We are familiar with the legal requirement that a person must promise in court to tell “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” and certainly the Scriptures clearly and repeatedly teach that lying –  saying something that is untrue –   is wrong (Psalm 31:18, 63:11, 101:7, 119:29, Proverbs 6:17, 12:22, 19:5, 9, Zechariah. 8:16, Ephesians 4:25, 1 John 2:21, Revelation 21:27, 22:15 to mention only a few examples!). But, apart from legal contexts where we promise to tell the whole truth, does the Bible teach that we must always tell all the truth – that it is lying if we do not speak everything we know about a situation?

In past articles we have shown the Scriptures make it clear that it is not wrong to word statements and answers in such a way that an impression will be created that protects innocent individuals who might be harmed if we were to tell the whole truth in a given situation.

This is the kind of situation posed by the classic moral question of “Should a person give a full and true answer if asked if they know the whereabouts of innocent individuals being hunted by those who would clearly harm them” (as in World War II Nazi hunts for Jews in hiding)?  Most Christians can see the need for withholding known facts in situations like this, and there are biblical precedents for such behavior.

The story of the midwives protecting the newborn male Israelites in Egypt (Exodus 1:15-21) and the woman Rehab protecting the Israelite spies (Joshua 2:4-6, 6:17, 25) are two such cases.  But the clearest example of this is where God himself is said to have instructed the prophet Samuel to tell King Saul that he was going to Bethlehem to offer sacrifices and to omit the detail that he would anoint the young David as king while he was there (1 Samuel 16:1-5).  Had Samuel told all the truth to Saul in this situation, Samuel’s life may well have been endangered, and at the very least he would probably have been blocked from doing what God had instructed him to do.

But while it is relatively easy to see the morality of withholding information in such cases, what about situations where lives are not endangered, but telling everything we know may cause unhappiness if not actual harm?  We must be particularly careful in situations such as these, but once again there may be biblical precedent to guide us.

Genesis 18 tells the story of how the patriarch Abraham was visited by three “men” – one of whom was clearly God himself in human form (Genesis 18:13-33).  In this well-known story, the Lord announces to Abraham that despite his advanced age (Abraham was some 90 years old at this time), God would give him a son and heir.  Hearing this, Abraham’s wife, Sarah, who was nearby “… laughed to herself, saying, ‘After I am worn out, and my lord is old, shall I have pleasure?’” (Genesis 18:12 ESV).  

We are then told that the Lord asked Abraham “…Why did Sarah laugh and say, ‘Shall I indeed bear a child, now that I am old?’” (vs. 13).  Interestingly, the Lord did not repeat Sarah’s exact words or her complete statement, only what was necessary for his purposes.  He did not repeat Sarah’s specific comments on her own condition or Abraham’s, which would have been embarrassing and perhaps hurtful if repeated.

This would seem to be a clear example that it is sometimes not wrong to withhold the whole truth from someone – without saying anything untrue – when all of the truth might be hurtful or distressing.  In exactly this way, as parents we might not give our young children all the facts of a medical report or what a doctor tells us regarding a child’s illness. 

It is true that in withholding part of the truth we may sometimes be creating a situation in which people may get the wrong idea regarding given circumstances.  So in these cases we must always be sure that we are withholding facts for the sake of others – not to protect ourselves or for our own advantage in some way.

We see this careful withholding of information in the Gospel accounts of the life of Jesus.  John’s Gospel tells us that prior to a religious festival in Jerusalem Jesus told his family members: “You go to the festival. I am not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come” (John 7:8).  However, a few verses later we read that “… after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret” (John 7:10).  The secrecy involved in Jesus’ actions indicate that he may well have gone separately in order to protect his family members from the danger he knew he might bring on them, but John makes it clear that in order to protect them in this way it was necessary for Jesus not to tell them all the truth regarding his plans at that point.
​
We do not have the perfect character and wisdom of the Son of God, of course, so scriptures such as these are not invitations to “juggle with the truth” using our own human understanding as we go through life.  But what the biblical examples do show us is that sometimes it is not wrong to withhold specific information that might endanger, hurt, or embarrass others. The Bible shows that, of itself, is not lying.  

We take idioms for granted in our own language. When someone says, “It’s raining cats and dogs,” we don’t expect to see falling animals – we understand that words used in idioms don’t have their usual individual meanings and that the expression has taken on a new significance altogether.  So we easily understand the idiom to “see the light” as meaning simply to understand or the expression to be “in hot water” to mean to be in trouble.  

This use of idioms is common in most languages and when it comes to the Bible, ancient Hebrew was no exception. In fact, the Old Testament is particularly rich in this regard.  A great many Hebrew idioms have to do with body parts –  especially the face, hands and feet –  and these are often “guessable” in context even if they sound strange to our ears – as when we read “his face was fallen” (Genesis 4:6) and we sense the meaning is that the individual was sad.  To take a couple of other simple examples, in the Old Testament to have “clean hands” is to act purely (Psalm 24:4) and to have “closed hands” is to act selfishly (Deuteronomy 15:7). 

These examples may make sense to us, but at other times it is not quite so easy to see the underlying meaning of Hebrew expressions.  The idiom “his nose burned” means “he was furious” (as in Genesis 30:2), and the expression “the length of two noses” means “to be patient” (as in Exodus 34:6 and elsewhere).  Fortunately, translators usually make such expressions understandable for us, and the more modern the translation, the more idioms tend to be translated with modern expressions rather than literally.

An example is found in 1 Samuel 24:3 where the Hebrew expression “to cover his feet” is translated literally, word for word, in the King James Bible (KJV), but more modern versions translate the meaning “to relieve himself,” as we find in the New International Version (NIV) and English Standard Version (ESV). While the KJV translates the Hebrew expression “having uncircumcised ears” literally in Jeremiah 6:10 and elsewhere, the NIV and ESV translate the idiom accurately as “not listening.”

This kind of idiom-to-meaning translation is particularly important because idioms can confuse us even though we may think we understand them.  We may know that in Hebrew the idiom “hearts and kidneys” (KJV “hearts and reins”) means what we would call our “thoughts and emotions.” But even knowing that “hearts” means “thoughts,” we may miss the fact that the Hebrew expression “heart lifted up” does not always mean to be “happy” (as in 2 Chronicles 17:6), but can also mean “prideful” (as in Deuteronomy 8:11-14). 
 
Again, most modern translations help us make sense of idioms such as the ones we have looked at, but they will also sometimes leave idioms untranslated. This is particularly true in the New Testament – and especially in the Gospel of Matthew which was likely originally written in Hebrew.  We see this throughout Matthew when he speaks of the “kingdom of heaven” as opposed to the “kingdom of God” as we find in the other Gospels. In Hebrew, the word “heaven” was used idiomatically for “God” so a true meaning-to-meaning translation would render “kingdom of heaven” as “kingdom of God” in Matthew also. 

Consider another example from Matthew. In Matthew 19:24 we read the famous words of Jesus: “… it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”  Most English translations from the KJV to the NIV translate this verse in this way, but for centuries commentators have disagreed on the origin for the phrase “a camel to go through the eye of a needle.”  Some have speculated that the expression is based on a small “needle gate” next to a larger gate in Jerusalem – the smaller gate being left open at night so that a camel, kneeling down and without its rider, could just pass through.  Attractive as this explanation might sound, there is no proof of it and no historical evidence of any such gate.  In reality, the expression is based on a known idiom.  The Hebrew word gemala translated “camel” does often mean camel, but idiomatically it can also mean a thick rope, and this is more likely the original meaning of Jesus’ words –  that it is easier to thread a small needle with a thick rope (as opposed to a thin thread) than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.

At least one modern translation does translate the idiom in this way, and the lesson for us is simple.  No matter how much we may be attached to an older translation of the Bible, such as the KJV, we owe it to our understanding of the Scriptures to at least occasionally read a newer translation.  Certainly no version is perfect, but good modern translations are more likely to translate Hebrew idioms with accurate meanings rather than with word for word translations that are often not fully understandable to the modern reader.  A person who knows biblical Hebrew may recognize the idioms left untranslated in the KJV, but for most readers, a good modern translation will help render those idioms understandably –  rather than with expressions that may require “the length of two noses” to understand. 

Does the Bible teach peacemaking (the avoidance of conflict when it is possible) or pacifism (the complete avoidance of conflict under any circumstances)?  It’s especially confusing for many people because some claim that the Bible teaches the first of these ideas while others claim it teaches the second.
 
Nevertheless, both the Old and New Testament give a consistent picture when it comes to this question, so rather than try to look at all the possible scriptures on the subject we can focus on one or two clear examples.  

