Ethan R. Longhenry's Blog, page 39

A Crisis of Authority

These days “authority” is often seen as almost a “dirty” word. People show very little respect for authority and remain skeptical about any claims of authority. The news is full of people in whom authority was entrusted who have broken that trust and used their authority for nefarious ends. In the early twenty first century there is indeed a crisis of authority.

The crisis of authority in modern society may seem new, yet it is rooted in many trends which have been developing in Western civilization over the past few centuries. Concern for the individual as an individual is as old as Christianity; waves of reform movements have broken over the Western world repeatedly since the 13th century, and by necessity stand in some tension with existing authority. Yet it was during the Enlightenment in the 18th century when skepticism toward any inherited authority was popularized, and the United States of America is nothing if not a grandiose Enlightenment project. From the Revolution onward Americans have proven very skeptical toward authority figures and claims of authority, even as they affirmed the authority of reason. In the wake of two world wars and the imminent threat of nuclear devastation, even the authority of reason was toppled in the twentieth century. Postmodern viewpoints cast aspersions on human ability to know much of anything for certain; postmodernism, especially with the growth of tolerance and multiculturalism, has almost inevitably led to a level of relativism in understanding truth and even authority: people are left to decide for themselves what is right or what is wrong, who to trust, and who to reject. In this way the individual is enshrined as the ultimate authority for everything, yet one who cannot be certain of anything.

Authority in religion has followed a similar trajectory: greater concern for individuals, reformation of church structure, empowering the individual Christian to understand the truth of God for him or herself, etc. In truth, much good has come from reformation and restoration in “Christendom”: the authoritarianism of the religious institutions of the medieval and early modern periods went beyond anything God authorized in the New Testament. It was, and is, a good thing to rid Christianity of clericalism and abuses of authority. Yet the movement toward reform did not stop with clerical institutions; aspersions have been cast against the authority of the Scriptures and the truths contained therein regarding the work of God in Christ and among Israel. These days many in religion are in the same place as many in society: postmodernist relativism. Religious truth is what a person makes of it, but people cannot be certain of anything in religion.

It is true that authority is easily abused: people claim authority God never gave them, others are willing to give authority to people who do not deserve it, and anyone in a position of authority is easily tempted to abuse that authority to satisfy their own desires. Yet the abuse of authority does not negate the need for authority; our present cultural confusion testifies to the difficulties of the excess of the other side. When anything can be true, how can we know anything is true? If there is no really greater arbiter of what is right, good, and true than myself, and I am flawed, is there any hope to cling to what is right, good, and true? Meanwhile, modern society remains quite oppressive to those who do not enjoy its privileges and benefits, and is even bleak and oppressive to many who do!

Authority always exists, whether we wish to admit it or not. Even if we wish to believe all power devolves onto individuals, people often are really enslaved to some force, idol, or power beyond themselves (e.g. Romans 1:18-32, 6:14-23). The New Testament identifies the existence of the powers and principalities over this present darkness (e.g. Ephesians 6:12): these are spiritual forces which people empower to rule over them in oppressive ways. Revelation 13:1-18 would give us the impression that it is the Evil One who empowers the oppressive governments of the world to do his bidding; this would confirm Satan’s claim to be able to give power over them to Jesus in Matthew 4:8-9. The forms and the attitudes may have changed, but the work of Satan and the powers and principalities of this present darkness remain behind them all.

Yet Jesus died on the cross, and in so doing defeated Satan, the powers and principalities, sin, and death, and was raised in power on the third day, openly triumphing over the forces of evil (Romans 8:1-5, Ephesians 3:10-11, Colossians 2:15). God the Father has given all rule and authority to His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, and all will stand in judgment before Him based on what He has said (Matthew 28:19, John 12:48, Acts 2:36, 17:30-31). Therefore, as Christians, it is not about what we think or feel, but what Jesus said and did is true. Jesus pointed the way of resistance against abuses of authority: embodying holiness and righteousness, speaking truth to power and to the oppressed, suffering at the hands of the forces of evil, and trusting in God who judges justly, finding vindication in Him (Romans 8:17-18, 1 Peter 2:18-25). This does not seem like victory to the world; nevertheless, it turned the world upside down, and always turns the world upside down when faithfully practiced.

To this end all authority belongs to God and comes from God (Romans 13:1); all who are empowered by Him will be called to account before Him (Romans 2:5-11, 1 Corinthians 15:24-28). God has established governmental powers to rule over the nations and will hold them accountable in judgment (Romans 13:1-7). God has established the family and will hold the husband accountable for shepherding his family and his children (Ephesians 5:22-6:4). All Christians are part of the Body of Christ and must work according to the will of the Lord as He has made known through the Apostles in the Scriptures (Romans 12:3-8, 1 Corinthians 12:12-28); elders appointed over local churches will be responsible for how they shepherd the local congregation over which the Holy Spirit has made them overseers (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:1-4). All individuals will be held accountable for what God has given them in terms of their lives, abilities, time, etc., according to the standard of Jesus (Romans 8:28, 14:10-12). At the same time, all who are under those who wield authority will be held accountable for how they lived in subjection: as citizens to the government, as family members to the male head of the household, as Christians to Christ and to the elders of a local congregation where applicable (Romans 13:1-7, Ephesians 5:21-4:9, Hebrews 13:17, 1 Peter 2:11-18).

Terrible, horrific things have been done by those who claim authority and power, both in the world and in religion: this is a distortion of God’s purposes, and God will judge those who do such things. We are perhaps living through such a period of judgment on various forms of authority for what they have done. But authority will remain; the question will be whether we will recognize how authority ought to work and submit to the Lord Jesus and His purposes or go our own way and find ourselves eternally set on our own way away from the life and light found in God in Christ. We mourn and lament for all those who have suffered terribly at the hands of authority figures; Jesus Himself suffered terribly from religious and secular authority figures alike. Jesus provided the way forward: victory through submission and suffering. May we submit to the will of the Lord Jesus, suffer with Him, and thus be glorified with Him on the day of resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Crisis of Authority appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and the Holy Spirit

God is often glorified as the One in Three and Three in One, and some provision is made regarding the Father; the Son is highly praised for His life, death, resurrection, and lordship, and the salvation offered through His sacrifice. Attitudes toward the Spirit, however, vary considerably.

Many prove enthusiastic about the Holy Spirit, to put it mildly. In their assemblies they put strong emphasis on what they believe to be the work of the Spirit among them. They speak more about the Spirit than they do about the Father or the Son. They address the Spirit frequently and believe the Spirit to be constantly communicating with them about all manner of issues, mundane and profound. And yet, for all the enthusiasm for the Spirit, substantive knowledge of what He has made known through the prophets and the Apostles is often lacking. All too often their thoughts and feelings get “baptized in the Spirit” and become justified as if it is the Spirit working in them, and yet their words and deeds often prove inconsistent with what the Spirit has made known.

And yet, for many others, one might be forgiven for wondering the same thing as the disciples of John in Acts 19:1-9, unsure whether God has even given the Spirit. Many such people may confess that the Holy Spirit exists, yet in practice they have completely conflated the Spirit with the revelation the Spirit has given in Scripture. In the extreme some such people manifest characteristics of “Christian deism”: God did great and wonderful things until the Apostles died, and ever since things have just carried on without much divine intervention. Such people may have a strong command of what God has made known in Scripture, yet knowledge of the Spirit, and perhaps even knowledge of God in Christ, may not go beyond the end of the written page.

Let none be deceived: part of the work of the Holy Spirit did involve communicating God’s purposes to mankind. The prophets would speak the “word of YHWH”; Peter declared that such men spoke from God as they were moved by the Holy Spirit to do so (2 Peter 1:21). The Lord Jesus Christ Himself gave messages to the churches through John, and yet He wished for the Christians of Asia Minor to hear what the Spirit said to the churches (Revelation 2:1-3:21): even Jesus’ messages were often mediated by the Spirit. In the Bible, therefore, we have the revelation of God to man through the Holy Spirit so we may come to know of God and the salvation He has accomplished in Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15-17). The Gospel of Jesus Christ has been fully delivered (Jude 1:3); therefore, we have no basis upon which to believe the Holy Spirit continues to be given for people to speak in tongues, prophesy, or provide new spiritual knowledge (1 Corinthians 13:8-10).

Whereas the Bible contains many instances of people making direct appeals to God the Father and even the Lord Jesus Christ, the text contains no instance of anyone making a direct appeal to the Holy Spirit. Instead, the Scriptures emphasize how the Father sends the Spirit on account of the Son (John 14:26, Acts 2:33, 38). The Holy Spirit directed Paul to write what is found in 1 Corinthians 12:1-14:40 precisely because the Corinthian Christians had allowed the exercise of spiritual gifts to go to their heads: it had become all about the exercise of spiritual gifts, not about love and mutual building up through what God had given. We may know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error from what people say and do (1 John 4:1-4): any claim anyone would make regarding “what the Spirit told them” is suspicious. The Apostles, whom we all confess to have been inspired by the Spirit, did not rely on claims of being inspired by the Spirit to communicate the Gospel: instead, they relied upon the message which the Spirit gave them to speak, confirming it with their witness and the witness of David and the prophets (e.g. Acts 2:14-36). If it is truly made known in the Spirit, it is found in the Scriptures; if it cannot be found in or consistent with the Scriptures, it is not really from the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit did not glorify Himself; and yet He does communicate in Scripture regarding His continued relationship with those who are saved in Christ. Christians receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as a “down payment” on salvation (2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:13-14); John declared how we may know we abide in God because He has given us of His Spirit (1 John 4:13); Christians individually and collectively have the Spirit dwelling in them (1 Corinthians 3:16-17, 6:19-20, Ephesians 2:18-21). The Spirit prays for Christians, interceding with the Father through the Son with groaning too deep for words (Romans 8:26-27). When immersed in water for the forgiveness of sins Christians are baptized into one body, the church, in the Spirit: to this end Christians must be diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit they share through the reconciliation they have gained with God and each other in Jesus (1 Corinthians 12:13, Ephesians 4:3). God strengthens Christians in their inner being through His Spirit (Ephesians 3:16); through that Spirit He would be powerfully at work in and through us, and by that Spirit He will raise us from the dead (Romans 8:9-11, Ephesians 3:20-21). The Spirit works to sanctify us, making us holy, empowering us to manifest His fruit (Galatians 5:19-21, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, 1 Peter 1:2).

