Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 28

Works of the Flesh: “Things Like These”

Having warned them regarding the danger of apostasy in committing themselves to the Law of Moses (cf. Galatians 1:1-5:16), the Apostle Paul reminded the Galatian Christians regarding the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-24). These “works of the flesh” are delineated in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the list of specific “works of the flesh” with sins of excess: drunkenness and carousing.

But what about behaviors not listed here? Did Paul intend to give an exhaustive overview of all that could be deemed the “works of the flesh”? By no means! He concluded his discussion of the works of the flesh by also condemning “the things like these,” and reiterated how those who do such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:21).

Paul might well be using a common rhetorical device akin to our use of “et cetera.” Paul would mention other sinful behaviors in other passages not listed explicitly among the “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:22-24. These would include murder (not found in Galatians 5:19-21 in the best manuscripts), covetousness, theft, deceit, lying, gossip, slander, and foolish talk (Romans 1:28-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Ephesians 5:3-8, Colossians 3:5-9). In condemning these behaviors Paul frequently used the same type of contrast between the ways of our holy God above from the ways of the corrupt world below; thus we should understand such things as much as “works of the flesh” as those explicitly identified in Galatians 5:19-21.

Thus Paul at least intended for the Galatian Christians to understand “things like these” to refer to other behaviors clearly identified as sinful. Yet the phrasing of the term itself also suggests Paul wished for the Galatian Christians to recognize how many behaviors might be akin to a “work of the flesh” even if not explicitly identified as such. A major such example involves sexual transgressions: in Galatians 5:19-21 Paul condemned sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness, whereas in other passages specific forms of these behaviors are condemned, like same sex sexual relations and adultery (e.g. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11). The Galatian Christians were expected to understand how these behaviors were “things like” sexually deviant behavior since they fit by definition. Covetousness is explicitly condemned on its own but is also equated to idolatry in Ephesians 5:3, Colossians 3:5: thus Paul would have the Galatian Christians understand how covetousness is a “thing like” idolatry.

This principle extends beyond that which is explicitly condemned in Scripture to the chagrin of many. What God has made known regarding righteousness and sin inverts man’s desires and expectations. Man would like a comprehensive list of what not to do and to assume that whatever is not condemned is approved and righteous. In truth, in Scripture God has equipped those who would follow Him with every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17); Paul confessed that whatever is not of faith is sin, not whatever is of sin is faith (Romans 14:23). The Christian’s confidence lay in God’s revelation of Himself, His character, and His righteousness in Jesus who lived, died, was raised in power, ascended, is lord, and will return soon (2 Corinthians 5:7, Hebrews 11:1); thus, we may know what is right, good, and holy, for it is seen in what God accomplished in Jesus, and we should do likewise (Romans 12:1-2).

To this end we can understand why the “fruit of the Spirit” is a fully defined list of characteristics but the “works of the flesh” are left open (Galatians 5:17-24): righteousness is fully embodied in Jesus, but the human heart is very deceitful, inventing evil, looking for ways to justify and rationalize the desires of the flesh and heart (Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 1:30, 1 John 2:15-17).

Thus, it is not enough to say, “well, God never said not to,” or, “God nowhere explicitly condemns this or that.” Paul recognized how people would be easily tempted to “repackage” some sin or another in a different guise and think it justifiable; thus, not only are the explicit things mentioned in the “works of the flesh” condemned, but also anything similar to them.

To this end Paul called upon the Galatian Christians, and Christians in general, to exercise discernment to understand whether a behavior is a “thing like” the works of the flesh or manifests the fruit of the Spirit. Such discernment must be exercised according to faith in God lest the Christian seek to rationalize their fleshly desires with a righteous veneer and entirely resist the point of Galatians 5:17-24, to crucify the flesh and its desires.

To this end we must first consider the evidence at hand. Did God speak regarding the behavior under consideration? Does it manifestly violate any specific command God has given? Does the behavior run afoul of consistent Biblical principles? If we feel the answers to these questions are ambiguous or allow for justification, we can then consider the profitability of the behavior (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:23). Will this practice commend me before God? What spiritual benefit would it provide? What fruit of the Spirit would it manifest? In short, we are wondering: is this behavior the kind of thing in which we would expect Jesus our Lord and Master to participate?

Many behaviors prevalent in modern society fall under condemnation in this way. Elective abortion may not be explicitly condemned in Scripture, but it is more a thing like murder than anything commended by God in Christ, and thus falls under the same condemnation. Pornography is a thing like uncleanness and lasciviousness. Many think of gambling as harmless fun, yet the entire premise of gambling is covetousness, a thing like idolatry. Recreational drug use would fall under the purview of pharmakeia; those who practiced sorcery also made potions, and many a recreational drug user lives as under a spell.

Paul has listed many ungodly and immoral behaviors as “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21; those who do such things without repentance will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must never fall into the legalistic trap of assuming that only that which is explicitly condemned is wrong: Paul’s list of the “works of the flesh” is not exhaustive, nor was it designed to be; humans invent all kinds of new and innovative ways to transgress the purposes of God in Christ. Thus we must understand the “works of the flesh” as representative, and we should not only avoid those specific behaviors, but also anything which is akin to them. We must use our discernment to put all things to the test according to the faith; we ought to live by faith, trusting in the Lord, and doing all things with full conviction of their authority and righteousness based on what God has revealed in Christ according to the Scriptures. May we manifest the fruit of the Spirit, avoid the works of the flesh, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Works of the Flesh: “Things Like These” appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The “Distinctives” Gospel

There was a time within living memory when things were different. Gospel meetings would extend for weeks on end. Preachers would stand firm for the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ, powerfully denouncing the errors of Christendom and exhorting people to return to the ancient landmarks. These men fortified the faithful with strong preaching highlighting these themes and the church grew and grew. The church now finds itself struggling to grow because preachers have become soft and no longer strongly emphasize these distinctive doctrines. If preachers would only re-affirm the importance of emphasizing the distinctiveness of the church of Christ, then churches of Christ would grow again.

Such is the view of what can be deemed the “distinctives” gospel. The “distinctives” gospel is so named on account of its emphasis on the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ, including, but not limited to, immersion in water for the forgiveness of sins, weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper, congregational singing and the lack of instrumental music, the nature and work of the church, and all to highlight the uniqueness of churches of Christ. According to the “distinctives” gospel, the church must hear constant preaching and exhortation on these matters in order to continue to affirm and uphold the “ancient paths,” and in preaching these things frequently many will be converted. In this view “strong” or “hard” preaching focuses on these distinctive doctrines; “weak” or “soft” preaching is what might focus on other matters, for one might hear a similar message in denominational churches. Many adherents of the “distinctives” gospel” look to the 1950s or beforehand with nostalgia and to support their premise that preaching on the “distinctives” is what allowed the church then to grow.

As Christians we always do well to keep Ecclesiastes 7:10 in mind regarding nostalgia: the “former times” were not as great as imagined, and this is true of the 1950s as well. It is true the church grew well at that time; various Christian denominations also grew numerically at the time, which complicates any narrative suggesting such growth was entirely due to “preaching the distinctives.”

Let none be deceived: doctrinal and practical matters that prove distinctive among us ought to be preached and taught upon and practiced. The difficulty with the “distinctives” gospel is not in whether we should uphold the distinctive doctrines or not but upon the supreme emphasis on the “distinctives.”

