Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 12

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.

Kings, Folly, and Wisdom

One dead fly makes the perfumer’s ointment give off a rancid stench, so a little folly can outweigh much wisdom. A wise person’s good sense protects him, but a fool’s lack of sense leaves him vulnerable. Even when a fool walks along the road he lacks sense, and shows everyone what a fool he is. If the anger of the ruler flares up against you, do not resign from your position, for a calm response can undo great offenses. I have seen another misfortune on the earth: It is an error a ruler makes. Fools are placed in many positions of authority, while wealthy men sit in lowly positions. I have seen slaves on horseback and princes walking on foot like slaves. One who digs a pit may fall into it, and one who breaks through a wall may be bitten by a snake. One who quarries stones may be injured by them; one who splits logs may be endangered by them. If an iron axhead is blunt and a workman does not sharpen its edge, he must exert a great deal of effort; so wisdom has the advantage of giving success. If the snake should bite before it is charmed, the snake charmer is in trouble. The words of a wise person win him favor, but the words of a fool are self-destructive. At the beginning his words are foolish and at the end his talk is wicked madness, yet a fool keeps on babbling. No one knows what will happen; who can tell him what will happen in the future? The toil of a stupid fool wears him out, because he does not even know the way to the city. Woe to you, O land, when your king is childish, and your princes feast in the morning! Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobility, and your princes feast at the proper time – with self-control and not in drunkenness. Because of laziness the roof caves in, and because of idle hands the house leaks. Feasts are made for laughter, and wine makes life merry, but money is the answer for everything. Do not curse a king even in your thoughts, and do not curse the rich while in your bedroom; for a bird might report what you are thinking, or some winged creature might repeat your words (Ecclesiastes 10:1-20).

The Preacher is famous for his proverbs. He provided many in his exhortation.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-9:18 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. In Ecclesiastes 10:1-20 the Preacher continued meditating on wisdom and folly in a series of proverbial style aphorisms, loosely organized around the themes of wisdom, folly, and the king.

The Preacher began with an observation from the world of perfumes: despite being quite small and seemingly insignificant, if a fly dies in ointment, its rotting flesh can cause the entire perfume to stink; so it also goes for a little folly compared to much wisdom (Ecclesiastes 10:1). The Preacher did not intend to suggest folly is superior to wisdom in any way, shape, or form; he instead speaks of influence. A little bit of foolishness is all which is required to overthrow the appeals of the wise.

The NET well interprets Ecclesiastes 10:2 in its translation. The Preacher spoke of the wise man having his heart at his right hand but the fool has his on the left, reflecting cultural biases normalizing right-handedness and stigmatizing left-handedness much more than anything about political alignments over the past two and a half centuries. Thus the wise use good sense which can provide assurance, comfort, and protection, while the fool is left exposed in his folly. The fool, after all, cannot help him or herself; no matter how much he or she may attempt to cover it, their folly will become manifest (Ecclesiastes 10:3).

The Preacher continued with a series of observations about power. A king or ruler might become angry with a given official or counselor, but the latter does better to maintain their position rather than resign, and find a way to respond with gentleness and patience (Ecclesiastes 10:4). The Preacher remained well aware of the implications of the power of rulers: a great misfortune takes place when a ruler makes an error, since his error will invariably lead to many negative consequences for some people (Ecclesiastes 10:5). The Preacher also observed times in which fools were granted power while the wealthy were degraded and humiliated; likewise, he has seen slaves on horses while their masters walk like slaves (Ecclesiastes 10:6-7). The Preacher remained a big fan of the hierarchies and systems of order of his day.

The Preacher pondered some ironic misfortunes: a person who digs a pit might fall into it; a person who breaks through a wall might get bitten by a snake; one might get injured by the stones one breaks or the wood one chops (Ecclesiastes 10:8-9). Perhaps the Preacher would like for people to exercise better workplace safety habits; yet he most likely would have us consider situations in which we harm ourselves by the very things we are trying to accomplish.

The Preacher gave his version of “work smarter, not harder”: the blunt ax requires a lot more effort, and so using wisdom can provide success or at least make life a little easier (Ecclesiastes 10:10). If a snake bites the snake charmer before he is charmed, such would be a failure and is without profit (Ecclesiastes 10:11): perhaps the Preacher would have us consider if an endeavor is doomed from the start, and we should act accordingly.

The Preacher again set forth a series of contrasts regarding the wise and the foolish. The words of the wise provide him or her favor. But foolish words prove destructive, often incoherent or mad, and yet the foolish keep talking even though, in truth, they have no great insight or understanding about what will happen (Ecclesiastes 10:12-14). A foolish person’s toil wears them out and they do not even know how to get to the city (Ecclesiastes 10:15): perhaps the Preacher chides foolish people for engaging in agricultural work rather than the work in the city, but more likely he imagines the foolish person as unable to manage basic and important behaviors or would have the foolish person of Ecclesiastes 10:12-14 so weary himself out with toil that he will not know how to go to town and speak his folly. We most likely understand the type regardless.

The Preacher considered kingship again with a woe and a blessing: woe to the land whose ruler is a child or childish and whose princes begin feasting early, but blessed is the land whose ruler is nobly born and whose princes feast at the appropriate time and not unto drunkenness (Ecclesiastes 10:16-17). The Preacher’s aristocratic bias is indeed exposed, but there is something to the general principle that a land and nation do better with well prepared rulers who understand they are servants of the people but are far worse off if their rulers are unprepared and immature and live in frivolity.

Laziness, or a lack of effort, leads to houses in disrepair (Ecclesiastes 10:18), a lament with which anyone who lives in a home can appreciate. The Preacher spoke of how feasts and wine were for partying and merriment, and either confesses money is the answer to everything or says those who are merry think money is the answer to everything (Ecclesiastes 10:19). We do well to understand the Preacher’s observations as more descriptive than prescriptive.

The Preacher counseled against cursing rulers or the wealthy in the mind or what one believes to be a secret space lest a bird might repeat the thoughts or words (Ecclesiastes 10:20). We still use the metaphor of how “a little bird” told us about something when we really heard it from another person. The Preacher wisely warns people about their thoughts and words in secret: they have a tendency of getting exposed.

