Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 30

Works of the Flesh: Rivalries

In exhorting the Galatian Christians to live according to the Spirit and crucify the flesh and its passions, Paul provides helpful lists of feelings, behaviors, and character traits described as the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul considered the following to be the “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 has now turned to discuss “works of the flesh” which prove especially pernicious in relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy and wrath. He continued in the same theme with rivalries, or factions. The word translated in Galatians 5:20 variously as “factions,” “rivalries,” “disputes,” “quarrels,” etc., is the Greek word eritheia, defined by Thayer as:

1) electioneering or intriguing for office

1a) apparently, in the NT a courting distinction, a desire to put one’s self forward, a partisan and fractious spirit which does not disdain low arts

1b) partisanship, fractiousness

Eritheia is very similar to eris, “strife.” As we have seen previously, strife represents contention or dispute in order to demonstrate superiority. Rivalries involve contentions and disputes as well, yet are engineered in opposition with others in order to obtain personal gain, as can be seen in Webster’s dictionary definition of “rivalry”:

Competition; a strife or effort to obtain an object which another is pursuing; as rivalry in love; or an endeavor to equal or surpass another in some excellence; emulation; as rivalry for superiority at the bar or in the senate.

To this end many versions, especially the New American Standard Bible (NASB), will often translate eritheia as “selfish ambition” or “selfishness.”

Paul wished for the Philippian Christians to do nothing through such rivalry or selfish ambition, but to count others better than themselves in humility in Philippians 2:13. Paul remarked that many had preached Christ in strife and envy based in selfish ambition, not in pure motives, thinking it would cause him distress in his imprisonment; yet he rejoiced that Christ was proclaimed (Philippians 1:17). James warned Christians against having selfish ambition, or factions, in their hearts: this was demonic, worldly, unspiritual wisdom from below, and confusion and evil deeds would spring from them (James 3:14-17).

James did well to describe rivalries as part of “worldly wisdom,” for in the world, it is just assumed that rivalry will get a person where he or she wants to go. We live in a “dog eat dog” world; many view the world as a zero sum game, and so in order to gain you must cause others to lose. Many have no compunction in stepping over others in order to gain prominence and wealth in the modern corporate environment. Yet it is in the realm of politics today in which the fruit of rivalries and factionalism is most evident: many seem to have little taste for actual governance, but work diligently to maintain power and deny power to their opponents. Many stay in power or obtain power not because people really believe they are best suited for the job or will maintain the best policies, but because they successfully convinced enough people that their opponent would be far worse, perhaps even an existential threat to their way of life. In such an environment collaboration and/or compromise are rendered impossible, even defiling. Actual governance suffers; all that remains is the blood sport of winners and losers.

The Bible records many instances of rivalries among people. Cain viewed his brother Abel with jealousy and killed him (Genesis 4:1-13). Sarai felt Hagar became a rival when the latter bore Ishmael to Abraham (Genesis 16:1-16). Esau and Jacob contended from the womb (Genesis 25:19-34, 27:1-46). Even though Rachel was more highly favored by Jacob than her sister Leah, she felt as if in rivalry against her, manifest in the names she gave to Zilpah’s children and even the name of her firstborn Joseph (“multiply,” as in, may God add to me another son; Genesis 29:31-30:24). The story of Israel in its land featured constant rivalries between various competing nation-states. In the New Testament, the disciples maintained rivalries among themselves, all vying for prominence in the Kingdom they imagined Jesus would establish (cf. Matthew 20:20-28).

We should come to expect rivalries and selfish ambition in the world. But it must not be so among saints, and especially not within the church. We can ascertain the dangers and damage rivalries and selfish ambition can do in a local congregation from the example of Diotrephes in 3 John 1:9-10. The elder John chastised Diotrephes as loving to be first among the brethren, and would not accept instruction or rebuke from John and his associates, slandering them maliciously. Beyond this, Diotrephes would not welcome brethren from John, and expelled from the church those who desired to welcome them. In his attempt to gain preeminence within the church with whom he assembled, Diotrephes forsook the men of God, forsook the brethren that would come to his church, and even went to far as to remove his own brethren from the church who would receive outsiders. In his desire for preeminence he even seems willing to remove all others from the church in order to maintain influence and power. One might easily imagine the conclusion of the matter: a “Church of Diotrephes” with Diotrephes, perhaps his family, and any left allied with him. Little glory can be left for God in Christ; Diotrephes, in his insecurity and ambitions, absorbs it all.

It is unlikely that Diotrephes was the first of his kind in the church; without a doubt he has not been the last. The spirit of rivalry and selfish ambition has plagued churches ever since. It can be found in the member, deacon, or even elder who has very little power and standing in the world, but can gain standing in the church, and wields that power and influence to buttress his sense of self and dominates those under his charge. It can be found in the preacher with a chip on his shoulder who feels like he has something to prove and thus “takes on” various opponents, real or perceived. It can be found in the self-proclaimed “brotherhood watchman” who attempts to police the preaching and writings of others for indications they are drifting and seek to call them out and shame them, and all to gain greater influence, power, and standing in the church. Such difficulties are not limited to men; women can also use their positions of influence to engender rivalries through selfish ambition in order to see things done the way they desire for them to be done, or to hinder any kind of endeavor which would make them uncomfortable.

Rivalries and selfish ambition dominate the world; eat or get eaten is enshrined in the wisdom of this world. Yet we have not learned Christ in this way; we must expose this “wisdom” for its worldliness and the expression of demonic influence it is. As Christians we do better to follow the way of Jesus the Christ, who humbled Himself greatly and did all things in love for the benefit and best interest of others (Philippians 2:1-11). May we embody the Lord Jesus in all things and gain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

A Theology of Sexuality

Sexuality remains the “elephant in the room” in most of “Christendom.” Whereas many of the flash points in the struggle with culture norms involve sexuality, struggle with sexual sin remains some of the most difficult challenges facing Christianity today: in any congregation of God’s people, there are struggles with fornication, lasciviousness, pornography, adultery, and/or divorce. We might exhort people to holiness, but we do not seem to provide much of a challenge to society’s narrative of what sexuality is and how it should be exercised.

This is a terrible tragedy, since the Bible provides a robust theology of sexuality. By understanding God’s creation of sexuality and why humans are sexual beings, we can begin to critique the distorted view of sexuality peddled by modern society.

A theology of sexuality must begin with the beginning.

And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them (Genesis 1:26-27).

And the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.”

And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every bird of the heavens; and brought them unto the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And the man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the heavens, and to every beast of the field; but for man there was not found a help meet for him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof: and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

And the man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh (Genesis 2:18-24).

And [Jesus] answered and said, “Have ye not read, that he who made them from the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘for this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh?’ So that they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:4-6).

God made both man and woman in His image, and from the beginning they were made with sexual desire. But proper sexuality can never be divorced from its intended context within the marriage relationship of a man and a woman. Jesus explains how this intention for marriage exists “from the beginning,” when God made them “male and female” and declared that they were to cling to one another and “the two shall become one flesh.”

Man and woman, therefore, were made for each other. They were made with sexual parts and sexual desires. All of these declarations about the man, the woman, and becoming one flesh come before man’s fall into sin, before corruption and sin entered the world. Therefore, human sexuality is part of the creation deemed by God as “very good” (Genesis 1:31).

We have a natural revulsion at any attempt to associate sexuality with God. In many respects, this is good and healthy: God is spirit, and from all that has been revealed, the spirit realm is not to be sexual (Matthew 22:30, John 4:24). There is an unhealthy tendency in some parts of Christianity to understand the believer’s relationship with God in terms of a “Jesus is my boyfriend” style paradigm, and we do well to resist this. There is no need to sexualize every relationship! But does this mean that sexuality has nothing to do with spirituality?

The Scriptures frequently reveal parallels between sexual relationships (both proper and improper) and spiritual relationships. This parallel makes sense: both are intended to reflect intimacy and structured by covenant, or agreement (cf. Exodus 19:1-23, Malachi 2:13-16). When God seeks to communicate to Israel the severity of the transgression of idolatry and the pain which it caused Him, by what means does He frequently do so? Time after time He speaks of idolatry in terms of adultery, graphically embodied through Hosea (Hosea 1:1-3:5) and viscerally described by Ezekiel (Ezekiel 16:1-63). God “betrothed” Israel to Himself; she “committed adultery” or “played the whore” with other gods.

The parallel is also made in a more positive way in the New Testament.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh.”

This mystery is great: but I speak in regard of Christ and of the church. Nevertheless do ye also severally love each one his own wife even as himself; and let the wife see that she fear her husband (Ephesians 5:31-33).

All of Ephesians 5:23-33 is a “dual-track” image of Christ and the church and the husband and wife, with illustrative parallels for each. And yet, as Paul is concluding this image, he goes back to the beginning and the declaration of God’s intention for the proper sexual relationship and finds spiritual application between Christ and the church.

