Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 11

What Do We Do With Ecclesiastes?

Not only was the Teacher wise, but he also taught knowledge to the people; he carefully evaluated and arranged many proverbs. The Teacher sought to find delightful words, and to write accurately truthful sayings.
The words of the sages are like prods, and the collected sayings are like firmly fixed nails; they are given by one shepherd. Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them.
There is no end to the making of many books, and much study is exhausting to the body.
Having heard everything, I have reached this conclusion: Fear God and keep his commandments, because this is the whole duty of man. For God will evaluate every deed, including every secret thing, whether good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:9-14).

Have you ever been expected to provide a satisfying word after an awkward, challenging, or difficult message was given by another? If so, you understand the predicament of the editor of the Preacher in Ecclesiastes.

By common confession, the words of the Preacher himself ended at Ecclesiastes 12:7, ending as he began in Ecclesiastes 1:2: life under the sun is hevel: all is vain, futile – truly absurd. He had compared most human endeavors toward meaning as “chasing after wind”: people pursue pleasure, wealth, wisdom, or other things looking for ultimate purpose and satisfaction and will be disappointed and frustrated by all of them. To rage against such truths is itself futile and striving after wind. God understands better than we do, and His work and ways are inscrutable to us. We all have strength for a moment; time and chance happen to us all, and no matter what, we all die.

We should not find it bothersome how Ecclesiastes has an editor. Almost all of the “wisdom literature” texts present themselves as having some kind of later compiler and/or editor: Job 1:1-3:1, 42:7-17 come from a compiler or editor who framed the discussions of Job and his friends; there is a Psalter who organized the psalms and maintained its superscriptions; Proverbs 1:1, 25:1, 30:1, and 31:1 all indicate editorial activity. The only way we might imagine Ecclesiastes would be composed without an editor would be if the author spoke as if Solomon, wrote out the discourse in his name, and then provided his own thoughts at the end in a more disinterested voice and with a big wink at the reader. But if we want to affirm Solomon as the Preacher, then we must become much more comfortable with a later, inspired compiler or editor working with material from Solomon and framing this presentation.

Yet this compiler or editor was confronted with the same material as we have considered in Ecclesiastes 1:2-12:8, and therefore also the question of what to do with what the Preacher has spoken.

The compiler/editor began his concluding remarks by commending the Preacher, identified in Ecclesiastes 1:1 as the “son of David, king over Jerusalem,” or Solomon: he was not only wise himself but also taught knowledge to the people and arranged many proverbs, seeking delightful words and truthful sayings (Ecclesiastes 12:9-10). The Kings author also testified how Solomon was reckoned as the wisest man on earth, wrote thousands of proverbs and songs, and composed treatises on plants and animals (1 Kings 4:30-34). Thus the compiler/editor attests to the authority, skill, and wisdom of Solomon, and wanted the reader to consider the Preacher’s exhortation as within the realm of Solomon’s skill and wisdom.

The compiler/editor was quite aware of the challenges and difficulties which attend to hearing and accepting what the Preacher has to say: he reminded the reader how the words of the wise are as prods and nails, and are all given by one shepherd, ostensibly God (Ecclesiastes 12:11). Prods and nails poke and can hurt; they certainly were designed to provoke and stimulate thought and changed behavior. Since the Preacher would have people radically reorient their thinking regarding what life is all about and how one can live a good life, his words certainly would prove as prods and nails for many people. The compiler/editor likewise associated the Preacher’s message as coming from God, the one shepherd of His people. Even though the message of the Preacher seemed at variance with other aspects of the wisdom tradition, its compiler/editor made his appeal for us to understand Ecclesiastes as within that wisdom tradition. We do well to look at the wisdom tradition in more dynamic than static ways: there can be arguments and disputations within the wisdom tradition, with different wise men focusing on the ideal rather than the real, or others on the real and the difficulties with making too much of the ideal, and so on. We must be careful lest we flatten out and over-dogmatize an active, living conversation and engagement in what makes wise.

The compiler/editor likewise warned “his son” about anything in addition to the wisdom tradition, and warned him regarding the never-ending making of books and the weariness of study to the body (Ecclesiastes 12:12). Ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature was all framed and presented as the instruction of a father to his son, and we should thus understand Proverbs and the compiler/editor in Ecclesiastes 12:12. The compiler/editor was rightly concerned about sources of wisdom; James the Lord’s brother would later compare and contrast worldly, demonic wisdom with heavenly, godly wisdom in James 3:13-18. No doubt the compiler/editor picked up on the Preacher’s theme of increasing knowledge as weariness in Ecclesiastes 1:18; it made significant enough impression to highlight this concern at the end. And if the compiler/editor felt the making of books had no end around 2500-3000 years ago, for how much more reason would he have to feel this way in the Internet age? Indeed, most of us would confess how there is no end to the information being shared and how we all endure information fatigue. How many of us experience many physical challenges because of how much time we spend sitting around and looking at screens? The compiler/editor’s exhortation in Ecclesiastes 12:12 proves real and enduring in our world.

The compiler/editor concluded by offering his own final observation: the whole duty of man is to fear God and keep His commandments, for God will judge every work, however exposed or hidden, as good or evil (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

We first do well to sort out what the compiler/editor might mean by “the end of the matter, everything having been heard” in Ecclesiastes 12:13: what, precisely, is the compiler/editor imagining he is concluding?

We might naturally assume the compiler/editor was providing his conclusion to the Preacher’s message in Ecclesiastes 1:2-12:8. The Preacher affirmed the importance of honoring and revering God in Ecclesiastes 5:1-7, 7:13-14, 18, 8:12-13, and expected a day of judgment for people’s deeds in Ecclesiastes 3:17, 11:9; therefore, it is possible for the compiler/editor to pull these out and maximize them as representing what Ecclesiastes was about.

On the other hand, Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 sounds a lot like Proverbs 2:5, 9:10, and an appropriate distillation of the wisdom tradition in general. Since the compiler/editor has introduced us to Solomon’s proverbs and sayings, and commended the words of the sages and wise in general, we would not be inappropriate or wrong to conclude “everything” involves the wisdom tradition as a whole, exemplified in the Hebrew Bible in Job, (some) Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. Thus we can understand the compiler/editor as speaking not just for Ecclesiastes but for the books which have come before it: the ultimate conclusion in wisdom is to fear God and keep His commandments so it will go well with you on the day of judgment. This will remain an important theme in the new covenant between God and all mankind in Christ as well (cf. Romans 2:5-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, etc.).

But all of this still leaves us with the question: what do we do with Ecclesiastes?

As Christians we are always tempted toward the harmonizing and pious option, to consider the compiler/editor’s ultimate conclusion about the wisdom tradition as also or specifically summarizing what Ecclesiastes is about, and thus try to blunt the force of the Preacher’s substantive message by focusing on some of his finer points in discourse. Such a conclusion is canonically satisfying and comfortable because the Preacher is brought into full alignment with the core of the wisdom tradition, and we can add his voice to the testimony of the importance of giving God appropriate honor and veneration and to do His will.

The Preacher, of course, has no difficulty with the message of fearing God and the importance of doing God’s will; but that was not his main message. We often want to escape his main message because it stands so sharply in contrast with much of the rest of the witness of Scripture, and, quite frankly, how we would rather look at our lives and the world. Where we would want to invest meaning, the Preacher only saw futility. Where we exalt wisdom, the Preacher has reached its limitations and proved frustrated by them. Where we desperately want who we are and what we do to have some lasting value, the Preacher only forecast death and oblivion.

Much of what the Preacher observed will, by necessity, stand in some tension with what God has revealed in Christ through the Spirit. All is futility and absurdity to the Preacher because everyone and everything dies; in Christ we see God fully revealed as the God of the living, not the dead, and thus death is not really the end (cf. Matthew 22:31-32). Our work has everlasting meaning and importance when done in the Lord Jesus Christ who overcame the futility of the world in its subjection to sin and death (cf. Matthew 6:19-21, 1 Corinthians 15:51-58). “Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” becomes the mantra of the epicurean, one whose “hope” is only in this life in this world (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:32). Yet in Christ we can have hope of the resurrection and the day of judgment to which it attests (Acts 17:30-31, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

At the same time, the creation remains subject to corruption and futility today just as it did in the days of the Preacher (cf. Romans 8:18-23). “Under the sun” everyone and everything still corrupts, decays, and dies. The Preacher’s themes maintain validity in light of human experience in this life. We still remain tempted to invest meaning and ultimate significance in things which are as vapor and will fade away, and we experience a lot of pain and suffering on account of high expectations about life regarding which we have no business or right maintaining. There is no magic formula whereby you believe and/or do the right things and are guaranteed the happy, pleasant result, no matter how much we want it, hope for it, or try to baptize it. We will suffer indignities and trials; others who might live less righteously might yet prosper; we think we know what is going on, but in truth God is the only one who has a handle on how all this is going, and what He knows and understands is well beyond anything we can even imagine. In the end we take for granted what God has given us to enjoy: the health and prosperity we currently have; the relationships we have cultivated; the ability to work and to enjoy it.

The compiler/editor was no fool; he was quite aware of how the exhortation of the Preacher did not entirely mesh well with the existing wisdom traditions. And yet the Preacher lived, spoke, and exhorted from within that wisdom tradition, and his message has proven all the more important and valuable because of its uniqueness and unflinching look at the realities of life in a corrupted creation. Yes, in the end, our duty is to fear God and keep His commandments, for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God in Christ. But the Preacher will always be there to remind us how life in the creation is cyclical; everything we might want to trust in this world cannot bear the weight of confidence we would place upon it; even wisdom has its limitations; everyone and everything in the creation will decay and die; we do well to enjoy God’s blessings, particularly the “little things” we constantly overlook, and not take them for granted. We can become more effective servants of the Lord Jesus Christ when we heed the Preacher’s exhortation and cease looking to invest ourselves so deeply in the things which are passing away, and instead cultivate our relationship with God in Christ through the Spirit and with His people which will endure for eternity. May we share in what is truly life in God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post What Do We Do With Ecclesiastes? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Tu Quoque

When we were younger and confronted with all kinds of frivolous arguments and challenges on the recess table, we would likely respond with statements like, “takes one to know one,” or, “I’m rubber and you’re glue; what bounces off me sticks to you.”