In these matters the Preacher remained in the general mainstream of the ancient Near Eastern wisdom tradition of which he is a part. We do well to give heed to the Preacher’s wisdom, subject it to the purposes of God in Christ through the Spirit, and find eternal life in Jesus and the resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Kings, Folly, and Wisdom appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Jesus in Samaria and Galilee

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, and the events which took place while Jesus was present at the Passover in Jerusalem (John 1:19-4:3).

The Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread had concluded and so it was about time to return to Galilee. Yet Jesus and His disciples travel by means of an unexpected itinerary: they did not cross the Jordan and swing through the Decapolis, but traveled directly north through Samaria (John 4:4). They came to Sychar, a Samaritan town which featured a well Jacob the patriarch had dug (John 4:5).

In former times Samaria had been the capital of the northern Kingdom of Israel. After the Assyrians conquered Samaria, they exiled the Israelites to Assyria and introduced people from other parts of the Neo-Assyrian Empire into the land of Israel which would heretofore be known as Samaria, and its people Samaritans (cf. 2 Kings 17:6, 24-41). The Samaritans would not deny some such heritage but also claimed to be descendants of the ten tribes of Israel; the Jewish people held the Samaritans in contempt and did not consider them Israelites at all, thus animating the power of Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan; John the Evangelist understated the situation when he said Jewish people have no dealings with Samaritans (John 4:9). Jesus, however, traveled through Samaria and engaged with Samaritans; as we consider Jesus in Samaria, we should do so while remembering the prophetic hope of the restoration of Israel.

Jesus sat at the well at Sychar while His disciples went to buy food; a Samaritan woman came to draw water in the middle of the day and He engaged her in conversation (John 4:6-26). As in John 3:3-7 with “again” or “from above,” so in John 4:7-15 and “living water”: most of the time “living water” was understood as running water, as the Samaritan woman understood Jesus, but He was speaking of the Spirit and the gift of eternal life which He could provide. Jesus demonstrated His prophetic standing and knowledge by ascertaining how many times she had been married and how she was now cohabiting with a man (John 4:16-18); it proves easy to castigate her for her situation, but we do well to wonder whether she was more exploited and oppressed than scandalously libidinous. She perceived Jesus was some kind of prophet, and so she asked Him about one of the controversies between the Jewish people and the Samaritans: should they go to prostrate before God on the mountain on which they stood or in Jerusalem (John 4:19-20)? Jesus did maintain an ethnic boundary: the Samaritans are ignorant of the One whom they serve, but salvation is of the Jews; nevertheless, Jesus was overall less interested in settling Jewish vs. Samaritan disputes and appealed to the radical transformation which would soon take place. Jesus was God in the flesh; thus the “place” to bow down before God was not going to be on a mountain somewhere, but wherever Jesus was. The Father was seeking people to prostrate before Him in spirit and in truth (John 4:21-24). The woman expected the Messiah; Jesus confessed to her how He was the Messiah (John 4:25).

The disciples returned and were not a little scandalized. They did not dare ask Jesus what He was doing (John 4:27). In her astonishment and wonder the woman left her water jar and ran into Sychar, telling everyone to come out to see and hear Jesus, a Man who had told her all she had ever done (John 4:28-29). The disciples wanted Jesus to eat, but He told them He had food regarding which they did not understand (John 4:30-32). The disciples wondered who had brought Jesus food; Jesus explained how His food was to do the work of the Father who had sent Him (John 4:33-34). Jesus again drew associations between the natural world and the work of God: they perceived how the harvest for crops would be in four months, but in terms of the work of God, the fields were white for harvest, and they would go out and reap where they had not sown and would rejoice (John 4:35-39).

Meanwhile, the inhabitants of Sychar heeded the words of the woman, came out to Jesus, and invited Him to stay, which He did for two days (John 4:39-40). They confessed they had also come to believe in Jesus as the Christ, not merely based on her testimony, but based on what they saw and heard (John 4:41-42).

Jesus then returned to Galilee (John 4:43). John the Evangelist first provided commentary on how Jesus testified how a prophet has no honor in His home country, but then recognized how the Galileans had welcomed Jesus because they had gone down to the Passover feast and had seen His work there (John 4:44-45). Perhaps John hinted at what was made more explicit in the Synoptic Gospels, how Jesus was better received in other parts of Galilee but not in Nazareth itself (e.g. Luke 4:16-30). Yet perhaps we do better to understand John as making a contrast between the Samaritans who so readily believed and these Galileans who would ultimately prove more recalcitrant: a galling comparison indeed for any Israelite!

As always, we do well to remember how John himself would confess all the books of the world could not contain all the things which Jesus had done (John 21:25): John has selected seven miraculous signs upon which to focus, of which the second took place in Cana in Galilee in John 4:46-54. The son of a royal official in Capernaum was sick; his father would have been some kind of official for Herod Antipas (John 4:46). The royal official went to Cana and begged Jesus to heal his son; Jesus responded by declaring how the people would not believe unless they saw signs and wonders (John 4:47-48). The official kept begging Jesus to come with him; Jesus did not go with him but told him to go home, for his child would live (John 4:49-50). He went home and discovered his son had recovered; he inquired and ascertained that the fever broke the moment Jesus had declared he would live; he and his household believed in Jesus (John 4:51-54).

Thus Jesus continued His ministry in His return from Jerusalem through Samaria to Galilee. Salvation might be of the Jewish people, but in Jesus it would spread well beyond the Jewish people. Jesus may have been dishonored among His own people, but many others have come in humble faith confessing Him as Lord and Christ. May we come to Jesus and through Him obtain living water to go out into the harvest and ultimately share in the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Jesus in Samaria and Galilee appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Neglect

“Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law – justice, mercy, and faithfulness! You should have done these things without neglecting the others. Blind guides! You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!” (Matthew 23:23-24)

We understand well how the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit involves the witness of God regarding Himself and His people in the Scriptures. We recognize the importance of insisting on the “whole counsel of God” (cf. Acts 20:27). We seek to discern this whole counsel of God by means of the substance of what has been revealed.

Yet even within this “whole counsel” God has established certain matters upon which He expected His people to emphasize, focus, and prioritize. Likewise, the people of God themselves will be tempted to emphasize, focus upon, and prioritize various aspects and elements of this “whole counsel” for all kinds of socio-cultural reasons.