Christians do well to navigate between the Scylla of enthusiasm and the Charybdis of Christian deism in regards to their relationship with the Spirit. As God the Holy Spirit is love does not coerce or compel; He does not force anyone to convert, become holy, or anything of the sort (1 Corinthians 13:4-8, 1 John 4:8). We do not know–and cannot know–the working of the Spirit beyond that which He has made known to us in the revelation of Scripture; we can never know for certain whether a matter is of the Spirit or is of our subconscious or even perhaps a demonic temptation. It would be foolish for us to presume everything we think or feel comes from the Spirit; but would it not be equally foolish for us to presume everything we think or feel has no relationship with the spiritual realm and just involves our subconscious? Likewise, in humility, we may feel hesitant to consider a matter as coming from God or directed by Him in the Spirit since we cannot know it for certain; and yet, is it also not presumptuous to deny God the glory for what He may well have done to accomplish His purposes in our lives?

God’s purpose in Christ is for all mankind to be one with Him as He is One in Himself (John 17:20-23); the Holy Spirit has an important role in God’s work of reconciling mankind to God and to each other. The Holy Spirit has communicated the message of this work God has accomplished through the prophets and the Apostles in Scripture. In Scripture the Holy Spirit also attested to His presence in the life of the believer unto empowerment in sanctification. We must not fear developing a relationship with the Spirit in God through Christ on account of the excesses of enthusiasm; we must not get carried away in enthusiasm from what God has made known in Scripture. May we glorify God in Christ through the Spirit, obtain the assurance of God in the Spirit, and seek to live faithful lives empowered by the Spirit!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and the Holy Spirit appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Abortion

Abortion has become the “issue of all issues” in the “culture wars” in America today; it is one of the most polarizing and contentious matters in modern political and cultural discourse. Over the past fifty years abortion has been a major battleground regarding views of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, in terms of both the child in the womb as well as its mother. The issue of abortion, by its very nature, attracts powerful emotions and energy on all sides; a dispassionate examination of the subject is nearly impossible. In truth the matter of abortion, how it is viewed, how it is justified or condemned, and how the women in the middle are treated, indict our culture as a culture of death, with very few truly interested in cultivating a true culture of life which honors God and all of His children. Let us explore the matter of abortion according to God’s purposes made known in Christ and in the Scriptures.

What Is Abortion?

Since so much rhetoric regarding abortion is layered with euphemism, we do well to forthrightly set forth what abortion is and what it involves. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal of an embryo or fetus from a woman’s uterus. In many situations an abortion is unintentional; we consider these situations to be miscarriages. Any time a woman intentionally has an embryo or fetus removed is called an induced abortion. Induced abortions themselves can be delineated between “therapeutic,” on account of health conditions of the woman or the child, or “elective,” when chosen by the woman for other reasons. In modern discourse, elective induced abortions prove most contentious and are generally what people refer to when speaking about abortion, although many aspects of therapeutic induced abortions prove controversial as well.

Abortion can be induced by different methods. Medical abortion involves taking pills increasing levels of hormones which produce a hostile environment for the child, leading to the death of the child and the woman expelling the child and related tissue. Surgical abortion might involve suction or vacuum aspiration, which involves sucking the child out of the uterus; dilation and curettage (D&C), involving the opening of the cervix and scraping out of everything along the walls of the uterus with a curette; dilation and evacuation (D&E), which involves opening the cervix and cutting out or vacuuming out the child and the related tissue matter; or intact dilation and extraction (IDX), which involves opening the cervix and physically removing the child from the uterus (IDX is banned in the United States). Sometimes labor is induced and the child is killed; this method is very rarely used in the United States but is more prevalent in some European countries.

We can see that a range of actions and methods are in view when we discuss abortion.

Primary Arguments Regarding Abortion

Arguments regarding abortion fall primarily into two camps: those against abortion speak of themselves as “pro-life”; those who wish for abortion to remain legal speak of themselves as “pro-choice.”

Arguments against abortion focus on the life of the child. Most people who are against abortion believe that life begins at conception or implantation; therefore, any elective choice to end a pregnancy after conception or implantation is the act of taking the life of the child, and thus equated with murder. In the pro-life view, since the child is a living being, the government should consider its right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and therefore has a compelling interest to defend the life of the child through legislation making elective induced abortion illegal. Some would go further and make illegal many forms of therapeutic induced abortion.

Arguments for the legality of abortion focus on the choice of the mother. Some people who advance a pro-choice view are truly pro-abortion and have few if any qualms about the procedure; in such a view the life of the child is entirely in the control of the mother, and the mother’s right to decide whether to carry the baby to term or not is absolute. Others who have a pro-choice view do maintain qualms about abortion to some degree or another, wishing it did not have to be, or even being personally pro-life, but do not wish for the government to impose legislation against the procedure, instead relying on individual conscience on the matter.

The Scriptures on Abortion

In the Old Testament the Law made provision in one specific case of abortion:

And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow; he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. But if any harm follow, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe (Exodus 21:22-25).

We would generally classify any such abortion as a miscarriage since it was not at all the woman’s desire or intent to end the pregnancy. We do see that the Law considers the offender guilty of harming life, and ought to pay at least a financial penalty, and perhaps even death.

This is the only passage which explicitly and directly relates to any kind of abortion.

Murder is condemned as sinful in both Old and New Testaments:

Thou shalt not kill (Exodus 20:13).

And because they had not the mind to keep God in their knowledge, God gave them up to an evil mind, to do those things which are not right; Being full of all wrongdoing, evil, desire for the goods of others, hate, envy, putting to death, fighting, deceit, cruel ways, evil talk, and false statements about others; Hated by God, full of pride, without respect, full of loud talk, given to evil inventions, not honouring father or mother, Without knowledge, not true to their undertakings, unkind, having no mercy (Romans 1:28-31).

The word translated “unkind” in Romans 1:31, astorgos, has the meaning of “without natural affection,” and a good argument can be made to relate it, at least in part, to Roman birth customs in which any child who was not accepted by the head of the household (paterfamilias) for whatever reason was taken out and exposed to die.

Furthermore, the logic behind the commandment against murder is based on life as being a gift of God, and something which is not to be taken lightly:

Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man (Genesis 9:6).

Anyone who has hate for his brother is a taker of life, and you may be certain that no taker of life has eternal life in him (1 John 3:15).

Early Christians did explicitly condemn abortion and infanticide, and did so under condemnation of murder:

“Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not commit adultery”; thou shalt not commit sodomy; thou shalt not commit fornication; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not use magic; thou shalt not use philtres; thou shalt not procure abortion, nor commit infanticide; “thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods” (The Didache, 2.2).

Whereas no passage in the Bible explicitly identifies the moment at which life begins, many passages in the Old and New Testaments speak of life beginning in the womb:

For thou didst form my inward parts / Thou didst cover me in my mother’s womb.

I will give thanks unto thee / for I am fearfully and wonderfully made / Wonderful are thy works; And that my soul knoweth right well.

My frame was not hidden from thee / When I was made in secret / and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance / and in thy book they were all written / even the days that were ordained for me / when as yet there was none of them (Psalm 139:13-16).

Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee; I have appointed thee a prophet unto the nations (Jeremiah 1:5).

And it came to pass, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit…For behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy (Luke 1:41, 44).

Therefore, it must be recognized that the Scriptures do not have much to say explicitly about abortion. Nevertheless, there is nothing within the pages of Scripture which give any reason to conclude that elective induced abortion is acceptable to God, and much to cast aspersions against it. Early Christians recognized elective induced abortions to be a form of murder, and we do well as Christians today to maintain the same conclusion.

The Challenges of “Choice”

In light of the Scriptures it is impossible to Biblically sustain the full-throated argument of the pro-choice movement regarding the absolute right of choice of the mother. God has made the mother and has given life to the mother, and the life of the mother is to be valued and respected as equal to the life of any other human being (Genesis 9:6, Galatians 3:28, 1 Timothy 2:4). Yet, as David proclaimed, God is also giving life to the child in her womb, and the life of that child is to be valued and respected as equal to the life of its mother and to the life of any other human being (Psalm 139:13-16).

