Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 25

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.

Man, Minute and Majestic

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers / The moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? / And the son of man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him but little lower than God / and crownest him with glory and honor (Psalm 8:3-5).

Minute and majestic: David has well encapsulated humanity’s contradiction in terms.

David had glorified God as having an excellent name in the earth and His glory in the heavens (Psalm 8:1). God was able to establish a bulwark from the mouths of babies to silence forces opposed to him (Psalm 8:2). David had looked up at the heavens and marveled at what he saw: he recognized how small humans were in the grand scheme of things, and wondered why God was mindful of them (Psalm 8:4). And yet God had made them a little lower than the heavenly powers, crowning them with glory and honor, giving them dominion over the animals of the earth (Psalm 8:5-8). David had good reason indeed to praise the name of the Lord YHWH as excellent (Psalm 8:9).

Humans tend to want to resist recognizing the continual tension in which they live as both very small in the grand scheme of things yet made wonderfully and majestically to be able to exercise dominion in the earth. It seems to be easier to focus on how small we are when we want to rationalize the various ways we exploit and perhaps even oppress the creation over which we have been given oversight. At the same time we also vaunt ourselves in our majesty and devote great time and effort into many mighty works so as to resist the prospect of our smallness and relative insignificance in the working of the cosmos. It is hard for us to reconcile how we can maintain both of these propositions in our minds at the same time since they seem so self-contradictory, and yet both remain persistent outgrowths of our fears and anxieties about our standing in the cosmos and before God.

Yes, we human beings are minute in the grand scheme of things. The universe abounds with untold numbers of galaxies, all filled with innumerable stars and planets rotating around them. We live in a small corner of that universe in one of those galaxies; the great forces by means of which all these things have come to pass can easily crush us. Our time in this life is short; our abilities, at a cosmic level, do not mean much. We are constantly challenged and beset with various difficulties since the universe allows for life but has many forces at work which would easily destroy it.

Even so, man remains majestic, crowned with the glory and honor of having been made in the image of his and her Creator (Genesis 1:26-27). We can explore the universe and many of its mysteries. We are fearfully and wonderfully made, as David would sing in Psalm 139: we are able to accomplish complex tasks and can ponder our own existence and the meaning of it all. We are capable of great good and all that goes by the name “humanitarian”; we are also capable of great evil in devastation, destruction, and death. No other creature in this world could have the pride of place as mankind presently enjoys.

To this end we must anchor ourselves in David’s understanding of how minute and majestic we are. God has made everything this way; we cannot perceive everything, and we do well to continually confess the existence of forces greater than we are and which we cannot control or manipulate, and a God who created us and to whom we ought to give thanks and serve (Isaiah 55:8-9). And yet we do have our areas of ability and strength, and ought to exercise all such power to the glory of God, as a stewardship of the gifts God has given, and for which we will give an account (Romans 13:1, 14:10-12).

For David, human dominion over the animals of the earth is a given, an established fact from the creation of the world (Psalm 8:5-8; cf. Genesis 1:26-31). For the Hebrews author, however, there remains an open question regarding that dominion: he saw how Jesus became the Son of Man, made for a moment a little lower than the angels, crowned with glory and honor in His sufferings and death, and all in order to be exalted to authority and dominion over the created order (Hebrews 2:6-7, 9). And yet the Hebrews author made it plain that not everything has yet been fully subjected to Jesus; he remained confident all would be subjected to Him one day, but it has not taken place fully yet (Hebrews 2:8). Many still resist His salvation; the powers and principalities remain at work in this world (2 Corinthians 4:3-4).

As Christians we take great encouragement from how the Hebrews author saw Jesus embodied as the Son of Man of Psalm 8:3-8: through His suffering and exaltation we can find salvation, a kingdom, and the way we should live. We also ought to grasp the Hebrews author’s tenuous hold on dominion: yes, dominion was granted to humans, but a significant number of forces are beyond our power. In our fear and anxiety will we press down all the more deeply on that over which we do have power, and exploit and oppress to oblivion the creatures and resources of the earth? Or will we learn how to love, tend, and even serve that over which God has given us dominion, as Jesus loves, tends, and serves all of us who live in His Kingdom?

