The "Suitable Helper" in Genesis 2:18

With God himself speaking, in the creation account in Genesis 2, God says it is not good for Adam to be alone and so he will make "a helper suitable for him" (NASB).

This expression is two words in the Hebrew. The first word is "ezer" which is a noun meaning "a help" or "a helper" and the other word is "neged" which is generally an adverb or a preposition meaning "in front of", "in sight of" or "opposite to". By extension from this last meaning "opposite to", in this context it means "different yet corresponding to", "different yet fitting for", or indeed "opposite yet suitable for".

The English translations of Scripture translate the words in many different ways, but they all have the same flavour. The one God created for Adam was to be a companion or helper who would be different to him yet suitable or fitting for him. Among the translations are the following (taken from English versions available on www.biblegateway.com and versions available to me on e-Sword:

• "an help meet for him" (Geneva, KJV, RV) 
• "an helper to bear him company" (Coverdale)
  
• "a help meet for him" (ASV)
• "a helper corresponding to him" (CSB)
• "a helper that is perfect for him" (CEB)
• "a companion suitable for helping him" (CJB)
• "a helper as his complement" (Concordant Literal Version)
  
• "a suitable partner for him" (CEV)
• "a suitable partner for him" (EHV)
• "a helper fit for him" (RSV, ESV)
• "a helper who is right for him" (GW)
• "a suitable companion to help him" (GNT)
• "a helper as his complement" (HCSB)
• "a helper suited to him" (LITV)
  
• "a helper suitable for him" (LSB, NASB, NIV, MKJV)
• "a helper as his counterpart" (LEB)
• "a helper suited to him" (NABRE)
• "a companion for him who corresponds to him" (NET)
• "a helper comparable to him" (NKJV)
• "a helper who is just right for him" (NLT)
• "a helper as his partner" (NRSV)
• "a partner suited to him" (REB)
• "a helper as his counterpart" (Rotherham's Emphasized Bible) 

The translations differ a little, but the meaning is obviously the same. God created the woman to be a helper, companion or partner who would be suitable for, fitting for or complementary for the man.

In these two words is a wonderful picture of the relationship between the husband and wife as far as God is concerned. 

I am so grateful to God for the blessing and gift he sent me in the form of my own wife, who is truly a helper, companion and partner suitable for me, different but complementary to me and "just right" for me.

Translation of the 'Dikaiosune' Word Group

As I have mentioned before, there is a difficulty in most English translations which tend to use two different word groups ("righteous" and "justify") to translate what is one word group in the original Greek ("dikaiosune"). This issue can lead readers in English to fail to see the connection between rightesouness and justificaiton.

A previous suggestion considered resurrecting an old English word, "rightwise", but that was never likely to be practical, I realise.

Instead, I would suggest we might base all translations around the "righteous" word group rather than the "justification" word group. This would give us the following array of terms, all related to righteousness so that the link with the single dikaiosune group in Koine Greek.

Noun – righteousness
Adjective – righteous
Adverb – righteously
Verb – to declare righteous (participle: to have declared righteous; gerund: declaring righteous) or "to be declared righteous"
Actor – the one who declares righteous
Process/Event – declaration of righteousness or declaring righteous.

This approach would result in translations such as the following (based on the ESV but with amendments as appropriate to remove the "justify" word group terminology):

Romans 3:21–28: 

(21) But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— (22) the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: (23) for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (24) and are declared righteous by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, (25) whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show the rightesouness of God, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. (26) It was to show his rightesouness at the present time, so that he might be righteous and the One who declares righteous the person who has faith in Jesus. (27) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. (28) For we hold that one is declared righteous by faith apart from works of the law.

