Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 13

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.

The Limitations of Wisdom

This is what I also observed about wisdom on earth, and it is a great burden to me: There was once a small city with a few men in it, and a mighty king attacked it, besieging it and building strong siege works against it. However, a poor but wise man lived in the city, and he could have delivered the city by his wisdom, but no one listened to that poor man. So I concluded that wisdom is better than might, but a poor man’s wisdom is despised; no one ever listens to his advice.
The words of the wise are heard in quiet, more than the shouting of a ruler is heard among fools.
Wisdom is better than weapons of war, but one sinner can destroy much that is good (Ecclesiastes 9:13-18).

The Greeks sang of the tragedy of Cassandra. She was a princess of Troy; the god Apollo fell in love with her and gave her the gift of prophecy. When she spurned his advances, he cursed her: she would prophesy, but no one would believe her. According to the Preacher, wisdom often finds itself in Cassandra’s position.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-9:12 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 8:17-9:12 he has been meditating on the finite nature of humans and the universality of death. He thus commended enjoying relationships, food, and work, to not take them for granted, and to resist seeking to find immortality in any aspect of life “under the sun.” And yes, it not only can happen here and to you; at some point, it will happen here and to you.

Throughout his discourse the Preacher continually returned to the condition and standing of wisdom. He recognized its value and importance but also proved frustrated with wisdom, for it cannot ultimately deliver on its promise, and human wisdom remains finite (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:16-18, 2:12-17, 26, 7:11-25, 8:1, 16-17, 9:10).

In that same vein the Preacher continued in his theme of “observations” with some observations about wisdom in Ecclesiastes 9:13-18. He found the substance of these observations difficult (Ecclesiastes 9:13): they ran against the grain of what he had been instructed and what he hoped about wisdom. The Preacher considered a small town with a few men in it besieged by a strong king and his army (Ecclesiastes 9:14). Two interpretive options present themselves for the core of the story. The verbs in Ecclesiastes 9:15 can be read as in the indicative, as in the ASV and many other translations; thus, a poor wise man knew how to deliver the city and did so, but no one remembered him. This might be understood as the “literal” reading of the Hebrew and prove satisfying for that reason, and it would contain an important observation about wisdom: it might be valued at the moment but it is easily overlooked, forgotten, or neglected. Yet such a “literal,” indicative reading would make understanding the Preacher’s concluding observation in Ecclesiastes 9:16 more challenging to understand: from his story the Preacher granted wisdom is greater than strength but the wisdom of a poor man is despised and not heeded. If the verbs in Ecclesiastes 9:15 are understood as modal or potential, the story is then told as translated in the NET above: the poor man could have delivered the city by his wisdom, but no one listened to the poor man. The Preacher elided the conclusion of the matter: the city was not preserved, but fell to the enemy. The poor man and his city became as Cassandra and Troy, and this proved to be the Preacher’s burdensome observation.

The Preacher continued with two “follow-up” observations. The words of the wise are heard in quiet, and better than the shouts of a ruler among fools (Ecclesiastes 9:17). Likewise, wisdom remains superior to the weapons of war, but one sinner can destroy a lot of good, be it good will, good precedents, good relationships, good works, etc. (Ecclesiastes 9:18). Any observer of modern political discourse can fully affirm the Preacher’s observations.

The Preacher never considered wisdom useless or worthless: he heartily confessed wisdom as stronger than might and weaponry. Throughout time it has been the reckless, foolish, often authoritarian ruler who impetuously ran to the sword in order to succeed, and far more failed than truly succeeded. Wise rulers have always recognized the true strength of force is in its prospect but not in its execution; it is always better to use diplomacy and seek to persuade rather than to attempt to coerce by force. Such wisdom is not restricted to the domain of kings and despots; in any relationship diplomacy and persuasion prove wiser, more effective courses than raw exercise of force or power. If you have to assert dominance, you have probably already lost it.