The moral force of this argument is strong, and recognized as much by its opponents, who seek to dehumanize the child as an “embryo” or “fetus,” “protoplasm” entirely dependent on its mother for life, and therefore hers to decide whether it ought to continue or not. Furthermore, throughout time, the argument has hinged upon when life begins: it is recognized that if it is not yet life, no fault can be found in terms of what happens to it.

It is recognized that the life of the child in the womb is dependent on its mother; such is why abortion remains a special case with distinctions which are not maintained for those who take lives outside of the womb. And yet the child is more than just protoplasm or a bunch of dependent cells; by implantation the child has everything it needs within itself to be alive, and with continued maternal sustenance will grow and flourish. It is increasingly difficult to argue against life starting at any point after implantation.

Attitudes toward children in the womb often manifest the culture of death in which we live. Life ought to be worth more than money or time. Even in the heartbreaking cases of impregnation from rape, should not life have some value? The woman will be traumatized by the abortion or by having the child; is the means of conception at all the fault of the child, and yet, in abortion, who would bear the brunt of the suffering?

Our culture of death is also manifest in the valuation of life according to utilitarian measures. Untold thousands of children are being aborted because they are female, and therefore considered of less value to the family than a male child would be. We are beginning to see selective abortions of children who are found to be at risk of Down syndrome and many other genetic conditions, with parents choosing to end those lives because they will not be fully “normal”. In such decisions life is not being honored as a gift; it is being seen as a burden.

The absolute right to choice is a very American and modern individualist idea, but it is not a Biblical one. In Christ life is about glorifying God through whatever we experience, for God has given us life and all things. In all things we ought to uphold and honor the value of life, even at the expense of choice.

Pro-Life or Just Anti-Abortion?

As Christians we do well to uphold a consistently pro-life outlook, for God has given life as a gift, and we ought to hesitate to take it or devalue it. The temptation to devalue life is not restricted to the pro-choice movement.

We must be careful about how thoroughly we identify abortion as murder. As noted above, the definition of abortion is expansive. It technically contains every form of miscarriage. Therefore, unintentional abortions, known as miscarriages, are not only not sinful, but extremely traumatic experiences for women who ought never be shamed or condemned for what they have suffered.

Some aspects of therapeutic induced abortions prove problematic, as noted above, since “therapeutic” is now including selective abortions for “genetic abnormalities.” And yet there remain instances, such as with ectopic pregnancies, in which the child will never successfully be brought to term and the life of the mother is in great peril. Other similar conditions may come about. If we are truly pro-life, then the life of the mother is as valuable as the life of the child, and it is not for us or the government or any other institution to impose upon that mother the demand for her to sacrifice her life on account of the child.

Thus there will be times when abortion will have to be induced in order to preserve life. Women who undergo such experiences ought not be shamed or condemned but fully supported, encouraged, and comforted on account of the traumatic experiences they have endured.

Great care ought to be exercised in regards to the legislative goals of the pro-life movement. If abortion were outlawed in America, it would not end abortion; it would be made illegal. Making abortion illegal would most likely reduce the number of abortions that take place; this is a worthy goal. Yet how will abortion be made illegal? Will the women who search out abortions be the ones punished, or just the providers? Will there be a blanket condemnation, which may lead to the death of women who need therapeutic induced abortion to survive, and if so, is that really honoring life? In some countries in which abortion is banned many women who miscarry are accused of abortion and forced to suffer further humiliation and punishment, adding trauma on top of trauma. And, ultimately, will there still be concern about abortion and the lives of women and children if abortion is made illegal? There is not unanimous agreement on these matters among the various parts of the pro-life constituency. We must never forget that it is the Gospel, not legislation, which provides salvation (Romans 1:16); life will not be honored merely because it is illegal to do otherwise, and our government does not have the greatest track record when it comes to respecting life anyway.

If Christians would not be hypocrites they must give some thought to the condition of women and their children. Many women who consider abortion do so out of desperation; they need support and care, and we ought to search them out and provide it (Galatians 6:10). If the concerns are economic, we ought to meet them. If the concern is an inability to raise the child, we ought to adopt them, or better yet, empower and encourage the women to be able to raise their own children (James 1:27). If the child is born with medical conditions, we must rally around the family and comfort, strengthen, and sustain them through the trials they endure, and celebrate their sacrifices to honor life.

We must also give consideration for how we speak of and treat those who are guilty of sexually deviant behavior, especially those who practice sex before marriage. Many who profess Christ have undergone abortions so as to eliminate the source of shame which would come upon them from the disapprobation and shaming they would experience from fellow professors of Christ. Such does not excuse adding sin upon sin; nevertheless, if we truly wish to honor life and reduce abortions, we must avoid shaming or marginalizing women who are pregnant out of wedlock and find ways to encourage them to choose life and incorporate them into the community of the people of God.

Conclusion

Abortion is a complex and contentious topic, and has bearing on many others; we have only begun to scratch the surface on these matters, and have left many more aside.

As we have seen, God gives life and loves life, and as people made in the image of God, we ought to honor life. Elective induced abortions disregard the honor of life, valuing choice, personal autonomy, economic conditions, etc., over the value of life. Elective induced abortions are more like murder than they are akin to anything else.

Yet, to truly honor life, we must recognize the equal value of the life of the mother, and be careful lest opposition to abortion trump our concern for the lives of women. Women suffer terribly from miscarriages; some will have to endure therapeutically induced abortions to survive. For that matter, many women who have undergone elective induced abortions live with great trauma and guilt over their decision and come to regret it and repent of it. As Christians we must value and honor women as we value and honor children.

As of now, abortion is legal in America. We must be careful in our rhetoric against abortion lest we are found to have misrepresented the situation. There is a difference between abortion being an option but not mandated, and mandated abortion, such as in China’s previous one child policy. If the government mandates abortion, it has blood on its hands; if a government allows abortion, it may be guilty of upholding a culture of death, but the blood is on the hands of those who shed it.

As Christians we must honor the government and its rulers despite disagreement with its policies (Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:11-18). We ought to uphold a culture of life and thus condemn elective induced abortion, and forms of therapeutic induced abortions which do not honor life. We can, and should, make good, strong arguments upholding a culture of life; it would be even better if we modeled and embodied those arguments. Yet, in all things, we must manifest the fruit of the Spirit, not the works of the flesh (Galatians 5:17-24). The anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God (James 1:20); righteous indignation about the fate of so many aborted children must be tempered with this wisdom from the Lord’s brother. We must remember that the Devil and the powers and principalities over this present darkness are our true foes; those who advocate for abortion are deceived by these forces (Ephesians 6:12). And we must never forget those who find themselves in the middle of this great controversy: the women who contemplate abortion. We do well to find them, encourage them, and show them the value of life in a community which honors life, and all to the end of encouraging all such people to find what is truly life in Jesus (John 10:10, 1 Timothy 6:19). May we uphold the Gospel and its culture of life, and obtain the resurrection of life in Jesus!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Abortion appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Lord YHWH Has Spoken

The prophet Amos came to the northern Kingdom of Israel according to the will of YHWH (Amos 1:1). He drew in the Israelites by proclaiming YHWH’s judgments upon the nations, and then declared to them the condemnation of both Judah and Israel in like manner for their iniquities (Amos 1:-2:16). The time had come to make known to Israel the word which YHWH had spoken against it (Amos 3:1).

The word of YHWH is spoken against the whole family of His people whom He brought out of Egypt; of all the families of the world He knew only them, and so He would visit all their iniquities upon them (Amos 3:1-2). This may seem odd and paradoxical at first: if He only knew them, how can he love them and yet punish them? Would it be better to not know Him? It is not as if judgment will not come for other nations, as can be seen in Amos 1:3-2:3. Instead, Amos indicted Israel and Judah on the very ground on which they maintain their confidence: God has chosen them and has made them His covenant people. Amos did not deny this; in fact, it is the very reason why their iniquity must be punished, because they should have known better, for they alone of all the nations should have maintained their trust in YHWH and none other!

Amos introduced a series of rhetorical questions in Amos 3:3-6: can two people walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Does a lion roar if he or she has not taken prey? Could a bird fall into a trap if no trap was set, or could a trap spring without taking anything captive? Can a trumpet be blown in a city without people becoming afraid? All of these rhetorical questions lead to the forceful conclusion of Amos 3:6: will a city endure disaster without YHWH having anything to do with it? This text has endured some violence, for many have taken some of its rhetorical questions out of context for their own purposes. In context, the message remains relatively straightforward: these things do not happen. People walk together only if they agree; lions only roar when they have prey; traps must exist to catch birds; trumpet blasts, which herald a coming army or a need to muster a standing army, leads to fear; and if disaster reaches a city, YHWH has something to do with it. Israel would soon hear of cities being destroyed; they could not rationalize these events as if they had nothing to do with YHWH their God. YHWH would be judging the nations.

Amos then provides both assurance and a warning (Amos 3:7-8): YHWH does nothing without making it known to His servants the prophets; if a lion roars, people fear, and the Lord YHWH has spoken, and so who can but prophesy? Contrary to popular expectations YHWH did not (and does not) leave people in the dark regarding what will befall His people and what they are to do about it. The people receive due warning from the prophets. Indeed, the Lord YHWH was speaking, and so Amos had to prophesy. The message was not one Israel wanted to hear; it was one Israel would deny until the bitter end; yet Israel could never say they were never warned, and had no recourse. What would happen to Israel proved extraordinary for the time; but Israel had no excuse, for Amos (and Hosea) told them what would be.

