Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 15

Knowledge: To What End?

To what end do we seek to acquire knowledge?

If we have been raised in and/or live in the modern Western world, we have tended to maintain a more utilitarian posture toward knowledge: if we have thought about the reasons why we have labored to acquire knowledge at all, the answers have most likely involved the quest for some sort of goal. We were compelled to acquire knowledge in school during childhood in order to make a living in a given profession as adults. We often seek to acquire knowledge so we can accomplish something: to build and finish a project, to achieve some feat, etc.

What reasons lie behind our investigations into our environment, past and present? We want to understand what has happened in the past and what is happening in the present so we can better manipulate our environment to achieve our desired outcomes. Such may seem harsh, but ultimately it is the utilitarian conclusion to our endeavors. We learn about past cultures to understand present cultural dynamics, recognizing if the present does not exactly imitate the past, it at least rhymes. We explore the natural world at both the most miniscule and highest levels to understand how things work with the ultimate view of manipulating them to our own comfort. We want to understand how severe weather works to better forecast it and perhaps even manipulate it so as to be less severe; we explore deep space to understand what dangers it might maintain and to advance our study of physics to allow us ever more powerful technological breakthroughs. Why do various stripes of biologists deeply penetrate what profoundly wild places yet remain? To learn about new species with a view of protecting biodiversity, since perhaps in that biodiversity we will eventually discover chemicals and compounds which may prove beneficial to human health. And much of this provides humanity with the benefit of the doubt, for a lot of investigation, research, and technological development is fueled primarily to make money and gain standing.

We have thus inherited a framework in which knowledge is pursued for our benefit and gain and thus prove useful for humanity. We have seen significant critiques of the discipline of the humanities, with many wondering how such a field of study proves useful in the modern world. Its justification proves just as much a testimony to the power of utilitarianism in the modern world: an appeal to how the humanities can produce a more well-rounded citizen and worker whose creativity can provide material benefit to herself, her employer, and her country.

This utilitarian framework is part of the inheritance we have received from the Enlightenment and its transformation of Western society. The general spirit of the Enlightenment, manifest in the conceit of its name, is the spread of the “light of knowledge” to dispel the “darkness of superstition.” Knowledge deduced from observation and reason provides power in the Enlightenment: the power to overcome superstition, the power to manipulate the environment, the power to maintain influence and standing in society.

While Paul predated the Enlightenment by 1750 years, his observation regarding “knowledge makes arrogant” proves apt (1 Corinthians 8:1). Knowledge has made modern man almost insufferably arrogant. He has convinced himself he is vastly superior to his ancestors because he understands things they do not. He is confident he is better able to stand against the forces of nature and evil because of what his scientific and technological advancements provide him. He is willfully blind to how his attempts at mastery have led to significant exploitation and oppression of the creation and its creatures, and such exploitation and oppression do not take place without consequences and judgment. He remains convinced the solutions to his problems can all be discovered through greater scientific and technological advancement and development. Does this sound completely ridiculous to you? Consider the thoughts and behaviors of the titans of Silicon Valley and how convinced they are of their superiority to the rest of us and their confidence in how technology can solve any and every problem.

Such knowledge has made arrogant because it is all directed to the purpose of mastery. Knowledge gained unto mastery is worldly and demonic in its wisdom (cf. James 3:13-18). Things rarely end well when we seek to gain knowledge in order to control, manipulate, or master the object of our knowledge. In relationships between humans, we consider such abusive; we prove more reticent to recognize how abusive such a purpose is when used in regard to the creation, our condition, and how completely delusional it proves in terms of knowledge of God.

For some indeed seek knowledge of God unto mastery. Some of the ancients were convinced they could compel or coerce a god into doing their will if they knew the god’s secret name. To this day many seek knowledge of God or His will, however consciously or unconsciously, with a view to figuring out how to cajole, manipulate, or otherwise exploit God into accomplishing what they want. Plenty of others, perceiving an opportunity for great gain, seek knowledge in the name of religion to manipulate, control, and coerce people into giving them standing, power, money, and other such worldly benefit.

Yet, in truth, the attempt to learn about God or about His creation unto mastery proves delusional before God’s glorious greatness and majesty. Isaiah wisely made known to Israel how God’s ways and thoughts are higher than our ways and thoughts (Isaiah 55:8-9); Paul confessed how God’s weakness remains stronger than man’s strength, and God’s foolishness remains wiser than man’s wisdom in 1 Corinthians 1:18-31. He is the Creator; we are the creation. No matter how much we think we can try, we will never be able to cajole, manipulate, or coerce God into doing anything for us.

We should be able to understand this by considering in what ways our quest to know in order to master flounder. When we are confronted with great tragedy or the evil powers over this present darkness, many are tempted to wonder why this might happen to them, but we all know, deep down, no answer really satisfies. Knowing why a loved one died a horrific death will not bring them back. Understanding the dynamics of a powerful storm will not restore what was devastated. The Preacher wisely understood such questions to be futile, a striving after wind (Ecclesiastes 8:14); when Job pressed such questions before God, he was quickly reminded how he did not understand the ways of the creation. All of our acquired knowledge and technology has not been able to overcome such ancient wisdom.

Knowledge unto mastery does not glorify God. Yet knowledge unto glorifying God can come with great profit.

Consider a romantic relationship: the lover desires to know his or her beloved. We find it abominable for a lover to seek information about the beloved in order to master, control, or manipulate him or her; yet we all have sought, or greatly desire, to know and become known by a lover in order to be more cherished, valued, and honored. Such knowledge is sought by a lover to more greatly honor and glorify the beloved. The Song of Solomon testifies how God finds such good and honorable.

The same ought to be true for our purpose in seeking knowledge about God and His creation. When we seek to master, manipulate, and control on the basis of our knowledge, we presume to be as God and such an impulse for control is the basis of a culture of death and leads to death. Instead we do well to love God and love what God has made as God loves it. When we truly love God, we want to know more about Him, not in order to manipulate or control Him (as if we even could!), but instead to better glorify, honor, and praise Him. When we thus love God, we can look at His creation and learn about it so that we can better see His hand in its operation and glorify, honor, and praise Him.

Note well how the knowledge itself acquired might be quite similar, or even the same; yet the purpose of seeking such knowledge might prove very different, and thus the quest for said knowledge will lead to very different ends. Theology is rightly the queen of all sciences when we pursue it to better honor and glorify God, and all else can rightfully flow from it. We can learn about God’s creation in humility in order to glorify and honor God and be found more effective stewards of the creation by God when He holds us all accountable for how we have used all the gifts He has given us, and to what end.

Knowledge unto mastery is demonic and leads to death; knowledge unto glorifying God in Christ through the Spirit reminds us of our humble station as God’s creation and inspires us to glorify, honor, and praise our Creator. Knowledge of the creation to glorify its Creator provides opportunities to better embody the ways of Jesus, to faithfully serve our fellow man and maintain good stewardship of the creation with which God has entrusted us; knowledge of the creation unto mastery has led to no end of exploitation, oppression, and death. Let us all, therefore, seek knowledge to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit, and not unto mastery, so we might obtain the resurrection of life and be saved!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Knowledge: To What End? appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Confidence Toward God | 1 John 5:12-17

He that hath the Son hath the life; he that hath not the Son of God hath not the life. These things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye have eternal life, even unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God. And this is the boldness which we have toward him, that, if we ask anything according to his will, he heareth us: and if we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask, we know that we have the petitions which we have asked of him. If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: not concerning this do I say that he should make request. All unrighteousness is sin: and there is a sin not unto death (1 John 5:12-17).

John is beginning to conclude his first letter, a treatise designed to encourage Christians in their faith and standing before God while warning them regarding false teachers.

Previously John has emphasized how believers are born of God, keep His commandments, overcome the world through Christ, and that believers have the witness of God regarding Jesus His Son in them (1 John 5:1-11). This witness includes the fact that believers have been given eternal life through the Son (1 John 5:11).

The theme of having eternal life continues throughout the rest of the letter. It features prominently in 1 John 5:12-13: the one who has the Son has “the life,” and those believing in the name of the Son of God can know that they have eternal life. Likewise, the one who does not have the Son does not have “the life.”

Focus on “the life” evokes John 11:25 and 14:6: Jesus is the resurrection, the way, the truth and the life. Since Jesus is the Word (John 1:14), and the Word is the agent of creation (John 1:3, Hebrews 11:3), all life truly is in the Son. Yes, those who believe in Jesus in obedient faith have spiritual life; but there is also a sense in which those who trust in Jesus are those who can truly live as human today, seeking to accomplish the will of their Creator (cf. Galatians 5:17-24). We truly can have life in the Son, but only if we are doing the commandments (1 John 5:2-3).

