Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 12

No True Scotsman

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.

One such fallacy which takes place all too frequently in argumentation and ideological thinking and practice is an appeal to purity, these days best known as the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. It received the moniker of “No True Scotsman” from the example given by Antony Flew in his 1966 book God & Philosophy:

In this ungracious move a brash generalization, such as No Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, when faced with falsifying facts, is transformed while you wait into an impotent tautology: if ostensible Scotsmen put sugar on their porridge, then this is by itself sufficient to prove them not true Scotsmen (italics original).

Thus the concern has nothing to do with Scottish people per se but exposes the undercurrent of the deep desire to establish the purity of a given category or group. The No True Scotsman fallacy arises out of the desire to uphold a given group of people as superior, either intrinsically or on account of upholding some standard of belief and/or practice. Invariably some example will arise of someone who identifies with that group who thinks or acts in ways which would cast aspersions on the superiority of that group. Such an example should lead to a reconsideration of the original premise: is that particular group of people really superior, or is there an expression of an inappropriate bias or presumption? Yet, in human weakness, the result is often the No True Scotsman fallacy: the attempt is made to find a reason to exclude the contrary example in order to continue to uphold the exalted view of the group. Therefore, the person who committed the infraction is not really a part of and does not really represent the group; after all, no person truly in that group would believe or do such a thing.

The No True Scotsman fallacy also exists at the ideological level. This time it is not upholding a group of people, but a given set of ideas, which some desire to uphold as superior. Invariably some attempt will be made at realizing these ideas, and the result will often prove less than expected or perhaps even desired. Such should lead to a reconsideration of the set of ideas; yet, in human weakness, the attempt will be made to demonstrate how the set of ideas was not actually well put into place. The No True Scotsman fallacy, in the world of ideas, is when people fail the ideology, but the ideology is never seen as failing.

As with all fallacies in logic and reasoning, we find it quite easy to identify situations in which others have fallen prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy, and we imagine we will somehow prove immune to it; or, as Jesus put it, we well perceive the speck in our brother’s eye while remaining ignorant of the beam in our own (Matthew 7:3-4). We do better to try to understand why we are tempted to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy if we will have any hope in resisting it.

Much of what animates the impulse toward the No True Scotsman fallacy comes from the dark place of chauvinism: in our anxieties and fears we are strongly tempted to project an air of strength and superiority which remain completely unjustified on merit. In order to justify “us” against “them,” and particularly why “we” might enjoy privilege or standing which is denied to “them,” “we” must demonstrate why “we” deserve it and “they” do not. The easiest way to make such a justification is to believe “we” are better or superior to “them,” either just by identification in a given ethnicity or geographic location or on account of maintaining a given set of beliefs and/or practices. “We” then invest much in being part of “our” group, and thus become quite invested in the presumption of “our” superiority. Anything which might cast aspersions on “our” superiority would call the entire framework into question; thus it proves easier for “us” to want to find reasons to reject the cause of offense than to reconsider whether “we” are really and truly as awesome and superior as “we” would like to believe.

But not all impulses toward the No True Scotsman fallacy come from such dark places. Humans are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27); an impetus to uphold holiness and righteousness therefore exists within mankind. It is not a bad thing for human beings to aspire to a high standard of belief and conduct in righteousness and holiness. It is not a bad thing for humans to maintain noble ideals about human thinking and behavior. But human beings, in their finite and corrupt nature, fail at realizing ideals in belief and practice.

The No True Scotsman fallacy thus proves quite tempting in the cognitive dissonance created when the real falls short of the ideal: it allows us to continue to hold onto the ideals without any compunction or reservation. The Idea is always right; it cannot fail, only be failed. The Elect remain unmoved; people just prove they are not part of said Elect.

Examples of the No True Scotsman fallacy can be found in droves in the worlds of culture and politics. The partisan tribe is always pure; anyone who deviates from its orthodoxy is not really a member of the tribe, and any misbehavior is always somehow the responsibility of the other tribe. The social or economic ideology is always correct; supposed evidence to the contrary only really proves how the ideology has not been entirely or fully realized. At times some groups fall prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy more frequently than not; but all groups do so to some degree or another at all times.

The presence of the No True Scotsman fallacy in the Christian faith proves quite pernicious, but is tempting for understandable reasons.

In Christ the people of God are set apart in holiness and to uphold the standard of holiness (e.g. 1 Thessalonians 4:1-8, 1 Peter 1:13-19). Thoughts, feelings, and actions inconsistent with that standard of holiness are condemned as sinful and transgressive, and the Apostles warned how those who persist in them will be condemned (e.g. Galatians 5:19-21). Paul expected Christians in local congregations to disassociate from those who persisted in transgressive behaviors and to mark those who continually advanced distorted instruction (Romans 16:17-18, 1 Corinthians 5:1-13). John spoke of the “antichrists” in the following way in 1 John 2:18-19:

Children, it is the last hour, and just as you heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. We know from this that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us, because if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But they went out from us to demonstrate that all of them do not belong to us.

According to the New Testament, therefore, one cannot be a faithful Christian and hold to false teachings and/or practice sinful behaviors. At least some of those who depart from the faith demonstrate in so doing how they never really believed and thus were never really counted among the people of God.

We can therefore understand why it proves so easy to dismiss examples of misbehavior and wrongdoing among those professing Jesus in terms of “No True Christian,” and how Christianity can be perceived as never failing, but only people failing Jesus. In very real senses, it is true that Jesus has not failed and does not fail, but we do fail Him (cf. 1 Corinthians 1:9). It is true that any Christian who is caught up in distorted teachings and/or sinful behaviors is not honoring Jesus as Lord.

In practice, however, “No True Christian” remains the No True Scotsman fallacy because all have sinned and continue to sin, falling short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:8-10). After all, if the standard is absolute faithfulness to the ideal, none of us can be truly Christian, because none of us prove entirely faithful.

Far too often Christians obsess over identifying who is and who is not a Christian based on certain standards; all such endeavors fall prey to the No True Scotsman fallacy. Neither Jesus nor the Apostles commend such an obsession; with one voice they proclaim Jesus as Lord and Judge, and such a prerogative is never given to any of His followers (Matthew 7:1-4, Romans 14:1-13, James 4:11-12). Likewise, Christians blithely dismiss certain historic and contemporary examples of wrongdoing by those professing Jesus by arguing how such thinking and behavior are contrary to the ways of Christ, and thus those who did them were not really Christians: another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

The history of the people of God, Israel according to the flesh and Israel centered in Jesus, exhibit plenty of episodes of distorted thinking and unholy behaviors. God never encouraged a No True Scotsman response; instead, He would have His people recognize the transgressions of the pass and lament them so as not to follow in the same patterns of warped thinking and disobedience (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:1-13). Yes, there will be plenty of people who believe they belong to God but will find themselves cast out on the final day (e.g. Matthew 7:21-23); but that decision is made by the Lord Jesus Christ, not His followers. Upon the evidence of two or three witnesses, local congregations should disassociate from Christians who persist unrepentantly in sin (1 Corinthians 5:1-13); in so doing Christians demonstrate a severance of their “horizontal” relationship as fellow Christians while confessing Jesus will ultimately be the judge of such a person regarding their “vertical” relationship with Him.

We are inclined to idealize ourselves as individuals and groups, as well as our ideals and customs. Thus we are ever tempted to commit the No True Scotsman fallacy whenever reality rudely intrudes on our ideals. Ideals are important and can be good and healthy; but we must always recognize how reality is messy and corrupt. As Christians we do well to strive toward ever greater faithfulness to God in Christ through the Spirit, leaving judgment to Jesus and in humility not considering ourselves as greater, superior, or more intrinsically right than anyone else, thus disarming the impetus to the No True Scotsman fallacy. We will all fail Jesus in some way or another; thanks be to God for His grace and mercy lavishly displayed in Christ. May we not presume mercy for ourselves and condemnation for others, lest we find ourselves condemned and mercy given to others; may we instead entrust ourselves fully to God in Christ through the Spirit in humility, displaying love, grace, and mercy, and obtaining life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post No True Scotsman appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Treatise on Love Continues | 1 John 4:12-16

No man hath beheld God at any time: if we love one another, God abideth in us, and his love is perfected in us: hereby we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father hath sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God abideth in him, and he in God. And we know and have believed the love which God hath in us. God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God, and God abideth in him (1 John 4:12-16).

John is justly known as the Apostle of love, and 1 John 4:7-21 represents his grand treatise on love. He begins to demonstrate the power and the necessity of love in 1 John 4:7-11. He establishes that we ought to love one another since love is of God and God is love. This love is demonstrated through the sacrifice of Jesus so that we could live to God. Our love for God is based in His love for us, and we should respond by loving one another.

John then continues with what may seem to be an unrelated statement: no one has seen God at any time (1 John 4:12). He has made such a statement in John 1:18 and will take it in a different direction in 1 John 4:20, but what is it doing here in the middle of a treatise on love?

Many questions could be raised. Who did Moses then see on the mountain? With whom did Jacob really fight? What did Isaiah or Ezekiel see? It would seem that on the basis of John’s statement that these men all saw manifestations or representations of God, not God in His true spiritual form (cf. John 4:24). Nevertheless, John’s purpose here is not to delve into the mysteries of how God appears to humans. He wants to emphasize the true nature of our relationship with God. God is love, after all (1 John 4:8), and therefore if we love one another, God abides in us (1 John 4:12). When we love one another, God’s love is perfected, or completed, within us, for we are able to treat our fellow man as God has treated all of us (1 John 4:12).

We then are told of a further confirmation that God abides in us: He has given us of His Spirit (1 John 4:13). John has already indicated as much in 1 John 3:24; why must he mention it again? There may be some who doubt or are unsure that they are loving as God loves, and may question whether they are of God. It is more likely that the gift of the Spirit is a further demonstration of the love of God and a reason for confidence in Him.

This confidence is also inspired by the testimony of John in verse 14: he has seen and bears witness to the fact that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world. Those who confess this truth, that Jesus is the Son of God, abide in God and God abides in him (1 John 4:15).

The assurance that God abides in/with the believer is a consistent theme throughout 1 John. John has previously spoken of such things to make the contrast between true believers in God and those who have gone astray into false doctrine, especially those following the Gnostic belief systems (1 John 2:24-29, 3:19-24). As before, so also here: it would be foolish to turn John’s statements into absolutes and believe that as long as someone confesses with their lips that Jesus is the Son of God that God definitively abides in them. More is required than just saying that Jesus is the Son of God; one must also keep the commandments (1 John 2:3-6)!

We have seen previously that God abides with those who have heard His Gospel and have His anointing (1 John 2:24, 27), who do not sin (1 John 3:6), and those who keep His commandments (1 John 3:24). To this we now add that God abides with those who confess that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 4:15) and also those who abide in love (1 John 4:16).