16 Christian Principles of Government and Politics

1. Government is a good gift given by God to humanity. (Romans 13:1; 1 Peter 2:13-17)

2. God gives governments authority over people. However, in a democratic form of government this means that the people choose the government, which then has limited authority over the people for a limited period until the next election. This means that both the government and the electorate have authority from God in their roles. (Romans 13:2)

3. Human beings are imperfect sinners by nature. Politics needs to recognise that no one—neither rich nor poor—always acts selflessly or from pure motives. (Romans 3:10-12; Romans 3:23)

4. It follows that the power of human government must be limited because governors themselves are also imperfect sinners. There must be checks and balances to ensure that no person can wield too much power. (Romans 3:23; Isaiah 33:22; Jeremiah 17:9)

5. The primary function of government is to protect the country and the people from evildoers. This means that government has a duty to protect the national territory and people from attack, invasion or other external or internal threats. It includes the authority to punish criminals and to wage war or other military action. The government, and not individuals, has the right and duty to be God’s agent of wrath to wage just war and take retribution against criminals, which is called the 'power of the sword.' (Romans 13:3-4)

6. The secondary function of government is to promote, encourage, and reward what is good, to maintain peace and social harmony, and to promote the common welfare of the people. This specifically includes protecting God-given liberties, peace and justice. (Romans 13:3-4)

7. To fund these activities, government has the right to implement taxation and citizens have a legal and a moral duty to pay their taxes. (Romans 13:6-7; Matthew 22:17-21)

8. Taxation must be clear, proportionate, fair, just, reasonable and as low as possible in accordance with national needs and the proper limits on government power and activity. (Leviticus 27:30-33, Numbers 18:21-28; Amos 5:11; Luke 19:1-10).

9. Government must be organised so that the rich and powerful cannot abuse their position so that the welfare of the weak, the poor, the disadvantaged and the outsider is defended. (Leviticus 19:15; Psalm 82:3; 1 Corinthians 9:9-11)

10. Private property is a legal convention instituted by God and is a good part of human society. Unjust removal of a person's property is theft. (Exodus 20:15; Deuteronomy 5:21; Proverbs 10:4)

11. Freedom is a good gift from God and our laws ought to treat us as free citizens. The only justifiable limits on freedom are those which God has instituted, which includes protection of other people's lives, persons and property. (Genesis 2:15-17; 1 Peter 2:16)

12. As we are to love our neighbour and our enemies, all actions must be motivated by wanting what is best for others, not by hatred, malice or envy. This also applies in terms of government policy, even in terms of how criminals are punished or how war is waged. (Leviticus 19:18; Matthew 5:43-48; Romans 13:9)

13. Government should support societal relationships which help form a stable and civil society. This includes the family as the key institution in any nation, as well as charities, community groups and other civic bodies dedicated to the general good of the people. (Genesis 2:18-25; Ecclesiates 4:12; Romans 12:1-21)

14. Government should regulate business and commerce to make sure it is honest, fair and responsible. (Leviticus 19:36; Deueronomy 25:15; Proverbs 11:1; Proverbs 6:16-19)

15. As government has power to defend the people from criminal or military attacks, so government can legitimately seek to defend the people from other harmful forms of 'attack' such as disease, destitution and dangerous ignorance. Government is therefore justified in ensuring the provision of healthcare, education and welfare for the poor. This does not mean that a full ‘welfare state’ is mandated; it is certainly possible to ensure provision exists without the state being the direct provider. The defence of the nation can also extend to maintaining the culture and way of life of the people.

16. Although government cannot legislate to change people’s hearts and cannot force love or compassion, it can seek to influence behaviour by encouraging good and discouraging evil, whilst leaving room for people to freely choose to do what is good and right. (Psalm 49:7; Romans 13:3-4).

Note: I cite various Old Testament laws not because I believe that that modern states must live by these same rules in order to be acceptable from a Christian standpoint, but to show that since God gave these rules to the human government of the people of Israel, they demonstrate that, in biblical terms, it must be within the legitimate authority of modern governments to do the same. In other words, the Old Testament laws indicate what governments may do and not what all governments must do.

Our Questions and God's Answers

I am happy to say that I have a new, short, e-book published on Kindle. This one is a basic presentation of the gospel in a series of questions and answers, mainly using the Bible directly to answer the questions

The book was very much inspired by an old tract written for soldiers during World War II by the American Presbyterian minister, Gordon MacLennan. I have re-written, modernised and expanded MacLennan's work in this new e-book. Longtime readers of this blog will know that I have previously written about and shared the original tract because it was what led be to become a Christian when I read it some 35 years ago.