And whenever something is emphasized, focused upon, or prioritized, by necessity, something else is comparably de-emphasized, neglect and/or suppress. Just as we can learn a lot about ourselves based on what we choose to emphasize, focus upon, and prioritize, we can also learn much based on what we choose to de-emphasize, suppress, and/or neglect.

Even if God had not made specific provision regarding emphasis in the witness of Scripture, human limitation and nature would thus testify. We would like to imagine we can uphold all kinds of things appropriately and equally, but such is a deception and a fool’s errand. As finite creatures we can focus on and understand only so much. “Focus” represents the perfect concept for illustrating the premise: we frequently find ourselves using our senses to focus on certain objects or priorities; by necessity, by focusing on some things, we are not focusing on the other things. We cannot keep everything in mind equally at all times; we will emphasize some things and comparatively neglect other things.

Neglect involves not providing sufficient or appropriate attention to a given matter. For our purposes we do well to understand neglect in terms of one of two aspects: benign neglect and malign neglect. Both of these dimensions can be well discerned from Jesus’ condemnation of the lawyers and Pharisees in Matthew 23:23-24.

In Matthew 23:23-24 Jesus provided all the evidence for emphasis which we might need: under the Law of Moses there were “more important” things like justice, mercy, and faithfulness; since they are more important, the Pharisees should have emphasized, focused upon, and prioritized them. If there are “more important” things, that also means there are “less important” things: as an example, Jesus spoke of giving a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin. We can describe the tithing of spices as something which Israelites under the Law should have regarded with “benign neglect”: a matter which was of lesser importance and upon which little emphasis or weight should be given.

“Benign neglect” should never be understood as meaning “ignoring” or not performing: Jesus told the Pharisees they did well in not neglecting to tithe the mint, dill, and cumin. Understanding matters of emphasis, focus, and priority is not a pretext for commending disobedience or faithlessness in minor matters.

Thus we focus on the “benign” nature of the “neglect”: gentle or kindly, not causing difficulty or a problem. There are many matters in the faith we do well to uphold but not emphasize; what value is there in straining a gnat? Thus there are “minor” things which should stay “minor”; not only are we not in the wrong to keep them as minor, we would in fact transgress God’s purposes in Christ through the Spirit if we put stronger weight on them!

Unfortunately, many issues which we should treat with “benign neglect” have become hot-button issues upon which many place great emphasis, and criticism of that emphasis is rarely received gently and kindly. Many of our disputations and even some of our “distinctives” prove much more akin to tithing mint, dill, and cumin than they do to justice, mercy, and faithfulness. Our conversation regarding many of these matters proves full of bombastic rhetoric which provides more heat than light. We do well to repent of such misplaced emphasis and restore Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return as our primary emphasis as His servants.

Yet Jesus was not charging the lawyers and Pharisees with benign neglect: He upbraided them for neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness in Matthew 23:23-24, thus “swallowing the camel.” Such represents an example of “malign” neglect: neglect which leads to harm.

Malign neglect proves multifaceted. Some malign neglect derives from outright denial or rejection of some aspect of what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit. Most of the Pharisees, for instance, rejected Jesus as the Messiah of God; thus they worked to suppress the proclamation of Jesus as Messiah and actively worked against His purposes (e.g. Matthew 12:22-37). Such represents the extreme danger which comes from calling good evil and evil good (cf. Isaiah 5:20): one can thus delude oneself into thinking one is following God’s purposes when he or she is in fact rejecting them and leaving the work of God in Christ left undone.

Yet the most pernicious and sadly widespread forms of malign neglect rarely involve outright denial or rejection of some aspect of what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit. Instead, the truth of God is always maintained in pretense; yet the camel is swallowed by ignoring or suppressing certain aspects of God’s truth. And this is not behavior of the Gentiles; it happens frequently among the people of God!

How could the people of God actively ignore or suppress aspects of God’s truth and yet feel justified and righteous? Consider the lawyers and Pharisees which Jesus condemned in Matthew 23:23-24. They were active, devoted students of Torah and sought to manifest holiness. Yet in their punctilious concerns about aspects of purity and holiness, they alienated themselves from the people whom God wanted them to encourage and serve. In their arrogance they considered themselves as more holy and righteous than the common people. Ultimately they proved more loyal to their ideology and standing than to God, His people, or His truth (cf. John 11:47-48).

Christians today remain tempted in the same ways as the lawyers and Pharisees of old.

Christians can become overly dedicated to punctilious concerns about aspects of the faith regarding which they should really consider with “benign neglect.” In so doing they define holiness and righteousness in terms of holding to certain ideas and behaviors and emphasize them strongly. Other ideas and behaviors, however, do not receive the same emphasis. Such is how Christians can deceive themselves into thinking someone is justified if they wear the right clothes and show up during the times of assembly and maintain that definition above and beyond everything else.

Likewise, Christians are tempted toward tribal associations and connections. Loyalty within the tribe and matters of what God has made known in Christ through the Spirit will come into conflict at times, and all too often, the truth is ignored or suppressed in order to maintain tribal loyalty. Such is how Christians might strongly condemn other Christians who believe they can give funds from the church treasury to human institutions or use instrumental music in the assembly but refrain from condemning fellow Christians who uphold white supremacy and/or exhibit xenophobic behaviors.

Tribal associations and connections also tend to define what Christians are tempted to comparatively emphasize or neglect. We see this exemplified vividly in terms of sexual immorality and in terms of women and childbearing. One tribal association is strongly tempted to emphasize the humanity of the baby to the neglect of the humanity of the mother, and another association is tempted to emphasize the humanity of the mother to the neglect of the humanity of the baby. One tribal association strongly condemns same sex sexual behavior but comparatively neglects condemnation of sexual harassment and abuse, often to the point of suppressing any work which would attempt to bring justice for those who have suffered sexual abuse. Another tribal association will make much of condemning sexual harassment and abuse but strongly resist, and often actively suppress, any condemnation of same sex sexual behaviors. It always seems easier to want to ignore, neglect, and suppress any aspect of the truth of the witness of God in Christ through the Spirit which seems to give more succor to those whom one views as one’s ideological opponents than to one’s own views.

