Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 19

Moab and Ammon

They were brothers and brother kingdoms, born in disgrace. They would endure in hostile environments for many years. They would go as it had been prophesied; yet one brother persevered in his own way, and his legacy endures to this day.

Moab and Ammon represented small kingdoms in the Transjordan region of the Levant. Their fortunes waxed and waned; in general, the Kingdom of Moab was centered on the eastern side of the Dead Sea, bordered by Edom on its south, the Amorites and then the Transjordan parts of Israel and Ammon on its north, and some Aramaean and Nabataean tribes on its east. Its capital was Dibon and the Hebrew Bible testifies to the existence of many cities of Moab; Moab was particularly mountainous and its plains were a plateau rising high above the Jordan River. The Kingdom of Ammon (literally “sons of Ammon” throughout the Hebrew Bible) lay to the north and east of Moab, bordered by the Amorites and then the Transjordan parts of Israel on its west and southwest, the Kingdom of Aram on its north, and Aramean tribes on its east. Its capital was Rabbah, which is modern day Amman, Jordan, capital of Jordan and named based upon its Ammonite heritage; its land was part of the same type of plateau as found in Moab. The regions east of Moab and Ammon were particularly inhospitable; nevertheless, the plains of Moab and Ammon provided sufficient sustenance for flocks, herds, and humans, and the presence of the King’s Highway through their lands provided sources of revenue, access to trade, but also the interest of larger empires.

According to the Hebrew Bible, Moab and Ammon were the sons of Lot through their half-sister mothers in the wake of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah; “Moab” means “from the father” and “Ben Ammi” means “son of my people” (ca. 2000 BCE; Genesis 19:30-38). Such a scandalous origin story explained why they were tolerated in their lands yet held in contempt: Moab and Ammon are Abraham’s great-nephews, but remain the product of incest. The Moabites and Ammonites would dispossess the Rephaites (called Emites by Moabites and Zamzummites by Ammonites) akin to the Anakites and known as giants, in order to dwell in the lands of the Transjordan between Damascus and Seir at some point before the Israelites approached their lands (ca. 2000-1450; Deuteronomy 2:9-22). The land which would eventually become the Israelite holdings in the Transjordan seems to have been Ammonite and Moabite before it was overrun by the Amorites and ultimately conquered by the Israelites (cf. Judges 11:12-27). Archaeological and other historical documentation attest to the presence of both Moabites and Ammonites in their respective lands in the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1300-1100).

The Moabites and Ammonites did not take kindly to the specter of the presence of the Israelites; on account of their lack of hospitality, YHWH decreed Ammonites and Moabites could not enter into His assembly, and Israel was not to provide them with material aid (Deuteronomy 23:2-6). Balak, king of Moab, infamously hired Balaam to curse Israel as they dwelt on the plains of Moab; Balaam ended up blessing Israel, yet undermined Israel with the advice for the Moabites to seduce the Israelites into serving other gods (Numbers 22:1-25:3). After the Conquest, Eglon king of Moab, in alliance with the Ammonites and Amalekites, dominated over and oppressed Israel until he met his end at the hands of Ehud (ca. 1375?; Judges 3:12-30). In the twelfth century the Ammonites would grow strong and oppress the Transjordan portions of Israel and beyond, claiming sovereignty over the Transjordan; they were defeated by Jephthah (ca. 1175; Judges 10:7-11:33), yet remained a source of consternation for Israel, since Nahash king of Ammon oppressed Gad and Asher and had laid siege to Jabesh-Gilead which was fortunately relieved by the rise of Saul and his army (ca. 1050; 1 Samuel 1:1-11, and 4QSama, which preserved the following, also attested by Josephus in the Antiquities of the Jews 6.68-71: “Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead”).

Both Moab and Ammon would be defeated by and made subject to David and were incorporated into the Israelite Empire (ca. 975; 2 Samuel 8:11-12, 10:1-11:1, 12:26-31). Nevertheless, Moab and Ammon would feature prominently in Israel at this time: Ruth the Moabitess became part of the family of Elimelech of Judah, and became the great-grandmother of David, and Naamah the Ammonitess was the wife of Solomon and mother of, and likely significant influencer upon, Rehoboam king of Judah (Ruth 1:1-4:22, 1 Kings 14:21).

Moab and Ammon would remain subject to the Israelite kings until after the days of Ahab. Although not attested in Scripture, it is recorded how the Ammonites were allied with Ben-Hadad of Aram and Ahab of Israel against Shalmaneser (III) of Assyria at the Battle of Qarqar in 854. Mesha king of Moab rebelled against Israel after Ahab died; the battle between Mesha and the alliance of Jehoram, Jehoshaphat, and the king of Edom is set forth both in 2 Kings 3:1-27 and the Moabite Stone or Mesha Stele, and it would seem Moab suffered greatly, Mesha sacrificed his own son to Chemosh his god, but was able to secure his independence (ca. 850). At some point around this time the Moabites and Ammonites allied with one another and the Meunites and planned to attack Judah under Jehoshaphat; they apparently feuded with one another and destroyed one another (2 Chronicles 20:1-30). Moab and Ammon would no longer be subject to Israelite or Judahite kings; whether they maintained full independence or came under the subjection of the Arameans is not explicitly revealed, but the latter remains highly likely.

The prophets testified against Moab and Ammon and spoke of their doom (Isaiah 15:1-16:14, Jeremiah 48:1-49:6, Isaiah 25:10, Ezekiel 21:28-32, 25:8-11, Amos 1:13-2:3, Zephaniah 2:8-11). The Kingdoms of Moab and Ammon attempted to negotiate the convulsions of the Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Persian Empires, but with mixed results. Shalman king of Moab (cf. Hosea 10:14) submitted to Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria. Sargon (II) listed Moab among the nations which rebelled against him, but then Chemosh-nadab would submit to him and bring tribute, as would Mutzuri and Kaashalta after him. Yet by 400 BCE no more mention is made of the Kingdom of Moab, for its territory was overrun first by Kedarite Arabs and then the Nabataeans, just as Ezekiel had prophesied.

The Ammonites enjoyed better fortunes than the Moabites. The Ammonites did join the revolt against Sennacherib king of Assyria, but otherwise remained loyal vassals to Assyria, Babylon, and Persia. The Ammonites would feature prominently in the destruction of Jerusalem and its immediate after effects; bands of Ammonites (and Moabites) raided Judah between 609 and 599 (2 Kings 24:2), Baalis king of Ammon conspired against Gedaliah the caretaker of Judah on behalf of the Babylonians, had him killed, and gave refuge to the conspirators who survived (Jeremiah 40:12-41:15); as a result a good number of the remaining Judahites fled to Egypt (Jeremiah 41:16-18). By this time the Ammonites had most likely re-incorporated the Transjordan lands of Israel into its territory. One of Nehemiah’s implacable enemies who had profited handsomely at the expense of Judah was Tobiah the Ammonite who had married into the family of the high priesthood and even maintained a storeroom in the Temple in Jerusalem (ca. 445; Nehemiah 4:1-11, 13:1-9). Ezra and Nehemiah lamented how many of the people had taken wives from among the Ammonites, Moabites, and others (cf. Ezra 9:1-10:44, Nehemiah 13:23-29). The Ammonites would persist into the Hellenistic period and would assist the Seleucids against the Maccabees and Hasmoneans. Much of the Ammonite territory would become the area of the Decapolis in the days of Jesus, the Apostles, and the Roman Empire; Rabbah would become known as Philadelphia, and the Ammonite and Aramean residents would generally assimilate into the Greco-Roman milieu.