As adults, we tend to use fancier language, but still easily fall prey to the same tendency: the tu quoque fallacy.

In Latin, tu quoque means “you also.” In personal discussions, tu quoque takes place when one disputant attempts to counter an argument by appealing to the hypocritical behavior of their opponent: since you do the same kind of thing against which you are arguing, your argument is now invalid. Tu quoque is not restricted to arguments between and regarding individuals: the same kind of argumentation is often present when discussing institutions, societies, and especially political parties. Some have attempted to use tu quoque as a kind of legal defense, arguing the prosecuting authority has committed the same kinds of crimes or infractions of which the defendant is accused.

Perhaps the most common form of tu quoque today is “whataboutism”: whenever a critique is leveled at a particular person, institution, or socio-political bloc, those aligned to some degree with those receiving the critique tend to deflect by bringing up what is imagined to be a corresponding difficulty or challenge with those giving the critique: well, what about this or that which your people are doing?

To an extent, “bothsidesism” can also be a form of tu quoque when the appeal to “both sides” is made in order to deflect from critiques of one of those two sides.

The family of tu quoque fallacies fall under the overarching category of ad hominem attacks, arguing against the person as opposed to the substance of what is being advanced or argued.

Tu quoque retorts remain popular and prevalent because they feel emotionally and morally satisfying and can often succeed at deflecting the force of argument and critique by derailing the conversation or poisoning the well of discourse so as to make that which is argued against or critiqued less unpalatable.

Yet any argument in the tu quoque family really reflects impoverishment of argument: when people cannot well rebut an argument on substantive terms, people will attempt to find ways to discredit the one making the argument. Thus tu quoque, more often than not, is an admission of defeat: the premise of the argument or critique cannot be seriously denied.

But tu quoque also reflects a lack of a desire to truly absorb the argument or the critique; its force must be blunted because it proves uncomfortable, demoralizing, and/or detrimental to causes which one holds dear. Since we are human and we maintain specific kinds of associations, we tend to manifest bias in our interpretation of and perspective on our behavior and the behavior of others. We also specifically tend to manifest confirmation bias; as indicated by Jesus’ illustration in Matthew 7:1-4, we tend to be very judgmental about the failings of others while tending to give ourselves the benefit of the doubt. This tendency proves true for us as individuals but also as we think in terms of groups or parties. And so tu quoque retorts allow us to avoid any substantive re-appraisal of our views or postures while feeling undeservedly smug about “us” versus “them.”

Yet is it not true that people are often hypocritical in their argumentation, and should that hypocrisy not get pointed out? Moral and ethical hypocrisy are very real things. Very often people will condemn something they end up doing, or do certain things without expecting to suffer consequences while expecting others to suffer consequences if and when they do something similar.

There are many times when people quite flagrantly hold very different standards for themselves than they do for other people. They expect the rules to be in place for others but disregard the rules for themselves. We should not be surprised when people in the world maintain such double standards, especially if it “works” for them according to worldly, demonic wisdom (cf. James 3:14-15). It should not be so, however, among the people of God; our God shows no partiality in judgment, and none among us exist above and beyond the standards of what God has accomplished in Christ (Romans 2:5-11, James 2:1-13).

But not all forms of moral hypocrisy are flagrant double standards. Many times people fail to live up to their ideals, especially when they are motivated by anxieties and fears. We have all sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:7-10); all of us, therefore, have proven hypocritical at times.

Thus, while there might be times when pointing out flagrant double standards might be part of a package of argumentation against a given person and/or position, such can never be the basis of the substantive argument. No argument is inherently invalidated because of the moral failings or hypocrisy of the one making the argument. Sometimes the worst people speak truth (e.g. 1 Kings 20:11).

Instead, we do better when we confess what tu quoque retorts unconsciously affirm: the legitimacy of the moral or ethical principle regarding which the accusation of hypocrisy is made. Just because both sides do something does not make it right, and the fact that the other side does it never excuses, justifies, or rationalizes it when done by our side. Far too many people these days uphold compromised ethical and moral standards because of the ultimate end of cynical tu quoque arguments: if we are all moral hypocrites, then perhaps we should just rationalize our behaviors and carry on. According to this perspective, as long as the other side is doing it, we are justified in doing it. If others bend the rules, we can bend the rules. If others mock, deride, and insult, then we mock, deride, and insult.

We should not be surprised when people in the world behave in this manner; such is how worldly consciences get seared into justifying and rationalizing that which is contrary to God’s purposes (e.g. Romans 1:18-32). But it must not be so among the people of God, for whom the standard of what God has accomplished in Christ should remain paramount!

Will this mean Christians will suffer? Almost everything which goes on in the world provides an opportunity or a situation for Christians to suffer (cf. Acts 14:22, 1 Peter 4:1-19). Christians will always be at a disadvantage in the world when they hold to the standard of God’s conduct in Christ, just as Jesus was thus at a disadvantage (Philippians 2:5-11). Christians will be held to a higher standard and will suffer greater derision and mockery when they fail to meet that standard.

We might cry about how it is unfair, but we were never promised fairness. We have been called to faithfulness before God in Christ (Galatians 5:22). If we compromise our convictions so we can win some arguments or gain power in this world, but lose our soul and witness in the process, what have we really gained (cf. Matthew 16:26-27)?

Tu quoque arguments will always prove seductive; they provide immediate emotional and psychological gratification. Yet they expose more about the person making them than the one against whom they are made. It is never good enough to point out the hypocrisy of others; if we feel comfortable with lowering the bar and excusing, justifying, or rationalizing immoral or unethical principles or behaviors, we need to sit in that, confess, lament, and repent lest we compromise the truth of God in Christ and suffer on the day of judgment.

In the resurrection, after the Lord Jesus restored Simon Peter to Himself, foretold the death he would suffer, and called on Peter to follow Him (John 21:15-19). In response, seeing John, Peter “whatabouted” in John 21:20: Lord, what about him? If I have to die for You, what about him? Jesus sharply responded to Peter in John 21:21:

Jesus replied, “If I want him to live until I come back, what concern is that of yours? You follow me!”

Such is how we should look at every situation in which we are tempted to use tu quoque retorts. Well, what about them? The Lord Jesus will judge. But they’re doing the thing they condemn in us! Yes, the Lord Jesus will judge. Jesus will handle them. We need to be much more concerned about how we are following Jesus and how Jesus might judge us, and we can maintain great confidence Jesus will not excuse, justify, or rationalize away our distorted and immoral principles or behaviors because other people also did them. No matter what others might do, we do best to root and ground ourselves in the truth and witness of God in Christ, and seek the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Tu Quoque appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Jesus, the Bread of Life | John 6:1-71

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John the brother of Zebedee, the Apostle, or John the Elder, was writing his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (cf. John 20:31). He began by speaking of the Word of God, the Creator, the life and light of men, who took on flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1-18). He then described the calling of the first disciples, Jesus’ first sign at the wedding in Cana, the events which took place while Jesus was present at the Passover in Jerusalem, and Jesus’ return to Galilee via Samaria (John 1:19-4:54).

Perhaps the events John would describe in John 6:1-71 also take place while Jesus was in Galilee at this time; canonically, Jesus would return again to Jerusalem and heal a lame man on the Sabbath at Bethesda, teaching about the judgment and resurrection to come and witness regarding Himself in John 5:1-47, and then ostensibly returned to Galilee before then crossing to the other side in John 6:1.

John related Jesus’ feeding of the five thousand, an event also narrated by the other three evangelists (John 6:1-15; cf. Matthew 14:13-21, Mark 6:30-44, Luke 9:10-17). The other evangelists related the story in terms of Jesus withdrawing while the disciples went out and fulfilled their commission and when He was informed of the death of John the Baptist; according to John the Evangelist, the Passover was near (John 6:4). Many had gathered to hear Jesus preach and to receive healing from Him; He then asked His disciples how they could provide food for so many, and Philip could not imagine how two hundred denarii would have been enough for all of them (a denarius was a day’s wage, so imagine around eight months of a living wage; John 6:1-7). Andrew identified a boy who had five barley loaves and two fish; Jesus exhorted all to sit down, and He gave thanks and then distributed the loaves and fish to everyone’s satisfaction, and twelve baskets of leftover bread pieces were collected (more than which existed originally; John 6:8-13).

The Jewish people perceived the miracle they had experienced, and they confessed Jesus as the Prophet whom Moses promised would come to them in Deuteronomy 18:15 (John 6:14). They would have seized Him and made Him the king of their desires, the Davidic king who would restore the “halcyon days” of the Israelite Empire of the 10th century BCE; as opposed to accepting this fate, He withdrew from them, for such was not the will of the Father (John 6:15).

At evening the disciples prepared to return to Capernaum, and so they set off in a boat; the sea became quite rough; they saw a figure in the distance and became afraid (John 6:16-19). Jesus spoke to them and assured them it was He, walking across the water in rough seas; when He got into the boat, they had immediately arrived in Capernaum (John 6:20-21).

The Jewish people looked all over for Jesus and eventually found Him in the synagogue in Capernaum (John 6:22-25. 59). Jesus discerned their motivations: they did not want to see signs but to eat bread, so He told them to work not for food which perishes but the imperishable food the Son of Man would give them (John 6:26-27). After they asked Him what they would need to do, Jesus told them God’s work was to believe in the One whom God had sent (John 6:28-29). The Jewish people then asked for a sign so they might believe in Him (ostensibly having forgotten about the bread they just ate, or deeming such insufficient), appealing to how their ancestors ate manna in the wilderness as attested in Psalm 78:24 (John 6:30-31). Jesus exhorted them to understand how the Father was giving them the true bread from heaven; such Bread is the One who came down to give life to the world (John 6:32-33).

