Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 24

Fruit of the Spirit: Gentleness

The Apostle Paul addressed the imminent danger of apostasy among the Galatian Christians, firmly insisting they could not expect to find grace if they held to the Law of Moses (Galatians 1:1-5:16). But Paul did not want to neglect other principles, especially faithful living in Jesus; thus he condemned the works of the flesh and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul spoke of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

Love well defined the whole of the fruit of the Spirit. Joy and peace speak to a disposition which Christians ought to maintain; longsuffering/patience, kindness, goodness, and faithfulness well demonstrate an appropriate disposition. Likewise, Christians ought to be marked by gentleness, meekness, or mildness (Greek praotes).

The term “meek” is often used today with a negative connotation; it is often used of a person who is perhaps quiet and unassuming or a person who does not stand up for himself. This connotation is not present in the word as used in the Scriptures or as it was used in earlier times. Webster’s defines the term as follows:

1. Mild of temper; soft; gentle; not easily provoked or irritated; yielding; given to forbearance under injuries.
2. Appropriately, humble, in an evangelical sense; submissive to the divine will; not proud, self-sufficient or refractory; not peevish and apt to complain of divine dispensations.

We may see the reasons behind the choice of the term “gentleness” in many modern versions over the term “meekness,” lest any receive the wrong impression about what a Christian ought to be. A Christian is not to be a “pushover,” one who does not stand up for what he believes; he is to be gentle, a person who maintains control and grace even under significant duress. A gentle person need not be a doormat; the gentle person maintains strength under control.

Paul expected Christians to be thus gentle (Ephesians 4:1-2, Colossians 3:12, 1 Timothy 6:11, and Titus 3:2), especially when it proves necessary to correct a fellow Christian (1 Corinthians 4:21, 2 Timothy 2:25).

Paul insisted upon gentleness and meekness as as an attribute of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 10:1), the One whose life we ought to emulate (1 Corinthians 11:1). He considered Himself meek and lowly in heart (Matthew 11:29-30). His entire experience in His suffering and death displayed His gentleness and strength under control: at any point He could have summoned legions of angels to save Him and destroy those who would destroy Him, and yet He suffered as He did in order to fulfill what was written (Matthew 26:51-54). Even as He was about to be led away to be killed Jesus proved willing to heal the ear of the high priest’s servant (Luke 22:51). While on the cross Jesus asked the Father to forgive those who were killing Him and mocking Him, for they did not know what they were doing (Luke 23:34-37). Thus Jesus did not desire to see any lost or destroyed; He gave little thought to Himself and His own interests, and even while suffering incredible evil and pain sought what was best for others and did not respond with violence or vituperation but blessing and good.

Since Jesus is the Son of God, fully God as well as fully man, many consider His example to be a great ideal yet beyond what the rest of us can do. Yet Stephen, one of the earliest Christians, found himself in a similar predicament in Acts 7:2-60. He strongly indicted the Sanhedrin for what they had done; they sought to stone him to death. While they stoned him Stephen prayed that this sin would not be laid against them (Acts 7:60). Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit, and the fruit of the Spirit was thus manifest in him: he was able to demonstrate an extraordinary level of meekness and gentleness in seeking the salvation and best interest of those who were killing him. Jesus and Stephen proved meek, but who among us would consider them to have been doormats, pushovers, or soft?

Unfortunately, far too many have made much of the demonic, unspiritual wisdom of the world regarding assertiveness, aggression, and gentleness, and have tried to baptize it and commend it as part of the Christian faith. In many churches Christians are expected to project strength and deny weakness; whatever strengths are not displayed prominently are dismissed or denied. Many lauded the “fighting style” of preaching and evangelism and did not shy away from using the Devil’s tactics to seek to advance the cause of the Lord Jesus.

Such is why Christians must always keep the cross of Jesus foremost in their minds when they consider how they are to live so as to glorify God. There is no pride in or way to project strength upon one of the most barbarous and humiliating form of torture and execution devised by mankind. There can be no “flexing” or assertiveness while being nailed upon a cross. For this reason many of the opponents of Christianity have scoffed and derided the faith as rationalizing pusillanimity, softness, and weakness, a faith for the “losers” who could not overcome the “strong.” Yet for those being saved in Christ this is part of the “foolishness” and “weakness” of God which is greater than the “wisdom” or “strength” of the world: by displaying such strength under control, and showing love, care, and concern even while enduring horrendous evil, Jesus was glorified above every name (Philippians 2:5-11). Stephen obtained a crown of life not despite his desire for the forgiveness of those who were killing him, but partly because of it (Acts 7:53-60).

In Christ strength is not determined by the exercise of dominance in various rituals or in the expression of violence; in Christ these things are considered worldly folly and weakness (cf. Matthew 20:25-28). Strength under control is prized in Jesus: the recognition that one could exercise dominance or violence, but instead chooses to love, care, and bless (Matthew 5:38-48, Romans 12:9-21). If Christians derive their strength from God in Christ and maintain the cross of Jesus as their confidence, there is no need to project strength to hide worldly insecurities; we can be mild, gentle people, always seeking the good of others regardless of how they would treat us.

We should never expect to receive the world’s accolades for manifesting gentleness and meekness; quite the contrary, we should expect derision and mockery. The way of gentleness and meekness is the way of the cross; yet in suffering thus we share in Christ’s sufferings so that we can also share in Christ’s glory (Romans 8:17-18). May we prove meek and gentle like Jesus, suffering with Jesus, so that we can obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Fruit of the Spirit: Gentleness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Burden of Nineveh

He is probably not the first prophet who comes to mind; for far too many his name is barely known, more recited as part of the list of the books of the Bible than a prophet whose message is considered in its own right. Nahum of Elkosh carried the burden of the prophetic message against Nineveh and Assyria; when understood contextually, his message provides powerful validation of the work and character of YHWH and a humbling reminder regarding the fates of nations.

All we know of Nahum comes from the book of prophecy which bears his name. The town of Elkosh is not mentioned otherwise in the Bible; based on ancient commentary it is believed to have been situated in the northern part of Israel in Galilee. The book of Nahum does not explicitly provide a specific timeframe in which the burden was given; Nineveh would be destroyed in 612 BCE, and the destruction of Thebes in Egypt to which Nahum referred in Nahum 3:8-10 took place in 663, and so we believe he prophesied during this period. As part of Galilee Elkosh would have been conquered by the Assyrians in 732 and its inhabitants exiled by the time Nahum prophesied (2 Kings 15:29); it is most likely that Nahum had fled to Judah and prophesied from there against those who had overrun his native land.

Thus Nahum prophesies in Judah regarding the fate of Assyria during the days of Manasseh, Amon, and/or Josiah, kings of Judah; he almost certainly does so while Ashurbanipal still reigned over Assyria (668-631). Assyria had been a regional power since time immemorial, and now was at the height of its power: Ashurbanipal reigned over an empire which stretched from Egypt to the Caucasus Mountains, and Anatolia to the Persian Gulf. The ancient Near Eastern world had never seen a single nation prove as dominant over the rest in all of its history: the Neo-Assyrian Empire was the largest the world had ever seen, and Nineveh was the largest city in the world. It seemed that the gods of all the nations cowered before the might of Assur and his people; the boast of the Rabshakeh in Isaiah 36:18-20 had merit in the eyes of many during that time. Then, as now, the Assyrians were infamous for their brutality in war, and none had proven able to resist their power in the past century. Nineveh and Assur were filled with the treasures and the bounty of the ancient Near East; Ashurbanipal cultivated an image of cosmopolitan urbanity, compiling a great library and patronizing the gods and the arts. Nineveh in Nahum’s day was like Rome in the first century, London or Paris of the nineteenth century, or New York City and Washington, DC today: the center of political and economic power and civilization.

