Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 2

Inheritance and Transition

The older generation might have perished, but many aspects of its legacy would still need to be addressed before the Israelites were ready to enter the land of Canaan.

The Book of Numbers was aptly named bemidbar in Hebrew, for it bore witness to Israel’s experiences “in the wilderness.” Numbers 1:1-25:11 bore witness to the experience of the generation which YHWH delivered from Egypt: preparation of the camp and Tabernacle for entry into Canaan, persistence in rebellion, its condemnation, and the fulfillment of that condemnation.

A new census had been taken in Numbers 26:1-65: overall, the number of Israelites remained mostly constant despite all the consequences of Israel’s various rebellions, and, save for Moses, Caleb, and Joshua, all those from the generation YHWH delivered from Egypt had died. The next generation had arisen, and much of Numbers 27:1-36:13 would feature their preparation to enter the land of Canaan.

YHWH had delivered legislation to Moses as a consequence of the census involving inheritance rights in Numbers 36:53-56. The events of Numbers 27:1-11, 36:1-12 take place as a consequence of this legislation and the predicament of the daughters of Zelophehad.

Zelophehad was the son of Hepher the son of Gilead, a descendant of Manasseh and Joseph (Numbers 27:1). He and his daughters Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah were first introduced as part of the census of Manasseh in Numbers 26:33, anticipating the events about to be described. Zelophehad’s daughters approached Moses, Eleazar ben Aaron the high priest, and the leaders of the assembly of Israel at the entrance to the tent of meeting, and made their appeal: their father Zelophehad had died in the wilderness, not as part of the rebellion of Korah, but for his own sin; they asked why his name should be lost among his family because he had no sons, and asked to be given a possession of the inherited lands around their relatives (Numbers 27:2-4).

Moses brought the case of the daughters of Zelophehad before YHWH, and YHWH validated their claim and commanded Moses to give them an inheritance among their father’s relatives which would belong to them (Numbers 27:6-7). YHWH then issued appropriate overall legislation in light of this case law regarding how inheritances should be handled: if a man dies without a son, his daughter inherits the estate; if he has no son or daughter, it should be given to his brothers; if he has no children or brothers, it should be given to his uncles; and if he has no children, brothers, or uncles, it should be given to the nearest relative to possess (Numbers 27:8-11).

The daughters of Zelophehad deserve commendation for their intentions, integrity, and witness. They proved willing to stand before the authorities on their own and to make their petition. They perceived the prospect of injustice done to their father’s legacy and perhaps peril for themselves in their present predicament. They were well vindicated by God: they were declared in the right and they were given a portion of an inheritance with the fellow members of the Hepherite clan of Gilead in Manasseh, and would eventually take their place among their relatives in the “western” portion of Manasseh west of the Jordan River (cf. Joshua 17:1-4).

At some point after this conversation and determination, the family heads of the Gileadites would approach Moses and the other leaders of Israel regarding this decision (Numbers 36:1). They recognized, and had no intention of challenging, how the daughters of Zelophehad were granted a portion of land among the Hepherites (Numbers 36:2). But they were concerned about what would happen to that land if the daughters of Zelophehad were to marry men from another tribe of Israel (Numbers 36:3-4).

Moses, by the word of YHWH, determined the leaders of the Gileadites were also in the right (Numbers 36:5). YHWH thus encouraged the daughters of Zelophehad to marry whomever they desired, but within their family’s tribe (Numbers 36:6). Moses then appropriately explained and expanded the scope of this case law: Israel should not allow their land inheritances to transfer from tribe to tribe, and so daughters who held possession of inheritances should marry within their tribe (Numbers 26:7-9). The daughters of Zelophehad would duly marry the sons of their uncles (thus, their cousins), and their land holdings would therefore remain within their same clan and tribe (Numbers 26:10-12).

We should not understand the latter episode as any kind of rebuke of what took place beforehand. Instead, we can perceive from this situation exactly how case law would be worked out in Israel. Inheritances were generally patrilineal, handed over from father to son. But what would happen if a man had no sons? The daughters of Zelophehad forced the question, and YHWH made provision for them to inherit in the midst of their father’s family. Well and good; the daughters of Zelophehad would inherit land. But what would happen to it if they married Israelites from other tribes? The Gileadite leaders forced that question, and YHWH through Moses further amended the inheritance law so that the land would remain in possession of the same tribe. The whole situation presumes living in the land and having land inheritances; we can imagine later Israelites would make appeal back to the situation of the daughters of Zelophehad when dealing with any similar inheritance situations which would have arisen, and such likely explains why the plight of the daughters of Zelophehad, and the later amendment to keep the land within the same tribe, were set forth.

At some point after originally addressing the plight of the daughters of Zelophehad, YHWH commanded Moses to go up on a mountain in the Abarim to see the land YHWH would give to the Israelites, and then afterward Moses would be gathered to his ancestors like his brother Aaron; this would take place on account of how Moses rebelled against YHWH’s command in the Wilderness of Zin and did not show YHWH as holy before Israel (Numbers 27:12-14; cf. Numbers 20:2-13).

Moses did not argue with YHWH, but he did encourage YHWH to appoint a man over the community of Israel to lead them, lest Israel become like sheep without a shepherd (Numbers 27:15-17). YHWH told Moses to take Joshua ben Nun, a man in whom was spirit/the Spirit, and lay his hands upon him, and to set him before Eleazar ben Aaron the high priest and the whole community, and thus commission him (Numbers 27:18-19). YHWH further commanded Moses to give Joshua some of his glory/honor, which we do well to understand as delegating some of his authority to Joshua, so the Israelites might obey him (Numbers 27:20). YHWH foresaw Joshua standing before Eleazar in the future to seek YHWH’s counsel by means of the Urim, commanding Israel appropriately, and they would follow his commands (Numbers 27:21). Moses would then do as YHWH commanded: he took Joshua, set him before Eleazar and the community, and laid hands on him and commissioned him to lead Israel after him (Numbers 27:22-23).

Whereas it would seem Moses immediately fulfilled the command to appoint Joshua as leader of Israel after him, he would not climb Mount Nebo, gaze upon the land of Canaan, and perish until Deuteronomy 34:1-7. We therefore best understand Numbers 27:12-14 as anticipating Moses’ eventual demise. It was likely brought up here as another result of the new census: everyone else from the generation YHWH delivered from Egypt who was going to perish before entering the land had perished except for Moses. The narrative in Numbers 27:12-23 has many points of connection with Aaron’s demise and the transfer of the high priesthood to his son Eleazar in Numbers 20:22-28, and for understandable reasons: both lay out the satisfaction of the consequences for the rebellion of Aaron and Moses and the provision which YHWH made for Israel afterward.

YHWH had specifically called Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan (cf. Exodus 3:1-4:31). Moses would not be able to entirely fulfill his commission on account of his transgression but wanted to give confidence the commission would be fulfilled by another. Joshua ben Nun had already been the servant of Moses and would have been recognized as charismatic and a prospective leader for Israel (cf. Numbers 11:28, 27:18). But Joshua was not Moses, and would never be Moses. Only some of Moses’ glory/honor, thus authority, would come upon Joshua. Joshua would not speak with YHWH face to face like Moses had (cf. Numbers 12:8). Instead, Joshua would come before Eleazar the high priest for consultation. Eleazar, in turn, would consult YHWH via Urim: Urim, along with Thummim, were stones set in the “breastplate of decision,” and ostensibly Eleazar understood how to perceive YHWH’s determinations by means of Urim (Numbers 27:21; cf. Exodus 28:30).

These episodes regarding inheritance and transition in Numbers 27:1-23, 36:1-12 typify the whole situation of Israel in Numbers 26:1-36:13, and even through Deuteronomy and the beginning of the Book of Joshua. The generation YHWH delivered from Egyptian slavery had all perished save Caleb, Joshua, and Moses. The new generation looked forward to obtaining the fulfillment of all YHWH had promised. The transition was taking place, but was by no means complete. Aspects of the legacy of the former generation still required addressing, since some matters had not yet been resolved. The newer generation would need preparation and instruction before they could cross over. Zelophehad had appropriately died, but there was no reason his daughters should be cursed because he had no children; provision was made for his daughters to inherit his share of the promise. Moses would soon die, but Israel would continue to enjoy strong leadership under Joshua ben Nun. The past was being addressed; the future was being prepared. In many ways, we all live in this kind of space: addressing aspects of the legacy of those who have come before us, and seeking to prepare the way for those who will endure after us. May we therefore faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Inheritance and Transition appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Live as Gospel Citizens

Only conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ so that – whether I come and see you or whether I remain absent – I should hear that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, by contending side by side for the faith of the gospel, and by not being intimidated in any way by your opponents. This is a sign of their destruction, but of your salvation – a sign which is from God. For it has been granted to you not only to believe in Christ but also to suffer for him, since you are encountering the same conflict that you saw me face and now hear that I am facing (Philippians 1:27-30).

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:2-11). He explained how his circumstances had worked to advance the Gospel; if he were to die, he would go and be with Christ, but he was confident he would continue to faithfully serve God, and the Philippian Christians, while in the body (Philippians 1:12-26).

It was customary to maintain a propositio in Greco-Roman letters: a concise statement in which the author would present his primary point regarding what he would be discussing. We might call it the proposition or thesis. True to form, Paul set forth his propositio to the Philippian Christians in Philippians 1:27:30.

Paul began with his primary emphasis, the point from which the rest of the propositio, and his Letter to the Philippians, would flow: to politeuesthe in a way worthy of the Gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27). Politeuesthe literally means “to live as citizens,” thus, to reflect the behavior, integrity, and standards of a free citizen in a city or state. Thus, to live as a citizen of the Gospel of Christ would demand to live according to the behavior, integrity and standards which God has made known in Christ through the Spirit; the NET translation of “conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the Gospel of Christ” well conveys the point.

But Paul’s appeal for the Philippian Christians to live as citizens of the Gospel remains notable. When Paul wanted to convey something regarding the Christian life, he tended to use the standard metaphor of the way or journey, to walk in accordance with the Gospel, of Christ, and/or of the Spirit (e.g. Romans 8:1-11). Only in Philippians did Paul decide to go with the metaphor of citizen, and such was likely a very deliberate rhetorical decision. Philippi, as a Roman colony, was very proud and protective of its status; from the use of this image, it would seem many Philippian Christians were Roman citizens themselves, or, if nothing else, regarded citizenship quite highly.

To this end, Paul appealed to the Philippian Christians to live as citizens of the Gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27). It would be highly unlikely for Paul to use the metaphor if he wanted to cast aspersions on the concept of citizenship or holding citizenship within an earthly nation-state; nevertheless, he was also, at some level, contrasting their Roman citizenship with citizenship in the Kingdom of God in Christ, which would be made explicit in Philippians 3:20-21. The Philippian Christians well understood what it meant to live appropriately as a Roman citizen; Paul wanted them to take that understanding and reframe it around the Gospel of Christ. While Paul may not have been casting aspersions on having citizenship or being a citizen, he most assuredly was casting aspersions, to some degree, regarding the level of loyalty the Philippian Christians should have toward Rome. They should live as citizens, indeed; but of the Gospel of Christ. In many respects, being citizens of the Gospel of Christ would make them good Roman citizens; but in many others, especially in terms of honoring the gods and upholding the Roman hierarchy and “order of things,” the Philippian Christians would be challenged to maintain their loyalty to the ways of Jesus over the ways of Rome.

While the rest of the letter will detail what it would look like for the Philippian Christians to live as citizens of the Gospel of Christ, Paul would go on to immediately present a picture of what it looks like: whether he was able to visit the Philippians or would remain separated from them, he would hear they were standing firm in one spirit, with one mind, contending side by side for the faith of the Gospel, and not at all intimidated by opposition they would encounter (Philippians 1:27-28).

Paul therefore wanted the Philippian Christians to persevere in what they were already doing: to stand firm together in the Gospel. Both elements were quite important: the Philippian Christians needed to maintain and deepen their joint participation in Christ and with one another. Paul would soon expand upon standing firm in one spirit and with one mind in Philippians 2:1-11; his concern regarding contending side by side for the faith of the Gospel should illuminate our understanding of Philippians 3:1-21, and therefore we should not assume his warnings about those introducing “Judaizer” teachings were more theoretical than practical.

Paul did not want the Philippian Christians to be pturomenoi by opponents or adversaries. This is the only use of the Greek verb pturo in all of the New Testament; Classical authors would use the term to describe horses affrighted by something which startled them (Philippians 1:28). The term is certainly evocative, and it well communicates Paul’s concern. We cannot know exactly what kind of resistance or opposition the church in Philippi had experienced at the time, but especially in light of Philippians 3:1-16, it would not be hard to imagine some “Judaizing” teachers visiting the assemblies of the Philippian Christians, promoting their distortion of the Gospel and catching the Philippian Christians relatively unprepared for them. Philippi did not seem to have a very large Jewish population, and it is quite likely the Philippian Christians had not yet encountered the “Judaizers.”

Paul’s concern about these matters was manifest by his continued discussion: if the Philippian Christians were not at all afraid or intimidated by their opponents, it would be a sign of the destruction of the adversaries and the salvation of the Philippian Christians (Philippians 1:28). Paul then quite literally brought home the message of his own travails: the Philippian Christians were granted the opportunity not only to believe in Jesus but suffer with Him, experiencing the same conflict which they had watched Paul endure (Philippians 1:29-30).