It is common to wish to speak of “the two shall become one flesh” in more romantic terms, speaking of the coming together of mind, emotions, and body. Yet this is not the case in Scripture; Paul’s use of the idea in a critique of the sexual attitudes of his own day is instructive:

Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? shall I then take away the members of Christ, and make them members of a harlot? God forbid. Or know ye not that he that is joined to a harlot is one body?

for, “The twain,” saith he, “shall become one flesh.”

But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. Or know ye not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which ye have from God? and ye are not your own; for ye were bought with a price: glorify God therefore in your body (1 Corinthians 6:15-20).

There is no “romantic connection” with a whore; “the two shall become one flesh” is a referent to sex (which leaves “cleave to his wife” as the way we see the need for the mental/emotional connection; Genesis 2:24). But, as Paul says, the one who is “joined to the Lord” is “one spirit.”

This brings us back to the power of the metaphor. It is true that a metaphor intends for the target (in our case, spirituality) to be understood in terms of the source (sexuality), and not the source in terms of the target. Nevertheless, for the target to be understood in terms of the source, there must be some reason why the source can do so. We could say that it is a major coincidence, or it “just happened” that sexuality can help us understand some spiritual truths, but do such things really “just happen”? Or is it part of something greater? Perhaps the metaphor works because God so created the world and humanity so that the metaphor could work!

For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse (Romans 1:20).

Paul declares how many aspects of God are evident in the “things that are made”; this is not limited to birds, rocks, trees, and the like. God’s “divinity”– His divine nature– is most clearly exemplified in creation through those who bear the image of God, mankind (Genesis 1:26-27).

We do well to remember how God is spirit (John 4:24); we should not press the parallels too far. Nevertheless, that which makes man distinct from the animals tends to reflect God’s image. Of all the animals, we are conscious; we reason; we are capable of amazing creative projects individually and collaboratively. And sexuality, for humans, is far different than sexuality for animals. For most animals, sexuality is almost purely instinctual: they truly “cannot help themselves.” They engage in sexual behavior for procreative purposes and at no other time. This is not the case with humans: humans can (and do) engage in sexual behavior even when conception is not possible. The pleasurable aspects of human sexuality and the feelings they engender are unique. Human sexual behavior involves the mind as much as the body (if not more so!). Human sexuality is far more than putting body parts together!

As we have said, so we say again: God is not “sexual.” But He made both man and woman in His own image, and He made them with sexual desires. He did not do so in order to punish us or test us; it was part of the creation before the Fall, before things went wrong, while all was “very good.” We must therefore ask: why were humans created with sexual desire? What is the theology behind sexuality?

I would like to suggest that the marriage relationship, and the proper expression of human sexuality inherent in that relationship, is the physical shadow of which communion with God in Christ is the spiritual reality.

This may seem strong, but if we replace “human sexuality” with “intimate relationship,” and again consider Genesis 2:24, 1 Corinthians 6:15-20, Ephesians 5:23-33, and consider John 17:20-24 as well, it is hard to deny the connection. This is why the metaphor of idolatry or other forms of covenant faithlessness as adultery is so effective; the intended covenant between a man and a woman and the intimate union which they are to share is a shadow of the intimate, higher, and spiritual relationship between a man or woman with his/her God.

This theology of sexuality explains the power of sexual desire. Sexual desire, first and foremost, is our confession of our insufficiency in ourselves. Sexual desire demands desire for another. God made man and woman with complementary parts; each man and each woman has a physical reminder of their lack of completeness in and of themselves.

There is a reason why we declare that “no man is an island”; we are intensely social creatures, made for community, and even within that community, we are made for a special, intimate relationship with the other who is also created in the image of God. We can enjoy friendships with many people, but we still seek that one relationship where we can be completely and fully exposed and intimate with another. Sexual desire by itself cannot make a marriage, but sexual desire is the driver that leads people into seeking marriage. In our society, this search for intimacy gets perverted into being only physical, but all the brainwashing of society cannot deny the feeling people have inside of them seeking full intimacy with their partner. We want to be as emotionally and spiritually naked before one special person as physically so. There is a reason why the man is to “cling to his wife” and then “the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24): the physical sexual relationship is intended to cement the emotional and spiritual bond inherent in the covenant of marriage.

To say that we are created in the image of God is to say that we are created in the image of the Three in One: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The unity of God is not based in personhood; it is based in relational unity: unity in substance, essence, purpose, will, and being (John 1:1, 17:20-24, Colossians 2:9, etc.). God is love (1 John 4:8-10): that love is first and foremost manifest within the relationship of the Three.

Therefore, “one in person” is always insufficient. Since God is one in relational unity, that which is in His image is going to seek to be one in relational unity as well; this is that universal impulse to seek after God mentioned by Paul in Acts 17:26-27.

Therefore, it is not surprising that man made in God’s image should be seeking connection with others. He seeks connection with his fellow man who is made in the image of God as friends and associates. But humans also look for a far more intimate relationship with the one who complements them physically. It is evident that man is created for woman and woman for man; each provides for the other what is lacking, not just physically, but mentally, emotionally, and spiritually as well. Likewise, spiritually, we are to seek unity with one another as we seek unity with God in Christ (John 17:20-24, 1 John 1:4-7); nevertheless, the connections we develop with fellow Christians will never reach the depth or the intimacy of the spiritual relationship which we all should be seeking and developing with God our Creator.

Furthermore, what is true of healthy relationships is also true of healthy sexuality: showing true love, finding fulfillment in seeking the happiness of and that which is best for the one whom we love as opposed to simply trying to satisfy our own desire, remembering that God is God and not to make an idol of anyone else whom we might love, being patient, kind, and so on and so forth. Healthy sexuality is never an end unto itself; it is part of the recipe of a fulfilling relationship. Sexuality may drive people into relationships, but it cannot bear the burden of making a relationship. A theology of sexuality, therefore, understands the importance of sexuality in its proper relational sphere.

Yet we must always remember that sexuality is the physical shadow of a spiritual reality. As in all such comparisons, the physical shadow is always inferior. We may all have sexual desires during our lives, but as Paul makes clear in 1 Corinthians 7:1-40, one does not have to be married and/or sexually active to live a fulfilled life. One can share in the spiritual reality of deep, intimate communion with God in Christ without a husband or wife or sexuality at all! We have been promised better things than sex: the eternal weight of glory awaiting the believer is far superior to any pleasure that can be enjoyed through sexual behavior (Romans 8:17-18, 2 Corinthians 4:17)! The sexual connection is not the most intimate or greatest connection that man can ever know; it pales in comparison to the true fulfillment, true spiritual ecstasy, and true satisfaction that comes with “face-to-face” communion with God (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:11-12, Revelation 21:1-22:6).

A theology of sexuality, therefore, understands the drive for physical union and intimacy as a physical shadow of the spiritual reality, the quest for spiritual union and intimacy with God our Creator through Jesus Christ in the communion of the saints (1 Corinthians 12:12-27, Ephesians 5:22-33). As God is one in relational unity, love within Himself, seeking relationship with each person made in His image, so we have been created to be one in relational unity with others, the singularly deepest of which involves seeking an emotionally, mentally, and physically intimate relationship with that one special person who is the complement to ourselves (a man for a woman, and a woman for a man, since God made both man and woman in His image). Seen in this light, human sexuality was made as a good thing, a reminder of our individual insufficiency in ourselves and our need to give love and receive love in relationship. Human sexuality might be a powerful driver but has always been insufficient in and of itself when seeking to achieve its end; it demands not just the physical but the mental and emotional aspects of mankind as well. It is truly the giving of oneself–not just the body, but the mind and spirit as well–just as Paul said (1 Corinthians 7:3-4). As the “two becoming one flesh,” sex is a mystical, ecstatic, and intimate union of a man and a woman.

Human sexuality was made to be good, part of the means by which we can make that deep, intimate connection between ourselves and our respective spouses. Sex is special as a shadowy glimpse of the ecstasy that can come from full communion with another, only to be perfectly realized spiritually in our relationship with God in Christ in the day of resurrection. If we maintain a healthy sexuality, we will confess the limitations and proper exercise of sexuality, understanding that any expression of sexuality outside of its proper sphere is not just perversion but really is counterfeit, demeaning what it would theoretically exalts. Let us maintain a robust theology of sexuality so that we may be able to counter the counterfeit forms of sexuality so prevalent in the world around us!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Theology of Sexuality appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Apologies in Acts

Early Christians went about proclaiming Jesus as Lord, bearing witness to what the Apostles had seen and heard regarding His life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return (Acts 1:8, 1 Corinthians 15:1-20). At other times they were brought before human authorities and were called upon to make a defense, or apology, for their conduct and way of living. We can learn much from these apologies in the book of Acts.

