Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 31

Apologies in Acts: Paul in Caesarea

Paul’s situation had grown dire. Accusers slandered him at every opportunity. Yet now he would tell of what God accomplished through Jesus and in him before governors and kings.

Paul had been arrested in Jerusalem and had made his defense before the Israelites and the Sanhedrin (Acts 21:17-23:11). Some among the Jews hatched a plan against his life, and it was made known to him; Paul was then given a strong military escort from Jerusalem down to Caesarea where Marcus Antonius Felix, the Roman procurator of the land, maintained his residence (Procurator from 52-60; Acts 23:12-35).

Before Felix the Jewish people made their accusations against Paul: they considered Paul a pestilence, one who caused insurrection among the Jewish people, a ringleader of the Nazarean sect, who profaned the Temple and was only by Roman violence spared from their hands (Acts 24:1-9).

Paul then made his defense before Felix (Acts 24:10-21). He began by clearing his name: he informed Felix that he had only gone up to prostrate in Jerusalem within the past twelve days, and he did not dispute with anyone in the synagogues or in the city, and they cannot prove the accusations which they have made against him (Acts 24:10-13). Paul then made his confession: he followed the Way which his accusers had called a sect, and in that Way he served the God of their fathers, fully believing the Law and the prophets, maintaining hope, as did his accusers, in the resurrection of the just and the unjust; to this end he lived with a good conscience (Acts 24:14-16). He again explained what happened: he had returned after a few years to bring gifts and offerings to his nation, and some Jewish people from Asia found him purified in the Temple, without crowd or contention, and those Jewish people from Asia should have been present to make accusation against him (Acts 24:17-19). He then indicted those who brought the accusations against him, asking them to declare what wrongdoing was found against him when he stood before the Sanhedrin, save that he cried out among them that he was on trial in their midst regarding the resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:20-21; cf. Acts 23:1-11).

Felix had a more exact knowledge of what God accomplished in Jesus; he did not make a determination at the time, but delayed, hoping to gain material benefit from Paul’s associates (Acts 24:22-26). As a favor to the Jewish people Felix left Paul in prison throughout the rest of his procuratorship, leaving the matter for his successor, Porcius Festus (Procurator ca. 59-61; Acts 24:27).

As soon as Festus came to Caesarea the Jewish people brought accusations against Paul again; Luke summarized Paul’s defense similarly to much of Acts 24:10-21: he had not sinned against the laws of the Jewish people, the Temple, or Caesar (Acts 25:1-8). Festus asked Paul to stand trial in Jerusalem; Paul said he stood before Caesar’s judgment seat as was appropriate for his station, and that if he were guilty, he would accept punishment, but if not guilty, he would not be given over to the Jewish people of Jerusalem, and to that end he appealed to Caesar (Acts 25:9-11). Festus agreed to send him to Caesar, but wanted to be able to explain to Caesar why he was being sent; to this end, he set Paul’s case before Marcus Julius Agrippa, also known as Herod Agrippa II, King of the Jews, who himself had wanted to hear Paul (Acts 25:12-22). The stage was set with great fanfare (Acts 25:23-27).

Paul then made his defense before King Herod Agrippa II, Queen Berenice, and the Roman procurator Porcius Festus (Acts 24:1-29). Paul had confidence in Agrippa’s understanding in the ways of Israel, and so told his story: he had been raised a Pharisee, and was now judged for the hope of the promise which God made to their fathers which the twelve tribes hope to attain in their service to God (Acts 24:1-7). Paul asked if Agrippa thought it incredible that God would raise the dead (Acts 26:8). Paul testified regarding his persecution of the name of Jesus: imprisoning Christians in Jerusalem by the authority of the chief priests, voting for their execution, punishing them in synagogues, compelling them to blaspheme, and in great zeal persecuting even unto foreign cities (Acts 26:9-11). Paul then recounted the story of his conversion: the journey to Damascus; the great light from heaven; the voice asking in Aramaic why he, Saul, was persecuting him, and how hard it is to kick against the goad; the identification of the person as Jesus; Paul’s commission to be a servant and witness of what Jesus had and would show him, to deliver him from the Jewish people and the Gentiles, and to go to the Gentiles to open their eyes to turn from darkness to light, from Satan to God, to receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among the holy ones (Acts 26:12-18). Paul spoke of how he proved obedient to the vision, proclaiming in Damascus, Jerusalem, Judea, and then among the Gentiles the call of repentance and turning to God in Jesus (Acts 26:19-20). Paul declared it was for this reason the Jewish people seized him in the Temple and wanted to kill him (Acts 26:21). To this end Paul testified how, through God’s help, he stood and spoke nothing but what the prophets and Moses said would come, that the Christ would suffer and in His resurrection would proclaim light to the Jewish people and also to the Gentiles (Acts 26:22-23).

At this point Festus cried out loudly that Paul had gone mad by his great learning (Acts 26:24). Paul countered that he was not mad but spoke truly and soberly, and appealed to the knowledge of Agrippa; Paul was persuaded Agrippa had heard of these things, because they had not been done in secret (Acts 26:25-26). Paul asked if Agrippa believed in the prophets; Agrippa responded, likely sarcastically, that Paul was trying to make him a Christian in such a short time (Acts 26:27-28). Paul did not deny it; he wished that all who heard him would become as he was, except for his chains (Acts 26:29).

Paul’s apologies in Caesarea demonstrate his agendas and purposes well. Before Felix he was accused in the setting of a more formal trial; to this end most of his speech was a pure defense of his conduct, yet even in so doing he made sure to “confess” his faith in the Way of Jesus as the fulfillment of the hope of Israel in the resurrection of the dead (Acts 24:15-16). In his defense before Agrippa we get a clearer idea of what Paul was intending to do before the Israelites in Jerusalem: he was telling the story of what God had accomplished in him to explain why he had returned to make offerings, and in the process, to testify regarding God’s work in Christ in and through him (Act 26:4-21; cf. Acts 22:1-21). Yet in all these apologies Paul worked diligently to establish the points of continuity: in Paul’s telling, he had not deviated away from Israel, or had “converted” to Christianity; instead, he perceived in Jesus’ death and resurrection the fulfillment of all God had promised Israel (Acts 24:14-15, 26:6-8, 22-23).

Thus Agrippa was not wrong: Paul might have been making a defense of his conduct, but he was really trying to convince them to become Christians (Acts 26:28). We have no evidence that any converted, but they all were convinced of Paul’s innocence, and he would have been set free if he had not appealed to Caesar (Acts 26:29-32). Yet the Lord Jesus had told Paul he would testify of Him in Rome, and so to Rome Paul would go (Acts 27:1-28:31). Paul had accomplished the Lord’s purposes in testifying regarding what Jesus had done in and through him, and how Jesus was the fulfillment of all the promises God had made to His people Israel. May we also proclaim the work of God in Christ in and through our lives, and share in the inheritance of the saints!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Invitation Evangelism

It was the first call to action, and it was an invitation: come and see. Thus Jesus welcomed Andrew, and thus Philip invited Nathanael (John 1:39, 46). In the Gospel all are now welcomed to come and taste that the Lord Jesus is good and gracious, and to receive rest in their souls in Him (Matthew 11:28-30, 1 Peter 2:3).

Invitation evangelism is really the only form of evangelism if we understand it as the welcome to come and learn of the life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and imminent return of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. No one alive has personal experience with Jesus as He walked the earth as the Apostles did (cf. 1 John 1:1-3); yet even the Apostles themselves invited people to follow Jesus and put their trust in Him as Lord, and did not seek any glory for themselves (1 Corinthians 3:21-4:1, 4:9-13). Only God saves in Jesus; all we can do is plant the seed of the message of what God has done in Jesus and nurture it (1 Corinthians 3:5-7). Evangelism can never be about us, our culture, or anything other than the good news of Jesus the Christ. We must always point back to Jesus and anchor any word we may have to say to our culture in what God has made known in Jesus (2 Timothy 4:1-4). If we have truly come to believe in and accept the Gospel of Jesus, we ought to know that salvation cannot be found in personal insecurities or opinions or socio-cultural norms or attitudes: salvation is only found in the good news of what God has accomplished in Jesus (Romans 1:16).