Paul thus foresaw some level of suffering and difficulty for the Philippian Christians. Considering Paul would later warn the Philippian Christians regarding Judaizing teachers, and Paul’s most recent experiences of persecution and imprisonment came from the Jewish people, it would make the most sense for Paul to be warning the Philippian Christians regarding the kind of hostility and opposition the Philippian Christians would encounter from Jewish believers seeking to induce them to Judaize (cf. Acts 21:27-36, Philippians 3:2-3).

Perhaps Paul was concerned the Judaizing teachers would abuse the Philippian Christians in some way; perhaps he was concerned they would attempt to stir up the rest of Philippi against the Christians. We also cannot discount the possibility, however, that Paul did not have Jewish or Judaizing opponents in mind at all; perhaps the concern was with their fellow, yet pagan, Roman citizens in Philippi.

No matter who their opponents might be, Paul wanted the Philippian Christians to stand firm and be ready for them. The Philippian Christians had shared in Paul’s work, and thus his sufferings, through their support; Paul now expected they would also share in those sufferings more substantively. Thus it was all the more important for them to live as citizens of the Gospel of Christ and display their greater loyalty to Jesus over Caesar, come what may.

Paul’s propositio for his Letter to the Philippians appropriately summarized all he would go on to discuss in Philippians 2:1-4:23, and we do well to make appropriate reference to Philippians 1:27-30 when exploring the rest of the letter.

We are not Christians living in Philippi in the middle of the first century, but we can maintain great confidence Paul would also encourage us to live as citizens of the Gospel of Christ, to stand firm with one mind and spirit, contending side by side for the faith of the Gospel, and not proving intimidated by any form of opposition. We are to conduct ourselves in ways consistent with our joint participation and sharing in Christ; our primary loyalty must be to Jesus and His ways above and beyond the nation-state in which we might live. We must stand firm in the Gospel: we must defend the truth of God made known in the Gospel, yet above all we must embody its truth and display what the community of the people of God in Christ should look like. We can only do that together, contending and striving side by side. We will encounter opposition; it should not come as a surprise to us. But we should always glorify God in Christ in how we relate to opposition and adversity. Our citizenship is in heaven from which we await our Savior and the resurrection; may we conduct ourselves appropriately so we might share in it!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Live as Gospel Citizens appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel and Faith

The Gospel features all God has accomplished through the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of God. We might well reckon the Gospel as good news, but what about it?

Those who had been with Jesus and bore witness to all God accomplished through Him expected their hearers who proved amenable to the story to believe it (cf. Acts 15:7). John the Evangelist wrote down his Gospel for this very purpose, so those who read might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and by believing have life in His name (John 20:30-31).

A basic understanding of belief involves giving mental assent to a proposition. Thus, to believe in the Gospel demands we give mental acceptance to its reality: Jesus actually and truly lived, died, was raised from the dead, ascended to the Father, reigns as Lord and Christ, and will return soon (e.g. Acts 16:31, 1 Timothy 3:16).

As a form of mental acceptance, belief cannot be perceived by anyone else. Therefore, it has always been expected for those who have come to believe in the Gospel to affirm and confirm that belief by means of oral confession before witnesses, declaring their confidence in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and by doing so all it entails (Romans 10:9-10, 1 Timothy 6:12-13).

Paul understood how the information encoded within the proclamation of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return bore witness to God’s actual work in Jesus the Christ which provided the means of deliverance from bondage to sin and death, reconciliation with God, the reception of the Spirit of God, and the means by which one might become conformed to the image of Jesus (cf. Romans 1:16-17, 8:1-39, Colossians 2:15, etc.). As we have seen, we absolutely must give mental assent to the substantive, actual reality of all God has accomplished in Jesus with verbal confirmation thereof; and yet merely mentally accepting it and confirming it does not, in and of themselves, change much of anything. As James the Lord’s brother declared, the demons also believe, and shudder (James 2:19)! Demons would also confess Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God (e.g. Luke 8:28, Acts 16:17). Yet no one suggests demons have found salvation in Jesus because they believe Jesus is the Christ and confess Him in the presence of many witnesses.

Paul, James, and other early Christian witnesses would therefore have those who would believe in Jesus go well beyond mere mental acceptance with verbal confirmation: he would have them cultivate and develop greater confidence and trust in God in Christ through the Spirit. We tend to speak of that confidence and trust as “faith.”

In Romans 1:16-17, Paul well associated and connected the Gospel and faith:

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is God’s power for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel from faith to faith, just as it is written, “The righteous by faith will live.”

Paul considered God as having revealed, or made known, His justice/righteousness in the Gospel “from faith to faith” (Romans 1:17). God has worked powerfully in Christ and through the Spirit so those who would believe might be saved. He was under no obligation to do so; we have all sinned and fallen short of His glory, and all deserved condemnation for our transgressions (Romans 3:23, 6:23). God displayed His unimaginably immense love for us in Jesus’ life and death, especially since Jesus died to reconcile us while we were sinners (Romans 5:6-11, 1 John 4:7-21). We were unworthy in every respect; nevertheless, God found satisfaction for justice through what Jesus suffered so believers in Jesus could be reconciled and display His righteousness in them (cf. Romans 8:1-11).

In Romans 3:21-22, Paul spoke regarding how God’s righteousness was manifested apart from the Law of Moses through the “faith of Jesus Christ.” The interpretive challenge of Romans 3:22 involves how we understand what Paul meant by the “faith of Jesus Christ”: did he intend an “objective genitive,” and thus was speaking of the believer’s faith in Jesus Christ, or a “subjective genitive,” therefore speaking of the faith, or perhaps better faithfulness, of Jesus Christ Himself? Even though interpreters remain divided on the question, we can, and must, affirm how both options remain true and valid.

The Gospel bears witness to the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. To be “faithful” can be understood as “full of faith,” but really involves proving both trustworthy and comporting oneself fully according to one’s commitment and convictions. The Hebrews author testified to Jesus’ faithfulness as a Son in the house of His Father (Hebrews 3:6). Jesus came to do the will of His Father, and He did what God would have Him do; in this way He fulfilled all that which God had promised to Israel and to all regarding His Son, the Christ (Luke 24:44, John 17:4).

In this way we can understand how the Gospel reveals the righteousness of God “from faith” in Romans 1:17: God has been faithful and acted faithfully in Christ. Just as Israel was given every reason to maintain confidence in the authority, power, and covenant loyalty of God because God rescued them out of Egyptian slavery, sustained them in the wilderness, and gave them the land of Canaan, so those who would believe in Jesus today have been given every reason to maintain confidence in the authority, power, and covenant loyalty of God in Christ because Jesus lived, died, was raised, ascended to the Father, reigns as Lord and Christ, and will return soon, all of which fulfill all the promises God had made for generations.

And since Christ Jesus proved faithful, and has thus become the Pioneer of salvation for all who would follow Him, in Him believers can manifest God’s righteousness by faith. Such a manifestation must go well beyond mental acceptance of the propositions of the Gospel and the verbal affirmation thereof; as Paul cited from Habakkuk 2:4, the righteous ones will live by (their) faith.

To live by faith demands demonstrating full trust in Jesus as Lord and Christ. Plenty of people can say they believe Jesus is Lord and Christ and yet continue to think, feel, and act as if they are the ones in charge, or in ways completely consistent with their cultural context. To live by faith means we give more than mere lip service to Jesus Christ our Lord, the Son of God: it means we seek to follow Jesus and His ways.

We must therefore change our minds and hearts to no longer maintain those thoughts, feelings, and behaviors which work against what God has accomplished in Jesus so we can instead strive to maintain the thoughts, feelings, and actions which demonstrate our commitment to Jesus as Lord and to follow Him; the New Testament calls this change repentance (cf. Acts 2:38, 17:30-31). Believers are also called by Jesus to submit to immersion in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit for the remission of sin in order to put on Christ, be able to walk in newness of life, and to receive the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:18-20, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:1-11, Galatians 3:27). In this way Christians begin to prove faithful to the Gospel and its message.

And from then on Christians must persevere in following Jesus and His ways. What does it look like to follow Jesus and His ways? He has made them known in the Gospel (John 14:6, 20:30-31)! In short, the Way of Jesus looks like a humble life of faithful service, seeking the welfare of others and not merely our own, to prove willing to suffer evil without responding in kind, jointly participating and sharing in life with fellow believers in Jesus, and affirming our confession of Jesus as Lord despite any and all hostility, persecution, and punishment which may come from the authorities or others (cf. Romans 12:1-21, Hebrews 13:1-13, etc.).

Some aspects of what it means to follow Jesus might not prove terribly challenging for many to maintain, especially in those areas which do not conflict with the socio-cultural consensus of the day. Nevertheless, the demands of what it means to follow Jesus will always come into conflict, in some ways and forms, with any and every socio-cultural consensus, and it is at these points which the loyalty of any given person will be tested.

We must strive to prove faithful to God in Christ through the Spirit: God has given of His Spirit so His fruit might become manifest in us (cf. Galatians 5:22-24, 2 Thessalonians 2:13). We must cultivate thoughts, feelings, and actions which conform to what God has made known in Christ and thus prove faithful and obedient to Jesus; all such endeavors must, first and foremost, involve entrusting ourselves to God in Christ through the Spirit, and submitting our ways and will to Him (Romans 6:1-23, Galatians 2:20).

Therefore, we cannot imagine we have the capacity to prove faithful merely by our own unaided efforts, but we also cannot imagine we can prove faithful without involving anything of our own efforts, as Paul well explicated in his paradoxical affirmations of Philippians 2:12-13.

The Gospel, therefore, is inextricably bound up in matters of faith. We must display faith in the Gospel, which means we accept and affirm the reality of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return. The Gospel makes known God’s faithfulness in Christ, and Jesus’ own faithfulness: in Christ God fulfilled all He had promised, and Jesus lived and died trusting in God and fully manifesting His commitment and conviction in God through what He suffered. God thus bore witness to His justice and righteousness in faithfulness, providing a means of reconciliation despite our sinfulness and unworthiness. As a result, we have been given every reason to trust in God and His faithfulness in Jesus, and therefore should cultivate and develop trust in God in Christ through the Spirit, living according to the way and pattern of Jesus’ life and death so we might share in His resurrection. May we uphold the faith of God in Christ in the Gospel, live by faith according to what has been made known in the Gospel, and share in the resurrection of life promised by God in Christ when He returns!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel and Faith appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Psalm 1

Psalm 1:1-6, ASV translation, as prose:

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the wicked, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers: but his delight is in the law of YHWH; and on his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its season, whose leaf also doth not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The wicked are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For YHWH knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the wicked shall perish.

Psalm 1:1-6 ASV according to Hebrew parallelism (as marked in BHS):

Blessed is the man / that walketh not / in the counsel of the wicked
Nor standeth in the way of sinners / nor sitteth in the seat of scoffers.
But his delight is in the law of YHWH / and on his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree / planted by the streams of water
That bringeth forth its fruit in its season / whose leaf also doth not wither
And whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
The wicked are not so
But are like the chaff / which the wind driveth away.
Therefore the wicked shall not stand in the judgment / nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.
For YHWH knoweth the way of the righteous / but the way of the wicked shall perish.

Psalm 1 in the Scottish Metrical Psalter of 1650:

1 That man hath perfect blessedness,
who walketh not astray
In counsel of ungodly men,
nor stands in sinners’ way,

2 Nor sitteth in the scorner’s chair:
But placeth his delight
Upon God’s law, and meditates
on his law day and night.

3 He shall be like a tree that grows
near planted by a river,
Which in his season yields his fruit,
and his leaf fadeth never:

4 And all he doth shall prosper well
The wicked are not so;
But like they are unto the chaff,
which wind drives to and fro.

5 In judgment therefore shall not stand
such as ungodly are;
Nor in th’ assembly of the just
shall wicked men appear.

6 For why? The way of godly men
unto the Lord is known:
Whereas the way of wicked men
shall quite be overthrown.

As we begin our study of the Psalms, let us consider these different ways of looking at the same text. When we see the Psalm as unbroken prose we may see the substance and the theme but cannot as clearly see many of the poetic features. When we break up the Psalm into appropriate parallel versets we can see the poetic features in a bit better relief but they remain foreign to our ears. I include the Scottish Metrical Psalter recognizing the limitations of a 365 year old project but in order to show the poetry in a way more familiar to us English speaking types. If the Psalms will be effectively put to song it will look quite like the Scottish Metrical Psalter with updated language.

Psalm 1 as Poetry

Psalm 1 features all the hallmarks of a wisdom psalm and an elaborate poetic composition. The first word of the Psalm begins with aleph and the last word with tav, from “A to Z” in English terms. Psalm 1 is organized according to A B A’ B’ order (Psalm 1:1-3 A, Psalm 1:4-5 B, Psalm 1:6a A’, Psalm 1:6b B’). Psalm 1 features the inclusio of the “wicked”, beginning with the righteous avoiding the way of the wicked and ending with the overthrowing of the way of the wicked. Psalm 1:1-2 also maintains an anaphora of triple negative and then triple positive declarations.

The imagery of Psalm 1 is quite striking. The predominant image is that of the way or journey: a sharp, clear choice between the “way” of righteousness and the “way” of the wicked. We can perceive the warning in movement in Psalm 1:1: not to walk with wicked, not to stand with sinners, not to sit with scoffers, with each level denoting ever greater comfort and association with ever more depraved and terrible persons. In addition the Psalter uses agricultural imagery: the righteous as the healthy, prosperous tree and the wicked as the chaff, the refuse blown away when grain is thrown in the air, thus, the unhealthy, unprofitable plant.