Yet there is more for believers. They have life in the Son, indeed, but John goes on to show that believers can boldly make requests to God according to His will and be guaranteed a hearing and our needs fulfilled (1 John 5:14-15). This is similar to what is seen in Hebrews 4:14-16. Considering how so many have been fearful when approaching the throne of God (cf. Isaiah 6:1-5, Ezekiel 1:4-28), the opportunity to approach Him with boldness is astounding indeed!

This is not a carte blanche for anything the believer may want; as John says, we can have confidence regarding the requests we make that are in accordance with God’s will (1 John 5:14), not just any request. The warning of James 4:3 applies: if we ask to spend in pleasure, we will be frustrated!

John goes on to speak regarding prayer for others caught in trespasses; a noble thing for sure (cf. Galatians 6:1, James 5:19-20). In this discussion John makes a contrast between the “sin leading to death” and the “sin not leading to death,” and exhorts Christians to pray for their fellow Christians in terms of the latter and not the former (1 John 5:16). John maintains that “all unrighteousness is sin,” but there is a “sin not unto death” (1 John 5:17).

These two verses have been abused and misused for centuries in order to prop up a hierarchy of sins: “mortal sins” versus “venial sins” or some permutation of the sort. Such a view assumes that John’s delineation between sins leading to death or not leading to death involves particular sins and their severity. Such a perspective, however, is foreign to the New Testament. In no other passage do we see that certain sins are more or less severe than other sins. In fact, sin lists tend to feature all kinds of sin: sexual sins and sins of the tongue, sins of thought and even sins of omission (cf. Galatians 5:19-21, 1 Peter 4:15, James 4:17).

The New Testament does make a distinction, however, between repentant sin and unrepentant sin; there is no sin so terrible that cannot be forgiven (1 Timothy 1:12-15), and yet no sin so slight that it cannot condemn (1 John 5:17). This is how we can understand what John is saying: the “sin to death” is the sin of a hardened, unrepentant person; the “sin not to death” is the sin of a tenderhearted, repentant disciple. Let us serve God in Christ and have life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Confidence Toward God | 1 John 5:12-17 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Hatti

In the middle of the Bronze Age a most extraordinary empire developed and faded. Its capital was nowhere near a major river, sea, or trade route and was barely accessible during the winter months; its people were not speakers of a Semitic language, but instead an Indo-European one. It left a momentous legacy which would be carried on by Assyria and every successive empire yet was almost entirely forgotten for two millennia. Thus we speak of Hatti and the Hittite Empire.

“Hatti” was the name given to an area in the central part of Anatolia, in modern-day Turkey, originally by people identified as the “Hattians.” The Hattians inhabited the land in the early Bronze Age; they and their language were distinctive, neither Indo-European nor Semitic. Their land centered on a city they named Hattush (otherwise known as Hattusa/Hattusha/Hattusas). By the beginning of the second millennium BCE, however, the Hattians had been conquered, overrun, or assimilated into a new and different people who spoke the “language of Nesha,” an Indo-European language. The newcomers adopted the nomenclature of the Hattians, and cultivated what they called the “Kingdom of Hattusha.” They were known as the Hatti to the Assyrians and Kheta to the Egyptians; we know them as the Hittites for reasons we will address below.

The land of Hatti did not seem like it would be conducive to the development of a great empire. The north central region of Anatolia is highly mountainous, often covered with snow, and nowhere near major trading routes, rivers, or lakes. Nevertheless, from around 1600 to 1200 BCE, the Kingdom of Hattusha would become a significant player in the ancient Near Eastern world, and its king recognized as a fellow brother to the Great Kings of Egypt and Babylon.

As with Egypt, the history of the Kingdom of Hattusha is delineated among three periods: the Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom. The Hittite Old Kingdom saw the establishment of the Kingdom of Hattusha and repeated victories over the Amorites, even destroying Amorite Babylon in 1595 BCE and giving it over to the Kassites. Yet soon after the Hittites suffered major setbacks closer to home; this would lead into the period of weak kingship known as the Hittite Middle Kingdom. Around 1400 BCE the period of the Hittite New Kingdom began, contemporaneous with the Hittite Empire. The Hittite Empire would endure for two hundred years. It was the Hittites who smashed and destroyed the Kingdom of Mitanni in the center of Mesopotamia; the Hittites also conquered Aleppo and Carchemish. Their direct rule or rule by kings under treaty extended from the Aegean Sea to the Euphrates River and from the Black Sea coast to the Mediterranean, and even over parts of Cyprus.

The Kingdom of Hattusha thus represented a major force and power in the Late Bronze Age world of the ancient Near East. It was the Hittite king Muwatalli II who infamously fought against Ramses II of Egypt at Kadesh, and despite Ramses’ claims of victory, it was the Hittite forces who controlled the area around Kadesh when all was said and done. Hittite diplomatic records describe their interactions with the king of “Ahhiyawa,” which most scholars now agree has some association with Mycenaean Greece (called the Achaeans by Homer); likewise, one of the cities the Hittites describe in “Arzawa land” to their west was “Wilusa,” which most scholars agree represents the Troy of Iliad fame (called Ilios by Homer).

Many of the tendencies we find in later empires can be traced to practices of the Hittites. The Hittites fought only when necessary; they preferred cultivating treaty relationships with local kingdoms and alliances with those at some distance. In the ruins of Hattusha archaeologists have discovered a treasure trove of such diplomatic documents which have helped us immeasurably in understanding the dynamics of the foreign policy in the ancient Near East. But when many groups proved frequently restive, the Hittites would exile them to other lands elsewhere in their domains and re-populate the land with others; furthermore, it would seem the land of Hatti frequently suffered from depopulation, and the trains of slaves and captives in war brought back to Hatti helped the Hittites maintain their strength for many generations.

The land of Hatti, however, was not the greatest for the center of a powerful empire. Enemies to the northeast, the Kaska people, had often invaded and even destroyed Hattusha during the age of its kings. From what we can tell from historical records and scientific investigation, the land of Hatti suffered prolonged periods of drought in the thirteenth century BCE. The Assyrians gained strength, overran what was left of Mitanni, and defeated the Hittites at the Battle of Nihiriya around 1237 BCE. The Kingdom of Hattusha also suffered from some bouts of civil war. Its last king, Suppiluliuma II, had won some important battles and seemed to be a great king; nevertheless, he seems to have abandoned Hattusha some time around 1200 BCE, likely to establish his capital further south in a place closer to receiving the necessary aid from other parts of his kingdom.

At this point the Hittite records give out since Suppiluliuma II had the records of his reign taken with him. Yet the end of the Kingdom of Hattusha had come: within fifty years Hattusha was overrun and destroyed; Phrygian people from the Balkan Peninsula invaded and overran most of the center of Anatolia; the Assyrians attempted to conquer the rest. The Kingdom of Hattusha and Hatti would fade from the historical record and become almost entirely forgotten until rediscovered in the 19th century of our era.

The Old Testament never speaks of the Kingdom of Hattusha as such; we call it the Hittite Empire because soon after evidence of Hatti was discovered in the 19th century, its European discoverers immediately associated them with the “Hittites” described in the Hebrew Bible.

The “Hittites” described in the earliest part of the Old Testament, from Genesis through Judges, and even in 1 Kings 9:20/2 Chronicles 8:7, Ezra 9:1, and Nehemiah 9:8, most likely have nothing to do with Hatti or the Kingdom of Hattusha in Anatolia. Such people, like Ephron, seem to be the “Hethites,” the sons of Heth, a son of Canaan according to Genesis 10:15. They would be another band of Canaanites. Many such Canaanites would certainly have known about the Kingdom of Hattusha, since it would have ruled over the lands not far to their north; Ugarit, a Canaanite city in northern Syria, was allied with Hattusha and may have met its demise because its military forces were away on campaign with the Hatti king when invaders arrived. Depending on how one dates the Exodus, the glory days of the Kingdom of Hattusha took place during the Wilderness wanderings, conquest of Canaan, and in the days of the early judges, or during the time of the Egyptian sojourn and Wilderness wanderings. We can understand why we do not hear much about them within these texts.

Yet there are three Old Testament passages which refer to Hittites who do not seem to be the “sons of Heth”: 1 Kings 10:29, 11:1, and 2 Kings 7:6, in which we learn Solomon’s traders sold horses and chariots to the Aramean and Hittite kings, Solomon loved Hittite women, and a besieging Aramean army became afraid the king of Israel had hired the kings of Egypt and the Hittites to attack them. Yet, as we have indicated, the Kingdom of Hattusha had fallen around 1200 BCE, and Solomon and Elisha lived after 1000 BCE. How can this be?