While all faithful and effective evangelism invites the hearer to come and see what God has accomplished in Jesus, “invitation evangelism” is most often understood as a different practice: an initiative which encourages Christians to invite their family, friends, or associates to come and consider an assembly of the saints. Such “invitation evangelism” may be informal: a Christian may feel as if he or she is not adequately equipped to tell someone about Jesus, or thinks the proclamation of the Gospel is best left to the “professionals,” and thus thinks their role in evangelism is to invite people to their church to hear about Jesus. Yet it may also represent some kind of formal program: perhaps the congregation maintains a “seeker friendly” paradigm, and the entire assembly is oriented around the comfort and basic instructions for the “unchurched”; perhaps the congregation features a “friends and family” assembly, or facilitates a specific assembly which may be more accessible and amenable for the “unchurched”; perhaps the preacher will guilt and shame Christians for their lack of effort in evangelism, and suggest the solution is for them to go out and invite their friends and associates to church.

“Invitation evangelism” as inviting people to assemble with Christians is not wrong; in many respects, it is a culturally appropriate and expected form of outreach. Many have accepted such an invitation, have learned of Jesus in the assemblies of Christians, and have become faithful Christians on account of it, and God be praised for it. Yet there are dangers regarding such “invitation evangelism” which can lead to distortions of understanding regarding evangelism and the nature of the assembly of the saints.

As Christians we do well to maintain a clear distinction between inviting “the unchurched” to visit an assembly, which is a form of outreach, and inviting “the unchurched” to learn about Jesus, which is evangelism, lest we believe that inviting a person to church is the same as learning about Jesus. In this distinction, “outreach” is the means by which we encourage someone to come to learn about Jesus; “evangelism” is when that person learns about Jesus. Let none be deceived: outreach is an indispensable part of the means by which people come to a saving knowledge of the truth in Jesus. Faith comes by hearing the word of God in Christ (Romans 10:17); Christians must find ways to welcome people to hear that word, and the means by which they do so is outreach. Inviting people to attend an assembly of Christians is one such form of outreach, and it can be done well and effectively. But just because someone is invited to church does not mean they have learned a thing about Jesus; many times a person can even visit such an assembly and come away without having learned much about Jesus! Until a person has been confronted with the story of how God worked through Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and will in His return, they have not been evangelized. All outreach ought to lead to evangelism; but outreach is itself not evangelism.

Christians also do well to never get distracted from God’s primary purpose for their assemblies: the spiritual edification of one another in the faith (1 Corinthians 14:26). Unbelievers, or the “uninitiated,” were present in Christian assemblies in the first century; they even could be convicted in faith based on what they saw and heard in those assemblies (1 Corinthians 14:22-25). Yet the New Testament betrays no suggestion that Christian assemblies were the primary means of evangelism by early Christians, or that the assemblies were structured around the comfort of unbelievers; thus, a “seeker friendly” posture as has been manifest in much of Evangelicalism in the late twentieth and early twenty-first century is inconsistent with God’s purposes for the assemblies of Christians. At the same time the New Testament does not recommend a “seeker hostile” posture, either; early Christians displayed hospitality in welcoming unbelievers to their assemblies, and Christians should always speak of the truth of God in Christ in love and humility, seasoned as with salt (Colossians 4:6, 1 Peter 3:15). A congregation may find it appropriate to dedicate certain assemblies to feature messages in which the story of what God has accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, lordship, and will accomplish in His return, and do so in order to both remind and refresh the saints in these truths as well as to proclaim them to those who may not yet believe. Any unbeliever who assembles with Christians ought to find them to be warm and welcoming; whoever invited him or her should not be given reasons to have to apologize for what they saw or heard afterward, and if such reasons are given, no one should be surprised when the one inviting ceases to invite their friends and associates any longer. Yet the unbeliever should also see how the assembly of the saints is for the saints and their mutual encouragement and edification, and it should encourage them to become a part of the body of Christ and share in such joint participation in Jesus.

All faithful evangelism invites people to learn of their God through what He accomplished in Jesus, and to follow and serve Jesus as Lord in all things. We may have opportunity to invite people of the world to assemble with us as part of our assemblies, and even dedicate certain assemblies for that purpose. And yet we must always remember that inviting someone to an assembly is not the same as telling them about Jesus; unbelievers should find a hearty welcome and a loving environment when assembling with Christians, yet be able to perceive the primary purpose of that assembly as directed toward the edification and encouragement of the saints. May we never confuse outreach with evangelism, emphasize the importance of actually telling people what God has accomplished in Jesus, and invite everyone to share in eternal life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Invitation Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Commitment in Relationships

We live in a world awash in choices. Our society values both the power of choice and the freedom and the satisfaction of the individual; to this end, it is understandable how many have developed a “fear of missing out,” concerned that making one choice would preclude the ability to make other choices in the future. At the same time, people also want to value commitment in relationships. Unfortunately, prizing choice must come at the expense of the integrity of such commitment.

As Christians we come to understand what commitment in relationships ought to look like by seeing God’s commitment toward mankind (cf. 1 John 4:7-21). The Psalms testify that God is not only our Creator, but also displays hesed toward His people (e.g. Psalm 136:1-26). English has no equivalent term for Hebrew hesed: hesed represents the intersection between warmth, love, and loyalty in covenant agreement. God thus proves faithful to His commitments and to His people, and has demonstrated His faithfulness over and over. He delivered Israel out of Egyptian bondage and proved faithful to His promise to their fathers uttered hundreds of years earlier (cf. Exodus 3:1-15:21); He restored Judahites to their land after they had been exiled for their continual disobedience and covenant faithlessness (cf. Isaiah 45:1-6, Ezra 1:1-11). God displayed His covenant loyalty and faithfulness to His people, and to everyone, pre-eminently in sending Jesus His Son to embody the story of God’s people, die for their sin, and to be raised from the dead to give hope for life forevermore (Romans 4:16-5:11). God suffered greatly to reconcile humanity to Himself so as to be able to share in relational unity now and forever (John 14:1-3, 21-23, 17:20-23, Romans 8:31-39). God, therefore, proves super-abundantly faithful to His people and to His promises.

Humans seek relationships, after all, to obtain relational unity. We enjoy solitude for a few moments, but very few people want to spend life alone. We want to spend life with people who are committed to us. We do not want to be abandoned, betrayed, or left alone.

God therefore offers in Christ to share in relational unity with us and to never abandon us, betray us, or leave us alone if we would commit to Him in faithfulness as He has already committed to us (cf. Romans 8:31-39). We can have complete confidence in God’s faithfulness because God has already proven faithful; what He says He will do, even if it is not according to our ways or our timetable (Psalm 90, Isaiah 55:8-9).

Yet we also yearn for relational unity with other human beings as well. And yet all too often anymore people view relationships in transactional ways: people seem more than willing to act like a friend or lover for other people if they gain some advantage in the relationship. But if the relationship does not seem to “pay dividends” anymore, the person will find a way to vanish. We see this in friends who are there when things are great but gone when things go wrong and professions in marital commitments to remain together “as long as love shall last.”

Transactional relationships feature no real commitment and prove bankrupt and empty. If our relationships are transactional, our lives will remain unfulfilled. We cannot truly depend on anyone who is only present in our lives for their own benefit. Furthermore, imagine if God’s relationship with us proved merely transactional: where would we be for eternity?

We cannot treat relationships transactionally and glorify God. We cannot be fully assured that others will relate with us in a non-transactional way, but we can live according to the Golden Rule and strive to be the friend, the family member, the associate, and the Christian who relates to other people authentically and willingly no matter what (Matthew 7:12). We ought to be people faithful to our covenant with God and faithful in our relationships with other people, living according to the hesed upon which we depend from God.