Psalm 1 in Context and Canon

Psalm 1 is generally and rightly seen as a wisdom psalm.

Psalm 1, and in fact the whole book of Psalms, begins without any sort of superscription; since antiquity Psalms 1 and 2 have been understood as part of the “bookends” of the Psalms, providing an introduction to the entire corpus.

Psalm 1 contrasts the fortunes of the “righteous” and the “wicked.” The righteous man is blessed and made prosperous by YHWH because he delights in and meditates upon the torah of YHWH; he does not maintain association or connection with the wicked. The righteous are commended highly in Psalm 1:1-4; the Psalter then makes a sharp and emphatic contrast in Psalm 1:5, declaring that while the righteous prosper, it is “not so” with the wicked. The righteous are an ever fruitful tree planted by water; the wicked are as the chaff that blows away and will not endure. The wicked will not stand in judgment or be able to participate in the community of God’s people in Psalm 1:5. The conclusion of the matter is seen in Psalm 1:6, the point to which the whole Psalm points: YHWH knows the way of the righteous, for it is the way He has prepared for them; the way of the wicked will perish.

The focus on the two “ways” emphasizes the choice put before the people of God as individuals and as a collective: the “way of the righteous,” based in YHWH’s torah, and the “way of the wicked,” which is opposed to God’s torah.

There are no strong contextual markers upon which to declare that Psalm 1 is pre-exilic, exilic, or based in the Second Temple period. Some have tried to reconstruct a first Temple context for Psalm 1 but it does not seem to have any special cult-functional purpose. The focus on torah and the “community of the righteous” may denote a Second Temple period setting in the synagogue as exhortation toward faithful torah living, especially if there is movement from Temple to Torah from the First to Second Temple period.

The canonical purpose of Psalm 1 is more clear: it opens the Psalter. The presence of a robust wisdom psalm to begin the Psalter may seem surprising in light of the Psalms’ purpose as praise and giving a voice to the people of God to make petitions and declarations to YHWH. Yet perhaps that is the point: Psalm 1 begins the Psalter to warn the reader, hearer, or petitioner to remain firmly grounded in YHWH’s torah. Psalms and Torah are not in competition with one another; the Psalter in fact goes out of his way to make the Psalms parallel to Torah, compiling a fivefold collection of Psalms just as there are five books of Torah. The wicked will find no solace in the Psalms; there will be no avoiding or getting away from the demands of Torah. The people of YHWH should sing the Psalms but continue to serve YHWH according to Torah. Likewise, Psalm 1 can be seen as the door or gate for the rest of the Psalms, in terms of protecting the Psalter’s collection from the taint of heresy and as a continued warning, in light of Israel’s history, of trying to substitute liturgy for obedience.

We may not be able to ascertain the specific time of the writing of Psalm 1 but its placement dates to the Second Temple period as the Psalter finally compiled the Psalms as we now know them. Psalm 1 is deliberately placed to exhort the synagogue community to righteousness through delight in and meditation upon torah as found in the Pentateuch and likely in the Psalms and Prophets as well.

Psalm 1 Throughout History

It did not take long for early Christians to see Jesus as the embodiment and illustration of the “righteous” in Psalm 1. Jesus came to fulfill the Torah according to Matthew 5:17-18, and thus exemplifies the Righteous One who lived by YHWH’s instruction. Likewise, to delight in YHWH’s torah is to delight in His Word, the Logos, that is, in Jesus as the embodiment of God’s instruction to humanity.

Exegetes like Hilary of Poitiers and Augustine saw connections between Psalm 1 and Exodus 3 in terms of the revelation of YHWH: as YHWH is Being and the Source of Life, to be known by YHWH is life, and to be unknown to Him is death.

Many focused on the contrast between the righteous and the wicked and used it as a paradigm for other similar contrasts, especially in the days of the Reformation and beyond. In light of James 1:22-25 it could be contrasted with the one who does versus the one who just hears, or one who actually loves God while another just loves to learn, or the godly person seeking to serve YHWH versus the humanist scholar who pursues learning for learning’s sake. Among the Puritans Matthew Poole declared that the life of the faithful must start with trust in the Creator which is to lead to obedience to the Savior and then praise in the Holy Spirit; thus, Psalm 1 invites the reader toward trust in the Creator and imitation of the Righteous One so as to be able to proclaim the praises inspired by the Spirit throughout the Psalms.

In hymnody the chorus of “I Shall Not Be Moved” is drawn from the tree image of Psalm 1:3 (and has been coordinated with many different types of verses, even for secular purposes):

I shall not be moved
Like a tree planted by the water
I shall not be moved

Psalm 1 Today

The substance and exhortation of Psalm 1 is timeless: everyone is confronted with the two ways. We can either follow the way of God’s instruction, participate with the people of God, and share in the prosperity which God will give all of His people, or we can follow the way of the wicked, sit in their counsel, and perish along with them. The choice seems obvious, and it should be. Yet the people of God need constant reminder and exhortation to delight in God’s instruction and meditate upon it; thus Psalm 1 remains ever relevant.

We must not be moved from YHWH’s instruction in Christ, but we must first make sure that we are firmly rooted in YHWH, delighting in His instruction, meditating on His precepts, and actually doing that which YHWH has commanded. Let us be firmly anchored in God in Christ and continue to devote ourselves to His instruction!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Psalm 1 appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Prayer of Manasseh

What, exactly, was the substance of Manasseh king of Judah’s prayer before YHWH? While many among the people of God have most likely asked this question, someone in antiquity wrote down what they believed the prayer would have been which we now deem the apocryphal Prayer of Manasseh.

The historical Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, reigned over Judah for 55 years (ca. 697-643 BCE; 2 Kings 21:1-18, 2 Chronicles 33:1-20). According to the Kings narrative, Manasseh was a most wicked king of Judah, introducing service to foreign gods into the Temple complex in Jerusalem itself; on account of what Manasseh did, YHWH condemned Jerusalem and the Temple to destruction just as He did to Israel (2 Kings 21:1-18).

The Chronicler also bore witness to Manasseh’s many sins, denouncing him as encouraging the Judahites to sin more than the nations which YHWH had destroyed before Israel (2 Chronicles 33:1-9). Yet the Chronicler would also make known how YHWH brought the Assyrians against Manasseh and Judah, and they captured him and carried him away to Babylon (2 Chronicles 33:10-11). The Chronicler then recorded Manasseh’s response:

In his pain Manasseh asked YHWH his God for mercy and truly humbled himself before the God of his ancestors. When he prayed to YHWH, YHWH responded to him and answered favorably his cry for mercy.
YHWH brought him back to Jerusalem to his kingdom. Then Manasseh realized that YHWH is the true God (2 Chronicles 33:12-13).

According to the Chronicler, Manasseh returned to Jerusalem, heightened its walls, removed the service to foreign gods from the Temple, and exhorted the Judahites to serve YHWH God of Israel (2 Chronicles 33:14-17). In concluding his account of Manasseh’s reign, the Chronicler spoke of his sources:

The rest of the events of Manasseh’s reign, including his prayer to his God and the words the prophets spoke to him in the name of YHWH God of Israel, are recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Israel. The Annals of the Prophets include his prayer, give an account of how YHWH responded to it, record all his sins and unfaithful acts, and identify the sites where he built high places and erected Asherah poles and idols before he humbled himself (2 Chronicles 33:18-19).

We might associate the Annals of the Kings of Israel with the Books of Kings, but while 2 Kings 21:1-18 bore witness to Manasseh’s reign and the words the prophets spoke to him, none of our manuscripts preserve his prayer. We are left to believe the Annals of the Kings of Israel, if nothing else, included other information beyond what we can see in 1 and 2 Kings, and has been lost to us. The same would be true for the Annals of the Prophets: anything regarding Manasseh’s sins, his prayer, and YHWH’s response have been lost to us.

The record of Manasseh’s prayer was not just lost to us; it was most likely lost well in antiquity, early in the Second Temple Period. We can perceive this not only because no later source describes anything in the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets, and also because two different prayers purported to be Manasseh’s have come down to us: a prayer in Hebrew as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q381:17), and a Greek text called the Prayer of Manasseh which became part of some forms of the Septuagint. We will consider this latter Prayer of Manasseh in greater detail.

The Prayer of Manasseh has been preserved in Greek, as well as in Syriac, Old Slavonic, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Latin translations; many scholars believe it was originally a Greek composition, but some argue for a Hebrew original. All agree the Prayer of Manasseh was certainly written during the Second Temple Period: no later than the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, and most likely between 200-1 BCE.

This is the Prayer of Manasseh as translated in the New Revised Standard Version of the Apocrypha (NRSVA):

O Lord Almighty, God of our ancestors, of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and of their righteous offspring; you who made heaven and earth with all their order; who shackled the sea by your word of command, who confined the deep and sealed it with your terrible and glorious name; at whom all things shudder, and tremble before your power, for your glorious splendor cannot be borne, and the wrath of your threat to sinners is unendurable; yet immeasurable and unsearchable is your promised mercy, for you are the Lord Most High, of great compassion, long-suffering, and very merciful, and you relent at human suffering.

O Lord, according to your great goodness you have promised repentance and forgiveness to those who have sinned against you, and in the multitude of your mercies you have appointed repentance for sinners, so that they may be saved. Therefore you, O Lord, God of the righteous, have not appointed repentance for the righteous, for Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, who did not sin against you, but you have appointed repentance for me, who am a sinner. For the sins I have committed are more in number than the sand of the sea; my transgressions are multiplied, O Lord, they are multiplied! I am not worthy to look up and see the height of heaven because of the multitude of my iniquities. I am weighted down with many an iron fetter, so that I am rejected because of my sins, and I have no relief; for I have provoked your wrath and have done what is evil in your sight, setting up abominations and multiplying offenses.

And now I bend the knee of my heart, imploring you for your kindness. I have sinned, O Lord, I have sinned, and I acknowledge my transgressions. I earnestly implore you, forgive me, O Lord, forgive me! Do not destroy me with my transgressions! Do not be angry with me forever or store up evil for me; do not condemn me to the depths of the earth.

For you, O Lord, are the God of those who repent, and in me you will manifest your goodness; for, unworthy as I am, you will save me according to your great mercy, and I will praise you continually all the days of my life. For all the host of heaven sings your praise, and yours is the glory forever. Amen.

The Prayer of Manasseh provided no narrative or editorial introduction; at no point within the text was Manasseh explicitly mentioned. Instead, the Prayer of Manasseh begins by invoking God as the Lord Almighty, God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their offspring, praising God as the Creator to whom all things are subject, full of splendor but terrifying with wrath toward sinners, and yet also deeply merciful (Prayer of Manasseh 1:1-6). The Prayer of Manasseh highlighted God’s compassion, longsuffering, and mercy as the Lord Most High, having promised repentance and forgiveness to those who sinned against him (Prayer of Manasseh 1:7). The Prayer of Manasseh would suggest God did not appoint repentance for the righteous, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, but repentance for the author, a sinner who sinned profoundly against God; he could not even look up to God on account of all his iniquities; he was weighed down with his sins and provoked God’s wrath against him on account of his idolatry (the strongest point of association between the material in the prayer and Manasseh; Prayer of Manasseh 1:8-10). The Prayer of Manasseh then set forth great contrition: the one praying would bend the knee of his heart, imploring God’s kindness, confessing he had sinned, begging for forgiveness, and asking to avoid destruction, God’s anger, and condemnation (Prayer of Manasseh 1:11-13). The Prayer of Manasseh concluded with the expectation the prayer would be heard and accepted: the one praying confessed the Lord as the God of those who repent, and through him God would manifest His goodness, and would save him despite his unworthiness; the one praying would praise God continually for the rest of his life along with the host of heaven (Prayer of Manasseh 1:13-15).

There is no evidence the Prayer of Manasseh was a seventh century composition by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, or recorded as part of the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. Instead, in Jewish and all Christian traditions, the Prayer of Manasseh is reckoned as apocryphal and pseudepigraphal: not actually written by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, but by someone later imagining what Manasseh might have prayed, and preserved as part of some editions of the Greek Septuagint.

While most believe the author of the Prayer of Manasseh was most likely a Jewish person of the later Second Temple Period, Jewish tradition overall did not make much of the Prayer of Manasseh, although a copy of it in Hebrew was found as part of the Cairo Genizah. The Prayer of Manasseh would feature more prominently in many Christian traditions. In the Ethiopian Bible and some of the earliest editions of the Latin Vulgate, the Prayer of Manasseh was placed either within or at the end of 2 Chronicles. More often, the Prayer of Manasseh would be placed among other apocryphal or deuterocanonical works, as in the Greek Septuagint, later editions of the Vulgate, Luther’s translation of the Bible in German, and some of the earliest English Bible translations, including the Apocrypha of the 1611 King James Version. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches consider the Prayer of Manasseh to be deuterocanonical; the Roman Catholic Church did not include the Prayer of Manasseh among the deuterocanonical works it considered part of the canon of Scripture, but may consider it profitable for devotional purposes.