By this time the northern Kingdom of Israel had not existed as a going concern for at least sixty years; the Israelites had been scattered in other Assyrian domains and others now lived in its land. Judah, meanwhile, was still recovering from the Assyrian invasion of 701. The Biblical authors rightly emphasized how YHWH delivered Jerusalem from the hand of Sennacherib king of Assyria (cf. Isaiah 36:1-37:38); yet Isaiah rightly characterized the whole campaign as a disastrous calamity from which Judah barely escaped (Isaiah 1:1-9). Lachish, Azekah, and other major cities of Jerusalem had been laid waste; thousands had been slaughtered. Whereas Hezekiah, Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah reigned over Judah, the king of Assyria continued to consider them as his vassals; Manasseh unwisely participated in some kind of rebellion and again felt the wrath of Assyria (2 Chronicles 33:11-13). At this time Judah was a small, relatively insignificant kingdom situated right in the middle of a major arena of conflict between Assyria and Egypt; the people of the day would have not expected much of anything to come of it or of its god.

And yet Nahum was given the burden of Nineveh (Nahum 1:1). YHWH was a jealous God who would avenge Himself against His enemies with fire (Nahum 1:2). YHWH might be slow to anger, but He was great in power and would not clear the guilty (Nahum 1:3). YHWH might seem insignificant to the nations, but He maintained power over the creation: He marched in the storm, caused the sea and rivers to run dry, mountains trembled before Him, and the world and its people would be laid waste (Nahum 1:3-5). Even the king of Assyria could not stand before YHWH’s indignation or resist His anger (Nahum 1:6). Yet for His people YHWH is good, a stronghold in the day of trouble, and remembered those who take refuge in Him (Nahum 1:7). YHWH’s enemies will be overwhelmed with a flood and pursued into darkness, so why would they devise schemes against Him? He would make a full end of them as drunks consume alcohol and dry stubble in fire (Nahum 1:8-10).

From Nineveh had come out someone who plotted evil against YHWH (Nahum 1:11). YHWH recognized how the Assyrian army was powerful and numerous, but they would be destroyed (Nahum 1:12). YHWH also recognized how He had afflicted Judah His people, but would do so no more: He would break the yoke of Assyria from their necks (Nahum 1:12-13). YHWH’s decree had been established: Assyria would come to an end; its idols would be destroyed; their graves would be desecrated; Assyria was accursed (Nahum 1:14). On the mountains would appear the feet of those bringing good news and declaring peace: Judah should observe its festivals, for the Assyrian would not pass through anymore, having been cut off from the earth (Nahum 1:15).

Nahum’s message likely seemed hard to fathom when he proclaimed the burden, but its moment would come far sooner than any might have imagined. A herald would come and proclaim good news to Judah regarding the downfall of Assyria. Later other heralds would come and proclaim the good news to Judah of the downfall of other powers. Ultimately, heralds would come to God’s people and proclaim the reign of God in His Christ who died and was raised in power and the downfall of sin, death, and the powers and principalities which imprisoned them and all mankind. The world may not have thought much of the God of Israel and Judah, but He would make His name and power known. May we submit to the God of heaven and obtain life in Jesus His Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Burden of Nineveh appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

You Shall Be As God

And the serpent said unto the woman, “Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:4-5).

The first temptation set the stage for all temptation.

Most people are familiar with the Genesis author’s account of man’s fall from paradise: Eve was tempted by the serpent, who later is identified as Satan, and she partook of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, violating the one command God had given to Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:1-6; cf. Revelation 12:9). Much is made of many of the details of the story: the serpent’s original line of questioning; Eve seemingly adding an additional aspect beyond what God had commanded (to not even touch the fruit); the serpent adding one word to God’s command and thus changing everything (“you shall not surely die!”); the process by which Eve was seduced to eat the fruit by seeing it was good for food, a delight to the eyes, and desirable to make one wise, and the parallels with the ways of the world in 1 John 2:13-16; Adam’s presence yet silence, and his complicity by eating as well. These details are important and provide many lessons. Yet a core emphasis of the serpent is often passed over or neglected: the suggestion that God is holding out on Adam and Eve because if they ate they would “be as God” in knowing good from evil (Genesis 3:5). To this end Eve perceived the fruit was desirable to make one wise (Genesis 3:6): she was willing to countenance not only the challenge to God’s goodness and faithfulness but fell prey to a desire to be greater than their created station and to be as God.

Thus Adam and Eve were tempted by the serpent to exalt themselves beyond the way God had made them and to go beyond what God established was good for them to know and do. Yet the challenge and the temptation did not stop with Adam and Eve. How many among us have thought about going up to Adam and Eve in the resurrection and chiding them; after all, did they not have but one job? Why could they not handle that one command? Yet their story is told because it is also our story. If we had been Adam or Eve, we would have done the same thing, because we have done the same thing. We have been innocent. We have heard a command from God. We have listened to the Evil One ask questions about that command. We might well have recognized the command and even added a little bit more to it as a hedge to protect ourselves. The Evil One has given us reason to wonder if God is holding out on us, has minimized the consequences of our behavior, and has challenged us whether God is truly good, loving, or faithful. And the Evil One has often played on our conceit and suggested we could become more like God. And we have listened, and in our own ways we have partaken: we have fallen prey to the lust the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and/or the pride of life. Such is not an attempt to deny or minimize the historicity of Adam and Eve; it is a reminder that the Genesis author was motivated by more than just setting forth the historical record when telling the story.

As Christians we have been told that trying to be like God is a good thing: we should try to be holy like God is holy, right? Indeed, there are many ways in which we ought to become more like God and God is glorified in it. But all impulses humans have can be directed either for the good or in more base, corrupt ways.

David well confessed how God made humans a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor (Psalm 8:5). We can act with great nobility and truly exemplify what is good, right, and holy. Yet we are also easily unsatisfied with our condition and aspire for more. We can take our great capabilities and direct them toward domination, manipulation, and oppression in our attempt to be as God.

God made us with these capabilities because He made us in His image, intending to share in relational unity with Him and to exercise dominion over His creation (Genesis 1:26-28). Such great power comes with great responsibility. In our corruption, however, we are unsatisfied with our current condition. We want to know more and accomplish more. The “more” is not necessarily intended to glorify God; it is to glorify ourselves. We want greater control over how life begins, proceeds, and ends. We want more control over our environment. We do not want to countenance having to submit to any power greater than ourselves. We want to be as God.

The serpent’s statement was true as far as it went: when Adam and Eve partook of the fruit, they did become as God in knowing good and evil. But that knowledge was not good for them. It did not make them gods; it all too clearly proved their limitations and failures. So it goes when humans, in their presumption, would be as God. Our most acrimonious debates in the public square center on those aspects in which we have accrued power beyond that of our ancestors over life: in terms of fertility, conception, pregnancy, birth, and end of life issues. Our technological developments have been used to preserve life but have also been used to take more life than ever before. The very things we develop in order to make life easier and more comfortable also contain the seeds of devastation and destruction of all we seek to enjoy. We easily get frustrated with those ways in which we are less than God and thus seek to escape into the realm of fantasy and imagination in which we can transcend those limitations. We are tempted toward false modesty when faced with the consequences of our aspirations to be as God, for the wreckage of our havoc reinforces for us how we are very human indeed. Whenever we seek to be as God we are quickly reminded of how “human” we are.