While it is true the Kingdom of Hattusha collapsed around 1200 BCE, and its homeland was overrun by the Kaska and the Phrygians, such does not mean all Hittite influence and rule collapsed. The kings of Hattusha had long appointed their brothers and their sons as lesser kings over Carchemish and Aleppo, and we have evidence Hittite rule over Carchemish continued for many generations after Hattusha had been destroyed. Around 1000 BCE bands of Arameans invaded or overran much of Syria; we are most familiar with the Aramean Kingdom of Aram centered in Damascus, but many other Syrian city-states with Aramean kings developed during the Early Iron Age. Yet the Arameans were not able to overcome the remnants of the Kingdom of Hattusha which was by then ruled over by Luwian speaking kings in southeastern Turkey. Scholars used to speak of these as “Neo-Hittite” kingdoms; today they are better known as either “Syro-Hittite” or “Luwian-Aramean” kingdoms.

Thus the kings of Israel and Judah traded with, and perhaps even allied with, “Hittite” kings, speaking a similar but different language than Hatti, yet still attempting to maintain the glory of the Kingdom of Hattusha of old. Yet even these kings and kingdoms lasted for only a brief time; they were overrun by the Assyrians and made part of the Neo-Assyrian Empire by 825 BCE, and fully assimilated into Assyria by 700 BCE. As the Hittites had previously exiled people and forced many into their homelands, thus their descendants were most likely exiled and forced into Assyria in turn.

We can now understand why Hatti was entirely forgotten: its original homeland was overrun by invaders and those who wished to maintain their legacy were forcibly assimilated into Assyria. The presence of their name in the Old Testament was even used for a time as a means to discredit its integrity; after all, who had ever heard of the Hittites, and what evidence would demonstrate their existence? The answer would be provided definitively through archaeological excavations and the decipherment of Hittite in the 19th and 20th centuries.

Thus the Kingdom of Hattusha in many respects paved the way for the kinds of behaviors we find manifest in the Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian Empires a few centuries later. Hatti is a good reminder for us of how ephemeral human power and glory can prove: a mighty power in the Late Bronze Age world of the ancient Near East which would be so completely forgotten as to become a source of mockery and derision centuries afterward. Thus we do well not to put our trust in princes but in the Lord God and to seek His purposes in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Hatti appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Family and Nation of God

Paul had spoken powerfully regarding all the spiritual blessings with which God had blessed Christians in Jesus, having been elected and predestined to obtain the hope of salvation and righteousness in Christ, superabundantly receiving grace and mercy in Him (Ephesians 1:1-14). Paul prayed for Christians to gain understanding from God in the heart to know the great hope in which they have been saved and His great power at work in those who believe, since Christ has been established above every authority, especially over His body, the church (Ephesians 1:15-23). Paul would go on to explain the nature of this salvation and how it came about, first to Israel, and then to all who would come to God in Christ.

Paul continued his theological explanations by establishing the need and value of salvation secured in Christ, and man’s purpose before God (Ephesians 2:1-10). Paul did not shrink from laying out the ugly truth about the need for salvation: all were dead in their sins, having walked in the way of the prince of the powers of the air, living according to lust, as children destined for wrath (Ephesians 2:1-3). Yet God, rich in mercy and love, made believers alive in Christ and raised us up with Him to sit in the heavenly places in order to continually demonstrate the riches of His grace, for Christians are saved by grace through faith, not because of anything they have done to earn it (Ephesians 2:1-9). And yet Christians are God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do the good works which He prepared for us to do (Ephesians 2:10). This whole message works together for a reason, just like in Titus 3:3-8: Christians need continual reminders about their need for salvation and God’s display of grace and mercy in Jesus so that we may be productive in good works. We cannot imagine that we are superior to other people; we have sinned and deserved condemnation like all the rest. But God loved us, would not give us the condemnation we deserve (thus showing mercy), but would give Jesus and salvation, we did not deserve (thus showing grace). We did not, nor could not, earn or merit this salvation, but are called upon to receive it humbly through faith and trust in God in Christ. We can then serve God and encourage our fellow man in good works so as to glorify God.

Paul then specifically focused on God’s welcome of Gentiles and how it came about (Ephesians 2:11-18). He identified Gentiles as the uncircumcision, those separated from the covenant between God and Israel, the nation of Israel, and as without God or hope in the world; such is the state of mankind without God, and it is quite unpleasant (Ephesians 2:11-12). And yet through the blood of Jesus Gentiles who were far away could draw near, for Jesus in His death broke down the wall dividing the Jews from the Gentiles, the Law (Ephesians 2:13-15a); one is given reason to imagine the Court of the Gentiles in the Temple in Jerusalem, an actual, physical wall cordoning off Gentiles from coming any closer to the Presence of God. But it is not as if the Gentiles would become Jews: Jesus has created one new man in Himself, and in this way makes peace, killing the hostility which existed between Jews and Gentiles, preaching peace to those near and those far off (Ephesians 2:15b-17). Both Jewish and Gentile Christians now have access to the Father through Jesus in the Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). We must appreciate the radical nature of what Paul is suggesting: for 1,500 years, Jewish people identified themselves in contrast to those of the nations. In response, those in the nations tended to look upon the Jewish people as oddities and best, and with contempt and hatred at worst. The only way to eliminate the hostility was to kill it, and Jesus did so on the cross, giving the Jewish people no more right to presumption of election and giving Gentiles equal access to God in the Spirit. Jewish Christians remained ethnically Jewish while Gentile Christians remained their various ethnicities, but the faith and hope they shared in Christ was of far greater value and consequence than their worldly identities; no earthly division ought to separate them. So it remains to this day, and not merely between Jewish people and Gentiles: all people have access to God in the Spirit through Jesus, and there is no worldly division which ought to separate the people of God, for what they share in Jesus is greater than any challenge, difficulty, or division in the world.

Paul had formerly spoken of the church as the body of Christ, given to Jesus under His authority (Ephesians 1:22-23); having established the means of salvation for all people, especially the Gentiles (Ephesians 2:1-18), he now affirmed that Gentile Christians were no longer strangers or aliens, but fellow-citizens and members of the household of God (Ephesians 2:19). Mixing his metaphors, Paul considers that household as built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets with Jesus as the cornerstone, built up into a holy temple in which the Spirit dwells (Ephesians 2:20-22). Through these powerful metaphors Paul reinforced the instruction he had just provided and explained for those who would hear how the people of God are to view one another and their relationship with God. As citizens of God’s Kingdom they are to uphold their responsibilities to accomplish His purposes (cf. Philippians 1:27); as fellow members of God’s household, they consider each other as brothers and sisters of the heavenly Father, equal in standing before Him, and restored in relationship with Him and each other (cf. John 17:20-23, Romans 8:11-17). Temples are places in which it is believed that a deity himself, or a manifestation of a deity, is present; thus, Christians are to consider themselves as the temple of the Holy Spirit individually and collectively, and are therefore to conduct themselves in holiness so God, who is holy, can maintain His presence in their midst (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19-20, 1 Peter 1:13-16). The temple is founded upon the teachings of God in Christ as made known by the apostles and prophets; the cornerstone, providing alignment for everything else, is Jesus Himself (1 Corinthians 3:11). In this way Christians are to be a holy family of people who love and care for one another and seek to do good for all people, always cognizant of their need for salvation and thankful that God has provided it in Christ. May we all participate in God’s household in the Kingdom of Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Family and Nation of God appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Wisdom and Moderation

Wisdom, like an inheritance, is a good thing; it benefits those who see the light of day. For wisdom provides protection, just as money provides protection. But the advantage of knowledge is this: Wisdom preserves the life of its owner.
Consider the work of God: For who can make straight what he has bent? In times of prosperity be joyful, but in times of adversity consider this: God has made one as well as the other, so that no one can discover what the future holds.
During the days of my fleeting life I have seen both of these things: Sometimes a righteous person dies prematurely in spite of his righteousness, and sometimes a wicked person lives long in spite of his evil deeds.
So do not be excessively righteous or excessively wise; otherwise you might be disappointed. Do not be excessively wicked and do not be a fool; otherwise you might die before your time.
It is best to take hold of one warning without letting go of the other warning; for the one who fears God will follow both warnings (Ecclesiastes 7:11-18).

If you think the Preacher speaks blasphemy, it might well mean you are his intended audience.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-6:12 the Preacher meditates 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 7:1-10 the Preacher seemed to have set forth a series of aphoristic exhortations not unlike the proverbs for which he is well known. Ecclesiastes 7:11-18 somewhat continues in this same trend, covering a series of pericopes which have some relationship to wisdom and exhortations regarding life.