What should we make of the Prayer of Manasseh? We have every reason to believe Manasseh ben Hezekiah, king of Judah, prayed a prayer before YHWH in contrition and repentance for all the abominations, idolatry, and immorality he himself perpetrated and also encouraged the Judahites to perpetrate. We also have every reason to believe the prayer Manasseh ben Hezekiah prayed was preserved, along with other details and information surrounding his life and the prayer, as part of the Annals of the Kings of Israel and the Annals of the Prophets.

But we have no manuscripts of, or even other texts referencing, the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. Since two very different prayers have come down to us purporting to be what Manasseh ben Hezekiah prayed, it proves challenging to even entertain the possibility one of them might preserve the prayer from either source mentioned by the Chronicler. It would make more sense to believe both prayers were written by later Jewish people who were imagining what Manasseh ben Hezekiah would have prayed in that situation.

Therefore, while no doubt some sincere and faithful Christians have believed the Prayer of Manasseh represents the prayer Manasseh ben Hezekiah actually prayed, it is more likely a later Greek apocryphal composition. The overall theological framework and expressions within the prayer prove far more aligned with the later Second Temple Period than the days of the Davidic kings.

So if the Prayer of Manasseh was not what Manasseh ben Hezekiah actually prayed, why should we give it any regard? For generations, Christians have appreciated the Prayer of Manasseh for devotional purposes: just as its author imagined himself as giving voice to what Manasseh ben Hezekiah would have prayed, so we all likewise can consider the Prayer of Manasseh in giving voice to us to ask God for forgiveness. The vast majority of the Prayer of Manasseh presents solid theology and provides compelling expressions of contrition before God. The only troublesome premises within the Prayer of Manasseh would involve the suggestion the righteous would never need repentance, or that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob did not sin (cf. Prayer of Manasseh 1:8): the Scriptures appropriately understand all people, including Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory, and thus even the “righteous” will at times need to repent of sin (cf. Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:23, 1 John 1:7-10).

The Prayer of Manasseh, therefore, was not actually spoken by Manasseh ben Hezekiah, and was not what was recorded in the Annals of the Kings of Israel or the Annals of the Prophets. The Prayer of Manasseh should not be considered canonical or inspired Scripture. But the Prayer of Manasseh remains a devotional composition of the Second Temple Period which can provide benefit to Christians to this day. Christians can appropriate many aspects of the Prayer of Manasseh in their prayers of contrition and repentance before God. The Prayer of Manasseh expertly framed the appeal for contrition and repentance within a framework which established God’s great majesty, compassion, kindness, grace, and mercy, along with expressions anticipating the acceptance of the prayer and the desire to continue praising God among His people and the host of heaven. After all, who among us could not speak out the vast majority of the Prayer of Manasseh in good conscience as an appeal to God to be forgiven of our sins? May we well consider the Prayer of Manasseh as an exemplar of expressing contrition, repentance, and asking God for the forgiveness of our sins, appropriate it appropriately, and continue to seek to serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Prayer of Manasseh appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Baal of Peor and a New Census

The generation God delivered from Egypt would meet its final end. A new generation would arise and fulfill all God had promised.

The Book of Numbers was aptly named bemidbar in Hebrew, for it bore witness to Israel’s experiences “in the wilderness.” YHWH had prepared the Israelite camp and His Tabernacle for entry into Canaan (Numbers 1:1-10:11), but that generation of Israelites continued to persist in rebellion against Him, and to that end He condemned all of them to die in the wilderness (Numbers 10:12-19:22). Over forty years all but Moses, Joshua, and Caleb from that generation would die in the wilderness; Moses would also be condemned to die; YHWH then led Israel to the banks of the Jordan River in the land of Moab (Numbers 20:1-22:1).

Balak king of Moab, concerned about the welfare of Moab in the face of Israel, had hired Balaam son of Beor to curse Israel; nevertheless, three times Balaam instead blessed Israel according to the will and word of YHWH (Numbers 22:1-24:25). In Numbers 25:1-26:65, attention was redirected back to Israel and what would transpire at Shittim in Moab.

At Shittim, the men of Israel “played the harlot,” or “committed sexual immorality,” with the daughters of Moab (Numbers 25:1). After engaging in sexual relations, or perhaps as part of the rituals involving said sexual relations, the Moabite women invited the Israelites to the sacrifices they would make before their gods, and Israelites would bow down to them (Numbers 25:2). The god in particular was Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:3); Baal was the storm god served throughout the lands of Canaan and ostensibly the Transjordan; Peor was a mountain which looked toward the wastelands according to Numbers 23:28. When gods were associated with a particular place, it generally meant there was some special cult site for the god at that location, either because some myth or legend associated that particular place with that god, or because the place had earlier been a cult site for a god which was assimilated into a newly dominant culture.

YHWH’s anger arose against Israel on account of their service to Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:3). YHWH commanded Moses to arrest the leaders of the people and to hang them before YHWH (and all the people) so YHWH’s anger would turn from Israel (Numbers 25:4). It would not seem as if Moses followed this command, unless we are to understand they were eliminated from the lack of mention of any tribal chiefs in Numbers 26:1-65. Instead, Moses commanded the judges of Israel to execute all those who joined themselves to Baal of Peor (Numbers 25:5).

While Moses was having this conversation with the judges of Israel at the tent of meeting, Zimri ben Salu of Simeon brought Cozbi (or Kozbi) bat Zur of Midian into a tent in the full sight of Moses and all the Israelites while they were weeping at the entrance of the tent of meeting (Numbers 25:6). Most reject the suggestion the two entered the tent of meeting itself, but they certainly seemed to enter some kind of tent which included some kind of sanctuary to Baal of Peor or some other god or goddess. We should not imagine Cozbi was merely a Midianite leader’s daughter; she was likely a priestess of some sort, and the sexual activity in which Zimri and Cozbi were engaged was most likely the consummation of some kind of religious ritual.

Zimri’s behavior was blatant and shocking. Moses did not seem to do much of anything. Instead, Phinehas ben Eleazar ben Aaron the high priest took a javelin and thrust through Zimri and Cozbi while they were in flagrante (Numbers 25:7-8, 14-15). Phinehas’ action led to the end of a plague which had spread throughout Israel and which led to the death of 24,000 (Numbers 25:8b-9).

While Zimri’s behavior was inexcusable, Phinehas’ response was itself shocking and well beyond anything so far prescribed in the Law. Zimri was the son of the chief of Simeon, and Cozbi was the daughter of a Midianite leader; there would be political and foreign policy implications for Phinehas’ actions. Perhaps for this reason YHWH spoke to Moses regarding what Phinehas had done: his zeal had turned YHWH’s anger away from Israel, and YHWH would give him a covenant of peace, and his descendants would remain priests before Him; he had made atonement for the Israelites (Numbers 25:10-13). YHWH would also command Moses to tell Israel to bring trouble against the Midianites and to destroy them because of the treachery by which they had deceived Israel in the matter of Baal of Peor and by the behavior of Cozbi (Numbers 25:17-18).

Cozbi was the first Midianite mentioned in regards to the matter of Baal of Peor, but since the Midianites were associated with the Moabites in terms of the Balak and Balaam episode in Numbers 22:1-24:25, we should not be surprised to see Midian involved with the matter of Baal of Peor as well.

Later traditions have been ambivalent about Phinehas and his zeal. Those who have nurtured a strong desire to resist what is deemed religious oppression have tended to strongly exalt Phinehas and to associate themselves with a similar zeal. The author of 1 Maccabees spoke of Mattathias’ actions against the Greek authorities who would have them renounce the customs of Moses in terms of what Phinehas had done:

When Mattathias saw it, he burned with zeal, and his heart was stirred. He gave vent to righteous anger; he ran and slaughtered him on the altar. At the same time he killed the king’s officer who was forcing them to sacrifice, and he tore down the altar. Thus he burned with zeal for the law, just as Phinehas did against Zimri son of Salu (1 Maccabees 2:24-26).

Paul would also speak regarding his former days as a Pharisee as being zealous for God and the traditions of Moses in Acts 22:3 and Galatians 1:14, and wanted his audience to understand such zeal motivated his former persecution of the faith. No doubt those Israelites who resisted the Romans in the First and Second Jewish Wars of 68-70 and 132-135 felt as if they were proving zealous for the traditions of Israel like Phinehas; perhaps for this very reason, the rabbis proved far more suspicious and concerned regarding Phinehas’ zeal, often speaking of its extrajudicial nature and the concerns attendant therein.

We do well to maintain a balanced view of Phinehas and his zeal. We can understand why Phinehas was thus driven to act as he did, but we should also remember how shocking and extrajudicial Phinehas’ actions proved to be. We do best to understand YHWH’s commendation of Phinehas not necessarily as an encouragement for the people of God to act likewise, but instead as justifying Phinehas in the face of the extrajudicial nature of his actions and commending him personally. We should all maintain great zeal for God and His purposes in Christ, but must always channel and direct that energy into serving the Lord as He has prepared the way (Romans 12:11, Hebrews 2:10).

After the plague, YHWH commanded Moses and Eleazar to again take a census of the people, just like they had taken a census forty years earlier (Numbers 26:1-65; cf. Numbers 1:1-3:51). The reason for the new census was made apparent in its conclusion: among the Israelites numbered in the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, none save Caleb ben Jephunneh and Joshua ben Nun were numbered who had been counted before Mount Sinai (Numbers 26:63-65). The word of YHWH against the former generation had been fulfilled; Israel was counted again in order to prepare for the military expedition they would soon begin in Canaan.

Much can be gained by comparing and contrasting the two censuses (Numbers 1:1-3:51 vs. Numbers 26:1-65). The first featured the tribal leaders of the twelve tribes and focused only on the men twenty years and above who could serve in a military capacity; the second was done only by Moses and Eleazar, and while the number still featured the men of military age, each tribe was described in terms of its family units. In the tribal listings, all maintained their places, except Manasseh and Ephraim were reversed (Ephraim then Manasseh, Numbers 1:32-35; Manasseh then Ephraim, Numbers 26:28-37). The overall number of Israelite men counted was smaller the second time, but not by terribly much (from 603,550 in Numbers 1:46 to 601,730 in Numbers 26:51, a loss of 1,820). As with the full number of Israelites, so with some of the tribes: their numbers varied somewhat over the forty years, but not significantly (Reuben, -2,770; Gad, -5,150; Judah, +1,900; Zebulun, +3,100, Dan, +1,700; Levites, +1,000; Numbers 1:20-45, 3:14-39 26:5-50, 58-62). Other tribes, however, saw significant changes in their numbers (Simeon, -37,100; Issachar, +9,900; Manasseh, +20,500; Ephraim and Naphtali, -8,000; Benjamin, +10,200; Asher, +11,900; Numbers 1:20-45, 26:5-50). Some speculate Simeon’s devastation might have come from the plague regarding Baal of Peor on account of Zimri’s affiliation with Simeon, but the text nowhere provides any explanation regarding why some tribes grew and other tribes shrank in population.

Challenges regarding how we should understand the meaning of the Hebrew word ‘eleph remain for Numbers 26:1-65 as in Numbers 1:1-3:51. The word would certainly come to mean “thousand.” Perhaps it meant “thousand” in terms of both of these censuses, yet we have good reason to be skeptical Israel would have truly been so large at the time. God could certainly have made as much provision for millions as thousands in the wilderness; it is not a question of God’s ability to be faithful. Instead, it is a matter of understanding Israel in terms of the Late Bronze Age and with other aspects of Israel as described in the Torah. A military population of over 600,000 and an overall population around 2 million would have completely overwhelmed the Levant in the Late Bronze Age, as far as we can tell; it also would strain credulity to suggest Israel at such numbers was the “least numerous” of all people, as in Deuteronomy 7:7. Perhaps the numbers were deliberately exaggerated; perhaps the term ‘eleph meant a military contingent of a given size far smaller than a thousand and later became a term for a thousand.

The numbers in the second census would matter because they would be the basis on which the land would be apportioned: larger tribes would get a larger inheritance, and smaller tribes a smaller inheritance, with the land divided by lot (Numbers 26:52-56). The lack of an inheritance among the Israelites for the Levites was again re-emphasized (Numbers 26:62).

While the census in Numbers 1:1-46 focused entirely on the tribes and their numbers, the census in Numbers 26:1-65 also would provide some details regarding certain characters associated with the different tribes. Some of the family structures and some of the characters mentioned well be derived from the listing of Jacob’s family from Genesis 46:8-27. Others were mentioned on account of their association with various narratives in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers: Dathan, Abiram, and Korah (Numbers 26:9-11; cf. Numbers 16:1-50; here we learn Korah’s descendants did not die along with him); Zelophehad and his daughters (Numbers 26:33; cf. Numbers 27:1-11, 36:1-13); Amram, Jochebed, Aaron, Moses, and Miriam (Numbers 26:58-59; cf. Exodus 6:20, 15:20); and Nadab and Abihu (Numbers 26:61; cf. Leviticus 10:1-3).

Despite all the travails and trials in the wilderness, YHWH had proven faithful to His promises regarding Israel. The plague which came as a result of the incident regarding Baal of Peor wiped out the rest of the older generation (and likely not a few of the younger generation as well). One generation had thus passed away, and another generation had arisen at around the same size with around the same strength. The rest of the narrative in Numbers would describe how YHWH would prepare this people to accomplish what He had promised to their ancestors and to prove more faithful than their fathers. May we gain insight from the examples of those who have come before us and faithfully serve God in Christ through the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Baal of Peor and a New Census appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Living Is Christ, Dying Is Gain

My confident hope is that I will in no way be ashamed but that with complete boldness, even now as always, Christ will be exalted in my body, whether I live or die. For to me, living is Christ and dying is gain. Now if I am to go on living in the body, this will mean productive work for me, yet I don’t know which I prefer: I feel torn between the two, because I have a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far, but it is more vital for your sake that I remain in the body. And since I am sure of this, I know that I will remain and continue with all of you for the sake of your progress and joy in the faith, so that what you can be proud of may increase because of me in Christ Jesus, when I come back to you (Philippians 1:20-26).