In God in Christ we also learn the importance of covenant loyalty not to an abstract ideal but to actual people. It can be very easy to fall in love with the idea of love; we can love the idea of loving someone without actually loving the person themselves. People invariably disappoint: we all have our quirks, eccentricities, flaws, temptations, weaknesses, trauma, and pain. It is always easier to love people in the abstract than it is to love actual people.

And yet we, despite our flaws, quirks, challenges, and pain, yearn to be loved despite of them or even because of them. We do well to meditate upon how Christ took on flesh, dwelt among us, and served people to the point of a humiliating death, loving actual people in their dirt, uncleanness, sins, and flaws (cf. Philippians 2:5-11). God has not proven loyal to His covenant in the abstract, nor has He displayed love only to a collective without regard to the individuals who comprise it. God proved loyal in His covenant to Israelites despite their faithlessness. God has displayed covenant loyalty and steadfast love toward us in that He sent His Son to die for our sins when we were sinners, broken, and at our most unlovable (Romans 5:6-11). God has no delusions about us and our condition. He loved, and loves us anyway, and bestows upon us grace and mercy beyond measure (Ephesians 1:3-11).

Thus again: if we would want to be loved despite our failings, so we must love others despite theirs. We cannot love the idea of love and find fulfillment, nor can we just show consideration as long as we are getting something out of it. To choose to love really demands commitment in covenant loyalty. Yes, that will preclude a lot of other options; but other options must be precluded in order to truly grab a hold of love in commitment. God has displayed covenant loyalty toward us and has blessed us beyond measure; it is not too much to display covenant loyalty to God in return. In a world full of transactional relationships, may we embody Christ and love others as He has loved us, so that we may all find relational unity with God and one another and share in life for eternity!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Commitment in Relationships appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Love One Another

Love.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not envious, does not brag, is not arrogant, is not rude, and does not seek its own way. Love is not bitter or resentful.

These are the characteristics Jesus exemplified toward us. And these are characteristics we utterly depend on God continually displaying toward us in Jesus.

We all know that we must love one another and love everyone.

And in our best intentions we do seek to love one another and love everyone. At our best, we do love one another and love everyone.

But we’re not always at our best.

Anxiety, fear, and insecurity often grab ahold of us. We’re flummoxed and flustered and aren’t the people we want to be.

The binary between love and hate (and we can add in indifference as well) is a helpful contrast for our instruction, but insufficient to bridge the gap between our intentions and our practice. No one is all love, all hate, or all indifference. The most wicked of sinners still loves those who love him. The most righteous saint has moments where they’re not very loving.

As Christians we must strive to better manifest love at all times. We’re not going to always succeed at it, but the goal is to be more often more like Jesus than not.

Thus, there’s a reason why the essence of Christianity can be distilled into “love one another” (John 13:31-35). John makes much of it in 1 John 3:11-17, 4:7-21.

We often wax rhapsodic regarding John’s discourses on love. It’s easy to get lost and seduced in its prose.

But John’s exhortation comes with a sharp, pointed edge…because John is convinced that we don’t really love one another.

He goes so far as to say that we really hate one another.

We might think that’s too harsh; we mean well, after all.

But he’s not wrong. We don’t really love one another. We kinda like each other, sure. We mildly tolerate one another.

But love one another?

We know what love looks like. God is love; God has displayed love toward us through what He accomplished in Jesus. Agape love is humiliation and a cross.

Thus, to say “I love you” means:

I am dedicating myself to your best interest;
I am willing to pour myself out for you;
I will be faithful to you even when you are not faithful to yourself;
I will suffer great loss for your benefit and for your good;
I will endure humiliation, shame, and degradation for you.

Yeah, that’s why we don’t really love one another. It costs way too much to do that.

But why do we think it costs too much to fully love?

We’re scared.

We’re scared that we will lose ourselves.

We’re scared that we will be taken advantage of.

We’re scared that we will be betrayed.

We’re scared that we will pour in and have nothing left over.

John gets it. That’s why he pointed out that perfect love casts out fear, and there is no fear in love.

John does not deny that we will lose ourselves, that we will be poured out, sometimes taken advantage of, and betrayed. But none of that is to really matter in the grand scheme of things, because God is love, we can love because God loved us, and if we really recognize the value and power of love, we will have no fear in losing ourselves in love.

Because God loved us when we were yet sinners (Romans 5:6-11). God poured out of Himself and “lost Himself” on the cross for us. God was taken advantage of and was betrayed. And how many times have we betrayed God or taken advantage of His kindness and mercy?

No religion or worldly ideology can compare with the expression of love God has displayed in Jesus. And this is why Paul prayed so fervently that Christians would be strengthened by God in the inner man through His Spirit so Christ would dwell in their hearts by faith so they would have the strength to apprehend the dimensions of God’s love for us in Christ Jesus, a love that surpasses knowledge.

The only way we can get past liking, tolerance, or mild affection for one another is to continually meditate upon and be overwhelmed by God’s love for us in Jesus, to allow oneself to be immersed in the love of Jesus, and then radiate out that love to others.

Yes, we will suffer for that love. No, we can never be the same. But we really shouldn’t want to be the same, anyway. Being in control of the self hasn’t helped us much. Yes, it will be costly. People are messed up, and need a lot of help. It will demand more of us than we’d care to commit.

If we pour ourselves out for others, God will make sure we are never lacking.

We can’t say we love the God we can’t see when we only mildly tolerate His people whom we see all the time. We can’t make grandiose declarations about how much we love one another when we can’t, or won’t, meet the basic material and relational needs of our fellow Christians. We can claim all day long that we’re a church of Christ, but if we’re just mildly tolerating one another for a couple of hours, and then get back to our regular lives and are otherwise “unbothered” by one another, we have no lasting share in Him.

We need to be the people we need in life: those who love not in pretense, but in substantive practice. We need to be the ones who say “I love you” and mean “I love you like Jesus loves you and me.”

It will cost us everything. And it will be more worthwhile than anything we could ever imagine…because we will love like God, and share in God.

Ethan R. Longhenry

(Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash)

The post Love One Another appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Moral Hypocrisy

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! (Isaiah 5:20-21).

Christians in America find themselves confronted with many dilemmas in their faith when they approach conversations about morality and politics in their country. Many of the most bitterly disputed subjects in modern American politics have significant moral dimensions; politicians and their party apparata seek to tribalize moral positions, intending to maintain voter loyalty through group identity and fear of “the other.” At the same time, American media sensationalizes matters of morality and disagreements about what ought to be done about them in order to gain and maintain viewership; social media algorithms prioritize “hot takes,” reductive memes, and inflammatory speech. It proves far too easy for Christians to get swept up into these trends and become more faithful to a partisan political/cultural tribe than to the transnational Kingdom of Jesus; we are sorely tempted to buy into the fearmongering and demonization which all but defines modern American political discourse.

One disheartening manifestation of these difficulties involves the open embrace of arguments of moral hypocrisy. For political partisans, pointing out the moral hypocrisy of their opponents is a cheap and easy hit; the purpose might ostensibly be for their opponents to see their hypocrisy and repent, yet it generally is designed to reinforce the political posture of their fellow partisans: “we are right and they are wrong.” Unfortunately, arguments of moral hypocrisy are easily reduced to their core posture: our moral compromises are superior to the moral compromises of our opponents.

We can clearly see arguments regarding moral hypocrisy in one of the most fraught issues of our time: the valuation of life in our society. Accusations of moral hypocrisy on the issue fly about easily and everywhere, and end up consuming almost every political issue of note:

“They rail against children in cages but have no problem with abortion!”

“They say they are ‘pro-life’ about babies yet have no problem putting children in cages!”

“Sorry, but I don’t listen to anti-gun lectures from those who think it’s okay to kill a baby.”