In the Old Testament
​
One of the clearest examples of the Bible's approach to this question can be found in the story of the patriarch Abram/Abraham – the “father of the faithful” as he is called (Romans 4:11) – and his nephew Lot. In Genesis 13 we read:

“… quarreling arose between Abram’s herders and Lot’s….  So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.” (Genesis 13:7-9).

We need to notice that this was not a simple parting of the ways of the two men.  The “quarreling” that erupted between Abram’s servants and Lot’s was apparently intense (the Hebrew is translated “strife” and “adversary” in other passages).  Although Abraham was the senior family member, he calmed things down even to the extent of allowing Lot to choose the best area and taking what appeared to be “second best” himself.  This is a classic example of peacemaking at its best – where someone in a position to act otherwise nevertheless shows humility and great flexibility in order to avoid strife.

But only a chapter later in Genesis we read that Lot and all his family and servants were subsequently taken captive by raiding kings of four nearby cities, and Abram’s response was quite different:

“The four kings …carried off Abram’s nephew Lot and his possessions … When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan. During the night Abram divided his men to attack them and he routed them, pursuing them as far as Hobah, north of Damascus. He recovered all the goods and brought back his relative Lot and his possessions, together with the women and the other people” (Genesis 14:11-16).

So, despite Abram’s obvious desire to avoid conflict when this was possible, in circumstances where peacemaking simply would not have worked and people’s lives were at stake, Abram was willing and ready to use force.  The fact that Abram had trained men ready to fight* but only used them in such circumstances shows Abram was a man of peace, not pacifism.

In the New Testament
 
When we turn to the New Testament, we find this same attitude of avoiding conflict whenever possible – yet with the understanding that this is not always an option.  We find Jesus teaching: “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9), but also showing that while there are circumstances where the “sword” is not appropriate, there are perhaps others where it is (Luke 22:36).  But it is in the writings of the apostle Paul that the New Testament teaching on peace is most clearly laid out.

First, we should note Paul stresses that God is a God of peace (2 Thessalonians 3:16) and as a result he tells us “Let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace” (Romans 14:19).  But in the same letter to the Romans Paul also writes: “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 12:18).   Here Paul clearly indicates that there are circumstances where it is not always possible to live at peace – as when we or others are attacked and need to defend ourselves. In such circumstances, as Paul’s words must mean, the responsibility of peace depends not on us, but on others.  If others will not walk peacefully, then the use of defensive force may become unavoidable.
​
Pacifism claims that there are no circumstances where it is morally acceptable to resort to force, but the Bible nowhere clearly teaches this view and gives many examples of the defense of self and others. Certainly we should avoid strife as much as possible in every circumstance. The author of the book of Hebrews makes this clear in saying that we should “Make every effort to live in peace with everyone” (Hebrews 12:14).  But making every effort to avoid strife – loving peace and seeking peace wherever possible – is peacemaking, not pacifism. 

* For more information on the story of Abram's rescue mission, see our blog post "Allies, Preparation and Persistance". 

Our recent e-book production schedule has precluded us from updating our "Books in Brief" review page for a while, but we have finally been able to select a few more titles to recommend to you!  They are the classic The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom, David Jeremiah's recent Overcomer based on Ephesians 6, and the soon-to-be-published Double Crossed, the fascinating true story of the Christian missionaries who played a crucial role in the Allied victory in World War II.

Of course, if you haven't already downloaded our own most recent title, Discovering the Bible, be sure to check that out (see the blog post directly below this one. Like all our e-books, our latest publication is entirely free and free of advertising and does not require any reghistration or email address to download. Simply choose the format of your choice and click the link on the download page. 

Finally, we are happy to confirm that we have almost completed a revised and expanded 2nd edition of our very first e-book, The City on a Hill: Lessons from the Parables of Jesus –  a practical study of all the parables of the New Testament.  Look for the announcement of that 2nd edition soon! 

Even great writers occasionally experience “writer’s block” – the seeming inability to write a few meaningful sentences – despite the fact that they may regularly write thousands of words in a day.  In a similar way, even the most faithful of prayer warriors can experience times when praying seems to be difficult.  There may be different reasons for this –  prayer may become difficult because of feelings of guilt, exhaustion, discouragement, defeat, sadness, anger, or other reasons.  But whatever the cause, if we are finding it hard to pray, there are several simple strategies we can employ to help us get back to God –  back to wanting to pray.  Next time you feel it is difficult to talk to God, consider trying one or all of these techniques:

Get Some Rest

One of the most frequent causes of difficulty in prayer is simple tiredness. Whether it is because we are trying to pray at the end of the day when we are already tired or because of exhaustion resulting from illness or other factors, tiredness greatly impairs our ability to think clearly and to pray effectively. The answer in these situations is often simply to get some rest and try again.  As Psalm 127 tells us: “In vain you rise early and stay up late, toiling for food to eat— for he grants sleep to those he loves” (Psalm 127:2). The God who planned for sleep in our lives knows that sometimes we need rest before we can proceed. Difficulty in prayer at night can often disappear by morning.

Give Yourself a Spiritual Check Up

If difficulty in prayer continues, we may need to take the time to examine our lives and determine that we are not compromising our beliefs in some area. When we settle into a habit of making allowances for thoughts, words, or deeds that we know are not good, we set up dissonance in our minds and our prayer is usually the first thing to be affected.  The book of Genesis shows that the first sin led immediately to a reluctance to talk with God (Genesis 3:8) and, as is often said, prayer can stop us sinning, but sin can stop us praying. In these situations, as we determine to change we find it easier to pray again – and to get the help that true change requires. 

Pray for Others

Sometimes it is our own feelings or problems that, for whatever reason, are pulling back on our ability to pray.  In situations like these it is often helpful to simply try to concentrate on the problems and needs of others (so often so much worse than our own!).  There is something about doing this that makes our own efforts to pray more effective. The book of Job tells us that “After Job had prayed for his friends, the Lord restored his fortunes …” (Job 42:10) and this story perfectly illustrates the way active concern for others pulls us closer to God despite our own situation.

Use a Prayer from the Bible

On occasion, our difficulty with prayer can be that we simply do not know what to say.  Perhaps we feel ashamed for something we have done, or possibly we admit we feel angry with God for something that has happened in our lives.   In these situations, when we just do not know quite how to put our thoughts into words, it can help to simply pray out loud one of the prayers recorded in the Bible.  The prayer outline we call “The Lord’s Prayer” (Matthew 6:9-13) can work well as can Psalm 23, Psalm 51 or one of the other psalms, depending on the circumstances.  Praying these prayers out loud can often help us feel like adding our own words and thoughts as we go along – and that is getting back to where we should be.

Just Pray it!

We began this article talking about “writer’s block.”  Professional writers know they cannot afford to allow themselves the luxury of continuously not writing, and most know that the best way to overcome such a block is to “Just say it!” – simply to make themselves write something.  Just putting the words down somehow gets the creative juices flowing again and while it may not be great literature, it’s usually better than nothing!

Prayer is like that, too.   When we feel unable to pray we often need to “Just pray it!” Pray something – anything –  just to get the process started again.  Using one of the techniques we have looked at can often help us accomplish this. But we should always remember that no matter how awkward or even artificial our prayers may seem at these times, God is more than happy to accept our efforts and even to help us in ways that we may not even imagine (Romans 8:26-27). That’s one of the great things about prayer itself – when it gets hard we can pray for help in praying. And that’s a prayer that God will always answer.
 
* For more information on prayer, download our free e-book Your Call: Using the Direct Private Line of Prayer.  You can download a copy to read on any computer or e-book reader here.

 
Self-esteem is a “hot item” these days.  For several decades we have been told that a strong concept of self-worth is absolutely vital for mental health and wellbeing.  As a result, most Western educational systems now focus on the early development of self-esteem above many, if not most, other goals. 

Unfortunately, the unmodified stress on self-esteem from early childhood onward all too often leads to a false sense of accomplishment. As psychotherapist Jennifer Coon-Wallman has written, the purpose of many school programs is simply “to dole out huge heapings of praise, regardless of actual accomplishment.”

Worse yet, in recent years it has become clear that an unbalanced sense of self-esteem invariably leads to the development of self-centeredness and to social problems that result from that flawed view of the world.  As a New York Times article pointed out as far back as 2002:  “Last year alone there were three withering studies of self-esteem released in the United States, all of which had the same central message: people with high self-esteem pose a greater threat to those around them than people with low self-esteem, and feeling bad about yourself is not the cause of our country's biggest, most expensive social problems.”

It is not that a concept of self-worth is somehow bad, but that self-esteem by itself is not good.  We must be able to balance that concept in order to properly see ourselves in perspective, to properly relate with others, and for society to function properly. 