This returns us to the theme of love. True believers come to know and believe deeply in the love that God has for us and that is present within us (1 John 4:16). Those who do not believe the truths of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection cannot truly understand or trust in that love. Only sacrificial love could motivate God to take on flesh and dwell among us (John 1:14). Only sacrificial love can explain why God would die on the cross for our reconciliation to Him (1 John 4:10). When we begin to understand the great love which God has for us, we will be motivated to believe in the message of the Gospel, declare that belief before others, do what He says, and thus to show the same type of love to others. When we have that kind of love toward our fellow man we demonstrate that even though our eyes may not have seen God, we abide in Him, and He in us. Do we abide in love?

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Treatise on Love Continues | 1 John 4:12-16 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Forgiveness in Psalm 32:1-11

For generations, the Psalms have been considered a wonderful treasure of expressions of faith in life. The Psalms express great emotional depth and metaphorical power, providing color and body to the substance of the faith. This is certainly true for Psalm 32:1-11, a meditation on the power of God’s forgiveness of sin.

The psalm begins with its theme: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven/whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom YHWH imputeth not iniquity/ and in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psalm 32:1-2). David is pronouncing happiness for the one who no longer bears the burden of his sin because he has confessed it before God and did not hide anything, as the following verses will demonstrate.

David continues by describing how he feels when he recognized his sin and had not yet confessed it. His bones wasted away on account of his internal groaning (Psalm 32:3). The hand of God was upon him strongly (Psalm 32:4a), and his strength (literally, “moisture” or “sap”) was “dried out” as if by the drought of summer (Psalm 32:4b). In order to obtain release, David confesses his sin before God and does not hide anything, and receives the desired forgiveness for his sin (Psalm 32:5).

As a result, David exhorts everyone who is godly to act likewise: to make petition to God when He can be found, and not in the “overflow of great waters” (Psalm 32:6). This would seem to make allusion to the Flood and thus judgment; one should pray to God for forgiveness while His mercy is extended, and not wait until God turns in judgment against them (cf. Isaiah 55:6). For David, God is a hiding place, preserving him from trouble, and delivering him from difficulties (Psalm 32:7).

David then turns to his intended audience, indicating that he would provide instruction and teaching for them (Psalm 32:8). The audience is not to be without understanding, like a horse or a mule, animals that wander if the bit is not in their mouths (Psalm 32:9). These are exhortations for the audience to consider what wisdom will then be expressed: the sorrows of the wicked are many, while the lovingkindness of God surrounds the righteous (Psalm 32:10). The righteous, therefore, should be glad in YHWH and shout for joy (Psalm 32:11).

God is the strength, comfort, and joy of the righteous not because they are without sin, but because they are humble and willing to confess their sins and repent of them. The burden of sin is beyond what any man can bear; it leads to misery and death (cf. Romans 6:23, Psalm 32:10). Both the righteous and the wicked acutely feel the burden of guilt and shame on account of sin. The wicked, for whatever reason, do not humble themselves, admit their guilt, and give up that burden before God, and their misery continues. The righteous are wise enough to recognize their need to humble themselves, confess their sin, and to get rid of their burden. This is all possible because of God’s great love for mankind and His willingness to forgive the sins of any who would come to Him and obey His will (Matthew 6:14-15, 1 Peter 1:22).

Psalm 32:1-11 teaches us the wisdom of God through David: do not bear the heavy burden of sin and lose strength, but be willing to have the faith in God to confess sin and turn from it, and He will forgive, comfort, and strengthen you (cf. 1 John 1:9). God’s hand is heavy upon the sinner, but He will turn and become the joy of those who change their ways. Let us praise God for the ability to obtain the forgiveness of sin through the blood of Jesus His Son and confession of our sin, and shout for joy for salvation in His name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Forgiveness in Psalm 32:1-11 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Rome

Throughout most of antiquity there would have been little reason to pay attention to the town developing on the Tiber River on what we call the Italian peninsula; it was a small, multicultural yet rowdy settlement on the very periphery of the “civilized world.” And yet from Rome would develop the greatest and most consistent military force the ancient world had yet seen. Rome would consolidate cultural, military, political, and social forms and power, cultivating a “Greco-Roman” way of living which would prove the most advanced and refined until the middle of the nineteenth century. As all roads would lead to Rome, so, apparently, did all of what we know as Western ancient history and culture. Western man remains haunted by the Roman Empire and its fall.

According to its own mythology, Rome was founded on 21 April 753 BCE by Romulus, a descendant of a line of kings whose ultimate origin was Troy, yet who had been abandoned as an infant along with his brother Remus and nurtured by a she-wolf and then a herdsman who found them. This would be contemporaneous with Jeroboam II of Israel and Uzziah of Judah, the last moment of “normalcy” in the ancient Near Eastern world before the advance of the Assyrians. Archaeological evidence suggests a long pattern of occupation on many of the seven hills which would make up Rome throughout the Bronze and Early Iron Ages; however, it does seem the settlements were organized into a coherent city-state at some point in the eighth century BCE.

Rome was founded on seven hills along the Tiber River in the area known as Latium; it lay around 30 kilometers inland from the Mediterranean Sea in the middle of the Italian peninsula. The Etruscans had developed a robust and flowering civilization to the immediate north of Rome; not far to its south lay the many Greek colonies which later Romans would call Magna Graecia. The Etruscans and the Greeks would prove profoundly important influences on the development of the Roman city-state.

Romulus, according to the legend, became Rome’s first king, welcoming men of all sorts of origins to come and become citizens, and facilitated the kidnapping of local women to serve as their wives. Six kings, of which the last three were believed to be Etruscan, would follow after Romulus; they would establish the contours of Roman religion and law. The Romans believed the seventh king’s son raped the Roman noblewoman Lucretia, who killed herself after having revealed the matter to some of the Roman nobles. In retaliation Lucius Junius Brutus and other noblemen and citizens of Rome rose up and expelled the king, founding the Roman Republic in 509 BCE, which would give rise to the official name of Rome for the rest of antiquity: Senatus Populusque Romanus (SPQR), the Senate and People of Rome. This would be roughly contemporaneous with the days of Darius the Persian and the completion of the building of the Second Temple in Jerusalem. While most historians believe the stories to be purely legendary, what evidence we can find does suggest a transition toward a new form of leadership within a fifty-year period of 509 BCE and the throwing off of the yoke of Etruscan authority.

The Roman Republic would endure for almost 500 years and would remain almost continually at war throughout. The Roman Republic maintained the pretense of representing all of the citizens of Rome; in truth, the various noble families dominated the Senate and two of its members would serve as the annual consuls directing the Senate. During the fifth century BCE the Romans would grow ever stronger in their control over Latium and effectively checked and weakened the power of the Etruscans in their southern domains. Rome was sacked by the Gauls, a Celtic people originally from modern-day France, in 387 BCE, destroying any sort of records which were kept of history before that date. The Romans hastily rebuilt and went on the offensive; after a century, the Romans were masters of central Italy.

The greatest power in the western Mediterranean basin during this period was the Carthaginians, the descendants of Phoenician colonists from Tyre who maintained their stronghold of Carthage in north Africa and developed a maritime empire across the coasts of northern Africa, Spain, and France. The Romans would fight the Carthaginians in a series of three “Punic Wars” from 264 to 146 BCE; despite how Hannibal of Carthage would destroy a couple of Roman armies and threaten the integrity of Rome itself, the Romans would defeat the Carthaginians in each of these Punic Wars, and in so doing destroyed Carthage and eliminated its empire as a going concern.

By the end of the third century BCE, Rome was the master of all of Italy and the southern coast of Spain; by 146 BCE the Romans had become masters of almost all of the Iberian Peninsula, the coast of the Adriatic Sea, Greece, and parts of western Asia Minor. Yet all was not well among the Senate and People of Rome: class-based conflicts continually came to the fore, and many among the elite perceived a great way forward in obtaining power and influence by advancing a populist cause. This would lead to a series of civil wars, power given over to dictators, and two sets of triumvirates governing the city-state and its armies. The generals, dictators, and triumvirs have become historically famous and infamous: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Julius Caesar, Marc Antony, and Octavian.

Despite the internal discord of the period from 150-27 BCE, Roman armies continued their advance, and the lands of Britain, Gaul (modern-day France), Numidia, much of the Anatolian peninsula, Libya, Egypt, and Syria came under Roman hegemony. The Roman general Pompey intervened in the civil war between the Hasmoneans Hyrcanus and Aristobulus in 63 BCE; he besieged and conquered Jerusalem, and infamously barged into the Most Holy Place of the Second Temple (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 14). The Romans would rule over Judea by means of proxy kings or governors from 63 BCE until the First Jewish War of 66-70 CE, by a legate of the Roman army until the Second Jewish War of 132-135 CE, was then merged with and made part of Syria Palaestina until 300, and finally divided into three “Palaestinae” provinces by Diocletian around 300.

Octavian, Julius Caesar’s grand-nephew, would be the last man standing after all of the civil conflicts; he would declare himself as princeps, or the first among the Senate and People of Rome, in an attempt to make his imperial designs more palatable. Whereas representatives of the Roman Republic had assassinated his great-uncle Julius Caesar for considering becoming dictator for life, the civil wars had exhausted the Senate and People of Rome, and Octavian would become known as Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, and the Roman Republic became the Roman Empire in 27 BCE. Augustus would consolidate the Empire into its most recognizable form, encompassing the whole of the Mediterranean Sea, the Iberian and most of the Anatolian peninsulas, Britain, Gaul to the River Rhine, the Balkan Peninsula, the Levant, Egypt, and the north African seacoast. Later emperors would, at times, add territory in Germany, the lands north of the Balkan Peninsula to the River Danube, and parts of Mesopotamia.

Thus began what the Romans would call the Pax Romana, an overall unprecedented time of peace, stability, and security throughout the Mediterranean world, which would last until the third century CE. The Romans had cultivated skill in engineering, governance, legislation, and the military; the Roman elite had become quite fond of Greek culture and philosophy. The western half of the Roman Empire had never before been organized into a single political entity, and would rarely again see such kind of uniformity; Latin, the language of the Romans, would become pervasive throughout the west. The eastern half of the Roman Empire continued with the Hellenization process as had been playing out ever since Alexander the Great in 332 BCE, and generally spoke Greek; Roman influence was seen primarily in terms of engineering and governance. The pax Romana coincided with what scientists have called the Roman Warm Period, a climactic period from roughly 200 BCE to 200 CE which allowed for greater harvests in the Mediterranean, and thus to feed a larger populace.

The world of the pax Romana is the world of Jesus, the Apostles, and the development of early Christianity. Overall life in the Roman Empire in these days was the “best” it had ever been under any ancient civilization, and modern Western civilizations would not again reach similar levels of quality of life and life expectancy until the early modern period of 1600-1820. Even though the Roman authorities proved at best ambivalent, and at worst outright hostile toward Christians and Christianity, the world they conquered and administered facilitated the spread of the Christian faith. Paul and other early Christians traveled far and wide on Roman roads and could speak to people from Spain to Iraq and from Britain to Egypt in Greek or Latin and be understood. Paul would leverage his privileges and rights as a Roman citizen to avoid certain forms of punishment and make appeal to Caesar, the Emperor himself (cf. Acts 22:23-29, 25:10-12).

