Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 33

Dan’el, Aqhat, and the Rephaim

From at least the 13th until the 7th centuries BCE, the Israelites lived in the land formerly held by the Canaanites in the midst of many other ancient Near Eastern nations in the Levant. Ammonites, Canaanites, Edomites, Moabites, and Phoenicians had lived nearby for generations: all these groups maintained their own mythological stories about gods and heroes from of old. The Israelites would encounter these people and their stories, for better and for worse.

In Ezekiel 14:14, 20, the prophet Ezekiel makes reference to Noah, Job, and according to the qere (“spoken”; that is, what the Masoretes thought the better reading should be) of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and other versions, Daniel. For over two thousand years this reading proved relatively uncontroversial, even if a little odd: Daniel was a younger contemporary of Ezekiel, but the stories of his righteousness might well have been known to the Israelites in exile.

But then, in 1928, a Syrian farmer came upon a tomb while farming at Cape Fennel/Ras Shamra. Archaeologists uncovered remains of a city there named Ugarit which had been populated from very ancient times until its destruction around 1200 BCE. Even though Ugarit lay well north of the area in which Canaanites were thought to live, cuneiform tablets discovered at the site were written in a Canaanite dialect, and the stories they told were of Canaanite deities, places, ideas, and practices parallel to many references found in the Old Testament. Among these cuneiform tablets were found two particular Canaanite stories relevant for our purposes: the Tale of Aqhat (or “Belonging to Aqhat”) and the Rephaim.

The tablets containing the Tale of Aqhat and the Rephaim date between 1350 and 1215 BCE; we even know the scribe who copied them (Ilimilku) and the king under whom he served [Niqmaddu, most likely either Niqmaddu II (1350-1315) or Niqmaddu III (1225-1215)]. These stories were no doubt composed much earlier, and endured well after the collapse of the Bronze Age. They are written as poetry, with stanzas manifesting parallelism, akin to the parallelism found often in the Psalms, Proverbs, and the prophets, with frequent repetition. Unfortunately the tablets have suffered the depredations of time and are highly fragmentary at many places. Nevertheless, we can still gain much from them.

The main character of the Tale of Aqhat is Dan’el (or Danel), a famous and powerful Canaanite king. Dan’el has great renown and a stable kingdom, yet has no male heir. He participated in an incubation rite in a temple to Baal (the Canaanite storm god) to gain favor so as to obtain a son. Baal interceded with El (the head god of the Canaanites), and Dan’el has a son named Aqhat. Afterwards Dan’el received a visit from Kothar-wa-Hasis (the Canaanite blacksmith god) who bestowed upon Dan’el a special set of bow and arrows; Dan’el gave them to Aqhat. Eventually Anat (Canaanite goddess of the hunt) learned of and greatly desired Aqhat’s bow and arrows, and offered him first gold and silver, and then even immortality, for them; Aqhat refused all of her offers, declaring that death comes for all humans, and insulting Anat’s hunting prowess. Anat, furious, desired vengeance, which El allowed her to obtain; her servant Yatpan killed Aqhat for her. Dan’el and his daughter Pugat soon learned of Aqhat’s death, and mourned and lamented deeply, demanding the land receive no benefit from Baal for seven years. Dan’el obtained the remains of Aqhat from the belly of a vulture and buried them; he cursed the towns closest to where Aqhat died. After the seven years of mourning, Dan’el empowered Pugat to take vengeance on Yatpan, which she most likely did (the tablet has broken off by this point).

Dan’el is reckoned as the man of Rapau, likely meaning the first among the Rapauma, Canaanite for the Rephaim, and the hero of Harnam. From the Rephaim, it would seem that the Rapauma/Rephaim were deified dead Canaanite heroes: they are called “divine ones,” and considered as “the Rephaim of Baal,” the “warriors of Baal,” or the “warriors of Anat.” In the Rephaim Dan’el invited the Rapauma/Rephaim to a late summer feast. The tablet is badly broken, and so it is hard to ascertain much else beyond this; the text ends with Baal having come to the feast and is about to say or do something.

Dan’el, therefore, represented a great hero of the Canaanites. We do well to note that the ketiv (“written,” i.e. the text the way the Masoretes found it) in the Hebrew Masoretic Text in Ezekiel 14:14, 20, and 28:3 would read “Dan’el.” When Ezekiel calls the king of Tyre “wiser than Dan’el/Daniel” in Ezekiel 28:3, therefore, it would make far more sense to understand Ezekiel as referring to the Canaanite hero Dan’el than the Israelite Daniel who would be entirely unknown to the king of Tyre. Thus it would also make more sense for Ezekiel to refer to Dan’el in Ezekiel 14:14, 20 as well: thus Ezekiel would be appealing to three well-known non-Israelite righteous men, Noah, Job, and Dan’el. Even though the Tale of Aqhat and the Rephaim do not explicitly speak of Dan’el as wise or righteous, his name did mean “El judges,” and he was known to make judgments in the city gate; there is likely far more to Dan’el than what we know about him from the Tale of Aqhat and the Rephaim, and the evidence from Ezekiel can help us better understand this ancient Canaanite character.

The Old Testament also spoke of the rephaim as mighty ones among the dead: they exist and can tremble below in Job 26:5, and the king of Babylon would come among them in Sheol in Isaiah 14:9. Og of Bashan was reckoned as the last of the giant rephaim in Deuteronomy 3:11; such “giants” were also known to have lived in Canaan in days of old according to Genesis 15:20 and Joshua 17:15.

We are familiar with YHWH’s constant concern for the Israelites compromising their faith, serving the gods of the nations around them and participating in their ritual practices, and for good reason; the Israelites did these very things. Yet even the prophet Ezekiel, who thoroughly denounced Israel’s idolatry and assimilation into the ways of the ancient Near Eastern world in Ezekiel 4:1-24:24, still made reference to righteous characters recognized among the Canaanites as well as the Israelites. The Israelites also spoke of great champions among the dead as rephaim. The Psalmist or the prophets would give YHWH the glory for many of the things the Canaanites thought their gods had done for them; throughout the Old Testament YHWH is spoken of as El or Elohim, “God,” demonstrating that He is the God of gods. Israel was to be distinct from the Canaanites, yet lived in the midst of Canaanites; discoveries of ancient stories help us understand the connections and ways in which the prophets appropriated the imagery of the peoples around them to glorify YHWH and advance His purposes. May we all serve God in Christ and obtain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

Works Consulted

Coogan, Michael and Smith, Mark. Stories from Ancient Canaan, 2nd edition. Louisville, Kentucky:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2012.

The post Dan’el, Aqhat, and the Rephaim appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Works of the Flesh: Enmities

The Apostle Paul desired for the Galatian Christians to glorify God in all they did. To this end he set forth for them the kinds of behaviors which incur condemnation and the character attributes which come from the Spirit (Galatians 5:17-24). He spoke of the “works of the flesh” which lead to condemnation 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 works of the flesh pervasive in the ancient Greco-Roman world: sexually deviant behavior, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, and sorcery. These were enmeshed in the pagan cultures from which the Gentile Christians had converted, and remained continual temptations for them and even for those who had believed in Christ from Israel.