Yet, like Cassandra of Troy, wisdom remains only as good as it is heeded. Part of wisdom is recognizing how wisdom will manifest itself in what we might imagine to be the unlikeliest of places, and is often entirely absent where it proves most needed. Do we have to wonder why the wisdom of the poor man is disregarded? His wisdom is disregarded because his entire existence is disregarded. Those with privilege and standing, in their insecurity, often blithely dismiss and disregard those whom they imagine to be of lesser standing as inferior. Such forgot what the Preacher knew well: poverty does not mean a lack of humanity. If anything, the poor often have greater insight and wisdom than the privileged and wealthy; they have had to learn how to navigate and survive in the world in ways which prove unnecessary to those with greater privilege and wealth.

True wisdom remains quiet and modest and proves difficult to ascertain and hear amidst the clanging percussion of foolishness and puffery. It takes a lot of time and effort to build up well in wisdom, be it physical infrastructure, a network of relationships, and, for that matter, a local congregation; but it does not take much time for foolish and sinful people to tear it all down. We hear the news; we know the stories; perhaps we have even suffered and endured participation in such a story.

Thus the Preacher recognized and proved frustrated by the limitations of wisdom. As a man of wisdom speaking and writing in the wisdom tradition, his observations prove an important counterweight to a facile, uncritical embrace of wisdom as expressed in Proverbs; not for nothing is Solomon reckoned as the author of both. Solomon can extol and praise the value and virtues of wisdom while also recognizing its limitations in human weakness. Solomon recognized there could be no ultimate deliverance or salvation in wisdom, and we should confess the same; we will only find ultimate deliverance and salvation through what God has accomplished in Jesus Christ. May we trust in Jesus and obtain in Him the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Limitations of Wisdom appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

From Bethany to Cana

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).

John the Evangelist had spoken of John the Baptist as one sent by God to testify regarding the light and the One who was greater than he (cf. John 1:6-8, 15). John the Evangelist then set forth John the Baptist’s testimony (John 1:19-28). In Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John the Baptist was doing his baptizing, the Jewish leaders asked John whether he was the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet; John denied it all; instead, John would only affirm himself as the voice shouting in the wilderness to prepare the way of the Lord, the fulfillment of Isaiah 40:3 (John 1:19-24). Jesus Himself would later consider John to be the Elijah to come, just as the angel Gabriel had predicted John would come as the Elijah to fulfill the word of YHWH in Malachi 4:5-6 (Matthew 11:7-15, Luke 1:11-18). Jesus’ and Gabriel’s testimony are enough to prove the case; perhaps it was not revealed to John that he was Elijah.

The Jewish religious leaders wanted to understand why John was baptizing if he was not the Christ, Elijah, or the prophet, and it was a good question. Jewish people of the Second Temple Period valued ritual washings highly; the places for such ritual washings, known as mikva’ot, can be found in all kinds of dwellings of this period. A baptism of repentance, however, was not something commanded or even spoken of as part of the Law of Moses or a ritual in Judaism. John baptized because God told him to do so; it would symbolically represent repentance, a changing of the hearts and minds of the people; he looked forward to One coming of whom he was unworthy to even untie His sandal (John 1:25-28).

The next day John the Baptist saw Jesus walking toward him; John then testified to Jesus as the Lamb of God who would take away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Lambs were not the standard offering as sin offerings, but the lamb was the offering made for the Passover which led to the liberation of the Israelites from Egyptian bondage (Exodus 12:1-27). It was revealed to John how Jesus would thus be sacrificed to liberate the creation from its bondage of sin. John testified regarding how he had come believe Jesus was the Chosen One of God: God had told him the One whom he baptized upon whom the Spirit would descend like a dove would be the One who would baptize with the Holy Spirit; lo and behold, when John baptized Jesus, the Spirit descended upon Him (John 1:30-34). Thus John the Evangelist did not directly narrate the story of Jesus’ baptism, but provided John’s testimony regarding that baptism. Furthermore, according to John, Jesus was baptized by the will of God as a sign to John to confirm who He was.

The day after that John the Baptist was standing with two of his disciples, and Jesus again walked by him. John again spoke of Jesus as the Lamb of God, and those two disciples began following Jesus (John 1:35-37). John the Evangelist would then narrate the call of some of the disciples in a whimsical way. One of the disciples was Andrew, brother of Simon; the other disciple is left unmentioned, but since we are reading this story as part of the witness of John the Evangelist, we have reason to assume he is that other disciple. They ask where Jesus is staying, and He said they would see; they stayed with Him for a while, and Andrew then went out to find his brother Simon and told him they had found the Messiah of God (John 1:36-41). Andrew brought Simon to Jesus, and Jesus named him Peter (John 1:42).