On the whole, however, things were not well between the Romans and the peoples of the One True God. The Romans were polytheistic and were more than happy to have its subjects also serve Roma and the genius of the emperor, both past and present, as gods. The Jewish people were given an exemption because of the antiquity of their customs; nevertheless, they continually bristled against what they viewed as Roman imperial oppression, and they rose in revolt against the Romans twice, in the First Jewish War of 66-70 and the Second Jewish War of 132-136. As a result of these wars, along with other conflicts in the provinces, Jerusalem and the Second Temple were destroyed, the Jewish population of Alexandria was decimated, and Jewish people were banned from Jerusalem, which was re-christened Aelia Capitolina and a temple to Zeus built on the Temple Mount. Christians found themselves with even fewer privileges than the Jewish people: while Christians appealed to their heritage in Moses and the prophets, the Romans reckoned Christianity as a novel superstition, since the Christians claimed Jesus was God in the flesh and was crucified and raised from the dead in the days of Tiberius Caesar. From the days of Nero until the days of Diocletian, Christians would endure periodic periods of active persecution, in which the Roman authorities would seek out Christians to destroy their Scriptures and have executed any of them who would not offer sacrifice to the genius of the emperor. Yet even if the Romans were not engaged in an active time of persecution, Christians could at any point be accused before a Roman official and be imprisoned and/or executed, and many Christians would be marginalized from participation in economic and social life throughout the Empire because of their faith.

In the days of Domitian John was given a vision of that which was to come in the book of Revelation. The end of the pax Romana at the end of the second and throughout the third centuries CE provided grotesque fulfillment of what had been seen. The Roman Empire was beset by the Antonine (165-180) and the Cyprianic (249-262) plagues, which are believed to have been smallpox/measles and Ebola or some other hemorrhagic fever, and led to the deaths of significant percentages of the Roman populace. These came at the same time as climactic changes which led to degraded soils and smaller harvests, leading to widespread hunger and famine. Such climactic changes brought the first of the “barbarian invasions”. The Persian Sassanids overtook the Parthians as rulers over Iran and Mesopotamia and inflicted many severe defeats on the Roman army. Politically the period was a mess more often than not, with emperors rising and falling frequently.

It is a testament to what the Romans built that their Empire somehow managed to survive the third century. Diocletian and then Constantine would provide a level of stability to the position of Emperor, and Constantine is famous for having established the Edict of Milan promoting tolerance of the Christian faith, and converting to Christianity himself. Constantine was also justly famous for establishing a new great city in the east, at the Bosphorus channel between the Sea of Marmara and the Black Sea, at the point where Europe and Asia meet; the city would become known as Constantinople (modern Istanbul in Turkey).

By the end of the fourth century CE the emperor Theodosius would have Christianity established as the religion of the Roman Empire. For the first time in human history since time immemorial, the One True God was being honored, at least in pretense, more than the pagan gods of the nations; a situation unimaginable in the days of Jesus and the Apostles. But the days of the Roman Empire as it had been were numbered. Theodosius would be the last emperor over the unified Roman Empire of west and east. Within a generation, the western half of the Roman Empire would entirely collapse. Alaric the Visigoth oversaw the sacking of Rome in 410; the western Roman Empire would become divided between the Germanic people known as the Franks, the Goths, the Visigoths, and the Vandals. The last Roman Emperor in Rome, Romulus Augustulus, was set aside by Odoacer in 476.

The eastern Roman Empire, however, would persevere for another millennium. Emperors styling themselves as Roman Emperors ruling over the Roman Empire ruled from Constantinople until 1453 CE. In the sixth century Justinian would re-assert “Roman” rule over Italy and parts of north Africa; he would also oversee major changes to Roman laws and the establishment of the Code of Justinian as well as the building of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople. It was also during Justinian’s reign that the bubonic plague spread throughout the Eastern Roman Empire and likely further west, likely killing a third to half of the population, and would return in waves for generations from 541 to around 750.

The bubonic plague, “barbarian” invasions and wars, and various famines and other challenges in the days of Justinian brought an end to the ancient world and inaugurated the medieval one. Almost all of the glory, and even much of the knowledge, of the ancient world would be lost. In the west, the Roman Catholic Church would preserve Roman governance and legal customs and the Latin language; the vast majority of the primary sources we have from the ancient world were preserved by monks in medieval European monasteries. From Latin would develop French, Italian, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish, and would profoundly shape English through French; many would write treatises in Latin for generations, and knowledge of Latin was expected as part of a classical education until only the past couple of generations.

Indeed, to this very day many remain haunted by the Roman Empire, its glories and its fall. The medieval world of Europe lived in the shadow of the ruins of the Roman Empire and were very cognizant of the comparative decline. Anyone who has ever attempted to exert hegemony over major parts of Europe has done so with the Roman Empire and its Caesars in mind: Charlemagne and the creation of the Holy Roman Empire, which was in truth none of those things, in 800; the kaiser, German for “Caesar,” and the czar/tsar, Russian for “Caesar,” over Germany and Russia; Napoleon; Hitler and Mussolini. To this day the remains of Roman aqueducts, roads, and towns can be found throughout the lands of their former empire. The Romans fascinate us to this day: for instance, only recently have we ascertained some of the ingredients of Roman concrete, and have come to realize their formulation weathers and endures in ways superior to our own.

While Rome may fascinate us, and its fall haunt us, we do well to remember how Rome was “whore Babylon” to early Christians: the ultimate culmination of the great pagan oppressive power, projecting its strength through political and economic means, persecuting the people of God. Thus the Roman Empire was judged and condemned; while the empire was “Christianized” in late antiquity, the Christian religious institutions which it engendered have often been understood in terms of “whore Babylon” as well ever since. Roman armies made deserts and called them “paradise”; the pax Romana came at the end of Roman spears. We do better to come as Christians and bring the grace, mercy, and peace of the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ, who brought forth that Kingdom through His own death and resurrection. May we honor the Lord Jesus Christ and serve Him in all things!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Rome appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Wisdom in Enterprise

Send your grain overseas, for after many days you will get a return. Divide your merchandise among seven or even eight investments, for you do not know what calamity may happen on earth. If the clouds are full of rain, they will empty themselves on the earth, and whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, the tree will lie wherever it falls. He who watches the wind will not sow, and he who observes the clouds will not reap. Just as you do not know the path of the wind, or how the bones form in the womb of a pregnant woman, so you do not know the work of God who makes everything. Sow your seed in the morning, and do not stop working until the evening; for you do not know which activity will succeed – whether this one or that one, or whether both will prosper equally (Ecclesiastes 11:1-6).

As with wisdom, so with enterprise and labor: the Preacher laments their limitations yet still encourages their value.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-10:20 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.

While the Preacher bitterly lamented the ultimate futility of all human endeavor, such did not mean he found human endeavors of no benefit or value. Thus the Preacher commended human enterprise, and the exercise of wisdom in human enterprise, in Ecclesiastes 11:1-6.

The Preacher literally encouraged one to “cast your bread upon the waters, for you will find it in many days” in Ecclesiastes 11:1. Some have wished to understand this in terms of fishing, but in context it is better understood in terms of commerce. To cast bread upon waters was often used in ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature to refer to sharing in some form or another. Perhaps the sharing was more a matter of mutual aid; thus the Preacher would be encouraging the sharing of grain with others with an understanding one would then receive grain when one was in need. Contextually, however, it is probably best to understand the Preacher speaking of sharing in terms of commerce, as expressed in the NET. In this way the Preacher commended participating in some kind of market economy.

In Ecclesiastes 11:2 the Preacher encouraged giving a “portion” to “seven or eight”; “seven or eight” is idiomatic to express variety in distribution. But a “portion” of what? Many have imagined the Preacher as commending giving benevolence widely, understanding the “portion” as some kind of material benefit. The Preacher would probably not argue with such beneficence, but contextually again the NET is most likely accurate in understanding the “portion” as some kind of investment. To this day any investment manager worth his or her salt will encourage their clients to maintain a diversified portfolio, and for the same reason the Preacher gave: you do not know exactly when, where, or how disaster might strike. Many of us have lived through the bursting of many economic “bubbles” and watched whole sectors of the economy nearly collapse; therefore, we well understand the Preacher’s concerns.

The Preacher then seemed to transition to a new thought with a view to what he had just considered: clouds full of water vapor will rain on the earth, and the tree will lie wherever it falls (Ecclesiastes 11:3). We can make some connection with the calamities which occur on the earth, but the statement would otherwise be baffling on its own. The Preacher carried on with his thought: a person who spends all their time watching the signs of the weather will never sow or reap a crop (Ecclesiastes 11:4). A person may not understand how or where the wind blows, or how a child forms in the womb; likewise a person does not understand God’s works in their making (Ecclesiastes 11:5). Thus the Preacher counseled his audience to sow seed in the morning and work until the evening, for one cannot know which enterprises in which they engage will prove successful or not (Ecclesiastes 11:6).

We can already hear the quibbling objection: ah, but we now do have some understanding about how and where the wind blows and how a child is formed in the womb! Yes, we have come to a better understanding about how various aspects of the creation works.

But for all we have learned about how the creation works, far more remains well beyond our understanding, and will likely always remain beyond our understanding. The premise of the Preacher remains quite valid: we do not know the work of God who does all.

We can apply this wisdom to almost any enterprise. Our economic system is based on a powerful and elaborate financial system which has developed incredible technologies and algorithms to attempt to ascertain how the markets will move; and yet there will still be times, events, and situations which were not well predicted and which lead to the rise and fall of many. Our ability to forecast the weather has significantly improved over the past few generations; and yet storms and temperatures will often change and develop in ways which were not well predicted. Any sports fan can tell you how often there is great variance between the betting odds and the actual result.

But we should not lose sight of the Preacher’s lesson in this premise: we can overthink ourselves out of productive behavior. There is wisdom in forecasting, planning, and even considering possible objections in terms of any kind of enterprise. But at some point, we do well to do the work! We can always come up with enough challenges and objections to decline participation in any given enterprise. But we should work, and maintain some level of diversification in work. Yes, some projects will fail; some for easily foreseen reasons, and others for reasons unimaginable at the beginning. But some projects will not fail; and these will provide for us mentally and financially. Nevertheless, you miss every shot you do not take; an enterprise only in the mind has no hope of success whatsoever.

We can know all earthly efforts are ultimately futile, and we will not know exactly what God is doing or how it will all turn out. And yet we can, and should, exercise wisdom in pursuing our enterprises. We should diversify our investments and our labors. Who knows where we might succeed or fail until we try?