In Amos 3:9 the prophet rhetorically summoned the Philistines and the Egyptians to assemble in Samaria to bear witness to the tumult and oppression present throughout the land. They would see a people who cannot do right, ruled by people who participate in intrigues and work diligently to enrich themselves in oppressive and exploitative ways (Amos 3:10). The Israelites would therefore suffer at the hands of an adversary who would surround their land and plunder them (Amos 3:11). If they would not treat others as they would want to be treated, then they would suffer as they had caused others to suffer!

We are told Amos was “among the shepherds” in Tekoa (Amos 1:1); this experience informed a most vivid, albeit horrifying, illustration: as a shepherd might recover a couple of legs or an ear from the mouth of a lion who had seized a sheep, so perhaps a corner piece of a couch and a part of a bed might be rescued from among the people of Israel after their devastation (Amos 3:12). Israel’s devastation would be almost total, a catastrophe which would beggar belief in the prosperous days in which Amos prophesied.

Amos provided further testimony: when Israel would be punished for transgression, the altar at Bethel would be destroyed, and the houses of ivory and the winter and summer houses of the rulers and the elite would perish (Amos 3:13-15). The latter would be accomplished by the Assyrians; the former would be done later by Josiah king of Judah (2 Kings 23:15). The symbolism is potent: a broken altar is a sign of a defeated religious practice, a challenge to the premise that God dwelt there or honored the sacrifices offered there. The Kings author and the prophets consistently denounced the idolatrous practices in Dan and Bethel; we would imagine the Israelites believed they were really approaching the presence of YHWH there with their offerings and sacrifices. That pretense would be eliminated along with the people. Likewise, whereas the common people always suffered degradation and distress in any calamity, the nobility would often remain unscathed; for them to lose their homes and wealth expressed the thoroughness of the calamity. And, again, what they had gained by oppression and violence would be taken from them in oppression and violence.

The Lord YHWH indeed had spoken; Amos had to prophesy. Everything he spoke came to pass. As Christians we ought to learn from the example of Israel and not follow in their disobedience. We should not imagine that merely knowing of God and His purposes guarantees our redemption; we must trust in God and seek to do His will and be conformed to the image of His Son (Romans 2:5-11, 8:29). We have every confidence that God has made known what will take place through the words of the prophets and the Apostles (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, 2 Peter 3:1-4, 8-10, etc.). The Golden Rule has its parallel in the rule of God’s judgment: if we do not treat people as we would want to be treated, it might well be done to us as we have done unto others. May we trust in God and seek righteousness and justice lest we are devastated in condemnation!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Lord YHWH Has Spoken appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

A Culture of Death

In Revelation 17:1-18 John is granted a vision of the whore Babylon. The picture is not pretty: she wears luxuriant clothing and ostentatious jewelry, holding a cup full of abominations from which the nations drink, and sits intoxicated on the blood of the saints and martyrs of Jesus. She has the illusion of life and wealth, yet it is all a show: her wealth is founded upon oppression and violence against others, and she is dead spiritually even as she professes to live.

Thus God in Christ spoke of Rome in the first century. Rome as Babylon proved an apt metaphor when we understand what Babylon represents throughout Scripture: human authority arrogating itself against God and His purposes. Thus, whereas it was God’s purpose for Judah and Jerusalem to experience judgment at the hands of Babylon, the prophets denounced Babylon for its presumption and arrogance against God and man, with its king as the Lucifer brought down into oblivion, and doom foretold for the city (cf. Isaiah 14:3-23, Jeremiah 50:1-51:60). Long before this the fall of man was made complete and final at Babylon: the Tower of Babel, in which man sought to outwit God and His purposes to make a name for himself and create his own kind of community according to his own desires (Genesis 11:1-9).

God is the Source of light and life (John 1:1-5); man’s corruption has brought darkness, sin, and death (Romans 5:12-21). Those who recognize God’s sovereignty and seek His purposes perceive His hand in the creation; many, in their corruption, deny the plain truth before them, and God gives them over to their desires, and they are darkened in their deception (Romans 1:18-32). Therefore, that which is firmly grounded and built on what God has accomplished in the creation and through Jesus can promote a culture of light and life; yet all that which is founded upon rebellion or resistance against what God has accomplished in the creation and through Jesus promotes a culture of darkness and death.

A culture of death has proven pervasive in the world from antiquity until the present time. Wherever we find a “Babylon,” humans arrogating the presumptions and privileges of God for their own advantage and benefit, a culture of death follows. The Apostles saw it in Rome who brought peace at the end of a sword, exploiting the populations of the ancient Mediterranean world to enrich themselves, exposing the darkness within at any point its power or prestige was threatened. Undesirable children were exposed; undesirable people were marginalized. The gods of the people were capricious, divinities to placate more than adore, and whose behavior few thought worthy to emulate. The Pax Romana brought peace and prosperity rarely matched in world history; the privileged few benefited mightily; and yet the vast majority were exploited more than valued, without hope and much integrity in the world.

Modern culture all the more manifests this “Babylonian” tendency. We may still speak many languages, and yet we can now see and speak of a “global community” more realistically today than at any point in human history since Babel. And what unites this global community? The search for exploitation of resources and profit. Many may speak a good word about seeking what is best for people and to facilitate life; in deed people do whatever it takes to make a living, no matter the cost to other people or the environment. Our global culture, therefore, is a culture of death.

The culture of death underlies much of the difficulties, challenges, and matters of disagreement in modern society. The culture of death manifests itself most explicitly in the valuation of life itself, often seen as temporary beneficial in the best of circumstances and a burden otherwise. Far too many people view life through the lens of utilitarianism, or even worse, money, thinking of their own lives, and the lives of others, as only valuable and good when they are put to “profitable use,” or only worth living as long as they have money in the bank. To far too many, life itself is not seen as a good in and of itself; it is only as good as its “quality.” For many a new and growing life in the womb is only worth as much as it is valued by the woman bearing it, to be maintained or dispensed with at her leisure. For others the value of life is in direct relationship with the moral rectitude of a person: “good people” ought to have full privileges and enjoy all the benefits of life, but anyone who proves to be “less than good” are dehumanized in many ways and deprived of standing, liberty, and often life itself, without much care or concern. Woe to those who are poor, not of the majority color or culture, disabled, mentally ill, or who otherwise cannot fully perform or function to the satisfaction of the technocratic/meritocratic elite! Selective abortion to eliminate girls or certain genetic diseases grows more prevalent; taking the lives of those who endure illness gains further acceptance. In the name of abstract ideals people prove all too willing to sacrifice the actual lives of many other people, whether in pursuit of a system like communism or a principle like the freedom to bear arms (and the fetish surrounding guns is itself a testimony to a culture of death!).

In our culture of death hyper-individualism erodes values which might affirm and uphold the value and integrity of life. Everything is now about the individual and caters to his or her preferences. We are conditioned to want more, to use more, to think of ourselves and what benefits us, and to honor those preferences above what might be best for others and the creation as a whole. Human sexuality, with new life as the intended fruit of its consummation, has become purely about personal desire, preference, and control. In our culture, if a pregnancy occurs and it is not a convenient or preferable time for “me,” “I” get to choose my preference. And this assumes an “unintended” pregnancy; not a few people now presume complete and entire control over whether they will procreate and perpetuate life at all, and to what degree, without any regard to the health and sustenance of the community. As a result, in the Western world, we are not even meeting the level of population replacement; and many cheer. For over a century many have been concerned about overpopulation, presuming that procreation and the perpetuation of life (also, normally the life of The Other somewhere else, not those of “us” and “our people”) is itself the problem!

Our culture of death is especially acute in terms of how we treat other people. Other people are those who get in our way; we tend to see them as hindrances and potential threats, for we assume they seek their advantage even if it is to our disadvantage, since we are primed to think in the same way. We tend to not see life as something in which we share together; instead, it’s a “dog-eat-dog” world, in which we are to consume lest we find ourselves consumed, and other people exist to provide services and satisfaction of our needs. Other people are disposable: if they do not provide us any benefit, we often have nothing more to do with them. Those who wish to gain an advantage understand the power of fearmongering and the dehumanization of other people; modern culture has invested far too much energy in making people of other skin colors and cultures to be less than human, less valuable and important than we are, and thus literally disposable. Over the past century millions upon millions of lives have been extinguished or significantly demeaned by others who thought of them as less advanced, more animalistic, and thus not worthy of the dignity of humanity. We keep saying “never again,” and yet it happens again and again, and is happening right now in many parts of the world.

The Roman historian Tacitus quoted Calgacus, who in a speech said of the Romans: “they plunder, they slaughter, and they steal: this they falsely name Empire, and where they make a wasteland, they call it peace” (Agricola 30). How much more is this true of modern society! At no other point in human history have people so thoroughly manipulated the environment to their own ends, and everywhere we look we see death. Scientists are now speaking of a major extinction event precipitated by human interference in almost every corner of the world. Like Babel we build glistening cities, temples to human ingenuity and control of the environment, and think them to be fantastic paradises, and yet they are devoid of most life. We build structures and do all we can to keep them neat, tidy, and clean: in another word, sterile. We have paved over God’s good creation, turning much of it into a wasteland, and think highly of ourselves in the process for having “developed” it. Never before have people been so disconnected from the natural creation which God has made; likewise, never before have people felt so confident in their ability to control and manipulate the environment. We shall see how sustainable this arrogance will prove; the testimony of history does not give much hope for it. What is sown will be reaped; as in the prophets, the land can tolerate only so much degradation before those who live upon it suffer (cf. Hosea 4:1-3).