Paul then turned to works of the flesh which profoundly affect relationships, beginning with “enmities.” The word translated “enmities” in our Bibles is echthra in the original Greek, defined by Thayer’s as “enmity, a cause of enmity.” Webster’s defines enmity as:

The quality of being an enemy; the opposite of friendship; ill will; hatred; unfriendly dispositions; malevolence. It expresses more than aversion and less than malice, and differs from displeasure in denoting a fixed or rooted hatred, whereas displeasure is more transient.

In the New Testament “enmity” described relationships marked by some level of hostility. In Luke 23:12 we are told that Pilate and Herod had been at enmity before “reconciling” through a shared condemnation of Jesus. Paul would describe the mind of the flesh as in enmity against God, not subject to God’s law, nor could it be (Romans 8:6-7); James spoke more succinctly: friendship with the world is enmity toward God (James 4:4). Paul also perceived enmity between God and man through the law of commandments which had condemned mankind; Jesus killed the enmity, or hostility, by dying on the cross (Ephesians 2:13-16).

All of the other “works of the flesh” can be fully avoided, at least in prospect; no matter what we feel, say, or do, however, we will experience enmity. To live according to God’s purposes in Jesus will lead to enmity with the world and its ways; likewise, to live according to the ways of the world is to live in enmity with God (James 4:4, 1 John 2:15-17). Jesus promised us that we would have tribulation in the world, even though we have peace toward God in Him (John 16:33). The enmity of the world might reach such a depth that a Christian’s enemies may even be members of his own household (Matthew 10:34-36)!

If we cannot avoid or escape enmity, how can Paul consider “enmities” as a work of the flesh in Galatians 5:20? We obtain a clue from Romans 12:17-18:

Render to no man evil for evil. Take thought for things honorable in the sight of all men. If it be possible, as much as in you lieth, be at peace with all men.

God has abundantly warned us in Christ how seeking His purposes will lead to enmity in the world; nevertheless, the source of the enmity must be from the world, and not the Christian. Christians should never nurture hostility, ill will, or hatred toward any human being. Christians are called to treat each other with tender affection and love (Romans 12:10); it is in displaying love toward one another that we display that we belong to the Lord Jesus (John 13:34-35), and we cannot say we love God unless we love one another (1 John 4:7-21). Furthermore, it is not enough to just love one another: we must love our neighbor as ourselves, and prove to be neighbors to all with whom we might interact (Matthew 22:35-40, Luke 10:25-37); we must not forget to show love and care for strangers and those not like us (Hebrews 13:2). A Christian who loves each and every person will never have feelings of enmity toward any one.

We live in a time and age often characterized by pettiness and nastiness. “Cancel culture” has become prevalent; Internet flame wars prove pervasive. The media heavily invests in polarization and sensationalism; people rarely disagree charitably anymore, but tend to view their opponents as having the most base of motives and representing a threat to society and all that is right, good, and decent. Enmity abounds in political, social, and cultural discourse, and it proves very difficult to resist.

Sadly, the Lord’s people have not proven immune from enmities. Disagreements regarding doctrinal matters which could be handled with charity in a spirit of brotherhood have often become personal, ugly, and have set Christians against one another. In such circumstances, no matter how “right” either side might be doctrinally, their attitudes often turn “wrong,” and God’s purposes of relational unity are thwarted (John 17:20-23, Romans 14:10-18). Unfortunately it does not even require a doctrinal disagreement: Christians can often rub each other the wrong way, or disagree about methods, cultural attitudes, or some trivial matter, and end up displaying hostility toward one another. Few things prove sadder than seeing a congregation of the Lord’s people riven by factions all due to personality conflicts and similar hostilities.

As Christians we must strive to love everyone and be at peace inasmuch as we are able; there is thus no room for enmity in the heart of the Christian. In Jesus Christians have been reconciled to God, not only for their own salvation, but also to jointly participate with fellow Christians as the Lord’s Body (1 Corinthians 12:12-28, Ephesians 2:1-22); God’s whole purpose in Christ is redemption and reconciliation, to kill the hostility and enmity which exists among people in the world (Ephesians 2:11-18, 3:9-12). We cannot glorify God if we resurrect the enmity He has sought to kill in Jesus!

Yes, those who would live godly in Christ Jesus will endure enmity and hostility in the world. Yes, we are liable to obtain enemies and opponents by living faithfully in Jesus and standing firm in His purposes; these enemies will certainly come from the world, many will profess Christ, and some even may come from among the Lord’s people. Yet whatever enmity may exist must not come from ill will or hatred in our hearts; we must be peaceable and loving toward all, desiring for all to know the truth, repent, and find salvation in Jesus (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9). Enmity is the way of the Evil One, alienating people from God and one another in mutual hostility. Redemption and reconciliation are the ways of our God who has paid the ultimate price so that we might find peace in Him. May we turn away from enmities, seek the good in Christ for all with whom we come into contact, and obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Apologies in Acts: Peter Before the Sanhedrin

Challenges and persecution arose almost as soon as the Gospel began to sound forth in Jerusalem. Those who had condemned Jesus to death were not too keen on having an insurrectionist message of His resurrection causing trouble. How would the Apostles respond?

Luke included many examples of the preaching of the Gospel in the book of Acts: Peter on the day of Pentecost, in the Temple, and before Cornelius, and Paul in Antioch of Pisidia and on Areopagus (Acts 2:14-31, 3:12-26, 10:34-43, 13:15-51, 17:22-31). Yet Luke also recorded many instances of “apologies” in the book of Acts: not an “apology” in the common sense of the term today in English, as if the Apostles were expressing remorse and regret about anything, but according to the Greek apologia, generally translated as “defense” (cf. Acts 24:10, 25:8, 16). Such apologies were given in the context of some kind of examination or trial before Jewish and Roman authorities. The Apostles would manage to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus, particularly His resurrection, in their apologies; yet as a defense for the hope that was in them and their conduct, we do well to examine the apologies in Acts in their own right. The genre proved popular; many early Christians would write apologies for the faith in the first three hundred years of the faith.

The first apologies in Acts were given soon after the Gospel began to be proclaimed in Jerusalem. Peter and John had gone up to the Temple to pray and had healed a man well-known in the Temple precinct as one born lame (Acts 3:1-10). Based upon this miracle Peter proclaimed Jesus risen from the dead and the fulfillment of the hope of Israel before the multitude (Acts 3:11-26). The captain of the guard and the Sadducees, having heard of the tumult, came and had Peter and John arrested because they were vexed by them proclaiming the resurrection of the dead (Acts 4:1-3). The Sanhedrin gathered the next morning, and inquired of Peter and John by what authority they had acted and preached (Acts 4:5-7).

Peter then set forth his apology, or defense, for John and himself (Acts 4:8-12). He appealed to his audience and established the facts of what had been done: they are being examined for doing a good deed for a disabled man (Acts 4:8-9). Peter then confessed the man was made whole in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom they, both the Sanhedrin and all the people of Israel, had crucified, and God had raised Him from the dead (Acts 4:9-10). Peter then spoke of Jesus as the fulfillment of Psalm 118:22-23, the stone rejected by men but made the cornerstone (Acts 4:11; cf. Mark 12:10-12, 1 Peter 2:6-8). Peter concluded with a powerful declaration: salvation cannot be found in anyone else or in any other name under heaven (Acts 4:12).