The Jewish people said they wanted this bread always (John 6:34), yet perhaps not after Jesus’ explanation: He is the bread of life (John 6:35). Jesus affirmed how those who come to Him will never be hungry or thirsty; yet they had seen Him and did not believe (John 6:35-36). Jesus made theological sense of all this: those whom the Father gives to the Son will receive life, for it is the Father’s will for all who would receive life to come and accept Jesus who would raise them up on the last day (John 6:37-40).

Those Jewish people who were hostile to Jesus grumbled about His teaching, presuming they knew Him since He was the son of Joseph (John 6:38-42); He discerned this and re-affirmed His instruction: none could come to Jesus unless the Father would draw them, and such would be raised on the last day (John 6:43-44). As attested in Isaiah 54:13, all would be taught by God, and those who learn from the Father come to Jesus; at this point in the narrative John hastened to add a parenthetical comment re-affirming how only the Son has seen the Father lest any imagined otherwise (John 6:45-46).

Jesus then expanded on His primary theme: He is the Bread of life (John 6:47-48). Those who ate manna in the wilderness died; those who eat the living bread, Jesus’ flesh, would live forever (John 6:49-51). The idea of eating Jesus’ flesh indeed provoked quite the response from those hostile to Jesus, wondering incredulously how this might be so (John 6:52). Jesus doubled down: only those who eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man can have life in themselves, for His flesh and blood are true food and drink, and He would reside in those who eat His flesh and drink His blood, and they would reside in Him; as Jesus lived because of the Father, those who consume Him will live because of Him for eternity (John 6:53-58).

Many have directly connected Jesus’ instruction in John 6:47-58 with the Lord’s Supper, or Eucharist, and for understandable reasons. Yet we would diminish the force of Jesus’ instruction if we simply conclude He referred to the Lord’s Supper; Jesus has a more profound reference in mind, one which would later animate and give power to the Lord’s Supper. Behind and underneath the whole narrative in John 6:1-59 lay Deuteronomy 8:3:

So he humbled you by making you hungry and then feeding you with unfamiliar manna. He did this to teach you that humankind cannot live by bread alone, but also by everything that comes from YHWH’s mouth.

According to the mutual understanding of Israel’s heritage and Scripture, Jesus and all the Jewish people listening to Him would recognize the need to be sustained by that which proceeded from the mouth of YHWH. Creative power came from YHWH speaking (cf. Psalm 33:6-9); Israel rightly perceived life in the Word of YHWH.

And according to John the Evangelist, the Word of YHWH by means of which all things were created and had life became flesh and dwelt among us as Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1-14, 18). Such is how Jesus could be the Bread of life; He is the embodiment of the Word of God, and only in that Word can anyone find true and enduring life. Jesus’ flesh and blood were the embodiment of the Word of YHWH, and so people must consume His flesh and blood if they would share in relational unity with God and find eternal life in Him. The Lord’s Supper embodies and exemplifies the consumption of the body and blood of Jesus and our joint participation in Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:16-17); yet our consumption of Jesus, the Word of God, must go well beyond the Lord’s Supper. We must find life sustenance from all which Jesus said and did and go and do likewise!

We can understand, however, why many of the Jewish people present would have found Jesus’ instruction difficult to stomach. Such distaste went beyond those who were hostile or indifferent toward Jesus; even many of those who were His disciples proved offended at it (John 6:60). Jesus did not exactly work to assuage their concerns or fears: if they could not accept this, how could they endure seeing the ascension of the Son of Man (John 6:61-62)? Jesus affirmed His words as spirit and life; those who could not accept them did not really believe in Him; thus Jesus re-affirmed how only those whom the Father allowed would come to Jesus (John 6:63-65).

Many disciples no longer followed Jesus after this (John 6:66). For a moment it is worth stepping back and looking at the whole episode: at the beginning a multitude followed after Jesus; when He fed them bread, the people were glad to pursue Him. Yet once He taught difficult things, the people abandoned Him as did many of His disciples. Jesus did not accommodate His message to make it more palatable, for what else could be said? The people, and even many of His disciples, could not imagine how Jesus’ instruction could be true. They remained blinded by the god of this world and could not perceive the light of God in Christ (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:3-6).

Jesus then turned to the Twelve, thus named as such for the first time in John’s Gospel, and asked if they wanted to turn away as well (John 6:67). Peter’s response on behalf of the Twelve in John 6:68-69 is notable:

Simon Peter answered him, “Lord, to whom would we go? You have the words of eternal life. We have come to believe and to know that you are the Holy One of God!”

Note well what Peter did not say: he did not say they fully understood. He did not say he had his knife and fork ready to dig into eating the Son of Man! He did not say what Jesus taught was simple or easy. Instead, Peter exemplified the kind of faith which all who would come to Jesus and receive life in Him must have: Jesus has the words of eternal life. Jesus is the Holy One of God. Thus, where else can we go?

Most of us trust far more based on our knowledge and agreement than we would care to admit. Such was the way of the disciples who abandoned Jesus at this moment. They believed Jesus was the Christ as long as what He said and did were broadly in alignment with their understanding. Then Jesus crossed “the line”: the point at which confidence in Him would demand significant challenges to what they accepted or were willing to accept. They affirmed their trust in what they knew and understood and thus abandoned Jesus.

What Peter confessed was true faith: the Twelve did not fully understand, and perhaps even did not fully agree. But they prioritized who Jesus was and what they had experienced regarding Him over their understanding and/or agreement. They proved willing to subject themselves to Him and to accept what they found challenging or impossible to understand.

At some point in our lives we will come to “the line”: faithfulness to Jesus would require us to go beyond what we believe to be accurate and true. We will then reveal who we are at that point: either we reject Jesus or seek to make Him in our own image to continue to accept what we believe to be accurate and true and thus abandon Jesus in truth, or we remember Jesus has the words of eternal life and is the Holy One of God, and we continue to trust despite our misgivings and lack of comprehension.

Jesus did not respond as we would perhaps have imagined. He confessed how He had chosen them, and yet also confessed how one of them was a devil (John 6:70).

John the Evangelist did not want any of his readers to be in any kind of doubt: he had already parenthetically remarked how Jesus had already known who did not really believe in Him, and who would betray Him in John 6:64, and in John 6:71 John identified Judas ben Simon Iscariot as the one who would betray Jesus. John truly has it out for Judas; from John we will later learn of Judas’ embezzlement from the common treasury (cf. John 12:4-6), so that most of the demonization of Judas comes from John. It is certainly notable how John continued to experience the pain of Judas’ betrayal so many years after it happened; nevertheless, we should not allow his embittered characterizations, which reflect understanding of these events after the fact, to color Judas’ standing as a disciple. When Jesus made it known to the Twelve how one of them would betray Him, it is not as if everyone then immediately looked at Judas Iscariot; each wondered if it could be him or his companion (cf. John 13:22). Thus Judas Iscariot looked and acted like every other disciple. We should not even assume Judas did not really believe in Jesus; while the profit motive was certainly in mind for Judas, he might well have acted as he did in order to force the issue and catalyze the great confrontation which would lead to Jesus inaugurating the Reign of God. In truth, Judas’ betrayal did indeed catalyze that great confrontation which led to Jesus inaugurating the Reign of God, but it happened through His suffering, death, and resurrection, not glory over the Roman host. By common confession, Judas did not expect his betrayal to actually lead to Jesus’ death (cf. Matthew 27:3-4); he probably imagined Jesus would yet again escape the authorities as He always had before.

Yet consider Jesus throughout this whole experience: from the moment of selection until the bitter end, He knew Judas would betray Him. And yet Jesus never treated him any differently from any of the other disciples. He loved Judas; He taught Judas; He watched while Judas would proclaim the Name of the One whom he would later betray. Jesus knew Judas was the snake throughout and yet still held him close.

Judas was not the only disciple who would prove to be a satan, or adversary, to Jesus; Simon Peter himself would tempt Jesus away from suffering and would later deny any association with Him (cf. Matthew 16:21-23, John 18:15-27). Both Judas and Simon Peter would come to grief; Judas’ grief was worldly and led him to kill himself, but Simon Peter exhibited godly grief and turned back to Jesus and was restored by Him (cf. John 21:15-19). Thus all of us must choose whether we will take our grief from sin and immerse ourselves in it to the point of death or turn away from it to find healing in Jesus.

Thus Jesus is the Bread of life. Not everything about Jesus is easy to accept or maintain; but if we truly want life, and to share in it abundantly and eternally, we must consume Jesus the Word of God and find life in Him. Yes, that will include and involve the Lord’s Supper on the first day of the week. But it must be much more than that: we must conform ourselves to His image, speaking and acting as He spoke and acted, if we would truly find life in the embodied Word of God. May we find sustenance in the words of life which Jesus spoke and embodied, and dwell with Him forevermore!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Jesus, the Bread of Life | John 6:1-71 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Difficult Days

So remember your Creator in the days of your youth – before the difficult days come, and the years draw near when you will say, “I have no pleasure in them”; before the sun and the light of the moon and the stars grow dark, and the clouds disappear after the rain; when those who keep watch over the house begin to tremble, and the virile men begin to stoop over, and the grinders begin to cease because they grow few, and those who look through the windows grow dim, and the doors along the street are shut; when the sound of the grinding mill grows low, and one is awakened by the sound of a bird, and all their songs grow faint, and they are afraid of heights and the dangers in the street; the almond blossoms grow white, and the grasshopper drags itself along, and the caper berry shrivels up – because man goes to his eternal home, and the mourners go about in the streets – before the silver cord is removed, or the golden bowl is broken, or the pitcher is shattered at the well, or the water wheel is broken at the cistern – and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the life’s breath returns to God who gave it.
“Absolutely futile!” laments the Teacher, “All of these things are futile!” (Ecclesiastes 12:1-8)

In terms of the vitality of life, today is better than tomorrow.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-11:6 the Preacher meditated upon the hevel of life under the sun: all is vain, futile – truly absurd. He compares most human endeavors toward meaning as “chasing after wind”: people pursue pleasure, wealth, wisdom, or other things looking for ultimate purpose and satisfaction and will be disappointed and frustrated by all of them. To rage against such truths is itself futile and striving after wind. God understands better than we do, and His work and ways are inscrutable to us.