The Moabites and Ammonites culturally and religiously lived as Canaanite people. They would have served the Canaanite pantheon; Mesha recognized Chemosh as the specific god of Moab, and he may also be highly regarded by the Ammonites as well (Judges 11:24, 2 Kings 3:1-27). Otherwise Milcom is attested as the specific god of Ammon (1 Kings 11:5-7, 2 Kings 23:13, Jeremiah 49:1-3). The Moabite of the Mesha Stele/Moabite Stone demonstrates it as a Canaanite dialect closely related to Hebrew; the few shards of Ammonite texts suggests the same for Ammonite, although the latter may have some more influence from Aramaic. Mesha’s sacrifice of his son might seem barbaric to us but is a practice attested in Levantine religion; witness the passing of one’s child through the fire to Molech (cf. Jeremiah 32:35), possibly related to Milcom of the Ammonites, and the archaeological discoveries of many child bones in the temple to Melqart at Carthage in Tunisia, a colony of the Phoenicians.

Neither the Moabites nor the Ammonites were ever exiled from their lands; many of the inhabitants of the modern nation of Jordan likely prove direct descendants of the Moabites and Ammonites. Many of them would have heard the Gospel of Jesus in the first few centuries CE and may have come to faith in Jesus. God proved faithful to His declarations regarding Moab and Ammon. May we trust in God in Christ and obtain life in Him!

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"),"Moab and Ammon.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post Moab and Ammon appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

What Has Existed Will Be

Whatever exists now has already been, and whatever will be has already been; for God will seek to do again what has occurred in the past.
I saw something else on earth: In the place of justice, there was wickedness, and in the place of fairness, there was wickedness.
I thought to myself, “God will judge both the righteous and the wicked; for there is an appropriate time for every activity, and there is a time of judgment for every deed.”
I also thought to myself, “It is for the sake of people, so God can clearly show them that they are like animals.”
For the fate of humans and the fate of animals are the same: As one dies, so dies the other; both have the same breath. There is no advantage for humans over animals, for both are fleeting. Both go to the same place, both come from the dust, and to dust both return. Who really knows if the human spirit ascends upward, and the animal’s spirit descends into the earth?
So I perceived there is nothing better than for people to enjoy their work, because that is their reward; for who can show them what the future holds? (Ecclesiastes 3:15-22)

The Preacher’s meditations become no less unsettling over time. More has been revealed since his time; nevertheless, his core exhortation endures.

The Preacher’s main themes involved everything as hevel: vain, futile, even absurd, and all human pursuits as ultimately chasing after wind (Ecclesiastes 1:2, 14). He recognized history as cyclical: things come and go, and there is really nothing new on the earth (Ecclesiastes 1:3-10). Despite our protestations we and all we have done will be forgotten on the earth (Ecclesiastes 1:11). The Preacher considered pleasure, wisdom, and labor, and saw the futile end of all of them; none of them could provide humans with ultimate meaning (Ecclesiastes 1:12-2:26). There is a time and season for everything under heaven: the things we enjoy as well as the things we would assiduously avoid (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

In Ecclesiastes 3:9-22 the Preacher considered God and man. God has made everything beautiful in its time; humanity has the spark of eternity yet cannot and should not know what will be (Ecclesiastes 3:9-11). Humans should truly enjoy the gifts God has given them: to find happiness in relationships and joy in their labor, and to eat and drink well (Ecclesiastes 3:12-13). God’s work endures forever; humanity cannot enhance or diminish it, and thus should revere God (Ecclesiastes 3:14).

The Preacher continued his meditations regarding God and man in Ecclesiastes 3:15-22. In a way he returned to his theme in Ecclesiastes 1:3-10: what exists now also existed in the past, and what will take place also took place in the past, for God will do again what was done in the past (Ecclesiastes 3:15). Thus the Preacher saw the cyclical nature of the creation as a very deliberate and specific plan of God, and such a perspective will usefully guide us in our understanding of Scripture and God’s purposes in time. For example, not for nothing would Jesus show a vision to John regarding the things that would be, yet in terms of what had previously happened in Israel: beasts, whore Babylon, a “new heavens and a new earth” (cf. Revelation 13:1-22:6). God has seen powers rise and then has judged said powers; so it has been, thus it is, and so it will be until the Lord Jesus returns. To this end history can provide an analogue for the future: while specific contexts change, the general tenor and nature of events play out consistently at different points in time.

The Preacher saw something on the earth: wickedness in the place of justice and fairness (Ecclesiastes 3:16). On account of this he concluded God would judge the righteous and the wicked since there was a time and purpose for every effort (Ecclesiastes 3:17). Perhaps this is part of what led the inspired editor of the Preacher’s homily to conclude as he did in Ecclesiastes 12:13-14, how humans would do well to fear God and keep His commandments, since He would judge everything. This is one of the rare times in which the Preacher indulged himself with meditations beyond life “under the sun,” and thus worth highlighting all the more. Inversion of justice into injustice represents a profound moral travesty and a constant plague within human societies. Societies seem to cultivate a group of people who leverage authority and law to aggrandize themselves at the harm of others, and manipulate the “halls of justice” in order to justify themselves and to provide cover for their oppression. Such injustice makes our blood boil whenever we see it happen to ourselves, those we love, or in situations in which we can look “objectively”; and yet how often do we tolerate some level of injustice when it works to our benefit and favor? The Preacher did not trust in earthly corrections to such injustice; instead, he entrusted himself to the confidence God would make right all that went wrong, and to make straight all which humans made crooked. Such injustice does not merely affect humanity; it offends the structure of the universe which the Creator has made, and the Creator has ways to bring His creation back into alignment.

Yet even as the Preacher entrusted ultimate judgment to God, he continued to explore what such things might mean “under the sun”: God allows all such things to remind humans how they are animals (Ecclesiastes 3:18). Humans and animals live on account of the breath of life, and they both will expire on account of the corruption of the creation (Ecclesiastes 3:19-20). The Preacher wondered how he could know whether the spirit of man went up to God while the spirit of animals went down into the earth (Ecclesiastes 3:21).

We have a strong impulse to emphasize how God made humans in His image and gave them dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:26-27), and how in Christ our souls go to heaven to be with the Lord until we share in the day of resurrection (Philippians 1:24-25, Revelation 7:9-17). Yes, in Christ we have more coherent revelation regarding the nature of life after death, and some distinctions which should be made between humans and other animal life. Nevertheless, we do well to sit in the Preacher’s discomfort for a moment. While we are made in God’s image, God did make us as part of the creation, in the animal kingdom, among the primates. He breathed the same breath of life into animals and humans (Genesis 1:30, 2:7). Scientific understanding through DNA has confirmed this understanding: we are made of the same “stuff” as the creation, with similar structures to other animals, and are a part of God’s glorious creation. Humans are animals; humans may aspire to be more than animals, and should not justify animalistic impulses because they are animals, but they remain animals nonetheless. Animals live and die; humans live and die. Despite all our grandiose pretensions, we remain the creation, not the Creator.

And thus the Preacher recapitulated his argument: people should enjoy the work they do, for such is their reward, for they cannot know what the future will hold (Ecclesiastes 3:22). If God visited us and granted us the ability to see what would happen in humanity in future generations, what benefit would we gain from it? We imagine we would see our future descendants and all the wonderful technologies and things they might enjoy. Yet would we not perceive how we would most likely be forgotten, and all of our works with all the time and energy invested therein demonstrated as fleeting? Would our descendants not exasperate us by repeating many of the same mistakes we did, and following after the patterns of behavior we thought long ago perished?

We can understand how many find the Preacher depressing and distressing. He certainly knew how to take humanity down a notch. Nevertheless, we do well to appreciate his wisdom and learn the appropriate humility which comes from recognizing the value in his meditations. We do well to keep an eternal perspective on our lives and all we do. How much of what we are and do proves fleeting, and yet in the moment how much of ourselves do we invest in such things? How can we live so as to glorify God in Christ and obtain life in Him, so that our labor is not in vain?

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"),"What Has Existed Will Be.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post What Has Existed Will Be appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Cult of Leadership

It seems to be everywhere you look: “leadership.”

