“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

(Hebrews 11:1)

Some define faith as “belief in something you know ain’t so” or “the illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.” But Biblical faith is not unthinking, irrational or gullible. Rather, faith is the measured step we take based on evidence provided by God himself.

There is confidence in that step of faith because there is a sure foundation of trust beneath it. Though the Bible makes extraordinary claims, we have strong reasons for believing in the existence of God and the truthfulness of his promises. We can see four of those reasons by looking back, looking up, looking down and looking in.

Look back to the beginning of the universe. Just in the last 100 years, the majority of scientists have come to believe that the universe had a beginning. We are able to detect the expansion of the universe in size in all directions indicating a fixed starting point in time and space. In other words, as Stephen Hawking said, “the universe has not existed forever… it had a beginning.”

The opening verses of the Bible give a reason for that beginning: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen. 1:1). If God did not create the universe then what is the alternative? Many say that it simply came into existence for no apparent reason. But can something come from nothing? If the universe has a beginning, there must be a reason—a cause—for its existence.

Look up to see a universe finely tuned for life. Imagine a poker player who draws twelve straight royal flushes, the odds of which are about the same as winning the lottery twelve times in a row. Something similar could be said with respect to the universe. There are many features of creation that need to be precisely as they are for life to be possible, not just life on Earth or life as we know it, but any form of life anywhere. How are we to explain these amazing “coincidences”? The rational conclusion is that the universe is not a chance result of random forces but rather the result of a purposeful  and powerful mind. Paul says God’s “invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Rom. 1:20)

Look down into the empty tomb. The historical evidence of Jesus’ bodily resurrection agrees with what the apostle Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, that he was raised from the dead and appeared before many people. Christians proclaimed this resurrection even under threat of death. Pliny the Younger, a Roman governor in the first century wrote, “I ask them if they are Christians, and if they admit it, I repeat the question a second and a third time, with a warning of the punishment awaiting them. If they persist, I order them to be led away for execution.” What alternatives are there to Jesus’ resurrection? Was it a legend? History shows it takes about three generations for a legend to develop yet Christians were proclaiming his resurrection immediately after it took place. A hallucination? Could hundreds of people have seen the same hallucination? Not likely. Was it all an elaborate lie? What would these Christians have to gain from lying? Poverty, prison and persecution awaited them. Or could it be that God “has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead” (Acts 17:31)?

Look in the pages of Scripture. For me, more than all the philosophical and scientific arguments, the Bible itself is Christianity’s most powerful apologetic. And not just the proofs for the inspiration of Scripture either, but the message of the gospel, the beautiful story that unfolds to show God’s unconquerable love toward you and me, people who are so flawed and reprehensible, and yet are meant to be the recipients of his transforming grace!

And she gave birth to her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling cloths and laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the inn.

Luke 2:7

Picture the birth of Christ. If all we had were nativity scenes to judge by, we would imagine Mary and Joseph kneeling in a drafty stable next to the baby in a straw-filled manger with a few cows and sheep and, perhaps, a donkey, all sitting in silent adoration. All is lit by a warm glow, and all is calm… but all is not quite right. Contrary to Hallmark cards and longstanding traditions, the New Testament does not actually record that Jesus was born in “that poor and lowly stable.” Why, then, has the image of a stable prevailed?

Art — The stable comes from a “messianic” reading of Isaiah 1:3, “The ox knows its owner, and the donkey its master's crib [manger], but Israel does not know, my people do not understand.” Luke’s mention of a “manger” (a feeding trough) led medieval artists to depict the setting of the nativity in a stable. After all, animals are kept in stables, aren’t they? Not necessarily, as we will see.