Peter stunned the Sanhedrin: they perceived his and John’s boldness and how they were common men (“unearned and ignorant,” not trained rabbis), marveled, and perceived they had been with Jesus (Acts 4:13). They could say nothing against them, since the healed man stood in their midst, and it was evident a great miracle had taken place (Acts 4:14-16). They decided to threaten Peter and John, charging them not to speak or teach in Jesus’ name (Acts 4:17). Peter answered for them to judge whether they should hearken to them rather than God, for they could not stop speaking of what they had seen and heard (Acts 4:19-20).

Peter and John were let go (Acts 4:21). The Apostles continued preaching and teaching, and would again raise the jealousy and ire of the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:12-17). This time all the Apostles were arrested (Acts 5:18); an angel opened the doors of the prison and exhorted them to speak in the temple the words of this Life (Acts 5:19-20). The Sanhedrin again summoned the Apostles, and the high priest spoke to them regarding how they were charged not to teach in the name of Jesus, and yet not only did they keep teaching, but they were also bringing Jesus’ blood upon the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:27-28).

Peter again spoke an apology (Acts 5:29-32). He began with a more succinct and direct statement than seen in Acts 4:19: they must obey God rather than man (Acts 5:29). Peter did not shrink back: he declared that God raised Jesus up, the very Jesus they had killed by hanging Him from a tree (Acts 5:31; cf. Deuteronomy 21:22-23). God exalted Jesus to be a Prince and Savior, giving repentance and remission of sins to Israel; the Apostles were witnesses of these things, as was the Holy Spirit, given by God to those who obey Him (Acts 5:31-32).

The Sanhedrin was enraged at Peter’s teaching; only by Gamaliel’s wise speech were they allayed (Acts 5:33-39). The Apostles were beaten, were charged again to not speak in Jesus’ name, and were released (Acts 5:40-41).

Peter’s apologies before the Sanhedrin maintained great consistency with Peter’s preaching in Acts 2:14-36, 3:12-26: the Apostles as witnesses, Jesus as killed by the Jewish people and the authorities but raised from the dead, exalted by God, made Lord and King, the fulfillment of prophecy, and the only source of salvation. Yet before the Sanhedrin these teachings take on greater sharpness and force: the Pharisees denied the possibility of the resurrection of the dead, the whole Sanhedrin was most directly responsible for Jesus’ death, and the Sanhedrin claimed to be an authority over the Jewish people (Mark 12:18, 14:53-65). Peter did not shrink away from these uncomfortable truths, nor did he attempt to sugarcoat it or make it seem more palatable to them. He spoke boldly, powerfully, but concisely and uprightly.

We also do well to consider the behavior of Peter and the other Apostles after each instance of harassment and persecution by the Sanhedrin. After Peter and John returned the first time they prayed to God, understanding how the Sanhedrin was working with the Roman authorities in a conspiracy against Jesus and God’s work in Him, and prayed for boldness to proclaim the Gospel (Acts 4:23-31). After they were all beaten by the Sanhedrin the next time, they rejoiced they were counted worthy to suffer dishonor for the Name of Jesus (Acts 5:41). The Apostles did not rage against the injustice; they did not respond immaturely, as if surprised at persecution or imagining they should not have to endure suffering. They recognized that following Jesus would lead to the same kind of sufferings Jesus endured, and recognized that in suffering thus they were sharing fellowship with the Christ (Matthew 16:26-29).

Peter did well in making his defense for what he believed and did (cf. 1 Peter 3:15-16). He spoke with respect yet with conviction. The Sanhedrin heard the Gospel of Jesus’ resurrection; they were forced to grapple with their complicity in His death. They had done all they felt they had the ability to do against the Apostles, yet their threatening and warning were toothless. The Apostles continued to teach and preach Jesus as the Risen Lord and did many mighty works in His name. The nations indeed rage against God and His Anointed One; God reigns supreme, and He is glorified in those willing to suffer harassment, humiliation, and trials while steadfastly bearing witness to what God has done in Jesus. May we make a defense for our faith before all who inquire, and absorb shame and humiliation in Jesus so as to obtain exaltation in the resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Family

We are all born into families. In families we learn what life and love are all about, for better or for worse.

Some people are blessed with wonderful, loving, supportive families. Other people seem to be cursed with unhealthy, hurtful, and traumatizing families. Many other people are somewhere in between, and have a “love-hate” relationship with their family. Yet even in the best of circumstances, the “ideal family situation” is a myth, for all families have difficulties. Whether the family is resilient is really the important question. Families can be a great source of unconditional strength and support, but families can just as easily become a source of discouragement, pain, and suffering. Some relatives are lovable and love freely; conversely, we all seem to have at least a few relatives whom we would not mind never hearing from again. Whether our family is mostly functional or mostly dysfunctional, family life is changing at an unprecedented rate. Our culture tends to emphasize the individual and his fulfillment over that of the family; as people become more mobile, families are spreading out over larger distances. In such an environment, does family even matter anymore?

The family has been called the basic unit of civilization, and for good reason: however much we may try to run away from it, we are shaped by our families. We first learn about who we are, what we are supposed to do, and our place among others through our experiences with our families. Family connections were critical to survival: even if everything else went wrong, the family was the one group of people who would be there for you and provide for you. Little wonder, then, that Jesus uses the example of hostility among family members to demonstrate the great cost that could be incurred for following Him (cf. Matthew 10:34-39): rejection by family would be the worst rejection of all!

None of this is coincidental: this is how God set up the world and human relationships (Genesis 1:26-27, Romans 1:20). Jesus of Nazareth, God in the flesh, was raised up in a family with a mother, father, brothers, and sisters, and likely extended family as well (Luke 2:41-51, Matthew 13:55-56). Family is one of the common denominators among all human beings: regardless of age, gender, culture, or station in life, we all came from parents and have (or had) some kind of family somewhere.

God expects those who serve Him to honor their families. It is possible that family members may not approve of the decision to follow after God (cf. Mathew 10:34-39); regardless, we are likely to have family members with whom we do not get along easily, or who are difficult people.

Yet Scripture is clear: children are to honor their parents and obey them in the Lord (Ephesians 6:1-3); even if the parents are not obedient to God, they are still worthy of honor. “Honor” involves far more than simple respect: children are expected to provide for their parents in their old age, as Jesus attested in Matthew 15:1-9. Parents are to love children, raising them in the admonition and discipline of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). Responsibility toward family does not end with one’s immediate family. Paul tells Timothy that anyone who does not provide for “their own,” especially “of their own household,” has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Timothy 5:8); a believing woman who “has widows” is to take care of them, so that the church can take care of “widows indeed” (1 Timothy 5:16). This goes beyond parents and children; it involves the extended family as well.

Sadly this message is all too often lost on this present generation. Our culture has so exalted the primacy of the individual and the importance of individual flourishing, to find “your best you,” that it views family relationships as more burden than strength. Even though we are all shaped and formed by families, society would have us jettison the family in order to ascend in the ranks of our career and/or social standing. There is a dark undercurrent to the modern “joke” that parents must treat their children well since they will choose their parents’ nursing home: there is no expectation for the children to be inconvenienced in any significant way in providing for their parents. Not only this, but many parents have been programmed to not only expect this but also to insist upon it: they do not want to be a burden on their children and to hinder their children from achieving their dreams.