Many will conflate the apologies in Acts (Acts 4:8-12, 5:29-32, 7:2-53, 22:1-21, 23:1-6, 24:10-21, 25:9-11, 26:1-29) with examples of preaching in Acts (Acts 2:14-41, 3:12-26, 10:34-43, 13:15-51, 17:22-31). This impulse is understandable, for the apologies in Acts all feature some proclamation regarding Jesus. Nevertheless, we do well to maintain the distinction: it is one thing to have the ability to proclaim what God has accomplished in Jesus on its own, in its own right, and quite another to be constrained to make a defense for the hope that is in you from God in Christ. Early Christians went about preaching the Gospel as they had opportunity, and would make a defense when necessary; we can learn from their examples.

The Apostle Peter made two defenses before the Sanhedrin in Acts 4:8-12, 5:29-32. At both opportunities Peter spoke humbly yet boldly before the Sanhedrin, indicting them as guilty of the blood of Jesus, testifying how they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and firmly planning on persisting in preaching Jesus as the Risen Lord. Peter’s defense was a good offense, and both times he overcame the Sanhedrin through faith, boldness, and conviction. Stephen would also make a defense before the Sanhedrin in Acts 7:2-53. Stephen also maintained a bold posture, rhetorically putting the Sanhedrin on trial: he explored Israelite history in rejecting the leaders God had given them and cast aspersions on the Temple, and indicted them as the children of their ancestors who had killed the Christ. As a result the members of the Sanhedrin flew into a rage and killed Stephen, who remained faithful to Jesus to the end, and became the first recorded martyr for the Way (Acts 7:54-60). The Apostle Paul was called upon to make no fewer than six defenses in Jerusalem and Caesarea: before the Jewish people, before the Sanhedrin, before Felix, before Festus, and before Agrippa (Acts 22:1-21, 23:1-6, 24:10-21, 25:9-11, 26:1-29). At times Paul provided the testimony of what Jesus had been accomplishing through him to explain himself; at other times Paul attempted to clear his name of the charges against him. Yet each time he would declare the continuity of his belief: he had come to understand that Jesus was the fulfillment of all God had promised Israel through the prophets. He affirmed his standing as an Israelite while upholding Jesus as Lord and Christ.

In all of these examples the early Christians generally embodied Peter’s maxim in 1 Peter 3:15: they gave answers for the hope that was in them, yet did so with courtesy and respect. When they recognized they stood before earthly authorities, they provided them the honor due them. Yet they never compromised their convictions, nor did they shy away from saying controversial and uncomfortable things to those in power. Peter and Stephen indicted the Sanhedrin for having killed the Christ sent by God (Acts 4:10, 5:30, 7:51-53). Paul testified that God in Christ had indeed sent him to proclaim salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 22:21, 26:17-20). They all proved willing to suffer whatever the earthly authorities had decreed; Stephen even suffered an extrajudicial death, and in the process did not hurl invective about the unrighteousness of it all, but modeled Jesus by asking for their forgiveness (Acts 7:54-60).

All these early Christians would offer some level of a defense for their conduct. Peter explained himself as acting according to what he had seen and heard (Acts 5:30-32). Within his proclamation Stephen did answer all of the charges brought against him while casting aspersions on the entire endeavor (Acts 7:2-53). Paul made it clear he did not introduce an uncircumcised Gentile into the Temple, and pointed out how his opponents could not prove their charges (Acts 24:10-12). The authorities recognized that Paul had done nothing worthy of imprisonment (Acts 26:30-32).

Nevertheless, in their defenses, these early Christians were never as invested in defending themselves as they were in proclaiming Jesus the Crucified and Risen Lord. Peter anchored all he did in his witness of Jesus as raised from the dead (Acts 4:8-12, 5:30-32). Stephen embodied the same posture, and shared in the same condemnation, as the Lord Jesus (Acts 7:54-60). Paul shrewdly appealed to the Sanhedrin as one on trial regarding the resurrection of the dead, and won some sympathy from Pharisees who affirmed the resurrection (Acts 23:6-9). Herod Agrippa II saw through Paul’s defense by testimony, perceiving that Paul was attempting to persuade him to become a Christian (Acts 26:28).

After the days of the Apostles early Christians still went about proclaiming the Gospel to all who would hear, and they would also be called upon to make a defense of their faith and hope before the authorities. As the faith spread and the lies and slander about it increased, some Christians wrote out defenses, ostensibly written to the Roman authorities of the time but really intended for a wide audience among the Greco-Roman pagans. Notable examples include the anonymous author of the Letter to Diognetus, Justin Martyr’s First and Second Apologies, Athenagoras’ Embassy for the Christians, Minucius Felix’s Octavius, and Tertullian’s Apologeticus. In these writings early Christians defended the integrity of the Christian faith, the authenticity of their witness, their value as subjects of Rome while explaining their inability to serve the ancestral gods, and an appeal to consider Jesus as the Risen Lord.

We may not be called upon to give a defense for our faith and hope before civil authorities, but Christians today do well to be prepared to make such a defense before their fellow man (1 Peter 3:15). One such way of making a defense is to provide testimony of how God has worked in and through your life to accomplish His purposes, as Paul testified in Jerusalem and before Agrippa. Nevertheless, the focus of the defense is never on us and our behavior, but on what God has accomplished in Jesus. Our defense in hope and faith ought to include our confidence in the apostolic witness to Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return. Our defense should be done with courtesy and respect, but its message might well cause controversy and discomfort, for by it many may be convicted of their sins and disobedience. May we stand firm for our faith and make a defense just as the early Christians did, and share in their hope of eternal life in the resurrection in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Apologies in Acts appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Digital Evangelism

It used to be a hobby and a curiosity; many derided it and its potential. Yet life in the twenty-first century is now shaped profoundly by digital technology. We must take digital technology into account when considering evangelism; we ought to seek to bring Jesus’ lordship to bear upon the online realm.

Digital evangelism involves the proclamation of the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return on the Internet. The role of digital evangelism in the proclamation of the Gospel has grown significantly over the past two decades as the power and influence of the technology has increased over modern life. It was not that long ago when congregations could do quite well with an advertisement in the Yellow Pages, a Dial-a-Bible message, and perhaps posting some flyers in the community; now very few use a phone book, and the first place many people turn in order to find out information about faith, religion, or a church is the Internet. Therefore, if Christians would reach the people in their communities with the Gospel, a robust presence on the Internet is essential.

The rapid transformations in digital technology render any attempt to provide specific guidance unwise; it will likely prove irrelevant within a short time. Nevertheless, we do well to keep some general principles in mind as we consider how to effectively promote the Gospel on the Internet.

As Christians we tend to prize and prioritize what is tried, true, and is of lasting value and power, and for good reason; Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and the faith which we are to preach and embody has existed for almost two thousand years (Hebrews 13:8, Jude 1:3). In many respects the Internet is the exact opposite: it is a dynamic environment that constantly reinvents itself and changes continually. Bulletin boards gave way to platforms like America Online which gave way to blogging which gave way to social media; for years text was the primary means of communication online, but now audiovisual presentations are ascendant. A well-built website with a lot of information once gained credence by search engines; now it is all about targeted advertising and search engine optimization. Whenever a person begins to feel comfortable with their understanding of just about anything on the Internet, the whole paradigm will shift. As Christians, we must recognize our temptation to justify remaining behind the technological curve, and remain humble enough to seek out resources and people who can help us most effectively proclaim Christ with the technology presently available. This will often require the active involvement of younger people for whom the technology proves more intuitive and who often understand it better. We may be comfortable with copy and writing, and wish to inculcate strong book reading habits, but we must discern the post-literate culture we are entering and not become guilty of demanding a particular cultural expression of devotion to God and learning about the faith to the detriment of actually communicating about the faith. One can come to a knowledge of the faith and be saved through listening to podcasts, hearing the Bible read aloud, and watching videos regarding matters of the faith, and all without ever picking up a physical Bible. The important thing is for the message to be distributed so that it might be heard.

On account of digital technology we are witnessing a profound change in the relationship between humans and knowledge. In former times the primary challenge was access to information: finding books or other resources, receiving the training to understand what one would read, etc. Thanks to digital technology we now have access to the treasury of human knowledge at our fingertips at almost all times. Now humans face a very different challenge: what information to trust, and how to sort through all the information accessible on the Internet. There is no lack of content on the Internet in general and religious content in particular; who should be trusted, and who is spreading fake news? To this end we do well to embody the posture of the ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20): we must prove to be trustworthy in how we promote the Gospel and embody Jesus on the Internet. We should preach the Gospel with excellent materials: we should quote reputable sources and faithfully represent the positions of those with whom we disagree, for if we do not prove fair and honest in such dealings, people will not trust us, and will seek information elsewhere. Furthermore, very little is ever really lost on the Internet; much may languish in obscurity, but whatever has been said and done on the Internet can be found and brought to light, for better or for worse. To this end Christians must remember that they always represent Jesus in whatever they say and do on the Internet. If they do not embody Jesus in how they express their views about politics, society, culture, etc., prove to be trolls in certain quarters of the Internet, or freely participate in moral hypocrisy through the pursuit of immorality online, they will be found out, and people will have no reason to trust in their witness for Jesus. Trust, more than distribution of knowledge, is the ultimate currency of an Internet awash in contradictory information, and the people of God should prove trustworthy (1 Corinthians 4:2, 1 Peter 4:10-11).