“Those people care more about their guns than they do about people.”

“Liberals say they care about black people, yet are fine with slaughtering black babies.”

“Conservatives say they care about black babies in the womb, but have no problem with the oppression of black people outside of the womb.”

“Don’t talk to me about welfare until you care about the welfare of the unborn!”

“Those who are so concerned about the life of the unborn don’t seem to care so much about those who are born and in need.”

Such arguments attempting to denounce the moral hypocrisy of one’s opponents may feel satisfying, yet ultimately prove fallacious and unproductive. These arguments lack appropriate nuance and empathy, prove highly reductive, and accomplish nothing of value. They are not designed to convince but reinforce, and what they reinforce can neither advance the Kingdom of God in Christ nor even the moral issue under discussion. Ultimately, the only thing an argument regarding moral hypocrisy proves is the moral compromise and hypocrisy of the one making the argument. Christians, therefore, have no business making, advocating, or identifying with arguments rooted in moral hypocrisy.

You may find that judgment harsh; should not Christians speak some word of truth regarding moral and political issues of the day, and is not the moral inconsistency of opponents a valid ground of argument? Christians in the twenty-first century do well to recognize that the wall between the “secular” and “sacred” in our society was not built by God but was erected in the Enlightenment; if the Kingdom of God is so heavenly focused it has no earthly good, the Lord’s prayer that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven is for naught (cf. Matthew 6:10). Christians must never forget that the Gospel is God’s power unto salvation, and it is not advanced through the coercive power of the nation-state (Romans 1:16); at the same time, the authorities of the nation-state are empowered to maintain justice on the earth, and justice includes a defense for the oppressed and marginalized (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18; cf. Isaiah 1:10-17). As Christians must be in the world but not of the world (Romans 12:1-2, 1 Corinthians 5:9-13, 1 John 2:15-17), so Christians must speak a word of life from the Gospel regarding the value of life and to speak that word of life and truth to power, but must always do so according to the embodied witness of Jesus, in love, humility, empathy, compassion, and sacrifice (1 Peter 3:15).

In the world in civil society there will be moral compromises, and thus moral hypocrisy, as participants in a nation-state deliberate about freedom, morality, and the coercive force of the nation-state. Participants in a nation-state have to decide when the coercive power of the nation-state ought to be brought to bear to require or demand a particular course of action and thus to inhibit the freedom of its citizens, and when the nation-state should not apply its coercive power but rely on the moral consciences of its citizens to seek what is the best and the good, maintaining the freedom of its citizens. In a healthy conversation, citizens should be able to disagree in good faith about exactly how that coercive force of the nation-state should be applied without having their views and attitudes maligned and slandered.

Conversations about matters of life in America today prove unhealthy. Partisan tribes freely participate in moral reductionism and demonization of the other, as seen in the instances of arguing from moral hypocrisy. We may expect this in the world, but it ought not be so among Christians.

There are some people in America who truly do celebrate killing babies in the womb. Likewise, there are some people in America who truly have no moral qualms with putting immigrant children in cages. There are some people who would ban all the guns they can find; there are others who all but worship their guns and the freedom to maintain them. There are some unabashed eugenicists in America; there are some who think the poor, sick, and oppressed should never receive any kind of assistance or help whatsoever. There are always people in the extremes, but they do not speak for the majority of Americans. To use the extremes to malign a large swathe of fellow Americans, and to assume that those on the extreme speak for everyone who may maintain a similar sympathy, is ugly, wrong, and slanderous.

Most Americans, and hopefully all Christians, recognize the ugliness, difficulty, and complications in these issues. A good number of people in the “pro-choice” movement are not the most comfortable with abortion, especially as the child is in the second or third trimester; I have only met a handful of people who profess Jesus and think that abortion is not sinful. The primary two concerns of the “pro-choice” movement involve freedoms and the health of women and concern about governmental intervention in those freedoms and rights. A good number of people who are “anti-abortion” are truly “pro-life,” and do care for the health and rights of women, but emphasize the value of the life of the unborn child and insist on its full personhood. Unfortunately, as our society retreats into hardened political camps, each camp falls into its extremes: the “pro-choice” become far more comfortable than they should with the dehumanization of life in the womb and thus its desecration, and the “anti-abortion” become far more comfortable than they should with their idolization of the unborn to the detriment of the welfare of their mothers. Both sides get comfortable in their silos and trenches, completely convinced of the ugliness and moral bankruptcy of their opponents. Caricatures of the ugliest face of each side get torn apart while the best arguments for each are left untouched.

What if we sought to actually reason with one another about matters involving life? To do so we cannot just accept the caricatured argument regarding the worst of the opponents; we have to at least try to understand what they believe and why, and give a hearing to their best argument. To this end, abortion is discussed in greater depth elsewhere; Caitlin Flanagan’s treatment of the subject in The Atlantic is essential reading to understand why the issue is so difficult and polarizing.

Arguments regarding moral hypocrisy might make each partisan side feel better about themselves, smug in their moral superiority, and yet all they have done is demonstrated the moral compromise which has been made. Arguments regarding moral hypocrisy are self-defeating, because as we have seen above, each argument regarding moral hypocrisy can simply be reversed. No one is any better off afterward. Everyone feels smug and superior to the other, and the gnawing and gaping hole in our society remains. People find themselves more alienated from each other than they were before.

Furthermore, what is most appealing about the moral hypocrisy argument is what is most disgusting about them: the presumption that the opponent has a moral character and ostensibly appealing to them to be more consistent. But in the sensationalism, partisanship, and “memeification” of such arguments, they end up both shaming the opponent for having a moral conscience about a matter and denigrating the moral dimension of the issue more favorable to the opponent. And this is precisely why Christians specifically should never countenance arguments of moral hypocrisy: we should be appealing to people’s consciences to be more aligned with Jesus, not shaming them for their views, and not one of us can stand before God and expect to be declared in the right when we have compromised the morality embodied in Jesus of Nazareth.

In the Scriptures God is the Author and Sustainer of life; Christians must recognize and honor all life as gifts from the Creator and act as a faithful steward of them according to His purposes (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Romans 14:10-12, 1 Timothy 6:13, Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 4:10). Christians therefore ought to maintain a broad “pro-life” posture: they ought to advocate for the life of the unborn, and for the lives of those who are poor, oppressed, marginalized, and those who look differently than they do (Galatians 2:10, 6:10). Even when Christians affirm the right of the nation-state to exact vengeance on evildoers (Romans 13:1-7), Christians should insist on the shared humanity of even those who have broken the law, visit those in prison, not wish for the death of anyone, and pray that all might be saved (Ezekiel 33:11, Matthew 25:31-46, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). Even when Christians affirm the sovereignty of the nation-state to decide who to allow to immigrate and who should not, Christians should wish for their nation-state to treat those in its care as fellow human beings made in the image of God, and not as animals. Christians understand humans have dominion over the creation, yet should recognize that dominion should not mean wanton destruction and devaluation of the creation which God made (Genesis 1:26-28). As Christians can rightly see how those who are “pro-choice” seem willing to sacrifice children on the altar of the freedom of women, they should be able to also see how others seem willing to sacrifice the lives of innocent people on the altar of the freedom to bear arms; if they recoil at the force of the latter argument, they should prove less comfortable with the former, or accept the truth of the latter if the former is indeed true. If at any time we start resisting the “pro-life” side of any argument because it is proving embarrassing or uncomfortable to a particular partisan political or social posture, we are resisting the faith and conforming to partisan culture.

Thus, as Christians, we should celebrate wherever life is being honored and valued, and be thankful for that. And we should prove willing to point out where life is not being valued, and be willing to participate in reasoned discussion with grace and mercy as to why life should be more valued. We should give those with whom we speak the benefit of the doubt and think of them as charitably as we can, seeking to truly understand what they believe and why, and to show grace, warmth, and love in our discussion. If we do so, we might see that there is far more held in common than we might have imagined; we may even learn or revise some of our postures based upon what we gain from others. Perhaps we may change the views of those with whom we communicate; if nothing else, they will hopefully see the love and light of Christ in our conversation and posture. And this will prove true about any moral issue regarding which anyone is tempted to call out moral hypocrisy.