As Christians we do well to pray with David for God to keep us back from presumptuous sins (Psalm 19:13). We ought to seek to be holy as God is holy, and to be conformed to the image of God’s Son (cf. Romans 8:29, 1 Peter 1:15-16): it must be underscored how we are to become as God in terms of love, grace, mercy, and especially humility, for God’s Son did not come to be served but to serve and give His life as a ransom for many (Matthew 20:25-28, John 13:1-35). We seek to become as how God treated us in how we treat Him and others; we must always and fully confess that we will never become God, and it has never been for us to be as God. God is God; we are His creation, and we should rejoice in our station, and glorify and exult our God as part of that creation. Whenever we try to become like God in our presumption, death, devastation, and despair follow in its wake. Whenever we try to become like God as He has revealed Himself in Christ, life, light, and healing has given hope and sustenance to mankind and the creation. Let us seek to become like God in Christ, and cease presuming to be as God, and obtain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post You Shall Be As God appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Media

They overran the highlands of modern-day northwest Iran and developed a mighty force which helped to destroy Assyria and maintained a strong influence on the ancient Near East. Their influence would remain for generations, yet their glory and legacy would be left to their conquerors: we have no written documentation from their own hands, and their story is told by others. Such was the ironic fate of Media and the Medes.

Media represented the territory nestled between the Zagros Mountains to the west and northwest, the Great Salt Desert (Dasht-e Kevir) to the east, Elam to the southwest, and Persia to the southeast, in the northwestern portion of modern day Iran. The meaning of the term “Media” or “Mede” in Old Iranian is not definitively known, but is most likely akin to “central, in the middle,” consistent with other Indo-European terms (cf. “median”). Herodotus, a Greek historian, claimed the Medes were originally known as Arians (Histories 7.62); in various Greek and Roman stories, the Medes took their name from Medea, wife of Jason of the Argonaut fame, or her son Medus, likely on account of the similarity of the names. Herodotus also recorded how the Medes really represented a collection of Iranian tribes: the Busae, the Paretaceni, the Struchates, the Arizanti, the Budii, and the Magi (ibid. 1.101).

According to archaeological evidence and the Assyrian chronicles, Iranian tribes moved into northwest Iran following the collapse of the Bronze Age civilizations in the Near East (ca. 1150-1050 BCE); they spoke Indo-European languages and were most likely people of the steppe. During this time the Middle Assyrian Empire, the Elamites, and the Babylonians had declined in power, allowing a more free migration of peoples. Media would be conquered and controlled by the Neo-Assyrian Empire for many centuries (ca. 911-625); the Assyrians would settle some of the exiled Israelites in the land of the Medes (2 Kings 17:6, 18:11). According to Herodotus, the Median tribes were brought under singular control by Deioces around 700; he and his son Phraortes would reign until 625 (ibid. 1.95-130). Other sources suggest the Medes only came together under the reign of the most capable and mighty Median ruler, Phraortes’ son Cyaxares. Under Cyaxares the Medes would conquer their Iranian neighbors, including the Persians; Cyaxares allied with Nabopolassar the Chaldean king of Babylon, and they fought against and defeated the Assyrians, eliminating the Assyrian Empire as a going concern (612-609, as prophesied in Nahum 1:1-3:19). Cyaxares would extend the Median Empire to include Armenia, areas of northern Mesopotamia, and parts of eastern Anatolia. Cyaxares died in 585 and his son Astyages reigned after him. Astyages would be overthrown in a revolt by his grandson Cyrus the Persian of Anshan in 550, establishing the Achaemenid Persian Empire and ending the Median Empire as a going concern.

The Persians may have militarily conquered the Medes, yet the Medes maintained significant pride of place and influence throughout the days of the Persian Empire and long afterward. It would seem that Cyrus left much of whatever infrastructure the Medes had developed in their empire, and maintained Median generals, nobles, and officials in his court and government. The Median capital of Ecbatana remained the summer residence of the royal court throughout the time of the Persian Empire (cf. Ezra 6:2). Thus, even though we have no other corroborating evidence to attest to the Darius the Mede who ruled Babylon after Belshazzar according to Daniel 5:31-6:28, we have no reason to doubt his existence or his heritage; Cyrus might well have appointed him to rule over Babylon on his behalf. The author of Esther spoke of the power of Persia and Media, the princes and princesses of Persia and Media, and the unalterable law of the Persians and the Medes in the days of Xerxes, well over fifty years after the demise of the Median Empire (Esther 1:3, 14, 18, 19; cf. Daniel 6:15). The Greeks, who maintained significant interaction with the Achaemenid Persian Empire, did not strongly distinguish between Medes and Persians; they considered becoming too “Iranian” with being “Medianized.” The Magi had always been the more “priestly” tribe among the Medians, upholding and promoting Zoroastrianism throughout the days of the Persian Empire; it is likely that the Greek term used for the Magi was later applied to any kind of priestly caste, for magic and magicians, and most famously to describe the wise men who came from the east to see Jesus (cf. Matthew 2:1-12). yet the association demonstrates another aspect of the pervasive influence of the Medes. Jewish people lived in Media in the days of the Second Temple; some Jewish people from Media were present in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost and heard of Jesus raised from the dead (Acts 2:9). The later Parthian and Sassanid Empires also highly prized the territory of Media and the heritage of the Medes.

Media and the Medes remain an astonishing phenomenon in the ancient Near Eastern world: a confederation of tribes which powerfully influenced the trajectory of history and shaped a major world empire, yet one which left very little evidence for itself in the written and archaeological records. While some have proven willing to cast doubt and skepticism regarding the Medes and their empire, we do better to trust the ancient sources that the Medes did establish a great empire, co-opted by the Persians, who proved willing to continue to uphold the integrity, value, and structure of Median society and make it their own.

To this end we should look very skeptically upon any endeavor which would try to disassociate the Medes from the Persians in terms of the empires envisioned by Daniel in Daniel 2:31-45, 7:1-28: the Babylonian and Median empires existed simultaneously, and neither the Jewish people nor the Greeks made significant distinctions between the Medes and the Persians (cf. Daniel 5:28). Thus Babylon was the gold head and the lion from Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and Daniel’s vision; Persia, or Medo-Persia if one is so inclined, was the silver chest and the bear; the latter two empires would thus be Macedonian and Roman. Thus the interpretation of the empires as Babylon, Media, Persia, and Macedonian is right out.

Media truly was in the middle of the events of the Near Eastern world in the middle of the first millennium BCE. We cannot fully understand how much the Medes influenced the Persian Empire and all successive empires after them, but we can appreciate their place in the history of the ancient Near Eastern world and their importance in Biblical history.

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

“Medes” (accessed 2021/05/23).

The post Media appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Fruit of the Spirit: Faithfulness

Defending the integrity of the Christian faith as the witness of what God accomplished through Jesus of Nazareth proved important to the Apostle Paul; most of his letter to the Galatian Christians sought to affirm the Gospel which they had been taught (Galatians 1:1-5:16). Yet witness to the faith in Christ must be lived as well as believed; thus Paul exhorted the Galatian Christians toward faithful living in Jesus in condemning the works of the flesh and manifesting the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul spoke of the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

Love well defined the whole of the fruit of the Spirit. Joy and peace speak to a disposition which Christians ought to maintain; longsuffering/patience, kindness, and goodness well demonstrate an appropriate disposition. Likewise, Christians ought to be marked by faithfulness.

“Faithfulness” translates the Greek word pistis, the word used throughout the New Testament to refer to “faith”; Thayer defined it as:

1) conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man’s relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
1a) relating to God
1a1) the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ
1b) relating to Christ
1b1) a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God
1c) the religious beliefs of Christians
1d) belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence)
whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same
2) fidelity, faithfulness
2a) the character of one who can be relied on

For far too long and for too many “faith” has been reduced to its first definition: conviction of truth. “Faith” is thus made out to be about whether one accepts a given premise to be true or not; in this perspective, someone who is “faithful” is someone who accepts as valid various premises upheld to be true.

