Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 30

Assyria

It is a rich and fertile land, fed by the Tigris and Euphrates as they descend from the mountains. The people living there would develop a fighting force which instilled dread and fear throughout the ancient Near Eastern world. They would redefine what an empire looked like and prove the catalyst for the dominance of empires over the Middle East for almost 2700 years. Assyria dominated the ancient Near East until it was humiliated in drastic and shocking fashion. The Assyrians had served YHWH’s purposes; they would eventually obtain a blessing in Christ.

Asshur is identified as the son of Shem, the son of Noah, in Genesis 10:22; in Genesis 10:8-12 Nimrod the son of Cush, son of Ham, son of Noah, a mighty warrior before God, was credited with expanding his empire from Babylon/Shinar into Assyria, building Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah, and Resen. According to archaeologists the land which would become known as Assyria saw major cities established by the middle of the third millennium BCE. Assyria was known as Subartu to the Sumerians, and they did claim to expand their power and influence over the area of Assyria in the 2500s BCE; nevertheless, the names which begin the Assyrian King List from this time are Semitic in origin, all suggesting some basis in fact for the stories preserved in the Genesis record.

Abraham lived during the days of what has become known as the Old Assyrian Empire which grew and maintained control over a large portion of northern Mesopotamia and would have exerted influence over Haran (ca. 2025-1750 BCE; cf. Genesis 11:31-32). The power of Assyria would be reduced by the invading Mitanni, leading to a period of relative weakness and decline.

During the days of the judges Assyrian power and strength re-asserted itself in what is known as the Middle Assyrian Empire (1392-1056 BCE). The Assyrians destroyed the Mitanni Empire and took its place among the grand empires of the Late Bronze Age. In response the Hittites and Egyptians, who had been at enmity, established an alliance. The 13th century BCE Assyrian kings Shalmaneser I and Tukulti-Ninurta I defeated both the Hittites and the Babylonians; they imposed direct rule over Babylon. As the other kingdoms of the Late Bronze Age collapsed, Assyria maintained a dominant position. Only with the invasion of Arameans into the Levant in the 11th century BCE would Assyrian power again wane, although remaining a strong and well-defended kingdom in its own right.

The Assyria we find most often in Scripture is what is deemed the Neo-Assyrian Empire, begun with Adad-nirari II in 911 BCE, and enduring until the destruction of Nineveh in 609 BCE. Throughout this time a pattern would develop: a strong king would arise and would exert his authority over Assyria’s neighbors; kings afterward would then have a platform on which to make even greater incursions. Nevertheless, at some point a weaker king would come to the throne: internal instability would abound, and client kinds would reassert independence. Later another strong king would ascend, and the cycle would begin anew.

Shalmaneser III fought against Hadadezer of Aram and Ahab of Israel at Qarqar in 853 BCE, likely to a draw; the “Black Obelisk” from later in his reign testifies to Jehu as king of Israel around 841 BCE. Within three generations Assyria would again suffer a time of internal instability; during the latter end of this period Jonah would have traveled to Nineveh.

All that would change with the ascent of Tiglath-pileser III to the Assyrian throne in 745 BCE. Ahaz king of Judah hired Tiglath-pileser III against the Arameans and the Israelites; in 732 he would eliminate Aram as a going concern and conquered most of Israel (cf. 2 Kings 15:29, 16:6-20). Tiglath-pileser III established the first professional army and instituted the policies of direct governance of client states and the practice of exiling recalcitrant peoples to differing parts of his empire. His reforms paved the way for the bureaucratic administration of empires which would mark the next 2,700 years.

Tiglath-pileser III’s son Shalmaneser V would begin the siege of Samaria which would eliminate the Kingdom of Israel as a going concern; the likely usurper Sargon II would complete it (2 Kings 17:3-6). Sargon II’s son Sennacherib would invade Judah and surround Jerusalem; the Rabshakeh’s speech around the walls of Jerusalem did not contain many idle boasts, for by this time the Assyrians had conquered almost all of Mesopotamia, the Levant, and parts of modern day Turkey (2 Kings 18:9-19:37, Isaiah 36:1-37:38). “Sennacherib’s Prism” maintained a record of the events according to Sennacherib’s perspective, celebrating the conquest of Judah and the siege of Jerusalem; that he did not claim to have conquered the city is quite telling. Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon would conquer Egypt, destroying the Kushite Empire, and re-settle the land of Israel with exiles from Mesopotamia (cf. Ezra 4:9-10). Esarhaddon’s son Ashurbanipal reigned at the height of Assyrian power and influence (ca. 669-627 BCE). He was literate and scholarly, rare for the time; he would build a fantastic library of Mesopotamian literature, knowledge, and wisdom in Nineveh.

In a world full of brutal wars and violence, the Assyrians became infamous for even greater effectiveness in violence and cruelty. Their military was feared around the ancient Near Eastern world. At home the Assyrians enjoyed a fertile land that did not require the intense irrigation of Babylon to its south and which proved a bit more temperate. As befitting those who sat upon the northern portion of Mesopotamia, Assyria was a major trading center and both influenced and were influenced by southern Mesopotamia and the Levant around them. Asshur was their primary god; they served the host of Mesopotamia, but also Aramaean gods as well. Assyrian language was a dialect of Akkadian, but Aramaic grew to become widespread because of the exiling of Aramean people and the embrace of Aramaic as the language of diplomacy by Tiglath-pileser III, which it would remain until the days of the Greeks. And yet the Assyrian leaders saw themselves primarily as the inheritors of the great powers which had ruled over Mesopotamia all the way back to Sargon of Akkad.