Is the “worst case scenario” really the worst possible case? Paul understood the apprehensions and concerns of the Philippian Christians, and took the opportunity to provide some instruction and exhortation in Christ.

Philippi was a Roman colony in Macedonia (part of modern Greece); Paul first visited the area and preached Jesus around 51 (cf. Acts 16:11-40). Paul wrote to the Christians in Philippi most likely around 60-61 from Rome while living under house arrest there (cf. Philippians 1:1). The church had appointed elders and had deacons serving them, and had sent Epaphroditus to provide support and service to Paul (cf. Philippians 1:1, 2:25-30, 4:18). Paul thanked the Philippian Christians for their joint participation in his ministry and prayed for them to abound in love and make good decisions to share in Jesus’ praise at His return (Philippians 1:2-11).

Paul had begun his narratio, according to standard conventions of letter writing in the Greco-Roman world, in Philippians 1:12-19. He would update the Philippian Christians regarding his condition, adroitly addressing their understandable concerns regarding his welfare and the socially shameful condition in which he found himself: the Gospel was actually advancing on account of his house arrest, and the Christians in Rome felt more comfortable speaking of Jesus. Paul remained confident he would find deliverance from his current predicament and appreciated their prayers and support.

Paul concluded his narratio in Philippians 1:20-26. Paul maintained strong hope he would not be ashamed; Christ would be exalted with complete boldness through what happened to Paul whether he lived or died (Philippians 1:20). Then Paul used the language of risk calculus to set forth how he looked at his condition: living is Christ and dying is gain, or profit (Philippians 1:21). Paul felt torn between going to be with Christ, which would be far better, or to remain in the body and prove productive in good work for the Lord (Philippians 1:22-24). Yet he was using the rhetorical technique known as diaporesis, or feigned perplexity: he maintained confidence he would continue to live since it was more vital for the sake of the progress and joy of the Philippian Christians in their faith, and they might have more regarding which to be proud when Paul would come back to them (Philippians 1:24-26).

In this way Paul could address many of the deep apprehensions and concerns of the Philippian Christians without having to mention them explicitly. Paul was a prisoner of the Romans and had appealed to Caesar. While his standing as a Roman citizen would provide him with some benefits, life remained cheap in the world of first century Rome. Paul had every reason to be confident in the accuracy of his claims and the justice of his cause, but how much would that mean before Nero Caesar? The Philippian Christians were acutely aware of this difficulty, and they would have understandably proven very concerned about Paul’s welfare and the prospect of his execution by the Romans.

In Philippians 1:12-26 we can perceive how Paul projected a lot of upbeat confidence regarding his prospects and situation in Rome. Some of it may have involved rhetorical posturing or some positive projection, but most of it was well grounded in what was taking place at the time. But the concern of the Philippian Christians was not entirely invalid: Paul’s situation might turn dire, and quickly. Paul had likely already experienced such a situation as related in 2 Corinthians 1:3-11, and in a couple of years would find himself at the end of that particular road, again in Roman custody, as manifest in the whole letter of 2 Timothy.

So it remained possible Paul might be killed by the Roman authorities, however inappropriate or unjust the sentence. Paul did not want the Philippian Christians to consider this to be such a terrible outcome: after all, if he were to be martyred for the cause of Christ, it would mean Paul would go and be with Christ, and that would be far better (Philippians 1:23)! Paul would rather be with Christ: he was not speaking as if suicidal, but honestly reflected on how he personally would be in a better situation with the Lord in heaven or paradise rather than continuing to proclaim Jesus in Roman chains (Philippians 1:22). Therefore, what the Philippian Christians might imagine to be the worst-case scenario for Paul was not bad at all; in fact, it was pure profit for him!

But it can only really be fully “profit” if Paul would really go to “be with Christ.” Philippians 1:21-23 provides strong support for the expectation Christians do not go to some kind of “Hadean” state, or experience what has been called “soul sleep,” immediately after death: instead, Christians go to be with the Lord in heaven, awaiting the day of the resurrection of life, especially in light of Revelation 7:9-17. We hear nothing regarding Christians going to any kind of Hadean realm in any witness from any of the Apostles since the Lord died and was raised from the dead. The idea of “soul sleep,” first and foremost, distorts and warps the concept of death as sleep in the New Testament, which was the way many spoke of the condition of the body which has died and now awaits the resurrection of life (e.g. Acts 7:60, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18); secondly, no Apostle in the New Testament spoke of “soul sleep” or gave any credence to it as a possibility. Instead, we do best to share in Paul’s hope: when we die, we go to be with Christ, and it is far better than remaining in the flesh with the travails and tribulations of life.

Paul adroitly negotiated the tension within his explanation: on the one hand, he wanted to assure the Philippian Christians regarding his prospects in a worst-case scenario, but on the other hand, he would not want them thinking he really just wanted to go and be with Christ and not remain in the body doing the work of ministry. No wonder Paul went with diaporesis: he did not want to seem disingenuous, but wanted to assure the Philippian Christians his understanding and expectation in persevering in ministry. He would go and be with the Lord Jesus soon enough; Paul would remain and continue with the Philippian Christians. They would not feel ashamed of Paul; they would have reason to be all the more proud of their joint participation with him in his ministry, and it would redound to the glory of God in Christ.

The Philippian Christians loved Paul and continued to support him in his ministry. We can understand their concerns: Paul was not in a great situation, and they were very concerned for his person, welfare, and honor. Paul understood those concerns, and he expertly addressed them throughout his narratio, both reassuring them and also taking appropriate opportunities to reframe their thinking. Imprisonment normally was shameful and would prove a stumbling block for ministry; yet the Gospel was actually advanced on account of Paul’s house arrest. Being executed by the Romans was normally understood as a pretty bad worst-case scenario; for Paul, however, it meant going to be with Christ, which would be very profitable for him! But the worst-case scenario was most probably not going to happen; instead, Paul would be set free to continue to proclaim Jesus and encourage his fellow Christians, and he looked forward to the opportunity to see the Christians of Philippi again to encourage and be encouraged by them.

We also can draw a lot of encouragement from how Paul viewed his situation. We can easily get so concerned about our physical welfare we forget about our ultimate hope of rest in Jesus, and eventually, the resurrection of life. We would gain more profit being with Christ! Nevertheless, to live is also Christ, to glorify and honor Him in our lives: it remains profitable to remain in the body and serve and work to proclaim the Gospel and encourage our fellow Christians. May we also reckon life as Christ, and dying as profit in Christ, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Living Is Christ, Dying Is Gain appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

It Is the Lord!

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” known as John, either John ben Zebedee (the Apostle), or John the Elder, wrote down his recollections of his experiences with Jesus so that those who hear or read would believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and would find eternal life in His name (John 1:1-20:31). Many might consider John 20:30-31 to represent a satisfying conclusion, but John the Evangelist did not think so. There was one more story of Jesus’ revealing Himself to His disciples to tell (John 21:1-22).

According to John, Simon Peter, Thomas, Nathanael, the sons of Zebedee (James and John, Mark 1:19-20), and two other disciples were together (John 21:2). The “disciple whom Jesus loved” was present according to John 21:7; he might be John ben Zebedee, or John the Evangelist, and if the latter, then one of the two otherwise unnamed disciples. This is the first instance in which John spoke of the “sons of Zebedee”; here we also learn Nathanael, whom we have not seen mentioned since John 1:45-49, was from Cana in Galilee.

John assumes we have figured out these disciples were near the Sea of Tiberias, and therefore in Galilee (John 21:1). Simon Peter announced he was going fishing, and the rest decided to go with him (John 21:3).

We do not really know when exactly this transpired within the forty days between Jesus’ resurrection and His ascension (Acts 1:3). We assume it would take place after the eighth day and the events described in John 20:1-31; we likewise should assume it did not take place toward the very end of that period of forty days, since the disciples were all back in Jerusalem when Jesus ascended according to Acts 1:4-11. In Matthew’s account of the resurrection, Jesus told the women to tell the disciples to go to Galilee, and Jesus would appear to them there, and He did so (Matthew 28:10, 16); perhaps this is why the disciples decided to return to Galilee for a moment.

While Luke made it known how Jesus appeared to the disciples over that forty-day period and spoke with them regarding the Kingdom in Acts 1:3, it would not seem His appearances took up even the majority of that time. The disciples had been with Jesus intensively over three years; He had died and now He was raised from the dead; He had commissioned them, but the day of Pentecost and all it would make known had not yet arrived (cf. Acts 2:1-41). The disciples dwelt in the in-between time without fully understanding what was about to happen, or that it was even an in-between time. We can therefore understand why the disciples might have felt a bit aimless during this period. It would be natural, especially for someone as generally impetuous as Simon Peter, to want to go and do something. He was a fisherman; fishing is what he knew. He very likely also had financial imperatives driving his behavior: the disciples were not wealthy, and he and his family needed to eat. The sons of Zebedee were also fishermen (cf. Mark 1:19-20), and so it makes sense why they would go fish with him. The rest of the disciples might have joined them out of a sense of solidarity and also to give them all something to do.

They fished all night and caught nothing (John 21:3), which did not augur well for them. Very early in the morning, Jesus stood on the beach; it was not immediately apparent to the disciples it was Jesus (John 21:4). He asked them if they had caught any fish, and they responded they had not; He told them to cast their nets on the right side of their boats to find some (John 21:5-6a). When they did so, they could not bring the net back in on account of the number of fish present (John 21:6b).

The “disciple whom Jesus loved,” be it John ben Zebedee or a different John as the Evangelist, somehow discerned who had been speaking with them, and told Peter it was the Lord (John 21:7a). When Peter heard this, he immediately accepted it; he put on his outer garment, since he had stripped down for work, jumped into the sea, and ostensibly swam to Jesus (John 21:7b). The rest of the disciples sailed the final one hundred yards with the boat and the net full of fish (John 21:8).

When they arrived on shore, they saw Jesus had already prepared a charcoal fire with a fish on it and some bread (John 21:9). Jesus asked them to bring some of the fish they had caught; Peter brought the net to shore (John 21:10-11a). There were 153 large fish, and yet the net was not torn (John 21:11b; the precision of the count need not be an invitation to gematria or anything of the sort, but likely remained a detail which so suitably impressed our Evangelist as to remember and record so many years later). Jesus invited the disciples to have breakfast with Him; the whole meal was enjoyed with what was likely an awkward silence, for none of them asked Jesus who he was, since they knew He was the Lord, but He also did not seem to do much speaking with them at this moment (John 21:12-13). John the Evangelist commented regarding how this was the third time Jesus was revealed to His disciples after His resurrection (John 21:14; John seems to have excluded the appearance to Mary Magdalene in John 20:11-18).

There would have been much for the disciples to think about during this breakfast. Perhaps some of them remembered how this had all happened before. While this might be the first time we have a story regarding fishing in the Gospel of John (and one of only a few stories set in Galilee), it was not the first time the disciples had experienced something like this with Jesus. According to Luke in Luke 5:1-11, there had been another futile night of fishing which Peter and the sons of Zebedee had suffered. Jesus had asked them to use one of their boats so He could better address the crowds. Afterward He told them to go out and lower their nets for a catch; Peter at first protested, but then did as he was told. On that day they also had caught so many fish the nets were about to tear, and they all were astounded at how much fish they caught. Peter recognized what had happened and what it meant regarding Jesus; he had fallen before Jesus’ knees and told Him to depart since he, Peter, was a sinful man.

This had been the moment Jesus had called Peter and the sons of Zebedee. A lot had happened in the intervening few years. But Peter now had more reasons to prove reflective: he was again before a charcoal fire. We all know the power of smell to evoke memories; it would not at all be surprising for Peter to smell the charcoal and be immediately brought back to that fateful night not long before in Annas’ courtyard and the events which took place therein (cf. John 18:15-27).

Or maybe Peter did not want to remember those moments at all. Yet it would be addressed. After breakfast, Jesus would ask Peter three times if he loved Him. Three times Peter would respond how Jesus knew he loved Him. Jesus would then tell him to feed His lambs, shepherd His sheep, and feed His sheep (John 21:15-17). Jesus then prophesied how Peter as a young man would go wherever he wanted, but when he would grow old, he would stretch out his hands, and others would tie him up and take him to where he did not want to go; John the Evangelist provided the appropriate commentary, associating this prophecy with the death by which Peter would die (John 21:18-19a). Jesus then told Peter to follow Him (John 21:19b).

Some want to make much of the distinction in Greek verbs between the love Jesus asked about (Greek agapao), and the love with which Peter would respond (Greek phileo). It may feel theologically satisfying to do so, as if Peter was only willing to go so far in his friendly love with Jesus, and shrunk from a more self-sacrificing love; yet it would not be wise to do so, for our Evangelist has already displayed the habit of using these two terms interchangeably (cf. John 3:35, 5:20; 11:3, 11:5; 13:34, 15:19). Perhaps Peter did not quite understand what was going on at first; but he certainly did so by the third question, at which point he was quite grieved (John 21:17). As Peter had denied Jesus three times, so Jesus asked Peter thrice regarding his love for Him.