But if we reduce everything to matters of moral hypocrisy, we shut all those doors and demonstrate ourselves to be closed-minded and uncharitable. If all we can do is think of reasons why our moral compromises are superior to the moral compromises of others, or seek to find ways to caricature, dehumanize, or demonize others for their views on such matter, we are thinking in worldly and demonic ways, and not according to the godly wisdom we are to obtain from above (James 3:13-18). If all we do is point out the moral hypocrisy of others, others will just point our own moral hypocrisy (Matthew 7:1-4). May we all seek to embody Jesus in our engagement in the politics of our society, and give the Accuser no ground against us before God or our fellow man!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Moral Hypocrisy appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Gospel of the Kingdom in the Midst of the Gospel of Empire

Good news had been proclaimed throughout the known world. After a long time of instability, war, and a proliferation of petty kingdoms, the gods strengthened the hands of the Romans to bring peace and prosperity. Augustus, son of the divine Caesar, had brought peace after great civil conflict; the pax Romana would endure for the better part of two hundred years, and represent a remarkable period of stability in world history. All were directed to continue to offer sacrifices to their gods in order to preserve the stability of the Empire and to celebrate and venerate the gifts of Rome through honoring the genius of Roma and her Lord, a son of the divine Caesar and Augustus.

This was the environment into which the Apostles and early Christians went about embodying the Kingdom of God in Christ, proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, raised from the dead, King of kings and Lord of lords. They risked making known the Gospel of the Kingdom in the midst of the “gospel” of the Roman Empire.

In His life Jesus hinted at the upcoming contrast and conflict with the Roman authority in Matthew 22:15-22 and parallel passages. The Pharisees and Herodians sought to entrap Him regarding taxes (Matthew 22:15-17). Jesus skillfully evaded their trap while pointing to a profound truth. He requested Caesar’s coin to be brought forth, most likely a denarius; it would have featured the portrayal of Tiberius’ face along with “TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS” inscribed around it: Caesar Augustus Ti[berius], s[on] of the Divinized Aug[ustus] (Matthew 22:18-19). All faithful Israelites would consider such a coin blasphemous and an affront to God; to this end Jesus told all to give what is Caesar’s to Caesar, but to give to God what is God’s (Matthew 28:20-21). Give back to Caesar his blasphemous money; but dedicate your life and all that is in it to the God who gave you life and all things. Jesus’ declarations were not partisan, yet they certainly carried political connotations: do not give into the totalizing rhetoric of the Empire. Maintain devotion and loyalty to God.

In a similar way Paul exhorted the Christians of Philippi to recognize their citizenship was in heaven (Philippians 3:20). Philippi was a Roman colony originally populated by the soldiers of Octavian Augustus; they greatly valued their Roman citizenship and standing. Paul told them to live as faithful citizens as informed by the Gospel of Christ (Philippians 1:27). Such Christians were not to live in rebellion against the Roman authority (cf. Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18); and yet they were to maintain their primary loyalty to God in Christ, considering themselves as citizens of the reign of God in Christ.

To this end Christians in the Roman Empire were reckoned as the “Third Way.” Pagan Romans and their pagan subjects represented the primary way at the time. Jewish people represented the second: very obvious in their dress and practices, begrudgingly respected as an ancient religion, since Moses was older than Homer. Christians, though, were the third way: they looked and seemed like everyone else, but they observed this new “atheistic” superstition. You could not tell whether a person was a Christian or not by how they looked; you could only know by confronting them or noticing certain changes in their lifestyles. To this end they were extremely subversive; their “atheism” represented an existential threat to the stability of the Empire.

How could Christians be seen as subversive? They proclaimed Jesus as Lord and Christ (cf. Acts 2:36). Indeed, Jesus’ Kingdom was not of this world and was from above (John 18:36), yet Jesus’ reign had implications for the earth (Matthew 28:18-20). The Thessalonians were not wrong to hear in Paul’s proclamation of Jesus a message turning the world upside down, acting against Caesar’s decree by declaring another king, Jesus (Acts 17:6-7). If Jesus is the Son of God, then Caesar is not. If Jesus is Lord of lords and King of kings, then Caesar is not. The Gospel of the Kingdom did not enmesh itself within the “gospel” of empire.

But how could Christians be seen as “atheistic” in light of their dedication to God’s Kingdom? The conflict came from their rejection of the gods of the nations as non-existent or demonic (cf. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6). The Romans could prove tolerant of its subjects serving all kinds of gods under heaven in order to secure peace and prosperity for all; but a growing group of people denying all of the gods save the God of heaven undermined group cohesion and stability. Rejecting all other gods seemed impious to the Romans, and in their theology the worst possible idea: if more and more people did not provide the ancestral gods with honor and sacrifice, those gods could get very angry and cause great disruption, distress, and difficulty for the Romans and their subjects. And so whenever the Empire endured any kind of distress or tragedy, the Christians became the easy scapegoat: all of this misery has come upon us because the “atheistic” Christians have angered our gods, and we must coerce them back into serving the gods or eliminate them to ameliorate the threat. Furthermore, the unwillingness of Christians to offer sacrifices to the genius of Roma and/or its Emperors seemed both impious and politically subversive. We can thus understand why the Romans persecuted the Christians as they did, and why it was so important for Christians to maintain their witness for Jesus despite all such distress (cf. Revelation 12:10-12, 13:1-18).

Times may have changed; nevertheless, the powers and principalities have not. Empires today may not look exactly like the Roman Empire; their religions may not look exactly like Roman paganism. And yet Christians are still called to embody and proclaim the Gospel of the Kingdom in the midst of the “gospel” of empire. Nation-states still put forth the “gospel” of their propaganda, and how their rule has brought peace and stability. When embodied and proclaimed properly, the Gospel of the Kingdom will continue to undermine the pretentious claims of the nation-states, and will rightly be seen as politically subversive. If the nation-state finds Christianity beneficial, it is only when the nation-state has successfully overseen the compromise and domestication of the Gospel of the Kingdom to serve its own interests.

The Gospel of the Kingdom is never partisan, but it cannot help but have political overtones. The Christian’s loyalty must always be primarily to Jesus, not to Caesar; Caesar is not okay with this. The embodiment of the Gospel is always a rebuke to Caesar’s ways and habits; Caesar looks upon this warily. The Gospel of the Kingdom will never square exactly with any worldly ideology or political platform; either the Gospel of the Kingdom is made primary and Christians find themselves as exiles and sojourners among the ways of the world, or the Gospel of the Kingdom is compromised to fit a political platform, and Christian witness becomes entangled in worldly partisanship.

Christians do well to follow the path of their Lord: they must give to Caesar the honor and taxes due him, but dedicate themselves fully to the God who gave them all things. Their loyalty to the reign of God in Jesus demands discomfort with the nature of Caesar’s reign. The Gospel of the Kingdom is at odds with the “gospel” of empire. Empires wither and fade; the Gospel of the Kingdom endures forever. May we serve God in Christ in His Kingdom and obtain the resurrection of life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Gospel of the Kingdom in the Midst of the Gospel of Empire appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Jealousy

The Apostle Paul had affirmed for the Galatian Christians the power of the Gospel of Jesus to save without recourse to observing the Law of Moses. Yet Paul’s concerns were never only about what they believed; their belief should inform their thoughts, feelings, and actions, as illustrated in Paul’s contrast between the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:17-25. Paul considers 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.

Paul had begun with challenges prevalent particularly in the Greco-Roman world, especially relating to sexuality: sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, and sorcery. Paul continued with the kinds of sinful attitudes and behaviors which cause great distress in relationships: enmities and strife. He continued, according to the same line of thought, with jealousy.