To this end the condition of the modern family is in sad shape. The quest for individual freedom and autonomy has hollowed out the “nuclear family”: sexual relationships do not always involve commitment, and even marriages are all too often reduced to transactional relationships easily jettisoned when the spouse becomes more of a burden than a help. Parents are expected to sacrifice anything and everything for their children and their success: they often have greater anxiety for their children than for themselves, and even in success will often stop at nothing to make sure their children will maintain their privilege, even if it comes at the expense of many others. And for this parents are often siloed into nursing homes or assisted living facilities, receiving only the occasional visit, generally left to fend for themselves. The expectation still exists that we should spend time with family, especially during the holidays; yet family, on the whole, is viewed as a burden to be shouldered and suffered and not a source of life, love, strength, support, and hope.

As Christians we must resist all of these cultural impulses, and stand firm for what are truly “family values.” Life is not all about our prosperity or advancement; life is about sharing in relationship, prioritizing other people over self or things. We should honor our parents, commit to family members, love spouses if we have them, and raise our children to be healthy and supported but also with an understanding of family roles and values. Yet we must also take care lest we make an idol out of a given view of the family or of relationships, recognizing that for many people family is pain, or giving space for those who remain single. For good reason the church is reckoned as the household of God, with fellow Christians serving as brothers and sisters of their heavenly Father (Ephesians 2:20-22, 1 Timothy 3:15): we are to be family for one another, providing support and encouragement, and giving everyone a sense of acceptance and belonging as fellow people of the living God. May we do our share in honoring and providing for our families, spiritual and physical, and glorify God in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Family appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Hard Sell Evangelism

For good reason people prove skeptical about salespeople in general. We know they get paid to sell us things, and many of them will make a lot of promises, apply a lot of pressure, and engage in all kinds of manipulative practices to get us to sign on the dotted line. Who among us enjoys such a “hard sell”?

“Hard sell” tactics are prevalent in sales because they work for their purposes. “Hard sell” tactics involve a lot of pressure, emotional manipulation, and a willingness to say whatever needs to be said in order to close the sale. The goal is to display how customer “needs” the item being sold by means of emotional and/or aggressive appeals, and then to seal the deal with while the customer still feels the emotional “high.” “Hard sell” tactics represent a high risk, high reward situation: a lot of people are repelled by them, but if just enough are persuaded, a lot of money can be made. “Hard sell” tactics are most often used on large-ticket or “impulse” pleasurable items; the rewards need to justify the risks, and you do not want to have to see the customer again for some time. “Hard sell” tactics are especially ineffective for the sale of any long-term product, like insurance; it is hard to build a relationship while using “hard sell” techniques.

The proclamation of the Gospel and the world of sales share many features in common. Sales involves the attempt to persuade a person they need a product and to obtain that product; evangelism involves the attempt to persuade people of their need of salvation in Christ, and thus how to be saved (2 Corinthians 5:11). To this end many believe that “hard sell” tactics and techniques ought to be employed in the proclamation of the Gospel. To such an end the Gospel is proclaimed with aggressive emotional appeals, and the prayers, music, and ambiance in the assembly are all designed to facilitate the emotional experience. In smaller conversations the preacher will use heavy-handed techniques and aggressive appeals to incite a response. They seek to stir up the passions of those who hear so as to get them to “get saved” while the hearer maintains the emotional “high.”

“Hard sell” evangelism tactics or techniques are not intrinsically sinful; many have come to faith in the Lord Jesus through aggressive exhortation or emotional revivalism. Whenever Christ is preached, we rejoice (Philippians 1:15-18). Most of the people who evangelize with “hard sell” evangelism are sincere in their belief and well-intentioned in their goal to promote Jesus as Lord. For that matter, there is a time and a place for an aggressive posture in encouraging people to believe in Jesus as Lord; emotions remain part of the human experience and we can appeal to them as we proclaim Jesus crucified and risen. Nevertheless, many features of “hard sell” evangelism often work against the purposes of God in Christ and can inhibit the spread of the Gospel and the effectiveness of growth in discipleship.

We must remember that marketing and sales in the world of business is part of the world, subject to the ways of the world, and can often prove unspiritual and demonic (cf. Ephesians 6:12, James 3:13-18). Thus, just because it “works” in marketing and selling worldly products should not automatically mean we should try it out in proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Apostles proclaimed the Gospel of Christ boldly; they understood that the message might well offend many (e.g. Acts 4:23-31). Yet they did not proclaim Jesus in a belligerent or overly aggressive way. Every time the Gospel is preached in Acts the message was invited in some way or another; it was not forced or imposed on anyone. God is love, embodied in Jesus (1 John 4:7-21); love does not seek its own, is not rude or impatient, but kind (1 Corinthians 13:4-8). The way we proclaim the Gospel ought to conform to the Christ who is proclaimed; thus, we ought to speak the truth in love, and according to the principles of love (Ephesians 4:15). To that end an aggressive posture at the beginning may not be advisable; patience and kindness go a long way to opening up a person to be willing to hear more. Far too many times we might imagine that the Gospel must be aggressively pushed for it to really be a Gospel presentation, and such is simply not the case. It may require some imagination, but we can think of ways to speak of Jesus without the hearer feeling as if Jesus is being shoved down his or her throat. Our speech ought always be seasoned as with salt, to give grace to those who hear (Colossians 4:6).

For good reason Paul declared that he did not preach the Gospel with excellence in speech or wisdom, but determined to know nothing around the Corinthians except Christ crucified (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). The power of the Gospel is not in the rhetorical crafting of the presentation, but in the real substance of its message (Romans 1:16-17). To this end a reliance on emotional appeal and manipulation can backfire and easily become counterproductive. The goal of all preaching is to proclaim the Lord Jesus Christ and edify, or build up, the faith of those who hear (1 Corinthians 14:26, 2 Timothy 4:2-4); such “edification” is no mere feeling but substantive growth in faith. In an earthly construction project, when the dust settles, the building should be substantively larger after the work of edification than it was beforehand, and so it must also be in spiritual edification. The Gospel can be powerfully preached with both substance in message and emotional appeal, and the emotional appeal can help reinforce the message. But when the focus is on the emotional appeal, and the drive is to “get people saved” in an ecstatic or frenzied state, hearers become conditioned to seek the emotional “high” regardless of the presence of anything substantive. They may say they feel “edified,” but it is just a feeling: when the dust settles, their faith is about the same as before. When the times of trial and distress come on, or the cares of the world multiply, such hearers are likely to fall away (cf. Matthew 13:1-8). Furthermore, those who “get saved” in an emotional high often keep chasing the emotional high, and may not even find much value in the substantive message of the Gospel. Such a person will never obtain spiritual growth in discipleship if all they crave is the emotional high and the feeling of rapture in the moment.

It is one thing for a person to walk away feeling as if far too aggressively pushed to buy an item, or to sit at home with a large purchase which has left them with a bit of remorse and a bit of a bad taste in their mouths; it is quite another for a person to be repelled from the Gospel not because of its substance but because of the aggressive, manipulative means by which it was promoted, or to sit as an entertained participant seeking an emotional high and calling it edifying faith. To this end “hard sell” tactics and techniques may not be the best introduction to the Gospel; our goal is not to push people into making a decision they will regret, but to tell them the good news of Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, ascension, and imminent return, and encourage them to find life in Him. We want to see the person to whom we preach the Gospel very often in the assemblies of the saints; our posture ought to be meek, humble, gentle, kind, loving, patient, and above all, welcoming, focusing on Christ crucified above all things. May we proclaim the Gospel of Christ in ways which glorify God, and obtain life in Him!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Hard Sell Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Babel and Power

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (John Dalberg-Acton, 1st Baron Acton).