The Preacher reflected wisely regarding life “under the sun.” We may not know how God is working in every particular way on the earth, but we can maintain confidence how God has worked in Christ to reconcile us to Him and to one another. May we thus entrust ourselves to God in Christ and work to glorify Him in all things, and share in eternal life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Wisdom in Enterprise appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

“Re-Baptism”

According to what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit, immersion in water in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sin represents the point at which a believer has put on Christ, is baptized into the Spirit and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is reckoned as in Christ (Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-11, 1 Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27). Since this experience is so fundamental and foundational to growth and development in faith, a lot of significance is attached with such a baptism. For all sorts of reasons, people might be concerned their baptism was not done appropriately and might seek to be immersed again, or to thus seek “re-baptism.” Can, or should, such a one submit to another baptism and get “re-baptized”?

In order to properly consider the question of “re-baptism,” we must first better understand “baptism.” Baptism is a transliteration of the Greek baptizo; in English, according to the Oxford Dictionary, baptism has come to mean “the religious rite of sprinkling water onto a person’s forehead or of immersion in water, symbolizing purification or regeneration and admission to the Christian Church.” The Greek term originally meant “to dip, immerse”; it was well and appropriately used to describe washings of religious purifications, but the term had plenty of “secular” uses as well, including describing laundry and bathing.

The New Testament betrays no understanding of “baptism” as sprinkling or pouring water upon a person; the examples given indicate immersion (e.g. Acts 8:36-39), and Paul’s association between baptism and death and resurrection necessitates immersion over sprinkling or pouring (Romans 6:3-7). “Baptism” by pouring can only first be found in the Didache 7, and even then only in situations in which flowing water could not be found for immersing.

Much of our conversation about “baptism” and “re-baptism” presuppose the English definition in which baptism is a Christian ritual. The Anabaptists, for instance, are thus named because they were condemned for “baptizing again,” insisting on the immersion of believers in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins, since the powers that be in the early modern period would never countenance any questioning of the legitimacy of the sprinkling of infants. When we talk of “re-baptism,” we generally do so because a person has already experienced a Christian ritual that involved getting sprinkled, poured, or immersed in or with water, and now wonder if the experience was truly legitimate or valid.

Yet in the usage of Koine Greek at the time of the New Testament, “baptism” happened all the time. People “baptized” their clothes. People “baptized” themselves for ritual purification, or just as a bath. Such is why Peter’s witness in 1 Peter 3:21 is worth consideration:

And this prefigured baptism, which now saves you – not the washing off of physical dirt but the pledge of a good conscience to God – through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We should note well how Peter affirms what baptism is not: the washing off of physical dirt. Peter was not attempting to deny the existence of immersion to cleanse from dirt as a valid and appropriate definition of the Greek baptizo; instead, Peter wished to emphasize how such an immersion would not save them or anyone.

Perhaps this scenario remains entirely hypothetical, but based on 1 Peter 3:21, if a person came forward and desired baptism, and their real intention was to get a bath, they would certainly have accomplished their purpose: they got a bath. Yet that bath would not save them in Christ.

Therefore, not every immersion is the “baptism” which brought a person into Christ. “Baptism,” like almost everything else in the Christian faith, is determined by the purpose and meaning associated with the event by the person who submits to baptism: as Peter put it in 1 Peter 3:21, submitting to immersion as a pledge of a good conscience to God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Peter described baptism in Acts 2:38 as immersion in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Jesus had previously commanded the Apostles to go out and baptize believers in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:18-20).

Thus, the baptism in which one puts on Christ, is baptized into and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit, and is now in Christ is an immersion done in the name of, understood as by the authority of, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and for the purpose of the remission of sins. In baptism a believer makes his or her appeal to God in faith to receive the cleansing from sin which was made possible by Jesus’ death on the cross, and God will faithfully thus reckon them as cleansed from sin (1 Peter 3:21).

Furthermore, the Scriptures consistently speak of the experience of baptism in Jesus as a unique, one-time event. The Scriptures never speak of anyone getting “re-baptized” or “baptized again.” Luke spoke of disciples of John the Baptist who had been baptized “into John” in Acts 19:3-4, but did not say they were “re-baptized” in Acts 19:5:

When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Yes, the disciples of John were submitting to a baptismal ritual for a second time, but they had previously been immersed in John’s baptism, which was not the same as the baptism in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins. Thus these disciples were baptized once into Jesus and had no need for baptism again.

Baptism takes place once because it is the point at which one “dies to sin” and walks in “newness of life” according to Romans 6:1-11. Jesus died to sin and was raised once; Jesus has no need to continually die again and be raised again. Likewise believers can only die to sin and be raised again once by means of baptism; at that point they are in Christ and have put on Christ, and have no need to continually attempt to put on Christ again and again. When Christians sin, the response is not “re-baptism,” but confession of sin and repentance (cf. 1 John 1:7-9).

Therefore, the first question anyone considering a “re-baptism” must ask involves what they experienced as their first “baptism.”

Were they “baptized” as infants by means of sprinkling? If so, is sprinkling immersion? No. Even if sprinkling could be legitimated, does any baby submit to such an experience in faith in God in Christ for the cleansing of their sins? They have committed no sin or fault for which such remission would be required. No baby has therefore ever truly experienced the baptism which brings one into Christ; they have been made wet. Anyone who has experienced sprinkling as a baby should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins. In truth they would not be “baptized again”; they are being baptized into Christ for the first time.

Did they submit to some kind of “baptismal ritual” which involved sprinkling or pouring? Are sprinkling or pouring immersion? Can one “die to sin” and “walk in newness of life” if one has not been really “buried”? Does such a person feel sufficiently confident in what they experienced as truly bringing them into Christ? In such circumstances we would encourage such people to submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins; and it would also be baptism into Christ for the first time.

Were they immersed, but immersed because other people were getting immersed, or succumbed to parental pressure, or to join a church, without any regard for believing in Jesus and obtaining the remission of sins? They certainly got immersed; yet, as we have seen, the value of the immersion is dependent on the reason why the person has submitted to it. If a person was immersed for reasons other than the remission of sin, he or she should submit to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins; such also would be baptism into Christ for the first time.

In all such situations, the people involved must be comfortable understanding their previous experiences as “getting wet,” and confident in the reconciliation of their relationship with God and His people as fully inaugurated in the moment when they were immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins.

But what about someone who is concerned they did not really understand what they were doing when they submitted to immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins? Or perhaps they second guess themselves and the reasons why they submitted to baptism? Or maybe they are on a pilgrimage or having some kind of religious experience and want to get baptized again?

The significance of baptism testifies to the power of the moment of baptism, and we do well to respect and honor its significance and power. In a very real way, if we submit to baptism over and over again, we diminish the importance and power of baptism. We do not appropriately honor it as a sacred moment in that way.

We can understand baptism as the sign of the new covenant (cf. Colossians 2:11-13): when we are baptized, we obtain full membership in the covenant between God and all mankind in Christ Jesus, and obtain all the blessings which attend to that covenant. A human covenant which provides significant corollaries would be the marriage covenant (cf. Malachi 2:14, Matthew 19:4-6). In this way we can understand getting baptized into Christ in terms of a wedding ceremony: at baptism we enter into the covenant with Christ, just as in a wedding ceremony a man and a woman enter into a covenant of marriage.

Anyone who has been married for any length of time comes to recognize they had no idea to which they were committing themselves when they uttered their wedding vows. Such a lack of understanding, however, does not delegitimate the integrity or the commitment established in those vows. Likewise, anyone who has been a Christian for any length of time comes to recognize they had little idea to which they were committing themselves when they were baptized into Christ. Likewise, that lack of understanding does not delegitimate the integrity of the appeal to God for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

We can also note how Paul wrote to the Romans and explained to them how their baptism was a type of death and resurrection in Romans 6:1-11, and to the Galatians regarding how they put on Christ in baptism in Galatians 3:27. Maybe some of the Roman or Galatian Christians fully understood these concepts and import of their baptism as they experienced it; yet it is quite likely many did not have such an understanding until later, perhaps even learning about it from these very letters. Yet that lack of full understanding did not delegitimate their baptism: their baptism was a type of death and resurrection whether they understood that or not, and they put on Christ whether they understood it or not.

There are likely a few people who have legitimate reasons for questioning whether they were immersed in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin or for some other reason. Yet the majority of those who experience such doubt are likely bedeviled with other forms of anxiety, doubt, or insecurity in their relationship with God. Many such people submit to a “re-baptism,” but the anxieties, doubt, or insecurities remain. They may even get “baptized” few more times!

Anyone who has been immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of their sins has committed themselves to the Lord Jesus Christ, and to cast aspersions on the integrity of that baptism is to cast aspersions on the integrity of their relationship with God in Christ. We can again illustrate the premise with the corollary of marriage: imagine going to a spouse to which you have been “married” for a few years, or even many years, and telling them you have come to wonder if you really meant anything you said in your vows, and you think you need to have another wedding ceremony to make sure the vows are legitimate. How well do you think that would go for you? How would your spouse respond? Would they not justifiably feel quite put out and dishonored? Would they not feel as if you had just delegitimated the entire relationship to that point? Why would such a spouse even want to go through another wedding ceremony with you? What confidence would they have in your commitment to that wedding ceremony, any more or less than the first one?

Thus, if we truly wish to honor the integrity, power, and sanctity of immersion in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin, we must reject any notion of “re-baptism.” True baptism into Christ can only happen once, just like wedding vows only happen once. Perhaps a person went through a Christian ritual, but they were not being immersed in water in the name of Jesus for the remission of sin as an appeal to God for a clean conscience through the resurrection of Jesus; such people should submit to baptism, which would become their one baptism into Christ. But once one has thus submitted to baptism into Christ, they are in Christ, and any thought of “re-baptism” would be like thinking of “redoing wedding vows,” and creates as much relational damage between a person and their God and His people as it would between a husband and wife. Growing in understanding of our commitment to God in Christ through the Spirit does not invalidate our commitment; instead, it deepens it. Many who remain anxious about their relationship with God do better to focus on that relationship in confession, lamentation, and repentance rather than seeking “re-baptism,” as would be true for a spouse who is anxious about his or her marital relationship. May we all seek to live our lives to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit, and thus obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post “Re-Baptism” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Disinformation

What was going on? The situation seemed pretty dire. Exploitation and oppression proved rampant. Government officials worked to suppress any messages which would expose such failures and which worked against the government’s purposes. Yet said officials were perfectly fine with jingoistic celebrations of their favored status and exceptionalism. Unsurprisingly, most of the people gave heed to messages which fit the way they had always seen themselves and their world.

Does this sound like America in the 21st century? It is a description of Judah and Jerusalem in the days leading up to their destruction and devastation at the hands of the Babylonians as recorded by Jeremiah and other prophets.

Christians often wonder why the Israelites never seemed to listen to the prophets. In truth, the Israelites did listen to the prophets–the false prophets. But why would the Israelites give ear to the false prophets and resist the message of the faithful prophets?