Grammar — Luke uses the Greek word kataluma in Luke 2:7 which is usually translated as “inn.” Although the Septuagint uses this term to describe a public place of hospitality (Ex. 4:24; 1 Sam. 9:22), in the New Testament, kataluma is the same word for the private “guest” or “upper” room where Jesus and his disciples ate the Passover meal (Mk. 14:14; Lk. 22:11). The “inn” which the Good Samaritan used (Lk. 10:34) was different. That “inn” (not kataluma but pandocheion) resembled more what we would think of as a public inn or hotel where travelers would be welcome. Therefore, the “inn” at Bethlehem in which there was no room for the family of Jesus (Lk. 2:7) was most likely the guest room of a private home.

History — The historical and social context also don’t support Jesus’ birth in an outdoor stable. In a Jewish society which took hospitality seriously, it is more likely that Joseph, returning to his ancestral home, would have been welcomed by family members. What’s more, most families in ancient Palestine lived in a single-room house with a space for guests either in the back or on the roof. The main living area typically had depressions in the ground which were filled with hay for the animals (mangers). At night, the animals would be brought in from their stable outside to sleep in the main living area with the family. Therefore, typical families lived with their animals (Lk. 13:10-17) in single-room houses (Mt. 5:15).

If this is the case, what does Luke mean when he says they “laid him in a manger, because there was no place for them in the kataluma” or the guest room? It means that the house in which Mary and Joseph were staying was already occupied with guests. Since the guest room was full, they had to stay with the family in the main living area. When the baby was born, the most natural place to lay him was in the soft hay where the animals fed. The idea that they were in a stable outside the house, alone and outcast with only the animals for company, is possible but not plausible. It is more likely that our Savior came into the world in a crowded, warm and noisy living room (with zero privacy) surrounded by family and animals.

Why should any of this matter? The traditional view of the nativity has prevailed and permeated Western culture for hundreds of years and colors our interpretation of Christ’s birth. Dick France explains it well in We Proclaim the Word of Life (IVP, 2013): “The problem with the stable is that it distances Jesus from the rest of us. It puts even his birth in a unique setting, in some ways as remote from life as if he had been born in Caesar’s Palace. But the message of the incarnation is that Jesus is one of us. He came to be what we are, and it fits well with that theology that his birth in fact took place in a normal, crowded, warm, welcoming Palestinian home, just like many another Jewish boy of his time.” 

“Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord, and the Lord raised up for them a deliverer, Ehud, the son of Gera, the Benjaminite, a left-handed man…”

Judges 3:15

The author of Judges points out that Ehud, Israel’s appointed deliverer, though from the tribe of Benjamin (literally, “son of my right hand”), was “a left-handed man.” What seems like an odd piece of information turns out to be a significant part of the story. Ehud’s dexterity (and possible ambidexterity) played an important role in Israel’s deliverance from Moab and her oppressive king, Eglon.

Living in a relatively peaceful society today, it is difficult for us to fully appreciate how important a simple handshake was in the ancient world. Back then, men regularly carried a weapon and, as it is today, most people were right-hand dominant. Therefore, the sign of peace was to offer one’s right hand because it meant one would not draw his sword. Historically, left handed men were distrusted because even while shaking hands they were fully capable of drawing their sword to deadly effect. Hence, the reader of Judges may suspect some treachery is afoot in the Ehud/Moab narrative just from the introduction. Indeed, the story unfolds to reveal that Ehud’s rather gruesome and deceptive assassination of Moab’s king was facilitated by his left-handedness.

Obviously, we do not—and should not—distrust people based on their dominant hand. But even still, we generally greet others by offering our right hand or by some other peaceful touch. Christians are commanded to “greet one another with a holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26). Peter calls it a “kiss of love” (1 Pet. 5:14). We shake hands or offer hugs in the same “holy” manner as expressions of peace, unity and affection. These physical greetings communicate something words fail to.

When Paul, Barnabas and Titus traveled to Jerusalem they were met with such a greeting by Peter, James and John. Peter and the rest of the Jerusalem leaders recognized Paul had been given a special ministry to the Gentiles just as Peter did the Jews and offered them “the right hand of fellowship” (Gal. 2:9). This was an expression of their support, unity and mutual sharing of labor. The apostles were not just giving their consent, they were effectively saying, “We are with you in this effort.” Their handshake was a physical affirmation, a kind of tangible “Amen,” to Paul’s work.