A charitable reading of the “distinctives” gospel would suggest that much is taken for granted. It is not as if those who would assert the “distinctives” gospel would deny Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, or of anything established in the New Testament; instead, the “distinctives” gospel takes all of these things for granted. The “distinctives” gospel hearkens to a time where people felt reasonably confident that the vast majority of people with whom they would interact agreed that God existed, Jesus was Lord, and upon the general contours of Christian faith and practice, and thus could then focus specifically on the points of disagreement manifest in the “distinctives.” According to this perspective most people already were practicing some form or variant of Christianity, and thus the primary focus should be upon those points of disagreement in order to emphasize the distinctiveness of the church and thus as a call for people to leave their denominational affiliations and doctrines and uphold the nature and work of the church as set forth in the New Testament.

Even if one could have maintained the pretense of living in such a world before, we cannot any longer. A growing percentage of people in America have no background, heritage, or understanding of the Bible and the Christian faith. Even those who have spent time participating in various denominational and non-denominational churches often have poor understanding of what God has accomplished in Jesus and what it means. We cannot take it for granted that people already are on board with the basics of Christian faith and practice; in such an environment, to focus on the “distinctives” will lead to blank stares and visible confusion.

Emphasis on the “distinctives” can cause its own problems even among the Lord’s people. It proves too easy to take for granted that people understand the fundamental message of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and the basics of Christian faith and practice; this leads many to understand the “distinctives” better than they do the core principles of the Christian faith itself. Far too often the “distinctives” are preached and taught without regard to their connection and association with the core concepts of Christian faith and practice. It can become all too easy to view every interaction and even every Biblical text in light of the “distinctives,” conflating the Biblical context with the presumed challenge of the present moment. Furthermore, the association between the “distinctives” and “strong” or “hard” preaching proves toxic: it becomes too easy for Christians to believe themselves justified because they uphold these distinctive doctrines, and base their view of their salvation upon their participation in churches of Christ and their manifestation of the “distinctives.” Preaching that reinforces the sanctimony of the audience is the opposite of “hard” or “strong”; such terms are reserved for preaching the things which prick the consciences of the audience and offends their sensibilities (cf. 2 Timothy 4:1-5).

The “distinctives” are not the Gospel; the “distinctives” flow as consequences of the Gospel, not because they are distinctive, but because they represent what God intends to accomplish through Jesus in His Kingdom. We do well to note how Peter and Paul would continually anchor all they preached and taught in what God accomplished in Jesus, and we should follow in their footsteps. Not one of the distinctive doctrines is true because they are distinctive of churches of Christ; they are true because they are what the Gospel of Christ demands in terms of various aspects of Christian faith and practice. Any doctrine which cannot be thus rooted in what God has made known in Jesus ought to be discarded.

We do well to consider the “distinctives” in terms of salt. Salt, after all, is a flavoring that provides distinction in many dishes. We use salt to flavor food that would otherwise be bland and unpalatable. Nevertheless, if we use too much salt, food becomes intolerable; we cannot stomach it. And so it goes with the distinctive doctrines of the faith: if we never speak of them and do not practice them, our faith will become generic and bland; indeed, at that point, people could participate in all sorts of “churches” and get the same effect. But if all we ever do is talk about distinctive doctrines, our preaching and teaching becomes intolerable: we might generate resistance to those “distinctives” because of the overemphasis, people begin to justify themselves on the basis of the “distinctives,” and those who would follow Jesus are not properly trained in the full message of what God has accomplished in Jesus. Just as salt is to be used judiciously in order to provide flavor without overwhelming the senses, so it ought to be with the “distinctives”: they should be continually practiced, discussed so that all may understand why we do what we do as we do it, exhorted as part of the call to follow Jesus as God has established in the New Testament, but not as overwhelming the overall message of Jesus as the Christ.

The Gospel is not centered in the distinctive doctrines of churches of Christ; the Gospel is Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return, and all the truths of Christian faith and practice flow from this Gospel message. The “distinctives” are true inasmuch as they are rooted in the greater message of what God has accomplished in Jesus; they should be practiced and preached judiciously, and understood to be part of a greater whole. Those who will be saved are converted by the Gospel of Christ in its fullness, not merely in particular distinctive doctrines. May we proclaim Jesus the Lord and Christ in word and deed and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The “Distinctives” Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Pandemics and the Christian Faith

The situation was already a crisis: dangers abroad, a corrupt and weak administration within. The whole state looked ready to topple. And then a pandemic arose on top of it. It was a miracle the state endured.

Does this sound like America in 2020 with COVID-19? It is a description of the Roman Empire in the middle of the third century CE, and the pandemic then, the Plague of Cyprian, was devastating, killing untold thousands. The Plague of Cyprian is now thought to be related to the Ebola virus. Three hundred years later a pandemic of bubonic plague affected the Western world and most likely led to the death of a third to a half of the population, leading to the final end of any hope of centralized Roman authority and inaugurated the Middle Ages. Both of these pandemics can be reasonably understood as judgments of God against the Roman world, a part of the realization of what God prophesied in Revelation.

It would not end there; bubonic plague would afflict Europe for another three hundred years and then again in the famous Black Death of 1348-1349. In terms of sheer numbers, however, no pandemic compares with the H1N1 “Spanish flu” global pandemic of 1918-1920; 500 million were likely infected, and probably around 100 million died.

COVID-19 has caused great disruption for the world economy and grief for the many families who have lost loved ones or who continue to suffer complications from the infection. It is natural and expected for many Christians to wonder what is going on with the COVID-19 pandemic as it relates to their faith: how could God allow for such a thing to take place? Is this some kind of judgment from God? How do we practice the faith in the midst of a pandemic?

As we can tell, pandemics are not a new phenomenon; Christians have been called upon time and again to endure and persevere through waves of pandemic infections. All of the pandemics described above have taken place since Jesus was made Lord and Christ; they wrought profound devastation and loss on many societies and cultures, and for them it certainly felt like the end of the world. In many respects the pandemics did end their worlds.

To this end Christians should be wary about declaring any given pandemic to be a judgment of God against a particular group of people for a specific reason. It was predicted that many disasters would come and go, but it would not be the end (cf. Matthew 24:6-7), and so it has been over and over again. It is certainly possible that God renders judgment through a pandemic, but it would not be for us to understand exactly how and to what end without some kind of direct, specific revelation we have no right to expect between now and the day the Lord returns. We should not assume that COVID-19 will mean the end of the world; COVID-19 might, however, be part of the end of our particular world, the way in which we formerly used to live.

Nevertheless, pandemics, like many other kinds of traumatic experiences, can be “apocalypses,” a revelation or unveiling of the hearts and minds of many. In previous pandemics many hearkened back to God and displayed love toward their fellow man; many others turned away and the ugliness of their hearts and minds were revealed. And so it has been with COVID-19: we have seen the best of humanity and the worst of humanity, both in the world at large and closer to home with family, friends, and associates.

Christians, therefore, have often lived through and endured pandemics. Some have experienced crises of faith because of pandemics; others have come to faith or modeled the faith well in the midst of pandemics. The “Plague of Cyprian” is so named because Cyprian, an early Christian, wrote about it, and testified to how Christians risked their lives to minister and serve those who were ill when many others had long fled the cities and towns of the Roman Empire. Martin Luther lived through a bout of plague; he commended those who served in risky situations, but also recognized the value of displaying love by not rashly exposing people to illness (Whether One May Flee From a Deadly Plague).