Thus, everywhere we look, we see that “Babylonian” impulse to power over everything: other people, the environment, life itself. In its wake is not life but death as is fitting for a culture that does not regard God as the Giver and Sustainer of life and all good things but thinks of no higher power than mankind in its corruption. What was given by God in stewardship is seen as a birthright to exploit and abuse however we may desire. All we build is to make a name for ourselves and to mightily resist any kind of natural limitation we may find imposed upon us. We are separated from the natural world; we are increasingly isolated from each other, with relationships ever more mediated by technology. No wonder we find ourselves ever more despondent and depressed; we are slowly but surely unplugging ourselves from all the sources of life which God has created, sustained, and nourished. Alienation, despair, and death thus inevitably follow.

The picture of whore Babylon which John saw was ugly: a veneer of youth, health, and prosperity masking the stench of the death which sustained it. And so it is with modern culture. It cannot be sustained; it cannot last; a day of judgment must come. As with whore Babylon, so with modern culture: many will lament and mourn over its collapse, for those who lament will have lost economic opportunity, but few if any will work mightily to try to rescue modern culture. Its judgment will be just.

And yet such is the way of the world. The power behind the image of Rome as Babylon is seeing the “Babylonian” tendency behind every “civilization” which attempts to impose its sense of power and order in the world. Rome fell; if the Lord does not yet return, the modern globalist consensus will fall; but something will arise in its place. The world remains under the powers and principalities of this present darkness (Ephesians 6:12), entranced by the myth of redemptive violence, believing that though the power of death and exploitation peace and prosperity can be found.

There is no escape from the culture of death in the corrupted world of sin and death; we must instead be delivered from this body of death by what God has accomplished in the Lord Jesus Christ. We must turn away from the world and its ways and not be deceived into thinking that a culture of life rooted in God will be advanced by a culture of death rooted in that “Babylonian” corrupted impetus to power and exploitation. Victory comes through standing firm in God despite suffering and death while holding firm to the testimony of Jesus who Himself suffered and died and gained the victory (Romans 8:1-5, Revelation 12:11). Legislation backed by the coercive power of the state might alleviate certain difficulties and problems to some extent, but neither legislation nor the coercive power of the state can provide true and eternal life; only God offers this in the Gospel of Christ (Romans 1:16).

As Christians the decision is given to us: will we truly live as God’s chosen, and therefore exiles and sojourners seeking eternal life by living according to the Gospel of Christ in the midst of a culture of death, or will we fall prey to the siren songs of the world and eagerly participate in the ways of Babylon, vainly thinking that we can somehow advance God’s culture of life through the means and methods of the culture of death? May we truly uphold a culture of life in Christ, and eschew the culture of death in all of its forms, and take hold of life indeed!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Culture of Death appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

A Culture of Life

God is love (1 John 4:8); in God is life indeed (John 1:4).

In love God created the heavens and the earth, and He created them to facilitate and cultivate life (Genesis 1:1-2:3). The anthropic constants which allow for life to exist are mind-boggling in their complexity and precision. Indeed, it requires far more faith to believe it all just happened to work out than it does to confess the existence of a Creator. Yet there is much more to this truth than mere apologetics: God has made the universe for life to flourish. Earth bears witness to God’s provisions for life: the diversity of life on Earth is astonishing, and every creature has its place and its niche.

God has not merely created all life; its continued existence is entirely dependent on His provision, will, and sustenance. All things consist in Jesus; in God we live, move, and have our being (cf. Acts 17:28, Colossians 1:17). God is not portrayed as some remote Architect who set things up and then left it alone. God created life and He remains deeply involved with the perpetuation of life.

In His refutation of the Sadducees Jesus set forth a profound truth: God is not the God of the dead, but of the living (Matthew 22:32). In God is life; God is about life; God’s purposes for us involve obtaining eternal life in Jesus (John 10:10).

It should therefore be no surprise to discover that God esteems life highly, and wishes for humanity made in His image, after His likeness, to value life highly as well. As the people of the living God who gives life, Christians ought to embody a culture of life.

The fundamental principle of a culture of life is the confession that life is a gift. God gives life to all things (1 Timothy 6:13); existence is a manifestation of God’s love and grace. We must receive life as a gift and treasure it as such. It is not our possession; we do not have complete control over it, demonstrated in our inability to choose when it starts, and, for most, when it will end. Life is a powerful force beyond our abilities to fully manipulate and control; life tends to find a way.

Life is not just any kind of gift; it is a gift of exceedingly great value. Life is precious; there can be no dollar amount given to establish the worth of a life. This is true about our lives, but it is therefore also true about the lives of others. The lives of all people are precious and valuable in the sight of God (John 3:16, 1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 3:9).

Since life is a gift, we must not trifle with it. If we honor and respect life as a gift, and seek to live in subjection to our Creator and the Giver of life, we will only take it when authorized to do so and it proves needful. God has authorized the taking of plant and animal life for food (Genesis 9:3). A reckoning exists for the taking of life: those who shed blood are to have their blood shed for the crime (Genesis 9:6). Provision is also made for the killing of beasts who threaten and endanger human life (cf. Exodus 21:28-29, 1 Samuel 17:34-37).

God did indeed give mankind dominion over the earth; life on Earth is in man’s hand (Genesis 1:28, 9:2). Yet it does not automatically follow that God intended for mankind to do whatever he wanted to life on earth! Life is a gift and a stewardship: since we will be held accountable for how we have lived our lives before God (Romans 14:10-12), we should not be surprised if our stewardship of life on earth will also be brought into judgment in some way or another. God has concern for the sparrow (cf. Matthew 10:29); should not man made in God’s image also have concern for the valuation of non-human life on earth?

And if we as Christians are to have some regard for non-human life on earth, how much more should we honor and uphold the integrity of all human life? We are not to take the life of our fellow man because he is made in God’s image (Genesis 9:6). God has sent the Lord Jesus to die for all mankind: no one is beyond the reach of forgiveness in Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:12-17). God has embodied love for everyone in Jesus; He therefore expects Christians to love everyone, even their enemies, and do good to all (Luke 6:30-36, Galatians 6:10). Christians therefore ought to uphold the value and integrity of all human lives, even those whom the world may find dispensable: the unborn, the chronically and terminally ill, the disabled, the elderly, those with mental difficulties or impairments, and many others. The Christian’s enemy is never his fellow man in flesh and blood; it is the powers and principalities over this present darkness who have deceived his fellow man (Ephesians 6:12). Christians must thus uphold the integrity of the lives of those who might stand against them, those who engage in criminal conduct, those who look and live differently than they do, and those of lesser means, and never give into the temptation of dehumanizing other people or thinking their lives are worth less in any way. In truth we are all worthy of condemnation; none of us deserve anything else; we only stand by the grace of God, and God would pour out His grace on the other as much as He does for us (Romans 5:6-11). The ways of the world thrive on divisiveness and tribalism; God’s manifold wisdom is made evident in His people when they are able to transcend all forms of worldly division to associate with one another and privilege one another in the faith, and all because Jesus’ death killed the hostility which existed among us (Ephesians 2:11-3:12).

Christians, therefore, ought to be champions of life, upholding the integrity of all and doing whatever they can to provide assistance and care (Matthew 25:31-46, Luke 10:25-37). It is not given for us to be the judge, accuser, or adversary of our fellow man; Satan makes accusations, and God will judge everyone in Christ (John 12:48, James 4:11-12). We must show them Jesus, the Word of God Incarnate, the light and life of mankind. We can only do that when we have decided to share in the love God has for mankind, and to value life as God values life.

In the process we will have to give up our lives in order to find it (Matthew 16:24-25). To take hold of that which is life indeed we will be called upon to suffer as our Lord did (Romans 8:17-18). We must build a culture of life, but we must never make an idol out of it. A life well lived is one of purpose, with the goal of glorifying God in Christ in all we do. A life well lived is good preparation for eternal life to come in the resurrection (1 Peter 1:3-12).

In this way we fully honor life as a gift from God: we did nothing to deserve it, but we prove thankful and honored to be able to enjoy it, acting as good stewards of this gift we have given, and willing to offer it back to the One who gave it so we can share in life eternal. A culture of life honors the life as a gift and does not arrogate to itself the presumption of being able to control and manipulate life. A culture of life respects the authority of the God who gives life, and seeks to live under that authority. A culture of life celebrates life everywhere it is found and seeks to facilitate its flourishing so as to honor its Creator. May we seek to embody and uphold a culture of life, glorify God as the Creator and Sustainer of life, and in Christ obtain eternal life in the resurrection!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post A Culture of Life appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Fundamental Aspects of Biblical Authority

Authority is not well recognized or understood in the modern world; our society has reduced everything to relativism and whatever the individual believes is correct. Matters of religious authority have also been affected, although disputations regarding religious authority are nothing new. Authority, in many instances, is discussed ad nauseam, and I have no desire to cause further nausea. It is important, however, to bring to remembrance many of the fundamental aspects of authority and our need for it. These fundamental aspects revolve around the nature of authority, faith, and the nature of man.