We could rightly understand what Jesus was doing after breakfast as “restoring” Peter, although we should note how Jesus has already appeared to Peter before, Peter never seemed to be alienated from his fellow disciples, and Peter had just shown his enthusiasm for being with Jesus by jumping into the sea in John 21:7. We can also rightly understand Jesus as commissioning Peter. While some later religious organizations have perhaps made too much of Peter, believing he was given a level of authority above and beyond all the other apostles, we should also not entirely dismiss him, either. As it was throughout the days of Jesus’ ministry, so now after His resurrection Peter will be the one to stand up and be the spokesman for the group (cf. Acts 1:12-26). It will be Peter who will stand up and deliver the first sermon on Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41). It will be Peter who would truly be seen as the “first among equals,” a “pillar” of the church (cf. Acts 1:12-12:19, Galatians 2:6-9). Peter would serve as an elder in his own right according to 1 Peter 5:1-4, and Jesus manifestly commissioned him to do the work of shepherding and providing for Jesus’ “lambs” and “sheep,” His later followers (John 21:15-17). Jesus’ specific commissioning of Peter at this moment should not automatically be interpreted as exclusive, as if the other eleven were not likewise commissioned, or to assume John the Evangelist was thus demonstrating why Peter was elevated above others. Instead, we do better to see this as Jesus’ gentle restoration and commissioning of Peter: Jesus had already forgiven Peter, and Jesus knew Peter was repentant. The weaknesses Peter displayed that fateful night were inextricably tied up with the characteristics which would also prove to be Peter’s strengths. To this end Jesus commissioned Peter to direct his energies appropriately for His purposes in His Kingdom, and Peter would not prove disobedient to the Lord in these matters. The book of Acts testifies to the many things Peter would suffer for Jesus (cf. Acts 4:1-5:17-42, 12:1-19).

John also bore witness to what Jesus had said regarding Peter’s martyrdom. Such is the only New Testament witness to what tradition has affirmed. It would make the most sense to believe Peter’s martyrdom had already taken place by the time John wrote his testimony about it. The second century apocryphal Acts of Peter told the story tradition has held to ever since regarding how Peter died: Peter was planning on fleeing Rome but saw an apparition of Jesus who asked him, quo vadis? (where are you going?). Peter thus stayed in Rome and accepted his fate; he was condemned to be crucified. Since he could not bear to die the exact same way as his Lord did, he requested to be crucified upside down, and thus he suffered and bore witness to Jesus. While the Acts of Peter is not inspired, and many of its earlier stories seem fantastic and a bit challenging for us to accept, the story of how Peter suffered and died certainly sounds a lot like what we would expect from Simon Peter.

But that would be something Peter would experience likely ca. 64-65, over 30 years after eating breakfast with the Risen Lord along the Sea of Tiberias. On that morning, Peter no doubt understood the import of what Jesus was prophesying regarding him, but he certainly did not like that level of attention. In response, Peter asked Jesus about the “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the same one whom he indicated to ask Jesus about His betrayer at the final supper, regarding what he should do (John 21:20-21; cf. John 13:21-30). Jesus responded: if Jesus willed for him to remain until Jesus returned, what would that mean for Peter? Peter should follow Jesus (John 21:22).

Whenever we feel called out or pointed out, we have the natural tendency to want to shift the focus to others; therefore, we can understand Peter’s response that morning. We would likely have a similar response. To this end we do well to deeply consider Jesus’ response: do not worry regarding the burdens and path of others, but determine instead to follow Jesus no matter what. As Jesus well instructed in the Parable of the Talents, disciples are different, and each is called to prove faithful in terms of what they have been given (cf. Matthew 24:15-30). John the Evangelist would no doubt himself encounter various trials and tribulations as he followed the Lord Jesus, even though he would die a natural death according to tradition. Peter was called to suffer for the Lord Jesus in different ways. We must resist the temptation to make our lives in following Jesus a matter of competition or comparison with fellow Christians. So what if the Lord has called other disciples to experience different ways of living? It is for them to follow the Lord Jesus and for us to follow the Lord Jesus no matter what may come.

John has retold this story, at least in part, to offer some clarifications of misunderstandings which took place. Some had heard about what Jesus had spoken regarding John and concluded John would not die until the Lord Jesus returned; John emphasized how Jesus was speaking in a hypothetical, an if statement, and the inference they had drawn was unwarranted (John 21:23). The Evangelist then identified himself as this disciple whom Jesus loved (John 21:24). He concluded his Gospel with a statement somewhat like John 20:30, presuming the world could not contain all the books which could be written if they recorded all the many other things Jesus did (John 21:25).

We can perceive the care and concern John the Evangelist had for those who had heard his witness as he concluded his testimony. Many date his Gospel to the period between 75-90, which would mean he was likely at least in his sixties when he wrote it all down. He did not want anyone to despair in their hope when he died, presuming the Lord had proven unfaithful, or would otherwise be given reason to doubt the validity of his testimony. John the Evangelist would go the way of all flesh, and Jesus did not prove unfaithful to him; Jesus had never actually promised John would still be alive when Jesus returned, but only used that as a hypothetical in contrast to the result for which Peter was seemingly digging.

In this way John the Evangelist brought his testimony regarding his witness and experience of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ, the Son of God, to an end. Jesus loved him, and he loved Jesus, and we should prove thankful for his testimony. May we accept it as the truth and believe in Jesus, and find eternal life in His name!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post It Is the Lord! appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Considering the Psalms

And be not drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the Spirit; speaking one to another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord (Ephesians 5:18-19).

In the middle of our Bibles we have the song book given by God to His people: the Psalms. The Psalms have encouraged and transformed Israelites and Christians for generations, giving voice to the deepest feelings and yearnings of God’s people, allowing them to convey their praise, their laments, and their thanksgivings before God.

Until the eighteenth century the songbook of Christianity was heavily dependent on the Psalms across confessional lines. It has only been in the past three hundred years, and particularly among Evangelical groups and even in churches of Christ, that hymnody has almost entirely replaced psalmody. Some psalms have been put to effective tunes and remain relevant in churches (Psalms 23 and 148 in particular); many hymns feature themes, illustrations, and even some verses from the psalms. Nevertheless, in general, the Psalms have been lost as a fundamental source of song, prayer, and meditation by the people of God as they had been for generations in the past.

This loss is tragic; if the matter involved the nature or identification of the church, a hot button moral issue, etc., preachers, teachers, elders, and “brotherhood publications” would be all over it with a cry for a need to “restore the ancient order.” In every other part of our “liturgy” we have been careful to root all we do in the Word of God, using Biblical commands, examples, and inferences, and in every way attempt to stay closely aligned with the text; after all, that is why we do not use instruments along with the singing (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Yet the Psalms remain sidelined, no longer the primary fount of inspiration for song, left as an ancient relic with the apparent smell of denominationalism (God forbid that the denominations feature part of God’s Word prominently in their song and prayer!).

There are many great hymns that have been written over the past two millennia; this is not a call to abandon hymnody. But we cannot seriously claim to seek to restore the ancient order, to seek to restore the Bible to its proper place in our lives, and yet not allow the Psalms to saturate, dictate, and give expression to our song and prayer lives as they did for generations of Israelites, for Jesus, the Apostles, early Christians, and Christians for 1700 years. The time is long past to restore the Psalms in Christian song, prayer, meditation, and service.

Name and Authorship

“Psalms” derives from the Greek word psalmos, originally meaning the twanging of an instrument but taking on the meaning of “a song.” Such is the name given to the Psalms in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament; it translates Hebrew mizmor, “song,” a term frequently used to introduce psalms (e.g. Psalm 3:1). Yet the Hebrew name for the Psalms is tehillim, “praise,” exemplifying the ultimate purpose of the psalms, to give praise to God for who He is, what He has done, how He sustains His creation, and what He has promised to do.

Psalms are most frequently associated with David, king of Israel, to whom 73 psalms are attributed (cf. 1 Samuel 16:16-23, 2 Samuel 23:1). Other authors of psalms include the Sons of Korah, who wrote 11 psalms (cf. Numbers 16), Asaph, who wrote 12 psalms (cf. 1 Chronicles 16:17; 12 psalms), and Solomon, Moses, Heman the Ezrahite, and Ethan the Ezrahite, who each wrote one psalm. Many are not specifically attributed to any particular author; some have speculated that many of these “anonymous” psalms, while often independent works, maintain a continuity of theme with the previous psalm with an attributed author.

Moses lived around 1450 BCE; the persons named as other psalm authors lived during the United Monarchy around 1000-900 BCE. Some psalms speak as being written in Babylonian exile (ca. 580 BCE; Psalm 137). While a large number of the Psalms were most likely written by 900 BCE, the collection of Psalms in the form we have it today was established between 500 and 200 BCE, most likely in the 5th or 4th centuries BCE (499-300 BCE).

The Text

The base text used to translate the Psalms in most English Bibles comes from Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), derived from the Masoretic Hebrew text (MT) preserved in the Leningrad Codex (1008 CE).

The MT of Psalms has accrued many errors in transmission, as is consistent with Hebrew poetry, and many variants have been found in translations in other languages. Therefore English translations will frequently appeal to other textual authorities to explain textual variants, believing that some translations are more faithfully preserving the original Hebrew (called the Vorlage, the original text upon which the translation is made) than the MT.

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) more texts and fragments were found of the Psalms than any other book (30+ copies and fragments of 115 psalms). 4QPs preserves Books 1 and 2 of the Psalms in close to canonical order. 11QPs preserves another 39 psalms of Books 4 and 5 but in a very different order than the canonical order. Psalms beyond the canonical collection were found as well. Many newer translations take DSS variants into account.

The Septuagint (LXX) is the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The LXX of Psalms was most likely translated in the third or early second century BCE. The LXX includes the apocryphal Psalm 151. MT/English Psalms 9 and 10 were rightly seen by the Septuagint translators as one psalm; the translator divided MT/English Psalm 147 into two in order to reach 150 psalms. This is why many references for Psalms 10-147 will provide the reference to the numbering of the Psalm in MT/English and Greek/Latin [since Jerome in the Latin Vulgate kept the LXX numbering system; e.g. Psalm 51 (Psalm 50 LXX)]. The many variations between the LXX and the MT led later Jews to “re-translate” the Hebrew into Greek to provide a more harmonized text: Aquila (2nd century CE), Symmachus (late 2nd century CE), and Theodotion (ca. 150 CE).

The Peshitta is the Syriac translation of the Old Testament, most likely translated from the Hebrew in the second century CE.

In Latin the Vetus Latina (“Old Latin”, or OL) is an important witness to the Psalms; translated from the LXX, it would become the foundation for Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate into Latin from Hebrew in the late fourth century CE.

The Aramaic Targum of Psalms, while not completed until much later, most likely contains Second Temple period interpretations of psalms and is often cited as a witness to textual variants.

Inspiration of the Psalms

Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness. That the man of God may be complete, furnished completely unto every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

The authors of the New Testament never doubted the inspiration of the Psalms. Jesus affirmed that David said Psalm 110:1 in the Holy Spirit (Mark 12:35-37); Peter declares the same regarding Psalms 2:1, 69:25, 109:8 (Acts 1:16, 20, 4:25). On many other occasions the Apostles will quote David as the author of Psalms authoritatively (e.g. Acts 2:25, 34, Romans 4:6-8).

Nevertheless, the Psalms contain some difficult statements that cannot easily be reconciled with what we know as good theology in the rest of Scripture. The idea that YHWH would be asleep and would miss things taking place, as seen in Psalm 44:23, is at variance with Isaiah 40:28; Psalm 51:5 is at variance with Jesus’ portrayal of children in Matthew 18:1-5.

We do well to keep in mind that the Psalms are poetry and they give voice to the people of God to express their deepest feelings, needs, and desires before God. There are many important consequences to this truth:

1. While the psalm’s attribution may provide some understanding in meaning, we must resist the temptation to understand the psalm entirely in terms of its author. The author is giving voice to themes, ideas, and feelings beyond himself.

2. The psalm may involve statements that are in reality and fact inaccurate but true to a person’s feeling at the time. The author is giving voice to emotion, feeling, and deep things; such defy rational thought and refuse the strictures of rational thinking. By inspiration the Psalter gives voice to feelings that are not factually true yet exist in response to given circumstances (as in Psalms 44 and 51 above).

3. Psalms frequently feature thematic shifts and upheavals, assisting the petitioner/singer to proceed from one place or emotional state to a very different place (e.g. from despair to confidence in God, Psalms 13, 73). Psalms must be understood first in their entirety, and occasionally even in sequence. We may find ourselves doing grave disservice to Scripture if we take out certain selections of a psalm or psalms and use them as proof-texts for some other purpose that may be antithetical to the psalm’s purpose (contra 2 Timothy 2:15).

In truth these are not really “problems” with Psalms; in its design such poetry as the Psalms intend to give voice to things we cannot otherwise describe. Athanasius spoke of the psalms as comprehending and teaching the emotions of the soul, enabling us to possess the image that we can derive from their words. They are a form of “verbal iconography,” describing God in ways that we can understand but not rationally explain in prose; in a sense they are a form of incarnation, a means by which God comes down to be understood at our level in poetry and metaphor. The Psalms are often brutal but they are always real; they speak to the real condition of mankind, the real cry of the soul, and above all, the reality of YHWH, God of Israel, the Creator God, His love and mercy for His people, who enables all things to be and for whose praise the Psalms all exist.