The major challenge of digital technology centers on the “virtual.” The “virtual” attempts to simulate the real in many respects, yet is never truly real. Everything on the Internet is virtual; real people may be behind other screens, but all online interaction is a simulation and a pretense to some degree or another. Just as digital technology should never overtake real life, so digital evangelism and virtual association should never replace or render irrelevant physical presence and physical participation together in life. If we put so much out on the Internet that people get the impression they have no need to come together to jointly participate in life with fellow Christians offline, we have seriously distorted and warped the Gospel message. There are those out and about who proclaim that online church will be the future of Christianity; they ought to be seen as false prophets, and should experience significant push back against that hype. Early Christians suffered and died bearing witness to Jesus as having substantively come in the flesh, not virtually or in any simulation (cf. 1 John 4:1-4, 2 John 1:6-10); life in relational unity demands the sharing of physical space. We must never sacrifice sharing in physical space in the name of digital technology, and part of our responsibility in the Gospel is to teach people today how God made us human in physical bodies to share in physical space together in life and much is lost when we cease doing so. In a very real way the Internet is all fake, all too easily made a Tower of Babel to human ingenuity and the attempt to overcome our natural limitations, and a source of idolatry (cf. Genesis 11:1-9).

Many people today who hear the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, come to faith in Him, and come to share in joint participation in faith with a local congregation will have sought digital resources at some or many points in their faith journey. Congregations must assume that a good number of those who might visit them will first explore their website and might well want to watch a livestream of much of what they do in the assembly beforehand. If we do not put forth effort in digital evangelism, we can be assured that many others will, and thus will lead people astray. Nevertheless, digital evangelism is not the end all and be all of evangelism, just as digital technology is not the sum of life; we must never become so enraptured with technology that we neglect the power of what God has accomplished in Jesus and in His people. May we proclaim Jesus as Lord online and offline to the glory and praise of God!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Digital Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Marriage

Many have sounded the alarm regarding the health and status of the institution of marriage in modern society. Marriage is being delayed considerably; many do not marry at all. For far too many, marriage becomes a dispensable commitment, viewed in terms of a transactional relationship more than a lifelong commitment. At the same time, people in modern society still value marriage and aspire to it; if anything, many make too much of the marriage relationship, expecting spouses to provide greater meaning, fulfillment, and satisfaction in life than ever before.

Christians do well to understand marriage according to what God has made known to the fathers through the prophets and in Christ and His Apostles. Even when considering dating Christians should always understand what the end goal of marriage ought to look like; it is very hard to get to a healthy destination by unhealthy means.

Marriage is honorable (Hebrews 13:4). When God made Adam, He observed that it was not good for man to be alone, and thus He created Eve, declaring that the two should become one flesh (Genesis 2:18-24). Since men and women are made in God’s image (Genesis 1:26-27) and God is one in relational unity, One in Three Persons, sharing love within Himself (John 17:20-23), it naturally follows that men and women seek to share life with others in relationship, especially the deep, intimate relationship between a husband and wife (Matthew 19:4-6). God described His relationship with Israel in terms of husband and wife; Paul speaks of the relationship between a husband and wife as a means of understanding the relationship between Christ and the church (Isaiah 50:1, Hosea 1:1-3:5, Ephesians 5:22-33). These metaphors “work” for a reason: the intimacy which should exist between husband and wife is a physical shadow of the spiritual reality of the intimacy between man and God. Marriage, therefore, is part of the order of God’s good creation, and ought to be held in honor and a means by which we can come to a better understanding of our relationship with God.

Marriage is intended to be a life-long covenant established by God (Malachi 2:14-15, Matthew 19:6). A covenant is a sacred agreement and trust between two parties featuring terrible consequences if violated. God demonstrates throughout the Scriptures how covenants are not to be taken lightly: He considered Israel as spiritual adulterers and adulteresses when they served idols because they acted faithlessly toward Him, and His prophets proclaimed and embodied the message of profound pain and suffering God experienced as this faithful “husband” of a faithless “wife” (Hosea 1:1-3:5, Ezekiel 16:1-63). Since marriage is a covenant, we need to take it seriously (Malachi 2:14-15). Jesus said it succinctly: “what God has joined man is not to separate” (Matthew 19:6). God brings a man and a woman together in the covenant relationship of marriage, and only the death of one or both spouses should end that covenant (cf. Romans 7:1-4). Men and women who are married or who are considering marriage must look to marry for life, not thinking of divorce as an “escape route”: just as we are to commit ourselves to the Lord for eternity, knowing that separation from God in Christ leads to terrible consequences (cf. Romans 12:1, Hebrews 10:26-31), thus we must understand marriage as a lifelong commitment with devastating consequences for faithlessness. God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16): all divorce is either sinful in and of itself or the direct consequence of the sin of sexually deviant behavior (Matthew 19:9). To separate from a spouse and to be joined to another is adultery, and unrepentant adultery leads to eternal death (Matthew 19:9, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Revelation 21:8).

Marriage involves difficulties (1 Corinthians 7:28). As humans are not perfect but have sinned and fallen short of God’s glory (Romans 3:23), so marriages do not involve perfect people. One of the curses of the Fall involves competition and difficulties in the marriage relationship (cf. Genesis 3:16), and this is apparent in the conflicts which take place as a man and a woman seek to truly become one in their marriage. To strive for relational unity in covenant loyalty in marriage requires work: the investment of time, energy, and interest, and the willingness to simultaneously prove vulnerable while suffering loss and place for the benefit of the spouse. Marriage demands seeking the best interest of the spouse and the relationship over one’s own desires, which demands compromise and sacrifice, if it will last and be a blessing.

Nevertheless, the beauty in marriage can be found in covenant loyalty throughout and despite all the difficulties. Humans seek marriage because they desire companionship and intimacy, and dread the prospect of abandonment and being alone. We want to be loved for who we are without the pretense and for what lies underneath the “presentable” self we display. Too often we focus on the wedding day with its beautiful people, vitality, and well-rehearsed lines and rituals as expressing the beauty of marriage. In truth, the beauty of marriage is found in a man providing for, nourishing, and spending time with his wife of many decades who now has dementia and no longer even recognizes him; the beauty of marriage is found in a woman who sees the best, praises, and affirms her husband who has been beaten down by the world and can only see his failures.

Marriage, therefore, is a gift; a great grace for those who are committed not merely to the institution of marriage, but to the particular man or woman to whom God has joined them. Most of the things highly prized in finding a spouse fade and lose their value over time; the relational connection which is taken for granted at the beginning often dictates whether a couple will grow together in their marriage and thrive or grow apart and be miserable. A marriage cannot work well in isolation or a vacuum; no one person can fully satisfy, complete, or fulfill any other person, and those who are enmeshed in a healthy support system of God in Christ and fellow humans will be more likely to maintain healthy marriages than those who expect their spouse to be everything for them. Yet marriage remains a good thing (1 Corinthians 7:36, Hebrews 13:4); Christians do well to pursue marriage, yet according to what God has made known in Jesus in relational unity in covenant loyalty, and not according to the fitful, frenetic, and impossible to maintain standards of marriage in the world. In all things may we strive to participate in the marriage supper of the Lamb and obtain eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Marriage appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Egypt

It is a land easily romanticized, full of gods and mysteries, an ever-present spring of wonder and fascination: Egypt. Ancient Egypt was a land of contrasts: a fertile river valley surrounded by inhospitable desert, order in the midst of chaos, life and death. For Israel Egypt was a place of oppression and yet refuge; hope yet disappointment; representing the world, yet receiving hope for salvation.

Egypt is the gift of the Nile River, flowing from Lake Victoria and the mountains of Ethiopia to the Mediterranean Sea. The river would overflow its banks annually in ancient Egypt, leaving rich alluvial soil, allowing flax, papyrus, and wheat to be grown in abundance. Egypt thus enjoyed a far more consistent source of water than its ancient Near Eastern neighbors, and the culture that developed along the Nile reflected such stability and continuity. Despite moments of crisis and trial, Egyptian civilization maintained consistency in belief and practice for nearly 3,000 years.