Matters of emphasis and neglect, therefore, provide no “safe spaces”: they are matters of significant consequence. Woe to us if we emphasize what God would have us treat with comparatively benign neglect, and if we malignantly neglect that which God would rather have us emphasize! So much of what we emphasize and neglect reveal to us and to others our hearts, our fears, and our anxieties. May we seek to dedicate ourselves to the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit no matter what, and may we emphasize that which God has emphasized in Christ, and treat with comparatively benign neglect that which is true but remains of lesser importance, and be found rightly handling the word of truth on the day of judgment!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Neglect appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Strong in the Lord

Paul crafted his message to the Ephesian Christians well. He set forth how believers had been granted every spiritual blessing in the Lord Jesus Christ: predestination, election, adoption, an inheritance, the Spirit; all were lost in sin, but God showed great love, grace, and mercy in Christ; in Christ God killed the hostility between Jew and Gentile, and reconciled them into one body; the mystery of the Gospel is the inclusion of the Gentiles (Ephesians 1:1-3:12). Paul had prayed for the Ephesian Christians to have their hearts enlightened to perceive the great love God has manifested in Jesus according to the power at work in them (Ephesians 1:15-20, 3:14-21). On this basis Paul encouraged them to walk worthily and consistently with this calling: uphold the unity of the church, building up the church in love, no longer living as in darkness but manifesting the light of Jesus, walking wisely, living according to the will of the Lord (Ephesians 4:1-5:21).

Paul applied what it meant to live according to the will of the Lord in the marriage relationship, speaking of husbands and wives in terms of Christ and the church, and vice versa in Ephesians 5:22-33. He continued in the same theme, addressing parents and children in Ephesians 6:1-4: children are to obey their parents in the Lord, and fathers must not exasperate their children, but raise them in the Lord’s discipline and admonition. Paul grounded his exhortation to children in the fifth commandment given in Exodus 20:12: honor your father and mother. Those who honor their parents prove more likely to live quality lives as upright citizens; those who dishonor their parents are more liable to end up in ruin and despair. Yet children are to obey their parents in the Lord; if their parents demand anything contrary to the Lord’s will, children must obey God rather than man (cf. Acts 5:29). Children do not raise themselves; they need good boundaries, commending what is good and chastising what is evil. Children without boundaries yearn for them for the rest of their lives. Christians do well to provide those boundaries as the discipline of the Lord Jesus according to His revealed will.

Paul then turned to the relationship of masters and slaves in Ephesians 6:5-9: slaves were to prove obedient to their earthly masters, working as unto the Lord, knowing they would receive good from the Lord for doing so; masters were to treat slaves well without threatening, remembering they all have a Master watching over them in heaven. We today find such a passage difficult: how could Paul countenance such an institution as slavery? We must remember that slavery in the Roman world was not like the chattel slavery practiced in the American South; if a slave can obtain freedom, Paul would have him obtain it, and Paul’s powerful appeal to Philemon for Onesimus shows his concern for slaves (1 Corinthians 7:21, Philemon 1:1-22). The primary purpose of the Gospel is to reconcile people with God and each other in Christ; only in such radical equality can the inhumanity of owning another person become truly manifest. Slavery was pervasive in the ancient world; it was only circumscribed as a practice when Christianity expanded its reach. Whenever people sit at the Lord’s table together it proves difficult to justify the systems of mankind which considers some superior or inferior to others. Nevertheless Paul’s wisdom applies well to employers and employees today: work diligently at whatever you do, and do not exploit or threaten those under your charge.

Paul brought his exhortations together and to a close in Ephesians 6:10-20 by encouraging Christians to remain strong in the Lord and the strength of His might. He explained how Christians are in a struggle not with fellow humans (“flesh and blood”) but with all sorts of powers and principalities, cosmic forces ruling over this present darkness (Ephesians 6:12). To this end Christians must equip themselves with the armor of God in order to stand against the devil’s schemes (Ephesians 6:11, 13). Paul used traditional Roman armor to make his case. A Roman soldier’s armor was held together by the belt; Christians must gird themselves with the belt of truth, which thus holds everything else together (Ephesians 6:14). The breastplate would provide protection for the internal organs; righteousness serves that role for the Christian (Ephesians 6:14). Good shoes proved important if the army would move efficiently and effectively; Christians wear the “shoes” of the preparation of the Gospel of peace (Ephesians 6:15). The Roman shield was the front line of defense, made to withstand spears and even fire arrows; Roman soldiers lined up in maniple formation, in which each soldier’s shield protected part of him and also part of the man next to him; Christians use faith as a shield, not in isolation, but in formation together with fellow members of the body of Christ, able to extinguish the fire arrows of the Evil One (Ephesians 6:16). The helmet protects the head; Christians are preserved in salvation (Ephesians 6:17). The offensive weapon for the Christian is the sword of the Spirit, the Word of God; the sword is the machaira, a short sword used for stabbing, presuming close quarters in battle (Ephesians 6:17). Battles are won or lost on the basis of effective communication: to this end Christians must always be in contact with “headquarters,” praying at all times, making supplication, watching in prayer for all the Christians, and also Paul himself, that he might speak the Gospel with boldness as he had opportunity, living as an ambassador of Jesus in chains (Ephesians 6:18-20). When all the exhortation is said and done Christians must remember they are in the midst of a war. They did not ask to participate in this war, but the war goes on all around them, and they are all caught up in the conflict whether they recognize it or not. Likewise the Christian must remember it is a spiritual war, not a physical one; far too many have justified horrendous acts of barbarity and cruelty in war in the name of Jesus, something Jesus never commended in life or through His Apostles. Christians are not the heroes of this war; Jesus is. It is not for the Christian to storm the enemy’s gates; as Paul insisted and repeated time and again in Ephesians 6:10-20, it is for the Christian to stand firm, to resist the forces of evil. He is equipped more in defense than offense, and must act accordingly. Christians will not stand because of their own heroic strength; they stand because they trust in the Lord and in His might to withstand the array of evil forces against them.

