Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 31

Digital Evangelism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Digital Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Marriage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Marriage appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Egypt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Egypt appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Handling Hebrews 10:25 Rightly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Constantine and Christendom

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Works of the Flesh: Wrath

By warning the Galatian Christians regarding the dangers of immoral thoughts, feelings, and behaviors, and the importance of manifesting the character habits of godliness, the Apostle Paul has given us helpful, concise lists of the “works of the flesh” and the “fruit of the Spirit” in Galatians 5:17-24. He identified the “works of the flesh” as the following in Galatians 5:19-21:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Violent anger; vehement exasperation; indignation;

2. The effects of anger;

3. Just punishment of an offense or crime.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

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.