Egypt represented the world’s first nation-state: King Narmer unified the southern Upper Egypt and the northern delta region of Lower Egypt around 3100 BCE under a single administration while Mesopotamian civilization remained divided into city-states. An Egyptian priest of the Hellenistic period named Manetho divided ancient Egyptian history into a series of thirty dynasties; historians consider the time before Narmer as the Predynastic Era, the first two of Manetho’s dynasties as the Archaic Period, and then the rest of Egyptian history as a series of three “kingdoms” with “intermediate periods” in-between. The Old Kingdom (Dynasties 3-6; ca. 2575-2150 BCE) proved the most stable of all the periods; during this time the pyramids were built. The First Intermediate Period (Dynasties 7-11; ca. 2181-1975 BCE) represented a period of collapse in the central administration, likely due to a major climactic event which led to an extended period of famine and later recovery. The Middle Kingdom (Dynasties 11-13; ca. 1975-1640 BCE) saw a return of order and central administration, although not as robust as before; during this time Abraham would have sojourned in Egypt (cf. Genesis 12:10-13:1). The Second Intermediate Period (Dynasties 13-17; ca. 1800-1570 BCE) began with weaker kings and climaxed in the humiliation of the invasion of the Hyksos from the north; in these days Joseph and Israel would have come to Egypt (cf. Genesis 37:28-50:26). The New Kingdom (Dynasties 18-20; ca. 1570-1070 BCE) saw Egypt reach the height of its power and empire in the ancient Near Eastern world; Moses lived and the Exodus took place either when Egypt was at the height of its power and influence under Thutmose III/Amenhotep II (ca. 1480 BCE), or under the famous builder and self-aggrandizer Ramses II (ca. 1250 BCE; cf. Exodus 1:1-15:21). The Third Intermediate Period (Dynasties 21-30; ca. 1069-525 BCE) began when Egypt fell prey to the collapse of the Bronze Age in the eleventh century BCE: weak kings, a decentralization of administration, famine, climate change, all leading to successive humiliations when Libyans and Nubians invaded and took over the throne; this is the time when Shoshenq invaded Judah in the days of Rehoboam (ca. 940 BCE; cf. 1 Kings 14:25-26), Hoshea king of Israel conspired with Orsokon IV against Assyria (ca. 730 BCE; cf. 2 Kings 17:4), and Hezekiah got caught up in the conflict between Taharqa of Nubia/Egypt and Sennacherib king of Assyria (ca. 700 BCE; cf. 2 Kings 19:9, Isaiah 37:9). A subset of the Third Intermediate Period is the Late Period (Dynasties 26-30; ca. 712-323 BCE), featuring the flourishing of the last native Egyptian dynasty which would be crushed by the Persians under Cambyses; Necho II, Psamtik II, and Wahibre (Apries) are of this time, the pharaohs who were responsible for the death of Josiah, replacing Jehoahaz with Jehoiakim, and inducing the Judahites to rebel against the Babylonians, leading to the end of the Kingdom of Judah (ca. 609-586 BCE; 2 Kings 23:28-24:20, Jeremiah 44:30, Ezekiel 19:1-14, 29:1-32:32). The last native ruler of ancient Egypt, Nectanebo II, was defeated by the Persians and Greeks under Artaxerxes III in 343 BCE; Egypt would become a pawn of successive empires until it gained independence from Britain in 1952 of our own era, fulfilling Ezekiel 29:15.

The Egyptians thought very highly of themselves and their land. To the Egyptians there was kemet, the “Black Land” of the Nile valley, and deshret, the “Red Land” of the desert. They perceived attributes of the divine in the river, land, and creatures around them, with each attribute having its own god or goddess. Egyptians believed their world continually manifested the story of Osiris, Isis, Horus, and Seth: Osiris was the former king killed by his brother Seth (god of chaos/desert), and who would become the god of the underworld; Osiris’ wife Isis would give birth to Horus, who would become the new king and bring order when he displaced Seth. Thus each living king was considered the living embodiment of Horus a god in his own right, and each dead king Osiris. All Egypt feared the days of Seth. They offered sacrifices to their gods to feed them and placate them lest the gods be poorly disposed to them.

The Egyptians gave much thought to death and the afterlife. They imagined a person’s tomb as the gateway to the underworld, the Duat, which was a mirror image of life on earth. They imagined they would have to undergo trials and tribulations to enter the underworld, and those who could afford it maintained a copy of the Amduat, known as the “Book of the Dead,” to tell them the magic and the knowledge they would need to overcome evil spirits and the moment of judgment. Egyptians believed they would enjoy life in the underworld as long as their descendants continued to speak their name and provided them with food offerings.

In truth, YHWH was God over all, including Egypt; Egypt came to know that YHWH was God, through the plagues before the Exodus, the elimination of native Egyptian rule, Jesus’ sojourn, and the spread of the Gospel in the Roman period (Exodus 10:1-2, Ezekiel 29:1-32:32, Matthew 2:13-15). For Israel Egypt would continually represent the temptation to follow the ways of the world, to serve idols and trust in foreign policy schemes, and the prophets sharply condemned Egypt for it (cf. Isaiah 19:1-20:6, Ezekiel 29:1-32:32). One might think God would want nothing more than to devastate Egypt for all their pride and haughtiness toward His people, and yet Egypt had a special place in God’s purposes. Egypt did provide refuge for God’s people; God envisioned a time of redemption for Egypt with Assyria and Israel and would become a blessing for the world (Isaiah 19:22-25).

According to tradition John Mark would preach the Gospel in Egypt; the message would spread, and much evidence regarding early Christianity has been found in the sands of Egypt. Many of the people of the Two Lands would confess Jesus as Lord and the God of Israel as their God. Egyptian pride would be humbled; the people of the God of Israel would be exalted in their God. May we put our trust in the God of Israel and find salvation in Jesus His Son!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Egypt appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Handling Hebrews 10:25 Rightly

The Lord’s people recognize the importance and power of coming together as the ekklesia, the assembly, or church, of Christ. By all accounts the earliest Christians learned the value and importance of the assembly from the instruction and example of the Apostles: they set forth what the Lord had decreed, in word and deed, regarding the assembling of God’s people in Christ, and early Christians followed the traditions as given to them (e.g. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, 14:1-40). Assembling, for Christians, is so normative that we do not even see it given as a command: the Apostles only bring up matters of the assembly as reminders in exhortation, or more generally, to correct unhealthy and sinful patterns of behavior manifest in the assembly (1 Corinthians 11:17-34, 14:1-40). After all, what kind of assembly is there that does not assemble?

Yet this has posed a challenge for Christians as they seek to establish Biblical authority and provide exhortation in the faith; it can be difficult, and wordy, to explain how the assembling of the saints was a regular habit of early Christians, taking place at least weekly on the first day of the week by approved apostolic example, and thus highly encouraged. Therefore, a “shorthand” has developed: the appeal to Hebrews 10:25 as the authority and basis upon which we insist for every Christian to assemble on the first day of the week with their fellow Christians as the local church and participate in the acts of the assembly, and thus that every local church meet every week for an assembly:

Not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

Hebrews 10:25 does represent a very important verse when it comes to the value and power of the assembly, but can it bear the burdens modern application would impose upon it? Are we rightly handling this word of truth in the ways in which we refer to it and apply it (cf. 2 Timothy 2:15)?

Our first task must be to understand Hebrews 10:25 in the context of what the Hebrews author is saying and doing. Hebrews 10:25 comes at the end of the core exhortation the Hebrews author is making based on all the arguments and demonstrations he has made regarding the superiority of Jesus and the covenant in His blood over all that came before:

Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by the way which he dedicated for us, a new and living way, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; and having a great priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water, let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised: and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works; not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh (Hebrews 10:19-25).

The Hebrews author makes his thesis and provides three points of exhortation in application, and does so in a particular order. Christians have boldness to enter the presence of God in Jesus’ blood through the veil of His flesh and with Him as priest (Hebrews 10:19-21). Christians thus must draw near to God with a true heart in fullness of faith (Hebrews 10:22). Having received cleansing in baptism, Christians must hold fast to their confession in hope, for God who has promised is faithful (Hebrews 10:23). Christians must consider one another as fellow Christians to provoke, or stir up, to love and good works (Hebrews 10:24).

The Hebrews author’s exhortation to not forsake the assembling of ourselves together thus does not stand on its own; it is directly dependent on, and thus a subset of, the exhortation to consider one another to stir one another up to love and good works. His concern about the forsaking of the assembling is intensified by what he says afterward: those who sin deliberately have no hope of redemption, but a fearful expectation of judgment (Hebrews 10:26-31); the recipients of the letter ought to remember the afflictions they endured beforehand, having jointly participated in the sufferings of those reviled for the faith, and ought not cast off the boldness they had, which would provide a great reward (Hebrews 10:32-35); they need patience to receive the promise after having done the will of God, not becoming those who shrink back to perdition, but as those who have faith in the salvation of their souls (Hebrews 10:36-39).