David could look to the heavens and see the work of God’s hand. When most of us look to the heavens, we can no longer see the work of God’s hand as well beyond all of the lights we have built for ourselves for our comfort and in our attempt to make a name for ourselves. Such is a sadly ironic yet fitting embodiment of one of our challenges in the present hour: we are hindered from confessing God’s great glory and our relative smallness by means of the haze from our diligent labors in our creative abilities to exploit, aggrandize, and make much of ourselves and for ourselves. We only want to make ourselves small in order to justify all our big works and minimize the effects those works have on ourselves and others.

We are minute and majestic; we are part of this creation, yet made in the image of the One who created it. We may be small but our impact on our environment can be large. We can discern such things so that we can give glory to God our Creator and live in harmony with His purposes and the creation He has made, or we can distort and warp this reality in tension in our fears and anxieties unto oppression and degradation of our relationships and our environment. May we all confess our minuteness in humility while giving praise to the God who has crowned us with majesty and honor, and seek to glorify Him in how we live and treat one another and all He has given us!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Man, Minute and Majestic appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Division

But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another (1 Corinthians 12:24b-25).

When we speak of “divisions” in the church, we normally gravitate toward divisions on account of false doctrines, on account of attempting to impose a liberty (or the lack thereof) on others, or on account of pushing a “hobby horse” or some other issue regardless of its substantive importance in the faith. Such division is lamentable, but sometimes sadly necessary; Christians are to mark and have nothing to do with those who advocate for false teachings (Romans 16:17-18). The church in Ephesus was commended for not tolerating false apostles, and the church in Thyatira chastised for tolerating the false prophetess “Jezebel” (Revelation 2:1-7, 18-29). We hate to see people fall away from the truth, and we must gently and meekly correct those in opposition, praying that God may grant them repentance and a knowledge of the truth (2 Timothy 2:24-26).

Yet, in the New Testament, the Apostles are concerned about many other forms of division. We see this manifest in 1 Corinthians 12:24-25: as Paul speaks about division in this passage, division has far less to do with doctrine and much more to do with a lack of openness, love, and mutual honesty/accountability.

This is an important lesson for us. We have become well conditioned to be on the lookout for divisions regarding doctrine, and yet if we act in unloving or discouraging ways toward our fellow members of the Body of Christ, we create divisions. When we withhold ourselves from the brethren, not confessing our sins to one another (James 5:16), not allowing others to bear our burdens (Galatians 6:2), and in various ways composing ourselves in ways aloof from our brethren, we are the authors of division within the body.

In the world such types of division are natural. Humans are a tribal lot; we generally have a small circle of people we trust, and we learn through the experience of hurt and betrayal to know when to close off and avoid accountability in relationships. This natural tendency has been exacerbated in the Western world over the past few generations; we are more withdrawn from our fellow man than ever before. We do not interact with others as we travel; we can go through the day and barely physically interact with anyone. We have technology designed to bring us together but it only does so at arm’s length. By default we live in a sort of division because our culture has enshrined individualism as the greatest good. Meanwhile, we are starving to death emotionally and spiritually, because we are not being nourished by the support system that we all need, for we are made in the image of God who is one in relational unity, and we need strong relationships with others to not only survive but flourish (Genesis 1:26-27, John 17:21-23).

And so, if divisions would be healed and made rare, members of the Body of Christ must have “mutual care” for one another (1 Corinthians 12:25). Yes, we are reconciled to God and one another through what God accomplished in Jesus, and made into one body by the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 2:11-22); yet we are called to be diligent to preserve the unity accomplished in that Spirit in Ephesians 4:3, the very same diligence we are to exercise in handling rightly the Word of truth in 2 Timothy 2:15. We thus must work to preserve the unity of the Spirit, being open with one another, accountable to one another, seeking to both be a source of encouragement and to gain encouragement within the body. But that is only possible when we decide to open up, to express vulnerability, and truly and fully connect and relate to each other as fellow Christians. That demands a willingness to trust even though betrayal is not only possible but highly likely. It requires reorientation, a way of life very different from that in our current society.