Western society in late capitalism, having mostly shorn itself of the pretenses of inherited nobility, has become obsessed with the cult of leadership. Previous generations were led to believe leaders were bred that way: certain people, on the basis of their ancestry, should be given authority, power, and responsibility. The vast majority of the people, proving more deficient in their pedigree, were only fit to be subjects, to serve, and to support their leaders. Belief in nobility based on pedigree persists in certain parts of the world and in certain archaic institutions; most of us, however, no longer believe a person will be a good leader because of their ancestry.

Most people today believe leaders become such because they have developed abilities and skills in leadership. Such is consistent with our confidence in “meritocracy,” which maintains confidence those who have reached positions of authority, influence, and power have done so on the basis of what they have been able to accomplish and achieve. Therefore, according to this perspective, leaders are made, not born; theoretically anyone could thus become a leader if they sufficiently cultivated leadership skills.

We have good reason to question the legitimacy of the meritocratic premise; many of those who maintain great authority, power, and influence descend from those who had such power in previous times, and no matter how charismatic and skillful a person might be, without sufficient resources, they remain unlikely to become leaders.

But the premise of meritocracy remains potent and salient in society. People want to believe they can advance in life and society by cultivating appropriate abilities and skills. Thus we can understand the appeal of the cult of leadership: anyone and everyone should develop and grow in their leadership skills. There remains no lack of books, podcasts, and videos from those who would consider themselves motivational speakers, thought leaders, and leadership guides and gurus which promise to help you unlock your leadership potential. Everybody wants to be seen as a leader: job titles which reflect executive and management experience abound; you can even find resources about how to lead when you are not in charge, otherwise known as using leadership skills while not actually having authority.

We can understand why Western society today would be so enraptured with the cult of leadership; its enthusiastic embrace by many who would claim to follow Jesus proves more troublesome. Many have made a name for themselves by incorporating American corporate leadership premises into church environments as part of the general trend of treating churches like religious businesses. There is no end of “Christian leadership” books which attempt to provide a religious veneer on these corporate business trends. Biblical characters are mined to provide real life (and presumably divinely approved) examples of various aspects of leadership. Above all, they elevate the concept of “servant leadership” which they claim is embodied by Jesus. To this end many parts of modern day “Christian” belief and practice remain firmly in the grip of the cult of leadership.

Based upon what one might find spoken and written in many conservative Christian/Evangelical spaces, one would expect the New Testament to have much to say about leadership. And yet when we turn to the pages of Scripture we do not find leadership emphasized or spoken about much. We do not see continual exhortation for Christians to cultivate leadership skills. One searches the New Testament in vain for the phrase “servant leadership.”

Instead, Jesus bore witness in Matthew 20:25-28:

But Jesus called them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in high positions use their authority over them. It must not be this way among you! Instead whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first among you must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

Through the lens of the cult of leadership Jesus would exhort people to lead by serving, but Jesus did not actually say any such thing. Jesus instead casts aspersion on the entire endeavor of desiring to obtain a position of leadership. If one is a servant, by definition, one is not great; and certainly “the first slave” is a contradiction in terms! Jesus expected the Gentiles to seek power to rule over others and leverage that authority for their own purposes, and then He explicitly told His followers not to do the same (Matthew 20:25).

In Christ we must be skeptical of anyone who would seek positions of authority, influence, and power. As creatures made in God’s image, humans can desire authority, influence, and power in order to serve as good stewards of God’s creation and their fellow man; yet in their corruption, anxieties, and fears, humans leverage authority, influence, and power to benefit themselves and their associates to the harm of the creation and/or of other people. No matter how altruistic and principled a person might sound in their quest for leadership, in practice he or she will invariably fall prey to the powers and principalities over this present darkness and leverage their authority to benefit their own.

And yet is there not authority, influence, and power among the people of God? Certainly; and Jesus remains its ultimate embodiment and expression. He lived as a servant; He did all things by the authority of His Father (Matthew 20:28). God exalted Him after He humbled Himself; He did not exalt Himself (Philippians 2:5-11). His Apostles also reflected His purposes regarding authority, influence, and power. While Jesus lived His disciples viewed authority, influence, and power according to the ways of the world; Jesus’ exhortation in Matthew 20:25-28 was precipitated by the disciples jockeying for positions of prominence in Matthew 20:20-24. Yet in the book of Acts and afterward we see how the Apostles received authority, influence, and power by the power of God in Christ through the Holy Spirit, and they leveraged that authority, influence, and power according to God’s purposes in the Spirit, not for their own aggrandization or benefit. Throughout his letters Paul testified to his apostleship through God’s calling and his influence based on his sufferings and weakness (e.g. 2 Corinthians 10:1-12:21).

Thus, in Christ, positions of authority, influence, and leadership are not based on birth or ancestry, nor can they be gained through a course or program of developing leadership skills. Instead, Christians should live to glorify and honor God in Christ in all things, and through the trials of discipleship God qualifies them to manage and uphold authority, influence, and leadership to glorify Him and advance His purposes. Faithful Christians model themselves in the various positions and roles in which they find themselves in life according to the ways of the Suffering Servant (e.g. Ephesians 5:21-6:9). They do not strive to be greatest or first; instead, they encourage, model, and serve.

Wherever people seek to gain leadership and prominence we will find the demonic ways of worldly wisdom, striving to obtain benefit for oneself and/or one’s associates. Those seeking righteousness will encourage and serve in humility, love, grace, peace, and patience, thus manifesting the wisdom from above, and demonstrating how God has qualified them for authority, influence, and power. May God’s faithful servants in Christ resist the siren song of the modern American capitalist cult of leadership, and seek to model life in faith according to Jesus and His Apostles in order to obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Cult of Leadership appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

1 John 2:18-29: The Antichrists

Little children, it is the last hour: and as ye heard that antichrist cometh, even now have there arisen many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us. And ye have an anointing from the Holy One, and ye know all the things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and because no lie is of the truth. Who is the liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, even he that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that confesseth the Son hath the Father also. As for you, let that abide in you which ye heard from the beginning. If that which ye heard from the beginning abide in you, ye also shall abide in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise which he promised us, even the life eternal. These things have I written unto you concerning them that would lead you astray. And as for you, the anointing which ye received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any one teach you; but as his anointing teacheth you; concerning all things, and is true, and is no lie, and even as it taught you, ye abide in him. And now, my little children, abide in him; that, if he shall be manifested, we may have boldness, and not be ashamed before him at his coming. If ye know that he is righteous, ye know that every one also that doeth righteousness is begotten of him (1 John 2:18-29).

After speaking about matters of association, walking in the light, and not loving the world (1 John 1:1-2:17), John now turns to one of his great concerns for the brethren: the emergence of the Gnostic teachers.

To John, these Gnostic teachers represent the reality of the “last hour:” the emergence of the “antichrists.” Many people have many ideas about the “Antichrist” and who he is. He is often described in terms of the beast in Revelation, yet John never uses the term “Antichrist” to describe the beast.

While it is true that the word “antichrist” simply means someone opposed to Christ, and therefore could refer to all sorts of persons, John has a very specific usage in mind here in 1 John 2:18-29. These “antichrists” were believers who used to have association with Christians but have now gone on their own way (1 John 2:19). These “antichrists” are denying that Jesus was truly the Christ, and denying the relationship between the Father and the Son (1 John 2:22, 2 John 1:7-11). The Gnostics were known for their denial that Jesus was the Son in the flesh and that God the Father was in fact a lesser deity than the “Christ” god. Therefore, “antichrists” as described in the New Testament represent those Gnostic teachers and believers who denied the fundamental truths regarding Jesus, His Father, and His work.

John is concerned for the Christians: he does not want them to be disturbed or to be led astray by these antichrists (1 John 2:21, 26). They have learned the truth and have received an anointing from God (1 John 2:20-21). They are to continue to accept and promote what they learned from the beginning, and should not follow after this new doctrine (1 John 2:24). They are to take comfort in the promise of eternal life, and strive to prepared without shame if Jesus were to return soon (1 John 2:25, 28). Since only those who follow Jesus are truly righteous, Christians will know those who are His by their striving toward righteousness and doing it (1 John 2:29).