I had hoped to make this book available for free, but Amazon insists on a minimum price being set. 

You can find the e-book here: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Questions-Gods-Answers-James-Miller-ebook/dp/B0C28RVHBH/

Cleansing the Temple

Yesterday was Palm Sunday, the day in the Christian year marking the start of Holy Week and on which Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem as the Messiah is celebrated. The next day, the Monday of Holy Week, Jesus visited the temple complex in Jerusalem and drove out the money changers and merchants who were turning the house of God into a marketplace for trading ordinary money for the special temple currency (at profitable rates of exchange) and selling animals for sacrifice (at inflated prices).

The incident is recorded in the three Synoptic Gospels at Matthew 21, Mark 11 and Luke 19. Interestingly John's Gospel records a similar event right at the beginning of Jesus' ministry (some believe this is the same incident with the story told out of chronological order, but I think this was likely a different event as the chronology is completely different). This could mean Jesus had to do the same thing at the beginning and end of his public ministry.

What seemed to anger Jesus was two things. First, people exploiting those who wanted to worship God for financial gain. Secondly, God's house being for purposes it was not intended for.

I was thinking about what would be the equivalent to this in our churches today. 

Are there churches that exploit people financially? I am sure that there are organisations calling themselves churches that are more like businesses run for profit. At the obvious end of the spectrum are those who preach "the prosperity gospel". In crude terms, give money to the church and you will receive even more back from God. What a travesty of the truth! It can be dressed up in more subtle ways, but that's the basic message. I am sure Jesus is angry now with those who would directly pervert the gospel for financial ends.

Maybe there are more subtle ways though in which we can set up barriers to worship for people, even if financial gain is not the motive. If we send out a signal that only those with the right kind of education or job, or those with the right accent, or the right hobbies and interests are welcome, we can be putting up barriers to people who don't fit the expected mould. That's why I think those who welcome people to church on a Sunday are absolutely vital in outreach work. All the effort to invite new people to church can be wasted if the welcome people receive is not genuine, warm and friendly when they actually step inside the church building. I believe the skill of welcoming people is vastly underrated as a talent. Churches should treasure those who do it well.

The second aspect to the cleansing of the temple is using our buildings in ways they were not intended for. The situation in the Jerusalem temple seems to have been that the merchants had set up in the "Court of the Gentiles" - the outer precinct of the temple provided by God for non-Jews to come and pray. There is an important point being made here about the extent of the Messiah's mission to take the gospel to all the nations. But what about our church buildings? Does any of this have anything to say about how we use them?

I think it is important to point out that this is not a criticism of churches who make a wide use of their buildings for various purposes. I know that some churches let out halls or rooms to outside groups. That's not really what I'm criticising, at least it is not automatically covered by Jesus' criticism, depending on the circumstances.

The key question is whether some activity the church should be doing or would like to do is being prevented by the building being used for some other purpose. To give an example, suppose a church would like to run an evening service on a Sunday or a prayer meeting on a Wednesday but they decide they can't because that's when some other group has a let to use the church. I would argue that the priorities of the church should always to be a church and any other activities should come far behind if they take place at all. Never should the church's key tasks of worshipping God, prayer, discipling believers and evangelising non-believers be prevented because the church building is being used for something else. How that plays out in practice is for church leadership to wrestle with and sometimes there will be difficult cases that need prayer and wisdom to sort out. 

 Yet the general principle is clear. The church building exists to let the church better be the church first and foremost in its tasks of worship, nurturing the people of God and reaching out to those outside with the gospel. If something is preventing that, it has to go. When we have it any other way, our "temple" needs to be cleansed.