The letter to the Ephesians provides little personal detail about Paul’s condition; Tychicus, Paul’s Asian companion, would provide such detail in person (Ephesians 6:21-22). Paul ended his letter to the Ephesians with a standard conclusion for a letter, that peace, grace, and love with faith may come to all who love the Lord with an incorruptible love (Ephesians 6:23-24). In this way Paul has left with the Ephesian Christians and all Christians throughout time a compelling and majestic explanation of the great blessings with which God has blessed us in Jesus, and how Christians are to live in light of all those blessings. May we prove ever thankful for God’s glorious display of grace, love, and mercy in Jesus, walk worthily of our calling, and stand firm in the Lord and His strength!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Strong in the Lord appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Macedon

It sat on the periphery of an age and place of great intellectual, political, and social ferment. Its inhabitants were seen and treated as peripheral, but thanks to some natural advantages and two brilliant rulers, they would become the masters of the known world. They brought an end to the ancient Near Eastern world and inaugurated the Classical world dominated by Greek practice and thought. They are the Macedonians of Macedon.

Macedon derives from a Greek term for “high, tall,” and either refers to the people as tall or as the highlanders. Ancient Macedonia was a kingdom in modern-day northeastern Greece, but we should not project the borders of the modern country onto the ancient world. While the Macedonians spoke a Greek dialect, believed in the Greek gods, and shared in other Greek socio-political and cultural customs, the Greeks of the Peloponnesus and “Continental” Greece to the south would not have considered the Macedonians as fully part of them. To the Greeks of the south, Macedon was one of the peripheral groups of Greek speaking people, like Epirus to the west and Thessaly to the south, but not the main center of Greek culture, which would be defined as Athens, Corinth, Sparta, Thebes, and their environs; Macedonians would have been seen as semi-Greek and backward.

The Greeks may have considered Macedonia backward, but they could not deny the material resources enjoyed by the Macedonians. Most of Greece is very mountainous; Macedonia has mountains but also a wide, fertile plain by the Aegean Sea. The Macedonians would continually export crops from the plains and timber from the mountain regions. But Macedon also found itself sitting between Greece and Asia Minor and all Asia, and would experience many an army marching through it.

During the Bronze Age and the early Iron Age, Macedonia was known as Emathia; at some point around the seventh century BCE, the Macedonians entered the land and displaced the Illyrians and Thessalians who had been living in it. They spoke a rough northwestern Greek dialect and were simultaneously viewed as Greek but also not Greek for many generations.

During the Persian Wars Macedon submitted to Persian rule and its soldiers fought for Persia against the Greeks (ca. 490-480 BCE). After the Persians were expelled from the European continent, the Macedonians were able to maintain friendly relations with at least some of the Greek city-states, with its kings often shifting alliances between Athens and Sparta. Everything for everyone would change, however, beginning around 359 BCE when Philip II ascended to the Macedonian throne.

Philip had lived as an aristocratic hostage in Thebes in Greece. Perhaps Philip had learned some military strategy thanks to the Thebans; perhaps Philip simply enhanced practices and theories developed by those who came before him. For whatever reasons, Philip entirely re-organized the Macedonian army and introduced long pikes known as the sarissa which would immediately prove to be a great advantage in the field. The Greek city-states were embroiled in wars against one another as usual throughout the fourth century BCE and Philip took advantage of the situation. In 356 BCE he conquered a town named Crenides and renamed it Philippi of later Roman and New Testament fame. By 345 BCE, through diplomacy and war, Philip had gained control or influence over much of Thessaly and Thrace. The Greek cities to the south became wise regarding the threat of domination under Philip and came together to fight against Philip at Chaeronea in 338 BCE. Philip’s forces broke and destroyed the allied Greek army, and Philip II of Macedon had proven successful where everyone else had failed in uniting Greece under one ruler.

Philip now set his sights on the Achaemenid Persian Empire and marshaled his forces. Yet Philip had also taken multiple wives and had many children from those wives. The court was full of intrigue; Philip was assassinated by his bodyguard in 336 BCE. Philip II was succeeded by his son Alexander III.

Alexander had been tutored by the great Greek philosopher Aristotle and had gained experience in the ways of war. He would succeed his father and exceed him in every respect. Alexander soon consolidated power and set off on the campaign against Persia for which his father had prepared. He defeated the Persian army at Granicus in 334, Issus in 333, and Gaugamela in 331, decisively overthrowing the Persian military and control over its empire. It only took Alexander three years to overthrow the mighty Achaemenid Persian Empire and put an end to what we deem the ancient Near East, which is why he has been known forever since as Alexander the Great.

After continuing east to the Indus River, Alexander was forced to begin a return journey by his army; he contracted an illness in Babylon and died in 323 BCE. Over the next few years Alexander’s generals, known as the diadochi, would argue and fight over how to divide the extremely large empire which the Macedonians had gained. In the end the empire would be divided into four major parts.

Macedon proper was first ruled by Cassander, most famous for founding a city in the name of his wife Thessalonike, which would become Thessalonica of Roman and New Testament fame. But he would not last, and Antigonus and his descendants would rule over Macedon and maintain some kind of influence over Greece until the last Macedonian king died in battle against the Romans in 166 BCE.

Alexander’s general Lysimachus would develop a kingdom centered on western Asia Minor which would eventually become the Kingdom of Pergamum ruled over by the Attalids. They would persevere until Attalus III died without an heir in 129 BCE and gave the kingdom over to the Romans in his will.

Alexander’s general Ptolemy took control of Egypt and the southern Levant, including Judea, and created the Ptolemaic Dynasty and Kingdom in 305 BCE. The Ptolemies would rule over Egypt, maintaining a Macedonian dynasty through sibling and cousin marriage until the death of Cleopatra VII in 30 BCE, resisting Roman domination longer than all other Macedonian kingdoms.

As rulers of Judea the Ptolemies proved tolerant. Alexander had founded the city of Alexandria and the Ptolemies developed it into a great center of culture and learning, attracting many members of the Jewish diaspora. According to the legend contained in the Letter of Aristeas, Ptolemy II Philadelphus commissioned some Jewish sages to translate the Torah into Greek, beginning what we now know as the Septuagint (ca. 281-246 BCE). Ptolemy II Philadelphus was known for collecting and cultivating the books and wisdom of the known world in growing the great library of Alexandria, and few doubt that the first translations of the Hebrew Bible into Greek took place most likely in Alexandria around this time.

