preach in a way that captured his audience’s attention, and deliver a message that had relevance to them.  

3. Paul’s adaptability.  Simply quoting from the Hebrew biblical Scriptures would have accomplished nothing with the Athenian audience. Instead, Paul quoted lines from the Greek poets that said what he wanted to say – despite the pagan associations of the poems themselves. Although both of the lines Paul quotes were originally written about the god Zeus, Paul applied them to the true Creator in his speech recorded in Acts 17. This was a perfect example of Paul’s willingness to be “all things to all men” (1 Corinthians 9:22).   

4. Paul’s dedication.  The aptness of Paul’s quotations from the Greek poets shows that the apostle was not simply “quoting learned individuals to appear learned.”  The quotations reveal dedicated study on Paul’s part that that allowed him to choose exactly the right quotations for his message.  We also see this in Paul’s writings when he quotes Epimenides again, this time on the character of many of the people of Crete, in his epistle to Titus: “One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons'” (Titus 1:12).

The characteristics that Paul demonstrated in his Athenian sermon all provide lessons  – not only for missionary workers who have to deal with foreign cultures, but also for all of us in dealing with others and being an effective witness to them. We too need to be adaptable in sharing the good news through connections that can serve as a bridge to discussion of biblical truth.

Paul’s dedication in equipping himself to reach others also reminds us of the effort we also need to be willing to expend in order to reach others through knowledge of their lives, their interests and concerns.  Just as God used Paul’s knowledge and understanding of cultural realities to reach some of the people of ancient Athens, so – if we are willing to follow Paul’s example – God can use us more effectively, too.

If you have not read our new e-book on the Bible's book of Job, maybe this short video (clicking on the image above will open the video in a new page) will convince you to do it!  Job: Answering the Question of Suffering provides a surprising and encouraging study of one of the Bible's most fascinating, but least understood books. The video gives a brief introduction to  this book and its important lessons every Christian needs to understand.  Watch the video and maybe you will decide to read the e-book (here) after all!

“If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven”  (John 20:23).
 
These words of Jesus recorded in the Gospel of John are misunderstood by many and given widely different interpretations in different branches of Christianity. In Roman Catholicism, they are taken to mean that the apostles and their successors were given the power to forgive or not forgive when they hear the confession of sins. Protestants understand the statement very differently, so we should look closely at the context in which the statement appears and also at other biblical passages on forgiveness.

The context of Jesus’ words is not one of forgiveness, per se, but the commissioning of the disciples – and the wider church – to evangelize the world. Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you. And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit.’ ” (John 20:21-22).  How does this connect with his following statement about forgiveness?

Many scriptures show that God gives everyone the power to forgive those who wrong them personally and individually in the sense of not holding the wrong against the other person (Ephesians 4:32; etc.), but other Scriptures show just as clearly that only God can truly and fully forgive sins (Isaiah 43:25; Mark 2:7; Luke 5:21; etc.).

In his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, the apostle Peter said “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins” (Acts 2:38). Acts tells us “With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, ‘Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.’ Those who accepted his message were baptized… And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:40-47).  This is the greater context in which Jesus’ words can be understood.  The apostles preached the gospel as Jesus had commanded them, and some accepted the gospel message and were saved while others did not.

Jesus’ words “If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” are, then, not talking about any power Christians have to forgive people’s sins, but the message of forgiveness in Christ that they were commissioned to teach.  In declaring the will of God, Jesus promised his followers would be taught by the Holy Spirit to state on what terms God would extend His forgiveness of sins – repentance and baptism showing the acceptance of Jesus Christ. It was not authority to forgive individuals Jesus was giving his disciples, but the truth regarding the conditions by which people could  be pardoned by God.

In other words, their message was a declaration of the reality of God's judgment based on a person's response or non-response to the gospel message. In that sense, Jesus gave authority to his Church to tell the people of the world their sins were forgiven or not based on their response to God’s message to them. 

It is also interesting to note that the expression “If you forgive anyone's sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven” is in the plural on both sides of this equation.  Just as it is the plurality of Christians rather than any one individual who is given this power, so it is expressed to groups of people – who believe or do not – rather than to individuals. The two groups do not indicate what God’s will is (1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9; Matthew 23:37; etc.)  but what is the case when God’s message is rejected or accepted.

*For more information on Forgiveness, download our free e-book "How to Forgive," here.

The Old Testament book of Job is not only a mysterious and fascinating one, it is also perhaps the most important book in the Bible when it comes to understanding suffering. Why is there suffering in this world? Why does God allow even seemingly righteous people to suffer? What can we do to help ourselves or others who are suffering? Our new book Job: Answering the Question of Suffering gives a short, but in-depth, look at this biblical book – and the answers Job provides to some of life's most difficult and important questions. You can download a free copy of this greatly encouraging book to read on any smart phone, e-book reader, tablet, or computer, here.

 “I will come to put you on trial … says the Lord Almighty.”  Malachi 3:5

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 both the Hebrew Tanak and the Christian 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 by way of  legal complaints produced in trial. In this “trial” God Himself brings a number of charges against  Israel,  all of which Israel denies.  God then provides evidence of Israel’s guilt in each case. 

Guilty as charged

Malachi begins  immediately  with the first charge:    “I have loved you,” says the LORD “  (Malachi 1:2) and the charge is implied in this simple statement.   God had loved Israel  over a great length of time,  yet  His people had refused to return His love and had been constantly unfaithful to the covenant which He had made with them.   Israel’s  ungrateful response to the charge:  “How have you loved us?” is all the more reprehensible considering  God had only recently created the circumstances which allowed the Jews to return from captivity.

Malachi then lists a number of ways in which Israel  persisted in breaking  its covenant  with God and rejecting the love He gave them.  First,  he charges that Israel had greatly disrespected  God (Malachi 1:6)  Once again Israel denies the charge:  “How have we shown contempt for your name?” , but the evidence is clear: by  offering blemished and inferior offerings (Malachi 1:7-8).    Malachi particularly faults the priests for accepting and offering such sacrifices: “For the lips of a priest ought to preserve knowledge, because he is the messenger [malach] of the LORD Almighty”  (Malachi 2:7).

The same legal pattern of charge, denial, and then presentation of evidence of guilt is repeated throughout the greater part of the book of Malachi:

Charge: The  Israelites were breaking their  covenant with God by marrying women who worshiped  foreign gods, by being unfaithful to  their own wives, and by divorcing them (Malachi 2: 12-16).

Charge: Israel was breaking its covenant  with God through the injustice which permeated the land (Malachi 2:17 – 3:5).

 At this key point the legal nature of  this book is made especially clear.  God says to Israel : “I will send my messenger (malachi), who will prepare the way before me … the messenger  (malach) of the covenant …” (Malachi 3:1) and  “… I will come to put you on trial. I will be quick to testify against sorcerers, adulterers and perjurers, against those who defraud laborers of their wages, who oppress the widows and the fatherless, and deprive the foreigners among you of justice, but do not fear me,” says the LORD Almighty.” (Malachi 3: 5; see also Isaiah 3:13-15 where God also appears as prosecuting attorney and judge).   

Two final  charges follow this  legal  broadside:

Charge:   Israel  was being unfaithful in its tithes – by not paying a full tithe.  (Malachi 3:8-10).

Charge:  ‘You have spoken arrogantly against me,’ says the LORD. You have said, ‘It is futile to serve God. What do we gain by carrying out his requirements …’ (Malachi 3:13-15).

Applying the charges to ourselves

Throughout  these legal proceedings,  Malachi shows the Israelites repeatedly  denied the charges brought against them,  asking “how have we done this?”  or “how have we done that?”  They are portrayed as full of sin, yet  clean in their own eyes. But before we judge them for this,  could any of these charges apply to spiritual Israel? Can we ask ourselves the same questions that God asked them?  