In English, jealousy is defined as:

1. That passion of peculiar uneasiness which arises from the fear that a rival may rob us of the affection of one whom we love, or the suspicion that he has already done it; or it is the uneasiness which arises from the fear that another does or will enjoy some advantage which we desire for ourselves…jealousy is awakened by whatever may exalt others, or give them pleasures and advantages which we desire for ourselves. Jealousy is nearly allied to envy, for jealousy, before a good is lost by ourselves, is converted into envy, after it is obtained by others. Jealousy is the apprehension of superiority.

2. Suspicious fear or apprehension.

3. Suspicious caution or vigilance, an earnest concern or solicitude for the welfare or honor of others.

4. Indignation (Webster’s Dictionary).

As indicated in the definition, “jealousy” and “envy” are closely related, and in common use often confused. Jealousy involves the suspicion or fear that another would take away something which we currently possess; envy, which Paul would mention soon afterward in Galatians 5:21, involves the desire to have what another has. To this end, we are jealous if we are the ones who have; we are envious if we want what another has. The jealous person is convinced of the envy of others.

The word translated in Galatians 5:20 as “jealousy” (some other versions “emulations”) is the Greek word zelos:

1) excitement of mind, ardour, fervour of spirit

1a) zeal, ardour in embracing, pursuing, defending anything

1a1) zeal in behalf of, for a person or thing

1a2) the fierceness of indignation, punitive zeal

1b) an envious and contentious rivalry, jealousy (Thayer’s Lexicon).

As we can see from Thayer, zelos means “zeal.” Paul commended the Corinthian Christians and Epaphras for their zelos in 2 Corinthians 7:11, 9:2, and Colossians 4:13. Yet Paul also warned the Roman and Corinthian Christians as he did the Galatians against zelos in Romans 13:13 and 1 Corinthians 3:3; James the Lord’s brother considered zelos the fruit of demonic wisdom in James 3:14, 16.

How can the Apostle Paul both commend and condemn zelos? We could get flustered by the challenge, or we can consider it an invitation for deeper meditation. From Thayer’s definition we can tell how zelos is a passion: a great desire for something. The fact the passion can be both commended and condemned most likely speaks more to how we direct the passion than the passion itself.

The zelos which Paul commends, most often translated as “zeal,” desires what is good regarding the object of passion. As Christians, our greatest passion ought to be for God and the advancement of His purposes in Christ, as proved true of Jesus in John 2:17. We have reason to believe it was the extinguishing of this passion for God which endangered the standing of the church in Ephesus before Jesus in Revelation 2:1-8. Christians also ought to have passion to assist one another in love, either laboring together in advancing the purposes of God in Christ like Epaphras in Colossians 4:13, or in care and benevolence for one another in 2 Corinthians 7:11, 9:2. We could view this passion as a “holy jealousy,” a passion for the beloved in God and doing what God would have done, not unlike God’s own jealousy as an expression of His covenant loyalty (Exodus 34:14, Deuteronomy 4:24).

The zelos which Paul condemns, most often translated as “jealousy,” is a disordered distortion and perversion of “zealous” passion. Jealousy seems to exist when passion meets fear, insecurity, or covetousness. The Sanhedrin heard of all the powerful acts of God accomplished by the Apostles; they proved jealous in their fear of losing standing and renown among the people, and had the Apostles arrested (Acts 5:16-17ff). James rightly identified this disordered passion in the demonic “wisdom of the world”: if it is worth having, so the story goes, others will thus want it, and you have to be afraid of the envy of others to your own harm (James 3:14-18). It is a story as old as Abraham, who thus feared for his life among the nations regarding his wife Sarah (Genesis 12:10-20, 20:1-18).

In Acts 13:45, the Jewish people saw all the Gentiles who came to gladly hear the Gospel of Jesus, became jealous, and opposed Paul’s message. Their passion for God and hostility toward those who were different from them led to such a tragic result (cf. Romans 10:2). Paul testified to having experienced the same passion: he persecuted the people of God on account of his zeal for the traditions of his ancestors (Philippians 3:6).

We can gain much from this contrast, for all of us have a desire or passion as it relates to ourselves and others. When we maintain a healthy disposition about ourselves, what we have, and others, this passion manifests itself as love and zeal for God, for His purposes, and for the good of those we love and all of those around us. Yet when our disposition turns unhealthy on account of fear, insecurity, chauvinism, hostility, or indignation, this passion devolves into jealousy. While jealous we cast aspersions on the character and purposes of others; jealousy proves toxic in relationships because it erodes trust. Jealousy also tends to feature a desire for control, either of objects or persons, and leads us to want to hold on ever more strongly to whatever object in our lives we presume others desire. In the process, we either make an idol of that object, or bleed it of the life, love, and joy it would bring to us. We cannot love those of whom we prove jealous, for we are concerned that whatever good they enjoy will come at our expense, and they might well take away the object of our jealousy. Even our passion for God can be thus corrupted into jealousy, as took place with Israel according to the flesh. We can easily become convinced of our election and the assured condemnation of the other, and zealously persecute and alienate in the name of Jesus, while acting entirely contrary to His purposes (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9).

All relationships require some passion for the good of the beloved. Any relationship can be fouled whenever fear or insecurity turns zeal into jealousy. May we trust in God in Christ and strive to maintain a healthy zeal and passion for God’s purposes in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Apologies in Acts: Paul in Jerusalem

Paul traveled to Jerusalem despite his apprehensions and misgivings. The Spirit had warned him in many places through many Christians regarding the difficulties he might undergo. All had gone well with the Jewish Christians. But once Paul entered the Temple, and Jewish men of Asia saw him, the situation deteriorated quickly. Paul would have to stand firm and testify regarding what God had accomplished in Jesus, and what Jesus was accomplishing through him.

In the midst of his third missionary journey Paul resolved to go to Jerusalem (ca. 58-60; Acts 19:21). He would deliver a gift from the Gentile Christians of Macedonia, Achaia, and Galatia (Romans 15:22-33, 1 Corinthians 16:1-3, 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:13). He did not know how well he would be received in Jerusalem by either Jewish Christians or Jewish people who had rejected Jesus (Romans 15:22-33); the Holy Spirit warned him of the affliction and imprisonment awaiting him in Jerusalem (Acts 20:22-24, 21:10-13).

Paul arrived in Jerusalem and received a warm welcome from the Jewish Christians there; James the Lord’s brother exhorted him to go up to the Temple and pay a vow to reassure everyone that he was not rejecting the customs of his people (Acts 21:17-26). Paul went up to the Temple for many days without incident; toward the end of his period of purification Jewish men of Asia saw him and presumed he had brought Trophimus the Ephesian beyond the Court of the Gentiles (Acts 21:27-28). In truth, Paul had done no such thing; he had been with Trophimus earlier, but had not brought him into the Temple (Acts 21:29). Regardless, the Jewish people of Asia stirred up the crowds so that they almost beat Paul to death had it not been for the intervention of the Roman army (Acts 21:30-32). Paul was then detailed by the Roman guard for his own safety (Acts 21:33-36). When Paul had identified himself Jewish, a speaker of Greek, and a citizen from Tarsus, he was granted the opportunity to address the Jewish people (Acts 21:37-40).

Paul asked the people to hear his defense (apologias); they quieted down since they heard him speaking to them in Aramaic (Acts 22:1-2). Paul then described himself as a Jewish man, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, brought up in Jerusalem, taught by Gamaliel, zealous for God according to the ways of their fathers, and who had been a persecutor of the Way (Acts 22:3-4; cf. Acts 8:3). He told the story of what happened to him as he traveled to Damascus: he went to bring back any Jewish Christians in Damascus to Jerusalem to be punished, but on the way saw the Lord Jesus in a great light; those with him saw the light but could not make out the voice speaking to him (Acts 22:5-10; cf. Acts 9:1-16). Paul entered Damascus and found Ananias who told him of God’s intention of making him a witness of what he saw and heard about Jesus, and exhorted him to be baptized to wash away his sins in Jesus’ name (Acts 22:11-16; cf. Acts 9:17-18). Paul then related how he saw the Lord in a trance telling him to depart since the Jewish people would not listen to his testimony regarding Jesus: Paul protested on the basis of the drama of his conversion and how the Jewish people knew how he consented to Stephen’s death, but Jesus told him to go to the Gentiles (Acts 22:17-21; cf. Acts 8:1, 9:26-31).