Christians do well to look to what God has made known in Jesus for comfort and strength in the days of the COVID-19 pandemic (Romans 15:4). Christians understand the importance of spending time together encouraging one another in the faith (Hebrews 10:25); the pandemic should be ample reason for Christians to consider one another and check in with one another frequently (Romans 12:9-10, 13). If assemblies can be held in such a way as to meet civil standards and maintain appropriate social distance, well and good; if the only way to do so is to meet virtually, we do well to remember that the assembly was made for man, not man for the assembly, and to do the best we can in the sight of and reverence for God (cf. Mark 2:23-28). We ought to pray for God to strengthen, sustain, and heal many; our hope and confidence is in Jesus’ lordship and resurrection, and this is an excellent time to bear witness to the great hope we share in Jesus. Others are grasping for such hope and confidence, and they ought to find in us effective models of Christian faith and charity.

We hope and pray an effective vaccine for COVID-19 will be developed and distributed widely so to bring an end to this pandemic. We hope to be able to resume some semblance of “normal life” in the near future. Yet we should not quickly forget the lessons of COVID-19. We have seen the way people are, and we should not soon forget it. We should remember that everything we take for granted as “normal” can be entirely upset very quickly and all the technology we have developed may not be able to save us. In all things we ought to grow in our faith in God in Christ so we might obtain eternal life in the resurrection in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Photo By NIAID, CC BY 2.0, Link

The post Pandemics and the Christian Faith appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Moderation

It is said that the two subjects which ought to be avoided in polite conversation are religion and politics. Furthermore, within Christianity, there is often an understandable desire to transcend the politics of the day: politics, by the very nature of the craft, involves compromise and gets very dirty in deal making; furthermore, no political platform fully embodies God’s purposes in Christ, and politicians invariably fall short of upholding what God would have upheld in Christ in every respect. At the same time, Christians in America will invariably be called upon to engage with all sorts of ideas, philosophies, plans, and policies prevalent in American political discourse as members of this representative republic; thus, however Christians engage with politics, they ought to do so in ways which bring the lordship of Jesus to bear, and Jesus ought to be glorified and manifest in how they speak of politics and politicians (Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 1:27, Colossians 3:17). We thus do well to consider the broad trends in political discourse and how they relate to what God has made known in Jesus.

The vast majority of modern American political discourse takes place within the general confines of philosophical liberalism: a commitment to free speech, freedom of individuals, the fundamental equality of everyone, a commitment to the rule of law, free markets and free trade, freedom of religion, and a primarily secular posture from the government. Within this commitment to philosophical liberalism we presently see three major political postures: progressivism, conservatism, and libertarianism. And then there is the fourth type of posture which would presume to represent the political and philosophical center: the moderate.

Political moderation does not represent a political philosophy per se as much as presuming to referee primarily between the progressive and conservative coalitions. In this sense the political moderates wield significant amounts of political clout and power: rarely do the progressive or conservative coalitions maintain sufficient numbers to advance their agendas, and so the support of the political moderates proves crucial for either side to govern and implement policy. If the status quo is tolerable, the moderates generally align with the political conservatives; if the status quo becomes intolerable, the moderates then generally shift toward the political progressives. Thus we generally see political policy and preferences orient around the political center.

There is much to commend political moderation. Neither the political progressives nor the political conservatives maintain a monopoly on truth or healthy public policy; the republic suffers if either group obtains significant political power over a long period of time. Society does need to make a lot of changes as desired by the political progressives and yet also ought to maintain its culture and traditions in many respects as desired by the political conservatives; it thus falls to the political moderates in the middle to adjudicate what ought to be changed and what ought to be retained by empowering each coalition in turn. The lack of a coherent political philosophy beyond a broad commitment to philosophical liberty is thus recognized as a feature, not a bug: the political moderate can believe he or she is not beholden to a particular philosophy or school of thought and thus can reflect greater independence in thought. A true political moderate will be less tempted toward partisanship and should be more clear-eyed about the limitations and difficulties inherent in the ideologies of political progressivism and conservatism.

Political moderation therefore can certainly be a virtue, able and willing to support what is good and commendable about political progressivism and conservatism while avoiding their faults. But political moderation is not inherently virtuous. It is tempting to believe the best way forward on any given policy matter is a centrist, middle way, but the truth and morality of a matter is not always found in the center. Far too often the standard for the political moderate is a status quo which preserves the economic and societal advantages of political moderates, and this is often accepted uncritically and believed to be what would be best for the greatest number of people.

Considering these things can prove challenging because of current standards of critique. Both political progressives and conservatives frequently come under criticism from political moderates and from each other; one can even find some self-criticism within political progressivism and conservatism. Political moderation, however, is not subjected to as much critique and manifests even less self-critique. The virtue of political moderation is taken as self-evident; political moderates often see themselves as those empowered to critique those to their “left” and to their “right” and rarely imagine that they themselves should come under critique.

To this end political moderates should all the more consider Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail. In it King lamented the lukewarm acceptance black people received from the political moderates of his day. They expressed some concern about the plight of black people but wanted to disrupt the status quo as little as possible. They found the protests, marches, and civil disobedience of civil rights agitators to go beyond what made good sense. And yet, as King related, those with privilege do not relinquish their privilege easily; justice and the removal of oppression must be demanded. The work of calling out and eliminating injustice and oppression has always required uncomfortable agitation and disruption of the status quo and thus will easily cause discomfort among political moderates: this was seen in the work of political progressives with the rights of laborers, children, women, and people of color, and in the work of political conservatives with abortion. Thus, time and time again in American history the politically moderate position did not lead the country in matters of justice and righteousness; instead, political moderates proved more willing to justify and rationalize evil, injustice, and oppression because of the unpalatable political consequences of upholding what was right and just. What passes for political moderation does not always align with God’s concerns for righteousness and the cause of justice.

Christians can glorify God while maintaining a politically moderate stance in American politics. Yet Christians must never assume that whatever passes for the politically moderate stance is that which glorifies God. Political moderates provide important balance among the political progressives and conservatives; they help define what kind of changes, or lack thereof, will be manifest in society. Such provides all the more reason for Christians who maintain politically moderate positions to prove just as critical of their own posture as they would those to their “left” and to their “right” and seek to perceive how they help to reinforce and support the powers that be which work actively to oppress and harm some to reinforce the advantage of others. Political moderates do well to remember how the kind of life which glorifies God in His Kingdom will always be seen as radical and threatening to many across the political spectrum; to participate in creative nonviolent resistance against the powers and principalities will require fortitude, conviction, and confidence in God and will subvert the status quo (cf. Matthew 5:38-42). May we all seek to glorify God, centering our political philosophy and posture in Christ, and maintain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Moderation appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Carousing

The Apostle Paul reminded the Galatian Christians regarding the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-24). These “works of the flesh” are delineated in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the “works of the flesh” with sins of excess: drunkenness and carousing.

The Greek word translated as revellings, orgies, or carousing is the Greek word komos, defined by Thayer as:

a revel, carousal; a nocturnal and riotous procession of half drunken and frolicsome fellows who after supper parade through the streets with torches and music in honour of Bacchus or some other deity, and sing and play before houses of male and female friends; hence used generally of feasts and drinking parties that are protracted till late at night and indulge in revelry.