Have we failed in our covenant relationship with God in any of the ways spelled out in the charges leveled in the book of Malachi?   Let’s take a single example and  look at the charge of giving  inferior offerings.  Malachi shows the Israelites were giving blemished and sub-standard offerings to God that  they would probably be embarrassed to  give as gifts to one another.  It’s easy to read over this and not see how it might apply in our lives, but does it?  Malachi offers an instructive example from everyday life in any age: “Try offering [the inferior offerings]  to your governor [read “boss”]! Would he be pleased with you? Would he accept you?’ says the LORD Almighty”  (Malachi 1:8). 

We may faithfully give to  our church in terms of monetary offerings, but what about the other things we offer God? Are our prayers too often short, “sleepy time” offerings which skimp on our covenant relationship?  We talk about spending “quality time” with our mates, but what about the quality of the time we give to God each day and week – is it hastily crammed in around the edges, or is it something better?   How about the Sabbath?  Do we keep it in the letter of the law, or do we see it as an opportunity to offer some undivided attention  to God within the parameters of the day?  These things are just as much our offerings to God as our monetary support of the Gospel.

All of Israel’s failings in their covenant relationship with God have obvious and sometimes not so obvious parallels in our lives (Romans 15:4), and  some of the charges against physical Israel may apply to us today.   They  are worth thinking about. 

Suspended penalties  and  the law of love

Before he moves to the penalty phase of trial,  Malachi shows that some few do accept the charges by admitting guilt and penitently turning to God.    “Then those who feared the LORD talked with each other, and the LORD listened and heard. A scroll of remembrance was written in his presence concerning those who feared the LORD and honored his name.  “ ‘On the day when I act,’ says the LORD Almighty, ‘they will be my treasured possession. I will spare them, just as a father has compassion and spares his son who serves him.’ ” (Malachi 3:16-18).

The final section of Malachi then jumps to a future time when most  humans finally will understand, appreciate and respond to the covenant that God has offered them and will no longer deceive themselves:  “Then shall ye return, and discern between the righteous and the wicked, between those who serve God and those who do not” (Malachi 3:18). For those who do not, the penalty will be inescapable and final (Malachi 4:1).

“But for you who revere my name” God says, “the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its rays …” (Malachi 4:2). What does this mention of the sun in Malachi have to do with a legal trial?  It is interesting that for many of the nations which were ancient Israel’s neighbors,  the  sun god  was also the god of justice and the sun was thus a symbol of justice and law in the Near East,  just as the scales of justice are a symbol  of law to us. But Malachi stresses that rather than some pagan sun god, the “sun of righteousness”  - the embodiment of perfect righteous law - would rise on God’s repentant people.

Then Malachi ends on  words  that  focus on both the law of God: “Remember the law…” (Malachi 4:4) and the  love of God which began this book:  “See, I will send the prophet Elijah to you before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes.  He will turn the hearts of the parents to their children, and the hearts of the children to their parents….” (Malachi 4:5-6). 

This turning of the hearts as a result of the work of an Elijah-like figure doubtless applies equally to our relationship with our spiritual parent as much as it does to physical parent-child relationships. It also has two possible applications in terms of the person of the latter day Elijah. In the first and clearest  application, the prophet “Elijah” indicates John the Baptist who prepared the way for the ministry of Jesus and the institution of the new covenant .  “And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.” (Luke 1:17) Notice  also the words of Zechariah, John the Baptist’s father,  “And you, my child, will be called a prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord …  by which the rising sun will come to us from heaven” (Luke 1: 76-78 which uses the same imagery of the rising sun as Malachi 4:3-4).  Jesus himself confirms this  identity of Malachi’s Elijah figure in Matthew 11:14 by saying of John the Baptist, “And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come” (see also Matthew 17:10-12).

In the second understanding, this prophecy also applies to some yet future individual or individuals, but in either case,  the closing section of  Malachi clearly stresses the  parent-child  relationship  as a metaphor  of the love that God has offered throughout the human story.  

When God says   “I have loved you” at the opening of Malachi it is in the legal context of Israelite and human failure to respond to his love. But the closing verses of this book show that due to the love of God these legal proceedings will eventually have a good outcome for those who accept God’s love.  The book of Malachi plainly shows that law has a place in love, and that love has a vital place in law. 

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

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

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

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

Certainly, there is nothing to be found anywhere else in the book of Isaiah that would suggest this is not the meaning of Isaiah 63:17.  In fact, the situation is clearly summarized in Isaiah’s very next chapter where the prophet speaks on behalf of Israel, saying: “You come to the help of those who gladly do right, who remember your ways. But when we continued to sin against them, you were angry. How then can we be saved? … for you have hidden your face from us and have given us over to our sins” (Isaiah 64:5–7).

Rather than an accusation that God was causing Israel to sin, Isaiah’s message is clearly that sinful Israel needed God’s help to do right – a lesson we can also learn from this powerful biblical book, and one we should never forget.

If someone were to ask you to summarize the apostle Paul’s teaching found in his letters in the New Testament, what would you say?​Chances are, like most of us who know and love Paul’s epistles, you would take a deep breath and launch into a somewhat complicated explanation of the nature of salvation, faith, law, grace, and a number of other core Christian doctrines.

But was Paul really just a “theologian’s theologian,” a “super-scholar” who concentrated on doctrine and the theory of Christianity above all else?  The answer, of course, is not at all. There are plenty of life experiences behind a great deal of what Paul tells us.  We only have to look, for example, at his first letter to the Corinthian church.  Paul has a great deal of practical guidance for Christians dealing with some of the problems and challenges of life.  But we can go further than that. There is actually a practical side to most of what Paul wrote – we just don’t always see it.

When we look at Paul’s epistles closely, we find that he frequently divides his material so that the first half of his letter stresses theological issues and the second half of the letter stresses their practical application. We can see this quite clearly in Romans, Galatians, Ephesians and Colossians, but the principle applies to most of his epistles.   In Ephesians, for example, the doctrinal portion of the letter (chapters 1-3) is followed by an ethical or Christian living section (chapters 4-6), and the whole epistle is structured around this balance.

But that’s not all.  When we focus in on almost any section of the apostle’s writings, we find that he utilizes this balanced form of teaching continually.  We just have to learn to see the pattern.  In one half of his statements Paul often presents a theological fact, and in the other half we are given the application of that fact.  Usually, it is first the doctrine, then the practice.  In fact, at a technical level, Paul actually often balances two different forms of the same verb – first the “indicative” form stressing a fact, then the “imperative” form telling us what we must do about that fact.  But the overall pattern of fact plus application of the fact is very clear when we look for it.  Consider a few examples where the indicative factual statement is italicized and the imperative command is bolded:

“You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love” (Galatians 5:13).

“Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God” (Colossians 3:1).

Sometimes we have to continue reading for several verses to get to the practical application of a point, as in this example:

“For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ, who is your life, appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.  Put to death, therefore, whatever belongs to your earthly nature… ” (Colossians 3:3-5).

And sometimes Paul reverses the order – placing the practical application before the doctrinal fact – but if we keep the pattern in mind, we will see the balance is still there:

“Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:32).

“Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed—not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence—continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose” (Philippians 2:12-13).

Whatever order he uses, once we see this pattern in Paul, every epistle becomes a clearly linked series of thoughts about what God has done and what we must do as a result.  But it is not just a way of teaching what we must do.  The “indicative-imperative dynamic,” as theologians call it, is just as much about helping us understand why we should do the things we need to do.