At this point the crowd refused to hear anything more, raising their voices and shouting that Paul did not deserve to live (Acts 22:22-23). The captain of the Roman army had gained no more information about what the cause of the difficulty was; he commanded Paul to be scourged to this end, but was frustrated in this design when he learned that Paul was a Roman citizen (Acts 22:24-29). Thus the chief captain summoned the Sanhedrin the next day and brought Paul before them so as to learn what the commotion had been all about (Acts 22:29-30).

Paul began by declaring that he lived before God in good conscience to that moment (Acts 23:1). For it Ananias the high priest commanded him to be struck on the mouth; Paul railed at him as a whitewashed wall, having commanded him to be struck contrary to the Law while presuming to judge according to the Law (Acts 23:2-3; cf. Leviticus 19:35, m. Sanhedrin 3:6-8). He was then asked if he reviled God’s high priest; he answered that he did not know he was the high priest, and drew back, quoting Exodus 22:28 (Acts 23:4-5). He perceived the partisan divisions within the Sanhedrin, and cried out that he was a Pharisee, and on trial regarding the hope of the resurrection of the dead (Acts 23:5-6). This led to a great argument between the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection and the angelic realm, and the Sadducees, who denied it all; some among the Pharisees ended up protesting the proceedings, not only finding nothing wrong with Paul, but even wondering if a spirit or angel had spoken to him (Acts 23:7-9). The commotion might have led to Paul’s demise; the captain of the guard took him away by force (Acts 23:10). The next evening the Lord Jesus appeared to Paul and encouraged him: as he had testified about Jesus in Jerusalem, so he would testify of Him in Rome (Acts 23:11).

Thus Paul gave a defense in Jerusalem. He attempted to explain to them how it had come to pass that he proclaimed Jesus among the Gentiles: he had wanted to preach Jesus in Jerusalem based on the dramatic story of his conversion, yet Jesus had other plans based upon the intransigence of the Jewish people of Jerusalem. He artfully recognized the situation of the Sanhedrin, and emphasized his heritage as a Pharisee: he was a Jewish person among Jewish people, and understood how partisan loyalties might provide an opening to soften hearts to consider Jesus as the fulfillment of the hopes of the Pharisees. All of this satisfied the Lord Jesus: Paul had testified about all Jesus had done in and through him to those in Jerusalem.

Many times we focus on Acts 22:1-21 in terms of how it bears witness to Paul’s conversion in light of related conversion narratives (Acts 9:1-18, 26:2-23); we can consider those parallels and contrasts profitably, but Luke did not record Paul’s defense in Jerusalem for this purpose primarily. We can see how Paul proclaimed the Gospel to Israelites who had not heard it in Acts 13:15-41. The Israelites in Jerusalem had heard of Jesus; Paul then testified to them about Jesus by setting forth what Jesus had done to and through him. The Sanhedrin had heard from the Apostles in years past; now Paul testified to them about Jesus by sharply focusing on the resurrection, a dividing wedge between Pharisees and Sadducees, and opened up the minds of some Pharisees in the process. The Gospel of the Kingdom thus includes what Jesus is doing in and through His servants; His servants do well to think shrewdly regarding how to encourage people to reconsider their frameworks, assumptions, and biases so as to hear His message. May we prove willing to testify regarding Jesus as Paul did, and share in life in God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Performance Evangelism

When walking into some church assemblies these days a person can be forgiven for wondering if they have walked into some kind of experiential theater. Lights are kept low; smoke or fog machines run; the band plays to provide a particular experience or feeling; everything is tightly scripted and precisely performed. The whole experience is designed to impress and entertain those who would attend.

Performance evangelism involves the attempt to promote the Gospel and increase church membership and attendance through a strong emphasis on audiovisual experiences. For generations many preachers have relied on rhetorical polish, compelling song leading, and association with the newest fads in entertainment to attract listeners to their messages. And yet we should not be surprised to find forms of performance evangelism becoming all the more prevalent in modern American society. We have witnessed the explosion of increasingly technical and imaginative forms of audiovisual entertainment in music, television, and films. Entertainment has become a more important part of the way Westerners spend their free time. We can easily understand why many who profess Christ would feel the need to compete in such an entertainment marketplace; after all, most people would rather spend one or two hours watching a good movie, sporting event, or enjoying some other form of diversion than to sit and be bored in a church assembly. A strong drive exists to give the people what they want in seeking to meet them where they are.

In truth, anything that is to be done has an element of performance in it. Every lesson preached, every song sung, every conversation about the Gospel is, in some way or another, a performance. Furthermore, there is no Gospel imperative for the performance of the acts of the assembly and in the proclamation of the Gospel to prove intentionally bland or mediocre. As Christians we ought to strive to glorify God in everything that we do: to this end we ought to participate in the assembly and proclaim the Gospel to the best of our ability and with excellence.

It is one thing to seek to participate in the assembly and proclaim the Gospel well and with excellence; it is quite another to make the assembly and evangelism about the performance. The very real dangers of performance evangelism involve confusing entertainment for edification and presence for participation.

The meaning of “edification” has become distorted in modern Evangelicalism. All too often, when people speak of an experience as having been “edifying,” they mean it provided a great emotional high. The light show, types of band music, and other special effects are all choreographed to produce this kind of entertainment experience. People walk away feeling good, and believing they have received edification. Paul did indeed declare that all things in the assembly should edify in 1 Corinthians 14:26. Yet “edifying,” Greek oikodomen, means “to construct, erect, build up.” Spiritual edification is the means by which a spiritual house is constructed; therefore, edification must involve more than a feeling. Edification, therefore, takes place when substance is added to a person’s faith: when the dust settles, there is now something present in the construction that was not there before. A person can experience spiritual edification in the midst of an experience that produces an emotional high if there is spiritual substance being communicated and exhorted in the process. Unfortunately, all too often, little substance is being communicated in such experiences, and people become habituated to seeking after the feeling of emotional highs and call it edification. No building of faith is erected in their souls, and shipwreck comes all too easily. They have been entertained and enjoyed a great experience, yet they did not receive true edification.

An even greater danger in performance evangelism centers on what life in Christ ultimately is all about. God has called us to share in life in Christ with one another (John 17:20-23). Christians assemble to reinforce and display their joint participation with one another, that which they share in common, in Christ (Acts 2:42, 1 Corinthians 10:16-17). To this end the assembly of Christians is designed for all to participate jointly: the Lord’s Supper is a joint participation in the body and blood of Christ, Christians speak, teach, and admonish one another in song, Christians give of their means to further their joint participation in the work of God in Christ, Christians are directed in prayer together and assent to the prayer for one another, and even as the Word of God is proclaimed, all are to jointly share and participate in the message and its applications (1 Corinthians 10:16-17, 14;14-17, 16:1-3, 2 Corinthians 8:1-9:13, Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16, 1 Timothy 3:14-4:6). We do well to note how Paul had expected Christians to have a message or a song or a prayer when they came together, and all were to be done unto edifying (1 Corinthians 14:26). In performance evangelism, however, joint participation would be a hindrance to the professional level of quality demanded of the experience. Singing is mostly for the band and/or the choir. The expectation for most of those present is to serve as spectators, absorbing the experience on offer. An illusion of participation might be given for those present, but not the substance thereof. Furthermore, the quality and professionalism of the experience reinforces the spectator and participant distinction: I am not nearly as good of a musician, singer, or speaker as those up on the stage; therefore it is right and appropriate for me to watch and not to participate, for my participation would only lessen the quality of the experience. To this end many are given every reason to believe and feel that their participation in Christianity is as one present as a spectator, and less as one jointly participating with others in service to God in Christ.