The komos was a particular and specific kind of Greek “observance” of which we know only a little based on what is attested in paintings on vases and in glimpses in Greek literature. The most famous komos is only known from its aftereffects: Alcibiades crashes the Symposium narrated by Plato after he participated in a komos. The komos certainly involved drunkenness; those participating in it, the komoi, would also engage in a kind of procession in the town in an immodest and indecent way. Weddings seemed to feature a komos, as would certain city festivals. Masks seem to be worn for at least some observances of the komos; there might well have been competitive speeches or songs involved. The Greek term for comedy, komoidia, quite likely derives from the word komos and ode, song: it is not hard to imagine the mirth and vulgarity of drunken song leading to what would become the tropes of what is now deemed comedy.

We thus can understand why both Paul and Peter will condemn the komos as a behavior of the Gentiles (using the term with its pejorative connotation), the rites of the darkness which are not suitable for Christians who live and walk as if it is daytime (Romans 13:13, 1 Peter 4:3-4).

Many cultures have a komos-type ritual, or at least provide some opportunity for its members to participate in a similar form of revelry and carousing. What Paul and Peter condemn in the Greek komos is easily found in eerily similar modern contexts: the drunken wedding party, the drunken feasts celebrating an important day for a given nation or people, the orgy of revelry and even violent destruction of property when a city’s sports team wins a championship (or, in some instances, loses one). The spirit of revelry can often be found in a bar or tavern. Not a few songs have been composed in a drunken haze among friends; what passes for comedy continues to rely on the vulgar tropes of what was likely discussed among the komoi in the ancient Greek world.

Perhaps the fullest modern embodiment of the komos is the stereotypical college frat party. Excessive amounts of alcohol are drunk; hazing rituals often feature stupid behaviors harming the one being hazed, innocent people, and property; young women are invited, plied with plenty of alcohol, and sexual behaviors with varying levels of consent and awareness naturally follow. This is all seen as “good fun,” and many who participate in it yearn to do so again soon. The prevalence of this trope in the modern psyche betrays the strong desire among many who should have outgrown such things to be able to return to them.

Let none be deceived: nothing good can come from revelry and carousing. It is one thing to celebrate important rituals in a person’s life and in the collective life of a nation or a culture in modest and sober ways. It is quite another to commemorate such things with revelry and carousing; such behavior is haunted by the drunkenness, sexual immorality, and violence that define the experience. How many high quality decisions have been made while drunk? How many unwise sexual liaisons have begun while drunk in a context of revelry which have led to pain and frustration long afterward? And that presumes such sexual liaisons are consensual, however one can define “consensual” in a drunken revelrous context; how many cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, and/or rape have taken place during such parties? How many awake the day after such revelry with a splitting headache and deep regret? Why would people yearn to participate in such things again, and consider such behaviors as part of the “joys” of youth?

A hedonistically minded culture which normalizes and encourages such bouts of revelry is demonic in inspiration, casting a strong delusion over its people. As Christians we must set aside such delusions and turn away from the “party lifestyle.” Christians ought to be sober-minded, not enraptured by alcohol and sexual desire. Christians understand why revelry takes place at night: it is a work of darkness exposed as shameful in the light of day. Christians do well to be of the daytime, cognizant of the dangers of revelry, avoiding the works of the flesh, glorifying God in Christ in all they think, feel, say, and do. The shared love of Christians in Christ provides far greater connection and camaraderie than any drinking party can offer; the relational unity Christians ought to experience in God and with one another makes a mockery of the pretenses of a bacchanal. May we find joy and celebration in God in Christ, and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Works of the Flesh: Carousing appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The American Gospel

In a world darkened by superstition a bright light began to shine across the seas: men motivated by faith and freedom sought to build a republic based on human rights and Christian faith. This republic would be sanctified by the blood of many brave patriots who freely gave up their lives for the cause of faith and freedom. To this end the United States of America is an exceptional Christian nation, blessed and favored by God. God helps those who help themselves: Americans who accomplish the American Dream manifest the favor of God and maintain their confidence in that favor for salvation. Those who do not obtain those benefits clearly have not sufficiently trusted in (white) Jesus and the American way; they are prone to turn to godless socialism and seek to destroy America because they did not work hard enough to obtain its blessings.

The above is the American Gospel. It sounds just enough like the Gospel of Jesus to be taken seriously; and yet it is another gospel, compromises the witness of the true Kingdom of God, and cannot save.

The Puritans crossed the Atlantic in the seventeenth century in order to set up a theocratic community so as to embody the purity of what they imagined the Christian faith to be: the “city set on a hill” of which John Winthrop spoke. Enlightenment thinking would pervade secular and religious thinking in late eighteenth century America; many a religious authority proved willing to use Christian themes and language in the cause of the rebellion and to find ways to justify their position in the Scriptures. By the middle of the nineteenth century various forms of Christianity pervaded the United States of America, and its adherents celebrated and exalted in their nation and its ideology. Not a few believed in American postmillennialism: through the American project God was establishing the Kingdom of Jesus on earth. To this end many proved willing to justify and commend whatever America did as the will of God: the subjugation of the land and the dispossession of Native Americans; white supremacy and the oppression of people of color; participation within the government as service; sanctification of America’s military endeavors as service and the sacrifice of some to secure the freedom of many.

And yet much of what is put forth as the “American Gospel” is a product of the twentieth century. The federal government enforced draconian measures to stifle dissent during World War I, casting aspersions on the loyalty and integrity of anyone who would profess Christ and not take up arms to defend the United States (e.g. Sergeant York). During the Great Depression representatives of American business interests and some in conservative Christendom worked together to promote the “gospel” of America’s Judeo-Christian heritage, free speech, and free enterprise; during the early days of the Cold War this coalition would prove ascendant, promoting attendance at the church of your choice as part of the obligation of being a good American resisting the godless communist cause, and of course exalting the virtues of capitalist free enterprise. As American culture has grown more secular, many within conservative Christendom sought to emphasize the “Judeo-Christian” heritage of America and have sought to baptize America’s founding and government as a profoundly Christian polity.

Let none be deceived: the American Gospel is not a harmless celebration of both faith and country. In New Testament times and immediately after the powers and principalities strongly persecuted the people of God through the coercive power of the nation-states. Yet for the past 1700 years the powers and principalities have proven just as willing to try to co-opt the faith: as opposed to resisting the faith, they have tried to embrace it, but only inasmuch as it will advance the purposes of the powers and principalities over the nation-state. If a Christianish form of civic religion will create patriotic, nationalistic, obedient, and compliant citizens to advance the purposes of the nation-state, well and good; but if any practice the true faith in Christ, and seek to advance the purposes of the Kingdom of Jesus even when those purposes deviate from the goal of the nation-state, such are reckoned as unpatriotic, with suspect loyalty, and a “fifth column” who can be excoriated as an enemy or supporting the enemy.

This challenge is manifest whenever American Christianish civic religion is questioned. For the purposes of the state, religious participation is good without regard to many religious specifics; notice how effectively “attend the church of your choice” has been promoted and advanced in our society, and how challenging it can be to reorient people toward the unity of the faith in Christ and the importance of proclaiming the Gospel in its purity (1 Corinthians 1:10ff, Galatians 1:6-9). What happens if a Christian would dare to question the purity and holiness of the heritage of the United States or challenge the presumption that its military members make sacrifices for their freedom? They are denounced as disloyal, unthankful, and might well be sympathizers with ideas deemed “un-American.” How well have conscientious objectors been treated in the military and society? How many arrests and beatings awaited, and continue to await, those who raise up their voices against the injustices and oppression prevalent in American society?

