Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 32

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.

Works of the Flesh: Strife

In order to encourage the Christians of Galatia Paul presented the contrast between the works of the flesh and the fruit of the Spirit, exhorting them to inculcate the fruit of the Spirit while avoiding the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-24). Paul defines 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 works of the flesh with many of the challenges of all mankind, but those which were particularly acute for pagan Greeks: sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, and sorcery. He then began discussing a lengthy list of sins in relationships with enmities, describing a disposition which often leads to difficulties in relationships. Paul then identified another behavior which causes fracturing in relationships: strife.

The word translated as “strife” is the Greek word eris, defined by Thayer as “contention, strife, wrangling.” The Greeks reckoned Eris as a goddess; in myth her most famous escapade was the golden apple to be given to the fairest of the goddesses: the contention surrounding the prize would lead to enmity among the goddesses and all the devastation of the Trojan War.

In the New Testament Paul often associates eris, strife, with jealousy or envy (Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 3:3, Philippians 1:15, 1 Timothy 6:3-4); where jealousy and envy exist, opportunities to manifest strife will follow. Eris can also be defined as “contentions,” as took place in the church in Corinth according to 1 Corinthians 1:11. The term may also be found referring to the strife of the Gentiles in their depravity (Romans 1:29), concerning the Corinthians again in 2 Corinthians 12:20, and referring to the result of discussion of various Jewish traditions in Titus 3:9. We may see from these passages and those quoted above that “strife” is a characteristic that is of a carnal, or earthly, mind, not of soberness, and a mark of one who teaches falsely or preaches Christ from impure motives.

In English “strife” is defined by Webster as:

1. Exertion or contention for superiority; contest of emulation, either by intellectual or physical efforts.

2. Contention in anger or enmity; contest; struggle for victory; quarrel or war.

3. Opposition; contrariety; contrast.

From both the English and Greek definitions we perceive a strong association between strife, enmity, contentiousness, even anger: Paul is not attempting to list out precisely disassociated attitudes or behaviors, but a constellation of terms centering on recognizably sinful attitudes and behaviors. Many of the terms are very synonymous and related to one another: strife rarely exists without some kind of catalyst like enmity, jealousy, envy, or anger; strife and contentions prove essentially similar in practice. For our purposes we will consider strife primarily as a contest of disputation by intellectual or physical means in order to display superiority.

Strife is very much a work of the flesh as “the ways of the world.” The world is saturated with people who engender strife as a means of getting ahead in the workplace, in society/culture, and/or in politics. The world celebrates contests designed to display superiority: sporting events like the Olympics or professional sport teams compete in order to demonstrate which country, city, or group of people is the best in the world. Such displays of competition are more healthy than war or violence, and need not engender strife, and yet we can think of numerous occasions on which people have taken such things “too seriously” and have harmed other people on account of sports affiliations. In the world humans are always looking for opportunities to display or demonstrate how they and their group are superior to other groups; it helps to justify why they have benefited (or should benefit) and others have failed (or should fail).

Yet this is not how we have learned Christ; indeed, Jesus explicitly repudiated this attitude in Matthew 20:25-28. The rulers of the Gentiles lord their power over the vanquished; thus it has been, and in the world, thus it will ever be. But it must not be so among the people of God: those who would be the “greatest” must be those who serve. Such is why Jesus Himself washed the feet of His disciples: He served them in lowliness and humility, even as their Lord and Master, so they would understand they ought to serve one another as well (John 13:1-11).

Yet even “serving” can too easily be made into a contest; Christianity has been plagued with the “holier than thou” attitude for as long as it has existed. Diotrephes loved preeminence, and it led him to cast out anyone he perceived to be a threat to his power: he was jealous, and his behavior was manifest as strife (3 John 1:9-10). People can find any reason at all to baptize and sanctify their quest to display their superiority through contest: “standing firm for the truth,” “fighting error,” “being the watchman,” “challenging tradition,” and many other postures can all too easily become ways to attempt to demonstrate how “we” have become better than “they.”

For good reason, therefore, Paul identified the worldliness, or carnality, of the strife engendered in Corinth (1 Corinthians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 3:1, 2 Corinthians 11:1-33. Factions attempted to display how they were “right” and the others were “wrong”; “superapostles” came in and attempted to suggest they were more holy and closer to Jesus than Paul. It was not really about the message of Jesus at that point; it was about being “in the right” and thus in a superior posture than the others.