For various reasons, some people may feel uncomfortable with this kind of greeting and we need to be sensitive to them and respect their physical boundaries. Also there may be situations where this kind of greeting is inappropriate. For example, I remember a time of strife in my family years ago during Christmas. My step-grandma was in the process of unjustly suing my parents. We drove to their house on Christmas Eve mainly because dad said it was the right thing to do. After my step-grandma gave a round of awkward hugs to my brothers and I she finally reached for my mother who, in a rare display of boldness, rejected her show of affection and said, “I’m not feeling so warm and fuzzy right now.” Talk about the Christmas spirit! The image was indelibly etched on our young minds. It all worked out in the end, but the point is that when there is disharmony in the family these touches feel like forced, shallow attempts to convey feelings that aren’t genuinely there.

This is why the spiritual unity and genuine love of God’s family is so important. Without them, these expressions of greeting are meaningless or even injurious. We express our love and spiritual fellowship in various ways. Greeting each other warmly with “the right hand of fellowship” is just one example. Thanks be to God who touches us with his grace through Jesus Christ!

“Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.”

(1 Peter 5:8)

Hunting lions are always looking for easy prey; the injured, the infant, those who can be separated from the herd. Peter describes our “adversary” as a prowling lion, “seeking someone to devour.” This language from nature is helpful not only to inform us of the devil’s tactics but also to teach us how to respond to his schemes (Eph. 6:11). Scripture often teaches lessons from nature; the sparrow and the lily, the vine and the branches, the ant, the horse, the fig tree, etc. What can we learn from how individual members of a herd react to one another and respond to outside stimuli like danger from a predator? And what spiritual parallels can we find?

There is strength in unity — Animals that travel in herds don’t do so primarily for social reasons. They congregate because there is safety in numbers (see Ecc. 4:9-12). Here lies an important lesson for Christians. When we responded in faith to the gospel, we were added to God’s “flock” (Acts 20:28-29). By sticking together (Acts 2:46; Heb. 10:24-25) we not only survive but thrive and mature spiritually (Eph. 4:13-14). The early church endured many trials by worshiping, encouraging and strengthening one another (Acts 14:22; 15:32, 41; 16:5; 18:23). We combat the enemy’s strategy to divide and conquer (1 Cor. 1:10) through our commitment to unity. Alone we are weak, but together, with God, we are strong.

There is strength in uniformity — While each Christian is uniquely endowed by God (Rom. 12:1-8), we are also called to conform to one image (Rom. 8:29). When we pattern our lives after the Lord (1 Pet. 2:21) and his teaching (1 Cor. 1:10; 2 Tim. 1:13), we find strength in Christ-like uniformity. This way no one among the herd stands out to the prowling lion as easy prey. Just as herd animals group themselves in a uniform manner to increase their chances of survival, Christians must follow their good Shepherd (Jn. 10:1-18) and keep in step with his voice (Jn. 10:27).

There is strength in vigilance — Every set of ears and eyes in the herd are attuned to sense incoming danger. Once danger is spotted, the alarm is sounded. While it is the duty of shepherds to watch for danger and protect God’s flock (1 Pet. 5:1-5; Heb. 13:17; Acts 20:28-31), we must all be sober and vigilant for one another’s sake. Paul tells us that “if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness. Keep watch on yourself, lest you too be tempted.” (Gal. 6:1) Jude says we must be diligent to “save others by snatching them out of the fire; to others show mercy with fear, hating even the garment stained by the flesh.” (Jd. 1:23) Jesus taught his disciples to “watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” (Mk. 14:38) Peter would know. Therefore, “be sober-minded; be watchful.”