Humans dedicate quite a lot of their resources to the acquisition, accumulation, or maintenance of power, far more than they might imagine. Nations wage war against one another to gain renown, resources, and to humiliate or gut their opponents. Leaders within countries use various means to attempt to perpetuate their power through elections, coercion, or manipulation of the people. Corporations participate in economic contests with one another, and even with persons, governments, and other institutions, in order to gain market share and a favorable environment for their products. Even in interpersonal relationships people jockey for social standing: how many terrible things are done by children to children in middle and high school in order to “look cool” or to find acceptance in a given social group? Power dynamics remain at play among the Lord’s people: within congregations in terms of who maintains formal and informal power, and what happens when such people are crossed; in the “brotherhood” in general, who is heard and persuasive and who will prove willing to align with whom. No matter where we turn we tend to find some kind of power dynamic and power games at play.

People are less likely to notice the strength of their power when they maintain it than they are to notice when they are not in power, are losing their power, or are suffering oppression on account of others exercising power over them. If we are used to getting our way, or receiving a level of deference or respect from other people, we are tempted to think that such is normal and how everyone else experiences the world. We easily get miffed when we feel we are disrespected. We can think that the reason other people go through difficulties we do not experience must be on account of some fault of their own: they proved too lazy, or did not work hard enough, and thus they do not have. We can be blissfully unaware of how power works for us but not for others, but only until the tables get turned and power works against us. Then we can see more clearly the unfortunate side of power dynamics in our fallen world.

Power is not inherently wrong or evil; God has all authority, and gives to all some measure of authority and power in life (Romans 13:1). The challenge of power is what we make of it: how do we view the power we have, and to what end do we exercise it?

God made man and gave him dominion over the earth (Genesis 1:26-27). God intended for mankind to view power, like life itself and all things in the creation, as a gift from God, a stewardship held in trust. Man was to keep and tend the Garden God had made (Genesis 2:15): man does best when man maintains what God has made and sustained in Himself. God Himself came to earth with power and authority and in humility served others and was not served Himself (John 1:1, 18; Matthew 20:25-28). All those who maintain authority are to serve and seek the best interest of those under their charge (e.g. Ephesians 5:21-6:9, 1 Peter 5:1-5). God will call all into account for the power they have exercised (Romans 14:10-12). Power, when used rightly, can facilitate thriving and flourishing in life.

We have all seen, unfortunately, what happens when power is not used rightly. In many respects the Tower of Babel represents human power at its worst (Genesis 11:1-9). All humanity had gathered on the plain of Shinar, and there they recognized the great power they held since they all spoke the same language and could collaborate on anything they might imagine: in this condition nothing could hinder them, as God Himself said (Genesis 11:1-3, 6). What did they do with all of their power? They intended to build a tower into the heavens to make a name for themselves lest they be scattered over all the earth (Genesis 11:4). They did not use their power to serve, to love, or to lead to human flourishing; they used it to make a monument for themselves, a grandiose and otherwise useless display of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. God was not glorified.

Babel, in Hebrew, is the same word that Greek would translate as “Babylon.” From Babylon would come the army that would destroy Jerusalem and its Temple and exile its people in 586 BCE (cf. 2 Kings 25:1-30). “Babylon” would become code, or a cipher, to represent Rome (1 Peter 5:13, Revelation 13:1-18:24). “Babylon” thus became a metaphor for the human power which arrogates itself against God: boastful, haughty, arrogant, self-serving, self-aggrandizing, making an idol of itself, throwing its weight around, inducing others to participate in its immorality, and persecuting the people of God. Babel/Babylon thus represents what happens when power goes bad.

In our fallen world power is all too often used for corrupt ends; it always looks something like what happened at Babel/Babylon. People exercise their power to benefit themselves to the harm of others. Domination is the name of the game: crush your enemies, exploit the environment, engender fear and wonder in your people. There is very little room for justice or righteousness in such manifestations of power, and those who uphold justice and righteousness are often persecuted or oppressed for doing so.

The corrupt abuse of power may be the way the world works, but it must not be so among the people of God. As Christians we must recognize that authority and power are given as responsibilities and a stewardship, not as a license to dominate and oppress. As Christians we must seek to glorify God through our exercise of power, not build monuments for ourselves. We must never allow ourselves to think that we have gained our position by our own strength or standing, lest we become as arrogant as those in the world and abuse what God has given us as they do. Instead we must always remain humble, recognizing that the greatest among us are the servants, and to use whatever authority we have to love and serve others, cultivate justice and righteousness, so we can harvest love, prosperity, and flourishing for everyone. We will either be part of the Bride of Christ or the whore Babylon; may the people of God come out of Babylon, and glorify God in all they do!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Babel and Power appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Life in Relationships

Why are we here? What is life all about?

If we were to ask these questions to many people in the world today, they might well answer in terms of their individual lives and self-fulfillment. Life is about making the best of what you have to become “your best you.” Whatever helps a person as an individual grow and thrive is praiseworthy; anything that would hinder a person from being or accomplishing what they want is abominable.

This view is particularly common in the Western world, and especially in America. Americans have always loved the idea of the “Lone Ranger,” elevating in esteem the “self-made man,” the person who “picked himself up by his own bootstraps” and was able to find success in life. Americans prize freedom and independence: the idea that they do not need anyone or anything, but can do it on their own.

But what have we gained from this attitude? Modern Americans are more free and independent than ever before, but also more alienated, isolated, and depressed. Life in America today is rife with anxiety: who among us feels comfortable in life, about how much they have, how they look, their jobs, their relationships, etc.? Most of us feel inadequate and scared. We are afraid that those who like us only do so because of what we do for them and that too many of our relationships are transactional. All that freedom and independence we have sought comes at a price; it was certainly not free!

Even in modern American society, most people are not psychopathic. They do not want to spend their lives entirely on their own, without human contact and interaction. Sure, most everyone would like to have Ebenezer Scrooge’s money; but who wants to be Ebenezer Scrooge?

In the end, the America has lied to us. Life is not about unfettered freedom and independence, to go and be whatever we want and beholden to none. In truth, life is about relationships. The quality of our lives is directly connected to the quality of the relationships we maintain.

Christians should not be surprised at this, for the fundamental truths of the nature of God and man attests to the power of relationships. As Christians, we believe that God has made humans in His image (Genesis 1:26-27). We are tempted to view this “likeness” in terms of appearance or character: we do have spirits as God is spirit (John 4:24), and we are able to create, reason, communicate, and manifest other forms of intelligence, yet the truth expressed here proves more profound than this.

The Apostle Paul declared that all humanity can perceive in the creation that there is a God: we can see His divine power and nature in the things that have been made (Romans 1:19-20). We assuredly see God’s great power in the way the creation works: the majesty of the sea and the mountains, the power of storms and earthquakes, the magnitude of the universe. But where can we perceive God’s divine nature?

We cannot perceive God’s nature until we understand something about God’s nature. Christians confess that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4-6, 1 Corinthians 8:6), but also that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God (John 1:1, 2 Peter 1:20). The Bible nowhere speaks of God as one person; instead, we are to understand that God is One in Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. So how is God one? God is One in essence, nature, will, and purpose, indeed, but God’s unity is more profound than these.