The engagement between Jeremiah and Hananiah in Jeremiah 27:1-28:17 can prove instructive for us. YHWH charged Jeremiah to make a wooden yoke and go around proclaiming to the Judahites as well as the envoys from the surrounding nations how YHWH has given power and authority to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and they should all submit to his yoke (Jeremiah 27:1-22). Hananiah then stood up in the Temple and resisted Jeremiah’s message, instead proclaiming YHWH said He would break the power of Nebuchadnezzar, and everyone and everything which Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of Jerusalem would return within two years (Jeremiah 28:1-4).

If you were a Judahite in Jerusalem in 593 BCE, who would you believe? Which of the two prophets provided material aid to the enemy? Which of the two prophets affirmed YHWH as the God of Israel who would defeat the enemies of Israel? Who was proclaiming a message of defeat and doom which seemed unimaginable, and who seemed to proclaim the more theologically “orthodox” message?

Thus the people would have had every reason to believe Hananiah, and so they would. Yet Jeremiah’s message was the one truly from YHWH; what YHWH said through Jeremiah took place. YHWH had not spoken to Hananiah at this moment. But what motivated Hananiah to speak as if He had?

It is possible Hananiah was deceived by some demonic voice. Yet, as a prophet of YHWH, one would imagine Hananiah would have been able to use some discernment in regard to these matters. Hananiah quite likely felt compelled to resist and stand up against the treasonous words and premise of Jeremiah. What Jeremiah was suggesting stood against everything the Judahites believed about themselves and their God. It made much better theological, and national, sense for YHWH to break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar than to expect all nations to submit to Nebuchadnezzar’s yoke. And so Hananiah stood up against Jeremiah. The people were reinforced in their misguided, misplaced confidence that YHWH would never abandon Zion to the enemies of God’s people.

We may no longer speak of proclamations regarding the current state of affairs in terms of prophecy and false prophecy, yet the same tempting, deceptive forces remain as active today as they did over 2600 years ago. Today we speak of it as disinformation.

Disinformation involves false information disseminated with a desire to deceive. Disinformation is also misinformation, but misinformation can also describe inaccurate information which may have been sent out without any attempt to deceive.

Disinformation is a challenge as old as humanity; the serpent in the Garden of Eden was the first purveyor of disinformation (Genesis 3:1-5), and people and powers have been active in its promotion ever since.

One great contrivance of disinformation has taken place in the Western world over the past century in which people convinced themselves they were hearing “objective” and “unbiased” news reports from trusted media and governmental sources. The quest for “objectivity” over the past 250 years in Enlightenment thought may have its noble and praiseworthy ideals, but no human being can ever be truly “objective,” and bias pervades any sort of information distribution. To believe one’s viewpoint is “objective” and “neutral” is a great delusion and lie; the same is true for any other source of information.

Sometimes disinformation is manifest and obvious, both in its substance and motivation. Governments, corporations, and other organizations (yes, even religious organizations) will put out disinformation attempting to hide fault or weakness and projecting strength and confidence. Partisans have motivation to see the worst in their opponents and to suppress anything less than ideal about their own side; therefore, they often put out disinformation maligning their opponents and attempting to silence or suppress unflattering information about their own side.

Yet the most effective disinformation is very much like what the serpent told Eve in the Garden: not entirely accurate and intended to deceive, but sufficiently consistent enough with the truth and the situation the way the person wants to see it as to be easily accepted and believed. The most effective propaganda will trumpet good, positive, and noteworthy things, and perhaps make everything look a little prettier than it really is. Sometimes disinformation is present not by what is said but what is neglected: when some parts of the truth are made known, but others are ignored or suppressed, the presentation becomes warped and distorted, and the overall portrayal proves deceptive.

Disinformation works at its best when those who would receive it express little critical engagement with information or have been actively conditioned to lose trust in any and all sources of information. Such is why the people most active in promoting disinformation tend to project the promotion of disinformation on their ideological opponents or anyone who would critique them: they are always the one pushing the “fake news,” and what is left unstated is the unsubstantiated, and often ridiculously false, claim that they themselves are not promoting “fake news.” We are also seeing a lot more pushing of obvious and manifest disinformation which is never meant to persuade: it is instead an attempt to get people so confused and disoriented as to not know who to trust and to despair of finding any trustworthy source. When someone will not trust anyone, they end up falling for just about anything; note well how often those who claim to be “independent” in their thinking and who resist “trusting anyone” end up believing in a lot of conspiracy theories and difficult to substantiate medical, political, social, and religious claims.

Disinformation is promoted because it “works.” Many have profited handsomely from spreading disinformation. Agents of disinformation have gained significant amounts of cultural, political, and social power, and maintain and reinforce that power by the promotion of disinformation. It is hard not to see the hand of the powers and principalities over this present darkness at work behind the scenes of disinformation, and it certainly is part of the worldly, demonic wisdom at variance against the wisdom from above from God in Christ (cf. James 3:13-18).

Most well-meaning people do not intend to believe or promote disinformation, yet we all find ourselves awash in disinformation. So what can we do?

First and foremost, we cannot imagine we could not fall prey to disinformation; in various ways, we all likely have. We may not have intended to, and we might profess a strong commitment to the truth, but we all have our biases as human beings. We have a natural tendency to want to see the best in what we believe to be good, right, and true, and regarding those with whom we affiliate in that regard. We have a natural tendency to prove more critical of those with whom we believe we maintain strong disagreements.

As with all kinds of faults, we are all far better at seeing the “speck” of how others fall prey to disinformation rather than the “log” of how we might fall prey to it (Matthew 7:3-4). When we see someone else promote or share disinformation, we are strongly tempted to resist it and to marshal evidence and facts in refutation. There might well be good and effective times to promote what is good, right, and true; nevertheless, most people have not reasoned themselves into the viewpoints which are motivating them to share such disinformation, and it will therefore prove challenging to reason them out of it.

Instead, if we are truly concerned about disinformation, we need to prove most wary regarding ourselves and those institutions and people with whom we feel significant alignment and association. After all, as with the Judahites in 593 BCE, so with us: we have frameworks of belief and ideas about the way things are and should be, and we are much more likely to accept information which aligns with those frameworks and ideas than information which complicates or upsets them. We are tempted to see the best in “us” and the worst in “them”; we are more prone to believe whatever makes “us” look good and whatever makes “them” look bad, and have a hard time grappling with things which make “us” look bad and “them” look good.

Thus disinformation works best on us when it aligns with what we already want to believe. Disinformation works well when it highlights what we want to highlight even as it ignores or suppresses anything which would compromise our confidence. Disinformation always wants to focus and highlight on them and their problems and never wants to consider where we might prove deficient. Disinformation will rarely be self-critical.

No human being is able to fully escape their biases; we are all embodied, finite creatures, and we all have our perspectives based upon our education and experiences. But we all can seek to learn from other people to broaden and expand our horizons and alleviate some of the natural limitations of our perspectives. We should be able to prove as critical regarding the claims made which align with our ideas and work to our advantage as we are regarding claims which work against us.

Disinformation works until it no longer does. Jeremiah was vindicated by events which took place seven years after Hananiah’s disinformation. Some “apocalyptic” day, a day of revealing of hearts and minds, will invariably expose people and their disinformation. Unfortunately, purveyors of disinformation know how to continue to distort and twist things so people will continue to believe them. God will expose all such things and people on the day of judgment. We do well, therefore, to resist falling prey to disinformation, and certainly should strive to never promote or share disinformation. We must remember our limitations and focus far more significantly on the kinds of disinformation which we would want to believe rather than the disinformation which continues to entangle those we deem our opponents in their delusions. May we hold firm to Jesus who is the Truth in all things, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Disinformation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Healing at Bethesda

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).

Arguments have been advanced which would suggest an inversion of John 5:1-47 and John 6:1-71: according to this reading, the events of John 6:1-71 would follow the healing in Galilee in John 4:46-54, and then John 5:1-47 would follow Jesus’ “Bread of life” discourse, and continue on with Jesus returning to Galilee and then Jerusalem for the Feast of Booths in John 7:1-52. Admittedly this framework would relieve certain tensions within the text: the description of Jesus going to the other side of the Sea of Galilee in John 6:1 only makes sense if Jesus is already in Galilee, which is the case in John 4:46-54 but not in John 5:1-47; likewise, the reference to the “one miracle” in John 7:21 comports best with the healing at Bethesda in John 5:1-16. We will continue to consider the Gospel of John in the canonical order in which it has been delivered to us, but offer this for consideration.

According to John the Evangelist, Jesus returned to Jerusalem for an unnamed feast (John 5:1). He described the pool which was near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem: the best reading of the text for the Aramaic name is “Bethzatha,” but “Bethesda” is the variant by which the place has become most commonly known (John 5:2). One can travel to Jerusalem today and visit the location of the pool at Bethesda at which the events of John 5:1-16 took place.

John reported the presence of many disabled and ill people at the pool of Bethesda (John 5:3). John 5:4 was not recorded in the earliest and best manuscripts; it is most likely a later addition, which may be uninspired but yet still useful, explaining how it was believed an angel of God would stir the water, and the first person to stand in the water once stirred would be healed. John then introduced us to a man who had been disabled for thirty-eight years (John 5:5): Jesus asked if he wanted to be well, and he explained how he had no one to assist him in getting into the water once stirred (John 5:6-7, thus demonstrating the reason for the explanation in John 5:4). Jesus told him to pick up his mat and walk, and he did so and was healed (John 5:8-9).

John the Evangelist then reported what would become the most controversial aspect of what had just happened: this healing took place on a Sabbath (John 5:9b). Jewish leaders, upon seeing the healed man carrying his mat, chastised him for thus laboring on the Sabbath; the man explained how the One who healed him told him to do so (John 5:10-11). The Jewish leaders wanted to know who had said and done these things, but the man did not know (John 5:12-13).

Later, in the Temple, Jesus found the man and exhorted him to avoid sinning any more lest something worse befall him (John 5:14). Many have flippantly made associations between various forms of disability or illness and sin or transgressions; we do well to note how the Biblical record about such associations is mixed and we should be careful in drawing any specific conclusions about any given person and what they might be enduring.

The man would go and tell the Jewish authorities how it was Jesus who had made him well, and they began persecuting Jesus for doing so on the Sabbath (John 5:15-16). It is at this point in which Jesus made a statement which was accurate yet quite inflammatory, and would become the basis for the rest of the discourse in John 5:18-47:

So [Jesus] told [the Jewish authorities], “My Father is working until now, and I too am working” (John 5:17).

In this way Jesus proved quite unrepentant for having worked on the Sabbath, and the Jewish authorities rightly perceived how Jesus made Himself out to be equal with God by calling God His Father (John 5:18).