Throughout his discourse the Preacher has considered wisdom and has often complained about its deficiencies (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:12-18, 2:12-17, 6:8-9). Most recently the Preacher commended heeding the rebuke of the wise, yet also spoke of how wisdom could be corrupted by oppression or bribery (Ecclesiastes 7:5, 7). In Ecclesiastes 7:11-12 he set forth a more positive perspective on wisdom: like an inheritance, wisdom is good; it provides protection, like money can provide protection; it can preserve the life of its owner.

The Preacher has not thus contradicted himself; instead, he has provided a balanced understanding of wisdom (and, for that matter, money). The Preacher never denied the value or benefit of wisdom; he had previously lamented how wisdom was not the ultimate good, for even the wise perish just like the fool. Wisdom is not the ultimate good, but it is still good. Those who heed wisdom tend to live longer and better lives than those who flaunt it. Wisdom is often communicated precisely because of the dangers lurking in this world from natural and artificial sources. Likewise, money can provide a level of protection, since by it one can obtain access to greater resources and the fruit of the labor of others. The Preacher has done well at showing money is not the ultimate good, cannot deliver on all it promises, and can lead to great anxiety; but it still has its value, as his personal life would attest.

The Preacher will again commend the protection wisdom can provide in Ecclesiastes 7:19, so we can certainly understand the series of observations about life which he set forth in Ecclesiastes 7:13-18 as within the bounds of this wisdom and the protection it can provide.

In Ecclesiastes 7:13-14 the Preacher exhorted his audience to consider God’s work, rhetorically asking who can make straight anything He has bent. He did not leave us wondering to what end we should thus consider God’s work: he exhorted his audience to find joy in the days of prosperity, but to remember in the days of adversity how God has been the Giver (or at least the Facilitator) of both, and none can know what may be in the future.

The Preacher’s observation is apt. As humans we have a tendency to take whatever happens for our benefit or prosperity for granted as the way things should be and prove quite critical whenever we come into any adversity. Perhaps you have heard a person curse or question God on account of some difficulty they have or are experiencing; perhaps you are that person. But have you ever heard anyone cursing or questioning God because they have received some benefit or success in their lives? The very premise seems foolish! But we could also entirely shift our perspective, of course; we could assume everything which we will experience will be awful and terrible, and consider benefits or prosperity as aberrant and unexpected. However we may want to view our lives, the Preacher is right: the same God who is the Giver, or at least Facilitator, of all the good we enjoy, has given or facilitated the challenges and difficulties we encounter. We can tell ourselves all kinds of stories about how it will all turn out in the end, but we do not know how it will turn out in the end; only God does.

The Preacher continued in a similar vein of observation in Ecclesiastes 7:15-18. The Preacher has seen a righteous person die young despite his righteousness and a wicked person live a long, full live despite his wickedness. Thus the Preacher counseled his audience to be neither excessively righteous, excessively wise, excessively wicked, nor foolish: excessive righteousness or wisdom invites disappointment, and excessive wickedness and folly leads to death. The Preacher encouraged his audience to hold firmly onto both sets of these warnings, for thus those who fear God would do.

The Preacher’s observations prove alarming for many; how can he possibly chastise anyone for “excessive” righteousness or wisdom? Is he really commending a “moderate” amount of wickedness?

Those who maintain a superficial façade of piety, ancient and modern, have made absolute the maxims of Proverbs: the righteous are wise, prosper, and live long before God; the foolish are wicked, suffer poverty, and their lives are short. Thus we can tell the difference between the righteous and the wicked based on the quality of their lives, so this viewpoint would maintain, and thus we should seek righteousness and wisdom so we can guarantee not just a high quality of life but salvation here and in the future.

It is not as if the Preacher finds wisdom useless; but the Preacher has observed the maxims of Proverbs cannot be maintained absolutely. Even if we could go so far as to say the rule is that the righteous prosper and the wicked suffer (which the Preacher does not advance; we do so for the sake of argument), the exception still exists. Righteousness is no guarantee of prosperity or long life; the wicked will endure judgment at some point, but their lives on earth might be quite long and comfortable.

Thus the Preacher would shatter the superficial façade of piety which attends to an absolutist view of Proverbs. The pursuit of righteousness and wisdom cannot deliver from the trials of life. What happens when a person thus single-mindedly pursues such a pretense of righteousness and wisdom? Greater and greater frustration at the ways of the world, how the “real” very much falls short of the “ideal.”

Note well the Preacher did not condemn pursuing righteousness and wisdom; he warned about going to excess. Likewise, the Preacher did not commend a little bit or a moderate form of wickedness. Yet the Preacher is being realistic; the righteous and wise should not wait to watch for the inevitable downfall of the moderately wicked. Excessive wickedness and folly certainly put a person on the trajectory to death; cirrhosis of the liver, for instance, is the likely result of excessive alcohol consumption, and the “Darwin Award” concept exists to describe people perishing in their folly. But moderate wickedness, which would not commend a person to God, and still leaves a person liable to eternal condemnation in hellfire, on a practical level is very unlikely to lead to death in life. To continue our examples: the liver can manage a moderate level of alcohol and even the occasional drunkenness; we can all probably think of something foolish we did which had consequences but did not kill us.

And such is why the Preacher commended balance for those who fear God, holding onto both warnings at the same time. To not be excessively righteous and wise is not an invitation to wickedness and folly; to not be excessively wicked or a fool is not an invitation to presume salvation comes from righteousness and wisdom. In fact, the fear of God generally requires believers to hold onto two sets of warnings or exhortations at the same time. Many, in their quest to understand, seek to flatten out the wisdom of God manifest in His creation and revealed in Christ and in Scripture, myopically focusing on one set of doctrines or dangers and thus neglecting other doctrines and falling prey to other dangers. To fear God requires us to respect the multi-dimensional nature of His ways and truth and resist flattening it out in order to make it seem more comprehensible or controllable.

We do well to view any kind of extremism with great skepticism. Truth is rarely found at any kind of extreme; Jesus, fully God and fully man, rarely exhibited any kind of extremes. While Jesus was always holy and righteous, it was the Pharisees who seemed the most committed to zeal for holiness and righteousness, and in that zeal they dishonored God by imposing their own traditions to define righteousness and by separating themselves from and reckoning themselves as superior to the other children of Abraham whom they deemed the “sinners” or “unclean.” Jesus, the true embodiment of all that was righteous and holy, ate food, drank wine, dined with sinners and tax collectors, and scandalized the religious establishment by His association and connection with those defiled by the world. In this way we do well to understand the Preacher’s wisdom, and ourselves avoid the excessive righteousness and wisdom which ironically leads us away from God, not toward Him, and in all things seek to embody the wisdom and faithfulness of God manifest in Jesus His Son.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Wisdom and Moderation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Witness of God | 1 John 5:6-11

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not with the water only, but with the water and with the blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one. If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for the witness of God is this, that he hath borne witness concerning his Son. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in him: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he hath not believed in the witness that God hath borne concerning his Son. And the witness is this, that God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son (1 John 5:6-11).

The first letter of John has been a wonderfully encouraging treatise to the Christians of his day, confirming them in their faith while warning them about the dangers of false religion. As he begins to conclude his letter one can see John recapitulating his main themes and exhorting Christians to greater faithfulness in Christ Jesus. After his treatise on love (1 John 4:7-5:3), John has emphasized the importance of overcoming the world through obedient faith toward God (cf. 1 John 5:2-5).

Having established that believers can overcome the world through believing that Jesus is the Son of God (1 John 5:5), John turns to speak of the confirmation that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Son of God. In so doing he returns to a prominent theme in the Gospel of John: the bearing of witness (cf. John 1:7, 8, 15, 32, 34, etc.). This witness is perceived in some “external” elements (Spirit, water, blood, 1 John 5:8) along with “internal” elements (eternal life, 1 John 5:11), providing sufficient confirmation to the believer that his faith is not in vain.

John begins by showing that Jesus came by both “water” and “blood” (1 John 5:6). This follows the established pattern of “two or three witnesses” as attested by Deuteronomy 19:15 as the standard for confirmation of evidence. The “water” refers to Jesus’ baptism by John whereby God the Father and God the Spirit both attest to Jesus’ divine Sonship (cf. Matthew 3:16-17, John 1:32-33), and the “blood” refers to His death on the cross for remission of sin, attested in part by John the Baptist in John 1:29 and the witness of the Spirit through Isaiah in Isaiah 53. In 1 John 5:7-8 John affirms that the Spirit also bears witness, and the Spirit is the truth (cf. 2 Peter 1:19-21). This leads to having the three witnesses in agreement: the Spirit, the water, and the blood. They testify to the truth of God in Jesus Christ.