We see something regarding the unity of God in Jesus’ prayer in John 17:20-23: He prays that believers should be one as the Father and the Son are One, the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father and they in believers, so all may be perfectly one. The ancients had a term for such unity: perichoresis, meaning mutual interpenetration without loss of distinctive identity. Music involves perichoresis: when we hear a band play, we are hearing the vibrations made by each instrument, and while we can try to pick out the sounds of each instrument, we hear them as a unified musical piece. The marriage relationship provides another example of perichoresis, as displayed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6: a man and a woman become one flesh, and are therefore no longer two, but one; and yet they still remain a husband and a wife, distinct people.

Thus God is One in perichoretic relational unity: so unified that we do not speak of God as They, but as Him. Such is how God is love (1 John 4:8): God is neither insufficient in and of Himself, requiring something to love, nor is the ultimate Narcissist, loving himself, but the Father loves the Son who loves the Spirit who loves the Father. God created the universe in love to share in life and love, and especially so with mankind made in the image of God, the image of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Acts 17:28-29).

Therefore, where do we find God’s divine nature in the creation? In us, for we are made in the image of the God who is relationally one, to share in relational unity with God and with one another! Truly “it is not good for man to be alone” (Genesis 2:18). It has been scientifically demonstrated that babies and small children who are not held much and do not bond with anyone fail to thrive, even if their nutritional needs are met. There are reasons why we feel much better in life when we are secure in our relationships with our God, His people, family, romantic partners, and friends, and feel much worse when some or all of these relationships are insecure and unstable.

What do you really want out of life? Do you really just want money, and live like Ebenezer Scrooge? Highly unlikely! Do you want fame? Fame, by its nature, requires others to esteem you as famous. Do you want to satisfy sexual desire? Sexual desire almost invariably reaches out for a deep, profound, and intimate connection with another person. But are any of these things what you really want? Probably not. We all want to be loved; we all want to belong; we all want to be accepted for who we are, and we want people in our lives who will be there for us and with us no matter what will happen. Right now God loves you, wants you to belong with His people, will accept you, and will not abandon you (Romans 8:31-39). We are not made to be alone; we are made to share in relationships with God and with one another. May we find fulfillment in life by growing in relationship with God and one another, and share in eternal life together in Christ!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Preaching in Acts

Luke wrote the book of Acts to set forth how Jesus worked and taught through His Apostles as He sent them out to bear witness to Him in Jerusalem, all Israel, and throughout the Roman Empire (Acts 1:1-3, 8). At crucial points in that narrative Luke went to great lengths to record the way the Gospel was proclaimed by Peter and Paul: Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-36), Peter in the Temple (Acts 3:11-26), Peter before Cornelius (Acts 10:34-43), Paul in Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:16-41), and Paul on Areopagus (Acts 17:22-31).

These five sections represented the times when Peter or Paul would proclaim the Gospel to crowds; to that end they provide invaluable insight into the philosophy and substance of how the work of God in Jesus was set forth among Jewish and Gentile people of the first century. Luke also recorded the defenses, or apologies, of Peter, Stephen, and Paul (Acts 4:8-12, 5:29-32, 7:2-53, 22:1-21, 24:10-21, 26:2-29); they also provide great value and insight into apostolic witness of the Gospel, yet in a different context. In the five examples of Peter and Paul’s proclamation of the Gospel under consideration the Apostles and their message find no constraint and focus entirely on what God has done in Jesus; if we would learn from the Apostles how the Gospel should be preached, we do well to explore these examples.

In every instance the core, fundamental emphasis in the proclamation of the Gospel in Acts centers on Jesus’ resurrection: the proclamation of the resurrection as a factual historical event, prophesied in Scripture, and confirmed by apostolic witness (Acts 2:24-35, 3:15-26, 10:40-42, 13:29-37, 17:18, 30-31). References were made to Jesus’ life, ministry, and death, yet all to lead up to Jesus’ resurrection (e.g. Acts 2:22-23); the Apostles explained how Jesus was made Lord in the resurrection, and would come again in judgment, yet both were dependent on Jesus’ resurrection (e.g. Acts 2:36, 17:30-31). Among the Jewish and God-fearing peoples of Israel the Apostles assumed previous knowledge of what Jesus had done and that He had died (e.g. Acts 2:22-23, 10:36-37); it was the news that God had raised Jesus from the dead that shook the world and changed everything. Jesus’ resurrection allowed for a reassessment of His death: He may have been seen as an insurrectionist criminal, a failed Messiah, but the resurrection demonstrated how His death was to provide for the remission of sins and liberation from the forces of evil, fulfilling what had been declared by the prophets, and vindicating Jesus as the Messiah (Acts 3:15-26, 13:29-40). Furthermore, even though they had been granted authority from the Holy Spirit on high, the Apostles presented themselves as witnesses of Jesus’ resurrection and its implications (e.g. Acts 2:14-36). Even when Peter or Paul would point out the sinful behavior of the people, they provided the means of explanation or escape: they acted in ignorance, and God was now calling on them to repent (Acts 3:17-19, 17:30-31). The Apostles understood themselves as those sent with the message of the good news of Jesus’ resurrection: they did not claim or presume a posture of imperiousness, arrogance, or sanctimony, but gave all the glory to God in Christ.

The Apostles did not depend on their own witness alone; they understood that all things ought to be established by two or three witnesses, and as they preached the Gospel, they firmly rooted it in the heritage of Israel and the promises of the prophets. The majority of Peter’s proclamation on Pentecost set forth what Israel saw as the fulfillment of Joel 2:28-32 and Jesus’ resurrection as foretold by David in Psalm 16:9-11 (Acts 2:14-36). When Peter spoke of Jesus in the Temple he cited Moses’ promise of a prophet like him to arise among the people in Deuteronomy 18:15 and the Abrahamic blessing of Genesis 22:18; Peter’s entire presentation of the Gospel is saturated in oblique references to prophetic themes (Acts 3:11-26). Paul began his proclamation of the Gospel before the Antiochians of Pisidia with a recounting of Israel’s history, appealed to Psalm 2:3, 7 and 16:9-11 to set forth Jesus as the Son of God in the resurrection, and concluded with the prophetic warning of Habakkuk 1:5 (Acts 13:16-41). Even though Paul never explicitly quoted the Hebrew Bible when preaching to the Athenians on Areopagus, his rhetoric was rooted in the emphases of the psalms and the prophets: God as One, the Creator, displaying covenant loyalty, and not an idol (Acts 17:22-29). The Gospel of Jesus the Christ can never be divorced from the Hebrew Bible; the Apostles never suggested that Jesus could be accepted but His heritage dismissed. Jesus fulfilled the story of Israel and all God had promised Israel; the Gospel of Jesus cannot be proclaimed without reference to the story of how God has interacted with His people throughout time, and seen as the climax of God’s involvement with His people (e.g. 1 Corinthians 10:1-12).