John, therefore, is warning fellow believers about the false teachers in their midst while attempting to strengthen their faith. The antichrists here have little in common with the presentation of the best in Revelation: while both may be against Christ, Gnostic teachers and the Roman authority are different creatures indeed. There is no justification, therefore, for calling the beast of Revelation the Antichrist, since John has different entities in mind in the two different contexts.

What of the condition of the antichrists as described in 1 John 2:19? John is not trying to say that those who fall away were never saved, as some would argue; 2 Peter 2:20-22 and Hebrews 10:26-31 would militate against such an interpretation. John is speaking specifically about the Gnostics, and they may have never truly obeyed Jesus from the heart, despite going through the motions.

What about the “anointing” of believers as described in 1 John 2:20, 27? This may refer to the presence of the Holy Spirit with these believers: John may have laid hands on them previously so that they would receive the dispensation of the Spirit as is seen in Acts 8 and 19, among other places. Through the Spirit they know the truth; John writes to confirm them in the truth and so they do not doubt the Spirit’s message to them. The Spirit can still work to confirm the believer; we have the Scriptures by which we can understand truth from error (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Nevertheless, we must still strive toward righteousness, avoid false teachings, and hope in the promise of eternal life. Let us represent Christ in our lives today!

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"),"1 John 2:18-29: The Antichrists.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post 1 John 2:18-29: The Antichrists appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Unholy Trinity

For some time now we have heard dire warnings about the “faith crisis” in America. Even though our country continues to grow in population, church membership and attendance, on the whole, remains flat or in decline. Warnings are sounded about the dangers that come from so many atheists and others in our society who seek to denigrate God and anyone who would believe in Him.

While it is true that there are such people out there, their numbers are few; around 2 to 9% of the population. Others may believe in God but not in Christ or Christianity and have hard feelings against Christianity and/or Christians. Yet such people are not that much more populous; no more than 20% of the population.

Statistics reveal that about 82% or so of Americans believe not only in God but also that Jesus is His Son. Slightly fewer (78%) agree with the premise that Jesus was raised from the dead. This is not the picture that is normally presented about America; then again, we should remember that it is conflict and sensational claims that sell books and get promoted on television and in movies, and therefore we should not be surprised that the reality does not seem to be as dire as the promoted story.

Nevertheless, the statistics should give us pause. If over three-quarters of Americans believe in Jesus and even the resurrection, where are they? Many, no doubt, are active in denominations and their assemblies. But that still leaves plenty of people who believe and yet are not affiliated with any church and/or infrequently, if ever, attend any assemblies of churches. Considering the message of God in Christ as revealed in Scripture, how can this be? What leads to so many people professing the faith without abiding by its substance?

At least part of the reason can be found in what we will deem the “unholy trinity.” The unholy trinity represents the combination of three pernicious doctrines that have, at some level, led to the spiritual inertia and malaise that affects America today. These doctrines are faith only, ecumenism, and “once saved, always saved.”

The first doctrine is faith only. “Faith only” comes about during the Reformation as a distortion of Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith. Paul did teach that since everyone has sinned (Romans 3:23), no man is able to be justified before God based on his works, merit, or attempts to keep law (Romans 1:18-3:21). Man cannot atone for his own sin. Nevertheless, Paul demonstrated that the proper response of faith in God in Christ demanded obedience to the truth (Romans 1:5, 2:5-11, 6:1-23); the Reformers distorted this into the doctrine of faith only, excluding any concept of works or obedience as necessary for salvation. According to the doctrines of faith only, God is the only Actor: He provides the means of salvation in Christ, He provides believers with faith, He compels them toward righteousness through the Spirit, and so on and so forth. It is an understandable reaction against the excesses of Roman Catholicism but is a distortion of the Gospel message, and flatly contradicted by Acts 2:36-38, Romans 1:5, 6:1-23, 1 Peter 1:22, and a host of other passages.

These days people hear preachers from Protestant and Evangelical churches in churches and on television telling them that all they need to do to be saved is to believe that Jesus is the Christ. A suggested “sinner’s prayer” is often given that “converts” can pray and thus “accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior” and “accept Jesus into their hearts.” Sure, most of these preachers will suggest, perhaps even strongly, that believers need to live like Christ did, avoiding sin and clinging to the good, but they would never make it an imperative. To make becoming Christlike an imperative would be adding “works” to Christ’s “finished work.”

People get this message from friends and neighbors, past church experiences, or through television or other media. This “cheap grace” is very enticing and seductive: all you need to do is believe! Accept the premise that Jesus is the Christ and Lord and you will be saved! That’s all you need to do! Many prove willing to do that, but nothing more. There is no real incentive toward growth and development as disciples of Christ because it is not made strictly necessary. No wonder, then, that people can profess Jesus Christ and yet never darken the door of any church building or actively grow in their belief system; they do not have to! After all, if all you need to do is believe that Jesus is the Christ, why bother with anything else in Christianity?

We then come to ecumenism. There are two strands to ecumenism: “general” ecumenism and Evangelical ecumenism. The latter seems to have come first. In the wake of the “Second Great Awakening” in nineteenth-century America, while doctrinal differences remained among groups like the Methodists, the Holiness churches, the Baptists, and the like, they began to develop an uneasy peace with each other. They would present their versions of truth without necessarily condemning one another to hell, yet most remained uneasy with Roman Catholicism and the “mainline Protestant” denominations.

Around a hundred years ago the “general” ecumenical movement began to pick up steam as different “Christian” denominations wanted to work out whatever differences they could and to work together according to their understanding of Jesus’ petitions in John 17:20-23.

The ecumenical movement has powered through the twentieth and early twenty-first century with great steam. Now most denominations agree that the doctrinal disputations among them involve matters of “liberty,” and thus they are free to “agree to disagree,” while they are in agreement on “essential” matters. It is too bad that the definitions of “liberty” and “essential matters” are not based on God’s definitions (cf. Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 1:10, Galatians 1:6-9). Nevertheless, since most denominations are “on board,” the voices proclaiming the need to follow the One True Faith are fewer and denigrated as divisive, contrary to the spirit of unity, and cantankerous.

This ecumenical movement has led to greater “acceptance” and “tolerance” of members of churches of Christ. The number believing we are some kind of “cult” has diminished; many books now speak of churches of Christ as part of this “greater church” despite its distinctive doctrines. Nevertheless, ecumenical forces work to negate the call for the restoration of New Testament Christianity and the appeal to be of the same mind and judgment based in the Scriptures.

Most people who believe do not know much about ecumenism or the ecumenical movement but they certainly believe that “we are all the same.” Under ecumenism, the difference between churches of Christ, Baptist churches, the Roman Catholic church, and other churches is akin to the differences between the church in Rome, the church in Corinth, and the church in Jerusalem. Each denomination has its distinctive heritage that has “value” in the “greater church,” according to this viewpoint. In such a climate, one can hear the message that, say, faith alone is not according to Scripture, and yet remain free to “agree to disagree.” Evangelistic efforts are thus directed toward unbelievers, “cultists,” or members of other religions; it is seen as bad form to proselytize members of other denominations.

We should not wonder, therefore, why it is difficult to gain an audience about the importance of following God according to the New Testament. If all churches are the same, after all, why does anyone need to truly investigate New Testament Christianity?

The final dogma in this unholy trinity is “once saved, always saved.” This doctrine derives directly from faith only, as its adherents often promote: if you did nothing to obtain salvation, you can do nothing to lose it.

In reality, “once saved, always saved” is an offshoot of the Calvinist system. In Calvinism, the idea of the perseverance of the saints follows logically from its earlier principles: man’s sin and inability to seek God on his own (total depravity), God thus specifically chooses whom He will save (unconditional election), the chosen ones will come to faith (irresistible grace), and they are the select few (limited atonement). Thus, the particular chosen ones will be saved no matter what (perseverance of the saints). Calvinism has a ready answer for any who fall into sin and depart from the faith: they were never really part of the elect.