Isaiah and Nahum predicted a humiliating fall for Assyria; everyone was shocked by how quickly it would come to pass. After Ashurbanipal’s death Assyria entered a period of instability and weakness at an inopportune time. Cyaxares of Media attacked in 615 and destroyed Kalhu/Calah/Nimrud; in 612 a grand coalition attacked Nineveh and destroyed it, killing its king in street fighting. The final Assyrian king Ashur-uballit II would fall in 609 BCE; Egypt attempted to prop up the remnants of the state against Chaldean Babylon until its defeat at Carchemish in 605 BCE, at which point the Assyrian Empire was eliminated as a going concern.

The land of Assyria would be made part of empires built using its models and reforms: the Neo-Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, Parthians, Romans, Sassanids, and then under successive Islamic empires until becoming part of modern Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. The God of Israel had promised a blessing for Assyria as part of the people of God with Egypt and Israel (Isaiah 19:23-25); it would come to pass in the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ which took firm root in Assyrian lands in the second century and afterward. As the Nestorian Church of the East, Assyrian Christianity remains until this day, still using the Bible in Syriac, preserving the last vestiges of Assyrian culture.

Assyria had been the rod of YHWH’s anger, a terrifying power which maintained great influence over the ancient Near East for almost two millennia (cf. Isaiah 10:5). Yet YHWH, not Assyria, was not all-powerful; as she had been lifted up and humiliated many, so in turn she also would be humiliated in the same way. We have learned much about ancient Mesopotamia from the libraries found in her ruins; a fitting testimony both to Assyrian pretense and her ultimate end. Ezekiel’s description of Assyria for Egypt was, and remains, telling: a great nation greatly humiliated and cast down to Sheol (Ezekiel 31:1-18). No nation is indestructible; all nations eventually collapse into dust. God is Sovereign, and His purposes will remain forever. May we put our trust in God in Christ and find life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Assyria appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Christians, the Church, and the Community

Even in the twenty-first century there remains truth in the mantra that “all politics is local.” Nation-states attempt to impose their authority as they will, yet it is really in local communities where actions and change can happen.

People jointly participate in communities in order to manifest some form of relational unity for the betterment of those involved. Those who live in a similar geographic area must cooperate with one another in some way if they would enjoy some level of security in life.

Communities are right, good, and appropriate in the sight of God. One can even understand the local church as a kind of community: a group of people in a given time and place who jointly participate in the faith that is in Christ (e.g. 1 Timothy 3:14-16). The Lord Jesus Himself grew up in Nazareth of Galilee and was well-known there: too well-known, in fact, to be able to accomplish much (cf. Matthew 13:53-58, Luke 4:16-30). Ever since all Christians and all local churches have existed within communities and were expected to engage with the members of their local communities in ways which would glorify God in Christ.

The Apostle Peter exhorted the Christians of Asia Minor to see themselves as exiles or sojourners within framework of Israel during the Babylonian exile (1 Peter 1:1-2, 17, 2:11-12, 5:13). A sojourner is a person who has voluntarily left his homeland to live somewhere else; an exile lives somewhere else but involuntarily so. We can profitably consider this as a Jewish Christian giving valuable insight into the experience of the people of God to Gentile Christians who have entered unfamiliar territory spiritually (cf. 1 Peter 2:1-10): most of them live in the midst of their family and people of their tribes and ethnicities, and the only thing now distinguishing them from their fellow community members is their confession of Jesus as Lord and Christ, the Son of God. Jewish Christians were used to constant pressure, intolerance, and times of outright persecution from Gentiles because of their faith in God and adherence to the Law of Moses; religious persecution and pressure was new to Gentile Christians. Thus it remains important for Christians to remember they are as sojourners and exiles, even though they may remain in their “home country” among people of their same nation and ethnicity. Their commitment to Jesus will, at times, invariably sit at odds with the prevailing customs and practices of their culture. Their hesitance to support the grandiosity of the claims of the nation-state will lead to questioning regarding their loyalty. Likewise, local churches ought to be marked in the greater community for their commitment to uphold and affirm the truths of what God has made known in Jesus (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15); to this end they should be seen as distinctive and not just another local social club, fraternity, or harmless cultural artifact. As Israel in Babylon, so Christians and local churches ought to be distinct from the community at large because of their confession of Jesus and commitment to the faith, and accept the likelihood of ostracization, marginalization, and persecution because of it (1 Peter 4:1-19).

At the same time, Christians have no ground upon which to remain distant and aloof from the community because they reckon themselves as sojourners and exiles. Just as Jeremiah exhorted the Israelite exiles in Babylon to seek the welfare of the city in which they are exiled, so Christians ought to seek the welfare of their communities (cf. Jeremiah 29:1-7). Christians ought to do good to all people (Galatians 6:10); it should be taken for granted that they are already feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick and imprisoned among them, and they should display yet greater love and care for their fellow humans by doing the same for those in the community who are not Christians (cf. Matthew 5:43-48, 25:31-46, 1 John 4:7-21). If members of the local community remain hostile to the faith and those who confess it, they should at least be put to shame by the good conduct of Christians (cf. 1 Peter 2:12, 15). Elders of the church ought to have a good reputation even among non-Christians in the community (1 Timothy 3:7); Christians should give the members of their local communities reasons to glorify God (Matthew 5:14-16).