The Apostles did not force or impose the Gospel on anyone; in each circumstance they were given the invitation to speak in some way or another, to explain what was going on or to provide a word of encouragement (e.g. Acts 2:12, 13:15). Peter and Paul sought the point of agreement in understanding, and began there: for Israelites, all the prophets had promised, and what Jesus had done; for Gentiles, the truth of the Creator God behind the religiosity they maintained in their ignorance (e.g. Acts 2:22-23, 17:22-29). Paul warned the Israelites about what the prophets had warned (Acts 13:41); Peter and Paul warned the God-fearers and Gentiles regarding the day of judgment to come (Acts 10:42, 17:30-31). Many heard and obeyed (Acts 2:41); others did not (Acts 17:32). Whatever the result, the Apostles had done what they were charged to do: they had witnessed to Jesus as the Risen Christ (Acts 1:8).

Christians today live almost two thousand years later and were not eyewitnesses of what God accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection; nevertheless, we can gain much from how Peter and Paul preached the Gospel in Acts. Even if we do not see the signs and wonders as were performed in the first century, we still find opportunities to find and reach people with the Gospel; outreach and finding the opportunities are important, but as with the Apostles, so with us: until we tell someone about what God accomplished in Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection, we have not yet proclaimed the Gospel or truly evangelized. We do best to bear witness to what the Apostles witnessed as confirmed by the prophets, and to provide that witness when invited to do so. There is no place for coercion or compulsion in evangelism, or association between the faith and nation-states: it should never have been presumed that members of a given nation-state should have been Christians because they were citizens of that nation-state, and the “spread” of forms of “Christianity” by the sword remains forever lamentable. We ought to find the point of agreement with others, and from there explain what God accomplished in Jesus and what it means for the creation. People do need to have some understanding of sin and transgression and its eternal consequences in order to appreciate the forgiveness of sins offered in Jesus (Romans 5:6-11, etc.); nevertheless, warnings about judgment are only found at the end of the presentation of the Gospel by Peter in Paul in certain instances, not at the beginning, and with appropriate provisions to assure the people how they acted in ignorance and how God will forgive if they will repent.

The Apostles proclaimed Jesus the Christ crucified and risen, and the world has never been the same. The same Gospel still has the power of salvation, and God still desires for all to hear the Gospel and be saved (Romans 1:16, 3:10-11, 1 Timothy 2:4). We ought to be thankful for the examples of preaching in Acts; how would we know how to approach evangelism without them? We do well to bear witness to the apostolic witness and encourage all to anchor their trust in God in Christ and hope in the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

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

Hellfire and Brimstone Evangelism

You have seen them out on the streets: men and women holding signs that condemn all sorts of people to hell for various sins. Some will call out passersby, call them names, and tell them they are going to hell. You have heard the sermons that intend to frighten people into submission, the message saturated in wrath and hellfire. Those who do and proclaim such things often seem to revel in confrontation, disagreement, dispute, and denunciation, proving self-satisfied, having “preached the truth hard” and been “persecuted for their righteousness” as a result.

“Hellfire and brimstone” evangelism has a long history, particularly in America: Jonathan Edwards remains famous for his sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, after all. Yet Edwards preached before a congregation out of concern regarding the salvation of his people. What would lead people to stand on street corners and pronounce such condemnation? Why would preachers not only constantly emphasize the theme, but even elevate its emphasis as a marker of faithfulness?

We do best to give the people who participate in hellfire and brimstone evangelism the benefit of the doubt and not automatically assume selfish or impure motives. They have heard the Bible’s call to proclaim salvation in Jesus Christ to everyone (Matthew 28:18-20). They have read the prophets of the Old Testament and have seen how the prophets denounced the Israelites for their sins. They have heard the belief that America is a “Christian nation” and thus assume everyone should have some knowledge of Christianity and Jesus. Thus, all Americans should know better and should stop sinning. They feel they have a type of “prophetic ministry,” to go and tell Americans about their sins like the prophets spoke to Israel and Jesus to some of the Israelites of His own day.

Likewise, we do well to give the benefit of the doubt to those who believe emphasizing “hellfire and brimstone” in the proclamation of the Gospel. Jesus did warn Israelites about the dangers of hellfire and the outer darkness (e.g. Matthew 5:29-30, 13:47-50, 25:31-46); Paul also warned about the condemnation of the wicked (e.g. Romans 1:18-32, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10). Throughout time many have wished to suppress or eliminate the doctrine of hell through outright rejection, denial, or simply ignoring the matter by neglect. In response it is tempting to strongly, consistently, and continually preach about hellfire and brimstone to demonstrate opposition towards all who would deny or suppress the doctrine. Many also believe it is healthy to have a strong fear of hellfire and damnation; some remember a day when such preaching would lead some to repent and come to salvation in Jesus.

Israel’s prophets did denounce the Israelites with very strong condemnatory language (e.g. Ezekiel 5:1-17). Yet the prophets spoke to Israel, the people of God. They recognized, and confessed, YHWH as the God of Israel who had brought their ancestors out of the land of Egypt. They served YHWH; they also served other gods and acted like everyone else did in the ancient Near Eastern world, and this latter worldliness was the problem. YHWH warned His people regarding imminent doom in very stark, powerful, and even vulgar terms (e.g. Hosea 1:1-3:5, Ezekiel 16:1-63). Yet God did so out of the pain of betrayal and unfaithfulness, illustrated by the frequent metaphor of Israel as the faithless, adulterous wife. Through the prophets YHWH did also denounce the nations around Israel, but generally because of what they had done to Israel; furthermore, these prophecies were proclaimed to the Israelites, not to the nations themselves (e.g. Isaiah 13:1-21:17, Amos 1:1-2:3).

Jesus also infamously denounced people with sharp condemnation (e.g. Matthew 23:1-36); Jesus warned regarding hellfire more than anyone else in Scripture (e.g. Mark 9:42-48). Yet it is important to keep in mind those to whom Jesus spoke. Jesus did declare how all the unrepentant wicked would be condemned (Matthew 13:47-50), but generally warned Israelites about condemnation (e.g. Matthew 8:11-12, 25:14-41): the people of God, zealous in their devotion to God, yet not entirely according to knowledge. Furthermore, Jesus did not thus denounce the sinners of Israel; He had compassion on the people of Israel, called them to repentance, and they heard Him because He did not treat them the way their religious authorities did (e.g. Matthew 9:9-13). Instead, Jesus denounced those who should have indeed “known better”: the Pharisees, scribes, and other religious authorities, as displayed in Matthew 23:1-36. In a sad irony, the type of people whom Jesus would most strongly warned regarding the dangers of hellfire and brimstone today would be the very people out condemning others themselves.

The Apostles also warned about judgment, especially regarding the condemnation of unbelievers (e.g. Romans 1:18-32, 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10). Yet these warnings were written to Christians, not to unbelievers. Warning about condemnation is a part of the proclamation of the Gospel even among those who do not believe (e.g. Acts 17:30-31), but let us consider how Paul declared it. Paul began by proclaiming Jesus and the resurrection among the Athenians (Acts 17:16-21); he then proclaimed to them the “Unknown God” they had served in ignorance, demonstrating how God is our Creator and cannot be portrayed with an image (Acts 17:22-29). Then, and only then, Paul told them that God would judge everyone through Jesus, and gave assurance of the day of judgment through His resurrection (Acts 17:30-31). Before they could be warned about condemnation, the pagan Gentiles needed to know something about the Creator God and what He had accomplished in Jesus. A picket sign of condemnation cannot provide that kind of understanding.