From Hebrews 10:26-39, along with many other aspects of the Hebrews letter, we can perceive how the Hebrews author is deeply concerned about the faith of the recipients of his letter: he is worried they are losing heart and are at risk of apostatizing through backsliding. A sign of this apostasy would be if and when they would abandon the assembling together of themselves, as some already had; they would miss out on exhortations to love and good works, and it might not take long after that for them to renounce their confession and pull away from God in Christ.

Thus the Hebrews author is very concerned that those who read his letter might abandon the faith; based on his choice of term in Hebrews 10:25, such concern begins with the abandonment of the assembly. “Forsaking” is the Greek egkataleipontes, a present participle of the verb that means “to forsake, abandon, leave in the lurch.” It is the same word Paul uses to describe what Demas did when he loved this present world and went to Thessalonica in 2 Timothy 4:10; he would again use it to describe how all abandoned him at his first defense before Caesar in 2 Timothy 4:16. In Matthew 27:46 and Mark 15:34 it translates the cry of abandonment Jesus cited from Psalm 22:1. All of these examples represent serious forms of abandonment; the use of the present participle would suggest a continuous or repeated action, consistent with the Hebrews author’s concerned about those who had made such forsaking/abandonment a “custom” or habit (Greek ethos). The Hebrews author therefore does not have in mind some Christians who occasionally miss an assembly here or there; he has in mind those who have abandoned the coming together with fellow Christians, and thus in danger of abandoning their confession and their faith.

For that matter, the Hebrews author also does not specify the nature of the coming together of Christians beyond for exhortation: he uses the Greek episunagogein, a “coming together” or “meeting” of Christians; the term “synagogue” comes from that Greek term, used only elsewhere in the New Testament in 2 Thessalonians 2:1 to describe the gathering together of Christians when the Lord Jesus returns. No doubt such a term would include the likely normative weekly assembling of Christians on the first day of the week to remember the Lord’s death in His Supper, along with preaching, giving, singing, and praying (e.g. Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 16:1-3, Ephesians 5:19), but the term is not limited to such meetings. It could include meetings as often as daily for encouragement and edification (cf. Acts 2:41-46). It may have involved smaller gatherings of Christians for meals and other activities in joint participation in the faith (1 Peter 4:9-11).

To this end we can understand what the Hebrews author attempts to accomplish: if we are going to consider one another, to stir up to love and good works, we must gather frequently to do so in order to exhort one another. Abandonment of such gatherings is a major warning sign that a Christian is disconnecting from his people and might well thus disconnect from his or her confession and faith in Christ.

In application, therefore, we can see that Christians ought to prioritize gathering together: certainly for the first day of the week assembly, but also at other times. Nevertheless, the assembly of the saints is not prioritized as of the greatest importance here: the Hebrews author prioritizes drawing near to God, then holding firm the confession of our hope, and then considering one another, to stir up to love and good works (Hebrews 10:19-24). Gathering together and exhorting one another is a means by which we consider one another (Hebrews 10:25), consistent with Paul’s exhortation for all things in the assembly to be done for building up in 1 Corinthians 14:26. We come together in the assembly to build up and strengthen one another, stirring one another up in faith to love and good works in exhortation, providing substance and strength to empower and equip each other to continue to serve the Lord Jesus in relational unity, hope, and faith in life.

What does it mean to “forsake” the meeting of Christians? The Hebrews author primarily has in mind those who have fully abandoned joint participation with fellow Christians in the assembly or in smaller gatherings. He does not have in mind those who might miss a meeting here or there, or those who are inconsistent in assembling. It might well be that many Christians have an unhealthy view of the assembly and do not appropriately prioritize participation within it; some might well look for excuses to assemble as infrequently as possible in their carnal ways of thinking. Such attitudes are unhealthy, but they are symptoms of a greater problem; to shame and condemn about not assembling does not reach the heart of the matter. If the greater problem, whatever it may be, is addressed, generally the assembling with the saints will become a more regular occurrence.These concerns are not being addressed by the Hebrews author, however, in Hebrews 10:25, for such people have not abandoned coming together with their fellow Christians. At some point they might; but that moment has not arrived yet, and it cheapens the Hebrews author’s concern to suggest otherwise. These concerns are not being addressed by the Hebrews author, however, in Hebrews 10:25, for such people have not abandoned coming together with their fellow Christians. At some point they might; but that moment has not arrived yet, and it cheapens the Hebrews author’s concern to suggest otherwise.

We do well to remember how the gathering of Christians in Hebrews 10:25 is instrumental to a purpose: considering one another. Without a doubt, the normative practice of early Christians was to assemble on the first day of the week to participate in certain acts of the assembly, with perhaps other gatherings at other times, and we do well to honor and observe the same tradition. But we must remember that such assembling is set forth for us as a normative example; in times of particular emergencies, we might not be effectively considering one another by meeting in person. Thankfully, with modern technology, we have means by which we can consider one another, and even in a sense gather together, without being physically proximate. Under normal circumstances, abandonment of physical presence and the sharing of physical space would not glorify God; nevertheless, under distress, some means of communication and sharing together is better than none. We must not confuse the means to an end with the end itself.

It is important for Christians to come together as the church as a demonstration of the relational unity they share in and with God in Christ. It is right, good, and appropriate for Christians to observe the normative example of early Christians in weekly assemblies to that end; it is even better for Christians to gather together more frequently to consider one another. Nevertheless, the assembly is not the most important thing in the faith; Christians were not made for the assembly, but the assembly for Christians, and the assembly is a means by which Christians consider one another, and not an end unto itself. We consider one another as joint participants in Christ to encourage one another, and all the more as the day draws near; we do that so we might strengthen one another to continue to draw near to God in Christ, and to hold firm our confession in hope without wavering. May we properly discern God’s purposes in revealing Hebrews 10:25, encourage one another in Christ, and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Handling Hebrews 10:25 Rightly appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Constantine and Christendom

Perhaps Constantine did have some kind of mystical experience before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge; maybe he was influenced profoundly by his mother Helena; maybe he proved to be a shrewd calculator to achieve personal advantage; maybe they all played a part. Yet Christianity would become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire within a century of Constantine’s conversion to Christianity in 312. Christianity, for all intents and purposes, had now become Christendom; the effects of popularity and political power on the faith remain to this day.

Before 312 the Roman authorities had at best warily tolerated Christianity, and at worst actively persecuted the faith, burning its Scriptures and killing its adherents. Christians had maintained an ambivalent relationship toward the Empire: they submitted to the Romans as the earthly authorities, yet perceived the power of the Evil One behind its arrogance and oppression (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18, Revelation 13:1-18).

All of that would change after Constantine gained victory over his rivals and presided over a unified Roman Empire. The Edict of Milan in 313 granted tolerance to all religions, including Christianity. Christians gained greater prominence in the Empire, as did its internal disputations. Constantine summoned the Council of Nicaea in 325 to settle some of the disagreements, representing an imperial civil authority seeking to establish a normative form of Christianity to uphold, and thus to suppress heretical variations. Basilicas would be built around the Empire; Christianity would continue to gain prominence throughout the fourth century, culminating in the Edict of Thessalonica of 381, enshrining “catholic” Christianity as the state religion, condemning traditional pagan religion and heretical Arianism. “Babylon” was now re-commissioned as a vehicle to promote and advance the “Bride”; the persecuted became the persecutors. “Christendom,” as societies, cultures, or nations professing to espouse Christianity, had been born.

Christendom would soon be rocked by the upheavals surrounding the collapse of the unity of the Roman Empire and the development of the medieval world. The eastern Roman Empire would continue as the Byzantine Empire for another millennium, and sought to fuse the secular power of the Byzantine Emperor with the spiritual purposes of the Orthodox Church: the Emperor would summon and preside over councils and appoint patriarchs, and the church would uphold and promote the empire. The czars of Russia would go on to maintain even greater authority over the Russian Orthodox Church than did the Byzantine Emperors.

In the west political power fragmented into all sorts of small duchies and kingdoms; fealty to the pope and the Roman Catholic Church provided consistency and unity across western Europe for a millennium. The papacy claimed both secular and spiritual power over the kingdoms of Europe, aided by Augustine’s arguments regarding the superiority of the spiritual authorities over secular authorities and the (forged) “Donation of Constantine,” in which Constantine purportedly gave the power over Rome and the western Roman Empire over to the pope. The secular authorities gained credibility and justification for rule from Roman Catholic authorities; Roman Catholicism received not only pride of place in return, but was able to induce secular authorities to actively persecute and kill those whom they deemed heretics, and launched crusades in an attempt to re-conquer Palestine from the Muslims.