Interestingly, we see this necessary balance in the Biblical story of the first humans.   The first chapter in the Bible’s first book, Genesis, tells us: “ … God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them” (Genesis 1:26), and this should give us all the fuel we may need for the development of a healthy self-concept.  If we believe what this verse plainly says, we can all rest assured that we are of great worth by virtue of our very nature and that we do not need some kind of fake praise to create an artificial and skewed self-esteem.

On the other hand, the very next chapter of Genesis tells us, with equal clarity: “… dust you are and to dust you will return” (Genesis 2:19).  If knowing that we are the work of the very Creator of the universe is ever a temptation to pride and inordinate self-esteem, this verse quickly puts things in perspective. Knowing that at our very best we are still merely dust that comes and goes like a transient vapor (Psalm 39:5) should prevent us from taking too high a view of ourselves.

In that sense, the story of the creation of humans as recorded in Genesis carries with it a built-in and balanced self-worth prescription that both elevates and restrains our concept of ourselves at the same time.  According to the Bible, both statements – that we are as gods (John 10:34) and that we are as nothing (Galatians 6:3) – are equally true.  Both statements are also equally necessary for individual and social well-being. 

Perhaps some of us need to focus more on one aspect of self-image than on the other, or perhaps we all need to focus on both aspects according to our current state of mind.   When we feel pretty pleased with ourselves or our achievements, it does not hurt to remember that we are still dust, but when we are afflicted by self-doubt and feelings of unworthiness it is always good to remember that we are children of God created for his purposes. 

Simplistic as it may sound, it’s a dual prescription that can prevent arrogance and pride on the one hand and discouragement and depression on the other.  It’s a balanced prescription for the attitude we all need if we are to gain and maintain the kind of self-identity God intends us to have. 

​Acts 9 tells the story of the conversion of Saul, one of Christianity’s greatest early enemies, to Paul - one of the faith’s greatest servants.  The chapter not only tells us that Saul was “breathing out murderous threats” against the early disciples, but also that he was hunting them down and commiting them to prison. 

​As Saul neared Damascus, however, intending to find Christians in that city, Acts tells us that the resurrected Jesus appeared to him, commanded him to go into the city and to wait till he was told what he must do. The account says that for three days Saul was blind, and did not eat or drink, but prayed. Saul’s level of repentance was clearly as deep as humanly possible (Acts 9:1-9).

But that’s the story as we know it, from our perspective – in safe hindsight.  Now think about the story from the perspective of Ananias – a Christian living in Damascus who was well aware of the destruction Saul was wreaking on the faith:

“In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, ‘Ananias!’ ‘Yes, Lord,’ he answered. The Lord told him, ‘Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight’” (Acts 9:10-12). 

It’s difficult to imagine how that instruction really felt to Ananias, but we get a glimpse of his reaction in his reply:

“‘Lord,’ Ananias answered, ‘I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.’ But the Lord said to Ananias, ‘Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel’” (Acts 9:13-15).

I think we have to put this in modern terms to even begin to understand the situation. Suppose you were a Jew living in hiding in World War II Europe, and God told you to go meet one of the highest ranking officers of the SS or the Gestapo.  Imagine you lived in Soviet Russia, or today in North Korea, where Christians are routinely executed, and were told to go help the head of the secret police responsible for eliminating Christians.  But look at Ananias’ response:

“Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, ‘Brother Saul, the Lord – Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here – has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.’ Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized” (Acts 9:17-18).

We read over those last few words telling us that Saul “got up and … was baptized,” but imagine Ananias’ feelings waiting to see exactly what Saul would do once his sight was restored. Was this just a trap?  What would Saul do next?  The obedience and faith that Ananias demonstrated in going to Saul and helping to restore his sight were incredible, to say the least. It was an act of faith and bravery equivalent to helping a lion out of a trap. And notice one more detail about the way in which Ananias did this.  It may seem like a small detail until you think it through, but the extent of Ananias’ faith was such that the man not only obeyed God’s instruction, but also fully accepted his enemy by addressing him with the words “Brother Saul.”  The level of Ananias’ faith is seen again toward the end of Acts 9 which records that after his conversion Saul returned to Jerusalem, and that:

“When he came to Jerusalem, he tried to join the disciples, but they were all afraid of him, not believing that he really was a disciple” (vs. 26).  Ananias not only accepted God’s word in faith while it was still unclear what Saul’s intentions were, but also he accepted Saul as a brother.

Ananias is one of the many individuals who, although not mentioned by name in the great “Faith Hall of Fame” found in Hebrews 11, can nevertheless be included in the “all these” mentioned in verse 39 – the many others who are  worthy of inclusion in that honor roll of faith.

The apostle Paul begins and ends his letter to the Colossians on the subject of prayer.  He begins his epistle speaking about how he prayed for the Colossian believers (Colossians 1:3, 9) and ends, directly before the personal greetings that appear at the close of his letter, with a final counsel to his readers on how they themselves should pray: “Devote yourselves to prayer, being watchful and thankful” (Colossians 4: 2).

Military Expressions

To see Paul’s full meaning in this exhortation it helps to understand that here, as in several other places in his letter to the Colossians, he uses military expressions.  In the second chapter of the epistle, for example, Paul says that he is delighted to see “how disciplined you are and how firm your faith in Christ is” (Colossians 2:5).  Here, the word translated “disciplined” is a military term meaning literally to stand “shoulder to shoulder” as in a battle grouping, and the word “firm” means having a solid, immovable front, like a tight battle formation.

In the same way, when Paul writes that we should be “watchful and thankful” in prayer, he returns to this underlying military motif.  The idea of being “watchful” connotes the alertness and vigilance of a sentry on duty, a soldier standing guard at his post, or a watchman on a city’s walls or guarding a city gate.  

There is a lesson for us in Paul’s use of this term.  It brings to mind words of Isaiah from the Old Testament: “I have posted watchmen on your walls, Jerusalem; they will never be silent day or night. You who call on the Lord, give yourselves no rest, and give him no rest …” (Isaiah 62:6-7).

We do not know if Paul had these words in mind when he instructed the Colossians to devote themselves to being “watchful” in prayer, but the intent of both writers is identical.  Isaiah and Paul both make it clear that our prayer is to be continually active and that we should be constantly alert to our own needs and the needs of others.  This is the opposite of unfocused, ritual, or occasional prayer – it is specific, situational, and constant. Isaiah makes this last aspect particularly clear in telling us that we should give ourselves no rest (just like a guard on duty) and even that we should give God no rest!  Paul makes the same point in Colossians 4:2 less poetically, but just as clearly, in stressing that we should “devote” ourselves – a word meaning “to continue without stopping” – to this kind of watchful prayer. 

The Two Halves of Prayer

The apostle then proceeds to say that we should show that we are thankful. For Paul the activities of being watchful and thankful cannot be separated – they are two parts of the same activity of prayer just as inhaling and exhaling are two parts of breathing.   We already saw that Paul continually thanked God for the Colossians in his own prayers (Colossians 1:3) and now he shows that they too should give thanks.  The implication is that we should be no less alert to the things for which we should give thanks – whether they are blessings we or others have received. Nevertheless, Pauls’ stress in this verse is primarily on our own needs and thanks, as he adds, in the very next verse, “And pray for us, too … (Colossians 4:3).

Colossians 4:2 also indicates that our thanksgiving should be constant.  Just as Paul wrote that he and those with him “always thank God … when we pray for you” (Colossians 1:3), so now he implies the same continuity of giving thanks that we saw in his command to “devote” ourselves to asking for our needs.

Although our prayer should be set within praise and other aspects of interaction with God (see our free e-book on prayer), Paul shows in Colossians 4:2 that the two central aspects of prayer are in fact simply asking and thanking.  The two cannot be separated and they form, together, the core of our relationship with God himself.  Asking and thanking are not only the two aspects of prayer that Paul shows we must do, but also – and equally important –  the two things we must do continually.
 
* You can download our free e-book on prayer here.

Although most of the world thinks that before beginning his ministry Jesus Christ was “the Carpenter of Nazareth,” biblical scholars know that it is not at all certain that Jesus was a carpenter. In fact, there are a number of reasons why he probably did not follow that profession, and why he most probably was a skilled worker of a different type.

Before looking at the evidence for the profession Jesus most probably followed, consider the reason that most people presume he was a carpenter.   There is one verse – and one only – in the whole New Testament that directly links Jesus to carpentry.

The Gospel of Mark tells us that when he spoke in their synagogue the people of Jesus’ home-town of Nazareth angrily exclaimed: “Isn't this the carpenter? Isn't this Mary's son and the brother of James, Joseph, Judas and Simon? Aren't his sisters here with us? …” (Mark 6:3). The Gospel of Matthew records the statement a little differently: “Isn't this the carpenter's son? Isn't his mother's name Mary, and aren't his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?” (Matthew 13:55). This is not a direct statement that Jesus was a carpenter, although if his father was one it would be likely in that culture that Jesus would have followed the family profession.