The balanced structure of teaching we see in these verses is certainly not something that was new to Paul – we find it occasionally in formally structured sections of instruction throughout the Bible. To take only two examples:

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me …” (Exodus 20:2-3).
“… Our Father in heaven, Your name be honored as holy” (Matthew 6:9 HSB).
​
But Paul uses this structure more consistently than any other biblical writer.  If we look for it, we will find there is invariably a connection between what he tells us about what we should believe and the way we should live – between theology and morality, orthodoxy and orthopraxy, belief and practice, doctrine and living.

As we study his epistles, we should continually ask “What is the fact Paul is stating?” and “What is he saying we should do as a result of that fact?”  If we do this consistently, we will often see the point he is making far more clearly – and not miss the guidance he gives us.  Keeping this simple principle in mind can help us to navigate through Paul’s sometimes dense and even difficult writing (2 Peter 3:16) by better keeping up with his arguments and the significance of what he is telling us.

Paul wasn’t just about theology, and focusing on the practical side of his letters can often help us to better understand much of what he wrote. After all, it was Paul himself who said “Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice” (Philippians 4:9).

We may consider suffering to be anything and everything that brings us pain, but the Bible differentiates between three types of human suffering and misery: what we might call negative, neutral, and Christian suffering. In this article we will look at each of these types of suffering and what they can teach us.

1. Negative suffering – that which we bring on ourselves through sin, or foolishness.  The apostle Peter talks about this kind of self-inflicted suffering in his first epistle:  “If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer or thief or any other kind of criminal, or even as a meddler” (1 Peter 4:15).  The causes of suffering Peter mentions are clearly a result of our own wrongful behavior – whether it is physical as in the case of alcohol or drug abuse, or spiritual through breaking the principles of God’s moral laws.  It was this type of suffering that Job’s friends famously presumed that Job had brought on himself. (Job 4:7-8; etc.) Where suffering is self- caused, the Bible indicates the only benefit is that it may possibly help us or others to see the error of sin or foolishness and to avoid further or worse errors and unhappiness.

2. Neutral suffering – this is suffering that comes on us through no real fault of our own – it may be simply the result of chance – as when we happen to catch a cold or fall and injure ourselves, for instance. Jesus himself pointed out that such suffering is not necessarily a sign of our wrongdoing and God’s judgment (Luke 13:4). In most cases like these, and especially in the case of genetic health issues, it is clear that this kind of suffering is beyond the individual’s control.  This was the situation when the disciples asked Jesus who was at fault, the man born blind or his parents. Jesus replied, of course, that neither had sinned, but that the suffering was allowed to happen for God’s purposes.   In the case of that blind man, God used the individual’s suffering to eventually bring grace to him and to others. In our own situations, the suffering God sometimes allows to come on us can teach us – and others – compassion and the need to help those who need help.  Paul speaks of God using this type of suffering when he wrote “the God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God” (2 Corinthians 1:4). Nothing else teaches us as clearly as pain, and our suffering, if we let it, can teach us – and others – lessons we often could not learn any other way.

3. Christian Suffering. This may be less frequent, but it is the most important kind of suffering. After he warns against negative, self-caused suffering in his epistle, Peter then continues: “However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed … those who suffer according to God’s will should commit themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good” (1 Peter 4:15-19). The vital thing to see here is that this is suffering that comes about so that we may do good. As the ESV translates this same verse: “Therefore let those who suffer according to God’s will entrust their souls to a faithful Creator while doing good.” Just as Christ himself suffered so that others may be saved and helped, Christian suffering is not just a result of persecution, but is also suffering we may experience simply as a result of doing good – fulfilling an opportunity God gives us to help others despite the personal discomfort or difficulty involved for us. 

That is what the apostle Paul meant when he wrote to the Colossians: “I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church” (Colossians 1:24). Many have debated what Paul meant by “filling up Christ’s afflictions,” but the apostle did not imply that Christ somehow did not suffer enough – he simply meant that the need for suffering to help others – in this case, “for the sake of … the church” – is ongoing, and that we also suffer to serve just as Christ did. 

Elsewhere in his letters, Paul speaks of this kind of Christian suffering as “participating in Christ’s sufferings” (Philippians 3:10; etc.), and, as he continued in his epistle to the Corinthians: “just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation” (2 Corinthians 1:5).

Christian suffering of this kind it is not caused by our own fault, or by chance, but by our willingness to voluntarily take up Christ’s cross and suffer in the way he suffered for the sake of others.  But this suffering carries the reward of seeing others being helped and served, and knowing that in such suffering we participate in the life of Christ himself.
 
*See also our article “Why Does God Allow Suffering?” here.

“When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted” (Matthew 28:17).
 
In its description of the resurrected Christ meeting with his disciples in Galilee, Mathew’s Gospel includes a somewhat puzzling – if not startling – phrase that has often led to misunderstandings. When the risen Jesus appeared to his followers at this point, we are told that some of his disciples worshiped him, “but some doubted.”

What exactly was this doubt – that it was really Jesus? That it was not a vision? That they thought it was Jesus but doubted that he was actually God? Why did some believe while others doubted? And how serious was that doubt?

To answer these questions, we need to look closely at the words Matthew uses.  The underlying Greek word for “doubted” is distazō, which is only used twice in the New Testament –  here and in Matthew 14:31 when Jesus asked Peter why he doubted after he lost his confidence and began to sink while walking on the water toward Jesus.   In both cases the doubting does not denote intellectual disbelief (for which Greek uses the word apistia), but rather physical “hesitation.” Most dictionaries of ancient Greek define distazō  as meaning “waver or hesitate”* as well as “doubt,” and the meaning of “hesitate” makes sense logically in both passages. Peter must have originally not doubted or he would not have decided to get out of the boat, and the disciples who were said to doubt must have not done so originally because they went to Galilee, to the place Jesus told them to go to meet him –  so they could not have disbelieved in the possibility of his resurrection.  

In the case of Peter walking on the waves, he was doing fine for a while, but focusing on the wind, he hesitated (Matthew 14:30).  In the case of the disciples who doubted when they saw Jesus, they too hesitated in some way. What could the hesitation have been?  

The answer to that question is likely found in the same verse: ““When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.”  It seems likely that while most of the disciples, on seeing Jesus, worshipped him as the Son of God, some few hesitated, not yet sure that they should worship someone who appeared as a man before them. Interestingly, the story of Peter on the water also occurred in a context with worship of Jesus – once the disciples had seen an indication that he was the Son of God (Matthew 14:31). Understood this way, the hesitation had more to do with the Jewish abhorrence of worshipping anything but God than it had to do with any doubt that this was the resurrected Jesus.  

We should remember that when we look back on this scene, we visualize it in terms of our knowledge of the resurrected divine Son of God. Some of those disciples may well have gone to Galilee expecting or hoping to see the resurrected Jesus, but perhaps without thinking out ahead of time what exactly they should do when they did see him. We must remember that the Scriptures mention a number of people being resurrected – and Matthew tells us specifically that: “The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people” (Matthew 27:52-53).

So the disciples who “doubted” may not have doubted at all – they may have been fully aware of people being resurrected, but may have hesitated when actually seeing Jesus in the flesh in terms of whether to react with worship or not. 

It is possible that the hesitation may have been based on uncertainty as to whether this really was Jesus, but that could have been a matter of distance. Matthew tells us that directly after some doubted:  “Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me’” (Matthew 28:18).  If Jesus came to them, they must have seen him from at least a little distance at first –  when some are said to have doubted. But overall, it seems more likely that the hesitation of these disciples was not regarding the identity and reality of Jesus, but their own proper response to him.  
 
* See, for example: Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, F. Wilbur Gingrich, and Frederick W. Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., revised and edited by Frederick W. Danker (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001), p. 252.

Two of the Gospel writers –  Matthew and Mark –  record that near his death Jesus called out with what might seem to be a strange statement:
 
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46 ESV).
 
And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34 ESV).
 