While we must always strive to live as workmen without shame, rightly handling the Word of truth (2 Timothy 2:15), our goal ought not be to display how right we are and thus in a superior posture over others. Such a disposition is really conceited and arrogant, and really a mark for a false teacher, as Paul explained above in 1 Timothy 6:3-4. Our standing before God in Christ is not based on being right but on the basis of our trust in Jesus and what God accomplished through Him (Ephesians 2:1-10). No one will be saved because they were right and had a superior understanding; salvation comes for those who humbly trusted in Christ, not in themselves, and sought to understand ever more what God accomplished in Jesus to glorify Him (Ephesians 1:1-3:21). Members of the Lord’s church would be well-served to discern when it is no longer about exhorting one another in the truth but to display why “we” are better than “they,” and avoid such a catalyst for strife.

Until the Lord returns there will be some among the Lord’s people who engender strife on account of their insecurities and need to be seen as “better than” others. Such people will not cease until they have learned to repent and accept our equality in the sight of God or they have destroyed relationships and churches through their constant strife and contentions. Many congregations of the Lord’s people have been captured by people who enjoy contentiousness and strife; they create toxic environments which attract those who are like minded and repel Christians seeking to maintain humility and love. We must expect strife in the world, but it ought not to be so among us. Strife is always carnal; Jesus did not die to justify “sanctified strife,” but on the cross killed the hostility that would engender strife (Ephesians 2:16-18). The Lord’s purposes are thus never honored by strife; we should avoid it at all costs, put the impulses toward strife to death, and serve and love one another in humility before God in Christ, doing all things not to preen in “holy superiority,” but that God would be glorified in us in all things!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Apologies in Acts: Stephen Before the Sanhedrin

In the world, those who cannot defeat you with argumentation will generally attempt to defeat you through violence. Jewish opponents of the Way pursued this path with Stephen. They got what they wanted, but not the way they wanted it.

The Gospel was flourishing in Jerusalem despite official resistance from the Sanhedrin, a group of Jewish leaders. Many among the Jewish people believed in the Lord Jesus, both among those who primarily spoke Aramaic (“Hebraic” Jews) and those who primarily spoke Greek (“Hellenistic” Jews). When concerns were raised regarding the treatment of the widows among the Jewish people who spoke Greek, the Apostles encouraged the Christians to select seven men among the Hellenists to assist in serving the widows (Acts 6:1-4). Stephen was mentioned and selected first and foremost, uniquely identified among the seven as a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:5-7). Stephen not only served in this capacity, but also performed great signs and wonders among the people, being full of grace and power in the Holy Spirit (Acts 6:8). Jewish people from the diaspora in modern day Egypt, Libya, and Turkey from the Freedmen’s Synagogue in Jerusalem disputed with him regarding the Christ, yet could not resist the wisdom and the Holy Spirit by which he spoke (Acts 6:9-10). And so they conspired to have witnesses testify before the Sanhedrin how Stephen blasphemed against Moses and the Law, declaring how Jesus would destroy Jerusalem and change the customs of Moses (Acts 6:11-14). Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin; all saw his face shine like an angel (Acts 6:15). He then set forth his defense before the Sanhedrin (Act 7:2-53).

Stephen’s defense featured a rehearsal of Israelite history; such was a prominent means by which the psalmist and the prophets would attempt to exemplify lessons for Israel, and one which the Apostle Paul would later use to proclaim the Gospel to the Jewish people of Antioch of Pisidia (e.g. 1 Samuel 1:1-2 Kings 25:30, Psalms 105:1-45, 106:1-48, Ezekiel 20:1-44, Acts 13:15-42). Stephen was expecting general agreement from his audience regarding the historical details he mentioned; the experiences of Israel in the past were not in question. Stephen did not seek to emphasize new flourishes or to challenge received orthodoxy regarding specific details; instead, he drew from Israel’s own history to exemplify the patterns and trends which explained Israel’s behavior toward their Christ.

Stephen began with the story of Abraham’s call and sojourn, emphasizing God’s prediction of the Egyptian sojourn and deliverance (Acts 7:2-8; cf. Genesis 11:27-22:19). Stephen quickly moved on to Joseph, sold into slavery by his jealous brothers, yet who provided deliverance for his people in Egypt (Acts 7:9-16; cf. Genesis 37:1-50:26). Stephen then related the story of the Exodus, emphasizing Moses’ story, particularly how after the Israelites had rejected Moses, God sent him back to Israel as precisely that which they had rejected: their ruler and deliverer (Acts 7:17-35; cf. Exodus 1:1-Numbers 36:13). The same Moses promised God would raise up a prophet like him (Acts 7:36-38; cf. Deuteronomy 18:15-19); yet the Israelites proved unwilling to obey Moses, and desired to return back to Egypt and serve the host of heaven and not YHWH (Acts 7:39-43; cf. Exodus 32:1-35, Numbers 13:1-17:13, Amos 5:25-26). Stephen then spoke of the Tabernacle which Israel made according to the plans given them, possessing it until the days of David and Solomon, the latter of which would build a house for God, and yet the prophet made it clear the Most High did not live in a house made with hands (Acts 7:44-50; cf. Exodus 25:1-1 Kings 9:9, Isaiah 66:1-2).