In truth Ecclesiastes 12:1 represents the Preacher’s conclusion of Ecclesiastes 11:7-10: remember your Creator in the days of your youth. Any concerns about the Preacher’s endorsement of the pursuit of one’s desires in youth should be allayed by this conclusion. The Preacher was never commending careless hedonism; he reminded them of God’s judgment for all they would do in Ecclesiastes 11:9, and now the Preacher made known the spirit of his instruction. To remember one’s Creator in the days of one’s youth was not intended to represent God as a kind of “Big Brother” always waiting to catch you in transgression at any and every moment; instead, it is an exhortation to fully live what is a good, high-quality life, and to do so while one still has the strength and vitality to do so. If what we imagine as a good, high-quality life involves a lot of sinful behavior, such is our failure of imagination.

But the Preacher did not merely wrap up the beginning of his conclusion; he transitioned into his final lament regarding the difficult days which come as a result of the aging process (Ecclesiastes 12:1-7). We do well to remember our Creator in the days of our youth because difficult days will come in which we will no longer take a lot of enjoyment in the process of living.

In Ecclesiastes 12:2 cosmic forces dim: the sun, the moon, and the stars grow dark, and clouds disappear. In Ecclesiastes 12:3 the household fades: (male) “guardians” tremble, strong men stoop over, (women) grinders become few, and (women) “watchers” dim. Commerce collapses in Ecclesiastes 12:4a: doors shut and the grinding mill declines. Nature is observed in Ecclesiastes 12:4b-5a: birdsong rises and fades, birds (?) are terrified in the streets, almonds blossom while grasshoppers drag along and caper berries shrivel. The Preacher then described the passing of an individual in vivid detail in Ecclesiastes 12:5b-7: man goes to his eternal home; mourners are present in the streets; the silver cord is removed, the golden bowl is broken, the pitcher is shattered at the well, and/or the water wheel is broken at the cistern, all of which may represent funerary rituals; the body returns to the dust from which it is taken, and the soul returns to the God who gave it.

Thus, the Preacher seems to describe the aging process by means of a series of illustrations and observations in Ecclesiastes 12:2-7, and we are left to attempt to decode what, or who, is aging: whether we are to understand the Preacher on a surface meaning level, to plumb the surface to find some metaphorical values, or a little bit of both.

We can understand the impetus to understand the Preacher as describing the aging process of individuals by means of a series of metaphors. In this perspective the dimming of the cosmos might represent degeneration of experience and vision; the fading of the “household” represents the weakening of bodily functions, perhaps arms, legs, teeth, eyes; and the observations of nature might be associated with being easily startled but with fading hearing, the whitening of hair, slowing in movement, and reduction in desire. Death then “naturally” follows these signs of decay.

No doubt the Preacher has the decay and increasing corruption inherent in the aging process in mind throughout Ecclesiastes 12:1-5a, with death as the end result in Ecclesiastes 12:b-7; such grounds and animates his exhortation in Ecclesiastes 11:7-12:1a. It seems axiomatic for humanity: we do not know what we have until we no longer have it, and this proves all the more accurate in terms of matters of health and strength. In our youth we do not think twice about our abilities and strength; we take them for granted, and for understandable reasons, since we have very little experience of being bereft of them. Young people can physically see aging and its effects on their elders, but they have no experiential framework by which to understand it. Thus the Preacher’s exhortation remains quite salient: in your youth you have the strength and vitality to pursue your dreams, live your life, and well glorify and honor God in your decisions.

Such wisdom stands somewhat at variance with the general progressivist perspective which imagines the future will be better. In some ways, the future might prove to be better than the past or present. But there is never a guarantee the future will be better than the past or present, and in terms of youth and vitality, today is indeed better than tomorrow. None of us are growing any younger; while we gain benefits from wisdom obtained through experience, the future will invariably involve more physical corruption and decay than our present.

Yet perhaps we should not so quickly run to a metaphorical understanding of the Preacher, for what he has to say about the individual may extend beyond the individual. The corruption and decay which besets the individual also proves true of the creation in general. Stars do eventually dim, explode, and/or collapse. Households, once robust and strong, grow weak and collapse. There are times of rising commerce, and then there are times during which commerce collapses. Even if commerce could remain robust, the means of production wear out and require replacement. Nature is replete with evidence of vitality and death: every year we see evidence of vitality and youth flower and then fade as the seasons progress. And it’s not just individual people who die and require lamentation and funeral rites; anything and everything “under the sun” will decay and die, from stars to rocks, households to nation-states, small businesses to multinational corporations.

Furthermore, the Preacher might well be confessing how the wisdom tradition itself falls prey to corruption, decay, and death. In this reading, the woman of strength in Proverbs 31:10-31 is laid low in old age and its attendant decay; both Wisdom and Folly looking out the window, or found in the streets, are similarly laid low. Wisdom requires a level of strength which humans cannot sustain indefinitely.

And so “today is better than tomorrow” often proves not only accurate for the individual but also for households, businesses, societies, the creation in general, and even wisdom. There is no guarantee things will get better. Some things might well improve; other things might well get worse.

While we can draw applications of the Preacher’s description of death and mourning rituals in Ecclesiastes 12:5b-7 to collectives, institutions, and aspects of the creation, the Preacher certainly has individual people primarily in view. Death remains bitter. The body returns to the dust from which it came. The spirit, Hebrew ruach and Greek pneuma, is often translated as “soul,” and especially in the New Testament be the term more associated with eternal life than the transient life breath (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:20-58); yet the Preacher may understand it primarily in terms of that “breath of life,” which returns to the God who gave it. For the Christian, this is the hope of returning to be with the Lord while awaiting the resurrection and the final victory over the futility of the creation; yet for the Preacher, it may represent the sad final end, in which the life force returns to God while the body decomposes back into soil.

And so the Preacher concluded as he began: everything is hevel: a vapor, futile, vanity, absurd (Ecclesiastes 12:8). In the beginning he observed the cyclical nature of all things in the creation (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:2-11); at the end he observed the corruption, decay, and inevitable death of every person and everything “under the sun.” He has abundantly demonstrated the validity of his claim. We can easily hear him say so in bitterness, frustration, and lamentation. Yet it makes his exhortation all the more powerful: life ends as it begins, and it will not be long, so at least enjoy it.

So it goes for life “under the sun.” Yet we can have the hope of something better and greater in what God has accomplished through His Son Jesus. The creation was subjected to futility, but endures in hope of the freedom which will come by means of the sons of God. Jesus has overcome sin and death in His resurrection; if we share in the sufferings which attended to His death, we also can share in the victory over sin and death on the final day. May we entrust ourselves to God in Christ through the Spirit and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Difficult Days appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Deliverance From This Crooked Generation

And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation” (Acts 2:40).

We do well to remember the summation of Peter’s message, to save ourselves from this crooked generation, and apply it to our exhortation and the practice of the faith.

Among our people we have a tendency and temptation to become very fixated on doctrine and doctrinal disputation. Doctrine is certainly important and it has its place; nevertheless, it’s not 1840 anymore. We don’t live in a country that is mostly filled with decently read evangelical Protestants; we do not have the luxury of just sitting around and arguing the finer parts of doctrine. Likewise, we cannot continue to labor under the delusion that most people know what they should be doing and therefore we can just gloss over matters of morality and Christian practice.

Probably the fastest religion growing in America is “no” religion. Biblical literacy is even more dismal: many adults who went to “Sunday school” in their childhood do not even know many of the basics of the Bible, let alone the large and growing number of entirely “unchurched” people out there.

Peter’s message must be heard today. We must strive to exhort people to be saved from this crooked and perverted generation.

We need to exhort in the pulpit to the pews the need to save ourselves from this crooked and perverted generation. We have no hope of bringing people to the light of Christ if our assemblies have the hint of darkness. We easily get caught up in the Enlightenment paradigm of knowledge as power, as if as long as one knows one will automatically do. According to such a view we can gloss over the practice of the Christian faith; we can spend our time in the assembly talking either about more whimsical things or about purely theoretical matters. There are times for light-heartedness, and there are times for theoretical matters, but we cannot neglect the matters of Christian moral practice. Consider the New Testament letters, brethren: Paul, writing to Christians, constantly exhorted them to remain pure from the world, to not engage in the works of the flesh but strive for the fruit of the Spirit (cf. Galatians 5:19-23, Romans 12:1-2). We find such exhortation in every letter, because while knowledge is important, it is not sufficient in and of itself to guarantee practice of the faith: in fact, we struggle with doing precisely because we know, and all because of sin (Romans 7:1-25, Hebrews 5:12-14).

It is distressing when good and faithful brethren testify that they have not heard sermons on various matters of the practice of the faith. Perhaps they heard and did not remember; yet none have said such things about sermons regarding matters of doctrinal distinctives. Are we so confident that everyone is doing what they need to be doing so much that we are not even willing to act as if we’re reminding our brethren about these things? The Apostles were not that confident!