Americans can most assuredly become Christians and serve Jesus in His Kingdom; but the United States of America cannot be a “Christian nation” as commonly construed. The interests of the United States as a nation-state diverge frequently from the interests of the Kingdom of Jesus. The Kingdom of Jesus transcends worldly divisions and reckons everyone as equally valuable in the sight of God and equally worthy of hearing the word of life in Christ (Acts 10:34-35, Romans 2:11, Galatians 3:28); thus God loves Americans, but no more or less than He loves everyone else. The Scriptures never teach that “God helps those who help themselves”: American emphasis on self-reliance is contrary to the goal of relational unity in God and among one another as Christians (John 17:20-23, Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28). Accomplishing the American Dream can be a good thing but it is not evidence of salvation: many faithful servants of Jesus never enjoyed material wealth or stability, and many who enjoy material comfort and stability have done so in ways which dishonor God in Christ (cf. 1 Timothy 6:3-10, 17-19). Every attempt to realize the ideals of equality in America have been resisted by many who profess Jesus as the Christ; at the same time, the pursuit of those ideals has led to intense suffering by those who have worked to call out against the injustice, and many such people were inspired by their commitment to the Kingdom of Jesus to do so.

There are ways in which God has very likely used the United States to accomplish His purposes in the world. Yet the United States is not a pure angelic state in the world. Christians must be wary of the American Gospel and the baptism of patriotic nationalism to advance the purposes of the nation-state to the detriment of the Kingdom of Jesus. No soldier could die for the freedom which God has secured for us through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus His Son; Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, not the American way. It is not enough to be a good American to be saved; we must submit to the Lordship of Jesus in all things and seek to advance His Kingdom, His righteousness and justice, and all to His honor and glory, not that of the United States. One day the United States will fall like any other nation-state; the Kingdom of Jesus will endure forever. May we prioritize what God has done in Christ and seek His Kingdom and righteousness to obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The American Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Babylon

From its beginning Babylon represented human arrogance and rebellion; it would enjoy fleeting moments of glamour and glory on a global stage. Babylon the city, on the Great River Euphrates in Mesopotamia, modern-day Iraq, would fade into oblivion, fulfilling the prophecies of the prophets. Babylon as metaphor endures.

In Genesis 10:10-11 Babel is reckoned as the beginning of Nimrod’s kingdom. Its better known origin story can be found in Genesis 11:1-9: the Tower of Babel, built by all humanity on the Plain of Shinar to stay together and to make a name for themselves in direct rebellion against God’s commands. The place is named “Babel,” Hebrew for confusion, because God confused human language there. In Akkadian the city was known as Babilim, the meaning of which is highly contested; it was rendered as Babulon in Greek, from which we derive “Babylon”; in the Hebrew Bible, the city is called “Babel” throughout.

Both archaeology and written texts attest to Babylon’s relatively late beginnings in Mesopotamia, established sometime in the 2300s to 2200s BCE, allegedly by Sargon of Akkad himself. The Hebrew Bible did well at speaking of Egyptians and Assyrians but not “Babylonians,” for Babylon was at least ruled over if not also inhabited by a series of different groups of people over its two thousand years in existence. Its original inhabitants were likely Akkadians; by the 1800s BCE the Amorites of the northwestern Levant had invaded and occupied much of southern Mesopotamia and inaugurated the Amorite, or Old Babylonian, period (ca. 1800s-1500s BCE; in Israel, the days of Egyptian sojourn). Babylon remained smaller and more obscure until Hammurabi built an empire dominating southern Mesopotamia and the Euphrates region northwest to Mari (ca. 1792-1750 BCE). Hammurabi became famous for the law code established in his name; it has served as a helpful tool as both to contextualize the Law of Moses and to prove a foil for it. After Hammurabi all of southern Mesopotamia would become known as “Babylonia,” just as northern Mesopotamia had become known as “Assyria.”

Amorite Babylon was overthrown by the Hittites around 1595 BCE; soon afterward it was overrun by a group of people known as the Kassites, likely from the Zagros Mountains area of Iran, inaugurating the Kassite, or Middle Babylonian, period (ca. 1595-1155 BCE; in Israel, the time of the Exodus and the Judges). Toward the end of this period the Assyrians and Elamites dominated the city. More “native” Akkadians overthrew the Kassites in 1155 and ruled for a short time before the city was overrun by Arameans from the west.

From 911 to 609 BCE Babylon was continually under Assyrian control. In the 700s BCE the Chaldeans, people who lived in the marshes of southern Mesopotamia, began to continually harass the Assyrian authorities, taking over in Babylon when Assyria was otherwise distracted and fleeing into the safety of the marshlands when the Assyrians returned with an army. So it went with Merodach-Baladan (Marduk-apla-iddina II) who sent envoys to Hezekiah king of Judah (722-710, 703-702 BCE; 2 Kings 20:12-19, Isaiah 39:1-8). In response Sennacherib king of Assyria leveled Babylon to the ground; and yet his son Esarhaddon would dedicate many resources to rebuilding the city.

In the period of 612-605 BCE Nabopolassar (Nabû-apla-uṣur), a Chaldean Babylonian ruler, allied with the Medes, overthrew the Assyrian yoke, and destroyed the cities and empire of the Assyrians. It would fall to his son Nebuchadnezzar II (Nabû-kudurri-uṣur; ca. 634-562 BCE) to fill the void in Mesopotamia and establish what is now known as the Neo-Babylonian Empire (605-539 BCE). Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharaoh Neko of Egypt (cf. 2 Kings 23:28-30); he would besiege Jerusalem and exile Jehoiachin and the upper class of Judah in 597 BCE, and after another rebellion in the days of Zedekiah, again besiege and then completely destroy Jerusalem, ending the Kingdom of Judah as a going concern in 586 BCE (2 Kings 24:1-25:21). Nebuchadnezzar would besiege Tyre unsuccessfully for 13 years; attack Egypt; and also exile the Philistines (Ezekiel 29:17-21). Babylon reached the peak of its prominence and power in the days of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Daniel 4:1-37).

We make much of the Neo-Babylonian Empire because of its role in destroying Jerusalem and exiling the Judahites to Babylon; in historical terms it was short-lived, a quick transition between the days of the Assyrians and the Persians. The genius of the Babylonian Empire died with Nebuchadnezzar; a few short-lived kings reigned after him, including Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), who elevated Jehoiachin according to 2 Kings 27:27-30). The longest reigning king was Nabonidus (Nabû-naʾid), the last official king of the Chaldeans, along with his son Belshazzar, famously condemned in Daniel 5:1-31 (ca. 556-539 BCE). In their day Cyrus king of Persia conquered Babylon at the Battle of Opis and established the Achaemenid Persian Empire.

Despite a couple of insurrections the Persians maintained generally and strong consistent rule over Babylon until the defeat of Darius III by Alexander, king of Macedon, at the Battle of Gaugamela in 331 BCE. Babylon flourished under Alexander; under the continual conflict of his successors Babylon began to depopulate. In 275 BCE its inhabitants and the Esagila temple were moved to Seleucia on the Tigris, which itself would later be swallowed up by Ctesiphon, which was made the metropolis of southern Mesopotamia throughout the Roman/Parthian/Sassanian period (ca. 120 BCE-700s CE). In the 700s Ctesiphon faded after the establishment of Baghdad by the Abbasid Muslims, which remains the prominent city to this day. By the time of Jesus Babylon was a small village; Christianity spread in the area, but by the second millennium CE Babylon was a ruin.