This witness from God is far superior to any witness of man, and the witness of God is that He has testified concerning His Son (1 John 5:9). We can see this indirectly through the prophets (cf. Isaiah 9, 11, 53, etc.) and directly in the life of Jesus (Matthew 3:16-17, 17:1-5, John 12:28). John then makes a contrast between those who accept this witness and those who reject it: those who accept it have the witness in them, and those who reject it God has made liars (1 John 5:10). This witness would include God abiding with us in the Spirit (cf. 1 John 4:12-13), and our adherence to the faith once revealed for the saints (cf. Jude 1:3), but here is most particularly the eternal life that God provides to believers through the Son (1 John 5:11). We should not imagine that God somehow turns people into liars– instead, those rejecting God’s witness are made liars because God is true and what He has established must stand (cf. Romans 3:4).

It is important for us to make a textual note in regards to 1 John 5:7, which as rendered in the KJV features the Comma Johannem:

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (1 John 5:7 KJV).

This verse is not found in any of our Greek manuscripts save one copy that has a dubious past. It was inserted and established into the Latin translation of the Bible, the Vulgate, most likely as a strong affirmation of the trinitarian view of God. While many people are willing to make strenuous arguments affirming the textual validity of the Comma, the context makes it clear that it is an insertion: John is talking about those who witness in regards to Jesus as the Son, and the three that do so are the Spirit, the water, and the blood (cf. 1 John 5:8 KJV). The truth of God as One in Three Persons can be well established without recourse to this addition to Scripture.

John has powerfully established that we can be sure that Jesus is the Christ based upon His life and death and the testimony of the Father and the Spirit, and we enjoy the benefits of this witness through the eternal life that is given to us from the Father through the Son. Let us praise God for our salvation!

Ethan R. Longhenry

[image error] function QRC_WOOCON(){var qr = window.qr = new QRious({ element: document.getElementById("QRC_Com_COntent"), size: 200, value: "https://www.deverbovitae.com/articles..." }); jQuery("#download_QRC_con").click(function() { download(jQuery("#QRC_Com_COntent").attr("src"),"The Witness of God | 1 John 5:6-11.png","image/png"); });}QRC_WOOCON();

The post The Witness of God | 1 John 5:6-11 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Saved by Faith, not Knowledge

Knowledge, they say, is power.

The world today seems fixed and oriented around this old adage. Modern man presumes to be far better than his ancestors because he has acquired greater knowledge about his environment and has developed greater capabilities. Fortunes are made and lost on the basis of obtaining knowledge. Billions of dollars are invested in scientific exploits to gain further knowledge, and mostly to what end? Despite whatever humanitarian pretense is maintained, and apart from the profit motive, such learning is always designed to enhance humankind’s ability to control and manipulate his environment.

Knowledge also seems to be the key to social power. Society expects every one of its constituents to spend between fifteen to thirty-three percent of their lives dedicated to the acquisition of knowledge. The level of formal education remains determinative of a person’s earning power; while today advanced degrees are not a guarantee of a decent income, few are the opportunities to obtain a decent income without them or without their skill equivalent. Entrance into many social circles or spheres of influence requires having the right kind of knowledge and/or knowing the right people. As the body of human knowledge has expanded well beyond the capability of any individual person to understand it all, we have become more dependent on experts and their expertise, and those with expertise maintain greater social standing than those who do not.

In many respects this is the world bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment. According to the precepts of the Enlightenment, the world beforehand was “pre-critical,” enslaved to superstitions and ignorance. Ignorance was man’s big problem; the solution was to dispel ignorance with the shining light of knowledge obtained through observation and reason.

The Enlightenment succeeded far beyond anyone might have expected. Academia and scientific inquiry have been entirely subsumed by it. Whenever we are confronted by any kind of problem, our immediate impulse is to try to learn all about it so we can try to solve it. When we see or hear of terrible events, we impulsively want to access some kind of information so we can do something about it. When someone acts unbecomingly, we are tempted to imagine they should know better. In fact, “to know better is to do better” is a major theme in modern society.

Christianity has also been significantly impacted by the Enlightenment and its idolization of knowledge. Yet, in Christ, we are not saved by knowledge; we are saved by faith.

Many will immediately challenge such a statement: how can anyone be saved without knowledge? Must one not come to a knowledge of what God has done in Christ in order to be saved?

Before we provide assurance regarding the importance of at least some knowledge, we do well to pause and consider such a reaction. Why would we, upon hearing how we are saved by faith and not knowledge, immediately presume such a statement demands a faith without any kind of knowledge? Why would we see it as denigrating knowledge? Such a reaction confirms the modern sentiment: any time any question is raised about the efficacy or ultimate nature of knowledge is automatically suspect. As a result, we should not be surprised to discover many Christians have, however consciously or unconsciously, put their confidence in their knowledge for their salvation.

Knowledge, on its own, has never been the problem; the challenge is how we view knowledge and its importance in the grand scheme of things.

While the Enlightenment has been overwhelmingly successful in framing ignorance as the problem and knowledge as the solution, it should not take us terribly long to see while ignorance is a problem, and knowledge is a solution, ignorance is not the problem, and knowledge certainly is not the solution.

Christians of all people should recognize this; the Apostle Paul has reminded us how we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, and all of our faculties have suffered from corruption (Romans 5:12-21, 8:17-23). In Romans 7:5-25 Paul presented his grand soliloquy on how knowledge of the Law provided the opportunity for sin to enter and lead us to transgression. Ironically, according to Paul, knowledge itself can sometimes lead to and perpetuate the problem of sin. Americans of a certain generation can attest to Paul’s wisdom in this matter when considering what was the popular “Drug Abuse Resistance Program (DARE)”: while informing small children about the nature of drugs certainly led many to resist drugs, it also opened horizons previously unknown for many others! After all, even in our days of speaking of “knowledge as power,” we still confess how sometimes “ignorance is bliss.”

Paul would not have us fall prey to the worldly wisdom of the Enlightenment (Colossians 2:8-10): ignorance is not the problem; sin is. Knowledge is not the solution; faith in Jesus is.

Does this mean we never sin in ignorance, or that we cannot come to learn of anything good? Not at all. Sometimes ignorance leads us to sin. God has called all of us to come to faith through learning of the Gospel and to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 3:18). At the same time, Christians would be commended for remaining ignorant of the “deep things of Satan”; and Paul rightly warned us how knowledge makes arrogant while it is love which builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).

Thus we do not inherently commend ignorance and cast aspersions on knowledge; but we must come to grips with how we have, however consciously or unconsciously, imbibed the spirit of the age. As humans we are finite, created beings; there are many things beyond our understanding (Isaiah 55:8-9). There are forces far greater than us at work in this creation; we cannot manipulate or control our environment to resist all of them (Ephesians 6:12). In the face of artificial and/or natural disaster, the search for knowledge and understanding can never satisfy. How can we endure in the face of all such things? It will not be through knowledge; it can only be through faith in God our Creator, His covenant loyalty, and the hope of resurrection through Jesus.

Knowledge, therefore, is not the answer. Sometimes it is an answer, as part of something more, but it can never be the answer. As Christians, we should stop acting as if knowledge is the answer. People will learn about Jesus but turn away from Him. People “raised in the church” will know right and wrong, and some will choose to do the wrong. They may indeed know better; such never demands for them, or us, to do better. The church will always be beset with difficulties; we should not assume or presume the problem has come from a lack of preaching or teaching on the matter, as if every problem can be reduced to a lack of information. Likewise, we should not be surprised when after preaching and teaching on a matter, a problem still endures; far better preachers and teachers preached and taught on matters which still led to difficulties, as exploration of the pages of the New Testament makes evident.

Toward the end of the first century there was a group of people who held belief in Jesus of Nazareth but claimed they had received additional insight and understanding and considered themselves the truly knowledgeable and elect. Today we call them Gnostics and rightly recognize them as heretical. Ever since there has been the impulse to put great confidence in our knowledge or insights, as if by having an encyclopedic knowledge of the Scriptures we would obtain our salvation, and the confirmation of our standing in Christ would be evident by how much we know about the Bible. We have presumed we are the ones who have come into the right knowledge, and excoriate everyone else for being in the wrong, seemingly presuming how the standard for entering into eternal life is exactitude in accurate knowledge. Yet on what basis do we have any right to believe our salvation or standing before God in Christ is based on what or how much we know? Knowledge indeed makes arrogant, but it is love which builds up: the one who knows little but loves much far better reflects the Lord Jesus and His purposes than the one who knows much but loves little.

The Scriptures provide no suggestion we will stand before the Lord Jesus only if we have passed a knowledge test; and woe to us if such were the standard, because do we really know all we think we know? How much more could all of us learn? What if such a test were not graded on a curve, but on the same kind of exacting standard we have imposed upon ourselves and/or others? Mercy triumphs over judgment according to the Lord’s brother; but to those who show no mercy, no mercy will be given (James 2:12-13).