It is often difficult to preach on the practice of the faith, but it must be done. The assembly is there as the refreshing station, the time we take out of our week when we hold off on the battles we fight against the temptations out in the world to encourage one another and to be encouraged ourselves (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:24-25). What, should we never talk about how to wage the battle out in the world when we are together? Is that really going to help people in their quest to fight the good fight and endure (Ephesians 6:10-18)? The time that we come together should be a time to recoup, a time to consider our fighting and our battle plans and spur one another on to keep going and keep doing better, and to provide the necessary equipment and reinforcement to fight the battle. In physical war every soldier must return to base to be briefed again, to re-arm, and to get reinforcements. In our spiritual war, do we make our assemblies to fit that need? Or do we just spend the time in our obtuseness, patting ourselves on the back continually because we’ve got it all figured out on the theoretical end? We’re losing the battle on too many fronts, brethren, because we’re not properly reinforcing one another and not having the camaraderie that leads to a close-knit community. It is only when people get involved spiritually, both with one another and in the assembly, that they are truly getting the assistance they need to fight the good fight. I am well aware that there are many who refuse to involve themselves so, and it should not surprise us when we see them lagging in the fight and being the weak. In the end, all we can do is the best we can: and for those who preach and teach, consider the profitability of what is being preached and taught and whether it is truly keeping the saints armed and ready for the struggle.

We also must recognize that while the assembly is important it is not the sum of Christian service. Many recognize this in theory, yet deny it in word and deed. “Faithful Christian” is too often equated with “Christian always at least warming the pew”. “Forsaking the assembly” is the “go-to” sin when discussing transgression. Forsaking the assembly represents a problem, but is the symptom of a greater difficulty. We do better to deal with the underlying problem than to blast the symptom while ignoring the problem.

Why are Christians bored with Christianity? Why do we lose young people? There are many reasons, to be sure, yet is not one of them the reduction of Christian practice to assembling with the saints up to three times a week? In churches of Christ we have a better percentage of attendance than those in the denominations. But has that really led to people being saved, obeying Christ in all things as they ought?

If you want a church full of people there every service because they feel obligated to, accept theoretically what is said but do little about it, and feel complacent, well, you can continue to focus on “the issues” and keep going as always. Continue that trend long enough and see how many doors get permanently closed within a generation and a half. We need to return to the Bible and emphasize what Jesus and the Apostles emphasized. The assembly is a part of our life of service to God. It is the easiest part, the refreshing part, the time when we get to encourage one another. The assembly is our great joy so that we can accomplish the great work: to not conform to the world, but be transformed in Jesus, and reflect Jesus to a sin-sick and dying world. That’s the challenging and exciting part, and we have often steamrolled over it in order to “preserve” the assembly. Furthermore, time together in the assembly is important for the development of community among the people of God, but it is not sufficient in and of itself to foster strong community. It is when we spend time together outside of the assembly that we learn about each other and are better equipped to strengthen one another (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28). How much more encouraged will your brethren be if you are constantly with them, constantly engaged with them, and making them constantly feel a part of the community?

Along with spreading the message inside the assembly, every one of us needs to be out spreading Peter’s message to the world: save yourselves from this crooked and perverted generation! This message is going to force us to reconsider our assumptions and preconceived notions about the way people are in America. Let’s face the facts:

1. Most are nominally Christian only.
2. Most cannot tell you the basics of the Biblical narrative.
3. Most people think that it’s good enough to just be a “good person”.
4. Many people are skeptical about organized religion based not in substantive ground but preconceived notions they have gained from their own limited experience and the general cultural idea of Christianity.
5. Most people have barely ever picked up a Bible.
6. When most people think of Christianity, they think of the odd but prevalent synthesis society holds: a bit of Catholic practice and hierarchy plus Puritanical concepts of sex and sin and hell with a bit of Evangelical conceptualization of America as God’s Chosen Land and Americans as God’s Chosen People, along with “once saved, always saved,” and increasingly the idea of a megachurch with its entertainment-called-worship.

We have to act as if people know nothing about God and the Bible and we have to go out and give them reasons to listen. We must meet people where they are so that we can save some (1 Corinthians 9:19-23). Such need not sacrifice the Gospel on the altar of relevance; it instead demands for us to stop presuming that everyone should automatically understand things as we understand them, to stop and listen and find ways to communicate the message of Jesus to them where they are.

We have a type of “prophetic” burden, to speak the message of God revealed in Jesus to 21st century Americans. This is not new revelation (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8-10); it is making what God has revealed connect with the lives of people today. Prophets did not just sit around and write various messages so that people 400-700 years later would know that Jesus was the Christ. While predicting various aspects of the future and heralding the coming King was certainly one aspect of prophecy, most prophecy featured God sending a message to the people via a prophet, and that message is normally the need to repent and why. Prophets of old were the critical link between God and the people, informing the people when they had strayed, how they had strayed, and how to return.

To this day we can read the prophets and see just how relevant their message is even today. Consider, for example, what Hosea said and think for yourselves how applicable it is today.

Hear the word of YHWH, ye children of Israel: for YHWH hath a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of God in the land. There is nought but swearing and breaking faith, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery; they break out, and blood toucheth blood (Hosea 4:1-2).

My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I also will forget thy children. As they were multiplied, so they sinned against me: I will change their glory into shame. They feed on the sin of my people, and set their heart on their iniquity (Hosea 4:6-8).

O Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? O Judah, what shall I do unto thee? for your goodness is as a morning cloud, and as the dew that goeth early away. Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain them by the words of my mouth: and thy judgments are as the light that goeth forth. For I desire mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings (Hosea 6:4-6)

Woe unto them! for they have wandered from me; destruction unto them! for they have trespassed against me: though I would redeem them, yet they have spoken lies against me. And they have not cried unto me with their heart, but they howl upon their beds: they assemble themselves for corn and wine, they rebel against me. Though I have taught and strengthened their arms, yet do they imagine mischief against me (Hosea 7:13-15).

Change a few of the details and you have a ready-made lesson to modern man, for the same ills plaguing Israel of old plague America today.

Let none be deceived: we do not receive direct messages from God in the way Hosea did. But we still have the same type of prophetic burden as Hosea did: the burden of delivering God’s message to the people (Matthew 28:18-20, Romans 1:16). Do not be concerned that God has not specifically called you and given you a specific message, for you have eyes and ears. You can see what is said in the Scriptures and understand God’s message, and you can hear what is said in society and what is advocated in society and therefore proclaim how it is that people can save themselves from this perverted and crooked generation. The people have no knowledge of God; go out and tell them about God. The people are engaging in lawlessness; go out and rebuke the lawlessness. The people have forgotten their God; go and remind them. Yes, your reward might be similar to the persecution of the prophets, yet we must trust that we will obtain the prophet’s reward (Luke 6:22-23, 26). If not you, who will? Paul felt the burden of preaching so acutely that he cried, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!” (1 Corinthians 9:16); would that we would feel that burden so acutely!

The time is now. Souls need saving. Doctrine is well and good, and ought to be preached and reinforced, yet we must always keep in mind what is truly important. Let us not get complacent and think that everyone in the pews has it all figured out and knows exactly what to do; most do not. Let us not think that people of the world are entirely hostile to Christ; by in large they do not know enough to be hostile to Him. Teach your fellow man, not just by word, but in practice. Sure, your light might blind him so as to cause him to wish to return to the darkness, and there is no helping that situation; and yet your light can also attract such a one, and lead to that soul’s salvation.

Do you feel as if your congregation is dying, old, and tired? Get up, proclaim the Gospel, bring souls to Jesus, and the vitality will return. Get up and encourage your brethren, both within and without the assembly, and the vitality will return. Encourage people to have the proper perspective of the place of the assembly within the context of the Christian life, and the vitality will return.

We can speak in terms of doomsday or we can speak in terms of a renaissance of the church. The result will be on the basis of whether we accept the call to which we have been summoned. May we be delivered from this crooked generation in Christ, and proclaim His life in word and deed!

“Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:19-20).

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Deliverance From This Crooked Generation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Keeping the Commandments | 1 John 5:1-5

Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is begotten of God: and whosoever loveth him that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him. Hereby we know that we love the children of God, when we love God and do his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous. For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith. And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God? (1 John 5:1-5).

The Apostle John is writing to the Christians of his time in an attempt to strengthen them in their faith, comforting them regarding their relationships with God while warning them about the dangers of false teaching and disobedience throughout the first four chapters of the letter of 1 John. The fourth chapter concluded with a long treatise regarding love, God, and the need to love one another (1 John 4:7-21).

John continues these same themes as he begins what we deem the beginning of chapter five. In reality, the message of the beginning of chapter five is consistent with the message of chapter four. Love is prominently featured in 1 John 5:1-5, as is the strong importance of faith for the victory that can be obtained only through Jesus Christ.

John begins this section with the declaration that those who believe in Jesus Christ are born of God, and those who are born of God love all who have been born of God (1 John 5:1). This is an important statement in its own right, but, in context, it also reinforces what came before: if one truly loves God, one will love his brother (1 John 4:20-21). Therefore, it stands to reason that if someone is not loving one who is born of God, such a one really does not love the Father!

Jesus has told us in John 3:1-8 about the second birth and how one is “born of the Spirit”: baptism, with the belief, confession, and repentance it implies. As with many other statements by John, we should not make 1 John 5:1 into something it was not meant to be. John is not declaring that anyone who professes Jesus is born of God– far from it (Matthew 7:21-23). Instead, those who are “born again” and converted can be considered “born of God.”

Nevertheless, John’s statement and its implications are going to give the reader pause. John anticipates the reader’s question and goes on to answer it in 1 John 5:2-3. How can a believer know whether he really does love the children of God, and thus, are born of God? By loving God and obeying His commandments, for the love of God is to do His commandments that are not burdensome.

How strongly the message of John contradicts much of what passes for theology these days! Many for years have spoken of cheap salvation in which the believer just needs to “only believe” and they will be saved. And yet John’s consistent testimony is that believers must obey the commandments of God (cf. 1 John 2:3-6). Paul has a similar message in Romans 6:16-23. We demonstrate that we have come to know God, love the people of God, and love God when we obey His commandments. If we do not strive to be obedient, we ought to have no confidence that we are His!