Thus Christians and local churches do well to consider how well or poorly they embody and reflect Jesus to their local communities. It might well be that Christians and local churches are seen as “peculiar” and experience difficulties because they seek to embody those parts of the Christian faith which members of the local community find offensive; such Christians do well to absorb the shame and humiliation and continue to embody the Lord Jesus. Unfortunately all too often Christians and local churches develop less stellar reputations in a local community for the ways in which they fail to embody the Lord Jesus: internal divisions from scandalous or less substantive disagreements; practicing or tolerating sin; aggressively condemning others in uncharitable and unmerciful ways; and so on. The name of God is blasphemed because of such, just as it is written (Isaiah 52:5, Romans 2:24). Communities do not necessarily expect perfection from Christians and local churches, but they do expect humility and some kind of reflection of Jesus, and they have every right to maintain that expectation.

Christians confess the Gospel as God’s power unto salvation; the local church exists not to serve as a local community resource center but as the community of people nourishing and sustaining the embodiment and proclamation of God in Christ in that area (Romans 1:16, Ephesians 4:11-16, 1 Timothy 3:15). Christians understand the authorities, both local and national, to be empowered by God to uphold justice and condemn unrighteousness (Romans 13:1-7). It is not for the government to impose or proclaim the Gospel; nevertheless, Christians have the most effective chance at encouraging real change toward greater justice and righteousness on a local level rather than at a national level. The Apostle Paul counted friends among the Asiarchs in Ephesus (Acts 19:31); Erastus, a Christian in Corinth, served as the aedile, or city treasurer, a prominent civic position (Romans 16:23). It is a good thing for Christians to provide materially for those in need, as in Matthew 25:31-46 and Galatians 6:10; Christians also do well to use whatever advocacy or influence they have to nonviolently resist the powers and principalities that be when they perpetuate injustice and oppression (cf. Matthew 5:38-42, Luke 6:27-36, James 5:1-6). If nothing else, neither Christians nor local churches should gain the reputation in the community of perpetuating injustice or oppression; they should be more identified with the kind of people with whom Jesus identified Himself.

The world has never learned of Jesus in some kind of global or national way; people learn of Jesus from those who would embody and proclaim Jesus in their midst. Christians are the salt of the earth, a city set on a hill (Matthew 5:13-14): members of the community learn about Jesus from their words and deeds, for better or for worse, and part of their acceptance or rejection of Jesus is based on how well or poorly His people embody Him. Neither Christians nor local churches are well-served to have the reputation of representing a hothouse of partisanship; at the same time, it is impossible for either Christians or a local church to maintain a completely apolitical posture, for even the attempt to remain entirely disengaged from local, national, or global politics is itself a political position. Christians and local churches do best when they are seen as bringing the lordship of Jesus to bear in their engagement with local politics and local political authorities: to glorify God through their work and service, to uphold God’s justice and righteousness in Christ in political engagement, to affirm justice and resist oppression. Christians are to be a distinctive people, living as sojourners and exiles, yet committed to the welfare of their community, seeking to proclaim and embody Christ not just in “spiritual” matters, but also to bring Jesus’ lordship to bear in the “secular” domain. May the people in the local community see Jesus in us as Christians and the local church, and may they be given reason to glorify God in Christ on account of us!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christians, the Church, and the Community appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Children

Children are blessings from God (Psalm 127:3).

According to the Scriptures, children are the expected result of marriage, not its purpose, as many throughout time have alleged. In marriage two cling to one another and become one flesh (Matthew 19:4-6); just as God shared in love within Himself and in love made the creation and sought to share in love in relational unity with His offspring made in His image, so humans share in love, and make a creation in love that are in their image (Genesis 1:27, Acts 17:28-29, 1 John 4:8). Children represent the embodiment of the connection shared between the two people who have made the child: each child carries the genetic legacy of both parents, and manifests the blended characteristics of both parents. Oftentimes parents feel as if the children have obtained the most unfortunate aspects of themselves; yet even in such circumstances they cannot deny their children are their own, or that they reflect much of themselves for better and for worse. As God is One in relational unity and created mankind His offspring to share in relational unity with Him and one another, so parents deeply desire not only to have children but to share in relational unity with them for the rest of their lives (Genesis 1:27, John 17:20-23, Acts 17:28-29).

God commanded mankind to go, be fruitful, and multiply in Genesis 1:28 and Genesis 9:1, 7; with over seven billion people in existence as we speak, mankind has certainly fulfilled this command. God desired godly offspring from the people of God, as seen in Malachi 2:15. In both Old and New Testaments it is expected for marriage to result in children, yet nowhere is it explicitly commanded or bound. God has thus made provision for those who would experience infertility and thus remain involuntarily childless. In Christ such couples have not failed in marriage and they have not failed God; they will share in life in the resurrection if they remain faithful to the Lord. No word is explicitly given regarding those who would voluntarily remain childless; ultimate judgment is left to the Lord, and a couple may have compelling reasons to maintain that condition, but all must give thought as to whether the factors which enter into that decision are truly glorifying God in Christ or capitulate to anxieties, fears, and cultural customs.

Children do not raise themselves; they must be raised and instructed in the ways they should go, and when they are old, they will not depart from it (Proverbs 22:6). For Christians this ought to mean that we raise our children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 6:1-4, Colossians 3:20-21).