While Matthew records Jesus’ words in Hebrew, Mark records them in Aramaic (the language in which they were probably uttered); but the words are almost identical, and the meaning is the same.  
 
These words have long been interpreted as showing that at that point in time Jesus symbolically bore the sins of the whole world and that God –  who cannot look at evil (Habakkuk 1:13) –  turned away from his Son who was left in near-despairing isolation.  Because sin cuts off from God, the argument is made, and Jesus at that moment represented all sinners –  so God totally cut himself off from his perfect Son because of our sins.
 
But is that what those terrible words really signify?  Did God really turn away from his only Son who had lived a life of perfect obedience – obedience all the way to death itself (Philippians 2:8)?  Although that may possibly be the case, we do not have a scripture saying that.  And how do we mesh that concept with the fact that it was because God loved sinners so much that he sent his Son to die for them (John 3:16)? Or the fact that God looks on and deals personally with every sinner he calls,  and that we have it on scriptural authority that “nothing can separate us from the love of God in Christ”? (Romans 8:38-39).

There is another –  and far more positive – way to understand those troubling words of Jesus.  Jewish rabbis have long utilized the principle of referring to a scriptural passage by means of a few of its words, knowing that their hearers would mentally supply the rest of the passage. This method of teaching and reference (called in Hebrew remez, meaning “a hint”) was certainly used in  Jesus’ time and we see him employing it frequently.  For example,  in Matthew 21:15 when the children of Jerusalem shouted praises in his honor and the priests and teachers of the law became indignant, Jesus responded by quoting only a few words from Psalm 8:2: “From the lips of children and infants, you have ordained praise.” But the religious leaders would have fully realized that the rest of that psalm states the enemies of God would be silenced by children’s praises.
 
We see Jesus using this technique so often that when we turn to his words spoken on the cross "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” we can see that this is almost certainly what Jesus was doing.  The words Jesus uttered are the opening words of Psalm 22 – the great messianic psalm that foretells even the smallest details of the Messiah’s death.  Every biblically literate Jew present at the crucifixion would have been reminded of the prophecies made in that psalm –  the insults of the mocking crowd (vss. 6-8), the dying thirst of God’s servant (vs. 15), the “dogs”/gentiles (vs. 16) who pierced his hands and feet (vs. 16), the casting of lots for his garments (vs. 18) –  simply by the “hint” of Jesus quoting the psalm’s opening verse.
 
We should remember, too, that these words were the only ones we are told Jesus spoke “with a loud voice” (this fact is recorded by both Matthew and Mark) on the Cross.  These were the words – few though they were –  that Jesus spoke in his agony to all present – and those present would have likely recognized the intent of the small remez that referenced the whole of the psalm from which it was taken. Seen this way, we realize that Jesus’ words “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” were his last great teaching. These words were an abbreviated reference to Psalm 22– the final proof he offered that he was, indeed, the One who was prophesied.
 
Understanding Jesus’ words in this way – as a remez of Psalm 22 – is not to argue that sin cuts us off from God, but to suggest that we should not presume that this is why Jesus uttered these words. We should perhaps temper that concept with a fuller understanding of God’s love – that God always loves us as his children despite our sins – which means that God still loved his Son at that awful time of his shouldering of our sins.  Jesus himself told his disciples shortly before his crucifixion: “A time is coming and in fact has come when you will be scattered, each to your own home. You will leave me all alone. Yet I am not alone, for my Father is with me” (John 16: 32-33). 
​
In fact, the very psalm that Jesus quoted contains, near its end, not words of his rejection as he suffered, but words that Jesus knew he could trust completely: “He has not despised or scorned the suffering of the afflicted one; he has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help” (Psalm 22:24).

So, if we consistently apply all of Psalm 22 to Jesus’ crucifixion, we can realize that as he hung on the cross, his Father did not reject him and had not “hidden his face from him.” The Father loved Jesus till his last breath. As a result, the words spoken by Jesus as his end neared – “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” – were words addressed probably not to God but quoted for our benefit as a summary of the prophecies Jesus was fulfilling in laying down his life for us.​

Interestingly, the Lord’s Supper was not always kept in the way we may be familiar with today. Nowadays many people celebrate the memorial of the Last Supper and Jesus’ death with small, identical wafers of bread, and small measured portions or sips of wine for all the participants.  But things were not always that way.

In the New Testament, we find that the apostle Paul reprimanded the church at Corinth for the way in which they celebrated the Lord’s Supper.  Apparently, people took their own food and drink to the event – the rich taking much, and the poor very little. As Paul wrote: “when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk” (1 Corinthians 11:20-21). Paul tells the church they must eat together and indicates that restrained amounts should be available for all (verse 33).

This was the regulated form which became practice in the remembrance of the Last Supper that is the celebration of the Lord’s Supper in many denominations today. But although we may remember this New Testament story, another change that we may not be aware of has occurred through time relative to the Last Supper.

Although we may be conscious of the abundance that many people enjoy in the developed world today compared to many other areas,  we may not be as aware of the abundance so many have in today’s world compared to what was available in the past.  Fascinating but little publicized research conducted several years ago at Cornell University throws light on the abundance which many of us take for granted.

In a careful study published as “The Largest Last Supper: Depictions of Food Portions and Plate Size Increased Over the Millennium,” researchers  Brian and Craig Wansink analyzed the amount of food depicted in fifty-two paintings of “The Last Supper” produced over the last thousand years. Each painting was analyzed in order to ascertain  the content of the meals depicted, and changes which occurred over time in the size of portions in the paintings.  Cleverly, the sizes of the loaves of bread, the main food dishes, and the plates were all compared to the average size of the heads shown in the paintings in order to gain a benchmark reference of size. A computerized CAD-CAM program was used to allow selected parts of the paintings to be scanned, then compared in order to get accurate size comparisons to calculate the food portion sizes with more precision.

As the researchers suspected, the number and size of the food portions in these paintings increased dramatically over time. From AD 1000 to the present, the amount of the food depicted in the paintings increased by 69%, and the size of the depicted plates increased correspondingly by some 65%.   This is certainly not a matter of chance, the researchers say.  There is no question that the amount of food available to people in much of the Western world has grown dramatically over the hundreds of years covered by the study and this is reflected in artistic representations.  What was first shown as a simple meal has grown in artistic interpretations to more recent depictions of the Last Supper which suggest almost feast-like proportions compared to earlier paintings. 

Today, many of us enjoy much greater abundance than our ancestors,  as well as those less fortunate than us in other parts of today’s world. Representations of the Last Supper can remind us that we have much to be thankful for physically, as well as spiritually.  Paul himself reminds us of this when he refers to the cup of the Lord’s Supper as “the cup of thanksgiving” (1 Corinthians 10:16) – something we can, and should, appreciate physically as well as spiritually.

“This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement”  (1 John 5:6-8).

These words of the apostle John are some of the most argued over verses in the Bible. What exactly do they mean?   There have been many suggestions as to exactly what the water and blood are by which Christ came, but the most agreed upon are the following two explanations:

The Sacrifice of Jesus

The blood and  water that flowed from Jesus’ side when his body was pierced by a Roman soldier after his death on the cross (John 19:34).    Understood this way, the water and blood of which John spoke would symbolically represent the blood and water involved in some of the Old Testament sacrifices (Leviticus 14:52:  “He shall purify the house with the bird’s blood, the fresh water, the live bird, the cedar wood, the hyssop and the scarlet yarn.”  Hebrews 9:19:  “he took the blood of calves, together with water, scarlet wool and branches of hyssop, and sprinkled the scroll and all the people.” etc.). 

However, although the blood and water that flowed from Christ’s side may have symbolically fulfilled the blood and water aspect of the physical sacrifices, how would this apply to what John says in 1 John 5:6-8?  We should note that the order John gives in those verses is water and blood – not blood and water as in all the sacrificial related scriptures. Second, if this were the meaning John had in mind, why would he write that  Jesus “came” by the water and blood? In what sense could he have “arrived” after his death? And why would John add “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood.”?