But this is presuming that the Greek word used in these verses actually means “carpenter.”  In actuality, the word used by both Matthew and Mark was tekton which can mean someone who works with wood but can also signify what we today would call a contractor or house builder.  There is nothing in the immediate context of the two texts that can help us decide which meaning of tekton better fits the profession of Jesus, and we must look at the broader evidence of the New Testament in order to make an educated decision on this.

First, we should consider the fact that it is odd if Jesus made his living for thirty years as a carpenter making furniture or other items out of wood, that there is not a single example in his recorded teaching that uses an analogy or example from the carpenter’s trade.  On the other hand, it is interesting that all the Gospels record Jesus’ continual use of building in his teaching: his  comment on the stone wall that fell down (Luke 13:4), his story of the rich man who built a barn (Luke 12:16-21), the vineyard owner who built a wall (Matthew 21:33), the individual wanting to build a tower (Luke 14:28-30), the individual who built his house on rock as opposed to sand (Matthew 7:24-27), etc.  In fact, the Gospels contain more examples of Jesus using stories based on building than any other single activity.  So when we find one of the disciples commenting to Jesus on the impressive nature of the stones of the temple (Mark 3:1), it is in a way that would be very natural if he were a builder and interested in such aspects of building.

Archaeology also can contribute to our understanding of the possibility Jesus’ trade was actually that of a builder rather than a carpenter.  Good wood was scarce in Judea and was usually imported from Lebanon and too expensive for use by local populations in areas such as Nazareth.  On other hand, good building stone was readily available and even poorer homes were usually built of stone.

As it happens, Nazareth was only three miles from the town of Sepphoris, which was the focus of an intensive building program instituted during the reign of King Herod Antipas (c. 4 BC- AD 39) throughout Jesus’ lifetime.  Herod chose the site as the capital of his government and, as a result of his building projects, this lakeside town became the largest city in the region and was described as “the jewel of all Galilee” by the Jewish historian Josephus.  Importantly, its development doubtless required the involvement of every available tekton in the surrounding area.   So it is extremely likely that both Joseph and Jesus could have worked on this project which needed so many skilled builders.  Sepphoris was a reasonable “commute” from Nazareth and the road between them actually passed by a large rock quarry where most of the stone needed for building the town was obtained.

If Jesus was, in fact, a builder rather than a carpenter, then many of the things said about him in the New Testament may take on an additional layer of significance. When Jesus told the Jews regarding himself that “… The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…’” (Luke 20:17–18 quoting Psalm 118:22), we may see an analogy that would have especially appealed to Jesus.  It was this thought that came to mind when the apostle Peter spoke of Jesus before the religious leaders of Jerusalem: “This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone…” (Acts 4:11).  In Peters’ first epistle he also writes: “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). Although we might expect Peter to say that believers were being built into a spiritual temple, the word oikos that he uses primarily means a regular dwelling house.

None of this proves that Jesus was a builder rather than a carpenter.  But when we compare the relative lack of carpentry work to the great demand for builders during his lifetime in the very area in which he lived,  the lack of carpentry analogies compared to the many building references in the teaching of Jesus, and perhaps even the  later New Testament spiritual references to Jesus in the context of building, it seems quite likely that Jesus was not a carpenter, but a builder.

Summer is here (in the northern hemisphere, at least!) and we will be going to our summer blog schedule.  Although our sites receive hundreds of thousands of visitors, the summer months of June and July are typically lower traffic months in which we can spend more time producing our free Christian e-books.   

This means that rather than publishing a new post on each site each week, as we do most of the year, we will be alternating blog posts on our two sites – a new post on one site one week, then a new one on the other site the next week. Normal blog scheduling will resume in August.

That still translates as a new blog post for you each week, between our two sites, during the summer months of June and July – so if there is not a new post here you can read the latest one on our sister site here.   

Although we may know the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) well, there is an aspect of that story that is easy to miss – one that lies at the very heart of the parable’s message.

Luke tells us that when an expert in the law of Moses asked Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus confirmed that he should follow the biblical injunction to love God and to “Love your neighbor as yourself.”   This prompted the lawyer to ask Jesus “And who is my neighbor?”  – setting the stage for the parable of the Good Samaritan that Jesus then gave.

In this parable, of course, Jesus related that when a traveler was attacked by robbers and left naked and almost dead at the side of a deserted road, a priest and later a Levite traveling the same road both ignored the injured man and continued on their ways.  Only a Samaritan – one of the neighboring group of people hated and despised by many Jews –  who had pity on the injured man and helped him.

At the conclusion of the parable Jesus asked the lawyer “Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?” (vs. 36), to which the lawyer correctly replied “The one who had mercy on him.”  We read that Jesus then told him, “Go and do likewise.”

But as we finish our own reading of this parable and move on to the following story in Luke’s Gospel, it is likely that we will miss a profound aspect of this final exchange between Jesus and the lawyer.  Remember that at the beginning  of the story we are told the lawyer asked “who is my neighbor,” but if we look carefully we see that what Jesus asked at the end of the story changes the wording of this question.

It is hard to see this subtle change because it is obscured in most English translations of the Bible.  For example, the NIV –  which we have quoted here –  has ““Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”   By translating this question with “was” –  the verb to be –  the translators made it match the lawyer’s original question “who is my neighbor?”

However, that is not what the Greek of the New Testament actually says.  The word (gegonenai)  used by Luke to record Jesus’ reply to the lawyer literally means “to have become,” and the question should be translated “who became a neighbor to the man?”   This literal translation is found in some carefully done recent Bible versions such as the New English Translation which has “Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” (10:36 NET, emphasis added).

While this may seem like a small difference in meaning, it is actually a very important one. Jesus changes the lawyer’s question of “who is my neighbor” –  meaning “ who must I regard as my neighbor”–  to “who became a neighbor” –  meaning “who did something that made him a neighbor?”   Consider this difference. “Who is my neighbor” implies only theoretical acceptance of the person. “Who became his neighbor” implies an action that resulted in a relationship being established.  The difference is that of what we believe as opposed to what we do.

To really understand this difference, we must go back to the parable itself.  It is easy to presume that any priest who passed by the injured man must be callous and uncaring, but that is a judgment that may not be true. In the circumstances described in the parable it may be that a priest could accept the injured man as a neighbor but be afraid to do anything to help him.  Even apart from the possibility of being attacked himself, a priest might well have considered the fact that if he touched a dead or dying man he would have been rendered ceremonially unclean for a whole week (Numbers 19:11).   That would have resulted in him having to return to Jerusalem to undergo lengthy purification rituals – leaving his wife and family not knowing why he had not returned home when expected.  According to the priestly system in place at that time, it would also mean that he and his family would lose expected income.  
​
So, under such circumstances, it is perfectly possible that a priest could have viewed the injured man as a “neighbor,” and still not have done anything about the situation through selfishness or fear.   Seen this way, we realize that the change of wording Jesus insisted upon in the lawyer’s question was one that taught him –  and all of us who will listen –  that in our relations with others we must be willing to move beyond acceptance to action.  The changed wording teaches us that acceptance alone is not enough –  our neighbor is anyone in need to whom we extend help, anyone to whom we actually become a neighbor.

​It may sound like a contradiction in terms, but in ancient Rome Christians were often called atheists.   Most people in the Roman Empire believed that there were many gods, and the idea of worshipping only one God seemed so bizarre to the Romans that they viewed it as a denial of the existence of all the other gods – their gods – and as a result they labeled Christians as “impious atheists.”

Although Judaism held the same belief in monotheism, the Jews tended to keep their religion to themselves and generally did not attempt to witness to their religion or spread it in the way that Christians did.  Because of this fact, the Romans knew much more about the beliefs of Christianity and began to take issue with what they saw as Christian rejection of the Roman deities. Additionally, many did not like the fact that Christianity condemned a number of their socially acceptable behaviors.

So the Christians became known as intolerant of other gods and were soon being accused of being “atheists” along with a number of false accusations. The situation was so widespread that in AD 176-7 the Christian thinker Athenagoras (A.D. 133-190) wrote an explanation or “apology” on the matter that he addressed to the Emperor at the time, Marcus Aurelius. 

This work was called the Plea for the Christians and combats the three most common charges against Christians: atheism, incest and cannibalism.  The accusation of cannibalism was, of course, a misunderstanding of the Christian idea of eating the “flesh” and “blood” of the Son of God (partaking of the bread and wine – Luke 22:19-20) in the Lord’s Supper. The charge of incest was based on the common Christian practice of referring to all people – including husbands and wives – as “brother” or “sister,” and, as we have seen, the idea that the Christians were atheists was the result of the “intolerant” Christian belief of monotheism.  