When we think of the “discipline and admonition” of the Lord, we often think of studying the Scriptures, teaching facts regarding the life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, and establishing consequences for infractions of rules. While these things are certainly aspects of the Lord’s discipline and admonition, they do not represent its totality. If all we do as parents is teach with the mouth and establish consequences for infractions, we have not raised our children fully in the Lord’s discipline and admonition; we should not be surprised if they have then become as the world, for we have embodied too much of the world to them and allowed the world to form them. In such instances Solomon’s wisdom in Proverbs 22:6 has not failed; instead, we have failed our children because we did not truly raise them in the Lord’s discipline and admonition.

We say this with confidence on account of how Jesus Himself disciplined and admonished His disciples. Jesus provided plenty of oral instruction, yet He also embodied all He taught (Acts 10:38). He modeled the Way for them; He did not demand anything of them He did not do Himself (John 13:1-13, 14:6-9). He maintained discipline (Hebrews 5:8-9).

Children learn more from what we do than from what we say. Thus, raising one’s children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord demands that the parent embody the discipline and admonition of the Lord. If the child sees the parent fully embodying what the Lord has said and done in their lives, they will embody the ways of the Lord, and not depart from it when they grow old. If the child instead embodies the ways of the world, the parents ought to soberly reflect on how they might have embodied the world to their children before presuming their children provide some kind of exception to Solomon’s wisdom.

Among other qualifications elders are to have raised faithful children to display their credibility in the role of shepherding the flock of God (1 Timothy 3:1-8, Titus 1:5-7). It is appropriate for the human shepherds to have modeled the same characteristics as the Divine Shepherd: the experience of parenthood provides much instruction in, and ideally appreciation for, God’s love and treatment of mankind. Parenthood humbles a person well beyond almost any other condition in life. Loving parents rightly envision their children as their hearts outside of their chest out walking around. When our children hurt, we hurt all the more; when they celebrate, we celebrate. We learn in parenthood how life is not our own; parenthood ought to disabuse us of any pretense of maintaining control over life. Those who believe they have a full understanding of parenthood set themselves up for great humiliation; those parents who have learned much from the experience and wonder how well or effective they are at parenting are far more likely to be exalted. Parenthood should be unconditional love as expressed in the parable of the prodigal son and the older brother (Luke 15:11-32): no matter the terrible decisions a child might make, their parents love them, want the best for them, and would run to embrace them upon their return. As parents we can more thoroughly appreciate the deep love of the Father for us, and marvel at the lengths to which He has gone to save us and care for us even though we have time and again proven faithless toward Him (cf. Romans 5:6-11). We can also understand how God can maintain all authority without compelling or coercing us to do as He would have us do; we can only imagine the depths of lament and despair God must maintain in seeing His children depart from His way to their own harm. The quality of our parenting is embodied in the ways our children live their lives; through them people can see if we have loved them in the love of God in Christ or in the ways of anxiety, fear, or worldliness.

Children are blessings; it is for us to value them as blessings and treat them that way. In children we all too easily see our own difficulties and challenges reflected and embodied. May we raise children in the discipline and admonition of the Lord Jesus to share in relational unity with them now and forevermore!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Children appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Divisions

The Apostle Paul encouraged the Christians of Galatia to live according to the Spirit and crucify the flesh and its passions; in so doing Paul set forth contrasting feelings, behaviors, and character traits described as the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit” (Galatians 5:17-24). Such exhortations are important for Christians of every time and place. Paul deemed the following as 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, wrath, and rivalries. He continued in the same theme with divisions.

The word translated here as “divisions” is the Greek word dichostasia, defined in Thayer’s Lexicon as “dissension, division.” Paul would use the same term on two other occasions: in encouraging the Christians in Rome to “mark” those causing such “divisions” contrary to the doctrines which they had learned in Romans 16:17, and to indict the Corinthian Christians for having the fleshly influences of jealousy and dissensions as manifest in factionalism in 1 Corinthians 3:3. Dichostasia and hairesis, “parties or sects,” the next listed “work of the flesh,” are extremely similar in meaning, and can refer to different aspects of the same process or event (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:19).

From before the beginning God’s purpose has involved reconciling humanity to Himself and to one another in Jesus (John 14:1-3, 21-23, 17:20-23, Ephesians 1:3-13, 2:11-3:12). Dissension and division work entirely against unity and manifest the work of the powers and principalities (Ephesians 6:12). Division and dissension mean the failure of striving to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3); any time division or dissension rears its head we should lament and mourn.

When we think of dissensions and divisions, matters of doctrinal disagreement often come to mind (Romans 16:17). On the surface it might seem Paul is contradicting himself: if the goal of the faith is to be unified in Christ, how can he exhort the Roman Christians to mark and avoid people? Paul explained well in Romans 16:18: those who foment division and dissension and would cause Christians to stumble no longer serve the Lord Jesus Christ but their own fleshly desires. Jesus indeed died to reconcile all people to and in Himself (Ephesians 2:11-22); the ground of reconciliation is in Christ, and outside of Christ, such reconciliation cannot exist (cf. 1 John 1:1-2:27). To this end Christianity has always been a confessional community, a group of people who have come together as a spiritual family based upon what they share in common confession about Jesus (cf. 1 Timothy 3:15-16). The Apostles and their associates felt compelled to constantly warn Christians about the dangers of these false teachers who would lead Christians away from Jesus in order to satisfy their desires, lusts, and vanity (1 Timothy 4:1-5, 6:3-10, 2 Peter 2:1-22, Jude 1:3-19). Thus, Christians who would remain unified with one another in Christ must mark and separate themselves from anyone who would lead them away from Jesus. In so doing the Christian is not manifesting dissension or division; the one bringing the cause of stumbling bears responsibility, and his or her judgment from God will be sharp.