Faith certainly demands conviction regarding the truth; the Hebrews author rightly understood faith as the assurance (Greek hupostasis, “substance,” a word that in its literal form denotes the idea of “standing under” or “setting under)” of things hoped for, a conviction (Greek elegchos, referring to evidence) of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1). Modern man has not done himself many favors by suggesting the primary means by which we ascertain truth is the scientific method, for most of what we believe cannot be thus proven. Instead, human beings live by “faith”: the human body is confined to the sense perceptions and the mental faculties; we only know with any certainty the things going on around us that we can see, taste, touch, smell, or hear, and the past impressions of what we have seen, tasted, touched, smelled, or heard. Even with these perceptions we can often be wrong, and our reliance on them is in itself a measure of faith. We have faith in our eyes that what we see is truly what is before us; that the vibrations we sense in hearing is truly what another says to us, and so forth. All of our actions in life are based in some measure on faith: we go to work with the faith that we shall be recompensed, and receive that money with the faith that it has value. We cooperate with others in faith, expecting that everyone will fulfill whatever commitments they have regarding us. Even the most “absolute” fields, such as mathematics and science, are really exercises in faith, trusting in the laws of logic and scientific observation to produce valid results. Faith as “conviction of belief” defines our existence.

For good reason the witness of what God accomplished in and through Jesus of Nazareth is considered “the faith” (cf. Jude 1:3): as Christians, we must go well beyond recognizing how our lives are defined by faith more than proof, and maintain confidence and conviction that God has worked powerfully in Christ and continues to do so.
We do well to believe that Jesus is the Incarnate Son of God, in whom the fullness of deity dwells in bodily form, having lived, suffered, died for our sins, and raised in power on the third day, according to the witness of the Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:1-8, Ephesians 2:1-3:12, etc.). We must recognize how God’s work in Christ seems foolish to many in the world, and how many would distort and pervert the witness of God in Christ to accomplish their own purposes, leading those who accept such views to fall away from the living God (1 Corinthians 1:18-32, Galatians 1:6-9, 1 Timothy 4:1-2, 6:3-10, 2 Timothy 4:1-4, 1 John 4:1-6, 2 John 1:6-9).

Yet, despite all of this, James’ declaration should resound in our ears: we believe God is one and do well, and yet the demons thus believe, and shudder (James 2:19)! If the acceptance that Jesus is the Son of God were sufficient in and of itself to save, the demons would have no reason to be afraid. Faith certainly demands the recognition and affirmation of what God accomplished in Christ, but must go well beyond it. Those who would come to God most certainly must believe that He exists: yet they also must confess He rewards those who seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).

The entire story of Scripture is the story of God’s faithfulness to His people. In the Hebrew Bible this faithfulness is spoken of as hesed, a term which is not easily translated into English: where steadfast love meets covenant loyalty, being committed and loyal with a warm feeling toward those to whom one is “faithful.” Israel continually proclaimed God’s hesed toward them (e.g. Psalm 136). In the Exodus and Wilderness journeys God proved faithful to His promises to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and demonstrated why Israel should trust in Him as the only God (cf. Deuteronomy 4:31-39). As God had proven loyal to His covenant and promises and had proven faithful to Israel, thus Israel was called upon to remain loyal to God and follow His instruction, and not trust in their own strength and power and become as the nations around them (Deuteronomy 8:6-20).

In Christ God fulfilled the promises He made to Abraham and to Israel (Hebrews 6:17-10:25). God demonstrated His faithful love by sending His Son to die for our sins while we were still sinners, and provided hope through His resurrection from the dead (Romans 5:6-11, Philippians 3:21). God, in His faithfulness, rightly expects those who would find salvation in Christ to likewise prove faithful to Him by drawing near to Him and to become conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 8:29, Hebrews 10:19-25). To this end Christians must be full of faith in God in Christ: not just mentally accepting the truth of what God has done in Christ, but to actively trust in God in Christ, relentlessly submitting themselves to Jesus in all things, especially those matters in which culture, upbringing, and temperament would tempt them to follow their own ways or the ways of the world (Galatians 2:20). Christians must manifest Peter’s disposition in John 6:68-69: where else could they go, for they have become convicted that Jesus is the Holy One of God, and has the words of eternal life? While Christians must know what God has done in Christ, they are not saved by knowledge but by faith (Ephesians 2:1-10): we must trust in God in Christ, and we will find that faith tested many times to see what kind of foundation upon which it has been built (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:11-15).

Thus Christians must be marked as faithful people: full of faith and trust in God and what He has accomplished in Jesus. To this end Christians must also be people in whom others can trust: faithful in their dealings, their “yes” as “yes” and “no” as “no,” able to be relied upon as they rely upon God (Matthew 5:13-16, 37). That faithfulness is not rooted in their own inclinations or temperament but in their conviction and the embodiment of that conviction and trust in God in Christ. In this way Christians seek to live according to the new commandment given to them: to love one another as Jesus loved them (John 15:9-17). Thus they will be recognized as faithful.

God is who He says He is: God has demonstrated His power and covenant loyalty to us. We therefore do well to prove loyal to God in faithfulness, fully trusting in God in Christ in all things, proving loyal and dependable to others because of what God has accomplished in Christ. May we all display faithfulness in God in Christ and obtain life in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Fruit of the Spirit: Faithfulness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Challenges of Passive-Aggressive Behavior

There is a cancer that is destroying not a few churches these days. It is not a matter of doctrine, although doctrine may sometimes factor into the difficulty. It is an insidious matter, a practice nowhere commended by Jesus or the Apostles and yet prevalent among Christians. More than likely, all of us, at some time and at some level or another, have been guilty of it.

This cancer is passive-aggressive behavior. When we speak about passive-aggressive behavior, we are not using the new definition/diagnosis of a psychiatric condition of the same name but are speaking, in most general terms, of a certain type of behavior. “Passive aggressive” is defined by Merriam-Webster as:

Being, marked by, or displaying behavior characterized by the expression of negative feelings, resentment, and aggression in an unassertive passive way.

We can identify many types of “passive-aggressive” behavior. Perhaps a Christian feels as if he or she is not included enough in activities; they complain about the lack of inclusion but seem unwilling to work actively with other Christians or to facilitate such activities themselves. Or perhaps another Christian has, in ignorance, said or acted in an unbecoming or offensive way. Other Christians recognize the words or deeds, complain to others about it, but never have the resolve to address the matter with the one who said it or did it. There might be times when there is discontent with the way that elders shepherd or evangelists promote the Gospel or with the actions and/or attitudes of fellow Christians. This discontent easily becomes fodder for gossip and slander as opposed to addressing these matters directly with the elders, evangelists, or Christians in question.

Passive-aggressive behavior among Christians, therefore, represents those times when Christians are bothered, frustrated, or distressed about a person, condition, or situation, but for whatever reason they are unwilling to substantively address their concerns with the people in question themselves. Instead, they pour forth these negative feelings to other, less involved people, to their family members, or, God forbid, to unbelievers and outsiders. There may be times when many people feel the same way about a person or group and will talk with one another and sympathize with one another, but the matter never gets addressed with that person or group. There is aggression, since the negative feelings are real, but they are handled rather passively. The risk of actively addressing the matter and causing discomfort and possible hard feelings with the “offensive” party is too great; to keep the matter to oneself and to not let it become a hindrance, however, remains too difficult!