John the Evangelist then recorded Jesus’ instruction to the Jewish authorities and all who would hear in John 5:19-47. In John 5:19-29 Jesus connected His work of healing and thus giving life to the Father who gives life: the Son can only do what He has seen the Father do, and the Father loves the Son and will show Him, and everyone, even greater deeds which will astound and amaze. The Father raises the dead and gives them life and gives the Son authority to judge so they will honor the Son in the name of the Father: thus the Son will judge and the Son will give life as He wishes. To this end those who believe Jesus’ message and the Father will cross from death to life and have life. The day will come when all in the tombs will hear the voice of the Son of God and will come out: the righteous to eternal life, and wicked to eternal condemnation. In this way Jesus associated His work of healing with His authority to judge and of the day of the resurrection. Jesus certainly evoked Daniel 12:2 in John 5:28-29; we note well how those “in the tombs” will hear His voice, affirming the reanimation/reconstitution of the physical body in the resurrection, and that there will be a “resurrection of condemnation”, since otherwise we would have reason to conclude the day of resurrection would only come for the righteous in Christ.

In John 5:30-47 Jesus attested to the witness of John the Baptist, the deeds Jesus did in the name of the Father, the Father Himself, the Scriptures, and Moses. Witness, or testimony, has always proved important and significant in affirming or rejecting anyone’s claims about truth and reality. Under the Law nothing was to be established by only one witness; legally something could only be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 19:15). Thus it was a valid question to ask: on what basis could Jesus establish the validity and veracity of what He was saying? Jesus said He had the right and standing to judge because He did not seek His own purposes, but the purposes of the Father who had sent Him (John 5:30). If He testified about Himself, His testimony would not be true; thus Jesus would appeal to other witnesses (John 5:31). Jesus first appealed to the witness of John the Baptist who had testified to the truth (John 5:32-35). Yet Jesus has even greater witness than John the Baptist: the deeds He was doing in the name of the Father bore witness how the Father sent Him (John 5:36). The Father also testified about Jesus (John 5:37).

The Jewish authorities and people took their election and standing before God quite seriously. YHWH had spoken to their ancestors. Yet Jesus devastated their pretense: none of them had heard the Father’s voice or had seen Him at any time, and they do not have the Word of God abiding in them, since they rejected the One whom the Father had sent (John 5:37-38). Jesus recognized how they studied the Scriptures and imagined they had life because of them, yet, according to Jesus, those same Scriptures testified about Jesus, and they will not turn to Him for life (John 5:39-40). Jesus pointed out the double standard: they would accept others who came in the name of God, and they accepted the praise of others, while Jesus would not accept the praise of others and they rejected Him even though He had come in the name of the Father; thus the love of God was not in them (John 5:41-44). Jesus would not be their accuser before God, but Moses (John 5:45): Moses had written about Jesus, and if they really believed Moses, they would heed Jesus (John 5:46-47).

Jesus’ instruction would certainly not assuage the hostility of the Jewish authorities; quite the contrary. His message was bold, pointed, and sharp, deeply and strongly challenging many of the core beliefs and presuppositions of the Jewish authorities and people. Discourses like these should remind everyone how there cannot be any kind of middle ground about Jesus: either He is who He says He is, and we all do best to submit ourselves to Him, or He was severely deluded and/or a most unholy, blasphemous liar.

It has always proven easier to hurl invective and heap condemnation on those who bring forth an unsettling and controversial message than to check oneself to see if the message might have merit. The Jewish authorities would not stop persecuting Jesus until they had Him killed even though all He said and did testified to His relationship with His Father. What if Jesus had something similar to say to us? Would we prove willing to check ourselves or would we want to have Him killed as well? May we fully submit ourselves to the Father and the Son and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Healing at Bethesda appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

1 John 4:7-11: The Treatise on Love Begins

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is begotten of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. Herein was the love of God manifested in us, that God hath sent his only begotten Son into the world that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another (1 John 4:7-11).

John has discussed many themes in the first four chapters of his letter: to do what is right and avoid the wrong (1 John 1:1-2:6, 3:1-10), to avoid those who teach false doctrines: in particular, the growing number of Gnostic teachers (1 John 2:12-29, 4:1-6), and to love one another (1 John 2:7-11, 3:11-24).

Beginning in 1 John 4:7, John returns to the theme of loving one another, and thus begins his treatise on love (1 John 4:7-21). It remains one of the most compelling and beautiful passages of Scripture ever written.

The treatise seems to flow from 1 John 4:5-6 in which John demonstrates that we are of God and we know the spirit of truth. Since we are of God and should know the spirit of truth, it follows that we should love one another.

John gives a compelling reason for why we should love one another in 1 John 4:7: love is of God, and those who love are born of God and know God. In 1 John 4:8, John makes it clear that those who do not love do not know God, and this is because God is love.

This last statement is justly famous, and we must respect what John says. God is love; it is not, “love is God.” God provides us the definition and manifestation of love. That manifestation, as John makes clear, is that He sent His Son so that we might live through Him and to be the propitiation for our sins (1 John 4:8-9). Such love is not selfishly motivated or seeking one’s own gain but is entirely and thoroughly devoted to the needs of those whom are loved (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:4-8). Furthermore, it is not as if we deserved this love or had acted becomingly; instead, we all were weak, sinful, and thoroughly undeserving of God’s love, mercy, or grace (cf. Romans 5:5-11). This is why love is in “this”: it is not that we have loved God, but in that God has loved us. It makes sense for us to love God, just as it makes sense for children to love parents: God has given us so much, and our love is in response to His gifts. But there is no similar explanation for God’s love toward us.

Therefore, if we seek to understand love, we look to God and see how He has commended His love toward us. He provided us with the creation and the blessings of life (cf. Genesis 1:1-2:4). Even though we sinned, He was willing to suffer the loss necessary for our reconciliation so that we might live toward Him. Everything God has ever done or will ever do flows from His love, be it His love for humans, for justice, or for other godly and wholesome attributes.

It is not surprising, then, for John to uphold love as the most excellent virtue and the ultimate standard (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:13). Love and the knowledge of God are mutually consistent; but if one does not have love, one clearly does not know God, for love undergirds everything for which God stands and represents. Love is of God, because He provides the definition for seeking the best interest of others.

John then sets forth the challenge for all of us in verse 11: if God has so loved us, we should love one another. This is entirely sensible: after all, we seek to be godly people, and if God is love, we must be people marked by love!

Yet the challenge remains. We humans find it easy to love those who love us and who do good for us (cf. Matthew 5:46-47). That is why it is comparatively easy for us to love God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ when we recognize just how much They have done on our behalf and for our good. But it is not enough to just love those who love us. We must also love those who would do us harm and evil (cf. Matthew 5:43-45), just as God loved us when we were most unlovable.

Yes, John says that our love should be for “one another,” and in the most limited sense, that refers to fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. But the same love must be shown to our “neighbor” (cf. Romans 13:8-11), and Jesus makes it clear in Luke 10:25-37 that “our neighbor” ought to be anyone and everyone. We must remember that John is setting God forth as the ultimate demonstration and manifestation of love, and we must pattern our lives after Him. He has loved without partiality, seeking the best for all people according to His righteousness, justice, truth, and mercy (cf. Romans 5:5-11, 6:1-23). Let us seek to do the same, and seek the best interest for everyone in our lives!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post 1 John 4:7-11: The Treatise on Love Begins appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Christian Zionism

Why does it seem many who profess Jesus as Lord, especially among various Evangelical groups, prove extremely obsessed with the State of Israel? Why do so many believe it is a Christian imperative to support and promote the State of Israel? Such is the fruit of Christian Zionism.

Zionism represents a Jewish nationalist movement begun in the late nineteenth century by Theodor Herzl with a view of establishing a Jewish homeland, ideally in Palestine; with the satisfaction of that desire with the founding of the State of Israel in 1948, Zionism has shifted to represent an ideology designed to encourage the development and protection of the State of Israel.

In the most general sense, any Christian who affirms any form of Zionism would be a Christian Zionist. Yet Christian Zionism tends to demand a series of theological and eschatological positions regarding the people and State of Israel: Israel remaining a specifically chosen and elect nation by God, the continued relevance of the promise of the land of Canaan to the descendants of Abraham, belief in the need to bless Israel in order to receive blessings from God, and preparation for the return of Jesus to inaugurate the millennium.

In a profound irony, Christian Zionism came before Jewish Zionism, and in many respects Christian Zionists have advanced and strengthened Zionism quite strongly for and among the Jewish people. Christian Zionism developed out of what has been called “Christian restorationism,” a Protestant movement looking for the restoration of the Jewish people to Christ, and in the eyes of many, to the land of Palestine (“Christian restorationism” should not be confused with the Restorationist, or Stone-Campbell Movement, which sought to restore the ancient order of things in the life and faith of Christians and the church).

In a real sense Christians have always wanted to see Israel according the flesh to become sufficiently “jealous” and come to believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and many throughout time have understood Paul in Romans 11:25-29 as hoping for an ultimate ingathering of the Jewish people to Christ. Those throughout time who have held to historical premillennialism (not to be confused with the dispensational premillennialism of rapture/”Left Behind” fame), and its insistence on a thousand-year reign of Jesus on earth have continually been tempted to associate that view with many of the statements of the Hebrew prophets and thus to expect Jesus to gather together Israelites in the land of Israel and to reign from Jerusalem in the millennium.

Yet such doctrinal perspectives did not demand any expectation for a Jewish state to be re-established in Palestine. In fact, both early Christians and rabbinic Jewish people maintained a similarly “anti-Zionist” position of sorts, albeit for different reasons. Both early Christians and rabbinic Jewish people believed the Jewish people were sharply judged and exiled as a result of the First and Second Jewish Wars of 68-70 and 132-136 CE, during which the Second Temple was destroyed, untold thousands of Jewish people died or were exiled, and Jewish presence in Jerusalem was banned, although some Jewish people continued to live in what had been the land of Israel. Early Christians understood this banishment as God’s judgment against the Jewish people because of their rejection of Jesus as their Messiah; that Julian “the Apostate” decreed an encouragement for Jewish people to return to the land of Judea and rebuild the Temple in order to annoy and frustrate Christians testifies to the general attitude from Christians about “Zionism” at that time. Medieval Christians were no more amenable to the establishment of a State of Israel; most felt the Holy Land should be in the possession of Christians, and the crusades were all fought to that end.

In the wake of the disasters of the Jewish Wars, the rabbis re-centered the Jewish faith around the community and the synagogue and worked diligently to clamp down on the apocalypticism, messianism, and “zionism” which had led to the disasters in the first place. The rabbis looked forward to the return to the land of Israel when the Messiah would come and bring them into that land. To this end the Zionism of Theodor Herzl was extremely unpopular among Jewish people throughout the end of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the twentieth century, because plenty of Jewish people in the diaspora wanted to assimilate into their local populations and not insist on Judaism as their nationality and because they felt it was presumptuous for themselves to create an Israelite state. To this day there remains a vocal minority of strongly religiously observant Jewish people who decry the State of Israel as illegitimate, just as their ancestors did the same with the Hasmonean Kingdom of the second and first centuries BCE, since they were not established by the Messiah sitting as the descendant of David on his throne.

Thus Jewish people as a whole until the second half of the twentieth century, and early and medieval Christians, could be well described in modern terms as “anti-Zionist.” Most of the earliest Protestant “restorationists” were more concerned about the spiritual condition of the Israelites and looked forward to their conversion to Jesus more than any restoration of Israel to Palestine.