While doctrine is important in establishing the ground on which we remain one in Christ, relational unity in Christ involves far more than agreement on doctrine (Ephesians 4:1-3, Philippians 2:1-4). Paul upbraided the Christians in Corinth for their worldliness and behavior according to the flesh as divisive (1 Corinthians 3:3): primarily in their factions with each supporting a particular preacher (Apollos, Cephas, Paul), or the “faction” of Christ (1 Corinthians 1:12, 3:21-23), but no less manifest in accepting a man who had his father’s wife (1 Corinthians 5:1-13), taking each other to court (1 Corinthians 6:1-8), the knowledgeable causing those less understanding to stumble (1 Corinthians 8:1-13), displaying class divisions in partaking of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11:17-34), exercising spiritual gifts immaturely (1 Corinthians 14:1-40), and disregarding fellow Christians deemed more common or unpresentable (1 Corinthians 12:12-28). And yet Paul has called the Corinthian Christians to speak the same thing, to have no divisions, and to have the same mind and judgment (1 Corinthians 1:10).

Whereas it is always open season on the Corinthian Christians as the “problem church,” we do well to be careful lest we fall according to the same pattern. We, like them, can fall prey to cults of personalities and give more emphasis to the preacher than is proper. Christians have fallen into sin and have not been disciplined; Christians have taken each other to court; plenty of Christians are made to feel as less than valuable or worthy in the Kingdom. Even as Christians we easily and naturally have disagreements about a host of matters: liberties and things of no consequence to God, as in Romans 14:1-23; the means by which we accomplish what God has commanded for us to do in Christ; personality conflicts; different emphases and priorities based on different experiences and backgrounds; and so on. The very power of the Kingdom in bringing together people from every nation, heritage, and background can be its undoing when its members allow differences and distinctions to overcome the shared faith maintained in Christ. In Philippians 2:1-5 Paul well set forth how it is possible for Christians to be of the same mind and judgment: not in an expectation of agreement on every issue and method, but based in mutual love, care, concern, and respect, marked by a willingness to sublimate one’s own views and desires under that of others for the good of others and the whole.

If we chafe under the suggestion of setting aside our own views for the good of others and the whole, such is most likely our worldly, fleshly nature speaking. American Christians in particular find it challenging to renounce and sacrifice freedoms and liberty for the benefit of the whole; everything in their society exalts freedom and the individual, and thus concern for the community and the common good remains countercultural and counterintuitive. If our ability to work together in Christ is dependent on our full acceptance, agreement, or comfort, we are not considering, honoring, and valuing one another in love. It is when we make peace and no longer insist on our own way that we most fully embody the Lord Jesus (Romans 15:1-3).

For good reason Paul encouraged Christians to be diligent to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3): unity requires great effort. We cannot maintain joint participation with those who do not share in Christ and would turn Christians away from Him. But we also cannot insist on our own way, but must give thought and consideration for what makes for peace among the Lord’s people in joint participation in faith. Unity demands strength in relationships, and strong relationships take time and effort to cultivate. Years of patient, hard work can be easily undone in a few rash moments of dissension and division. May we always be on guard against our tendencies toward division and dissension, and seek to work together in humility and love in Christ to the glory of God the Father!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

The Lord’s Supper and the Buffered Self

The observance of the Lord’s Supper was among the many difficulties experienced by the church in Corinth. According to Paul they came together to partake of the Lord’s Supper for the worse, not the better; to manifest their divisions, not to overcome them (1 Corinthians 11:17-19). By the time everyone had come together, some had already eaten and were drunk, and others were left with nothing (1 Corinthians 11:21): in this way the class divisions among the Corinthian Christians were being reinforced during the Lord’s Supper, and not set aside according to the Lord’s purposes in His body (cf. Ephesians 2:11-22). Paul reminded the Corinthian Christians of the Lord’s establishment of the Supper, distributing bread and fruit of the vine to all, declaring it the proclamation of the Lord’s death until He returns (1 Corinthians 11:23-26). Yet in their observance the Corinthian Christians despised the church of God: they did not discern the church as the body of Christ as they partook of the elements, and in the process they brought the body and blood of the Lord against themselves (1 Corinthians 11:22, 27-29). If they properly discerned the body of Christ among them, they would not be judged, and they would not have many sick and dying among them (1 Corinthians 11:30-32). They thus were better off eating and drinking to satiety at home so they could soberly and collectively share in the Lord’s Supper in their assemblies (1 Corinthians 11:22, 33-34).

Beyond this Paul spoke of the Lord’s Supper as a joint participation in the body and blood of Christ in 1 Corinthians 10:16-17. The Evangelists record Jesus’ inauguration of the Lord’s Supper in Matthew 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-25, and Luke 22:15-20; in Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:7 we most likely have examples of Christians assembling and partaking of the Lord’s Supper. Such is the testimony we have received regarding the Lord’s Supper. And yet many argue the Lord’s Supper is done individually, since individuals purpose to come together, must judge themselves as individuals, and if they were to partake in an unworthy manner, would bring condemnation upon themselves and not others.