The Bible well recognizes the prominence of Babylon in Mesopotamian civilization. The city and its gates were most impressive; its wealth was immense; its temples were legendary, exemplified in the story of the Tower of Babel. The Hanging Gardens of Babylon was reckoned as one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. Their astrological and astronomical observations formed the basis of many scientific endeavors. Many of the mythological stories which were excavated in Mesopotamia are told in their Babylonian versions, especially the highly influential creation narrative known as Enuma elish.

And yet the words of the prophets were fulfilled (cf. Isaiah 13:1-14:23, 40:1-55:13, Jeremiah 50:1-51:64): Babylon, master of a mighty empire, vaunting over defeated Israel, tempting exiled Israelites to turn away from YHWH their God to Marduk and the Mesopotamian pantheon, faded into oblivion. Its location would be lost, rediscovered in modern times by western archaeologists confessing the God of Israel and looking to illuminate the narratives of the Hebrew Scriptures. The story remains poignant for all who have ears to hear.

Even as Babylon in Mesopotamia faded, what Babylon represented for Israelites, the pagan human earthly power arrogating itself against God and His people, would endure. Peter and John both spoke regarding Rome and its Empire in terms of Babylon (1 Peter 5:13, Revelation 17:1-18:24). If Babylon’s heritage could be seen in Rome, we can see similar evidence of its heritage in every major human power since. Civilization may have developed along the shores of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and magnified itself in the form of Babylon; God’s people have been called at times to seek the welfare of Babylon and to flee Babylon and its idolatry. To this day the people of God ought to live in unease in the “Babylon” of its day, seeking to embody the Christ to the lost and dying while not falling prey to the temptations “Babylon” would offer. May we faithfully serve God in Christ and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Babylon appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Political Conservatism

It is said that the two subjects which ought to be avoided in polite conversation are religion and politics. Furthermore, within Christianity, there is often an understandable desire to transcend the politics of the day: politics, by the very nature of the craft, involves compromise and gets very dirty in deal making; furthermore, no political platform fully embodies God’s purposes in Christ, and politicians invariably fall short of upholding what God would have upheld in Christ in every respect. At the same time, Christians in America will invariably be called upon to engage with all sorts of ideas, philosophies, plans, and policies prevalent in American political discourse as members of this representative republic; thus, however Christians engage with politics, they ought to do so in ways which bring the lordship of Jesus to bear, and Jesus ought to be glorified and manifest in how they speak of politics and politicians (Ephesians 4:29, Philippians 1:27, Colossians 3:17). We thus do well to consider the broad trends in political discourse and how they relate to what God has made known in Jesus.

The vast majority of modern American political discourse takes place within the general confines of philosophical liberalism: a commitment to free speech, freedom of individuals, the fundamental equality of everyone, a commitment to the rule of law, free markets and free trade, freedom of religion, and a primarily secular posture from the government. Within this commitment to philosophical liberalism we presently see three major political postures: progressivism, conservatism, and libertarianism.

The core concept of political conservatism involves the goal of advocating for and protecting, and thus conserving, civilization as expressed in society and culture: tradition, authority, property rights, religious practice, and the family are thus emphasized and promoted. Conservatism as such arose in Europe as a result of the seismic changes caused by the French Revolution. In its moderate form conservatism attempts to work within a commitment to philosophical liberalism to preserve freedoms while upholding what is deemed proper authorities and traditional culture; in its more extreme reactionary form conservatism seeks to disrupt or even overthrow modernism, crying out to stop everything in the relentless pace of change. In its American form political conservatism may be understood as upholding republicanism, a “Judeo-Christian” moral framework, American exceptionalism, individual liberty, a pro-business laissez-faire philosophy of economics, a skepticism toward government and its effectiveness, and great resistance to anything perceived as Marxist/communist/socialist.

Political conservatism in America remains fractured among three emphases often held in tension: fiscal conservatism, social conservatism, and religious conservatism. Fiscal conservatives have been strongly influenced by libertarianism and the Chicago and Austrian schools of economics and thus emphasize the importance of free markets and resist many forms of government oversight of economic markets; they endorse policies which will advance the economic interests of American businesses. Social conservatives emphasize the dangers they perceive to social and cultural values of the past: they endorse policies which would preserve the integrity of social and cultural values of the past and to resist the policies endorsed by political progressives. Religious conservatives emphasize the “Judeo-Christian” religious heritage of America and endorse policies which would reinforce American Christian civic religious practices and values. Some political conservatives identify across all three emphases; many others maintain a primary loyalty to one or two emphases over the others. Many other divisions and differences in ideology among political conservatives could be added; for our purposes, we do well to note how a need to bridge the various emphases and ideologies can help explain some of the internal contradictions which often manifest themselves in political conservatism, and how commitments in political conservatism may inform the postures maintained by many in their faith.

There is much to commend political conservatism for the Christian. At their best political conservatives work to preserve the religious liberties of Christians and others so Christians can live out lives in peace and dignity (cf. 1 Timothy 2:1-2). Political conservatives wish to uphold the integrity of the family and the life of the unborn and to maintain space for the traditions of culture and society. The truly politically conservative impulse remains very necessary and an important check on the impulse toward progressivism from the other side: not everything ought to be changed or challenged. Many aspects of the society and culture we have received from our ancestors are praiseworthy and ought to be imitated and maintained. Major policy changes should be subjected to great scrutiny so as to limit the difficulties which might arise from the law of unintended consequences.

And yet political conservatism is not without its difficulties. Many challenges arise from the inherent tension among economic, social, and religious conservatism as practiced in America today. While one can certainly glorify God as a Christian and believe in the value of laissez-faire capitalism, laissez-faire capitalism is not mandated or inherently commended in the pages of Scripture. The shareholder value-driven impetus of what is deemed “late capitalism” has proven extremely harmful for the integrity of the environment, the family, and work, and thus in tension with what ought to be the goals of social conservatism. The move toward libertarianism among many political conservatives has led to greater emphasis on freedom than responsibility. Since the 1930s economic and political conservatives have worked with many faith leaders to promote an American Christianish civic religion, encouraging attending a church or a synagogue of one’s choice and a commitment to free markets and free enterprise, and this effort has proven very successful in conservative Christendom. Any Gospel-based critique of modern American practices of free markets or free enterprise have been deemed by many religious conservatives as Marxist or socialist and dismissed entirely. Not a few Christians seeking to restore the ancient order have fallen prey to the siren song of American Christian-ish civic religion: many find few, if any, points of disconnect between their faith in Christ and their patriotism and political commitments, and some prove more than willing to condemn as heretical and anathema any Christian who would not share those political commitments.

Unfortunately, Frank Wilhoit’s proposition regarding conservatism has yet to be refuted: “there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” Since political conservatives strongly value loyalty, the strong temptation remains to find reasons to commend and justify themselves and stifle critique and dissent and use the law as an instrument to benefit themselves at the expense of those with whom they politically disagree. Such offends the premise of equal standing before the law, the punishment of wrongdoing, and the commendation of the good in Isaiah 1:16-17 and Romans 13:1-7.

Even the core strength of political conservatism, the drive to commend and defend the cultural and social order, is not without difficulty. Christians can find many aspects and elements to modern American culture which are praiseworthy and ought to be maintained; yet not all aspects of American culture should be preserved. It is very tempting for political conservatives to commend and defend the indefensible if the indefensible remains part of their cultural heritage, as seen most clearly in the long term embrace of white supremacy and resistance to the dismantling of racist systems among many political conservatives. Modern political conservatism has a strong contrarian streak, and a few political conservatives back themselves into reactionary postures and white nationalism in their attempts to “own the libs.”