The Baptism and Death of Jesus

The other major interpretation of what John wrote argues that the “water and blood” refer to the water of Jesus’ baptism in the River Jordan and the blood of his sacrifice on the cross. In this sense, the Son of God  could certainly be said to have “come” through these two events as they framed Jesus’ ministry from beginning to end. Remember that at both points Christ was declared to be the Son of God – by the heavenly voice at his baptism (Matthew 3:17), and by the testimony of the centurion at his death (Matthew 27:54).  Also, as John states, the Spirit of God testified to Jesus being the Son of God (1 John 5:7-8) a fact that applies far more to his complete ministry than to an isolated point after his death.

This understanding fits the order of words that John used – the water then the blood – and there is a historical reason why it is likely correct.  The epistle of John was written partly to combat emerging heretical ideas that taught the Son of God descended upon and entered the man Jesus at his baptism and then left him at the time of his arrest, so that it was only the physical Jesus who died.  John argues against these early gnostic teachings in many verses of his first epistle and his statement that Jesus came by water and blood makes total sense in this regard.

​John’s claim is that Jesus was the Son of God throughout his whole of his ministry – from baptism to death – which is why he would stress: “He did not come by water only, but by water and blood” (vs. 6). John’s point is that, contrary to false teachings, it was the Son of God who was baptized and who was crucified. In saying this, John counters the gnostic stress on “knowledge” of a false Jesus – which is why the apostle (stressing both knowledge and idols) concludes:

“We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. Dear children, keep yourselves from idols” (1 John 5:20-21).

The Second Commandment contains a statement that people frequently misunderstand: “I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments” (Exodus 20:5–6, emphasis added here and below).  In this, and in other verses, the word “fathers” in the original Hebrew refers to both fathers and mothers – so modern Bible versions like the NIV are not incorrect in translating this verse “the sin of the parents.”

But does God really punish the children “for the sin of the parents” – does he punish people today because of the sins of others in the past?  The belief that he does that is as old as the Bible itself. The prophet Ezekiel asked the people of ancient Judah “What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: ‘The parents eat sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?” (Ezekiel 18:2). His contemporary, Jeremiah, clarified the meaning of the same proverb and prophesied: “In those days people will no longer say, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.’ Instead, everyone will die for their own sin; whoever eats sour grapes—their own teeth will be set on edge” (Jeremiah 31:29–30).

But neither Ezekiel nor Jeremiah were teaching that God punishes people for the sins of their ancestors. Ezekiel shows that the people of Judah used this proverb in self-justification – claiming that God was unjustly punishing them for the sins of previous generations: “you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? (Ezekiel 18:25). As Ezekiel also prophesied: “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. For … The one who sins is the one who will die” (Ezekiel 18:3).

Jeremiah also teaches the same thing when he says of God “You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the parents’ sins into the laps of their children after them” (Jeremiah 32:18), but clarifies in the very next verse “you reward each person according to their conduct and as their deeds deserve” (Jeremiah 32:19).

Theologically, it is true, of course, that all people have been affected by “the fall” of humanity through Adam’s sin (Romans 5:12–19; etc.), but this refers to our universal sinful state and the condition of the world, not punishments on specific people for others’ sins of the past. Going back to the Second Commandment,  we should be careful to notice exactly what it is  that God says in Exodus – that the children will be punished “for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me” (Exodus 20:5). It is the children who continue in the path of hating God who will be punished in the same way for the same sins – not any and all children of those who sin.

We can know that the warning God gave regarding children being punished for the sins of the parents did not mean innocent or righteous children, but was based on the children behaving like their parents and receiving the same punishment because the Mosaic law specifically taught: “Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin” (Deuteronomy 24:16). Children were never required to suffer the penalty for their parents’ sins when they themselves were innocent.

Unfortunately, when a person sins, his or her children (and sometimes grandchildren) may suffer as a result. For example, if a parent is an alcoholic, or involved in a life of crime, the individual’s  children will not be punished for his sin; but they may suffer the negative consequences of the parent’s actions or be influenced negatively by them. But this is the nature of sin, not of God who is just and who never prescribes punishment on those who are not guilty (Proverbs 17:15; Matthew 12:7; etc.).

So the statement that God punishes children for the sin of the parents that we find in the Second Commandment does not mean what many people presume – it means rather that God will punish those who hate him and continue to sin from generation to generation, just as he continues to bless from generation to generation those who continue to love and obey him.

The Indian Subcontinent (which includes the seven nations of India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, the Maldives, and Bangladesh) is home to almost 2 billion people – a full third of the world’s total population.  Despite widespread and intense social and governmental pressure and anti-conversion laws, it is also a region of great growth in Christianity, especially in the central and northern regions. But many new believers in this area are without Christian literature in their native language to help guide, encourage, and inspire them. In some cases, literature is available, but beyond the purchasing power of many. 

So FreeChristianE-Books.org is now in the process of translating many of our free e-books into major Indic languages.   We have already translated over a dozen of our books into the Nepali language (see here) spoken by some 30 million people, and have now begun translation of our books into Hindi (see here), spoken by some 600 million people.  

As with all our literature, these translations of our books into the languages of the Indian subcontinent are being made available in multiple formats for reading on computers, e-readers and smart phones, and are completely free to download and free of advertising and other distractions.
If you know Hindi or Nepali, or know believers who do, download or share some of our translations today, and consider becoming part of our work by praying for the success of this initiative to bring free Christian literature to those who need it desperately in one of the world’s most populous areas.    

Global warming continues to be a topic provoking concern, debate, and cries for action among many. We are used to meteorologists making accurate forecasts of the temperature even a number of days in advance – often to the precise degree – and so we may be concerned when climatologists forecast dangerous temperature changes.  

But what would you think about a forecast that predicted temperatures several thousands of years in advance?

Some two thousand years ago the Son of God made such a forecast regarding moral and ethical temperature declines at the end of the present age, saying: “Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold” (Matthew 24:12).

Perhaps there has always been evil in this world, and a resulting coldness in human hearts and interactions, but Christ clearly stated that there would come a time when the love of most would grow cold. The Greek expression (ton pollon) translated “of many” in some Bibles  is better translated – as in the NIV – “of most” or “of the majority,” showing that this coldness was something that would eventually be widespread  and would be the norm rather than the exception.

Spiritually, the problem our world faces is not global warming, but global cooling. We see this moral chill every day in news reports of atrocities committed not only by religious and political fanatics, but also even by parents against their own children and spouses against each other.  Just as frightening is the fact that the immediate context of Christ’s forecast is not necessarily only talking about the unconverted of the world – it seems to apply to religious people as well.

If you or I heard a forecast of impending unbelievably cold physical temperatures, we would doubtless take action to do what we could to survive the situation and help offset the cold as best we could. But do we take Christ’s moral forecast seriously enough to take action in that regard? And what, if anything, can we do to offset the growing lack of love this world seems even now to be experiencing – and which unavoidably affects Christians also?

Fortunately, the same book that forecasts the cooling of love indicates things we can do to turn that climate change around, even if only in our own lives.  Consider these four Christian climate warmers:

1)  Forgiveness: The Gospel of John tells us the story of the woman who anointed Christ in the home of a disapproving Pharisee.  Jesus told the Pharisee that although the woman had sinned much in her life, those who are forgiven much, love much (John 7:46-47).  We can apply that principle to ourselves in terms of looking at those around us in the moral wilderness in which we live.  As society worsens around us, it’s easy to become judgmental – like the Pharisee – if we are not careful. But reminding ourselves of how much we have been forgiven can help us feel and show more love to those whose lives are still in the grip of sin.