Those who are born of God will love God and keep His commandments, and they will overcome the world. By overcoming the world, they obtain victory, and John identifies that it is by their faith that they obtain this victory (1 John 5:4). He then asks a rhetorical question designed for us to understand who is able to overcome the world: those who believe that Jesus is the son of God (1 John 5:5).

While this does return us nicely to the same theme that began the chapter, the message is more profound than that. The theme of victory and conquering looms large in John’s writing (cf. John 16:33, Revelation 2-3, 12:11, 17:14). Paul speaks of the believer’s victory in Jesus through the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:55-58).

Believers are not called to conform to the world, attempt to sidestep the world, or to be defeated by the world. Instead, believers are called to be victorious. Their victory is not by guns or swords or even words but by faith. They trust that Jesus is the Son of God, and that no matter how dismal it may look, He remains in control. We may not be able to vanquish all of our foes, but we can overcome them through our faith. Let us do so!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Keeping the Commandments | 1 John 5:1-5 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Yoked to the Religious Right?

Be not unequally yoked with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? or what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what portion hath a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement hath a temple of God with idols? for we are a temple of the living God; even as God said,
“I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, And touch no unclean thing; And I will receive you, And will be to you a Father, And ye shall be to me sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty” (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

And Jehoshaphat the king of Judah returned to his house in peace to Jerusalem. And Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him, and said to king Jehoshaphat,
“Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate YHWH? for this thing wrath is upon thee from before YHWH. Nevertheless there are good things found in thee, in that thou hast put away the Asheroth out of the land, and hast set thy heart to seek God” (2 Chronicles 19:1-3).

It has been said that the two subjects that you do not bring up in polite conversation are religion and politics. I suppose that makes any discussion of politics in religion doubly difficult. On the other hand, a trend has developed among some brethren over the past fifteen to twenty years which is concerning.

Around 1979 a major political force burst on the scene: the “Religious Right”, or the “Moral Majority”. This is a movement that is predominantly Evangelical, and desired to give a voice and a political bloc for a large group of fundamentalist Evangelicals.

Among the Lord’s people, a healthy ambivalence and desire for avoidance was promoted during the first years of this trend. Many then warned about allying with such persons with whom we have so much doctrinal disagreement. That was before 1990. Since then, many among the brethren have entirely bought into the concept of the Religious Right, including their tactics and worldview.

This, brethren, is concerning: less about politics, and much more about spirituality and Christianity. The issue is not the particular political stances, but buying into this manifestation of Evangelical thought and reasoning, much of which is simply not Biblical. When one aligns oneself to the Religious Right, to what is one yoked?

Many in Evangelicalism have fully bought into the myth of the “Christian nation”. In the past twenty-five to fifty years, a particular view of the origins of this country have been promulgated that thinly veil the idealization of America as a “Christian nation.” When one considers the hermeneutics prevalent among Evangelicals, the concept makes sense. Oftentimes Evangelicals will apply Old Testament concepts into the new covenant without any consideration as to difference in context; likewise, since the concept of distance between text and believer is abhorrent to fundamentalism, any passage is understood as being spoken to us now. What I mean by this may be exemplified by a sign I saw in front of an Evangelical church in Rockford; the sign read, “Possessing this land for the Lord”, and it went on to quote a verse in Deuteronomy. When the language of the Old Testament involving Israel the physical nation is transferred to the modern day without critical analysis, we get the common conception of America as the new Israel. This view is then projected into the past, and the American Revolution and the founding of America functions like Israel’s exodus and conquest, and all the concepts of God blessing His people and so on and so forth is projected upon America itself.

Consider the following:

“America’s uniqueness is in the Christian consensus of the Founding Fathers, who penned documents guaranteeing religious and personal freedom for all. This nation was not founded by atheists, secularizers, or monarchists who thought the elite educated class should rule over the common people. America’s founding was based more on biblical principles than any other nation’s on Earth– and that’s the reason this country has been more blessed by God than any other nation in history” (Tim LaHaye, “The American Idea: Godless Society”, The Atlantic Monthly, November 2007, 44-45).

This is an exceedingly dangerous view for many reasons. First of all, it revises American history to suit the Evangelical agenda. The Founding Fathers have been ripped apart in the modern argument about their religiosity or lack thereof, and quotes are supplied by both sides to justify their positions. In the end, the truth is in the middle. Yes, most people were at least professing Christians in the late eighteenth century. On the other hand, America was not established in a “Christian consensus.” It was founded by some “secularizers”, Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin included. French Enlightenment principles were as prominent, if not more so, than Biblical principles.

Regardless, the main problem is the projection of Israel upon America. That LaHaye sees things in terms of physical kingdoms is not surprising, but we recognize that God’s Kingdom now is spiritual, not physical (John 18:36, Colossians 1:13, Philippians 3:20). America is not Israel: we today are under a different covenant with better promises, and that is extremely good, because otherwise America and its people would in no way be inheritors of any promise!

What is most dangerous about this viewpoint is that it requires the presupposition that America was this Christian country that has been overrun by secularists and other religions. All this indicates is that the prevalence of “Christianity” as seen in the periods of 1650-1700 and 1790-1860 were deceptive: they were the exception, not the rule. Before the second Great Awakening (the latter timeframe mentioned above), most of the frontier was all but “godless”, and it looked that the secular goals of the Enlightenment would be achieved in America. The same situation was true earlier in the seventeenth century. When one sees the reality of history from the first century to the present, any large proportion of fully practicing “Christian” persons is the exception, not the rule. America did not all of a sudden “turn secular”; America had some phases of professed religiosity and then returned to the status quo.

Should this surprise us? Absolutely not, if we believe that Matthew 7:13-14 is true. How can we cling to such a view of history, if we indeed believe that denominationalism is not true Christianity?

In the end, does LaHaye has the right to say that “God has blessed America because it was founded on biblical principles”? We have no idea why God has blessed America. We would mock and laugh if A. Romanus Christianus stood up in the second century in Rome and said, “God has blessed Rome with peace because it was founded by God.” We realize that Rome was blessed because it served God’s purposes, providing the infrastructure to promote His Gospel and to have vengeance on the Jews. Why did God bless Assyria? Why did God bless Babylon?

Sure, we all know that all those empires were really godless and did wicked things and were full of wicked people. This is all true: this is why all those empires fell. But guess what? We have a lot of godlessness around here, and that didn’t start 25 years ago. America has done many wicked things throughout its history, and has acted in godless ways far too often.

If America fell tomorrow, or in a decade, or in a few decades, what is left of LaHaye’s statement? If, say, China rises to prominence, will we then turn and say that God is blessing them because of how “biblical” they are?

In a time of God’s spiritual Kingdom, arguing any reason why God blesses or does not bless a physical nation is tendentious indeed. In the end, if America is as Israel, it’s for all the wrong reasons: a majority who conform to everyone else, following a perverted form of true religion, with a small minority remnant following God. America is not a Christian nation, never has been, never will be: at best, America is a land with many Christians, but the very idea of a “Christian nation” should be abhorrent. If Jesus would not establish one, why should we?

And then there’s the Dispensational Premillennialism inherent in much of Evangelicalism. The Religious Right’s view of foreign policy (and, it can be argued, environmentalism) flows directly from the premillennial presuppositions of its majority. If you believe that the Antichrist must desecrate the Jewish Temple so that Jesus can return, guess what you’re going to think about Israel?

Good, principled arguments can be made for both sides on the issue of how much America should support Israel. What is indisputable, however, is that we have allowed, justified, or tolerated innumerable evils committed by Israel for various reasons, and the Arab world is inherently suspicious of us and stands against us on account of our unwavering support of Israel. Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II: all have been directly influenced to support Israel on the basis of premillennial belief. If it were not for the prevalence of dispensational premillennialism in this country, our relationship with Israel would most likely not be as it is. This embracing of Israel is at least partly responsible for the prevalence of terrorism and the fueling of terrorism against us by factions of the Islamic world.

Likewise, the view that Jesus will take us out of this world really soon has led many to treat the environment in irresponsible ways: after all, if it’s about to get thrown out anyway, why bother worrying about how we treat it? This does not sound like responsible stewardship and self-control to me.

Eschatology matters; how can we be yoked to persons who advocate such beliefs?

There is also the entire premise of legislating morality. This is the one aspect that should cause some cognitive dissonance in the Religious Right: if America was so clearly founded on biblical principles, why did the Founding Fathers not legislate, say, the ten commandments? Or some other such moral code from the Bible? Why do the Constitution and Bill of Rights enshrine liberties and rights, not bothering to legislate morality?

The reason is that the Founding Fathers realized that the legislation of morality turns the government into a “parent state”. The more legislation enacted by a government, the more pervasive (and tyrannical) that government becomes. There were plenty of examples of governments legislating morality: they were the old monarchies of Europe, the very thing that Americans were trying to avoid.

No, the Founding Fathers recognized one essential trait of mankind: you cannot force anyone to do anything. They established their structure of government to preserve and enshrine freedom, and hoped that the people would follow a moral code independent of government legislation.

This concept of government is actually extremely advanced and mature. It is always easier for a government to declare martial law or a “police state”, and strictly legislate the conduct of its constituents. America is founded, if anything, on the principle of trust: America treats us like adults, expecting us to monitor and police our own conduct.

Yet the Religious Right, paradoxically, is about lessening the government’s role in social programs while heightening the role of government in terms of personal conduct. This goes back to the concept of America as the Christian nation: even though it might not be necessary before, it is now necessary to legislate Christian perspective.

This is one step away from theocracy, and it ought to be distressing on many levels. First of all, who says that the Religious Right will stop with mere “morality”? Remember: Evangelicals do not always take to us “water rats” too kindly.

But what of Proverbs 14:34 and “righteousness exalts a nation”? The statement is absolutely true, but it has never been fully realized. It was spoken by an idolater in the midst of an idolatrous nation. Israel was rarely “righteous”. Assyria, Babylon, Rome, France, England, America: none “righteous”. In the end, people are righteous or unrighteous, and that will be chosen by those people, regardless of what “laws” are on the books.