Politics and society work best when a healthy conservatism proves willing and able to make spirited defenses for the present polity, to work to conserve the culture and the environment, and to uphold the dignity and honor of life and work. Christians can find much to commend in political conservatism. Nevertheless, not everything in society is worth preserving; many aspects of society are oppressive and unjust, and to defend and support such things would be contrary to God’s purposes in Christ. Christians must take care lest they become too comfortable in the atmosphere of political conservatism so as to go beyond what glorifies God in Christ and compromise the faith, judge hypocritically, and justify the indefensible. May we all seek to glorify God in Christ in our political views, postures, and behaviors, and magnify the Lordship of Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Political Conservatism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Drunkenness

The Apostle Paul understood the conflict between the desires of the flesh and the ways of God in the Spirit, and exhorted the Galatian Christians to manifest the fruit of the Spirit and resist the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:19-24). He listed these “works of the flesh” in Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousies, wraths, factions, divisions, parties, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and such like; of which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they who practise such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Many of the first “works of the flesh” centered on challenges and temptations which would prove especially acute for Christians who had recently come out of the Greco-Roman pagan milieu: sexual temptations like sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, and lasciviousness; idolatry; and sorcery. Paul then established the “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, wrath, rivalries, divisions, sects, and envy. Paul concluded the “works of the flesh” with sins of excess, beginning with drunkenness.

The word here translated as “drunkenness” is the Greek word methe, defined by Thayer as “intoxication, drunkenness.” In theory, a person can become intoxicated or made drunk by all sorts of substances and desires; to this end John is told the inhabitants of the earth were made drunk by the “wine” of the “sexually deviant behavior” of “whore Babylon” in Revelation 17:1-2, an indictment of the idolatry of the age. Yet we notice how the drunkenness is spoken of in terms of “wine,” for the core concept of drunkenness remains “to be made intoxicated by alcoholic substances.” Thus Jesus warned His disciples to not be overcharged with drunkenness and to be found unprepared for the day of His return (Luke 21:34); Paul likewise warned the Roman Christians to walk as if in the day, not in drunkenness in Romans 13:12-13, since those who get drunk tend to do so at night (cf. 1 Thessalonians 5:7).

Wine and beer were very common beverages in the Greco-Roman world. Most sources of water were polluted and infested with parasites, and the alcoholic content in wine would help reduce some of these challenges; wine and beer were also a means by which to obtain some calories for survival. Knowledge of distillation was unknown in the ancient world; “strong drink” (Hebrew shekar) in the Old Testament referred to “beer,” not the distilled spirits of much higher alcoholic content now known to man. By the time of the New Testament it was considered barbaric and uncultured to drink “unmixed” wine which maintained its full ~12% alcoholic strength (thus the indictment and the strength of judgment found in the unmixed cup of the wrath of God in Revelation 14:10); wine was cut with water, three or four parts water to one part wine, reducing alcoholic content to around 3-4%. Paul commended such wine for Timothy on account of his stomach ailments (1 Timothy 5:23). Almost everyone in the ancient world, the poor or enslaved as well as the rich, would drink some kind of this mixed wine with their meals.

And yet Paul’s warning against drunkenness remained appropriate: many would drink themselves to drunkenness, even with unmixed wine. In this way human nature has changed little over the centuries: then, as now, many consumed a lot of alcohol at parties or in other social settings as a “social lubricant,” to loosen inhibitions and revel with one’s fellow man: to “make merry,” according to the Hebrew idiom (e.g. Ruth 3:7, 1 Samuel 25:36, 2 Kings 4:20, Ecclesiastes 9:7, Isaiah 24:7, Jeremiah 15:17). Drunkenness, then as now, would often lead to unwise sexual liaisons or arguments and fights (cf. Proverbs 20:1, 23:31-35). For many drunkenness represented a coping mechanism for the distress and pain of life, a tranquilizer to numb from the misery of life (cf. Proverbs 31:6-7). Drunkenness, therefore, represents the attempt to escape from reality to pursue greater social acceptance, the loosening of inhibitions, the warmth and the “buzz,” and/or the numbness from pain. Christians are called upon to clearly recognize reality and to find hope and confidence in Jesus, giving no quarter to the passions of the flesh but in sober-mindedness fully devoted to the purposes of God in Christ until He returns (cf. Colossians 3:1-10). Thus, any who would profess Jesus yet prove to be an unrepentant drunkard must be cast out from among the people of God, for no drunkard will inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10).

The culture of alcohol in America today gravitates toward the extremes: excessive consumption of alcohol in revelry and/or addiction, or teetotaling abstinence. Christians do well to condemn the culture of excessive consumption of alcohol and to resist any form of participation in it. Few sins prove as self-defeating as drunkenness: much of it is consumed without regard to taste; all kinds of bad decisions are made while drunk; excessive consumption all too easily leads to a hangover; and despite it all people will return and do it over and over again. Such is the definition of folly, and we do well to observe the lessons of Proverbs 23:31-35. In truth no one is at their best or healthiest while drinking unto drunkenness. Nothing good comes from it.

We can see that Christians must condemn the excessive consumption of alcohol and firmly resist participation in drunkenness and revelry. Yet we must also make sure we do not go beyond what is written in our condemnations and denunciations. There are some who would suggest any kind of alcoholic consumption is sinful and condemned. Many such persons attempt to argue for a “non-alcoholic” definition of Greek oinos as used in the New Testament; some suggest the condemnation of drunkenness in Ephesians 5:18 is not just the end result but the entire process based upon the form of the verb (methuskesthe, argued to be an inchoate/inceptive form), and thus to drink one alcoholic drink is in the process of getting drunk, and thus is as drunkenness. Neither argument can be sustained in light of what is made known in the New Testament. Greek oinos, by definition, is alcoholic wine; contextual evidence would be necessary to suggest anything to the contrary. It would be odd for the Jewish people to condemn Jesus as one who drank a lot of grape juice in Matthew 11:19; Paul’s exhortation for deacons to “not be given to much wine” makes no sense if the “wine” involved was really only grape juice (1 Timothy 3:8). In terms of Ephesians 5:18, not every verb with the inchoate/inceptive form -sk- is necessarily inchoate/inceptive; by the first century, methuskesthe just meant to get drunk, not the whole process. One could argue that the sin of drunkenness includes drinking with the intent to get drunk, and thus with the very first drink; yet even then, if there were no intention to get drunk, and one did not get drunk, there is no means by which to condemn such a one as a drunkard.

What shall we say to such things? No excuse or quarter is to be given for drunkenness: all Christians must condemn excessive consumption of alcohol as dangerous and sinful, a “work of the flesh” (1 Corinthians 5:11, 6:10, Galatians 5:22). The Bible does not condemn all forms of alcoholic consumption, however: the condemnation is in excess consumption, and the Scriptures testify to the people of God drinking wine and beer in Old and New Testament times (Deuteronomy 7:3, 14:26, Proverbs 31:6, Ecclesiastes 9:7, 10:19, Matthew 11:19, 1 Timothy 5:23). The Apostle Paul declared it was good to not drink wine if it caused a fellow Christian to stumble, and that remains excellent counsel (Romans 14:21). And yet the Kingdom is not eating and drinking, but righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit according to Romans 14:17: there is no ground to condemn consumption of alcohol that does not lead to excess. Thus, Christians do well to avoid sin in terms of alcohol and drinking: none should get drunk. Those who elect to avoid all alcoholic beverages ought to be respected for that decision, and none should seek to cause them to stumble. Yet those who abstain have no ground or right to judge or condemn those who would consume alcohol but not to excess (Romans 14:3-22). May we glorify God in all we do, avoid drunkenness, and strive to live in peace to edify one another in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Works of the Flesh: Drunkenness appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Prosperity Gospel

The Apostles bore witness regarding one of the most pernicious dangers and difficulties Christians in successive generations would face: the desire to hear a message amenable to human nature and lust, and those who would be more than eager to preach such a message (1 Timothy 4:1-3, 6:3-10, 2 Timothy 4:1-5, Jude 1:3-23). The prosperity gospel manifests these tendencies fully.