Christians certainly make the decision, as individuals, to come together to partake of the Lord’s Supper, just as the Corinthian Christians did before them (1 Corinthians 11:18, 20). Individual Christians must assuredly discern the body as they partake of the elements or they will bring condemnation upon themselves (1 Corinthians 11:27-32). Nevertheless, to suggest the Lord’s Supper is an almost purely individual activity is preposterous in light of the witness of Scripture, the vast majority of which was written precisely to emphasize the shared aspects of the observance. Such a view makes a mockery of the existence of the primary text in question, 1 Corinthians 11:17-34: on what basis would Paul have any criticism of the Corinthian Christians if the Supper is primarily an individual action? Some have brought more and enjoyed it; others had less; what of it? Each came as individuals with their individual serving and partook as individuals. The only way Paul can denounce the Corinthian Christians for their behavior is on the basis of a communal and jointly participatory aspect to the Lord’s Supper: that Christians ought to come together to partake of it, wait for one another to share in it, and that the Lord’s death can only be properly proclaimed when all who have confessed it display the communion they share in Jesus (1 Corinthians 11:17-34). A close reading of Paul’s argument demonstrates that the specific sin which the Corinthian Christians prove guilty of in their observance of the Lord’s Supper is precisely a lack of consideration of one another in partaking of the elements, thus not discerning the body (that is, the church; 1 Corinthians 11:29). Furthermore, what of 1 Corinthians 10:16-17? How can a purely atomistic individual activity display joint participation and sharing in Christ?

Two major challenges present themselves in such a disputation. One is an overreliance on categories and a binary between two options which does not flow from Scripture but is imposed upon it. The Lord’s Supper is neither a purely individual nor a purely communal observance: individual Christians come together to jointly participate in the body and blood of the Lord to as concretely as possible embody Him. The other is the modern conception of each individual in a disenchanted, impermeable, and invulnerable framework: the buffered self.

Charles Taylor set forth the thesis of modern man as the buffered self in A Secular Age as one of the ways to understand the major transformation in thought and perspective in the Western world over the past five hundred years. He did so in contrast to the conception of people beforehand who lived in a world saturated with powers and spirits which would have maintained profound influence in their lives. For our purposes the contrasts between enchantment and disenchantment, permeability and impermeability, the world of the mind and the real world, and the power of enacted ritual merit consideration.

The Lord’s Supper should not be construed as a mystical transformation of elements, yet it ought to be recognized as an enchanted moment. Many individuals come together to share in Christ. They remain each members of Christ, but here also manifest connection with one another (Romans 12:5, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). Should we consider such connection in purely theoretical or mental terms? Such would be according to the “buffered self” that creates such distance between the mind and lived experience. And what if there is an enchanted moment of union in the observance of the Supper, a liminal space in which heaven and earth meet, and Jesus and His people for a moment more concretely embody perichoretic relational unity, the kind which marks the Godhead and is to be maintained between God and believers and believers with one another (John 17:20-23, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17)? What if positive spiritual power exists, conveyed according to the working of God through proclamation of His Word and observance of ritual actions of significance like baptism and the Lord’s Supper? How many among us would dismiss such talk as the “hocus pocus” of superstition, perhaps even a collapse into Roman Catholicism, and yet how strange would it have seemed in the first century, since a possible consequence of improper observance is weakness, illness, and even death (1 Corinthians 11:30)?

The suggestion that the Lord’s Supper is primarily an individual action is sustained by examining the matter through the prism of the modern buffered self; it did not come to ancient Christians, nor is it to be found long before the modern day. To miss the emphasis on the joint participation of Christians in the Lord in the Supper is a result of disenchantment, disconnection between the physical and spiritual realms, the barrier erected between the world of the mind and the world that exists, and the intentional distancing inherent in envisioning oneself as impermeable or invulnerable toward one another. For generations Christians have learned the lesson which Paul intended for the Corinthians to understand: the Lord’s Supper is to display the joint participation and communion of all God’s people in Christ, a display of unity despite all the divisions which might exist in the world. Why now, therefore, would we turn back and prove guilty of the body and blood of the Lord because we have not discerned His body by making the Supper all about each of us as individuals and our present standing before the Lord? We must remember the Lord’s death in His Supper; we must examine ourselves not in some kind of mental exercise as a buffered self, deliberating on whether or not we are worthy to partake based on our conduct throughout the week, but whether we are jointly participating with one another in our communion and thus prove to properly discern His body. May we never neglect the power of the local church manifesting the embodiment of Jesus in the observance of the Lord’s Supper, and thus proclaim His death until He comes!

Ethan R. Longhenry

For Further Reading

Taylor, Charles. Buffered and porous selves (accessed 2020/05/06).

The post The Lord’s Supper and the Buffered Self appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Cold Call Evangelism

When you hear the word “evangelism,” what comes to mind?

For many people, “evangelism” conjures up images of street preachers telling passers-by about Jesus (when not denouncing them for their sins); when many Christians think about what evangelism ought to look like, they often imagine a situation in which they would have to tell someone they do not know very well about Jesus. In the minds of many people, therefore, evangelism is equated with “cold call” evangelism.

“Cold call” evangelism derives from the common phrase heard in the world of sales. When a salesperson begins calling people in the phone book to buy his or her product, or tries to reach out to people at a booth or table at a store or in a community venue, they participate in “cold call” sales approaches and tactics. In contrast, a “hot call” would feature a person who has been a previous customer, referred by another customer, or personally known to the salesperson. “Hot call” sales would be much easier to accomplish, since there is already some kind of relationship or connection established and interest in the product; nevertheless, the number of good “hot call” prospects is likely few. “Cold call” sales prove much more difficult to close and features a high rate of rejection; the number of “cold call” prospects is much higher, and thus the possibility exists to gain a few sales in the midst of all the rejections.