Stephen brought his rehearsal of Israelite history home for his audience, indicting them as stubborn, of uncircumcised hearts and ears, resisting the Holy Spirit as their fathers had done (Acts 7:51). Their fathers had persecuted every prophet; the prophets had testified of the Righteous One who was to come, whom the audience betrayed and murdered (Acts 7:52). They received the law from angels, but did not obey it (Acts 7:53).

Stephen did strive to defend himself and his teaching in his defense, even if it can be challenging to perceive. Stephen did not deny the charge of declaring that Jesus would destroy the Temple; instead, he pointed out that God did not live in temples made with hands. Stephen pointed out how all Israel did not fully obey the law and customs Moses had given to them; thus, why is he being held liable?

Nevertheless, Stephen’s main purpose was not to defend himself; instead, he spoke boldly so as to cause a bystander to wonder whether it was really Stephen putting the Sanhedrin on trial rather than the other way around. Stephen had set forth an unflattering picture of Israelite history: a group of rebellious people who resisted God’s purposes for them at every turn, rejecting the rulers and statutes He would give them, only to discern too late how God had exalted what they held in low esteem, and rejected what they had valued. Members of the Sanhedrin prided themselves on proving more faithful to God than their ancestors (e.g. Matthew 23:29-30); Stephen destroyed this pretension, and indicted them as even worse than their ancestors, for they had betrayed and murdered the One whom the prophets had spoken (cf. Matthew 23:31-32). Thus, yes, Jesus would destroy the temple, and good riddance; yes, the customs of Moses would have to be altered, for the Israelites never fully observed them anyway, and they kept resisting the Holy Spirit and the work of God manifest among them.

The members of the Sanhedrin would not countenance such blasphemy in their sight. They clenched their teeth at him in anger (Acts 7:54). Stephen then saw a vision of Jesus as the Son of Man at the right hand of God, evoking the Danielic “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7:13-14 (Acts 7:55-56). Enraged ever more at such presumption, the members of the Sanhedrin rushed at Stephen and stoned him until he died (Acts 7:58, 60). Stephen did not respond with self-defense or malice; instead, he prayed for the Lord Jesus to not hold this sin against them and to receive his spirit (Acts 7:59-60).

Luke very deliberately intended for us to see Stephen as the embodiment of what Jesus expected for His followers to endure from the Jewish authorities, and as the prototypical marturos, witness/martyr. Jesus stood before the Sanhedrin; He promised the Son of Man would be seated at the right hand of God; they condemned Him to death; in His death He asked the Father to forgive them (Luke 22:66-71, 23:34). Likewise, Stephen stood before the Sanhedrin; he saw the Son of Man at the right hand of God; they condemned him to death; in his death he asked Jesus to forgive them (Acts 6:15, 7:55-60). Stephen followed the Way of Jesus, and obtained the promise in Jesus.

Stephen was not cowed in shame by the Sanhedrin; he was not willing to play the power games which led to his trial. He turned the tables on them and bore witness to their rebelliousness and transgressions. He paid the ultimate cost, yet was not defeated. In his death he displayed the compassionate love of Jesus; his example has inspired generations to stand firm for the Lord Jesus. On account of the persecution stirred up in the wake of Stephen’s trial and death the Gospel of Jesus spread far beyond Jerusalem, throughout all Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and eventually among diaspora Jewish communities throughout the Levant (Acts 8:1-3, 11:19). Diaspora Jews of the Freedmen’s Synagogue hauled Stephen up before the Sanhedrin to suppress the Gospel of Jesus; as a result of their actions, it spread beyond the walls of Jerusalem into the very lands from which they hailed. May we take strength from Stephen and his example, finding salvation through suffering in the name of Jesus, confident in the Gospel and its truth!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Apologies in Acts: Stephen Before the Sanhedrin appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and Evil

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago).

We have a very complex relationship with evil, to put it mildly.

We recognize that evil exists and do all we can to avoid or escape the evils we are willing to admit and to see. And yet we find ourselves easily ensnared and overthrown by the evils we cherish in our fears and insecurity.

We are repulsed, disgusted, and horrified by the effects of evil upon people and the environment. Meanwhile, Western entertainment is saturated with displays of evil behavior. Many people seek out this entertainment precisely on account of the horror and the violence. Movies without such things rarely make as much money as many that do. News stations know stories featuring blood, gore, and fearmongering elevate ratings; stories featuring humanitarianism and charity do not.

Most of humanity recognizes the existence of evil as a major problem and look for some kind of solution. Plenty of rulers have gained prominence by identifying other people as evil, and have promised to rid the world of such evil. After all the purges are done and the foe is vanquished, however, evil endures and remains. It has even thrived.