The major doctrinal and theological shift which would lead to Christian Zionism developed in Britain and America, particularly among the Puritans. For all sorts of socio-political and theological reasons, the Puritans would consider Britain, and then in turn America, to be somehow specifically “chosen” or the “elect” of God; this tendency has become deeply woven into the fabric of American society in believing America to be the exceptional and/or chosen nation, a “Christian nation” distinct from many others. By necessity, any insistence on an early modern or modern nation as “chosen” or “elect” would require grappling with the Israelites as God’s chosen and elect people. Thus many Puritans, and later British and American Evangelical Christians, understood God as having chosen them so they could become blessings to and advance the cause of God’s “truly” or originally chosen people, the Israelites.

The last major piece in the development of Christian Zionism was the adaption of parts of dispensational premillennialism to not only justify but demand the creation and promotion of the State of Israel. John Nelson Darby, the nineteenth century original expositor of dispensational premillennialism, did envision the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, but as the “earthly” millennial kingdom which Jesus would inaugurate after the rapture. It would be later expositors who would adapt the message to insist on the existence of the State of Israel before the return of Jesus, and in fact requiring the State of Israel to exist and the building of the Third Temple so the “Antichrist” could enter and defile it in the midst of the “Tribulation” to facilitate the fulfillment of prophecy and the return of Jesus. Furthermore, the church has almost no presence in the theology of dispensational premillennialism, and the “literalist” understanding of both Old and New Testament prophecy in dispensational premillennialism has led to significant expectations regarding Israel according to the flesh in the fulfillment of the “end times.”

It was one thing to advance and promote the Zionist idea; Christian Zionism would adapt to the times once the State of Israel was established in 1948. Whereas mainline Protestants had been active in promoting Christian Zionism beforehand, Evangelical Christians, particularly Pentecostal/renewalist Christians, have become the most ardent Christian Zionists since 1948. They have worked diligently to advance the socio-political interests of the State of Israel, and the State of Israel is more than happy to work with them and to market and promote Israeli causes and emphasize interpretations of Scriptures which work to the benefit and encouragement of the State of Israel. To this end much is made of the promise of blessing those who bless the descendants of Abraham, and to curse those who curse them (cf. Genesis 12:3), as well as various statements encouraging the blessing of Israel and curses to those who curse Israel (e.g. Psalm 129:5). Such Christian Zionists often dogmatically insist Christians must seek the benefit and advancement of the State of Israel, and any understanding of the relationship between God, Christians, and Israel according to the flesh other than their own are condemned.

What, then, shall we make of Christian Zionism and its claims?

Let none be deceived: one can be a Christian and a Zionist. The horror of World War II and the Holocaust led to a sea change in opinion among the Jewish people regarding Zionism, since it became apparent Jewish people could not sufficiently trust they could assimilate into local populations and prosper, and the arguments of the Zionists about the importance of having a Jewish homeland in which Jewish people could find refuge and a base from which they could defend themselves proved compelling. On a socio-political level Christians can also be persuaded by these arguments and believe Jewish people should have a homeland in Palestine.

Furthermore, as Christians, we must bitterly lament the anti-Semitism which marked many Christians throughout the ages. Most of the pogroms and instances of slaughter of Jewish people throughout the second millennium CE were perpetrated by people professing Jesus as the Christ. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, scurrilous lies and slander against Jewish people which are still regarded highly by neo-Nazi and radical Islamist groups, was written and promulgated by people professing Jesus as the Christ. Those professing Jesus have all too easily bought into untrue and slanderous stereotypes about Jewish people and conspiracies about Jewish people in places of authority. If Jewish people had half the power and influence anti-Semitic propaganda would suggest they had, the fate of Jewish people over the past few hundred years would have turned out quite differently! To this day those professing Jesus as the Christ have no excuse or justification in promulgating anti-Semitic stereotypes, conspiracy theories, or acting or presuming Jewish people today should suffer and/or die because their ancestors had a hand in crucifying Jesus. We should be able to understand why Jewish people cannot truly feel safe in predominantly “Christian” nations based upon their experience of the past few hundred years, and in many respects, the creation of the State of Israel was facilitated by the failure of purportedly “Christian nations” in protecting and valuing their Jewish citizens.

As Christians we should even recognize the esteem God has for Israel according to the flesh. While descendants of the peoples of the ancient Near East certainly still exist, only Israel continues to exist as a distinct people. Israel according to the flesh has persevered despite unimaginable hostility and persecution. Furthermore, as Christians, we should honor the position of Israel according to the flesh. As Paul noted:

To them belong the adoption as sons, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the temple worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from them, by human descent, came the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever! Amen (Romans 9:4-5).

Likewise, “the gifts and call of God are irrevocable” (Romans 11:29); we must avoid absolute supersessionism in our theology, for God has not entirely excluded Israel according to the flesh. The Gospel came first to the Jewish people, then to the nations (Romans 1:16); while one could interpret this as historical fact, Paul’s illustration of the olive tree would suggest we should still show concern to promote the Gospel among Jewish people, since they are the “native” branches who can be more easily grafted in than the “wild” branches of us Gentiles (cf. Romans 11:24). Paul at least in part justified the monetary gift from the Gentile Christians of Galatia and Greece to the Christians of Judea as a response to Gentile “indebtedness” to the Jewish Christians: since Gentile Christians can now share in the spiritual blessings which came first to Jewish Christians, it was right for the Gentile Christians to share with the Jewish Christians in material blessings (Romans 15:27).

Nevertheless, there is no warrant in the witness of God in Christ through the Spirit according to history or the Scriptures to justify the doctrinal and theological positions of Christian Zionism; in fact, the doctrinal and theological positions of Christian Zionism generally run against what God has been seeking to accomplish in Christ.

We can marshal evidence against the specific claims inherent in Christian Zionism.

For I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers and sisters, so that you may not be conceited: A partial hardening has happened to Israel until the full number of the Gentiles has come in.
And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”
In regard to the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers (Romans 11:25-28).

Romans 11:25-28 represents one of the most contentious and disputed passages in the New Testament; we must fully and honestly admit the difficulties in its interpretation. We have every reason to believe Paul earnestly hoped and desired for his fellow Israelites in the flesh to come to faith in Jesus and be saved (cf. Romans 9:1-4); he might well be attempting to “speak it into existence” in the future; perhaps he does have some future ingathering of the Jewish people into faith in Christ in mind.

Yet the idea that the “all Israel” who will be saved is Israel according to the flesh runs against the entire grain of the witness of Scripture. The generation which came out of Egypt into the Wilderness was condemned and died; the northern Kingdom of Israel was exiled and most of its members assimilated into the Assyrian population; untold thousands died in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Babylonian exile of 586 BCE; Jesus expected many of the “sons of the kingdom,” that is, Israelites, to be cast out from the divine banquet, and prophesied the devastation which would come to Israel in the First Jewish War (for the last, Matthew 8:11-12, 24:1-36). In Romans 11:5 Paul envisioned the current situation as a remnant chosen by grace: so it always had been in Israel, and so it would always be in terms of the people of God (cf. Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23).

Thus the interpretation most consistent with the rest of Scripture and what Paul sets forth is to understand “all Israel” as that “remnant chosen by grace,” those who have come to saving faith in Jesus from both Jewish and Gentile origins. Regardless, even if Paul did have all Israel according to the flesh in view, nothing in Romans 11:25-28 spoke of or expected in any way the return of Jewish people and sovereignty to Palestine by divine mandate. One must impose an expectation of the creation of the State of Israel onto Romans 11:25-28.

After Lot had departed, YHWH said to Abram, “Look from the place where you stand to the north, south, east, and west. I will give all the land that you see to you and your descendants forever” (Genesis 13:14-15).

That day YHWH made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River – the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites” (Genesis 15:18-21).

God gave the land of Israel to the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob, and the covenant between God and Abraham was unconditional, and so the promise of the land is unconditional; such proves axiomatic to Christian Zionists, and the people-land connection has been strongly emphasized and reinforced in Zionism since 1948.

Indeed, God did promise to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants through Isaac and Jacob. This promise was considered fulfilled in the days of Joshua:

So YHWH gave Israel all the land he had solemnly promised to their ancestors, and they conquered it and lived in it. YHWH made them secure, in fulfillment of all he had solemnly promised their ancestors. None of their enemies could resist them. YHWH handed all their enemies over to them. Not one of the YHWH’s faithful promises to the family of Israel was left unfulfilled; every one was realized (Joshua 21:43-45).

Some Christian Zionists dispute whether the land promise was ever truly fulfilled since the Conquest did not lead to the conquering of all the lands between the river of Egypt and the Euphrates River as in Genesis 15:18-21. This argument is refuted by the size of Solomon’s empire as recorded in 1 Kings 4:21:

Solomon ruled all the kingdoms from the Euphrates River to the land of the Philistines, as far as the border of Egypt. These kingdoms paid tribute as Solomon’s subjects throughout his lifetime.

Those who would make such arguments ought to be careful lest they cast aspersions on the entire theological enterprise in their desperate attempt to justify themselves: after all, if God had not yet proven faithful to the land promise to Abraham’s descendants after four thousand years, how can there be confidence in the promise at all? And why would the land promise stand unfulfilled while the greatest aspect of the promise, the blessing to all the nations in Jesus, has been satisfied for almost two thousand years?

Most Christian Zionists recognize the fulfillment of the land promise in the days of Joshua. The major doctrinal question involves how we understand YHWH’s promise to Abraham in Genesis 13:14-15: what did it mean for YHWH to give the land of Canaan to Abraham’s descendants “forever,” the Hebrew ‘olam?

According to Christian Zionists the statement should be accepted without reservation: Palestine belongs to the Israelites forever as part of the unconditional covenant between God and Abraham.

The major difficulty with this statement, however, is the historical record, which in general is not under dispute. Let us grant the maximal timeframe for Israelite rule of Palestine: let us date the Conquest to 1410 BCE. The Israelites ruled over at least part of the land of Israel from then until the Babylonian conquest and exile in 586 BCE. While Jewish people returned to Judea after 539 BCE, they did not rule over the land until after the Maccabean revolt and the Hasmonean Kingdom, again maximally datable from 167-63 BCE. Palestine would not be under Israelite control again until 1948 CE. Therefore, over the past four thousand years, the Israelites ruled over Palestine for no more than around one thousand of those years. In the past two thousand years their rule has existed for only the last seventy-five.

Sometimes Christian Zionists will try to rationalize the situation by declaring how God gave Israel ownership of the land, not necessarily possession. Thus, even though the land has been ruled over by non-Israelite powers for the vast majority of the past four thousand years, Israel has always “owned” the land. The situation on the ground, however, would provide evidence for the opposite. There have most likely been Israelites living in the land of Palestine since the Conquest. Some Jewish people have “possessed” at least some of the land the whole time, yet have more rarely been in control over it. Furthermore, such a viewpoint betrays a Western/Roman perspective of land ownership somewhat foreign to the Scriptures; it would be better to argue the owner of the land is God Himself.