The next day Jesus intended to go to Galilee. He saw Philip and called him to follow. Philip found his friend Nathanael and told him how he had found the One whom Moses and the prophets had written: Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:43-45). Nazareth was a very small village in rural Galilee; Nathanael thus asked if any good thing could come out of Nazareth, and Philip told him to come and see (John 1:46). When Jesus saw Nathanael approaching, He spoke of him as an Israelite in whom there was no guile: that is, he has no filter, and said what he thought (John 1:47). Nathanael wondered how Jesus could know who he is; Jesus said he saw Nathanael under the fig tree before Philip called him (and thus, ostensibly, gave indication He knew exactly what Nathanael had said; John 1:48). Nathanael immediately confessed Jesus as the Son of God, the King of Israel; Jesus responded he would see greater things than these, and then evoked Jacob’s ladder, saying they would see heaven opened up and angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man, thus foretelling His death, resurrection, and ascension (John 1:49-51).

“On the third day,” an idiom indicating a few days later, Jesus and His disciples had made it to Galilee and attending a wedding to which they were invited (John 2:1-2). Jewish weddings were extravagant affairs hosted by the groom’s family and which would last for many days. The host family, however, experienced a scandal: the wine had run out. While we might experience such a situation as embarrassing because of poor planning, the host family would be experiencing it as a shameful demonstration of poverty. Jesus’ mother Mary was at the wedding, and sufficiently well-known to the host family to be able to give commands to the slaves; she told Jesus they were out of wine (John 2:3). Jesus asked her what she wanted from Him, for His time had not yet come; she knew who was His Father and what He could do, but He had not yet begun His active ministry (John 2:4). Mary knew her Son would honor her subliminal request, and told the slaves to do whatever Jesus told them to do (John 2:5). Jesus told them to fill to the brink with water six stone jars of purification: they would be ritually clean, and by virtue of their purpose, would have only held water (John 2:6-8). When the head steward of the wedding tasted the wine, he summoned the host family: for understandable reasons hosts begin feasts with the best wine and reserve wine of lower quality for later after everyone’s taste buds had been dulled; yet the host family had kept the best wine until later (John 2:9-10)! John the Evangelist identified Jesus’ turning the water to wine as His first miraculous sign, and His disciples thus believed in Him (John 2:11). Jesus spent some time with His mother and disciples in Capernaum (John 2:12).

Jesus’ first miraculous sign at the wedding in Cana has caused a lot of difficulties for many who profess to follow Jesus. They have a hard time understanding how Jesus could have done such a thing and enabled people getting drunk. They thus imagine to themselves Jesus would have not really turned the water into wine but alcohol-free grape juice. Such represents a complete misunderstanding of ancient practice and Jesus’ purposes. Greek oinos means alcoholic wine by default; there are some uses of the term to describe grape juice in the process of becoming wine, but such a context is explicitly identified when speaking of oinos in that way. Both Jewish and Greco-Roman people consumed wine in prodigious amounts; it was the standard beverage of the time. They would have consumed wine cut with water; to consume wine uncut was considered barbaric.

No one at the wedding in Cana would have understood Jesus’ behavior as enabling drunkenness or dissipation. Instead, they understood what was at stake. If there was no more wine, there was no more wedding feast. The host family would be shamed and the marriage of the young couple would begin under inauspicious circumstances. By turning the water into wine, Jesus allowed the party to continue. Jesus made much of celebration and festival. When the Pharisees asked Jesus’ disciples why they did not fast, Jesus told them they could not fast while the Bridegroom was present (cf. Matthew 9:14-15). Jesus spoke of His return as the Bridegroom entering the wedding feast (Matthew 25:1-13). One of the seven blessings in Revelation come to those invited to the wedding banquet of the Lamb, which, as we can see from John 1:29, 36, is Jesus (Revelation 19:7, 9). Many in cold, dour, and sterile contexts imagine Jesus to be cold, dour, and without much joy; such is entirely inconsistent with the portrayal of Jesus in the Scriptures. Jesus is the Life of the party. Jesus’ first miracle in John’s Gospel kept the party going. There are indeed circumstances which call for lamentation, mourning, and bitterness; but there are also circumstances which call for excitement, joy, and celebration. Jesus well navigated both; but we do well to never forget Jesus lived, died, was raised, reigns, and will return in order to throw a huge party, and understand Him appropriately.