There is no approval of this behavior in Scripture. Jesus explicitly charges believers to confront a brother who has sinned against them directly (Matthew 18:15-18). While talking about fellow Christians seems to be standard policy in conversations in congregations, such too easily devolves into gossip sessions, condemned by God (2 Corinthians 12:20, 2 Thessalonians 3:11, 1 Timothy 5:13). In such an environment Christians are not “speaking truth” to one another, because internal bitterness and resentment is being covered up, which also should not be so (Ephesians 4:25, 31-32).

This does not mean that we should address every difficulty that may come up with one another. There are times when we might have been too sensitive, and the problem is really more with us and our attitudes than with the other person or persons and their behaviors. In such circumstances we must work on ourselves and to develop the right attitude of love, compassion, and tenderheartedness toward one another (cf. Ephesians 4:32). In so doing, however, we certainly should not hold our personal challenges against the other!

If, however, there is a circumstance where something does bother us, and it keeps being a hindrance, and if we are tempted to speak to others about it, we would do best to handle the matter directly with the person or persons involved. If we are willing to experience the negative feeling and to foster it and dwell upon it, and if we would prove willing to talk to others about it, then we should be willing to talk to the one who precipitated such a feeling. If we are too fearful or unwilling to talk about it with the person him or herself, we have no right to hold on to the feeling or to address it with others!

No one enjoys being the object of passive-aggressive behaviors; why, then, would we act in such ways about others (Luke 6:31)? Let us be willing to work with one another, and avoid passive-aggression in our attitude and behavior!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Challenges of Passive-Aggressive Behavior appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Angry Prophet, Merciful God

Jonah stopped trying to resist God’s call. He would preach repentance to Nineveh. God’s response was exactly what he expected, and it angered him.

YHWH had previously called Jonah ben Amittai to go and preach repentance to Nineveh; Jonah instead sought to flee to Tarshish, in modern day Spain, to get as far away from YHWH and His call as possible (Jonah 1:1-3). But YHWH caused a great storm to come upon the Mediterranean Sea, leading Jonah to be cast out of the ship, after which he was swallowed by a large fish (Jonah 1:4-17). Jonah prayed to God and thanked Him for His deliverance while in the fish, who returned him to the land of Israel (Jonah 2:1-9).

So YHWH again called Jonah ben Amittai to go and preach repentance to Nineveh (Jonah 3:1-2); this time Jonah went and did as YHWH told him (Jonah 3:3). The author testified to the great size of Nineveh: it would take three days to travel across the whole metropolitan area (Jonah 3:3). Jonah traveled a day’s journey into the city and began to preach how the city would be overthrown in forty days (Jonah 3:4).

And then an extraordinary thing happened: the Ninevites believed what Jonah said and performed rituals of mourning and repentance, putting on sackcloth and proclaiming a fast. The poor people did this as well as the rich; even the king himself wore sackcloth and ashes (Jonah 3:5-9)! If the rest of the works of the prophets are any indication, the prophets of Israel were not used to being so readily heard and heeded, especially when they pronounced oracles of judgment. And yet these pagans, sworn enemies of Israel, humbled themselves before God and had repented. God saw how they turned away from their evil, and God relented from the judgment against Nineveh (Jonah 3:10).

One might think Jonah would thus be on top of the world: he had preached, people had listened, and disaster had been averted. But now it is time for the reader’s expectations to be overthrown.

Jonah was furious with YHWH (Jonah 4:1)! We are now told why Jonah sought to flee from the presence of YHWH to Tarshish: Jonah knew that God was gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in covenant loyalty and steadfast love, and would relent of His anger toward Nineveh; Jonah testified about YHWH according to what was written of Him in His Torah (Jonah 4:2; cf. Exodus 34:6, Numbers 14:18). Jonah asked God to take his life; he felt it better to die than to live (Jonah 4:3). YHWH asked him if he did well to be angry (Jonah 4:4).

Jonah then made for himself a tent and sat to the east of Nineveh to see what might happen to the city (Jonah 4:5). YHWH then caused a plant to grow up near Jonah to give him shade in the middle of the day, and Jonah was very thankful for that plant (Jonah 4:6). The next day YHWH caused a worm to eat the plant and a scorching east wind to arise; Jonah felt great distress, despaired of life, and wanted to die (Jonah 4:7-8). God asked Jonah if he was right to be angry about the plant; Jonah responded that he was right to be angry to the point of death (Jonah 4:9). The book of Jonah then ended with YHWH’s response and the lesson of the plant: Jonah had great regard for this plant for which he did not labor and lived for a day, so why should YHWH not have regard for Nineveh and its one hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants who were ignorant of right and wrong, and all of their cattle (Jonah 4:10-11)?

The modern reader often finds the ending of Jonah disorienting. Should Jonah not be pleased that people listened to what he had to say? Why is Jonah so easily angered, and what kind of man of God would be angry when God shows grace and mercy?

We must remember that the story of Jonah was not written for us but for ancient Israel. And for them the story would sound very different based upon what would take place between the preaching of Jonah and their own time. The audience would know that these very same Ninevites would rise up and conquer the Northern Kingdom of Israel and cause great distress to the southern Kingdom of Judah within living memory of Jonah’s preaching. God was thus preserving the very people who would bring destruction upon His people.

The Israelites and Judahites expected YHWH to show them grace, mercy, steadfast love, and covenant loyalty; Jonah knew such is what God was all about. But neither Jonah nor the Israelites particularly wanted to see YHWH display similar grace, mercy, and steadfast love toward their mortal enemies.

Furthermore, consider the oracles regarding the nations throughout the prophets: do they not all universally condemn the nations for their transgressions against Israel? Would God not come out in judgment against all of them? Yes, even against Nineveh itself, according to Nahum?

Jonah believed in God; Jonah is prejudiced against Nineveh and toward his fellow Israelites, and most Israelites would naturally agree. We should not imagine that Jonah or the Israelites would have wanted God to wantonly destroy all the pagans for the sake of destroying all the pagans; but the Assyrians were no ordinary pagans. They were the people with the most fearsome reputation in the ancient Near East, and if there were any group of people whom Israel and their neighbors would rather YHWH condemn in judgment, it would be Assyria. And so Jonah found it galling that YHWH would show grace and mercy to the very people who would soon ravage and destroy His land and His people. Jonah wanted nothing to do with it, and Jonah was very angry.

We do well to remember that judgment against Nineveh would come: within a century and a half of Jonah’s visit to Nineveh, the city would be destroyed by the Medes and the Chaldeans, and Assyria would cease being a going concern, all according to the word of YHWH through the prophet Nahum. The fall of Assyria would prove more swift and decisive than any could have imagined. As the Ninevites would do to the people of God, thus it was done to the Ninevites.

But when Jonah preached repentance to Nineveh, the Ninevites had not yet destroyed Israel. When Jonah warned Nineveh of God’s judgment, the Ninevites were no more or less worthy of condemnation than anyone else. Israel did well to remember that YHWH’s judgment against them was a result of their faithlessness and idolatry: they put their trust in gods who could not save and foreign policy machinations, and they were destroyed in their foreign policy machinations, for their gods could not deliver them. Assyria was the rod of YHWH’s anger indeed (Isaiah 10:4), but Assyria was a chosen instrument. If not by them, judgment would have come at the hand of another.

The message of the book of Jonah to Israel ought to resound to this day: YHWH is gracious and merciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and covenant loyalty. We rely upon God displaying such grace and mercy to us; what, then, if God does the same to our mortal enemies? God shows no partiality (Romans 2:11); why would we not expect God to show mercy toward those who repent, even if those who repent would resist us and cause us great pain and distress in the future? Why would God not have any regard or concern for other people whom He has made, even though they prove ignorant of Him and His ways?