 

(Image: Christ Driving the Money Changers from the Temple by Theodoor Rombouts)

Trading Truth for Certainty

P46 - one of the earliest New Testament Manuscripts dating from 175-225AD

I listen fairly regularly to James White's YouTube channel, The Dividing Line. For those who don't know, Dr White is an American Reformed Baptist best known for his apologetics ministry and his many debates with Mormons, Muslims, Roman Catholics and others. One area where White has debated many times is King James Onlyism. This is a spectrum of views prevalent in certain sections of American evangelicalism ranging from the belief that the King James Version is the only translation we should use because it is the best, through to more whacky views such as the KJV was itself inspired by God and therefore takes precedence even over the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. 

James White has argued against these views for many years and his book, The King James Only Controversy is a leading work in refuting such views. I commend that book to you if this is an area you are concerned about. White defends the scholarly eclectic Greek New Testament text that underlies most modern translations since 1881, over the Textus Receptus of the 15th century on which the King James Version was based.

In a discussion on King James Onlyism, James White used a phrase that has stuck with me since I heard it. He said that those who defend the King James Version and the Textus Receptus Greek text underlying its New Testament have traded truth for certainty. 

What an interesting concept! Trading truth for certainty. I think White is correct in pointing his finger right at this spot on KJV Onlyism. The issues are complex, but in essence, a theme emerges in most KJV-only advocates. They believe the text of Scripture is God-breathed and therefore infallible and inerrant. And these beliefs are good and true—and shared with almost all evangelicals including James White and myself. But there's a problem. 

The fact that for the first 1500 years of its existence, the text of the New Testament was copied by hand, first from the original autographs (the actual manuscripts written by the apostles) and then onwards, copies from copies, to produce thousands of copies of the New Testament used all over the churches of Africa, Asia and Europe. Indeed, it wasn't till the invention of the photocopier in 1949 that human beings had the capacity to reproduce exactly a written text from one copy to another. Each time a document, particularly a lengthy document like a book, is hand copied, even when done with great care, mistakes are made. It is unavoidable.

At the present time we have over 5000 of these ancient manuscripts still in existence and no two copies are identical. This means that the Greek text of the New Testament has many textual variants or readings in certain verses. Far from being a source of disappointment or doubt, this is actually a wonderful example of God's providential care of the text of the Bible. These 5000 Greek manuscripts, as well as thousands of manuscripts in Latin and other ancient languages, some of almost all the New Testament, some fragments of just a few verses are a tremendous witness to the true text of the New Testament. The New Testament is by far the best attested work of antiquity, but there are still textual variants that exist.

I don't want to overemphasise these differences. Most variants do not affect the meaning, especially in English translation, because most variants are things like word order, spellings, and omissions or additions of words that don't affect or even show up in translation. We can be certain of around 98-99% of the text of the New Testament. But that leaves 1-2% where the variants do reflect differences in meanings that would affect translations.

The King James Version, translated in 1611, was based on the Textus Receptus - the form of the Greek text published in the 16th century. That Greek text reflected the Greek manuscripts Erasus, Stephanus and Beza had to work with at that time. And it is in the main a Greek text reflected in the majority of Greek manuscripts in existence, but most are late in date, from around 1000-1400 AD.

In centuries after the KJV was published, many earlier manuscripts have been discovered. Though there are fewer of them, we now have manuscripts that go back to the 3rd or 4th century AD, some as early as maybe a hundred years after the apostles wrote the originals.

The questions for textual scholars is always "What did the apostles actually write?" Although I'm simplifying a bit, in general the issue is whether the correct reading in a textual variant is to be found in a smaller number of early manuscripts, written closer to the time of the apostles, or in the larger number of later manuscripts, written nearly a thousand years or more later. The scholarly decision on these issues can be difficult and complex, involving careful detective work both on external evidence—the age and quality of the manuscripts themselves—and internal evidence regarding the language itself, to decide what was the most likely original text based on many different factors.

Now, here is where the issue of trading truth for certainty comes in. The KJV-only advocates want to be absolutely certain of the content of their God-breathed, infallible text, and so they basically say that textual questions were settled in the Textus Receptus. They tend to argue that God providentially arranged that text to be the basis of the translations produced at the Reformation (including the KJV though it was a bit later) and regard other variants as deviant.