What is legislation of morality really trying to accomplish? A salve to make us all feel better? How can we feel better if, say, abortion is made illegal but drinking is still lawful? Let us say that the Religious Right actually gets what it wants: abortion is made illegal across the board. What happens then? Since “we have won,” do we believe that the problem “goes away”? Never mind that abortions will still go on, even if “illegal,” and plenty of young women and young couples are left in dire straits and will require compassion and mercy. They would become even more marginalized and forgotten!

Abortion is wrong; sin is a problem in this country. But is it really God’s end goal in Christ for a country to declare it illegal and use the force of the nation-state to enforce its prohibition? If one is going to be in rebellion against God by committing that which is lawless in His sight, one is not automatically going to give pause because man’s government says it’s wrong. Furthermore, is this not putting more faith in government than God, expecting legislation to cure moral ills? And this is all the more manifestly agenda driven when there remains comparative silence about prosecuting sexual abuse and other sins which white American males in conservative Christendom might be more liable to have committed.

The only recourse is obedience to God: the promotion of the Gospel (Romans 1:16, 10:3-11). Consider again Romans 1:18-32. What is the source of man’s depravity? The rejection of God (Romans 1:18-23)! From this the depravity continues. When man becomes convinced that he mutated from sludge and is the highest intelligence in the universe, why should we who know better trust in man’s legislation to compel such ones to be “moral”? To respect God’s law requires respecting God. To live a truly moral life requires a healthy understanding of authority and the power of authority, and without a recognition of God, such cannot exist. The solution to the problem is the Gospel, not legislation.

The New Testament provides a picture of Christians united under the Gospel of Christ as part of His spiritual Kingdom, proclaiming to all who will listen that Jesus is both Lord and Christ. When Christians came before authorities, they testified of Jesus. Their obsession was the promulgation of God’s Kingdom, not man’s.

The Religious Right has corrupted this message, projecting old covenant concepts of an elect nation upon a nation that does not deserve the title. They now protest everything, indicating that they are “losing” their battle to “retake” America. When you see what the Religious Right is about and what they are doing, and you see what Christians in the New Testament are about and what they were doing, the contrast could not be more clear.

Consider again 2 Corinthians 6:14-18. How can we be yoked to such persons when we are to have such different views? What concord can we have when we understand the end of time so differently? What portion can a spiritual Kingdom have with a physical nation?

In 2 Chronicles 19:1-3 God loved Jehoshaphat, and Jehoshaphat did many things pleasing to God, but when he went out in alliance with Ahab against Aram, the prophet Jehu comes and asks him, “Shouldest thou help the wicked, and love them that hate YHWH?” He says this about an Israelite, Ahab, who would profess to be a worshiper of YHWH and part of God’s elect. Sure, Aram represented a nation that was hostile to both Israel and Judah; after all, according to worldly wisdom, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. In spiritual terms, however, this is not the case. The enemy of my enemy may still be my enemy because we are not on the same path.

This is not about a particular political platform; one can hold to “conservative” political opinions about many matters without being infatuated with the Religious Right. But we must be careful lest we begin speaking the “language of Ashdod” and find ourselves compromised because we aligned too closely with people with whom we maintain strong disagreements. Our fealty is always first to Christ, and we must never allow some superficial similarities on certain matters to cloud the very substantive differences underneath.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Yoked to the Religious Right? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Slippery Slope

As human beings we seek to understand our world through the perception of our senses and the exercise of our faculties of reason. We like to imagine ourselves as neutral, objective arbiters of what we perceive and in how we reason. And yet we are all finite, limited, and biased to some degree or another; furthermore, as Christians, we must confess how we have all been subjected to sin and death and the corruption present in the creation (Romans 5:12-21, 8:18-22). Thus, not everything we think we perceive is accurate; not all of our thoughts, feelings, and actions are based on well-reasoned principles. Humans prove liable to fallacies: mistaken beliefs which often themselves derive from application of deficient forms of reasoning.

Some fallacies can all too easily become staples of argument and rhetoric to the point of rarely being questioned. Among us, no type of fallacy would embody this tendency more than the slippery slope.

The “slippery slope” can be understood in terms of either arguments or events. A slippery slope event presumes a type of “domino effect”: if an event takes place, further events take place as necessary and unavoidable consequences of that event; such is why it is also called the “domino fallacy.” The fallacy in this conclusion involves its determinism: assuming these events which happen in sequence must be caused by all previous decisions, as if those acting in-between had all but lost their moral agency.

A slippery slope argument represents the rhetorical attempt to argue against a given proposition by insisting its acceptance would then demand accepting a further, more unacceptable position. Such slippery slopes can be framed in either conceptual or practical terms. A conceptual slippery slope involves presuming accepting a given idea or reason would then necessitate all presumably consequent ideas or reasons, commonly exemplified by Sextus Empiricus’ outrageous “justification” of incest: he argued if it is not immoral to touch your mother’s big toe with one’s little finger, then the rest would differ only by degree. The practical slippery slope presumes if one decides on a given course of action, there would be no rational basis on which to reject or avoid taking what is presumed as the next step in the imagined course of action which leads to what is imagined to be an undesirable result.

Many might well take offense at characterizing the “slippery slope” as a fallacy. They might point to situations in which people did accept a given proposition, or took a given course of action, and those same people eventually ended up going even farther and ended up accepting or doing the kinds of things regarding which they were warned.

Certainly, part of the appeal of the slippery slope fallacy is its explanatory power and the ability to point to some instances in which people did ultimately find themselves in a very different place than they had imagined when they started. Nevertheless, we must remember the plural of “anecdote” is not “data.” The fallacy of the slippery slope argument is in its insistence that the contemptible or unpleasant end results necessarily follow once the original idea or practice is accepted or fulfilled. In this way, the slippery slope fallacy represents a kind of Calvinism in the decision-making process: once a given idea or action is believed or accomplished, such persons are now predestined to end up accepting or doing contemptible or unpleasant ideas or practices.

Among those in what are deemed non-institutional churches of Christ, arguments against using the collective financial resources of the congregation to support various institutions were often reinforced by appeals to the slippery slope: once they would start supporting orphan’s homes, it was alleged, they would then begin to support other things, and then there would be no end to the kind of “liberal thinking” such people might accept. This “slippery slope” approach can then find its “vindication” by appealing to churches which did begin supporting other things once they started supporting orphan’s homes, and some of those groups have since embraced many other ideas and practices which we believe do not represent God’s purposes as made known in Jesus.

But did it necessarily follow that said Christians and churches would invariably end up supporting all these other things? Counterexamples remain legion but are ignored on account of confirmation bias: there remain plenty of Christians and churches who believe they can support various institutions with the collective financial resources of the congregation who have not accepted other ideas or practices which we believe do not represent God’s purposes and made known in Jesus. Furthermore, if we are willing to see it, there are some more “conservative” than we who have used similar “slippery slope” logic to condemn us: for them the first step in such apostatizing was maintaining multiple loaves and cups in the Lord’s Supper, or maintaining Bible classes divided by age or interest!

Likewise, another challenge of slippery slope arguments involves a failure of imagination. A slippery slope argument imagines accepting a given idea or practice will necessarily lead to accepting a specific set of ideas or practices. But are there not other possibilities which might attend to accepting those ideas or practices? And could one also not construe a “slippery slope” about continuing to deny the legitimacy of the idea or practice against which the argument is made? For instance, some within non-institutional churches of Christ have gone beyond in their denial of the use of collective financial resources to support various institutions and deny that Christians should jointly participate in any kind of collective work above and beyond the local congregation. Does the fact that some have thus behaved demand that all who would agree with the original premise are doomed to condemn all joint participation among fellow believers independent of a local congregation?

Slippery slope arguments do not appeal to reason; they represent a subtle, or often less than subtle, form of fearmongering. Slippery slope arguments do not give sufficient credit, or accountability, to people in their use of moral reasoning. By portraying accepting a given proposition as necessarily requiring a series of thoughts or actions leading to an unpleasant destination, those advancing slippery slope arguments both infantilize those with whom they disagree while also discrediting what might well represent their legitimate concerns with accepting a given idea or practice. The slippery slope argument is refuted the moment anyone accepts the idea or practice without going any farther; valid concerns raised are then easily thrown out the window in endorsing the idea or practice.

In God in Christ through the Spirit, truth is not determined by what we fallaciously imagine must be the inevitable conclusion. Truth, likewise, is not determined by means of rejecting whatever those with whom we disagree accept, or by accepting whatever those with whom we disagree reject. Perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18): we will not stumble upon the truth by crouching into a position based on the fear of possible consequences or results. Yes, there will be times when people will accept a given idea or practice as acceptable, and in so doing they will open themselves up to ideas or practices which we believe are unacceptable. Many times, they will then accept those unacceptable ideas or practices. But there will be other times in which at least some will reject those unacceptable ideas or practices. At the same time, those who argue against the original idea or practice might find themselves accepting other conclusions based on that idea or practice which also proves unpalatable! Our standard must never be what we imagine must happen if we accept a given idea or practice as true; our standard must always be to ascertain whether a given idea or practice is consistent with what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit, and whether they will lead us closer or farther away from God and His purposes. Let us be wary of any and all appeals to the slippery slope, and firmly anchor ourselves in God in Christ through the Spirit, thus obtaining the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Slippery Slope (accessed 2024-01-31).

The post The Slippery Slope appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Treatise on Love Concludes | 1 John 4:17-21

Herein is love made perfect with us, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as he is, even so are we in this world. There is no fear in love: but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath punishment; and he that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love, because he first loved us. If a man say, “I love God,” and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen. And this commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also (1 John 4:17-21).

Perhaps one of the most popular and justly famous passages of Scripture is 1 John 4:7-21, the Apostle John’s grand treatise on love. We have previously considered 1 John 4:7-16 and have seen how God is love and has manifested love through the sacrifice of His Son, and those who love are the ones who confess Jesus as the Christ, abide in God, and God in them. Even though we have not seen God, when we love, God is present with us and has given us of His Spirit.