The term “authority” is often thrown around rather casually, and it is easy to forget precisely what is under discussion. “Authority” represents “power,” and most often refers to “delegated” power. There is generally an authority figure, and persons act according to the will of that authority.

The Bible’s claims regarding authority too often conflict with modern American sentiments of the same. In modern America, people are raised under the banner of the “power of the people,” that authority comes from the people and is delegated to various representatives. While this authority hardly has any substance, it is a powerful mental concept, and one freely proclaimed at any hint of perceived overreaching of any figure invested with authority.

The Bible would proclaim quite the opposite, as the interaction of Jesus and a centurion clearly indicates:

And the centurion answered and said, “Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man under authority, having under myself soldiers: and I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goeth; and to another, ‘Come,’ and he cometh; and to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he doeth it.”

And when Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, “Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (Matthew 8:8-10).

The centurion understands authority– as a “middle officer” in the highly regimented and disciplined Roman army, he certainly should! He understands that when a person with authority speaks, those under the authority should listen; he takes this understanding and applies it to Jesus.

The centurion recognizes the authority present in Jesus of Nazareth. The people did too; their response to what we call the “Sermon on the Mount” indicates as much:

And it came to pass, when Jesus had finished these words, the multitudes were astonished at his teaching: for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes (Matthew 7:28-29).

The scribes (among others) attempted to establish authority much like we do today: provide Scripture from God, interpret it, and indicate the application. The scribes and others had no authority of their own to establish here, but pointed to the authority of God. Jesus did no such thing in the “Sermon on the Mount;” He boldly stated truth in His own terms (“I say to you, etc.”). Jesus, the Messiah, the Son of God, had authority.

It is interesting to see that the result of the centurion’s statement in Matthew 8 is that Jesus marvels at him for his “great faith” (Matthew 8:10). Such faith is not found even in Israel. What is meant here is how the centurion trusted in Jesus’ power– the centurion knew that Jesus only had to say the word, and his servant would be healed, for he had confidence in Jesus’ power over the natural world.

Faith is the necessary corollary to authority: one must have true confidence in the source of authority. This cannot be mere lip service– it must have substance. As it is written:

And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him (Hebrews 11:6).

From Hebrews 11 one can find plenty of examples of this kind of faith– people who have more confidence in God’s authority than any other. Abraham had enough confidence in God’s power to leave his country and go to another. Moses had enough confidence in God’s power to stand against the most powerful man who lived in his day and prevailed. The prophets also represent great models of faith in God’s power, and perhaps none so as Elijah: standing up against king, queen, false prophets, and people, confident in the authority of God.

One must therefore have faith– true confidence– in the source of authority. Consciously or unconsciously, this ends up really being the bone of contention, for too often people will cloak their own desires or traditions with the mantle of God and call themselves justified. True confidence in the source of authority will do no such thing, but allow the authority to properly speak.

This again represents the downfall of modernistic and postmodernistic views of authority. Too many have embraced modern philosophical views of reality and truth and then have passed it off onto God, ascribing to individuals or collectives that which is due to God. We would do well to heed Paul’s warnings about such seductive philosophies (Colossians 2:1-9) lest we get puffed up in our own minds.

Yet this is the natural human tendency– to skew proper perspective by elevating man’s capabilities and positive characteristics to the detriment of his faults. According to the Scriptures, we must have none of this. As it is written:

Trust in the LORD with all thy heart, And lean not upon thine own understanding: In all thy ways acknowledge him, And he will direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes; Fear the LORD, and depart from evil: It will be health to thy navel, And marrow to thy bones (Proverbs 3:5-8).

There is a way which seemeth right unto a man; But the end thereof are the ways of death (Proverbs 14:12).

O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps (Jeremiah 10:23).

What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we before laid to the charge both of Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin; as it is written,

“There is none righteous, no, not one; There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God; They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one: Their throat is an open sepulchre; With their tongues they have used deceit: The poison of asps is under their lips: Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: Their feet are swift to shed blood; Destruction and misery are in their ways; And the way of peace have they not known: There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God: because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin. But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:9-23).

The testimony of these Scriptures is clear and not easily denied: human beings are sinful, all too willing to justify their own desires, and it is not within them to direct their own steps. Human nature indicates the need we have to have confidence in God as our authority.

And this requires humility. We must humble ourselves before the One who has authority, and continually subject ourselves to His teaching, as it is written:

Know ye not, that to whom ye present yourselves as servants unto obedience, his servants ye are whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But thanks be to God, that, whereas ye were servants of sin, ye became obedient from the heart to that form of teaching whereunto ye were delivered; and being made free from sin, ye became servants of righteousness (Romans 6:16-18).

This is why many of the terms used to describe Christians involve positions of subservience: servant, slave, disciple, follower, and so on. We must entirely subject ourselves to the Heavenly Authority.

Thus it is written:

And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17).

Considering what we have said above, this idea makes perfect sense: if we subject ourselves to God’s will and have confidence in God as the ultimate Authority, we will seek to do all things according to His authority.

We must accept the reality that all authority belongs to God, that we must have confidence in Him and His authority, and subject ourselves to that authority, since it is not within ourselves to direct our own steps.

Few Christians are going to consciously disagree with what has so far been put forward. The matter of disputation has always been in how we understand this authority.

Many understand this authority in terms of the Spirit: they read passages indicating how God has given us of His Spirit (Romans 8:9-11, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20), and then that where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Corinthians 3:17), and reason that their decisions represent the promptings of the Spirit, and such is sufficient justification. Yet such seems to manifest a very American understanding of freedom which is not commensurate with the Scriptures. In the New Testament, “freedom” is not spoken of as license; far from it (Galatians 5:13, 1 Peter 2:16)! Freedom, in the New Testament, is liberation: freedom from sin, freedom from the Law of Moses (Romans 6:18, 8:2). It does not mean that we are independent, self-determining creatures: we are still to be subject to the standard of teaching to which we have been committed, the law of Christ (Romans 6:17, 1 Corinthians 9:21). We cannot imagine, therefore, that the Spirit serves to justify that which the previous revelations of the Spirit did not justify: Jesus has not changed, the new covenant has not changed, and we never see any indications that the Spirit gives license where the Word does not; quite the contrary (Hebrews 13:8, 1 John 4:1). The Spirit’s presence indicates liberty from sin, death, and the Law of Moses; it does not indicate liberty to justify our particular selections contrary to the will of God.

Many in Christendom vest authority in men or traditions of men– a denominational organization or a hierarchy of authority figures. Such makes things quite easy for people, yet invariably, the men or the traditions conflict with that which has been previously revealed. Christ indicated that the Gentiles lord over people with authority, and it should not be so among His followers; likewise, many in His day set aside the commands of God, teaching the traditions of men (Matthew 15:3, 20:25-26). The condemnation is just, for in all such circumstances, authority that belongs to God is transferred to people or a set of traditions who have no right to claim them. All such claims, when compared with the revelations of God in the Scriptures, fall short. We cannot look to traditions or to men and vest them with authority.

We must return to the standard– the Word of God. We believe that it is God’s revelation to mankind, to equip His servant for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17). How we handle His Word is also too often a contentious matter.

We recognize that much of the controversy surrounds the interpretive model of “command, example, and necessary inference,” often called CENI for short. The controversy tends to surround “ENI:” how binding are examples, and how necessary are inferences? No end of criticism is leveled against these concepts.

It ought to be said that there are times when “CENI” can be abused. Many times the concepts are not well-explained. If the principles involved are not systematically defined, misunderstandings and misapplications can result. Unfortunately, it is also too often true that inferences that are not necessary are deemed as such.

But does this mean that we should cast off the concept of CENI? Hardly. No other method of interpretation seeks to keep the authority where it should be vested– in God and His Word.

The Scriptures themselves speak regarding examples:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted….Now these things happened unto them by way of example; and they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the ages are come (1 Corinthians 10:6, 11).

God has not provided narrative within the Scriptures for us to simply analyze and go on our way. Every narrative provides illustrative value, for we can discern from them that which God approves and that which God disapproves. Yes, examples must be properly contextualized, and many narratives pose difficult questions that sometimes make it difficult to apply the examples. Yet, especially in the New Testament, we find within examples ways which we know are right and are not wrong.

People endlessly speculate about matters based upon example: first day of week assemblies, partaking of the Lord’s Supper and taking collections on the first day of the week, and so on and so forth. Are there other ways of engaging in these practices that are legitimate? We can’t know the answer to that question, since it is not revealed. If we’re going to have the complete trust in God’s authority, and the humility to recognize that it is not within us to direct our own steps, should we really be trusting our think-sos over what God has clearly revealed as legitimate and acceptable?

Necessary inference also gets targeted quite a bit. While the concept can be abused, we cannot just remove the idea from consideration! Consider what Jesus teaches below.

But Jesus answered and said unto them, “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as angels in heaven. But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’ God is not the God of the dead, but of the living” (Matthew 22:29-32).

Jesus condemns the Sadducees for “not knowing the Scriptures”, neither the “power” of God. What, exactly, do they not know from the Scriptures? While we may groan about the obnoxiousness of the question they pose to Jesus, based on the letter of the Old Testament itself, the question is legitimate. What they do not understand is what must be inferred from God’s statement: He is the God of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob, and therefore is the God of the living. If He is the God of the living, that means that there is life after death and thus paves the way for the resurrection. This argument– no small argument, by the way, for it demonstrates the legitimacy of the core of the Christian faith– is entirely based in the inference derived from God presently being the God of people who have passed on.