God did promise to give the land to the descendants of Abraham, but the promise did not cover maintaining possession of the land. Possession of the land was always dependent on the faithfulness of the Israelites:

YHWH will designate you as his holy people just as he promised you, if you keep his commandments and obey him (Deuteronomy 28:9).

If the Israelites proved unfaithful, YHWH would curse them; part of the curse would be expulsion from the land:

YHWH will force you and your king whom you will appoint over you to go away to a people whom you and your ancestors have not known, and you will serve other gods of wood and stone there. You will become an occasion of horror, a proverb, and an object of ridicule to all the peoples to whom YHWH will drive you (Deuteronomy 28:36-37).

In this way God was not unfaithful to His promise to Abraham or Israel when He exiled them from their lands after 722 and 586 BCE; in fact, God had proven faithful to His promises of cursing Israel for their disobedience. In the wake of the First and Second Jewish Wars of the first two centuries CE, the rabbis were not inaccurate in perceiving God had again similarly cursed them.

Yet did not God promise Abraham how his descendants would receive the land “forever” in Genesis 13:14-15? While Hebrew ‘olam can mean and is often well translated as “forever,” there are times ‘olam is used to describe a matter which continues in perpetuity until it no longer does because of some external factor. Thus, for instance, the grain of the grain offering was to be allotted perpetually (Hebrew ‘olam) to the sons of Aaron in Leviticus 6:18. Such an allotment did not continue “forever”, since the Temple was destroyed in 586 BCE and was not rebuilt until 515 BCE, and was then again destroyed in 70 CE. Even if a Third Temple were to be built, all of the genealogical records were destroyed in the wake of the First Jewish War; it would be impossible to identify the “sons of Aaron” to thus receive such offerings.

God did promise Abraham that His descendants would possess the land of Canaan perpetually as long as they remained faithful to Him. Yet Israel did not prove faithful to God as the Scriptures attest again and again.

This unfaithfulness leads us to the overarching theological and doctrinal problem with Christian Zionism in its complete misrepresentation of God’s purposes in Christ through the Spirit as revealed in Scripture.

Jesus and the Apostles did not leave us in doubt regarding what was accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return: Jesus was the fulfillment of not only all which God had promised to Israel, but of the story of Israel itself, so that God could now inaugurate a new covenant made under better promises which featured the integration of Jewish and Gentile believers into one body in Christ:

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them” (Matthew 5:17).

For he is our peace, the one who made both groups into one and who destroyed the middle wall of partition, the hostility, when he nullified in his flesh the law of commandments in decrees. He did this to create in himself one new man out of two, thus making peace, and to reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by which the hostility has been killed (Ephesians 2:14-16).

And so he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the eternal inheritance he has promised, since he died to set them free from the violations committed under the first covenant (Hebrews 9:15).

Thus the Apostles felt able to spiritualize the imagery of Israel and to appropriate it for Christians of Jewish and Gentile heritage, and recognized God did not show partiality:

There will be affliction and distress on everyone who does evil, on the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, for the Jew first and also the Greek. For there is no partiality with God (Romans 2:9-11).

For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision something that is outward in the flesh, but someone is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart by the Spirit and not by the letter. This person’s praise is not from people but from God (Romans 2:28-29).

For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything; the only thing that matters is a new creation! And all who will behave in accordance with this rule, peace and mercy be on them, and on the Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16).

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. You once were not a people, but now you are God’s people. You were shown no mercy, but now you have received mercy (1 Peter 2:9-10).

The Apostles noted points of continuity and discontinuity between what had come before Jesus and what was now accomplished by Jesus. Yet above all they saw God fulfilling His purposes for Israel according to the flesh in Jesus, and re-centered the people of God around Jesus, powerfully embodied in Matthew 27:51 and John 2:13-22, in which the Temple, and thus the Presence of God, moves away from the physical building in Jerusalem and to God in Christ. Jesus Himself anticipated this de-emphasis on the physical location and toward community in John 4:20-24, and it was ultimately fulfilled by means of the gift of the Spirit in the lives of believers (Acts 2:39, 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19-20, Ephesians 2:20-22). God no longer dwells in a building or in one specific land. God now dwells in and among His people of every language, nation, tribe, and tongue.

Christian Zionists will deride this presentation as supersessionism or “replacement theology.” There are aspects to those viewpoints here, but also an attempt to avoid their excess. We again appeal to Paul’s illustration of the olive tree in Romans 11:11-24. The olive tree has not changed; it remains the same olive tree. Some of the original branches remain on that tree. But many branches have been broken off, and others grafted in. Such is why Paul sees Christians as the spiritual Israel, the people of God in Christ.

Paul, in fact, argued quite strongly against wrapping up the fulfillment of the promise in terms of the Law and its works, instead emphasizing how Abraham received the promise by faith, and how his children are no longer to be defined by physical descent as much as by sharing in the faith of Abraham and the fulfillment of the promise in Jesus the Christ (Romans 4:1-25, Galatians 3:1-29).

It had been God’s purpose, in fact, to bless the nations by means of Israel. Israel, however, would not; they rebelled against and resisted God’s purposes. Pre-exilic Israel served other gods and exploited and oppressed their people in the land; thus God cast them into exile (cf. Zechariah 6:1-6). Second Temple Judaism rejected the Messiah God sent them, Jesus of Nazareth, and chose Barabbas the insurrectionist instead (Matthew 27:21-23). The Jewish people then revolted twice against Roman rule in the First and Second Jewish Wars, and all which Jesus had prophesied regarding the Day of YHWH against Israel came to pass (cf. Matthew 24:1-36); the way of Barabbas had led them to death, despair, and another exile. After almost two thousand years, Jewish hopes for a Messiah have been frustrated. No Temple has been built; the Jewish people have not been able to observe the letter of Torah since 70 CE, and thus the Judaism which sprang forth from the rabbis in all of its various permutations today have as much resemblance to First and Second Temple Israelite practices as does Christianity, and in its ideology is no older.

It is understandable why Jewish people have become Zionists. We can understand why Christians would be persuaded regarding many Zionist arguments and believe, on a socio-political level, in the value of the existence of a Jewish homeland in the State of Israel.

Yet it remains entirely inconsistent with the testimony of Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christians for Christians to become Christian Zionists and to make strong doctrinal and theological pronouncements regarding the need to support the State of Israel. If we truly believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and a true prophet, then we must confess how Jesus prophesied the doom and curse of all Israelites in the flesh who continued to deny Jesus as the Messiah, powerfully and vividly demonstrated in the Day of YHWH against Israel in the First and Second Jewish Wars. If John the Baptist is the Elijah, the one prophesying in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord, then Israel has received its comfort, and genealogical descent from Abraham is no longer the most important thing, for God can make sons of Abraham out of stones (cf. Luke 3:1-9). The Apostles confessed Jesus as not only the Redeemer of Israel, but the Redeemer of the world, in faithfulness to the promises made by the Hebrew prophets; in Christ God has provided the ground of reconciliation for Jews and Gentiles (Ephesians 2:1-3:12). The “olive tree” representing the people of God continues to exist with some native branches and some wild branches grafted in (Romans 11:11-24): thus the church represents the “Israel of God,” and Christians should understand all language regarding blessings and curses for Israel and Zion in terms of Christians and the church. If we believe Jesus is the Christ, we must believe Jesus reigns as Lord; the Kingdom is here and now and manifest in the people of God centered around Jesus, and we have no reason or excuse to look for some future manifestation of the Kingdom in some kind of earthly millennial reign (Acts 2:36, Colossians 1:13).

What of Israel according to the flesh? God loves Israelites and wants them to be saved in Jesus; they are always welcome to be restored as native branches grafted back into the olive tree (Romans 9:1-11:29). Gentile Christians owe a debt to Jewish Christians and should never prove guilty of anti-Semitism. There is never any justification or excuse for slander or violence against Jewish people.

Yet if we believe Jesus is the Christ, we must also believe God desires all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth and does not show partiality (Romans 2:11, 1 Timothy 2:4). As God loves Israelis and wants them to be saved, so God also loves Palestinian Muslims and wants them to be saved. And what of the Palestinian Christians? If any group of people provides a testimony to the incoherence and internal contradictions of Christian Zionism, it would be the Palestinian Christians, who have gained little but misery, oppression, and violence from the efforts of those who would profess Jesus but prove better friends of their Israeli oppressors.

The entire Christian Zionist enterprise is a misbegotten adventure deriving from the misbegotten Puritan adventure elevating any given earthly nation as a chosen or elect nation in light of the trans-national, trans-ethnic Kingdom of God in Christ, and the misbegotten dispensational premillennialist adventure distorting the hope of the return of Jesus and the resurrection into an elaborate scheme which looks much more like the way Second Temple Jewish people expected God to fulfill His promises than the way Christians should recognize Jesus of Nazareth actually fulfilled them.

As we said before, so we say again: Christians have the right to Zionist opinions; Christians can believe it is right and appropriate for the Jewish people to have their own homeland and for the State of Israel to exist. But Christians also have the right to anti-Zionist opinions, believing the lack of control of the land continued to represent the judgment of God against Israel for rejecting Jesus the Messiah, as did their ancestors in the faith. No Christian has the right to excuse or justify exploitation, oppression, and violence in the name of God; Christians with Zionist opinions should prove willing to call out the State of Israel regarding its often oppressive and violent treatment of Palestinians, and Christians with anti-Zionist opinions should prove willing to call out the Palestinians for their acts of terrorism. All Christians should abhor dehumanization and demonization and thus anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.

Yet, in the end, we must recognize, mark, and call out Christian Zionism for its distortion of God’s purposes in Christ through the Spirit. We are all called to be children of Abraham by faith, not by genealogical descent; the blessings of God’s promises to Abraham come to any and all who maintain confidence in God in Christ through the Spirit. We are not called to physical Jerusalem, but spiritual Zion; God’s presence will not be found in a building or a land but in and among His people in Christ through the Spirit wherever, and whoever, they may be. Whoever controls Palestine is ultimately of no greater concern for Christians than who controls any other piece of physical property; Jesus is Lord and reigns over heaven and earth, and when Jesus returns in the resurrection, every eye everywhere will see Him, and we shall all be changed. Those who feel compelled to help God along to fulfill prophecy, and also feel compelled to continually adapt their understanding of said prophecies based upon changing earthly conditions, do well to re-consider whether their understanding of prophecy is accurate; God is able to accomplish His purposes through people without them needing to believe they are helping it along. Not one nation or people is of any greater or lesser value in the sight of God; God would have all come to faith in Christ Jesus and be saved. Let us not put our trust in America, or Israel, or any nation, but in God in Christ through the Spirit, and obtain His blessings and favor!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Lewis, Donald M. A Short History of Christian Zionism: From the Reformation to the Twenty-First Century. Westmont, Illinois: IVP Academic, 2021.

The post Christian Zionism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.