Many evangelical preachers in the nineteenth century objected to the heart of the Calvinist system (unconditional election, irresistible grace, limited atonement), but firmly preached its bookends (total depravity, perseverance of the saints). Thus we have the modern Evangelical synthesis: man is sinful by himself. He must hear God’s message, and accept Jesus into his heart through the “sinner’s prayer.” Once he has been saved there is nothing he can do to lose his salvation. Some will go so far as to say that people who become agnostic or atheist, explicitly rejecting and insulting Jesus, will still be saved if they believed in Him when they were younger!

“Once saved, always saved” is a theologically half-baked argument based on faulty premises. This is evident if an adherent is questioned about what will happen to a Christian mentioned above or who is caught in some other gross sin without repentance. All kinds of answers are given, and all the answers cheapen the idea of “salvation” terribly. “Once saved, always saved” is powerfully refuted by Romans 2:5-11, Hebrews 3:12-14, 6:4-6, 10:26-31, 2 Peter 2:20-22, among other passages. We must add that “if saved, barely saved” is no better a doctrine than its contrast; believers can have assurance in their standing before God, but only when they are seeking to walk as Christ walked and to do His commandments (1 John 1:5-5:21).

If “faith only” is a seductive and enticing doctrine, how much more the idea of “once saved, always saved!” It is a powerful narcotic: no matter what you do or what happens to you, you will be saved. This doctrine is greatly cherished by its adherents, and the truth of the matter is a bitter pill to swallow in comparison.

Many people hear about “once saved, always saved” through preachers on television or in churches, from friends, or in the media. It sounds quite alluring and satisfies the carnal, worldly mind. All you need to do is believe that Jesus is Lord and Christ, and no matter what happens, you will be saved! How great is that!

“Once saved, always saved” is a powerful disincentive for true faith and discipleship. Why follow the moral guidelines of Christianity if you are saved no matter what? Why bother getting up on Sunday mornings, or why bother sitting in a stuffy auditorium when you can be elsewhere, if you are saved regardless? Why bother investing any effort into faith or Christianity when you are saved whether you do or whether you do not?

As bad as each element of the unholy trinity is, when we put all three together, we truly have a Satanically designed monster. We find that people believe that they all they need to do is believe to be saved, and then they are saved no matter what. Furthermore, since all Christians are the same, your difference in opinion will barely impact their belief system. What can we say? If we emphasize what God in Christ teaches about baptism and obedience (cf. Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-23), we will hear the dogmas of faith only and how we cannot work for our salvation. If we proclaim the distinctive truths of the New Testament church and the need to teach the first century Gospel (Galatians 1:6-9), we will hear that we are all the same, an influence from ecumenism. If we warn about the condemnation coming to those who prove disobedient to God (Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9), we are told that once a person is saved, they are saved no matter what.

In such a climate the true Gospel of Jesus Christ is left unheeded because it represents an entirely different picture of faith and reality than is presented by the unholy trinity, and one fraught with far more uncertainty and challenge. The idea of mandated obedience is strange for the one accepting faith only. The importance of distinctive doctrines seems foreign to the one raised in ecumenism. Concern about the condemnation of Christians is strange to one believing in once saved, always saved. It is a lot easier to believe that we are saved by faith only, that all Christians are the same, and that we will be saved no matter what. These doctrines are much more comforting and much less controversial.

And that is exactly what Satan, the god of this world, intends (2 Corinthians 4:4). He has blinded the eyes of millions in America and around the world. This is the environment in which we must continue to preach the Gospel from of old. Faith alone never has saved and never will save (James 2:14-26); yet faith alone sounds great and makes fewer demands than obedience. Much of the New Testament, especially Galatians, 2 Corinthians, and Revelation 2-3, are nonsensical if all churches are the same and doctrine does not really matter; yet ecumenism will remain popular as long as “tolerance” is the name of the game. Far too many who accepted “once saved, always saved” will learn too late that doing the will of the Father was also necessary (Matthew 7:21-23, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9); yet it remains a powerful narcotic and a most wonderful lie.

The truth is comparatively more bitter, more challenging, and more controversial. No one has ever been saved by a lie, and that will prove true on the day of Judgment. We must accept and proclaim the truth because it is true, and because God will lead those who live according to the truth in love to eternity in the Kingdom of Christ (2 Peter 1:11, 2 John 1:5-6)!

Perhaps it is clearer now why so many millions believe and yet do not practice Christianity. The unholy trinity provides all kinds of disincentives to believe and accept God’s truths. Nevertheless, let us stand firm in God’s truth despite its challenges and proclaim them to all in the world!

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 Unholy Trinity.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post The Unholy Trinity appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

God’s Work, Man’s Work

What benefit can a worker gain from his toil? I have observed the burden that God has given to people to keep them occupied. God has made everything fit beautifully in its appropriate time, but he has also placed ignorance in the human heart so that people cannot discover what God has ordained, from the beginning to the end of their lives. I have concluded that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to enjoy themselves as long as they live, and also that everyone should eat and drink, and find enjoyment in all his toil, for these things are a gift from God. I also know that whatever God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it, and nothing taken away from it. God has made it this way, so that men will fear him (Ecclesiastes 3:9-14).

If life under the sun is futile, absurd, and a chasing after wind, what benefit or value can remain?

The Preacher has set forth many challenging truths in his discourse so far: all of life is futile and absurd (Ecclesiastes 1:1-2). Time is more cyclical than linear; what has been done will soon be forgotten (Ecclesiastes 1:3-11). All pursuits under the sun are like chasing after wind: a never-ending and ultimately futile task (Ecclesiastes 1:12-13). The three main pursuits of mankind cannot deliver on their promises: pleasure (Ecclesiastes 2:1-11), wisdom (Ecclesiastes 1:14-18, 2:12-17), and labor (Ecclesiastes 2:18-26) all ultimately prove futile and a chasing after wind. A time and a season exist for all things under the sun: yes, those things we enjoy, but also those things we work diligently to avoid (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8).

The Preacher established such things in order to compel the hearer to consider many of the vain pretenses under which he or she pursues existence. The hearer will naturally find what the Preacher establishes abhorrent; yet such contempt, disgust, and/or hostility stems from the exposure of such pretenses. Humans want their lives to matter and to be full of meaning. In their corruption, and in the face of death, humans are easily tempted to invest in various earthly projects in order to find that meaning and to make their mark on the creation. Who among us wants to believe we will be forgotten within a century, most likely left as an entry with a birth and death date on some future descendant’s family tree?

While the natural human within us wants to resist the Preacher’s message, we do better to heed his wisdom. Yet we can understand why many would find him nihilistic to this point: if life is so meaningless, then why bother? Thus the Preacher would go on to provide exhortation about what can be enjoyed about life and work in Ecclesiastes 3:9-22; and he began by speaking of God’s work and man’s work in this creation.

The pericope (or section) began asking again what benefit a worker can gain from his effort (Ecclesiastes 3:9). To answer it the Preacher made appeal to God and His work: God has given labor to humans to keep them busy (Ecclesiastes 3:10). The Preacher confessed how God made everything beautiful in its own time and way (Ecclesiastes 3:11). God has made the creation so that mankind cannot ascertain how God has begun it or how it continues, or even how long they will live (Ecclesiastes 3:11). The text maintains vagary about what God has placed in the human heart: we can read the text, along with the ASV, as saying God has placed eternity in man’s heart, or, along with the NET, as saying God has placed ignorance in man’s heart (Ecclesiastes 3:11).

We may have a preference regarding which way we want to read the text in Ecclesiastes 3:11, yet either would make for robust theology and reflection. God has made mankind in His own image, and God is eternal (Genesis 1:27, Revelation 1:4). Humans indeed have eternity in their hearts: we have strong intuitions that there is more to living than this life. Cultures throughout time have expected some kind of afterlife for a part of themselves which was not consigned to physical death. Yet even though we might have intuition of eternity, we remain woefully ignorant regarding the spiritual realm and its operations. We do not know how long we will live, let alone how things will turn out for us.