Christians confess Jesus as Lord of lords and King of kings, reigning over every people and nation; all can come to Him and find salvation (cf. Ephesians 2:1-3:12, Revelation 19:16). Christians should recognize that God will show love, grace, and mercy to whom He will, and His love is not hemmed in by national or ethnic boundaries. And yet Christians have often taken the posture of Jonah and have proven despondent when God has shown mercy to their enemies. Far too many Christians have fallen prey to the temptation of demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents, especially those who actively resist them and their faith. They have a hard time imagining God would show mercy to their enemies; after all, do they not despise all God represents?

Yet God has regard for all whom He has made. God has regard for those who resist His purposes. God would show them grace and mercy if they repent. Will we learn the lesson of the book of Jonah and turn, recognizing that if God abounds in grace and mercy, He might well show grace and mercy toward those we would rather Him condemn?

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Angry Prophet, Merciful God appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

A Crisis of Communication and Understanding

It is becoming evident that the fundamental language and perspective of Christianity is quite dissonant from the language(s) and perspective(s) of many of those within greater society. Many times we feel as if we are speaking a different language from those among us! Indeed, it seems that if we are going to have something meaningful to communicate to our fellow man we are going to have to re-orient his thinking in some way or another.

This fundamental insight has been lost on “Christendom” at large. On one side of the “spectrum” we have groups who rather explicitly shun or move away from their historic underpinnings, and on the other side, we have groups railing against the effects that this paradigm shift have engendered.

It is not as if this all happened at once; in fact, one can trace the pattern for at least the past few hundred years. It has taken many forms. An evident one involves science: as the seventeenth century moved into the eighteenth, scientists for all kinds of reasons moved away from positions of faith, and over time, as religious influence has waned, science and the scientific endeavor have taken its place in the eyes of many. Whereas many were once content to use Christianity (or some other supernatural system) to guide the way they saw their world we now have plenty of people who use science as the prism through which they understand everything. This is not to say that science has no value, for in its own realm it can serve humanity wonderfully. But while science can provide insights that may help inform philosophy, ethics, theology, and the like, philosophy, ethics, and theology ought to also inform science, as opposed to making science and scientific inquiry the Absolute it was never designed to be.

Much could also be said about the divinization of reason and rational thinking. It seems almost public heresy anymore to question the status of Reason as the Ultimate Guide for all things. Skepticism also has become one of the standards of the modern age, but curiously, few seem willing to doubt their doubts, or question the reasonableness of reason as the standard.

It is evident that the belief in the supernatural was anathema to many in society from the Enlightenment until recently, and even though postmodernism has returned in a sense to the supernatural, it eschews any form of the supernatural most would deem “traditional,” especially New Testament Christianity.

Meanwhile, relativism and “tolerance” and a questioning of any and all standards except the ones we implicitly assume are standard procedure. Something as simple as thesis and antithesis, that A and not-A cannot be both true at the same time, is now questioned. There is no mutually agreed upon standard for much of anything, let alone belief in a personal God who is our Creator and to Whom we are subject. This is all compounded by an astounding ignorance of the Bible both as a cultural standard and as a religious text.

In such a climate it is not surprising that many who still hold to Christianity in some way or another would want to protest. Many want things to be like they were at some hazily defined moment in the past, back when people at least seemed to be more moral. Yet Ecclesiastes 7:10 applies. We have not been called to live in 1840s America or 1910s America or even 1950s America; we are called to live as Christians in early 21st century America.

But what we do have to come to terms with is that we cannot expect to communicate with many of our fellow human beings like we would in previous eras and expect a lot of success.

The Restoration Movement grew exponentially in the middle of 19th century America when entertainment choices were few, hymn singings were a popular way of passing an evening, and people learned how to read by reading the Bible. People accepted that there was right and wrong, even if they were doing wrong. Most people with whom you would speak would already share much of the same ideology as you would, and therefore you had common ground upon which to begin a conversation. In such a climate we can understand why the issues were focused on the specific forms of disagreement with the wider denominational world: issues like church organization and governance, baptism, frequency and nature of the Lord’s Supper, and other assembly matters. Issues of the assembly deserved focus because you could assume that the people with whom you were speaking shared the general outlines of a “Christian” worldview, and “everyone” knew that all good citizens should conduct themselves as good “Christian men” and “Christian women.”

That was then. This is now.

Today we have very little of that foundation left intact. We cannot assume that the people with whom we come into contact believe in God. We cannot even assume that they believe that there is an objective standard delineating right from wrong. There is no certainty that they are even open to the belief that there are forces beyond themselves, and they may never have been challenged to look at the world beyond the lenses of materialism and physical perception.

Yet the statistics show that the vast majority of Americans do believe in God, the Bible, Jesus Christ, and even heaven and hell. Nevertheless, we cannot assume that people really understand much of any of these things. We cannot assume that by believing in God that they believe in God the Creator to whom all the creation is subject (cf. Genesis 1:1-2:4, Romans 9:20-24). They may profess belief in the Bible, but we cannot know how much they really know about its teachings; and, for that matter, how many times they may know its teachings but declare some of them to be wrong or not true for themselves. They may say that they believe that Jesus is the Christ but they certainly may not understand the consequences of such a view: Jesus Christ is God the Son and the Son of God, the Son of David, the only Way to God, and presently Lord of all to whom everyone will subject themselves, willingly or otherwise (Romans 1:1-5, John 14:16, Philippians 2:5-11). In short, even among those who profess Jesus, we cannot be sure whether they have culturally conditioned beliefs or have truly grounded themselves in the perspective of God in Christ (cf. Colossians 2:1-11).

This may sound distressing, but what it is trying to get us to understand is that we do truly live in a “post-Christian” era. The twenty-first century has returned to being like the first two centuries of the faith in many ways. We can complain about it and get distressed about or we can try to figure out what can be done about it. And there is much to do.

I believe that these understandings lead to at least two important insights in regards to evangelism in the 21st century. The first is that our defense of the faith must be buttressed with a good offense. In many of the American resources for Christian apologetics that I have seen the evidence is marshaled in ways not unlike a basketball team attempting to maintain a 15 point lead on their opposition in the last quarter of the game: a mostly defensive posture that attempts to persuade without doing any fundamental damage to the worldview of the person we are trying to persuade. The problem is, of course, that if we get too defensive, we lose without much hope of gain.

An instructive example is Minucius Felix’s Octavius, a treatise written around the end of the second century, relating how Minucius’ friend Octavius converted a mutual friend Caecilius out of paganism. The dialogue begins with Caecilius’ argument against Christianity, full of inaccuracies about Christianity but a relatively robust presentation of the standard pagan argument of the day. When confronted with this argument Octavius does not start by merely clarifying what Caecilius has misunderstood about Christianity but by metaphorically going for the kill. Octavius uses the words of the Greeks themselves to demonstrate the existence of One Creator God, demonstrates the weakness, fallacies, and foibles of the Greek pantheon, demonstrating the ridiculousness of the belief system, and then he sets Caecilius straight about his exaggerations about Christianity. Octavius had to tear down in order to build up.

We cannot mince words or thoughts here: as always, the Christian faith confesses views fundamentally opposed to the ways of the world in our culture and society (1 John 2:13-16). If we believe that we can just go out and teach Jesus without any attempt to challenge the prevailing assumptions of people, we should not be surprised when our evangelism efforts are not very successful, and when they are successful, that the people converted often fail to develop the type of faith the Bible demands.