As Christians we will not escape evil in this life; we do well to expect to endure it and seek to do so in mature ways which glorify God in Christ.

Christians must dispense with the pretense that evil is a problem we can solve, fix, or eliminate through our diligent efforts. The potential of evil was stitched into the fabric of the creation: God made the tree of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil in the Garden of Eden (Genesis 2:17); for the choice to love to mean anything, a choice to turn away from love proved necessary. The Bible confesses that evil is not good and will not have the victory, but it does not pretend that evil is some kind of optional problem we can fix. For that matter, the Bible does not speak of some kind of disembodied, abstract thing called “evil”: evil is seen as the choice to turn away from God, His goodness, and His ways, a choice made by many spiritual and physical beings (e.g. Romans 1:18-32, 2 Peter 2:4). We do well, therefore, to recognize that “evil” is not some “thing” out there, but rather an inclination within all sentient beings.

The challenge and difficulty of evil is far greater than we care to admit. The creation has been corrupted by sin, decay, and death (Romans 8:17-23). We far too easily and often perceive the evil, sin, and ugliness in others, but fail to see evil, sinful, and ugly thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in ourselves. We all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23); we all continually struggle with impulses toward evil (1 John 1:8-10). If God were to seek to eliminate all the evil in the creation, all humanity would be gone!

On our own we cannot stand before the face of the forces of evil. According to Paul, we really are not wrestling with fellow human beings: our contest and struggle is with powers and principalities, the rulers over this present darkness, the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places (Ephesians 6:12). We have good reason to believe that Satan is at the head of these powers and principalities (Ephesians 2:2). Such is why Paul told Christians to be strong in the Lord’s might (Ephesians 6:10); we cannot stand in our own strength!

If the potential of evil has always existed, we have all done evil things, and evil is not some kind of amorphous thing “out there” but rather a tendency that exists within each and every one of us, fueled by powers and principalities well beyond our strength, what are we as Christians to do?

The Lord Jesus provides Christians with the way forward so as to overcome evil. Jesus triumphed over the powers and principalities by enduring and suffering all the violence, degradation and humiliation they could inflict upon Him (Colossians 2:14-15). When He was reviled, He did not revile in return; when He suffered, He entrusted Himself to God who judges justly, and sought the good for those who did Him harm (1 Peter 2:18-25).

If we would overcome evil in ourselves and in the world, we must go and do likewise. We must put to death what is worldly in our lives, and look to Jesus for strength and wisdom to persevere in righteousness (Colossians 3:1-17). We must pick up our cross and follow Jesus, even if it costs us our goods and even our lives (Matthew 16:24-25). Where there is hatred, we must display love; where there is despair, we must cultivate hope; where we find depravity, we must point to redemption in Jesus (Matthew 5:20-48, Romans 1:16, 5:6-11).

The powers and principalities of this present darkness promote fear. Fear is a natural response when we are faced with suffering from the evil behaviors of others. We are sorely tempted to do unto others so they cannot do it unto us, to believe might makes right and that the winners write the history, and to portray the other as the evil threat requiring elimination. Yet this is precisely how we are seduced by these powers and principalities to give our power over to them; such is how they can endure even though Jesus has defeated them (Colossians 2:15). As Christians, we must see the works of these powers and principalities for the worldly, demonic, and unspiritual forms of “wisdom” they are (James 3:14-16). We do well to seek after the ways of God instead, for God’s wisdom leads to redemption, peace, and hope (James 3:13, 17-18): it seeks redemption, the hope of life, not death in elimination. No one is so depraved or sinful as to be beyond the call of salvation: God would have everyone come to the knowledge of truth and repentance (1 Timothy 1:12-17, 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). Any “Gospel” which would dehumanize or demonize any human being or group of humans is not the Good News of Jesus Christ; it is the perversion of the spiritual forces of evil which we should not accept. Any “Gospel” which does not promote the willingness to suffer and endure without responding in kind is not the Good News of Jesus Christ; it is a perversion of the spiritual forces of evil which we should not accept. The testimony of the Good News of Jesus Christ features self-denial, self-sacrifice, and love toward all; anything less will be found lacking before our Lord and Savior on the final day.

We will never defeat the forces of evil; it is enough for us to stand firm in our faith and resist them (Ephesians 6:10-18). Jesus has gained the victory over them through His death and resurrection; in our faith we have begun to share in that victory, in our sufferings we testify to that victory, and when our bodies are given life again we will fully share in that victory (1 Corinthians 15:53-58). Thanks be to God for His suffering to overcome the forces of evil and to redeem us from all evil; may God deliver us from the Evil One, and save us in Jesus Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and Evil appeared first on de Verbo vitae.