While there may be legitimate grounds for discussion as to the extent to which we ought to use necessary inference, we have to recognize the legitimacy of the principle.

Another matter of contention regards God’s silence. In fact, most of the conflicts do not involve that which is revealed, but what is not revealed! Again, we must consider the Scriptures.

For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. For he of whom these things are said belongeth to another tribe, from which no man hath given attendance at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord hath sprung out of Judah; as to which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priests (Hebrews 7:12-14).

The Hebrew author indicates that God’s silence is certainly telling: we know that Jesus cannot be a Levitical priest since He descends from Judah. Yet we recognize, of course, that God is not fully silent– He chose the tribe of Levi to be priests to Him (Numbers 1:47ff). God’s specific choice of Levi excluded any other tribe, and this truth represents the foundation of the Hebrew author’s argument that there is a change of priesthood and law, and Jesus is a High Priest in the order of Melchizedek.

There are also times where there is liberty– in fact, many times. Where God commands and provides no specific means by which the command is to be completed, there is liberty. There are many areas of our lives where God has not provided specific legislation, but has provided general principles for us to consider. Liberty prevails in these contexts.

We speak of these things, technically, in terms of “specific authority” and “generic authority,” and rarely are the concepts themselves under fire– instead, the applications are disputed.

We can see from the above that these interpretive principles, while not explicitly enshrined in Scripture, do represent means of discerning God’s will so that we may live and act according to His authority and His guidelines. The failure of these principles is less about the principles and more about those using them.

We again go back to being humble servants of God, seeking His will and authority, not trusting in ourselves to establish our own paths but having full confidence in our Creator. Only when we do these things first and foremost can we truly interpret God’s will.

Other means of interpretation are often put forward, yet all provide more license or leeway for people and less reliance on God. Sincerity of people in their endeavors may not justify the doctrines, and such people can be sincere yet not truly trusting in God’s authority as expressed in God’s Word. Systems that break down the Scriptures in terms of what God explicitly approves versus what is explicitly condemned, providing liberty for whatever is in the middle, erodes confidence in God’s Word as providing all good works to equip the Christian (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and seeks to undermine God’s guidance in principle, example, and proper inference.

In all such matters we must return to God: do we seek to die to self and live to Christ, or justify ourselves in the name of Christ? Are we really willing to see ourselves as Jesus’ slaves, no longer possessing ourselves but being God’s possession, following His every direction? Or do we chafe under the idea that, yes, even under the new covenant we have a law that we must observe? Are we willing to say, “not my will, but Yours be done,” even when it goes against deeply cherished values of our society? Are we willing to be honest with ourselves and see that many times when we rebel against authority, we do so not because of God’s prompting in the Scripture, but because we still want some say in calling the shots?

Unfortunately, interpretive methods get abused. Yet we must interpret. We should seek to interpret, recognizing that we are dust and ashes and God is quite great. We should seek to rely on our own understanding from our own minds less and more on what God reveals.

Let us not be content to be as Pharisees, but to exceed their “righteousness” by having the right attitudes in place. Observing God’s will in detail is not antithetical to humility, love, justice, mercy, and compassion; it represents loving and trusting in God, denial of ourselves, and a willingness to be conformed into the image of Christ.

Conformity to the image of Christ: that ought to be our goal while we have life within this flesh. Let us strive to understand all things in accordance with that goal.

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Fundamental Aspects of Biblical Authority appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

The Christian and the Lord Jesus Christ

“Jesus loves me, this I know / For the Bible tells me so.” Christians are well acquainted with this sentiment from the popular hymn. Yet how should Christians relate to the Lord Jesus Christ?

Those who have come to put their faith in Jesus as Lord have learned about Him through the proclamation of the Gospel regarding His life, death, resurrection, lordship, and eventual return, as preserved in the pages of Scripture (Romans 1:16, 10:17). His earliest followers testified how they experienced Jesus as the Word of life: they saw Him, touched Him, heard Him, and were commissioned by Him to go out to tell everyone what they had seen and heard (Luke 24:44-49, Acts 4:20, 1 John 1:1-3).

We are familiar with the story they told: Jesus was born of a peasant Galilean girl who had never known a man and conceived by the Holy Spirit. He was fully human yet fully God: the Word made flesh. He grew up in Nazareth, a place of no consequence. For approximately three years He ministered in Galilee and Judea, proclaiming the imminent Kingdom of God, healing the sick and the disabled, casting out demons, challenging the religious authorities and their biases, associating with the unclean, the marginalized, and the sinful, and preparing His twelve closest followers to follow in His ways. Jesus was betrayed by one of His disciples, condemned as a blasphemer by the religious authorities, abandoned by His disciples, given over to the will of the Jewish people by Pontius Pilate, and eagerly crucified by all. On the third day, Jesus arose from the dead; death had no power over Him, and the death He died was to atone for the sin of the world. Forty days later, having appeared to His disciples many times, Jesus ascended to heaven, and was enthroned at the right hand of the Father as Lord of lord and King of kings, ruling over a Kingdom which would have no end (Matthew 1:1-Acts 1:12).

From all of this Christians recognize Jesus’ great love, care, and compassion for humanity and God’s creation. He proved willing to humble Himself so as to take on flesh and dwell among us (Philippians 2:5-11); He served others faithfully, not thinking of Himself or His own interests, and even died for us (Romans 5:6-11). Christians therefore feel strong gratitude and appreciation for Jesus and all He did to secure our redemption.

And yet, for many Christians, Jesus seems remote. He has ascended to heaven; we no longer see Him in person. Yes, Jesus pronounced blessings on those who have not seen and yet believe (John 20:29); yes, we ought to affirm, with Peter, that even though we have not seen Jesus, we love Him and believe Him and what His followers said about Him and therefore are filled with great joy on account of Him (1 Peter 1:8). Nevertheless, it can be easy for Christians to believe they serve an absentee landlord. Where is Jesus in the midst of our trials and difficulties? Where is Jesus in the midst of all the religious confusion and turmoil?

Christians ought not be deceived: Jesus may have ascended to heaven, but He has not “checked out” from the creation for which He died. He continues to serve as Lord; God’s plan in Him remains as valid, powerful, effective, and necessary as it did 1,900 years ago (Ephesians 3:11, Hebrews 13:8). We should note how Luke begins Acts by speaking of the Gospel which he wrote as “all Jesus began to do and teach,” which implies Jesus would continue to do things and teach afterward, and so we can see throughout the book of Acts: yes, the Acts of the Apostles is about how the Apostles proclaimed the Gospel throughout the world, but throughout it was directed by Jesus and accomplished His purposes (Acts 1:1). In Revelation 2:1-3:21 the Lord Jesus communicated specific messages in the Spirit to the seven churches of Asia Minor, providing specific commendations of faithful behavior and condemnation of unruly behavior. Jesus knew quite well what was going on in all of the churches: the Christians may not have seen Him in their midst, but He was there.

We may not see the Lord Jesus, but the Lord Jesus sees us. We love Him because He first loved us; He gave His life not only so we might have forgiveness of sins, but as a way forward for us, that we would learn by suffering how to overcome evil, sin, and ultimately death (Romans 8:17-23, 1 John 4:7-21).

Yet our connection with Jesus should not seem distant or oblique; He stands as the Mediator between God and man since He remains fully God and fully human to this very day, and intercedes for us before His Father (Romans 8:30-34, 1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus is the image of God and the embodiment of God’s character: we can draw closer to God because we perceive Him and relate to Him in Jesus (Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 1:3). Jesus sympathizes with our plight: He was tempted in all points, yet did not sin (Hebrews 4:15). We can pray to God in Jesus’ name; the Apostles also felt comfortable directly speaking to Jesus in prayer, and no suggestion is given that we cannot do the same (John 15:16, 16:23, 2 Corinthians 12:1-10, Colossians 3:17). We should honor Him and Lord and seek His purposes while recognizing His purpose is to save mankind, not condemn it. If He wished for our condemnation, He would not have died for our sins!

For good reason Jesus used the illustration of the vine and branches in John 15:1-8: Jesus is the vine, and we are to be the branches. Our connection to God is through Jesus; the more connected we are to Jesus, the more life sustaining and nourishing strength we draw from Him. This is true individually and collectively, since Jesus is to be both Lord of our lives and remains Head of the church. This connection is no mere metaphor; we may not see Jesus, but if we do not relate to Him as Lord, Savior, Friend, and Guide, we have no hope of salvation!

The Apostles’ testimony is sure: one day the Lord Jesus will return, and we will see Him face to face, and we will always be together with the Lord (cf. 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18). Early Christians drew strength and comfort from this hope, and we should as well. Relational unity with Jesus is of greater value than anything else in all creation; may we trust in Him as Lord, follow Him, and in Him obtain the resurrection of life, and abide with Him forever!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post The Christian and the Lord Jesus Christ appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

An Appeal to Roman Catholics

We would like to make an appeal to our friends who are still a part of the Roman Catholic Church in regards to the conduct of that religious organization.

The sex abuse scandal that has become very public over the past few years has been a terrible thing. We all understand that the abuse of young men and women by anyone is sinful (cf. Galatians 5:19), and when it is committed by persons with perceived spiritual authority, it is quite distressing and intolerable. Whatever motivates such behavior is wrong, and while it has become a public problem for Roman Catholicism, it is sadly true that it has also happened within other religious organizations. Nevertheless, it is not our purpose or intention to focus on the abuse that took place.