The United States of America is not, and has never been, a truly “Christian nation.” Its people are not automatically the people of God and should not be treated as such. Americans need to hear the Gospel, including warnings about the judgment day to come, but they must hear the full and complete Gospel, starting with who God is and what He has done for us in Jesus. We cannot assume people understand who God is or that they have sinned or anything else of the sort; to just hear a message of condemnation is not to convey the love of God in Christ.

The Apostles preached and taught among believers regarding judgment and condemnation, and for good reason: Christians ought to be reminded occasionally about the dangers of sin so as to continue resisting against the forces of evil, and to be reinforced in God’s justice and the coming wrath of God against all iniquity (Romans 1:18-32, 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9, Revelation 6:9-17, 16:1-21). Those who would preach “hellfire and brimstone” do well to remember how Jesus did so primarily as a warning to those people of God who profess Him but do not follow His commandments (Matthew 25:14-36). The condemnation of unbelievers is explained to demonstrate the sinfulness of all people and to give hope of God’s judgment, not as a reason to cackle and delight in the death of the wicked. We have no basis upon which to insist that “hellfire and brimstone” preaching be a primary means of communicating the Gospel; while it has its place, we must also remember that there is no fear in love, and that perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4:18). “Hellfire and brimstone” preaching can lead many to properly revere God and avoid sin; the same preaching can also traumatize many, especially young children, and continual emphasis can lead to malformed and maladapted faith. Fear can motivate only so much and so far; only love can motivate a person to a full self-sacrificial faith in Jesus (1 Corinthians 13:1-8, 1 John 4:7-21).

There is a place for warning unbelievers about the judgment and the prospect of condemnation, but holding signs and speaking words of condemnation as an evangelism tactic is not appropriate. They must first learn about God our Creator and His work in Jesus before warnings about judgment and condemnation will make any sense. Christians ought to hear preaching about judgment and the danger of condemnation, not to try to establish some kind of bona fides, but out of concern for the souls of people lest they fall away from the faith and fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 3:12, 10:31, 12:29). “Hellfire and brimstone” preaching can be potent, and that power must be used responsibly with a clear understanding of its potential deleterious effects when over-emphasized. Jesus came with a warning, but He came primarily in love; may all who hear the Gospel and see it embodied in us find the love of God in Christ, and come to a knowledge of the truth and salvation!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Hellfire and Brimstone Evangelism appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Perspective and Priorities

We have more time-saving technologies than ever before, but how many of us feel as though we have enough time in life?

Most people feel a sense of unease about their lives and their schedules: almost all of us are just too busy. We wish there were more hours in a day. People know they need to spend their time better, but often feel as though they are trapped in their current patterns. Work, school, family, friends, community, and entertainment: all of these, and more, seem to make constant demands on our time.

If we would serve the Lord Jesus and find life in Him, we must undergo a fundamental shift in how we approach our lives in terms of our perspective and our priorities. In so doing we might discover a more healthy, balanced, and fulfilling way to live.

So much of modern life is founded upon the illusion of control: we look at time as “ours,” expect to live a long, full life, and make decisions accordingly. Yet, according to what God has made known in Scripture, life is a gift, one which we have not deserved or merited (Acts 17:25, 1 Timothy 6:13). Today far too many imagine themselves to be young and to have all kinds of time do to whatever they wish, and yet according to James the brother of Jesus, humans are like a mist: here one day, gone the next; we are not even guaranteed the next breath (James 4:13-16). Christians are called upon to redeem the time, for the days are evil: full of vexation, suffering, difficulty, and ultimately death (Ephesians 5:16). We cannot view time as a resource to be plundered and from which to extract value; life is a gift, and we hold it in trust from God, who will demand an accounting (Romans 14:10-12).

Our perspective about time will shape how we decide to spend our time. If you were able to know for certain that today would be the last day of your life, how would that change your intended schedule for the day? What if you knew for certain that your life would last for another month? Another year? Another five years? If people have reason to believe their lives will end shortly, they will generally make sure to spend the time they have left with family members, to make sure the people who meant something in their lives receive validation and encouragement, and to dedicate themselves to finishing up whatever other projects may give their lives meaning. They also tend to seek reconciliation with their Creator.

But what if you were able to know for certain that you would not die for another twenty-five, fifty, or even seventy-five years? You probably would not interrupt your current life plan; if anything, you might be tempted to put off reconciliation with your Creator or some of the more difficult conversations and practices in life. Thus God has good reason to keep the length of a man’s life hidden from him, for that knowledge will not do him much good, and can do great harm. God encourages all people to live for the moment, not dependent on an imagined future for happiness, always prepared to depart from this world (Matthew 25:1-13, James 4:13-16). Christians should therefore always appreciate life as a gift from God, never take it for granted, and live each day prepared and in relationship with God so that whether we continue to live or if our lives end, all will be well.

While we do not have control over the length of our lives, and ought to reckon life as a gift from God, not something we own or control, we are nevertheless responsible for how we use the time God has given us (Ephesians 5:16). How we spend our time demonstrates our priorities.

Christians tend to know how they should prioritize their lives: they should put God and His Kingdom first, as Jesus declared in Matthew 6:25-34. They then ought to prioritize their family, their friends, their employment, their community, and others in various ways. They ought to have some regard for their own health and care, but should not be primarily living for themselves (Philippians 2:1-4, Ephesians 5:29). But would we be able to see these priorities manifest in how Christians spend their time?

Christians are busy people, just like everyone else. It is not inherently sinful to be busy; the question depends on what is making us busy. We must remember that “I am too busy” really always means “I have made other priorities.” This, also, is not inherently a bad thing, as long as we are pursuing the right priorities!

So many times Christians are tempted to make everything about good versus evil, right versus wrong, righteousness versus sin. Those contrasts exist, and we must stand firm in God’s truth, resisting the evil, and clinging to the good (Romans 12:9, Galatians 5:17-24, etc.). Nevertheless, just because something is good does not mean it always ought to be prioritized. As we have seen in Matthew 6:25-34, and can see in Matthew 23:23 and other passages, there are lesser goods and greater goods.

Sometimes Christians are tempted to spend their times on the sinful pleasures of the world; we must resist this temptation at all costs (1 Corinthians 10:13). Yet in a lot of circumstances Christians are sorely tempted to spend their time on the lesser goods and miss out on the greater goods. We choose self-care over making that phone call or spending time with friends. We spend a bit more time studying for school subjects and have little to none left over for the Scriptures. We feel we have to spend so many more hours at work, and have no extra time to serve others. We are exhausted and sleep in on Sunday morning and miss the assembling of the saints. And, if we are honest with ourselves, most all of us have spent far too many moments scrolling through social media on our phone while we have missed out on interaction with and service for our fellow people.

The world has little desire to help you prioritize your life well; they have every incentive to distract you and maintain your attention for as long as possible, be it at work, in school, or in entertainment. We will only maintain proper priorities if we resist the ways of the world and work to actively prioritize God, His work, His people, and the people in our lives. Yet again we ask: what if your life ended today or tomorrow? How would you feel you had spent the time God has given you? What would you change about your life? At some point, your life will end today or tomorrow, and you will stand before your God! May we all look at life as a gift from God, and seek to spend our time most effectively glorifying Him by maintaining a healthy perspective in life and actively prioritizing what God would have us prioritize if we would share in life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Perspective and Priorities appeared first on de Verbo vitae.