The devil is our adversary and he is hungry. But there is another Lion, the Lion of Judah who has conquered the devil (Rev. 5:5). This Lion is also a Lamb, the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world (Jn. 1:29). His sacrificial blood has purchased and cleansed us (1 Pet. 1:19). This Lion/Lamb is worthy to be praised. He sits on the throne and executes God’s just judgments (Rev. 5-8). Salvation belongs to him (Rev. 7:10) and he guides us as our chief Shepherd (Rev. 7:17; 1 Pet. 5:4). By this Lion’s strength we can resist the devil (1 Pet. 5:9; Jas. 4:7-8), because the Lion who seeks to protect us is far greater than the lion who seeks to devour us (2 Kgs. 6:16). May God help us to stay unified, uniform, and vigilant in Christ so that when our adversary comes, we can conquer him by the blood of the Lamb (Rev. 12:11).

“Accordingly, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do what is required, yet for love's sake I prefer to appeal to you.”

(Philemon 1:8-9a)

Paul's letter to Philemon has an interesting literary parallel in Pliny the Younger's letter to his friend Sabinianus. The two letters are only superficially similar, however, and serve to show the difference the gospel makes. Sabinianus’ freedman (one degree above a slave) had run away and come to Pliny for help in much the same way Philemon's slave, Onesimus, had run away to Paul.

Pliny was a powerful man, a Roman Senator. You may have heard of his uncle, Pliny the Elder, who was a famous natural historian and contemporary of Paul, who died in the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. Like Paul, Pliny (the younger) writes a letter requesting Sabinianus to accept the runaway freedman back. Unlike Paul, Pliny appeals to self-interest and sides with Sabinianus against the freedman. His request is not for full reconciliation and peace between the two but rather a concession to the freedman's youth and to Sabinianus' kindness. Pliny wants the freedman to apologize to Sabinianus and for Sabinianus not to beat the freedman too badly for running away. He is perfectly happy to keep the hierarchy in place upon his return.

Compare this to Paul’s letter to Philemon. Paul does not simply ask Philemon to take Onesimus back and let bygones be bygones. He is aiming for the Christian virtue of love that will result in self-sacrificial forgiveness and full reconciliation. This requires humility on both sides—Onesimus must be humble enough to ask for forgiveness while Philemon must be humble enough to grant it. Paul bases his request on the theological fact that they both share fellowship with God together in Christ. Now that Onesimus is part of God's spiritual family he has become Philemon's “beloved brother” and spiritual equal (Phm. 1:16; cf. Col. 3:10-11). Contrast with:

21. Pliny the Younger To Sabinianus (Pliny the Younger [A.D. 62?–c.A.D. 113] Letters. The Harvard Classics. 1909–14)

The freedman of yours with whom you said you were angry has been to me, flung himself at my feet, and clung to me as if I were you. He begged my help with many tears, though he left a good deal unsaid; in short, he convinced me of his genuine penitence. I believe he has reformed, because he realizes he did wrong.

You are angry, I know, and I know too that your anger was deserved, but mercy wins most praise when there was just cause for anger. You loved the man once, and I hope you will love him again, but it is sufficient for the moment if you allow yourself to be appeased. You can always be angry again if he deserves it, and will have more excuse if you were once placated.

Make some concession to his youth, his tears, and your own kind heart, and do not torment him or yourself any longer – anger can only be a torment to your gentle self. I’m afraid you will think I am using pressure, not persuasion, if I add my prayers to his – but this is what I shall do, and all the more freely and fully because I have given the man a very severe scolding and warned him firmly that I will never make such a request again. This was because he deserved a fright, and is not intended for your ears; for maybe I shall make another request and obtain it, as long as it is nothing unsuitable for me to ask and you to grant.

24. To Sabinianus a reply

You have done the right thing in taking back into your home and favour the freedman who was once dear to you, with my letter to mediate between you both. You will be glad of this, and I am certainly glad, first because I see you are willing to be reasonable and take advice when angry, and then because you have paid me the tribute of bowing to my authority, or, if you prefer, granting my request. So accept my compliments as well as my thanks, but, at the same time, a word of advice for the future: be ready to forgive the faults of your household even if there is no one there to intercede for them.