Yet the bulk of Alexander’s conquests would be ruled over by his general Seleucus, which would become known as the Seleucid Empire. In its first century the Seleucid Empire would cede control of its most western and eastern territories to the Attalids and Mauryan Indians respectively. In its second century, however, its fortunes were revived; Antiochus III the Great restored his presence in the east, and in 200 BCE defeated Ptolemy V Epiphanes Eucharistos and took over control of Coele-Syria, including Judea.

Antiochus’ son Antiochus IV Epiphanes set his sights on Egypt, defeated the Ptolemies, and was on the cusp of conquering Alexandria when the Romans made it clear to him it would not go well for him if he continued in his pursuits. It was on his return trip from this setback in which Antiochus took out his anger and frustrations on some recalcitrant Jewish people in Jerusalem and set his soldiers to plunder Jerusalem and defiled the Temple in 167 BCE. In his attempts to fully Hellenize his empire, Antiochus then banned the observance of the Law of Moses and made circumcision a capital offense. These travesties catalyzed the Maccabean revolt, led by the sons of Matthias the priest with Judah “the Maccabee” as the great champion and hero who would win many battles against Macedonian forces. By 164 BCE Judah the Maccabee was able to recover the Temple Mount and restore the appropriate sacrifices and services; Hanukkah is the observance of this event, and all these events are described for us in the book of 1 Maccabees and by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews.

Antiochus IV Epiphanes died in 164 BCE and his empire would remain unstable for the rest of its existence. Rulers rose and fell, at times fighting against the Maccabees, and at times seeking their alliance. The Parthians arose as a major power and took over all the Seleucid Empire east of the Euphrates River by 129 BCE. Thirty years later the Seleucid Empire was reduced to Antioch of Syria and its environs, and it was finally put to an end by Tigranes of Armenia in 83 BCE. Attempts at revival were fully extinguished by the Romans who took over the whole area by 63 BCE.

Even though Macedon was on the periphery of the ancient Greek world, it would be the Macedonians who would spread Greek architecture, art, culture, philosophy, and religion throughout the world of the ancient Near East. In modern-day Afghanistan, Bactrian kingdoms claiming descent from the Macedonians would endure for a very long time, and Greek influence would persevere in art and culture even longer. What Antiochus IV Epiphanes attempted to impose by force in Judea was being accepted without such compulsion throughout the lands of the ancient Near East. Jewish people might still speak Aramaic, but Koine Greek would become the lingua franca from Babylon to Alexandria. The gods of the Anatolians, Mesopotamians, and Syrians would become expressed and understood in terms of Greek gods: Artemis of Ephesus, Heracles of Tyre, etc. Cities throughout Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, and Mesopotamia would build gymnasiums, libraries, temples, and theaters in Greek style. Even despite all their resistance to Hellenism, the Jewish people could not help but absorb some Hellenistic philosophy and ideology. The Macedonians brought an end to the world of the ancient Near East and inaugurated the Hellenistic and Classical periods in Eurasia; such is why the world of Ezra seemed far more remote to Jesus than the world of David would have seemed to Ezra.

The Gospel of Jesus would come to Macedon in the days of the Romans, and the prominent Macedonian cities of Philippi and Thessalonica remain famous because of the churches founded there and their correspondence with the Apostle Paul. Such proved possible, in large degree, on account of the accomplishments of Philip, Alexander, and the Macedonians. May we put our trust in the Lord Jesus Christ as did the ancient Christians of Macedonia, and share with them in life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Macedon appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The First Passover

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 and Jesus’ first sign at the wedding in Cana (John 1:19-2:12). John the Evangelist would continue by chronicling some of the events which took place while Jesus attended the Passover in Jerusalem (John 2:13-4:3).

As would be expected during the Passover festival, Jesus entered the Temple complex. John related how Jesus was greatly distressed at how the Temple had become a marketplace; He made a whip of cords and drove the merchants of animals and money changers out of the Temple (John 2:13-16). We do well to note how John never suggested Jesus actually used the whip of cords to hit any animal or person.

What, exactly, is Jesus up to in the Temple cleansing of John 2:13-16? Throughout its existence the Second Temple was never only the place to go in order to serve YHWH; it had always been a place with many administrative and mercantile functions. The merchants were not in the holy place but in a court farther away, and their services did prove necessary. A traveler from Galilee or parts beyond would not want to bring an animal for sacrifice across that distance, and travelers would be carrying Roman money which would need exchanging for the Temple shekel. In the Synoptic Gospel accounts Jesus cleanses the Temple during His final week and evokes Jeremiah 7:11, calling it a den of robbers, and thus rendering judgment on the Second Temple as YHWH did the First Temple in the days of Jeremiah (cf. Matthew 21:12-17); yet John placed the event toward the beginning of Jesus’ ministry and without the overt political connotations. Many imagine Jesus was enraged at the oppressive costs of the animals or the exchange rate, yet such is completely speculative. The only hint John provided is what the disciples remembered: the prophecy of Psalm 69:9, how zeal for YHWH’s house would consume Him (John 2:17). We do best to understand Jesus’ cleansing of the Temple as a ritual sign act which demonstrated the close association between the Father and the Son.

The Jewish leaders recognized what Jesus was doing and why and thus asked Him for a sign which would bear witness to His authority (John 2:18). Jesus challenged them to tear down this temple and He would raise it again in three days (John 2:19). The Jewish leaders were incredulous: Herod the Great had begun his great renovation of the Second Temple in around 19 BCE. By the present moment in 27 CE it had been under construction for forty-six years; it would only be finished in 63, and would be destroyed seven years later (cf. John 2:20). No doubt this kind of statement would become the basis of the false accusations against Jesus at His trial (cf. Mark 14:58). But Jesus did not refer to the Second Temple; He spoke of the temple of His body, and His disciples remembered this when He arose from the dead and they believed (John 2:21-22).