The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century fragmented the perceived unity of Christendom, but did not meaningfully change the relationship of Christianity and power. Untold thousands died in bloodshed in the “Wars of Religion” that gripped Europe from 1524 to 1641, leading to the détente of cuius regio eius religio: the religious persuasion of a nation or duchy’s ruler would become the religion of that nation or duchy. Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists not only persecuted one another, but all actively persecuted and killed those whom they deemed “Anabaptists.” The state would continue to financially and politically support a particular brand of Christianity; in return, the religious authorities would support the state, advocate for its policies, and justify its behaviors.

Christendom’s grip on power would begin to loosen on account of the Enlightenment of the eighteenth century and the success of the American Revolution. States in America began to disestablish “official” churches as the premise of individual right to free expression in religion advanced. Even as various Christian denominations flourished in America on account of its religious “free market,” most in America continued to presume their country to be part of Christendom as a “Christian nation.” It has only been within the past century that the power of Christendom in America and Europe has been significantly weakened on account of Communist revolutions, spiritual disillusionment, the spread of secularism, and the decline in participation in various denominations and churches.

Christendom provided some benefits to the world: much of the philosophical underpinning of modern Western thought derives from the principles of Christianity, especially its emphases on the value of humility, the worth and fundamental equality of each individual, and the importance of charity. Not a few have grown to become faithful Christians in the Lord’s service by starting out with some notion, held consciously or unconsciously, that as an American or as a European they should practice Christianity if they would practice a religion.

And yet Christendom has also hindered the advancement of the purposes of God in the Kingdom of Jesus. Whenever the church is welcomed into the halls of power it has been tempted to compromise the more difficult teachings of Jesus in order to uphold and advance the ideals of the nation-state. The Kingdom of Jesus transcends nation-states and all parties and divisions of mankind, and is called to emulate and embody Jesus (Ephesians 2:1-3:12). To this end Christians are to love their enemies, seeking their welfare (Luke 6:30-36); they must understand that nation-states may have been empowered by God to maintain justice and order, but they all end up giving their power over to the forces of evil to build themselves up to the detriment of others (Ephesians 6:12, Revelation 13:1-18). Christians in the Kingdom of Jesus can embody Christ; a nation-state, even if its leaders are tenderly affectionate toward the faith in Jesus, cannot truly love their neighbors as Christ loved mankind, suffering for them to the point of death, and continue to be a going concern.

Christians faithful to the witness of the Kingdom of Jesus recognize that there cannot be any such thing as a “Christian nation”; if it were to be established, Jesus Himself would have done so. Faithful Christians lament all of the ungodly and ugly things done in Christendom to advance worldly conceptions of kingdoms and power which led to the suffering and death of thousands in the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Wars of Religion, the oppression of missions throughout the Americas, Africa, and Asia, and even the arrogant presumptuousness that everyone in American society ought to be Christians, and thus to treat people in churches and in society in ways which do not glorify and honor Jesus. Jesus established His Kingdom in His life, death, resurrection, and ascension; He reigns over it as Lord, not as a particular nation or series of nations which deem themselves to be “Christian” as Christendom, but in ways which transcend all nation-states and their values. Jesus never intended the truth of His teachings to be decided by rulers; Jesus never imposed on others by the sword or through oppression; Jesus never hitched the wagon of His message to the colonizing projects of the Western world; Jesus did not entrust the proclamation of His message to the advancement of a particular nation-state and its cultural heritage. The faith in Christ is not glorified by the Christendom which has proven enduring and pervasive since Constantine; it is only in stripping our Christianity of Christendom that we can truly serve Jesus according to the faith proclaimed in the New Testament, seeking to advance Jesus’ true Kingdom which embodies Him in all things. May we participate in Jesus’ Kingdom, not in Christendom, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Constantine and Christendom appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Christians Are Not Made for the Assembly; the Assembly Is Made for Christians

And it came to pass, that [Jesus] was going on the sabbath day through the grainfields; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears.

And the Pharisees said unto him, “Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?”

And he said unto them, “Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him?”

And he said unto them, “The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath” (Mark 2:23-28).

As the Lord Jesus went about doing good for Israel, the Pharisees challenged Him regarding the conduct of His disciples: they had been plucking ears of grain to eat them (Mark 2:23). Such behavior was work, and the Pharisees insisted that all work on the Sabbath was not lawful (Mark 2:24). In response Jesus appealed to the example of David eating sanctified shewbread which was to be only for the priests in 1 Samuel 21:1-7 (Mark 2:26-27). Jesus then made two powerful pronouncements: the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath; the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:28). The Sabbath was not to be an imposition, burden, or a form of oppression; it was a display of liberation, joy, and peace. To weigh the Sabbath down with strictures was to bleed it of its energy, joy, and nourishment.

Christian participation in the assemblies of the saints maintains many parallels with the Jewish observance of the Sabbath. It would go too far to call Christian assemblies the “Christian sabbath”; we will obtain our Sabbath when we rest in Jesus as we await the resurrection of life (Hebrews 4:1-11). And yet it was Jewish practice in the Second Temple Period (and well afterward) to assemble in the synagogues and devote time to prayer, song, the reading of the Scriptures, and to hear a message from its pages (cf. Luke 4:16-28, Acts 13:14-15ff). Furthermore, the Lord Jesus has established guidelines for the types of activities which ought to be done in the assemblies of Christians, just as God established guidelines for the observance of the Jewish Sabbath (e.g. Exodus 35:2-3, Deuteronomy 5:12-15, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40). Therefore, Christians can be tempted to treat their assemblies in the same way as the Pharisees treated the Sabbath. To this end we do well to declare and affirm that the assembly was made for Christians, not Christians for the assembly, for Jesus our Lord, the Son of Man, is Lord of the Assembly.

The Lord’s people are known for their emphasis on participation in the assembly of the saints. In many respects the concern is healthy: a body that does not feature the joint participation and manifestation of its unity in assembling is not much of a body at all; what kind of assembly does not have its constituent members frequently assemble? The Lord’s Supper ought to reflect the unity of the body of Christ in a given place and time (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 1 Corinthians 11:17ff); how can it do so if many of the members are not present?

And yet an emphasis on the assembly can become toxic, unhealthy, and idolatrous when distortions of the meaning, purpose, and execution of the assembly arise, assembly participation is equated to faithfulness, and the assembly is prioritized over all things. In all such things we must remember how Christians were not made for the assembly, but the assembly for Christians.

According to what the New Testament explicitly says, Christians came together at least on the first day of the week to edify (build up) and encourage (strengthen) one another through the acts of the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:26, Hebrews 10:25). They would pray, sing, give, publicly read the Scriptures, partake of the Lord’s Supper, and proclaim the Word of God in the Gospel to glorify God in building up and strengthening one another (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 14:1-40, 1 Timothy 4:13, 2 Timothy 4:1-4). These things were to be done decently and in order (1 Corinthians 14:40): according to 1 Corinthians 14:1-39, such involved making sure people were not speaking over each other, talking at the same time, unable to understand the substance of the prayer, message, or whatnot, and for all to follow God’s order in the creation. At no point in the Scriptures or in the language of 1 Corinthians 14:40 is there an expectation for the assembly to be dour, lifeless, and excessively formal. Such “innovations” have been justified in the name of venerating God in “worship.” As we have addressed before here, here, and here, English conflates two distinct Hebrew and Greek terms and concepts under the word “worship,” “prostration,” of which the New Testament betrays no evidence of Christians practicing in their assemblies, and “religious service,” which is assuredly true of all of the acts of the assembly but also of plenty of other actions Christians perform in life. Thus, to impose a certain standard of dress beyond modesty, or to expect some kind of sanctified silence, or a complete absence of the expression of emotion, is to go beyond what is written or expected in the assemblies of Christians according to the New Testament. The assembly of the saints should be a time of strengthening and refreshment, a joy to be in the presence of our people in Christ; it is not to be made a dour burden in the name of cultural conventions begotten in denominational distortions. Christians were not made for the assembly; the assembly was made for Christians.