Christians are saved by faith, not knowledge. We therefore cannot assume or presume our knowledge will save us or grant us standing before the Lord Jesus. Whatever standing we have was secured not by our own efforts but the magnanimous display of grace and mercy manifest in the cross; our hope cannot be in learning enough to gain mastery, but in overcoming sin and death by following the Lord Jesus Christ who overcame sin and death. Knowledge perishes; Jesus endures forever. May we put our trust in the Lord Jesus, not in our knowledge, so we might obtain salvation in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Saved by Faith, not Knowledge appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Preacher’s Proverbs

A good reputation is better than precious perfume; likewise, the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth. It is better to go to a funeral than a feast. For death is the destiny of every person, and the living should take this to heart. Sorrow is better than laughter, because sober reflection is good for the heart. The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning, but the heart of fools is in the house of merrymaking.
It is better for a person to receive a rebuke from those who are wise than to listen to the song of fools. For like the crackling of quick-burning thorns under a cooking pot, so is the laughter of the fool. This kind of folly also is useless. Surely oppression can turn a wise person into a fool; likewise, a bribe corrupts the heart.
The end of a matter is better than its beginning; likewise, patience is better than pride. Do not let yourself be quickly provoked, for anger resides in the lap of fools. Do not say, “Why were the old days better than these days?” for it is not wise to ask that (Ecclesiastes 7:1-10).

Solomon remains widely known for his proverbs. As the Preacher he could not resist providing a few in his exhortation.

Throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-6:12 the Preacher meditates 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.

Likewise, throughout Ecclesiastes 1:1-6:12 the Preacher has maintained rhetorical coherence, addressing a variety of topics, but very much so in terms of a discourse. One could perhaps argue the Preacher continues to meditate on the theme of wisdom by providing wise aphoristic insights in Ecclesiastes 7:1-10; yet Ecclesiastes 7:11-29 proves far more coherent and consistent with what we have seen before in a way quite unlike Ecclesiastes 7:1-10.

We thus do best to understand Ecclesiastes 7:1-10 as at least three “proverbial” meditations by the Preacher. The Preacher, associated with Solomon, is legendary for his compilation and composition of proverbs (cf. Ecclesiastes 12:9); we should not be surprised to find at least part of the Preacher’s message to feature them. Proverbs can be set forth in a contextual frame or “rapid fire” without any contextual demand; we might reason the Preacher waxes proverbial in light of his observations about man’s inability to make sense of his plight in Ecclesiastes 6:10-12, but with a series of proverbs we have no obligation to expect contextual flow.

The Preacher began these “proverbial” meditations with a reconsideration of “happiness” and “sadness.” The Preacher confesses the great importance of a good reputation, which he deems more valuable than perfume, which was expensive indeed (Ecclesiastes 7:1). This observation leads the Preacher to also consider the day of a person’s death better than the day of his or her birth (Ecclesiastes 7:1), a comparison which would not come naturally to many of us. His latter observation becomes his focus: the Preacher considers it better to go to a funeral than a feast, since death comes for everyone, and people do well to remember it (Ecclesiastes 7:2). Likewise, sorrow is better than laughter, since reflection on life is good for the heart (Ecclesiastes 7:3). Thus the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning while the heart of the fool is in the house of merrymaking (Ecclesiastes 7:4).

Few would deny the truth of the Preacher’s observation about the value of a good reputation, especially among those who have endured the terrible fortune of watching their reputation be unjustly besmirched. Despite what many may try to tell you, money cannot really buy a good reputation, and they prove hard to restore once lost. Yet our entire culture actively resists and rails against the Preacher’s observations about death. Death was an ever-present pervasive reality in the ancient world; thanks to our scientific understanding and technologies, we have found ways of trying to make death seem more remote. In the process, however, people do everything they can to avoid and resist even the thought of death and fling themselves into an Epicurean posture of trying to live their best lives and pretend death will not happen. We do not know what to do with those who are actively dying or grieving the loss of loved ones. To modern Western man it is patently absurd to suggest the day of one’s death is better than the day of one’s birth. Yet the Preacher was wise, and was not wrong. Our culture’s death avoidance posture betrays how many are fools in the house of merrymaking, and we as the people of God do better to reflect the wisdom of sitting in the house of mourning. One way they can do so is to take seriously and make good on the Preacher’s advice in Ecclesiastes 7:1-4.

The Preacher considers further comparisons between the wise and the foolish in Ecclesiastes 7:5-7. As the heart of the wise is in the house of mourning while the heart of the fool is in the house of merrymaking, so it is better to suffer the rebuke of a wise man than to listen to the song of fools (Ecclesiastes 7:4-5). The laughter of fools is ephemeral, like the crackling of thorns quickly burning under the cooking pot, and proves useless (Ecclesiastes 7:6). ‘osheq can make a wise man foolish, or drive the wise man crazy; some versions understand ‘osheq as “extortion,” but better evidence exists for a rendering of “oppression”; in a similar way, a bribe corrupts a person (Ecclesiastes 7:7).

The Preacher’s meditations on the wise and the foolish will sound familiar to anyone who has spent time considering the book of Proverbs. We confess their truth while generally presuming we are among the “wise.” Yet Ecclesiastes 7:7 is an important reminder for us: “the wise person” and “the foolish person” are not fixed and static; the very same person, at times, might think, feel, or act “wisely” or “foolishly,” and certain circumstances can lead a person who has generally been known as “wise” to become foolish. No one wants to think of him or herself as the fool or as thinking, feeling, and acting foolishly; this kind of self-deception is precisely what we would expect out of the foolish, while the wise humbly confess their propensity toward folly.

The Preacher is able to bring the previous two themes together somewhat in his third series of proverbial observations (Ecclesiastes 7:8-10). The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and thus patience is better than pride (Ecclesiastes 7:8). In counseling patience, the Preacher encourages those who hear him to not be easily provoked since anger dwells in the lap of fools (Ecclesiastes 7:9). And the Preacher counsels against asking why the days of old were better than present times, since it is not from wisdom that anyone would ask this (Ecclesiastes 7:10). Such hearkens back to some of the Preacher’s original observations about how there is nothing new under the sun and how the story of humanity is more cyclical than progressive (cf. Ecclesiastes 1:1-11).

We can understand and appreciate each of these three observations on their face. We may have energy and interest at the beginning of something, but at its end we can see its ultimate end, and in the same way indeed it is better to have patience and endure over time than to maintain pride in exuberance. We have learned how many parts of the brain shut down when a person is provoked to anger, and pain, folly, and suffering will follow unless the person gets ahold of themselves and allows better executive function to prevail.

Yet it is also not hard to see how Ecclesiastes 7:8-9 reach their climax in Ecclesiastes 7:10. Nostalgia is quite the drug! Humans tend to maintain a gauzy view of the past, easily remembering what they thought was good, and glossing over the less than pleasant parts of those days. Little such gauziness is reserved for the present moment and its acute pains and distress. But the “good old days” really were not; and even if one can reasonably argue conditions of the past were in many respects better for a given group of people than is true in the present, such will not be true for everyone. Whether we want to recognize it or not, the past is not better or worse than the present; it is just different.

We can think of few better situations which exemplify the Preacher’s concern and wisdom than Israel in the Wilderness. YHWH had delivered them from the house of slavery with a powerful hand; yet they did not remember the oppression or cruelty, but they did remember the food they ate since it was more varied than the food they had in the Wilderness, and their folly extended to the point of seriously suggesting returning to Egypt when the spies brought back their report of the challenges of conquering Canaan (cf. Numbers 14:1-4). Imagine that scene for a moment: what would the Egyptian border garrison think of all those Israelites returning to submit again to the bondage of slavery? What foolish delusion! And all because they waxed nostalgic about what they left behind in Egypt without appropriate consideration of all they had suffered in Egypt.

And so it goes to this day. We resist contemplation of death and want to pretend we will not have to endure it. We never want to think it possible we could be the fool, and thus we prove to be the fool. And we think it was better in the “good old days,” forgetting the suffering and oppression but remembering fondly what we think we have lost. Thus we do well to meditate upon the Preacher’s proverbs, pursue the wisdom he provided, and seek to glorify God in Christ through the Spirit in all things!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Preacher’s Proverbs appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Imperative of Spiritual Maturation

For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil (Hebrews 5:12-14).

The New Testament speaks many times about the need for Christians to grow and mature in the faith. We Christians are aware of them, and most recognize the need for spiritual growth. Yet do we truly understand the imperative of spiritual growth and maturation? Do we, consciously or unconsciously, delay or hinder our own spiritual growth or the growth of others?