So they can have a text with certainty. But in doing so they having traded off against truth. For the truth is that the textual variants do exist, and the fact is that the earlier manuscripts though clearly bearing witness to largely the same New Testament text, does tend to be slightly shorter and contain perhaps more "difficult" readings.

Perhaps a few examples might be helpful at this point to show the kind of differences that exist. In these examples "TR/MT" means the Textus Receptus or Majority Text and "CT" means the eclectic Critical Text with the key words in bold.

Matthew 6:13 (The last part of the Lord's Prayer):

TR/MT: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For yours is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever. Amen."

CT: "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil." (Omits the rest of the verse)

John 1.18

TR/MT: "No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known."

CT: "No one has seen God at any time. The one and only [who is] God, who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known."

John 3:13

TR/MT: "No one has ascended to heaven except him who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

CT: "No one has ascended to heaven except him who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man." (omits the last phrase)

1 Timothy 3:16

TR/MT: "Great is the mystery of godliness: God was revealed in the flesh..."

CT: "Great is the mystery of godliness: [He] who was revealed in the flesh..."

There are hundreds of similar textual variants throughout the New Testament. Most modern translations include one reading in the main text and one or more variants in footnotes, allowing the reader to see the main variants and decide which they think was the original reading. We can be reasonably certain that the original is either in the main text or the footnotes. This option essentially trades certainty for truth. The alternative, as advocated by many in the KJV-only side of the debate, is to just have the KJV text with no textual variants in footnotes, choosing an apparent certainty over the truth.

As I believe I will have made clear, I think we should favour truth over a false or apparent certainty.

An Argument for "Functional Equivalence" in Bible Translation

Mark Strauss is an American New Testament scholar who serves on the translation committee for the New International Version (NIV). In this lengthy article, he argues persuasively for Bible translations using a functional equivalent methodology for translation, or at least for avoiding pure formal equivalance in translation, which fail to convey the true meaning of the biblical text.

This is a long read, but well worth it: http://www.bible-researcher.com/Strauss.LiteralFallacy.pdf

I have always enjoyed reading the NIV which I thintk usually strikes a good balance between accuracy and comprehensibility for a wide readership. Not surprisingly this is the kind of translation Dr Strauss believes should be our main Bible translation for personal reading and church use. Having said that, he is also clear there is a place for more "formal equivalent" translations that tend to stick closer to the words of the original Hebrew and Greek, though often not conveying the meaning as clearly to the English reader.

Dr Strauss is also co-author, with the late Gordon Fee, of How to Choose a Bible Translation for All Its Worth which is a book-length exploration of Bible translations in English and the pros and cons of the translation philosophies that underlie our translations.

What's in a Name? A Christmas Reflection

“She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel” (which means, God with us). (Matthews 1:21-24, ESV)

In Western culture the choice of a baby’s name can be affected by all kinds of factors. Family tradition is one that is important within my own family. I was named after my father, who was named after his uncle. My son has my name as his middle name to carry on the tradition. This results in multiple people within the family having the same first name. For other people, the chosen name reflects the parents’ favourite actors, singers or sports stars. Other people try to choose a name that will make their child stand out from the crowd. Some celebrities take this to extremes and seem to come up with names that try to be as outlandish as possible.

By contrast, in the Bible, the names given to children are often full of meaning, somehow seeming to capture something of the character of the recipient, or at least reflecting something about them or the events surrounding their birth. That goes all the way back to Adam himself (‘adam’ in Hebrew means ‘man of earth’ or ‘earthling’ we might say). Think of Abraham (‘father of many nations’), Isaac (‘laughter’ – remember when Sarah laughed at the idea she would conceive a baby?), Moses (‘to draw out’ as he was taken from the Nile), or David (‘beloved’).

No name in the Bible is more rich with meaning than the name the angel told Joseph to name Mary’s baby boy. ‘You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins’ (Matthew 1:23).