Many decry and lament such ignorance; they believe they would like to know how their lives will turn out. We might understand such a desire for a moment, but upon reflection we can hopefully understand how terrible it would be. Generally we humans want to know things in order to master them; we might imagine we can find out how things will happen so we can make corrections or whatnot. But if we changed some matters of our existence which we would not have otherwise changed, would it not change our trajectory, thus invalidating whatever we were shown would take place? Such is the time traveler’s dilemma: if we could travel back in time in order to change a circumstance or event, then the reality in which we would exist would reflect the changed circumstance; how could we then know the circumstance or event needed changing? We thus cannot master what would happen. To know our end could easily paralyze us into fatalism. We understand and sympathize with the anxiety regarding the unknown regarding the future; yet such an unknown also allows life to have its vitality. Despite what we may think, ignorance regarding our end under the sun remains bliss.

The Preacher confessed how God’s works will endure forever, without addition or elimination; God has made the creation thus to give mankind reason to fear and revere Him (Ecclesiastes 3:14). And God’s gift to mankind is life (Ecclesiastes 3:13). God has not given us the pretensions of the institutions, powers, and principalities over this present darkness; God has not given us the delusions of eternal satisfaction of pleasure, wisdom, or labor. But God has given us the ability to enjoy the creation He has made, to eat and drink, and to find some enjoyment in the work we do (Ecclesiastes 3:12-13).

The Preacher again devastates human pretension. No matter how much effort we put into this creation, we cannot add to or take away from it. There is as much created stuff at the end as there was in the beginning; we may have changed its form, eliminated life, built up the things we call “development,” but it is all still made of the basic elements of the creation which God has made. When it is all said and done, God will purge it by fire and reconstitute it all according to His good plan and purpose (Romans 8:18-25, 2 Peter 3:1-13). We remain part of the life cycle of this planet; we have not withdrawn ourselves from it, and we never will. Here the Preacher affirmed, in his own way, what Paul would set forth in Romans 1:18-20: the creation testifies to its Creator. We should fear and revere God because He made it all, we are merely part of the system He created, and we cannot find any lasting form of meaning or purpose outside of Him. If we try to find meaning or purpose in His creation, we give the glory due the Creator to His creation, and He will give us over to such debased thinking, and we will prove miserable (cf. Romans 1:25).

Thus we can strive for what endures forever through what God has done in Christ. But when it comes to life under the sun, we do best to “stop and smell the roses.” The “little things” we can enjoy in life remain the only joys we can fully expect to enjoy. We should enjoy the warmth of the sun and the majesty of what God has made. We should enjoy the taste of the food and drink with which God has blessed us. We should rejoice, cherish, and laugh with our family, friends, and associates with whom we share life. We need to find what we can enjoy in our labor and effort so as to make it worthwhile. The “little things” are ephemeral indeed. Yet so are we! Let us enjoy what God has given us to enjoy in His creation, and may we invest our hopes of eternity in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

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"),"God’s Work, Man’s Work.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post God’s Work, Man’s Work appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Collaborative Leadership

In our time much has been written about “leadership,” particularly about the different qualities of leadership and various leadership styles. Such interest is a hallmark of our meritocratic and democratic age: former conceptions of hierarchy and nobility carry little weight, and therefore leadership is a trait to be cultivated and leveraged in order to obtain greater influence, power, and thus wealth in our society. A charismatic person who exudes charm and strength will be able to gain many followers and grow in stature and influence, whether for secular or spiritual purposes. We can therefore understand the great anxiety which compels many to pursue a greater understanding of how to be an effective leader; who among us wants to be known or seen as the follower?

Christians do well to enter into such discussions with concern and trepidation; “leadership,” especially as emphasized in modern discourse, is not a major emphasis in the pages of the New Testament. It is not as if Jesus or the Apostles did not prove to be leaders, yet they proved very skeptical about the motivations of those who would become leaders and greatly valued humility and service above self-assertion and aggression (Matthew 20:25-28, 2 Corinthians 12:9-10, James 4:7-10, 1 Peter 5:1-5). Conversations about leadership almost invariably prove tainted by the demonic wisdom of this world, seeking self-advancement and the maintenance of self-interest (cf. James 3:1-16). For Christians to be great in Jesus’ Kingdom, they must become servants, even slaves (Matthew 20:25-28): only those who seek to serve others fully are worthy of shepherding others.

And yet even in Christ there are those in whom authority is vested, and who ought to serve as stewards of that authority to glorify God (Romans 13:1-2, 1 Peter 4:10-11). All of us have some level of authority as citizens, Christians, parents, husbands, or if nothing else, over ourselves. Therefore, we do need to consider different qualities of leadership and leadership styles, but must always do so while fully rooted and established in Jesus Christ the Lord (Colossians 2:1-10).

Sometimes one will hear about a leadership style known as “collaborative leadership.” As the word itself suggests, “collaboration” focuses on laboring together to accomplish a common goal of some form or another. The nature of the “collaboration” will likely depend on its particular context; in general, however, “collaborative” leadership strives to be less hierarchical and more egalitarian, seeking to find ways to jointly participate and accomplish tasks and responsibilities as equals or at least without a heavy-handed, top-down approach.

Many Christians prove immediately skeptical of any concept or strategy which might work toward “egalitarian” and away from “hierarchy”; nevertheless, when the evidence from the New Testament is properly considered, we discover Jesus and the Apostles themselves practiced a type of collaborative leadership, and expected Christians to practice something similar as well.

Throughout His life and ministry Jesus did not deny or doubt His Lordship or authority (John 13:13); at no point were the disciples or anyone on earth His equal in power or standing before the Father. If anyone would have been able to exercise dominion and power in a “top heavy” way, it would be Jesus of Nazareth. And yet He invited the disciples to jointly work in and with Him to accomplish God’s purposes. He promised they would sit on thrones and rule over the Israel of God (Matthew 19:28). He went out of His way to encourage them to go out on their own and proclaim the coming Kingdom of God so they would be able to accomplish the purposes for which God had called them in Christ (e.g. Matthew 10:1-42). Not for nothing did Luke declare the Gospel he wrote as the “beginning” of all Jesus accomplished (Acts 1:1): if one has ears to hear, one can perceive how Jesus continued to work through His Apostles to proclaim the Gospel and advance His Kingdom in the book of Acts and through His people until this day (cf. Ephesians 3:10-11). Jesus is Lord, and the Apostles and all Christians are not; He is the Vine, we are the branches, and apart from Him they or we can do nothing (John 15:1-10, Acts 2:36). But Christians are the branches, and are empowered by Jesus to bear fruit in joint participation in and as His body to accomplish His purposes (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Ephesians 4:11-16).

The image of the church as the body of Christ underscores the importance of collaboration in Jesus: no believer, be they apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders, or “just members,” are Jesus individually. Christians can only truly embody Jesus collectively. Christians have their individual work they should accomplish in the Lord Jesus, but also work together in interdependent ways to build one another up and thus strengthen the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11-16). Peter expected Christians to use whatever gifts God gave them to serve one another (1 Peter 4:10-11), and we do well to emphasize his choice of verb: to serve. Service, as Jesus made clear in Matthew 20:25-28, is humble work.

This expectation of collaboration can also be found in every context in which we find some placed in authority over others. Governments have power, but are to be ministers, or servants, for good (Romans 13:1-7). Peter wrote to elders as fellow elders and exhorted them to shepherd the flock by example and not domination (1 Peter 5:1-4); he did expect the younger to be subject to them, but also exhorted all to demonstrate humility toward one another (1 Peter 5:5). Wives may be called upon to submit to their husbands as to the Lord, but Paul expected husbands to sacrificially love their wives and treat them as their own flesh (Ephesians 5:21-33). Ephesians 5:21 is not entirely divorced from that context: the Christian conception of the marriage relationship can only work when both husband and wife prove willing to submit to one another for Jesus’ sake. Thus it also goes with parents and children, employers and employees (Ephesians 6:1-9): all Christians must prove subject to the Lord Jesus, and each will stand or fall before Him, and thus there remains a radical equality of each and every person before God (cf. Romans 14:10-12, Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11).