Spiritual growth, like physical growth, tends to come with growing pains. God was not foolish or naïve about His creation, and He recognizes that growth happens more in times of suffering or difficulty than times of peace and security (cf. James 1:2-4, Hebrews 12:4-13, 1 Peter 1:7-8). True spiritual maturation can be scary, discomfiting, and painful. Yet what are we to expect when we have been called to “take up our cross” and follow after Jesus (Matthew 10:38, Matthew 16:24)? Unlike physical growth, spiritual growth is not a given. Spiritual growth must be developed and encouraged if it will come to pass. Let us consider many of the imperatives regarding spiritual maturation.

Maturation comes with practice. Consider again Hebrews 5:14:

But solid food is for fullgrown men, even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil.

Too often we can buy into the world’s perspective about growth and development. The world expects people to devote the early years of life to abstract studies, and later to enter the workforce and apply that which was learned. To this end, many convert to the faith and maintain the same perspective: “well, I’m not old enough in the faith yet to do these things, so I’ll spend some time learning about it and then do it.” Such logic is misleading; Christianity was never meant to be some fossilized concept to be studied abstractly. Study is not even mentioned in Hebrews 5:14– something of the sort is assumed, since one cannot discern good and evil if one is not trained in what is “good” versus what is “evil”– but the Hebrew author considers maturity as something gained “by reason of use,” or “by constant practice.” Consider what James says in James 1:22-25:

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deluding your own selves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror: for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. But he that looketh into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and so continueth, being not a hearer that forgetteth but a doer that worketh, this man shall be blessed in his doing.

Notice the contrast: those who “hear” versus those who “hear and do.” Learning comes through practice. We recognize that the first few years of physical life are critical for the proper physical formation and development of human beings; this is no less true for the spiritual life. When we were freshly baptized, did we establish good habits of practice? Did we go out and try to preach the Gospel, even if our efforts were quite feeble? Were we willing to have our faith challenged? How do we treat those who are young in the faith around us? Do we try to promote their growth through practice? Why should we be surprised to find people sitting in the pews and doing little else for decades if such persons did not establish good practices early on and were not encouraged to do so?

Maturation comes with encouragement. Consider again the need for assembling in Hebrews 10:24-25:

And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

Notice again where the Hebrew author lays the emphasis: provoking each other to love and good works. Assembling to exhort and encourage. Biblically-based encouragement and exhortation is food for the soul. Why do you think that Jesus uses the image of food and drink constantly (John 4, John 6, John 7:37-38)? We need food and drink to live. Therefore, to live spiritually, we need spiritual food and drink, and the source of such food and drink is God’s Word. The message of God is to be preached to feed people spiritually!

What kind of “food,” therefore, is being presented to the members? How are the opportunities for spiritual development being used?

Elders, what kind of thought is put into spiritual growth in terms of what is taught, preached, and encouraged? Is there an emphasis placed on maturation? Are classes being designed to challenge the members to grow, or are they just holding patterns? Are there other activities outside of the assembly that challenge the members to grow?

Preachers, do you consider the need for brethren to grow spiritually, or do you just preach that which is milk (cf. Hebrews 6:1-4)? Many jeremiads have been proclaimed about “soft preaching” and how so many are now preaching only that which is “positive.” The alternative to such “soft preaching” is presented as being “tough” preaching on “the issues” (defined as that which makes “us” distinct from “them”). But is that really the alternative? In reality, preaching on “the issues” exclusively is itself a form of “soft preaching,” for those present in the church are more than likely already believe such things, and the preacher is preaching to the proverbial choir. The preacher will certainly receive great accolades for preaching such a lesson, and why not? No toes are being stepped on, and no challenge is really given for spiritual improvement. Paul, on the other hand, strove to preach the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:20, 20:27). Even when he was condemning false doctrine, as in Galatians 1-4, he found time to exhort the brethren to proper conduct in life (Galatians 5-6). Any kind of extremist preaching, whether all positive, all negative, all “issues,” all conduct, or all anything, is imbalanced and not providing good spiritual sustenance. Preacher, if the range of preaching topics were compared to food types, would your preaching be considered a balanced meal or is it too strong on some foods and too weak on others? Whether we like it or not, too many either get all of their spiritual sustenance or a good part of it from the preaching done in the pulpit and the teaching in Bible classes. If such is the case, would the brethren get a balanced meal? Would they be encouraged to grow and develop in the faith, or stick to a holding pattern?

The encouragement provided in our assemblies needs to fulfill God’s purposes: stimulation to love and good works, and growth in the faith. This can only be done when the brethren are being challenged to grow by the instruction and exhortation provided.

Encouragement is not limited to the assembly. Do we interact with each other outside the church building? Do we find other opportunities to strengthen each other and encourage each other to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (cf. 2 Peter 3:18)? For plants to grow and flourish, they require the right climate in which to do so. Maturing in the faith also requires a climate that encourages it. Are we doing what we can for ourselves to grow and to encourage others to grow along with us?

Maturation requires challenge. On the whole, human beings are a stubborn lot. More is learned from mistakes than success. This reality has not been lost on God.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when ye fall into manifold temptations; Knowing that the proving of your faith worketh patience. And let patience have its perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, lacking in nothing (James 1:2-4).

As humans, we tend to be averse to change, especially the forms of change that unsettle and disturb our current “peace.” How many never obey the Gospel because they recognize that they would need to change in order to be servants of Christ? We cannot commit to Christ and yet act as if we will reach a point where change is unnecessary. As Paul says:

Brethren, I count not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before, I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded (Philippians 3:13-15a).

If Paul said such a thing, we should consider it also.

Consider also the challenges that Paul suffered. He speaks of the trials he experienced in 2 Corinthians 11:23-30: stoning, beatings, shipwreck, constant emotional turmoil and concern, among other things. He also experienced the “thorn in the flesh,” according to 2 Corinthians 12:7-8, and it remained despite his protestations, for the Lord had something else in mind for him:

And he hath said unto me, “My grace is sufficient for thee: for my power is made perfect in weakness.”
Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Wherefore I take pleasure in weaknesses, in injuries, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses, for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong (2 Corinthians 12:9-10).

“My power is made perfect in weakness.” We can only grow in Christ when we are brought low, and rarely do we find the strength to bring ourselves lower without some form of challenge. We may have a physical weakness, a trying situation, a spiritual temptation, or a form of persecution– what will become of our testing? Will we grow in our faith? That is the expected outcome, but it can only happen if we truly trust in God.

The Bible uses the image of the refiner’s fire to describe maturity in 1 Peter 1:6-7, and the image is appropriate. It is only when we are put “in the fire” that we see what we are truly made of, and whether what comes out is precious or worthless. This is why persecution strengthens the church– sadly, some will fall away under difficult circumstances, but such shows the shallowness of their faith. Such “were really not a part of us” (1 John 2:19). Those who remain are battle-tested, and will receive the crown of life (cf. Revelation 2:10).

Salvation requires maturation. Spiritual maturation is an imperative because without it few will be saved. Consider Jesus’ famous parable of the sower (Matthew 13:1-23). There is the “road soil,” the “rocky soil,” the “thorny soil,” and the “good soil.” In Jesus’ explanation of the parable, we see that all unbelievers are lumped into one category: “road soil” (Matthew 13:19). This means that everyone else hears the word of God and accepts it. The challenge, therefore, is not in such persons becoming Christians, but remaining faithful as Christians!

What happens to the “rocky soil” and the “thorny soil”? There is nowhere for the seed to grow! The rocky soil has too little depth; when difficulties come to such a believer (and difficulties will come), such a one falls away (Matthew 13:20-21). The thorny soil is too preoccupied with the world; there is a willingness to mature but no priority given to it (Matthew 13:22). The seed finds its best home in the good soil, because the climate is right for growth: that is, spiritual development (cf. Matthew 13:23)!

It is little wonder that Paul describes a day of testing that is to come, when the strength of the structure of faith of every believer will be tested by fire (1 Corinthians 3:11-13): our growth or lack thereof will be exposed by God! A lack of spiritual maturation is often the root of spiritual stagnation and death. Crises of faith will demonstrate whether one will be rocky soil, thorny soil, or good soil. What are we doing to prepare ourselves for such events? What are we doing to encourage others to prepare for such events, or to guide and encourage them as they experience trials? Spiritual growth and maturity are not to be taken lightly: they are divine mandates, and our success or failure individually and collectively hinges upon its promotion and development. What shall we do so that we may grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Peter 3:18)?

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Imperative of Spiritual Maturation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Proof

“Prove it!”