In an interesting turn of events, as history has progressed to the day in which we live, Christianity is being increasingly viewed as intolerant. This is not only because of its rejection of many socially accepted behaviors, but also because the Christian Faith teaches of Jesus Christ that “Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).  In today’s inclusive and politically correct world, such an idea seems as bizarre to many modern people as it was to the ancient Romans, and the response is frequently the same – “If you don’t accept my god, you are intolerant and I won’t accept you or your God.”

In ancient Rome the charge of Christian intolerance soon led to intolerance against Christians, and our own time is no different.   We see increasing intolerance regarding the Christian rejection of ungodly behavior just as the early Christians did, and we too can take to heart the words of Peter regarding those who are offended by that “intolerance”: “They are surprised that you do not join them in their reckless, wild living, and they heap abuse on you” (1 Peter 4:4).

Perhaps the similarities between the situation at the time of early Christianity and where our own culture is leaning should not surprise us.  Paul spoke of the same factors affecting early Christians and believers today:  “… everyone who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Timothy 3:12).  In these words we see that persecution involves the world’s response to both Christians’ moral choices (“live a godly life”) and their theological ones (“in Christ Jesus”), as both are seen as evidence of intolerance by those opposed to Christianity, and both become the grounds for persecution.

For many Christians intense persecution at the hands of other religions is already here, of course, and we are reminded again of Peter’s words: “Dear friends, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal that has come on you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you” (1 Peter 4:12).  Peter was simply reminding his hearers of the words of Jesus himself:  “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you” (Matthew 5:11-12).

History does, indeed, repeat itself.  But as the persecution of Christians becomes more common again – essentially for the same reasons – let us be encouraged to also repeat the outcome of that persecution.  Peter tells us: “…if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name” (1 Peter 4:16 ESV).  We can glorify God in this context by our good works despite the accusations and persecution we endure, and it  is by demonstrating God in us that we best disprove the charges of intolerance and godlessness.  Athenagoras understood that well – as he shows in his rebuttal of the charge of Christian atheism:

“…if [Christians] are unable in words to prove the benefit of our doctrine, yet by their deeds [they] exhibit the benefit arising from their persuasion of its truth: they do not rehearse speeches, but exhibit good works; when struck, they do not strike again; when robbed, they do not go to law; they give to those that ask of them, and love their neighbors as themselves …” (Plea for the Christians, Chapter 11).

You may have never heard the name of Irena Sendler (15 February 1910 – 12 May 2008), but hers is a name that deserves to live on and one that you should know.  Born Irena Krzyżanowska, Irena Sendler was a social worker who secretly served in the Polish Underground in Nazi-occupied Warsaw during World War II.

While continuing her normal everyday work for the Department of Social Welfare in Warsaw, Sendler also worked under the cover-name “Jolanta” and was responsible for helping to smuggle a great many Jewish children out of the beleaguered Warsaw Ghetto.  The Ghetto was an area about the size of New York’s Central Park that the Nazis established in 1943 and forced some 450,000 Jewish people to live cordoned off in this area.

By getting hundreds of Jewish children out of the Ghetto, then helping provide them with false identity documents and finding shelter for them with Polish families, orphanages, and other facilities such as Catholic convents, Sendler unquestionably saved the lives of those children and protected them from the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust.

Sendler was not alone in this activity, of course. She was one of dozens of Christian and humanitarian workers who participated in the effort to save the Jewish children, but what places Sendler apart from this group is the fact that she functioned as the “point woman” in the operation – single handedly getting the children out of the doomed ghetto.

The courage of this woman is evident in the incredible ways in which she performed the extractions. In addition to taking the children out of the guarded ghetto by means of sewers and other hidden routes, Sendler utilized methods such as hiding a child under a blanket in an ambulance or hiding a child in a suitcase, a sack, or other container of some kind.  She made a hidden compartment in a wheeled tool box that she took in and out of the ghetto and very small children and babies were smuggled out in that. The rescue of very small children was especially dangerous as they often began to cry. Incredibly, Sendler trained a pet dog that accompanied her to bark in order to cover the sound whenever a hidden child began to cry.  

Using covert methods like these, Sendler was able to rescue some 2500 children from almost certain death. But the Nazis became suspicious of her activities and in 1943 she was arrested and interrogated by the Gestapo.  During the questioning she was tortured and beaten so badly that both her legs and feet were fractured.  Sendler’s courage came into play once again, however, and she did not reveal the names of her contacts and fellow underground workers. 

Nevertheless, someone had informed on her and Sendler was sentenced to death.  But in yet another amazing aspect of this story, the Polish resistance movement managed to bribe the individual assigned to execute her and she was spirited away on the day of her scheduled execution.  On the following day the German occupation forces publicly proclaimed her execution and Irena Sendler, in hiding, had the satisfaction of reading the posters that were put up with the news that she had been shot.

Almost all the parents of the children that Sendler saved died at the Treblinka concentration camp, but due to her efforts those people knew, at least, that their children were safe.   Not surprisingly, after the War, in 1946, Sendler was awarded the Gold Cross of Merit for her work in saving so many Jewish children and sometime later she was also awarded the Order of the White Eagle, Poland's highest civilian honor.  In 1965, Sendler was also recognized by the State of Israel as one of the “Righteous Among the Nations.”
​
But the incredible good that Irena Sendler accomplished must always be seen in the light of the amazing courage that this woman displayed throughout hundreds of missions in which children were saved and in undergoing torture rather than betraying her fellow workers.   Irena Sendler is a name that we should not only recognize among those who have courageously helped others, but also one we should never forget. 

Sooner or later most readers of the Bible want to put the various scriptures on a specific topic together to see what the Bible’s overall teaching is on that subject. The marginal notes in our Bibles might offer a few parallel scriptures, but there are many times when we can see it would be good to get all the relevant scriptures and have the whole picture.

To do this, many people turn to a printed “topical Bible” that groups all the scriptural instances of a given word such as “faith” together.   This method works reasonably well, but it has serious drawbacks.  The main problem with using a topical Bible for this kind of search is that we can only look up one word at a time. This might get every instance of the specific word we select, but it may miss many scriptures that use other related words.  For example, searching “faith” might not get scriptures with the word “belief” or “trust” that are obviously part of what we are looking for.  The problem is made worse by the fact that many of the same underlying Greek or Hebrew words may be translated differently in different verses. 

The answer to this problem – and others associated with printed topical Bibles – is to conduct a search online using a major Bible website such as BibleGateway.com.  An online search of this type allows us to put all the relevant words into the search at the same time instead of having to laboriously search them all individually.  

But there are a few things we should remember in order to optimize an online search for a biblical term or concept.  The basic method is simple. If you are using BibleGateway.com, just select “keyword search” under the “Bible” tab at the top of the page.  Then, after selecting the Bible version you want to use, you can fill in all the words you want to search and, finally, delimit the search parameters by choosing from:  [book name] to [same book name] for one book, or [first book in sequence] to [last book in sequence] for whatever range of books or section of the Bible you wish to search. 

Notice that when you enter your search word you are given the choice of “Match ALL words,” “Match ANY words,” and “Match EXACT phrase.”  This differentiation is very helpful and one of the ways the BibleGateway search shines.   For example, if you want to search a single word such as “sin,” it helps to choose “Match EXACT phrase” so that you only get scriptures mentioning sin and not scriptures with words like “since” or “sincerely” in your results.  This can save time and avoid frustration.

If you are searching multiple words, selecting “Match ANY word” is usually the best way to get the most complete results regarding a concept found in many scriptures.  “Match ALL words” is best for finding a specific scripture you are trying to locate.  This is much harder to do with a printed topical Bible where you can only search one of the words in the scripture you want and may have to plow through a great many false matches.  With the “Match ALL words” feature you can include any other words that you remember in the verse you want, even if you only have a few of them.

Yet another advantage of online searches is that searching  words in a printed book may mean we don't get the context of surrounding verses –  something BibleGateway allows us to do by simply clicking  “In Context” or  “Whole Chapter” links beneath the verses returned in the search. 
​
So, whether you are searching for an individual scripture you know but want to locate or searching for all the scriptures on a given topic, an online search using BibleGateway.com can save a great deal of time over using a printed topical Bible – and can often produce far more relevant and useful results for your study.  

If we were asked “Who was the most patient man in the Bible?” many of us might answer “Job,” as the Scriptures specifically refer to the patience of the afflicted patriarch as being widely known  (James 5:11).  But this verse does not say that Job was the most patient individual, and his patience, although incredible, apparently had to do with short-term problems that were intense, rather than ones that lasted for years.

To recognize who was probably the most patient individual recorded in the Scriptures we need to look at the life of Moses and to carefully piece together the information the Bible gives us about that leader.

The book of Acts states that Moses was forty years old when he killed the slave abuser and fled in fear from Egypt (Acts 7:22-29).  Acts also tells us that Moses then lived forty years in the wilderness before God called him: “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai” (Acts 7:30).