Thus the Psalms are inspired to give the people of God a voice to express feelings and longings which cannot be expressed in any other way than in poetry and metaphor. As poetry the Psalms can help us understand, in a figure, who God is, who we are, and what God is trying to do; yet, as poetry, we must never use the Psalms in contrast or contradiction to other Scripture that may speak in more literal or concrete ways about the truth of God or our condition.

Another matter of inspiration involves what to do regarding significant variants in the Septuagint (LXX) that have bearing on the Christological interpretation of a psalm (e.g. MT “they are at my hands and feet” vs. LXX “they pierced my hands and feet,” Psalm 22:16). Perhaps it is a matter in which the LXX preserves the text more faithfully than the MT; even if it is a variant introduced in the LXX, it would pre-date Jesus, and may have been made a part of His purpose to fulfill all of what the Psalms said of Him (Luke 24:44). We continue to believe in the inspiration of the author and what was written on the original manuscript (in whatever later copies in whatever language such may be best preserved), yet also must give room for God’s providential working among His people.

Form

We do well to remember that the Psalms are a song and prayer book and their form fits that function. Psalms tend to have a logical progression within them; we will explore that progression as we investigate individual psalms.

Most psalms begin with a superscription, identifying the psalm’s author, and perhaps some information about the situation in or purpose for which the psalm was written. In our Bibles the superscription will also include statements like “to the choirmaster,” or “for the chief musician”‘; in light of Habakkuk 3:19, it seems best to believe this particular direction actually belongs to the previous psalm.

The Psalms are filled with technical directives which we no longer fully understand. Within the text itself selah will be found frequently; it may be a direction for a musical interlude on strings. Most terms are found in the superscription: sheminith, shiggaion, muth-labben, miktam, maskil, Jeduthun, alamoth, malahath (or malahath leannoth), shuhan eduth, gittith; we do not know what they mean. Sometimes it seems that psalms are set to certain tunes named “the doe of the dawn,” “lilies,” “dove on far-off terebinths,” and “do not destroy.”

Hebrew poetry is marked by parallelism; in the Psalms the parallelism can be semantic, syntactic, or accentual. Some have found development of parallelism in Psalms over time from incremental repetition toward interlinear parallelism. The meaning of each parallel verse is focused most frequently in the second verset. The Psalms maintain their great power in no small part because their poetic form can be thus replicated in translation.

Some psalms (e.g. Psalms 9-10, 119, Lamentations 1-4) are acrostic, featuring lines or sections beginning with each letter of the Hebrew alphabet in turn. In some each verset or verse begins with a successive letter of the alphabet; in others, every other line; in Psalm 119, each eight-verse section begins every verse with the same letter of the alphabet, and continues successively with each set of eight (e.g. Psalm 119:1-8 all begin with aleph; vv. 9-16 with bet, etc.).

Organization

To the casual reader the Psalms seem to have little discernible order. Psalms is internally divided into five “books”: Book 1 (Psalms 1-41), Book 2 (Psalms 42-72), Book 3 (Psalms 73-89), Book 4 (Psalms 90-106), and Book 5 (Psalms 107-150). The fivefold collection of books is most likely intentional: as Moses gave Israel the five books of Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy), so there are five books of praise. Each book ends with a doxology, or praise, to God, even if inappropriate for the psalm (Psalms 41:13, 72:18-19, 89:52, 106:48). Psalm 72:20 gives the impression that Book 2, or perhaps Books 1 and 2 together, were once an independent compilation of Psalms. Some have seen various forms of organization in the books: Books 1-3 as the king in prayer, Book 4 as Israel looking back to its heritage after the end of kingship (and perhaps with Book 5 as an answer to Psalm 89), and Book 5 as proclaiming the overcoming the exile, for example.

Many have noted how Psalms 1-2 and 146-150 frame the whole collection of psalms: Psalm 1 affirms the value of wisdom, warning the believer away from the idea that religious behavior can be separated from ethics; Psalm 2 affirms the king and his role; Psalms 146-150 conclude the book with shouts and declarations of praise to YHWH. Internally some organization is by author: Psalms 3-41, 51-72 are of David; Psalms 42-49 are of the sons of Korah; Psalms 72-83 are of Asaph; Psalms 120-134 are “psalms of ascent”. At other times psalms are perhaps ordered for effect (e.g. Psalms 108 and 110, of God’s victory, bracketing Psalm 109 of lament).

Most believe there is some sort of “theological intentionality” in the order of the Psalms however well we are able to discern it. Some of the arrangement may exist to give greater depth to individual psalms than would otherwise be ascertained.

Categorizing the Psalms

And [David] appointed certain of the Levites to minister before the ark of YHWH, and to celebrate and to thank and praise YHWH, the God of Israel (1 Chronicles 16:4).

The Chronicler affirms the notion of considering the Psalms in terms of their ultimate function and thus in categories. All the psalms can be understood ultimately in terms of celebrating (that is, making known or invoking), thanking, or praising YHWH. Yet how those psalms get to the point of making YHWH known, thanking Him, and/or praising Him can differ widely. There are many ways we can categorize the Psalms; let us consider a few general themes.

Psalms of praise are designed to glorify God, magnify His character, and express faith in Him (Psalms 8, 9, 23, 29, 33, 45, 47, 62, 67, 84, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 111, 112, 113, 114, 117, 125, 134, 135, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150).

Thanksgiving psalms thank God for all the great things He has done (Psalm 18 (cf. 2 Samuel 22), Psalms 30, 34, 40, 52, 56, 65, 66, 75, 92, 107, 116, 118, 124, 136, 138).

Psalms of lament express great sorrow on account of sin, betrayal, adversity, and destruction, both of the petitioner and done to the petitioner, and request for God to assist (Psalms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 17, 22, 25, 28, 31, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 51, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 69, 70, 71, 74, 77, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 94, 102, 108, 109, 120, 121, 123, 126, 130, 137, 140, 141, 142, 143).

Messianic psalms speak of the coming Messiah and reign (Psalms 2, 16, 22, 45, 69, 110). Royal psalms are related, praising the king and his lineage, but are not necessarily Messianic in function (Psalms 18, 20, 21, 72, 89, 101, 132).

Wisdom or Instructional psalms use song as a medium for instructing in God’s torah or wisdom (Psalms 1, 4, 11, 15, 19, 24, 26, 27, 32, 34, 37, 49, 50, 53, 73, 91, 119, 127, 128, 131, 133, 139).

Some psalms mirror the messages of the prophets, known as prophetic psalms (Psalms 81, 82, 115).

Many psalms recount Israel’s history for various reasons (Psalms 44, 68, 78, 105, 106).

Other psalms ask to bring down condemnation or difficulty upon enemies, often called imprecatory psalms (Psalms 35, 58, 83, 129).

Other psalms include celebrations of Zion (Psalms 46, 48, 76, 84, 87, 122), the hallel set of psalms (Psalms 113-118; likely what Jesus sang after the Last Supper in Matthew 26:30), and the “songs of ascents” sung by pilgrims heading to Jerusalem (Psalms 120-134).

We do well to remember that whatever scheme of categorization we use is for our benefit in understanding, is not the way God organized the Psalms, and is no substitute for deeper study and appreciation of the individuality of each psalm.

Exploring the Purposes of the Psalms

The Psalms are given “to make known, to thank, and to praise YHWH the God of Israel” (1 Chronicles 16:4). Yet how the psalms are used to do so varied tremendously, and to different ends, at different times and in different places; few parts of the Bible have proven as flexible for multiple purposes in different times, places, and contexts as the Psalms.

As in many other ancient Near Eastern cultures, the “original context” for a good number of the Psalms surrounds the Tabernacle and Temple service of offerings, referred to in scholarly literature as the “cultus” or “cult.” In the Psalms this service centers in the Temple on Mount Zion in Jerusalem and its regular service. David, who is famous in Scripture for psalm writing and whose life events provide the backdrop for many psalms (1 Samuel 16:16-23, 2 Samuel 23:1, Psalm 51:1), established this service for Asaph, Heman, Jeduthun, and others among the Levites to do according to 1 Chronicles 16:4-41, 25:1-31, even before the Temple was built. Such is illustrated in 2 Chronicles 29:25-30 in Hezekiah’s restoration of the Temple service: the Levites would sing the psalms of David and Asaph while appropriate instruments were played, all during the offering of sacrifices. Therefore we do well to first consider whether a psalm has reference to the Temple cult: how might the psalm be used in the Temple service? Would it give voice to an individual worshiper or does it give voice for the collective of Israel? What does the psalm have to say about YHWH, His relationship to the creation, specifically to Jerusalem/Zion, and to His people Israel? How would the use of the psalm in the Temple cult influence its understanding and impact the lives of the Levites who sang them and the worshipers on whose behalf they were sung?

Yet not all Psalms have the Temple in mind; some seem to offer a critique of it (e.g. Psalms 40, 50). Psalm 137 serves as an “anti-psalm,” a song about how the Israelites cannot sing YHWH’s song in a foreign land, their land taken, their Temple desolate. Some psalms were written in light of these circumstances; many others were re-interpreted and understood differently in light of them. Royal psalms were either democratized or seen as Messianic in hope. Psalms would be used to explain situations or contexts beyond their original purpose; consider 1 Maccabees 4:23-25 and its reappropriation of Psalm 136:1:

Then Judas returned to plunder the camp, and they seized a great amount of gold and silver, and cloth dyed blue and sea purple, and great riches. On their return they sang hymns and praises to Heaven–“For he is good, for his mercy endures forever.” Thus Israel had a great deliverance that day (NRSVA).

Likewise, God’s presence with/for Israel is seen as prominently in God’s torah, instruction or law, as it had been seen in the First Temple. Emphasis on torah is not inherently antithetical to emphasis on the Temple, and even early psalms proclaimed both. Nevertheless, during the exilic and Second Temple periods great emphasis was placed on the importance and value of God’s torah and how it sustains and empowers the Israelites in righteousness (as can be seen in Psalms 19, 119). The rise and centrality of the synagogue in local communities of Jews contributed to this emphasis; psalms were no doubt sung by the congregation in the synagogue, for there is evidence that by 150 BCE they were sung in Greek translation in Alexandrian synagogues. We must give consideration, therefore, to how the psalms were understood in reference to Second Temple Judaism. If the psalm has clear reference to the Temple cult, how would its understanding and purpose shift during the Second Temple period? What can be gained from psalms grappling with God’s faithfulness and promises in light of the destruction of Jerusalem, exile, and the seeming fulfillment but not full realization of YHWH’s promise of restoration?

In Luke 24:44 Jesus proclaimed that all things written of Him in the psalms were fulfilled, and ever since, Christians have diligently sought to understand how the psalms point to Jesus and His work. We would be remiss if we did not consider the Christological implications of the psalms: how does the psalm point to Jesus? Does the psalm’s original context highlight or bring into stark relief its Christological fulfillment? How do the variations between the Masoretic Hebrew and the Greek Septuagint influence the Christological aspect of the psalm?

Not for nothing do the Apostles continually speak of God’s new covenant people in Christ in terms of God’s covenant people in physical Israel as the ultimate expression of God’s purposes (Ephesians 3:10-11). Christians are the new Israel of God (Romans 2:25-29, 9:30-33, Galatians 6:16, Philippians 3:3); individually and collectively they are the Temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:14-16, 6:18-20, Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Peter 2:3-8); they are God’s priests and sacrifices, His elect people (Romans 12:1, 1 Peter 2:5, 9); their songs are as harps and their prayers as incense before God (Revelation 5:8). We should not be surprised, therefore, that Paul commands Christians to sing “psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs” (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). Many have wondered why Paul uses this particular triad and what distinctions may exist among the three, yet in the Septuagint we see psalms described as all three [e.g. Psalm 3:1 (psalmos, “psalm”), Psalm 53:1 LXX (Psalm 54:1, humnos, “hymn”), Psalm 4:1 (ode, “song”)]. The earliest Christians thus sang the psalms in light of how God was accomplishing His purposes in Christ and through them. Therefore we must consider the pneumatical/ecclesiological functions of each psalm and their place in Christianity: how could the psalm be reasonably sung and understood as Christians in the new covenant? How does the original context of the psalm connect and lead to its understanding in light of Christ and His Kingdom? How can this psalm help inform and strengthen our faith? How could we use this psalm in devotional contexts?

Forms of Interpretation

The Psalms have been subjected to all sorts of forms of interpretation, for good or ill.

As seen above the Second Temple Jews would often interpret the Psalms in terms of their own condition and situation. Such direct application can be fraught with dangers and difficulties if done without regard to original context and meaning; nevertheless, the Psalms often invite consideration and application to times and places quite remote from the original. God does not change; He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8). Who can say that consideration of certain psalms in certain life situations could not be a sign of God’s continual providence and care for His people?

Jesus’ declaration in Luke 24:44 and the New Testament inaugurated the Christological form of interpretation; Christians in the first few centuries after Jesus attempted to find all the ways in which the Psalms pointed to Jesus and rejected any understanding of the psalms that were not Christological. The New Testament rightly invites us to explore the Christological interpretation of psalms but not in violence against its original contextual purpose.