We live in a world which prioritizes performance over meaning and participation; it is tragically sad to see so many in Christ follow after it. In Christ performance is never for its own end or purposes; performance exists to manifest, enhance, and strengthen meaning and participation. A most beautifully presented message is worth nothing if no one really receives the meaning and acts upon it; the most exalted performance profits little if it does not bring people together in joint participation in the Lord Jesus. Performance is thus a vehicle, and as with all vehicles, it does best when it is out of the way: performance should never get in the way of meaning and participation, either in being so vapid, bland, or mediocre as to hinder the meaning and participation, or as being so superb and sublime as to overshadow the meaning and participation.

Performance will always be a part of the proclamation of the Gospel and the acts of the assembly. The question is whether we will privilege performance to the detriment of meaning and participation, or seek excellence in performance to enhance and reinforce meaning and participation. Neither Christianity nor its assemblies are spectator sports; we must constantly display, in all that we do, how Christianity demands joint participation with God in Christ, and therefore should encourage participation by all in the acts of the assembly and the proclamation of the Gospel. In all we do we ought to see the spiritual edification of those who hear and participate: not merely to entertain, but to teach, exhort, and encourage so that real, substantive construction has taken place in faith. May we glorify God through our evangelism and participation in the assemblies, jointly participating in the faith unto edification, and obtain life in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Performance Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Politics of Late Second Temple Judaism

To grant unto us that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies / Should serve him without fear, In holiness and righteousness before him all our days (Luke 1:74-75).

Zechariah prophesied a message of hope for his people Israel centering on what God was going to accomplish through his son John and the Christ who would follow afterward. They looked forward to rescue from their enemies so they could serve God in holiness and righteousness.

For many in Israel at this time the enemy was clear and apparent: the Romans and their client-king, Herod (Matthew 2:3). The Roman general Pompey was welcomed into Jerusalem in the midst of a feud among some of the final Hasmonean rulers 60 years earlier; he marched into the Holy of Holies itself and desecrated it. On the whole, the land of Israel was not the most valuable piece of property for the Romans; their neighborhood proved more essential. Rome could no longer sustain itself without Egyptian wheat; control of the Mediterranean Sea was essential to keep the wheat flowing, and that required control of the entire seaboard. The Romans were not going anywhere. At the same time, the Romans proved more than happy to maintain their authority over various lands through client-kings, and Herod fit the bill. He may have been an Idumean (Edomite), and thus seen as a half-breed by the Jewish people; but he was loyal to the Romans, provided appropriate taxes, and generally kept a restive part of the world quiet. The Israelites suffered his taxes and imperiousness, and resented their overlords bitterly. For many, the solution was evident; they would soon rise up to do what their ancestors had done.

The Romans were only the most recent pagan power with aspirations for great worldly power to claim control over the land of Israel. The Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians had ruled over Israel in some way or another for centuries; after Alexander the Great destroyed the Persian Empire, Israel was ruled over by the Macedonians, first the Ptolemies and then the Seleucids. Throughout this time Israel was at best tolerated with suspicion and at worst subject to terrible persecution (2 Kings 17:1-41, 25:1-30, Daniel 1:1-6:28, Esther 1:1-10:3). Nothing had prepared Israel, however, for what Antiochus IV Epiphanes would do in 167 BCE: he defiled the Temple in Jerusalem and banned the practice of the Law of Moses (cf. Daniel 7:1-11:45).

Some among Israel went along with Antiochus; others celebrated what Antiochus was doing. But many others in Israel resisted, led by the house of Hashmon and its leader Judah called the Maccabee. Over the course of the next few years the Maccabees would win impressive victories over Seleucid armies. Dynastic instability and general weakness within the Seleucid rule meant the Maccabees would de facto rule over Israel for many years. They would be known as the Hasmoneans; later generations of their rulers had all but became what the Israelites had thrown off. They had saved Israel from an existential threat, but none among them were the prophet or the Christ which the prophets had foretold.

Hasmonean rule was still within living memory when the Spirit spoke through Zechariah; we can therefore understand why so many in Israel believed they could rise up and defeat the Romans, since their ancestors had done something similar against the Seleucids. The Zealots all maintained this hope fervently and deeply; it also burned brightly in the breast of many of the Pharisees. Many would profess to be the Christ who would destroy the Roman threat, from Judas the Galilean to Simon bar-Kokhba, and many were willing to follow them to the end (cf. Acts 5:34-38).

Many clung firmly to the hope of a Messiah who would come to eliminate the Roman threat; others may have had no love for the Romans, but found the perceived hypocrisies and immoralities of fellow Israelites to be worse, like the Essenes. Others did not mind keeping their heads down and wished to focus on cultivating holiness and righteousness before God; this would eventually become the posture of many of the Pharisees/rabbis after the cataclysms of 70 and 135.

Yet not all Israel found the status quo insufferable. Some were willing to tie their fate to the Herods; such Herodians did well for themselves for awhile (cf. Matthew 22:16). Many Israelites freely accommodated themselves and their beliefs with the Greco-Roman world.

And then there were the Sadducees. The Sadducees were more religiously conservative than generally recognized, but focused their devotion primarily on the Temple and its services (Matthew 22:23-32). As long as the Temple stood, the power base of the Sadducees remained. They would do whatever they could to preserve and maintain the Temple as the center of Israelite life.

The Romans had little interest in adjudicating matters within Israel; the Israelite body of judgment, the Sanhedrin, made up primarily of Pharisees and Sadducees, were able to decide most matters (Matthew 26:57-68, John 18:31-32, Acts 23:6). The focus of the Jewish world was Judah and Jerusalem; Jewish people lived in the diaspora and even throughout the historic land of Israel, particularly in Galilee, but pride of place was given to Jerusalem, with prejudice expressed toward those from elsewhere (cf. John 7:52).

Jesus became flesh and dwelt among humanity as a Jewish man in this world of foment and tumult. In His time there was no firm distinction between secular and sacred, the “political” from the “spiritual.” Jesus’ Gospel of the Kingdom did not neatly align with any particular partisan political view in late Second Temple Judaism; nevertheless, His message did speak to the condition of Israel. Jesus re-centered Torah and Temple around Himself (cf. John 2:13-22); He embodied the story of Israel to bring it to its fulfillment in victory over the forces of evil and resurrection from the dead, and would be vindicated when the Day of YHWH came yet again for Jerusalem in 70 as it had in 586 (Matthew 21:33-46, 24:1-36).

Jesus as the Christ completely disrupted the politics of Israel in late Second Temple Judaism if they were only able to perceive it. Salvation from the Romans would not look like what Israel would desire. The Christ Israel wanted looked more like Barabbas than he did Jesus (Luke 23:18-19); the day would come when Israel did choose “Saviors” more like Barabbas, and were completely devastated (Luke 23:28-31). Those who put their hope in armed insurgency would be destroyed; those who put their hope in the Temple in Jerusalem would wail, lament, and be frustrated. Essenes, Herodians, Sadducees, and Zealots would cease as a going concern; the Pharisees, chastened by circumstances but still resistant to Jesus as the Christ, developed into the rabbis and the more quietist piety of Rabbinic late antiquity.

All Zechariah prophesied would come to pass in Jesus, yet not as Israel expected. Israel would not continue to serve God as before without Roman rule or interference. Yet those who would trust in Jesus and participate in His Kingdom would be freed from enslavement from the forces of evil and could strive unto righteousness and holiness through the Spirit in Him (Romans 8:1-39). May we trust in the work God has accomplished in the Kingdom of Jesus, and find eternal life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Politics of Late Second Temple Judaism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.