2) Prayer: We can and should be praying for God’s love, of course, but sometimes we have to remind ourselves to break that prayer down.   Something that can help in this regard is to put names to the prayer. Praying for help to love person X and Person Y can be far more effective than praying for the “idea” of love.  Try it and see for yourself.

3) Study:  Regularly studying the life of Christ may be one of the most valuable climate warmers at our disposal.  Actually seeing God’s love  in living everyday action through the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus shows us love in a way in which we don’t usually see it.  It can help us by providing both a model and an inspiration.  Notice these words of the apostle Paul:  “… the goal of our instruction is love that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith” (1 Timothy 1:5 Holman).  Frequently focusing our study of God’s word on the topic of love becomes more important the colder society becomes around us.

4) Encouragement: The Book of Hebrews contains these important words:  “And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds … encouraging one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching” (Hebrews 10:23-25).  These verses make it clear that encouraging one another is directly related to spurring one another to love. The fact that this is said to be all the more vital as we see the end of the age approaching ties directly to Christ’s warning of the love of the majority growing cold in the last days.

In some ways these pointers seem so very basic, yet they are so very true. The Bible is clear that love is increased, fanned like a flame,  by these specific things – and each one is something we can do personally if we are determined to do so.   The important thing for us in the cooling world in which we live is to be sure to utilize them – to increase the love in our lives – and not to become numbed by the cold around us. 

Most readers of the Bible know that the Old Testament was largely written in Hebrew as that was the language spoken in the ancient nation of Israel. But by the time of Jesus, that situation had changed considerably.  First, when the Jews were taken into captivity in Babylon in the sixth century BC they began to speak the language of that area, which was Aramaic at that time. Aramaic was thus a major language for the Jewish people when they returned from captivity and was extremely common by the  time of Jesus. But to complicate matters further, the Greek language was also spoken by many in first century Judea, as it had been since Alexander the Great conquered the region in the fourth century BC. Finally, when the Jewish nation became part of the Roman Empire, Latin was used in some official circumstances. So which of these languages did Jesus speak? The answer to that question can help us better understand the New Testament, so we will briefly look at each language in turn.

Hebrew: In Jesus’ time, Hebrew was the main language of the Jewish religion. We know that most religious documents were still written in Hebrew in the centuries after the Babylonian exile – including the latest books of the Old Testament and most of the Dead Sea Scrolls.  All of the inscriptions that have been found in the area of the Jerusalem temple are written in Hebrew, The inscriptions on Jewish coins were in Hebrew indicating its widespread usage, and there is evidence from the Jewish historian Josephus and other sources that many of the people in Jerusalem could also speak Hebrew. It is also likely that in Galilee, which was culturally quite conservative, Hebrew was also understood by many people.  But even though Jesus probably knew Hebrew, he likely would not have spoken the language with his disciples and the crowds he taught, as many would not have understood him.

Aramaic: As we mentioned above, the Aramaic language was adopted by the Jews during and after the Babylonian exile. Portions of some of the later books of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic, showing its increasing importance for the Jews, and there is no doubt that Jesus knew the language. A Galilean dialect of Aramaic was widely spoken in his home area and the Gospels of Matthew and Mark record Jesus using many Aramaic words such as abba “father” (Mark 14:36) and racca “fool” (Matthew 5:22), as well as phrases such as Eli Eli lema sabachthani meaning “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). The Aramaic language is likely to have been used constantly by Jesus and his disciples in their daily lives. 

Greek: Generally speaking, this language was spoken among the Jewish diaspora visiting Jerusalem; among those involved in regional trade and commerce; and among the more educated Jews. In fact, an amazing 68% of the inscriptions found in tombs and other archaeological sites in Israel from that period are in Greek.  And there are many indications in the New Testament that Greek was sometimes used by or spoken to Jesus. For example, when Jesus talked with the Syro-Phoenician woman (Matthew 15:22-28), it is likely she spoke Greek, and Pilate’s speech to the Jews after the arrest of Jesus (Mark 15:2–5; etc.) was almost certainly in Greek as he would not have known Hebrew or Aramaic and they would not have known Latin. On many occasions, it appears that Jesus quoted scriptures from the Greek Septuagint or a similar Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible as their wording is different from the Hebrew text and closer to that of the Greek (Isaiah 61:1-2; etc.).

Latin: Although there are some Latin words in the New Testament, the language was not commonly spoken and there would be no real reason for Jesus to have known it. When the Roman Governor Pilate spoke to Jesus, he may have spoken through an interpreter, or he could very possibly have spoken in Greek. 
​
So the evidence indicates Jesus may have spoken three of the four major languages used in first-century Judea.  While Jesus’ “first” language was probably Aramaic, he almost certainly knew Hebrew and was probably also familiar with Greek. As with many people who grow up in multilingual areas, which language he spoke at a given time would have depended on where he was and the audience he was addressing. But knowing that Jesus probably spoke several of these languages can help us to better understand what he might have actually said in some circumstances, where the New Testament simply records his words in Greek, although he was speaking to individuals or groups in their own “first” or preferred language.  

The parable of the good Samaritan is one of the best-known and most profound of all the parables of Jesus.  The parable may have been based on an Old Testament story that tells of the kindness given to certain Judean military captives by men of Samaria whose behavior resembles that of the Good Samaritan at certain points, because they:

“… clothed all who were naked among them. They clothed them, gave them sandals, provided them with food and drink, and anointed them, and carrying all the feeble among them on donkeys, they brought them to their kinsfolk at Jericho, the city of palm trees. Then they returned to Samaria” (2 Chronicles 28:15).

Regardless of the origins of the story of the Good Samaritan, its timeless message teaches us that when there is true need – as opposed to requests for handouts (see our article, "The savvy Samaritan," on our sister-site, here) – we should give without hesitation.  That much is clear from even a cursory reading of the story, but the parable also teaches something else that is easier to miss – that in cases of real need, we should be willing to give with true generosity.

Christ’s parable tells us that the Samaritan who rescued the injured Judean – despite belonging to a group that was generally shunned and even despised by many Jews – not only bound the man’s wounds and carried him on his own donkey to the nearest inn, but also made provision for the man’s upkeep for a while. The story tells us: “The next day he took out two denarii and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have’” (Luke 10:35).

It’s easy to read over the fact that the Samaritan gave “two denarii” – or “two pence” as some older translations have it – for the man’s upkeep, but the amount was a considerable one.  The denarius was a silver coin of the Roman Empire – from which the word “money” is derived in several modern languages (for example, Spanish “dinero”). We know historically that at that time a single denarius would be the approximate pay for a day’s labor (Matthew 20:2). Two denarii equaled two days’ wages, or a full third of what an individual could earn in a week; at current U.S. minimum wage it would be about $240.  But what would that amount buy at that time?

Archaeology can help answer that question.  A sign from an inn located in a city of the Roman Empire not too distant in time from the setting of the Parable of the Good Samaritan may indicate that the nightly cost for a room was 1/32nd of a denarius.  At that rate it is obvious that providing two denarii for the care of the man would provide for a stay of two months, or for several weeks, including food. Not only that, but also the Samaritan made it clear that when he came by on his return journey he would pay for any extra expenses if the two denarii were used up.

So the gift of the Samaritan was not a small one, and the extent of the individual’s generosity toward a total stranger (especially of a nation that generally shunned his own people) seems astonishing.  This does not mean, of course, that Jesus advocated giving several days of our pay to everyone we attempt to help.  We do not know how rich or poor the Samaritan was – the parable does not give us that context. But Christ’s parable does show us, through what the Good Samaritan gave, that when human need is real, true generosity is not limited.
 
*For more on the parables of Jesus, download our free e-book on this subject, here.