Thus John the Evangelist narrated how Jesus had gone from Bethany to Cana and the beginning of His active ministry in Israel. May we follow Jesus so we might be able to celebrate with Him for all eternity!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post From Bethany to Cana appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Emphasis

With what should I enter YHWH’s presence? With what should I bow before the sovereign God? Should I enter his presence with burnt offerings, with year-old calves? Will YHWH accept a thousand rams, or ten thousand streams of olive oil? Should I give him my firstborn child as payment for my rebellion, my offspring – my own flesh and blood – for my sin?
He has told you, O man, what is good, and what YHWH really wants from you: He wants you to carry out justice, to love faithfulness, and to live obediently before your God (Micah 6:6-8).

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 we tend to expose much about ourselves in terms of what aspects of that truth we emphasize.

Emphasis involves placing special value or importance on something, or an aspect of something. Emphasis is related to focus and priority: that upon which we focus is something we tend to emphasize, and our priorities tend to define that which we emphasize.

Ironically emphasis has often been neglected both in terms of how we understand what God has made known in Christ and how we embody and proclaim the faith. We have reasoned how truth is truth whether much or little is made of it. We have seen how some have attempted to justify beliefs and practices not consistent with what God has revealed in Scripture by undermining aspects of the truth on which little, if any, emphasis was placed in the New Testament. Furthermore, emphasis seems subjective, and thus at variance with the quest to ascertain and uphold objective truth. We do not want to be seen as “playing favorites” with the truth and imagine we can consistently and fully uphold everything which is true in God in Christ through the Spirit.

Any attempt to deny the existence and presence of emphasis in Christian faith and practice proves a fool’s errand. We might imagine we uphold the full truth of God in Christ through the Spirit in a consistent and equal manner, but in this we deceive ourselves. We are all finite created beings; our sense impressions and our brains can only discern and process so much. We only have so many hours in a day and so much effort we can expend on anything and everything in our lives. We tend to understand this better in terms of focus and priority than emphasis. By definition, if we focus on something or some things, we comparatively neglect that upon which we do not focus. Prioritization, by definition, represents a judgment by which certain things are reckoned as more important or are to be privileged over other things. Thus, by definition, we cannot focus on or prioritize everything. Likewise, we do not, and cannot, represent the faith and practice which embodies Jesus without emphasis.

Yet even within the witness of God in Christ through the Spirit as witnessed in the Scriptures we find emphasis. Not only that, we find God condemning His people for maintaining misplaced emphases.

In Matthew 5:19 Jesus, in indicting the Pharisees, condemned anyone who would violate the “least” of the commandments; if there are “least” commandments, there also exist “greater” commandments, and “greater” and “least” are judgments of emphasis. In Matthew 23:23, He condemned the Pharisees for tithing in minutiae while neglecting justice, mercy, and faithfulness, deemed that which was more important in the Law. Yes, Jesus did say the Pharisees were right to tithe in the matters of minutiae; recognizing emphasis by no means commends or justifies disobedience in more comparatively minor matters. Yet the force of the indictment remains: the Pharisees had made much of little and little of much, or, as Jesus would put it, they were straining gnats while swallowing camels (Matthew 23:24).

Christians often make much of Micah 6:6-8, and for good reason; in it Micah recognized a trend which bedeviled Israel for generations. As far as we can tell, throughout the period of the kings, Judah was fastidious about offering the requisite sacrifices before YHWH. The rulers, priests, many of the “prophets,” and the people thus imagined they maintained full standing before YHWH because they continued to offer the sacrifices YHWH commanded them. Micah asks if such sacrifices are sufficient to really obtain YHWH’s favor: what is good, and what YHWH really wants from His people, is to do justice, love faithfulness, and live obediently before God.