John continues his discussion in 1 John 4:17-18 by establishing that love is made perfect, or complete, within us, so that we have boldness on the day of Judgment, for as God is, we are in the world, and that there can be no fear in love, for this completed love casts out fear. Fear leads to punishment, and those who fear cannot be perfected in love.

John touches upon a significant theme in the Bible: man’s need to not fear. Indeed, God commands people to not fear 365 times in the Bible, making it the most often given command in Scripture. It is evident that fear is a major difficulty for people: fear of rejection, fear of pain, fear of isolation, fear of censure, and so on and so forth. Our failure to do right is most often due to some fear, and much of what is deemed sin stems from some kind of fear. Whereas fear compels people to build barriers, love leads to compassion and understanding (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8, Ephesians 2:11-18). Fear leads to trepidation, but love allows one to live and act with boldness (cf. 1 John 4:17).

The Christian, therefore, is encouraged to live in confidence before God: not arrogance or smugness, nor with a sense of entitlement, but because they are seeking to serve God and are in association with Him (Galatians 6:1-3, 1 John 1:5-9). Christians can approach the throne of God with boldness (Hebrews 4:16), and if we are active in our service to God, there is no reason to fear the day of Judgment (cf. Matthew 25:1-13). This does not mean that we should not revere or “fear” God in that way, for we must always show God proper respect (cf. 1 Peter 2:17). Instead, if we love as God is love, we indicate that we are like God in that respect, and fear will not dominate our existence!

John concludes his treatise on love by indicating the source of love: we love because God loved us (1 John 4:19). Those who say that they love God but do not love their brother are liars, for those who cannot love their brother whom they see cannot love God whom they have not seen (1 John 4:20). Therefore, whoever loves God must also love his or her brother (1 John 4:21).

In 1 John 4:10 John indicated that love is not that we have loved God but that He loves us, and verse 19 confirms this thought. God is love, and if God did not want to associate with us, we would not be able to love, for we could not be of God (cf. 1 John 4:7). John says this, at least to an extent, to preface the final thought, addressing those who are confident in their love of God but yet do not reflect that love to their fellow man. As God is the Source of life and all the blessings thereof, we should seek to reflect God and thus to show love!

In 1 John 4:12, John says that no man has ever seen God. He returns to this idea as he concludes the treatise on love to make a most compelling point regarding love. Loving God seems to be an easy thing; after all, God is love (1 John 4:8), God loves us (1 John 4:10), and has given us most precious gifts (1 John 4:9; cf. Ephesians 1:3). As Jesus says, even terrible sinners love those who love them; therefore, for man to love God for all that God has done for him is easy (cf. Matthew 5:46).

But the love that God shows is for everyone, for those who love Him as well as those who reject Him and despise His name (cf. Matthew 5:44-48). He shows His love in that He loved us while we were sinners (Romans 5:5-11). He loves all the people of the world, our neighbors (cf. Luke 10:25-37), and desires for them all to come to repentance (1 Timothy 2:4). Therefore, we must love our neighbor if we really love God, and that is far more difficult, since our neighbor may not like us and may attempt to harm us.

Yet we can see our neighbor. We live with him on a daily basis. If we cannot have love in our hearts for him, how can we love the God we cannot see with our eyes? It is good for us to love our neighbor, for in the end, God is love, has demonstrated His love to the righteous and the sinful through His Son, and calls upon us to reflect His love. Let us love one another!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Treatise on Love Concludes | 1 John 4:17-21 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Sweet Light of Life

Light is sweet, and it is pleasant for a person to see the sun. So, if a man lives many years, let him rejoice in them all, but let him remember that the days of darkness will be many – all that is about to come is obscure. Rejoice, young man, while you are young, and let your heart cheer you in the days of your youth. Follow the impulses of your heart and the desires of your eyes, but know that God will judge your motives and actions. Banish emotional stress from your mind. and put away pain from your body; for youth and the prime of life are fleeting (Ecclesiastes 11:7-10).

Life under the sun will not endure forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-11:6 the Preacher meditated upon the hevel of life under the sun: all is vain, futile – truly absurd. He compares most human endeavors toward meaning as “chasing after wind”: people pursue pleasure, wealth, wisdom, or other things looking for ultimate purpose and satisfaction and will be disappointed and frustrated by all of them. To rage against such truths is itself futile and striving after wind. God understands better than we do, and His work and ways are inscrutable to us.

The Preacher began to conclude his discourse in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10, and in so doing more of his intentions with his meditations become apparent.

The Preacher commended enjoying life: he commended light as sweet, the latter term often used in association with honey, perhaps suggesting savoring the experience of life in light; he commended the experience of seeing the sun (Ecclesiastes 11:7). We should not imagine the Preacher is recommending looking at the sun and thus going blind; instead, he evokes the experience of being outside on a sunny day. Have you ever stood outside on a sunny day and felt more energized, vitalized, and alive? Such is what the Preacher commends.

Since life should thus be enjoyed, the Preacher further commended rejoicing in the years one is able to live (Ecclesiastes 11:8). The Preacher specifically called out those who are able to live for many years; as people get older, they have a tendency to focus on the challenges and problems which attend to life, and it is a good to be reminded how life remains a gift which is to be enjoyed. Soon enough the Preacher will present his observations on the aging process (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:1-8). While people should enjoy life, they also do well to remember the days of darkness which will soon come will be many, and all which is about to take place is hevel (Ecclesiastes 11:8). While hevel has been often translated as “futile” or “absurd,” the Preacher’s nuance here is well captured by the NET with “obscure”: none of us really knows what we will experience in these “days of darkness” to come. Some wish to consider the “days of darkness” as perhaps including the experience of aging; while some of the Preacher’s illustrations to come in Ecclesiastes 12:1-8 might commend this characterization, it nevertheless stands against what the Preacher has just said about life and the contrast being evoked. The “days of darkness” are those in which there is no ability to experience the light of the sun and the light of life; they represent the time after death.

The Preacher then provided specific counsel to the young: rejoice, let your heart cheer you, set aside physical and emotional pain, since youth and the prime of life do not last very long (Ecclesiastes 11:9-10). He encouraged the youth to pursue their desires while reminding them God would judge them for how they thought, felt, and behaved (Ecclesiastes 11:9).

Is the Preacher commending some kind of hedonism? Does he stand at variance with the wisdom tradition in general, and especially that which has been preserved in Proverbs? By no means. The Preacher warned about the judgment of God; Solomon in Proverbs commends finding joy and pleasure in life (cf. Proverbs 10:24, 11:23, 13:19, 17:22). If anything, hedonism would work against truly enjoying and valuing the experience of youth: a lot of foolishness goes along with hedonistic experiences, and the consequences of such foolish behaviors work against joy.

Instead, the Preacher provides appropriate encouragement to young people to enjoy their youth. Just like it can be difficult for older people to remember the joy and pleasure of life, young people tend to take the experience of youth for granted. This tendency is understandable: most young people have no experience regarding what it is like to go through the challenges, limitations, and weaknesses which generally attend to older age. We do not truly appreciate how well our bodies are able to function until we experience the loss or complications of those functions. Furthermore, while in our youth we are convinced we are very busy, tired, and have many reasons for anxiety, in truth our burdens and difficulties multiply with greater significance in age. As we get older we often wish we could return to what we thought was being “busy,” “tired,” and “anxious” when we were younger!

In this spirit the Preacher encouraged young people to “follow their dreams,” as we would put it. As we get older, we have a tendency to look down patronizingly at what we often call the “idiocy” of youth; we can point to a lack of full brain development and maturity to explain all sorts of foolish and stupid things we thought or did when we were younger. Certainly, almost all of us can look back and think of some things we thought, felt, or did when we were younger that we now regret to some degree or another. It does seem unfair how we are called upon to make some of the most significant decisions of our lives when we are least equipped to make them. And yet we do well to sit in and reflect upon how and why God would have made us this way. We can look at our youthful impetus in negative terms negatively as reflecting a lack of full brain development and maturity, or we can look at our youthful impetus and energy positively as not being weighed down and paralyzed by our older, more advanced understanding of things so as to have sufficient imagination and impetus to do things. Yes, there are many things which we do in our youth which we would not do when older: some of those things we should not have done, but many of those things we absolutely should have done!

Our youthful dreams and desires are not all bad; in fact, many times older people are well censured because they have entirely abandoned the spirit and energy which animated their lives and efforts. A lot of times there are things we do when we are young which we would think ourselves out of, or not have sufficient energy for, as we get older.

Therefore, the Preacher’s counsel to youth is robust and worthy of emulation. We should encourage young people to pursue their dreams, to cultivate and share in deep relationships, to commit in marriage and to have children, and to pursue careers which are meaningful and beneficial. We should not impose upon young people all kinds of emotional and mental burdens; life will impose such things upon them soon enough. We are only young once, and it passes before our eyes very soon.

Many consider the Preacher and his meditations in Ecclesiastes to be depressing. Yet, as the beginning of his conclusions in Ecclesiastes 11:7-10 should exemplify for us, the Preacher’s purpose is actually to encourage. Life should be enjoyed; youth should be cherished. They should be cherished and enjoyed because they will not last, and what will come afterward is obscure. If we find Ecclesiastes depressing, it is because we have invested far too much in that which will not endure, and therefore what cannot really sustain and uphold the energy and investment we have put into them. Life on earth is short and ultimately futile; therefore, find ways to enjoy the life you have. Do not put so much investment in the future that you cannot find anything to enjoy in the present. This is not an invitation to folly and immorality: God will judge us all for what we think, feel, and do, and far too many of our difficulties in life come from our foolish behaviors. But in the end, life is a gift; we should make the most of it. We do best when we glorify God as the Giver of life, and strive to obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus His Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Sweet Light of Life appeared first on de Verbo vitae.