The prosperity gospel is also known as prosperity theology, the seed gospel, or the health and wealth gospel. Its fundamental premise is the expectation that those who fully trust in God are blessed with health, wealth, and overall prosperity. According to this message Jesus died in order to eliminate poverty and sickness from among His people. The means by which such prosperity can be accessed is almost invariably through providing consistent monetary donations to those who proclaim this message: it is often claimed these are seed donations, and God will provide those who give them with far more material wealth when they are given. Those who proclaim this message emphasize personal empowerment, self-help, and positivity. Those few adherents who may find healing or prosperity are celebrated and lionized as the norm; the many who do not receive healing or prosperity are made to feel as if they did not have enough faith and did not work hard enough to obtain the benefits.

The prosperity gospel relies on a pastiche of various decontextualized Bible verses to advance its thesis. Much is made of Jesus’ promise that He would give anything which His servants would ask for in His name, and emphasis is made on “anything” (cf. Matthew 7:7, 21:22, Mark 11:24, Luke 11:9, John 14:13-14, 15:7, 16, 16:23, 26). Constant appeals are made to the Apostles’ power to heal people of their illnesses (e.g. Acts 3:1-13, 5:12-16, 9:32-43). Malachi 3:10 is another promise to which many will make appeal; much also can be made of 2 Corinthians 9:6-13 in the same line of thinking: those who give much to God will receive even more from Him. Passages like John 10:10, promising abundant life, are easily warped to suggest material prosperity. The greeting of 3 John 1:2, hoping for prosperity and health along with soul prosperity, is made absolute.

We can understand the appeal of the prosperity gospel: who among us wants to be poor and sick? In modern society, as has been true in most societies throughout time, health and wealth have been seen as signs of divine blessing and favor, and people would like to emulate those who enjoy such things. Indeed, under the old covenant, the blessings of God were defined in terms of health and material wealth, and those who would lose such things or who never obtained them were deemed cursed by God (e.g. Leviticus 26:1-46, Proverbs). Those who advocate the prosperity gospel can find antecedents for many of their teachings in the Christian tradition; many of its strands are not novel. The prosperity gospel has been proclaimed so as to align well with the “American Dream” of self-sufficiency and wealth; its preachers skillfully exploit and manipulate the laws regarding religious non-profits to maximize wealth from the donations they have received, often to the point of fraud. Thus we should not be surprised to find prosperity gospel advocates proclaiming their messages on every form of common media and receiving fantastic sums of money from donations, having persuaded untold thousands of the aged, ill, poor, and marginalized in America and around the world of their message.

In truth the prosperity gospel is a false gospel, one designed to appeal to the lusts and vanities of people and away from the difficult aspects of the self-emptying and sacrificial message of Christ crucified. Even under the old covenant the conceit of the view that all suffering came from sin and a lack of faith was questioned and refuted, as can be seen in Psalm 44, Job, and Ecclesiastes; Job and Ecclesiastes, as well as the prophets, affirmed that many become wealthy based on exploitation and fraud, not faithfulness toward God. Yet the fundamental error of the prosperity gospel is made plain in the cross: the Scriptures do not attest that Jesus died on the cross to eliminate poverty and sickness from among His people. Jesus lived and died in poverty; the Apostles did the same (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:9-13, 2 Corinthians 8:9). Most of those who heard and obeyed the Gospel were among the poor, and most of them remained in that condition throughout their lives (1 Corinthians 1:26-27). For all those whom God healed to bear witness to the truth of the message of the Apostles we can find other instances in which Christians became ill and were not thus miraculously healed: Epaphroditus of Philippi, Trophimus (Philippians 2:25-27, 2 Timothy 4:20). If Jesus died to eliminate poverty and sickness among His people, the witness of history has proven Him an abject failure.

Jesus did not die to eliminate poverty and sickness; Jesus died to liberate humanity from slavery to sin, death, and the powers and principalities of this present darkness (Romans 8:1-18, Colossians 2:15, Hebrews 2:8-14). Furthermore, it was not expected that Jesus would suffer so that no one else would ever have to suffer; quite the contrary! Jesus was the Pioneer of the Way of Life (Hebrews 2:9-10): all who would follow Him would have to take up their cross, that is, the object of their humiliation, suffering, and shame, and come after Jesus (Matthew 10:38, 16:24-25). Only those who have suffered with Jesus will be glorified with Him (Romans 8:17). Paul exhorted Christians to imitate him as he imitated Christ, glorying not in material standing or wealth but in humiliation and weakness (1 Corinthians 11:1, 2 Corinthians 11:16-12:10, Philippians 3:1-15). John understood how God is love, and that love was manifest in what God accomplished in Jesus (1 John 4:7-21); thus, for Christians to love as God has loved them required them to suffer loss for one another (1 John 3:16-18). Jesus thus did not suffer with the expectation that His followers would not have to suffer; instead, His suffering proved paradigmatic for the believer, who would only enter the Kingdom through tribulation (cf. Acts 14:21-22).

Health and wealth are not inherently problematic; we can certainly hope and pray for health and wealth, just like John did for Gaius in 3 John 1:2. Yet we must recognize that health and wealth can become idols and temptations away from God’s purposes in Christ (1 Timothy 6:3-10). Those who have health and wealth must use them to glorify God in Christ, to provide for those in need, and to be rich in good works, putting no trust in that health or wealth but in everything giving the glory to God (1 Timothy 6:17-19). We indeed can ask anything of God according to His will and purpose and expect to receive it if we ask in faith; yet, as James the Lord’s brother warns us, if we ask to spend on our passions, we should not expect to receive anything (James 4:1-5). The gospel of health and wealth is a distraction, for having health and wealth does not guarantee or require good standing before God. Many who have been materially poor and sick have been rich in love, faith, patience, good works, and kindness; they will receive their reward in Christ.

The prosperity gospel works for those who preach it; less so for those exploited by it. The best the prosperity gospel can offer you is material prosperity for the moment; but what will happen to you and your wealth when you stand before the Lord Jesus without having carried the cross assigned to you (Romans 14:10-12)? The Gospel of Christ promises a far greater wealth than anything which we can presently find on earth: receiving the glory of God (Romans 8:17-18, Revelation 21:1-22:6). Compared to that glory anything we suffer on earth is reckoned as “light momentary affliction” (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)! Thus we should direct all of our efforts, and endure whatever is necessary, to receive that glory in the resurrection of life. We know the way, for Jesus is that Way and that Truth and that Life (John 14:6); we must suffer with Him if we wish to be glorified in Him. May we resist the siren song of the prosperity gospel, and take up our cross and follow after Jesus to obtain true glory and life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Prosperity Gospel appeared first on de Verbo vitae.