Samuel similarly rebuked Saul in 1 Samuel 15:22. Amos told Israel how YHWH was tired of their sacrifices and songs and reminded them how they did not offer sacrifices and grain offerings in the Wilderness; what YHWH really wanted was justice to run like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream (Amos 5:21-27). Isaiah had a similar word for post-exilic Judah who imagined their fasting would get YHWH’s attention: Isaiah made it very clear how the “fast” YHWH wanted was for them to remove chains, to tear away the yoke, to set free the oppressed, to share food with the hungry, shelter the homeless and the oppressed, and clothe the naked (Isaiah 58:1-9).

The Pharisees, therefore, were doing just what their ancestors had done: they focused on, or emphasized, what was “objective,” easily discernible and measurable, and were satisfied. In the process they had entirely missed the point, just as their ancestors had done. They had imagined God was not only pleased with their fastidious observance of certain laws but that such would justify them in the end, just like their ancestors imagined God was pleased with their sacrifices and that such would justify them. In both instances God provided almost entirely the same rebuke: you have misplaced your emphasis. God wanted them to uphold what was just, right, fair, and good, and to use what they had to alleviate the exploitation and oppression of the powers around them. Sacrifices, fasting, and tithes had their place. Yet they were not YHWH’s intended emphasis, focus, or priority.

To this very day the same critique can be leveled among the people of God. The people of God today focus on and emphasize what is “objective,” easily discernible and measurable, and are satisfied. Assembling with the saints, giving on the first day of the week, and wearing approved clothing styles are today’s versions of sacrifices, fasting, and tithes. And, at the same time, justice, mercy, and faithfulness do not receive the emphasis.

Such is not restricted to matters of practice; even in terms of beliefs and doctrines the people of God have maintained misplaced emphases. Much is made regarding preaching “the distinctives,” and much emphasis, focus, and priority is placed upon the plan of salvation, the organization of the church, the nature of the acts of the assembly, and upon where others have either fallen short of or have gone on beyond what God has made known regarding the Kingdom of Jesus through His Apostles. Not a few equate “the Gospel” with such issues.

We do well to instead consider how Paul himself approached matters. In every letter he returns to what God has accomplished in Jesus to anchor and ground all of his concerns, doctrinal or practical. Paul’s emphasis is on the Christ of God crucified and risen, and everything else flows from that source.

Thus, for Christians, what should be our emphasis? Jesus should be our emphasis, and we should emphasize what Jesus would have us emphasize. Even if we all want to take it for granted, the Gospel for the past two thousand years has been the good news of what God has accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and preparation for His imminent return, and that will remain the Gospel until He returns and God is made all in all. Jesus’ emphasis was on love, humility, and compassion, and such motivated true faithfulness and obedience. Such love was not pretense but substantive, and it bore the appropriate fruit.

Does this mean we should entirely neglect or suppress that which was not emphasized? Absolutely not! Israel was to fast, offer sacrifices, and tithe in everything; Christians should assemble with the saints, give on the first day of the week, wear clothing which glorifies God in Christ, and seek in all details to uphold God’s purposes for individuals and congregations in the Kingdom of Jesus. Yet in emphasizing and focusing on the details, Israel was found lacking and guilty before God; we run the same risk as Christians, and we should be no less concerned about the prospect of the judgment of God than they were.

Thus we do well to recover a healthy sense of emphasis in our Christian faith and practice. We must understand how emphasis is a matter of truth: if we say we follow God, but we maintain misplaced emphases, we easily deceive ourselves and will find ourselves as liable to judgment as did Israel of old. It is not for us to determine what should be emphasized, or the framework through which we should understand all things; it is for us in humility to submit ourselves to the emphases laid out for us by God in Christ through the Spirit, to emphasize Jesus and the Gospel over all things: to recognize and accomplish the weightier provisions of faithfulness, justice, love, and mercy over the more “objective” and easily definable yet comparatively more minor aspects of faithful observance of the Lord’s purposes, and to remember what makes us “distinctive” has far less to do with matters of church polity and much more about being transformed by the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and the prospect of His imminent return, and understanding all things through that prism. May we not only uphold the truth of God in Christ through the Spirit but also maintain appropriate emphasis in our faith and practice so we might obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Emphasis appeared first on de Verbo vitae.