Thus we heard when trying to explain how we arrived at an answer in geometry. We probably also saw it written on an insufficiently unsubstantiated part of our English or history paper. It seemed to be the foundation of science classes. And to this day we will hear it as the reflexive response whenever someone hears a claim or idea which does not conform to the way they currently understand the world.

Yet do we ever wonder why so many hold proof in such high esteem? How has proof come about, and does it even really work the way we might hope it would?

“Proof” has always been humanity’s goal in alleviating one of its greatest anxieties: we seek to know things, but how can we have any confidence in that which we think we know? From humanity’s beginning we have been trying to sort out how we can discern truth from error, accurate perception from inaccurate perception, and to grow accurate knowledge based on conclusions from accurately perceived truths. Much of the framework which the Western world uses to adjudicate such matters derives from the Greek philosophers of old who sought to explore knowledge and systematize it, particularly from Aristotle’s expositions on logic and categorizations, desperately seeking to hold off the destabilizing effects of the sophists, cynics, and skeptics regarding what can truly be known.

Aristotle’s framework would be adapted and refined until the nineteenth century to lead to the scientific method which we all learned in school: to observe natural phenomena, to develop a hypothesis about how a given phenomenon might work, to test the hypothesis via experimentation, to collect and analyze the data, interpret the data, and see if the hypothesis holds or whether there is a new line of investigation to continue; then all the results should be published, subjected to peer review, and when continually reproduced, the hypothesis becomes a theory and is to be recognized as proven.

There is much to commend about the scientific method and its framework in terms of exploring many aspects of the creation and to try to make sense of it. Nevertheless, the scientific method cannot sustain the claims, expectations, and hopes modern Westerners have imposed upon it. Somehow and at some point, a lot of people today have convinced themselves the scientific method is the only way we can have any assurance or confidence in what we know, and they assume a lot of what they think is true can be thus proven. And whenever they hear a claim they find suspect, they expect it to be proven according to the scientific method.

Such exposes the scientism that has powerfully affected modern Western consciousness. Ever since the Enlightenment elevated reason and scientific inquiry to the level of divinity, Westerners have put a lot of their faith in scientific endeavors to explain all things. We can understand how and why Westerners would want to understand scientific exploration in terms of the scientific method; yet they have gone well beyond and we see scientific sounding explanations given for plenty of aspects in the metaphysical domains. Society has lost faith in the cleric, the politician, the lawyer, and the philosopher, and puts all its faith in the doctor and the scientist, amazed and enraptured with all the things we have learned and all the technologies we have developed over the past two hundred and fifty years. How science tries to explain itself, and how science tries to explain everything else, becomes normative. And thus the way science is supposed to work becomes the default posture about everything.

Is this right and good? Should scientism and its concept of proof derived from the scientific method truly and well be our default posture toward how we understand what we think we know?

The scientific method cannot bear the burden modern Westerners have placed upon it, for what the modern Westerner desires is beyond what any human endeavor can provide: certainty. Even when science is at its best and scientists rigorously apply the scientific method to their inquiries and maintain a robust system of peer review, human frailty, limitation, and weakness remain. The development of the hypothesis remains an integral part of the scientific method: while we can consider many times and situations in which humans have developed excellent hypotheses, the development of the hypothesis will always involve a lot of assumption on the part of the scientist developing it and will always be constrained by the horizon of imagination which the scientist maintains. Many of the most powerful scientific advances of the past hundred years have involved domains in which the fundamental assumptions maintained by the scientific community as a whole were challenged and found lacking (for example, plate tectonics and quantum mechanics). Even though the current scientific consensus has adapted itself appropriately on the basis of such discoveries, we cannot escape the question of how many other assumptions are maintained by the scientific consensus that will be demonstrated by future generations to be fallacious. We often think of our ancestors living through darkened days marked by superstition and fallacious beliefs; but what will future generations think of our own? Thus, at its best, the scientific method can only indicate a given theory is supported by reproducible evidence and makes the best sense of all data as we currently understand it. The scientific method can never provide absolute proof.

These limitations and difficulties exist even when science is at its best; and as with any human endeavor, science is not always at its best. A fundamental component of the scientific method is the reproducibility of the evidence generated by an experiment; the realm of psychology today is being rocked by a reproducibility crisis in which many of the “gold standard” studies which have defined the operating assumptions of the field cannot be replicated and thus their conclusions have been rendered suspect. Much damage was done to the world’s initial response to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the COVID-19 infection it caused because of misguided definitions of “airborne” versus “droplet” transmission rooted in an error, generated years before and mindlessly repeated even though it was never rigorously tested, and when tested, was found woefully lacking. For these we can appeal to “objective” evidence; beyond this, scientists are human and liable to the prejudices of their time. For many years scientists were actively invested in attempting to advance “race science,” and plenty of bogus and pseudo-scientific claims were advanced and promoted as a result. Emphasis on eugenics has led to untold suffering and death over the past one hundred and fifty years. Thus our society’s uncritical confidence in scientists to be able to best and fully explain all things proves rather delusional.

The scientific method works well with phenomena that can be observed and experimented upon in a laboratory setting. Yet very few things can be subjected to such a setting. It cannot be used to prove anything about the past or about anything which exists outside of what can be confined in a laboratory. Ironically, not one of us can prove we exist based upon the scientific method as we have explained it.

And such is why “proof” is a terrible standard of adjudicating what is true or false: we cannot prove much of anything according to the scientific method thus explained and understood. Even when we appropriately modify the methodology to conform to various domains like the social sciences, history, and the like, we still will not be able to “prove” very much; the best we can hope for is to explore what can be known about a given person, situation, or thing, and make the most reasonable argument which best explains all the evidence we have.

But what about proof as understood in legal terms? When many shift away from proof according to the scientific method, they then affirm the importance of proving beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal cases. Yet is such not as aspirational as everything else we have described? Plenty of people who have committed crimes have been found not guilty because the case against them was not demonstrated to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt; and plenty of innocent people have been found guilty, since it remains possible to convince a jury of a person’s guilt even when they have none. Furthermore, this standard is very important in criminal cases because a person’s freedom and the welfare of a society is at stake; is this kind of standard something truly sustainable in many other domains? Perhaps we do better to frame things in terms of the standard maintained in civil cases: to look at all the evidence and to demonstrate whether the case made is more likely to be true than false, or vice versa. Thus, as with the scientific method, so with the legal method: the best we can hope to do is to explore the evidence and make the most reasonable argument to best explain all the evidence we have.

As we have seen, it is not as if the scientific method or the burden of proof in legal contexts are the problem; the problem is in our desire to extend these methods beyond their domains to try to give us greater certainty about the things we think we know than we have any right to expect. We do well to really think about all the things we think we know and how many of them we have really examined or tested to any significant degree, or if we could ever really test them in a way which might lead to a satisfactory conclusion. In truth, most of what we believe we have accepted as true from sources we have trusted: our sense perception, our parents, our teachers, our society, etc. If we were asked to prove most of those ideas and beliefs, we would find ourselves at a loss. Furthermore, we should note well our predilection to want to have proven anything which does not align with our current perspective and our willingness to subject anything which does align with our current perspective to far less scrutiny.

And so it goes with our views on God and religion. We cannot “prove” God exists; as the Creator of heaven and earth, God cannot be subjected to anything in His closed system, and the entire endeavor of natural theology as understood by its original promoters is thus futile and an unfortunate misdirection. It was foolish to ever imagine we could “prove” God’s existence through what we can discover by the scientific method, and has led to the shipwreck of faith in many in the past 150 years. But we can give evidence of the power and nature of God manifest in His creation and especially in humankind as made in and for relational unity (Genesis 1:27-28, John 17:20-23, Romans 1:18-20, 1 John 4:8). We can maintain confidence in the prophetic word, both in terms of how the prophets spoke the words of God to the people of their time and place, faithfully recorded the story of how God worked with His people, and communicated regarding the salvation which would be revealed by God in Christ (1 Peter 1:10-12, 2 Peter 1:16-21). We can explain how the witness of what God has done in Jesus met the appropriate standard of historical evidence for the time and still makes better sense of all the available evidence than any other theory (cf. Acts 10:34-43, 1 John 1:1-4); as a result, we have every reason to maintain confidence Jesus is Lord, and we do well to heed what He has made known through His chosen witnesses as recorded in the New Testament. We can argue how the story of what God has done in Christ makes the best sense of all the evidence we have about the nature of the creation and humanity compared to other religious perspectives and philosophical theories, and thus commend Jesus as the Way, the Truth, and the Life for everyone (cf. John 14:6). This may not be “proof,” but it is the best we can ever ask for as human beings, and thus we do well to maintain confidence God has worked in and through Jesus, and to trust in Him to obtain what is truly life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Proof appeared first on de Verbo vitae.