The book of Exodus confirms these figures when it tells us Moses’ age when he first spoke to Pharaoh: “Moses was 80 years old and Aaron 83 when they spoke to Pharaoh..." (Exodus 7:7).   As we know, after Pharaoh finally released the Israelites, Israel spent 40 years wandering in the wilderness (Number 32:13).  Finally Deuteronomy tells us that at the end of that time Moses died at age 120 on the edge of the Promised Land (Deuteronomy 34:7). 

So, Moses spent forty long years hiding out in the wilderness before God called him.  God could certainly have worked it out for Moses to have been acquitted or exonerated in Egypt so that he could have stayed home until it was time to lead the Israelites out of that land, but God didn’t do that. He let Moses flee and let him live miles from anywhere for four decades. Could it be that Moses was given the opportunity to learn patience in those long, slow desert years?  Moses then spent forty years leading the Israelites through more desert and doubtless more slow years – during which Moses’ patience was tried endlessly. 

The Israelites in Moses’ care complained continually with an almost ceaseless refrain of “Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness?” (Numbers 21:5, etc.).  On a number of occasions they are said to have grumbled against Moses directly – blaming him for their self-caused problems.  Yet throughout all this provocation Moses was almost unfailingly patient with them, often pleading with God on their behalf and asking God, in effect, to be patient with them.  We see this especially on the occasion when God threatened that he would wipe out the Israelites for their sinfulness and make a new nation through Moses (Exodus 32:9-10).  Moses exhibited incredible patience throughout those years of problems.  

Certainly Moses may have became impatient at times – his striking the rock twice at Meribah (Numbers 20:8-11) may have been the result of a moment of impatience when water did not appear immediately.  This event led to Moses being denied entry into the Promised Land (Numbers 20:12), but in this we see that God was holding him to an exceptionally high standard – perhaps because patience was the quality needed  above all else in the job God had called Moses to do.

At the end of Moses’ life, after waiting forty years to see the Promised Land, Moses displayed patience again in humbly accepting God’s decision that he would not, at that time, enter the land for which he had worked and waited so patiently.

Many of the characters whose stories are told in the Old Testament displayed patience, yet perhaps none more so than Moses. It is interesting that the book of Ecclesiastes contrasts patience with pride (Ecclesiastes 7:8) –  because we are told that Moses was: “ .. a very humble man, more humble than anyone else on the face of the earth” (Numbers 12:3).

Moses seems to have learned patience over forty years to then do a supremely patience-requiring job for a further forty years.  In that regard, Moses truly learned to act like God – who was patient with Israel that whole time, too.  And there is a lesson in this aspect of Moses’ life for all of us.  Just as Moses doubtless did not realize he was being prepared to be patient, so we may not realize that some of the things that we feel impatient about may be being used to prepare us also.  That can be a very encouraging thought. 

“… go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you’” (Mark 16:7).

One of the unique aspects of the Gospel of Mark is that account’s inclusion of details regarding the apostle Peter.  Most scholars believe that Peter was, in fact, one of the chief sources for much of the information Mark compiled, and this would account for the many instances where we find facts most likely recalled by Peter himself.

But Mark also records details that relate to Peter from other sources.  One particularly interesting example is found in the account of the women who visited the tomb of Jesus shortly after the resurrection and who were instructed to tell the disciples and Peter to go to Galilee where they would see Jesus (Mark 16:7).

Notice the message was to “… his disciples and Peter …” –  not “his disciples, including Peter…,” and we can see a whole world of significance in that expression. Saying “… his disciples and Peter …” clearly positions Peter alongside, not within, the fellowship of the disciples.   Peter’s fall in denying Jesus three times (Matthew 26:34) left the previously foremost apostle suddenly on the outside of the group he had previously led. 

Peter was repentant, of course (Matthew 26:75), but he had to learn that we cannot deny Jesus and still be considered one of his followers (Matthew 10:33, 2 Timothy 2:12, etc.).  Peter’s full reconciliation with the resurrected Jesus would occur later in Galilee (John 21:15-19), but at this point Peter was still looking at his relationship with God from the outside, not from within the group of the disciples. 

Yet despite his tragic failure, the divine message was not one of “tell the disciples but not Peter…”, it was one of “tell the disciples and Peter…”.  This must have been of great encouragement to the well-meaning fisherman.  By including him in the message – even at somewhat of a distance – Peter was given hope that God still desired to work with him.  That hope was fulfilled in the message Jesus gave Peter when they met in Galilee:

Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-18).

It is often said that Jesus asked Peter if he still loved him three times –  once for each of Peter’s denials –  but it is clear that Jesus was also driving home his point, that if Peter still loved him, he offered Peter full reconciliation and authorized him to continue the work to which he had been called.

It is a principle that applies to all of us.  When we fail in some way in our own lives, we may feel that we have put ourselves outside of the family of believers, and in some cases that may be what we have done (1 John 1:6).  But at those times the resurrection message to Peter applies to us also. It is a tremendously encouraging message that we are still positioned, if we choose, to return to full fellowship (1 John 1:7) – a fellowship that is based on affirmation and not on denial, on obedience and not on sin (1 John 2:1-2, 4-6). That is a message that brought hope to Peter with the words “… and Peter …”, and it is a message that offers ongoing hope and encouragement to all who wish to return to fellowship with the resurrected Christ.  

​From the time of the early Church it has also been realized that the Old Testament predictions of a promised Messiah or "Anointed One" show that prophesied figure as fulfilling three distinct roles: not only that of priest, but also the roles of prophet and king (all of whom were anointed to office in ancient Israel).
 
Glimpses of the initial fulfillment of these roles can be seen throughout the life and work of Jesus; but what we do not always realize is that they all reach a climactic conclusion in the narratives of the crucifixion.

The Prophet

During his ministry, Jesus fulfilled the role of the “prophet like Moses” foretold in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 18:15-19 and compare John 1:45). It was clear to those who heard him that Jesus was a great prophet. “This is the prophet Jesus …” the crowds affirmed of him (Matthew 21:11 ESV) and “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!” (John 6:14 ESV). But in his final hours, Jesus exercised his prophetic office to an unprecedented degree. He made dozens of prophecies in the hours leading up to his crucifixion, not only predicting details concerning his own death, but also events that would occur after it. We see many of these prophecies in the “Upper Room Discourse” of his final evening (John 13-18), but they continue up to moments before his death (Luke 23:43). 

The role of Jesus as prophet that culminated in his crucifixion was certainly clear to his enemies. We should not forget that the soldiers who mocked and tortured him hailed him as a prophet when: “They blindfolded him and demanded, "Prophesy! Who hit you?” (Luke 22:64).  As far as the Jewish religious authorities were concerned, they were crucifying a “false” prophet (John 7:52) – unaware that in reality they were condemning the very Prophet their scriptures foretold, and that in his death, this role would be affirmed (Matthew 23:37).

The Priest

Jesus also fulfilled the role of the “priest like Melchizedek” (Psalm 110:4 and compare Hebrews 7:17).  As the New Testament shows us, he carried out this priestly ministry by making an atoning blood sacrifice for all people. This is made clear by the author of the Book of Hebrews who concludes: “Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself” (Hebrews 7:27).

This principle – of Christ fulfilling the role of priest by offering himself –  is found throughout the letters of the apostles, as we see, for example, in the writings of Paul: “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood – to be received by faith” (Romans 3:25), and of John: “He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world” (1 John 2:2). But we must not forget that although Christ offered his life from the beginning, it is in the crucifixion that this role was fulfilled. And we see other glimpses of the priestly aspect of the crucifixion in the fact that Jesus was crucified at 9 am (Mark 15:25), the time of the morning temple sacrifice,  and died at 3 pm (Mark 15:33-38),  exactly the hour of the afternoon sacrifice.  It was also in his priestly role that Jesus offered a prayer from the cross on behalf of others –in this case his enemies, and by extension all of us (Luke 23:34).

The King

Although Jesus only began to fulfill the role of the “King like David” in his earthly life (2 Samuel 7:8-16 and compare Luke 1:32), his role as a king is directly spelled out in the gospel accounts.  He is identified as the king prophesied in the Old Testament throughout the Gospel of Matthew and also, occasionally, in the Gospel of John (John 12:15, 19:3, etc.). Even Mark, who mainly portrays Christ’s role as that of a servant, makes repeated reference to the kingship of Jesus in the passion narrative (Mark 15:2, 9, 17-18, 26, 32).

All four Gospels record the fact that Pilate referred to Jesus as the “King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:11; Mark 15:2; Luke 23:3; John 18:33) when he appeared before him. And all four Gospels record the fact that Pilate had “King of the Jews” inscribed above the crucified Jesus (Matthew 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:3). 