We must do this with gentleness and respect, for certain (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), remembering that the people with whom we speak are not the enemy (Ephesians 6:12), but it must be done. One cannot have a mind to believe that Jesus is the Christ while still believing that many paths lead to God. One cannot be ready to cling to what is good and to abhor what is evil while believing that good and evil have no absolute basis in reality. One cannot profess belief in God while being wedded to an anti-supernatural view of our universe. Even though this may be offensive to much of what passes for “liberal” Christianity, there are times when we must call a spade a spade and recognize that far too many groups professing Jesus have compromised with the world in matters of truth and righteousness and that we must make a contrary stand not just for the truth of God as revealed through Jesus Christ but in the belief that there is a God, that He is alive and active and powerful, that Jesus of Nazareth truly existed as God in the flesh, truly died, and was truly and actually raised by God in the flesh in power on the third day, that all of these things are historical reality, just as presented by the church in the first century (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, 2 John 1:7-11). If people want to reject these statements as being true, they are certainly able to do so; but they are no longer being true to the Christian worldview and ideology as expressed in Scripture.

In order for the message of the Gospel to be heard properly there must be a recognition of disturbance in life: something is not right. Most people have never had their assumptions questioned or challenged. There is no doubt that many people, when so questioned, will retreat and would rather remain inconsistent than to come to grips with being wrong. But if we present the message of God in such a way that never leads anyone to question the way they have always been conditioned to see the world we should not expect to see much in the way of results. While it may be true that Christianity has never really been tried by most so as to be found lacking, too many people believe that Christianity has gone or should go the way of the dinosaur, Zeus, and animal sacrifices, and no amount of pleading without challenge will change that perception.

Therefore the presentation of the Gospel in the modern world must really be a two-edged sword: first challenging current assumptions, and then presenting a radical alternative. But there must be work done before we even get to that point.

If you noticed from the description of the Octavius, Caecilius the pagan was invited to give the first argument. I do not believe that this was merely coincidental or done out of respect; there is a definite advantage to this. By making the argument first, Caecilius lays his proverbial cards out on the table, and Octavius is then able to discern exactly what Caecilius believes and therefore what is the best way to go forward with his refutation and defense.

I fear that our evangelistic efforts may be hampered because of our forwardness. A large number of our evangelistic methods attempt to get to the point of the Bible study: the opportunity to open the Bible and to see what it says. This, in and of itself, is right and good and quite necessary (2 Timothy 3:16-17, Romans 1:16). But if we engage in such things without really knowing where the people with whom we are studying are coming from our efforts may be in vain.

There is a sense in which we today must engage in “pre-evangelism” in order to get to evangelism. There will always be a select few who are seeking and are willing to give the presenter of the Gospel the benefit of the doubt, and God be praised for such people. Nevertheless, a lot of the people with whom we come into contact are going to be more suspicious and leery. The adage of Dave Barry rests in their heads: people who want to share their religious convictions with you rarely want to hear yours. Even though it may not be intended there can be a patronizing air in a Bible study: we come to you with superior Biblical knowledge and insight, and we expect you to come to terms with it. Some people can handle that; many more cannot. Furthermore, if we engage in such a study without really knowing the person with whom we are having such a study, we are unlikely to know precisely what they believe, why they believe it, and therefore are robbed of the best way of promoting the Gospel. We may be guilty of focusing too heavily on common ground while entirely neglecting critical grounds of disagreement.

If there is one thing that is still true about people, however, it is that people enjoy talking about themselves. Perhaps as opposed to beginning with us or the Bible we should begin with them: who they are, what they have experienced in the past in terms of spirituality or religion, what they believe about God, Jesus, the Bible, salvation, eternity, and so on and so forth.

This has many benefits. First of all it demonstrates that we do care about the people with whom we want to study: we want to get to know them, and they are not just a number. If we gently prod regarding matters of inconsistency in their ideologies (and there will no doubt be matters of inconsistency), it may lead them to already reconsider how they look at the world. Many people may not believe in the truth and believe that they have a good argument against it, yet, when actually expected to make that argument, realize that in reality it is pretty weak. Finally, you know exactly where they stand, and thus are better able to present the Gospel, with both the challenge and the solution, in regards to exactly where the person is. One may have to clear a lot of philosophical ground to get to the point where the Gospel can be considered. Or one may be able to just focus on the distinctives of the church. Most will be somewhere in between.

If we are honest with ourselves, we recognize that we are currently suffering a crisis of communication and understanding. Methods that used to do well at communicating the Gospel are not as successful anymore. We often struggle to have any form of meeting of the minds with many of our fellow humans. But we can take comfort from our brethren in times long past, for if Christians of the first few centuries of this era could turn Greeks and Romans saturated with paganism and immorality and get them to understand the futility of their ideology and the truth that is in Jesus Christ, we can do the same with the secularists and others in the twenty-first century. Let us work to communicate with our fellow man so as to present the Gospel of Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Crisis of Communication and Understanding appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Fruit of the Spirit: Goodness

The Apostle Paul certainly had plenty of reason for concern about the doctrinal steadfastness of the Galatian Christians (cf. Galatians 1:1-5:16); nevertheless, he would not neglect the opportunity to exhort them regarding the practice of the faith as well. To this end he instructed them to avoid the works of the flesh and to manifest the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul described the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law.

The fruit of the Spirit can be fully summed up in love. Joy, peace, and longsuffering/patience prove necessary dispositions if we would properly exhibit love and manifest the work of the Spirit. Such dispositions should become manifest to others in kindness and goodness.

The word here translated as “goodness” is the Greek word agathosune, defined by Thayer’s as “uprightness of heart and life, goodness, kindness.”

Where does goodness reside in mankind? Is it based on some sort of intrinsic character trait? We often hear people described thus as good: “she is a good person.” “They are good people.” If asked how such people are “good,” we might hear about some of the good works they do; if nothing else, we will hear of many of the bad things they avoid. Yet we must hear Jesus’ correction of the rich young ruler in Mark 10:18: only God is good. As for humanity, Paul’s testimony from the Hebrew Scriptures remains true: none are good (Romans 3:10; cf. Psalm 14:1). All humans have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23); we might want to focus on the good things we might do, or the good characteristics we might embody, but we have all violated God’s purposes at some times in some ways and thus would be rightly condemned as transgressors (cf. James 2:9-10). In truth, the line between good and evil runs through each and every one of us: we all remain capable of great good and great evil, and have done both good and evil. For humanity, therefore, goodness cannot be an intrinsic character trait, for none of us are inherently good.

And yet Paul was convinced that the Roman Christians were full of goodness in Romans 15:14; he prayed that God would fulfill every desire of goodness in the Thessalonian Christians in 2 Thessalonians 1:11. Christians may not have intrinsic goodness, for only God is good; and yet Christians were called out of the darkness of sin, despair, and death in order to pursue the good works for which God has made them (Ephesians 2:1-10, 5:8-9, Titus 3:3-8). When Paul considered “goodness” a manifestation of the fruit of the Spirit, he did so in this sense: the desire, consideration, and execution of all that is good.

So what is the good that we ought to desire, consider, and accomplish? It is difficult to improve on the words of the prophet:

He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth YHWH require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? (Micah 6:8)

The good is to do justly, love “kindness” (Hebrew hesed, in which covenant loyalty meets steadfast love), and walk humbly with God. Jesus embodied this goodness: Peter is able to summarize Jesus’ life in ministry as going about and doing good for Israel (Acts 10:38). We will only be able to display such goodness if we display appropriate humility in our walk with God. God is love; all we have and are comes from God and not from our own strength alone; on our own we would stand condemned; we only can stand based on God’s love and grace displayed toward us; as God has done good to us, thus we are do good to others (Ephesians 2:1-10, Titus 3:3-8). By necessity such goodness stands at variance with all that is recognized and confessed as evil: we must abhor evil and cease walking in the darkness (Romans 12:9). Yet the demands of justice require us to also expose the works of evil so we can powerfully affirm what is good, right, and just in the sight of God (Ephesians 5:8-12). For good reason Paul would later exhort the Galatian Christians to do good to all people as they had opportunity, and especially to those in the household of faith (Galatians 6:10): we do not really need to have this kind of behavior defined for us. We understand that we should seek the welfare of others, to benefit them in their moment of need and provide whatever proves necessary, be it time, material resources, or emotional, mental, and spiritual investment (Matthew 25:31-46, James 1:27). This concern should prove all the more obvious for fellow Christians, for how can we say we love God and prove thankful for His goodness if we do not seek to do good for His people (John 13:33-35, 1 John 3:16-18, 4:7-21)?