The name we read in our bibles as ‘Jesus’ is a Greek form of what was a common name for Hebrew boys at the time, Yeshua or as we normally find it in English, Joshua. It is a meeting with a profound meaning: ‘Yahwah saves’ or ‘Yahweh is salvation.’

Verse 23 explicitly links the reason for his name to his mission to save God’s people. Never was a name more apt. As the angels told the shepherds, ‘For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord’ (Luke 2:11, ESV).

Beyond the fact that Jesus was given his name because he is the Saviour, the name hints at another truth. That he is Yahweh himself—he is God, born in a stable in Bethlehem.

The New Testament as a whole teaches this same truth. Jesus is God and it is only as God become a human being that he can achieve salvation for this people. Another Christmas reading is John 1, where it is made very clear that Jesus (whom John calls ‘the Word’) is God:

‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth’ (John 1:1, 14, ESV).

This is why Matthew recognised the prophecy in Isaiah 7 referred to the incarnation as well, that Jesus is ‘Immanuel’ which means ‘God with us.’

God is with his people this Christmas and always. The question for each of us is this: are you one of his people? Are you one of those he came to save? The only answer and assurance the Bible gives is this: ‘Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved’ (Acts 16:31) and as Jesus himself said, ‘Whoever comes to me I will never cast out’ (John 6.37b, ESV).

May the Christ of the manger, the cross, and the empty tomb be yours this Christmas and forever.

My Kindle Books

I have some books and booklets available on Kindle covering a range of topics. Please have a look at them and feel free to purchase, review or recommend them to others. 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Singing-Hymns-Reformed-Worship-Miller-ebook/dp/B07S2V6DJ5/

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B086WRGBNX

https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B08T6T5R4M

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Women-Church-Leadership-Reformed-Egalitarian-ebook/dp/B09GNQYT5Z/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/My-Moments-Days-Reflections-Christian-ebook/dp/B0DGBRGZRZ/

 

Loyal Love

 I always enjoy the material from The Bible Project and this short video on a key Old Testament word, chesed or khesed, is no exception.

The word is a rich one, with English translations employing a wide variety of options to try to capture the scope of this rich Hebrew word.

The word occurs nearly 250 times in the Old Testament. Just within the King James Version alone, it is translated as: 'mercy' (149 times), 'kindness' (40 times), 'lovingkindness' (30 times) and 'goodness' (12 times) and several other variants.

Modern versions also utilise many different renderings to try to capture the sense of the word. If we look at a single test verse, 1 Kings 8:23, it reads (my translation): 'And he said, O Yahweh, the God of Israel, there is no God like you, in heaven above or on earth below. You keep covenant and lovingkindness [chesed] with your servants who walk before you wholeheartedly.'

In other versions, the word in bold 'lovingkindess' is rendered:

• mercy (KJV, NKJV)
• lovingkindness (ASV, NASB95)
• loyalty (CEB)
• steadfast love (RSV, NRSV, ESV)
• love (NIV, Good News)
• gracious love (ISV)
• loyal love (Lexham, 
• faithfulness (NASB)
• covenantal loyalty (NET)
• unfailing love (NLT)
• kindness (LSV)
• constant love (REB)
• loving-commitment (The Scriptures)

 From these a number of elements are clear enough:

• There is an element of emotion conveyed by 'love' and 'kindness'.
  
• There is an element of commitment conveyed by 'loyalty' and 'faithfulness'
• There is an element of constancy. This love is 'steadfast', 'unfailing' and 'constant'
• There is an element of this love being undeserved. It is 'gracious' and 'merciful'

That this is the love that God has for his people. This is his covenant love. It is no mere cold legal agreement - it is a loving commitment. It never fails. God remains faithful and loyal to his covennat promises at all times. And perhaps most wondrous of all, it is a love that we can never merit or deserve. 

This Old Testament language carries over in the New Testament concept of agape love. It is the same love Paul spoke about in 1 Corinthians 13 where we could easily substitute the Old Testament concept of chesed for the word agape in Greek which Paul used:

'Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.' (1 Cor. 13:4-8, ESV)