Consider how the Apostles worked with fellow Christians. At times they might bring up the authority they received from God in Christ; at other times they would consider themselves as the servants of their fellow Christians for the Lord’s sake. Consider how Paul would speak to fellow Christians in his greetings at the conclusion of his letters; he valued them as collaborators in the work of God in Christ, effulgently praising them and their efforts. He prayed for all the Christians with whom he had worked, and many with whom he had yet to work, so that God might work through them and be glorified, and they built up and strengthened in Him.

Positions of authority do not inherently demand an authoritarian posture; collaboration does not inherently demand complete equality among fellow laborers. Throughout the New Testament we continually see examples of those whom God has placed in positions of authority relating to those under their authority in ways which emphasize joint participation, value, and growth. Jesus does not need to continually remind us how much greater He is than we are; His goal for all of us is for us to become more like Him, and to share in life with Him (Romans 8:29). The Apostles did not pull rank as an immediate impulse but as a final desperate measure; in general they wished to work together with fellow Christians based on trust, and above all, on the basis of their examples of the suffering Christ (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:1-15). If those in authority in Christ must continually refer to said authority, it is already a defeat for them; not one Christian can presume to be greater or more valuable in the sight of God than any other, and all must in humility seek to serve one another and build one another up in their joint participation, or collaboration, in Christ. Christ our Sovereign humbly served us and invites us to jointly participate in the life and work of God and His people (cf. John 17:20-23); thus, we do well to strive toward a more collaborative and a less authoritarian style of leadership in all of our relationships as we live and work. May we humbly serve others as Jesus has served us, and may we all share in the resurrection of life!

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"),"Collaborative Leadership.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post Collaborative Leadership appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Modesty

In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works (1 Timothy 2:9-10).

God highly values the quality of modesty. Women are explicitly commanded to dress and conduct themselves in modest ways (1 Timothy 2:9-10), and this quality should not be lost upon men, either. Unfortunately, the meaning and requirements of modesty have become contentious topics, especially since our society has all but abandoned modesty as a virtue.

It has been fashionable among many religious commentators to speak of modesty in terms of standards of clothing. In this perspective, modesty is defined as “that which is not immodest,” and the focus is on defining immodest clothing.

Yet such a perspective is really putting the cart before the horse. Modesty is not exclusively about clothing; instead, it is an attitude, a frame of mind, and a form of behavior. Modesty involves having a proper understanding of one’s position in life: someone who does not act arrogantly or presumptuously. In this sense humility and modesty are quite similar and intertwined. Modesty also involves a strong sense of propriety and restraint. Modesty demands moderation in thought and behavior. For all intents and purposes, modesty can be understood as the quality of not attempting to stand out: someone who is not obtrusive, not demanding attention by their conduct or comportment.

When we consider what Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 (and Peter in 1 Peter 3:3-6), we can see that it is this more comprehensive understanding of modesty that is advocated. The focus of a woman’s presentation, according to these Apostles, is not to be in how they adorn themselves physically. Instead, the focus is to be on their service to God: their good works and humble demeanor.

None of this is to say that modesty has nothing to do with clothing; far from it! But modesty is not equated with a certain level of clothing, for people can be modestly clothed while conducting themselves very immodestly. As with many elements of Christianity, modesty must be an internal quality that is manifested externally (cf. Mark 7:14-23, etc.). The woman (or man) who seeks to be truly modest will consider the clothing they wear and will make sure that it does not draw attention to themselves, either by exposing too much skin or by being overly ornate. The godly man or woman is not attempting to draw the attention of other people for immoral purposes; instead, they are trying to humbly serve their God in attitude and action!

Modesty, therefore, is quite the challenge for humans. It would be far easier if modesty only involved wearing a certain type of clothing! Instead, if we would be modest, we must not attempt to stand out in any circumstance. We do not go out with the attempt to be noticed for whatever reason, “godly” or otherwise, and we must not think too highly of ourselves (cf. Matthew 6:1-5, Mark 12:38-40, Galatians 6:1-4). Instead, we go out with the humble attitudes of servants (Luke 17:7-10). We still strive to be godly and to be the lights of the world, but it is not our goal to do so to be noticed (cf. Matthew 5:13-16). We seek the commendation of God, and God only exalts those who humble themselves and serve (Matthew 20:25-28, 23:12).

To limit discussions of modesty to how much a particular garment covers the human body is to really miss God’s purposes in advocating modesty for Christians. Modesty is about mindset, attitude, and behavior. When we have developed modesty in our estimation of ourselves and how we conduct ourselves among other people, we will make sure that our clothing appropriately covers our body without excess in ornamentation so as to not draw attention to ourselves (1 Timothy 2:9-10). We will also strive to be modest in how we conduct ourselves among other people, not attempting to draw attention by sanctimonious behavior or in any way putting on a show of righteousness to be seen as righteous (cf. Matthew 6:1-5). We will go about serving God according to the gifts He has given us, seeking God’s glory and not our own (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Peter 4:7-11). We will strive to be meek and gentle as our Lord and Savior (Matthew 11:28-30). In so doing, we will be better known for our character than our appearance, and we will have the prized internal beauty of the humble, modest servants of God. Let us not only dress modestly but conduct ourselves with modesty!

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"),"Modesty.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post Modesty appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

1 John 2:15-17: Do Not Love the World

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the vain glory of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world. And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever (1 John 2:15-17).

John has spent much time in 1 John exhorting Christians to walk in the light, avoid the darkness, and follow God’s commands (1 John 1-2). After specifically exhorting Christians at different levels of development, John turns to the matter of “the world.”

We must be careful when discussing “the world” in 1 John 2:15-17. “The world” here is not a description of the physical planet, that is, birds and rocks and trees and the like. Instead, John uses “the world” in contrast to Heaven or the ways of God. He defines that which is in “the world” in verse 16: the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the vain glory of life. These are the corrupted impulses of fallen man, the distortion of the creation of God that was “very good” (Genesis 1:31). While the creation has been subjected to decay and futility (Romans 8:20-23), the creation itself is not sinful or depraved. Christians can and should appreciate God’s creation (cf. Romans 1:20).

Yet it is quite important for us to not love the world of which John speaks. This world, put simply, is the world of sin. All sin is somehow described in the three elements of 1 John 2:16: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and the pride of life. It is interesting to note that John’s concern is in the mind; “the world” is discussed in terms of desires of the heart. John is not somehow denying that physical actions are sin– he makes it clear, as Jesus did previously, that actions simply represent the accomplishment of the intent of the heart/mind (cf. Matthew 15:16-20). No adultery is committed, drugs used, violence perpetrated, or anything else, without the idea first coming into the mind and then the desire to do so (cf. James 1:14-15).

All three elements are also manifest in Eve’s first sin: she saw that the tree was good for food (lust of the flesh), that it was a delight to the eyes (lust of the eyes), and it was desired to make one wise (pride of life; Genesis 3:6). This is hardly unintentional. Eve’s choice, and the choice made by all conscious humans at some point, is to choose the lusts of life over the way of God.

John also makes it quite clear that there can be no compromise between the world and God. If one loves the world, the love of the Father is not in them (1 John 2:15). Jesus indicated that a man could not serve both God and Mammon (Matthew 6:24), and James makes it clear that friendship with the world is enmity toward God (James 4:4). We must choose which we will serve (cf. Romans 6:17-19)!