What is perhaps even more unconscionable than the abuse itself is how the Roman Catholic religious organization responded to the claims of the abuse over the past forty or more years. We have all seen the numerous reports of how priests accused of abuse were often just transferred to another diocese and allowed to continue in their positions, how the organization most often took the side of the priests or the “church authorities” over that of the victims, and the consistent campaigns to minimize what was going on and to keep it out of the public view.

Yet that which is done in the darkness will inevitably be exposed in the light (cf. Ephesians 5:13): and now the Roman Catholic organization is attempting to engage in “damage control.” For a time the organization preferred to blame the media for anti-Catholic persecution rather than admit the systemic improprieties of not just the priests who committed the horrendous actions but also of the bishops, archbishops, and cardinals who poorly responded to the claims that were brought to them. As the evidence of impropriety has mounted, the organization has come to admit the misdeeds of many of its leaders, and yet beyond a few forced resignations here and there, precious little has been actually done to reform the institution. The organization continues to bet that all of this will somehow “blow over” and they can get back to “normal.”

This type of behavior in the face of such serious claims of wrongdoing is understandable if it came from a government or a large corporation, even if unconscionable, but we hope that you can understand that it is an intolerable response for an organization that claims to represent the body of Christ. Sadly, this is not the first time that the Roman Catholic organization has responded poorly to behavior done by those within its ranks. There is a long, sordid history of underhanded dealings within the Roman Catholic organization.

Therefore, we appeal to all of our Roman Catholic friends to soberly consider the question of whether this type of religious organization is really the church for which Christ died or whether it is an organization that has apostatized from the true faith.

We encourage you to consider what the New Testament teaches regarding Christ’s church. Christ’s church is His body, and it is headed only by Christ Himself (Ephesians 5:23-24). Christ’s church is expected to be the pillar and support of the truth revealed by God in His Word (1 Timothy 3:15, 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Those who comprise Christ’s church are to reflect Christ and the way He conducted Himself on the earth (1 John 2:3-6). Christ’s church cannot tolerate unrepentant sin within its midst, and persons who engage in such sin are to be disciplined (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Ephesians 5:25-27). A religious organization may claim to represent Christ’s church, but if it does not abide by His will, Christ will not recognize it (Matthew 7:21-23, Revelation 2:1-11).

Please also consider what you fail to find in the New Testament. You will fail to find a hierarchical religious organization headed by a pope with cardinals, archbishops, bishops, and priests. Instead you will find individual, autonomous congregations, each of which was to be shepherded by a plurality of married bishops with children (Philippians 1:1, Acts 14:23, Acts 20:17-38, 1 Timothy 3:1-8, 1 Peter 4:1-3). You will fail to find an organization that restricts people from understanding God’s Word, claiming that it can only be understood through the lens of its own tradition. Instead you will find Christians encouraged to study the Scriptures and a warning about following the traditions of men (Acts 17:11, Matthew 15:3-9).

We appeal to our Roman Catholic friends to consider these things well and to recognize that the religious organization known as the Roman Catholic Church is not the church we see in the New Testament. The Roman Catholic organization does not represent the Church of Christ as revealed by the Scriptures. You can continue to hold firm to Jesus as the Christ and your precious faith in Him while dispensing with the corrupt clericalism of Roman Catholicism. We encourage you to depart from that apostatized organization, to become obedient to the true Gospel of Christ, and to find a church of Christ which embodies and proclaims the truth (Romans 1:5, 12:9, 1 Timothy 3:15)!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post An Appeal to Roman Catholics appeared first on de Verbo vitae.

Transgressions and Punishments of the Nations

Life was good in Israel and Judah in the days of Jeroboam (II) and Uzziah. Territories lost to the Arameans had been recovered; Assyria was consumed with its own affairs. Prosperity had returned to Israel and Judah. The Israelites expected the good times to last; Israel had been made great again.

YHWH called a shepherd and dresser of sycamore trees from Judah named Amos to prophesy to the Kingdom of Israel (Amos 1:1; cf. Amos 7:14-15). He was not a prophet or a son of a prophet, yet he proved faithful to his calling.

YHWH roared from Zion and uttered His voice from Jerusalem, and the land withered (Amos 1:2). YHWH was the creator of heaven and earth; if He spoke a word of condemnation against a nation, it would come to pass. And so Amos began to prophesy against the nations surrounding Israel according to a pattern: for three transgressions and for four YHWH would not revoke the punishment (e.g. Amos 1:3, 6, etc.). Amos did not contradict himself; the trope indicated fullness, perhaps even overabundance, of sinfulness on the part of the nations, and thus the justice inherent in YHWH’s punishment of them.

Damascus, representing the Arameans, were the first indicted: they had devastated Gilead, Israelite territory, and the Arameans would themselves be devastated and lost (Amos 1:3-5). Gaza, representing the Philistines, and Tyre, representing the Philistines, had delivered up an entire people to the Edomites; fire would consume their cities and their rulers would be cut off (Amos 1:6-10). The Edomites come under condemnation for having attacked his brother, the Israelites, and maintained anger against him; fire would consume them as well (Amos 1:11-12). The Ammonites, like the Arameans, made incursions into Gilead, and slaughtered pregnant women; their cities will be devoured and their king exiled (Amos 1:13-15). The Moabites are indicted for their vile treatment of the king of Edom; they also will suffer fire and devastation (Amos 2:1-3).

So far all of the Israelites who would have heard Amos would have had no difficulties with anything he had said. They would all assent to YHWH’s care and provision for His people and the justice involved in the nations around them getting their just deserts for their mistreatment of the people of God.

But then the condemnation came for Judah: they rejected the Law of YHWH and followed the vanities of their fathers, and fire would come for their cities (Amos 2:4-5).

And now the moment of truth and indictment had come. If the Israelites had thought justice coming for the nations was good and right, then they had better be ready to endure the judgment YHWH would pronounce on them. YHWH would not revoke the punishment of Israel for its transgressions, either (Amos 2:6)!

Amos decried how the righteous were sold for silver, most likely a reference to rampant bribing of judges or other officials to pervert justice (Amos 2:6). Amos was deeply concerned regarding the treatment of the poor: the needy were sold for a pair of sandals, representing a paltry sum, the head of the poor were trampled, and the afflicted were turned aside, all no doubt in the pursuit of greater gain (Amos 2:6-7; cf. Genesis 14:23, Leviticus 25:39-46). Many among the wealthy had gained their wealth at the expense of the poor; soon all their wealth would be consumed and taken away.

Amos condemned the shocking immorality present in Israel: a man and his father would go into the same girl, profaning the holy name of YHWH, perhaps a reference to Israel’s participation in Canaanite religious rituals, or an indication of the level of sexual licentiousness among the people (Amos 2:7; cf. Deuteronomy 23:17). Amos envisioned the Israelites laying down next to altars on garments taken by pledge and drinking wine in the house of their God purchased with the fines of the poor: they likely presumed themselves to be the chosen people of God, and their wealth demonstrating YHWH’s favor, when in reality they were committing terrible sacrilege and heaping up iniquity for the day of judgment (Amos 2:8).

All of Israel’s prosperity depended on their position in the land and the favor of their God: it had been YHWH, after all, who had removed the strong Amorites from the land, and had brought Israel out of Egypt when they had been slaves (Amos 2:9-10). YHWH raised up prophets and Nazirites in the land, and yet the Israelites did not want to hear the message of the prophets, and forced the Nazirites to drink wine, breaking their vows (Amos 2:11-12; cf. Genesis 15:16, Numbers 6:1-21, 13:32, Joshua 10:1-27, 24:11).

All of this iniquity and presumption could no longer stand. The day of YHWH would come swiftly. YHWH would press Israel down in its own land: all of the mighty men would lose their strength, their ability, and the best of them would flee away naked on that terrible day (Amos 2:13-16).

While we might hope that some Israelites were convicted by Amos’ message, the historical record would indicate most would have tuned him out once he turned to indict Israel. Judgment for everyone else was expected; surely YHWH would not turn against His own people! And yet, within a generation, Israel would be devastated by Assyria, and all Amos said regarding the Kingdom of Israel would come to pass.

God sees the transgressions of the nations; He will hold them all to account in judgment. The people of God throughout time have taken comfort in God’s vengeance against those who work iniquity, especially those who persecute the people of God. And yet, as Peter reminds us, judgment begins at the household of God (1 Peter 4:17). If God will hold those in the world to account for their oppression of the people of God, what will He do to the people of God who oppress others, or, God forbid, one another? If God will condemn the nations for sexual immorality, what will He do to the people of God who have flagrantly committed sexual immorality? Yes, the day of judgment will come against all who commit iniquity; yet God will show no partiality.

Yet how will the people of God today respond? As in the days of Amos, so today: messages condemning the iniquity of the nations prove popular. But what happens when that same message is turned toward the people of God and their iniquity? Will we scoff as Israel did? Then we will reap the same condemnation as Israel. May we learn from the example of our ancestors in the faith and turn away from our iniquity and sin, repenting in lament, and seek to follow all God has established in Christ so we may obtain the resurrection of life!

Ethan R. Longhenry

The post Transgressions and Punishments of the Nations appeared first on de Verbo vitae.