The royal robe, scepter, and the crown of thorns, along with the title “King of the Jews” given to Jesus by the soldiers who mocked him (John 19:3), may have been given ironically, but they nevertheless were elements in the coronation of Jesus the king at his crucifixion –  which foreshadowed his true coronation after his resurrection (Hebrews 2:9).  

Three Roles Fulfilled
​
The offices of prophet, priest, and king that were foreshadowed by Jesus in his physical life all reached a high point of fulfillment in his death.  Having prophesied the nature of his last hours, having served as a great priest in offering himself and praying for those he represented, and having been clothed, crowned, and hailed as a king, Jesus was finally enthroned on the cross.  The crucifixion was not only the fulfillment of Christ’s atoning work on our behalf, but also it was the initial fulfillment, before the resurrection, of his three eternal roles of prophet, priest, and king. 


*For more information on this topic, see our free e-book Inside the Four Gospels.

Scripture in Focus – Mark 14:12-13

The Gospels give an intriguing detail to the story of the preparation for the Last Supper.  Mark tells us: 

On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to go and make preparations for you to eat the Passover?” So he sent two of his disciples, telling them, “Go into the city, and a man carrying a jar of water will meet you. Follow him” (Mark 14:12-13).

There are two aspects to this short account that might pique our interest:  first, that it would be a man carrying a water jar.  In the ancient Near East – as is still the case today – a man carrying a water jar would be an unusual sight. In that culture women traditionally carried jars of water, as we read in several biblical stories (John 4:4–42, etc.). Sometimes household servants (Deuteronomy 29:11; Joshua 9:21) would be sent to perform this task (we still use the expression “to carry someone’s water” to refer to performing menial chores), but it would most often be a female servant given this task.  Second, we might also wonder why the mysterious nature of this instruction. Why did Jesus not simply give the two disciples (Peter and John) directions such as “Go to the house of Samuel near the gate” or whatever?

As far as the man carrying the water jar is concerned, commentaries on the Bible have proposed several possible identifications.  One scholar has suggested that the man must have lived in an “Essene Quarter” of Jerusalem as the Essene religious group separated themselves from women and would have had to carry their own water.  This idea does not hold up, however, not only because there are no details in the story to substantiate this idea, but also because in any such “Essene Quarter,” there would likely have been many men carrying water.

Other commentaries have noted that according to Jewish custom, before the first day of unleavened bread the master of a house himself had to go to the public fountain to draw the water with which the unleavened bread for the Passover Feast was kneaded.  But Mark’s Gospel shows the man they were to meet was not the owner of the house and that the disciples were to follow him to: “... the owner of the house he [the water carrier] enters ...” (Mark 14: 14).

It has been suggested that it is possible that the “man carrying a jar of water” was the Gospel writer Mark himself, as some traditions claim that Mark lived in the home of his mother in which the upper room where the Last Supper was held was located.  In this view, if Mark’s mother was a widow as tradition asserts, the family may have no longer been able to maintain servants even if their home was a large one, and Mark might have helped with tasks too heavy for his mother.  While this idea is sometimes accepted, we should remember that when Jesus instructed his disciples to “Say to the owner of the house …”, the Greek word for home “owner” is masculine and is more usually translated as “master of the house” (NKJV, ESV, etc.).  So this was not likely to have been the house of Mark’s mother.

But even if we cannot be sure of the identity of the man carrying water, the mysterious nature of Jesus’ instruction to his disciples can perhaps be understood in light of the events the New Testament describes.  It is clear that at this time in the days before Jesus’ arrest, Judas was already looking for an opportunity to betray him (Matthew 26:16). But in order for Jesus to fulfill the important symbolism of his own sacrifice as the Passover “Lamb,” it would have been vital that he not be arrested too early – before his death could enact the Passover sacrifice at the proper time. 

Given this situation, it is likely that Jesus utilized a plan by which he could keep the location of the Passover meal hidden from the other disciples until it was too late for Judas to arrange for Jesus’ arrest before or during the Passover meal.  As it was, we know that it was only at the meal itself – when Judas knew where Jesus was and where he would be going in the following hours – that he slipped away to arrange to lead the servants of the religious authorities to him that night (Matthew 26:47). But the mysterious reference to “a man carrying water” that Jesus used may well have stalled the plans of Judas for as long as was necessary.

It’s a verse that every Christian knows well: “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong”(1 Corinthians 16:13). But it’s easy to know the verse and not see it in context – and this is the kind of verse where context is everything.  To really understand Paul’s powerful statement, we must notice his very next words, where he writes: “Do everything in love.” This is actually not a separate thought, as it might appear to be in our modern Bibles where thoughts are artificially separated into numbered verses.

Looking at the context in the sixteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, we can clearly see how verses 13 and 14 really belong together – the verses before vs. 13 are about Apollos, and the verses after vs. 14 are about a different subject, the family of Stephanus. The two verses 13-14 are a single thought that Paul has in mind, and when we read the two verses together – as they should be read – we get what Paul wanted to tell us: “Be on your guard; stand firm in the faith; be courageous; be strong. Do everything in love.” 

But when we read the two verses together, they still sound like two separate thoughts – not because they are, but because of our flawed sense of what strength looks like.  What does strength have to do with love?  According to Paul, everything.  Paul’s thought is simply that strength and love have to operate together, because without the one, the other is incomplete. 

That may not sound like a profound concept, but it is one, nonetheless.  In our culture Christians – and especially male Christians – can often be divided into two groups: what we might call the muscular believers and the loving believers. It’s not that those who stress love can’t have muscle tone and those who stress strength can’t be loving – but that most of us simply tend to fit one of those stereotypical groups better than the other.  

Society in general forms along the same fault lines, of course:  the jocks and the nerds, the powerful and the poets, the assertive and the sensitive. But is one of these approaches to life somehow better (or more “manly”) than the other?

Consider the story of Jacob and his brother Esau (Genesis 25, 27).   Esau was an outdoorsman with hair on his chest – a hunter who liked to spend time in the wilderness. Jacob, on the other hand, was a man of the great indoors – he preferred to stay at home, liked to cook, and was clearly closer to his mother, while Esau (as you probably guessed) was his father’s favorite.  The contrast could hardly be stronger – the “rugged” man and the “milder” kind of man.  But you know what? God loved Jacob (Malachi 1:2) and chose him as the one whose name would identify the nation God wanted to build (Psalm 135:4). Clearly, God knew that being an outdoor “manly” man was not the only way to do masculinity. 

But the story doesn’t end there.  We see Jacob having to apply strength as God worked with him. Perhaps in that sense Jacob had to “toughen up,” but he wasn’t changed to a kind of “man’s man” identity – Jacob just developed a side he may have been somewhat lacking in.

When we look at the biblical record, all the “mighty men” of God exhibited or came to exhibit both sides of the strength-divide.  David is the classic example, of course. David was a gentle shepherd as well as a giant slayer, a poet and musician as well as a powerful and mighty man. The same can be said of Jesus himself. The Jesus who forcefully cleared the temple and the Jesus who wept for his friends were one and the same – the loving-tough Jesus who talked about sparrows and flowers in his parables yet was strong enough to endure great hardship (Luke 4:1-2) and to sacrifice himself for others (Hebrews 12:2).   

The balance of strength and love is something that Jesus also taught his followers. There were times when he urged his disciples to “toughen up” (Matthew 26:40), but there were other times when he showed them they needed to roll back the tough stuff – like the occasion some of them wanted to call in an air-strike on a Samaritan village that had refused Jesus hospitality (Luke 9:54).  Jesus made the point that mere insults do not call for munitions – heavenly or otherwise. He showed his followers that strength and love are both necessary: that strength must never prevent us from applying love and love need never prevent us from being strong.

Paul himself exhibited the same balance.  The apostle who suffered hardships with great strength – ranging from being repeatedly beaten to being shipwrecked three times (2 Corinthians 11:25) – was the same apostle who penned the Bible’s greatest chapter on love (1 Corinthians 13). He knew that strength and love are both needed.

And that is Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 16:13-14.  We need to learn a right balance if we do not already have it – we are called to be strong and we are called to love. We are called to let our love be expressed without weakness and our strength to be used continually in love. 

 
Gratitude may be one of the most important qualities we can develop in this life, yet many Christians do not seriously focus on growing in this area. After showing why gratitude is good for us, both physically and spiritually, our new eBook, Living Thanks: A Guide to Growing and Showing Gratitude, looks at why and how we can increase thankfulness – to not just occasionally give thanks, but to live thanks with the gratitude that God desires to see in our lives. ​

Living Thanks is available in three electronic formats for reading on any computer or eBook reader. Download your free copy (no registration or email necessary) from our Download page here. 