That choice must be informed by eternal considerations. As John makes clear, the world and its lusts are passing away (1 John 2:17). Peter vividly describes the ultimate fate of the world by fire in 2 Peter 3:9-10. How tragic it is to consider how much effort is currently being expended for things that are destined for purging! If people really understood how all physical things require purgation by fire, would they really keep striving after wind? Even though it may not always be easy, and the temptation to follow after the world is strong, let us love God and seek after that which leads to eternal life!

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"),"1 John 2:15-17: Do Not Love the World.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post 1 John 2:15-17: Do Not Love the World appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Edom

Esau’s loss of the birthright and blessing would significantly affect his descendants; they made space for themselves between the nomads and the settled areas of the Shephelah. The Edomites would make good on what they were given, and would endure in surprising ways.

Edom was the land inhabited by the Edomites, the descendants of Esau, son of Isaac (Genesis 36:8). According to the Genesis author, Esau departed from Canaan and took up residence around Mount Seir, approximately halfway between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the northernmost point of the Gulf of Aqaba in modern-day Jordan (Genesis 36:8). In Deuteronomy, it is revealed the Edomites dispossessed the Horites of this land (which would have been ca. 1900 BCE), and inhabited all of the territory between the southern end of the Dead Sea and the northern tip of the Gulf of Aqaba by the time the Israelites passed around them around 1450 BCE (Deuteronomy 2:8, 12). The Egyptians testify to the presence of the Edomites in this territory during the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1200-1000 BCE), and the Assyrians of the Iron Age also recognize Edom’s existence, even providing the names of some of the Edomite kings of the 8th and 7th centuries BCE. Thus, from around 1900-600 BCE, Edom, the land of the Edomites, was centered on Mount Seir and extended from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba to the south and east of the Shephelah of Judah.

While this land was likely more fertile then than it is now, it would still be marginal for agricultural purposes, providing very little in the way of food. The Edomites would be sustained by the two major benefits they obtained from their land: trade and copper. Both the Incense Route and the King’s Highway passed through Edomite territory; the port at Ezion-geber would have at least theoretically allowed for ships to arrive with trade with Africa, Arabia, and even India. The Edomites would have been able to obtain food traveling on these routes, received customs taxes, and would have been able to sell their three main exports: copper, salt, and balsam. Evidence has been found from the Early Iron Age period for significant copper mining at Khirbat en-Nahas which would have required significant administration, strongly suggesting greater political coordination than would be possible with a tribal coalition. The primary god of the Edomites was Qos, primarily known from some theophoric elements in Edomite names in Assyrian and Biblical texts (cf. Ezra 2:53, Nehemiah 7:55). Moses sang of YHWH revealing Himself to Israel at Seir in Deuteronomy 33:2, and Deborah sang of YHWH coming down from Seir for battle in Judges 5:4; thus very ancient traditions associate YHWH with Seir, and some suggest significant associations between YHWH and Qos to explain why we read and hear no discussion or condemnation of Qos in the Hebrew Bible beyond the generalities of 2 Chronicles 25:14-15.

Our understanding of Edomite history from the pages of Scripture is fragmentary. The Genesis author preserved a list of leaders of Edom who reigned before any king ruled over Israel (thus, from ca. 1900-1050 BCE; Genesis 36:19-43). The word used for these leaders is aluph in Hebrew, which is variously translated as “duke,” “king,” or “chief.” In its earliest days Edom might have featured a tribal confederation not unlike Israel would experience in the days of the Judges. Moses asked permission from the king of Edom to pass through his land on the King’s Highway; the king of Edom refused, thus suggesting Edom had coalesced and centralized by this time (Numbers 20:14-21). Edom did not seem sufficiently strong to oppress any part of the Israelite tribal confederation during the days of the Judges; Saul defeated them during his reign, and David subjugated the Edomites and reduced their king to vassalage, a condition which would remain until the days of Jehoram (ca. 1000-850 BCE; 1 Samuel 14:47, 2 Samuel 8:11-14, 2 Kings 8:20-22). Around 795 BCE Amaziah king of Judah would defeat the Edomites at Sela and renamed it Jokhteel (2 Kings 14:7, 2 Chronicles 25:11-13), but was not able to consolidate his victory into subjugation. Edomite liberation probably had more to do with Judahite weakness than Edomite strength; nevertheless, Edom would remain an independent nation until the days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire (604-539 BCE).

In the days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire the Edomites would commit hostile acts toward the Judahites, which led to significant prophetic denunciation and condemnation. Obadiah’s entire message was YHWH’s word against Edom for what they did; similar denunciations can be found in Psalm 137:7, Isaiah 34:5-8, Jeremiah 49:7-22, Ezekiel 35:1-15, and pre-eminently Malachi 1:2-5. The Biblical evidence would suggest if the Edomites were not actually allied with the Babylonians, they at least felt no compunction in taking advantage of what the Babylonians were doing: they participated in the destruction and devastation of Judah. Yet at the same time it seems the Babylonians oversaw or allowed the destruction and devastation of the historic land of Edom; no mention of the kingdom of Edom has been found in non-Biblical texts after 667 BCE. Perhaps the Edomites had agreed with the Judahites to rebel against the Babylonians, but when the army of Nebuchadnezzar II arrived, the Edomites betrayed the Judahites and did not come to their aid.

We may not know exactly what happened during the sixth century BCE, but during most of the Second Temple Period, “Edom” as such no longer existed. By the fourth century BCE what had been “Edom” was now firmly in the hands of the Nabataeans. The people formerly known as the Edomites moved west into Hebron and parts of what had been the Judean Shephelah, south and southwest of Jerusalem, and this land would be known as Idumaea, and its people Idumaeans. The Idumaeans would be conquered by the Jewish Hasmonean John Hyrcanus in 163 BCE, and he forcibly converted them all to Judaism (cf. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 13.8.1-6).

For the next 250 years, the Idumaeans would be looked upon with suspicion by Jewish people as “half-breeds”: they may practice Judaism, but they were the descendants of Esau, and the prophetic witness remained very hostile towards Esau. This condition was not improved by the most famous Idumaeans: Antipater, an official under the last Hasmonean kings and made chief minister of Judea by the Roman general Pompey, and his son Herod the Great of Matthew 2:1-18. Herod’s son Herod Antipas would be responsible for killing John the Baptist and assenting to Jesus’ execution (Luke 9:9, 23:7-12), his grandson Herod Agrippa I would execute James and imprison Peter (Acts 12:1-4), and Paul would make his defense and preach the Gospel of Jesus before his great-grandson Herod Agrippa II (Acts 26:1-32). It would not be inappropriate to read the hostility between Esau and Jacob into most of these narratives involving the behavior of the Herod dynasty toward Jesus and His people.

During the First Jewish War, Simon bar Giora devastated the land of the Idumaeans and slaughtered many of them (Josephus, Wars of the Jews 4.9.3-7); Idumaeans were also called in by the Zealots to help them maintain the Temple against the forces of Ananus, and they slaughtered many in Jerusalem, and held firm in the Temple until the Romans broke through (ibid., 4). The Idumaeans as a distinct people no longer existed after the conclusion of the First Jewish War in 70; some of their descendants may have remained as part of the Jewish Diaspora. Some later Jewish traditions would associate the Edomites with the Romans and Europeans, but there is no Biblical or historical basis for such claims.

The Book of Genesis may chronicle the story of individual people but always did so with a view toward the nations which would grow out of those people. Esau lost his standing but would survive on the margins; thus Edom was not a great player in the Levant, but survived on the margins for a considerable period of time. Judah could not forgive Edomite encroachment on their territory. It may have seemed that Judah won the day once they forcibly converted the Idumaeans to Judaism, but then they suffered under the rule of the Idumaean Herods. Yet in the end the fate of Esau was intertwined with Jacob; after the Romans devastated the land, the integrity of Idumaea was undone. They all suffered under the condemnation to which Jesus testified; thus all do well to find salvation in Him and His Kingdom alone!

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"),"Edom.png","image/png");
});}QRC_WOOCON();

The post Edom appeared first on de Verbo vitae.