We understand the dangers of doctrinal division; how can we jointly participate in Christ if we are not agreed upon what it means to do so (1 Corinthians 1:10)? Yet the dangers of other forms of division are no less acute. If a congregation is divided into factions supporting different persons or methods, or as a legacy because brother Smith said a discouraging word to Sister Jones twenty years ago and real forgiveness was never manifest, how can that local congregation function in a healthy way that glorifies God and truly encourages its members (1 Corinthians 1:11-13, 3:3)? Such a congregation essentially is already two or three churches who happen to come together at the same time and place, and often to their harm, for no matter how well things may seem to go, that division is always the sixty ton elephant in the room. Likewise, if a congregation agrees on what is true but everyone just looks to family members in the church for connection and support, how can that congregation function in a healthy way that truly manifests itself as the spiritual family of God (1 Timothy 3:15)? What would happen if Christians not affiliated with one family or another attempted to join and be part of such a congregation, and how could such a congregation effectively incorporate converts from the community into their association? Or what if a congregation has doctrinal agreement but gives comparatively little concern for the health or strength of the association and community among its members? In such a congregation there is great division, for it is really a host of atomized individuals or family units who agree to meet once or a few times a week but otherwise have noting to do with each other. Such is no longer a church but a country club, and even then, a poorly functioning country club at that. How will such a congregation be able to provide support and encouragement when difficult days come for some of its constituent members or in the life of the congregation itself? How can they provide an environment of true spiritual flourishing when the members of the Body seem to have little connection with each other, however intended or desired?

We would never want to be responsible for dividing the church on account of matters of doctrine, and that is well and good. But if we allow open divisions to fester and do not work to make peace and heal, we perpetuate the division of the Body of Christ. If we because of fear or pride refuse to be open and vulnerable among fellow Christians, and presume that we can keep to ourselves, we divide the Body of Christ. If we prefer physical family or friends to the exclusion of other members of a local congregation, we divide the Body of Christ. If we do not work to incorporate new Christians into the life of the congregation, we cut off new growth and thus divide the Body of Christ.

We do well to be concerned about the dangers of doctrinal division, but we should be just as concerned, if not more so, regarding the condition of divisions which may exist among the members of the Body of Christ. We must give great diligence to encourage all Christians to strive to break down the barriers of pride and fear and be willing to truly live in community, to share in life with one another, to associate and be accountable toward each other. We commit evangelistic malpractice if we put all our efforts into converting members of the local community but do not intentionally work to make sure they are acclimated and assimilated into the community of the members of the Body of Christ. The stronger the connection to the Body of Christ, the better chance of spiritual growth and flourishing; the weaker the connection to the Body of Christ, the more likely such a person atrophies, gets discouraged, falls to temptation, and for all intents and purposes is divided from the rest and ready to be cut off. Not for nothing does Paul continually exhort Christians to give diligence regarding their connections and association with fellow Christians (Romans 12:3-18, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28). We do well to be concerned regarding all potential divisions in the Body of Christ, and strive to make peace and grow together with the saints to the glory of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Division appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Fruit of the Spirit: Kindness

The Apostle Paul well understood that maintaining an understanding of the truth of God in Christ, and upholding that truth, was very important (Galatians 1:1-5:16). And yet such an understanding must inform the Christian’s practice, and the practice of the faith reinforces the truth of what God has done in Christ: thus Paul not just encouraged the Galatian Christians in the truth of God in Christ, but also exhorted them toward faithful conduct in Jesus (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul expected Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:23-23:

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 is not plural, but singular; each aspect cannot be understood only on its own merits but must be incorporated with the rest. The fruit of the Spirit could be entirely defined by love; joy, peace, and longsuffering/patience all speak to attitudes which allow Christians to glorify God regardless of their circumstances, and can endure.