The Apostles certainly expected Christians to come together frequently in the assembly (1 Corinthians 14:1-40, Hebrews 10:24-25); what kind of assembly is it if its constituent members do not frequently assemble? Yet at no point does the New Testament impose presence and participation in the assembly as the means by which the faithfulness of a Christian is displayed before God and His fellow people. The New Testament betrays no indication that any Christian was disassociated from because s/he was not assembling; plenty of Christians who were faithfully assembling required repentance to maintain their standing before God (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Ephesians 2:1-8). We can imagine many circumstances in which a Christian would be continually hindered from jointly participating with his or her fellow Christians in the assembly, yet would do so if they could, and in no way have apostatized from the faith: those who find themselves shut in because of age or disability; some in unique employment circumstances; others who may be incarcerated; and so on. Yes, indeed; continual forsaking of the assembly by choice represents at best misplaced priorities and at worst an indication of some underlying challenge with sin, and these matters ought to be addressed. Yet again, the assembly is to be a joy and a place of rest and relief for Christians, not a burden or obligation; it is but the least of activities of faithful service in the Kingdom, giving strength and equipping in faith to endure the challenges of advancing God’s purposes and Jesus’ Lordship in every other domain of life the rest of the week. Christians who tend to assemble frequently with fellow Christians will likely be more mature and stronger in faith; and yet such is not axiomatic, and we must remember that the assembly is not a badge of fidelity but a continual opportunity to embody the Lord Jesus to one another and share in Him. Christians were not made for the assembly; the assembly was made for Christians.

Christians do well to treat the assembly as an important dimension of their lives in faithfulness to the Lord Jesus; yet nothing in Scripture would lead us to believe the assembly is to be esteemed as all-important. We do well to consider an “updated” edition of Jesus’ parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37): would a Christian who saw a person in need on the side of the road but who rushed on to participate in the assembly of the saints find any greater justification than the priest and the Levite who found the man upon whom robbers fell and passed by on the other side? By no means! To love one’s neighbor as oneself demands inconvenience at inopportune times. Christians do well to remember the Lord’s denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees for their fastidious devotion to the details while missing the “weightier matters” of justice, mercy, and faith; in Matthew’s parallel account to Mark 2:23-28, Jesus quoted Hosea 6:6 and declared that if the Pharisees had understood how God desires mercy, not sacrifice, they would not have condemned the innocent (Matthew 12:7; cf. Matthew 12:1-8).

Situations arise in which the most prudent, wise, and godly decision means Christians will not assemble, or the assembly itself will be canceled. A Christian called to assist a person in need when they would otherwise be assembling is loving his neighbor as himself, and has honored the weightier matter in the faith. In the face of natural disasters, a pandemic, or a moment of civil unrest, governmental authorities may encourage churches to cancel their assemblies; such is not persecution, but the government performing its function of seeking the welfare of its citizens, and Christians do well to honor authorities in such circumstances (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18). Even without governmental request a congregation may decide to cancel assemblies because of such emergencies. Such a decision does not demand that they have become soft or they do not wish to honor their Lord.

We could imagine that a congregation could become lax in its concern about the assembling of the saints; such Christians should be reminded of the importance and power in frequent building up and strengthening of the people of God through joint participation in the acts of the assemblies. Yet in all such things we do well to remember that each local congregation stands like a candlestick before its Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Revelation 1:12-13, 20); the Lord Jesus arranges the candlesticks as He wills, and they remain in His presence or are removed based on His judgment alone. Thus, as it is for Christians, so it is for congregations in such matters: who are we to judge our neighbor? Before their Master and ours they will stand or fall, as shall we (Romans 14:10-12, James 4:11-12). We ought to remember that God desires mercy, not sacrifice or smug sanctimonious judgmentalism, and we ought not condemn the guiltless.

For, in the end, Christians are not made for the assembly; the assembly is made for the building up and strengthening of Christians. May we continually assemble with one another to edify and encourage one another until the Lord Jesus returns to His glory and honor!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christians Are Not Made for the Assembly; the Assembly Is Made for Christians appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Wrath

By warning the Galatian Christians regarding the dangers of immoral thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the importance of manifesting the character habits of godliness, the Apostle Paul has given us helpful, concise lists of the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:17-24. He identified the “works of the flesh” as the following 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.

Paul began the list with the kinds of transgressions highly tempting for those coming out of the Gentile Greco-Roman world: those of a sexual nature (fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness), idolatry, and sorcery. Paul has since spoken of transgressions which heavily impact relationships: enmities, strife, jealousy, and now wrath.

The word translated here as “wrath” (in other versions “outbursts of anger” or “fits of anger”) is the Greek word thumos, defined by Thayer as:

1) passion, angry, heat, anger forthwith boiling up and soon subsiding again

2) glow, ardour, the wine of passion, inflaming wine (which either drives the drinker mad or kills him with its strength)

Thumos is a difficult word to properly convey in English; “passion” or “ardor” perhaps come closest as single terms, but thumos is best exemplified in the heroes of Homer’s Iliad, who would be moved in their thumos to act. It almost seems to describe the impulse to act based on emotional ardor.

Perhaps in Revelation 14:8, 18:3, thumos maintained its core meaning of passion: “Babylon,” an archetype of Rome, compelled the nations to drink the wine of the thumou of her sexually deviant behavior, possibly referring to “rage” or “madness,” but most likely “passion” or “ardor.” Otherwise in the New Testament thumos consistently referred to the expression of great anger and hostility. Moses proved willing to forsake Egypt even if it meant suffering the hostility of Pharaoh (Hebrews 11:27). The Ephesian rioters cried out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians,” in rage (Acts 19:28). The earth would suffer the fury of Satan the dragon when he was cast out of heaven (Revelation 12:12). Many would drink the unmixed cup of the wrath of God (Romans 2:8, Revelation 14:10, 19, 15:1, 7, 16:1, 19, 19:15). Thumos as a kind of intense anger was condemned by Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:20, Ephesians 4:31, and Colossians 3:8 as in Galatians 5:20: a passion to be put away and contained, not given full venting.

Thumos, therefore, refers to a powerful and animating passion borne from deep emotion, and in the New Testament particularly the exercise of that passion in strong anger and hostility: wrath. Thus Webster defines wrath in English:

1. Violent anger; vehement exasperation; indignation;

2. The effects of anger;

3. Just punishment of an offense or crime.

Wrath goes well beyond the flush of anger; wrath is akin to the explosion of a nuclear bomb, wreaking relational devastation and havoc whenever set off. For good reason Achilles in Homer’s Iliad represents the archetype of wrathful rage: full of power and emotion, sensitive to slights against his honor, he at first sulked, immersing himself in his anger and dishonor. When his best friend Patroclus fought and died in his stead, he directed his mindless rage against the Trojans. Only the tender appeal and vulnerability of Priam, king of Troy, restored Achilles to any sort of humanity and compassion.

When consumed in his wrath Achilles disconnected from his humanity, becoming as a raging beast. Such is the danger of all forms of anger, and such is why Paul echoed Psalm 4:4 in Ephesians 4:26:

Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath.

“Wrath” here is a Greek word somewhat synonymous with thumos (parorgismos); Paul’s exhortation can help sort out the human quandary in regards to anger. Anger is a deeply primal passion easily instigated as an almost instinctive response to perceived slights and injustices. To this end Paul recognized that Christians will feel this passion; the question will be what the Christian will do in response. Paul exhorted Christians to not sin in their anger: they ought not immerse themselves in it and allow their anger to morph into wrath. They must recognize the passion welling up within them and do whatever it takes to not allow it to pour out. Science is now validating the reason for the concern: when we get angry, the chemical response leads our brains to shut off “higher level” thought processes. Have you ever been angry, gave vent to your anger, hurt some people you love, and when it was all over wonder why you said and did such things? You literally stopped thinking; thumos took over. The results are never pretty.

Wrath, beyond a manifestation of a lack of self-control, devastates relationships like a tornado, hurricane, or nuclear detonation. Achilles’ wrath almost doomed the Achaean army; our wrath can doom our relationships, our employment, and our lives. Once words and actions are done in anger and wrath, they can never be fully repaired: yes, people can forgive, and relationships can be mended, but a legacy of hurt and damage will never go away. We all know this intuitively: think about the people you love, and whether you ever heard from them a word or experienced an act from anger and wrath. Even if you have forgiven that person, you still likely remember exactly what they did or said, and if nothing else, you remember exactly how those words and/or deeds made you feel. A lifetime of diligent work to build goodwill can be entirely ruined in one outburst of wrath.

No wonder wrath is reckoned as a work of the flesh: in humanity it works entirely contrary to everything God is working to accomplish in Jesus. In Jesus God would reconcile and heal (Ephesians 2:1-3:12); wrath divides and hurts. In Jesus God would tear down walls between people (Ephesians 2:11-18); wrath gives those who suffer it every reason to create distance and build walls against those who inflict it. Relational unity and wrath cannot mix; and thus the anger of man cannot accomplish the righteousness of God (James 1:20).

To avoid wrath does not mean to cease feeling; feeling is a major part of what makes us human. We will feel anger because of injustice and dishonor, and woe to us on the day if and when we cease feeling and lapse into ungodly indifference. We must feel, yet without sin: we must keep discipline and not allow our great-hearted passion within us to pour out as wrath. Our relationships prove far too precious to destroy by outbursts of wrath. May we stand against injustice, hunger and thirst for righteousness, and maintain discipline in our feelings of anger, so as to reflect Jesus the Christ and obtain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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