If you have read it, you doubtless remember the story of Jephthah, the Old Testament leader (Judges 11) who vowed to sacrifice the first thing that walked out of his house when he returned home if God would grant him success in battle.  Sadly, as you know, Jephthah returned to be greeted by his daughter who happened to be the first person to come out of the house to greet him (Judges 11:31).

Reading this story, it is hard not to wonder about the apparent stupidity of Jephthah’s vow.  Why would anyone play “Russian roulette” with their family’s lives in that way? What were the chances that it would not be one of his family members who would walk out of their home?

Actually, there is a fairly simple reason why the man’s vow was perhaps more understandable. Today, many homes in the Middle East are no different from those in the rest of the world, but even now many traditional homes of poorer people living on the land have not changed in thousands of years and are essentially the same as those of the Old Testament period.

In the simple homes of the ancient Near East, the family lived in a large “living room” which was the main, and often only, room of the house. That room frequently had a sunken area at one end that functioned as a stall where the family’s livestock were brought at night to protect them.  With this living arrangement, each morning someone in the house would open the door at the animals’ end of the house – from within, of course –  and drive the animals out to freshen the air in the home while the women prepared the first meal of the day.
 
There is no reason to doubt that Jephthah’s home was any different from this basic house plan. Jephthah was not rich.  As the son of a prostitute he was scorned by his half-brothers and driven from the family home, so his own dwelling was more than likely of the poorer type.

Now, if Jephthah knew he would travel in the cool night hours (as much travel was conducted in that time), he might well have known that he would return home in the early morning about the time the animals would be driven out of the house.  Such a situation would mean, of course, that Jephthah would expect it to be one of his animals that would be the first thing to meet him, in which case his vow was perhaps not as foolish  –  at least in its intent –  as it might seem at first.

Although the conclusion of the story may indicate Jephthah’s unfortunate daughter was sacrificed (Judges 11:38), the matter may have had a better outcome.  If we look closely at Jephthah’s vow, we find that what he said was: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering” (Judges 11:31, emphasis added). Notice the word “and” emphasized in this passage.  The Hebrew connective particle “v” that is translated as “and” can also mean “or.” We see this, for example, in 1 Kings 18:27: “… Perhaps he is deep in thought, OR busy, OR traveling,” where the word translated “or” is the Hebrew “v.”

This means that Jephthah’s vow should perhaps be better translated: “Whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, OR I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.”   Thus, many scholars believe that Jephthah’s daughter was  “dedicated” to God in that she was made to live a life of virginity. This would agree with the end of the story which tells us that the young woman requested: “… Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry” (Judges 11:37), and that:  “After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin” (Judges 11:38).  
​
But whether his daughter was dedicated or sacrificed, the fact that she was the first out of the house was clearly not a possibility Jephthah expected – as we see in the fact that on seeing her, he tore his clothes and cried out in anguish (Judges 11:35).  So Jephthah’s vow was perhaps not as blatantly foolish as it might seem at first and the result obviously unintentional, but the vow was unwise, nevertheless, and the story can remind us all of the extreme care we should utilize in making promises so that they do not end up hurting us or others.   

There are some areas of life where understanding needs to precede action. When we visit a doctor or other medical professional, for example, we want them to understand what the situation is and what is needed before they take any action in prescribing medications or treatments.  In cases like that, understanding obviously has to come before action. 
     
But in other areas of life we find situations where this “normal” way of things is reversed, and we simply have to act before we understand, counterintuitive as that may sound.  Falling in love might be a good example – we have to experience love before we can really understand it.  Following God’s instructions is often one of these situations. No amount of philosophizing can help us understand why it really is more blessed to give than to receive, for example – it is only when we do give that we begin to understand how we are blessed in giving. But it is easy to forget that sometimes action has to come before understanding. We may make the mistake of not acting on what we see in the word of God because we don’t understand why we should do or not do a certain thing.

Yet the Bible is very clear about the reality of “action before understanding” when applied to its teachings.   Notice, for example, how David expressed this fact in the Psalms: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom; all who follow his precepts have good understanding” (Psalm 111:10). This is not saying that if you have good understanding you will follow God’s ways (though that is true, of course), but that following God’s instructions leads to understanding them.  Another verse that makes this same point is found in the book of Exodus.

According to many translations, directly after God gave the Ten Commandments and other laws to ancient Israel the people said: “All that the Lord has said we will do, and be obedient” (Exodus 24:7 NKJV). But the Hebrew literally says “we will do and we will hear” or “we will do and we will understand.”  Here again, as in many other instances, doing comes before “hearing” – action before understanding.

In the New Testament the principle is spelled out even more clearly. The Gospel of John records Jesus saying: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them” (John 14:21).  This does not mean something esoteric and mystical – by “showing” himself to those who are obedient, Christ simply meant that they would come to understand and know him, just as we say “Ah! I see it now” when we come to understand something. But once again, the order is action before understanding.

In fact, this principle lies at the very heart of much of what the New Testament tells us. Compare these two very important verses in the book of Acts: “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38); “And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit which God has given to those who obey Him” (Acts 5:32).   

Now the apostle Paul taught very clearly that: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit” (1 Corinthians 2:14).  When we put these verses together we see that we cannot understand spiritual things until we receive the Spirit of God, and we have to act – to follow God's instruction for repentance – before we can receive the Spirit.  So action must come before full understanding even from the very beginning of the Christian life.

The important thing for us to remember is that this principle does not only apply to us as new Christians – it applies to us every time we see some new guidance in God’s word.  The instruction may be clear as to what we must do, but we may only understand the guidance once we follow it – that is simply the way God often teaches us.  

Many of the individuals mentioned in Hebrews’ great “Faith Hall of Fame” chapter (Hebrews 11) understood that faith means we must sometimes act before we understand – we must obey before we fully comprehend.  These people seem to have learned a lesson we all must learn in the course of the Christian life: that faith often enables our obedience and our obedience often enables our understanding. ​

*This post was first published on our sister site, LivingWithFaith.org

“Learn to do right …” (Isaiah 1:17).

Isaiah’s statement “Learn to do right” is simple enough, but it deserves looking at.  In the ancient Hebrew in which the words were written – just as in English – the word “learn” can connote learning a fact as we might do when we listen to a teacher or read a book.  But, again just as in English, “learn” can also mean to become accustomed to something or to practice it – just as we might say we are “learning” to live with a situation or learning to drive a car.

We learn by doing as much as we learn by listening, and it is context that usually tells us whether the word learn means to learn a fact by studying or to learn a skill by doing.   We see this dual usage of the word throughout the Bible, but in verses such as Isaiah 1:17 the word clearly means to learn a skill.  We see this in the words directly following Isaiah’s statement where he gives examples of learning to do right or good: 

“Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow” (Isaiah 1:17).

All these examples of “learning to do right” represent not facts to be learned but things that must be done – they must be practiced in order to be learned. Look at a couple of further examples of this same biblical word for “learn” translated in other ways:

“He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze” (2 Samuel 22:35).

“… men ready for military service – able-bodied men who could handle shield and sword, who could use a bow, and who were trained for battle” (1Chronicles 5:18).

In these examples, forms of the same word translated “learn” in Isaiah 1:17 are translated to show the military training people received – obviously through training exercises rather than through book-learning!

This is an important principle to grasp if we are to properly understand much of what is written in the Old Testament.  When scriptures say things such as “learn my laws” or “learn my statutes,” they invariably mean that we must learn facts or principles through study or listening. But when the Old Testament scriptures say we must “learn to do right” or “learn to do good,” it means learning through doing and practice. 

The principle is just as true in the New Testament.  When Jesus commanded his followers: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me…” (Matthew 11:29), he meant that we would learn by doing – by wearing the yoke as an ox might do to plow a field or pull a load.  This helps us to better understand the stinging rebuke Jesus gave to the Pharisees when he told them: “…go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’” (Matthew 9:13).  In telling the hypocritical religionists of his day to learn what a scripture meant, Jesus implied not that they learn its meaning from a book, but that they learn its meaning by doing it.

Although the distinction between learning by studying and learning by doing may seem like a simple one, it is vitally important.  In the modern world we are so used to the concept of learning being an academic one – usually relating to learning facts – that we sometimes forget that is not what the Bible is telling us to do when it comes to learning what is right.  The Bible makes it clear that although we may learn its principles through study – and that is a necessary part of spiritual learning, of course – we truly learn to do right or good by doing it, through practice and continued action.  

That truth underlies much of what is written for our instruction.  It is the basis of what the apostle Paul wrote to Titus: “Our people must learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order to provide for urgent needs and not live unproductive lives” (Titus 3:14, emphasis added).

Learning to do good is a skill, not just a fact. Our response to the command to learn to do right begins in our study of God’s word, but only finds fulfillment in practicing God’s way.