The fruit of the Spirit ought to represent attitudes and dispositions manifest in behaviors, as can be seen with “kindness.” The word translated in Galatians 5:22 in most versions as kindness (but as “goodness” in the KJV) is the Greek word chrestotes, defined by Thayer’s as “moral goodness, integrity; benignity, kindness.”

Kindness seems hard to describe but easy to perceive; such says much about what it means to be kind. On a fundamental level kindness is an openness to another, seeking to be well-disposed toward them and to provide benefit in some way. We certainly appreciate the kindness of a stranger if they help us in a moment of need, providing resources we might need or something of that sort. But kindness is not equivalent to benevolence: one could certainly give begrudgingly, or out of perceived necessity. A person can be benevolent but harsh; for that matter, a person might be seen as good, yet not really kind. Kindness demands welcoming and warmth and can be communicated as easily as with a smile as anything else.

In the New Testament Christians are told to not expect such kindness and integrity in the world (Romans 3:12). The Apostle Paul set himself and his associates forward to early Christians as a model of kindness as they preached and labored among them (2 Corinthians 6:6). They expected Christians to put on kindness toward one another and to all (Colossians 3:12).

And yet God remains the model of kindness for the Christian. The concept of Hebrew hesed, so fundamental in the Psalms and an essential characteristic of God, is not able to be well translated into either Greek or English, as the place where covenant loyalty and loving kindness meet: upholding commitment with a feeling of warmth. We should certainly understand at least a hint of hesed behind the description of God’s work in Christ as a display of kindness: God’s kindness appeared in Christ and the salvation secured by His sacrifice according to Titus 3:4, and in Ephesians 2:7 Paul expected Christians to be continually bedazzled by God’s display of the riches of His grace in kindness for the rest of eternity.

God loved; God showed grace and mercy; and thus God is kind. We see the kindness of God in the continual refreshment of the creation and our lives. We can discern God’s kindness as He is present with us in our lives, and strengthens and sustains us through our distress and trial: everything we have and are comes from Him, and our continual sustenance in Him is a gift. We can have complete confidence that God cares, and we have every reason to seek to draw near to Him, for He has done everything He can to demonstrate how kindly disposed He remains toward us (Romans 8:31-39, Hebrews 10:19-23).

As Christians we ought to be kind to one another and to others as God has been kind to us. Yet we should never confuse God’s patience and kindness with laxity and indifference. God has been kind to us in order to give us an opportunity to turn and follow His ways: if we faithfully seek His purposes we will endure in His kindness for eternity, but the kindness of God will be exhausted at some point for those who resist His purposes, and leaving a fearful expectation of judgment remaining (Romans 2:2-11, 11:22). We should not presume on God’s kindness!

If longsuffering/patience is the most coveted character trait yet one of the most poorly displayed, then kindness has become one of the most lost and neglected dispositions of our age. As Western society has grown more individualistic people have become more atomized and alienated from one another. Not a few people have become embittered and hardened by their experiences with their fellow human beings, and remain skeptical and aloof. People are guarded and give off the impression they would rather be left alone. Interaction with fellow human beings is made to seem risky; it is easier to not even acknowledge the existence of those around us.

Such an indifferent world is a cruel world, truly dark in its alienation and despair. If Christians manifest the same kind of anxiety and fear as is consistent in the world, and thus do not prove kindly disposed toward other people, the light of the Gospel is severely diminished. Instead Christians must be the light in the darkness, and the light of God in Christ is well expressed in kindness (Matthew 5:13-16). When we prove kindly disposed toward others, and express kindness to them in disposition and behavior, we provide warmth in the cold, and openness where there is normally closure. To be kindly disposed toward people, especially toward people with whom we maintain disagreement on many matters, is now countercultural and often disarming. People have little need to be part of another cold, lifeless group of people; but who would not want to be part of a group of warm, welcoming, kind, and caring people? Thus Christians ought to be for one another and for the world.

The world has enough people who are closed off to one another in alienation and despair. Let us resolve to open ourselves toward other people and manifest kindness to them. May they see in us the fruit of the kindness God has displayed toward those who are in Christ, and may they come to share in that kindness, and all to the glory of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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