Thus, we may not be intrinsically good, but we ought to be filled with all goodness in Christ through the Spirit. To this end Jesus considered His disciples to be the salt of the earth, the city set on a hill, and the light of the world: they should do good works and give reason for all people to glorify God (Matthew 5:13-16). People should be able to see God’s goodness reflected and embodied in us. Do we seek to walk humbly with God and resist all evil? Do we act justly, relieving the poor and oppressed and upholding righteousness? Do we display steadfast love and covenant loyalty toward others as God has expressed it toward us? May Paul’s prayer in 2 Thessalonians 1:11-12 bless us, and may we do good and glorify God in Christ in so doing!

To which end we also pray always for you, that our God may count you worthy of your calling, and fulfil every desire of goodness and every work of faith, with power; that the name of our Lord Jesus may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Fruit of the Spirit: Goodness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

To Tarshish!

The Word of YHWH came to Jonah ben Amittai: go to Nineveh and cry against it; their wickedness had ascended before Him (Jonah 1:1-2).

Among the “minor prophets” Jonah is unique: most of the book is a narrative in the life and work of Jonah; it is not primarily a collection of the prophet’s sayings. We do not know when the story was composed; we only know the relative timeframe of the events thanks to a reference to Jonah ben Amittai in 2 Kings 14:25. In it we discover that Jonah ben Amittai is a prophet of Gath-hepher, on the border of Zebulun (cf. Joshua 19:13); he prophesied of how Jeroboam ben Jehoash would restore the borders of Israel. Thus Jonah lived and prophesied around 780 to 750 BCE: a time of renewal and prosperity in Israel, in which many cherished the hope that Israel had been made great again. Not entirely coincidently, the same period was one of upheaval in Assyria: Adad-nirari III had energetically expanded the power and influence of Assyria, but after his death in 783 BCE his successors fell prey to internal strife and discord, a situation which would remain until 745 BCE.

Jonah, Israel, and the whole ancient Near Eastern world were acquainted with the wickedness of Nineveh and the Assyrians. They already had begun manifesting the imperial ambitions which would soon overtake and overwhelm most of the petty ancient Near Eastern kingdoms. Their pagan idolatry was always before YHWH. Perhaps they had done some other great evil of which we are ignorant but Jonah could well imagine.

And yet, when called to go and preach repentance to Nineveh, Jonah fled. Jonah sought to travel as far away from Nineveh as he possibly could; in the world of the ancient Mediterranean, nowhere was farther away than Tarshish. We believe Tarshish to most likely be the same as the Greek Tartessos, a term used to describe the area around the mouth of the Guadalquivir River in modern day Spain, just past Gibraltar, the “Pillars of Hercules,” and thus on the coast of the Atlantic Ocean (Jonah 1:3). By boarding a boat heading for Tarshish, Jonah clearly was not at all interested in heeding the Word of YHWH.

Yet YHWH would not be so easily escaped. While he sailed west he encountered a storm so mighty it threatened to tear the ship apart (Jonah 1:4). The sailors were terribly frightened: each prayed to his own god and sought to lighten the load of the ship. Meanwhile, Jonah slept below deck (Jonah 1:5)! Jonah was awakened and exhorted to pray to his God (Jonah 1:6). They all then cast lots to determine why this evil had come upon them, and the lot fell upon Jonah; he explained who he was and the God of Israel whom he served, and they were all the more scared, for he had already explained what he was doing (Jonah 1:7-10). They wanted to know what they should do, and Jonah told them to cast him overboard, for it was the only way to save themselves from the storm (Jonah 1:11-12). The sailors worked valiantly to get back to land but could not do so; they then begged YHWH to forgive them for what they were about to do to Jonah, and then they cast him overboard (Jonah 1:13-15). The sea ceased raging; the sailors feared YHWH, offering sacrifice and making vows to Him (Jonah 1:15-16). Meanwhile a great fish swallowed Jonah up; he remained in the belly of that fish three days and nights (Jonah 1:17). Much speculation has attended to this large fish: many have presumed it a whale, which is a mammal and not a fish, but might have been reckoned among the fishes in Israelite taxonomy. Perhaps it was a type of sea creature which has since gone extinct. We cannot know for certain.

Jonah prayed to YHWH while in the belly of the fish; its substance is recorded in Jonah 2:1-9. Jonah cried out to YHWH in his affliction, and YHWH heard him (Jonah 2:1-2). YHWH had cast him into the depth of the seas; nevertheless, Jonah remained confident he would see YHWH’s temple again (Jonah 2:3-4). Jonah considered how he had descended into the depths of the waters and yet YHWH had brought back his life from the pit (Jonah 2:5-6). Jonah’s soul fainted within him, and yet he remembered YHWH; his prayer came into the temple of YHWH (Jonah 2:7). Many served idols in futility and thus forsake God’s mercy; Jonah would pay his vows and offer sacrifice to YHWH with thanksgiving, for salvation is of YHWH (Jonah 2:8-9). After three days and nights YHWH spoke to the fish, which vomited Jonah out onto dry land, ostensibly back in Israel from which Jonah had fled (Jonah 2:10).

Jonah’s story so far has certainly been dramatic. We do well to wonder what motivated him to flee from the presence and call of YHWH; in his good time our narrator will reveal it all to us. Yet we can already tell that Jonah clearly wanted nothing to do with whatever YHWH was planning for Nineveh and the Assyrians, and wanted to get as far away as possible. Thus he would go to Tarshish.

We might think it a bit overdone and overdramatic for Jonah to go and flee to Tarshish; we might chastise him for thinking so narrowly or presumptuously, as if he could somehow truly flee from the presence of YHWH and escape Him. At the time many believed their gods to have power in certain geographic areas; Jonah’s behavior might not have seemed as strange to his fellow people of the ancient Near East as it does to us.

We may not be tempted to rise up and go to the other end of the earth in order to escape God’s message and calling, but we should be careful about how sharply we judge Jonah. Jonah was quite forthright and honest about fleeing from the presence and call of YHWH; how many times have we been tempted to shy away from the presence and call of God in Christ, yet attempt to justify or excuse ourselves in doing so? Perhaps Jesus would demand that we reconcile with people who have wronged us or with whom we maintain significant disagreement; perhaps Jesus would have us provide for people who would actively seek our harm; maybe Jesus would want us to speak up in a way that would expose us to rejection, derision, or harm. In all of these moments, and many others, we might want to get on a boat ourselves and flee to Tarshish.

As it was with Jonah, so it is with us: we can try to go as far as we want in trying to flee from God’s presence and word, whether geographically or relationally, and yet we can never truly escape Him. God will find us where we are; we will be held accountable for what we think, say, feel, and do. We are called to draw near to God, not flee from Him in bewilderment, frustration, or shame (James 4:8). On our own we flail about, drowning in the sea of anxiety, despair, fear, and sin; God has delivered us from the storm, for Jesus His Son endured three days and nights in the grave so we can be reconciled to Him and obtain eternal life (cf. Matthew 12:39-41). May we draw near to God and obtain such life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post To Tarshish! appeared first on de Verbo vitae.