Sometimes Christians – like everyone else - experience doubts in their lives. But when the doubts are regarding some aspect of their beliefs or statements in the Bible, Christians often agonize over whether their doubts are sinful, whether they are, in fact, the disbelief that the Bible so clearly condemns (Matthew 21:21; Hebrews 3:12; etc.).

But the truth is, doubt need not be disbelief at all. The Scriptures show that God understands that humanly we doubt when we don’t see clear evidence of things and his word does not condemn this. How do we know this to be true?   A clear example which we often read over in our study of the Bible is found in the Birth narratives in the first few chapter of the Gospel of Luke. 

Luke 1:5-25 tells us that an angel appeared to the priest Zechariah to tell him that he would have a son who would become a powerful servant of God – John the Baptist. Zechariah’s response was “How can I be sure of this? I am an old man and my wife is well along in years” – an answer that displeased the angel who told him “you will … not be able to speak until the day this happens, because you did not believe my words” (vs.20).  Notice in this story that the angel specifically said Zechariah’s attitude was one of disbelief in that he said “How can I be sure of this?”

Luke then continues his narrative by describing a very similar situation that occurred soon after – when the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to tell her that she would have a son who would be great and would be called the Son of the Most High  (vss. 26-33). Notice Mary’s reply: “How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?” (vs. 34). In this case, Mary did not show disbelief by saying “How can I know this is true?”, but simple doubt by asking “How can this happen?” 

Mary was not reprimanded for this response as Zechariah had been for his, simply because she expressed human uncertainty as to how the situation could happen rather than  doubt that it would happen. As a result, the angel simply explained to Mary that what he had told her would come about through the miraculous working of God’s Spirit.

In these accounts, the difference between Mary’s response (“How can this be”) and Zechariah’s (How can I be sure”) is that Mary asked her question not from unbelief but from puzzlement, and this is directly analogous to our own situations when we are puzzled or do not understand something said in God’s word.  

Doubt is not unbelief, it is questioning some aspect of what we believe. While unbelief says, “I don’t accept this possibility,” doubt is simply saying “I cannot understand this.” Mary’s underlying belief despite her temporary doubt is seen in the words of her cousin Elizabeth – John the Baptist’s mother – who exclaimed “Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:45).

It is certainly possible for doubt to eventually grow into disbelief if they are not dealt with properly, but this does not mean that our initial doubts and uncertainties are somehow wrong.  God clearly does not regard our lack of understanding of a spiritual fact as being any different from our lack of understanding of advanced physics equations, or whatever.  We see God's patience with those who struggle with doubt in Jesus' interaction with Peter (Matthew 14:30-31), Thomas (John 20:27), and in many other scriptures. But even though God accepts and works with our doubts, he does expect us to continue to believe and trust him when doubts do arise in our minds. 

Doubt only becomes disbelief when we let it – when we get preoccupied and mired down in doubts that are a natural part of the Christian life and that will, if we continue to trust God, almost always be removed or seen as not important as our Christian understanding and experience grows.

* For more articles on the subject of doubt, see our blog category "Dealing With Doubt" here.

“Don’t you care, God?” may seem like an extreme question to ask the One who made the world, and gave us life; who often helps us, and heals us, according to his loving will.  But it is exactly the question the disciples asked Jesus at one point.

Most Bible readers are familiar with the story recorded in the Gospels, that on an occasion when Jesus was crossing the Sea of Galilee with his disciples a great storm rose up that threatened to capsize the boat and perhaps drown them. We remember the fact that, despite the storm, Jesus was sleeping in the boat, and the terrified disciples woke him to see what was happening, and said to him, “Teacher, don't you care if we drown?” (Mark 4:38).

The fear of the disciples is very evident in this story – especially in the third gospel where Luke records their urgently repeated “Master,” “Master,” as they tried to waken Jesus (Luke 8:24).  But we should remember these were men who made their living fishing on the great lake of Galilee, and this was doubtless not their first storm, so the situation probably was an extreme one.

But notice again the disciples’ question to Jesus: “Teacher, don't you care if we drown?” (Mark 4:38).  Implicit in this question are two things.  First, the disciples knew full well that Jesus had the power to help them. They had already seen many of his miracles by that point (Mark 3:7-12; etc.), and knew that he had the power of God.  In that sense, their question was addressed as much to God as to Jesus. 

The second thing we notice about the disciples’ question is that it so often typifies our human reaction when we suffer and wonder why God does not answer our prayers – when we are overwhelmed by our doubts and fears. This all-too-human reaction is seen elsewhere is the Bible – as when the psalmist pleads “Awake, Lord! Why do you sleep? Rouse yourself!” (Psalm 44:23).  It is as though we accuse God of not looking at our situation, or somehow not caring about it.

But Jesus did not berate the disciples for their question. Instead, after he calmed the storm, and gave them a reply to make them think. He said to his disciples, “Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?” (Mark 4:40).

It is a question we should ask ourselves, too, whenever we face life’s storms and we begin to fear or falter.  Jesus’ words remind us that even when God seems distant, even when he may seem “asleep,” it does not mean that he is not there, or does not care, and that we simply need to call to him and then to trust him in faith that the storm will end.  As the psalmist also wrote:

“He stilled the storm to a whisper; the waves of the sea were hushed. They were glad when it grew calm, and he guided them to their desired haven. Let them give thanks to the Lord for his unfailing love and his wonderful deeds for mankind” (Psalm 107:29-31).

God has promised he will finish the work he began in us (Philippians 1:6), and although he does not promise he will stop storms from rising in our lives, he does promise he will get us to our destination.

Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.  (1 Corinthians 14:34–5)

At first sight, Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian Church regarding women not speaking in church may seem clear cut and incontrovertible. In the past, it was almost universally understood this way – as a simple “Women must not speak [publicly] in church.”  Not surprisingly, today many holding strongly egalitarian views have tried to discount the statement in various ways, but these attempts have not been successful for a number of reasons.  For example, the suggestion is sometimes made that these verses were added later – as they contradict what Paul wrote in the same letter regarding women praying and prophesying: “But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Corinthians 11:5). 

But virtually all the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament contain verses 34–5, including the earliest ones we have, and there is simply no evidence they were added at some point. On the other hand, some have suggested that in 11:5 Paul was speaking about women praying and prophesying in non-church settings, but the context does not show this.  So there are problems with both approaches to these texts and the apparent contradiction between what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 14:34–35 should prod us to see how the two verses might possibly be harmonized rather than choosing one statement and rejecting the other.

First, we should look closely at the context of 1 Corinthians 14:34 – which is clearly verbalized in the first verse of the chapter: “Earnestly pursue love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, especially the gift of prophecy” (1 Corinthians 14:1 emphasis added). After dealing with the spiritual gift of tongues, Paul turns to the matter of prophecy and states “Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said” (verse 29). Notice that Paul then says “For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged (verse 31). He does not say all the men, but that all may prophesy. But then he adds a special restrictive statement – that the women must remain silent.

What is unspoken but seems clear here, is that Paul has moved on from the prophets speaking (which he says includes all) to the prophecies being judged as we saw in verse 29: “prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.” The others here are surely not the members of the congregation, but the other prophets. As Paul states in verse 32 “The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets.”  All prophets were allowed to speak, but their messages had to be evaluated by the other prophets who were present. It is in this direct context that Paul then says a woman must not speak in church. The word “woman” (Greek gyne) is always used for “wife” in the New Testament and this seems to be the sense here, as Paul continues “If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home” (verse 35).