Most early and many medieval Christians advanced typological forms of interpretation, focusing on the “figural” interpretation; Augustine was its strong champion. Such allegorization has the appearance of beauty and wisdom but can too quickly lose its grounding in the original meaning and purpose of the psalm and should be avoided.

The past two hundred years have seen interpretive contests between historical Biblical criticism and criticism using the grammatico-historical method. Both approaches affirm the critical need to first understand the text in context; in so doing historical Biblical criticism is willing to vaunt history and modernist understanding of history to the detriment of the text as revealed while the grammatico-historical method attempts to make sense of the text in its context according to the language and what can be known of the context, always affirming the inspiration and integrity of the text. Historical Biblical criticism makes much of the literary-critical approach as well. A major flashpoint of argument involves the superscriptions of the Psalms, the legitimacy of which is denied by exegetes in the tradition of historical Biblical criticism but fully accepted by those using the grammatico-historical method. In order to get a foundation for understanding a psalm in context, the grammatico-historical method remains the most sound.

Modern exegetes have tended to focus on various forms of literary-critical/analytical criticisms. 1 Chronicles 16:4 seems to justify investigating the Psalms in terms of their forms, yet form criticism of the Psalms did not begin until Wilhelm de Wette in the early nineteenth century and was not pursued in earnest again until the twentieth. Form criticism of the Psalms has also led to exuberance for cult-functional interpretations, attempting to understand the Psalms purely in terms of their Temple function. The “re-discovery” of the form of Biblical poetry by Bishop Robert Lowth in the eighteenth century, and the more recent development of understanding of Hebrew poetry and parallelism instigated by James Kugel and clarified by Adele Berlin and Robert Alter, among others, has led to the popularity of rhetorical criticism of the Psalms. Any investigation of the Psalms now requires consideration of what sort of poetry is being used and to what end, the different images and illustrations, how they get their power, and to what they refer, and investigation into what sorts of literary devices are in play. Rhetorical criticism is a great tool but cannot be an end unto itself. Consideration of the possible original context and purpose of a psalm in light of its form and through literary analysis has its value; literary criticism of the Psalms as a whole, however, puts too much confidence in what the interpreter can see in the text, and often tells you more about the interpreter than the text itself. The evidence of cultic use of the Psalms in 1 and 2 Chronicles commends some sort of cult-functional understanding of psalms; nevertheless, not all psalms were designed for that use.

Canonical criticism of the Psalms has been re-affirmed among more “conservative” exegetes in light of the liberalized interpretations brought forth over the past 200 years, attempting to make sense of the Psalms in their current, canonized form, especially the present order of the Psalms, the fruit of which is seen above. There is benefit in canonical criticism, yet it too is not an end unto itself.

Our way forward will incorporate most of these approaches. To establish the psalm’s basic meaning we will use the grammatico-historical approach primarily with insights from literary-analytical criticism (including form and rhetorical criticism and the cult-functional approach). We will then consider the psalm’s meaning in Second Temple Judaism and early Christianity in light of canonical criticism and the Christological approach, and then consider its standing and value today so as to get to possible direct applications.

The Goal

What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a revelation, hath a tongue, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying (1 Corinthians 14:26, emphasis mine).

To this day the Psalms have a place in the life of the Christian and in the life of the church to build up each individual Christian and the collective Body of Christ. For good reason the Psalms have sustained the faith and strength of Christians for centuries. The Didascalia of the third century CE declares, “if you yearn for songs, you have the psalms.” Alcuin of the sixth century declares, “no mortal man can fully declare the virtue of the psalms.” To John Donne, the psalms are as the “manna of the church.” If we approach the Psalms with scalpels and attempt to dissect them and think we can come to a full understanding of them in that way we will be sorely disappointed; the Psalms will be left as dead and we will be impoverished. Our investigation into the Psalms must lead to edification: we should bring to bear all forms of interpretation and understanding that helps us understand their meaning, but the goal cannot be to just understand the Psalms as fossils of the past but to give them full life in the here and now.

From the day of their writing until now and to the final day the Psalms are to be sources of meditation, song, and prayer. They continually give the people of God a voice to express their deepest yearnings, concerns, and ultimately praise to YHWH, God of Israel, their Creator God.

Ethan R. Longhenry

Bibliography

Alter, Robert. The Book of Psalms: A Translation with Commentary. W.W. Norton & Company, 2007.

Gerstenberger, Erhard. Psalms Part I with an Introduction to Cultic Poetry [The Forms of the Old Testament Literature (FOTL) Volume XIV]. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1988.

Goldingay, John. Psalms for Everyone, Part 1: Psalms 1-72 (Old Testament for Everyone series). Westminster John Knox Press, 2013.

Goldingay, John. Psalms for Everyone, Part 2: Psalms 73-150 (Old Testament for Everyone series). Westminster John Knox Press, 2014.

Schmutzer, Andrew and Howard, David, editors. The Psalms: Language for All Seasons of the Soul. Moody Publishers, 2013.

Waltke, Bruce and Houston, James. The Psalms as Christian Worship: A Historical Commentary. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2010.

Wright, N.T. The Case for the Psalms: Why They Are Essential. HarperOne, 2013.

The post Considering the Psalms appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel as Good News

The story of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was called the euangelion, or “good news” (e.g. Romans 1:16). But how might it have been understood as good news?

The question which always ought to be asked about the prospect of “good news” is: good for whom? Those who lived in the Mediterranean world in the first century would have constantly heard the most recent “euangelion” proclaimed by the Roman Emperor, generally the “good news” of Roman victory in some recent conflict. The victory might have been “good news” for the Roman elite, but it would have hardly been understood as “good news” by those who had just suffered the brutality of the Roman army. Likewise, all would have been bombarded with various forms of propaganda expressing the “good news” of the Pax Romana, or the “Peace of Rome,” which of course was maintained at the end of the spears of the Roman army. Such “good news” might not have seemed so “good” to the many thousands who lived as slaves or Roman subjects highly burdened by oppressive taxation.

Therefore, we must confess how “good news” to some is not understood as “good news” to others. And the message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return was really not “good news” for everyone in the first century. The Gospel was not “good news” for Satan or the powers and principalities over this present darkness, since Jesus triumphed over them (Colossians 2:15). The Emperor would not have been amused: he claimed to be “Lord” and the “Son of God,” and if Jesus were truly the Lord and Christ, the Son of the living God, then Caesar assuredly was not (John 20:30-31, Acts 2:36). The Gospel was certainly not “good news” for the Jewish religious establishment, since Jesus foretold their humiliation and the destruction of all they held dear (cf. Matthew 23:1-24:37). Most of the wealthy and powerful would not have found the Gospel to be “good news,” since Jesus condemned the love of money and power and embodied love and humility instead (cf. Matthew 19:16-24, 20:25-28).

And yet, as the Apostle Paul would confess in 1 Corinthians 1:26, many other people perceived very good news in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return: in it they found love, belonging, acceptance, and liberation. The Gospel was eagerly received less by the educated, wealthy, and wise, and far more so by those degraded and dehumanized in Roman society: the poor, slaves, and women. Many of these, including sinners and tax collectors, had been attracted to Jesus during the days of His ministry (Matthew 9:10, Luke 15:2). Whereas the religious and social authorities did everything they could to remain separated from the masses, Jesus welcomed everyone to come and learn of Him.

Therefore, many thousands of people who had been considered and deemed less than human, or less than ideal, found acceptance in Christ. Jesus had lived like they did, and Christians regarded them all as having equal value in the sight of God, and acted like it (cf. Galatians 3:28, 6:9-10).

In that very way, the church became part of how Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return was understood as good news. The church at its best became the community of the people of God, and those who committed themselves to the Way and Life of Jesus shared what they had, provided for those in need, visited the sick and imprisoned, and did so without regard to class or social standing (e.g. Hebrews 13:1-19). People would hear the story of Jesus and would then see the transformation in life of those who had accepted its truth. Persecution and martyrdom would only add to the reputation of the Christians: whatever they believed about Jesus must have been very serious and important to them if they were willing to suffer and die for it, and in the process many others would hear and likewise become convicted.

It was not as if Christians had the best public relations in the first century and afterward. From almost the beginning false teachers arose and promoted distorted versions of the Gospel which appealed to various subgroups within the Roman Empire, whether the Judaized message of the Ebionites, Gnosticism for those enraptured with the prospect of secret knowledge, and the like. Scandalous rumors were spread about what Christians did in their assemblies: they were accused of cannibalism on account of the Lord’s Supper and for incestuous orgies because of joint participation in “love feasts” and identifying one another as “brothers” and “sisters.” Some early Christians would write apologies, or defenses, trying to explain the truth of what God accomplished in Jesus and how Christians live to explain to others, but these kinds of treatises probably worked more to encourage Christians than they would have been found persuasive to outsiders. The Christians resisted the rumors about them by living according to the Gospel: they continued to love one another, provide for those in need, and would bear witness to their commitment to Jesus even unto death. And despite all the salacious rumors, people would come to hear and accept the story of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return as the “good news” it was always intended to be.

Over time the Gospel would thus spread and many thousands would become Christians. Within and after the fourth century, Christianity would gain standing within the Roman Empire and would become its official religion. The good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return would be appropriated to serve the interests of the state and its elite for generations. In the Western world, people would be just expected to accept Jesus as Lord and serve the king and whatever religious and secular establishments existed in the land, and to understand how all of that worked together well.

And so various forms of theologies and doctrines were developed which claimed to be “good news,” but really were not. The marriage of convenience between church and state often meant many prickly aspects of the Gospel message were blunted or suppressed. Western theology began to make far more of the cross than the empty tomb, and theologians developed and later emphasized and prioritized the penal substitutionary atonement theory of Jesus’ death. In this framework, a wrathful God punishes His Son as opposed to people in the world; it is not terribly far off the mark to present this viewpoint as “God so hated the world He punished His Son,” and such did not really sound like “good news” whatsoever!

In recent years, the development of the marketplace of goods and ideas has tended to transform the way the Gospel was presented. The Gospel is often considered the “solution” to the “problems” mankind faces: a decision for Christ is marketed, promoted, and sold not unlike many other “lifestyle” products of the day. In our marketplace we can find marriages of convenience between the Gospel and the church with business and the cult of leadership; in this way, much of what you might hear from the pulpit or in small groups in churches sounds almost indistinguishable from what you might hear in the corporate boardroom. When there seem to be few qualms about the acquisition of goods and resources by the few at the detriment of the many, we have to wonder what has happened to the “good news.”

In our current predicament we might be tempted to think the Gospel just needs a good rebranding. Instead, we do well to consider what made the Gospel good news in the first century world, and then apply it to our current circumstances.

If the “good news” of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was not perceived as “good news” by the religious and social establishments of the first century, we should not expect our current religious and social establishments to really consider it “good news” either. In the first century, this meant rejection of the Gospel and the persecution of its adherents; today, it tends to look more like the appropriation of many of the themes of the Gospel to create a distorted Gospel, and the marginalization and persecution of anyone who would cry out regarding the points of variance between what Jesus was really and truly about and what those in positions of influence and power are trying to promote. The most hostile and vicious persecution will come from those who have convinced themselves they are God’s faithful people and are in the right: so it was in the first century, and so it is now.

If the “good news” of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth was primarily perceived as such by the marginalized and poor in the first century, and if we do not see the marginalized and poor of today hearing and heeding the message, we do well to wonder what has happened. James the Lord’s brother expected most Christians to be numbered among the poor (cf. James 2:5). If the marginalized and poor are not coming to faith in Jesus, in what ways are those who promote the Gospel failing them? Have churches become so enamored with middle class members and values as to prove hostile and uncomfortable for those who are among the marginalized and poor?

If the “goodness” of the “good news” was confirmed in the testimony of the transformed lives of the Christians who confessed Jesus as Lord in the first century, can people today see testimony to the lordship and power of Jesus in His disciples today? Wherever the church is generally living up to the message it proclaims, and people are loved and welcomed into the life God has provided in Jesus, care and provision are made for those in need and in distress, and Christians jointly participate in life in Christ, will not many see the difference in their lives and want to share in that life? Even if Christians and the church are everywhere maligned, if we are trusting in Jesus as Lord and are better displaying the fruit of the Spirit rather than the works of the flesh, will not our light shine, and many will want to share in Christ on account of it?

Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return is good news because God in Christ has liberated us from the power of sin and death. The Gospel is good news because God has done all He could in Christ to reconcile us to Himself and to share in His life now and forever. The Gospel is good news because God has given His people of His Spirit so they might grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ and manifest the fruit of the Spirit to a world awash in demonic wisdom and selfish endeavors. The Gospel is good news because in Christ God has overthrown the powers and ways of this world, and Christians are invited to jointly participate in His Kingdom to display to the world a very different way of relating and living.

At the same time, the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return is not good news at all for any and all who remain committed to the ways of the world in its corruption and decay. Therefore, we all do well to commit ourselves to the ways of God in Christ through the Spirit, and to resist the ways of this world in its futility. May our lives bear witness to our confidence in the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth as good news; may we embody that message well so others may see its goodness and share in its goodness; and may God give us strength and wisdom to hold fast to this testimony as good news if we encounter the hostility and persecution which comes from those forces for whom the Gospel is less than ideal. In all things may we believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of God, and have eternal life on account of the good news of all of what God has accomplished in and through Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel as Good News appeared first on de Verbo vitae.