Evangelism is not exactly like sales, but the concepts of “cold call” and “hot call” map effectively. Those who would be in a “hot call” situation are those who have become receptive to the Gospel on account of some kind of personal crisis, experience, or example of a friend or an associate and have reached out in interest or those known by Christians or a recent convert. Telling such people about Jesus requires a good knowledge of the Gospel and the ability to answer their questions, and often proves very successful. Nevertheless, the number of people in a “hot call” situation in evangelism tends to be few. Those who would be in a “cold call” evangelism situation are those who are not known to the one who would proclaim the Gospel and who have not indicated a strong interest in learning more about Jesus. They might be people with whom we interact in stores, restaurants, or other venues. They may pass by as we seek to proclaim the Gospel in a public area. They might be people who receive a flyer in the mail or on their doorknob; in some areas, they might be people whose doors we knock to help them learn about Jesus. We will come across far more “cold call” people, but it will prove far more difficult to receive a good and fair hearing of the Gospel; we will experience a lot of rejection, but the possibility exists to lead a few people to Jesus in the midst of all of those rejections.

Some Christians prove excellent and effective evangelists among people they do not know or do not know well. They have the gift of relating quickly and easily with people and do well at starting conversations, expressing genuine interest in the person, and communicate warmth, love, humility, and concern. Cold call evangelism comes more naturally to Christians like these, and they do well to glorify God by telling many people about Jesus.

But those who do well with cold call evangelism must be on guard against certain dangers and temptations which go along with the craft. Christians must always proclaim Jesus according to the words and ways of Jesus (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16). As God is love, and love does not insist on its own way, the proclamation of the Gospel of the love of God in Christ should not be pushed, forced, or imposed upon anyone (1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 1 John 4:8). The Apostles and evangelists of the New Testament only would proclaim the Lord Jesus when given an invitation to do so. The invitation need not be as explicit as “tell me about Jesus”: many times the invitation was mere curiosity regarding events taking place, or polite willingness to hear what they had to say. The goal is to be able to tell someone about Jesus without the person feeling as if the message is being shoved down their throat. Likewise, overly manipulative and aggressive rhetorical postures ought to be avoided: we ought to speak so as to persuade people to believe Jesus is the Christ, but we should not strong arm people into the ways of the Lord. We must also be careful with “bait and switch” techniques; Jesus expected people to appropriately count the cost and understand that His way will involve suffering (cf. Matthew 16:24-28, Luke 14:25-33). We must also remember the goal is not just to encourage people to get baptized: they ought to become disciples of the Lord Jesus, seeking relational unity with Him and His people (John 14:1-3, 20-23, 17:20-23). The relationship between the Christian and the person hearing the Gospel might not be strong at first, but that relationship ought to grow stronger, and the person hearing ought to be encouraged to get to know other Christians as well.

Other Christians find it more challenging to talk to people they do not know well about Jesus. They find it more awkward to attempt to have that conversation, and tend to do better with people they already know or have some kind of pre-existing connection. They may not have the gift of relating with people they do not know well quickly and warmly; they might have more skill at developing longer-term and deeper relationships with people. Christians like these easily find cold call evangelism terrifying.

Christians who struggle with cold call evangelism should not despair. Talking with people they do not know is not their strength; they should not be shamed or regarded as lesser because of it. There are many other means to communicate the Gospel of Jesus that do not involve cold call evangelistic strategies. Many Christians who are strong at cold call techniques may struggle to develop deep relationships with people, and may quickly move on from people who do not respond quickly; Christians who struggle with cold call techniques may excel at developing deeper relationships with Christians and unbelievers, and may have the patience to work with people over time. We should never speak or act as if there is a “one size fits all” means or model to tell people about Jesus as Lord and Risen Christ. Sometimes the same person might need to hear from different people proclaiming Jesus in different ways before they will come to faith in the Lord. It is for us to plant the seed and water it; God gives the increase (1 Corinthians 3:6-8).

Cold call evangelism is a means by which the Gospel may be communicated, but it is not the only way to evangelize, nor should it be considered the default form of evangelism. Those who do well at speaking with almost everyone about Jesus ought to do so and glorify God while recognizing their own weaknesses, limitations, and dangers in their approach. Those who struggle with speaking with those they do not know ought to recognize the difficulty but not close off opportunities which might be presented to them to tell people about Jesus, or to begin developing a connection that would lead to the opportunity to speak about Jesus. Those who do well at cold call evangelism ought not condemn those who tend to be more relational in evangelism; those who are more relational in evangelism ought not look down on those who do well at cold call evangelism. May we all play to our strengths in telling others about the Lord Jesus while seeking opportunities to grow and develop in our faith and abilities in evangelism, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Cold Call Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Christians, the Church, and the Nation-State

Near the beginning of the New Testament a ruler oppresses his people (Matthew 2:16-18); near its end, God violently judged the oppressive beast, false prophet, and “whore Babylon,” most likely images of Rome (Revelation 17:1-19:21). The relationship among Christians, the church, and the nation-state can be complicated and fraught with many difficulties.