A temple is the place in which it is believed a deity dwells or maintains its presence. YHWH demonstrated His presence among His people in former times by the Cloud of Presence in the Tabernacle and in the First Temple (cf. Exodus 40:34-35, 1 Kings 8:10-11). In a vision Ezekiel saw YHWH’s Presence depart from the First Temple, and it was destroyed soon afterward (cf. Ezekiel 10:1-22). Yet the Cloud of Presence, also known as the shekinah, did not return when the Second Temple was built; the Most Holy Place of the Temple was infamously completely empty. We cannot but keep this in mind when considering John’s testimony about Jesus in the Temple, for in Jesus the Presence of YHWH had returned and had testified against Jewish practices in the Temple.

According to John the Evangelist, many believed in Jesus during that Passover, but He would not entrust Himself to the people, because He knew what people were all about (John 2:23-25). One such, perhaps, is a Pharisee of the Sanhedrin named Nicodemus, who comes to visit Jesus at night (John 3:1). He seemed to come at night to speak to Jesus without as much fear of retaliation from other Jewish authorities and likely to gain further instruction. Nicodemus proved more fair-minded than many of the religious authorities like him: he recognized God was with Jesus because no one could do the things Jesus was doing if God were not with Him (John 3:2). In contrast, fellow Pharisees would blaspheme the Spirit of God by suggesting Jesus did miracles by the power of Satan (cf. Matthew 12:22-32).

Jesus would then attempt to teach Nicodemus, yet the conversation ends up in a farce. Jesus warned Nicodemus: only by being born anothen could anyone see the Kingdom, or Reign, of God (John 3:3). Anothen, in Greek, can mean “again” or “from above”; Jesus has both in mind when speaking with Nicodemus. Thus Jesus would testify regarding the “second birth,” the need for belief and baptism which attends it in order to share in the coming Reign of God, and a more spiritually and less physically understood allegiance and association; Nicodemus could not understand it (John 3:3-12). Jesus, the Son of Man, could testify about spiritual things from above, since He had descended from above, and would ascend again one day; as Moses lifted up the serpent to provide healing for Israel in Numbers 21:5-9, so the Son of Man would need to be lifted up so those who believe in Him might share in life eternal (John 3:13-15).

“Son of Man” is a Hebrew idiom to describe a human being (cf. Psalm 8:4); yet a Pharisee like Nicodemus, who would know his Prophets and Writings well, would understand Jesus as speaking of the “one like a son of man” who would stand before the Ancient of Days to receive a Kingdom without end (cf. Daniel 7:13-14). Thus Jesus would have to be lifted up in His ascension to receive the Kingdom from His Father; but to be able to ascend Jesus would have to be lifted up in His resurrection from the dead; and His death would come from having been lifted up on the cross: and so Jesus thus evoked all He would undergo by making reference to Moses and the serpent in the Wilderness. Jesus thus testified regarding who He was, what He was about, and the basis on which He could thus speak to Nicodemus about what God was accomplishing through Him.

In John 3:16-21 John the Evangelist provided no contextual break, and so it is quite possible John was relating Jesus’ direct speech to Nicodemus; but it is also possible John has begun making his own commentary as he did in John 1:1-18. God has loved the world by giving of His only beloved Son so all who believe in Him might have eternal life (John 3:16). Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it (John 3:17); if God wanted to condemn everyone, He would have not needed any further justification, for we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory. Far too many people imagine God in Christ watches in wait to catch people in their sin to condemn them; it is Satan who does that. In Christ God is doing all He can to save people! Those who entrust themselves to Jesus are not condemned; those who deny Him are already condemned in their unbelief, having turned away from the light in Christ because it exposed the wickedness of what they did (John 3:18-20). But those who practice truth are drawn to the light of God in Christ to demonstrate their deeds are done in God (John 3:21).

According to John the Evangelist, Jesus then left Jerusalem for the Judean wilderness near the Jordan River, and was baptizing people (John 3:22). John the Baptist was across the Jordan at Aenon near Salim and was baptizing there, having not yet been imprisoned by Herod Antipas (John 3:23). The Baptist’s disciples informed him of how Jesus was also baptizing, and many had come to Him for baptism; John the Baptist then spoke of Jesus as the Bridegroom and himself as the friend of the Bridegroom, and he took great joy in how Jesus was becoming greater and he comparatively lesser (John 3:24-30).

As with John 3:16-21, so with John 3:31-36: perhaps John the Baptist continued his response, or perhaps John has taken over and provided commentary. The One who came from heaven, Jesus, maintains superior testimony to those who are of the earth and can provide only earthly testimony (John 3:31). None may accept His testimony, but He will speak God’s words since God sent Him to do so; the Father loved the Son and gave Him authority over all things (John 3:32-35). The one who entrusts him or herself to Jesus the Son has eternal life, but those who reject the Son have God’s wrath upon them (John 3:36).

The Pharisees would learn of Jesus’ great success at the Jordan River and how His disciples were baptizing more people than John the Baptist and his associates; thus Jesus departed from Judea to return to Galilee (John 4:1-3). John the Evangelist thus recorded the first Passover of Jesus’ ministry, and in so doing set forth, in word and deed, the purposes of God in Christ. YHWH was fulfilling His promises and had returned to His people. Those who entrusted themselves to God in Christ could be born again in Him to obtain eternal life. But those who rejected God in Christ would be judged, condemned, and experience the wrath of God. May we be born again from above in God in Christ through the Spirit and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The First Passover appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Popular Beliefs: Original Sin

Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned (Romans 5:12).

Christianity features many beliefs which prove very popular; many of them are accepted and perpetuated without much thought or consideration to what is said in the Scriptures. We do well to test the spirits and prove all things so that we may be able to do all things in good conscience by Jesus’ authority (Colossians 3:17, 1 John 4:1). One such belief, commonly held but rarely clarified, understands mankind’s condition in terms of “original sin.”

The historic doctrine of “original sin” (or “inherited sin”) insisted that all humanity inherited the full consequences of Adam’s transgression. In this view Adam’s sin maintains a transitive property: it is communicated to a child via the sexual procreative act of his or her parents. Therefore, a child is born in a condemned state; he or she must be baptized in order to be rid of the stain of “original sin.” This interpretation rests on a literalistic interpretation of Psalm 51:5, a particular understanding of Romans 5:12-21, and an understanding of sin as a “communicable” property.