In this same letter, Paul had carefully explained the headship principle of the woman being subject to her husband as the man is to Christ and Christ is to God (1 Cor. 11:2–16). It was in that context that he wrote “Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head” (1 Corinthians 11:4-5). Then, in chapter 14, Paul is still giving instruction regarding prophesying, but has moved on to the matter of judging what is said. This immediately raises the question, what if a man – especially a husband – prophesies, would it not be wrong for a woman – especially the man’s wife – to publicly judge his message? That is why in this context Paul states that “If [the women prophets] wish to inquire about something [a prophet – especially their husband – has said] they are to ask their own husbands at home” (1 Corinthians 14:35). It would clearly dishonor the headship principle if women publicly questioned the messages of male prophets in church, and especially male prophets who were their husbands.

Understood this way, we can see that Paul’s statement about women prophesying in chapter eleven does not at all contradict his words on the headship of men and his injunction in chapter fourteen that women do not publicly judge the messages of the male prophets. Thus, Paul concludes: Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, … But everything should be done in a fitting and orderly way” (1 Corinthians 14:39–40).  So it is that Paul tells us “The spirits of prophets are subject to prophets” (verse 32) and “Women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission” (verse 34). Both male and female prophets had to be in submission to the principle of evaluation by other prophets, and female prophets had to be in submission (the Greek word is the same in both verses) to the headship principle. The men had to be in submission to the headship principle also, because they were subject to God’s judgment of their prophecies through the evaluations of the other prophets.

So Paul was not saying that women could not speak at all in church – we know they could pray or prophesy publicly.  Rather his teaching was that the women prophets must respect the headship principle and refrain from publicly judging the messages of men, which would be tantamount to publicly correcting and exercising spiritual headship over the men – something he clearly forbids in 1 Timothy 2:12. 

If you have never read R. Herbert's widely popular book Lessons from the Life of Jesus, you now have a new opportunity to read the book or listen to a discussion of its main ideas.  Rather than simply retelling the story of the life of Jesus the book focuses on some of the details of the Gospel narratives that are easy to miss, but which can help us to better understand the life and teachings of Christ.  Lessons from the Life of Jesus is now revised and expanded in its fourth edition – and available as both an e-book (.pdf, .epub, and mobi formats here), and a podcast summary and discussion here! Download the format of your choice to gain insights you can utilize today. 

“God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should change His mind. Does He speak and then not act? Does He promise and not fulfill?”  Numbers 23:19

“Then the LORD relented and did not bring on His people the disaster He had threatened.” Exodus 32:14
 
These verses – and others like them – seem to contradict each other regarding whether God ever changes his mind once he has decided something.  This is not just an abstruse theological or philosophical question, however; it is one that can have direct application to our lives. Consider what the Scriptures teach.

Probably the most quoted biblical example of God changing his mind is that of Abraham, who prayed for the few righteous people living in the evil cities of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16–33). But although God agreed not to punish the cities if he found a continually decreasing number of righteous individuals – as Abraham asked – God still destroyed the cities in this example, although it shows Abraham felt it was not inappropriate to ask God to change his mind.

There are other, clearer examples where God clearly does change his mind regarding what he declares. For example, Ezekiel 4 records that God instructed the prophet to prepare a meal, saying “Eat the food as you would a loaf of barley bread; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement for fuel” (Ezekiel 4:12). When Ezekiel insisted that he did not want to do this, we are told that God changed his command, saying: “I will let you bake your bread over cow dung instead of human excrement” (Ezekiel 4:15). In this case the symbolic message God wanted to convey to the people of Judah was preserved, but he was willing to change his mind regarding how the message would be conveyed.

There are many other biblical examples such as this where people prayed to God and he changed his mind in regard to what he had predicted he would do. But to understand these verses – and the seeming conflict with other verses that say God does not change – we must differentiate between “relative” or “conditional” statements and “absolute” or “unconditional” statements made by God.  In some cases, God simply will never change – for example, he will always react to a situation righteously. For that very reason God will change if, again for example, God decides to punish us – unless we repent – and we do repent. In that case, God would be unrighteous not to change his mind regarding whether we should be punished or not. The Bible has numerous examples of this.  

God had the prophet Jonah tell the people of Nineveh that he would destroy their city in forty days (Jonah 3:4). However, Nineveh’s inhabitants repented of their sin (verses 5–9) and in response to their repentance, God relented: “He had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction He had threatened” (verse 10). This is a clear example of a conditional statement by God. His “change of mind” was entirely consistent with his character. His underlying nature did not change, rather God simply changed a predicted outcome relative to new circumstances in order to maintain the righteous judgment on which the prediction was based.

On the other hand, an example of an unconditional statement by God can be seen in his promise to King David: “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2 Samuel 7:16). There is no condition expressed or implied in this statement. No matter what David’s descendants did or did not do, God’s prediction was unchangeable, according to his plan.

So God’s inherent nature does not ever change, but he is willing to change his intentions in order to maintain outcomes that are according to his righteous character, mercy and love.

The first epistle of John displays a unique writing style. One of the most characteristic aspects of this apostle’s letters is the way in which he frequently compares or contrasts spiritual situations.

​In 1 John 1:9-10, for example, he contrasts “If we confess our sins” with “If we claim we have not sinned.”  As we continue through his letter we find that he compares “Whoever loves his brother” with “whoever hates his brother” (1 John 2:10-11); “The one who does what is right” with “The one who does what is sinful” (1 John 3:7-8); “Every spirit that acknowledges … Jesus …” with “every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus” (1 John 4:2-3), and so on.

This frequent use of comparison or contrast lends a dynamic force to what John writes –  it is straightforward, to the point, and unequivocal.  But sometimes the lesson behind the comparison is not quite as easy to see, and we may miss it if we do not keep an eye open for occurrences of the pattern. A good example of this is found in the third chapter of John’s letter:

This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything. Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God … (1 John 3:19-21).

The immediate contrast between “If our hearts condemn us” and “if our hearts do not condemn us” is clear enough, but the lesson John points to here is perhaps not as obvious.  At face value it might seem that John is simply saying if our hearts or “consciences” condemn us, God is greater than our hearts (vs. 20); but what does that mean?
 
To understand the contrast John is making, we must widen our view to look at the context in which these verses appear.  Beginning in verse 10 of chapter 3, all the way up to verse 19 where John begins to talk about our consciences condemning or not condemning us, John speaks continually about whether we love one another or not: “This is how we know who the children of God are … Anyone who does not do what is right is not God’s child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. For this is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another….  We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love each other… Dear children, let us not love with words or speech but with actions and in truth” (1 John 3:10-18).

John then states that “This is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in his presence: if our hearts condemn us …” (vs. 19-20).  Knowing that “we belong to the truth,” as John puts it, is not a result of what he says next –  our hearts condemning or not condemning us – because we cannot always trust our own conscience to be a judge of our behavior (Jeremiah 17:9). Rather, John refers to what he has just said:  that we love others in our behavior and in truth (vs. 18); and to what he says after this verse, that we have confidence before God because we keep his commands “… to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us” (vs. 23).  

The theme of love is really the main point of the third chapter and of John’s entire letter, and this immediate context allows us to paraphrase the point of 1 John 3:19-20 something like this:

“… because we demonstrate our love for one another in actions and in truth, we know that we are the children of God and this sets our conscience at rest… Even if our conscience sometimes causes us to doubt our standing before God, we know our conscience is not the final judge and that God, who sees the love he has placed within us, accepts us and hears us – for ongoing love of others in our lives is the proof that God does not reject or condemn us, and that he hears us.”
​
We all occasionally groan under the weight of conscience and in our most discouraged moments we may wonder if we are really a child of God, or if God hears us.  But John’s message shows us that the outgoing and ongoing love God places in us through his Spirit is the proof that we are indeed his children.  It's a tremendously encouraging lesson, but –  like many of John’s lessons –  it is one we can only see properly when we consider what he wrote in its full context. 

*For more studies on the Epistles of John, download our free book Seven Letters: Lessons from the General Epistles available in e-book and audio book formats here.