Nation-states exist according to the will of God; all authority comes from God, and thus any nation-state which maintains power on the earth has in some way received it from God (Romans 13:1). God empowers authorities over a nation-state to uphold justice and punish wickedness (Romans 13:3-4). When nation-states uphold what is right and good and establish justice, God is honored. And yet nation-states invariably go well beyond their mandate, and enslave themselves to the powers and principalities; thus Satan rules over the kingdoms of the world, and is the one who empowered the beast of the Roman power invested in the Emperor (Matthew 4:8-10, Revelation 13:1-10). John saw Roman power and Rome itself in terms of Babylon and the beasts of Daniel (Revelation 13:1-10, 17:1-18); individual nation-states may come and go, but they all seem to fit a consistent pattern as worldly powers arrogating to themselves claims to greatness they do not deserve and pressuring all people to display the greatest loyalty to the nation-state and its prerogatives. Thus nation-states can only at best skeptically tolerate Christians whose loyalties are to Jesus and His Kingdom over all other things (cf. Philippians 3:20-21); at worst, nation-states will actively persecute Christians for not giving them the glory (e.g. Revelation 13:7). Between these extremes lies an even more pernicious danger: the nation-state might seek to co-opt aspects of the Christian faith and heritage to consider itself a part of “Christendom,” looking to have its agenda and purposes baptized and justified in the name of Jesus.

The Lord Jesus did not leave any confusion in regards to how He expected His people to conduct themselves toward their nation-states: both Paul and Peter exhorted Christians to obey earthly authorities, to honor the emperor, to pay taxes, and to not use their freedoms in Christ to cover wickedness (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18). Both Paul and Peter wrote these exhortations while Nero was Emperor; thus, the Christian’s obedience to the civil authorities is not based in the dignity or godliness of the authorities’ conduct. Neither Paul nor Peter instructed Christians to observe Rome’s Twelve Tables, even if Rome did not: they commanded Christians to respect, honor, and obey rulers, governors, and magistrates. Thus Christians have no ground to presume they are to prove obedient only to documents and not authorities. Documents like the Constitution must be interpreted; at no point is the Christian given authority to judge the authorities of the nation-state for whether they have lived up to their own claims, let alone the purposes of God; God will judge the authorities for all of that (Romans 14:10-12). Throughout the New Testament Christians are called upon to maintain a posture of obedience and submission to civil authorities. Christians thus do well to observe the laws of the land and pay their taxes. Churches do well to observe all the appropriate laws which govern non-profit organizations, filing appropriate paperwork and maintaining integrity in how they conduct whatever business the work of the church demands relative to federal, state, and local governments. Perhaps Christians or local churches may not like, appreciate, or feel the most comfortable with the laws or the application of those laws by civil authorities; they have the authority to make appeals according to the standards of the state when appropriate, but their obedience is never to be based on their level of comfort; they must seek to obey and comply as much as possible and whenever possible. Christianity must never be seen as a pretext for inciting rebellion against any nation-state; Jesus is never honored by a posture of disobedience and rebellion.

At the same time, Peter rightly told the Sanhedrin that he and his fellow Christians would have to obey God rather than man whenever man would impose rules which would go against the will of God (Acts 5:29). No Christian will ever be justified in disobeying God in order to fulfill a request or a demand from any civil magistrate or agent of a nation-state. And yet no Christian or local church should reflexively declare they must obey God rather than man, and certainly should not provoke and thumb their nose up at the authorities. Christians and local churches do well to study deeply and pray about the matter, and ascertain whether there might yet be a way to continue to both obey the Lord Jesus in all things and comply with whatever rules the nation-state attempts to impose. If it proves impossible to honor the dictates of the nation-state and do what God has willed, then Christians and local churches must obey God rather than man, yet also submit to whatever punishment is imposed by the magistrates of the nation-state, just as the early Christians did (1 Peter 2:13). Christians should take no pleasure or joy in having to choose between obeying God over the dictates of their nation-state; they should always seek to uphold what is honorable in the sight of all men, and should pray and hope they will never be forced to make such a decision.

The posture of Christians and churches toward the nation-state does not need to always be negative. Christians should affirm and encourage civil authorities in their work of upholding justice, punishing wrongdoing, and relieving the oppressed (Isaiah 1:17, Romans 13:3-4). Christians should pray for all people, especially those in authority, so they might be able to live quietly in godliness and for all to come to a knowledge of the truth and be saved (1 Timothy 2:1-4). Christians and local churches can take advantage of the freedoms, blessings, and benefits provided as citizens of a nation-state to accomplish God’s purposes in Christ, proclaiming the Gospel locally and abroad, just as Paul did (cf. Acts 22:22-30, 25:10-12). Like Paul, Christians might get an opportunity to speak a word of life in Christ to rulers or authorities!

Nation-states exist for their own advantage and aggrandizement; they have a purpose in God’s economy, and God empowers them, but they will never be the means by which God rescues the world. What governments do well Christians ought to commend; where government transgresses God’s purposes, Christians can point out, but always in a posture of obedience and submission to civil authority. We must be on guard against how the nation-state may attempt to induce us to abandon aspects of our faith to uphold their principles; we also must also be on guard lest we prove too cynical and critical of the nation-state. Sadly, there have been times when nation-states have affirmed aspects of God’s righteousness in Christ which were denied by those professing Jesus in churches, to the eternal shame of the latter. No matter what Christians must not trust in princes; the support of a prince always comes at a cost. We must trust in the Lord Jesus: obeying civil authority whenever possible, suffering the consequences when we cannot, and in all things maintaining our hope not in the future success of the nation-state but in the glorification of believers in Jesus on the day of resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Christians, the Church, and the Nation-State appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

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.