There is no basis upon which to believe that sin maintains any properties that are communicable among persons. God did say He would visit the iniquities of the fathers upon the children for generations in Exodus 20:5; and yet God also establishes through Ezekiel how it is the soul that sins which will die, that each person stands or falls before God based on their own transgressions, and not that of their fathers or children (Ezekiel 18:1-32). In order to harmonize the two we must recognize how children very often follow in the footsteps of their parents and thus are more likely to commit the same transgressions; one generation might well suffer consequences of such transgression in the flesh whereas previous generations did not. In the New Testament all discussions of condemnation based on sin are based on the commission of actual transgression as a freewill decision by the person him or herself as a free moral agent (cf. Matthew 25:31-46, Romans 2:5-11, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, etc.). Furthermore, the notion that each generation inherits Adam’s sin is neither stated nor even suggested by Paul in Romans 5:12-21: we can understand “passed unto all men” in ways which do not demand inheritance from a parent, as we shall see.

The strongest case for the argument is found in Psalm 51:5:

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity / and in sin did my mother conceive me.

While many would like to suggest that David is speaking of only his mother’s iniquity and sin, the text does not allow for such a restriction in interpretation. David suggested in this verse that he was born in iniquity and sin: such absolutely represents what he felt at the time his sin with Bathsheba was uncovered (Psalm 51:1; cf. 2 Samuel 12:1-14). We can imagine times in our own lives when we might feel in a similar way, and David gave voice to such a sentiment in Psalm 51. Yet, while David certainly felt that way, was it actually accurate and true? Should we take him literally and seriously?

We must be careful about taking every sentiment in the Psalms literally and seriously; they are written to give voice to the people of God for not only their thoughts but also their feelings. God wanted His people to be able to express themselves before Him according to what they experienced even if that experience was not actually consistent with reality. For instance, in Psalm 44:23, the sons of Korah implore God to wake up and ask why He is asleep. Should we conclude from this verse that God sometimes is asleep and such is why He does not deliver His people? Absolutely not! Heman delivered a similar sentiment in Psalm 88:14-18: Heman certainly felt completely abandoned, but was that absolutely true? Not at all.

Jesus’ own testimony regarding children ought to be considered in this context.

In that hour came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, “Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”
And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, “Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:1-4).

And they were bringing unto him little children, that he should touch them: and the disciples rebuked them.
But when Jesus saw it, he was moved with indignation, and said unto them, “Suffer the little children to come unto me; forbid them not: for to such belongeth the kingdom of God. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein.”
And he took them in his arms, and blessed them, laying his hands upon them (Mark 10:13-16).

If David is to be taken literally and seriously in Psalm 51:5, and we are to believe that all are tainted from birth by original sin, then children in their natural state are unregenerate and condemned. And yet Jesus not only welcomes little children to Him but considers them as the moral exemplars of the Kingdom. One must become as a little child to enter the Kingdom (Matthew 18:3-4); the Kingdom of God belongs to little children (Mark 10:14). Metaphors and similes only work and prove effective when their source domain, that which is being used to explain reality, are consistent with the target domain, that which one is attempting to describe or explain. Therefore, why would Jesus use the example of little children to speak about humility and standing in the Kingdom if little children are not humble and do not have standing in the Kingdom? Jesus betrays no belief or understanding of children as inherently sinful and depraved on account of having inherited the sin of Adam.

The Scriptures provide no commendation for the historic doctrine of “original sin.” In such a view, babies, small children, and those without consciousness are seen as unregenerate, condemned to hell, and without hope unless baptized as infants (another practice not seen in the New Testament). Such a view has led to the total depravity of Augustinianism and Calvinism, an extreme view inconsistent with Matthew 5:46-47; it has also fed the extremism inherent in “faith only” and the suggestion that mankind has absolutely no role in his own salvation. The historic doctrine of “original sin” has also contributed significantly to the unhealthy perspectives about human sexuality in Western society: for generations many considered it inherently dirty and polluting, even in its proper context, hindering our society and culture from establishing a healthy perspective on sex.

Thankfully many whose churches and religious organizations formerly adhered to the full-throated historic doctrine of “original sin” have come to a more Biblical understanding of man’s condition in the world. The term “original sin” is still used by many of them, but by it they mean that humanity has inherited the consequences of Adam’s sin, recognizing that sin is not a transitive property among people.

While we would suggest that calling such “original sin” causes confusion in light of the historic doctrine by that name, the view is broadly consistent with Paul’s instruction in Romans 5:12-21 and Romans 8:18-25. In Romans 5:12-21 Paul seeks to demonstrate that Jesus’ one act of righteousness in dying on the cross for our sins is sufficient to atone for all the sins of mankind, and he does so by speaking of Jesus as the second Adam. The first Adam committed one transgression, and that one transgression led to the presence of sin and death in the world, and sin passed on to all men for all have sinned; Jesus, the second Adam, is able to atone for all the sin of the world by one act of righteousness since sin all derives from Adam’s one act. In Romans 8:18-25 Paul would add how the creation was subjected to corruption and futility and yearns for its redemption; this only makes sense in terms of Adam’s sin. In this way Paul is able to explain how people (and animals, and elements of the creation) who have not actively committed sin yet still suffer from sickness, pain, misery, and death: they are all subject to sin and death because sin and death are in the world even if they have not actively perpetuated sin through sinful behavior.

Humans, therefore, are not born into sin, but into a sinful environment. Sin has environmental consequences as much as personal ones (cf. Hosea 4:1-3); any definition of sin which speaks only to the behavior of people, transgressive commission or omission, does not fully account for Paul’s portrayal of sin in Romans 7:7-25. On account of Adam’s transgression sin is “in the world”; sin has corrupted the creation and human institutions and systems as assuredly as it has corrupted the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of conscious people.

To suggest the full depravity of mankind, as if man is sinful from birth, is extreme and inconsistent with the evidence found in Scripture. Yet to suggest that mankind is generally good and to weaken the force. influence, and consequences of the presence of sin in the creation is likewise extreme and inconsistent with the evidence found in Scripture. Man’s condition is dire and bleak indeed, even if not absolutely so. May we affirm the totality of what God has made known about man’s condition in the world and seek to find salvation in Jesus (cf. Ephesians 2:1-18, Titus 3:3-7)!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Popular Beliefs: Original Sin appeared first on de Verbo vitae.